Microsoft raising XBL gold fees starting november 1st

Arbalest

Arbalest

黒い剣士
Moderator
Not so evil if you live in the UK, but for those living in the US, they've had a rise of $10 to their annual fee for XBL Gold. The UK, at the moment, is getting only one change, and that is to the monthly fees. going from £5 to £6, essentially paying an extra £12 a year. This wouldn't annoy me usually, however with both SquEnix saying to microsoft to get rid of their gold fee and the rest of the market having no required fee to play online, they are really shooting themselves in the foot here. I guess their greedy nature just decided to take over.

Full article can be read here
 
What surprises me is just how many people are willing to loyally stick by a machine with inferior hardware and pay for something everyone else is getting for free. It is completely illogical to play anything but the exclusives on 360, and even then there are not many exclusives, though the exclusives on both sides are mostly AAA titles.
 
Godot said:
Hey, these fees are paying to replace your RROD'd 360's ;) So many returns, they need more cash man! :p
Click to expand...


Actually, no they aren't. What they are paying for however, is the fact that ESPN will be made available via XBL. BUt sure, if you wanted to access ESPN, you could just decide to pay that little extra yourself...?

EDIT: Also, just compared the prices, what's basically happened, is that the US have to pay the same as we do for the service in the UK. That's it. The fact we have to pay for it still annoys me, but i guess with the US now having to pay the same as us, it ain't so bad.
 
Microsoft greedy, money-grabbing bastards? Surely not!

Er, I play most multiplatform titles on 360. Here's one example of why.

Less to do with the console's power, of course, than the 360 being the lead console in most cases and developers (for whatever reason) not getting the most out of the PS3.
 
The overall blurring doesn't actually bother me on RD (it looks filmic) though some more texture might have been nice, but more than anything, I would have loved for the on-screen text to have been sharper. It's legible, but I imagine with the resolution being higher on the 360, its much easier to read.
 
fabricatedlunatic said:
Er, I play most multiplatform titles on 360. Here's one example of why.

Less to do with the console's power, of course, than the 360 being the lead console in most cases and developers (for whatever reason) not getting the most out of the PS3.
Click to expand...

The differences, while noticeable when you stop to look, are negligible. I would consider preference of controller to be more significant a difference in relation to actually enjoying the game, since none of the other differences affect gameplay.

Well, except the difference playing online on 360 has on your wallet. ^^;
 
fabricatedlunatic said:
Er, I play most multiplatform titles on 360. Here's one example of why.
Click to expand...
And the other major case would be with online multiplayer, where you get a) a much better online service (also known as "getting what you pay for"), and b) more people playing.

Do people seriously want no choice but to have the level of service provided by Sony's or, heaven forbid, Nintendo's online efforts? I'm just glad that we have a choice, since that's the whole idea behind market competition.
 
fabricatedlunatic said:
Microsoft greedy, money-grabbing bastards? Surely not!

Er, I play most multiplatform titles on 360. Here's one example of why.

Less to do with the console's power, of course, than the 360 being the lead console in most cases and developers (for whatever reason) not getting the most out of the PS3.
Click to expand...
The devs being lazy, money-grabbing bastards who can't be arsed to optimise their games for more than one platform? Or possibly the lazy, money-grabbing bastard publishers for refusing to fund it? Or the lazy, money-grabbing bastard gamers for buying the cheaper of the two consoles in greater numbers? You're all lazy, money grabbing bastards. All of you.

I wouldn't mind so much if PS3 games were cheaper as a result. I mean what the f*ck is with the same game costing £39.99 on both platforms but looking / performing better on one of them!? Especially when it's nothing to do with the hardware capabilities of each machine - These aren't the days of the ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64.
 
I don't play live I don't have enough friends who use it and all my non-friends experiences have been all the worst parts of live play.

Plus I like the controllers better and of all ps3 games there was and is maybe 4 I like the look of. That's why I have a 360
 
stuart-says-yes said:
True but even the cheap nintendo wii has wi-fi built in, Microsoft has no excuse for excluding that from there machines.
Click to expand...
If the consequence of having built in wi-fi is having about 78 different friend codes, I'd rather pay.
 
Back
Top