The XBox Thread - Page 201

On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote:
Wait, do you still have to pay to play online?

On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:


Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for.

On November 23 2013 06:17 Spektor wrote:

Wait, I thought the ps4 you don't need to be online and that "day one patch" gave it to you without psn while xbox one needs xbox live to be able to do anything? Just a confused bystander here.

On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:


Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for.

On November 23 2013 06:47 Acrofales wrote:

That's not really a fair description. You pay your ISP to provide you connectivity. You pay MS or Sony to maintain the servers on which you can play the games. Note that this is quite fundamentally different from something like Battle.net, where the money from selling the game goes to maintain Battle.net. In console's cases, the majority of money from the game goes to the developer/publisher of the game and not to the console developer. I don't find it outrageous that you have to pay for PSN or XBLive. However, in the case of XBLive, it seems virtually impossible to do anything with the XBox without XBL, whereas it seems like your PS4 will work just fine without the payed PSN subscription (as long as you don't want to do any multiplayer).

On November 23 2013 06:34 rezoacken wrote:


As far as I understand, PS+ (the subscription) isn't required for online apps (and getting patchs). It is required for online play however.

Note that it is 10$ cheaper a year than microsoft (49 vs 59 a year I think) and that you get a free game now and then (every month ?).

I don't know what xblive offer in comparison though.

On November 23 2013 06:19 LaNague wrote:
i am amazed that so many people buy this thing day one when it had soooo many controversities and everyone was outraged.
people forget so easily.

On November 23 2013 07:06 Excludos wrote:


So the money that you pay for a game which includes multiplayer should not provide you with a server to play it on because it has to be placed on a sony/xbox server and they need to money to operate it. Developers seems perfectly capable of running servers on pc games without charging extra..funny that.

I completely understand that sony and xbox are running a business, and they're not going to turn down money where they can get it. But paying to use your own internet is complete bullshit. Yes, you get extras and thats nice, but it doesn't change the fact that its a money grab.

Result is that any game I can get on pc or console, I will get on pc rather than console so I can play it online.

On November 23 2013 06:47 Acrofales wrote:

That's not really a fair description. You pay your ISP to provide you connectivity. You pay MS or Sony to maintain the servers on which you can play the games. Note that this is quite fundamentally different from something like Battle.net, where the money from selling the game goes to maintain Battle.net. In console's cases, the majority of money from the game goes to the developer/publisher of the game and not to the console developer. I don't find it outrageous that you have to pay for PSN or XBLive. However, in the case of XBLive, it seems virtually impossible to do anything with the XBox without XBL, whereas it seems like your PS4 will work just fine without the payed PSN subscription (as long as you don't want to do any multiplayer).

On November 23 2013 07:27 maartendq wrote:

I don't want to burst your bubble, but the amount of people that play online on consoles vastly exceeds the amount of people that play free online games on PC. For games that require a substantial amount of servers like MMORPGs you usuall pay a subscription fee or get offers to buy skins etc.

On November 23 2013 07:27 maartendq wrote:

I don't want to burst your bubble, but the amount of people that play online on consoles vastly exceeds the amount of people that play free online games on PC. For games that require a substantial amount of servers like MMORPGs you usuall pay a subscription fee or get offers to buy skins etc.

On November 23 2013 07:28 red_ wrote:


Aren't console games p2p? It seems insane that PC games can come with server cost included, and consoles which host peer to peer games require extra money to host servers that do what exactly? Perform matchmaking services and host lobbies?

On November 23 2013 06:34 rezoacken wrote:
Note that it is 10$ cheaper a year than microsoft (49 vs 59 a year I think) and that you get a free game now and then (every month ?).

On November 23 2013 09:22 Lemstar wrote:

About one a week.

semantics equating XBL Gold's free games to those of PS+ is more than a little disingenuous.

On November 23 2013 10:30 semantics wrote:
Perhaps, they changed XBL just recently to accommodate what PS+ had for years, so they don't quite have the line up of deals like PS+ has had. But the main difference is "Games with Gold" you keep your games when you gold runsouts, which is also why i think it's a once a month deal you can download and keep. PS+ unless they changed it recently you only get those games while you have PS+.

On November 23 2013 11:38 Lemstar wrote:

I realize that there's a lot of subjectivity involved in evaluating relative quality of games, but I don't think XBL Gold's output is even close to comparable to PS+'s, no matter how you spin it. We've had five and a half months of Games with Gold to look at now, and only one retail game thus far (Dead Rising 2 among Fable 3, AC2, Crackdown, Rainbow Six: Vegas, and Halo 3) has been something you couldn't find in the $5 range at GameStop. That's not to say that every game from PS+ is a blockbuster either, but the odds of getting something that's not old and either a bargain bin game or a $5-10 downloadable game from GwG looks to be low. (This isn't even taking into account how much better Europe's PS+ is.)

Based on present information, there's nothing to support the assertion that Microsoft's offerings are going to catch Sony's, or that PS+ is going to get worse because people will be subscribing just for PS4 online play anyway. That's not to say that either one is impossible, but counting on them at present seems misguided, if you aren't playing favorites.

You're correct that GwG games are more akin to "free" games than PS+, although I think it's not very well-publicized that PS+ games are permanent on your account. You can accrue games and let your subscription lapse, then resubscribe (or use a trial code) to play them in the future, if you so desire - they're not going anywhere.

On November 23 2013 16:02 semantics wrote:
I think the fine line here though is that ps4 and xbox1 aren't backwards compatible so between the two the games it's limited at the start. So yes i do think GwG could catch up to PS+ on PS4 vs Xbox1 level. That is what i was considering but i guess i wasn't explicit, which is why i avoided listed games as i don't know the lists for xb1 and ps4.