Xbox Does It Agian

[Demon King EX]

Hang onto your hats…and your wallets…Microsoft is raising the price of an Xbox LIVE subscription by $10/year in North America beginning November 1. 2010. Other regions will see a price increase as well.

As posted by Major Nelson, the price hike will affect Xbox LIVE members in Canada, Mexico, the UK and the US, with various yearly, monthly, and 3 month subscriptions seeing an increase. In the U.S. the one month Gold subscription will increase from $7.99 to $9.99 while the three month will raise from $19.99 to $24.99. After the change takes place, the 12 month will set you back $59.99 as opposed to the current $49.99.

It’s worth noting that renewing your 12 month subscription via a special promotion being offered right here, right now, will allow U.S. customers to save $20 off the new price and renew for $39.99.

As for the regions outside the U.S., Canadian gamers can expect to pay $1 more for the monthly subscription, Mexico’s 12 month plan increases from 499 Pesos to 599 Pesos, and those of you in the United Kingdom will be charged 5.99 GBP for the monthly subscription instead of 4.99 GBP.

“Since launching Xbox LIVE in 2002 we have continually added more content and entertainment experiences for our members, while keeping the price the same. We’re confident that when the new pricing takes effect, an Xbox LIVE Gold membership will continue to offer the best value in the industry.”

So, do you think Microsoft has added enough new features and content to XBL to justify a price increase? Do you think the new rates are fair or unfair? Let us know your thoughts below.

[Rage]

this is my you need a playstation. 

[Demon King EX]

haha i do have one but its not mine its at my other house and i hate it cause i only go over there rarely 

[SanjiSasuke]

PSN; Free. Double the members. Great features.

[Demon King EX]

i just need a dang mic 

[Jelux Da Casual]

PSN; Free. Double the members. Great features.

Takes way to long to update, let alone initial installs for games to play. Too bad you can't talk to any of those members across games.

$60 a year is way worth having to deal with Playstation's inadequacies. They even know it, which is why their working up the Playstation Plus service.

[Rabbitxpp]

i have ps3 and 360 and all tho yuhh have to wait its worth the wait to install the games nd it doesnt hurt ur pockets in my opinion ps3 beats the 360 thts y im sellin mine to my friend ps3 is way betta but dats juss my opinion

[R.I.C.O - Twon]

I would say that with only a $10 increase, I'm only losing a days worth of fast food. Not that bad. However, I don't buy my XBL Subscription directly from Microsoft in the first place. I haven't even paid over $40 yet for 12 months of Live. If they bumped it up to $100, then I would outrage.

[-Whiplash-]

Canadian gamers can expect to pay $1 more for the monthly subscription,

How much for a year, is it 10$ more here, too?

[Theendgamelv3]

Takes way to long to update, let alone initial installs for games to play. Too bad you can't talk to any of those members across games.

$60 a year is way worth having to deal with Playstation's inadequacies. They even know it, which is why their working up the Playstation Plus service.

Yet you have a choice to pay to play online regardless. They force you to pay to play online for a experience that is basically the same. Xgame chat is not worth 60 bucks a year, and installations on PS3 games aren't always mandatory and if the game requires it, what is wrong with it? You do it on PC games, heck it is longer on PC usually. Is taking 5 mins off your gaming really worth 60 bucks a year so you don't sit a wait for a PS3 game to install? You might bring up the space issue, I have a PS3 60 gig, had it since 07. I have over 20 PS3 games, so my HD has been big enough so far cause 1, not all games again require a install and 2, I delete stuff I just don't need.

Too long to update....unless Xbox Live updates every week or each update adds something to Live, I don't see a problem. PS3 updates whenever, why would you want it to update frequently, unless you mean it downloads the update too slowly. I never had a update take no longer than 10 mins. When this happens I just go on the PC and do whatever and that 10 mins flies. Again that is the worst I have experience as most updates take 3-5 mins to download. The only thing that makes Live worth 60 bucks is getting content before the PS3 in of cases. I care about playing and game content, but even then, Live isn't worth 60 bucks a year. I can wait a couple months for online content to come on the PS3.  Sony more than anything is doing Plus due to costs of getting content and keeping PSN running, not because it has inadequacies. Here is the great thing, I have a choice to pay for plus or not pay for plus and my online gaming won't be affected. Can I play a game online on the PS3 that isn't laggy and is fun with lots of people...yes I can and I get that service for free. Live's features have been and won't be worth 60 bucks a year, they weren't worth 50 bucks a year. On the other hand getting content early to me is worth paying something for. Getting exclusive content that will never go to the PS3 is worth paying for.  Is getting content earlier or exclusively worth 50-60 bucks, to me , no, but I understand how it could be worth it to someone else. I will never understand how xgame chat is worth 50-60 bucks a year to a person (this is the one feature that of Live players bash over PSN players with). This is the biggest feature I can think of Live has over PSN and it is not worth 60 bucks.

[Acey]

Wii has no subscription fees.

[SanjiSasuke]

G Lux: Really, PS3 I think has better exclusives. I love L4D, but I don't care about Halo, Gears of War, blah, blah, blah. God of War, MAG, Uncharted, LBP and Modnation Racers; those are cool exclusives. As for early releases, there are plenty (AC: Brotherhood Beta) that PS3 gets. I use PS Plus and believe me, it isn't Xbox Live; I've gotten a lot of free games (quality ones too like Wipeout HD) and extras through it. It doesn't really add many features (automatic update is nice), it just gives you extra stuff.

Acey: But Wii's online stinks. Great console and games, it just needs a few extras. 3 updates to the DS (DS lite, DSi, and 3DS) and not a single decent update on the Wii?

DemonKingEX:You can use a PS Eye as a mic if you were planning on getting a PS Move, it is pretty sensitive, and then you only buy one accessory.

[Acey]

Acey: But Wii's online stinks. Great console and games, it just needs a few extras. 3 updates to the DS (DS lite, DSi, and 3DS) and not a single decent update on the Wii?

I disagree, Tatsunoko vs Capcom online is awesome, as well as Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros and Rock Band, all online, no lag, great fun. Couldn't ask for anything more (except MvC3 of course)

[SanjiSasuke]

I mean the features for online. For individual games it can be good.

[eg6gsr]

Dang well that sucks. The only thing and I mean the only thing that make shelling out 50 bucks(now 60 WTF!!! xbox) worth it is the fact that you need it to play online if you have a xbox cause after you beat a game its gets boring playing by yourself. I really wish live would let silver memebers play online and just let gold members have their "exclusive" DLC or get their DLC earlier than everyone cause I don't really care for the "look at what I have way before you I'm so 1337 and you're just a noob" content that much I just want to be able to play online for the fun factor. Oh well I hate that they have done it but what can you do but either rant and pay up or hop on your ps3 or just do both.

[Rotten Rudy]

Overall, Xbox And Playstation Both Have Downsides. Xbox Makes Better Games Tha Playstation In My Opinion..

[Dead Phoenix]

poor xbox users. I'm sure they'll lower the price back............eventually. Even with all your whining and complaining, you’ll still pay for it. They know you will.  Anyway it's dumb when they introduce things that not everyone use like Facebook, Twitter, ect. I only know 1 person who use's that stuff on the 360. Everyone else i know just uses good old PC or Phone. The price might drop if they get rid of some stuff that the majority of 360 users don't use. So  for that.

[Jelux Da Casual]

"Retort to G Lux" (for space save, seen actual post)

This isn't even about "Exclusive DLC" or stuff like that. Two good counterpoints to that are Scott Pillgram and Castle Crashers.

Scott Pillgram came out two weeks early on PSN, but when it hit XBLA, it was cheaper to buy. Castle Crashers is barely gonna hit PSN, but it's gonna have like 3 new game modes that XBLA will never get, plus a freaking Trophy for beating it on Insane mode.

I'm talking about the basic functionality of the services themselves and have decided to vent on why I think PSN is highly inadequate in it's delivery.

First, I'll tell you why cross-game chat is so important. How often are you and your friends online playing the same game? Over 75% of the time, that is not the case for me. I'll be playing Castle Crashers/Scott Pillgram/Halo 3/ODST/Portal, they'll be playing COD-MW2 or Left 4 Dead 2 or SSFIV or Tales of, etc. Even though that's the case, we can all be having a great time hanging out online just chatting it up.

Now about installing the game. You actually compared it to installing PC games. I ask: "Why the F do I have to do an install disc-based games on a F'n CONSOLE?!" I'll tell you why the PS3 does it: Blu-Ray looks fantastic, but it's super slow. Developers have to resort to installing game data that's on the disc to the PS3 hard drive to make games load quicker. They also clone copy data on the disc itself so that the drive laser itself doesn't have to travel as far to load data, otherwise loading times would be as slow as the PS1, if not slower because of the amount of data to load.

Then there's updates. Let me use PAIN as an example. My friend bought pain a few months ago. So first he downloads it, it's 400MB PSN Title that took about 10 mins, 360 would have done the same so no big deal there. But then after the download, he had to install it. 360 would have been ready to play at this point. Then after he installed he, he got message saying there's a mandatory update for it. That was another 300M. He had to install that after he downloaded it too. I kid you not, there were like 3-4 more mandatory updates. He had to start for the v1.0 file and the update from there. It took him over an hour to finally get to a point where he could play the damn game. Why weren't the 4-5 updates consolidated into the initial download? I mean, at least then he could have set it to go and left it alone to go do something for an hour.

Now let me explain what would happen if PAIN was a 360 title. You'd download in 10 mins or so and that's it, done. No install afterwards, just choose Play Now. Then if by some random mishap the initial download wasn't packed with the updates it would tell you "There's an update for this title, do you wish to download it?" If you choose no, it will let you play but it will only let you play offline till you do the update. If you choose yes, you wait 10-15 secs, and the update is frigging done!

You know what, I'm not even going to get into deep detail having to login to outside website to register to play online, then logging into PSN, then logging in again to another service. My friend has a Konami account to login to play Metal Gear Soild 4, and EA account to login to play Madden, and several other accounts, I mean that's worse then freaking Wii Friend codes...

What it comes down to is this: XBox Live is a consolidated experience. All developers work through Microsoft's servers to deliver their content so it's all uniformed, which makes it optimal for doing thing like providing fast updates, party chat, or even just jumping into multiplayer. $60 a year (bout the same to buy F'n Madden every year) seems like a fair compromise to usurp all that above mentioned hassle, especially since you can ALWAYS find Xbox Live memberships cheaper online rather than buying direct.

But having said all that and on a more personal level, there hasn't been any game that has come out on the PS3 that would warrant be buying it because there's no 360 version of it.

[Theendgamelv3]

First, I'll tell you why cross-game chat is so important. How often are you and your friends online playing the same game? Over 75% of the time, that is not the case for me. I'll be playing Castle Crashers/Scott Pillgram/Halo 3/ODST/Portal, they'll be playing COD-MW2 or Left 4 Dead 2 or SSFIV or Tales of, etc. Even though that's the case, we can all be having a great time hanging out online just chatting it up.

Yet on PC it is free. This is a service IMO no worth paying for. It is a great feature don't get me wrong, but 60 bucks a year, I would rather buy another game. IF PSN offered this service and it was on plus and it was cheaper, I still wouldn't buy it. How is it that Steam, xfire, etc offer these things for free? Microsoft is a MUCH bigger company than those 2 and offer free services on par or even better than Live. Money goes to IMO to maintenance of Live servers and getting content. Silver SHOULD offer online gaming for free with minimum features and stuff like xgame chat for a small price (gold), basically what Sony is doing. I am not a huge fan of Sony doing Plus, but they left the MOST important thing untouched, keeping it free for online gaming. The most important feature to me, playing online, without that, what is the point?

Now about installing the game. You actually compared it to installing PC games. I ask: "Why the F do I have to do an install disc-based games on a F'n CONSOLE?!" I'll tell you why the PS3 does it: Blu-Ray looks fantastic, but it's super slow. Developers have to resort to installing game data that's on the disc to the PS3 hard drive to make games load quicker. They also clone copy data on the disc itself so that the drive laser itself doesn't have to travel as far to load data, otherwise loading times would be as slow as the PS1, if not slower because of the amount of data to load.

Some 360 games also have installs (albeit not mandatory) and why do you have a problem with installing games on the PS3? Having a problem with installing is like PS3 fanboys going off on how 360 users swapping discs. I could say this "Why the F do I have to swap discs on a CURRENT gen console?" I don't say it cause I don't care. If there isn't a mandatory install I usually don't install. I already know why there are installs for PS3 games and it sucks, but it isn't like I wait a unreasonable amount of time. You said to me, what does exclusives have to do with this, what does game installs have to do with online component. Atleast with exclusive and early access content, it is tied to the online portion of the discussion. I compared it to PC cause PCs are for gaming as well. Unless the PC versions of games are tons different and offer a truly different gaming experience than consoles I don't see why I wouldn't compare to a console. Is Gears 1 much different on PC than it is on the 360? All I have to do is hook up my PC on a tv, use a 360 controller and bam, it is like playing the 360, but better graphics.

Then there's updates. Let me use PAIN as an example. My friend bought pain a few months ago. So first he downloads it, it's 400MB PSN Title that took about 10 mins, 360 would have done the same so no big deal there. But then after the download, he had to install it. 360 would have been ready to play at this point. Then after he installed he, he got message saying there's a mandatory update for it. That was another 300M. He had to install that after he downloaded it too. I kid you not, there were like 3-4 more mandatory updates. He had to start for the v1.0 file and the update from there. It took him over an hour to finally get to a point where he could play the damn game. Why weren't the 4-5 updates consolidated into the initial download? I mean, at least then he could have set it to go and left it alone to go do something for an hour.

Now this is where I understand where you would want to pay for a service that is better. If that is how it is on of downloadable games on PSN, then yea it is something to be very upset about. Is it like this on of games, or just 1-3 games? I don't know, I never bought a downloadable game from PSN. You have never encounter a downloadable game on Live where it had multiple updates or are they all in the download or small? I would think downloadable games on Live have updates to fix bugs and stuff like that.

Now let me explain what would happen if PAIN was a 360 title. You'd download in 10 mins or so and that's it, done. No install afterwards, just choose Play Now. Then if by some random mishap the initial download wasn't packed with the updates it would tell you "There's an update for this title, do you wish to download it?" If you choose no, it will let you play but it will only let you play offline till you do the update. If you choose yes, you wait 10-15 secs, and the update is frigging done!

Installs have nothing to do with the online services. I agree Sony should allow you to play the non update version offline, it is a big con against them. Let me ask you this, how is it that  a update on 300mb on PSN and not on the 360. There is NOWAY (going by what you said) you can download a 300mb update in 10-15 seconds when the game itself which is 400mbs took 10 mins. You can't blame Sony for that when it comes to their online service. You could blame them for having a hard machine to develop games for hence why Pain probably needed a huge update unlike the 360 with a different game, but that is on the machine itself, not their online service.

You know what, I'm not even going to get into deep detail having to login to outside website to register to play online, then logging into PSN, then logging in again to another service. My friend has a Konami account to login to play Metal Gear Soild 4, and EA account to login to play Madden, and several other accounts, I mean that's worse then freaking Wii Friend codes...

Why are you blaming this on Sony? Why not on Konami, EA or those other companies? These companies could have easily work with Sony. I don't think I had to make a account to play Blazblue despite it being made by a 3rd party. One more thing

You probably created an account if you’ve ever played one of our console games online. To retrieve it, try to login with the email address you use for your XBOX or PlayStation, here.

Don't believe me go here https://profile.ea.com/acctcreate.do

As you can see EA is just being dumb regardless of the system. Correct me if I am wrong, in order to play Final Fantasy 11, I think you also NEED a Playonline account on top of your Live account. It is on both systems sadly.

What it comes down to is this: XBox Live is a consolidated experience. All developers work through Microsoft's servers to deliver their content so it's all uniformed, which makes it optimal for doing thing like providing fast updates, party chat, or even just jumping into multiplayer. $60 a year (bout the same to buy F'n Madden every year) seems like a fair compromise to usurp all that above mentioned hassle, especially since you can ALWAYS find Xbox Live memberships cheaper online rather than buying direct.

.....and Sony doesn't work with developers with servers to provide those things you said? If they didn't, all their games online would be crappy and laggy which isn't the case. Fast updates is dependent on the developers, not on Sony. You said jumping online, I could go do that right now with Modnation Racers, Uncharted 2, hell lets go with a few 3rd party games here, Blazblue, Unreal 3, Rockband 2, etc. So basically all that is being thrown out is xgame chat and can't play un-updated games. Installations have nothing to do with online, big updates have nothing to do with their online service (I explained why this doesn't). Having accounts outside of PSN to play games isn't just on PSN but on Live as well.

I know you can get Live cheaper, but xgame chat isn't even worth 20 bucks a year to me especially when PC has been doing that for free from companies that are MUCH smaller than Microsoft. I understand for some that xgame chat is important, but it is a rip-off especially if Sony ever decides to either put it for free. If they do it for Plus only members, oh well, atleast I can play online, something I can't say for Live.

[Random Regular]

First, I'll tell you why cross-game chat is so important. How often are you and your friends online playing the same game? Over 75% of the time, that is not the case for me. I'll be playing Castle Crashers/Scott Pillgram/Halo 3/ODST/Portal, they'll be playing COD-MW2 or Left 4 Dead 2 or SSFIV or Tales of, etc. Even though that's the case, we can all be having a great time hanging out online just chatting it up.

Yes it's a great feature, but is it worth of the 60 dollars?

Now about installing the game. You actually compared it to installing PC games. I ask: "Why the F do I have to do an install disc-based games on a F'n CONSOLE?!" I'll tell you why the PS3 does it: Blu-Ray looks fantastic, but it's super slow. Developers have to resort to installing game data that's on the disc to the PS3 hard drive to make games load quicker. They also clone copy data on the disc itself so that the drive laser itself doesn't have to travel as far to load data, otherwise loading times would be as slow as the PS1, if not slower because of the amount of data to load.

Blu-Ray isn't slow, but the Blu-Ray Driver on the PS3 is, it was one of the early models and reads discs very slow.
And it's about what the Devs do, Uncharted 2 and GoW3 did not need to be installed, and look at those games, they blow all the other console games out of the water (With graphics, gameplay is something you should decide by yourself) GoW3 was 35GB so it isn't really the fault of blu-Ray at all.

Then there's updates. Let me use PAIN as an example. My friend bought pain a few months ago. So first he downloads it, it's 400MB PSN Title that took about 10 mins, 360 would have done the same so no big deal there. But then after the download, he had to install it. 360 would have been ready to play at this point. Then after he installed he, he got message saying there's a mandatory update for it. That was another 300M. He had to install that after he downloaded it too. I kid you not, there were like 3-4 more mandatory updates. He had to start for the v1.0 file and the update from there. It took him over an hour to finally get to a point where he could play the damn game. Why weren't the 4-5 updates consolidated into the initial download? I mean, at least then he could have set it to go and left it alone to go do something for an hour.

This is not a problem anymore, PAIN was a game from what... 2008?
PSN game updates are now much easier, play the game, choose if you wanna update or not> proceed.
It now installs every package in one time.

Now let me explain what would happen if PAIN was a 360 title. You'd download in 10 mins or so and that's it, done. No install afterwards, just choose Play Now. Then if by some random mishap the initial download wasn't packed with the updates it would tell you "There's an update for this title, do you wish to download it?" If you choose no, it will let you play but it will only let you play offline till you do the update. If you choose yes, you wait 10-15 secs, and the update is frigging done!

That's because MS doesn't allow updates to be bigger than some MB's.
Sony could care less what Devs are doing with PSN, a random Dev can upload an update of 2GB and Sony wouldn't care.
I prefer this method because I like keeping my games up-to-date, instead of 1 update for the whole game's lifetime.
MS is too strict with their service, look at Valve, they are releasing steamworks only on the PS3 (and PC ofcourse) because MS doesn't want Valve to do great stuff like automatic updates (As much as they want) and Cross game Multiplayer (Which is awesome, now I can finally play with my PC only friends)
Take for example TF2, the 360 version had only 5 updates...and the PC has more than 9000 100 updates.
MS being a ***** about XBL is the reason that FFXIV isn't coming to the 360 (Square is still trying to "talk" with MS because Square loves MS)

You know what, I'm not even going to get into deep detail having to login to outside website to register to play online, then logging into PSN, then logging in again to another service. My friend has a Konami account to login to play Metal Gear Soild 4, and EA account to login to play Madden, and several other accounts, I mean that's worse then freaking Wii Friend codes...

Thats not Sony's fault, that's because PSN is an open platform, Devs can do whatever they want with it (regarding online services)
I have some EA games, and I NEVER had problems with registering to any EA site or something, it's all optional.
IF MGS4 was a 360 game, they wouldn't include MGO because MS would have been too butthurt because Konami want's to use their DLC platform.

What it comes down to is this: XBox Live is a consolidated experience. All developers work through Microsoft's servers to deliver their content so it's all uniformed, which makes it optimal for doing thing like providing fast updates, party chat, or even just jumping into multiplayer. $60 a year (bout the same to buy F'n Madden every year) seems like a fair compromise to usurp all that above mentioned hassle, especially since you can ALWAYS find Xbox Live memberships cheaper online rather than buying direct.

No, it's not worth the 60 dollars.
Facebook? What?! it's also on PC (and better) Heh, I can use Facebook on the PS3 too right from the Internet Browser.
Twitter? No, no, it's also on PC (And I can access it from the PS3's browser)
ESPN? Awesome, but we're all living in America right?
Hulu? Uhm I have to pay for that...Oh wait....US only.
Netflix? I have to pay for that.
It just doesn't justify the 60 bucks ppl pay for it.
Yeah it's still superior to PSN, but what do I wanna do when I log in to PSN?
Play online, and talk to my friends, and I can do that on PSN for FREE.

Yes, you can buy Xbox Live Gold accounts on the net cheaper, but it still isn't worth the money imho.

But having said all that and on a more personal level, there hasn't been any game that has come out on the PS3 that would warrant be buying it because there's no 360 version of it.

Heh, funny same I have with the 360 (Istead I DO own a 360, well, I actually own 3 of them)
Halo and Gears are the only games I like on the 360 (And some RPG's) but that's it.
After the E3 and GamesCom I'm pretty dissapointed in what MS has showed us..

Overall, Xbox And Playstation Both Have Downsides. Xbox Makes Better Games Tha Playstation In My Opinion..

Hahahahahaha, MS doesn't make games, they buy them (Something Sony should do too)

[Demon King EX]

  you guys are beast at typing hahahaa 

[b.easy]

^I agree. some interesting, albeit long-winded points, in this thread.

As far as different accounts, I have a Konami ID and an Ubisoft ID, both of which I've only had to enter once. It's basically something they use to get your email address. I don't really mind, plus the Ubisoft one sometimes scores me free DLC.

And it's true, Microsoft does place a limit on how big downloadable games can be, as well as how big updates can be despite being a pay service.

Facebook?
Twitter?
ESPN?
Hulu?
Netflix?

Yeah, these are all extraneous things that aren't really my bag. I like my video game box because of video games.  

Microsoft does have a bunch of really cool indie-developed XNA games, though.

[-Whiplash-]

So I calculated it. and 60/360 comes out to 16 cents a day.

I can afford that.

[Yung Kratos]

I disagree, Tatsunoko vs Capcom online is awesome, as well as Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros and Rock Band, all online, no lag, great fun. Couldn't ask for anything more (except MvC3 of course)

TvC online is butt lag city i dont know who you play with but i can count the lagless matchess ive had on my two hands same goes for smash, Mario Kart is fine if you like modders all in your butt all day, and if any console i ever own lags while playing the tracks and dropping jewels for me to strum to it will be dismantled immediately.

Xbox is dying and has been doing so for a while. Between raising the prices on xbl and focusing on kinect instead of making good games. They've just decided to put the nail in the coffin themselves.

So 60 bones a year to play halo, gears and fable (the only exclusive 360 titles)

Those of you clinging on got a hard road ahead of you.

Ps3 online is boss only thing missing is party chat but anything about installs or slow loading is boo boo and lack of knowledge.

oh and shoutouts to random mod getting his own on

[SanjiSasuke]

Maybe I am just lucky but I've only had 2 laggy SSBB matches. I was very surprised at MAG; I was expecting a great game with tons of lag, but it has practically none. PSN is a very good service, and it is improving all the time.

 

(click to show/hide)

What games do you have Platinum in?
The only game I ever got 100% on was Rag Doll Kung Fu. That was hard but I finally managed it. I might have had 100% or close to it in LBP (100% on all levels, and a few I created) but I copied my save data from another PS3 (the one I played on before) so it doesn't count.

[Theendgamelv3]

So I calculated it. and 60/360 comes out to 16 cents a day.

I can afford that.

I never understood this argument. It sounds great to the ears, but you don't pay 16 cents a day technically cause there isn't a 16 cents a day option. I mean technically that is like saying people could afford a car with car payments that are 200 bucks a month due cause it is $6.67 a day. That is cheap actually, but people still struggle with car payments. 16 cents a day sounds nice, but in reality, you don't have that option. You could save 16 cents a day for a whole year and then pay for Live the next year, but why would you do that?  You would play Live every other year.

Edit:Whoops I made a mistake here, ignore the last 2 sentences. I wasn't thinking .

[Yung Kratos]

I never understood this argument. It sounds great to the ears, but you don't pay 16 cents a day technically cause there isn't a 16 cents a day option. I mean technically that is like saying people could afford a car with car payments that are 200 bucks a month due cause it is $6.67 a day. That is cheap actually, but people still struggle with car payments. 16 cents a day sounds nice, but in reality, you don't have that option. You could save 16 cents a day for a whole year and then pay for Live the next year, but why would you do that?  You would play Live every other year.

Its just part of most xbox users lack of financial sense (no offence towards whiplash btw) look at it this way when ps3 was 100 dollars more expensive it was STILL cheaper. wifi $100, online $50, rechargeable batteries for you controller $20, wireless headset is a mandatory $60 were as any bluetooth you own can be used for ps3. you were looking at least an extra $100 to get everything ps3 had out the box and still were down 20 gigs on hdd space. No xbox user got it. They don't understand that an expense is an expense and that your always spending more money than you should just to use the features you've already paid for in purchasing the game. Its double dipping either way you look at it and you remaining xbox users should be angry.

[R.I.C.O - Twon]

Its just part of most xbox users lack of financial sense (no offence towards whiplash btw) look at it this way when ps3 was 100 dollars more expensive it was STILL cheaper. wifi $100, online $50, rechargeable batteries for you controller $20, wireless headset is a mandatory $60 were as any bluetooth you own can be used for ps3. you were looking at least an extra $100 to get everything ps3 had out the box and still were down 20 gigs on hdd space. No xbox user got it. They don't understand that an expense is an expense and that your always spending more money than you should just to use the features you've already paid for in purchasing the game. Its double dipping either way you look at it and you remaining xbox users should be angry.

You really throw yourself out there as a fanboy, and you just showed your lack of financial sense. First and foremost, "cents per day" has absolutely nothing to do with Xbox or its users. It is nothing more than giving a consumer a perspective of his costs and benefits. I will use what Whiplash said as in example. Let's say Microsoft just told me exactly what Whiplash just said: Xbox Live only costs you $.16 a day. I, as the consumer, automatically think to myself that this doesn't sound too bad - which it isn't. So given that, I can now calculate my costs: $.16 x 7 (days) = $1.12/week. If I work minimum wage (which I think is $7.25 right now) 12 hrs per week, I'm making $87/week. So I can take that (without what gets taken out of your paycheck before it's given to you) and ring my check up to a $85.88. That would be one of my costs. Others could be 1 item/week off the Dollar Menu, 3 less trips to the vending machine per month, maybe 2 shirts per year, etc. All that is being done is measuring your costs vs your benefits. If you feel your two t-shirts are more valuable than Xbox Live, in this case, the correct decision would be to not purchase XBL. Basically, what you really meant to say was, "Xbox users must have a great sense of finances if they all think like Whiplash." No thank you needed.

Secondly, your whole list isn't necessary to play online - only the subscription. So there goes that argument ($100 isn't less than $50 in case you missed that).

Good post at Theendgame though, the one before the last.

The price I pay isn't worth one feature, in-game cross chat, but a sub is still needed in order to play online. Doesn't put a hole in my pocket, so there really is no concern.

[Yung Kratos]

You really throw yourself out there as a fanboy, and you just showed your lack of financial sense. First and foremost, "cents per day" has absolutely nothing to do with Xbox or its users. It is nothing more than giving a consumer a perspective of his costs and benefits. I will use what Whiplash said as in example. Let's say Microsoft just told me exactly what Whiplash just said: Xbox Live only costs you $.16 a day. I, as the consumer, automatically think to myself that this doesn't sound too bad - which it isn't. So given that, I can now calculate my costs: $.16 x 7 (days) = $1.12/week. If I work minimum wage (which I think is $7.25 right now) 12 hrs per week, I'm making $87/week. So I can take that (without what gets taken out of your paycheck before it's given to you) and ring my check up to a $85.88. That would be one of my costs. Others could be 1 item/week off the Dollar Menu, 3 less trips to the vending machine per month, maybe 2 shirts per year, etc. All that is being done is measuring your costs vs your benefits. If you feel your two t-shirts are more valuable than Xbox Live, in this case, the correct decision would be to not purchase XBL. Basically, what you really meant to say was, "Xbox users must have a great sense of finances if they all think like Whiplash." No thank you needed.

Secondly, your whole list isn't necessary to play online - only the subscription. So there goes that argument ($100 isn't less than $50 in case you missed that).

Good post at Theendgame though, the one before the last.

The price I pay isn't worth one feature, in-game cross chat, but a sub is still needed in order to play online. Doesn't put a hole in my pocket, so there really is no concern.

True. I do prefer PS3 to 360 but i wouldnt go as far as to call myself a fan boy as i have owned both consoles and to any one that asks me "what console should i get" I would respond in an answer that weighs the merits of both as i do believe Xbox has its merits.

 I am not stating any where that the amount of money it self is an issue. The principals behind what is happening is the problem.
You are buying a game which allows you to play online, a console which allows you to play the game and play it online ,and you are paying for the internet service itself. This much you have. Now you have Microsoft disabling you from using these features unless you pay them a premium. So unless you pay them for there service they are actually taking AWAY value from that which you already own not adding it.

Your right many things i list are not necessary to play online and are besides the fact.

So all in all vending machine, trips, dollar menus, t shirts hell i dont care if you sacrificed your dream of swimming in a pile of $60 worth of pennies the fact is that you are paying Microsoft to not take vale away from your gaming expeience. You shouldn have to give up $#!t in order to use whats yours.

[-Whiplash-]

Amazing, that my statement brought about 3 paragraphs/

The $60 I pay is worth it to me, because ALL my friends have 360s. in fact, I don't know ANYONE with a ps3. Why the heck would I buy a ps3, if I can't play on it with anyone I know?

So all in all vending machine, trips, dollar menus, t shirts hell i dont care if you sacrificed your dream of swimming in a pile of $60 worth of pennies the fact is that you are paying Microsoft to not take vale away from your gaming expeience. You shouldn have to give up $#!t in order to use whats yours.

You know, I actually Agree with you. I NEVER understood why Microsoft is forcing us to pay money in the first place. That being said, I find it worth it to save up $60 to play with my friends.

[Violent Ken Masters]

Takes way to long to update, let alone initial installs for games to play. Too bad you can't talk to any of those members across games.

$60 a year is way worth having to deal with Playstation's inadequacies. They even know it, which is why their working up the Playstation Plus service.

Meh. I can do other stuff while updating/installing. As for the members across games feature... I never used that feature and I never will thus making that feature all too pointless for me.   Not to mention if I really wanted something like that I could just get a wifi setup and use skype.

Microsoft doesn't even need to make their users pay for this garbage service. I mean we're talking about a company whose employees use dollar bills for toilet paper.

[Jelux Da Casual]

Well, I obviously can't justify my expenditure so I'll not be back in this one.