Xbox Live OD Service Stirs Sony Wrath

17GB is a huge size for a download!

Although obviously at some point in the future this will be considered a normal size... But I'm sure by that time, you'll be getting either Memory Sticks twice that size or very cheap portable hard drives.

In some ways I feel sorry for XBox Live users, because they pay for the subscription, they pay separately for the connection, then they also have to pay extra for the content (and in some cases, they also have to pay extra for the storage space).

this sounds awesome to me, it's great that MS keep finding ways to expand & evolve the Live service, which is already ace. I think most 360 owners dont mind paying for the Live service because (unlike sonys) it works!!, people keep banging on about sony's online gaming being free! so wot, if it's s**t who cares?.....

Whilst I find the idea of a video rental service interesting, I'd still rather just turn my TV on to watch CSI...

And I don't care what anybody says, I ain't paying nothing for playing my games online - that's why I'm buying a Wii.

if it's anything like the DS online service, good luck.

nintendos ds online service isnt bad at all! the only blatant problems ive come across is that some of the games dont have a device in place for punishing disconnecting ne'er do wells etc. but the actual coverage and stuff is quite good indeed i reckon

i too will not be using xbox live or sony live to download tv or movies. isnt 20 gb, even 60 gb, a pitiful amount of space for storing hi-def content?i often rip dvds to my 120 gb hard drive and it fills up faster than a motherfucker, and thats with compression on the files

As opposed to getting a game without tracks and cars and having to pay for them online that is?

And if you’re talking about ISP's then everybody pays for the connection from Sony to Nintendo users so that’s a useless comparison.

It wasn't a comparison between having to pay for ISPs and not, but it's more cost that you have to take into account. The point is, it all adds up, and you end up paying a lot.

A game "without tracks and cars" may or may not be a good idea, but, depending on the cost of the individual "tracks" and "cars", it might end up costing a lot more than a game including tracks and cars, and might not ultimately be a significantly different game.

For example, GT4 has 721 cars. Even if you presume you get the game engine for free, let's overestimate and say it's worth £50. That works out at about 7 pence per car. In reality, it's even less. Even GT3 with 150 cars would cost 33 pence per car. But that's not including the tracks. So, if each car actually cost approximately 33 pence each, you'd have paid £50 in order to get all the cars in GT3, let alone the tracks.

Now, in reality, GT HD has 750 cars and 50 tracks. Cars cost a minimum of $0.43, tracks cost a minimum of $1.70. You get 30 cars and 2 tracks already, leaving 720 cars to buy (minimum total: $309.60) plus 48 tracks ($81.60), which means to get the whole game you pay $391.20 (£205.17) plus the cost of the "actual game". (Source: Wikipedia.)

Now, I know this isn't Microsoft, but it's the same idea, and the cost per car and track is actually very cheap. However, it's a lot more paying for it like that than just buying a full game - better for the developer, worse for the consumer. On the other hand, Microsoft charges another $50 (or £39.99) for its Live service - per year!

So, if I was selling my game online, it would seem like a great deal; as the buyer of a game, it's debatable as to whether it's more customisable or more fun, and ultimately, worth the cost (e.g. GT HD vs GT4).

"In some ways I feel sorry for XBox Live users, because they pay for the subscription, they pay separately for the connection, then they also have to pay extra for the content (and in some cases, they also have to pay extra for the storage space)." compared to who then? if no-one why feel sorry when its down to the users choice?

"Now, I know this isn't Microsoft, but it's the same idea, and the cost per car and track is actually very cheap. However, it's a lot more paying for it like that than just buying a full game - better for the developer, worse for the consumer. On the other hand, Microsoft charges another $50 (or £39.99) for its Live service - per year!" not for downloadable content they don't, the gold service is for online game-play which judging by what your saying above is completely irrelevant

The users don't choose how it's set up, they choose whether they do it or whether they don't. But there aren't alternatives, so it's not really a choice - they get what they're given.

Also, you can either pay £40 to play games online or you don't play games online. i.e. you get the full service if you pay for it, otherwise you don't get the full service. That is the entire point.

What people don't have the choice of is the price of the full content. Either they pay to get it, or they don't get it, which isn't really a choice.

"Now, I know this isn't Microsoft, but it's the same idea, and the cost per car and track is actually very cheap. However, it's a lot more paying for it like that than just buying a full game - better for the developer, worse for the consumer. On the other hand, Microsoft charges another $50 (or £39.99) for its Live service - per year!"

Your comparing downloadable content with online gaming just to say that its an extra £40

“In some ways I feel sorry for XBox Live users, because they pay for the subscription” not for downloadable content as per what you state above
“They pay separately for the connection” which anyone normally does to have internet access not just for XBL
“Then they also have to pay extra for the content” optional content that is not needed to experience the full game (and in some cases are free)
“(And in some cases, they also have to pay extra for the storage space).” If you bought the core system then the likelihood is that you had no intentions on going on live, if you did, a memory card would be fine and would still have worked out cheaper than the premium.

“The users don't choose how it's set up, they choose whether they do it or whether they don't. But there aren't alternatives, so it's not really a choice - they get what they're given.” Rubbish, they choose whether to go for free online services or pay for online gaming

“Also, you can either pay £40 to play games online or you don't play games online. i.e. you get the full service if you pay for it, otherwise you don't get the full service. That is the entire point.” This is what I call choosing

“What people don't have the choice of is the price of the full content. Either they pay to get it, or they don't get it, which isn't really a choice.” So how else would you charge for online gaming? Maybe pay for Monday, Wednesday and Friday? Maybe pay for weekends only? Why would they do that on top of one month, three months and 12 months subscriptions?

Your modifying your replies to slowly change what you originally said of feeling sorry for xbox live users without justifying it

What are you talking about?

I never said downloadable content was the entire problem. The point is, being exploited by the online service as a whole. Which bit of it do you think is better value for money? Having to pay for a connection separately, having to buy content separately, or having to pay an additional £40/year to play games online?

As you said, luckily people have the choice of whether they do it or not.

What they could do, to make it a bit more subtle, is give you better value than normal for some aspects, to even the balance (i.e. make them seem like they care about their customers), but each individual bit is a (albeit little) rip-off, which all adds up to: bigger rip-off.

It's just not persuading me to take part/agree with them.

Criticising an individual sentence without getting the whole point of what I'm trying to say is futile, try giving a counter-argument, i.e. what's so good about it?

No you tried to compare a Gran Turismo HD downloadable content with online gaming from XBL



Still gives you no reason to feel sorry for XBL users? Personally I feel it’s a great choice to have the option of not having to pay an annual subscription if your not into online gaming and given the option of purchasing additional content to extend longetivity (is that a word??) of a favorite game.

The fact that you have to pay for connection separately? Too what the internet through isp's? How can this be levied at XBL? Fair enough it’s an additional cost but not solely for XBL. I'd say a huge percentage of XBL users already had connection to the internet anyway and are not going to see this as an additional cost.



Come on at the end of the day they are a massive company like any other that is out to make money. As far as they are concerned they are giving value for money. Personally, I can’t see any rip-off's going on and until there's an alternative you can’t judge

This can go on indefinitely as you seem to have made your mind up that XBL is not worth the costs involved.

I'd like to hear other opinions on the matter though, is XBL a money spinning rip-off or value for money?