Xbox live price going up !

[patsu]

Wow, you guys are still going at it.

I understand what tha_con is talking about. He is the leader of a R2 clan, and had to get more organized. I joined his party twice. Sent him a request to join the party in R2. Then I was in.

If no one was around...

What we did in RFOM was to post a request-for-support on GAF using the PS3 web browser. Then requests just magically appear until the entire party is filled.

For the regular folks, we had to schedule a few well-known time slots because it was too difficult to accommodate the entire clan (100+ members). We had more than 20 show up sometimes, which was more than the max. party size.

For those who showed up early, they'd hang out in the video chat room. That's why PS Home makes sense if it's more light weight (2D version ftw !) ^_^

We even played with one or two Insomniac employees in the team. I that set up. The text chat was very helpful and fun to use too.



OTOH, KZ2 is the worst since there is no party system at all. It's purely server based, which some people like. But it's impossible to tell the game you want to be on the same team. I invited Ostepop and Concepticus and they ended up on the other team >_<

EDIT: Scratch that, the worst was Demon's Souls, which went out of its way to make you play alone or summon strangers. But that's why it's special. ;-)

 

[RobertR1]

And I'm sure advance planning can help, but what do you do if the plan starts to fall apart?

Ban them from your clan website? PSN: Only the faithful survive.

 

[patsu]

It's the opposite. For clan organization, if there is no planning, there'd be no meets -- unless you play everyday at the agreed time.

Or you can fire up a web browser (on the PC or PS3) to gather troops from GAF and your favorite fora (tha_con runs his own forum too).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

However, all that said, no-one's lamenting the absence of a friend website on PS3 to organise things. Out-of-console organisation is down to individuals, no different to arranging any other activity. The issue is when people are on their consoles, communicating is a bit of a faf. If we take tha_con's example, what if you want to play R2, have arranged a time for it, 7 friends are online to join you and then, for whatever reason, R2 is dropped and you need to pick another game to play together? Either someone just bosses the others around, or you want a discussion to get consensus. And in the latter case, you're stuffed.

We live in the Communication Age - let's get some communication!

 

[patsu]

That's what Home, Video chat and the XMB chat room are for.
[size=-2]tha_con has a clubhouse for his clan in Home[/size]

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's what Home, Video chat and the XMB chat room are for.

All of which are a bit rubbish for just chatting. Home and video need an application to be run. Typing with the controller is hardly ideal. We have headsets, communications infrastructure, precedent on other platforms, and promises. I for one am not going to happily go with 'go enough'.

Too many bad memories of being unable to game and having to talk people through troubleshooting actions ("I'm going to log off and on again. I'll try a reboot. Okay, this time, you switch on first and start the game, and then we'll join. I won't join until you've sent the invite.") to say PSN is fine as it is and there's no reason, at least in terms of competition, for MS to charge for Live!

 

[patsu]

They definitely need something between Home and XMB chat room, but I don't think both are rubbish. Even when we were playing RFOM, text chat was great ! Home is overweight, but if you have a 20+ man team, both are good platforms.

The issues you encountered are not communication problems. It's the lack of a good party system in the game or system. Cross game chat is the wrong solution although it may simplify communication.

EDIT:
This may not be obvious. When a party gets too big, voice chat will be less important because it's chaotic to have so many people talk at the same time. Text chat works better because it has a log, and accommodates multiple threads. You can scroll up to see who said what. In a 20 man team, the text box will scroll pretty quickly. Those who prefer to stay quiet can listen in and read at the same time.

What Sony needs is a tool for smaller party. The XMB Chat Room is the most suitable. They only need to add voice chat to this room and they are done.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The issues you encountered are not communication problems. It's the lack of a good party system in the game or system. Cross game chat is the wrong solution although it may simplify communication.

I agree cross-game chat isn't essential, but a unified chat system so all games feature consisitent, high quality chat, is essential, and extending that to cross-game is a sensible, valuable improvement.

 

[tha_con]

I agree cross-game chat isn't essential, but a unified chat system so all games feature consisitent, high quality chat, is essential, and extending that to cross-game is a sensible, valuable improvement.

I'm pretty sure that there are libraries in the SDK for voice chat. In fact, I think you can actually identify which games use Sony's libraries by the box, they have the Chat icon.

 

[patsu]

Sure ! but don't expect me to pay for online gaming just because of it. If they want, they can launch it as a separate pay service (e.g., include it in PS+). Leave the online gaming free for all. Also leave PSN open so that developers can come up with different online games without worrying about the closed network policies.

IMHO, from a user point of view, a good party/lobby system is more valuable (since games have in-game voice chat anyway).

 

[corduroygt]

Sure ! but don't expect me to pay for online gaming just because of it. If they want, they can launch it as a separate pay service (e.g., include it in PS+). Leave the online gaming free for all. Also leave PSN open so that developers can come up with different online games without worrying about the closed network policies.

IMHO, from a user point of view, a good party/lobby system is more valuable (since games have in-game voice chat anyway).

That's what Sony was about to do with Cross game chat, there needed to be at least one PSN+ member for it to work, but they delayed it for whatever reason....

 

[patsu]

I wish they had worked on a party system first before cross game chat. Have you seen it ? Does it include a lobby ? or is the voice chat integrated with the XMB Chat Room ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm pretty sure that there are libraries in the SDK for voice chat. In fact, I think you can actually identify which games use Sony's libraries by the box, they have the Chat icon.

What chat icon is that? I've just checked all my game cases and haven't seen anything in addition to a "Network features" icon.

Sure ! but don't expect me to pay for online gaming just because of it.

And that's where this thread comes in. How much should be charged, and what for? A forced payment for features some people can live without doesn't go down well, as evidenced by the complaints against Live!'s fee, whereas never getting wanted features doesn't go down well either. What are acceptable payment tiers and why (very subjective from a consumer POV, but a business POV should have a sensible cost:user ratio to get maximum returns)?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I think it's hysterical, and really proves the point, that a thread that is entitled "Xbox live price going up!" has now turned into a thread about the quality (or lack thereof) and features (or lack thereof) of PSN.

I'm pretty sure that this little thread would give MS all the market research they need to conclude they made a correct business decision about their ability and position in the market to be able to raise the price of Live.

 

[RobertR1]

I wish they had worked on a party system first before cross game chat. Have you seen it ? Does it include a lobby ? or is the voice chat integrated with the XMB Chat Room ?

Live is all that in one. 8 people in one party can talk with anyone doing anything on Live. If you're in a game, you can invite the entire party to your game lobby (depending on how many players the game supports ofcourse). You can still send messages to anyone, choose between game or party chat, make the party private and so on.

The system is very easy for everyone to use and becomes to norm after a while for most users. However, it's hard to describe how well it works to someone with no experinece on the system this I believe it creates the difficulty you have with understanding it's immense value to those of us familiar to it.

 

[patsu]

Yes, the party system is a great abstraction for online gathering. The closest thing on PS3 is the XMB Chat Room but it's missing voice chat and Home's party launching capability.

Whether PS3 users would pay for it, it's up to individuals to decide. I most likely won't.

Besides, as a second option, PS Home is making money. If they simplify it, they may be able to fund the whole exercise. I'd rather they explore that route first.

Would be interesting to see iOS's Game Center: Whether they charge for it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think it's hysterical, and really proves the point, that a thread that is entitled "Xbox live price going up!" has now turned into a thread about the quality (or lack thereof) and features (or lack thereof) of PSN.

Well as I said back when the thread was diverging, there's only so much you can say about the Live! price itself. "It's gone up." "Boo." "Fine by me." At least as is, there's some comparison to give this news a wider base.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Another reason I'd like to see PSN at least catch up to Live in features is it will force Microsoft to innovate more. Live hasn't changed too much because there hasn't been much reason to.

How does Home make money? If it does, I'm not sure why they haven't been able to leverage home to incorporate all the features people have been asking for. I'm still not a huge fan having a 3D game world as the interface for communication, but at least if they incorporated all of the Live features they'd be competitive in their feature set.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How does Home make money?

Sale of virtual items and renting space to advertisers.

If it does, I'm not sure why they haven't been able to leverage home to incorporate all the features people have been asking for. I'm still not a huge fan having a 3D game world as the interface for communication, but at least if they incorporated all of the Live features they'd be competitive in their feature set.

Two faults there are an added boot up time, which makes trying to solve online issues even slower than using text chat, and Home being buggy such that you can't always got into it. Sony could just as readily have a Group application like video chat, but that's kinda defeating the object!

 

[Scott_Arm]

Sale of virtual items and renting space to advertisers.
Two faults there are an added boot up time, which makes trying to solve online issues even slower than using text chat, and Home being buggy such that you can't always got into it. Sony could just as readily have a Group application like video chat, but that's kinda defeating the object!

Yeah, Home isn't an ideal place for those features, but it's profitable, so it seems like it would only draw more people in. Of course, I'd be one of the people that would be pissed that those features weren't available outside home, and would prefer if they added voice chat to the text chat lobby.