Paging RC Cola... LINK I realize that even if they don't, they'll have the PS2-style 3rd Party play, but... I think that - if this is a legit story - this is a big mistake.
A quote from user comments that I echo the sentiment of... I hate XBOX Live strictly because I own a system that I pay $500 for, yet to get online and play it costs me more?? STUPID. It should be free if you pay the big up front cost of the system. Furthermore, not every system owner is a single, college-aged or younger, male with no social life outside of sitting in his dorm room or bachelor pad scarfing cheese doodles, suckin' suds and playing with his so-called cyber friends in a fantasy land on his TV for hours on end. Most, I would dare to say, are still of the opinion that the 4 player availibility in the same room will be the majority of the use the system gets over the life of the interest in the system. In other words... paying extra to play online is DUMB. Get a real friend and invite them over. If you must play online, free is the option to choose.
Ah, I love it when old info/rumors are brought back, especially when they're wrong or slightly inaccurate. Basically, here's what OPM said: Now, here's some exact quotes from Harrison several months earlier: Basically, it looks like they took his comments about a "more open platform" and ran with it. Besides, "more open platform" != PS2 online plan (or "non-Xbox Live plan != PS2 online plan). As I said in the other thread, Sony could still leave it up to the publisher more or less, while still keeping some things universal (like logins or something like that). FWIW, here's some pics of Sony's presentation from E3 that I forgot about that sort of show their plans for online: Finally, here are some comments from Kaz Hirai (head of SCEA...or what was SCEA...not sure what his title is now that they merged studios) about PS3 online plans: (paraphrased, and very much so , from Amirox over at GAF) I was actually about to post about that interview, but the PS3 online part was the main reason for it. Really didn't talk about anything else except their philosophies and a little bit about the PS3 controller.
Well, if your financial status is that where can't afford the 5 bucks a month it costs to be on Xbox Live, I question why you would spend $400 on a console, $60 a game, and even more on extra controllers for your friends. All 3 of the consoles will have the "4 person in-room capability." So why not offer an easy, centralized way of coordinating online play, as well? Sony is trying to cram Blu-Ray down our throats when 99.9% of the population isn't too keen on suddenly having to replace their DVD collection with the "new & improved" versions. Sink some development costs into an online system that enables people to hop online & within minutes whip random people's asses at Madden or whatever. I want to play GTA & Gran Turismo online dammit! The PS2 online experience is miserable - I would find it hard to believe that they will rely on EA & other 3rd parties to pick up the slack. Also, as to your description of what you consider to be a typical online player - are you saying then that non-online players are somehow more socially adept or cooler? What an asinine statement. Is it somehow "cooler" to sit inside with 3 other people and play video games all night? Is one less dorky than the other? lmao! If the 360 & Revolution will have centralized, cheap online gameplay - why can't Sony do the same? Blu-Ray isn't any advantage, either is Bluetooth. Maybe you're not into online play yet, but the numbers of online players are exploding. Shouldn't Sony plan ahead? So where's the advantage? Sheer power? Maybe, but the more I read things from developers like this, I wonder: >Gabe Newell - CEO of Valve the creators of Half-life 1 and 2 "Statements about 'Oh, the PS3 is going to be twice as fast as an Xbox 360' are totally meaningless. It means nothing. It's surprising that game customers don't realize how it treats them like idiots. The assumption is that you're going to swallow that kind of system, when in fact there's no code that has been run on both of those architectures that is anything close to a realistic proxy for game performance. So to make a statement like that, I'm worried for the customers. And that we view customers as complete morons that will never catch on and that we're lying to them all the time. That's a problem because in the long run, it will have an impact on our sales." >"Xbox 360 has far and away the best development tools," Carmack (Doom/Quake) said. "PS3 is probably marginally more powerful, in terms of raw flops and graphic operations, but that’s not really the best way to look at things. When you look at these development cycles that stretch over years and years, being 20% easier to develop on is much more important than being 20% more powerful." So, again - where's the advantage? Games? Both system have great exclusives and will have a million games... So why the hell not give people a good online gaming system?
Oh, I hope Sony keeps its promise. It would be great to have a single gamer ID across my PS2/3 games, along with portability through my PSP. People who belittle online play really don't know much about where the industry and home entertainment are headed...
1) I am not college-aged or younger. 2) I have plenty of income. 3) I still find it "assinine" to spend any extra amount to do something when it could be done for free. 4) Anyone playing for "hours" or "all night" is socially challenged anyway. 5) This kind of thing belongs in D & D... and you're welcome to go there, but I'll not follow. The point was... this is not "suicide" for Sony. And I'd rather have blu-ray.
Why would you have to replace your collection? I would just stick with my DVD's, maybe replace my favorites, and then buy the newer movies on Blu-ray. And maybe you don't care, but I've read about people that just can't watch movies on DVD anymore and just stick to HD movies on HBO or something. Probably not a large percentage (although at least a few percentage points I imagine) of America, but since gaming is going into HD, movies probably should as well. And of course, having BR isn't just an advantage for HD movie playback. I'm expecting online play to become a bigger factor next-gen, but that will largely depend on the adoption of broadband in the US and the world. As I've said a couple times, only about 10% of the Xbox userbase actually play online, and that is with that best online service that is being pushed heavily. I'd be impressed if they could get in the 25%-50% range. Basically, in order for both online play and HD gaming/movies to succeed, the market for each needs to expand. I'm hoping that both will become more common in my hometown in a few years (first real broadband experience for me started a couple months ago, here at UT). Hehe...yeah, grab quotes from the guys that hate multi-core CPU's and would rather stick with single-core CPU's, despite the fact that Intel, AMD, IBM, etc., are all going multi-core. These guys are geniuses and wonderful programmers/developers, but sometimes their words should be taken with a grain of salt. FWIW, I'm not necessarily saying they're wrong since the PS3 may only be "marginally" more powerful, but these guys aren't exactly fans of Cell/Sony/console development. Not really related but since I thought it was cool, here is a demo demonstrating the Cell processor being used for medical technology: http://www.mc.com/cell/demo.cfm Pretty boring up until around the 2:45 part, when they start comparing Cell with the processors they normally use. Just for clarification, this is still more or less speculation on my part. It does appear that Sony will come up with a much better online plan than the plan they had for the PS2, but I guess things could be different than they appear. I'm pretty sure video chat, internet browsing, downloadable content/microtransactions, etc., will be a part of the "Playstation Network," but there's little known about the rest. They may very well go with individual logins for each game. Even though I'm sure it will be better than the PS2 online service, exactly how much better is something we won't know until Sony gives some more specific info on their plans.
I disagree... if you hadn't noticed our current society is a "wired" one. It has nothing to do with your idiotic comments about "having real friends" it has to do with giving you the ability to an entire online community to pick up and play against people from all over the world. I for instance, use the new Xbox Live to chat with my friend who is off at college in North Carolina, we also play games on there that we would normally not get to experience with one another more then once or twice a year. I can also play with co-workers and friends instead of driving all the way to their houses 40 miles away. I can also play on a full screen rather then the small split screens... and I can play with up to 32 people on some games. I can also download demos to games that I may be interested in purchasing in the future or leave friends voice recorded emails... the possibilities are nearly endless, just like the internet. The fact that you think it is "dumb" to pay for online play shows just how little you know about the subject. Have you even touched a new Xbox and experienced the Live experience? I would bet not... so speak of what you know. As an IT professional the $49.99 a year for Xbox live is far from a financial strain, and buying controllers at 40 or 50 bucks a pop to play would actually cost more. What's the difference between playing with 32 friends online or 4 at your place? Oh yeah, you don't have to buy 31 extra controllers and the Xboxes and TVs to hold them... yet you can still trash talk like they were there, without having them drink all your beer and eat all your pizza. An argument could easily be made that if you have a busy life or work odd hours that Xbox Live actually increases communication with your real-life friends. Now, if Sony doesn't realize that they are missing a key aspect of the gaming community by leaving the online content up to the game developers then they are missing out on a huge number of gamers. The computer gaming industry is as huge as it is because of one key aspect... online play. Microsoft has hit a home run with the new Xbox Live and the hundreds of features they've included, and from their press releases and interviews they are just getting started... and since they are the one major reason the internet has taken off to begin with during the last 10 years it leaves Sony in a very tough bind. The PS3 will sell, simply because of the name... but die-hard online gamers will stick with the system that is most dedicated to them. It should also be noted that the Xbox does come with a FREE version of Xbox Live for those "financially challenged" gamers who after they spend 400-800 bucks on their systems, controllers and games can't afford the 4 bucks a month.
I didnt buy a PS2 because I wanted to see what the X-BOx had to offer, after I got to play Halo networked to a few of my friends I was sold.. I love the network play of Halo and other X-box games, but as a whole they can’t touch the GameCube for multiplayer of Mario Tennis, Mario Cart, Smash Bros and others. While I love X-box live and think Sony could have done more for online play with the PS2 I HIGHLY doubt Sony will make a huge mistake of not being more competitive in the online market with their next gen... My point of all this is MOST PEOPLE will buy a console because of the games not the specs, hell I played my old Saturn just the other day because some of the game are sooo much fun, but are they good looking ? HELL NO.. I'll buy the best console overall as I'm sure most of the other people out there will also.. Plus if Revolution really does port over all their old games to the new system I'll have a hard time passing on that one too.. It's a great time to be a gamer, stop being fan boys and enjoy the games..
Wow. I don't even like online play that much...but you are rooted firmly in the (long dead) past. Your characterization of what a gamer is...or more importantly, what you think an online gamer is, more than proves that. $50 bucks (the cost of one game) for what XBOX Live is is outstanding. Not too mention how much that will be expanded with the 360. It's not suicide for Sony, but it's certainly not smart to lose ground in an area that will only expand as broadband grows. Hell, even Nintendo is getting a better online service now. (And it's even free). You don't have to be demeaning to folks who have spent their dollars beyond your personal favorite video game system. Particularly when you are so misinformed on the subject.
