| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (90)

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 2:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
let me remind everyone that MS copied what both Playstation, Playstation 2 and Dreamcast did with their systems when it came out with the Xbox 1. PS2 had plans for a hard drive--the bay was there at launch and online plans had been made but not fulfilled properly. Same with Dreamcast online play--good plan, poor execution. All Microsoft did was run with all the ideas, and build a console out of PC parts, and the rest is history. Hell, the 360 itself is just a knockoff of what MS learned from Xbox modders, adding the arcade in lieu of emulation of old games and "customization" of games (still hasn't been implemented like they said they would) and faceplates and the like.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 2:19PM DeathChimp2000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"All Microsoft did was run with all the ideas"

To paraphrase Stephen King, I have a great idea for a brain transplant, all that remains is the surgery.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 2:42PM solomonrex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I believe that Sony CAN implement a free online service.

I find it funny that anyone thinks it will be anything except complete crap! Have you seen Connect? Do you really think it will work as well as advertised? This is the one area where I have no faith in Sony.

Yes, Socom worked ok and so does Everquest. But this is a different type of thing. Providing a free service is so difficult in PC gaming (which has a couple decades of history) that Steam, battle.net and gamespy take completely different approaches. And none of them worked smoothly overnight. I wouldn't say gamespy is a good service, for example, and it's the only one that supports multiple publishers.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 1:28AM murc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
BT works with USB!

I have had a Bluetooth Keyboard & mouse combo for my pc for nearly 2 years. You plus the transciever (basically a BT antenna) into a USB port on the pc, which connects to wirelessly to the mouse and keyboard.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 2:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Which company is bigger, Sony or Microsoft (Meaning which can lose more monet without it affecting them much)? Id guess Microsfot although im not sure. If so, Ms could afford to make live free but they arent, meaning that a) Sony has something less in their service or b) they are losing shitloads of money because of free online services. Or c) M$ is just greedy :)

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 2:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
let me remind everyone that MS copied what both Playstation, Playstation 2 and Dreamcast did with their systems when it came out with the Xbox 1. PS2 had plans for a hard drive--the bay was there at launch and online plans had been made but not fulfilled properly. Same with Dreamcast online play--good plan, poor execution. All Microsoft did was run with all the ideas, and build a console out of PC parts, and the rest is history. Hell, the 360 itself is just a knockoff of what MS learned from Xbox modders, adding the arcade in lieu of emulation of old games and "customization" of games (still hasn't been implemented like they said they would) and faceplates and the like.

Posted at 2:02PM on Oct 14th 2006 by cheese


Jeeze, where to start, i dont normally make posts like this, but i had to. MS didnt copy the PS and PS2 first off to say because that extra bay wasnt originally for a hard drive, they might have had plans, but never used them, but thats like saying microsoft tacked on their hdd and built their whole system to rely on it just one year after the PS2 came out. Not to mention how you say it copies the Dreamcast and PS2 for having network capabilities. The dreamcast had low-bandwidth which would make it harder anyways, and all the PS2 had was an expansion bay, almost every console that has ever came out has had some sort of expansion bay, so thats like saying that they all were capable of HDDs and network play. Not to mention Windows is where a lot of PC gaming occured at first and in the DOS world, where MS was very supportive of the IPX protocol which was the start of online gaming practically. But hell, even the NES had an expansion where you could plug a phone line into it and play online, dont believe me, look it up. Dont blindly support one company because you hate the others.

Oh, and i almost forgot, XBLA wasnt invented as a rip from modders, but was readily available on the original xbox, it was just implemented shitty, but with a whole service like Live, who cares. I used to be a sony fanboy hardcore until a year ago, now im happy with DS, and my 360, and dont plan on owning another sony product until it is less than $300. I just built my gaming computer anyway so that will do plenty more than i need it to. If i buy a game console i want to play games, i dont want all this extra crap about everything else, just give me the games, i have a PC for music, movies, and browsing. Granted i love the fact that my XBox360 can integrate into Media Center and i can watch movies downstairs on my big tv, thats just a bonus, i want the game play, and i have had it delivered without these wacky promises being shattered day after day.

Furthermore, i feel that paying for demos is the biggest load of crap ever, HA! I wouldnt pay for a demo even if when i was done the game would cook me breakfast. If sony can deliver full online play with decent services for free, then more power to them, but XBL is the way to go, and should be the business standard, I also love the Nintendo Wifi Connect too though, its so convenient (aside from friend codes). Online gaming was best and if you wanted it done right you had to go for a PC, until the Xbox live platform established itself.

One last thing, it was said way earlier on that for PC games you have to pay for bonus stuff and etc just like you will for the PS3, not once have i payed for any bonus to a PC game i play in order to join a server, it is all free and is all saved straight to my computer.


PC/DSWii60 for my win.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 2:51PM Cuddlefish said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Microsoft is smart to use points instead of listing real currency prices because people won't calculate the real cost and thus spend more. Also, MS point cards can be purchased in retail stores. Many times you can find deals on these cards. I got 1600 points $5 cheaper at Target than at BestBuy so the cost per point depends what you paid for the card.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 3:10PM Goaliegeek said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
WTF? Purchase Demos? you have to pay for a demo? Even XBLM doesn't charge for demos. And you have to pay to play online like Xbox Live?(for certain games, Man, R:FOM better be free that's all I have to say) Come on Sony, I love you guys, but after all that you are puttting us throught you make us have to pay to play online? I know you want to rival Xbox Live, but if you want more people to switch from X360 to PS3, you shouldn't have to play for that kinda stuff. I'm still getting a PS3 on launch day, but man... idk....

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 3:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nobody likes a know-it-all, Joystiq.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 3:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dustin
what are you talking about, the article said you dont have to pay for normal multiplayer, only subscription based games IE Everquest, FF11, etc require a fee to play.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 3:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@pandafresh
PlayStation Store: purchase demos, purchase downloadable PSone and PS2 games, purchase downloadable extras (horse armor FTW), and pay for subscriptions to certain (premium) online games in local currency. Sony avoids getting eaten alive by transaction fees by requiring deposits of cash into a virtual wallet. Once cash is deposited to the wallet, it's spent the same way MS Points are spent. [Does this mean that credit cards are required for online purchases?] Game-specific mini marts will show premium content for a specific game only. [We knew this.]

Straight from the bottom of the post by joystiq.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 4:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vlad/Joystiq really need to get their facts straight...

From the article: "Friends are one part of the equation. The other part is the PlayStation Store, which is where you'll be able to buy content, download demos, and manage any premium subscriptions you may have."

"...buy content, DOWNLOAD demos,......."

It says NOTHING about paying for demos.

Please fix your article kthx!

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 4:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Also it is somewhat misleading to say: "The system doesn't allow one to respond to these in-game status pop-ups, so you'll have to exit your game if you want to read the message you just received."

From the article: "At present, however, there's no system for actually reading or responding to messages while you're still in the game, as the operating system doesn't take resources away from games in order to do that - however, according to Harrison, that functionality may well appear in an OS update, presumably based on whether users actually express a desire for it or not."

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 5:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've just deleted my Joystiq bookmark.

There's no point anymore. I can just as easily go to the real games industry news sites (Next Generation, Gamasutra, GamesIndustry.bix) and skip the hassle of sloppy journalism.

Anyway -- cheers! To all who stick around here, enjoy all the 2nd-rate writing (which is generally a matter of 'copy and paste' + add 'clever' comments ).

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 5:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"no one in the history of video games have ever charged for a demo."

Sony has for the longest time. They are known to us as the "Jampack". I feel that they would charge for some demos. Sony got to recoup some of there losses somewhere else other than game sales. If you think about it, Sony makes a ton of money on accessories. With the PS3, they would lose some of that revenue.

The one thing all of us have to agree on is that the number one thing they sold for both the ps2 and ps1 is memory cards. Every playstation gamer I have talked to has at least 2 cards. With the built-in hard drive, most people won't fool with buying a memory card. Those cards got a heck of a markup for a 8mb card. Some places are just now lowering the price of those cards in the past year. They will sell controllers and get a kickback from third party versions. But since the PS3 has bluetooth, people won't have to buy Sony or Sony-approved bluetooth items.

I have a bluetooth mouse, keyboard and several headsets. I am one of many who won't buy replacement stuff like that just because they are made by Sony. Heck, you can buy a bluetooth headset for $10 now. I can't imagine sony selling something like that for $10 or less.

They got to make there money somewhere else other than game sales. They will try to get money from any avenue possible.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 5:45PM Starcade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm sure Sony can offer a free network, but there are some background costs involved, which will probably be made up somehow-- like ads maybe?

'Today's online connectivity is brought to you by Geico'

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 6:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
J Allard admitted that many features of the 360 were originally implemented by modders, and modded xboxes with emulation probably spurred MS to push XBLA even harder. Ask the average xbox user last gen if having a ton of old games on a modded xbox and you would not hear a peep about "xbox already has xbox live arcade" because it was not that popular. In fact it was only implemented maybe a year prior to the 360 coming out. I will stand by my comment that MS copied many ideas that had been half-baked by Sony in the PS2 gen because that's what all companies do, and there's no reason people should be whining about Sony copying Xbox live. In fact, people should be glad they are. Hello!??!

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 6:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
u can check messages while playing a game

"At present, however, there's no system for actually reading or responding to messages while you're still in the game, as the operating system doesn't take resources away from games in order to do that - however, according to Harrison, that functionality may well appear in an OS update, presumably based on whether users actually express a desire for it or not."

so no voice chat between games either. let me show u what u get with live

the profile is logged into the controler. so any controler connected and turned on can have a profile logged into live. I can acces my friends list and voiced chat with my boy while my brother is chatting a friend on his list and playing a a game. we did this with dead rising a single player game. he wanted to play and i was like cool and we found this little bit of info out. so the 360 lest u have all this yet the ps3 canlt even let u check messages while in game.

once again its worth every penny i spend on Live.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 6:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tick-tock, tick-tock. The xbots hurry to get in their parting shots as reality starts to dawn on them, the juggernaut begins to bear down, and all the old arguments start to evaporate...

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 6:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You can download PS2 games as well!?

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 7:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
joep.

say ur on my friends list. we canlt have any contact while we are playing games. if i sejd u a invite u ahve to jump all the way back tot he dashboard just to decline it. to even view what the emssage is u have to go to the dashbaord. if u wnat tos end me an invite same thing.

so just to communicate u have to stop playing the game noit just pause it. than to get back to playing u have to load it all up again.

now how is that so awsome? see i donlt care bout matchmaking i care about connectivity. i would pay just to not have to stop playing my game to chat. that might now matter to you but it does to me

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 7:37PM Maverick Saturn 06 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ChuckSteak0331, yes I did say there were more on PSOnline, despite how much it was slagged, and how undeveloped it was, everybody knows that, except for the few fanboys who hate to admit it, out of the low percentage that bought an Xbox (thus propelling the PS2 last gen) it was futher sliced by the fact sensible gamers had better things to do with thier cash other then spend pointless cash on online gaming, and its not even one price, it was a yearly thing.

The PSonline was one price to buy it in the shop, fairly easy to install, didnt need a credit card, and although it didnt have all the features live did, it had way more people playing it, even today there are people still picking up a cheap online extension for thier PS2, my cousin just bought one. Why? Because we can have just the same amount of fun with the rather so called crappy online service PS2 has as we could with the Xbox Live, end of.

My conclusion simply being, all that matters is that the PS3 sells, the more it sells, the more people will be on PNP, regardless to the fact it has less features or not, once a person can meet thier friends online, thats all that matters to be honest. Everything else is just a bonus.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 7:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"purchase demos"

I say No way. Demos should be FREE!

F that!

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 8:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sony seems to be reiterating the same crap about their Online plans, which really amounts to nothing.

From what we've been told so far, this is about all you can count for sure: "PS3 Online will be like XBox Live except it won't. It will be %100 free except playing online, though some playing online will be free, maybe. There will be online transactions. You will have buddy lists and messaging in the same exact way as XBox Live, except you can't access any of it in-game because people don't want to do that, but if they do we can totally upgrade it because our system is awesome and can be upgraded."

So, all we know for certain is that you will get to buy stuff online (Yay! Spending money rocks!) and that the online system can be upgraded. Why do they keep saying it can be upgraded? They must expect the initial online to blow chunks if they keep telling us it will be upgraded. Thats just as bad as saying "honestly guys, it will be better, honestly!"

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 11:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The article states that the inability to view messages whilst gaming may be thwarted if enough users express a desire for it;

"At present, however, there's no system for actually reading or responding to messages while you're still in the game, as the operating system doesn't take resources away from games in order to do that - however, according to Harrison, that functionality may well appear in an OS update, presumably based on whether users actually express a desire for it or not."

So, let's go go go!

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 1:03AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm looking forward to the first stories about little Jimmy watching porn sites on his shiny new PS3 with browser.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 1:07AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, so many of you seem so emotionally invested in the idea of the PS3 not succeeding. Perhaps so your favorite console doesn't all-of-a-sudden seem pretty obsolete after only a year? Go back to playing Kameo with one hany, m-kay? :)

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 1:39AM saahmed said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The reason the PS3 online service is going to be free is because its going to be horrible. I dont think they have a unified system, each game will have its own servers? PS2's online system was just crap.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 2:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"I can't wait to hear the crying and gnashing of teeth when the browser is found to be vulnerable to spyware and viruses."

Well microsoft is the king of vulnerabilitys when it comes to viruses and worms spreading, so if you want to talk at the company level MS vs Sony.... you might want to rethink that.

"I gues Sony is done copying Xbox live service."

I guess MS is done copying vista's features from OSX. Whats your point?

"Sony's a follower, not a creator like Microsoft or Nintendo."

While I can agree nintendo creates, MS does not, MS buys ala MS Exchange Server, MS SQL Server, disk defragmenter in XP and just about every one of their major server platforms was purchased not created by microsoft.

And as far as those who have no faith in the PS3 network's ability to handle multiplayer, I'm pretty sure it's going to run the same way.. Remember the games don't run on the Xbox Live network infrastructure, its still all peer to peer, the gamers host and clients connect. Sony will likely do the same, meaning the actual experience will be as good as the software developers write it.

Also to be fair here, while Xbox live for 360 was a revolutionary service, it was not without it's bugs and annoyances at it's launch. C'mon single download, no queuing, no background downloads, 2nd revision of the nav system which is still slow and a bit of a pain. If Sony's isn't perfect at launch, have faith it will also improve. Xbox Live is a great service and a huge part of the Xbox 360 experience, it sounds like Sony is headed in the right direction. I think we're going to see all 3 online services improving themselves over the coming year.


I happily own an Xbox 360, and I will own a PS3. I don't see why everyone needs to jump on the one is better than the other, each machine has and will have it's pluses and minuses.


Posted: Oct 15th 2006 2:34AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"The reason the PS3 online service is going to be free is because its going to be horrible. I dont think they have a unified system, each game will have its own servers? PS2's online system was just crap."

You do realize when you play on Xbox Live, it's all peer to peer, while the matching is done by MS servers, you are NOT running on Microsoft servers while playing the game. The individual games host or connect to the developers service, and the client games connect to those.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 2:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"I'm looking forward to the first stories about little Jimmy watching porn sites on his shiny new PS3 with browser."

I guess it'll be no different than the obscene webcam pictures that are being sent out to random gamertags on the Xbox Live network.

These things will happen, and the companies will respond.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 9:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PS3Live is looking good as a starting point. Few issues still missing but nothing show stoppers. Sony will update the service OTW (over-the-wire) as times goes.

And the worries about how online game sessions work if Sony does not host hub servers: dont worry it works like it does today in XboxLive.

Sony providers a common lobby system and shopping transaction services. Games are run at developer's hardware, like it runs today in XboxLive. Some games probably are true peer-to-peers without a centralized server node.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 11:32AM erh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It worries me that Sony brewed there own web browser. Browsers like FireFox and Internet Explorer have gone through years of evolution. There are several variations of HTML and Javascript, and millions of badly written webpages to support. And, a browser has to support dozens of media formats, each with multiple variations and generated by software that doesn't always follow the standards. It would be virtually impossible for any company, regardless of the money involves, to create a new browser that's on par with Internet Explorer and FireFox without going through several versions and wide spread beta testing. Not even Microsoft can release a new version of their browser without releasing beta and release candidates into the wild for widespread testing.

I think Nintendo made the right choice by licensing a proven browser, that has already gone through it's evolution and beta versions on other platforms. But Sony refuses to license anything, even if it means crippling their system! They refused to license rumble for their controller, they refused to license a proven web browser, and don't forget BluRay which only came into existance because Sony refused the DVD Forum's decision to license technology from Toshiba for high definition DVDs. I'm not impressed with Sony's way of doing business.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 12:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"They refused to license rumble for their controller, they refused to license a proven web browser, and don't forget BluRay which only came into existance because Sony refused the DVD Forum's decision to license technology from Toshiba for high definition DVDs. I'm not impressed with Sony's way of doing business."

While I'm don't know the specifics of the deal, but everywhere I read that the 2 parties couldn't come to an agreement over a common platform. I do however know that the proposal was to use Blu-ray's technology for it's superier capacity, and Toshiba's Security for it's superiority. Both companies couldn't come to the agreement here, and the consumers suffer.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 12:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The demos are a commercial for the game, I'm sure sony and developers will come to an agreement with regards to who pays for this, my gut tells me it won't be the consumer. Both sony and the developer win if people buy the games.. How do you get them to buy the games, give them a sample via the demo.

We might all be jumping at what was said in the interview text. Lets wait and see how it works out. I don't think someone like EA is going to release a demo on xbox 360 for free, and charge for it on PS3.. They want to get that demo to everyone possible to increase their game sales.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 12:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I dont buy all this free online stuff that Sony is saying. Are you telling me that sony out of the kindness of their hearts will sink millions of dollars into game servers plus maintain them for absolutely nothing. I think all you PS3fanboys are having delusions of grandeur. And for all you people praising Sony's online service, heres a news flash for you "They are ripping off XBL and they arent even doing a good job of it. I feel better paying a small fee for a service that I know is dependaple and proven. Granted some games may have its bugs but in general they are few and far between. All you PS3 whinny fanboys enjoy your crappy online service but when you want to play with the big boys come to XBL.

Posted: Oct 15th 2006 2:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
^^^
#86, et. al. You guys are starting to sound desperate; just let it go. All this "I don't believe it", and "you'll have to pay for demos" crap is pretty lame. Sony has already proven - to my satisfaction - that an open framework that lets other companies host online play for free works. I've personally logged many hours online with the SOCOM series, FIFA, ATV, and other titles. It worked, and I didn't pay one extra dime for it.

If XBL gives you features that you like, and are willing to pay extra for, then bully for you. If Sony wants to add these and other features, and make the online experience more unified but still free, then bonus for me. Personally, the last thing I want in the middle of an online game is somebody wanting to text chat with me. But hey, if this is that important to enough people, they can start demanding it.

In the meantime, go back to sticking pins in your Sony voodoo doll, and we'll see how it shakes out.

Posted: Oct 16th 2006 4:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Check out these videos of Resistance online. Ted Price shows off a ton of it's features.

He's a very good tour guide.

There are 6 videos total in this series. The first three are the most informative, the next three are more gameplay-oriented. Here's a link to the first three. For the rest, just select "more videos from this user"

Those interested in achievements, rankings, game modes, ranked play, clans, buddy lists, in-lobby and in-game voice (headset) and text communication, and all those bells and whistles should definitely check them out.

Video 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xKWvK0v3J0

Video 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHOkyzElbVw

Video 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1O4uZvBmW0

I like what I see so far. You can tell this guy played a lot of Halo.

After watching these videos, I'm pretty confident that PS3 online will be just fine.

Posted: Oct 16th 2006 8:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In respose to what is normal online gaming. It really comes down to the developer.Any developer can choose to charge a subscription for their game if they feel they need to. This normally due to server cost.
MMORPGs are the most common but there are some others out there such as MMOFPS's etc.

There are several games out there that give the MMO experience without charging when they could as well. Games like Test Drive Unlimited and Chrome Hounds (think monster hunter was like this too it has been a while). This is something game manufactures have to facter into there buisness model for the game and ask themselves If I get paid a one time payment(thier cut of the game) can we afford to host this for free.

Though really people should look at PC gaming the origin of most online gaming and ask themselves if it is really free. Most game makers have a few servers they run of the thousands of servers out there for each game. People pay lots of money for dedicated server hosting/personal dedicated machines/dedicated bandwidth/co locating services/teamspeak and ventrillo servers (voice chat)just to name a few. And all in the name of having the best possible online experience for their clan.

Posted: Oct 17th 2006 11:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sony as a CONTENT provider I believe is what alot of people are missing on the PS3 online platform.. That is the biggest difference right now between XBL and the upcoming PSonline. Whereas MS develops and produces frontend and backend products and really if you think about it and look at it weather they actually create something for the consumer market with a MS label or they create something that they may hold a patent or copyright to etc. they still end up winning and making money even if it may take years, whereas Sony is more into consumables where they MUST show dollars and numbers every quarter and as such they have much more to lose, and they are based out of Japan and they DO not accept failure no acceptions also they have their hands in many more cookie jars which is hard to believe that a company could possibly be "bigger" then MS but look at the actual holdings of Sony compared to MS sometime.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW