How much longer can Xbox Live charge consumers?
As Xbox Australian site Screen Play asks the same question, "Microsoft has realized that most PC owners certainly won't pay for features they have become accustomed to getting for free, even with the sweeteners of a single Gamertag, Gamerscore and common Friends list. But they are still asking PC owners to pay $80 (Australian) a year just for cross-platform play and match-matching, surely the height of optimism."
Now the question becomes: How long before the console rebellion begins? The PS3 is finally getting its online act together and despite Nintendo's never ending list of online incompetence, we figure they've got to turn it around eventually. When Sony and Nintendo finally get their ducks in a beautiful binary row at no cost to the consumer -- will we really keep paying for Xbox Live?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
kyle @ Mar 17th 2007 11:47AM
The key word in your article is "when". When a free quality alternative is presented, then its worth talking about.
killr0y @ Mar 17th 2007 11:51AM
Um, you say Sony is beginning to get its act together because they've made an ANNOUNCEMENT that they are hopefully, one day, going to have some 2nd rate Second Life rip-off on their console? Great deduction there... Because, you know, Sony always keeps their promises about everything. I can't believe the number of people out there clamoring for that crap.. Its as if Sony is so far down in a hole of shame, that they could rip a fart and people are willing to accept that as good news.
el moco @ Mar 17th 2007 11:52AM
paying for xbox live on a pc is a entirely diffrent beast than on a xbox 360. it's value on a console outweighs it's value on a pc. i think that's the reason for letting whoever has a gold account on a xbox 360 also use the same account on a pc. that's great news for them, but $50 a year for pc only is insane when it's all basically free already.....
superbagman @ Mar 17th 2007 11:53AM
As someone who owns all three consoles, I can honestly say that I don't mind paying MS $50 a year for their service. Xbox live is much easier and more convienent than the PS3 and Wii's respective online services.
TexRob @ Mar 17th 2007 11:54AM
This is really a strange post. Has Joystiq all collectively forgotten that "you get what you pay for" has been the moral of this story since the PS3 and Wii's release? We have seen piss poor online implementation, no singularity to the services, one game is good, one game is bad, one game has nothing.
I also find this comical, "but since when did we ever have to pay for easy-to-use matchmaking service on a PC?" You're right, never, because we have rarely gotten it on the PC. Look at all the frankenstein online PC matchmaking from the likes of EA/DICE. Anyone who has played any Battlefield game knows how horrible their service is. I could go on, there are and have been many more.
Now I am not saying that every game's matchmaking has been great on Xbox Live, but it all comes back to "you get what you pay for". If there are problems, they get fixed. If it's free, there is no compelling reason to fix it.
Mitochondria @ Mar 17th 2007 12:01PM
What I think MS should do is the longer you are a member, the less you have to pay over time. It would be great if it's free of course, but when it's something you only pay once a year, it's hard to see the significance, especially if the service is worth the price. Also as MS adds more functions like IPTV, the price becomes less of an issue, that is unless they charge us separately for that service. Hopefully they'll add the Zune marketplace soon so you can download music directly to your 360. That would be the shiznit.
Ryan @ Mar 17th 2007 12:02PM
Sure, Nintendo and Sony can offer free online play. But will it ever be as all-encompassing and as simply stream-lined as Xbox Live?
For less than $5 a month, I am happy to pay for XBox Live.
And I bet more people than we think will opt for the Windows Live gold membership. It is, honestly, not that expensive, and the perks are worth it. Regardless, MS is not forcing Live Gold on anyone. The first Live enabled GfW branded game, ShadowRun, will still allow only play, but not cross-platform play, with only a silver membership. This makes sense, as a silver Xbox Live account could not play online.
I was extremely psyched by the announcement of Games for Windows brand and the Live Anywhere service. And I still am.
AirIntake @ Mar 17th 2007 12:04PM
Live! on the PC probably won't sell well, as PC gamers don't mind fiddling with things as long as it's free.
As far as Live! becoming free for the 360? That will only happen if Sony and/or Nintendo actually comes up with a free and comparable online system. So far, this has not happened, so Live! continues to be worth the money for millions of people.
Diman @ Mar 17th 2007 12:06PM
@2
"Um, you say Sony is beginning to get its act together because they've made an ANNOUNCEMENT that they are hopefully, one day, going to have some 2nd rate Second Life rip-off on their console?"
Yes because they just pulled it out of their ass in a day or two. Second Life is a games, Home is a service, can you comprehend the difference? And by the way, it's free, it's not like you will be forced to pay for it to play online or to use it to play online, so can go back into your corner and cry me a river.
Umm Xfire, GameShadow, GameSpy, AllSeeingEye, etc. all great services, and all of them are free.
MaX PL and the 360 r4pe Tr4iN @ Mar 17th 2007 12:17PM
I'll pay 100 bucks a month for a service that separates me from all the poor little kids that wont be willing to pay for it. That way I wont have to play with poor little kids.
The racist, whining, little kid problem solved.
In all seriousness though, I would be willing to pay more for Xbox Live if we had dedicated servers for every game and free HD tv shows downloads. Xbox Lives growth means more and more people and its created this separation amongst the hardcore early subscribers of Xbox Live. The best years of Xbox Live were early on; now theres tons of annoying casuals that dont exactly care about the gaming, but think of it as more as a social thing were you go talk and hang out.
I want Xbox Live Platinum!
MaX PL and the 360 r4pe Tr4iN @ Mar 17th 2007 12:18PM
@mitochondria
the IPTV thing will be charged separately. but the thing is that Microsoft will not be the one making the money, but the communications company be it AT&T or others. i think Microsoft was just the one that created the software and now supplying the service thru Xbox 360 and Xbox Live.
Arno @ Mar 17th 2007 12:20PM
But let me ask you, doesn't the PC also have something equivalent of a Silver account for Live? I mean with Gold you get cross-platform matchmaking, but with Silver you get what you'd get with Silver otherwise as well. Gamerscore, friends list, etc. But since they already said that PC-to-PC play would be free as it always has. So that means you'd get all the benefits of Live (minus cross-platform matchmaking) without paying.
So if what I said above is all true, I don't see the argument.
Arno @ Mar 17th 2007 12:22PM
Sheesh... I gotto remember to re-read my posts if it's early in the morning and I've just woken up.
jsn @ Mar 17th 2007 12:23PM
you can't compare the ps3's network to what you get in live. Free or not, PSN is a LONG way from being what Live is and likely will never be there by remaining completely free. With that said, would it be nice if XBL were free? Of course, but at the same time, I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off. People pay more per month to play ONE game (WoW, etc), so I don't feel it's unfair to pay for an entire network that gives me DLC, updates and a consistantly good interface for online play.
jsn @ Mar 17th 2007 12:26PM
Tr4in: I agree completely. I'd pay more if they offered dedicated servers and some better ability to pre-filter the tards.
eight @ Mar 17th 2007 12:31PM
@MaX PL and the 360 r4pe Tr4iN
Haha, some of what you say i agree with. I have been a LIVE member for almost 4 years... or is it 5... it doesn't matter, I've been doing the LIVE thing for a while and yes when i first got in there were not as many people, and it was a little better, but your memory of the golorious times before the 360 is kind of a stretch.
Anyway, everyone has pretty much said what i think... and obviously what Microsoft wants you to think. We don't trust a free service becuase it's free. And having to pay for something makes us feel like we are somehow more special and deserve more. I don;t know if thats a good thing or a bad thing... but thats the way i feel too.
Patrick @ Mar 17th 2007 12:40PM
we can talk all we want about possibilities, regarding in the online area nintendo and sony have made false promises before where as microsoft has for the most part held up their end on a dependable service, so i am willing to pay 50$ a year, which rounds up to 14 cents a day for st the moment, the best online experience, access to a HD video library, and extra content to extend the life of games. Now anyone can talk the talk, but only a few can walk the walk. Coming out a year later with minutely better specs meant they had to play catch up, now if they can get their game together (har har) with online, a library on par with 360's, a digital library on par with 360's, video acess, then I will consider buying a PS3.
JPRacer @ Mar 17th 2007 12:40PM
Arno is right. PC to PC multiplay will be free (silver account), you just need gold account for cross-platform multiplay and optimatch. There's no point for this topic to exist.
joemama @ Mar 17th 2007 12:42PM
As we can see by some of the posts from the Xbox faithful, the answer is "a lot longer". I'm constantly amazed at all the cheerleaders out there (you listening, SnakeBlow?) who constantly flog Sony about price (even while they heavily subsidize the technologically superior PS3 and have allowed free online gaming for years), yet don't have any problem with MS having an open tap on their wallet for online, or orphaning their console and game investment after a couple of years.
Why can't people see the obvious big picture? What is it MS REALLY wants? They REALLY want the whole console game business to go away, period. They'd prefer not to have to continue to lose massive amounts of money to fight what is essentially another rearguard action to protect their PC monopoly. Just as they did against Netscape, Real Networks, and others, and just as they're doing today against Apple, Google, Linux and others.
MS wants everyone to play games on PCs, or else PCs become increasingly irrelevant. If people are playing games on a console, using Firefox to surf the web, using the Google desktop instead of Office, using an iPod instead of Zune, using Linux or OS X instead of Windows, etc., their bread-and-butter business eventually goes away. Every single Xbox decision they make is made accordingly: Get developers locked into PC-centric development tools; make the Xbox hardware essentially a PC; make the Xbox and PC versions of games nearly indistinguishable; get Xbox and PC owners playing the same network games; require a PC for any sort of media functions from Xbox.
And to make all this possible, they have to charge for online to offset the massive investment in building out their Live data centers to begin with, and their development of two consoles (so far) to try to crack into the market. And as long as there are enough ignorant people saying "well, it's not all that much to pay", you can bet that they'll start ratcheting up the price to where it'll be $19.99 per month before long.
And if it should happen that MS wins the console market, and puts Sony and Nintendo out of business, then all the Xbox fans have a bright future to look forward to, of Xbox 720 gaming with a keyboard and mouse, on a standard PC processor and graphics card, on an OS that's as buggy as Windows, with hardware reliability that's even worse than today, and the privilege of paying however much MS decides they can squeeze out of people for online play.
Enjoy!
JimyD @ Mar 17th 2007 12:44PM
PC gamers have been playing online for free for how many years now? Why the hell should they start paying a fee just to use a gamertag, cross-platform play and match-matching? Microsoft must think PC gamers are stupid.
As far as consoles are concerned, only time will tell if the Xbox Live Gold fee goes away. My bet is that it doesn't for quite some time since Microsoft is footing the bill on the servers to run the thing (with one exception being EA).
MosquitoControl @ Mar 17th 2007 12:52PM
Matchmaking isn't even useful for PC users. We're used to (and competent enough) to browse servers and pick one to our liking.
I honestly despise matchmaking on the Xbox. Even if a game is well populated it takes quite some time of staring at a blank screen. If a game isn't populated you can sit there for minutes before it comes back "unable to find a game."
Some games let you browse servers, like GoW, but even this is broken. Every time it fails to connect to the server it will kick you back and refresh the master server list. Which can take upwards of 30 seconds.
Getting into multiplayer games just takes too long. Yes, I understand needing to wait in the lobby for ranked games that require everyone there when the game begins, but even getting that far can take forever. I can't count the number of times I've decided just to play a singleplayer game because I was sick of all the waiting involved in matchmaking.
If I have half an hour free to game I don't want to spend 10 minutes of that waiting for matchmaking to do its thing. I can always just fire up a PC game, see what servers are there, and be in the action in seconds.
Abscissa @ Mar 17th 2007 12:59PM
I stopped paying for Live when I realized what a bunch of duchebags most of the people are.
Negativecool @ Mar 17th 2007 1:01PM
Only a fanboy would argue against not being charged for something you CAN get for free. What the hell is wrong with you, attacking joystiq for questioning being CHARGED?
This leads me to a number of reasons I haven't yet invested in next gen consoles.
360: Being charged for playing games online. I can play online for FREE with my PC games. If PC's can do it for free, so can my 360. Shove that Live "value" over PC online right up your ass. I just wanna play games with my friends--Showing people my achievements isn't worth $50/yr...to me, although I'm sure some love shelling out $50 to whip out their "gamer cock" to everyone. Also, fit that god damn power brick in the box like the PS3 can! Red ring of death anyone?
PS3: Where do I begin...price? Home coming soon... but not yet. No rumble! Paltry few games, and the ones that are out, show 360 owners they (currently) have a more graphics capable system. Did I mention the price?
Wii: It's a booming hit right now, but what about 5-10 years down the line? Graphics matter to me. No online to speak of right now. Moreover, even if I did want one, no Wii's INSTOCK.
cus.moritz @ Mar 17th 2007 1:05PM
i have three words to say to the whole "one gamerscore one friends list, and gamerscore":
XFire
bxbailey @ Mar 17th 2007 1:06PM
Finally learning how much of a fool people are for paying to play games online. Muhahahahaha mindless xbots unite and send your dollars to all your gates are belong to us.
Digi Smalls @ Mar 17th 2007 1:12PM
joemama - last time i checked PCs didn't run powerPC processors. old macs did.
if any console is like a PC its the PS3, usb cables, hard drives, EULAs, installing games, web browsers, linux.....
weak argument. did you ever consider it takes money to design and implement a console (read: no licensing money) online system from scratch with no one to copy? Sony has the model right in front of them but they still can't get it right, they leave all the technical and financial burden to the developers.
your conspiracy theory was amusing though.
.
Angusailde @ Mar 17th 2007 1:13PM
While the PC side of things is a little questionable, as a 360 owner, I'll gladly shell out 50 dollars a month for the all-incompassing Xbox Live. If Sony is only able to come up with a Second Life rip as their free service, which personally is not my cup of tea, they can keep it. I think the "you get what you pay for" saying is still going to be in effect, this is, after all, Sony we're talking about.
The True Gamer @ Mar 17th 2007 1:15PM
Joemamma, you need to lay off the Jim Jones Kool Aid.
Kamizar @ Mar 17th 2007 1:16PM
joemama, with your post you've won a tinfoil hat...
-Big Brother
Contra666 @ Mar 17th 2007 1:24PM
I happily pay for Xbox Live.
The service is so good compared to what Sony, Nintendo and the PC currently has to offer.
I can't wait for the Games for Windows Live to be available.
MS knows it can charge, because nobody is doing it as well (or better) without charging.
joemama @ Mar 17th 2007 1:34PM
@ 26, 28, 29, et. al. Talk about lame aguments, LMAO! Can't refute the facts, so use name calling - what are you guys, six?
And to #27: HAHAHA! I absolutely LOVE the "you get what you pay for" argument. Too bad the Xbox fans don't use it more often when comparing a noisy unreliable spaceheater like the 360 with a technically-superior-in-every-way system like the PS3. Of course, you'll dismiss that as fanboy talk, but you won't be able to factually refute it in any way. Processor capability? Digital output? Native HD storage? Power, noise and heat management? Hardware reliability? Large enough frame buffer for uncompromised full HD? Faster system memory? Ability to read many non-proprietary memory card formats?
Yep, you get what you pay for, eventually, after returning several units in for repair or replacement.
Josh @ Mar 17th 2007 1:47PM
If you want the old PC system without unified a friends list, you won't have to pay for it. Windows Live Silver allows you to do just that, and it is free.
And if you already have an XBox Live Gold account, you won't get charged any more for the Windows Live account.
So where is the complaint?
I've done the Windows gaming thing without a unified friend's list. I prefer the Windows Live Gold way. And since I already have an XBox Live account, I won't have to pay for the additional functionality. Bonus!
Hell, MS sent me a free copy of Vista Business, even. Double bonus!
So MS provides the Live network with additional functionality and platforms and the gaming blog world responds with complaints. Lame, guys.
Incidentally, Sony hasn't said that you will never be charged for online gaming. EA and other companies can charge you for gaming on their servers. Hell, they could even charge you monthly per game. That won't happen with Live.
Digi Smalls @ Mar 17th 2007 1:49PM
jm -
"Processor capability? Digital output? Native HD storage? Power, noise and heat management? Hardware reliability? Large enough frame buffer for uncompromised full HD? Faster system memory? Ability to read many non-proprietary memory card formats?"
dude i LOVE those games! especially Non- Proprietary Memory Card Formats 2 and 3! those were awesome.
if you're technical superiority argument had any legs at all, we'd all be playing Neo-Geo 6, 3DO 4 and Jaguar 3.
and if you still want to talk facts, why does the PS3 have an inferior video card and less maximum video memory? $200 more and a year later? i'd say graphics matter a bit more to gamers than an internal power supply.
.
bootsielon @ Mar 17th 2007 1:54PM
If Home is comparable to Xbox LIVE, and Nintendo gets its online act together, then there's no reason to buy an Xbox 360 anymore, unless they make Xbox LIVE free.
If anyone dares to asure "it won't be better" or "comparable", he or she is a dipshit. Just wait till it comes out, then you'll judge. If Sony delivers, it's game over. Besides, this is not a PROMISE as in CGI, we've already seen the demo, so the "SONY ALWAYS PROMISES AND UNDERDELIVERS LOL" guy is also an idiot.
Triforceowner @ Mar 17th 2007 1:57PM
As long as I can get Xbox Live for less than $50 a year, I will certainly purchase it. That being said, as long as Microsoft has their service charge in or around that area millions of people will continue to pay.
Digi Smalls @ Mar 17th 2007 2:00PM
"If Home is comparable to Xbox LIVE" and "If Sony delivers"
big IFs, boots. even if they do, it'll almost be two *years* after xbox live 2.0 already did. no, Sony has to get online right WAY before Home.
.
Hikaru @ Mar 17th 2007 2:03PM
All this online it's stupid, I want to play my Catlevanias alone, thanks!
Hikaru @ Mar 17th 2007 2:03PM
All this online it's stupid, I want to play my Castlevanias alone, thanks!
Josh @ Mar 17th 2007 2:04PM
"As long as I can get Xbox Live for less than $50 a year, I will certainly purchase it. That being said, as long as Microsoft has their service charge in or around that area millions of people will continue to pay."
Circuit City has so many $40 for a 13 month XBox Live Gold card that you should never have to pay $50 for a year of XBox Live Gold.
Hell, I got my year of Live included in a $55 package that included a Live Vision camera, 200 MS points and 3 arcade games. As far as I am concerned, this year of Live Gold was free for me.
helio9000 @ Mar 17th 2007 2:05PM
What a terribly muddled post. For one, it seems like a long ways off before Sony and Nintendo are fully up to par. What we have right now are a bunch of promises and possibilities not any real execution....so they answer is - a lot longer.
You also comically assume that Sony and Nintendo will always have free online play. They have to do that right now because they don't have the service that MS does. However, by the time they do MS will have a large enough install base that the other services would not just have to be as good but way, way better for people to stop paying for Live. If it takes hold like that I'd say it is more likely that Sony just starts charging too.
bigd7387 @ Mar 17th 2007 2:12PM
I'll pay for the server management and quality of output. Nothing in life worth anything is ever free and I'm surprised that you don't know that by know. I still have some really horrid nightmares from the PS2 free, gamespy internet service. I guess you guys liked it? Yeah I guess getting a free service means you put up with adds, guess you like that too. Cool huh.
Spartacus @ Mar 17th 2007 2:16PM
Joemamma:
Let me sum up your entire rant in one logical, capitalistic statement: "Businesses exist to make money." There, as simple as that. Microsoft has competitors and they are trying to outdo, out strategize and out last them. This is what EVRERY business tries to do. MS knows that games are ultimately what drives new PC sales, they saw a lull in the market and therefore needed to venture out in other markets in order to keep profits up. Enter the Xbox. They used their company's strengths and experience from the PC market to make a product in the console market and they came on the scene with a bang. MS now makes money from CONSOLE software sales as well as PC software sales, which is all they wanted to do in the first place. They realized there would be a buy in cost (which they may or may not have underestimated) but in business you play the long game.
One of your arguments for your half baked theory is that the 360 is more like a PC and therefore MS's next console will essentially BE a PC. Really?...
1. The 360 is LESS of a PC than the original Xbox was. While it has more of an "OS" like UI, the hardware is MUCH more specialized. The Xbox was basically off-the-shelf PC parts in a black box. The 360 uses a custom built PowerPC architecture never before seen on the PC market and a GPU that can't really even be feasibly done on the PC with its daughter chip and built in e-buffer RAM, plus the unified shader pipeline was revolutionary. PC's are now having to play catch up with GPU technology.
2. The PS3 uses Linux, web browsers and off-the-shelf PC parts such as HDDs, USB keyboards and mice etc. The 360 does not. Which is more like a PC?
3. All three console companies had IBM build their CPU's. I guess that means the Wii is just as much PC as the rest. I mean, come on, it uses RAM, built in flash memory, a CPU and takes optical discs for crying out loud! /sarcasm/
I hope you realize by now that while your theory has a few valid points, they don't add up to MS trying to sabotage the console market. They add up to MS trying to expand (or even save) their business and profits by tapping into a related field where they can use their experience and expertise to their advantage against the competitors. This was a wise financial decision and one that any corporation with any business sense would've made seeing their profits leveling off or declining in their current market.
Welcome to American capitalism.
A for the actual topic at hand, as stated before, it's a non issue. PC to PC play IS STILL FREE. Only cross platform play requires the Gold account. For current Xbox 360 LIVE Gold owners, this is essentially free as they already have the account. For PC-only owners, they must pay to play against 360 owners. This is not a ridiculous demand as building a network to accommodate this feature costs money. When Sony and Nintendo offer a network that allows their online games to play nice with PC's and they offer it for free, then we can talk. Then again, when Sony or Nintendo offer an online service even comparable to a LIVE silver account hell would've frozen over. Good day gentlemen...
bootsielon @ Mar 17th 2007 2:17PM
s
Biofreak @ Mar 17th 2007 2:23PM
The whole PC cross 360 live thing is an add on for xbox live users. Now 360 users can use their pc as well to play some games. People who doesnt have 360 and only use pc will never subscribe for xbox live.
Its all about new stuff for 360 users. MS doesnt force anyone to subscribe if they dont need it.
Stop blaming MS. It's up to you, how you play ur games.
The Stick @ Mar 17th 2007 2:28PM
I gladly pay for XBOX Live. The service blows away the competition. Ease of use, downloads, etc. It's better than I thought it would be when I signed on.
Freelance @ Mar 17th 2007 2:32PM
Of course! You are talking about the same people who went out and bought a non-backwards compatible Xbox360 even though MS pull the plug on the XBOX(the shortest lived console) too soon.
USP45 @ Mar 17th 2007 2:45PM
Pay up suckers, there are sure some dumb blind ms bitches defending their pimps honor.
All the consoles online services are basically the same you download stuff and you play games online that's it. All this gamerscore and buddie list is just crap that will eventually be on the other services.
Paying for it, is just dumb and as I can see there are MS won't have problems because they got a whole bunch of whores that are willing to pay for free stuff. In the end they will make it free but I bet some of these whores will keep sending their money.
PS. Bill Gates semen is starting to corrode the little brain cells you had to begin with.
Spartacus @ Mar 17th 2007 2:59PM
Joemamma:
Technically-superior-in-every-way system like the PS3? Hmmmm... The 360's GPU is superior to the PS3's and the Cell has yet to prove itself better than the Xenon. MS's online is also vastly superior to Sony's. Don't forget the 360's pad is about 10 years ahead of Sony's in the egonomics department and includes rumble and offset analog sticks. Does the PS3 have it's advantages? Sure, but I just disproved your statement.
Processor capability? Read: "speculative potential."
Digital output? I'll give you this one, but Zephyr is around the corner. However at least the 360 comes with an HD capable cable while the "in box" PS3 experience is only 480i.
Native HD storage? I suppose you mean HDD. It's tue you can buy a 360 without a hard disc drive, then again, it's $200 cheaper than the 20GB PS3 and $300 less than the 60GB- harldy a bragging point in Sony's favor.
Power, noise and heat management? I have a launch 360 and have had no problems with any of these issues. Furthermore if you keep up on your gaming news you would've seen that chart that showed the PS3 to be the most power hungry console, not the 360. Noise and heat are a non issue. The Sager gaming laptop I'm typing this on is louder and hotter than the 360.
Hardware reliability? Some people have had a bit of bad luck, but again, my launch (Nov '05) 360 is still running perfectly. The 360 doens't have controller sync problems (see the joystiq article), does that count as a reliability issue?
Large enough frame buffer for uncompromised full HD? What? The 360 has free, onboard RAM on the GPU for frame buffering, the PS3 does not. What point were you trying to make?
Faster system memory? Maybe, but that means squat when the system is bottlenecked by bandwidth and split memory architecture. The 360 has the PS3 beat in both those areas, do some homework.
Ability to read many non-proprietary memory card formats? I thought you were against consoles being more like PC's?
Freelance:
If you think the Xbox was the shortest lived console, you don't know your history. Sega, Sony and Nintendo all had a dismal failure or two.
Digi Smalls @ Mar 17th 2007 3:02PM
aight, what's free about $600 for barely any games? much less online games?
paid that much money for games that won't come out till 2008? now who's the suckers?
.
Poisoned Al @ Mar 17th 2007 3:27PM
From what I've read, most of you have NEVER used a PC for gaming online. Of course that tiny fact has never stopped you voicing your worthless opinions. Most games come with a built in browser which aren't very good but work. All you have to do is call your friends up on AIM and BOSH! Done! Failing that there's GameSpy too tho I'm not keen on it myself. Also as a rule, PC gamers know what they are doing and can fix most problems and work out less-then-user-friendly interfaces. However it's usally pure dumb luck that most xbox users stick the Ethernet cable in the right hole, and don't you DEAR tell me that's not true, I have a 360 as well and I know most live users are borderline retards! The PC has plenty of arseholes, but I don't often get called a "n****r" by a 13-year-old dip-shit, despite being the whitest person on the planet.
In short, if it's worth it (which at the moment I don't think it is) then I might sign up for Live on Windows. Otherwise I happy calling my mates up over AIM and having a round of DEFCON.