Apr 15, 2011 9:03 AM
To PS3 users saying its unfair Xbox gets the map packs first
-
Like (0)
DylanDog87 wrote:
I think it's unfair towards the Xbox users, we get to see if the map pack is any good a whole month before we get the chance to buy it, giving us a chance to change our minds about buying it, the Xbox players don't have that chance.
They either risk buying it ASAP with no clue as to how good it will be (or bad).
OR
They wait while and check out the maps/reviews/comments and then buy it, defeating the purpose of Microsoft paying for the content 1 month early.
Dint bother with the first DLC but this second one does look good. Ah well, il have a month to decide.
TheOnlyKiwi wrote:
DylanDog87 wrote:
I think it's unfair towards the Xbox users, we get to see if the map pack is any good a whole month before we get the chance to buy it, giving us a chance to change our minds about buying it, the Xbox players don't have that chance.
They either risk buying it ASAP with no clue as to how good it will be (or bad).
OR
They wait while and check out the maps/reviews/comments and then buy it, defeating the purpose of Microsoft paying for the content 1 month early.
Dint bother with the first DLC but this second one does look good. Ah well, il have a month to decide.
Your a rare one. Most PS3 user whine and cry over the fact we get it sooner but i see what you mean.
number1guy89 wrote:
Xbox live Gold members pay $60 a year, it's perfectly fair to get extra benefits over the PS3 people who don't pay.
Fragilay wrote:
Have you ever played on Xbox Live? Much more seamless compared to the PSN
DylanDog87 wrote:
I think it's unfair towards the Xbox users, we get to see if the map pack is any good a whole month before we can buy it, giving us a chance to change our minds about it, the Xbox players don't have that chance.
They either risk buying it ASAP with no clue as to how good it will be (or bad).
OR
They wait while and check out the maps/reviews/comments and then buy it, defeating the purpose of Microsoft paying for the content 1 month early.
Dint bother with the first DLC but this second one does look good. Ah well, il have a month to decide.
Fragilay wrote:
Have you ever played on Xbox Live? Much more seamless compared to the PSN
JohnniReb wrote:
DylanDog87 wrote:
I think it's unfair towards the Xbox users, we get to see if the map pack is any good a whole month before we can buy it, giving us a chance to change our minds about it, the Xbox players don't have that chance.
They either risk buying it ASAP with no clue as to how good it will be (or bad).
OR
They wait while and check out the maps/reviews/comments and then buy it, defeating the purpose of Microsoft paying for the content 1 month early.
Dint bother with the first DLC but this second one does look good. Ah well, il have a month to decide.
See, what I see when i read this is "Damn, they get the map pack first, maybe i can find a way to make the xbox users feel screwed over by paying for online, and make me feel better about owning a sub par system. I got it. I'll just act like im glad they get it first (when in truth it eats me up inside, but i'll never admit that)". I don't expect to hear your say I'm right, but we all know I am. Nice try though.
Kastro187420 wrote:
number1guy89 wrote:
Xbox live Gold members pay $60 a year, it's perfectly fair to get extra benefits over the PS3 people who don't pay.
They only pay because Microsoft is greedy though. Infact, if I remember right, they're the ONLY console manufacturers who actually charge for online play right now. Not even the Wii or DS charges for online access.
number1guy89 wrote:
That's just your own bias speculation. They charge for the services they provide, which are superior to all the others you stated. Wii and DS don't charge? Well, I wouldn't expect them too since they're both a joke compared to XBL. PS3 doesn't charge? Well, PSN doesn't offer nearly as many benefits (games, exclusive content, etc), or have as smooth of a connection as XBL does. All in all, what's your point? It's the customers who set the market price (the same reason games are $60 now), and XBL members place more value in what they get than PSN members do; rightfully so, considering it's a better service.
Don't forget that PSN+ charges $50 a year for "upgraded" benefits. What's the difference? If Microsoft is "greedy" than so is Sony. You're shooting yourself in the foot here, bud.
They only pay because Microsoft is greedy though. Infact, if I remember right, they're the ONLY console manufacturers who actually charge for online play right now. Not even the Wii or DS charges for online access.
number1guy89 wrote:
Kastro187420 wrote:
number1guy89 wrote:
Xbox live Gold members pay $60 a year, it's perfectly fair to get extra benefits over the PS3 people who don't pay.
They only pay because Microsoft is greedy though. Infact, if I remember right, they're the ONLY console manufacturers who actually charge for online play right now. Not even the Wii or DS charges for online access.
That's just your own bias speculation. They charge for the services they provide, which are superior to all the others you stated. Wii and DS don't charge? Well, I wouldn't expect them too since they're both a joke compared to XBL. PS3 doesn't charge? Well, PSN doesn't offer nearly as many benefits (games, exclusive content, etc), or have as smooth of a connection as XBL does. All in all, what's your point? It's the customers who set the market price (the same reason games are $60 now), and XBL members place more value in what they get than PSN members do; rightfully so, considering it's a better service.
Don't forget that PSN+ charges $50 a year for "upgraded" benefits. What's the difference? If Microsoft is "greedy" than so is Sony. You're shooting yourself in the foot here, bud.
JohnniReb wrote:
DylanDog87 wrote:
I think it's unfair towards the Xbox users, we get to see if the map pack is any good a whole month before we can buy it, giving us a chance to change our minds about it, the Xbox players don't have that chance.
They either risk buying it ASAP with no clue as to how good it will be (or bad).
OR
They wait while and check out the maps/reviews/comments and then buy it, defeating the purpose of Microsoft paying for the content 1 month early.
Dint bother with the first DLC but this second one does look good. Ah well, il have a month to decide.
See, what I see when i read this is "Damn, they get the map pack first, maybe i can find a way to make the xbox users feel screwed over by paying for online, and make me feel better about owning a sub par system. I got it. I'll just act like im glad they get it first (when in truth it eats me up inside, but i'll never admit that)". I don't expect to hear your say I'm right, but we all know I am. Nice try though.
Bishop Kane wrote:
I played both PS3 and Xbox 360. I enjoy the features of the 360 a lot more. Being able to party chat, private chat, video chat, navigate a much simpler user interface, apparently get content a month earlier, etc. all make up for the price I pay. Not to mention that everyone I know has a 360 because you can pick one for $130 on Eb Games. While the cheapest PS3 is $100 more. For what?
.
DylanDog87 wrote:
I think it's unfair towards the Xbox users, we get to see if the map pack is any good a whole month before we can buy it, giving us a chance to change our minds about it, the Xbox players don't have that chance.
They either risk buying it ASAP with no clue as to how good it will be (or bad).
OR
They wait while and check out the maps/reviews/comments and then buy it, defeating the purpose of Microsoft paying for the content 1 month early.
Dint bother with the first DLC but this second one does look good. Ah well, il have a month to decide.
TheOnlyKiwi wrote:
Your a rare one. Most PS3 user whine and cry over the fact we get it sooner but i see what you mean.
SOG=ICECLAW wrote:
The reason why PS3 costs so more is because they are better. XBox 360 is poorly made and has a low life span. On PS3 you get Blue Ray and a lot other nice things. I own a PS3 so I actually have the right to say if it is any good, and it is. The PSN is free and it runs smoothly. Ya the Xbox live probably runs better, but some people dont need all that stuff you get when you get Xbox live. Reason why Xbox sells so many is because they are cheap. Ever heard of the ring of death. If Microsoft would actually use better material then plastic then their would probably be no ring of death. When people buy game consoles, they expect it to last for a while. Even though the PS3 isnt cheap, you dont have to worry about it breaking in a year if you are not careful.
Fragilay wrote:
Have you ever played on Xbox Live? Much more seamless compared to the PSN
TheOnlyKiwi wrote:
We Xbox players get the map packs first because Mircosoft is paying Activision for them early and we all know how much Activision loves money. It's nothing against Sony or PS3 players Microsoft is buying the map packs for us first.
SOG=ICECLAW wrote:
The reason why PS3 costs so more is because they are better. XBox 360 is poorly made and has a low life span. On PS3 you get Blue Ray and a lot other nice things. I own a PS3 so I actually have the right to say if it is any good, and it is. The PSN is free and it runs smoothly. Ya the Xbox live probably runs better, but some people dont need all that stuff you get when you get Xbox live. Reason why Xbox sells so many is because they are cheap. Ever heard of the ring of death. If Microsoft would actually use better material then plastic then their would probably be no ring of death. When people buy game consoles, they expect it to last for a while. Even though the PS3 isnt cheap, you dont have to worry about it breaking in a year if you are not careful.
larryTHEturkey wrote:
SOG=ICECLAW wrote:
The reason why PS3 costs so more is because they are better. XBox 360 is poorly made and has a low life span. On PS3 you get Blue Ray and a lot other nice things. I own a PS3 so I actually have the right to say if it is any good, and it is. The PSN is free and it runs smoothly. Ya the Xbox live probably runs better, but some people dont need all that stuff you get when you get Xbox live. Reason why Xbox sells so many is because they are cheap. Ever heard of the ring of death. If Microsoft would actually use better material then plastic then their would probably be no ring of death. When people buy game consoles, they expect it to last for a while. Even though the PS3 isnt cheap, you dont have to worry about it breaking in a year if you are not careful.
right mate,
first off my xbox has lasted me well over 2 years now with no problems. the red ring of death was fixed in the new 360 slim models and hardware updates were issued to protect the older models from getting the problem. as i recall sony had a massive problem when its ps3 was released because of the hard drive disk actually MELTING so dont talk down xbox because of past mistakes
secondly, 360 offers features for its $60 a month live plan such as beta tests on games that wont be out for months (gears of war 3), movies can be watched online, facebook (i know sony has that too), game avatars and foxtel, which sony most definately doesnt have so dont judge xbox by the complaints it has recieved, especially since there are many more positive comments out.
and finally, have you checked the statistics lately.. xbox has sold almost 14 million more consoles than ps3
i think you just got told
avfc94 wrote:
and where does microsoft get their money from? xbox live users paying £40 a year so quit your whining ps3 users
Da BladeMasterz wrote:
avfc94 wrote:
and where does microsoft get their money from? xbox live users paying £40 a year so quit your whining ps3 users
Worst argument evah?
Da BladeMasterz wrote:
I'm not saying that yet. I don't want to get crucified by fanboys...
I would personally like to thank you for making things clear for me. Judging by a comment I saw I guess it has it's ups and downs.