|
|
Post by tread22 on Mar 25, 2014 22:34:00 GMT
Back in the day of arcades, it was expected that one would play games on a pay-to-play basis. Each play of a game cost $0.25 and I remember saving quarters up and/or breaking dollars in order to get my fix. If your parent(s) didn't have the money to purchase a certain game and it was available in the arcade, it was a lot cheaper to check a game out at the arcade for a quarter than to pay $50 or more to get it brand new. When you left the arcade, you knew that you didn't own the game....but that it would be there when you returned and, if nobody else was playing it, you would get another shot at either beating it or progressing further. That was then and this is now.....but some companies apparently can't tell the difference. Are they just ignorant having their thumbs on their own pulse rather than that of gamers or are they just greedy and can't see past the almighty dollar? Perhaps it is some of both. Regardless it seems that companies like Microsoft just don't get it. We are no longer in the coin-op days but this just doesn't "compute" for Microsoft (no pun intended). When one pays for a game, he/she should own the copy. It's over and done.....no more payments....no more hassles. The game is yours to play as long as you want.......or is it? As you all may know, I recently purchased Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare and was appalled to find that I couldn't play the game because I don't have an XBOX Live Gold account. What is this nonsense?   So let me get this straight......now the software company is supposed to get my money......and then the hardware company gets my money again and again....and then when the game falls into obscurity it just collects dust until I throw it away? Are you kidding me? ??  Granted it was clearly stated on the back of the game box.....but I never thought to look there because I assumed (and falsely so) that Microsoft wouldn't stoop so low to dig into my wallet and then leave me high and dry after they're through sapping my finances. They already had the money I spent to buy their console and they already get a cut from each game I purchased new (though I have to admit that isn't many). There are plenty enough gamers out there that purchase more games brand new than I do so Microsoft can't be hurting that much. Microsoft....your chances of getting money from me again just went from possible to zero. Congrats on that. So how do you guys feel about paying over and over again to play a game that will eventually be completely useless? |
|
|
|
Post by originalKILLJOY on Mar 26, 2014 0:42:53 GMT
Back in the day of arcades, it was expected that one would play games on a pay-to-play basis. Each play of a game cost $0.25 and I remember saving quarters up and/or breaking dollars in order to get my fix. If your parent(s) didn't have the money to purchase a certain game and it was available in the arcade, it was a lot cheaper to check a game out at the arcade for a quarter than to pay $50 or more to get it brand new. When you left the arcade, you knew that you didn't own the game....but that it would be there when you returned and, if nobody else was playing it, you would get another shot at either beating it or progressing further. That was then and this is now.....but some companies apparently can't tell the difference. Are they just ignorant having their thumbs on their own pulse rather than that of gamers or are they just greedy and can't see past the almighty dollar? Perhaps it is some of both. Regardless it seems that companies like Microsoft just don't get it. We are no longer in the coin-op days but this just doesn't "compute" for Microsoft (no pun intended). When one pays for a game, he/she should own the copy. It's over and done.....no more payments....no more hassles. The game is yours to play as long as you want.......or is it? As you all may know, I recently purchased Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare and was appalled to find that I couldn't play the game because I don't have an XBOX Live Gold account. What is this nonsense? So let me get this straight......now the software company is supposed to get my money......and then the hardware company gets my money again and again....and then when the game falls into obscurity it just collects dust until I throw it away? Are you kidding me? ?? Granted it was clearly stated on the back of the game box.....but I never thought to look there because I assumed (and falsely so) that Microsoft wouldn't stoop so low to dig into my wallet and then leave me high and dry after they're through sapping my finances. They already had the money I spent to buy their console and they already get a cut from each game I purchased new (though I have to admit that isn't many). There are plenty enough gamers out there that purchase more games brand new than I do so Microsoft can't be hurting that much. Microsoft....your chances of getting money from me again just went from possible to zero. Congrats on that. So how do you guys feel about paying over and over again to play a game that will eventually be completely useless? I think you should just go ahead and get on Xbox Live. I think it is a great service, well worth the money. In the back of my mind, I dread the day when I will no longer be able to get achievements in Xbox 360 games that I own now, but realistically I know that the service won't last forever. So my attitude is to get as much fun and enjoyment out of the medium as I can now.. Also, getting a Gold account will net you quite a few FREE downloadable titles these days.. The notion of games being self-contained, stored on a cartridge, without need of updates and no reliance on the internet is a thing of the past I'm afraid, just as arcades are. But I do agree that it is maddening that Xbox Live would be REQUIRED for a new game.. I suppose it has to do with heavy multi-player elements.. |
|
|
|
Post by tread22 on Mar 26, 2014 9:25:14 GMT
Back in the day of arcades, it was expected that one would play games on a pay-to-play basis. Each play of a game cost $0.25 and I remember saving quarters up and/or breaking dollars in order to get my fix. If your parent(s) didn't have the money to purchase a certain game and it was available in the arcade, it was a lot cheaper to check a game out at the arcade for a quarter than to pay $50 or more to get it brand new. When you left the arcade, you knew that you didn't own the game....but that it would be there when you returned and, if nobody else was playing it, you would get another shot at either beating it or progressing further. That was then and this is now.....but some companies apparently can't tell the difference. Are they just ignorant having their thumbs on their own pulse rather than that of gamers or are they just greedy and can't see past the almighty dollar? Perhaps it is some of both. Regardless it seems that companies like Microsoft just don't get it. We are no longer in the coin-op days but this just doesn't "compute" for Microsoft (no pun intended). When one pays for a game, he/she should own the copy. It's over and done.....no more payments....no more hassles. The game is yours to play as long as you want.......or is it? As you all may know, I recently purchased Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare and was appalled to find that I couldn't play the game because I don't have an XBOX Live Gold account. What is this nonsense? So let me get this straight......now the software company is supposed to get my money......and then the hardware company gets my money again and again....and then when the game falls into obscurity it just collects dust until I throw it away? Are you kidding me? ?? Granted it was clearly stated on the back of the game box.....but I never thought to look there because I assumed (and falsely so) that Microsoft wouldn't stoop so low to dig into my wallet and then leave me high and dry after they're through sapping my finances. They already had the money I spent to buy their console and they already get a cut from each game I purchased new (though I have to admit that isn't many). There are plenty enough gamers out there that purchase more games brand new than I do so Microsoft can't be hurting that much. Microsoft....your chances of getting money from me again just went from possible to zero. Congrats on that. So how do you guys feel about paying over and over again to play a game that will eventually be completely useless? I think you should just go ahead and get on Xbox Live. I think it is a great service, well worth the money. In the back of my mind, I dread the day when I will no longer be able to get achievements in Xbox 360 games that I own now, but realistically I know that the service won't last forever. So my attitude is to get as much fun and enjoyment out of the medium as I can now.. Also, getting a Gold account will net you quite a few FREE downloadable titles these days.. The notion of games being self-contained, stored on a cartridge, without need of updates and no reliance on the internet is a thing of the past I'm afraid, just as arcades are. But I do agree that it is maddening that Xbox Live would be REQUIRED for a new game.. I suppose it has to do with heavy multi-player elements.. Get on Live.......I must respectfully disagree. It seems as if I would be rewarding Microsoft for their greed and total disregard for the financial status of the majority. I can afford Live....but it is wrong to force that upon me and to essentially tell those with less access to funds that they can't play video games on their XBOX without bribing Microsoft for the privilege. While I agree that one should get as much enjoyment out of a game as he/she can, I don't believe that Microsoft has the right to dictate when one's enjoyment of a game should end. Times may be changing but if internet only game play is the "new thing", we aren't making positive progress. There is no excuse for a single player mode being left out....or for in-house multiplayer being discarded.....except to force gamers to pay for Live that is. I honestly think that we should stand up against this and send Microsoft a message telling them that we aren't going to be forced into paying for XBOX Live. This doesn't have to be the wave of the future if we don't let it. By paying for the service, we are telling Microsoft that it is okay to make us pay to play games we already own. Would you go to a restaurant and pay for food....and then pay again for the privilege of eating it? Would you buy clothes and then pay to put them on? Would you purchase a movie and then pay to watch it a second time on your TV? Would you buy a bed and then pay every night to sleep in it....of course not! Why should video games be any different? In a sense, XBOX Live is a virtual arcade so the days of coin-op have returned. The only difference is that now we have to pay all of our quarters at once....even though we paid for the game already. Oh yeah....and Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare is an XBOX exclusive. As a side note......I was told by a woman who has kids that her son can't even take a game over to a friend's house to play it unless he pays some kind of user fee to play the game on his friend's XBOX One. The only way to avoid the fee would be to lug his XBOX One to his friend's house. Is this true or just a rumor? |
|
|
|
Post by wafflerevolution on Mar 27, 2014 17:06:09 GMT
I don't think it's microsoft's fault as much as it's popcap's fault for making the game online only. lots of games are doing that these days... it can be likened to MMOs which you pay to buy then pay to play.... but that's besides the point... with xbox live you need a gold account to play online, sad but true.... I found it worth the price given all the bonus aspects of the service...
|
|
|
|
Post by tread22 on Mar 27, 2014 21:13:44 GMT
I don't think it's microsoft's fault as much as it's popcap's fault for making the game online only. lots of games are doing that these days... it can be likened to MMOs which you pay to buy then pay to play.... but that's besides the point... with xbox live you need a gold account to play online, sad but true.... I found it worth the price given all the bonus aspects of the service... I may be wrong but it would seem to me that Popcap wouldn't have much to gain if the game were online only. If this is the case, perhaps Microsoft pressured Popcap into making the game online only.....kinda like the fact that we know they pressured Popcap into making the game a Microsoft exclusive.  Again...I could be wrong but evidence seems to hint toward Microsoft. I noticed that in the latest XBOX 360 update that you are given an error box after putting a disc in if you aren't connected. Since Microsoft seems to be pushing Live so much, I tend to believe that Microsoft would have to be the culprit. It's kinda like a shepherd (Microsoft) herding a flock of sheep (gamers) into the fold (XBOX Live).....and this shepherd wants to sheer your wool (money) at every opportunity. I guess you could say I believe that Microsoft is trying to "fleece" us. |
|
|
|
Post by wafflerevolution on Mar 28, 2014 18:05:18 GMT
you can be on xbox live and not be a gold account... that error message is a little strange though. I still don't think Microsoft has any control over popcap's decision to make PvZ online only... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... and you should avoid buying Defiance as that is also online only.
|
|
|
|
Post by tread22 on Mar 29, 2014 2:44:49 GMT
you can be on xbox live and not be a gold account... that error message is a little strange though. I still don't think Microsoft has any control over popcap's decision to make PvZ online only... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... and you should avoid buying Defiance as that is also online only. Perhaps PvZ requires Gold? I can only go by what was stated in the message. And yes.....I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree. You have a right to your opinion regarding the situation (as does oK) and I did consider both of your responses. Thanks for the tip concerning Defiance. I will definitely steer clear of that game. |
|
|
|
Post by jsmoke03 on Apr 12, 2014 16:21:46 GMT
i never really agreed to pay to play online, but i had to if i wanted to join the experience since im a big fps guy. there really isnt anything that consoles can offer that isnt already free on pc so i have a big problem with that. also hated how ms charged for live even though they didnt even have dedicated servers for a lot of the games if not all of the games that had online features for the 360. why should i pay if its only p2p servers and not dedicated?
but if you want to have online gaming, then you have to pay the piper. theres no way around it, ps3 and wii u are the only consoles that still have online gaming, and pc so i would go through those routes if you dont want to pay for live or psn+.
one incentive to have psn + is that they have monthly games you can dl and play for as long as you have a psn+ account. that is kind of cool because for a lot of non collecting gamers, they can experience and beat a lot of games without having to pay individually. for me i learned that i dont like payday 2 based on psn+ and resogun is really fun and one of the best games ive played in my life, all thanks to psn+
xbl games for gold, you can actually keep so im happy i have sid meiers civ on xbox360 cuz those copies are either hard to find or too expensive
wish we organize a boycott but its a really difficult thing when people find value in paying for mp.
|
|
|
|
Post by originalKILLJOY on Apr 12, 2014 20:33:49 GMT
I can't imagine Xbox 360 or Xbox One without Xbox Live. Take away Xbox Live and you are left with Nintendo's clunky "online" features.. I think the cost of getting a Gold account is very reasonable. It costs less than I pay for Netflix, and if push came to shove, I would give up Netflix before I gave up Xbox Live! Having all of those Xbox Live features requires overhead. I think I heard once that Xbox Live requires almost as many servers as Facebook.
As a gamer, I want quality products, and I am willing to pay for quality. You don't pay for online features of the Wii-U, and you basically get what you pay for: nothing! Games are not what they used to be. Games used to be self-contained, single player (or local multiplayer) experiences that never needed to be updated. There are many more social aspects to gaming now. Friend's lists, online multi-player done right, party, party chat, achievements, challenges, downloadable games, etc..
Almost all of this is due to Xbox Live. Sure there are some aspects of this on the PC, but things there are much more fragmented and glitchy. Another analogy is World of Warcraft. Are there people clamoring for a boycot of WoW because of their subscription based gameplay? I think people understand that if they want to have a large virtual world to play in, it costs money.
|
|
|
|
Post by jsmoke03 on Apr 13, 2014 20:56:51 GMT
I can't imagine Xbox 360 or Xbox One without Xbox Live. Take away Xbox Live and you are left with Nintendo's clunky "online" features.. I think the cost of getting a Gold account is very reasonable. It costs less than I pay for Netflix, and if push came to shove, I would give up Netflix before I gave up Xbox Live! Having all of those Xbox Live features requires overhead. I think I heard once that Xbox Live requires almost as many servers as Facebook. As a gamer, I want quality products, and I am willing to pay for quality. You don't pay for online features of the Wii-U, and you basically get what you pay for: nothing! Games are not what they used to be. Games used to be self-contained, single player (or local multiplayer) experiences that never needed to be updated. There are many more social aspects to gaming now. Friend's lists, online multi-player done right, party, party chat, achievements, challenges, downloadable games, etc.. Almost all of this is due to Xbox Live. Sure there are some aspects of this on the PC, but things there are much more fragmented and glitchy. Another analogy is World of Warcraft. Are there people clamoring for a boycot of WoW because of their subscription based gameplay? I think people understand that if they want to have a large virtual world to play in, it costs money. my thing about that is xbox live didnt need to be a paid service because psn had it for free. you can argue that xbl was better than psn but the only difference is party/party chat but the reason why psn didnt have it has nothing to do with it being free, but it was due to ps3's ram. you can argue that xbl had better latency in mp, but that isnt something you pay for because everything should work fine....and most of the games were p2p servers anyway. and the fact that everything with ms is behind a paywall is appalling in the end if we want to console game and play mp, we pay for xbl and psn+ |
|
|
|
Post by tread22 on Apr 22, 2014 10:29:14 GMT
I can't imagine Xbox 360 or Xbox One without Xbox Live. Take away Xbox Live and you are left with Nintendo's clunky "online" features.. I think the cost of getting a Gold account is very reasonable. It costs less than I pay for Netflix, and if push came to shove, I would give up Netflix before I gave up Xbox Live! Having all of those Xbox Live features requires overhead. I think I heard once that Xbox Live requires almost as many servers as Facebook. As a gamer, I want quality products, and I am willing to pay for quality. You don't pay for online features of the Wii-U, and you basically get what you pay for: nothing! Games are not what they used to be. Games used to be self-contained, single player (or local multiplayer) experiences that never needed to be updated. There are many more social aspects to gaming now. Friend's lists, online multi-player done right, party, party chat, achievements, challenges, downloadable games, etc.. Almost all of this is due to Xbox Live. Sure there are some aspects of this on the PC, but things there are much more fragmented and glitchy. Another analogy is World of Warcraft. Are there people clamoring for a boycot of WoW because of their subscription based gameplay? I think people understand that if they want to have a large virtual world to play in, it costs money. my thing about that is xbox live didnt need to be a paid service because psn had it for free. you can argue that xbl was better than psn but the only difference is party/party chat but the reason why psn didnt have it has nothing to do with it being free, but it was due to ps3's ram. you can argue that xbl had better latency in mp, but that isnt something you pay for because everything should work fine....and most of the games were p2p servers anyway. and the fact that everything with ms is behind a paywall is appalling in the end if we want to console game and play mp, we pay for xbl and psn+ It is true that PSN was free but I played games on both PSN and Live and did find Live to be a bit better. The main thing that struck me is the fact that on the particular game I was playing (Godzilla: Save the Earth), you didn't have to log on to play the PS2 version but did for Live. In the end, it seemed that most of the games I played on the PS2 version were with gamers that didn't seem serious and would just leave for no reason. Because of the gamertag on Live, I must admit that I never had that happen on the XBOX version of the game. Still I experienced lag on both versions so was it really worth paying......I don't know. @ok: While Nintendo's internet features aren't spectacular by any stretch, I still feel they are adequate for my tastes. Live has a lot of features I just don't use or need. I am willing to pay for quality...but there is only so much extra icing that you can put on a cake. What I think should be done is for Microsoft to have a bare bones but fully functional Live for those of us that don't want the extra bells and whistles. While it is true that gaming has changed I must say that it is for the worse.....and that is why my vintage collection dwarfs my meager current gen title count. I always thought it was fun to invite friends over and play in-house multiplayer games. When you burned their defense and scored the winning touchdown, you could celebrate and when you lost you could expect your opponent to do the same. You still get the trash talking on Live but it isn't the same experience as having your opponent in the room with you. It's as if you are playing against a voice instead of an actual person....kinda like talking on the phone instead of meeting up with friends......less personal......more isolating..... Video games used to bring people together. Now it doesn't matter since you can just go online and talk to someone halfway around the world that you may never meet in person. Honestly I think it was better when games were self-contained. At least you knew who you were playing against. In any case, online multiplayer should be an option left open to the gamer not something forced upon him/her. I have never played WoW but if it has no single player or in-house multiplayer, I wouldn't have any desire to acquire it. |
|
So let me get this straight......now the software company is supposed to get my money......and then the hardware company gets my money again and again....and then when the game falls into obscurity it just collects dust until I throw it away? Are you kidding me?
Granted it was clearly stated on the back of the game box.....but I never thought to look there because I assumed (and falsely so) that Microsoft wouldn't stoop so low to dig into my wallet and then leave me high and dry after they're through sapping my finances. They already had the money I spent to buy their console and they already get a cut from each game I purchased new (though I have to admit that isn't many). There are plenty enough gamers out there that purchase more games brand new than I do so Microsoft can't be hurting that much. Microsoft....your chances of getting money from me again just went from possible to zero. Congrats on that. 
Again...I could be wrong but evidence seems to hint toward Microsoft. I noticed that in the latest XBOX 360 update that you are given an error box after putting a disc in if you aren't connected. Since Microsoft seems to be pushing Live so much, I tend to believe that Microsoft would have to be the culprit. It's kinda like a shepherd (Microsoft) herding a flock of sheep (gamers) into the fold (XBOX Live).....and this shepherd wants to sheer your wool (money) at every opportunity. I guess you could say I believe that Microsoft is trying to "fleece" us. 