Lots of fanboys do not understand what xbox live really is... Xbox live is more than playing online. The only different between the gold and the silver account is multiplayer...

Achivements, Demos, game videos, gamescore, private chat, messaging, MSN messenger, video chat... all that is free for anyone to use...
Many of these features are not even available on the PS3... for example, achivements, gamerscore... non-existant on PSN...

How about the Demos? A silver account xbox live user gets more demos than a PSN user... true or not?

I'm all for having xbox live for free... but at what expense? If microsoft has to sacrify many of the features PSN had to sacrified in order to give the service for free than... NO...

Take Demos for example... why Demos are not available as fast and as much on PSN compared to xbox live?

When PSN offers all the features and content that Xbox live offers.. then I think Xbox live should be free... If microsoft would to be free.. then just like PSN users we will have no right to demand anything...

And this has nothing to do with xbox live being out first.. because even now... we see lots of demos that are only released on the xbox live and not PSN... it seems as Sony do not allow developers to publish demos at will... but they are the one who deside which demos are released... do developers have to host their own Servers to host demos the way they have to host their own servers for multiplayer?

"Instead, charge for the WiFi adapter for $50. " Wifi!? no way... I own a wifi adapter for the xbox 360... I hate it... just like I hate wifi for my laptop.. wifi will never be faster and more stable than wire... everyone knows that... I stream video and use Media Center from my computer to my Xbox 360... no way I will be using wifi... that's why I have network jacks all over my house... and use only wifi for laptops, PDAs, etc... But not for gaming.. never will...

Before xbox live can be free... PSN or the wii network must be the same or better... that's why so many of us are willing to pay for it... PSN service is a reminder of xbox live would be if it would be free... Hardly any demos, developers have to add their own servers.. which means not every game will have online... no cross game friendlist, no game invites... pretty much a service just like PC gamers have... each game have to implement their own features...

A service as unified as xbox live cost lots of money to maintain. who's going to pay for that? The games? sure... that's what many people say... what happen when developers are no longer making money on the game... or lets say Resistance 2 or 3 come out? will developers keep paying for the maintaince of the server even when they are not making money to maintain it? Money must come from somewhere... this is why Many original xbox gamers still play their old games on the original xbox online... because the service do not depends on if the console is still in production.. or if the game is selling...
You sell all those PS3 games you can play online today? 2-3 years from now they will all be offline...
On the PC word gamers are allowed to host their own servers.. keeping the online element of a game live for a long time even if no longer supporter by the company that made the game... PSN on the other hand... developers host their own games... once they stop making money of the game.. they shut it down...

I can pickup a 4 year old original xbox game today and play online...
you don't want to pay for xbox live... $1 a week for this advantage? Fine.. don't.. get a PS3 and play the game on PSN until the developers shut it down... but leave the service the way it is for those who are willing to pay... If microsoft makes it free like PSN.. there are no guarantees...

That's why I'm not to happy about EA games... EA host their own server... (Yes! did you know that!? Xbox live allows developers to host their servers TOOO!) EA knocks their servers 2-3 years later on most of their games... but those that use xbox live network.. are still there.

I mean, I'm not s broke b@stard so the the 50 bucks a year is worth it in my opinion for a great online service. The cost of producing and maintaining servers and keeping the network steady is not cheap. I think it works out to something like 4 bucks a month. Thats less than the price of you getting a combo at McDonalds.

I do wish that Xboxlive was free, as I'm sure anybody would. But I don't think it would be a good trade off. I feel that a lot of the money that Microsoft has made from Xboxlive has been put back into it over the years. It has been in the making for over 5 years now. The amount of content that is out now is far superior than what it was on the Original Xbox.

I really think with time MS will have no choice but to offer XBL for free, it really needs to be free anyway.

Although we still have idiots spoiling the online experience but if it becomes free God help us. I'd rather pay for service and not have to deal with every tom d!ck and harry in multiplayer games.

BTW bring back exclusive d/ls for gold members. We should have atleast a few days where we can d/l some blockbuster games without waiting for 12 hours to finish the d/l.

Nice post bladestar btw.
Also.. yes have all 3 consoles. MS will lower the price within the next 6 months I do not think it will ever be free. because like it was said previously if you leave it down to the games companies then they will pick and choose which multiplayer games they choose to support. I have seen this at first hand many many times on MMORPGs where companies pull out and my £50 disc is now useless.
Sometimes I want to be able to pull out and play a old game online with mates. Xbox Live Guarentees that.

but regarding wifi.

Microsoft is going to bring out a 802.11n wifi card - thus leaving the wifi connection of PS3 standing. as it is a addon.. not builtin.

Whats the difference between 802.11g and 802.11n?

An 802.11n client has real world throughput that clocks in at 160 Mbps or faster—seven times faster than older 802.11g networks.

Distance and location (including walls). At 300 feet, 802.11g performance plummets to 1 Mbps. 802.11n networks operate at up to 70 Mbps—70 times faster than 802.11g.

Multiple devices.
The key to this speed is MIMO (multiple input/multiple output) which uses multiple antennas to send and receive digital data in multiple simultaneous radio streams, thus multiplying total performance.

The bottom line: with 802.11n, you can share data, photos and music among multiple devices in the home faster and at greater distances than ever before

I already see it coming, theres no way to deny once MS announces xbox live will finally be free, these same people who say they dont care about paying and that it offers good service because you pay will cause the news to hit over 2000 degrees and saying "HA YES TAKE THAT PSN TAKE THAT SONY GUYS". Free isnt a bad thing but to act like it is shows your a lame person, I see nothing wrong with the PSN, as long as I can play with my clan member with hardly any lag what so ever, im good and as long as sony improves it and keeps it free im good, so you can write bible on how xbox live is good not to be free but we all know where it will end up once it is free.

I didn't bother reading the other comments, just want to say:

Yes. If X-Box Live was Free, I would buy a 360 on the same day.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Let me add: I'm a poor cheap bastard university student.

that's the only reason i'm not playing xbox360 games online, its not a money problem, i just don't understand why i should pay for online gaming, when on every other system its free...

It should be free, sure it a great online set-up but lets not get greedy. The cost of running XBOX LIVE should be made up through selling silly little arcade games and added game features that clearly cost little to nothing to create and advertising through-out the main menu of xbox live.

is a cash cow! That´s why it´ll never bee free. Too many people are already accustomed to pay the fees including myself.

Its so ridiculous that people continue to let microsoft rape them....you already have to pay for the gaming console, and your internet sevice, and the game, and the TV and the wireless adapter, bigger HD, HDVD Drive ...you are already a multimillion dollar company...as is sony...and yet they provide this same service for free
PS3 innovator.....Xbroke360 imitator

DUHH!!... but 360 fans doesn't seem to mind paying for it, so no big deal.

no, stop whining. If you cant pay 50 dollars a year, than go play the PS3 online and see why you pay money to play online.

Xbox live is the best console online service out there, so Stop being poor

Yes.

no.....50$ a year is notthing.

yall need to get a job.

No please not. It holds back the morons that want to go only f*cking around online because its free. Let them buy a PS3 instead and go have their share of fun on PSN instead.

I don't mind paying for a service that's 10.000 times better then PSN

But it's all about value. PS3 fanboys will tell you what a great value the PS3 is at $600 or whatever it costs now and I don't doubt it...the PS3 has alot of features. Xbox Live is an excellent value for $1 a week...you get ALOT of features. I would love to see Live free but not if it meant a drop in features or quality.

it doesnt matter if its free or not because theres nothing but a bunch of LITTLE A$$ KIDS playing on live anyways...and their moms pay for their membership
PS3 innovator.......Xbroke360 imitator

Free always means compromises in service and expansion, it is not realistically possible to make a service free and keep the same quality casue u dont have the money income, what the hell is £40 a year anyways, most nigths out cost more than taht. it is probably one of the best £40 i spend all year around. dont make it free, keep it good

Sigh...Lynx1halo just get off the site now, you are already annoying me and you have only been on the site for a tiny amount of time. PSN and XBL are really not the same, XBL costs £2 something a month, that is cheap and I willing to pay for it.

I didn't get the HD-DVD drive or bigger Hard drive as I don't need them. I only bought the WI-FI adapter because my router is now downstairs next to the modem.

I've been telling people to factor in the price of Live for a longggggg time. I mean not all of us are young enough to have mom and dad pony up and pay for Live. The fact is if you own a 360 for the life of the console and play online, you will have paid another $200 at least. For those who actually pay the bills, we do notice. Kids seem to not notice, and don't care.

For all that lag it should be free!

This argument is not about debating whether or not $50 is worth what you get for Xbox Live. Ofcourse it is and I can understand that; however what the debate is regardless of what you get for Live - the fundamental aspect of it is online gaming, and when the PSN allows friends to join each others' sessions - then how would Xbox Live customers feel about that?

Because as it stands now, they're getting a service that is better than anything else out there that is free or not. However, what happens if the fundamental aspects of that service are matched and offered for free?

Xbox Live's main selling point is that is unified. You can talk to people no matter what game they are playing and you can join them no matter what you are doing. But in time it won't be the only service that can do that. If Microsoft upgraded its service to support dedicated servers and exclusive demo's and things of that nature - then yes it would be worth the money.

I swear I've barely experienced any lag on PSN, playing Motorstorm, Resistance and Warhawk and I had experience lag frequently on Live. The quality between the services, if anything, right now I'd lean more to the PSN because the developers offer dedicated servers. The difference is that there are not enough services (Demo's arrive later, no Movie downloads, No Unified friends list etc) on the PSN and this is why Live is seen as better.

I don't see my self going back to gold any time soon.

I couldn't agree with you more Menus. When I played online on my 360 I'll search for a match and just start playing, when I'm playing on the ps3 I do the same exact thing. Even if xbox live is more unified, I can see the PS3 getting an update that will give us similar features(in-game xmb). May not be tomorrow but it will be here one day.

haha i though it was free i forgot about the xbox live charge as its £30 for i year if some cant afford that and can buy a 360 hahha

People say that XBox live is free...yes it is but if you want to play online then you have to go gold...and I don't agree with that, maybe it should be the other way around...let mp for free and if you want videos, demos and everything else then make people pay. So, we (gold members) are paying for multiplayer options that are already free in the PC and PS2/PS3, so why should we pay to play MP games in 360? Why is so different than PC and PS3? Is not like MS have dedicated servers for games, they have P2P architecture, so why are paying? I know PS3 and PC offer dedicated servers....and it is still free!!! So, Gold Members, we are paying so the cheap ass Silver Members that are allowed to d/l demos, videos and everything else....those are the only servers that Live runs (where you d/l stuff)...so in my opinion make MP access to Live FREE!!! If people want to d/l videos, demos and whatever, charge them since it's not fair the us,,Gold members, are paying just to play MP games....something that it has always been FREE in other consoles/pc!!!

ps3 and wii is free, so should 360

It should be free, in this case money is not an option. It really comes down to...Gears of War $50 a year for online on 360...better quality Gears of War...free a year on PC? Why pay for a luxury...that every other console and PC would otherwise give you for free?

That $50 could be used to buy another game...controller..you name it.
That's one of the reasons I stopped playing live.

this is the one and only time ive ever heard the consumers say.......NO THX ID RATHER PAY FOR SOMETHING THAN HAVE IT FREE......U GUYS ARE THE DEFENITION OF TOOLS

$50 a year, you're a poor money manager, and don't need your system.

gamers will soon stop wanting to pay extra for online gaming when everyone already pays to the Internet providers. so is hard not to like something free.

Called me the other day and asked me to complete this survey. At the end, they asked me a question of how Live could be improved? And I started to articulate my sentence carefully yet the guy on the phone cut in and said "...you want it to be Free then?" and I said absolutely. I guess he gets that answer alot from people.

Leave XBL the way it is Xbox gamers spend hundreds of dollars on games every few months I doubt $50 a year and the promise of top notch upgrades is going to bother anybody. Are PS3 fans still paying for demos?.

Great article. I have an 360 and a PS3 and I believe they both have great things to offer. On your point of hosting games. If you've ever played Warhawk on the PS3 you would know you have the ability to host your own games. I'm hoping this will be the trend when it comes to gaming on either system. There would be nothing worst then realizing the the developer decides to shutdown their hosting servers.

A lot of Xbox owners seem alright paying for Live and there is no problem with charging your customers if you provide a good online service.

However, People should be able to play for free online without paying for Live. I even hear that many lags exist on Live and there are less or none dedicated servers. Don't forget that MS makes money off their content too. They take a portion of every item sold on Live and charge you for Live.

This reminds I have to pay for Live again in December >.>

In a perfect world, Xbox live would be free, but what can you do? Bladestar is right, it offers so much more than the competition, and it does cost money to run. It only comes to a few bucks a month and is well worth it.

I don't know how long it will take for PSN to catch up, but once it does, then Xbox live should be free.

Sony is able to offer the core of online for free - gameplay. Microsoft does the same on PC. All these extra things like Achievements, gamerscore, etc. are luxuries and not everyone wants them. However, if someone goes online, they want to PLAY online. I don't care if I can private chat with my buddy. I care about if I can kick his arse in Halo.

Some of you bring up the fact that it is a maintained, low lag service. In case you haven't noticed, so is the PSN. But Sony offers absolutely no to very little lag due to dedicated servers, something that Microsoft has never offered in any game. It's surprising, because you'd think the people who pay get a better, maintained experience, yet it's the other way around!

Now, some of you will bring up the fact that PS3 is really expensive and it costs Microsoft a lot of money for the service. Don't you think they earn enough? For example, some Devil May Cry 4 wallpapers went out a few weeks ago. Sony offered them on the PS Store for free, while Microsoft charged you points for them. Next, gamer pictures. PS3 offers over 210 gamer pictures, while Microsoft charges around 20 points EACH. Microsoft squeezes every cent for something as simple as a picture, which can be obtained for free on the PC or PS3. Not to mention the millions they earn from TV shows, Movies, expansions, etc. Microsoft can afford it, they just want more.

As soon as Sony implements the XMB in game, it's over. It's the only advantage Microsoft has over PSN. Sony offers less lag online gameplay, free backgrounds and over 210 avatars, tons of demos, open system where any headset or any keyboard/mouse can be used. I dont know a single person who's going to buy a 360 over PS3 over "gamerscore", and that's a feature coming to PSN soon too!

that 4$ u spend every day on coffee save 50 cent out of it n xbl is all yours

XBL less than a dollor a week get over it or get off the service.and maybe trying to get a JOB

The XBL Attach Rate is stellar ther is no point to these type of news posts. Bladstar hit it on the head and many agree thats why Sony fans are more vocal about what "we" have to pay for more than us 360 owners.

#39.3 That was a Question...

I would gladly pay for PSN if it would make it reliable, I have had my ps3 for 1 week and mine still will not log onto the Playstation network for more than 5 mins before i`m booted even with It In the DMZ.

So i think if your paying for a quality of service on xbox live, then the money is well spent.

but if they gave away say 6 months to a year free when you buy a premium or higher it would help them drastically.

is their fee worth it? I believe so, but try and convince someone it's worth it without them having the ability to try it out for a while is hard.

You people can fight and reply with links and attacks all you wan't people know XBL is a service. People forgot to mention the Video marketplace and all the free stuff we get all the time.

$50 for a year is relatively cheap if compared to WOW or other P2P games. At the sametime, Sony is closing the gap between the services and MS has to somehow justify their pricetag on their service. Live is a unified service where one can send, voice-chat and send invitations no matter what game you're playing and this is probably the biggest advantage the service has over PSN.

Besides the annoying xbox fanboys, the online not being free is the reason why won't get a 360.

So many people complain about the "high price". It's $50 a year, that isn't that much. I think the service is fine and I think it's good that Microsoft charges people for it. It's an amazing service and no it shouldn't be free.

they make you pay for p2p servers... nuff said

I would have a 360 instead of a PS3, or both

free would be cool, but i gladly pay for a decent unified freindlist that you can basically check at anytime in basically any game.

xbl does have lag, though i guess i cant really complain becasue i have friends online who have great connections and host games all the time.

However if psn does implement this stuff in the next update, well then i would agree. Xbl does need to be free.

Those guys saying that 50 bucks a year is a lot... Just buy one game less in a year and you'll be having more fun of the others enjoying online with your FRIENDS

because PSN just doesn't give you the instant jump in, talking, chatting, co-op, multiplayer fun that XBL gives you. It just doesn't. One can say how lag free PSN would be, how it does certain games well, the main thing is: XBL is binding people, communities

THATS WHAT IS IMPORTANT. If you don't get that... PSN is like the kid that stands on his own in the corner of the football field. Once in a while he gets the ball, or strange kids play with him.

XBL is like your real life groups of friends, with one group you play football outside, with the other you go hang out drink a beer, with others you're chasing chicks. Now that's XBL, it's like life, but then digital.

You really think PSN is closing the gap?, MSFT's XBL will be on its Next Evolution by the time Sony catchs up to where XBL is now. How much more can the PS3 take adding things that taxes its memory?.

We'll see in a few weeks it should be huge judging by how MSFT is being so hushed mouth about leaked info on the fall update(wouldn't blame them Sony has an eye out for others inovations).

I'd like it to be free, that would save me $50 a year.

But I doubt MS would make it free.

the mart dude why do hate sony so much i mean even if the ps3 isnt doing so good and you dont like it still sony gave us great gaming moments for the past decade and that is reason enough to like it

I don't think so, I like to pay as I know they'll provide a great service.. otherwise if it's free it might be a crap experiance like PSN

I'm happy paying every year.

Make Live Silver just the basic, bare-bones package with online play, kind of like gaming on PSN. Gold can still be subscription based, but with some extra perks for making that yearly payement. I'm sure that Microsoft won't loose too many subscriptions as long as they show current buyers the value of staying on compared to going with the silver version. That way, at least they can compete with the free model that Sony and Nintendo (to an extent) offer, and have a higher end choice for those that want more from their online experience other than playing games.

........

no $50 is nothing but why pay just to play with your friends? that concept is something i can't buy into.

you guys can talk about about what PSN doesn't have and what Live does have but you forget something............

PSN = lag free
Live = OMG

cross game chat is the only thing Live has over PSN and thats not worth $50 to me

EDIT:
@Blackout..........

all i mean is that at least you should be able to play with other people for free. if they wanna charge you for something, it should be something else besides playing online. maybe because it's this way on PSN that i can't get over it from Live. i just can't agree with paying to play with others when it's such a big part of MS gameplan. it's a no-brainer to me.

your telling me i have to pay to play with Bladestar and RoundPegg.........ummmmmmmm no thanks

i think the principle more than the actual cost for a lot of people, including me.
right now, no matter what camp you are in, you have to say that live offers much more than psn. but the day 2.0 and home (which i dont think anyone has commented on) arrives, then things get a bit different.
i think sony will be offering a service that offers about as much, or if not, more than live. and for a lot of people, free is so much better. i can afford £12.99 or whatever it is, a month for WOW, but i choose not to. i only play MMOs that offer a free service but have the option to subscribe.
i hate subscription, i dont know why, but i do. and i dont think im alone.

like anyone with common sense would argue, if you put money towards something, it will improve its value - of course id love to have free xbox live, id also like a free xbox 360 to go with it, and while i play my free games id like a blow-jay and a sandwich. the price people pay to keep xbox live an excellent service is worth it

and as for the 360 being loud - im sorry, i cant hear my console or your whining over my 400 dollar surround sound system...

classic MS bleeding people dry. and to think, they charge and still can't turn a profit.

Xbox live silver is free. Gold costs 40-50$ for 12 month. I think it is worth the money. But I think It would be alot better if they cut the price in half.

It should be. Playstation Home is pretty much the same as Live, but with a 3D interface and apartments and all that stuff. And that's going to be free. Live doesn't even have dedicated servers.

Atleast it should be cheaper, if Sony can do it for free then Microsoft should be able to do it. But i wouldnt want it to get worse, but i might be the only one who doesnt really see a diffrence between Ms and Sony´s online service. The thing i do with my 360 is talk to people while i play online and download stuff. With my Ps3 i talk to people while i play and download stuff, there´s really no diffrence. Well i have used my ps3 to surf the web, but it takes to long without a mouse and keyboard, but i have plans to buy that when Ut3 comes out.

Edit: Whats annoying with Live is that what i read from others here on this site is that the cost seems to be diffrent, this depeanding on were you live. For me Live cost´s about 90$ a year, thats bummer.

The silver service Microsoft offers should offer free online play but take away features like demo's downloads, etc. The gold should be the online with all the features. I like my 360 but sometimes i feel that online gaming should be free like PSN. charging 50 dollars is over the edge for only a year. I doubt i would pay for xbox live after my service is up, I feel it should be free. and everyone with a good mind should feel the same.

Id say that eventualy it will be free or very cheap. I just realised that by offering a freee membership microsoft is building up live so that it will eventually pay for itself. Everyday there is more and more content that people are willing to pay for, and soon microsoft will be making enough money thruogh little games and stuff that people are buying $5.00 at a time. originally live only got money from subscription fees, now there are many different ways for them to make money, so Id say that soon they wont need to charge as much/any and the freeer it is the more potential customers microsoft will gain. I mean comon who can resist downloading DOOM for liek 5.00(without getting off my laze ass) I couldent.

or atleast less than $20 a year. hey what fux happend to the 2 month card???, thats how i used survive back then?? now they give u a 48hr of xbl thats wak.

I do agree that Xboxlive is currently better than psn and indeed worth the $50, but having it for free would make it much much better than it already is.

Think about it once psn is at the same level as Xboxlive there would be no reason to the 50$ tag on live.

It's only $50 a year, which is less than $5 a month. My girlfriend and I each have one year subscriptions, and we have since the console was launched. I currently pay $54 a month to Comcast for the Internet alone, so this is negligible.

The reason that LIVE is so much better than PSN is because of that fee. The old adage holds true; "you get what you pay for."

-Dave

Im more than happy to pay the £3 a month I pay. Im an Admin from a very large gaming community whilst we we're founded on the PS2 Im all for paying for online my life has been made a lot better with the features Live has to offer and you can guarantee if the service becomes free MS would have to cut corners on what they offer and this would be bad. Live is an excellent service and Id hate to see it take a step back. IMO I cant see how people can moan at paying £3 a month (when paid yearly)thats nothing for the service we get. Another good thing of paying for Live is that a lot of kids cant pay for it meaning less crying and screaming, yes you still get it but nowhere as much as I had on the PS2.

Should Xbox live be free? Of course. Or at least give gamers something on it free.

when PSN is equal to XBL in ALL areas. Then and only then will this be relevant.

People are obviously willing to pay for it.

If people want it to be free, they have to show they are NOT willing to pay for it.

Until that happens, keep those wallets open lol

I mean the RROD really put a dip in profits this year. Hell, he had to spend 2 billon dollars on repairs, he has to make money someway on the 360. Hell, I wonder if he has even shown a penny profit on both consoles yet???????? HA AHAHAHHAHHAH

for a P2P service just seems a little over the top for me. If Xbox Live used dedicated servers for online multiplayer like PSN, then it would be justified since Xbox Live has a few more software features than PSN. That's the real reason PSN is more reliable from a performance standpoint.

Don't expect Microsoft to start paying for dedicated servers anytime soon though; Xbox Live Gold is one of the few things helping offset the division's multi-billion dollar debt.

I'm willing to still pay but I would not mind MS giving us gold memebers some more stuff over Silver memebers like deadicated servers for their first and second party games while letting third party companies decide whether to use P2P or servers, also give Gold memebers the best servers to download demos, music, movies etc sorta like Fileplanet and maybe some other stuff. XBL just needs a few more things added on to it and then it will be amazing, not that isn't now.

Also about Home, I really don't want to go into a 3D game just to invite someone or to join their game, also Home is free because of the adverts in it.

there is a silver account and a gold account

Silver account FREE: download updates,demos and XBLA demos,game trailers,move trailers,free theme packs,and free movies.

GOLD account price varies on how long you want it: play online, download updates,demos and full XBLA games,game trailers,move trailers,all theme packs , all movies and TV SHOWS.

LOL, Call me when you can share High Rez screen shots & make movie clips of your *actual gameplay* & instantly share them with everyone on your friends list (Thanks M$ & Bungie !) ... is Ratchet & Clank and PSN going to have this feature ???

and there are games (like Amored Core 4) have certain features that require gold. I've found that out the harsh way: AC4 has this thing called "regulations files", which are basically like CFG files for a mech. They tune characterists and assets of parts, so as to balance out areas that may be found to be too advantageous. When I updated to regulations file version 1.5, I had just lapsed one month on my gold, which reverted back to silver. The next time I loaded up AC4, it asked for the location of my regulations files, which is awlays my HDD. I selected it and then it told me that there were none found. It also states that you must have a Gold account to download and use regulations files past the initial version (1.0)

So my finely crafted AC was reverted down to v1.0 (which gave me weight and energy problems), until I got gold again.

Point is, having 2 versions of a service can get out of hand when your game saves are at risk like that. After all I play games to master them, so getting the most out of it is very important to me. I was very proud of my level 99 Cloud back in FF7 (even had not 1 but 2 5 star MASTERED KOTR summon materia...talk about TIME CONSUMING!!!!)

if you dont like it use the alternative...PSN..

exactly! who would??

get over it or get inferior. its that simple.

I just wished that with the money we're paying for Xbox live, that they'd at least have some dedicated servers for Halo 3 games. I hate it when the player acting as the server disconnects and disrupts the flow of the game.

only thing about live that i think they should of done is some dedicated servers for the more popular games.

But until there is a free service that matches that of Xbox Live, I'll be happy to pay. I also think is interesting that Playstation ONLY fans harp about online being "expensive" yet they have the most expensive console. Ads will eventually make Xbox Live free.

no it should be even more expensive. lorl

If it didn't compromise the quality of the service then sure, why not.

Would the service be the same, or would the price of the 360 need to rise to cost of maintaining and developing Live? That's another question.

Of course it should be free. XBL is awesome, but there's really no reason to pay for these features. They could offer the system for free, and let sponsors pick up the tab (maybe run a short commercial while waiting for demo download to que up). Perhaps the silver version could be improved in that regard, and let gold members pay the premium for no ads.

face it, i'm azn, i was going to get 360 but paying extra for all the wifi and hd drive and wireless headset, and xbox live and hardware problems, then id have to buy warranty but canada's stores are gey about that. all that adds way more than a ps3 so i stuck with ps3. and thats why i'm a sony fanboy. i can trust their hardware. And they know what they're doin

I think many people are not understanding the possition of xbox gold subscribers...

Would we like xbox live to be free? Yeah.. no doubt about it.. but if the condition would to change then I rather pay those $4 a month.. and continue to receive the benefits...

Do you actually think if Sony would have made PSN better do you think Xbox live would not be free? PSN is a living proof of what xbox live would be if free... everytime a new Demo comes out on xbox live and not on PSN why microsoft charges for xbox live.

Do you guys remember when NetZero was giving dialup for free? with ads? how come lots of people were willing to pay for AOL or the other dialup services?

Why do people pay for Cable when they can just have local TV? Why do people prefer a private pool than a public pool?

Why do people pay for premium channels when they can see most of the movies on TV(with ads).

I'm not sure who to blame for having to pay for xbox live.
Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft....

Why can't Sony or Nintendo come up with a xbox live killer.. with all the features... all the demos... all the videos... gamescore, achivements, friend list, etc... and force Microsoft to drop the price off xbox live?

When Sony released PSN they basically validated xbox live cost.

That's not to say that PSN will get better over time.. and so will xbox live... but as of today.. Xbox live can charge money because no other service match it... hopefully one day.. PSN will not longer give microsoft the option of charging for it... until then... XBox live is worth those $4/month.

I don't know where you sony idiots are getting $70 for Xbox Live. I'm more than happy to pay for top of the line service. Just look at all the problems Warhawk has. And that is only with about 100k playing. Halo 3 and Gears of War has millions of people playing at a time and without any major problems.

Should absolutely be free. They don't even use dedicated servers. They force you to pay to use your own internet. Sure it's not expensive. Costs less than 1 game for a year's worth of service, but on principal, it's not right.

Never understand why you guys are so docile about issues like this.

XBL should be free. They offer a laggy service that runs on a P2P method. They control how you find a game and they will not simply give you a list of games with your ping showing. Ranking systems that are a "time spent" method and not skill. Achievments that are also Time spent, they are things that a child could get over time. It's not like a gamer cards means your good. That could be your friends playing your mom, dad whoever, it has nothing to do with showing a players skill. There a waste of time and what do you get for them nothing.... (Not that I don't enjoy them but there not worth paying for is my point) They charge you for every single thing including things that were made to be free like guitar hero content. PC gamers know these things and many consoles gamers have never had it good so they have no clue there being robbed. People often say they don't lag. Not true unless you're the host you're lagging. Just because you're not jerking around and rubbering does not mean you don't have allot of delay. Halo 3s recording options can proove it. It's all over sites where people are putting up vids complaining. That either the other guy was cheating or Halo 3 is buggy. When it's just lag. People also claim it's not XBL but it's that player. All I can say is my PC does not lag,my Ps3 does not lag when playing on dedicated servers does not lag. I love my 360 but XBL blows.. I own them all so I'm not just making things up. I've play them all,all the time. The screens attached show a bullet killing me in the background. Yes that's the bullet...

i would have a xbox if it was free

I don't think all of the players are familiar with such a word, ping or dedicated server etc, so auto serching or connecting method is acceptable. or I think it's a good idea for thoes who don't know such a word well.

My concern is many games tend to pretty short play time in single player mode recently, mainly FPS/action. It seems to be totally made with extra charge DLC with a premise. As if it's completed as one product only after you supplement it in DCL. And this trend spread out of xbox/xbox live.
I think many xbox360 users play Half Life 2 in orangebox recently and they notice HL2 is more long game to complete than other FPS in xbox360. maybe around 20 hours or so to complete.
HL2 is out two years ago and 20~30 hours single play time was common in those days of FPS...

My opinin to price tag, if MS keep to charge a fee, MS put dedicated server for each games.