PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: GigaShadow on August 29, 2002, 09:57:56 AM
-
Argh the thread was closed right when I was responding to him... I don\'t want it to go to waste:
Xbox Live more solid? Nah I like Sony\'s its free and it lets developers maintain their own servers. If it costs money to play a game - it will be because the developer is charging not Sony. If I remember correctly The Zone used to all be free at one time many years ago and then MS got the bright idea to start charging for Premium games - cough. So basically after you pay your $50 for the first year its going to cost you another $120 a year to play and then you will have to worry about a developer charging you to play as well. MS has no control over that. Take SW Galaxies for instance - do you really think that will be free to all Xbox owners who just pay their $10 a month? :laughing:
No there will be an additional fee on top of the 10 to play a game like that. If it comes to the PS2 it will only cost to play the game not get on "PS2 Live".
-
yeah, sega is charging xbox live owners an additional fee also to play PSO
no plan is better than the other
-
If I had the cash to spare, I might have a little more respect for Microsoft\'s XBL strategy. But as Gigashadow mentioned, it\'s going to cost players $120 a year (at least) for a gamertag and a spot on the network. I like the idea of the Communicator device, but outside of that, I\'m all about Sony\'s online strategy: Unless I\'ve subscribed to titles like FFXI or Everquest Adventures, I won\'t have to worry about being charged for games I\'m not even playing.
-
Sheesh! :rolleyes: <--- in response to the post that started the closed thread.
It just came out, give it a chance.
I\'ve been playing online games since the first Quake. It\'s very rare, even after beta testing, for a game/system to be flawless when it first goes online. Most need tweaking after the initial startup. Man, give them some time to work out the kinks. Jumping on something like this the day after it\'s released is a little bit edgy, dontcha\' think?
:alien:
-
Exactly 182Ways. I was doing a little research and EQ Online Adventures is going to cost anywhere from 10 to 12 a month. Now "if" it ever comes out for Xbox Live your monthly bill has just jumped to $22 a month on top of internet connection. I do like how Sony is leaving it up to developers because if a game is fee based you are talking to whole different category of online gamers.
Your typical online gamer who pays to play is "older" because games of that nature require credit cards. That isn\'t saying that a minor can\'t sign up with a parents credit card, but my experience has been the pay to play crowd is an older demographic. Now free games like TFC, Counter Strike, Diablo, etc are free and anyone can play. Usually there is a nice diversity in those games as nothing other than an internet connection is needed.
I have a feeling most of the PS2 games will remain free with the exception of specialty titles like you mentioned. I played EQ for 2 years and doubt I will be going back and playing the console version. I know its completely different, but when you are talking about 12 - 24 hour non stop dungeon crawls that gets a little much.
-
For one thing, $120 a YEAR is nothing. Secondly, MS hasn\'t released official figures so no one knows what they\'ll charge per month. It\'s not too much of a mental reach to suggest that since they are giving away the headset, memory card, revolt and a year\'s subscription for $50 this year, next year could cost $50 without any of the extras.
Either figure could be correct, but assuming the worst case scenario concerning everything xbox is commonplace around here and I feel the need to take the dissenting viewpoint.
And as mm said, neither plan is better, they are different. From all accounts, XBL beta is running very smoothly and very quickly. PS2 online sucks ATM. It\'s reasonable to suggest that Sony will sort things out, by by what timetable? It took BLizzard 6 months to get their free servers to cooperate and even then it was often difficult going. That\'s the nature of the beast with free services.
With XBL things seem to work nearly flawlessly. If that\'s the difference between $50-100 a year, I\'ll take it. It\'s a meager sum to pay for reliability--aka headache and stress free online gaming.
-
Computer=teh ultimate online machine.
I doubt this will ever change.
-
Whoah wait a second I was responding a thread that was closed when I was typing my response. I wish the original thread was around still then you would see why I am arguing the way I am. I have an Xbox as well and my "50 foot Ethernet Cord" can reach the Xbox in the living room as well so I am covered.
Now back to the topic, fee based doesn\'t equate to better realiabilty or service. Beta testing is beta testing. The servers are not pushed to the max during this process. Take Anarchy online for example - it had a pretty smooth beta run, but once it went live the whole thing fell apart like a house of cards. I hope XBL runs smoothly as it would hopefully mark the beginning of smooth launches. I am just not sure its worth paying for yet. The games have to be there as well. Sure Halo is a sure winner and some sports titles along with SW Galaxies... but if MS is going to succeed with XBL they need to do something "better" than Sony - free stuff, exclusive features etc.
We are getting ahead of ourselves though... PS2 Online just launched and XBL is still in beta. Six months from now things will be more clear, but as of now I am content with the Sony plan. I was responding to a DOD Poison aka Ultimate Males attack on PS2 Online less than 24 hours since it has been live...
-
How can you say that Xbox Live seems "to work nearly flawlessly"? I didn\'t think the network would be up until November. Maybe I missed something.
Regardless of its current beta status, it\'s a pretty safe bet to say that XBL will encounter problems after it launches and thousands of people are able to connect to it. I can only wonder why some people think the final product will be the same smooth experience that a few beta testers are playing now.
And about the costs: If you wanna pay for it, then go ahead. In my opinon it doesn\'t look like it would be worth it.
-
Well said Giga.
I think we have reason to be optimistic about XBL. MS has run servers before and still are, they are at the beginnings of a lengthy beta, and it\'s so far so good. Not to mention they dropped 2 billion into the project. I\'m not too concenred about the performance of the network.
XBL will be worth it for Unreal and Mechassault alone.
SOCOM = teh shit.
Twisted Metal is great fun.
That\'s all I\'ve played for PS2 online. So far, I\'m not really that impressed. I guess we\'ll give it a few weeks to iron out.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
For one thing, $120 a YEAR is nothing.
Mail me nothing every year. And by nothing I mean $120.
-
Speaking of beta test...
Way back when, The Bouncer was in pre-release and everyone was raving about the graphics and story and everthing about it. What the hell happened when the game got released? Only the biggest disapointment in PS2\'s short history.
-
Yeah, they are exactly the same thing...
-
Doesn\'t matter if they are or not, he was just making a simple point that judging something before it\'s complete can easily lead to disappointment. It\'s true for everything: Video games, online networks, whatever. Microsoft can drop $100 billion into XBL and it still can\'t guarantee a flawless product upon release, and yet people are already expecting a smooth ride from beginning to end.
It doesn\'t make much sense to me.
-
I was reading an article about the network adapter in a PS2 magazine from a few months ago. In it they talked to some beta testers and the testers said that everything ran so smoothly and there were no problems, etc, etc.
Basically the same can be said for any beta testing, but come time it goes live problems do arise. Sure XBL is having a good beta period. If it weren\'t I would really be worried, but I am sure it will have a few glitches when its released as well.
Considering there are 2 retail games out right now that support PS2 Online (Madden and SOCOM) you have to divide the userbase between the two. I am sure it is causing some congestion problems on both servers in certain areas. The more games that come out online the more the user base will be diversified between all the different games.
XBL is scheduled for a November release and it will be interesting to see how it goes. The one thing Sony has going for it is that their online adapter will have been out 2 months by then and "hopefully" most of the glitches will have been ironed out by then. XBL on the other hand will be entering uncharted water when theirs is released for Holiday 2002. To sum it up, I wouldn\'t be surprised if this same topic doesn\'t arise in the Xbox forums in November. Such topics like "XBL sucks PS2 Online is so much better" will probably start debates on their message boards. Hopefully, the PS2 boards will be talking about all the good games coming out online and not complaining about connectivity and technical problems.
-
Just remember nothing is for free. We end up paying for online gaming one way or the other.
Ace
-
Well one can hope it works out like that. I would say you are being optimistic about PS2O and pessimistic about XBL.
How do things look when you are pessimistic about PS2O and optimistic about XBL?
Things start to change. Even disregarding that there are only a dozen or so devs working on online titles for the PS2 and 60 or so for XBL. Disregard that the services cost the same for the first year and disregard that XBL has an entire community full of features and options. Even disregarding all those things, the fact is that XBL has dedicated servers running for their games and a fatter pipe.
For someone that is serious about online console gaming, for year one, I can\'t see it as a difficult choice (unless you don\'t have BB, of course).
-
No I am not really being negative about XBL. I have a friend who is beta testing it and he says it is as good as MS claims. My only point is that come time for it to be live there will be problems. More or less - I am hoping less.
Sure I am excited about PS2 Online because it is here now. If you read that as being down on XBL I am sorry because I am not. This goes back to the ancient topic of console A is better than B. In my opinion I like multiple systems because the gamer has more choices. Regardless of what console sells the best, I want XB and GCN to be successful in their own right.
Speaking of GameCube, why is that Nintendo always lags behind other console manufactures when it comes to enhancements? This comment has nothing to do with their quality of games, but rather formats they chose to incorporate. For instance, Nintendo was the last to abandon carts in favor of CD/DVD\'s. It is also the last to get online - I could be wrong, but they haven\'t set a date yet for a network adapter. GCN is a very good system, but why does Nintendo like to be last in developing or adapting new technology? Maybe let the others test the water and see if its successful? I don\'t know.
Anyway, I am not "down" on XBL Watchdog, just hyped that I have new games to play online right now.
-
Computer=teh ultimate online machine.
I doubt this will ever change.
Im with this guy. CPU online gaming > ps2+x-box online gaming.
And it will only get better and stay above online video gaming.
-
Well, I got a Gforce3 given to me (to replace my RageII--long story why I\'m still using it in my 1.7 ghrtz). Anyway, I borrowed Return ot castle Wolfenstein, Neverwinter Nights, GTA3, Warcraft 3, and Mafia. I couldn\'t play any of them. PC games just aren\'t fun anymore.
I\'d rather not play hunched over my keyboard, sitting in a computer chair. It\'s not natural, and it detracts from the experience. It\'s a hobby that I enjoy, I want to be comfortable with a controller in my hands.
Give me my PS2 and Xbox any day, I\'ll take the graphics hit (if any) anyday.
-
get rid of that milkcrate you sit on and get a nicer chair
-
I gotta agree with Watchdog on this one.
I can sit in my couch and play console games all day long.
Sitting in my chair for more than a couple hours kills my lower back. I\'m not sitting on some wooden POS either... it\'s a very nice, expensive chair.
Like Watch said, it doesn\'t feel natural.
Though, I still do play PC games. Games like WC3 always will be a blast.
-
just get a gfx card with tv out, works really well for me.
BTW "pc game\'s= teh R0x0rs yer B0x0rs "
:)
-
get a more comfortable chair
-
I have a nice chair. But it\'s not the same. I hate playing with a mouse an keyboard. Aside from RTS games, it doesn\'t feel right.
Any console > PC
-
WOW
Any console > PC
Take that mm! This is almost as big as mm calling Sierra bad in front of SonyFan!
;)
I\'m with Watch on this. Although I do still find PC games fun, it\'s just not the same :)
-
Yup, I\'m with Watch on this, too, except for FPS and RTS.
-
Watch is right. Most of the console games are better but PC will always have better FPS and flight sim games.
-
so you\'de rather play a FPS shooter with a joypad?
*shudder*
-
Yes, I\'d rather play with a controller. We could get better control if they hooked our brains directly up to the consoles, but I wouldn\'t want that either. A game is meant to be played with a controller.
Barring RTS games, the controller is almost always better, easier and more natural. I still say the controller is more natural with FPSs, it\'s not easier or more precise, but it\'s more natural (not to mention more comfortable and you don\'t have to worry about tunnel carpel syndrome). And the most important factor, it\'s more fun to use a controller.
PCs aren\'t meant for games, I hate driver updates, minimum specs, playing the game with low detail so I get get my POS computer to play yet another POS game.
PC games are always buggy, they require patches and updates, they always have cheaters online and they\'re just not worth the trouble most times. And the playing field isn\'t even with PCs, the disadvantges range from a optical mouse to a bigger monitor, to higher resolutions to better framerates and ping. At least with consoles, you know everyone is playing with the same stack of cards, and it\'s a fair game.
I\'ll take the hit on precision, to play in my comfy chair, in front of my big TV with a controller in my hands.
-
I\'m now used to playing PS2 games with the controller so I\'m perfectly used to it now. But PC I would use a mouse.
-
It\'s easier to play FPS with a keyboard and mouse but, more fun with a controller.
Maybe because there is more of a challenge?
-
Probably. But now its more of a challenge for me to play with a mouse and keyboard because I\'m too used to a controller.
-
PCs aren\'t meant for games, I hate driver updates, minimum specs, playing the game with low detail so I get get my POS computer to play yet another POS game
but thats the fun of it
who wants to plug something in and have it work the 1st time?
humans are tinkerers by heart
-
I\'m starting to have fun to actually tinker with computers. I\'m going to upgrade my computer with more RAM and I have plans to build my own computer. And to think it all got started when I took my PS2 apart to clean it.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Just remember nothing is for free. We end up paying for online gaming one way or the other.
Ace
OK for all my people with pc\'s have u ever payed a fee other then purchasing? no one aquires games that way - ;) Bob um i think not. And i dare to ask the question if we didnt pay fro pc games what makes ps2 so diffrent( i\'m not mention x box cause u will get cahrged after that year is over)?????
-
My point is the cost will be built into the game or some other way. No company in their right mind will take on costs they can pass onto the consumer.
Ace