Sony: PS2 Online = PS3 Online

[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 . 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?

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 Geezer]

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!!!"

 

[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 Geezer]

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?

 

[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?