This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.
How do you justify the costs for Xbox Live?
I have an xbox 360.
Jesus won't help you.
I just don't pay for it anymore unless it's a $2 for 2 months deal. Waste of money otherwise now for me.
"Come at the king, you best not miss."
live is a rip off its 80 bucks(aus) if you try to do it through xbox, but heaps cheaper getting gold card online? that stupid. playstation is free and if you pay for online with PS you get soooo many free games. much better value, and i've seen no diff in online gaming between the two. no other console charges you just to play online. Seems to be like WOW though everyone is so used to paying it they don't mind, while everyone else is using free to play.
You don't have to pay for it. If everybody suddenly decided it wasn't worth paying, they wouldn't pay it, and the service would become free, significantly cheaper, or be removed completely (most likely the second of those three). However, nobody seems to care enough. So, join the club, or leave it. You've always got other places to go.
TL;DR: If it's not worth paying for, nobody will buy it.
Never heard a man speak like this man before.
I justify it by pointing to two facts:
1) It allows me to play my xbox games online
2) PSN has been severely compromised by hackers... more than once.
60 bucks each year is nothing <_<
I don't, I hate it, it's a rip off compared to plus but it's mandatory to play Gears online with buds so I have to pay for it. 7 years going on 8.
I justify the cost of it by...
Even at full price Xbox Live only costs the price of one game. However, I usually buy several 12 month cards when they are on sale at work. With my employee discount on top of the sale price it usually costs no more than $40.
Wow, a lot of people are being seriously defensive here...
Let me be clear. I had (still have, just not set up) a 360. I paid for about 30 months of Live. I know what it's like, and yeah, it's pretty cool. And you're right, it's not a huge cost, and when you break it down to monthly (even daily) costs you're talking small amounts of money. But it's still about £40 over here, which would get you a new game each year. I know it's not that steep, and one extra game a year isn't that much, but due to the nature of it I think it's better to add the Live costs to the price of the console. That means that my Xbox cost about £100 more than what it cost to take it away, making the 'expensive' Wii U and (at launch) PS3 seem less expensive.
Don't get me wrong, I know it's a good service. It just feels... wrong. I can't explain it, and I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but I can't agree with spending the extra money. It's not a deal breaker as such, but if the new console will charge the same amount, I'm going to have a pretty hard time buying into it.
(CoD BO2 for Wii U has about 3000 players online on average, yet games actually play better than for 360).
I don't know what you're getting at. Are you talking about the 3000 players. or the fact that it plays better than the 360?
The players thing is understandable (though obviously not desirable), given the console's been out for just a couple of months, and people don't buy a Wii U for CoD. But the games play so much better than I remember them on the 360. Granted, it may be Black Ops II itself rather than the console, but I frequently had horrible games on the 360 versions of MW2 and BO, whereas the Wii U BO2 is (mostly) great. Of course, it's hard (next to impossible) to find games in certain modes - I've managed about 5 games of Demolition to date - but when you do find a game, it runs very smoothly with very little lag.
That's what annoys me about Live - Nintendo Network offers the same, slightly better at times experience that Live does, but for free. That's why it's hard to justify it in my eyes; it's not expensive, but it's a cost that doesn't necessarily mean an improvement.