Xbox live owners are bad for gaming

Warning,
The following post may not be suitable for children...
The following post will take time out of your day to read...
The following post may be a rant the poster needed to get off his chest...
The following post maybe considered fanboyism, I consider a general concern...


Lately there's been a lot of talk going around about the Activision subscription fee and what not. Everybody makes a direct correlation with Activsion thinking their COD franchise is comparable to Blizzard's World of Warcraft. I don't know if Activision makes money off that considering Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activion, and I don't care. Everyone likes to say, including me, this will tank the COD franchise because nobody is going to pay a fee to play an FPS online. But if there's one thing that this gen has taught us it's that now it's all about the $.

Let's take EA as an example. Do I blame them for their activation code for online? Not at all; Sounds like to me that could help the industry, but we can debate that elsewhere. But here's a company that's been one of the biggest developers in the industry for so many years going back to days I don't even remember, and they see what money they might be missing out on with rentals and used game purchases and decide that's too much to lose. We're talking about a company that has cornered the market on sports games; people won't even buy a sports game without it having an EA sticker on it, Created a gaming phenomenon in the Sims, is going to have possibly the 3 biggest shooter franchises w/ Battlefield, Medal of Honor, and if whatever Bunjie might come out with, and all the rest of their money making 682 games that launch extremely well and garner midnight releases. Yet they look at used game purchases and rentals and decide they can AND WILL get every last possible dime out of the consumer.

Why can EA do this? Because they have the market on sports games. Which is why I had previously thought that by trying to "subscriptionize" the COD franchise it would kill it, because there are many and better FPS out there. Then I got to thinking about all the trends and patterns we've seen over these last years. And faced with stiff competition, better IMO, the Xbox 360 has continued to sell quite well.

We can first look at the failure rates of the 360 compared to its rival the PS3. With many sites reporting the 360 has failed 56% of the time while the PS3 has a 3% (Last time I checked). Those numbers aren't exact however and are gathered mainly on polls, still the 360 has sold more than the PS3. We can then look at all the hardware, where the PS3 has better of everything than the 360, has sold more than the PS3. We can then look at XboX live charging $50 a year for online pay, which comprised with the 40mil.+ 360's they've sold makes for an enormous pay day every year, as oppose to the free PSN that has very similar features and a free arcade/3D networking site in PS home, still the 360 has solde more than the PS3. And people still support the 360 like it's good for the industry that M$ is trying to squeeze every last dime out of you.

Microsoft has exposed, at least the Western audience, for being gullible and down right ignorant when it comes to gaming. And now because M$ has made a killing "screwing" people over other companies want in. EA wants to squeeze you, Activision wants to down right fuck you.

What's the first game you think of when you talk 360? Halo. Halo is the one and only reason the 360 is in front of the PS3, because the PS3 has nothing to rival it. The only games that sell worth a shit on the 360 are shooters, excluding fable and Forza. And why do people buy shooters? To frag other people online. Activision sees this, plus the sells of MW2 and puts 2 and 2 together and says, "you know what, fuck our hardcore fan base, Let's go ahead and get all these people who bought whatever system they have just for MW2 and have no other concept of a video game and make them pay monthly." Because M$ has shown they'll pay no matter what competition is out there.

And my whole concern here is that this might work. And if this does work what's going to happen to the world of online gaming. There are ways to get around EA's deal, Blockbuster can buy the codes and off them to people who rent the games for an added price, Gamestop can do the same. It'll be more expensive yes but those are now the options. There is no way to get around paying a monthly fee for online shooters. There is one reason I buy FPS and that's to go online and compete. So with making this sub. based I will have to say goodbye to a section of gaming that I love, because there is no way I'm paying monthly to play a FPS online. I blame this not on M$, or Activi$ion. I blame it on the ignorant sheep who go out and pay for things that you can already get for free.

Different Subject same topic...

I'd like to say that PC gamers are the smartest out there. When someone tries to screw them they don't take it, which is why there games are the cheapest and publishers offer them bundles that save them hundreds of dollars. Activision recently tried to take Mods and dedicated servers out of the MW2 game for PC, a small thing in mosts eyes but a big deal in the PC world. How'd they respond, PC MW2 sales account only for 3% of the games totals sales in 2009, 9% now, as oppose to COD4 when it was released in 2007 PC accounted for 17% of total game sales...

Phew, that was a lot of words

Activision wants to charge for Call of Duty because they feel that enough people are playing it and they're making little to no money off of people playing online. Services like Steam and PSN are at fault as well, because Activision isn't making anything off of those services either.

Oh, and PC gamers not taking crap? Yea, it's easy to not take crap from a company when you have other options out there. What options are there on the 360? Xbox LIVE and Xbox LIVE. Don't forget the third option, Xbox LIVE.

ƮЯƑ wrote:Activision wants to charge for Call of Duty because they feel that enough people are playing it and they're making little to no money off of people playing online. Services like Steam and PSN are at fault as well, because Activision isn't making anything off of those services either.

Oh, and PC gamers not taking crap? Yea, it's easy to not take crap from a company when you have other options out there. What options are there on the 360? Xbox LIVE and Xbox LIVE. Don't forget the third option, Xbox LIVE.

Xbox Live PSN or Steam/PC... those are the options, 2/3 are free...

IMO
Activision wouldn't try to pull this if they didn't feel people would pay to play online shooters. They have precedence set with the sales of FPS on the 360 compounded w/ the % of those people playing strictly online they'll pay to play.

I don't feel PSN and Steam are at fault at all here. Because their online has been free forever. But when M$ charged for online service and still sell more shooters than PS3 n PC combined, they stated that, "To get the full affect of our games you must pay more than retail, even though the exact same game can be enjoyed in the exact same way on other platforms for free." and people just bent over, Activision looked at that and said good idea.

I just don't want this to be the norm for FPS now, as I love the competition online...

Thanx for reading

Pizzy3C wrote:

ƮЯƑ wrote:Activision wants to charge for Call of Duty because they feel that enough people are playing it and they're making little to no money off of people playing online. Services like Steam and PSN are at fault as well, because Activision isn't making anything off of those services either.

Oh, and PC gamers not taking crap? Yea, it's easy to not take crap from a company when you have other options out there. What options are there on the 360? Xbox LIVE and Xbox LIVE. Don't forget the third option, Xbox LIVE.

Xbox Live PSN or Steam/PC... those are the options, 2/3 are free...

IMO
Activision wouldn't try to pull this if they didn't feel people would pay to play online shooters. They have precedence set with the sales of FPS on the 360 compounded w/ the % of those people playing strictly online they'll pay to play.

I don't feel PSN and Steam are at fault at all here. Because their online has been free forever. But when M$ charged for online service and still sell more shooters than PS3 n PC combined, they stated that, "To get the full affect of our games you must pay more than retail, even though the exact same game can be enjoyed in the exact same way on other platforms for free." and people just bent over, Activision looked at that and said good idea.

I just don't want this to be the norm for FPS now, as I love the competition online...

Thanx for reading

No, if I want to play on the same platform, there is no alternative to Xbox LIVE. With PC, there are multiple services on the same platform.

Regarding Activision: XBL, PSN, Steam, etc. is their reason; XBL is simply their justification. They make zilch from those services. However, they justify charging for Call of Duty because people pay for Xbox LIVE (which is a poor justification in the first place).

[quote="ƮЯƑ"][quote="Pizzy3C"]

ƮЯƑ wrote:
No, if I want to play on the same platform, there is no alternative to Xbox LIVE. With PC, there are multiple services on the same platform.

Regarding Activision: XBL, PSN, Steam, etc. is their reason; XBL is simply their justification. They make zilch from those services. However, they justify charging for Call of Duty because people pay for Xbox LIVE (which is a poor justification in the first place).

So ur going to pay a $50 subscription to play Halo and GOW online? Because those are the only 2 online games that aren't on a PC pr a PS3 right now. Kinda made my point about Activision's thought process don't u think?

They looked at it and said, "Look, there's only 2 games on the 360 u can take online that aren't on any other platform and people still pay for that!" Plus the Solid Rev attitude of "I piss $50 a year." Which I'm sure everyone does but I'm just sayin'.

M$ made over $1billion in the 2010 fiscal year from live fees. That's a little more than zilch...

Pizzy3C wrote:
So ur going to pay a $50 subscription to play Halo and GOW online? Because those are the only 2 online games that aren't on a PC pr a PS3 right now. Kinda made my point about Activision's thought process don't u think?

They looked at it and said, "Look, there's only 2 games on the 360 u can take online that aren't on any other platform and people still pay for that!" Plus the Solid Rev attitude of "I piss $50 a year." Which I'm sure everyone does but I'm just sayin'.

M$ made over $1billion in the 2010 fiscal year from live fees. That's a little more than zilch...

It's more than two games. Besides, you can't exclude multiplatform games.

There's a difference between paying for one game and paying to play hundreds of games online. If anything, the millions of people paying for MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and Warhammer are what influenced Activision.

I know Microsoft made a ton of money from LIVE. I said that Activision made zilch from people playing multiplayer in Call of Duty.

[quote="ƮЯƑ"][quote="Pizzy3C"]

ƮЯƑ wrote:

Pizzy3C wrote:

ƮЯƑ wrote:
No, if I want to play on the same platform, there is no alternative to Xbox LIVE. With PC, there are multiple services on the same platform.

Regarding Activision: XBL, PSN, Steam, etc. is their reason; XBL is simply their justification. They make zilch from those services. However, they justify charging for Call of Duty because people pay for Xbox LIVE (which is a poor justification in the first place).

So ur going to pay a $50 subscription to play Halo and GOW online? Because those are the only 2 online games that aren't on a PC pr a PS3 right now. Kinda made my point about Activision's thought process don't u think?

They looked at it and said, "Look, there's only 2 games on the 360 u can take online that aren't on any other platform and people still pay for that!" Plus the Solid Rev attitude of "I piss $50 a year." Which I'm sure everyone does but I'm just sayin'.

M$ made over $1billion in the 2010 fiscal year from live fees. That's a little more than zilch...

It's more than two games. Besides, you can't exclude multiplatform games.

There's a difference between paying for one game and paying to play hundreds of games online. If anything, the millions of people paying for MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and Warhammer are what influenced Activision.

I can because exclude them, they are on other platforms w/ free services.

Yes I thought about games like WoW and I'm sure it has some influence in these discussions they have at Activision on if they can get away w/ anally raping their customers. I just think everyone is making that case and I truly think that it's the XBL fee and the fact that the only games people play on XBL is Halo, Gears, and COD... I'm not saying that's what all people play, but most people who play online shooters only buy online shooters, and maybe a game or two out of the genre. Case in point El Presador.

[quote="Pizzy3C"][quote="ƮЯƑ"]

Pizzy3C wrote:

ƮЯƑ wrote:

Pizzy3C wrote:

ƮЯƑ wrote:
No, if I want to play on the same platform, there is no alternative to Xbox LIVE. With PC, there are multiple services on the same platform.

Regarding Activision: XBL, PSN, Steam, etc. is their reason; XBL is simply their justification. They make zilch from those services. However, they justify charging for Call of Duty because people pay for Xbox LIVE (which is a poor justification in the first place).

So ur going to pay a $50 subscription to play Halo and GOW online? Because those are the only 2 online games that aren't on a PC pr a PS3 right now. Kinda made my point about Activision's thought process don't u think?

They looked at it and said, "Look, there's only 2 games on the 360 u can take online that aren't on any other platform and people still pay for that!" Plus the Solid Rev attitude of "I piss $50 a year." Which I'm sure everyone does but I'm just sayin'.

M$ made over $1billion in the 2010 fiscal year from live fees. That's a little more than zilch...

It's more than two games. Besides, you can't exclude multiplatform games.

There's a difference between paying for one game and paying to play hundreds of games online. If anything, the millions of people paying for MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and Warhammer are what influenced Activision.

I can because exclude them, they are on other platforms w/ free services.

Yes I thought about games like WoW and I'm sure it has some influence in these discussions they have at Activision on if they can get away w/ anally raping their customers. I just think everyone is making that case and I truly think that it's the XBL fee and the fact that the only games people play on XBL is Halo, Gears, and COD... I'm not saying that's what all people play, but most people who play online shooters only buy online shooters, and maybe a game or two out of the genre. Case in point El Presador.

It doesn't matter if they're on other services. They're on Xbox LIVE. That's all that matters.

The MMO payment structure is what Activision is copying EXACTLY as it is. To say that Xbox LIVE is the ultimate cause for it is ridiculous when there are payment plans out there that Activision is copying down to a tee. Activision doesn't make any money from people playing multiplayer. Most people on XBL and PSN are playing MW2, so Activision figured they deserved a slice of the pie, so now they want to charge people specifically for playing Call of Duty, figuring that millions do it for MMOs all the time (not to mention the fact that most people who play Call of Duty stick with just Call of Duty, bearing a striking resemblance to the hardcore MMO player).

[quote="ƮЯƑ"][quote="Pizzy3C"]

ƮЯƑ wrote:

Pizzy3C wrote:

ƮЯƑ wrote:

Pizzy3C wrote:

ƮЯƑ wrote:
No, if I want to play on the same platform, there is no alternative to Xbox LIVE. With PC, there are multiple services on the same platform.

Regarding Activision: XBL, PSN, Steam, etc. is their reason; XBL is simply their justification. They make zilch from those services. However, they justify charging for Call of Duty because people pay for Xbox LIVE (which is a poor justification in the first place).

So ur going to pay a $50 subscription to play Halo and GOW online? Because those are the only 2 online games that aren't on a PC pr a PS3 right now. Kinda made my point about Activision's thought process don't u think?

They looked at it and said, "Look, there's only 2 games on the 360 u can take online that aren't on any other platform and people still pay for that!" Plus the Solid Rev attitude of "I piss $50 a year." Which I'm sure everyone does but I'm just sayin'.

M$ made over $1billion in the 2010 fiscal year from live fees. That's a little more than zilch...

It's more than two games. Besides, you can't exclude multiplatform games.

There's a difference between paying for one game and paying to play hundreds of games online. If anything, the millions of people paying for MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and Warhammer are what influenced Activision.

I can because exclude them, they are on other platforms w/ free services.

Yes I thought about games like WoW and I'm sure it has some influence in these discussions they have at Activision on if they can get away w/ anally raping their customers. I just think everyone is making that case and I truly think that it's the XBL fee and the fact that the only games people play on XBL is Halo, Gears, and COD... I'm not saying that's what all people play, but most people who play online shooters only buy online shooters, and maybe a game or two out of the genre. Case in point El Presador.

It doesn't matter if they're on other services. They're on Xbox LIVE. That's all that matters.

The MMO payment structure is what Activision is copying EXACTLY as it is. To say that Xbox LIVE is the ultimate cause for it is ridiculous when there are payment plans out there that Activision is copying down to a tee. Activision doesn't make any money from people playing multiplayer. Most people on XBL and PSN are playing MW2, so Activision figured they deserved a slice of the pie, so now they want to charge people specifically for playing Call of Duty, figuring that millions do it for MMOs all the time (not to mention the fact that most people who play Call of Duty stick with just Call of Duty, bearing a striking resemblance to the hardcore MMO player).

You keep making my point about the whole XBL thing. By that I mean that you are arguing that we need to include the multi platform games on there that people play online. What I said in that long ass original post was that people are playing these games the exact same way on XBL as they are on PC and PS3 but they are paying for it, unlike the free versions of the latter. So Activision looks at this and sees the gullibility in gamers today and decides that even though there are games nearly identical ours, and sometimes better we can get away w/ charging people to play because it's COD. the 360 gets away with it why can't they?

And yes they will use the MMO structure to figure out what to charge, but I think the bigger thing here is that we've seen people play to play online shooters on the XBL already w/ a yearly subscription. And it's people like Elprez who will pay to play because it's Call of Duty...

Like I said, I don't blame Act. or Xbox, I blame the people who buy this crap...

Pizzy3C wrote:
You keep making my point about the whole XBL thing. By that I mean that you are arguing that we need to include the multi platform games on there that people play online. What I said in that long ass original post was that people are playing these games the exact same way on XBL as they are on PC and PS3 but they are paying for it, unlike the free versions of the latter. So Activision looks at this and sees the gullibility in gamers today and decides that even though there are games nearly identical ours, and sometimes better we can get away w/ charging people to play because it's COD. the 360 gets away with it why can't they?

And yes they will use the MMO structure to figure out what to charge, but I think the bigger thing here is that we've seen people play to play online shooters on the XBL already w/ a yearly subscription. And it's people like Elprez who will pay to play because it's Call of Duty...

Like I said, I don't blame Act. or Xbox, I blame the people who buy this crap...

It doesn't matter if it's on another service. The point is, people pay to play hundreds of games (plus some extra features). It would be one thing if people were playing different services on the same machine, but most of the people who play on Xbox LIVE already made the investment towards the Xbox 360.

I don't care I'll pay for xbox live to...

Talk to my friends from japan in CGC
Play Gears 2 which is one of my fav 3rd person shooters
Get to enjoy some XBLA exclusives
Being able to play games that aren't on PS3...Simple as that

ƮЯƑ wrote:

Pizzy3C wrote:
You keep making my point about the whole XBL thing. By that I mean that you are arguing that we need to include the multi platform games on there that people play online. What I said in that long ass original post was that people are playing these games the exact same way on XBL as they are on PC and PS3 but they are paying for it, unlike the free versions of the latter. So Activision looks at this and sees the gullibility in gamers today and decides that even though there are games nearly identical ours, and sometimes better we can get away w/ charging people to play because it's COD. the 360 gets away with it why can't they?

And yes they will use the MMO structure to figure out what to charge, but I think the bigger thing here is that we've seen people play to play online shooters on the XBL already w/ a yearly subscription. And it's people like Elprez who will pay to play because it's Call of Duty...

Like I said, I don't blame Act. or Xbox, I blame the people who buy this crap...

It doesn't matter if it's on another service. The point is, people pay to play hundreds of games (plus some extra features). It would be one thing if people were playing different services on the same machine, but most of the people who play on Xbox LIVE already made the investment towards the Xbox 360.

Thank you, you made my point... People invest into something that they can get free elsewhere... Activision saw this and now think they can get away with it... Given the statistics of people who strictly play online shooters for the 360, and let's not forget the people who pay for just online sooters, MAG, it seems like a natural progression to charg for their game...

Pizzy3C wrote:

ƮЯƑ wrote:

Pizzy3C wrote:
You keep making my point about the whole XBL thing. By that I mean that you are arguing that we need to include the multi platform games on there that people play online. What I said in that long ass original post was that people are playing these games the exact same way on XBL as they are on PC and PS3 but they are paying for it, unlike the free versions of the latter. So Activision looks at this and sees the gullibility in gamers today and decides that even though there are games nearly identical ours, and sometimes better we can get away w/ charging people to play because it's COD. the 360 gets away with it why can't they?

And yes they will use the MMO structure to figure out what to charge, but I think the bigger thing here is that we've seen people play to play online shooters on the XBL already w/ a yearly subscription. And it's people like Elprez who will pay to play because it's Call of Duty...

Like I said, I don't blame Act. or Xbox, I blame the people who buy this crap...

It doesn't matter if it's on another service. The point is, people pay to play hundreds of games (plus some extra features). It would be one thing if people were playing different services on the same machine, but most of the people who play on Xbox LIVE already made the investment towards the Xbox 360.

Thank you, you made my point... People invest into something that they can get free elsewhere... Activision saw this and now think they can get away with it... Given the statistics of people who strictly play online shooters for the 360, and let's not forget the people who pay for just online sooters, MAG, it seems like a natural progression to charg for their game...

TBH, I'd rather just pay for Xbox LIVE than pay for another console. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I change my mind about this situation. It's not the fault of people who pay for Xbox LIVE, nor is it the fault of the MMO player . . . it's the fault of the blindly brand-loyal Call of Duty fans. PSN or Xbox LIVE, they'll pay for Call of Duty. I don't see PC players doing it because they have better alternatives (one of my friends pirated MW2 and played it on private servers with mods and such).

ƮЯƑ wrote:

Pizzy3C wrote:

ƮЯƑ wrote:

Pizzy3C wrote:
You keep making my point about the whole XBL thing. By that I mean that you are arguing that we need to include the multi platform games on there that people play online. What I said in that long ass original post was that people are playing these games the exact same way on XBL as they are on PC and PS3 but they are paying for it, unlike the free versions of the latter. So Activision looks at this and sees the gullibility in gamers today and decides that even though there are games nearly identical ours, and sometimes better we can get away w/ charging people to play because it's COD. the 360 gets away with it why can't they?

And yes they will use the MMO structure to figure out what to charge, but I think the bigger thing here is that we've seen people play to play online shooters on the XBL already w/ a yearly subscription. And it's people like Elprez who will pay to play because it's Call of Duty...

Like I said, I don't blame Act. or Xbox, I blame the people who buy this crap...

It doesn't matter if it's on another service. The point is, people pay to play hundreds of games (plus some extra features). It would be one thing if people were playing different services on the same machine, but most of the people who play on Xbox LIVE already made the investment towards the Xbox 360.

Thank you, you made my point... People invest into something that they can get free elsewhere... Activision saw this and now think they can get away with it... Given the statistics of people who strictly play online shooters for the 360, and let's not forget the people who pay for just online sooters, MAG, it seems like a natural progression to charg for their game...

TBH, I'd rather just pay for Xbox LIVE than pay for another console. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I change my mind about this situation. It's not the fault of people who pay for Xbox LIVE, nor is it the fault of the MMO player . . . it's the fault of the blindly brand-loyal Call of Duty fans. PSN or Xbox LIVE, they'll pay for Call of Duty. I don't see PC players doing it because they have better alternatives (one of my friends pirated MW2 and played it on private servers with mods and such).

We can find some common ground there...