Steam is better than Xbox Live
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: present your stance
Round 3: rebuttals
Round 4: conclusions
i am pro - so i believe Steam is better than Xbox live.
I accept. Xbox live is better.
Round 2: present you're stance
Round 3: rebuttals and present your conclusion**
-Alright, let's begin. So first just to be clear: Steam is for PC and Xbox Live is for console (the Xbox/Xbox360/Xbox One to be particular).
-I think it is also to be noted that i'm only comparing the gaming aspect, I thought this was obvious because steam is only for gaming, but i'm just reminding you.
Since Steam is on the PC and Xbox Live is on the Xbox, it is much easier to access steam. Since many people already use computers, it is easier for them to simply download Steam and start playing, where as if you want to get games off of Xbox live, you have to go buy the console, which is anywhere from 200-500 [U.S.] dollars.
Using Steam is free. This is a HUGE advantage of steam compared to Xbox Live. in order to use Xbox Live you must pay $60 a year, whether you download games from it or not. So let's say that you are having a tough time in school, or you just have too much work to do that month, you can not play on Steam for the whole month and nothing really happens. Where as in Xbox Live, the $5 that you are paying that month is basically wasted
Prices [of games]:
Steam has MANY different sales. it has a daily deal, a weekly sale, midweek madness (which a sale that goes from wednsday to friday), and these aren't just a couple of games on sale. There are at all times, at least 20 games on sale on steam EVERY DAY. Steam also hosts 2 major sales - The Summer Sale and The Winter Sale (or the holiday sale), in which many of the titles are - at minimum - 30% off. Some major titles (Civillization V, Skyrim, Call of Duty, Borderlands 2, etc.) are 75% off. That's a huge drop! Where as in Xbox Live - while there are sales from time to time - it cannot compete with the amount of sales steam has.
steam has a community page for every single game. This means that there is a place for discussion, a place to post artwork and screenshots, a place to post videos, a place to look at all the upcoming news, to look at anouncements made by developers, a place to look at community made guides, and reviews of EVERY SINGLE GAME ON STEAM. The friends system is also great. You can also join community groups. Not only can you voice chat, but you can also text chat! (something not accessible on Xbox Live.) Xbox Live also has a friend system - and you can voice chat - but it lacks the other key features that i mentioned.
The amount of Users:
It's important to know how many players actually play on Xbox live and Steam. Steam currently has 65 million active users, where as Xbox Live only has 48 million.
The amount of games:
Steam has 3,000 games
Since all the consoles (Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox One) all have Xbox live, but not every system can play every game:
Xbox: 967 games
Xbox 360: 1,119 games
Xbox One: 119 games
I'll conclude now. I'm looking foreword to my opponents arguments
In round 2 of the debate, Pro states that he is only comparing the gaming aspect, though this was never mentioned in the resolution and so I shall examine other aspects anyway. The mere fact that Steam is only for gaming is a clear disadvantage when compared to the mighty Xbox Live.
I shall now formally begin by highlighting the flaws in Pro's arguments.
It is funny that Pro should mention the fact that Steam is on PC makes it more accessible. I invite everyone to type in "Gaming Computer" into the "Shopping" part of Google and look at the prices that come up. Of course there are more people who have computers than consoles, because not everyone who has a computer plays games. However, many of these computers are already outdated, and only able to play low quality games. If people simply want to play these games, then they can go on flash websites or download them without Steam.
Pro then argues that Steam is free. Of course Steam is free. Steam is simply a platform to sell games; Steam charging money would be the equivalent of Amazon.com charging customers a monthly fee to simply buy products. I don't do Marketing but I do believe that would be a completely stupid marketing idea. Con criticises the idea that you must pay $60 a year for a great service in Xbox Live, but it provides servers and matchmaking to players so they can get a game quickly. On the other hand, while Steam is free, PC gaming itself is a very expensive hobby and the constant replacement of graphic cards and other parts of the computer is definitely more than the measly sum of $60.
Pricing [of games].
While there may be some discounts on old and outdated games, I extend the argument that the cost of a gaming computer and the maintenance of said computer outweighs the slight benefits of some discounts on Steam. Furthermore, Steam may have discounted games, but when you subscribe to Xbox Live Gold, you get two free games a month. That is the equivalent of twenty four games a year, which means that you are paying less than $3 for a game. Please find me a deal like that on Steam.
I put forward the notion that there are far better communities to discuss gaming than the Steam software itself, making it redundant. Since Steam can only run on the PC, you can simply fire up your web browser and go on any one of the many gaming sites to discuss to your heart's content.
The amount of Users:
Steam does not limit the amount of accounts you create; in particular, due to the release of Dota 2, many 'smurf' accounts have been created to allow pros to destroy new level players for fun. This highly skews the data of 65 million active users, which Pro has not given a source for. Furthermore, a higher number of users does not make a platform better. There were more sexists than non-sexists or more racists than non-racists in the past, but that doesn't make their view points better, they simply weren't enlightened by the possibilities of the other side, just like you.
The amount of games:
Saying Steam has more merits as a gaming platform because it has more games is like saying my army of ants is going to beat your army of human soldiers because I have more ants than you have soldiers. Having more games simply makes it redundant and harder to find the good stuff, the games you really want. Furthermore, there are naturally more games on PC as the first game was released in 1962 while Xbox 360 was released in 2001, creating a huge time gap.
I will now put forward some of my own arguments to show my Xbox is better.
Xbox live has the option to buy and watch movies and option that does not exist on Steam and is a lot more important than some chatting features that I can replace by simply calling my friend.
Unlike Steam, Xbox live offers developer tools including several layers of matchmaking which allows friends to join and play an even game rather than those lopsided games that happen all the time on Steam. Instead of the 3rd party severs on Steam, Microsoft is responsible for tracking games and hosting all of their content, allowing much greater server stability and runtime.
Xbox also has a heap of customisable content in the form of XNA games.
Con states that steam is not more accessible just because not everyone has a gaming pc (stating that it is too expensive.) I currently have a $437 laptop and i can run 95% of all games (even "high graphic" games such as Skyrim, Borderlands 2, Call of Duty, etc.). I understand that not every computer can play all of the games on steam - but MANY computers can handle a large amount of the games on steam, at least on low settings.
Con states that just because you get servers and matchmaking, it's worth the $60. The benefit of having matchmaking servers is very minimal for $60. He also states that it takes a lot of money to buy a graphics card, and while this is true, i extend my argument saying that you don't need an expensive PC to play most games. Again, my laptop is only $437 and yet i can run most games.
Con says that there are only sales on old and outdated games. That is not the case! There are sales on major games too! and it's not just every once in a while. It's twice a year! games like Borderlands 2, Skyrim, Terraria, Civilization, Saints Row, etc. many games that are still played today are going on sale. Also, Steam has free to play weekends where you can try the game out for 3 days, and see if you like it before you buy it. There are very few deals on Xbox Live that are comparable to Steam. Steam is better for your wallet - do you want something that costs twice as much?
Con says that there are other places to discuss games other than Steam. While this may be true - Steam is no doubt one of the best! Like i said in my previous argument, there are many things you can discuss and post, and it's nice to know that you can do it all in once place, instead of going onto various forums. and you can do it to your heart's content. Also, the friends system is superb. You know when your friend is playing a game, what his status is (away, busy, online, etc.). You can send him just a quick message by typing, instead of having to call in order to talk to him every time.
There are 65 million accounts on steam. There are 48 milllion Xbox Live users. Con says that there are many duplicate accounts, especially due to people wanting to beat new players in dota 2, but think about it logically. If Xbox Live were to have more players, there would have to be 17 million duplicate accounts... does that number even make sense? Steam without a doubt has more users. While the amount of users may not necessarily mean something is better - there must be something right going on that is pleasing the users! Generally the better something is, the more people tend to use it, as can be seen by why Steam is more used than Xbox Live. I again need to stress the point that Steam is free! This is why Steam has more users, it's free, which also means it's easier to access with a computer [which is something most people already have - which, like I said before - does not need to be expensive to play good games.]
Con says "Having more games simply makes it redundant and harder to find the good stuff, the games you really want." This is not true! The fact that there are more games on steam adds more variety to the library. There are games of all types of genres so that the Casual Player and Hardcore Gamer alike will have games to play.The fact that the PC was released earlier is simply it's own advantage. I also add that Steam supports indie developer. Unlike Xbox, Steam has something called "Steam Greenlight". On Steam Greenlight are games that are not on steam but require user support to be on steam. Every month, 50 Steam Greenlight games are released as Steam games, as voted by the community.
OK. So in the end, i believe steam is better than Xbox live due to the following reasons:
-it's more accessible to everyone
-the prices of games are cheaper and there are sales
-it has more active users
-it has a great community
-it also supports indie developers
-it has a wide selection of games to choose from
 - http://mashable.com...
 - http://www.slashgear.com...
**I had fun debating with you. You actually made me reconsider some of my own points, and I must say that I truly have respect for Xbox Live. But i still think Steam is better!** Vote for me!
For my conclusion, I will take the dot point list Pro has provided at the end of his argument and highlight the flaws in each of the arguments, before summarising my own arguments.
As I have stated before, Steam has to be free, that cannot possibly be one of it's selling points. It is simply a platform to buy games and talk to friends, Steam charging money is the equivalent of amazon.com or ebay.com charging a monthly fee, a point that Pro has yet to refute.
It's more accessible to everyone
Pro continues with his assertion that gaming computers are more accessible than the one-time price of an Xbox One. At this point I would like to remind readers that the Xbox Live can be purchased at under $200 and the Xbox One at under $300. What about computers? Pro tries to use annecdotal evidence (which is an oxymoron, because annecdotes are not real evidence) to show that his "$437 laptop can run 95% of all games (even "high graphic" games such as Skyrim, Borderlands 2, Call of Duty, etc.)" While I am not directly doubting Pro's honesty, this evidence is simply inadmissible as it would be the equivalent of saying "I can get xbox one's for $20 from this guy in our neighbourhood who has plenty of stock". Slight exaggeration, but you get what I'm saying. Furthermore, even if these games do run, they would not run at the resolution that the Xbox One runs at - 1080p. Playing on low resolutions is simply diminishes the experience a great deal and I urge everyone to compare "ultra settings" on Skyrim or whatever game to "low". Sidenote: The xbox prices I have listed are still lower than Pro's "$437 laptop".
The prices of games are cheaper and there are sales
As I have mentioned in my previous argument, a point that has again not been rebuffed by Pro, an Xbox Live gold membership (the only one you have to pay for) gives you two free games a month, which equates to less than $3 for a game. These games are also selected by the community, so it's not some trash that Microsoft simply throws out. Therefore, irregardless of sales, Xbox Live already has the upperhand. Furthermore, there are still sales on Xbox Live, in the form of "Classics" and "Weekly Sales". Any monetary advantages Steam has over Xbox Live after all of these things (which I argue is none) is nullified by the costs of PCs as discussed above.
It has more active users
Pro points out that Steam has more users because it's free. That is a great point, and without realising it, he has helped my argument. Because Steam is free, users may only use its services to buy one game and play on it; after the game is finished, they no longer require steam but it still opens whenever they restart their computer. On the other hand, Xbox Live is a premium membership that you would have to commit to when you sign up - the $60 a year makes sure of that. The fact that there is a 3:2 ratio between a free service anyone can download and a premium service you have to pay for clearly highlights the fact that people are willing to pay for Xbox Live because it is better.
It has a great community
Pro has actaully provided no evidence that Steam has a great community. In fact, the number of insults that exist in Dota 2 alone scream otherwise. This is in part due to the anonymity of Steam and the ability to create multiple accounts - who cares if you get banned on one, just make another.
It also supports indie developers
So does Xbox Live, a point I will make when examining the positives of Xbox Live. However, Valve may not be as generous to indie developers as you may think.
It has a wide selection of games to choose from
So does Xbox, and you know the difference between Xbox and PC. There are exclusives such as Halo and a slew of exclusives coming in 2014 that you can look at here. I also stand by the argument that more does not mean better. Let's take Pro's argument of Casual Player and Hardcore Gamer. If you were a Hardcore Gamer, would you want to look at columns and columns of titles that simply do not appeal to the hardcore gamer in you? And vice versa. Furthermore, this is not simply a question of what games appeal to who, but a question of good games and bad games.
Some more advantages of Xbox Live
Many services outside of gaming
Being linked up to a TV, there are obviously many more uses of Xbox Live outside of Gaming. It is a multipurpose tool - in fact, I argue that Xbox Live can completely replace any cable network's function as you can go on web browsers and download Netflix to watch any show you want. Hate jumping from your computer to your tv and back again? Well you won't have to any more. In fact - you can even watch tv while waiting for your matchmaking!
There is a constant problem with children and underage teens playing games that they simply shouldn't be playing. How can you possibly monitor that on Steam other than standing behind them 24/7? You can't. But, thanks to the parental controls of Xbox Live, you can! This is a crucial feature as it really ensures children aren't exposed to inappropriate material and have a decent upbringing.
While my opponent has carelessly dismissed the idea of the quality of matchmaking of Xbox Live, I believe there are a plethora of advantages over the Steam system, and is worth paying the $60 for (as well as the 24 free games, extra functions, sales of its own, exclusives, etc. etc.) Due to the fact that games on Steam run on third party based servers, a point my opponent has yet to refute, there are numerous server down times that severely impact the ability of finding a game. Furthermore, teams are often skewed as friends can simply choose to play with each other and keep all the bad people on one team - as well as abusive 'kicking' of players when they feel they are being beaten too much. Microsoft also has very little to no server downtime.
Microsoft provides a full suite of support for indie developers, providing them with no cost development tools, full platform access, great discovery and a full community as seen here. There is no reason why this is any worse than if not better than the Steam developer support that is available.
I again thank my opponent for hosting this debate and wish them luck in all their future debates. I will not urge you to vote one side or the other, simply that you make a rational decision based on arguments presented.
Thank you all for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: The advantages of Xbox live seem to outweigh the advantages of steam. Both sides make good cases for their position. Good luck to both of you in future debates.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.