I guess my definition of a "working" online system means there is no significant lag, there are few server errors (ie being booted), and the interface is easy to use and practical. On the PSN for example you can't form out of game parties in which you can subsequently join games. There's no excuse for an oversight like that, free or not.
@hairless wookie, I respectfully disagree based on my experiences. you're lucky to not have experienced significant lag or booting.
@club obi wan, I'll agree the PSN is reliable, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it works "well". And as you can see in my earlier statement, I believe the fees microsoft charges are abhorent. I never said they were either reasonable or fair.
Just my observations guys. I've owned a PS3 and 360 for about 2 years each now, and my opinion stems from my experiences. It's all marketing, and it's all designed to make money, free or not.
Maybe I don't understand clearly how online gaming works, but don't you need a virtual platform with which to assemble these interactions? If so, is it wrong that companies charge fees for providing the online platform? I'm not trying to be obnoxious
, I just honestly think I'm missing something here. How can you assemble for gameplay without the companies providing the virtual space to do it in?
PS, just wanted to get the message out there. I'm playing devil's advocate here
. I too feel online gaming should be a service provided by companies free of charge.