Xbox Done Discussion - 2016's #1 Master Race Bottom Bitch

[Tyrath]

Well yes, not technically free. But I have over $150 worth of games if not more sitting on my PS3/Vita just from half a year of PSN. Thats value right there. It was worth my money even without playing all of them.

[Kohan]

To note, commentary regarding Xbox Live fees not going toward increased security, superior servers, and the related employees is incorrect. It doesn't simply drop into Microsoft's coffers without being appropriately allocated, and due to Sony's game industry struggles—which may be a thing of the past, once the PlayStation 4 is released—they didn't have the same kinds of funds to blow on PSN before. Yes, that is directly related to quality, and no, Sony's free service was never of the same quality as Xbox Live's paid one. This isn't just related to online gaming ability, but actual functionality—e.g., reliable network interaction, and a respectable content delivery level.

However, it is true that this same kind of service is offered for free by other companies, notably the aforementioned Sony and their PlayStation Network. To the average consumer, there is little discernible difference separating Xbox Live Gold and the free version of PSN. That's what leads to the types of arguments like those in this thread—"I can do the same thing with PSN, so why would I pay for Xbox Live?"

In this day and age, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. Sony should still step up the quality of its network to Microsoft's level (although they probably cannot afford to right now), but Microsoft should not be charging for what is now commonplace and expected.

Of course, considering that the two may well be switching places in terms of consumer presence, Microsoft may need to keep charging, and Sony's service may become better anyway. It's a problem that is probably going to solve itself.

[notorious bum]

Do you even remember how basic Sony's security breach was? That shit has nothing to do with "funds available to pay for service". It was pure negligence and getting caught with their pants down. You also missed this post that debunks your whole quality Koolaid argument:

The vast, vast majority of online console games (including first party MS games like halo) use p2p hosting, meaning, the server is actually one of the consoles of the players in the game you're playing. With XBL, you're paying to host your own game servers with your own bandwidth.

[fantasticdan]

In this day and age, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. Sony should still step up the quality of its network to Microsoft's level (although they probably cannot afford to right now), but Microsoft should not be charging for what is now commonplace and expected.

Or maybe microsoft should step up the quality of XBL to that of a paid service? As in providing (the funding for) actual dedicated servers (to developers) for games? Hiring a moderation service to police hackers/cheaters, rather than relying seemingly entirely on (slow and ineffective) automated systems? Not filling the interface with ads for paid subscribers?

As XBL is now (and has been since inception), is not even the same quality of service I get for free with PC games; it is significantly worse.

[Exoduso]

Everyone knows the main agitators of this thread, dont, wont and never have or will own an Xbox, yet the unnamed posters stalk this thread simply to attempt to change minds or to keep throwing darts. What is this predictability you speak of? Yall niggas are on some Jehova's witness type of shit.

Always knocking and preaching the good word that is Sony. You're my dude, but you, Shiyo, Exodusosjadjntwtfhisnameis and a few others are on some repetitive type of shit.

Oh cry me a river. First of all I've never even directed anything towards you, but good for you calling me out, I bet it made you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

I've owned a 360 for over 6 years now, I just don't think it makes sense paying for Gold anymore. Repetitive type shit? lol, I AM allowed to have an opinion without being a "sony fanboy". We're not 12 anymore.
Doesn't change the fact that paying 60 bucks for service that should be (and is) free everywhere else is fucking retarded, and people like that think it's legit to charge money for what Sony and Nintendo provide for free, are the reason that MS keeps shitting on their consumers on a daily and, hell, annual basis.

I don't have an allegiance to a console or a company, I couldn't give a rat's ass about that BS. I own both because both had titles that I was interested in, simple as that. If Juan will have exclusive titles that'll strike my fancy, I'll buy it too. This has everything to do with the way MS conducts itself as a business and being the most consumer unfriendly company in history.

Also yeah, the PSN was hacked once. Shit happens. Doesn't mean LIVE is bulletproof. But yeah, the PSN got hacked way too easily and Sony paid for it, as they should have.
While on the subject I also don't pay for PSN+, although I hear great things about it as it actually gives you something in return for the money you spend on it.

tl;dr this has nothing to do with either company, but with what makes sense from a consumer standpoint. Stop bitching and just enjoy the games, isn't that what we're all here for?

[Kohan]

Do you even remember how basic Sony's security breach was? That shit has nothing to do with "funds available to pay for service". It was pure negligence and getting caught with their pants down. You also missed this post that debunks your whole quality Koolaid argument:

Was this in response to me? If it was, I don't know what the whole Kool-Aid thing is about. I mentioned that Microsoft does in fact have well-maintained servers, and that XBL funds don't simply line their pockets, but I likewise noted that one expects such service for free nowadays, and that they shouldn't be charging anymore. Further, since the PlayStation 4 is currently poised to overtake the home console market, I noted that the problem may well correct itself, as the majority of users could quite possibly transition to a platform that doesn't demand payment for online play (and a handful of other services).

If you want to get angry with someone for white knighting Microsoft, you should probably make sure they're actually doing that first.

[Kohan]

I must thank lag sincerely for this double post. (I'll move it later.)

[Eleven19]

$600 PS3 was bullshit so I did not support it. I made fun of the PS3 at launch, PS3 had worse ports with less fps, more, bugs, glitches etc(bayonetta, skyrim, just to name a few), 360 had better JRPGs at release, better exclusives I wanted like alan wake, tales, blue dragon, and was much better. I preferred the cheaper, better 360 to the more expensive PS3 with worse games and ports. Wii online was complete horseshit and xboxlive wasn't, most mmos still had a $15/month sub and that made xbox live seem worth it in ~2007. Now? No, not in 2013, especially with f2p mmos, online free everywhere, good multiplayer on every other console equal to live, etc.

I don't support bullshit, no matter the company, I just want games at a fair price. PS3 started this gen reallly badly and late as hell, making the 360 the obvious choice. Paying for online multiplayer, no used games, always online DRM, etc is bullshit. I don't support bullshit. If PS4 had the same I would not buy one either, or I would insult both and support nintendo.

People can have opinions without being fangirls/fanboys, we aren't 11 anymore.

I very much agree with this. To be honest I don't feel that any of us here have any allegiance to any company or console. Its all going to come down to what games we want. Hell even I have a 360 and I've done my share of bitching. I even have an old ass one, shit doesn't even have an HDMI output lol. I loved it when I used it often, played some Halo online with friends, used it for FFXI for a short while. What's funny is that half the reason I bought it was in anticipation of this open world online UC Gundam game that was supposed to come out in like... 2006? 7? Some big online battle thing that was TBA for literally years and never made it out.

Got a PS3 the holiday season right after MW2 and Dragon Age came out. Picked it up to play online with my friend. Canceled my gold membership but I'll pick up a title to play by myself on 360 every so often. Got Reach for like ten bucks not long ago, always wanted to play that. As for X1.. I'll probably skip it this round. Probably won't get a PS4 until a price drop/Slim type deal release in a few years.

WiiU though.. Had to day 1 that to prep for MH. Duh.

[Kalmado]

Everyone knows the main agitators of this thread, dont, wont and never have or will own an Xbox, yet the unnamed posters stalk this thread simply to attempt to change minds or to keep throwing darts. What is this predictability you speak of? Yall niggas are on some Jehova's witness type of shit.

Always knocking and preaching the good word that is Sony. You're my dude, but you, Shiyo, Exodusosjadjntwtfhisnameis and a few others are on some repetitive type of shit.

Miz, I enjoy your posts. I laugh a ton in the sports threads from your posts. For the majority you are on point. But in this thread I cannot agree with just about anything you say.

I JUST bought a ps3 last sunday. I've played all of an hour of one game(Dark Souls yay!). I have zero opinion regarding PS3 so far. I've owned a 360 since 2007. I've had one RROD (2010) that surprisingly MS 100% took care of. I bought Xbox over PS2 last generation as well. Only got a PS2 after it was a gift for X-mas. Any time a game was multi-plat I always got it for Xbox. The only game I've played religiously on PC is FFXI. My PC only has a 1.8ghz processor. I've been trying to play Dead Space, which so far I'm loving, but it's painful as all hell on such a bad machine! I'm as objective as I can possibly be regarding this subject.

My gripe is with this new generation, what they've turned a GAMING CONSOLE into, and MS's PR handling thus far. I actually hope MS can turn it around and offer a product that will be highly competitive against PS4. I won't lump PC gaming into it because it appears in reality PC gaming(if you have the right rig)will always have the upper hand. If both machines are of great quality and offer gamers an excellent experience for this new generation of consoles it forces both companies to put forth their best work.

There are definitely homers that will strictly be pro-ms or pro-sony, but it is my opinion the majority of us here are basing the current MS bashing because of what they've shown us and how they've reacted in the media to all of the questions and criticisms.

[Brill Weave]

Steam has never been hacked and steam has never been down for more than like 3 hours. GW2 has never been down more than like 3 hours, pso2 sometimes has like 7 hours maintenance every big content patch, my phone has never had an outage since I've had it for like 5+ years now, apple store has never been hacked, I've never seen the 3ds or wii multiplayer offline before either. I can play fucking emulators and roms on my PC P2P for free, i can play every multiplayer game that isn't a monthly MMO(a dying breed) for free on my PC. I can play every online game on every console for free except on xbox. I can play every online game on every smart phone, tablet, and laptop for free. Not sure where xbox live players get this notion where they're paying for anything. You are not, there's a reason multiplayer, netflix, hulu plus, web browser, etc is free on EVERYTHING ELSE as long as you are paying for internet and connectig via wii fi - even then you can go to fucking mc donalds, starbucks, or a library and get free internet.

I think people think when they're paying money, they're supposed to be getting something. You aren't, you're essentially paying for nothing with xbox live, you're paying money for a service that people can do for free on literally every other device on the planet. It needs to stop being defended and paid for so microsoft can stop being greedy fucks.

I don't typically agree with you but this is 100% spot on. It's the main reason why I didn't renew my Gold account this year. Unfortunately I saw the light how many years too late. Most of the multiplayer games I play, I play on PS3 with my RL friends. In the 6 - 7 months before my Gold expired the only things I used my Xbox for online was Mass Effect 3 and Netflix. I literally haven't turned it on in probably 3 months now and I'm perfectly fine with it.

[notorious bum]

Was this in response to me? If it was, I don't know what the whole Kool-Aid thing is about. I mentioned that Microsoft does in fact have well-maintained servers, and that XBL funds don't simply line their pockets, but I likewise noted that one expects such service for free nowadays, and that they shouldn't be charging anymore. Further, since the PlayStation 4 is currently poised to overtake the home console market, I noted that the problem may well correct itself, as the majority of users could quite possibly transition to a platform that doesn't demand payment for online play (and a handful of other services).

If you want to get angry with someone for white knighting Microsoft, you should probably make sure they're actually doing that first.

lol dude you obviously don't understand the point: that you MIGHT be drinking M$'s Koolaid if you believe that a sub fee has anything to do with maintaining basic security protocol that Sony happened to neglect. That's the whole point, they got kids thinking that their money is "well spent" or getting them some kind of "premium service" - victims of marketing and "brand loyalty".

There never was and never will be justification for a sub service in-terms of providing security or access to online multiplayer to games that you already payed for.

[Brill Weave]

Well, technically not free since you pay for them with PSN+ but they are dirt cheap.
PSN+ is literally the best possible use for your gaming dollars for console games.
I mean, shit... inFamous2, Sleeping Dogs, Deus Ex: HR, SSFIV, Spec Ops: The Line, Darksiders and KoFXIII are all sitting on my PS3 gotten for that small sub fee (not that I didn't also get other games, but those are the ones that are on there now.)
Hell, I already got the value of my 1yr sub in the first month of the service so I kinda 'consider' the games free but technically they aren't.

Likewise. In the first month I had it I downloaded Just Cause 2, Warhammer, Virtua Fighter, LBP, and some random PSN titles. Sony definitely makes it worth your while to keep that subscription going. I'm getting something back for the money I'm putting down. Whereas with MS I'm getting what exactly with their fee? The ability to play games online? I can do that for free on my PS3. I drank the MS koolaid for years. I love my 360 and will never get rid of it. But it's a cash grab system plain and simple.

[Kohan]

lol dude you obviously don't understand the point: that you MIGHT be drinking M$'s Koolaid if you believe that a sub fee has anything to do with maintaining basic security protocol that Sony happened to neglect. That's the whole point, they got kids thinking that their money is "well spent" or getting them some kind of "premium service" - victims of marketing and "brand loyalty".

There never was and never will be justification for a sub service in-terms of providing security or access to online multiplayer to games that you already payed for.

I suppose you're really determined to make it seem like I don't understand anything about how Xbox Live or digital services in general work, and that you're insisting that I must somehow be disproved by the nature of the PSN security breach (which I hadn't even talked about). All right, if you want to go down that road, we will. I suppose it doesn't hurt that I've done TCR/TRC submissions to both companies, not to mention that I work with everything from internal distribution to Amazon web services and AT&T content distribution in relation to videogames, and that I know about the XNA framework. I guess I could keep going, but that should already demonstrate a familiarity with Xbox Live's functionality (not to mention more in-depth knowledge in relation to console development and content delivery), not to mention Microsoft and their game division itself.

What you're assuming, and what the post that you quoted is assuming, is that all there is to online gameplay is the aspects that the end user sees. There's authentication, and then there's social services, your achievements, and so much more that Xbox Live does, and by doing that, it offloads those responsibilities from the game developer to Microsoft. (I don't think there's a point to getting more technical than that.) Since you apparently want commentary on it, the fact that Sony did have such a simplistic hole in their security demonstrates that they did not have the appropriate coverage, as any relatively good security analyst should have discovered and remedied that. I don't know why you think that demonstrates that they were appropriately covered, as they obviously weren't, so to state that the existence of a mistake means that everything was going right is a bit mind-boggling.

However, I'm not demonizing Sony for providing a free service. Quite the contrary. As I said before, there's really no justification for charging for basic online services nowadays. This means that Microsoft would have to invest rather than expect compensation and profit, but that's what consumers want, and that's what they should do.

Do you still think I'm arguing with you at this point?

[Qalbert]

he probably does

[ringthree]

To note, commentary regarding Xbox Live fees not going toward increased security, superior servers, and the related employees is incorrect. It doesn't simply drop into Microsoft's coffers without being appropriately allocated, and due to Sony's game industry struggles—which may be a thing of the past, once the PlayStation 4 is released—they didn't have the same kinds of funds to blow on PSN before. Yes, that is directly related to quality, and no, Sony's free service was never of the same quality as Xbox Live's paid one. This isn't just related to online gaming ability, but actual functionality—e.g., reliable network interaction, and a respectable content delivery level.

However, it is true that this same kind of service is offered for free by other companies, notably the aforementioned Sony and their PlayStation Network. To the average consumer, there is little discernible difference separating Xbox Live Gold and the free version of PSN. That's what leads to the types of arguments like those in this thread—"I can do the same thing with PSN, so why would I pay for Xbox Live?"

In this day and age, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. Sony should still step up the quality of its network to Microsoft's level (although they probably cannot afford to right now), but Microsoft should not be charging for what is now commonplace and expected.

Of course, considering that the two may well be switching places in terms of consumer presence, Microsoft may need to keep charging, and Sony's service may become better anyway. It's a problem that is probably going to solve itself.

Home was much more ambitious and likely much more expensive than Xbox Live Gold. You are confusing quality with cash infusion. Just because Home was shit and poorly implemented doesn't mean it wasn't more expensive, or that more money means higher quality.

[Qalbert]

I do wish that if they still insist on charging fees they'd do a tier system, and offer a basic cheap "online MP" only tier. I couldn't care less about deals with ESPN and FOOTBALL and shit, that no doubt leads to them thinking the 60 bucks is 'justified'. Ideally they should just make online play free, and all the extra shit would be their PSN+ but I don't see that happening.

[notorious bum]

How do you miss the whole point that Sony's security breach had everything to do with negligence and nothing to do with quality of service?

[Mizango]

Sup

[Qalbert]

How do you miss the whole point that Sony's security breach had everything to do with negligence and nothing to do with quality of service?

how do you not realize that negligent security is an issue of quality, you fuckwit

[notorious bum]

I guess I take basic fucking CC security for granted then, I never considered that to be a "quality of service". Considering what they did(or didn't do) was a crime and all. Sounds like something you would hear in a 3rd world company's ToS.