Xbox live price going up !

[egoless]

Delete

 

[patsu]

You mean developers implementing stronger game experiences like Bungie did to Halo 2 and Halo 3? Live today basically implements most of what Halo 2 did across every game. And Halo 3 is still the only 360 game I've seen that plugs new Live options directly into the guide interface. Is this the sort of freedom you are talking about only existing on PSN?

Since the games are fully responsible for the final online experiences, they are forced to dream and implement their visions from the ground up:

* Games pushing user generated content started from PS3 more aggressively. e.g., Unreal Tournament user mods, LittleBigPlanet, Modnation Racers, and others

* Games pushing assorted server setup (extra large party size like R2's 8P co-op, MAG's 256P competitive, WarHawk's dedicated servers, MMO, etc.)

* Demon's Souls shut out convenient/easy MP support to deliver a lonely online experience. That's something I didn't expect. It also uses PSN's User Data service to show other players' action in real-time (without them appearing in the game).

It's about willingness to pay on respective platforms actually. I'd gladly add a PSN+ subscription to my PS3 along with my Gold subscription on 360 if the platform offered me something unique. Right now though, features like beta access (as an example) are already rolled into my Gold subscription.

Beta access on PSN is not limited to PSN+ (as evident in LBP2 beta in EU). Most users see PSN+ as a selective discount service.

 

[mrcorbo]

Since the games are fully responsible for the final online experiences, they are forced to dream and implement their visions from the ground up:

What you're saying here is theoretically true, but it's been my observation that in the great majority of games with online capability they do no such thing. They merely attempt to reach parity with the features they get automatically on the Live! platform. Though, since they are already doing extra work to get that far, I'm not too surprised many devs don't choose to spend even more resources adding unique features.

And it's not like there hasn't also been unique online functionality in Live!-based games. Being less flexible doesn't equal being inflexible.

I just don't see PSN's openness as being any kind of advantage unless it is exploited more. Working with Valve is definitely a step in the right direction, though.

 

[BRiT]

That's a good question. I was listening to PS Nation podcast, and they were complaining about Castle Crashers. That game has been out forever on the 360, but it has broken online code and it was never fixed for the 360 version.

What's the broken online code for Castle Crashers? While I was cleaning up some achievs in one game and AlStrong in a different game, in our cross-game chat Al mentioned Castle Crashers used to have horrible network issues but that it seemed to be resolved now. I only recently picked that game up, maybe 2 months ago and had played it as recently as 2 weeks ago. I didn't have any issues playing with my friends. We had 4 players in game on 3 different consoles. Maybe we were fortunate.

 

[patsu]

What you're saying here is theoretically true, but it's been my observation that in the great majority of games with online capability they do no such thing.

That's why I mentioned some games, instead of all games. ^_^

And it's not like there hasn't also been unique online functionality in Live!-based games. Being less flexible doesn't equal being inflexible.

I just don't see PSN's openness as being any kind of advantage unless it is exploited more. Working with Valve is definitely a step in the right direction, though.

It is an advantage because "Working with Valve" wouldn't be possible if PSN is "less flexible" in the first place.


EDIT:

What's the broken online code for Castle Crashers? While I was cleaning up some achievs in one game and AlStrong in a different game, in our cross-game chat Al mentioned Castle Crashers used to have horrible network issues but that it seemed to be resolved now. I only recently picked that game up, maybe 2 months ago and had played it as recently as 2 weeks ago. I didn't have any issues playing with my friends. We had 4 players in game on 3 different consoles. Maybe we were fortunate.

The slowness in fixing bugs may be similar to Gabe's complain about XBL's rigidness just recently.

 

[Arwin]

What's the broken online code for Castle Crashers? While I was cleaning up some achievs in one game and AlStrong in a different game, in our cross-game chat Al mentioned Castle Crashers used to have horrible network issues but that it seemed to be resolved now. I only recently picked that game up, maybe 2 months ago and had played it as recently as 2 weeks ago. I didn't have any issues playing with my friends. We had 4 players in game on 3 different consoles. Maybe we were fortunate.

Every single review of the Playstation version reviews them. However, reading more it seems that some/most? of the issues have been fixed in a patch some 5 months after release. According to Giant Bomb:

"The original release of Castle Crashers had technical problems that made online multiplayer almost impossible on certain network settings, as well as game crashes and unwanted save game deletion. All of the technical problems were resolved in a patch released on December 24, 2008." (original release date was August)

Some people still have issues with some network settings apparently, but I'm guessing those can be blamed on the user not understanding his ports as well. I've had the typical annoying problems on the 360 myself before I DMZ'd it. So I'm not sure that Torgo refers to now.

 

[Rotmm]

It is an advantage because "Working with Valve" wouldn't be possible if PSN is "less flexible" in the first place.

Could "Working with Valve" be one of the reasons there isn't any cross-game chat yet? Or parties? Could it be that one of the bones that Sony threw to Valve was that they could bring those to the PSN party?

I don't recall reading any such thoughts here or elsewhere, but from the day Steam on PS3 was announced, it seemed very likely to me.... especially when it didn't turn up in PS+

The slowness in fixing bugs may be similar to Gabe's complain about XBL's rigidness just recently.

Other patches come out just fine. Gabe was talking about adding levels, etc and not wanting to charge for them.

 

[patsu]

What transpired here ?

Valve's Erik Johnson echoed Newell's comments: "The lack of updates on the 360, for TF2, is also a total failure," he said. "Those are the ones that sting the worst because... it got all the way through to customers. It's like a bug. If you fix a bug before it ever ships, it's pretty cheap. If you ship it and then fix it, it's really expensive. Those ones are really bad."

I don't have their games, so I can't verify.


EDIT: For PSN + Steam, I don't have any insider info.

 

[upnorthsox]

Could "Working with Valve" be one of the reasons there isn't any cross-game chat yet? Or parties? Could it be that one of the bones that Sony threw to Valve was that they could bring those to the PSN party?

I don't recall reading any such thoughts here or elsewhere, but from the day Steam on PS3 was announced, it seemed very likely to me.... especially when it didn't turn up in PS+



Other patches come out just fine. Gabe was talking about adding levels, etc and not wanting to charge for them.

That seems plausible, but IMO the most likely scenerio is that there's still a debate in Sony as to whether to monetize it or not. There's also the possibility that they've run up into patent issues. A remote possibility is that it wouldn't be backwards compatible and thus not worth the grief it would receive. Or it could be all 3, and by bringing in Steam to implement it they get around those.

Edit: There's also the possibility now that it might be used as an inticement to upgrade user OS's beyond the 3.41 hack, this could tip the scales in the monetize it or not debate.

 

[specwarGP2]

The PS3 users should be up in arms and demanding a better experience. It's their fault that MS Xbox Live is a cost service. If the PS3 users provided pressure on Sony to make PSN at least competative with Xbox Live, then MS would be forced to offer a cheaper service and perhaps one that's even free. Unfortunately for the gamers, Sony fails in that realm so MS is able to charge what they want for a superior experience.

If you compare both consoles, PS3 beats 360 in value but that doesnt stop MS from charging $100 for a wifi adapter and $150 for a hard drive.

So blaming PS3 users for why live is overpriced is pretty convoluted thinking on your part.

 

[BRiT]

Some people still have issues with some network settings apparently, but I'm guessing those can be blamed on the user not understanding his ports as well. I've had the typical annoying problems on the 360 myself before I DMZ'd it. So I'm not sure that Torgo refers to now.

Thanks for the info on the Castle Crashers problems. I knew it was an older game, but didn't get in on it until it was on Deal of the Week.

I also DMZ'd my 360. I just didn't want to be bothered with having to open up more and more ports or setup triggers as newer games or networking schemes turned up.

 

[Arwin]

And I'm wrong yet again: Hustle Kings has video and voice chat all along, since March this year. You just don't see it if people don't enable it in the options. Doh!

 

[egoless]

Delete

 

[mrcorbo]

What transpired here ?

I don't have their games, so I can't verify.

RE: Valves issues with patching games on 360.

Valve has a long history of supporting their games long after release with free content. MS won't let them do this on Live! as only the first patch is free. This means that all of the balance patches and added content that has been done for the PC version past that initial patch is missing on the 360. Therefore Valve doesn't believe that they are able to deliver the quality of experience on the 360 that they would like.

Of course, on the PC side, Valve controls the distribution platform and therefore the cost of distributing these patches and they also don't have to go through the certification process that game patches on Live! do.

It'll be interesting to see if Sony and Valve are able to come to an accommodation to allow a similar level of support for their games on PS3 as what you get on PC.

 

[BRiT]

Nope. I have UPnP turned off on my router as a security precaution.

 

[specwarGP2]

If you must have wireless, the original adapter which supports a/b/g on both 2.4GHz and 5GHz is $80 MSRP. If you must have a/b/g/n on both 2.4GHz and 5GHz, then that adapter is indeed $100 MSRP. Otherwise, the new 360 has a/b/g/n built-in but ONLY 2.4GHz. Last I checked, PS3 nor Wii support 802.11n without said "overpriced" adapters.

Why are you writing overpriced in quotes like its some kind of novelty? $80 for a G adapter and $100 for an N adapter today is a ripoff.

USB flash drive storage was made available in the last dashboard update. So you can use your existing flash drives, up to 32GB on your 360, which gives you 12GB more than the lowest common sku of the premium 360 packages and the lowest sku of the PS3. So you don't have to buy the HDD at all if you don't want to.

lol and what does that have to do with the HDD upgrade being overpriced? I can buy a 500GB HDD for $60 today and it will work in any PS3.

live is overpriced too. Consider that the most important aspect of Live and PSN is the actual online gaming component. It's free on PSN, and if you made that free for live, then how much is all that other stuff worth? The only real differentiator between the two services is the communications and party functions... is that really worth $60? I certainly don't think so.

 

[Scott_Arm]

RE: Valves issues with patching games on 360.

Valve has a long history of supporting their games long after release with free content. MS won't let them do this on Live! as only the first patch is free. This means that all of the balance patches and added content that has been done for the PC version past that initial patch is missing on the 360. Therefore Valve doesn't believe that they are able to deliver the quality of experience on the 360 that they would like.

Of course, on the PC side, Valve controls the distribution platform and therefore the cost of distributing these patches and they also don't have to go through the certification process that game patches on Live! do.

It'll be interesting to see if Sony and Valve are able to come to an accommodation to allow a similar level of support for their games on PS3 as what you get on PC.

Companies can patch their game as much as they want to fix bugs etc. MS just doesn't want them rolling out updates with free content. That is one serious drawback on Live.

 

[egoless]

Delete

 

[specwarGP2]

Because you were wrong in universally stating the $100 figure, wireless is not required to use Live, it's built-in to the new models if you simply must have it, and to get the same spec'd wifi of the $100 360 adapter or the built-in wifi of the newer 360 on PS3 or on Wii, you still have to buy an adapter.

Who said anything about needing wireless to use live (besides you)? I'm talking about whether or not the adapter is overpriced. It was $100 until recently, and even at $80 it's still horribly overpriced.

Because the HDD is not the only storage expansion option on the 360.

And it's not on PS3 either. PS3 has been able to use USB flash drives since the very beginning as well as external HDD

Because I've already paid for a HDD with the price of the PS3. If I'm going to replace it with a 500GB drive, why not sell me a PS3 without a HDD so I can use that money towards the drive I actually want.

First of all PS3 comes with an HDD in the box because it cant be used without one. Second, what point are you trying to make? The 360 HDD upgrade is overpriced no matter how you want to spin it. You can buy a 360 without an HDD. If you add an HDD (which the choices are very limited) it will cost more than a PS3 that already comes with an HDD. If you want to increase storage, MS will rip you off. end of story.

Because that's the most important aspect to you. I on the other hand have no landline, and no premium cable/satellite service so I use the other services extensively especially since I'm running cheaper than having a landline and said premium cable/satellite services. So to me, yes it's worth it.

Ok well if you want to take that angle..

Cost to use netflix and hulu+ on PS3 - $10

Cost to use netflix and hulu+ on 360 - $70

 

[NRP]

Do you guys ever get tired of pissing matches?

@egoless
What is "sip alg" in reference to linksys/cisco routers?