ROFL, Funny ass song. Glad to hear they added more ability to the PS3. I don't think I'll ever get it though. I'll stick to PC's. <object classid="CLSID:05589FA1-C356-11CE-BF01-00AA0055595A" width="1" height="1"> <param name="FileName" value="http://www.docadamsaudio.com/sarcasticgamer/NoFrickinGames.mp3"> <param name="type" value="application/x-mplayer2"> <param name="PlayCount" value="1"> <param name="Volume" value="1"> <param name="ShowControls" value="false"> <param name="ShowDisplay" value="false"> <embed type="application/x-mplayer2" playcount= "1" width="1" height="1" filename="http://www.docadamsaudio.com/sarcasticgamer/NoFrickinGames.mp3" volume="1" showcontrols="true" showdisplay="true" src="http://www.docadamsaudio.com/sarcasticgamer/NoFrickinGames.mp3"> </embed> </object>
oh wow, $50. a whole $4.166666666666666 / month for SUPERIOR SERVICE that's expensive!!! dare i not tell u about world of warcraft and its $20/month to play just ONE GAME. you should go buy a $600 system with no games.
Here's your chance. Walk me through 10 ways how XBL offers superior service. I'll assume by making a comparative statement that you are well versed with the workings of the PSN. This is all you tinman. That's like saying someone can't complain about their life since there are other people who have it way worse. The only thing that matters in this discussion is XBL v. PSN I'm not going to keep doing this with you. I'm not going to keep listing the good software available for the PS3. It just goes in through one ear and out the other. It would be worth it at least if you went into why you thought the titles released on the PS3 aren't that great but I doubt you have played them. It is inevitable that Sony catches up with Microsoft in the online content department (ESPECIALLY because of the synergy between all the sony subsidiaries in both music and film) At the end of the day, XBL and PSN are about online gaming. That's what counts. Even the Xbox Live representative they interviewed a few weeks back (Find RC's thread) tried to divert the interviewers attention from the Online gaming portion of the service because somewhere around 30% of people on XBL do not pay the 50 dollar price tag for online gaming.
its more refined and been out longer. tons of demos/music videos/movies MORE USERS. playstation.. has no frickin games!! Ninja Gaiden is good tho, u should buy that.
So one justification for paying for a service is that it has been out longer? If I call Time Warner Cable tell them Grande Communications is offering me a better deal, do you think they will say, "well we've been out longer"? I already covered the downloadable content issue. Sony is rolling it out this fall and because of the movie studios and record labels that sony owns, you can expect them to have a more than modest collection. It's more refined? You're right. It is. But that is something that Sony is already working on. They are going to streamline the interface. That being the case, I'm not sure how presentation is a justification for a 50 dollar fee especially considering you don't have to pay to log into the xbox live interface. It would make much more sense if you could just say, "Yea. PSN is free. That is a reasonable advantage it has over XBL. It would be nice if XBL was free."
it would be nice if playstation has some fricking games. it would be nice if there was free housing, oil, cheeseburgers too. but $4.16 /month for great service is fine. but if people who buy $600 complain that $4.16/month to play online games with strong servers.. that's called C-H-E-A-P-S-K-A-T-E-S
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand. I hope you don't think that 50 bucks you shell out leads to more games being released on the system. [/QUOTE] I'm still waiting for you to explain what "great service" is and how it is not there on the PS3. Please list specifics. So because I pay 600 for a system, I should never complain about having to pay for anything else in gaming? "Rockband is too expensive" -"You paid 600 dollars for your system!" "60 dollars is too much for a nex gen game." -"You paid 600 dollars for your system!" Oh and please explain what you mean by "Strong servers". I've never had a problem with a server failing when I've been online on PSN. Maybe there are articles documenting this that you can link me to.
sorry that green day song is in my head... cause 360 ate your lunch.. playstation has no frickin games!!! oh hell yeah. you paid $600 for a game system, you can't complain that the other cheaper system has great online service that cost less than a cup of coffee a day. fine, take that $4/month and save some Sally Struther's children with it cause.. playstation..has no frickin games!
I didn't know MS let you pay for XBL in $4 monthly payments. That's a pretty nice move by them. Oh wait...they don't let you do that. Monthly payments are $8. Compared to $0 for the PSN, that's pretty expensive, especially over the course of 4-5 years. Regarding "strong servers," XBL uses P2P for online gaming, while the PSN uses a mix of P2P and dedicated servers (dedicates servers are usually used for the major online titles like Resistance and MotorS...I mean, no game uses them since the PS3 has no games). So generally speaking, the PSN is the one that offers the "strong servers" for online play. Kind of funny that the free service is the one that is offering this, and the company that charges people $50 a year to play online can't even pony up the extra cash to use dedicated servers to improve online play. Sorry if I seem a little anti-XBL (hehe...yeah, just a little). The service is great (better than PSN at this point, that's for sure), but I really hate that Microsoft charges for something that should be free.
There are obviously positves and negatives to both sides, but I always thought the 'but you pay $50 for XBOX Live!' argument from people that payed $600 for a launch system and live in an era of new game releases that cost $60 each to be rather inane. It's just stupid fanboy fodder. How does this work, exactly? I know MotorS and Resistance are either in house from Sony or one of their close development studios, but what will happen from third party stuff like Ubisoft or EA, etc? Are these to be dedicated?
There are obviously positves and negatives to both sides, but I always thought the 'but PS3 has no games!' argument from people that payed $400 for a broken launch system and waited a year for one good game to be rather inane. It's just stupid fanboy fodder. Here's a cute one, MS touting their built in scaler when they actually don't have one. MS at it's best. I also like how xbots claim Sony stole this or that when Microsoft makes a living stealing idea's.
As long as the argument is sound, I don't really think it matters what a person has paid for other items. Besides, I personally think that the price of the PS3 and the price of games are better justified than the price of XBL. For example, Sony charges $600 for a PS3 because it has a Blu-ray drive, a 60GB HDD, it is BC with the PS1 and PS2, WiFi, HDMI, etc. Microsoft charges $50 for XBL because? And FWIW, I hate the prices of all three things. And I haven't paid full price for any of them either (thanks eBay and Blockbuster ). I'm sure it is entirely up to each publisher. They have the option of using P2P, using their own servers, or using Sony's servers (for something in exchange, of course). They can also allow PS3 owners to use their own systems (and PCs?) as dedicated servers, although that is a little different. I think R6:Vegas for the 360 allows for that actually. It isn't like Sony will only let their own games use dedicated servers.
MS charges for Live because they can. As long as people see its worth paying a subscription, MS can charge for one. It's really upon Sony or Nintendo to make a free network that's as good as Live, not for MS to make their network free like Sony's or Nintendo's.
lol. chow's so bitter. chin up, bud. Whether or not the argument is sound is completely objective. There are just as many people who 'personally think' the PS3's price isn't justified (quite a few, if sales are an indication); that doesn't mean that that argument is 'sound' to everyone. Obviously people pay for XBL because they feel it is worth it. Are you going to accept it when people tell you that what you paid for the PS3 isn't justified? My point is playstation owners (which is where this argument often comes from) are the last people who should be crowing about where folks have spent their 50 bucks. Particularly when other factors are involved (game selections, features of service, userbase/available players online). And yes, this works both ways. XBOX fanboys can't crow about the advantages Live has as the end all, be all because PSN is free, and as such deserves credit in that regard. Does this mean it will always be this way? Of course not. In time the PS3 online experience could very well be far and above Live. There are plenty of other concerns that can be weighed between the two systems before that point, however. But right now, IMO, the 'OMG live is 50 bucks' argument is mostly thrown around for fanboy flame wars. In short, fanboys suck.
People who own xbox 360s pay for XBL because they have no alternative online gaming provider. If there was somehow some 3rd party service that did not charge, people would use that. Can't their be truth in the world. Is EVERYTHING subjective? Certainly not. First, sales do in no way indicate that perspective. Plenty of people can think the price is justified but not have the money yet to pay for it. Second, RC's point is that if you take a fair look at the system, you would conclude that it is a bargain for what it provides. There is no subjectivity to the matter if you look up the price of blu-ray players and the other high def next gen console and add them together. Now, are these services worth it to you? Maybe not but the question is whether or not Sony has fairly priced the system. I'll just quote myself from an earlier post: So because I pay 600 for a system, I should never complain about having to pay for anything else in gaming? "Rockband is too expensive" -"You paid 600 dollars for your system!" "60 dollars is too much for a nex gen game." -"You paid 600 dollars for your system!" With your logic, you should not be able to complain about price in gaming because you paid for a 400 dollar system when you could of bought a 250 dollar wii. Complaining about PS3 kids and talking about how they spent 600 dollars on a system that wasn't worth the money? Yea you don't sound like a fanboy at all . Thanks for being reasonable though with your assessment of the PSN. That was all I was asking for from the beginning.
The unfortunate truth. Doesn't make me feel good that we're relying on Nintendo and Sony to come up with a great service though. I try to remain optimistic about Sony, even assuming that things will be a lot better just by the end of the year, but I can't help but have some doubt in my mind when it comes to them implementing a great online service. I still want that online video service that was supposed to be out like 2 years ago. It would be nice if they could get Valve or another great presence from the PC-world to help work on things. As Brando2101 mentioned, I wasn't trying to make this something subjective. In that case, we could be debating this for weeks and not get anywhere. Whether people find personal value in everything the PS3 offers means little (although as you said, very few seem to be "appreciating" it at this point). The fact is that you can breakdown the PS3, and say, "Well, a Blu-ray drive costs at least $100-$150. PS2 hardware costs at least $80. A 60GB HDD is $60. Etc.," and that will add up to at least $600. You can't really do that and come up with $50 a year with Live, especially when comparing it to other services that are free. If XBL offered dedicated servers for every game, no ads, really fast downloads (at least a difference between Gold and Silver), a service that allowed users to record gameplay and upload to servers for everyone to check out (or something like this), and/or some other services that definitely required $50 (or so) a year just to maintain, then this wouldn't be an issue. It doesn't help that XBL doesn't charge for things that would probably cost them the most amount of money, while they do charge for something that costs them the least.
See, that's quite an unfair assumption on your part. Some people feel the Live is simply 'worth it'. There are plenty of options; PSN is free, PC is free, etc. yet they still go with 360. Going the 'what if' route is never a good idea. If this is the route you and RC are going, then I see what you're trying to say. Yes, if you add up the 'parts', you can probably come up with a number. But that number means jack **** if people don't think it is 'worth it', regardless. I wasn't the one who brought up complaints about prices in this thread. Simply put, if you're going to complain about 50 buck Live prices to an XBOX user, you have to expect similar complaints about the 600 you had to drop on your playstation to come right back at you. (Granted, tinman is a little...extreme...) See, nowhere in this thread did I say it wasn't worth it. Clearly, you bought one and felt there was justification for the price, for whatever personal reasons you had. that is the case all the way around. And what exactly am I supposed to be a fanboy of again? Just because I don't agree with some of Sony's decisions, that's still a heck of a conclusion. I think I'm pretty reasonable. Now, if I was going around defending Sony in every thread, trying to post as much 'good' Sony news as possible, screaming 'fanboy' at anyone who didn't agree with Sony is doing, trashing the competition every chance I got and, oh....was the 'Playstation guy' on my local college video game show...maybe then... (not that you personally do all those things Brando, I'm just messing with you) Even if you might not see it from your current outlook, I tend to be reasonable about video games.
