Sony: PS2 Online = PS3 Online

[dukmahsik]

Harrison on PS3 Online

As we suspected months ago in our interview with Epic’s Mark Rein, it looks like Sony will in fact go with an open architecture for its online model. What does that mean, exactly? Basically, the way that the PlayStation 2’s online model operates will be applied to the PlayStation 3. While Harrison admitted that the Xbox Live online gaming service is one of the things that Microsoft has done well, he said that Sony’s plan is to let publishers establish their own means for getting consumers online and to let the publishers interact with consumers directly instead of using Sony as some kind of buffer for the online experience.

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/PlaystationMagazine/2005/11/01/1019152?extID=10026

Sorry didn't see a thread on this earlier.

[hey69]

well I'm all for free online play
me personaly, i wouldnt want to pay 10$ a month just to have an extra service lik, IM mode, ranking etc.. but hey thats me

[EpicZero]

Harrison on PS3 Online

As we suspected months ago in our interview with Epic’s Mark Rein, it looks like Sony will in fact go with an open architecture for its online model. What does that mean, exactly? Basically, the way that the PlayStation 2’s online model operates will be applied to the PlayStation 3. While Harrison admitted that the Xbox Live online gaming service is one of the things that Microsoft has done well, he said that Sony’s plan is to let publishers establish their own means for getting consumers online and to let the publishers interact with consumers directly instead of using Sony as some kind of buffer for the online experience.

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/PlaystationMagazine/2005/11/01/1019152?extID=10026

Sorry didn't see a thread on this earlier.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23089&page=4&highlight=GDCE

[dukmahsik]

well I'm all for free online play
me personaly, i wouldnt want to pay 10$ a month just to have an extra service lik, IM mode, ranking etc.. but hey thats me

$10 a month? I pay 5 bucks for Live

[drpepper]

$10 a month? I pay 5 bucks for Live

I pay $0 for online play! :D

[seismologist]

works for me. I dont want to pay to play online. It's one of the reasons I almost always buy the PC version.

[Guden Oden]

XBL is just another way of scamming users out of their money. There's nothing XBL does that other games don't offer for free. If MS had done some actual WORK, such as hosting games on their own servers etc, then that might have been something one might pay for, but I still wouldn't want to fork out for game hosting of a game I might not even own, or isn't interested in playing online.

The whole XBL concept is dubious IMO, but I've said all this before and shan't be repeating myself. ;)

[Tap In]

multiplayer online is the only way I want to play anymore.

I am rarely ever interested in single player campaigns now that I have had a taste of a solid, easy to use, multiplayer console system gaming.

[Hardknock]

XBL is just another way of scamming users out of their money. There's nothing XBL does that other games don't offer for free. If MS had done some actual WORK, such as hosting games on their own servers etc, then that might have been something one might pay for, but I still wouldn't want to fork out for game hosting of a game I might not even own, or isn't interested in playing online.

The whole XBL concept is dubious IMO, but I've said all this before and shan't be repeating myself. ;)

Ummm, MS has spent almost $2 Billion on the XBL service. If it was so easy, and could be done for free, why isn't Sony doing it then? Obviously it's not so easy and definitely not free to implement.

[Josh378]

multiplayer online is the only way I want to play anymore.

I am rarely ever interested in single player campaigns now that I have had a taste of a solid, easy to use, multiplayer console system gaming.


Agreed, Multiplayer online player has really tanted my tastes for gameplay. I mean, whne the AI compared to the game to compared to Real live people who I can flame, insult, or make a mockery of as I'm shooting their body and dancing around it (Ok, I'm talking about Socom 3), is soo addictive....

Although, I Purchased Grandia II and I'm falling in love with it :)

-Josh378

[dukmahsik]

i'd rather pay a paltry $5 for a service, getting rid of cheaters, communication, etc.

[expletive]

XBL is just another way of scamming users out of their money. There's nothing XBL does that other games don't offer for free. If MS had done some actual WORK, such as hosting games on their own servers etc, then that might have been something one might pay for, but I still wouldn't want to fork out for game hosting of a game I might not even own, or isn't interested in playing online.

The whole XBL concept is dubious IMO, but I've said all this before and shan't be repeating myself. ;)

Have you ever used XBL? Being able to see which your friends are online and what theyre playing, send them an IM, etc. is fantastic. Just the limited funcitonality that was available on the current XBL service was great.

Being able to build a community, easily connect with friends and gamers of similar skill levels is also huge advantage.

In short, I couldnt disagre more.

[Titanio]

This is a report based on the GDCE comments - which you can read for yourself in the thread already linked to, rather than OPM's paraphrasing (which is slightly misleading imo). There's nothing new here, or nothing you can't read in more precise "in context" form elsewhere. Also, misleading thread title.

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

So Sony have adopted the PROVEN pc method of on-line play??? Giving developers there own choice meens the dev's are not restricted to do what they want and that meens more dev's will give more support due to the freedom.

[pakpassion]

So Sony have adopted the PROVEN pc method of on-line play??? Giving developers there own choice meens the dev's are not restricted to do what they want and that meens more dev's will give more support due to the freedom.

and how has PC online gaming evolved in the last 5 years compared to Xbox Live?

[Hardknock]

So Sony have adopted the PROVEN pc method of on-line play??? Giving developers there own choice meens the dev's are not restricted to do what they want and that meens more dev's will give more support due to the freedom.

If that was the case why are there more Xbox games than PS2 games online :?:

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

and how has PC online gaming evolved in the last 5 years compared to Xbox Live?

Does it reallty matter????? PC is the biggest gaming market there is and it has survived and grown WITH-OUT these fancy friend list's ETC... that XBL has.

Sony has given Dev's UNLIMITED freedom for there online section's of game's, and im sure the dev's can concentrate on inovative idea's with it.

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

If that was the case why are there more Xbox games than PS2 games online :?:

Is there???

[Kb-Smoker]

XBL is just another way of scamming users out of their money. There's nothing XBL does that other games don't offer for free. If MS had done some actual WORK, such as hosting games on their own servers etc, then that might have been something one might pay for, but I still wouldn't want to fork out for game hosting of a game I might not even own, or isn't interested in playing online.

The whole XBL concept is dubious IMO, but I've said all this before and shan't be repeating myself. ;)
QFT

if you guys remember the sony online plan email that was going around....


Chat rooms
Buddy list
Single identifier across all games
Strict etiquette and rule enforcement
Downloadable content
Updates for sports rosters
Other updates
Voice headsets for some games
Instant Message capabilites

you can have an öpen system and still have a lot more features than ps2.

[Hardknock]

Sony has given Dev's UNLIMITED freedom for there online section's of game's, and im sure the dev's can concentrate on inovative idea's with it.

Nope. See people don't really realize what MS has done with XBL. MS basically created the majority of the net-code for devs to put their games online. Giving devs more time to focus on other things. MS also hosts servers for the games that need them. And since putting a game online is essentially free for devs on Xbox, more games have the feature.

[Hardknock]

Is there???

YES.

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

Nope. See people don't really realize what MS has done with XBL. MS basically created the majority of the net-code for devs to put their games online. Giving devs more time to focus on other things. MS also hosts servers for the games that need them. And since putting a game online is essentially free for devs on Xbox, more games have the feature.

See microsoft create the tools and host the server's, what do dev's do if what microsoft have is'nt enough???what then??? They have to do it themselve's.

[expletive]

So Sony have adopted the PROVEN pc method of on-line play??? Giving developers there own choice meens the dev's are not restricted to do what they want and that meens more dev's will give more support due to the freedom.

How do you explain the immense popularity of the gamespy products? The unified interface/friends list/messageing approach is already taking root in a completely open PC environment (see also:Xfire) where there was no incentive for users other than convenience. I think its obvious by the way PC people have flocked to these game 'browsers' that its a value add service.

[Synergy34]

XBL is just another way of scamming users out of their money. There's nothing XBL does that other games don't offer for free. If MS had done some actual WORK, such as hosting games on their own servers etc, then that might have been something one might pay for, but I still wouldn't want to fork out for game hosting of a game I might not even own, or isn't interested in playing online.

The whole XBL concept is dubious IMO, but I've said all this before and shan't be repeating myself. ;)

You be amazed how many people on Live think they are playing on MS servers.

Live does actually provide one good feature, that you are connected to people even though they are playing a differnet game, so they are providing something that other games don't, unless you are playing a EA Sports game. It's nice that i can get an invite from my friends while playing something totally different.

Other than that though, it is overrated big time. 5 bucks a month for an Instant Messenger service.

[pegisys]

I have to disagree with the people that don't like xbox live, it's a great service once you start playing on it, and it's the price of a game for a year subscription it's not like it's $50 a month

I would like a service like live for free, but thats not going to happen so I don't mind paying a once a year fee

online pc gaming is not much different from live since you have features of live through 3rd partys with things like teamspeak and xfire

[Bobbler]

Ummm, MS has spent almost $2 Billion on the XBL service. If it was so easy, and could be done for free, why isn't Sony doing it then? Obviously it's not so easy and definitely not free to implement.

I keep seeing this number, but I can't fathom where it actually comes from. If MS spent 2 billion on getting XBL up and running, they are encroaching on the US government's wanton money spending abilities...

You have any source for that number? I don't believe for a second XBL cost anywhere near 2 billion to get up and running (unless that number includes things like bandwidth costs, payoffs to devs to produce XBL content, advertising, etc, etc since its inception). That number also doesn't seem to factor in how much it has made MS (probably not 2 billion). What I'm getting at, outside the fact that 2 billion number seems stupidly large for what XBL actually does, is it's largely irrelevant without context.

[Hardknock]

Well first you have to realize that XBL is not just about online gaming. It's also a communication tool(voice and chat), distribution tool(Downloadable content, demos, videos) plus it's universal across all games and built into every system which takes a significant amount of money for R&D and server costs. And to encourage devs to create content, MS creates the net-code and tools for them. So that's even more money.

[seismologist]

multiplayer online is the only way I want to play anymore.

I am rarely ever interested in single player campaigns now that I have had a taste of a solid, easy to use, multiplayer console system gaming.

I'm becoming exactly the opposite. After playing a game like COD2, the AI is so compelling and intense it makes me not even want to bother going online.

those are usually the only games I buy are ones with compelling single player. Online bores me unless it's an MMORPG.

[Alpha_Spartan]

XBL is just another way of scamming users out of their money. There's nothing XBL does that other games don't offer for free. If MS had done some actual WORK, such as hosting games on their own servers etc, then that might have been something one might pay for, but I still wouldn't want to fork out for game hosting of a game I might not even own, or isn't interested in playing online.

The whole XBL concept is dubious IMO, but I've said all this before and shan't be repeating myself. ;)
LOL! Whatever, dude. I'd rather have a unified consistent interface for all my games and game content downloads rather than managing them seperately. Xbox Live is worth the $50 a year.

[Brodda Thep]

How does publishing a game for XBox prevent developers from providing fee on-line play through their own services while still hooking into XBL silver services?

[EndR]

I keep seeing this number, but I can't fathom where it actually comes from. If MS spent 2 billion on getting XBL up and running, they are encroaching on the US government's wanton money spending abilities...

You have any source for that number? I don't believe for a second XBL cost anywhere near 2 billion to get up and running (unless that number includes things like bandwidth costs, payoffs to devs to produce XBL content, advertising, etc, etc since its inception). That number also doesn't seem to factor in how much it has made MS (probably not 2 billion). What I'm getting at, outside the fact that 2 billion number seems stupidly large for what XBL actually does, is it's largely irrelevant without context.

The 2 billion figure is often wrong-used. MS did say at one E3 (don´t remember which one, I think it was the one were they presented XSN Sports) that they will spend 2 billion dollars on a course of 5 years regarding XboxLive and other Xbox-related stuff. This apparently also involved the "losses" MS made on Xbox... but MS did say 2 billion.. but it was under 5 years and not solely on XboxLive...

[BTOA]

XBL is just another way of scamming users out of their money. There's nothing XBL does that other games don't offer for free. If MS had done some actual WORK, such as hosting games on their own servers etc, then that might have been something one might pay for, but I still wouldn't want to fork out for game hosting of a game I might not even own, or isn't interested in playing online.

The whole XBL concept is dubious IMO, but I've said all this before and shan't be repeating myself. ;)
QFT!!!!

[BTOA]

Well first you have to realize that XBL is not just about online gaming. It's also a communication tool(voice and chat), distribution tool(Downloadable content, demos, videos) plus it's universal across all games and built into every system which takes a significant amount of money for R&D and server costs. And to encourage devs to create content, MS creates the net-code and tools for them. So that's even more money.
Transporting MS's Net service to the Xbox cost 2 Billion dollars now? :lol:

MS is a software company, all they had to do was port over what they had on the PC to the Xbox. The $2 Billion dollar figure is just to get silly fan boys excited over their P2P service.

[Bobbler]

The 2 billion figure is often wrong-used. MS did say at one E3 (don´t remember which one, I think it was the one were they presented XSN Sports) that they will spend 2 billion dollars on a course of 5 years regarding XboxLive and other Xbox-related stuff. This apparently also involved the "losses" MS made on Xbox... but MS did say 2 billion.. but it was under 5 years and not solely on XboxLive...


Ahh, that makes a bit more sense. Thanks. I figured the number wasn't just made up, but I couldn't imagine MS throwing away 2 billion dollars for something that could have been made with a fraction of that (a small fraction).

[Edge]

The 2 billion figure is often wrong-used. MS did say at one E3 (don´t remember which one, I think it was the one were they presented XSN Sports) that they will spend 2 billion dollars on a course of 5 years regarding XboxLive and other Xbox-related stuff. This apparently also involved the "losses" MS made on Xbox... but MS did say 2 billion.. but it was under 5 years and not solely on XboxLive...

And yet they ended up losing $5 billion as recently discussed.

My prediction is that they lose $10 billion this round, and $20 billion the next round after that. ;)

[scooby_dooby]

Speaking about bogus numbers, the 4Billion was tossed out there by some magazine, microsoft exec's say they have no idea how they came up with that number.

Anyways, this is weak as hell, very dissapointing. What's worse is everyone rationalizing it.

Are you telling me you wouldn't rather have:
global ranking systems?
a consistent bug-free interface?
a universal friends list?
a vastly higher number of online co-op games?
invites from friends in the middle of any game?
voice chat in all games?
feedback systems ala ebay on all users?
consistent customer support and bug-fixes to stop cheaters?

"Open Architecture" just means you get whatever dev's decide to give you, that's pretty weak...I want a consistant, universally aware and most importantly bug-free interface across all games, it's just the only right way to do it.

[BTOA]

"Open Architecture" just means you get whatever dev's decide to give you, that's pretty weak...I want a consistant, universally aware and most importantly bug-free interface across all games, it's just the only right way to do it.
PC gamers seem to be okay with it. ;)

[Brimstone]

Xbox LIVE is really great. The whole virtual couch that exists in Halo 2 is just one good example. You and a few online buddies can join matchmaking together and end up on the same maps. After the game you can sit there and just chat if you want. Also when you launch games from your virtual couch, the matchmaking takes into account everyones game rank to help keep things even.

Meaning if you're all high ranking Halo 2 players on the virtual couch , your opponents will also end up being high ranking also. This results in more intense and fun matches. My time is valuable to me, so when I play online I want it to be the best experience possible. Without the structure of LIVE, the quality of online play experience would be lessened and more erratic like it is on the PC.

Clans also work out much better over LIVE, because of the ease of communicating with other clan members.

[expletive]

PC gamers seem to be okay with it. ;)

As if they have a choice, and what limited choices/functionality are out there, hardcore gamers flock to them.

Also keep in mind the IM part of XBL is now free, so youre not paying anythign if all you want to do is IM.

[speng]

Paying for online service is the number 1 reason why I do not plan to get an XBox 360. And the main reason why I didn't pick up an Xbox.

I already have so many subscriptions, I do not want another one just to play some games.
The only games I think warrant subscription fees are either episodic games and MMOGs.

Speng.

[PARANOiA]

PC gamers seem to be okay with it. ;)

It could be a lot better than it is. I would have liked to have been given the choice, myself.

Whatever happened to PS.NET?

[BTOA]

As if they have a choice, and what limited choices/functionality are out there, hardcore gamers flock to them.

Private servers. ;)


Also keep in mind the IM part of XBL is now free, so youre not paying anythign if all you want to do is IM.

IM has always been free on the internet.

[BTOA]

Whatever happened to PS.NET?
Weren't the EverQuest people working on that?

[PARANOiA]

Weren't the EverQuest people working on that?

I had such a funny image in my head of "the Everquest people" when you said that. All midgets with pointy ears and stuff. Never mind :lol:

[zRifle1z]

Wow, just Wow!!

I'm left scratching my head confused at some of the reactions to XBOX Live. To those of you who do not like the XBOX Live "service" what exactkly do you want from your online console game service?

If XBOX Live is so bad for online gamming what other model would you want MS or Sony to use.

[function]

Why are people comparing what you *can* do with a PC to what is *standard* for anyone that uses an Xbox online? Has the whole issue of one being an open platform and one being a closed patform suddenly passed people by?

I can do whatever I want with a PC, it'll run any program I like - freeware, homebrew, adware, shareware, paid for ... whatever. And game makers can scan for and block whatever they like. Players using hacked accounts and crappy cheat programs can ruin any number of my games with no chance they'll get cauaght or banned. Chances are my friends or potential friends will have different configurations of programs and hardware that won't exactly (or even closely) match mine.

Good luck on alt+tabing out of every fullscreen game to go to messenger as many times as you like without it crashing or temporarily hanging. A lot.

I'll pay for a standardised service on a console that puts everything at my fingertips and that I can guarantee will work with everyone I'll ever meet regardless of what game I might be playing at the time or 3 years from now. I'll pay for something that does exactly what it's supposed to, all the time and with no excuses.

If people don't want to pay for that then that's understandable, but people shouldn't slate a successful system like Xbox Live by comparing it to some unrealistic, impractical and none-existant ideal solution that merges PC infinite-variability and open platformness with console reliability, standardisation and useability.

[Master-Mold]

XBL is just another way of scamming users out of their money. There's nothing XBL does that other games don't offer for free. If MS had done some actual WORK, such as hosting games on their own servers etc, then that might have been something one might pay for, but I still wouldn't want to fork out for game hosting of a game I might not even own, or isn't interested in playing online.

The whole XBL concept is dubious IMO, but I've said all this before and shan't be repeating myself. ;)

QAO (quoted as opinion :roll: )


Live is a success because it is never in your way. By that I mean you get to the gaming faster without the fluff and you never say things like "I wish this damn cumbersome Live wasnt here". For me $5 a month just to take the garbage time out of my gaming it is well worth it and I dont care if MS does nothing. I want fast reliable matchmaking, less cheating (although there is some), a sleek interface that isnt cumbersome, a friends list, and one gamertag or profile that is accessed at the press of a few buttons.

Even the best PC gaming services fall far below the Live model in not only how it works but the cohesiveness of it all. Never am I checking off 25 server filter settings, signing up for a new game, playing some cheat filled server, or dealing with voice chat issues. I can take any new Xbox game out of the wrapper and be playing in a couple minutes.

Thats what I prefer to pay for.

[BlueTsunami]

QAO (quoted as opinion :roll: )


Live is a success because it is never in your way. By that I mean you get to the gaming faster without the fluff and you never say things like "I wish this damn cumbersome Live wasnt here". For me $5 a month just to take the garbage time out of my gaming it is well worth it and I dont care if MS does nothing. I want fast reliable matchmaking, less cheating (although there is some), a sleek interface that isnt cumbersome, a friends list, and one gamertag or profile that is accessed at the press of a few buttons.

Even the best PC gaming services fall far below the Live model in not only how it works but the cohesiveness of it all. Never am I checking off 25 server filter settings, signing up for a new game, playing some cheat filled server, or dealing with voice chat issues. I can take any new Xbox game out of the wrapper and be playing in a couple minutes.

Thats what I prefer to pay for.

Its that type of hold your hand experience that some people DON'T like. I like Xbox Live! when I just want to jump into a game and do it up but an Open infrastructure allows for more customization. I'm happy PS3 isn't copying/mimicking the Live! structure. A company should try their own model if they want. The OS of their choice seems to follow the Online structure that they want to follow, keep it open.

Why do you roll your eyes at his opinion, he didn't state what he said was fact. Opinions also shouldn't need an IMO, IMHO or actually spelling it out. One should know whats an opinion and what isn't.

[Master-Mold]

Why do you roll your eyes at his opinion, he didn't state what he said was fact. Opinions also shouldn't need an IMO, IMHO or actually spelling it out. One should know whats an opinion and what isn't.

My roll eyes wasnt aimed at him. It was aimed at the few QFT responses to his opinion. "I agree" is one thing but calling his opinion true makes no sense.

So is my opinion false?

[PC-Engine]

I'm becoming exactly the opposite. After playing a game like COD2, the AI is so compelling and intense it makes me not even want to bother going online.

those are usually the only games I buy are ones with compelling single player. Online bores me unless it's an MMORPG.

Have you ever gamed on LAN with say 16 other people? Have you ever raced with a bunch of friends with your own screen? There are many ways to enjoy multiplayer online games. Have you ever played games like Counter Strike?

Anyway I like Nintendo's approach to online, but MS approach is cool and different too. http://www.nintendowifi.com/ :razz:

[expletive]

An open online standard is not the way to grow the community and industry. There is nothing developers couldnt do in the context of XBL that they could do in some open architecture, XBL jsut brings it all together.

I'm really amazed at the people defending this and having any problem with XBL other than the fact that its $4.17 a month.

[BlueTsunami]

My roll eyes wasnt aimed at him. It was aimed at the few QFT responses to his opinion. "I agree" is one thing but calling his opinion true makes no sense.

So is my opinion false?

No ones opinions is false. Also, the QFT is also stating an opinion, its a way to basically say "This dude said everything I was going to say". Now that your point out that it was for people that say QFT it clears it up some.

Have you ever gamed on LAN with say 16 other people? Have you ever raced with a bunch of friends with your own screen? There are many ways to enjoy multiplayer online games. Have you ever played games like Counter Strike?

After playing Battlefield 2 (and becoming Corporal recently) I can honestly say that I cannot look back. Multiplayer games (Online and LAN) is where its at. I tried playing BF2 offline and it really did make me feel lonely :(

The only genre that I can play offline at all in this point in time are Fighters and RPGs.

[expletive]

Private servers. ;)


IM has always been free on the internet.

What about private servers? IS there a point tucked away in there? :)

We're not talking about the generic internet on a PC, we're talking about anyone who can buy a $300 console and get it online can now experience. Youre talking apples and oranges.

[seismologist]

For you guys complaining about the open system I assume you're getting a 360. If you decide to get a PS3 for some exclusive game, and want to play online would you really want to be paying for two seperate "online services"? Since you guys seem to require an online service I'm guessing that's what you would want? Then when EA starts charging $5 for "EA-NET" you can pay for that too.


The best scenario for me would be for Sony to push there open service enough to get it in a state thats close to online PC gaming.

[expletive]

For you guys complaining about the open system I assume you're getting a 360. If you decide to get a PS3 for some exclusive game, and want to play online would you really want to be paying for two seperate "online services"? Since you guys seem to require an online service I'm guessing that's what you would want?


The best solution for me would be for Sony to push there open service enough to get it in a state thats close to online PC gaming.

I'm not complaining about an open system, just floored as to how some defend it as superior to what MS has done with XBL.

What exactly is your definition of 'close to PC online gaming' to which Sony should strive?

[Johnny Awesome]

Most of the hardcore online console gamers are on Xbox Live. Sony can't really charge them as well if they don't provide the same level of service. No real surprises here.

Xbox Live is excellent. For the price of one game you get tons of replayability for tons of games you own and a nice social experience to boot. :)

[expletive]

I wonder, if XBL were 100% free, would people still think an open model is superior? Is it really the $4.17/month thats deterring people?

[seismologist]

I'm not complaining about an open system, just floored as to how some defend it as superior to what MS has done with XBL.

What exactly is your definition of 'close to PC online gaming' to which Sony should strive?

The best scenario would be to have a free open service and a seperate premium service for those who want it (but then no one would pay for the premium service ;))

The only problem I had with PS2 online was that not many games supported it. I guess thats what I mean by close to PC online gaming pretty much every game has at aleast a few stable servers up and running.

[Skrying]

I admire Xbox Live, one of the few console things I think is really great. Its a great thing IMO, its nice having all of those features intergrated into one package that's very cheap ($5 is not much a month for anyone, especially people with such an expensive hobby as gaming).

I'm sorry, but the PC architecture, if you can call it that, is terrible. This is coming from a hardcore PC gamer. It sucks having to have several programs to do what Xbox Live does. Lets see: I have to use All Seeing Eye because some games have a terrible server browser, I have the most recent version of Ventrilo and an old version because some people try to avoid paying the server costs, I also have Teamspeak because some people want to avoid Vent's server cost (understandble, but Vent is so much more superior). Xfire now seems like a must, people dont like it when you dont have it.

Right there is several different programs, and even times where I have to have two different versions of the SAME program. That's terrible, its just a freaking mess, and all because I only play two games on a regular basis! What if I played more? Do you guys really want that in the console world, now it wouldnt be this bad, but having it different for each game, plus quality differences with each game and support someday by that publisher or dev may just dissapear is not a good thing IMO.

I must say, I think MS has done a great job with Xbox Live, and I dont find any fault with it at all really. Maybe the cost, but to me, its so low I wouldnt complain for such a great package, I've payed much more for much less in my life with computers.

[hongcho]

For developers, they would probably want to know how many consoles are capable of online play. Without this information, I think it would be tough to make the decision to include online feature and other supporting structures for developers.

XBL made that information pretty clear for the developers. Especially the number of people who's willing to pay (?) to play online games. On the other hand, it is tough to guage that with PS2 (although they could count the network adaptor sales) and that's why I think PS2 did not get too many online games.

The inclusion of network features on PS3 may change this. However, XBL still gives developers better idea of the potential market for their future online games. Even on PCs, I think this is something very difficult to measure.

Sure they could make XBL free (I wish they did), but with the price as it is, I don't think it's that bad.

Hong.

[wco81]

I wonder, if XBL were 100% free, would people still think an open model is superior? Is it really the $4.17/month thats deterring people?

Nobody said it was superior, just that it was good enough and a much better value. You can't beat free for value.

A single login/password? Nice but do you use a single account to get to all the e-commerce, travel, banking and forum sites? Had the need to create and use dozens of accounts made using the web intolerable?

I got my PowerBook by my side logged into AIM. That's all the communications I need to find games.

I would rather enter IP addresses using a controller if I had to, rather than pay for a glorified matchmaking service.

[expletive]

Nobody said it was superior, just that it was good enough and a much better value. You can't beat free for value.

If you read the thread, I think youll find there are people arguing that an open model is superior.

A single login/password? Nice but do you use a single account to get to all the e-commerce, travel, banking and forum sites? Had the need to create and use dozens of accounts made using the web intolerable?

No its not intolerable but would i PREFER it if it were an option? Yes!

I think we're at a point in most countries where we're striving to get a little beyond 'tolerable'. Most are up to 'preferable' and some of are even shooting for *gasp* 'optimal'! :)

I got my PowerBook by my side logged into AIM. That's all the communications I need to find games.

Well the "guy who has a gmaing PC and a seperate laptop next to him loogged into chat so he can find games" takes up about .005% of the console gaming population. Not to mention your setup combined is probably runnning you over $1000?

[PARANOiA]

Nobody said it was superior, just that it was good enough and a much better value. You can't beat free for value.

And this is precisely the type of person for whom Live is not aimed. Why? You'll never be happy paying for a service.

Lots of people pay for a better service, because there's something about making life easier that's great. I agree that what you get from Live isn't "worth" the money right now, but I think it's a fantastic service for what it does, and has 100% set the benchmark for online gaming functionality and ease of use. I'm also sure that on the 360's Live you'll get more for your money than you do today.

To put it another way, I could spent half an hour on each game setting up and logging into an account, but for a fee, I don't have to bother. I work a decent job for good money, and my free time is worth more than "inputting an IP address with a controller" to save $4 a month.

[liverkick]

I know this may come as a shock to some but having an open online platform doesn't preclude a free service from implementing a universal handle, buddy list, invites, chat, browsing etc. within that model.

I'd like to wait until there's actual news on Sony's online plans before I decide its ease of use and whether it'll provide a quality experience or not. But thats just me.

[BlueTsunami]

I know this may come as a shock to some but having an open online platform doesn't preclude a free service from implementing a universal handle, buddy list, invites, chat, browsing etc. within that model.

I'd like to wait until there's actual news on Sony's online plans before I decide its ease of use and whether it'll provide a quality experience or not. But thats just me.

Thats just the thing, this isn't news :lol: . This has been stated by Harrison a while back. This is just a magazine regurgitating the information back to us again.

[expletive]

I know this may come as a shock to some but having an open online platform doesn't preclude a free service from implementing a universal handle, buddy list, invites, chat, browsing etc. within that model.

I'd like to wait until there's actual news on Sony's online plans before I decide its ease of use and whether it'll provide a quality experience or not. But thats just me.

How is the developer of the 'free; service going to get all the developers on board on interfacing with their system? Games being built 'live aware' is one of the big selling points which guarentees the best experience. And its not about just online games. You can see friends playing single player games as well and send them an IM. Developers are not going to do the extra work to make al of their games work with a free service. With Live, they dont have a choice.

Though i agree we should judge the Sony system against what is actually released rather than just 'an open system'.

[seismologist]

I would rather enter IP addresses using a controller if I had to, rather than pay for a glorified matchmaking service.

Tell me about it.... Especially with P2P....you dont even need dedicated servers so there could probably be a system in place where your PS3 can browse user created online communities and join games that way. I would prefer something along these lines where there is community involement rather than paying $4.99 a month to go through the gate keeper.

But the $4.99 isn't the real problem. When I buy a game I dont want it to have features that are tied to a service's availability. To this day there are games in my Dreamcast collection that are little more than coasters since Sega.net is gone and I can no longer play them online.
On the flipside, I have PC games from the early 90's that I can jump right in and start blasting away whenever I feel like it. That's the advantage of having an open system.

[expletive]

Tell me about it.... Especially with P2P....you dont even need dedicated servers so there could probably be a system in place where your PS3 can browse user created online communities and join games that way. I would prefer something along these lines where there is community involement rather than paying $4.99 a month to go through the gate keeper..

Possibly but youre talking in hypotheticals here. DO you ahve any idea all the pieces that need to fall into place for that to emerge in an open system?

But the $4.99 isn't the real problem. When I buy a game I dont want it to have features that are tied to a service's availability. To this day there are games in my Dreamcast collection that are little more than coasters since Sega.net is gone and I can no longer play them online.
On the flipside, I have PC games from the early 90's that I can jump right in and start blasting away whenever I feel like it. That's the advantage of having an open system.

So your big argument for an open system is so that you can play games that are at least 6 years old(for dreamcast, the PC stuff you mention is over 15 years old) whenever you want to?

[TrungGap]

Let's consider how LIVE reduces cheaters. Now, in an open system, it's up the system to weed out cheaters...how are you going to keep track of all modified boxes (banned boxes)? So some central server is needed...who is going to pay for that? Granted LIVE doesn't elminated cheaters, but it greatly reduced it. How much is that worth? A lot of hardcore PC gamers play on dedicated servers to they avoid cheaters and have a ranking system, however it's not free.

Granted, some of you may think LIVE isn't worth the money, but to say an open system is better have yet argue why it is better. Maybe, what a lot of you meant, LIVE isn't worth the money...? If that's the case, I would to agree for the current version of LIVE. But let's hope LIVE will continue to improve by adding more value for the money.

Additional features I would love LIVE Gold to have:

1) ability to save my game online instead on my console

2) Video streaming of game highlight from tournaments

LIVE Silver features I would love to see:

1) game library/catalog - ability for me to catalog my games, rate it and review. And have the ratings/reviews reflected in a global game rating so other gamers who are interested in buying the game can review the game. Like how Blockbuster online rating works.

2) intergate with online game rentals...So people don't need to fire up their computer to manage their queue.

3) Buying Music / TV episodes (sort like video ipod)

[expletive]

Let's consider how LIVE reduces cheaters. Now, in an open system, it's up the system to weed out cheaters...how are you going to keep track of all modified boxes (banned boxes)? So some central server is needed...who is going to pay for that? Granted LIVE doesn't elminated cheaters, but it greatly reduced it. How much is that worth? A lot of hardcore PC gamers play on dedicated servers to they avoid cheaters and have a ranking system, however it's not free.

Granted, some of you may think LIVE isn't worth the money, but to say an open system is better have yet argue why it is better. Maybe, what a lot of you meant, LIVE isn't worth the money...? If that's the case, I would to agree for the current version of LIVE. But let's hope LIVE will continue to improve by adding more value for the money.

Additional features I would love LIVE Gold to have:

1) ability to save my game online instead on my console

2) Video streaming of game highlight from tournaments

LIVE Silver features I would love to see:

1) game library/catalog - ability for me to catalog my games, rate it and review. And have the ratings/reviews reflected in a global game rating so other gamers who are interested in buying the game can review the game. Like how Blockbuster online rating works.

2) intergate with online game rentals...So people don't need to fire up their computer to manage their queue.

3) Buying Music / TV episodes (sort like video ipod)

These are all great ideas. I especially like the save online one. I'll probably have more than one 360 (once i can record off my cable box in HD onto my MCE computer) and i would like to be able to not have to carry around a mmeory card all over my house if i decide to fire up madden in the bedroom.

[Hardknock]

Transporting MS's Net service to the Xbox cost 2 Billion dollars now? :lol:

MS is a software company, all they had to do was port over what they had on the PC to the Xbox. The $2 Billion dollar figure is just to get silly fan boys excited over their P2P service.

Xbox Live is not only P2P, it's a mix. For games that need servers MS supplies them, and games that don't need them it's P2P. Stop quoting shit you've heard off message boards as fact and do some research.

[Titanio]

Just to add, if not already suggested:

Having an open business model does not imply no technical standard or no central system for managing players.

Think about on the PC - imagine there was one tool or website everyone used for meeting other players and matchmaking etc. That would not preclude publishers and devs providing their own games and services, their own sign-up procedure, their own servers etc. as they do now in PC games - they just would have a central repository of players - and player information - to tap into.

Think about how you might sign up on this service/website, and then go buy an EA game. And you pop it in, and it asks you to sign up to play online, but it recognises some information about you automatically from the "central" service. And it might ask you for some more info different to that. You have a problem with the game, and you bring up EA's own help desk from within its game. You go to that game's own download section, and purchase some stuff directly from the publisher. You exit the game and go back on to the central service (or bring it up simultaneous to playing the game), and for example are able to see what other people are playing via technical "hooks" implemented by the publishers - a protocol agreed between the game makers and the central service to allow that service to see what's going on across the network. Instead of that "central service" being something that stands between the customer and the publisher, it simply stands alongside that.

An open financial/business/customer relations model doesn't imply a total lack of "technical glue" to bind things on many of the levels you're all discussing, I don't think...(?)

I'm not saying Sony will go this route - that we'll have some perfect hybrid of centralised community alongside direct publisher-consumer links - but I just don't think we can automatically draw conclusions about their implementation based on what's been said to date.

[fulcizombie]

Why are people comparing what you *can* do with a PC to what is *standard* for anyone that uses an Xbox online? Has the whole issue of one being an open platform and one being a closed patform suddenly passed people by?

I can do whatever I want with a PC, it'll run any program I like - freeware, homebrew, adware, shareware, paid for ... whatever. And game makers can scan for and block whatever they like. Players using hacked accounts and crappy cheat programs can ruin any number of my games with no chance they'll get cauaght or banned. Chances are my friends or potential friends will have different configurations of programs and hardware that won't exactly (or even closely) match mine.

Good luck on alt+tabing out of every fullscreen game to go to messenger as many times as you like without it crashing or temporarily hanging. A lot.

I'll pay for a standardised service on a console that puts everything at my fingertips and that I can guarantee will work with everyone I'll ever meet regardless of what game I might be playing at the time or 3 years from now. I'll pay for something that does exactly what it's supposed to, all the time and with no excuses.

If people don't want to pay for that then that's understandable, but people shouldn't slate a successful system like Xbox Live by comparing it to some unrealistic, impractical and none-existant ideal solution that merges PC infinite-variability and open platformness with console reliability, standardisation and useability.
Stop bringing logic to this thread!!!!!

Oh and it's not that people have a problem with paying 4.5$ per month for a service like live,their real problem is that live is an xbox service not a playstation one.If Sony had announced a similar to live service with a similar pricing policy you'd see all these people(who can't afford 4.5$ per month for live) celebrating and praising Sony.You'd see posts like "M$ owned!!!!" and crap like that from the same people who don't want to "pay for live" and prefer the horrible ps2 online model.

[BlueTsunami]

Stop bringing logic to this thread!!!!!

Oh and it's not that people have a problem with paying 4.5$ per month for a service like live,their real problem is that live is an xbox service not a playstation one.If Sony had announced a similar to live service with a similar pricing policy you'd see all these people(who can't afford 4.5$ per month for live) celebrating and praising Sony.You'd see posts like "M$ owned!!!!" and crap like that from the same people who don't want to "pay for live" and prefer the horrible ps2 online model.

Blah Blah Blah Blah

Read back on old posts in Beyond3D. This is a different site where we try to keep try to keep money symbols out of MS. It always has to revert to people not liking it because its Microsoft. Guess what? *Gasp* people just dislike the Online model Microsoft built for Xbox *Gasp*

Its great that a good thread talking about implimentation of Online infrustracture is ruined by a simplistic post that tries to point out biases. You added completley nothing to this thread.

[pc999]

Isnt Epic and UT07 how want to implement features XBL like (friends, rakings...) on the PC, if they do that it will be free I wonder how that works compared to XBL and if it works well what people will think of paying a service that existes free on the PC.

[london-boy]

Wait hold on a sec...

Have i just stumbled upon yet another thread with people actually arguing over personal preferences?

"I love Xbox Live!!"
"NO! YOU'RE WRONG!"
"But... I just... u know... like it...?"
"NO!! YOU'RE A FOOKIN MIKROSHAFT FANNYBOY!!"
"But... I like Sony's system too...? You know, i have all consoles, i like the g...?"
"HAH YOU LIKE EVERYTHING?! YOU HAVE NO PERSONALITY!!! CHOOSE A SIDE, YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US!!"
"But..."
"BUT BUT BUT!!! MODS LOCK THIS THREAD!!!"


:twisted:

[BTOA]

Xbox Live is not only P2P, it's a mix. For games that need servers MS supplies them, and games that don't need them it's P2P. Stop quoting shit you've heard off message boards as fact and do some research.
Xbox's biggest online game, Halo 2, doesn't even have a dedicated server. So STFU, retard.

You should stop talking about shit you've heard off of message boards, OA.

[london-boy]

Xbox's biggest online game, Halo 2, doesn't even have a dedicated server. So STFU, retard.

You should stop talking about shit you've heard off of message boards, OA.


I don't agree with Hardkock (what kind of a username is that anyway!!) but do you think that kind of language is appropriate for this forum? :roll:

[Shifty Geezer]

Is it even appropriate for civilised human-beings?

[Tim]

PC gamers seem to be okay with it. ;)

Why do they use Gamespy or The All-Seeing-Eye then?

[rabidrabbit]

The level of language (and postings imo) has really dropped to new lower level, dating to the mass tourism during and after E305

[Hardknock]

Xbox's biggest online game, Halo 2, doesn't even have a dedicated server. So STFU, retard.

You should stop talking about shit you've heard off of message boards, OA.

What is your point? I stated it's a mixture of P2P/hosted and I am correct. Calling someone a retard when you've been called out on your bullshit? Niiiiiiiiiiice. :roll:

http://www.xboxcorp.com/news/EpFulFkFypRNrwNnFJ.html

Xbox Live Executive Chat


Host Guest_Jeff_Henshaw says:

Q: are games P2P or MS-server hosted?
A: BOTH! It totally depends upon the game. Some, like the ones you're playing during beta, are P2P. MotoGP is an example of a great P2P game. Awesome with 16 players, BTW. Go MPG! Others, like UT, will be hosted.

Q: Jeff, you said UC is "hosted" - meaning p2p or MS server?
A: Both. We'll host a bunch, but our hope is that so many people see how amazing the game is, that they just take over by hosting more games of UC that we can even count.

[Synergy34]

Let's consider how LIVE reduces cheaters. Now, in an open system, it's up the system to weed out cheaters...how are you going to keep track of all modified boxes (banned boxes)? So some central server is needed...who is going to pay for that? Granted LIVE doesn't elminated cheaters, but it greatly reduced it. How much is that worth? A lot of hardcore PC gamers play on dedicated servers to they avoid cheaters and have a ranking system, however it's not free.



Funny you bring this up cause if you look at probably the two biggest online games for the XBox and the PS2, aka Halo and SOCOM .

Halo 2 has turn out to be the biggest turd since the original SOCOM. Now, starting with SOCOM 2 Zipper did a great job taking the Codebreakers and Game Sharkers offline. I played SOCOM 2 for a good 10 months never saw a cheat device being used.

So Halo 2 on Live = Cheatfest

SOCOM 2 and 3 = Cheatfree

Ever since Developers started using this DNAS thingy, cheating is non existant. It's pretty much universal so they don't have to do it themselves. Works great so far.

**disclaimer**

This is strictly refering to directly changing the game by tweaking with game codes etc..., that type of stuff NOT talking about people pulling cables and popping them back in for artifical lag.

[fearsomepirate]

Halo 2 has turn out to be the biggest turd since the original SOCOM. Now, starting with SOCOM 2 Zipper did a great job taking the Codebreakers and Game Sharkers offline. I played SOCOM 2 for a good 10 months never saw a cheat device being used.

Just because I don't know, how do people cheat in games like Halo 2? Do they write custom Action Replay codes to do things like give themselves infinite ammo or something? I only ask because I don't know, as I've never played a console game online. Just games like Quake 3, where of course it's easy to cheat by using aimbots and things.

[drpepper]

I wouldn't say Socom 2 is cheat free. People still exploit glitches such as hiding in boxes or utilize some lag mechanism so that they're slightly out of synch from everyone else.

Socom 3 is early in its life so nothing has been found to be exploitable.

Of course, for those people, they're either voted off or then everyone just avoids "the problem" areas.

[Nick Laslett]

A couple of points that might be useful in this discussion:

1. The UK PS2 Online service seems to be quite different from the US. Broadband only, One account for Sony games, Buddy lists and game matching for Sony games, organised tournaments, news wire, patchs to stop cheating, etc.

2. Do many people use both services, i.e. Have an Xbox Live account and a PS2 account?

I got online with the PS2 and it has never occured to me to get an Xbox Live account.

To get online with the PS2 I didn't have to do anything but select a few options whilst playing a game. The thought of a monthly subscription for something that is free seems a bit odd. But that is because I'm used to paying nothing.

If people don't have much experience of the two different services how can they compare them. I've never used Xbox Live but I've heard what it does. This doesn't seem too different from what I experience on my PS2. e.g. I play a game against other people. But I don't really know what I'm missing because I don't have that experience.

I find it hard to imagine playing most online games is very different across the two systems. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but stuff like PES5, Burnout, Madden, Star Wars Battlefront, Ghost Recon, Mortal Combat, etc must play pretty similar?

3. I'm no fan of online gaming and it would appear the majority share my view. Both the Xbox and PS2 services have very low adoption rates, it goes to show that it doesn't matter if something is free or a well crafted service. People are not that interested.

[Nick Laslett]

The only problem I had with PS2 online was that not many games supported it.

You are miss informed on this point. I won't list all the online games for the PS2. But it is well catered for across all genres.

You would be better off saying that there are not enough players online to go around, with each new game in a genre cannibalising the audience.

e.g. Burnout 3 was popular, now Burnout 4 is out and some people have upgraded, some haven't, new people have bought BO4, new people have bought BO3 at budget price.

Or, Killzone, quite popular. Timesplitters 3 comes out and a lot of people leave KZ. Socom 3 will arrive and more people will leave KZ and TS3.

Most PS2 online games in Europe are comparitavily deserted. Whos fault is that. I hear anecdotal evidence that outside the blockbuster titles things are the same on Xbox Live.

[Mmmkay]

Most PS2 online games in Europe are comparitavily deserted. Whos fault is that. I hear anecdotal evidence that outside the blockbuster titles things are the same on Xbox Live.

The horses mouth isnt too compementary about their European numbers either.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=61240
Eurogamer: Talking of Live, you keep mentioning the two million [worldwide subscriptions] figure, but we still don't know how many of those apply to Europe.

J Allard: Not enough.

Eurogamer: It's mainly the US?

J Allard: U.S. is certainly the driver. I won't give you a number because I don't have a number off the top of my head

Eurogamer: Is it 90-10 in favour of the U.S.?

J Allard: No, it's not quite that bad; it's not quite that extreme.

[dukmahsik]

i think the problem is that sony and ninty are taking online gaming too lightly or they downplay the importance because they don't have the infrastructure setup as nicely as MS.

having each game being live aware for MS is great, we only hear positive things from devs about live.

[Qroach]

not only the live aware, but the achievement points for accomplishing tasks in games can be spent on things in the future (from what I've been told). also Xbox live arcade is going to be awesome.

[london-boy]

i think the problem is that sony and ninty are taking online gaming too lightly or they downplay the importance because they don't have the infrastructure setup as nicely as MS.

having each game being live aware for MS is great, we only hear positive things from devs about live.


Can you blame them? Look at the percentage of people playing online compared to the total number of players. Not a lot if you ask me.

[dukmahsik]

Can you blame them? Look at the percentage of people playing online compared to the total number of players. Not a lot if you ask me.

yes I can, with each new generation you have to push more. saying next gen online isn't important because only 10% of xbox 1 users went online is ignorant.

[london-boy]

yes I can, with each new generation you have to push more. saying next gen online isn't important because only 10% of xbox 1 users went online is ignorant.

I never mentioned the future. TODAY, demand for online play is what it is. Obviously, percentage-wise, it's not that high. Why would Sony and Nintendo go out of their way to make something that people don't want to use?

Obviously online play will get more and more coverage, and we already know that from launch, most PS3 material will have online components, so where is the problem?

Nintendo don't feel Online play is what they want to do. Don't like it? You have another 2 consoles plus PC to play games online!

[dukmahsik]

I never mentioned the future. TODAY, demand for online play is what it is. Obviously, percentage-wise, it's not that high. Why would Sony and Nintendo go out of their way to make something that people don't want to use?

Obviously online play will get more and more coverage, and we already know that from launch, most PS3 material will have online components, so where is the problem?

Nintendo don't feel Online play is what they want to do. Don't like it? You have another 2 consoles plus PC to play games online!

Next-gen = future, I am talking about ps3 and 360 and rev, obviously those are the future. If we think this way about next gen then we're definitely not going to make the online plunge just like sony and ninty would have you believe. (im sure that's why they've included a robust way to play their psp and DS games online lol)

[london-boy]

Next-gen = future, I am talking about ps3 and 360 and rev, obviously those are the future. If we think this way about next gen then we're definitely not going to make the online plunge just like sony and ninty would have you believe. (im sure that's why they've included a robust way to play their psp and DS games online lol)
I'm really not sure what you're arguing here.
Can you play Sony games online? Yep.
Will you be able to play lots of PS3 games online? Yep.

[dukmahsik]

I'm really not sure what you're arguing here.
Can you play Sony games online? Yep.
Will you be able to play lots of PS3 games online? Yep.

I am saying sony and ninty are downplaying next gen's online's importance. read my original post pls.

[Gubbi]

Wait hold on a sec...

<snip>
"NO!! YOU'RE A FOOKIN MIKROSHAFT FANNYBOY!!"
</snip>

Oi!

Who are you calling fannyboy??

Cheers

[london-boy]

I am saying sony and ninty are downplaying next gen's online's importance. read my original post pls.

I agree Nintendo are not as much into this whole online aspect of games as the competition, and Sony might not have a system that resembles your favourite company's one, but that doesn't mean that they're downplaying online play.
The people are downplaying online play, they're the ones who could go online TODAY and play online TODAY but aren't.
In the circumstances, online play will grow, and PS3 will be online from day 1. I'm not sure how that can be considered "downplaying".
Nintendo just have different targets.

[3roxor]

I am saying sony and ninty are downplaying next gen's online's importance. read my original post pls.

and with good reason.

[Synergy34]

I wouldn't say Socom 2 is cheat free. People still exploit glitches such as hiding in boxes or utilize some lag mechanism so that they're slightly out of synch from everyone else.

Socom 3 is early in its life so nothing has been found to be exploitable.

Of course, for those people, they're either voted off or then everyone just avoids "the problem" areas.

Read the disclaimer :p

Seriously, online games will have glitches in the normal game code that people find and you cant stop people from plug pulling. Not the point. Talking about tweaking game code to allow cheats while online. SOCOM had people adding nade launches, invincability, machine gun sniper rifles. Halo 2 has the same typ of thing going on. Clans playing in matches that have cheats that make the other team not carry weapons or fire them.


AND

fearsomepirate

I really have no idea how they do it. But i've seen it and I won't play the game anymore because of it.

[Josh378]

Read the disclaimer :p

Seriously, online games will have glitches in the normal game code that people find and you cant stop people from plug pulling. Not the point. Talking about tweaking game code to allow cheats while online. SOCOM had people adding nade launches, invincability, machine gun sniper rifles. Halo 2 has the same typ of thing going on. Clans playing in matches that have cheats that make the other team not carry weapons or fire them.


AND

fearsomepirate

I really have no idea how they do it. But i've seen it and I won't play the game anymore because of it.



I have a friend programmer that bought an xbox for just cheating...he's created a cheat software to bypass MS's security and hack Live. Also, if you really wanted to know, there are CD disc software out on the internet that hackers are SELLING that allows you to cheat....Socom III on the other hand, Zipper is doing an hands-on approach. :)

If you have an account with Zipper (verify your account), and your caught gltiching/hacking/cursing or anything else that bothers other players, they can report you (on the game forums) and you will lose your account. People may hate the verification process, but it allows Zipper to handle the situation more closely and more easier.....


Socom III may well be the first MAJOR online console game to really push the "play right or get banned" issue.

-Josh378

[Titanio]

(im sure that's why they've included a robust way to play their psp and DS games online lol)

Do share your experience with DS online..

Nintendo is being exceptionally proactive about getting people online with DS. There was the McDonald's deal for free wifi, and they're about to announce a rollout across Europe, including what looks to be a very impressive deal with BT and Cloud in the UK. On the software side, the system sounds very neat indeed..I suggest you read up on it if you haven't already (or if you have, perhaps you can explain your comments a little more).

And this is all preparation for Revolution too.

[BlueTsunami]

Online Mario Kart on the DS will be heaven. I just need to get a DS first :lol:. I'm honestly considering it now.

[Josh378]

Online Mario Kart on the DS will be heaven. I just need to get a DS first :lol:. I'm honestly considering it now.


Yes, I'm trying to decide....PSP or DS for college :(

-Josh378

[BlueTsunami]

Yes, I'm trying to decide....PSP or DS for college :(

-Josh378

Hard choices there. I have a PSP (got it when it first came to the US). GTA just came out for the PSP and has Ad-Hoc Mulitplayer (but theres ways around that and being able to tunnel the Ad-Hoc over the net and playing with other people over the net can be done with 3rd party software).

The DS is just fun though (not that the PSP isn't). I played Tiger Woods for a while and the touchscreen function was more enjoyable than I had thought it would be. Although, I can see how it would be a pain in the ass when used for movement.

[Josh378]

Hard choices there. I have a PSP (got it when it first came to the US). GTA just came out for the PSP and has Ad-Hoc Mulitplayer (but theres ways around that and being able to tunnel the Ad-Hoc over the net and playing with other people over the net can be done with 3rd party software).

The DS is just fun though (not that the PSP isn't). I played Tiger Woods for a while and the touchscreen function was more enjoyable than I had thought it would be. Although, I can see how it would be a pain in the ass when used for movement.



(looks at the $250)


Must decide before Jan 26th......

-Josh378

[Synergy34]

I have a friend programmer that bought an xbox for just cheating...he's created a cheat software to bypass MS's security and hack Live. Also, if you really wanted to know, there are CD disc software out on the internet that hackers are SELLING that allows you to cheat....Socom III on the other hand, Zipper is doing an hands-on approach. :)

If you have an account with Zipper (verify your account), and your caught gltiching/hacking/cursing or anything else that bothers other players, they can report you (on the game forums) and you will lose your account. People may hate the verification process, but it allows Zipper to handle the situation more closely and more easier.....


Socom III may well be the first MAJOR online console game to really push the "play right or get banned" issue.

-Josh378

Dam, no offense but I hate your friend :P

And at first I was sort of miffed about the Credit Card Verification but I quickly changed that opinon based on what you just said about it.

Plus it helps keep some of the annoying 10 year olds out as well :)

[Lord Darkblade]

My suggestion is the PSP, there are fun games for it but one of the best uses I have found is actually as an emulator, its annoying carrying my SNES/MegaDrive/Amiga everywhere I go, the PSP is cool, it has SCuuM and Snes etc emulators that allows you to have a whole retro library in your back pocket (nb: not encouraging piracy, roms of games you do not have are illegal to own). The DS looks interesting but it feels like a toy, whipping out the PSP you feel like its quality, dunno if its just me but I like the look, feel and experience with the PSP (and I just finished Super Metroid again!).

[Josh378]

Dam, no offense but I hate your friend :P

And at first I was sort of miffed about the Credit Card Verification but I quickly changed that opinon based on what you just said about it.

Plus it helps keep some of the annoying 10 year olds out as well :)


Yes, it feels soo peaceful talk to mature people without listening to Mickey Mouse's voice cursing me out because I didn't "follow" him when he got killed.

-Josh378

[dukmahsik]

new article:
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000813066433/#comments

Suicide. If reports are true, then Sony is entering the next-generation battle without a central online gaming service. What? Why? Who—

According to OPM (via GamesFirst), online gaming on the PlayStation 3 will be left to the discretion of individual publishers—just like on the PS2. While some may argue that this gives publishers greater freedom to design a unique online experience, it also makes it difficult for Sony to control the quality of that experience. And from a gamer’s standpoint, it’s a real pain in the neck, since each publisher will require its own user account (and possibly fees).

With Microsoft blazing trails, and Nintendo showing promise, it’s hard to believe that Sony is so lackluster about jumpstarting a centralized online service. There’s no doubt that online gaming will be an essential component of next-generation consoles. Both Microsoft and Nintendo appear committed to making that a user-friendly experience. Sony on the other hand, well, it may have just turned its back on us…

[london-boy]

new article:
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000813066433/#comments

Suicide. If reports are true, then Sony is entering the next-generation battle without a central online gaming service. What? Why? Who—

According to OPM (via GamesFirst), online gaming on the PlayStation 3 will be left to the discretion of individual publishers—just like on the PS2. While some may argue that this gives publishers greater freedom to design a unique online experience, it also makes it difficult for Sony to control the quality of that experience. And from a gamer’s standpoint, it’s a real pain in the neck, since each publisher will require its own user account (and possibly fees).…


Uhm have you missed the whole thread? That's what the thread was about to begin with!!

[Shifty Geezer]

What are the trails Nintendo are blazing?

[liverkick]

new article:
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000813066433/#comments

Hmm, what was the point of posting this exactly? It looks like a regurgitation of the original post...which was a bit of a regurgitation in its own right. Eww.

Oh man, the last line is gold..."Sony on the other hand, well, it may have just turned its back on us…"

Please tell me this is another parody site like The Inquirer. ;)

[dukmahsik]

haha sorry guys pls give me time for the coffee to kick in :D

[liverkick]

Yes, it feels soo peaceful talk to mature people without listening to Mickey Mouse's voice cursing me out because I didn't "follow" him when he got killed.

-Josh378

You havent lived until you've been called a "nword-lover" by a 12 year old Grand Wizard in training during a game of Halo.

[Nick Laslett]

new article:
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000813066433/#comments

And from a gamer’s standpoint, it’s a real pain in the neck, since each publisher will require its own user account.

I never understood what the problem was here? All this stuff is saved on your memory card.

I don't need to remember anything. I go to play Burnout 3 or SSX3 online and the games just access my profile saved on the memory card.

I want to play Killzone, it just accesses the memory card.

I have to set up an account with each publisher, but how hard is that? You only have to do it once for each publisher. In fact I only have two accounts one for EA and one for Sony.

[dukmahsik]

I never understood what the problem was here? All this stuff is saved on your memory card.

I don't need to remember anything. I go to play Burnout 3 or SSX3 online and the games just access my profile saved on the memory card.

I want to play Killzone, it just accesses the memory card.

I have to set up an account with each publisher, but how hard is that? You only have to do it once for each publisher. In fact I only have two accounts one for EA and one for Sony.


where do you save your new levels, cars, features, etc?

[scooby_dooby]

XBLive has now become the "X-factor".... it didn't mean much last time, but it may become a major driver of the console over thenext 5 years IMO.

[aldo]

I think it's important to keep in mind that the PSM article is a speculative piece that deals with PS3s online tactics from a "glass is half empty" point of view. The article (http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/PlaystationMagazine/2005/11/01/1019152?extID=10026) at one point even states, If Sony… at least attempts to have some sort of unifying structure…So even they admit that there is the possibility of a unified structure and in turn perhaps a unified or central interface. We just haven't been provided a lot of the specifics.

The fact that Sony sent out a survey (http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000560064547/) to determine important aspects and priorities in online gaming suggests that Sony is taking online gaming seriously and will implement some aspects of xboxlive.

I think the key here is Sony's determination to allow the publishers to have an advantage in maintaining an 'open platform' as opposed to MS's 'controlled platform' while trying to achieve other aspects of xlive, such as single ID across games, cheat monitoring, and locating friends playing online. (see the survey (http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000560064547/))

I also think that Sony is very much aware that charging for online game play, while definitely affordable, is a deterrent which will drive away many from trying online gaming. If payments are made online, most people I know are phobic about making payments through the internet and many kids would have trouble getting authorization from non-computer savvy parents to use their credit card account online let alone shell out money for a console for their kid and then hassle with a monthly subscription fee.

MS obviously realizes this initial deterrent exists and to their credit, I believe they are including a free trial of xlive with the purchase of a new X360. This is a great tactic to lure those in who are a little too timid to test the water. However, if Sony can somehow manage to have a unifying structure with a decent centralized user friendly interface and keep it free this might be just as good of an approach or even better.

-aldo

[fearsomepirate]

I am saying sony and ninty are downplaying next gen's online's importance. read my original post pls.

Well they're not. Read what the corporate leaders are saying. Nintendo is all "Wi-Fi" this and "virtual console" that. Much of Kutargi's weird, pie-in-the-sky BS is about what PS3 will be doing online("Cell storage" and whatnot), but at least it shows online isn't something he's downplaying. It's pretty safe to say that all 3 regard net play as an integral part of the experience, and they're all going about it different ways.

[drpepper]

where do you save your new levels, cars, features, etc?

On the memory card! Or the hard drive if you have one. :wink:

[drpepper]

What are the trails Nintendo are blazing?

That's what I thought when I read that piece. I think you and I missed the memo.

Again, I'm very reluctant to take Joystiq's journalism seriously.

[Nick Laslett]

where do you save your new levels, cars, features, etc?

Looks like a lot of Xbox360 owners will have a similar storage issue if they don't invest in a Harddrive.

[london-boy]

Uhm not sure this was posted already...

http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/index.php?t=archives&date=last


:lol: :lol:

[drpepper]

Uhm not sure this was posted already...

http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/index.php?t=archives&date=last


:lol: :lol:


Hahaha... "F*** pants, we're Sony!" I love it.

:lol:

[Thegameman]

Ummm, MS has spent almost $2 Billion on the XBL service. If it was so easy, and could be done for free, why isn't Sony doing it then? Obviously it's not so easy and definitely not free to implement.


Were did you get that MS spent 2 billions on live?


They charge you $50 for a body list,and voice in all games and a year fee after the year is up,just to have lag and to have cheaters as well in the end,i remember when socom was having cheaters how MS was screaming that live was cheat free.


I realy prefer it to be free most online games on PC and almost all on PS2 are free,if sony did it i don't know why MS can't and now they have confirmed that on xbox 360 most downloads will cost money,is even worst.


If sony does the same i may have to stay away from online play.