PS3 Firmware 2.7 announced

Xbox Live has 8 person parties that includes voice chat. You can easily hop back and forth between parties. You can also switch back and forth between the game chat and the party chat.

Sometimes, when I play a single player game, I still would like to chat with my friends who might be playing in a party (in a different game). It's as if they're sitting in the same room. It's a social thing. And if there's enough trash talk, I might quit my game and join their game to teach them a lesson or two. ;) Just wish there's even a quicker way to switch between different channels...as it is right now, it' requires 3 button clicks.

Games like GeoW2 (horde) and WaW (zombie) that the in-game voice chat becomes very important. So, in those circumstance I find voice chat across less important, however you can't have it both way. It should be something I should be in control of. This is where LIVE does it amazingly well, because it's up to the user to decide.

All in all, is across game text chat is a right step? I would say yes. Would I rather have this over across game chat? Definitely not. I have a feeling that once PS3 has across game voice chat, across game text chat will become more like across game text messaging. Pretty like what LIVE is doing right now.

Now, only if we have video chat. Not really sure how that would work. Maybe something like Daytona at the arcade? The person in lead get their video feed broadcast to everyone...
 
I have a feeling that once PS3 has across game voice chat, across game text chat will become more like across game text messaging.

I doubt it. At least for me, the interesting part is the persistent room concept. I now have 4 rooms set up: 1 for GAF, 1 for B3D, 1 for my ex-RFOM gang, and 1 for my Home folks. Regardless of voice or text chat, I now have 4 quick sources of party members.

The rooms are much better than friends list because I don't have to manage them and there is no size limit per se. They grow organically via invitations. All the thousands of GAF PS3 users can have a link to the room. All I need to do is to hop in and see who's available; form a party and run. I used to gather party members by posting to the GAF RFOM thread (using the web browser).

It's like how Arwin got the B3D chatroom folks to go into his Summer Home today.

This is what I wanted Home to become (The 2D Home)... and one of the key concepts is here now. The problem is whether people will continue to login to the rooms, and whether they can see my text notification. The GAF one is probably a safe bet because of the huge userbase. I am not sure of the others. In any case, if these rooms fail me, I'll just go Home :)


As for text vs voice chat, I don't know why people have to impose their preferences on others, or ridicule others' preferences. Text chat is good. Voice chat is good too. I like a place where you don't have to switch. Everyone can use their preferred method in the same room, just like the RFOM lobby, or the Home space. Hopefully Sony sees things the same way.
 
Depends on the licensing. I don't know enough about their current AV system to comment. There is also the bandwidth cost and server sizing. The standalone AV chat may not get used as much as an in-game service.

If it was a BW issue they could opt for p2p instead which works better than dedicated (mostly) for small number of people.
 
You mean like Skype ? Yes, they could do it but there are licensing components in the voice codecs, and they need to distribute the nodes. Enough of them need to be accessible from "open" networks (I was told a lot of them were university machines, which got banned/shutdown eventually because they used up too much bw). Would be nice to see how much bw it takes for the meta servers/voice routers.

They could partner and hook up with an existing network like Skype. That still require a business arrangement.
 
Out of curiousity, how do you voice chat with someone who's not playing in the same game with you? It just doesnt seem intuitive to me.
 
You just thrash talk or talk about work and other stuff while you play :)

I have been in some party run where smaller squads of teammates do the same. Hey, whatever float their boats ! I prefer to game quietly or with people who focus on the game; but you can't stop them.
 
You mean like Skype ? Yes, they could do it but there are licensing components in the voice codecs, and they need to distribute the nodes. Enough of them need to be accessible from "open" networks (I was told a lot of them were university machines, which got banned/shutdown eventually because they used up too much bw). Would be nice to see how much bw it takes for the meta servers/voice routers.

They could partner and hook up with an existing network like Skype. That still require a business arrangement.

They don't need supernodes or anything like that. Look at the third party games on PS3. They use p2p which only requires one guy that's not behind a "firewall". A lot of gamers use upnp or port forwarding today.

Of course more importantly, even Home uses p2p chat, which pretty much proves they don't have any worries regarding communicating two firewalled user.

If they do in the future, they can always keep dedicated servers around for those special cases, but once again they don't in Home. I haven't checked it but I bet same goes for XMB AV chat.
 
Possible. But Home is a bad example because they had to turn off voice chat in the public spaces in the mean time. Hopefully they can address whatever that's bugging them and turn it back on.

I am not that concerned with voice chat in Home because there is some sort of business model behind Home (Whether it works or not is a separate question). The XMB in-game/cross-game voice chat will need some financial driver behind it too. I just don't know Sony's numbers (at all) to comment deeper.
 
Possible. But Home is a bad example because they had to turn off voice chat in the public spaces in the mean time. Hopefully they can address whatever that's bugging them and turn it back on.
Whatever the reason, it surely wasn't the cost of voip BW.
I am not that concerned with voice chat in Home because there is some sort of business model behind Home
Who cares as long as voice chat is practically free to Sony.
(Whether it works or not is a separate question). The XMB voice chat will need some financial driver behind it too. I just don't know Sony's numbers (at all) to comment deeper.

Indeed we don't really know much but the main financial driver cross game XMB voice chat will need is for development and nothing else (excluding legal stuff).

Anway, I feel weird even discussing this, it's just bw is not the main obstacle here.
 
Out of curiousity, how do you voice chat with someone who's not playing in the same game with you? It just doesnt seem intuitive to me.

In Xbox live it's as simple as bring up your friends list, selecting a name and choosing invite to party or join party. You can either do it on the dashboard friends list that will show you your friends grouped into their respective parties, or through the friends list off the guide button.
 
Whatever the reason, it surely wasn't the cost of voip BW.

Who cares as long as voice chat is practically free to Sony.

I wouldn't say practically free. I was in a VoIP startup in the early days. The server cost and network infrastructure upkeep was not small money (Our userbase was a few millions globally then). The PC clients talk directly to each other once the route is "connected".

The company has its own voice codecs. Someone like Skype licensed their codecs from a third party. It has no voice-related IP of their own.

Indeed we don't really know much but the main financial driver cross game XMB voice chat will need is for development and nothing else (excluding legal stuff).

Anway, I feel weird even discussing this, it's just bw is not the main obstacle here.

I didn't code the voice system in the startup so I can't be sure (I worked on the marketing systems).

You're probably thinking about a simple P2P voice chatting system using SIP. On a small group basis, the infrastructure needs may be small and bw may also be small. I just don't know if they will mess with the game's network needs (since some MP games have rather poor VoIP quality). If so, they may be forced to have dedicated voice server instead of P2P.

These days you should be able to acquire a good system relatively cheaply. But if there are any dedicated server setup, the variable costs will need to be taken care of.

If everything can be done via external P2P systems, then naturally the cost can be defrayed.
 
In Xbox live it's as simple as bring up your friends list, selecting a name and choosing invite to party or join party. You can either do it on the dashboard friends list that will show you your friends grouped into their respective parties, or through the friends list off the guide button.

I didn't mean "start" but actually maintain a conversation. For instance, if I'm playing COD4 I'm either talking with my teamates or trashtalking my opponents. How do you maintain a voice chat with someone else?

With text IM, you can see what the other guy was saying and get back to them whenever you want. How does that work with voice chat? Voice chat doesnt seem convenient if you're actually playing a game.
 
patsu's avatar is much better looking than last time I saw it :)

Yeah well, it's modelled after a woman I met in a beer festival in Orlando :D

Text chat is certainly not a cure-all, go back and look through the chat room and see the myriad of conversations taking place. Even worse for the keyboard challenged PS3 users such as myself trying to carry on a conversation with the controller and predictive, yet masked, and char limited text...

This is true. I have seen (over the net) 2 people went out and buy a new keyboard for the new chatroom so far.
 
I wouldn't say practically free. I was in a VoIP startup in the early days. The server cost and network infrastructure upkeep was not small money (Our userbase was a few millions globally then). The PC clients talk directly to each other once the route is "connected".
Honestly, I don't know why p2p voip cost would be higher than current text chat setup.
The company has its own voice codecs. Someone like Skype licensed their codecs from a third party. It has no voice-related IP of their own.
Yep, this is likely the case but i meant to cover licensing expanses under "legal stuff".
I didn't code the voice system in the startup so I can't be sure (I worked on the marketing systems).

You're probably thinking about a simple P2P voice chatting system using SIP. On a small group basis, the infrastructure needs may be small and bw may also be small. I just don't know if they will mess with the game's network needs (since some MP games have rather poor VoIP quality). If so, they may be forced to have dedicated voice server instead of P2P.
Or they can simply disable one voice channel or reduce its quality when playing online.
These days you should be able to acquire a good system relatively cheaply. But if there are any dedicated server setup, the variable costs will need to be taken care of.

If everything can be done via external P2P systems, then naturally the cost can be defrayed.

True.
 
I didn't mean "start" but actually maintain a conversation. For instance, if I'm playing COD4 I'm either talking with my teamates or trashtalking my opponents. How do you maintain a voice chat with someone else?

With text IM, you can see what the other guy was saying and get back to them whenever you want. How does that work with voice chat? Voice chat doesnt seem convenient if you're actually playing a game.

You're either in the game chat or the party chat. If I'm playing a really team oriented game, I'll play in the game chat. If I'm playing something else, I'll go into a party and talk to other people in different games.
 
Honestly, I don't know why p2p voip cost would be higher than current text chat setup.

Are all multi-party (say 16 player -- 8 vs 8) voice chat P2P ? An elected (or dedicated) voice server may need to serialize the conversation and route the streams to other clients so that each client only keeps one connection (instead of N to N), and they hear the messages in the same order.

It just seems odd that Playstation Home had server load issues if everything is P2P. Then again Home can accommodate up to 64 players. So they may have to use a dedicated voice server approach. Wish I have more info. The devs here may be able to share their experiences.

One-to-one voice comms (like in XBL Silver ?) is more straightforward to implement. I can't remember the details anymore.

Also, the codecs may be royalty based (not necessarily one-time payment).
 
You're either in the game chat or the party chat. If I'm playing a really team oriented game, I'll play in the game chat. If I'm playing something else, I'll go into a party and talk to other people in different games.

Yeah, specwarGP2 is trying to use the room-based model and apply it to XBL. In the PSN model (Home or Text chat), there are 3 things:

* The room/clubhouse/apartment/public space that serves as a shared context where people contribute together in some ways. This may be across game (e.g., the text notifications specwarGP2 mentioned vis-a-vis in-game voice chat). In Playstation Home, the game itself can be hosted in the space (e.g., A Buzz! quiz can be hosted in Home)

* The party. Home allows users to create a session/party to launch into games. The XMB text chat does not have such a concept.

* The friends list, which is essentially an address book.
 
Well, as I was pointing out in our little Home chat, and then was promptly demonstrated, when you are talking with a group of people text chat can be a lifesaver and a lot more efficient than talking over voice comm. You can all talk 'at once' and still read almost anything after all, at least a lot more than you could ever manage with voice.

...it gets very hard to track whose saying what, you can't hear each other properly when all people talk at once, etc.
Thing is people manage to voice chat around the dinner table when they go out for a meal. I guess a lack of visual cues and lag mean people start when they think there's room to, and then trip over each other. But there's otherwise nothing intrinsically unmanageable about it, as long as those partaking in the discussion handle themselves. No different to conference call on a phone, or video conferencing. If you've ever used PS3's video chat, that's the same thing as voice-only. Now enable that within games, so you can chat while playing instead of having to run a discrete application, and you get the best of both worlds.

Text chat itself does have the problem of multiple threads of discussion getting intertwined, and you have to parse the text stream to make sense of it. Nothing's really perfect. We just need the options to serve different people with different needs. I'd really like to know more about the underlying tech here, if it's a very forward thinking protocol that'll connect up to any form of chat? Tiny video windows could be pretty cool, showing people who are just shot or made a kill. Anyone remember Wing Commander when your victim would phone you up to scream their death-throws down the videophone line? ;)
 
Thing is people manage to voice chat around the dinner table when they go out for a meal. I guess a lack of visual cues and lag mean people start when they think there's room to, and then trip over each other. But there's otherwise nothing intrinsically unmanageable about it, as long as those partaking in the discussion handle themselves. No different to conference call on a phone, or video conferencing. If you've ever used PS3's video chat, that's the same thing as voice-only. Now enable that within games, so you can chat while playing instead of having to run a discrete application, and you get the best of both worlds.

The lack of visual cues is (even without lag) very much something that matters. People give each other piles of clues on when they're about to say something or want to say something. It's just that in the context of playing a game it matters much less, because you're not continuously discussing something, but only respond to certain incidents. There voice chat with a lot of people works perfectly. But if you're having a discussion with eight people, even if you're all together in a room it's pretty hard to manage. In real life, you can also easily focus on just one conversation when many are occuring together at once, because of volume differences, but with four people talking at once over voice chat, that's just a mess.

Text chat itself does have the problem of multiple threads of discussion getting intertwined, and you have to parse the text stream to make sense of it. Nothing's really perfect.

I wasn't saying that. I'm just pointing towards advantages in text chat that are easily overlooked.

We just need the options to serve different people with different needs. I'd really like to know more about the underlying tech here, if it's a very forward thinking protocol that'll connect up to any form of chat? Tiny video windows could be pretty cool, showing people who are just shot or made a kill. Anyone remember Wing Commander when your victim would phone you up to scream their death-throws down the videophone line? ;)

This is in Burnout Paradise, basically, although there it's currently static shots through the webcam, not live video. And yes, it's quite fun. I also like in Killzone where you can hear your opponents when they're in close enough range, which typically includes after they killed you. Especially nice when playing with friends - with the games I had with Phil and Chris for instance we'd compliment each other on nice kills.

I think Home is good. It just needs wide support for game launching. Hopefully within the year most games will have it and they'll make it a requirement by 2010, a lot like trophy support was introduced last year with games releasing from 01-2009 requiring Trophy support. I certainly think that Home beats a lot of online lobbies in terms of quality of chat and text support, and having it as a unified interface to games can, I think, really work very well. Namco Museum also used booting from Home cleverly to bypass a lot of in-game menus and take you straight to the game you wanted to play, by logging on to the arcade cabinet for that game in Home. Ditto for Warhawk. Logging into a game from Home and back is a lot faster than people realize.

Anyway, the chat features are a great addition when taken in the context of the PSN, and the chat rooms are very well implemented and thought out. And I think everything points towards this feature being expanded to voice eventually - all the icons are already in place, just greyed out during in-game chat. As it is, I am very happy with the text-chat support and the chatrooms.
 
Back
Top