Sony: PS2 Online = PS3 Online
- Thread starter dukmahsik
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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
Newcomer
Guden Oden said: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
)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.
Master-Mold said:QAO (quoted as opinion
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Master-Mold
Newcomer
BlueTsunami said:
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?
seismologist said:
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/
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.
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.
Master-Mold said:
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.
PC-Engine said:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
BTOA said: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
Regular
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
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.
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.
seismologist
Regular
expletive said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
- Locked