To DOD Poison Xbox Live vs PS2 Online

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?  

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.

[Jumpman]

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.