Sony: PS2 Online = PS3 Online

[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?

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.