Why I’m not renewing my XBox Live subscription after the free month
December 28, 2007
Start My Game points out that Microsoft is putting more barriers in the way of XBox Live Silver users accessing content. (XBox Live Silver: the free online account.) I’m not really clear on what the XBox Live thing gives me, but it seems to primarily be access to multiplayer online gaming and downloadable demos. And now, with the changes SMG is discussing, we’ll have to wait to buy expansion packs for other games:
Silver users won’t receive downloadable content until 7 days after gold members. Really it seems a way of pressuring more silver users into getting a gold membership. Especially when you consider the fact that all users will be able to see the content on their dashboard, but silver users will be confronted with a nice ‘no entry’ style sign highlighting the fact that silver users are inferior in the eyes of Microsoft. [ Get Gold or Get Out! ]
Silver users are undoubtedly inferior in the eyes of Microsoft because we’re not giving them more money. But you know what? Waiting seven days doesn’t make much difference to me. And I’m a damn antisocial gamer. That’s because I have the competitive instincts of a pill bug and don’t particularly want to come home from a day at work to play online and hear some thirteen-year-old too-much-free-time brat yell at me because I don’t instantly download Halo 3 squad tactics from his jacked-in brain. I’d rather bottom my Warthog out on a boulder in peace and quiet, thank you.
So that pretty much leaves downloading demos. Which sounds like fun, but let me tell you a secret: I don’t want to pay money to download demos. Demos are short. Sometimes they are made pre-release and are very buggy. Thirdly they are freaking demos, extended play advertisements. You’re supposed to want me to download these things, not make me pay for the privilege.
Also I get no indication that the amount of advertising shoved into my home via the 360 dashboard would be in any way reduced. I would pay to kill the advertising. So I won’t pay for XBox Live Gold until the price point is a little more reasonable or an irresistible online game for the XBox comes along. Something like World of Warcraft, for example.
As far as the demos go, I’ll stick with my GameFly account. It’s a lot more expensive than Live, but I can rent what I please, play the full thing, and the discounts on used games are pretty good, too.
Posted in Entertainment, Grumbles
content rss
December 29th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
This is where the initial lower cost of an Xbox catches up to you. Comparable PS3 bundles are only $50 more than an Xbox bundle, however, if you want to play online with an Xbox, you must pay $59.99 per year for the gold membership. So, you’re $9.99 in the hole the first year, and in your second year, you’ve spent 2 cents short of $70 more than a PS3. Sony has never charged for online play and (knock wood) never will.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Mikey, Sony has given me few reasons to like them recently. I’m still irritated over the rootkit debacle and suspicious about investing in the PS3 hardware because they patented technology that would kill sales of used games. That’s not to say Microsoft is much better, but it does mean that I’ve found it difficult to drop $10 on Sony earphones, let alone $400-$600 on a PS3.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Just because Sony patented that technology, doesn’t mean they’re going to implement it. It would be corporate suicide to do so, so there’s really nothing to worry about there.
So, you’re more irritated about a rootkit that Sony put on CDs two years ago than the fact that Microsoft hasn’t been able to make a secure and stable operating system in their entire existence? Especially with all the issues surrounding Vista, you’re still more comfortable with a Microsoft product? Have a look at this site and see how comfortable you feel about Microsoft. http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista
I’m not sure what you mean about $10 for a headset, but the price of the PS3 is $399 or $499. Comparable Xbox systems are $349 and $449, and as I said before, add Xbox Live and you’ve paid more for an Xbox than a PS3.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
That assumes that Sony is a rational actor, which is not something I take for granted. You are, of course, right. Just because they have the patent doesn’t mean they’ll use it. But it does mean they can, and it also means they’re seriously considering it. The entertainment industry in general has had it in for used-product stores for quite some time, and Sony still hates their customers.
Yes, more or less. That and Sony’s longtime fight against interoperability, their anti-consumer practices, etc. etc. All of which you can also hang on Microsoft, but Sony’s rootkit event was criminal and not just their initial response but their secondary response to complaints were downright insulting. As far as Microsoft and DRM is concerned, Sony is one of the companies pulling those DRM strings (arguably, the one pulling the strings the hardest, now) so when we blame Vista’s DRM for invasive practices we get to blame Microsoft and Sony at the same time. It’s at least partially Sony’s fault that Vista sucks so badly.
I don’t have much love for either company. And with the recent price drop of the PS3, I might buy one some day. I certainly don’t have any brand loyalty to Microsoft.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Sony hates its customers? Ok, that’s an interesting comment…they might as well just close their doors then.
God alone only knows how many patents Sony, or IBM, or Microsoft hold. Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? There are bound to be quite a lot that are never implemented, but are simply held to protect intellectual property. It’s simply not rational to base a purchase decision, which has a lifetime of perhaps three years, on a minute detail such as a patent that has no announced plans to be implemented. I’ll wager Sony couldn’t even implement something like that on a PS3 with the current hardware.
I really don’t see, from a realistic consumer perspective, how Sony fights interoperability. Everyone pushes new technology, and that’s simply innovation. We would be nowhere without it. BetaMax vs. VHS was just an example of two emerging technologies battling for acceptance in a new marketplace. BluRay vs. HD-DVD is the same thing. I’m glad no one argued that the internal combustion engine wasn’t interoperable with a horse and therefore should not be accepted.
I’ve owned Sony products here and there over the years, and have never had an instance of any of them having interoperability issues with anything. If you think that any company in the world wouldn’t like to corner the market on some new, amazing, proprietary technology, you’d be wrong. Every company thinks that way, it’s a fact of business.
Sony’s act (from two years ago) was illegal, but please, let’s not get into discussing Microsoft and criminal activities. Sony was also hardly the first to do something like that. Intuit did something similar with TurboTax 2002 by silently installing C-Dilla.
Also, there is no way you can blame Sony for Vista being a disaster, that’s all Mickeysoft. Whether Sony supports DRM or not, Microsoft chose to back it themselves and implement it. It’s also just one way Vista is a dud.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Sony has a patent on technology to lock media to a specific player. They also have a history of fighting against the resale of media, and have attempted — even to the point of criminal activity — to prevent the legitimate exercise of consumers fair-use rights with the media they own. They have the technical ability (means), they have the rational (motive), and they have made attempts to do so before (demonstrated intent).
If you have been reading carefully, Mikey (and I am sure you have, because you’ve been responding to my other points) you’ll note that my beef with Sony is not over *just* a single patent, but their blatantly anti-consumer attitudes. I just don’t want to do business with them. I don’t particularly want to do business with Microsoft either, but in this case I decided I’d rather deal with Microsoft and play the video games rather than deal with Sony. Microsoft, I think, still feels like it has something to prove in the video game arena and that’s fine.
I know you have a PS3 and enjoy it very much, and that’s fine. I don’t hold it against you, and I look forward to a demonstration sometime. And like I said, maybe I’ll buy one someday. But for now, I’d still rather not deal with them when I have a choice, no matter how slight the difference.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
If you look back at your original post, and my original response, none of this was the issue. The issue was price. I simply responded that price really isn’t a deciding factor anymore and that the Xbox is actually more expensive. After that, you turned the discussion into “Sony is evil.” Every conglomerate is going to do something that won’t make everyone happy, and everyone can make their own consumer-based choices around those issues.
Sony wants to fight your rights to media you own, ok, so does everyone. I look a random sample of my music CDs (none of which are Sony) and they all say that unauthorized duplication is illegal, all my DVDs and VHS tapes have the same disclaimer. Why can’t I? I bought it. Too bad, federal law says you can’t…it’s far bigger than Sony.
Microsoft even takes things a step further with Vista. You may have purchased it, but you don’t own it.
“The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.”
December 30th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Duplication for format shifting, backups, etc. are authorized under existing copyright law. These are “fair use” rights. When you copy a CD you own for personal use, that is not illegal under federal law. That is explicitly allowed. The way they make it illegal — or have tried to — is to put copy protection on the disc. Defeating copy protection for any reason is illegal under the DMCA, a law that is yet to be tested in the Supreme Court.
And I didn’t say Sony was evil. That doesn’t distinguish them much from Microsoft. I said I was irritated at them because of the rootkit. I think that’s a perfectly valid reason for me to decide I don’t want to do business with them and it was no implied criticism of you.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Yes, you’re correct, you can make personal copies of CDs, but not DVDs or VHS tapes. To think Sony is going to be able to single handedly crush the resell markets for games or music though is a bit of a stretch. They would put themselves out of business. They may *want* to crush the resell market, but so does everyone else…it’s all about profits.
Being irritated at Sony because of the rootkit is valid, and you’re certainly entitled to make purchasing decisions based on that. However, that’s not why you originally said you wouldn’t buy a PS3.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
[...] at Thudfactor, Thud is blogging about some customer satisfaction issues. He’s not renewing Xbox live after his free trial is over – and for good reason. He’s not happy with corporate [...]
January 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am
[...] Mikey G and I were discussing the intricacies of US Copyright Law and duplication rights, it seems the RIAA was busy contradicting us. According to Marc Fisher at the Washington Post, the [...]