And there's very little chance they'll do that, actually. Unless the PS3 really starts to challenge them in the online arena...so, like I said, there's very little chance they'll do that -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --<br><br><br>Having an entry fee of $50/year is like paying $10 to get forum access. It doesn't weed out all the morons, but it certainly helps weed out some of them. And people tend to be less idiotic when they've got some money at stake. Whether that's worth $50 to you or not is a personal decision, but there <i>are</i> some benefits to it.
Microsoft is gimping Silver Live accounts – 1 week delay on new content/demos
- Thread starter Nerfgun
- Start date
- Status
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br>Just the pay $50 and be done with it. Geez. It's the same cost as one game.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Which game would you give up? One you're planning on buying, not one you already bought and realized it was a mistake.<br><br>Think "Bioshock, Mass Effect, Live Gold," and pick only 2. (<b>replace with games you don't have but really want to, personally</b>) </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. You cannot create a hypothetical argument, then argue for it. I am sure there is a technical name for it, but you fail....miserably.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>If there is a technical term for "logical non-fallacy," I don't know it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- I gave you a hypothetical question based on a finite budget. Having a finite budget is a common reality. I'm asking you to make the choice that you implicitly asked people to make, whether you meant to or not.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Those are false choices. If you really really really can't afford $50/year, then pay the month to month charge.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br> -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif -- If you "really really really can't afford $50/year," prorating doesn't add up to less than $50. I don't know the technical term for that, either, but it's certainly a fallacy.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Otherwise, in your case, YES, give up a game. Bioshock preferably, since it sucks. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>BBZZZZZT. -- View image here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/forum/smilies/gavel.gif -- Then Bioshock wasn't worth $50 to you, and isn't a loss; you explicitly ignored the instructions. Not my case, your case. We're talking about value, here. If Live truly has "Geez;one game" value, then there should be a game worth $50 (every year, mind you) that you'd be as happy having a Live Gold account, instead of having that game.<br><br>It was your pithy statement that laid down the equivalency. Maybe I have different value judgements than you; I don't pay $50 for bad games or even mediocre games. $50 is a good, even great game. $50 could be two used games, even. Per year.
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br>Just the pay $50 and be done with it. Geez. It's the same cost as one game.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Which game would you give up? One you're planning on buying, not one you already bought and realized it was a mistake.<br><br>Think "Bioshock, Mass Effect, Live Gold," and pick only 2. (<b>replace with games you don't have but really want to, personally</b>) </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. You cannot create a hypothetical argument, then argue for it. I am sure there is a technical name for it, but you fail....miserably.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>If there is a technical term for "logical non-fallacy," I don't know it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- I gave you a hypothetical question based on a finite budget. Having a finite budget is a common reality. I'm asking you to make the choice that you implicitly asked people to make, whether you meant to or not.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Those are false choices. If you really really really can't afford $50/year, then pay the month to month charge.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br> -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif -- If you "really really really can't afford $50/year," prorating doesn't add up to less than $50. I don't know the technical term for that, either, but it's certainly a fallacy.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Otherwise, in your case, YES, give up a game. Bioshock preferably, since it sucks. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>BBZZZZZT. -- View image here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/forum/smilies/gavel.gif -- Then Bioshock wasn't worth $50 to you, and isn't a loss; you explicitly ignored the instructions. Not my case, your case. We're talking about value, here. If Live truly has "Geez;one game" value, then there should be a game worth $50 (every year, mind you) that you'd be as happy having a Live Gold account, instead of having that game.<br><br>It was your pithy statement that laid down the equivalency. Maybe I have different value judgements than you; I don't pay $50 for bad games or even mediocre games. $50 is a good, even great game. $50 could be two used games, even. Per year.
i don't think the arguments over gold being pay or whatever will be silenced until home gets established. if that works how sony wants it to and stays free to boot then all the live supporters will have to change their tune.<BR><BR>i really hope sony nails it just to see ms lower charges or get drummed out. steam imo is very good so i think sony has a chance.
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Psion:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br>Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. You cannot create a hypothetical argument, then argue for it. I am sure there is a technical name for it, but you fail....miserably.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>It's called setting up a straw man argument, you may have heard of the term -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- ... and that was a textbook strawman there, so you were right to call it.<br><br>I suppose if you want to use all big words, fallacy of extension. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I knew there was word for it, but it was escaping me, thanks!
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Psion:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br>Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. You cannot create a hypothetical argument, then argue for it. I am sure there is a technical name for it, but you fail....miserably.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>It's called setting up a straw man argument, you may have heard of the term -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- ... and that was a textbook strawman there, so you were right to call it.<br><br>I suppose if you want to use all big words, fallacy of extension. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I knew there was word for it, but it was escaping me, thanks!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nerfgun:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<BR><B>Just the pay $50 and be done with it. Geez. It's the same cost as one game.</B> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't think it's really about the cost, almost everyone agrees that Live is not very expensive. I resist paying for it because I don't want to support the particular business model they've come up with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The business model is brilliant. The $50 charge means not everyone can play online. We all know there is more than a fair amount of 10 years olds on XBL, but I imagine it would be much worse if online play was free.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<BR>It was your pithy statement that laid down the equivalency. Maybe I have different value judgements than you; I don't pay $50 for bad games or even mediocre games. $50 is a good, even great game. $50 could be two used games, even. Per year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So then buy two less used games, DONE!
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sword_9mm:<br>i don't think the arguments over gold being pay or whatever will be silenced until home gets established. if that works how sony wants it to and stays free to boot then all the live supporters will have to change their tune. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Even if Sony hits a proverbial home run with Home, managing to match Live feature-for-feature and even make some improvements, I'll still keep my Gold sub running. If the massive amount of Live-playing Arsians and other friends of mine migrate over to the PS3 <i><b>then</b></i> it becomes a question of value. Still, I enjoy playing the exclusives on every system, and if I need a Gold account to take full advantage of something like Gears 2, so be it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sword_9mm:<br>i don't think the arguments over gold being pay or whatever will be silenced until home gets established. if that works how sony wants it to and stays free to boot then all the live supporters will have to change their tune. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Even if Sony hits a proverbial home run with Home, managing to match Live feature-for-feature and even make some improvements, I'll still keep my Gold sub running. If the massive amount of Live-playing Arsians and other friends of mine migrate over to the PS3 <i><b>then</b></i> it becomes a question of value. Still, I enjoy playing the exclusives on every system, and if I need a Gold account to take full advantage of something like Gears 2, so be it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br>Then Bioshock wasn't worth $50 to you, and isn't a loss; you explicitly ignored the instructions. Not my case, your case. We're talking about value, here. If Live truly has "Geez;one game" value, then there should be a game worth $50 (every year, mind you) that you'd be as happy having a Live Gold account, instead of having that game.<br><br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Just to jump in here, I really enjoyed Bioshock and Halo 3, but I would give up either one to play CoD4 MP for a year. Not that this was directed at me, but for me, YES, worth it.<br><br>YMMV -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br>Then Bioshock wasn't worth $50 to you, and isn't a loss; you explicitly ignored the instructions. Not my case, your case. We're talking about value, here. If Live truly has "Geez;one game" value, then there should be a game worth $50 (every year, mind you) that you'd be as happy having a Live Gold account, instead of having that game.<br><br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Just to jump in here, I really enjoyed Bioshock and Halo 3, but I would give up either one to play CoD4 MP for a year. Not that this was directed at me, but for me, YES, worth it.<br><br>YMMV -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skyler:<BR>I personally think that OTHER PEOPLE ruin online gaming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Skyler's gamertag: Sartre
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br>It was your pithy statement that laid down the equivalency. Maybe I have different value judgements than you; I don't pay $50 for bad games or even mediocre games. $50 is a good, even great game. $50 could be two used games, even. Per year. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>So then buy two less used games, DONE! </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Fair enough. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by English_C6H^:<br>Just to jump in here, I really enjoyed Bioshock and Halo 3, but I would give up either one to play CoD4 MP for a year. Not that this was directed at me, but for me, YES, worth it.<br><br>YMMV -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Precisely. It's a value proposition. (Also, the "Geez" and "/thread" comment earned the post an call-out.)
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br>It was your pithy statement that laid down the equivalency. Maybe I have different value judgements than you; I don't pay $50 for bad games or even mediocre games. $50 is a good, even great game. $50 could be two used games, even. Per year. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>So then buy two less used games, DONE! </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Fair enough. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by English_C6H^:<br>Just to jump in here, I really enjoyed Bioshock and Halo 3, but I would give up either one to play CoD4 MP for a year. Not that this was directed at me, but for me, YES, worth it.<br><br>YMMV -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Precisely. It's a value proposition. (Also, the "Geez" and "/thread" comment earned the post an call-out.)
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br>Just the pay $50 and be done with it. Geez. It's the same cost as one game.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Which game would you give up? One you're planning on buying, not one you already bought and realized it was a mistake.<br><br>Think "Bioshock, Mass Effect, Live Gold," and pick only 2. (<b>replace with games you don't have but really want to, personally</b>) </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. You cannot create a hypothetical argument, then argue for it. I am sure there is a technical name for it, but you fail....miserably.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>If there is a technical term for "logical non-fallacy," I don't know it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- I gave you a hypothetical question based on a finite budget. Having a finite budget is a common reality. I'm asking you to make the choice that you implicitly asked people to make, whether you meant to or not. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Well your hypothetical question still makes little sense. Both the games you presented are not Live multiplayer games, so if you had to get both of those right now why would you start up your Live Gold membership in the same go? You wouldn't need to til you got Gears or Halo 3 or similar.
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br>Just the pay $50 and be done with it. Geez. It's the same cost as one game.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Which game would you give up? One you're planning on buying, not one you already bought and realized it was a mistake.<br><br>Think "Bioshock, Mass Effect, Live Gold," and pick only 2. (<b>replace with games you don't have but really want to, personally</b>) </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. You cannot create a hypothetical argument, then argue for it. I am sure there is a technical name for it, but you fail....miserably.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>If there is a technical term for "logical non-fallacy," I don't know it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- I gave you a hypothetical question based on a finite budget. Having a finite budget is a common reality. I'm asking you to make the choice that you implicitly asked people to make, whether you meant to or not. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Well your hypothetical question still makes little sense. Both the games you presented are not Live multiplayer games, so if you had to get both of those right now why would you start up your Live Gold membership in the same go? You wouldn't need to til you got Gears or Halo 3 or similar.
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br>If there is a technical term for "logical non-fallacy," I don't know it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Your argument assumes that the budget is finite, but that specifically the only items that are mutable in this budget are Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Live. That's simply untenable. There are far more variables which affect anyone's purchasing choices than the extremely false situation of being placed in front of a year live card, bioshock, mass effect, and getting told "pick two, but only two, for the ENTIRE YEAR."<br><br>Sorry, no. That's entirely a straw man argument. <br><br>(Given that set of choices I'd take Bioshock and ME, as neither use Live for crap. If you actually feel the urge to purchase Live, clearly there are <i>other games</i> involved, at which point your example falls apart.)<br><br><br>Now, since it seems you're driving at "well, it's a value proposition," you can make a good argument on those grounds -- is Live worth $50 on its own per year? More importantly, what about in context of my (or your, or whoever's) personal multiplayer gaming? Is it worth $50 if I don't play much MP? What if I play CoD4 every night and Gears every morning with a little Halo 3 at lunchtime? That kind of thing.<br><br>So for people who play on Live $50/year is going to be a budgeted, allocated expense, because it's worth it for them. I play on Live, I don't really care about the $50; I've already gotten my value out of that many times over. If I didn't play on Live - let's say I just bought Bioshock and Mass Effect - then no, it wouldn't have any value to me and I'd balk at the $50, as it'd be functionally paying money for nothing.<br><br>Live is like a deduction from your paycheck pre-taxes; if you want it, you do it. If not, you don't -- but that's money already gone. A sunk cost, expense, whatever. It doesn't mean "I can't have Bioshock," it means that for the entire year you have $50 less with which to buy games, which could mean buying 10 used games at $55 instead of 10 new ones at $60.<br><br>(Of course if anyone did this I would make fun of them for buying into Gamestop's stupid used game pricing. But still.)
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br>If there is a technical term for "logical non-fallacy," I don't know it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Your argument assumes that the budget is finite, but that specifically the only items that are mutable in this budget are Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Live. That's simply untenable. There are far more variables which affect anyone's purchasing choices than the extremely false situation of being placed in front of a year live card, bioshock, mass effect, and getting told "pick two, but only two, for the ENTIRE YEAR."<br><br>Sorry, no. That's entirely a straw man argument. <br><br>(Given that set of choices I'd take Bioshock and ME, as neither use Live for crap. If you actually feel the urge to purchase Live, clearly there are <i>other games</i> involved, at which point your example falls apart.)<br><br><br>Now, since it seems you're driving at "well, it's a value proposition," you can make a good argument on those grounds -- is Live worth $50 on its own per year? More importantly, what about in context of my (or your, or whoever's) personal multiplayer gaming? Is it worth $50 if I don't play much MP? What if I play CoD4 every night and Gears every morning with a little Halo 3 at lunchtime? That kind of thing.<br><br>So for people who play on Live $50/year is going to be a budgeted, allocated expense, because it's worth it for them. I play on Live, I don't really care about the $50; I've already gotten my value out of that many times over. If I didn't play on Live - let's say I just bought Bioshock and Mass Effect - then no, it wouldn't have any value to me and I'd balk at the $50, as it'd be functionally paying money for nothing.<br><br>Live is like a deduction from your paycheck pre-taxes; if you want it, you do it. If not, you don't -- but that's money already gone. A sunk cost, expense, whatever. It doesn't mean "I can't have Bioshock," it means that for the entire year you have $50 less with which to buy games, which could mean buying 10 used games at $55 instead of 10 new ones at $60.<br><br>(Of course if anyone did this I would make fun of them for buying into Gamestop's stupid used game pricing. But still.)
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Psion:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br>If there is a technical term for "logical non-fallacy," I don't know it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Your argument assumes that the budget is finite, but that specifically the only items that are mutable in this budget are Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Live. That's simply untenable. There are far more variables which affect anyone's purchasing choices than the extremely false situation of being placed in front of a year live card, bioshock, mass effect, and getting told "pick two, but only two, for the ENTIRE YEAR."<br><br>Sorry, no. That's entirely a straw man argument. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Technically, no, it's not a strawman argument. A "strawman" is when you misrepresent an opponent's position, then use that as an easy way to refute their argument. He's not misrepresenting anyone, but forcing people to choose between two things when there's no need to do that. The term you are probably looking for is "false dichotomy."
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Psion:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Artichoke Sap:<br>If there is a technical term for "logical non-fallacy," I don't know it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Your argument assumes that the budget is finite, but that specifically the only items that are mutable in this budget are Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Live. That's simply untenable. There are far more variables which affect anyone's purchasing choices than the extremely false situation of being placed in front of a year live card, bioshock, mass effect, and getting told "pick two, but only two, for the ENTIRE YEAR."<br><br>Sorry, no. That's entirely a straw man argument. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Technically, no, it's not a strawman argument. A "strawman" is when you misrepresent an opponent's position, then use that as an easy way to refute their argument. He's not misrepresenting anyone, but forcing people to choose between two things when there's no need to do that. The term you are probably looking for is "false dichotomy."
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br>The business model is brilliant. The $50 charge means not everyone can play online. We all know there is more than a fair amount of 10 years olds on XBL, but I imagine it would be much worse if online play was free. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>That strikes me as a bit elitist, PerfecrCr, and I'm not even sure it's actually true. In my own limited, anecdotal experience people on PSN seem more polite. I don't know why - maybe that barrier to entry is built into the console's price rather than an ongoing subscription. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- Or more likely, a slightly older audience.<br><br>And as you probably all know, paying for World of Warcraft <i>hardly</i> weeds out the dickheads.<br><br>The other thing I'll mention is the apparant number of Arsians on Live vs PSN - there is no shortage on either network. My friends list filled up to the (pathetic) friend limit of 50 people on PSN just when Warhawk came out. There's definitely a bigger overall pool of Ars 360 players but that stands to reason of course, it's been out twice as long. Just sayin'. Arsians - they're <i>everywhere.</i> -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PerfectCr:<br>The business model is brilliant. The $50 charge means not everyone can play online. We all know there is more than a fair amount of 10 years olds on XBL, but I imagine it would be much worse if online play was free. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>That strikes me as a bit elitist, PerfecrCr, and I'm not even sure it's actually true. In my own limited, anecdotal experience people on PSN seem more polite. I don't know why - maybe that barrier to entry is built into the console's price rather than an ongoing subscription. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- Or more likely, a slightly older audience.<br><br>And as you probably all know, paying for World of Warcraft <i>hardly</i> weeds out the dickheads.<br><br>The other thing I'll mention is the apparant number of Arsians on Live vs PSN - there is no shortage on either network. My friends list filled up to the (pathetic) friend limit of 50 people on PSN just when Warhawk came out. There's definitely a bigger overall pool of Ars 360 players but that stands to reason of course, it's been out twice as long. Just sayin'. Arsians - they're <i>everywhere.</i> -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Endymion:<br>Well your hypothetical question still makes little sense. Both the games you presented are not Live multiplayer games, so if you had to get both of those right now why would you start up your Live Gold membership in the same go? You wouldn't need to til you got Gears or Halo 3 or similar. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I wasn't explicit, but I wasn't assuming those were the only games you'd own, period. Given that assumption, yes, it would be a silly question.<br><br>Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread to "Live is a Bargain/Ripoff!" I just thought the equivalency was a good way to <i>personally</i> evaluate the value of Live, especially with a finite budget. <br><br>A lot of Arsians seem to have more money than time (or sense? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --) with stacks of games waiting, so it's not a fair either/or question for them, I admit. I know I personally don't have a "annual budget" for games; when I run low on games, I buy another one for the queue, and if nothing is out I consider worth the money, I hit the used shelves, or consider replaying something.
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Endymion:<br>Well your hypothetical question still makes little sense. Both the games you presented are not Live multiplayer games, so if you had to get both of those right now why would you start up your Live Gold membership in the same go? You wouldn't need to til you got Gears or Halo 3 or similar. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>I wasn't explicit, but I wasn't assuming those were the only games you'd own, period. Given that assumption, yes, it would be a silly question.<br><br>Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread to "Live is a Bargain/Ripoff!" I just thought the equivalency was a good way to <i>personally</i> evaluate the value of Live, especially with a finite budget. <br><br>A lot of Arsians seem to have more money than time (or sense? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --) with stacks of games waiting, so it's not a fair either/or question for them, I admit. I know I personally don't have a "annual budget" for games; when I run low on games, I buy another one for the queue, and if nothing is out I consider worth the money, I hit the used shelves, or consider replaying something.
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fester:<br>The term you are probably looking for is "false dichotomy." </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Yeah, that probably works better. That being said, he was constructing a false hypothetical situation to attempt to prove his point, which is why I was thinking strawman, but yours is a more accurate term.<br><br><br>Nerfgun: It's probably the $600 entry fee to PSN :megaburn:<br><br>(I know you can get a PS3 for less than that, shut up -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --)
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fester:<br>The term you are probably looking for is "false dichotomy." </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Yeah, that probably works better. That being said, he was constructing a false hypothetical situation to attempt to prove his point, which is why I was thinking strawman, but yours is a more accurate term.<br><br><br>Nerfgun: It's probably the $600 entry fee to PSN :megaburn:<br><br>(I know you can get a PS3 for less than that, shut up -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it's not bad, but how many more bills do we need? phones, electricity, gas, cable, net, now online play. what's next? pay to just boot the system. it's only 25c a boot. just skip ___ a month. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You gamers bitching about 50 bucks.. You're GAMERS. Do not, even for a second, piss and whine that your hobby has something costing about 50 bucks. If Live is breaking the bank for you, I'm going to guess that buying games really hurts your budget too and you should probably take up used-book reading instead.
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lumiere:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skyler:<br>I personally think that OTHER PEOPLE ruin online gaming. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Skyler's gamertag: Sartre </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Man, talk about having an axe to grind. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lumiere:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skyler:<br>I personally think that OTHER PEOPLE ruin online gaming. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Skyler's gamertag: Sartre </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Man, talk about having an axe to grind. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --
so people can't not like paying for something they've been getting for free since their gamers?<BR><BR>i don't think anyone here or anywhere has said live breaks the bank. most are saying that "hey, psn free, live not" and that's a big difference when there's very little else to distinguish the 2 expensive systems.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sword_9mm:<BR>most are saying that "hey, psn free, live not" and that's a big difference when there's very little else to distinguish the 2 expensive systems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Sure, aside from the difference in game catalogs and number of titles available for online play, there's really no difference at all. Heck, the Wii's got free online... let's throw that in the mix, too!
don't you also lose any MS Points on a banned account? So you actually have monetary loss as well.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure, aside from the difference in game catalogs and number of titles available for online play, there's really no difference at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>well, to clarify for me, most of the games i have are multiplatform stuff. so for me there really isn't much difference between a 360/ps3 and i've even gone so far as to say that if my 360 ever rrod's then i'm getting a ps3 and jumping off ms' ship.<BR><BR>for some this can't be an option and i can understand that.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aC:<BR>don't you also lose any MS Points on a banned account? So you actually have monetary loss as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>dude that just <I>can't</I> be legal..somehow. I really hope that's not in the fine print.<BR><BR>scenario:<BR> 1. Put $50 on my account, don't spend it<BR> 2. Shoot my mouth off in a few nights of matchmaking/get perma-Banned<BR> 4. Next day ask for refund, $50<BR> 5. M$ says "No Yuo! Not your money."<BR> 6. Huh?<BR> 7. Court<BR> 8. Profit?
Well, this pisses me off. Mostly because of the stupid demo releases that are only in the states and not in the UK/Europe. I have a silver account to download demos from the US, but now I have to wait an extra week to download the demos. Frickin' demos! They're basically adverts, and I have to wait a week to download them? WTF?<BR><BR>I bet the publishers are screwing that MS is able to pull this shit on them. Making it so a lot of their potential customers have to wait to view the demo just so MS can squeeze a few extra bucks out of the userbase.
I'll just point out that you can get the 13 month cards for < $40. (I got mine for $33, which is $2.50/month).
I'm not a huge fan of the new business model here, but one week isn't the end of the world. The essential problem is that they can't give Gold members _any_ perks without people claiming that Silver members got screwed. I mean, let's say gold members got some DLC free - you guys would just be whining that they're charging silver members for it.<BR><BR>I was annoyed that I couldn't download the Culdcept demo, but I'll live.
ok, quick question - as mentioned I am currently playing on Gold via bonus 1-month card(s). Are you guys saying that I will actually lose my gamerscore if I let it lapse back to Silver?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nerfgun:<BR>ok, quick question - as mentioned I am currently playing on Gold via bonus 1-month card(s). Are you guys saying that I will actually lose my gamerscore if I let it lapse back to Silver? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that wasn't said, what was said was that some people re-sign up each time the gold lapses for a new free month. Doing THAT would make you lose your save-games (assuming you don't track the large number of gamertags in your history) and gamerscore.<BR><BR>Letting gold lapse does NOT remove anything except the "perks" of gold.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nerfgun:<BR>ok, quick question - as mentioned I am currently playing on Gold via bonus 1-month card(s). Are you guys saying that I will actually lose my gamerscore if I let it lapse back to Silver? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No, you should be able to retain your gamertag and game history plus gamerscore. The comment earlier was related to folks utilizing the free trial periods for Gold Access. One can't start another trial without creating a new gamertag.<BR><BR><B>edit</B> - Beaten, LOL.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Harry_Greek:<BR>Im still not paying $50 a year for it - go fuck youself Microsoft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>As has been repeatedly pointed out... you can get a year for substantially less than that. And if you're willing to forgo live for a extremely small monetary charge that's your loss.<BR><BR>Right now the value for Live Gold is there, even without this new delay of content for Silver people. But it's a matter of personal perceived value... if you don't think it's worth thirty some odd dollars a year to get the things you do for Gold than it's not worth it <B>to you</B>. But there are a *LOT* of people paying for it that obviously disagree with you. If you are willing pay instead of waiting seven days than a subscription is worth it... <B>to you</B>. <BR><BR>I honestly don't see the hoopla. It's not like they are taking away something, there is just a (very minor) delay. If those seven days are that big of a deal than pay your thirty to forty dollars and you no longer have to wait; you'll also get a very seamless multiplayer experience thrown in as well.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you really really really can't afford $50/year ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Then you can't afford the damn console in the first place. Spend your time getting a better f'n job by going to school or browsing the classifieds. Seriously, that's 13 cents <I>a day</I>.<BR><BR>You can <I>literally</I> find that much change just by scrounging around the street. You could walk into a few convenience stores and garfle a couple pennies. If 50 dollars <I>a year</I> is any kind of hardship, you should not be wasting your money on video games in the first place. Spend it buying the <I>food</I> you obviously can barely afford.
For people who consider demos=advertisements and are complaining about this: why? If you consider a demo just a glorified ad, then why complain? If you thought a demo was actually a demo or an introduction to a game to see how it is (like I do; sure they advertise IN the demo but I don't consider the demo itself an advertisement) then it may be worth complaining about.<BR><BR>But complaining because you can't get advertised to faster sounds pretty lol to me.<BR><BR>And if Silver users complain about what Gold users get that they don't... wtf get Gold, there's a reason for it. They shouldn't complain that they don't get the same stuff for free that others who pay do.<BR><BR>Silver members ARE screwed inherently because Gold exists.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As has been repeatedly pointed out... you can get a year for substantially less than that. And if you're willing to forgo live for a extremely small monetary charge that's your loss.<BR><BR>Right now the value for Live Gold is there, even without this new delay of content for Silver people. But it's a matter of personal perceived value... if you don't think it's worth thirty some odd dollars a year to get the things you do for Gold than it's not worth it to you. But there are a *LOT* of people paying for it that obviously disagree with you. If you are willing pay instead of waiting seven days than a subscription is worth it... to you. <BR><BR>I honestly don't see the hoopla. It's not like they are taking away something, there is just a (very minor) delay. If those seven days are that big of a deal than pay your thirty to forty dollars and you no longer have to wait; you'll also get a very seamless multiplayer experience thrown in as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Calm down.<BR><BR>Everytime someone says; "I am not paying,..." hens like you show up and start pecking and clucking over it.<BR><BR>You keep saying YOU and YOU. Well, just like YOU are entitled to feel it's not a big deal, I am entitled to feel it is.<BR><BR>It should be free. I don't care what "counter-point" you bring up. I do not want to pay anything extra for multiplayer or access to demos.<BR><BR>I am used to buying a PC game, getting on the multiplayer aspect and playing it with others, without paying a single penny more than what I pay for the game and my ISP.<BR><BR>THATS IT.
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Harry_Greek:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As has been repeatedly pointed out... you can get a year for substantially less than that. And if you're willing to forgo live for a extremely small monetary charge that's your loss.<br><br>Right now the value for Live Gold is there, even without this new delay of content for Silver people. But it's a matter of personal perceived value... if you don't think it's worth thirty some odd dollars a year to get the things you do for Gold than it's not worth it to you. But there are a *LOT* of people paying for it that obviously disagree with you. If you are willing pay instead of waiting seven days than a subscription is worth it... to you. <br><br>I honestly don't see the hoopla. It's not like they are taking away something, there is just a (very minor) delay. If those seven days are that big of a deal than pay your thirty to forty dollars and you no longer have to wait; you'll also get a very seamless multiplayer experience thrown in as well. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Calm down.<br><br>Everytime someone says; "I am not paying,..." hens like you show up and start pecking and clucking over it.<br><br>You keep saying YOU and YOU. Well, just like YOU are entitled to feel it's not a big deal, I am entitled to feel it is.<br><br>It should be free. I don't care what "counter-point" you bring up. I do not want to pay anything extra for multiplayer or access to demos.<br><br>I am used to buying a PC game, getting on the multiplayer aspect and playing it with others, without paying a single penny more than what I pay for the game and my ISP.<br><br>THATS IT. </div>
</blockquote>Wow... so you come in with a snide remark, you get answered by someone in a very calm way who outlines the value to him, while simultaneously saying that it's all relative, and then you reply telling him to calm down (and for some odd reason associating him with a chicken... the VR is --->) and then reiterate the point he already made that it's important there is personal value.<br><br>Makes sense. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- <br><br>The point you seem to be failing to realize is that a console is NOT a PC. I too own a PC, and I love gaming on my PC, and I was very used to not paying extra for these kinds of features on a PC (nor would I probably ever do so). However, I have yet to see a CONSOLE which offers the same features for free, and until that day comes, I'll pay a very reasonable price for the best CONSOLE service available.<br><br>THAT'S IT!<br><br>EDIT: fixed pronoun referring to a console with "who"... that's a little scary -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Harry_Greek:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As has been repeatedly pointed out... you can get a year for substantially less than that. And if you're willing to forgo live for a extremely small monetary charge that's your loss.<br><br>Right now the value for Live Gold is there, even without this new delay of content for Silver people. But it's a matter of personal perceived value... if you don't think it's worth thirty some odd dollars a year to get the things you do for Gold than it's not worth it to you. But there are a *LOT* of people paying for it that obviously disagree with you. If you are willing pay instead of waiting seven days than a subscription is worth it... to you. <br><br>I honestly don't see the hoopla. It's not like they are taking away something, there is just a (very minor) delay. If those seven days are that big of a deal than pay your thirty to forty dollars and you no longer have to wait; you'll also get a very seamless multiplayer experience thrown in as well. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Calm down.<br><br>Everytime someone says; "I am not paying,..." hens like you show up and start pecking and clucking over it.<br><br>You keep saying YOU and YOU. Well, just like YOU are entitled to feel it's not a big deal, I am entitled to feel it is.<br><br>It should be free. I don't care what "counter-point" you bring up. I do not want to pay anything extra for multiplayer or access to demos.<br><br>I am used to buying a PC game, getting on the multiplayer aspect and playing it with others, without paying a single penny more than what I pay for the game and my ISP.<br><br>THATS IT. </div>
</blockquote>Wow... so you come in with a snide remark, you get answered by someone in a very calm way who outlines the value to him, while simultaneously saying that it's all relative, and then you reply telling him to calm down (and for some odd reason associating him with a chicken... the VR is --->) and then reiterate the point he already made that it's important there is personal value.<br><br>Makes sense. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- <br><br>The point you seem to be failing to realize is that a console is NOT a PC. I too own a PC, and I love gaming on my PC, and I was very used to not paying extra for these kinds of features on a PC (nor would I probably ever do so). However, I have yet to see a CONSOLE which offers the same features for free, and until that day comes, I'll pay a very reasonable price for the best CONSOLE service available.<br><br>THAT'S IT!<br><br>EDIT: fixed pronoun referring to a console with "who"... that's a little scary -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Harry_Greek:<BR>Calm down.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Says the guy who walked in with a one-line, intentionally inflammatory post.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>It should be free. I don't care what "counter-point" you bring up. I do not want to pay anything extra for multiplayer or access to demos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>See, the first part of this is wrong, the second is right. Don't want to pay anything extra for mp? <I>Then don't</I>. But "should?" Nonsense. That implies some sort of debt, that you're owed something. And you are not.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>I am used to buying a PC game, getting on the multiplayer aspect and playing it with others, without paying a single penny more than what I pay for the game and my ISP.<BR><BR>THATS IT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Then play PC games. And stop trolling 360 threads.
Psion, I've got my stick and red wig ready whenever you are -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erwos:<BR>I'm not a huge fan of the new business model here, but one week isn't the end of the world. The essential problem is that they can't give Gold members _any_ perks without people claiming that Silver members got screwed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, that's true in that <I>someone</I> will always whine. But, this is a particularly bad case, where they're not <I>adding</I> value to Gold, they're <I>removing</I> value from Silver. I mean, considering how much they pay a ye...<BR>...er, nevermind.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Psion:<BR>Then play PC games. And stop trolling 360 threads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ya srsly ++ plz.<BR><BR>Also ++ to everything Psion and aC said.<BR><BR>People who complain that consoles are not the same as PC's are not the brightest bunch.
- Status