I'll just say this - if that's Halo 2's online experience on the PC, then it is obviously not worth the trouble (and doesn't PC Halo 2 use MS's GamesForWindows or whatever anyway?).
That said, I don't think there's really anything that Live does that Steam doesn't do either. And in most games there is nothing keeping you from plugging in an IP address and connecting that way. If your complaint is that random people can be dicks online, then I don't know what to tell you. Outside of Halo people disconnect from XBL games all the time with equally infuriating results as the random kickban.
Simplicity may be worth a price. In my case, I try to play with friends and / or on servers that I know are well-moderated.
Kednik: What 360 games aren't you getting because of Live? The only big multiplayer games I can think of that aren't also out for PC are Halo 3, Gears 2, and RE5 (which is getting a PC port incidentally). There are some minor games but I don't think there's much community around those any more. If you have a 360, I hope you're not turning down good single-player games just because the multi isn't free.
There are so many awesome 360 games that I will never buy because they require Gold for online play.
So many.
It's a self-defeating barrier to consumer entry.
While that is a tragedy, it's mostly a tragedy for you. Seriously, I'm not saying they're geniuses, but I'm pretty should Microsoft has already weighed the costs versus benefits on the subject several time.
God knows they already got my money. And the money of several of my friends.
Which is not to say I'm not sympathetic....but it's a problem for gamers far more than for MS.
Eh.
It's Microsoft's problem, not mine.
Charging a substantial monthly fee for the temporary right to play multiplayer is a great way to lose lots of sales.
Sales figures don't support that.
That said, I don't think there's really anything that Live does that Steam doesn't do either.
Party system, hosted videos of games, tv and movies, etc. Steam has a decent enough website, but it isn't there yet. I can add friends and send messages easily from my work PC with xbox.com. If I want to add a friend with Steam I have to be running steam on my PC.
Steam is a great program, and I'm sure it'll be there eventually, but it isn't Live yet.
That said, I don't think there's really anything that Live does that Steam doesn't do either.
Party system, hosted videos of games, tv and movies, etc. Steam has a decent enough website, but it isn't there yet. I can add friends and send messages easily from my work PC with xbox.com. If I want to add a friend with Steam I have to be running steam on my PC.
Steam is a great program, and I'm sure it'll be there eventually, but it isn't Live yet.
Ah, got me there. I was still thinking mostly of multiplayer and matchmaking, and not the ancillary stuff like Netflix and videos, but Live does have that over Steam. That's the stuff that at least makes sense to me to pay for, even if I'm not really interested in it myself.
I couldn't say whether a browser client or app for Steam would be that useful - I'm sure the assumption is that you could just download the base client anyway. Where do you work that doesn't let you install Steam? :P
That said, I don't think there's really anything that Live does that Steam doesn't do either.
Party system, hosted videos of games, tv and movies, etc. Steam has a decent enough website, but it isn't there yet. I can add friends and send messages easily from my work PC with xbox.com. If I want to add a friend with Steam I have to be running steam on my PC.
Steam is a great program, and I'm sure it'll be there eventually, but it isn't Live yet.
Ah, got me there. I was still thinking mostly of multiplayer and matchmaking, and not the ancillary stuff like Netflix and videos, but Live does have that over Steam. That's the stuff that at least makes sense to me to pay for, even if I'm not really interested in it myself.
I couldn't say whether a browser client or app for Steam would be that useful - I'm sure the assumption is that you could just download the base client anyway. Where do you work that doesn't let you install Steam? :P
An office building. Most corporations won't let you install Steam.
That said, I don't think there's really anything that Live does that Steam doesn't do either.
Party system, hosted videos of games, tv and movies, etc. Steam has a decent enough website, but it isn't there yet. I can add friends and send messages easily from my work PC with xbox.com. If I want to add a friend with Steam I have to be running steam on my PC.
Steam is a great program, and I'm sure it'll be there eventually, but it isn't Live yet.
I believe he was referring specifically to Games for Windows Live, which kinda sucks. I can easily start a chat with any number of people on Steam, whereas I believe Xbox Live's party system is limited to 8. While Steam indeed doesn't have anything TV or movie related, as it's purely a gaming service, it does have plenty of game trailers.
That said, I don't think there's really anything that Live does that Steam doesn't do either.
Party system, hosted videos of games, tv and movies, etc. Steam has a decent enough website, but it isn't there yet. I can add friends and send messages easily from my work PC with xbox.com. If I want to add a friend with Steam I have to be running steam on my PC.
Steam is a great program, and I'm sure it'll be there eventually, but it isn't Live yet.
I believe he was referring specifically to Games for Windows Live, which kinda sucks. I can easily start a chat with any number of people on Steam, whereas I believe Xbox Live's party system is limited to 8. While Steam indeed doesn't have anything TV or movie related, as it's purely a gaming service, it does have plenty of game trailers.
The voice chat on Steam is awwwwwwwwwful in the regular chat thing
Some of you seem to have this idea that things should be free. If I've learned anything in my time as an "adult" (and I use that word with a touch of irony, yes), it's that NOTHING is free, unless it's useless, or they haven't figured out how to properly charge for it yet. That's just capitalism. Get used to it.
That said, it naturally follows that everything is a product. If you don't feel the price of the product is worth it, then don't pay it. :P
Not really. Gold - at least in terms on multiplayer gaming - is only the ability to connect your 360 to another 360 over each player's Internet connection. I paid MS for the 360 and Comcast for the Internet. The logical disconnect is that I have to pay MS again to use them in concert.
That being said though, if my subscription goes to funding things like 1v100, the party system, xbox.com, being able to send/receive messages in game then they can have my $50 a year. Besides, I like playing Halo 3 and Shadowrun online.
PC gaming lacks matchmaking. As Fyres example highlights matchmaking makes the experience so much better it's like a whole new game.
Trusekill Matchmaking is available on GFWL (it's used in Dawn of War 2, and probably others I'm not aware of), and a matchmaking system's in the works for Steam. Although realistically, GFWL has other problems holding it back on the PC.
As for Fyrewulf's example, really most of those issues seem more because the community's pretty dead. Halo 2 never really took off on the PC like it did on the XBox. Being a Vista exclusive didn't help things either. A better comparison might be Left 4 Dead. It had teething problems initially admittedly, but now it's about as simple as Fyrewulf described for Halo 2 on the 360. Load up game, join game with friends. Or load up game, jump in random game. What it's currently lacking is the skill based matchmaking system, but that's hopefully on its way. If I'm truthful though, I don't really miss it since I just play with the PA group anyway.
PC gaming lacks matchmaking. As Fyres example highlights matchmaking makes the experience so much better it's like a whole new game.
Warcraft 3 has automated matchmaking, most people just don't use it because they'd much rather play DotA. The bitching was immense when L4D did away with the server browser in favor of a matchmaking system.
My only experience with Live is with Universe at War on PC and it didn't really work that great. That might have been because of lower player count, rather than the system itself, though.
That said, I don't think there's really anything that Live does that Steam doesn't do either.
Party system, hosted videos of games, tv and movies, etc. Steam has a decent enough website, but it isn't there yet. I can add friends and send messages easily from my work PC with xbox.com. If I want to add a friend with Steam I have to be running steam on my PC.
Steam is a great program, and I'm sure it'll be there eventually, but it isn't Live yet.
I believe he was referring specifically to Games for Windows Live, which kinda sucks. I can easily start a chat with any number of people on Steam, whereas I believe Xbox Live's party system is limited to 8. While Steam indeed doesn't have anything TV or movie related, as it's purely a gaming service, it does have plenty of game trailers.
The voice chat on Steam is awwwwwwwwwful in the regular chat thing
I've never really used it as I prefer text chat, so you might be right.
An office building. Most corporations won't let you install Steam.
I was completely unaware of that.
You should have. I've never been to a workplace that allowed desktop users to install Steam. Granted, the majority of them had stringent regulations about what could be installed, but a few games are generally permitted for breaks. Not WoW or anything, but other games.
But the Steam App? No. It probably doesn't hurt that these offices could just manually block the Steam application entirely, but not all games need to connect online to run anyway.
An office building. Most corporations won't let you install Steam.
I was completely unaware of that.
You should have. I've never been to a workplace that allowed desktop users to install Steam. Granted, the majority of them had stringent regulations about what could be installed, but a few games are generally permitted.
But the Steam App? No. It probably doesn't hurt that these offices could just manually block the Steam application entirely, but not all games need to connect online to run anyway.
Good sir, I believe you need to check the batteries in your sarcasm detector or maybe upgrade to a newer model. He even put his post in italics.
PC gaming lacks matchmaking. As Fyres example highlights matchmaking makes the experience so much better it's like a whole new game.
Warcraft 3 has automated matchmaking, most people just don't use it because they'd much rather play DotA. The bitching was immense when L4D did away with the server browser in favor of a matchmaking system.
My only experience with Live is with Universe at War on PC and it didn't really work that great. That might have been because of lower player count, rather than the system itself, though.
That said, I don't think there's really anything that Live does that Steam doesn't do either.
Party system, hosted videos of games, tv and movies, etc. Steam has a decent enough website, but it isn't there yet. I can add friends and send messages easily from my work PC with xbox.com. If I want to add a friend with Steam I have to be running steam on my PC.
Steam is a great program, and I'm sure it'll be there eventually, but it isn't Live yet.
I believe he was referring specifically to Games for Windows Live, which kinda sucks. I can easily start a chat with any number of people on Steam, whereas I believe Xbox Live's party system is limited to 8. While Steam indeed doesn't have anything TV or movie related, as it's purely a gaming service, it does have plenty of game trailers.
The voice chat on Steam is awwwwwwwwwful in the regular chat thing
I've never really used it as I prefer text chat, so you might be right.
From what I remember it's not too hot, but I haven't heard it in a long time. Really we just use the chat channel to get the games organised (and discuss random stuff), so it's handy that there can be so many people in them. When the game kicks off you're talking with your team mates, but if you want you can still keep tabs on the chat room too, which is a pretty nice feature as well, although IIRC that's a standard feature on XBL as well.
There are so many awesome 360 games that I will never buy because they require Gold for online play.
So many.
It's a self-defeating barrier to consumer entry.
So you have enough money for games..but not for what amounts to like 5 dollars a month?
Why should I pay anything for what comes free (and often better implemented) in most PC games?
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd much rather hit a button that means "find me a match full of people generally the same skill level as myself" instead of a button that means "find me a list of servers that I can join."
There are so many awesome 360 games that I will never buy because they require Gold for online play.
So many.
It's a self-defeating barrier to consumer entry.
So you have enough money for games..but not for what amounts to like 5 dollars a month?
Why should I pay anything for what comes free (and often better implemented) in most PC games?
You put it in a curious way. Especially when one would assume you could play the games offline and still derive enjoyment from them (not counting purely online games, of course).
Certainly, nothing is keeping you from just buying the games and playing them, even without a Silver account (just stick them in there and save the data).
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd much rather hit a button that means "find me a match full of people generally the same skill level as myself" instead of a button that means "find me a list of servers that I can join."
Has any game really pulled this off besides Halo? I mean, I'm monumentally impressed with how much they've innovated on matchmaking, but it's really more their software than the XBL infrastructure.
There are so many awesome 360 games that I will never buy because they require Gold for online play.
So many.
It's a self-defeating barrier to consumer entry.
So you have enough money for games..but not for what amounts to like 5 dollars a month?
Why should I pay anything for what comes free (and often better implemented) in most PC games?
Because punkbuster doesn't do shit to stop cheating? I hate MS being cheap and not having dedicated servers for everything, but I love the fact that I don't have to worry about jackasses with aim bots, wall hacks, models w/ spikes, texture replacements, etc. Flat out banning their console from Live forever if they have modified content is pretty effective.
Every game uses Trueskill matchmaking, it's a requirement for 360 games.
Out of curiosity, how's the implementation of a counterpart system in PSN? I've yet to actually play any games over PSN (the one game I own is singleplayer with leaderboards).
Some of you seem to have this idea that things should be free. If I've learned anything in my time as an "adult" (and I use that word with a touch of irony, yes), it's that NOTHING is free, unless it's useless, or they haven't figured out how to properly charge for it yet. That's just capitalism. Get used to it.
That said, it naturally follows that everything is a product. If you don't feel the price of the product is worth it, then don't pay it. :P
Man, and here I am playing multiplayer for free on my PC and PS3.
Some of you seem to have this idea that things should be free. If I've learned anything in my time as an "adult" (and I use that word with a touch of irony, yes), it's that NOTHING is free, unless it's useless, or they haven't figured out how to properly charge for it yet. That's just capitalism. Get used to it.
That said, it naturally follows that everything is a product. If you don't feel the price of the product is worth it, then don't pay it. :P
Man, and here I am playing multiplayer for free on my PC and PS3.
I totally must be doing something wrong...
Not at all. I also play online multiplayer for free on PC and PS3. And I pay for a Gold subscription for online Multiplayer and Netflix Streaming to my 360. The cost is minor, and I feel it's worth it, considering all the upgrades and enhancements MS has been able to make, no doubt in small part because of the continued revenue stream.
There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. You either find value in the product and pay for it, or you don't. Either way, you win.
There are so many awesome 360 games that I will never buy because they require Gold for online play.
So many.
It's a self-defeating barrier to consumer entry.
So you have enough money for games..but not for what amounts to like 5 dollars a month?
Why should I pay anything for what comes free (and often better implemented) in most PC games?
Because punkbuster doesn't do shit to stop cheating? I hate MS being cheap and not having dedicated servers for everything, but I love the fact that I don't have to worry about jackasses with aim bots, wall hacks, models w/ spikes, texture replacements, etc. Flat out banning their console from Live forever if they have modified content is pretty effective.
VAC is pretty effective.
on-topic: I would maybe find value in Live Gold if all my gaming was done on my 360, but as it is, it's not paying money on a recurring basis to play games online, it's paying money on a recurring basis to play a small percentage of my online games online, the rest of which already work online for free. But if all my games were for their system it may be worth it, I guess.
Every game uses Trueskill matchmaking, it's a requirement for 360 games.
Out of curiosity, how's the implementation of a counterpart system in PSN? I've yet to actually play any games over PSN (the one game I own is singleplayer with leaderboards).
There's a PSN counterpart matchmaking system?
I mostly play Warhawk online on PSN which just has a list of servers. You can only join the dedicated servers that are your skill rank though, so it keeps the skill levels generally together.
I'd probably prefer a real match making system in the game though as it can be a pain to search through the server list only for the server I select to all of a sudden be full.
MS isn't adding stuff to Gold in some preparation of dropping multiplayer to the free tier. They're adding stuff to Gold to try and attract more monthly-paying Gold subscribers.
Gold numbers just keep growing and growing. It's immensely popular. And it's getting more popular.
I agree, though, with many that online multiplayer is the biggest hook, and the other features are enough to bring others on board. Dropping online multi from Gold to silver(free) would likely result in a great deal of people ending their Gold subscriptions, and the loss of many potential Gold users. Yes, all the other features are super awesome and a few people would remain on Gold for the extra stuff... but since MS really wants to hook as many people into paying monthly for the service, they need to keep multiplayer a paid part of Gold.
MS knows this and they will not drop online multi from Gold. As far as they are concerned, there's no reason to do any such thing - Gold membership is huge and keeps going up. People want the service and MS keeps adding value on top of that.
Are you kidding? The people making the cheats have made a game out of beating VAC and the constant bannings of cheater accounts has only led to a cheating community that is extremely willing to steal accounts.
Time was when all a Gold account meant (other than multi) was getting demos a week earlier.
I'll never pay for multi (I'm sorry, but I cut my teeth on PC games and that dog just won't hunt with me), so if they offered it for free I'd be reasonably happy. The Netflix and social networking stuff can also die in a fire for all I care, to be honest, but at least it makes more sense to me as a way to add value to a Gold account then charging for connecting me to another 360.
I remember cutting my teeth paying $6/hour to get my ass kicked in Air Warrior and Red Baron, so $3/month doesn't really have any dissuading effect for me.
I guess it depends on where you start from. For instance, someone who started in the days of $40 PS1 games and someone who started in the days of $75 SNES carts might have differing opinions on whether today's games are "worth" $60.
Time was when all a Gold account meant (other than multi) was getting demos a week earlier.
I'll never pay for multi (I'm sorry, but I cut my teeth on PC games and that dog just won't hunt with me), so if they offered it for free I'd be reasonably happy. The Netflix and social networking stuff can also die in a fire for all I care, to be honest, but at least it makes more sense to me as a way to add value to a Gold account then charging for connecting me to another 360.
I remember cutting my teeth paying $6/hour to get my ass kicked in Air Warrior and Red Baron, so $3/month doesn't really have any dissuading effect for me.
I guess it depends on where you start from. For instance, someone who started in the days of $40 PS1 games and someone who started in the days of $75 SNES carts might have differing opinions on whether today's games are "worth" $60.
Reasonably happy, eh? I'm sure that's the enthusiasm that MS is catering towards.
I "cut my teeth" on PC online mutiplayer as well, but I also remember a time where the few games that were online demanded individual monthly fees (I'm looking at you, PSO). One game practically cost the same amount as all of Xbox Live. Plus, a lot of people like Netflix and the additional options. In the end, perhaps the choice is to reevaluate which options come with the additional fee.
And don't forget inflation. People bitch about the costs of games now, and forget just how much money $50 was for a 7-year-old in 1992.
Synthesis on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
Time was when all a Gold account meant (other than multi) was getting demos a week earlier.
I'll never pay for multi (I'm sorry, but I cut my teeth on PC games and that dog just won't hunt with me), so if they offered it for free I'd be reasonably happy. The Netflix and social networking stuff can also die in a fire for all I care, to be honest, but at least it makes more sense to me as a way to add value to a Gold account then charging for connecting me to another 360.
I remember cutting my teeth paying $6/hour to get my ass kicked in Air Warrior and Red Baron, so $3/month doesn't really have any dissuading effect for me.
I guess it depends on where you start from. For instance, someone who started in the days of $40 PS1 games and someone who started in the days of $75 SNES carts might have differing opinions on whether today's games are "worth" $60.
Reasonably happy, eh? I'm sure that's the enthusiasm that MS is catering towards.
I "cut my teeth" on PC online mutiplayer as well, but I also remember a time where the few games that were online demanded individual monthly fees (I'm looking at you, PSO). One game practically cost the same amount as all of Xbox Live. Plus, a lot of people like Netflix and the additional options. In the end, perhaps the choice is to reevaluate which options come with the additional fee.
And don't forget inflation. People bitch about the costs of games now, and forget just how much money $50 was for a 7-year-old in 1992.
word up. I remember scrounging nickels and dimes just to maybe afford a single game every year and then I'd play that game all fucking year. 9/10 game or 1/10 game it didn't matter, it was the only one so we played it upside down and backwards.
nowadays I'll press a few buttons, get 1200 arbitrary funbucks and be playing a new game in 5 minutes for a total of 12 minutes. Bah, instant gratification is the cancer that's killing the cancer that's killing me.
I guess I don't get it because I don't get into the competitive scene or play with randoms, but my experience with playing Gears co-op on the 360 was no different than playing RE5 co-op on the PS3 (aside from the games themselves).
The Netflix thing just kind of annoys me, as there are other devices that stream Netflix movies without any additional subscriptions fees (plus there are rumors of the service coming to PS3/Wii, possibly without fees).
I'm also a little offended that they make me wait a few weeks just to get a demo, especially since the same demo might be on PSN, available for all.
If they want me to fork over $30-50 a year, offer me more than stuff I can get elsewhere for free, and don't withhold content when I don't want to pay.
I see demos as advertisements, so the idea that I have to pay for them bothers me.
I don't pay for Gold, but sometimes I wish I did. Two of my good friends only own a 360 and I'd like to play online with them, but they will both probably be getting a PS3 within the next year so it's not that big of a deal.
Oddly enough they only have silver accounts as well. I guess we're all a bunch of cheap bastards.
My Gold sub ran out back in April and I have had no desire to buy another one. I wasn't playing anything online on the 360 even when I had it. I greatly prefer the PC for online gaming, and I like Steam much more than Live. I'd be willing to go Gold again if a game came out that I wanted to play online and it was only 360, but there's nothing on the horizon that looks like it'll be that game. And I can do all the Facebooking/Twittering/Last.fming I want on my computer for free.
Netflix would change that, but we second class Canadian citizens don't get that option.
Given that demos are becoming less and less common, to my annoyance, I'm happy for any opportunity to try one. They're trials, not advertisements--at least for me.
Posts
I'll just say this - if that's Halo 2's online experience on the PC, then it is obviously not worth the trouble (and doesn't PC Halo 2 use MS's GamesForWindows or whatever anyway?).
That said, I don't think there's really anything that Live does that Steam doesn't do either. And in most games there is nothing keeping you from plugging in an IP address and connecting that way. If your complaint is that random people can be dicks online, then I don't know what to tell you. Outside of Halo people disconnect from XBL games all the time with equally infuriating results as the random kickban.
Simplicity may be worth a price. In my case, I try to play with friends and / or on servers that I know are well-moderated.
Kednik: What 360 games aren't you getting because of Live? The only big multiplayer games I can think of that aren't also out for PC are Halo 3, Gears 2, and RE5 (which is getting a PC port incidentally). There are some minor games but I don't think there's much community around those any more. If you have a 360, I hope you're not turning down good single-player games just because the multi isn't free.
Party system, hosted videos of games, tv and movies, etc. Steam has a decent enough website, but it isn't there yet. I can add friends and send messages easily from my work PC with xbox.com. If I want to add a friend with Steam I have to be running steam on my PC.
Steam is a great program, and I'm sure it'll be there eventually, but it isn't Live yet.
Ah, got me there. I was still thinking mostly of multiplayer and matchmaking, and not the ancillary stuff like Netflix and videos, but Live does have that over Steam. That's the stuff that at least makes sense to me to pay for, even if I'm not really interested in it myself.
I couldn't say whether a browser client or app for Steam would be that useful - I'm sure the assumption is that you could just download the base client anyway. Where do you work that doesn't let you install Steam? :P
So you have enough money for games..but not for what amounts to like 5 dollars a month?
I was completely unaware of that.
I believe he was referring specifically to Games for Windows Live, which kinda sucks. I can easily start a chat with any number of people on Steam, whereas I believe Xbox Live's party system is limited to 8. While Steam indeed doesn't have anything TV or movie related, as it's purely a gaming service, it does have plenty of game trailers.
Not really. Gold - at least in terms on multiplayer gaming - is only the ability to connect your 360 to another 360 over each player's Internet connection. I paid MS for the 360 and Comcast for the Internet. The logical disconnect is that I have to pay MS again to use them in concert.
That being said though, if my subscription goes to funding things like 1v100, the party system, xbox.com, being able to send/receive messages in game then they can have my $50 a year. Besides, I like playing Halo 3 and Shadowrun online.
Trusekill Matchmaking is available on GFWL (it's used in Dawn of War 2, and probably others I'm not aware of), and a matchmaking system's in the works for Steam. Although realistically, GFWL has other problems holding it back on the PC.
As for Fyrewulf's example, really most of those issues seem more because the community's pretty dead. Halo 2 never really took off on the PC like it did on the XBox. Being a Vista exclusive didn't help things either. A better comparison might be Left 4 Dead. It had teething problems initially admittedly, but now it's about as simple as Fyrewulf described for Halo 2 on the 360. Load up game, join game with friends. Or load up game, jump in random game. What it's currently lacking is the skill based matchmaking system, but that's hopefully on its way. If I'm truthful though, I don't really miss it since I just play with the PA group anyway.
Warcraft 3 has automated matchmaking, most people just don't use it because they'd much rather play DotA. The bitching was immense when L4D did away with the server browser in favor of a matchmaking system.
My only experience with Live is with Universe at War on PC and it didn't really work that great. That might have been because of lower player count, rather than the system itself, though.
I've never really used it as I prefer text chat, so you might be right.
You should have. I've never been to a workplace that allowed desktop users to install Steam. Granted, the majority of them had stringent regulations about what could be installed, but a few games are generally permitted for breaks. Not WoW or anything, but other games.
But the Steam App? No. It probably doesn't hurt that these offices could just manually block the Steam application entirely, but not all games need to connect online to run anyway.
Are you forgetting about Left 4 Dead? The only Subedii on Steam even owns it.
Good sir, I believe you need to check the batteries in your sarcasm detector or maybe upgrade to a newer model. He even put his post in italics.
From what I remember it's not too hot, but I haven't heard it in a long time. Really we just use the chat channel to get the games organised (and discuss random stuff), so it's handy that there can be so many people in them. When the game kicks off you're talking with your team mates, but if you want you can still keep tabs on the chat room too, which is a pretty nice feature as well, although IIRC that's a standard feature on XBL as well.
I thought they were talking about a Trueskill type system, which IIRC, is in the works. GFWL already has theirs.
Why should I pay anything for what comes free (and often better implemented) in most PC games?
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd much rather hit a button that means "find me a match full of people generally the same skill level as myself" instead of a button that means "find me a list of servers that I can join."
You put it in a curious way. Especially when one would assume you could play the games offline and still derive enjoyment from them (not counting purely online games, of course).
Certainly, nothing is keeping you from just buying the games and playing them, even without a Silver account (just stick them in there and save the data).
Has any game really pulled this off besides Halo? I mean, I'm monumentally impressed with how much they've innovated on matchmaking, but it's really more their software than the XBL infrastructure.
Because punkbuster doesn't do shit to stop cheating? I hate MS being cheap and not having dedicated servers for everything, but I love the fact that I don't have to worry about jackasses with aim bots, wall hacks, models w/ spikes, texture replacements, etc. Flat out banning their console from Live forever if they have modified content is pretty effective.
Out of curiosity, how's the implementation of a counterpart system in PSN? I've yet to actually play any games over PSN (the one game I own is singleplayer with leaderboards).
Man, and here I am playing multiplayer for free on my PC and PS3.
I totally must be doing something wrong...
Not at all. I also play online multiplayer for free on PC and PS3. And I pay for a Gold subscription for online Multiplayer and Netflix Streaming to my 360. The cost is minor, and I feel it's worth it, considering all the upgrades and enhancements MS has been able to make, no doubt in small part because of the continued revenue stream.
There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. You either find value in the product and pay for it, or you don't. Either way, you win.
VAC is pretty effective.
on-topic: I would maybe find value in Live Gold if all my gaming was done on my 360, but as it is, it's not paying money on a recurring basis to play games online, it's paying money on a recurring basis to play a small percentage of my online games online, the rest of which already work online for free. But if all my games were for their system it may be worth it, I guess.
I mostly play Warhawk online on PSN which just has a list of servers. You can only join the dedicated servers that are your skill rank though, so it keeps the skill levels generally together.
I'd probably prefer a real match making system in the game though as it can be a pain to search through the server list only for the server I select to all of a sudden be full.
PSN = Wicker86 ________ Gamertag = Wicker86
Gold numbers just keep growing and growing. It's immensely popular. And it's getting more popular.
I agree, though, with many that online multiplayer is the biggest hook, and the other features are enough to bring others on board. Dropping online multi from Gold to silver(free) would likely result in a great deal of people ending their Gold subscriptions, and the loss of many potential Gold users. Yes, all the other features are super awesome and a few people would remain on Gold for the extra stuff... but since MS really wants to hook as many people into paying monthly for the service, they need to keep multiplayer a paid part of Gold.
MS knows this and they will not drop online multi from Gold. As far as they are concerned, there's no reason to do any such thing - Gold membership is huge and keeps going up. People want the service and MS keeps adding value on top of that.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Are you kidding? The people making the cheats have made a game out of beating VAC and the constant bannings of cheater accounts has only led to a cheating community that is extremely willing to steal accounts.
I remember cutting my teeth paying $6/hour to get my ass kicked in Air Warrior and Red Baron, so $3/month doesn't really have any dissuading effect for me.
I guess it depends on where you start from. For instance, someone who started in the days of $40 PS1 games and someone who started in the days of $75 SNES carts might have differing opinions on whether today's games are "worth" $60.
Reasonably happy, eh? I'm sure that's the enthusiasm that MS is catering towards.
I "cut my teeth" on PC online mutiplayer as well, but I also remember a time where the few games that were online demanded individual monthly fees (I'm looking at you, PSO). One game practically cost the same amount as all of Xbox Live. Plus, a lot of people like Netflix and the additional options. In the end, perhaps the choice is to reevaluate which options come with the additional fee.
And don't forget inflation. People bitch about the costs of games now, and forget just how much money $50 was for a 7-year-old in 1992.
word up. I remember scrounging nickels and dimes just to maybe afford a single game every year and then I'd play that game all fucking year. 9/10 game or 1/10 game it didn't matter, it was the only one so we played it upside down and backwards.
nowadays I'll press a few buttons, get 1200 arbitrary funbucks and be playing a new game in 5 minutes for a total of 12 minutes. Bah, instant gratification is the cancer that's killing the cancer that's killing me.
The Netflix thing just kind of annoys me, as there are other devices that stream Netflix movies without any additional subscriptions fees (plus there are rumors of the service coming to PS3/Wii, possibly without fees).
I'm also a little offended that they make me wait a few weeks just to get a demo, especially since the same demo might be on PSN, available for all.
If they want me to fork over $30-50 a year, offer me more than stuff I can get elsewhere for free, and don't withhold content when I don't want to pay.
I don't pay for Gold, but sometimes I wish I did. Two of my good friends only own a 360 and I'd like to play online with them, but they will both probably be getting a PS3 within the next year so it's not that big of a deal.
Oddly enough they only have silver accounts as well. I guess we're all a bunch of cheap bastards.
Netflix would change that, but we second class Canadian citizens don't get that option.
XBL |Steam | PSN | last.fm
For some reason I seem to subscribe for 13 months at a time, when I hardly ever play online.D: