Support NeoGAF

[Slo]

You know, I can totally understand someone not wanting to pay for XBL, for any number of very valid reasons. Maybe you don't like online gaming, maybe you don't like the 12 year olds online, or maybe you just don't like the principal of the whole thing (being gouged by MS). What I totally don't understand is why people can be so militant about it, like a voluntary service is somehow ruining gaming, and all those who have fallen for it should be put to death. Where the fuck is that anger coming from?

 

[Wario64]

it's probably because pc gamers have been playing online for free for the past decade, with constant patches and a massive growing mod community to boot. then you go to xbox, where online gaming is a $50/year fee and basically just paying for a buddy list

oh and since this thread is now in bitch mode, FUCK MICROTRANSACTIONS

 

[DarienA]

The point of Xbox Live Silver is that fucktards who have been rationalizing paying for basic peer-to-peer online play by claiming that all that auxiliary community/gamertag/instant messaging crap was expensive enough to somehow justify a subscription fee no longer have a leg to stand on. Because it's all free in XBL Silver. Except, of course, the important part where you play peer-to-peer games. The part that NOBODY ELSE IN THE FUCKING WORLD CHARGES FOR.

I honestly thought Microsoft couldn't do any serious fucking people over in the game market unless they gained majority marketshare first. I underestimated them again. This meme of assuming basic peer-to-peer play merits a fee is getting too widespread, and if Sony and Nintendo follow suit, god fuck all of you who rolled over and took it up the ass, AGAIN. >:|

Wow I never thought of it that way.... really good point.

 

[User 406]

You know, I can totally understand someone not wanting to pay for XBL, for any number of very valid reasons. Maybe you don't like online gaming, maybe you don't like the 12 year olds online, or maybe you just don't like the principal of the whole thing (being gouged by MS). What I totally don't understand is why people can be so militant about it, like a voluntary service is somehow ruining gaming, and all those who have fallen for it should be put to death. Where the fuck is that anger coming from?

Or maybe I like online gaming, and don't want to be gouged by anyone. If it was just MS charging a meaningless fee, and at this point it is just them, that wouldn't matter. What's sickening is the way people will rationalize something they're paying for. Hell, we've even had placebo effects from XBL like "reduced lag" that don't actually exist. If the forums were full of people saying, "Well, getting charged for online play fucking sucks, but I need to play Halo, what are ya gonna do?", that would be one thing, but we've got quite the opposite going on, with hordes of people singing the praises of XBL over free/open peer-to-peer systems like the PC. And if this keeps up, how much longer before Sony or Nintendo say, "Hey, looks like the consumers will bend over for a fee, let's do it too!" Shit, we've already got lots of people begging them to do it!

And that's where the anger comes from. The idea that people are willingly and cheerfully rationalizing payment for something they've never had to pay for before, and spreading this idea around and making it more acceptable, possibly leading to even more fees, surcharges, and nickel-and-diming from all companies that isn't even NECESSARY.

You're damn right I'm not fucking happy with that.

Oh, and Redbeard, FREE 64 PLAYER ONLINE GAMES ALREADY EXIST SHUT UP

 

[Slo]

it's probably because pc gamers have been playing online for free for the past decade, with constant patches and a massive growing mod community to boot. then you go to xbox, where online gaming is a $50/year fee and basically just paying for a buddy list

oh and since this thread is now in bitch mode, FUCK MICROTRANSACTIONS

Microtransactions do suck. I won't be using them.

I'm a PC gamer. I'm used to playing online for free, so I agree that paying for it does seem unnecessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't XBL just a match making service? So that would mean that XBL is taking the place of something like Gamespy in the PC world, correct? To the best of my knowledge, Gamespy is a contractor. It handles matchmaking for companies that either can't afford to do their own, don't have time, or are not competent to. The difference between XBL and Gamespy, is that XBL fee is eaten by the consumer instead of by the game company.

That does suck for consumers, but if that is what it's going to take to get more console games online, well I guess I'm going to bite the $50/year. I don't really see any sort of community in the Sony online strategy, and it seems like most games on the PS2 don't make the online component a focal point. Even if I'm totally off base with that, I don't see why that makes me a "fucktard", and I'm personally offended by that. :-\

 

[Slo]

Or maybe I like online gaming, and don't want to be gouged by anyone. If it was just MS charging a meaningless fee, and at this point it is just them, that wouldn't matter. What's sickening is the way people will rationalize something they're paying for. Hell, we've even had placebo effects from XBL like "reduced lag" that don't actually exist. If the forums were full of people saying, "Well, getting charged for online play fucking sucks, but I need to play Halo, what are ya gonna do?", that would be one thing, but we've got quite the opposite going on, with hordes of people singing the praises of XBL over free/open peer-to-peer systems like the PC. And if this keeps up, how much longer before Sony or Nintendo say, "Hey, looks like the consumers will bend over for a fee, let's do it too!" Shit, we've already got lots of people begging them to do it!

And that's where the anger comes from. The idea that people are willingly and cheerfully rationalizing payment for something they've never had to pay for before, and spreading this idea around and making it more acceptable, possibly leading to even more fees, surcharges, and nickel-and-diming from all companies that isn't even NECESSARY.

You're damn right I'm not fucking happy with that.

Oh, and Redbeard, FREE 64 PLAYER ONLINE GAMES ALREADY EXIST SHUT UP

Well fair enough, your points are all valid. I just don't think my house should be burned down and my children eaten by dogs because I allow myself to be gouged for $6/month.

 

[DopeyFish]

i haven't seen so many kids cry over 14 cents a day.

IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, DON'T PAY FOR IT.

IT IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY.

 

[User 406]

A wise man once said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

Another wise man once said, "FFFFFFFFUCK YOU, LITTLE FUCKER FUCKY!"

 

[seismologist]

You know, I can totally understand someone not wanting to pay for XBL, for any number of very valid reasons. Maybe you don't like online gaming, maybe you don't like the 12 year olds online, or maybe you just don't like the principal of the whole thing (being gouged by MS). What I totally don't understand is why people can be so militant about it, like a voluntary service is somehow ruining gaming, and all those who have fallen for it should be put to death. Where the fuck is that anger coming from?

I cant speak for everone else but I just miss the days where you buy a game and it's good in it's own right. You didn't have to subscribe to the monthly service, and use microtransactions to get extra items and levels you need to get the most out of your game.

At least Sony isn't 100% devoted to a profit model based on online microtransactions.

 

[HokieJoe]

Or maybe I like online gaming, and don't want to be gouged by anyone. If it was just MS charging a meaningless fee, and at this point it is just them, that wouldn't matter. What's sickening is the way people will rationalize something they're paying for. Hell, we've even had placebo effects from XBL like "reduced lag" that don't actually exist. If the forums were full of people saying, "Well, getting charged for online play fucking sucks, but I need to play Halo, what are ya gonna do?", that would be one thing, but we've got quite the opposite going on, with hordes of people singing the praises of XBL over free/open peer-to-peer systems like the PC. And if this keeps up, how much longer before Sony or Nintendo say, "Hey, looks like the consumers will bend over for a fee, let's do it too!" Shit, we've already got lots of people begging them to do it!

And that's where the anger comes from. The idea that people are willingly and cheerfully rationalizing payment for something they've never had to pay for before, and spreading this idea around and making it more acceptable, possibly leading to even more fees, surcharges, and nickel-and-diming from all companies that isn't even NECESSARY.

You're damn right I'm not fucking happy with that.

Oh, and Redbeard, FREE 64 PLAYER ONLINE GAMES ALREADY EXIST SHUT UP

What's equally sickening is how some people will rationalize not paying for something either because they're too poor; or too fvcking cheap to buy the product in question.

Welcome to capitalism high school Harry. If you don't want it, then don't pay for it. I bought City of Heroes without knowing that you had to pay ~$14/mnth to play it. You know what? I returned it because I didn't need to play it that bad. The same goes for Xbox Live, if you don't want it, then don't pay for it. But don't disparage people for spending their money as THEY SEE FIT.

 

[AtomicShroom]

What's equally sickening is how some people will rationalize not paying for something either because they're too poor; or too fvcking cheap to buy the product in question.

Welcome to capitalism high school Harry. If you don't want it, then don't pay for it. I bought City of Heroes without knowing that you had to pay ~$14/mnth to play it. You know what? I returned it because I didn't need to play it that bad. The same goes for Xbox Live, if you don't want it, then don't pay for it. But don't disparage people for spending their money as THEY SEE FIT.

The thing is, people would probably not spend their money so easily if they were educated and knew, like some (and I hope most) of us, that there is no valid reason for Microsoft to charge for online peer-to-peer play.

 

[HokieJoe]

The thing is, people would probably not spend their money so easily if they were educated and knew, like some (and I hope most) of us, that there is no valid reason for Microsoft to charge for online peer-to-peer play.

I have no problem conceptualizing the argument, it's just that I don't like the self-righteous attitude attached to it. I'm leary of most all subscription-type services(cell phones, aka bling bling), but I really enjoy this one, so I don't feel too guilty paying for it.

 

[DopeyFish]

The thing is, people would probably not spend their money so easily if they were educated and knew, like some (and I hope most) of us, that there is no valid reason for Microsoft to charge for online peer-to-peer play.

there's difference between free... and quality.

I've been probably been an online gamer longer than most of you. bbs systems, DWANGO, etc Blizzard, zone, heat.net, WON, Steam, GameSpy Arcade/3D, Westwoods, EA online... i've used them all. and nothing comes close to Xbox Live as a peer-to-peer service. And even then not all XboxLive is peer to peer.

People whine because there's no dedicated servers. But that's ultimately up to the game coder and has nothing to do with Xbox Live. I've hosted Counter-Strike dedicated servers and Ghost Recon dedicated servers before.

Ultimately, none of the services offer good implementation of friends... voice support... proper matchmaking and what not. But hey, it's in the eye of the beholder... right?

Not my fault a lot of you are blind. I best leave because as my momma used to say... "No good can come from insulting the disabled!"

 

[Tellaerin]

I have no problem conceptualizing the argument, it's just that I don't like the self-righteous attitude attached to it. I'm leary of most all subscription-type services(cell phones, aka bling bling), but I really enjoy this one, so I don't feel too guilty paying for it.

I think for me, the problem isn't whether or not the service itself is worth paying for. It's the tendency for MS and developers to skimp on the other aspects of their games, then promote Live as a substitute for what's missing. Skimpy single-player content (Mechwarrior 2)? 'But it's online!' Lousy AI (PGR 2)? 'But it's online!' No bot support for offline multiplayer (Halo 2)? 'But it's online!' IMO, online play should be implemented in addition to the offline content and features gamers normally expect (just as Live is something you pay for in addition to the price of each game), not as a substitute for it.

 

[HokieJoe]

Haha.

Mechwarrior 2 is such a suckfest even Live couldn't save it; but I agree with some of your other points.

Except for PGR2.