Sony online gaming survey for the PS3?
by Dan Choi 
{ Oct 21st 2005 at 6:30PM }
In the most recent survey sent out to members of Sony's Gamer Advisory Panel (sorry, it's invite-only), Sony asked
gamers a few questions about what's important to them in online games.
The three questions involve not only how to improve your online gaming experience, but also how important certain
online features are to "your overall console online gaming experience"—such as a web browser, a hard drive, and voice
chat—as well as how you arrange online games with friends. Non-GAPers can check out
these
scans of the one-page survey.
We don't know whether this pertains to online services for the PS2 or PSP as well, but the answers would most
certainly be relevant for development of the PS3 and its supporting services. Maybe we'll even hear something about
them next month!
[Thanks, Dmitri]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
gmrc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
I don't envy sony right now...
They have to create software that's going to compete with a flagship product from a software company. That's like General Motors making mp3 players and trying to compete with Apple and iRiver.
Databases and relational info and all that kind of good stuff is MS's bread and butter. Plus MS has had a bunch of time to work on next-gen Live, not to mention all the dirty work and netword sturcture is already in place from the current gen of Live. The head-start is huge.
Sony has a real uphill battle. Their only hope is to come up with something that's totally different than Live, but yet somehow more effective and fun.
It's gonna be tough.
matt @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
It cant copy Xbox Live or Me=pissed
rouzuki @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
It's Sony...we're talking about a company with a large and diverse hold on the world, I don't doubt their absolute success for even a moment. As much as I loathe them at times, (for things such as their response to the PSP button/screen "defect"), I also love the good things they do like Playstation 1 and hopefully Playstation 3
rouzuki @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
It's Sony...we're talking about a company with a large and diverse hold on the world, I don't doubt their absolute success for even a moment. As much as I loathe them at times, (for things such as their response to the PSP button/screen "defect"), I also love the good things they do like Playstation 1 and hopefully Playstation 3
nojok3 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
amusing how all of those features are available on xbox live, first version
Spank @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
@ nojok3
... true, but it didn't stop PS2 from vastly outselling the Xbox, did it?
(not a fanboy here... just a realist)
Bobeotm @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
They are in a very difficult position. Since the PS2 came out before Xbox, they couldnt possibly forsee how deep xbox's online strategy would be.
I'm pretty sure this is in referecne to the PS3 and probably the PSP, because sony itself has said that they pretty much stopped on the PS2 online strategy and shifted focus entirely to the PSP and PS3 online strategies.
They should team up (buy out) a software company that specializes in online communities. Because it will be definitely hard to be a SOFTWARE company at its own game. But i guess its nice to know that they are at least going to give it a try. Its not an impossible prospect to beat the 360 at its own game (especially since sony will have several months of observing what 360 live is about before the ps3 launches), but it is going to take some real ambition on sony's part to pull it off.
The1 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
I just took that SURVEY and I laughed because it will totally mimic XBL.
Sceptre @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Well here's one way they could beat XBL --
provide the important features (matchmaking, friends list, downloadable content), (which isn't rocket science at all), and here's the trick... do it without charging $50 a year. Charge $10.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
THANKYOU!!!
Mark B @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
You want the truth? Look away XBOX fanboys.
Only 1 out of 10 xbox owners are actually using xbox live. What does that tell you? It tells me two things. One is that the xbox live users are an extremely vocal minority. Two is that the vast majority of xbox owners don't give a shit about xbox live! Statistics don't lie.
The whole online gaming thing is overrated. The majority of gamers don't care.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Who the hell cares about Xbox or PS2 anyways? 360 is coming out in a month, give or take a few days.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Funny thing is that everytime Sony sends me this crap via email... I am just going to keep sending it in so the general public can see it aswell.
It is very obvious that the most voted on the survey will be talked about at the Sony 360 press conference. In the end though, just like all of Sony's products, the idea(s) will not come through.
vc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
An attentive organization does need to poll their customers to try to learn their preferences. Sony's doing what they have to do to try to compete on the online front.
Maybe some posters are right. Maybe online gaming won't be that big. I think there's a very small chance that these posters could be right.
Really, though, we'll all look back 10 years from now and marvel that any game lacked online functionality.
eric @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
#9: i dont know what you were reading, and i guess i have nothing to dispute the statistics, but playing online is damn fun. and i think that online is the direction that games will go, for one thing, the dev. doesnt have to code AI, but more importantly, playing against a person makes it so much more compelling than playing against a code. To think that online is unimportant is ti ignore the reality of the essence of games.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
vc. Its not the fact that they are sending out polls to people who initially ask for them. It is the fact that the majority of the choices are from Xbox Live (current-gen).
There is nothing innovating or different. And for that I am not suprised. Sony is just doing what Sony does best, take the best from others and turn them to shit.
vc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Ahh -- well yeah. I suppose they don't want to give away their innovative ideas to a group of gamers that will spread them all over the place. They may have several innovative features planned, but merely want to benchmark them against the current features of Xbox Live.
Tim @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
#9 - You're wrong.
The Xbox Live community is not very vocal. It only seems that way because it's the only Online community of it's sort. Sony has nothing to compare to it, and this list of options only shows how amazing Xbox Live really is. It has all of these things, and it does them well. As a Live user, having to pick 1 (or even just 5 or 6) seems absurd.
As for the statistics, you're right. They don't lie. But what you read from them was completely wrong.
Mark B @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Plenty of people still care about the PS2.
Sony is expecting to move 3 million units this holiday season. Add that to the 90 million already in homes around the world.
Yes, I would say that PLENTY of people still care about the PS2. :-)
Sceptre @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Definitely Online will be much more important this generation... but all the ooohs and ahhhs over XBL... honestly guys.
Gamespy offers developers free or almost free matchmaking for PC games (I've helped add it to two products. I've gone through their source code. It's pretty simple.)
And the friends list is just Instant Messaging. There are countless opensource and other home-made versions. Not hard.
Sony could offer all the important features of XBL without XBL's achilles heel -- $50 a year. Why do you think only 1 in 10 XBox users actually use Live? Because it costs so much (and because so many xboxers use mod chips.. but that's another story..)
jc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Here's a crazy idea that I would love to see happen. (near impossible tho)
If Microsoft would let go of the server control and allow the game makers to take responsibility, and Sony would continue this route. A company like Ubisoft (or any other game maker)that makes cross-platform games could then allow X360 and PS3 players to play against each other.
Anyone else think somthing like this would be a great idea?
.oO(Imagine if, say in the game of professional golf, people that wore nike gear had to play on a different course than people that wore adidas gear)
MumbleyJoe @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
True, only 10% of xbox user are on Live, and the $50 is unfortunate, but not excessive either. I doubt that building up a unified system from the ground up will be as simple as Sceptre suggests, not to come up with a level of service thats as well integrated as Live anyways.
I think some of the barriers to getting into online gaming have been the price, the credit card requirement, and broadbrand availability. MS has found a workaround to the CC requirement, Silver will give people a taste of Live, and Broadband adoption, while slowing, is still growing. There was no online play at the start of this generation, but it's growing quickly. I think planning for online play for the lifecycle of these consoles is critically important for all the companies, so I wouldn't marginalize it based on current adoption rates.
I've read that game attach rate for Live users tends to be nearly double offline play, and as a user I can back that up with my personal experience too, the online play adds a lot of value to games and has motivated me to buy more. If only 10% of your user base decides to buy double the games, that's an investment worth pursuing.
Sony's in a tought position on this particular front... I'm sure they'll pull something off and it will probably be pretty good, but I honestly can't think what's left to add that Microsoft hasn't already done on this front.
LMAO @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Wow $50 is so much for a year...that's as much as paying for Cable TV a month. Or that's only 5-6 months of WoW or FFXI online play. Yeah Xbox Live is VERY expensive. Unless we want ads popping up everywhere while we play games...we can do it for free.
Calvin @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
> by Bobeotm
:
>They should team up (buy out) a software company >that specializes in online communities.
Like Sony Online Entertainment which specializes in multiplayer online games?
Calvin @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
#12 even microsoft (allard?) publicly stated that 75% of xbox owners have not played halo. what's the majority of those xbox owners playing? mostly offline, i suppose.
CrAzY American @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Sceptre and all other who don't think xbl is all that....
When you get a service you dont have to pay for, you git exactly that...nothing....just like the ps2 online.
I love xbl and it is probably the best $50 I've ever spent on gamming. I love it because it makes the replay value of games extremely high.
When you beat a game, what do u do next, play it again? on a harder level? wwwoooo-amazing. I love live.
But then again with the ps2 not having any really good multiplayer games like halo 2 that xbox doesn't have (no, Socom 2 isn't fun-ive played it before), you guys don't know what your missin out on. Besides, who doesn't like co-op?
Eliot Phillips @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
NO FIRMWARE UPGRADES
SilverScyth @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Has anyone else noticed that every single one of those options is already available on Xbox Live? Yup, it's Sony alright.
Sceptre @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Any serious PC gamer knows how great online gaming can be. They also know that you shouldn't be paying to play a game that's being hosted on your friend's machine. It makes sense that WoW charges, they're giving you a huge persistent world. XBL is allowing you to connect to your friend's machine. This has been happening the PC world for a long time boys, it's not just some new microsoft discovery. What Microsoft innovated was charging people to play on each other's servers...
CrAzY American @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
wow Sceptre...get out of her
Thats all they've done? well even if it is i guess its better than anything ps2 has done. eh?
Stop comparing pc's to consoles, they are different. Computer gameing is gay anyway.
And who is to say MS won't have dedicated servers for the next xbox live?
SilverScyth @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
And for all the PC gamers complaining about Live. What PC games let you have one unified identity and voice through all games. Xfire comes close, but is not nearly as good.
LMAO @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
So a huge persistent world is worth $12-15 a month? That don't make sense to me at all, that's just ONE game. It should be FREE like Starcraft and Diablo II. And you don't get it. Live is a service, not just a connection. Live is the best thing that has happenned to console gaming, PERIOD. If it was left up to Sony and Nintendo, we'll not get an online service, probably not until the PS4. Experience the product to the full extent before you criticize it.
OTAM @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Wow,I remembered this service when they called it Xbox Live.
and for Mark B who says "
Only 1 out of 10 xbox owners are actually using xbox live. What does that tell you? It tells me two things. One is that the xbox live users are an extremely vocal minority. Two is that the vast majority of xbox owners don't give a shit about xbox live! Statistics don't lie."
So by that logic you're saying Britney Spears is the best singer in the world because her album stays at number 1 for weeks.
Google Nazi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
$10-$15 a month is not worth it especially if you enjoy playing many online games that require pay.
I would rather spend $49 today and then $49 next year for a massive update like its a new game instead of $10-$15 a month.
What about those who don't care about those updates? Updates usually are very minor and rarely has anything worthwhile. I know, I play them.
Owning an Xbox I can say that it wasn't a good system for me. I prefered the PS2 and Gamecube. Xbox live wasn't really that fun. Most of the time you were playing against some 12 year old out of control kid who does nothing but swearing in the microphone when you pwn them. (Course that isn't what happends all the time DUH!!!)
Xbox360 may have a better version of XBLive, although the hardware is barely an upgrade and to fully enjoy online games you need a powerful hardware. Especially if it is co-op play.
You don't really need much online software to make online gaming fun. You of course need voice recognition, team speak, buddy list, ranking system, and a monthly plan which allows you to play any game you want without any additional fee's.
I don't care who wins the console wars between sony and microsoft. I just want games to be more enjoyable than they already is.
But.. Just look at the freakin graphics of the PS3!! *drools* I drempt of this moment since Mario 64 came out, and it will finally happen :)
nod @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
lol@sony
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
sony = teh pwned
eric @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
"Socom 2 isn't fun-ive played it before"
HOW DARE YOU. jk, but i love that game and see it as what free online really can be
Tony @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
This survey tells me that Sony is waaay behind. Think about it: why would they be conducting this survey? Obviously it's because they want to design and/or prioritize features for their service, so they're looking for feedback about which are the most important ones to do first.
Which means they're still at the design and planning stage, and therefore a very long way from having a working service that gamers can use.
As someone else pointed out, they'll have to do all of these features just to catch up to where Xbox Live is today. If they only do a subset of them, it's going to look super lame, especially considering that XBL will have moved on and added more stuff by then.
Mark B @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
OTAM,
How the fuck did you get a Britney Spears reference out of what I said?
I stand by what I said. Most XBOX owners don't give a shit about XBOX Live and online gaming is very overrated.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
"Wow,I remembered this service when they called it Xbox Live.
and for Mark B who says "
Only 1 out of 10 xbox owners are actually using xbox live. What does that tell you? It tells me two things. One is that the xbox live users are an extremely vocal minority. Two is that the vast majority of xbox owners don't give a shit about xbox live! Statistics don't lie."
So by that logic you're saying Britney Spears is the best singer in the world because her album stays at number 1 for weeks."
No, he's saying that it doesn't matter that LIVE is "the best service ever", because nobody cares anyway. The britney spears example is not analogous to this thread because not all people in the music industry (and I mean all kinds of music) will tell you that she's the best, some will tell you she's the worst, and in high percentages (Just go to Vienna and ask anyone what's the best music ever). On the other hand, an analogous example would be saying that Zelda Ocarina of Time is the best game ever. Yes, it is, most gamers think so, most magazines think so, grades, etc. almost everyone in the god damned industry; so? Does it matter? No, nobody gives a damn, because not more than half of N64 users had it anyway, just like not more than 10% Xbox users have LIVE service despite it being "the best online gaming service".
Besides, I would spend the 60 annual dollars on LIVE if I had time to play at least once or twice a week, but unfortunately I don't, so I rather have a free service, even if it doesn't have stuff I don't need like my friends list (which I conveniently have in my computer), matchmaking (I don't need that, but if I ever I'm sure I could search for someone on the same level of gaming as me, or get better by myself), and a *cough* Trojan horse*cough* a market place (not only I don't need it, I rather not have it).
Mark B @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
b,
You made some good points.
I have an XBOX (and PS2) and it really pisses me off the way Microsoft just casually and suddenly dumped all support for the XBOX.
And why? So that they could hurry up and rush the 360 to market. So that they could be "first" this time.
And HOW is the 360 better than the XBOX? Slighty improved graphics? Is that all?
Way to go Microsoft, you greedy corporate bastards. I hope you fall on your asses!
b @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
I'm with you on this one Mark B. I mean, I'm probably gonna get a 360 sometime anyway, but I’m not happy about it. I mean, having to pay too much money for playing a game I ALREADY BOUGHT? “Cheaper than PS3”, yeah right, in value, not cost.
MSFT is "putting all their eggs in the Online Basket" or whatever, as a Sony Rep said. It's good, but it's not everything, and it’s not fundamental, and I don’t know what else they have. I’ve heard them brag about how they will revolutionize the way we play with LIVE, yet they have a small hard drive when they were the ones that brought it to consoles, I’ve heard them brag about Hi Definition but they lack support for Hi Definition movies (HD-DVD or Blu-ray), no support for 1080p resolution, not backwards compatible (just emulates, so if there is even a new PS2 that doesn’t play 100% of PS1 games and PS2, I wonder how emulation will work it out; oh well, the only titles worth getting are few anyway: Ninja Gaiden, Halo 1&2, Fable if not one more). Is there anything else besides it becoming an “advanced MSN messenger”?
At least Nintendo is gonna go free all the way and I think that is of great value, the fact that it will be Wi-Fi makes it cutting edge (I think so), and they are trying to turn games upside down, use wi-fi, flash memory, very compact design, and it won’t be as expensive as LIVE, and the PS3 will be a High Tech media center at least, despite it being similar in games compared to 360. At least it has all that Xbox lacks, but since they are competing directly with Xbox, they should make the router optional to reduce the price even more, or to optimize the programming/hardware problems that both the GPU and CPU architecture have. Xbox only has an advantage on LIVE for now, and Microsoft’s wallet of course.
I also recall OTAM saying once that he plays to DISCONNECT himself from reality, but isn't "jacking in" connecting to reality again? After all, you are there with a million people again, when you supposedly wanted to spend time by yourself, and you are actually PAYING for that.
Now that you say that they are cutting support for Xbox 1, wouldn't you find it hilarious if Gamecube ended up selling even more units than the Xbox (because they're pretty much tied right now)? I mean, the next Zelda still has to come out. I hope it pushes a lot of Gamecube just so Xbox ends in turd place (yes, I misspelled it on purpose). Also, PS2 will keep selling a lot, not only because of its shitty redesign, but because Kingdom Hearts 2, FFVII: Dirge of Cerberus and FFXII are coming out.
Ok, this was long.
Jimbo @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
#38,
b, haven't you heard by now that Nintendo is not going to offer back catalog stuff for free? You really think a company can survive by giving it ALL away for free?
OTAM @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
b,when I said I want to get away from reality that has nothing to do with other players. It's the fact that i'm playing a game and doing something I could never do in real life and having fun. I'm not going into a completely isolated state and jacking myself into the Matrix or something by the way you make it out to be.Games like the Sims I find completely ridiculous and stupid. I don't want to clean my toilet in real life so why exactly am I doing this in a videogame?
And the thing is that more people do care about Xbox Live now then when it first launched.I have 3 friends who bought a DSL line to get ready for the 360 because they never had Live and now that other people see them using Live on their Xbox now they want to get it too.The internet is becoming more and more the future wether it be buy a car online or do your taxes so why not make this a huge part in consoles?
I don't understand people saying "Well,my PC can do that already". That's why it's a PC and not a console.If you're going to look at it that way then don't play consoles at all because a computer is a machine that can do a million things so why even bother?
And about the trojan horse comment,is it really THAT bad? If one day Microsoft does make this "in demand" service,why will it be a bad thing? The only places that will be really hit hard are places like Gamestop that just specialize in videogames,not places like Bestbuy or anything because they sell tons of other merchandise. Any service that will allow me to get the game on release day without leaving my house AND fuck Gamestop in the process is supported 100% by me.The only thing I don't like about it is having to buy a bigger form of storage after you get so many games.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
"#38,
b, haven't you heard by now that Nintendo is not going to offer back catalog stuff for free? You really think a company can survive by giving it ALL away for free?"
Jimbo:
I don't recall mentioning the Nintendo gaming catalogue, but while we're at it, at least they are not charging me for playing online on a revolution game I already have. They are only charging for actual, complete games. The best thing about these games is that they (according to what Iwata San said) will have revamped graphics for the Revolution. I can't wait to see all the NES games with awesome graphics. If graphics don't get a revamp, then I won't bother buying those games.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
OTAM, I said I'm probably gonna get a 360 anyway, because it is gaining support, and therefore, good games. But LIVE is the last thing I want. I back you up on the Gamestop comment, they rip developers off and they rip us off when they sell used games, but still I consider MSFT's Trojan horse a Rip-off (tomorrow each shell in Halo will cost you a cent of a dollar, which could account in a dollar or two each time you play - I don't want that).
I absolutely disagree with bully gates on the fact that we won't use discs in the future. I don't want to have hard-drives all the time, what if they fail? Or worse, download games each time I play? I want my discs because they are long lasting and I don't want to depend on some stupid online "LIVE" connection to play, I just think it is a nice OPTION, and I hope everyone agrees with me on this.
Shamster @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
If XBox Live was so overrated, why is SONY sending out this survey. It is pretty obvious that SONY are rethinking their so called "open, do it yourself" online strategy. Some of the choices they included in the list were things they particularly said they would not be doing. Also note that 10% of XBox users = 2 million users. With XBox 360, users get to test the Live service for free with their Silver membership before they decide on going Gold. Also, if you are already on Live, your membership will be transferred to a Gold membership. This, in my opinion, will only get more users. And who said Microsoft has stopped XBox support. XBox will continued to be supported in terms of XBox Live. You won't see first party titles for XBox anymore, but I think XBox has a good installed base of 20 million consoles that there will be enough publishers suppoting it. As for Live, I'm thrilled that I get to pay the same 50 bucks and I get Live for both XBox and XBox 360!!!
For all you PC lovers, XBox Live may not be currently the very best possible experience online, but is definitely one in the right direction. XBox Live brought in online gaming in the console world with some really neat improvements. If they had not done this, I'm positive that we will not be seeing as many games with online capabilities and the few that have will have different and limiting experiences. By carving out the guidelines for the rich featureset, Microsoft has "pushed" developers to take their games to the next level in online gaming. Here are some examples.
- Content downloads have become very standard for a lot of XBox games, even if they don't have an online component.
- Cross game invites makes it easier for your friends to invite you to a game even though you are in another game.
- No matter what you say, before XBox Live, finding your friends online and playing with them was a pain.
- Because a lot of the online framework is in place, some games were able to take the online experience to the next level that just blew us away. PGR2 had ghosts of the best players you raced with. Halo 2 took voice to the next level with proximity voice and voice messaging. Again Halo 2 did their whole Bungie.net thing. Then you have Forza where you can build and sell or buy cars online.
From day one Microsoft has had the ability for developers to hook up their own servers to allow extensibility. That is how bungie.net was implemented. So the system is not as close ended as SONY portrays it to be. What is close ended is who collects the money. If you are developing an online title for XBox Live, you have to go through the XBox Live service. Now that is a good and bad thing for developers, but definitely the best thing for us gamers. Good for developers because as a developer you don't have to worry about the online infrastructure; XBox Live will do all that for you and therefore get's to pocket the consumers online fee. It's bad for developers like EA who already had the infrastructure in place. They saw a loss of potential revenue. That is the reason they announced online support for PS2 alone. However, the next year they announced that they were joining the XBox Live bandwagon. Guess they figured out that they better not miss the XBox Live train. It's good for us gamers because we pay 1 online fee which helps a lot of games share the service without having to really pay for all the overhead. Imagine if you have to pay EA an online fee every month, then turn around and do the same with UBI and so on. Also, we would not be seeing this much support for online games.
If you ask me, Microsoft have done a superb job with XBox Live and I think the pricing is very reasonable for what I get. Feel free to disagree with me, but I think all the things that they are doing right now are going to help games add online experience very easily and before you know, we will be counting the number of games that won't be online. As for the games that really want to push online to the next level, Microsoft is definitely working with them to achieve that. e.g Gotham TV.
CrAzY American @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
b & Mark B
first off, Nintendo and MS are nearly equaled in units sold, unless you use some wierdo kind of math (15 million doesn't equal 20 million, no matter how bad you want it to).Zelda won't sell 5 million additional gamecubes, srry.
Second, (to Mark B)-MS has said they will continue their support for the the xbox through 2007. that, to me, doesn't seem like their stopping all support for it. And besides what do you want them to say..."we have the 360, but the xbox is better and everyone should buy that"
b, you've said before you love Nintendo, well they aint got a High Def drive, or any high def support for that matter.
also, b can you tell me how many tvs rite now on the earth, no, in the universe have 1080p capabiites? Thats rite....Zero. and when they do come out, they'll b xpensive. Just extra cost added to the machine that maybe 1 out of 100 will use? but yeah, its really important.
And people who say the hardware is hardly an upgrade, you are completely and utterly retarded and blinded by the hype and beautiful videos Sony has shown you.
Tim @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
We have to keep in mind that there aren't a bunch of do-gooder executives running this industry. The only way it's going to be free is if they can't make money off of it.
If Revolution has free online, it will be because it's worth that. Nothing. And to be honest, all this bull about "We get to play old games!!" The only reason that would be free (or cheap, I'm not up on the news) is because any idiot can go on a P2P/Torrent service and download a huge 25 gig ROM pack of every nintendo game ever made.
Xbox Live costs money because there's nothing at all that compares to it, and because you /CANNOT/ get the same experience anywhere else, no matter how many of your free tunnelling softwares and IMessengers you combine.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 9:37PM
Shamster
Then why doesnt microsoft sell the Box with already bigger Hard Drives? I have a friend that installed a 200 Gig HD on his Xbox, and that is awesome because he pretty much installed every game he has on it, and If you combine that with LIVE, then you wouldn't have to be switching discs to play the game, you just pause, save the state, switch for a match, and then return, as if you would in any PC. Then again, you also have to get the game your friend has to play against him, so why not implement a system where you can play-test another game when you are invited, so you know if you wanna buy it or not? Sort of a free trial. I don't know if that is possible with Xbox.
Well, now that I think about it, maybe it makes some sense to not use discs anymore, but for that, the internet speed would have to be huge if you have to download a game every time you play on another console (when you are visiting another place and you use another account), let alone huge hard drives, but then again I still like to not be connected all the freaking time. In the end I still want discs, just to be sure and not be dependent on accounts.