|
Post by .Bunk. on Nov 24, 2005 13:50:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by el JOKER5 on Nov 24, 2005 22:23:22 GMT -5
the only way i see ps3 competing with online games in the next gen systems, is they are gonna have to do like microsoft. have a price to pay for a year service of online. people that have an xbox know what im talking about. no need to explain what has been said before about microsoft online service. but sony needs to do some major thinking about their online sevice.
|
|
|
Post by .Bunk. on Nov 24, 2005 23:29:22 GMT -5
I agree with u 100%. A lot of folk cry about having to pay more for service, but when you pay for it, the servers they buy will actually be managed better since they get paid for it. I dont know if it came out right but yall know what i mean.. free always brings the folks, but they are so limited with free cuz the money to maintain online service for games falls on the developer most of the time. I understand both sides of the argument about it, but paying and getting service the way microsoft is giving it now is so much better and less of a headache having multiple username for dif games.
|
|
|
Post by BeepBeepImaJeep on Nov 24, 2005 23:49:00 GMT -5
If they do this, I hope its alot better than that Xbox Live piece of crap. That shyt is too generic for each game. Same options for EVERY fucking game. WTF. No customization at all per game. It gives developers no freedom and all the games will ahve the same fucking options "deathmatch, captue the flag, fuck bunk's mother," etc. Its horse shit.
|
|
|
Post by liquidarmz on Nov 25, 2005 0:55:23 GMT -5
I disagree you think cuz u pay for something that makes it better. Queef has a point that by making it universal u tie the hands of the independant companies and thier own creativities. Online play is gonna be a strong point of both systems and free will ALWAYS prevail cuz face it...there re some cheap MoFo's out there. I believe that online service should fall on the hands of the game developers themself. Dont make a game that has 32ppl at once gaming, if you cant support it. I played battlefront 2 on x-box live and it was soo laggy I couldn't play it anymore. If x-box live seen the type of trafiic socom sees the results would be the same, or they would jack up the price in the name of expanding their servers, and what could you do but pay because there wouldn't be an alternative. Free the internet..Free ur mind!
|
|
|
Post by .Bunk. on Nov 26, 2005 14:23:52 GMT -5
Xbox live does see the traffic socom see's. Have you been to Bungie.com site, they keep track of just the Halo players, check this out, thats alot of folks, more than socom.
Halo 2 - Xbox Live Statistics (last 24 hrs) Unique Players: 329,691 Matches Logged: 957,351 Players Online: 60,811
The problem I see with free is this; Battlefront one, free online service with gamespy, sucks ass, and the lobbys sucked balls. U couldnt even fond a room if you were staring at it. Free sucks most of the time, socom has the most advanced online lobby's in any ps2 game i can see. All other games blow ass when it comes to online interface. At least xbox has it better for certain games, the shittiest game online is still cool with online interface..
I guess the debate can continue, but they both have pro's and con's.
|
|