You seem to be ignoring the basic principle that having any previously enjoyed privilege taken away from you, is, by definition, being penalized, Thallia. And Microsoft are all too aware that making people wait before they can get new demos, is a very good incentive to buy a gold account. Plus of course, it does come with the added bonus of easing the load on the servers when new demos do hit Live.
I tend to think that with Microsoft, what they don't say is often far more revealing than what they do. And one statistic you'll never hear them boasting about, is the ratio of silver account holders to gold. A figure widely believed by the media, to be much bigger on the freebie side of the colon, than it is on the paying! Which is perfectly understandable when you think about it, as online gaming certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. Plus of course, you also have the 'can't afford to pay/won't pay on principle' chunk of Live's 10,000,000 plus subscribers. Making it no great leap of faith to suggest that gold account holders may be the minority.
And if that is the case, then Microsoft's actions in widening the gulf between silver and gold, only serves to give Sony even more ammunition to use against them, in the 'which is better' war of the networks.
So...you'd rather have less demos with no time delay from anyone else, with less quality games to choose from, than be delayed by 1 week for a
demo?
Microsoft doesn't boast about the ratio of paying versus non-paying, but they really don't need to...I agree...it is what Microsoft doesn't say that is important, and I believe they said sometime after Halo 3 came out that there were over 5 million paying members to XBL...they didn't say the ratio of silver:gold...but knowing the approximate total and approximate gold, tells us the approximate ratio...which is actually about 1:1.
Also, there's probably people like me, who've bought a gold membership, and haven't activated it yet. I got one in January, but haven't had a chance to activate it yet because I rarely get much time to play this semester...next year will be less busy as I'll be a senior and not have as much to deal with(my senior project should be finished before the fall semester is half over)
OR a PC gamer. Actually I think it's a good point for anyone likes to play online. First you already have to pay for broadband then $50 a year just to play multiplayer on 360. Now multiply this by 5 year (life of a console) equals $250. Now the 360 is getting a little expensive to an online gamer when compare to PS3, Wii and PC (For $250 you can get a good graphic card) online.
Again compare to Revolution PS3 & DS vs 360. With DS and PS3 I don't have to pay nothing extra in order to play multiplayer.
I'm seldom play online on a console but there are times I do. I don't care to pay extra every time I'm in the mood to play online so I see this a good reason to avoid 360.
You have to pay for broadband for any online gaming...360, PS3, DS, Wii, or PC. Besides...anyone without broadband is living in the stone age of the internet...and paying just as much as those with broadband are.
its actually 50 bucks for 13 months...so over a 60 month period, you are paying $240. Not a big difference, but its enough of one to mention...after all 10 bucks is enough to buy another game for the 360. And compare it to the PS3 and Wii...Wii, much as I love it, has crap online play. Most games do not support it, and of the ones that do, there's only a handful that are worth playing online(Mario Strikers, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, possibly Madden)
Now PS3...it is free, sure, but again, Sony has screwed it up with their entire mentality toward online. They do not host the servers...the company that makes the game does. That means after a company decides the game has been out long enough, they'll stop supporting the servers, and the game will no longer be online playable. Also, there are less games worth playing online for it...right now and for this year, the only ones I'm aware of are LittleBigPlanet, Warhawk, GT5, and perhaps Full Auto 2.
Now, with the 360...not only does Microsoft host all the servers, thus ensuring that no matter how old your game is, as long as the 360 is a viable system(read: until the next Xbox is at least a year old), you'll be able to play that game online, as long as there are others who also are wanting to play online. Additionally, there are a TON of great, online games for it: Halo, Forza, Gears 1, Gears 2, Frontlines, GRAW, Splinter Cell Conviction.
There are, of course, the games that are out on both PS3 and 360, but there's no need to mention them, as except in a few cases(Orange Box, GRAW, Rainbow Six Vegas) they are at least close to each other in terms of connection quality(though not necessarily in multiplayer quality).
In my opinion, the very fact that there is not really a 'shelf' life for multiplayer gaming in 360 games makes it worth the $240 over 5 years...IF you even have a gold membership that entire time, which I'm sure many, like myself, will not have.
Even the PS2 was a piece of junk compared to the quality of the PS3. So while the PS3 was more expensive, time has shown it was very well made(a very good blu-ray player as well as upscaling DVD) . This time it was the 360 that was a pile of junk compare to both Japanese consoles. This is one of the few cases where you actually do get what you pay for.
Since I still had 2 PS2 I didn't want the extra ps2 hardware in my PS3 since this produces more heat and cause the fans to run more. As far as PS1 so far I had no problems running them.
um..the PS2 itself was a piece of junk compared to the Gamecube and Xbox...it sold better because of the quantity of
games that were available on it. This generation, the roles are reversed(so to speak). Technologically, the 360 and Wii are 'pieces of junk' compared to the PS3, but they are both outpacing the PS3 because of
games.
Sure, you get what you pay for in terms of technological progress...but in terms of value and fun...the 360 and Wii both beat the PS3 hands down right now. I mean...seriously, what PS3 exclusives make it worth $400? Uncharted is good, but not worth $460. Unreal wasn't that good, from what I've heard(and will be out on the 360 soon anyway). Lair was a disaster, Heavenly Sword was a nice 4-6 hour diversion(definitely a rental, not a purchase). And everything else worth playing is available on the 360 also. MGS4 will be great, as will FFXIII...but it is still possible they both come out on the 360 too(although MGS would almost certainly be a timed exclusive if it did come to the 360 eventually).
I have a PS2 now, myself...but it is dying(as they are wont to do, after 3-5 years of use...mine is just past 5 years of use after being refurbished), so I have no use for a PS3 that cannot play my PS2 games. Especially when the only game that I could get for the PS3 that I can't get for the 360 that I am interested in is Uncharted. After your PS2 dies, what will you do with your PS2 games? Find another 3-5 year old PS2 that still runs? and hope it lasts you awhile? I'd rather wait until Sony figures out again that Backwards Compatibility is an important feature(the biggest reason why the PS2 outsold the Gamecube and Xbox at first is because it was the only system that was BC...now Sony has the only system that isn't) and until they have enough games to make it worth the price.
For now, my 360(15 games owned other than downloadable titles) and Wii(6 titles other than downloads) are much more worth the price paid for them than a PS3 would be...even with paying $4/month for online multiplayer.
Note: paying $240 over 60 months for online added onto the price of the 360 is $640...not much more than the cost of the only PS3 that was fully BC...and paying over 5 years rather than all at once is usually the preferred method of cash extraction.