Details on Dark Sector's multiplayer modes, including 360 and PS3 differences
by Scott Jon Siegel 
{ Mar 3rd 2008 at 6:30PM }
The game's "Infection" multiplayer mode pits one "infected" player against a legion of troopers, with a trooper taking over the role upon killing the target (similar to Halo's Juggernaut mode). The "Epidemic" mode is a standard team battle affair, except that teams only earn points by killing the opposing team's leader.
Both the 360 and PS3 versions of Dark Sector offer these mutiplayer modes via online play or LAN, and both support up to ten players per match with five maps to choose from. Leadersboards are present for both games, although the 360 version will use Microsoft's TrueSkill ranking system. Also included in the 360 version are Quick Game, Custom Game, and Ranked Game options, while PS3 users can only create, join, or search for multiplayer games. The game is scheduled for a spring 2008 release, although further delays certainly wouldn't be surprising.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Marty @ Mar 3rd 2008 6:39PM
Funny picture, Joystiq. I feel like I know nothing about Dark Sector, and don't really have any reason to be excited about it, despite it seeming to be a pretty big title... anyone else feel the same?
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 3rd 2008 6:45PM
So what games are you looking forward to or getting you excited Marty? This game has alot of cool elements to it. Ive followed it and I think it will do well.
SID SPACE @ Mar 3rd 2008 6:48PM
I completely agree with you. I was sold when I saw the early concept trailer on a space ship (BEFORE they changed the look/plot of the game), but since the reworking I'm just not interested.
I may still consider it, though. I'll wait for reviews and player feedback to decide if it is still worth my money.
Marty @ Mar 3rd 2008 7:07PM
Looking forward to other titles I've heard a lot about, like GTA4, Fable 2, Gears 2, etc... I dunno what it is, Dark Sector gets mentioned here on Joystiq every now and then, and I understand it's been in dev for a long time now, but I just find it strange that I know so little about it at this point.
el serpiente @ Mar 3rd 2008 8:30PM
Marty, meet google. Go to the google and type in 'Dark Sector". The google will tell you all you need to know.
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 3rd 2008 6:39PM
I'll prob be getting this game for 360 since even the devs have stated the game runs better on it. I did'nt even expect MP so this is like icing on the cake! Story, gameplay, and graphics looks sweet.
Oh and that pic = funny! +1 SJS
brandon_r87 @ Mar 3rd 2008 6:44PM
Why are they calling it infection? That is another common type of multiplayer, and to call it that suggests that it is like other infection types.
Robobagins @ Mar 3rd 2008 7:03PM
Only 10 players? So 5 per side? Whoa that's nearly suck-tastic.
StevenRafael @ Mar 3rd 2008 7:06PM
No way, PS3 is gonna have a way better online experience thanks to HOME. You'll be able to walk around the multiplayer maps with your 3D avatar. You can't shoot or be shot at, but you can annoy other plays by covering their LOF and biting their bullets.
Plus you can discuss your attacks with your clan mates with the in-game sandbox, and in the time it takes to get everyone in the know and ready, Joe from Florida will have to sign off because an emergency call informed him that his girlfriend slipped on an icy street and cracked her skull.
But of course, this awesome Home integration won't be coming until 2010.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 7:45PM
@StevenRafael
Does it ever get old to bash the PS3?
I wonder if you are upset that the PSN is free so you feel the need to bash it and minimize it. Look it is a free online service. Home will be free. Free is good! Just because something cost more money does not make it better. I will admit as of now XBL is better. That is if you really use the features. Personally I hardly chat online and I could care less about my gamer score. For me they are essentially equal. When Home comes out I will try it out and if I like I will use it. but you must admit Sony is making efforts to improve their online service and all of this without annoying adds, long outages or cost. And Sony uses dedicated servers for the majority of its first party games (warhawk) which Microsoft still fails to do.
They are both good and for me they are pretty much equal. However it just seems to bug me that Sony faces the brunt of XBL users frustrations as opposed to the Wii's lackluster games, online sevices and whatever else. I get it in this case considering this game originally was developed for the PS3 and it seems (like Blacksite Area 51) the online component between the consoles does not match up.
C4PTAIN AWE5OME @ Mar 3rd 2008 8:05PM
John, Live is less than $5 a month. Nobody is upset that PSN is free; it should be when you consider what you get compaired to paying only $5 for live.
The rest of your post was too long to read but im sure you made some good points.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 8:13PM
@Captain Awesome
I have a habit of doing that....
$5.00/Month paid on an annual basis is the cost of another game....
At their core they both allow you to do the same thing. Play online.
PSN has some things that Live does not as does Live that the PSN does not
C4PTAIN AWE5OME @ Mar 3rd 2008 8:23PM
JOHN, So by not having live, over the course of an entire year, you can buy a single ps3 game with a limited online experience? Not exactly Sound reasoning.
From a Core standpoint, PSN gets the job done- you can play games online. But what you look at what you get for $5 for live, there is really no comparison. I have both systems, PSN today is akin to Xbox Live 6 years ago. I love that PSN is free, but I certainly don't mind paying $5 for Live either.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 8:44PM
@Captain Awesome
You see thats the crux of the matter for me. I really do not utilize a lot of the features Live has over PSN. In fact I own all 3 consoles and I also have Live. What I was trying to get across to you is that the cost of Live on an annal basis is enough to buy a game (on any console not just the PS3). So I have two services, one is free, one is around $50.00/Yr. At their cores they do the same thing except one is free and one cost you money. My point is eventually (presumably this year) the PSN will have everything Live has (including XMB, Movie rentals, Soundtracks 7 Custom messaging) and then some with the Home service which is all free with no advertisements.
I like the Live service just as I like the PSN service. The PS3 already has no DRM issues like the 360, Dedicated servers, No size limit for downloadable content and no hardcore control issues (like UT3 with user created content). So as you can see there are already tradeoffs but when you consider one is free and one is the cost of an entire game on an annual basis I think after the PSN gets up to the level of the Live service Microsoft will have a big problem on their hands. At some point Live will also have to be free to compete with the services of the PSN IMO.
I think thats perfectly sound logic.
Smoke_Dawg_187 @ Mar 3rd 2008 8:50PM
@ John McPoop
Dood, Live costs 17 CENTS a day to play? Are you seriously that cheap? 17 CENTS is that big of a deal to complain about?
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:15PM
@SmokeDawg
Either you have Selective memory, you are misinterpreting the conversation, you are spinning the topic or you are stoned and forgot the earlier post (kidding).
The point is Live cost money for a service that should be free (especially for what a console cost now a days). To top it off the free PSN even offers features that Live does not have (see earlier post). The fact of the matter is at their core they do the same thing. They allow you to play your multiplayer games online. Sony has announced that the PSN will offer everything Live does and then some (see Home amongst the myriad of things PSN offers over Live). At that point how can Microsoft justify charging anything (even $5.00/Month or .17 cents daily) when a similar if not superior online service is free. You see it is not about the amount of money but more to do with the fact they have the audacity to charge for the service et all. For now (as I said) Live has superior features that are more important in the daily online usage (other than lack of web browser). However, if you read the original post you would see that for myself, someone who does not really chat on-line with random people, rent movies or keep track of a gamer score so those extra features are not worth any extra money to me.
Live has already cost me over $100.00 (had my 360 since launch) and this for features I get for free over PSN. Why spend the money if I do not have to? So if the PSN truly adds everything Live has and then some I will just do my online gaming for free over that service and pick up an extra game a year for any console I choose.
It is not as if I can't afford Live or I am a penny pincher but why pay for something I can get for free? Unless Live makes even more drastic improvements I will probably not re-subscribe to Live next go around.
Draco @ Mar 3rd 2008 10:39PM
Smokedawg,
I have a item in my possession that will protect you from having bears destroy your house, give me 17 cents a day and you can have it. but I need you to pay for 10 years up front. my bear protection is better then the bear protection you have now because I'll give you a receipt for it.
Bear protection is limited to one house, if your house burns down you will not be entitled to a refund, however I will allow you to purchase at the same rate for your new house.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 11:13PM
Draco
Pure Win.... Everyone on this site can understand that
StevenRafael @ Mar 4th 2008 6:08AM
I'm not even gonna bother reading through all this.
The PS3 is my favorite console out of the three, and I do have all systems. I've always been a Sony fanboy.
It's not like I can provide proof, so just take my word.. But I guess if it helps, a quick overview of my posting history shows that I frequent the PS3 fanboy page a lot more than the XBox and Wii pages.
Sorry, I should have added some sort of comment to inform all that I was joking, but I didn't figure I'd need to because I didn't really say anything offensive about the PS3. I just poked a little at Home's delay and some of it's integrated features (Can't say much to defend Resistance till I see it myself, but I'm psyched for the Warhawk integration and curious about the Uncharted integration)
StevenRafael @ Mar 4th 2008 6:24AM
Ok :(. I said I wasn't gonna bother reading it, but I got bored and I read some of it. That previous post was in response to the first response, but I see the rest of it went into another direction.
I agree with the points you've made John McPoop. Both the PSN and XBL have their pros and cons.
I personally believe that three strong competitors in the market will only help to push each competitor even further.
And you're right. Why pay for something that could be free?
Personally, for me, the only justification for that was Halo 2 and now is Halo 3. Once Halo 3 is dethroned by a game not on Xbox, I'll stop renewing my subscription to XBL.
Spartacus @ Mar 3rd 2008 7:15PM
At this point I'm not sure who to blame:
Lazy developers for not making all features available for the PS3 or Sony for making the PS3 so difficult to program/develop for.
Either way, sucks for PS3 owners...
Matt B @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:26PM
Actually, it doesn't. Better luck next console warz.
Vidikron (FU) @ Mar 3rd 2008 10:19PM
Umm... If I read the article right there doesn't appear to be anything to blame on developers here... nor is there anything to blame on the PS3. The main difference appears to be that the 360 version uses MS's own "TrueSkill" ranking system and apparently some game types associated with that. Hardly a big deal, IMO.
Spartacus @ Mar 3rd 2008 11:32PM
Vid,
Yeah, true. However, technically, MS's system therefore offers more "features" which makes the 360 version a more robust online experience. So really, it DOES come back to the fact that the 360 seems to be the better choice for multiplatform games, but I do concede the point of this particular case being the fault of the PS3's difficult architecture. Touche (with an accent ague over the e).
Joeshie @ Mar 3rd 2008 7:25PM
I don't have a PS3, but I would much rather have dedicated servers over the 360's shitty player-hosted servers any day of the week.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 7:59PM
@Joeshie
You are correct about what you say. There are also a few other key differences in the services.
PSN- free, Dedicated Servers, No Size Limit for PSN games, No control issues like XBL (see UT3 user created mod's), Home (whenever and whatever it is), No DRM issues (re-download anything at anytime) , makes use of PS Eye and Use any blue tooth headset.
XBL- Free Community Arcade Games (XNA anyone?), In game Cross Media Bar, Custom Soundtracks, Better match making services, In game invites are a breeze, Movie Downloads, Required Demos and headset is included.
Obviously these are just a few examples of PROs on each service. The CONs for each are also numerous. For me they are pretty much equal but I would love to try Home out even with the critique that it is an empty version of second life.
Scotto @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:01PM
@ McPoop:
A few mischaracterizations of the XBL service, that bear pointing out.
1) Microsoft has said that they are willing to go over the limit for XBLA titles, on a case-by-case basis.
2) Your control issue example is limited to one game. Plenty of other titles have had publisher-released mods come out for them, and the XNA announcement seems to be the big first step in allowing user-created modifications (for games that allow them).
3) You can re-download any XBL purchase anytime, anywhere. The DRM problem is in regards to playing content OFFLINE, when not using the ORIGINAL CONSOLE.
4) The vast majority of XBL online multiplayer does not have lag issues. If they were as bad as fanboy idiots like "Joeshie" make them out to be, they would have been fixed ages ago, and Halo multiplayer wouldn't be the most played online game on the internet, besides WoW.
The idea that dedicated servers are miles better than P2P games, is a conventional wisdom hangover from PC gaming online. When games and services are tailored specifically for P2P, they work fine - games like Halo 3 and CoD 4 are examples of this.
- Scott
Scotto @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:03PM
Oh, and furthermore, the other benefit of P2P online play, is that if 30 people still want to play CoD 4 online 3 years from now, they can. They aren't beholden to the existence of dedicated servers.
- Scott
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 10:13PM
@scotto
Jeez I did not mean to start a controversy here.. I will respond to your points to the best if my ability:
1. That it good to say in theory but saying and doing are two different things. This does not take into account their general unwillingness up to this point to work with Developers on the 150 MB limit. Look at Bionic Commando from Capcom if you need proof. Maybe they are turning a new leaf but to my knowledge status quo has been 150 MB and thats it.
2. This is not about publisher related Mods ScottO. This is about the open platform and the ability to go online, download user created mods to a memory card and install them to use on the Live service which can not be done over Live now. Also, it has been speculated that Microsoft retains the ability to charge whatever it likes for downloadable content and it is not up to the developers. This is only 1 example but I can see this being an issue into the future unless they lighten the reins of control of XBL. However, it could also be argued that this keeps the system stable. I prefer free user created mods instantly (adds a lot of replay value to UT3, imagine what it could have done for gears which was already a fantastic game).
3. Again the 360 failure rate directly makes this an issue at all. I have not had to re-download my PSN game to a refurbished or replaced PS3 so I am unsure if that same problem occurs. However, I have heard (unverifiable) that it is not an issue to download already purchased titles to a different PSN console with the same user ID. Again, i can not confirm nor deny this issue nor can I confirm if you have to be online for verification like with the 360. Luckily, I have had Microsoft replace all 6 of my RROD consoles and they have transferred all of my game information over so I had no issue. My brother just bought an arcade to replace his old 360 that had a disc read error (not covered) and he can't play any of his arcade games offline which is the crux of the DRM problem.
4. I agree with that in a way. i do not think halo is the most played because it is superior to everything else but more to do with its main stream appeal and current standing in pop culture. There can be issues with the host having an unfair advantage (Gears Of War). However, dedicated servers in most instances are up to the developer. As I said in an earlier post some first party PSN titles have dedicated servers provided by SCEX. However, in another comparison post (the one you responded to) I mistakenly made it sound as if all PSN games are on dedicated servers which as far as I know is a myth. Certainly the first party titles from Sony have the financial backing of the hardware maker and dedicated servers are supplied.
P2P can work fine and over the long haul is better because the user does not have to rely on server maintenance from the developer. However, typically given the lifespan of the game during its most popular (maybe 2 years for consoles) time dedicated servers are optimal but not always necessary.
One caveat I would like to point out that I dislike about PSN vs Live is downloading content like Demo's or games. Running on the same super high speed connection I have the PS3 will take easily 20 X longer to download the content. I am not sure how these downloads work on either system but Live has it streamlined much better. It would be nice if it were like bit torrent downloading and you were constantly downloading and sharing with everyone at every stage of the file with an option for seeding.
Anyway I hope my response is welcomed by you because I enjoy the conversation especially dealing with these other twits (not all but one or two) it is refreshing to have an adult conversation.
Joeshie @ Mar 3rd 2008 11:19PM
@Scotto
Try and paint me as a fanboy all you like, but the only next-gen console that I currently own is a 360.
I'm still largely a PC gamer though and while PSN still doesn't have the versitality and bredth that PC online gaming has, it's a step in the right direction for consoles.
LIVE is a step backwards and I'll tell you exactly why.
1) Microsoft controls the content released on LIVE. This pretty much kills any player-modding. Sure, developers of the games can release additional content (which you have to pay for as well), but they aren't mods and they certainly aren't player created. Hell, even patches have to go through a long and winded process before they are even released to the LIVE community. Want some ingenous maps like CS's surf maps? Not going to get them on LIVE.
2) No dedicated servers limit your options in a great number of ways. You have limited control over what maps you play in LIVE. You have no ability to see your ping for a server in LIVE. No admin tools in LIVE allow trash talking kids free-reign wherever they go, with kicking only taking place rarely. Using dedicated servers allows you to foster your own community via the server, be it special interest, affliation, or maturity.
The notion that dedicated servers are better is simply because they are better. The only reason why LIVE is going strong is because the majority of players have no clue what the advantages of a dedicated server are, such as yourself.
I'm not a fanboy here, just someone who has had a great deal more experience with different online services than any LIVE player has had. Perhaps it would be best to consider that experience rather than covering your ears and eyes.
Joeshie @ Mar 3rd 2008 11:21PM
@Scotto
Also, I don't think you realize how long dedicated servers run. You can still find dedicated servers on PC online games that have been going on for 10+ years, even obscure games that haven't had nearly the amount of coverage that some console games have had.
But I guess you would know better, what with your "loads" of experience from using dedicated servers.
GoonieGooGoo @ Mar 3rd 2008 8:58PM
Sorry John McPoop...
I have both systems and have used XBL as long as it has existed.....as well as Playstation Online gaming since the day the PS2 Network Adapter was released.
Suffice to say....its become not even fair to compare the online multiplayer modes anymore.
If you have multiple consoles....and want to play a game online....you buy the XBOX version.
Sorry....thats not being a fanboy.....that's just the way its been since XBOX vs PS2.
Throw in that almost every XBOX LIVE game u played in the past can STILL be played with your friends online and you can understand why people love XBL so much.
(Hello MGS3: Subsistence and RE: OUTBREAK???
For 39$ (OR LESS) a year...(NOTE: It is very very easy to find a 13 Month XBL Subscription card on sale or discounted)...
For Example:
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=201975268
Why deny yourself a better Online Gaming experience with XBOX LIVE that is here NOW and works great.....rather than be a martyr for SONY and be frustrated by their online experiments.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:44PM
@Goonie Goo Goo
I also have both systems and as I have said I personally do not take advantage of many of the benefits that XBL has over the PSN. Especially with Sony releasing the same services that XBL has (which as I said I do not use enough to merit a purchase). So maybe for you it is a superior service and I am not arguing that or the Live Service. Live is currently much better as far as user interaction (which online is all about).
However, for me, a guy who just wants to play the game online and not much else there is not much of a difference at all.
b33eazy @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:38PM
@John
psn only has dedicated servers for THREE games that's it! Also Xbox live does have dedicated servers for certain games like madden,R6V,etc do run on dedicated servers.Also on psn you HAVE TO INSTALL DEMOS & CERTAIN GAMES.That's crap right there.You have an in game dashboard,movie rentals,custom message sytem and most important a Youtube like game maker it's the most innovative & free thing on Xbox live.Dish Washer is a great game and without xbl we wouln't see such games.Honestly the good thing about psn is u can play games online for free it has nothing else.It doesn't have any form of integrated service it's crap in comparison to xbl.Xbox live is worth the money.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:47PM
@b33eazy
I simply stated my uses for the services. For example, I watch movies on my Apple Tv or simply download them from bit torrent and stream over Connect 360 or Stream Link. So, if you use the services it certainly is better. But, the PSN is bringing all of those things that Live has (other than XNA community arcade) and all of it for free. And depending on how good Home is it will include even more.
The value of the services is relative to the user. I see your point and appreciate it very much. I just have different (more basic) online needs.
rruss79 @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:44PM
I also would like to point out that XBL has dedicated servers. It is up to the developer if they want to use dedicated servers or not. You only have to look at the integration that Bungie has done with Halo 3 and also Frontlines Fuels of War has dedicated servers thats why you have 50 players that can play at one time.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:50PM
In my above post all I said was some Sony first platform games have dedicated servers. I might have listed dedicated servers as a benefit in another comparison post but that was an error on my part.
There is no need to defend XBL here. It is a great service. I just don't have a need for it anymore.
HB96st @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:49PM
Why do we have to go thru this Live vs Psn??? We all know Live KILLS Psn. $50.00?? Never missed it, enjoying to many games online to...
Just Stop!
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:51PM
Ok this was never supposed to be Live vs PSN.... It was my interpretation and use of both services as more of a recluse multiplayer gamer.. If you could actually read you might have figured this out by now.
HB96st @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:52PM
oh, almost forgot: Once AGAIN, XBOX360 brings the better experience to the gamer... PS3 Who??
Vidikron (FU) @ Mar 3rd 2008 10:22PM
You're a tool. The only difference is the game on the 360 uses MS's TrueSkill ranking system. I guess that's cool if you're into ranking up or whatever, but I doubt most people who the get PS3 version will even care about that difference.
HB96st @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:58PM
Uh, I did read it... and you're right.. It WAS just your interpretation...
You did say Live is superior, so I'll just leave it at that.. $50.00 for something thats BETTER? sounds like a bargain to me!!
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 10:26PM
@HB96st
Exactly!
It just depends on the users needs. I was not trying to be snappy but I feel some are taking my post out of context and think I am bashing Live and praising the PS3. I am just sharing my experience with both online services. Sorry if I came off harsh or came off as a prick. Its late and frustrating when some completely misinterpret the conversation.
It is only a better service if you use the extras. Thats is the basic point here. If not then it is actually more of a waste. I hope Microsoft eventually makes the Silver subscription the Gold Subscription (free) and then maybe adds even more advanced features, no adds and other enhancements to Live. Then comparably you can "play" online for free and do other basic online functions but for a more customizable, stream lined, networking centric membership could cost money. Like a platinum account maybe which would add membership benfits (Arcade game discounts, X-Box Magazine subscription) in addition to extra online services. It could be everything the Diamond card is meant to be. If I could get tangible real life stuff I would certainly still pay. Maybe free demo's mailed to my house the day of release, free live points contest and drawings, fan swag ETC.
Maybe is Home is a good service they can do something similar for networking but take it to a completely different level.
qo_op @ Mar 4th 2008 12:37AM
@Hb96st,
wow, who do you pay that allows you to undoubtedly be the worst poster Joystiq has ever seen?
License to ill @ Mar 4th 2008 1:30AM
Trust me there are worse...
Phranctoast @ Mar 3rd 2008 10:14PM
Can the 360 search for online matches manually or are you just dependent on quick search? If its just quick search the ps3 version is better as far as Im concerned. I hate when I cant choose what server I want from a list.
rruss79 @ Mar 3rd 2008 10:25PM
Phranctoast it depends on the dev. Games like Madden lets you pick from a list but other games just use the quick search. If you have P2P then it probably will be quick search, dedicated servers will probably give you the option.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 10:28PM
I think he is talking about Dark Sector in particular. I could be wrong though.
braids @ Mar 3rd 2008 11:00PM
I keep reading these comments about who has the better online service
and I for one is tired of reading about it. I have both of the
competing consoles and here is my input.
I like PSN solely because it is free. That is it. That is the only
real bullet point it has for it right now. All the other stuff is a coming soon feature
I can't stand the slow browser that comes up that allows you buy or
try a game. I can't stand the fact that they hardly have demos for a
large chunk of there games. By this I am referring to the online only
downloadable games, not the retail store games. I would love to try
Pain or some of those PSEye games, but I'll be damned if I pay
for it first. I will get to this reasoning in a sec. Next problem I
have is that the download speed is slow. Last but not least I don't
see the seamlessly superior online play as I read on various sites, particularly in COD4 as mentioned in Gamepro. Plus, the selection of stuff on PSN is lacking.
The best thing about Live is the selection and the abilities you have with it. I am paying for it, but I don't have to. I keep reading about you have to be a gold member to do this and that and it isn't true. Heck, I have plenty of friends who are only silver members. What they do the most is download demos to help them decide to buy a game or not be it a arcade title or regular retail game. Every arcade game out on Live is free to try. I am spoiled by this I guess. If I don't live the game, I won't buy it. I don't have to worry about buyers remorse with arcade. The DRM issue doesn't affect me, nor does it affect alot of people. And finally, the intergration of live in the games is great, not perfect, but great.
I am not bias, in fact I have played my PS3 alot more the past 2 weeks than my 360. PSN is still new and will be great one day, but is not today and it is not next week. It took microsoft a while to get Live to the level it is now.
I could use the old saying, "You get what you pay for." but I feel that would be negative. I like PSN, but I will not lie to myself saying that it is awesome. I just felt that I had to speak my opinion on the matter.
Back to the subject of Dark Sector. I was excited about the game when it was on a ship, but now I am only curious. If I buy it, I will most likely buy it on the 360. I don't play games online often, but I wanted to this that way, looks like that will be the platform for it.
John McPoop @ Mar 3rd 2008 11:40PM
@Braids
I agree with you. And, like you I also own all 3 consoles. If I used the extras enough to merit the cost on an annual basis then I would probably re new it.
My Bottom Line:
I can play game online. Thats really 90% of what I care about with Live or PSN. No more and no less.
But I agree with nearly everything you said and have in fact mentioned the same things here.