M$ starting to realize that charging for Gold is dumb?

[Zeus]

Not exactly, but this looks like a veiled experiment to me, at least on some level

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/894/894464p1.html

[Tessian]

This isn't what you think it is. Microsoft's just trying to garner more interest in their cross-platform Live environment which has been pretty disastrous so far. They tried to apply the Live membership tiers to PC games and it's not working; PC gamers won't accept this and they haven't been. Only reason it works well with Xbox is because it applies to ALL games you play on it; this applies to THREE, with at least one of them being quite shitty on either platform.

So no, MS is not rethinking Xbox Live for the console; they're trying to get PC gamers interested in the PC version of Live. It wont' work but I guess they gotta try something. This wont' mean a damn thing to Xbox users; they're only included because that's the whole point of these crossplatform games-- being able to play with Xbox and PC users.

[Zeus]

Geez, I wonder why they'd think it was a bad idea to charge to play PC game online..........morons.

Yeah, I figured it's more of a PC Live thing and won't affect non cross-platform titles. But a man can dream.

Of course, if the Xbox consumer is accepting a pay-to-play charge while the PC gamer sits back and says "FUCK THAT!", maybe it's the Xbox consumer who's paying to play a game online when they've paid full price for the game who's just a sucker.......

[SineSwiper]

Yes, they're the sucker because they pay $50 for a game and $50/yr for Live, as opposed to $50 for a game and $300/yr for PC upgrades.

[Tessian]

Yes, they're the sucker because they pay $50 for a game and $50/yr for Live, as opposed to $50 for a game and $300/yr for PC upgrades.

I can't believe that-- $50/year for Live on PC?? It's $40/year for Xbox and you get a LOT more out of it than THREE games.

That's the biggest problem. You're charging MORE for WAY WAY LESS. Also it's a lot easier to charge for a service when you charge from the start and it incompasses everything. PC users have never had to pay for multiplayer; Xbox 360 users have, and the PC version of Xbox live doesn't give them anything else but multiplayer. I can't believe they're charging that much when they're trying to convince people to ADOPT IT against their will.

Good idea, terrible execution

[SineSwiper]

Tess, I was commenting on Zeus' post about Xbox Live, not the PC Live thing. We all agree that 3 games is a bit of a ripoff.

[Tessian]

Tess, I was commenting on Zeus' post about Xbox Live, not the PC Live thing. We all agree that 3 games is a bit of a ripoff.

Don't worry man, I wasn't arguing with you Was trying to elaborate to Zeus on why this works so poorly on PC and so well on console

[Zeus]

Yes, they're the sucker because they pay $50 for a game and $50/yr for Live, as opposed to $50 for a game and $300/yr for PC upgrades.

At least with the PC upgrades, you're getting newer hardware and are upgrading to, presumably, play the bigger and better games with newer and better technology. With the 360, it's still the same, old, 4 or 5-year old technology repackaged for consoles.

That makes it even WORSE that they're charging for Live considering you're forced to use old-ass technology AND pay to play online.

[SineSwiper]

I'm perfectly happy with my "old ass" technology.

[Chris]

I'm perfectly happy with my "old ass" technology.

never thought I would say this....but Im totally with Sine on this one

[Zeus]

I'm perfectly happy with my "old ass" technology.

You're the one who used the argument that the PC you would have to upgrade. I'm perfectly happy with it too, I"m the one who keeps a comp for 7+ years and pulls out the NES on occasion