PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => PS3 Discussion => Topic started by: ddaryl on May 30, 2001, 05:01:38 PM
-
Well with the obvious direction and the amount of unhappy people sounding off about it lets find out where are crew here stands on this issue
-
**** them. Even my favorite game company Sega. I make exceptions for no one(not to be confused with nO-One :D).
-
LMAO
we have 4 votes and we have all 4 options at 1 a piece
I was the probably not guy but might weaken
-
**** them. We shouldn\'t need to pay for on-line gaming.
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcwm.ragesofsanity.com%2Fotn%2Fviolent%2Fbigun2.gif&hash=3950961dded09c44614116c5b5edfd94f321fed6)
-
**** them. We shouldn\'t need to pay for on-line gaming
Then you run a server @ your house and let thousands of ppl freely join. After all, it costs no money to provide an online service, right? :rolleyes:
There\'s a difference in online games. For example..
If I was able to host a SFII server myself (using my cablemodem) and Ethugg could join so I could whoop his @$$ (just messin with ya thugg) then that should be ok. There\'s no need to pay for peer-to-peer connections. Thus is the way with Half-life, Quake, etc.. (on the PC anyway) .. However, for a persistent online world, or any servers that are being provided by the company 24/7, it takes maintenance, upgrades, repairs, etc,. to keep those servers running. Therefore you need to pay. One thing that sucks about online-console-gaming is that they don\'t allow (not yet anyway) user-to-user connection. I provide my IP, Ethugg connects, ddaryl connects, and as many ppl that my bandwidth allows and we can set off and adventure together. I hate that they don\'t offer that.
Half-life is one game that has tons of people playing online. Yet Valve doesn\'t provide not even one server. All the servers run on the gamer\'s pc\'s. Oh well, enough rambling.
- dm
- the trick is to keep breathing.
-
Originally posted by datamage
Then you run a server @ your house and let thousands of ppl freely join. After all, it costs no money to provide an online service, right? :rolleyes:
I would. I just think it kind of sux we have to. :crap:
-
Originally posted by datamage
Half-life is one game that has tons of people playing online. Yet Valve doesn\'t provide not even one server. All the servers run on the gamer\'s pc\'s. Oh well, enough rambling.
Exactly... so why can\'t the developer release a windows or Linux version of their server software designed to work with PS2 clients, and let gamers run their own servers? Just like Quake / Half-Life / Unreal, etc. I think this decentralized decontrolled model is MUCH superior to any system where the publisher owns and runs the servers. It also permits you to play the game at LAN parties even long after the game has been abandoned by everyone else.
-
you buy the console... then you go buy the game... then you gotta pay for it monthly to play it online?
i\'m paying for too many things already! hell no i aint paying more...
-
Originally posted by datamage
Then you run a server @ your house and let thousands of ppl freely join. After all, it costs no money to provide an online service, right? :rolleyes:
There\'s a difference in online games. For example..
If I was able to host a SFII server myself (using my cablemodem) and Ethugg could join so I could whoop his @$$ (just messin with ya thugg) then that should be ok. There\'s no need to pay for peer-to-peer connections. Thus is the way with Half-life, Quake, etc.. (on the PC anyway) .. However, for a persistent online world, or any servers that are being provided by the company 24/7, it takes maintenance, upgrades, repairs, etc,. to keep those servers running. Therefore you need to pay. One thing that sucks about online-console-gaming is that they don\'t allow (not yet anyway) user-to-user connection. I provide my IP, Ethugg connects, ddaryl connects, and as many ppl that my bandwidth allows and we can set off and adventure together. I hate that they don\'t offer that.
Half-life is one game that has tons of people playing online. Yet Valve doesn\'t provide not even one server. All the servers run on the gamer\'s pc\'s. Oh well, enough rambling.
- dm
- the trick is to keep breathing.
Let the game company factor the server costs into the games budget, and raise the price of the game accordingly. I will never pay per month for any online service in addition to my cable modem.
-
ONLY FOR FFXI :D
-
well from the early results of this poll. Its obvious we gamers are pretty much _ucked and will be force to pay to play
I have way way to many bills already and dread adding a monthly pay to play bill.
Obviously most gamers aren\'t willing to make the stand.
What I want to know is. When there are 3 or 4 MMORPG\'s or other massive pay to play online games out, and you as a gamer want to play 2 or 3 of these games.
Are you going to dish out the $10 - $25 a month to play them and keep them running ?????
Not to mention the $40 - $55 a piece you\'ll pay to just own the games themselves.
I would rather see these online games sell for $75 and include lifetime online capatabilities
-
I have no intention to play games online.I never do,I just play to have fun,not to compete with other people.
I might try a game or 2,if I got to play against some people from our fair forums,otherwise I couldn\'t care less about online gaming.
-
I think it\'s totally a waste of money...payin\' 50 bucks for a game is enough pain...hell no with 20 more a month...
-
Woah,20$ a month? I should have read up before I posted/voted.
Hell no.Jeez I wouldn\'t pay that much for sex........errr ignore that :sconf:
-
Who the hell said $20 a month
If you we\'re playing 2 or 3 of these games online you\'d have a $20 a month bill but I seriously doubt $20 a month for a single game would succeed at all
-
Originally posted by nO-One
I have no intention to play games online.I never do,I just play to have fun,not to compete with other people.
If you haven\'t tried it, maybe you don\'t know what you\'re missing. Playing against a human is totally different from playing against computer AI. It can take a relatively simple game and elevate it dramatically. It\'s so rewarding to learn an opponent\'s habits and then fake him just right so you can get the drop on him somehow. The best AI cannot compare at all. It\'s not always a matter of competition, just the thrill of playing against a thinking, learning opponent. A LOT of funny things can happen when you\'re playing against humans too. I\'ll leave it at that.
-
i doubt that it will be $20 a month... it\'ll be the usual $9.95..... but that is still too much... thats why i never got into asheron\'s call, everquest, or ultima online... it would be great but nah.....
for asheron\'s call, Microsoft is doing something smart actually... they are pretty much giving the game away for free (game costs $20, then there is a $20 mail in rebate)
it\'ll ease down the crying of people who ***** about paying for online games... but i am in no way ever going to pay to buy a game and then pay monthly.
oh. Online games are fun! Tribes 2 kicks arse! Diablo II is really fun to play with other people (not much compteting)... Quake 3 is just plain fun mayham. Starcraft is intense competition. they are just fun! sometimes the AI just doesn\'t cut it for me. It can really get broing playing with bots.
You\'ll have much more fun when you are kicking someone\'s butt in online games.
nO-One, you probably don\'t have much experience with online games. I suggest you pick up a copy of some online capable computer games and see how it is. trust me... it\'ll be really fun!
-
I said it a hundred times
- No online service now or that has ever existed is/has been stable enough to pay for
- It\'s not cost-effective. I don\'t get my money\'s worth if I can\'t play all the time.
-
Even though I voted I will pay, I am having second thoughts. I dont think you should pay to play, hell you\'ve paid for everything, your computer, the retail game, and everything else, why would they want you to pay more?.
WOLFE
__________________
KILL KILL AND KILL SOME MORE.
-
Originally posted by ddaryl
well from the early results of this poll. Its obvious we gamers are pretty much _ucked and will be force to pay to play
I have way way to many bills already and dread adding a monthly pay to play bill.
Obviously most gamers aren\'t willing to make the stand.
What I want to know is. When there are 3 or 4 MMORPG\'s or other massive pay to play online games out, and you as a gamer want to play 2 or 3 of these games.
Are you going to dish out the $10 - $25 a month to play them and keep them running ?????
Not to mention the $40 - $55 a piece you\'ll pay to just own the games themselves.
I would rather see these online games sell for $75 and include lifetime online capatabilities
That\'s exactly the things I said in the FFXI thread, and Caspian, datamage and I think one other kept arguing with me like dumbasses. I think you can tell by the poll results the # of spoiled brats who\'s parents will give them whatever they want vs. people who pay for these things themselves.
-
When you say "pay to play" do you mean a whole new ISP provided by Sony, or pay to play on individual games?
I vote HELL NO on the ISP, ESPECIALLY if they try to force me to use AOL. I just won\'t.
And that better be one hell of a game before I consider it.
Factoring in Online costs into the game sounds like a great idea.
-
I\'ll play online games that requires no extra fee - like Counter Strike and such. I\'m too cheap to pay for games like FFXI - plus I think paying a monthly fee is too much of a hassle if you don\'t have a credit card, lives in the US etc.
The only game can think of, that I might pay to play for if Motor City Online. And even that is very uncertain.
-
i would pay for use and continual development of the game.
For example the fee to play FFXI could go to.
Maintaining the Servers
Providing members with Weapon and level updates
add to the development of even more onling games.
-
Playing on Quake III online for the DC in England only used to cost me about 45pence per hour at any time over the weekend, which I think is relatively cheap. the only thing I would say is that if you used it a peak time Monday to Friday before 6pm it would cost about £1.45 per hour which I think is totally unacceptable. So I would pay but only if it was off peak time all the time! Which surely some sort of deal could arrange this?!?
-
Playing on Quake III online for the DC in England only used to cost me about 45pence per hour at any time over the weekend, which I think is relatively cheap. the only thing I would say is that if you used it a peak time Monday to Friday before 6pm it would cost about £1.45 per hour which I think is totally unacceptable. So I would pay but only if it was off peak time all the time! Which surely some sort of deal could arrange this?!?
-
Originally posted by TheGeezer
Playing on Quake III online for the DC in England only used to cost me about 45pence per hour at any time over the weekend, which I think is relatively cheap. the only thing I would say is that if you used it a peak time Monday to Friday before 6pm it would cost about £1.45 per hour which I think is totally unacceptable. So I would pay but only if it was off peak time all the time! Which surely some sort of deal could arrange this?!?
You posted twice, but don\'t worry about it the forums have been acting kind of funny.
Sometimes you have to wait a bit for the thing to respond, and i think Bjorn the Boss and Owner of the forums might install a new Hard Disk Drive to store the forum on, so don\'t panic if there is a little downtime.
If you have any more problems the just Private message the Admins or mods if you experience any more funny stuff with the forums.
Anyhoooo
make yourself at home in this lovely forum
And yeah itts great to see another Person from Blighty on the Forum.
Gowd Bless the Queen and all that............
-
when you guys say pay to play are you talking about the isp fee or another fee on top of that fee ?
-
Exactly... so why can\'t the developer release a windows or Linux version of their server software designed to work with PS2 clients, and let gamers run their own servers? Just like Quake / Half-Life / Unreal, etc. I think this decentralized decontrolled model is MUCH superior to any system where the publisher owns and runs the servers. It also permits you to play the game at LAN parties even long after the game has been abandoned by everyone else.
That\'ll work with a game like Quake / Gt 3 / etc.. but if we\'re talking about an online world (ala FFXI) none of us here is capable of hosting a server for thousands of ppl.
- dm
- the trick is to keep breathing.