Sony Working on XBLA Features: Achievements, Invites, and Price

[bapenguin]

Next-Gen.biz (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6030&Itemid=2) has some select quotes from a Gametrailers’ Bonus Round Podast with Eric Lempel, director of PlayStation Network operations. From the quotes it looks like Sony is trying to copy Live feature for feature introducing everything from an Achievement system to cross game invites, and possibly even adding a cost for the service.We’re not charging money for our service. That’s a key differentiating factor.”

However, that could be open to change in the future.

“Right now that’s our model. In time anything can change but right now we’re happy with it.”

Lempel also talks about the possiblity of unifying the Playstation online community to include other systems like the PSP.

Could charging for the PSN be a way for Sony to offset the impending PS3 price cut and further losses per box?

[Gorvi]

It would be nice for them to integrate the PSP into the PSN, just having a uniform sign-in for both. Achievement style stuff I could care less about, but cross game invites would be nice if they start releasing games I'd actaully want to play online. As far as paying for multiplayer? No thanks, I'll pass, it's not important enough to me.

[Dr.Finger]

Good. XBL is a great platform that brings a lot of things to the table. I do hope that Sony does theirs for free so MS will have to drop the fee for the Gold package.

[CaptStu]

When should we expect these services? 2009?

[Wolfgang]

Talk is easy. It would be great... Another easy thing.

Quit talking about it and just do it. I am sick of all the hype these days.

Of course Sony isn't charging money for their service. They have a very small userbase and it isn't even a service...

[drakkarim]

personally don't care, I'd probably use it occasionally if it stays free, but definitely won't touch it as soon as there's a price with it (like i don't touch live).

either way, waiting for a price drop on the ps3 before i buy one in the first place.

that reminds me, is there a way to turn off those stupid achievement messages during gameplay? (on the 360).

[Kamalot]

Hot diggity, I'm too slow on my news story submission again.

<gauntlet voice>
Kamalot Needs Coffee Badly
</gauntlet voice>


I am getting a LOT of mixed messages from this article. On the one hand, Eric Lempel comes out and says that Live and Playstation Network are about equal, and that the only big difference is that PSN is free. Then he goes on to list a whole slew of features PSN does not have that can be found in Live, essentially debunking his statement that the two services are equal. Then he goes on further to state that they may charge for PSN.

It is enough to leave my head spinning. So what is it? Are the services equal? If so, why are Sony copying features? If being free is their big differentiator, then why would they charge people for the same service?

Eric Lempel sounds like he's had a bit too much purple Kool Aid to make sense any more.

[Codicier]

Hot diggity, I'm too slow on my news story submission again.

<gauntlet voice>
Kamalot Needs Coffee Badly
</gauntlet voice>


I am getting a LOT of mixed messages from this article. On the one hand, Eric Lempel comes out and says that Live and Playstation Network are about equal, and that the only big difference is that PSN is free. Then he goes on to list a whole slew of features PSN does not have that can be found in Live, essentially debunking his statement that the two services are equal. Then he goes on further to state that they may charge for PSN.

It is enough to leave my head spinning. So what is it? Are the services equal? If so, why are Sony copying features? If being free is their big differentiator, then why would they charge people for the same service?

Eric Lempel sounds like he's had a bit too much purple Kool Aid to make sense any more.

Let me help:

PSN is free -> People like that, +1 PSN
PSN will have all the stuff Live has -> +1 PSN again

PSN does not have what Live has yet -> -1 PSN
When PSN gets this stuff, it may cost money -> -1 PSN

Net Change -> Jack shit.

He's trying to get people excited about how the PSN is planning to copy XBL in every way possible, which means there is nothing new that we haven't already seen done on Live, which means there's no reason to get excited at all, which means he must be a PR guy.

Notice how the possibility of charging is a "maybe" or "open to change". They want you to hope for the best without promising that they won't turn around and fuck you with a fee, because that is a very real possibility. They don't need any more broken promises on their record.

[Kamalot]

He's trying to get people excited about how the PSN is planning to copy XBL in every way possible, which means there is nothing new that we haven't already seen done on Live, which means there's no reason to get excited at all, which means he must be a PR guy.
Sounds to me like he's saying:
"We'll eventually have everything Live has, and maybe charge for it too. In the mean time, you should enjoy everything Live has on an Xbox 360 from Microsoft.

I sure hope they don't add any new features to Live, cause that means my work of being a copycat and not thinking of anything new is that much harder."

How could Sony go from being an industry leader to an industry copycat so quickly?

[UnderHero5]

I don't know. I don't see this as him saying "it will probably cost money once we have these features", I think he was just answering the question in a PR way, so that he covered his ass and didn't say "no, it will always be free" then find out that there's a chance they could charge for it down the line.
My bet is on it staying free. I mean, that's always their big thing with their online network. Even in the advertisements for PS Home, the omnipresent voice points out "all this for free", etc.

As for achievements and invited, we already knew that was coming, when they announced Home. Remember, jumping into games easily with people and the trophy rooms?

[Limech]

I'm sure MS has a patent on the achievement system. If they don't, they should and sue Sony.

Before you jump on me, Yahoo has a patent on the little feature in IMs where you can some sort of indication that the other person is busy typing you a message. yeah, they could force all other IMs to stop doing that if they wanted.

[Gorvi]

People bitch when the PSN doesn't have some of the features of LIVE. People bitch if they hear Sony say they may be implementing some of the features that they lack that LIVE has.

Fact : people bitch.

[UnderHero5]

Sounds to me like he's saying:
"We'll eventually have everything Live has, and maybe charge for it too. In the mean time, you should enjoy everything Live has on an Xbox 360 from Microsoft.

I sure hope they don't add any new features to Live, cause that means my work of being a copycat and not thinking of anything new is that much harder."

How could Sony go from being an industry leader to an industry copycat so quickly?
I've seen plenty of people say that Sony and Nintendo SHOULD copy MS's online strategy. A unified friends list isn't exactly a new idea that was thought up by MS, they were just the first to implement it on a console. As for achievements, yeah, they are copying them, but who cares? It's pretty normal in this industry.

What's the alternative to copying MS? Think up an entirely new way to handle friend invites? I'm pretty sure a unified friends system is as good as it gets, as far as friends lists go.
Not to mention, they ARE thinking outside the box with their online system. I'd say Home, though it may have features that are similar on paper, is a pretty damn different implementation of online match making than anything we've seen on console before.
Whether it will be good or not remains to be seen, but they sure as hell aren't copying any one, in my eyes.

Sony can't win on EvAv, no matter what they do, they are always in the wrong according to you guys.

[Heretic Machine]

They have a very small userbase and it isn't even a service...

And what kind of service is XBOX Live Gold offering that the PSN doesn't? Peer-to-peer gaming has been free as long as it existed, up until fucking XBOX Live came along. They could charge because you really don't have much choice in the matter if you want to take an XBOX online, but that doesn't mean that their service actually lives up to it's price when you compare it to services on other platforms, like GameSpy (and all of it's integrated browsers in countless games), or XFire.

If XBOX Live Gold gave me access to dedicated servers, ran by Microsoft, moderated by Microsoft, with extremely low latency, then it'd justify the price tag. As it is, they're just forcing people into paying more because they know that they can squeeze it out of us; our only other choice is to just not take our 360s online (and if you're not doing that, then you might as well not own a 360).

Closed platforms are teh suck for consumers.

[Kamalot]

Sony can't win on EvAv, no matter what they do, they are always in the wrong according to you guys.
If Sony's service offered everything Live has and more, then they could toot their own horn about it. Instead, they go on about how they will eventually implement what the competition has. How the heck is that a feature? Why should they be praised for it?

The came to the party late, after they had a TON of time to analyze and copy the competition. They CLAIMED that their service would be everything that you could get from the competition and more. They are still playing catchup, talking about how they may eventually implement features elsewhere (on a $200-less expensive console) and may end up charging for their service when all is said and done.

Really, what's to praise? Yes, it is EXPECTED that they will copy Live since they claimed over a year ago that Playstation Network on the PS3 would be everything Live is and more. That can't come to pass. The LEAST we can expect is that they are still trying to catch up to Live.

I'm totally baffled as to why anyone should cut them any slack when we were told to expect a free version of Live on Day One.

[violentp]

I think there is a little truth to what UnderHero5 says about the EvAv community and Sony but of coursed everyone has their reasons so it's pointless to argue.

My stance on this particular situation is that at this point in the PS3 lifecycle, change is good.

[digitalErich]

I haven't read any posts, but I'm guessing there are people complaining that Sony is copying Live, which is the exact same thing those people were saying needed to be done before. Now to see if I'm right....

[Hitoriga]

How could Sony go from being an industry leader to an industry copycat so quickly?

You are bullshitting me. An industry leader in software? Nonsense. Microsoft is an industry leader in software, and they should copy the industry leader.

Now if you are saying they are copying hardware, than I really beg to differ.

[Dukefrukem]

They need to have something like this other than "Home" which is still in the works. It gives people a sense of accomplishment.

[UnderHero5]

I'm totally baffled as to why anyone should cut them any slack when we were told to expect a free version of Live on Day One.
Because they never said that?
Show me where Sony said they would have every feature Live has on day one. I watch/read tons of media from the E3's and every other press conference throughout the years, and I've never seen them say such a thing (I could have overlooked that though).

I never said you, or any one else should be PRAISING them for this stuff, but I certainly don't think they deserve all the flak they get on this site for every piece of news about them, even good news (and hell, even MS news some how always leads to Sony bashing).

I'm a gamer, not just a MS gamer. I come here to read news/impressions about all three big names, and it gets a little disheartening to see so much bashing of a product that I truly enjoy. It doesn't hinder my enjoyment, but it sure as hell gets to me at some points. It's always nice to be around like-minded individuals, but on EvAv it's a bit hard to FIND those people. And no, it's NOT like this everywhere on the net, before some one inevitably says it.

Also, I think their online system that they currently have works pretty damn well. Sure it doesn't have all the features of Live (obviously) but from the few games I've played, it suites my needs and works, and it's FREE. Oh, and I've actually USED the service, unlike most people who constantly bitch about it. I've also used Live, many times, and I can honestly say that, other than a unified friends list (which is coming) Live offers nothing over the free alternative on PS3. I don't give a shit about achievements, and heck, even Resistance already has in-game achievements for those who do.

Can I play online, in a lag free environment, whenever I'd like with my PS3? Yes. Then the rest is icing.

Maybe it's just because I come from a PC gaming background. I dunno. I'm truly satisfied with the online implementation of the PS3, at this point. As far as simply playing online goes, I think it works great. The marketplace needs more stuff though (especially demos).

Seriously Kamalot. What are your biggest complaints with Sony's online service? I'd really like to know.

[DangerousDaze]

Because they never said that?
Show me where Sony said they would have every feature Live has on day one. I watch/read tons of media from E3's and every other press conference throughout the year, and I've never seen them say such a thing.
Be careful - I've seen Kam win challenges much harder than this in the past. His access to damning quotes is legendary around these parts! ;)

[Gorvi]

Nah, they did say they'd match LIVE's services, though I don't think it was day one. Other than in-game access to messaging, there's nothing more I really want from what the PS3 offers online. Ok, a more unified structure for developers for implementing things like voice chat and leaderboards would be damn nice, as every game should have something like that.

[UnderHero5]

Be careful - I've seen Kam win challenges much harder than this in the past. His access to damning quotes is legendary around these parts! ;)
That's fine. I'll gladly eat my words. Even if they did say something similar to that, it's still no reason to constantly bash them. Plans DO change, in the gaming industry. Am I going to hate/bash every publisher who announces a release date, then delays the game? No. So why should I hate Sony for the same thing? Shit happens. People need to stop acting like Sony raped their mothers and quit being so damned biased.

It's not like they have any money invested in the PS3. If anything, PS3 owners should be the only ones who feel burned. They actually spent monkey on the things.

Edit: That sounded wrong. I'm not saying PS3 owners should feel burned. I'm saying that if there was a reason, owners should feel burned more than non-owners. I hope that makes sense.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

I haven't read any posts, but I'm guessing there are people complaining that Sony is copying Live, which is the exact same thing those people were saying needed to be done before. Now to see if I'm right....
Rubbish. People are complaining that Sony denied any issues, then go on to say that they will implement what the competition has, but they aren't even in the ballpark yet.

It's the difference between people who are happy as long as someone tells them something might come someday and people who like things to actually appear in real life before they put their money down.

Sony is only talking about the potential of their online offerings at this point in time. What was actually delivered was substantially less than the competition, and expecting people to applaud that is silly.

It largely comes down to your personal standards for what you feel you are worth. If you feel you and your money are worthy of what Sony delivers or hopes to someday deliver, then that is great. But, some people actually look at what is delivered and what exists on the day they purchase a product.

When I buy a fridge, I buy it on what features it has and not on what they hope to implement with a firmware update. In everything you buy, you are ultimately responsible for the decisions you make. Its your job to read between the lines and to recognize marketing for what it is.

It's odd that some people think this is a bad thing, but go ahead and run your life and your responsibilities any way you wish.

[Wolfgang]

And what kind of service is XBOX Live Gold offering that the PSN doesn't? Peer-to-peer gaming has been free as long as it existed, up until fucking XBOX Live came along. They could charge because you really don't have much choice in the matter if you want to take an XBOX online, but that doesn't mean that their service actually lives up to it's price when you compare it to services on other platforms, like GameSpy (and all of it's integrated browsers in countless games), or XFire.

There is no free service that matches the features of Xbox Live. The community, the standard features that all games must support, etc...

They have to enforce, support and develop these features -- none which are free and all which are better.

Xfire is somewhat close, Steam is somewhat close -- but neither are near as good.

[Sl1pstream]

Hot diggity, I'm too slow on my news story submission again.

<gauntlet voice>
Kamalot Needs Coffee Badly
</gauntlet voice>


I am getting a LOT of mixed messages from this article. On the one hand, Eric Lempel comes out and says that Live and Playstation Network are about equal, and that the only big difference is that PSN is free. Then he goes on to list a whole slew of features PSN does not have that can be found in Live, essentially debunking his statement that the two services are equal. Then he goes on further to state that they may charge for PSN.

It is enough to leave my head spinning. So what is it? Are the services equal? If so, why are Sony copying features? If being free is their big differentiator, then why would they charge people for the same service?

Eric Lempel sounds like he's had a bit too much purple Kool Aid to make sense any more.

I was typing a reply and all in that topic.

[JCtheMC]

I can see why they call this a console war. The pawns keep bickering about issues which they have no control over, so they can figure out which one of their kings is more righteous than the other (which, really, holds no relevance for their personal situation whatsoever). Meanwhile, the kings decide the game and are happy to throw away a few pawns to win, because there will always be more of them.

[Codicier]

I can see why they call this a console war. The pawns keep bickering about issues which they have no control over, so they can figure out which one of their kings is more righteous than the other. Meanwhile, the kings decide the game and are happy to throw away a few pawns to win, because there will always be more of them.

Wow, you're awesome. No, seriously, you're like the philosopher fucking king. You really got that analogy down man, I mean, the companies as kings? That's deep. :rolleyes:

This console war bullshit is retarded. Do I give a shit about any of the big 3? Not a single fucking bit. I came to post in this thread because it's mildly entertaining to discuss stuff like this on my lunchbreak, not because I enjoy sucking MS's giant money cock.

We're talking about online services buddy, this isn't The Art of fucking War.

[Khash]

Let's All Shit On Sony For No Reason Somemore Gogogogogo!!

Talk about taking shit out of context. Now you all think Sony will start charging for PSN? Are you all retarded?

[TDub301]

Underhero, I think for most people, it isn't even about hating Sony or anything, it's about rubbing it in the faces of Sony fans who talked so much shit for years about how awesome their Playstations were. That's why they take the Sony-bashing to such extremes that they act like Sony raped their family members.

In my experiences, this site has some of the most intelligent points that I read on a regular basis. Does that have anything to do with most of the people here being biased against Sony? Make your own conclusions about that. But when I go to sites where Sony is the favorite, I usually see stupid posts that aren't worth my time to read.

Edit: of course someone would go on a cursing rant right before I post. Remember, I said SOME of the most intelligent, not that cursing makes it stupid or anything. So much anger

[JCtheMC]

We're talking about online services buddy, this isn't The Art of fucking War.

It definitely isn't. Grown men having heated discussions on messageboards because Sony is "copycatting" (usage of that word alone was already enough to send me into a laughing fit) one of their competitors' services simply because it's well-designed and fully featured, that definitely sounds more like a coming of age drama. I just couldn't figure out a fitting analogy, so i went with the chess thing.

Man, copying an idea because it's the right one is just so inherently bad. I wish someone could come up with an alternative for the wheel; it's just so fucking unoriginal and therefor evil.

[Kamalot]

Because they never said that?
Show me where Sony said they would have every feature Live has on day one. I watch/read tons of media from the E3's and every other press conference throughout the years, and I've never seen them say such a thing (I could have overlooked that though).
Sorry to dissapoint you Dangerous Daze, but it looks like I'm gonna have me a slice of crow pie on this one. I can't find a Day One reference anywhere.

My beef isn't with the Playstation network, it is with Eric Lempel in the interview. Seriously, he tells me that his service is as good as Live AND it is free. He then proceeds to tell me all the ways that Live is superior (WTF?) and tells me that one day, IF/WHEN Sony catches up to live, that they may charge for it. The dude is talking in circles, and people here say, "Sony can't get a break."

Sure they can. All they gotta do is deliver the goods and stop trying to hype up their inferior service by making all sorts of bullshit claims like Eric Lempel is trying to do.

[oldjadedgamer]

Well, even though Sony themselves isn't charging for online gameplay, they are now allowing publishers to do it through their titles. The recent Tekken announcement is a prime example of them charging you just for the privilege of playing online.

But I agree with a few others. Toot your own horn when it's there and in place and free. Anyone can promise features. I will only pay attention and give my money to the company that delivers them.

[Heretic Machine]

There is no free service that matches the features of Xbox Live. The community, the standard features that all games must support, etc...

This statement gives me many LuLz. As if I give a shit about Gold beyond being able to play my games online. Hell, Live is actually a worse experience simply because of the lack of dedicated servers, that alone would totally nullify it's value. I mean, lets say that they actually implemented all of the 360 Live features onto the PC in Vista (if they haven't already, I know they're trying); do you think anyone would actually pay them for it? I wouldn't use it on the PC even if it were free, there are much better alternatives out there. Having to pay $50 a year for it on a console is just the greatest example of what is wrong with console gaming.

[Gorvi]

To everyone bitching : Guess what? The portion of the market (for consoles) that really cares about online multiplayer is a tiny, tiny fraction of the whole. All of those great multiplayer features that everyone loves about LIVE are actually used by, what, 1/3 of the 360's install base? Sony needs to get their act together with the PSN where it's important : content. Right now LIVE is kicking the shit out of the PSN in terms of content, and that's where the focus needs to go.

[UnderHero5]

Underhero, I think for most people, it isn't even about hating Sony or anything, it's about rubbing it in the faces of Sony fans who talked so much shit for years about how awesome their Playstations were. That's why they take the Sony-bashing to such extremes that they act like Sony raped their family members.

Well, I think we can safely say that the types of Sony fans that you're talking about, don't reside on this site. Which leaves Sony fans like myself, which is to say, I'm not a fan of SONY, I'm a fan of gaming. These Sony bashers aren't "sticking it to the fanboys" on this site, because there AREN'T ANY Sony fanboys on this site. So if that's the case, how about we stop alienating fans of gaming in general, and stop sucking MS's "money cock" (hilarious, by the way, Codicier), because all the Sony bashing is really starting to get to me.

I suppose I could just stop reading comments to news stories, but that kind of defeats the purpose of EvAv.

Maybe I'm just in a mood today. I'm sure tomorrow I'll be in a better mood, and better able to take the insinuations of idiocy for buying a console that no one on this site likes.

I guess the Xbox Live community is great!
... unless you're not a part of it, then you're just a fucking moron.

[Codicier]

Man, copying an idea because it's the right one is just so inherently evil. I wish someone could come up with an alternative for the wheel; it's just so fucking unoriginal and therefor evil.

The only thing I recall saying was that this was yet another loaded PR message.

stop sucking MS's "money cock" (hilarious, by the way, Codicier)

You have to sig it now. It's a rule... ;)

Actually I just like seeing myself quoted.

[Kamalot]

To everyone bitching : Guess what? The portion of the market (for consoles) that really cares about online multiplayer is a tiny, tiny fraction of the whole. All of those great multiplayer features that everyone loves about LIVE are actually used by, what, 1/3 of the 360's install base?I'd say that 3.3 million people using online content is a fairly big deal. Don't belittle it. According to some reports (http://www.nexgenwars.com/), that number is more than the TOTAL install base of the PS3.

More people on Live than there are PS3 owners? +1 Perspective

[oldjadedgamer]

Nah, they did say they'd match LIVE's services, though I don't think it was day one. Other than in-game access to messaging, there's nothing more I really want from what the PS3 offers online. Ok, a more unified structure for developers for implementing things like voice chat and leaderboards would be damn nice, as every game should have something like that.

If I remember correctly, it was Tretton himself who said this. I can't find the exact quote but I'm sure Kam has it.

[JCtheMC]

The only thing I recall saying was that this was yet another loaded PR message.

And i was critisizing some of the useless (and heavily biased) bickering that goes on here and on other sites as a result of that bullshit. I just can't believe that buying a 400 or 600 dollar machine somehow subconciously manipulates people into going on a crusade in it's honor.

[Kamalot]

If I remember correctly, it was Tretton himself who said this. I can't find the exact quote but I'm sure Kam has it.
I'm bummed that I can't find it. Maybe I'm becoming old too. I could very well have been Tretton. Isn't he the guy who said, point blank, that Killzone 2 footage from E3 2005 was real-time on PS3 hardware? Oh, and he's the one who stated he would give people $1200 if they could find a PS3 in stores.

[Gorvi]

I'd say that 3.3 million people using online content is a fairly big deal. Don't belittle it. According to some reports (http://www.nexgenwars.com/), that number is more than the TOTAL install base of the PS3.

More people on Live than there are PS3 owners? +1 Perspective
Not really. Maybe when they reach half, or a small majority, then it'll be a big deal. Hell, 3.3 million is probably a generous number for Gold subscirbers, but we'll never know because MS feels they need to hide the numbers instead of brag about them like they should if it was really that great. Online gaming with consoles is in it's infancy, and some on here completely blow it's overall importance out of proportion. Even if it was 4 million subscribers, there's over 100 million gamers out there, that's not nearly a substantial enough number.

[DangerousDaze]

Sorry to dissapoint you Dangerous Daze, but it looks like I'm gonna have me a slice of crow pie on this one. I can't find a Day One reference anywhere.
You let me down, dude. :(

;)

So as not to just totally spam the thread up, my own viewpoint is that they have absolutely no plans to charge, ever, but are covering their arses just in case. I find it a little disappointing that Next-Gen chose to essentially pluck invented bads news out of thin air to use as a headline.

[Kamalot]

Not really. Maybe when they reach half, or a small majority, then it'll be a big deal. Hell, 3.3 million is probably a generous number for Gold subscirbers, but we'll never know because MS feels they need to hide the numbers instead of brag about them like they should if it was really that great. Online gaming with consoles is in it's infancy, and some on here completely blow it's overall importance out of proportion. Even if it was 4 million subscribers, there's over 100 million gamers out there, that's not nearly a substantial enough number.
This is very interesting. If 3.3 million and growing isn't enough to attract attention, then what about the PS3's install base? That should be an even less substantial demographic.

Additionally, the barrier for becoming a Live user is a 360 (which an additional 6.33 million people already own), an Internet connection, and $50.

The barrier of entry for becoming a PS3 user is $600 (more or less depending on where you live. Cheaper in Japan, more expensive in Europe).

I wonder which segment is growing faster, Live users or PS3 owners.

[Gorvi]

This is very interesting. If 3.3 million and growing isn't enough to attract attention, then what about the PS3's install base? That should be an even less substantial demographic.

Additionally, the barrier for becoming a Live user is a 360 (which an additional 6.33 million people already own), an Internet connection, and $50.

The barrier of entry for becoming a PS3 user is $600 (more or less depending on where you live. Cheaper in Japan, more expensive in Europe).

I wonder which segment is growing faster, Live users or PS3 owners.
I really don't think you're that stupid, but do you have any idea how much of an apples to oranges comparison that is?

[JCtheMC]

I really don't think you're that stupid, but do you have any idea how much of an apples to oranges comparison that is?

Everyone knows oranges are way more diverse and user-friendly.

[Gorvi]

Everyone knows oranges are way more diverse and user-friendly.
But apples make better juice. Now there's a conundrum for ya.

[JCtheMC]

But apples make better juice. Now there's a conundrum for ya.

By the time you've actually made juice from your apples, my oranges will have been used in a much wider variety of applications, hell, i'll probably have orange icecream by then.

[Gorvi]

By the time you've actually made juice from your apples, my oranges will have been used in a much wider variety of applications, hell, i'll probably have orange icecream by then.
Oh, you didn't go there. Not frozen treats. That's a low blow, man. We all know that orange sherbert does in fact rock.

[Codicier]

Oh, you didn't go there. Not frozen treats. That's a low blow, man. We all know that orange sherbert does in fact rock.

I leave for ten minutes and this is where we end up? :p

[Gorvi]

I leave for ten minutes and this is where we end up? :p
We can't be trusted here. ;)

[UnderHero5]

I leave for ten minutes and this is where we end up? :p
You don't even want to know what I was going to type.


It ended with melted sherbert dripping down my chest...

[bapenguin]

Hell, 3.3 million is probably a generous number for Gold subscirbers, but we'll never know because MS feels they need to hide the numbers instead of brag about them like they should if it was really that great.

Actually there was an interview we posted here last week in which they said the Gold rate is more than 50%. So the 3.3 million number is probably pretty accurate since there are over 6 million members.

[JCtheMC]

This thread turned out to be as perverse as capitalism. I love it.

[Codicier]

You don't even want to know what I was going to type.


It ended with melted sherbert dripping down my chest...

Yeah, might want to keep that one under wraps.

I like your sig btw. :D

[Kamalot]

Actually there was an interview we posted here last week in which they said the Gold rate is more than 50%. So the 3.3 million number is probably pretty accurate since there are over 6 million members.
I'm sure someone can find a way to call 6 million paying gamers insignificant.

[Ancalagon]

The barrier of entry for becoming a PS3 user is $600 (more or less depending on where you live. Cheaper in Japan, more expensive in Europe).


Why didnt you compare it to entry to the playstation network thingy? Comparing live to PS3 has no meaning - I can use a Vista PC to get live.

If you compare sony's online presence to Live, then you need an internet connection in both cases. and the potential usefulness is less in sony's case right now - what, exactly, are you going to download, or play online right now?

[the soUL TRAder]

Hmmmm?
Seems to me Sony still thinks online gaming isn't relevant, just like in 2003, they are just waiting for us gamers to figure it out.

And, really, the industry press backs them up. Shadowrun taking the hit for "online only" when no game has ever taken a hit for "SP only".

Still, for the people who only have a PS3, it's good they be able to play online in a lot of games.


Unfortunately, I'm sure when I own a PS3, in @ 2009, I won't use it much to game online, but that is OK, it'll have some SP games I'll want to play, and I'll get my online on the 360.

[Gorvi]

I'm sure someone can find a way to call 6 million paying gamers insignificant.
Actually, that was 6 million total LIVE members, not Gold. He was saying that over half of those were Gold members. Still, why people will question Sony when they release sales numbers but not question MS when they say something like that is beyond me. They back it up with nothing.

[Kamalot]

Actually, that was 6 million total LIVE members, not Gold. He was saying that over half of those were Gold members. Still, why people will question Sony when they release sales numbers but not question MS when they say something like that is beyond me. They back it up with nothing.
Ahahaha!

What do you want them to back it up with? a list of 3.33 million gamertags?

[bitwise]

Sony Working on XBLA Features: Achievements, Invites, and Price
and then directly below this:
Introducing...Tiltboard Controller (Xbox 360)

It's like they're becoming the same console.

[Gorvi]

Ahahaha!

What do you want them to back it up with? a list of 6 million gamertags?
So you're saying that because they lack a way to prove it, they're free to just throw a number out there and you'll believe it?

[Kamalot]

So you're saying that because they lack a way to prove it, they're free to just throw a number out there and you'll believe it?
How do YOU know they lack a way to prove it? Are you saying that Microsoft has no idea how many subscribers they have? Perhaps they don't have any record of $165 million dollars coming in.

Look, lots of companies report a lot of things. Nintendo said they sold X number of Wiis. Sony claims to have X number of developers on board. I don't see you running about waving your arms in the air demanding proof for those.

Just because you can't admit that 6 million Live users and 3 million paying Gold members is significant without seeing a list of ever gamer tag isn't my problem.

[Gorvi]

How do YOU know they lack a way to prove it? Are you saying that Microsoft has no idea how many subscribers they have? Perhaps they don't have any record of $165 million dollars coming in.

Look, lots of companies report a lot of things. Nintendo said they sold X number of Wiis. Sony claims to have X number of developers on board. I don't see you running about waving your arms in the air demanding proof for those.

Just because you can't admit that 6 million Live users and 3 million paying Gold members is significant without seeing a list of ever gamer tag isn't my problem.
I never said they had no way to prove it, it's what you were implying with your "suggestion" that they submit a list of gamertags. We have people here that will go into threads and question numbers stated by companies when they're not corroberated by an outside source, yet these LIVE numbers are being accepted without question.

Anyway, that's a tangent far off from the original topic. When less than 1/3 of the total users for the console with the hands down best online service actually are willing to pay for their multiplayer, I will still say that online play is less significant than most people here would like to believe.

[dimsumx]

I'm bummed that I can't find it. Maybe I'm becoming old too. I could very well have been Tretton. Isn't he the guy who said, point blank, that Killzone 2 footage from E3 2005 was real-time on PS3 hardware? Oh, and he's the one who stated he would give people $1200 if they could find a PS3 in stores.

It was a PSM article in January of 06...it wasn't an official quote:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y100/SpliceX/PSM.jpg

[oldjadedgamer]

It was a PSM article in January of 06...it wasn't an official quote:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y100/SpliceX/PSM.jpg


Nah, it was official. There is a quote from Tretton where he said they would match every feature of Live... I just can't find it right now. But it was an official quote.

The reason I can't find it is that it wasn't a big news story on it's own and is buried in another interview before PS3 came out and I can't remember which interview it was.

[Kamalot]

When less than 1/3 of the total users for the console with the hands down best online service actually are willing to pay for their multiplayer, I will still say that online play is less significant than most people here would like to believe.
I'm glad you are in an industry where you have the luxury of ignoring 3 million + revenue-generating customers OR 1/3 of your install-base. If 3 million + people paying for live are insignificant, then why do developers bother putting multiplayer in their games? Catering to such a small and insignificant audience would be wasteful.

3 Million people willing to pay $50 for online gaming, something that is free everywhere else (other than MMORPGs), is damn significant. It shows that there is a big percentage of the market (around 33%! :eek: ) that is willing to PAY to play with other people. That's nothing to sneeze at. It is a substantial audience to Microsoft, developers and other gamers.

3 million gamers paying $50 each comes out to be $150 million dollars. Microsoft just DUMPED 1/3 of that amount into exclusive content (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31549). The money Microsoft makes off of Live subscribers is significant.

Maybe 3 million + paying gamers it isn't significant to you. But remember, your solitary voice on the Internet is much, much less significant. Those 3+ million gamers vote with their wallet, and Microsoft is listening.

[Gorvi]

I'm glad you are in an industry where you have the luxury of ignoring 3 million + revenue-generating customers OR 1/3 of your install-base. If 3 million + people paying for live are insignificant, then why do developers bother putting multiplayer in their games? Catering to such a small and insignificant audience would be wasteful.

3 Million people willing to pay $50 for online gaming, something that is free everywhere else (other than MMORPGs), is damn significant. It shows that there is a big percentage of the market (around 33%! :eek: ) that is willing to PAY to play with other people. That's nothing to sneeze at. It is a substantial audience to Microsoft, developers and other gamers.

3 million gamers paying $50 each comes out to be $150 million dollars. Microsoft just DUMPED 1/3 of that amount into exclusive content (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31549). The money Microsoft makes off of Live subscribers is significant.

Maybe 3 million + paying gamers it isn't significant to you. But remember, your solitary voice on the Internet is much, much less significant. Those 3+ million gamers vote with their wallet, and Microsoft is listening.
You're still not listening. In the microcosm that is the 360, yes, that 1/3 means something to MS (money, basically). For gaming as a whole, all 100 million+ console gamers out there, that less than 3% is much less significant.

[Kamalot]

You're still not listening. In the microcosm that is the 360, yes, that 1/3 means something to MS (money, basically). For gaming as a whole, all 100 million+ console gamers out there, that less than 3% is much less significant.
If your yardstick is malleable, then anything can be insignificant.

[Gorvi]

If your yardstick is malleable, then anything can be insignificant.
Very true. Of course, anything can be significant when you shrink the sample size.

My main point this whole time : Online multiplayer gaming for consoles isn't yet important to a significant enough portion of the market as a whole for it to be a large priority. That's my opinion, yours may vary.

[CaptStu]

You heard it here first: The $50 million spent for GTA IV content will be online multiplayer areas. Deal with that one Gorvi. :)

[Gorvi]

You heard it here first: The $50 million spent for GTA IV content will be online multiplayer areas. Deal with that one Gorvi. :)
Haha, ironically enough, I'd actually care about online GTA. ;)

[Kamalot]

Very true. Of course, anything can be significant when you shrink the sample size.

My main point this whole time : Online multiplayer gaming for consoles isn't yet important to a significant enough portion of the market as a whole for it to be a large priority. That's my opinion, yours may vary.
I'll believe you when I start seeing developers drop previously announced multiplayer aspects of titles. Fact of the matter is that more and more titles coming out include online multiplayer than ever before. Some titles, are online-multiplayer only.

Evidence suggests that console online gaming is growing in popularity, and that developers, publishers and gamers find it significant enough to devote resources towards.

[CaptStu]

Haha, ironically enough, I'd actually care about online GTA. ;)

I figured as much. :D

[Fartacus]

You are bullshitting me. An industry leader in software? Nonsense. Microsoft is an industry leader in software, and they should copy the industry leader.

Now if you are saying they are copying hardware, than I really beg to differ.

They really should start copying the hardware, because they would end up with a console that performs as well as their current hardware, without the $600 consumer price tag and huge losses (massive damage!) incurred with each sale...

[Johan]

Talk is easy. It would be great... Another easy thing.

Quit talking about it and just do it. I am sick of all the hype these days.

Of course Sony isn't charging money for their service. They have a very small userbase and it isn't even a service...

Fifth post, and hit it head on. Well done.

Fact : people bitch.

Bitching about people bitching is always fun! :D

Right now LIVE is kicking the shit out of the PSN in terms of content, and that's where the focus needs to go.

Amen to that (the shit kicking part).

[Ozymandias]

Very true. Of course, anything can be significant when you shrink the sample size.

My main point this whole time : Online multiplayer gaming for consoles isn't yet important to a significant enough portion of the market as a whole for it to be a large priority. That's my opinion, yours may vary.

Whaaaa?!

I've been biting my tongue as there's not much "fact" I can add to this that's not already public... but you're smoking something here. Name a game genre that can be successfull without an online component? There are a few - stand-along RPG leaps to mind, as well as some puzzle games. But there are entire other genres that used to be single-player only that simply would not be competitive in today's market without a multiplayer portion: FPS, sports, RTS, etc.

[Johan]

...there are entire other genres that used to be single-player only that simply would not be competitive in today's market without a multiplayer portion: FPS, sports, RTS, etc.

I agree. I was trying to get to a reply to that, but you beat me to it as I was editing in replies to my previous post! :)

Online multiplayer is becoming an expected feature for many genres and games in the console space. It's becoming a fact of the market.

[Hemalin]

Whaaaa?!

I've been biting my tongue as there's not much "fact" I can add to this that's not already public... but you're smoking something here. Name a game genre that can be successfull without an online component? There are a few - stand-along RPG leaps to mind, as well as some puzzle games. But there are entire other genres that used to be single-player only that simply would not be competitive in today's market without a multiplayer portion: FPS, sports, RTS, etc.
More than half of the people that bought UT2k4 didn't even take it online. What does that say about online play?
http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3158434

[Ozymandias]

More than half of the people that bought UT2k4 didn't even take it online. What does that say about online play?
http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3158434

It says that about half of their sales were to people who cared about online play. :)

In all seriousness, UT2K4 would never have been released as a single-player game as they would have lost half their sales. We can argue details, but saying that online play isn't important to console game sales is ridiculous.

[Kamalot]

More than half of the people that bought UT2k4 didn't even take it online. What does that say about online play?
http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3158434
That Unreal Tournament would have sold a LOT less if it was only single-player.

[TrackZero]

Notice how the possibility of charging is a "maybe" or "open to change". They want you to hope for the best without promising that they won't turn around and fuck you with a fee, because that is a very real possibility. They don't need any more broken promises on their record.

Hey, to be fair, even if they promise that all their content would be free, I still wouldn't believe them anyways.

[Hemalin]

That Unreal Tournament would have sold a LOT less if it was only single-player.
Who said anything about single player only? Half of the people that bought UT2K4 were happy to play against bots or LAN. You don't need online to be able to play multiplayer. For a multiplayer only game, the number of people that didn't play online is surprisingly low in a world where online multiplayer is supposed to be huge.

[Uniqueusername]

More than half of the people that bought UT2k4 didn't even take it online. What does that say about online play?
Remember that online gaming is only one part of multiplayer gaming.

I bought 2 copies of UT2003 to play over a LAN. Both of those will be part of the 'never online' stat, despite being bought specifically for the multiplayer capabilities.

Likewise, you don't need a gold account for multiplayer gaming on the 360... Many of my XBox 360 games were bought for LAN co-op.

I might not use Live gold, but I certainly appreciate what it's done for gaming. ;)

[Hemalin]

Remember that online gaming is only one part of multiplayer gaming.

Exactly, multiplayer is huge, but how much does online matter?

[Kamalot]

Exactly, multiplayer is huge, but how much does online matter?
Online multiplayer matters to about 33% of all Xbox 360 owners. It matters enough to them that they are willing to pay for it.

[Hemalin]

Online multiplayer matters to about 33% of all Xbox 360 owners. It matters enough to them that they are willing to pay for it.
Which is about 2% of total console gamers.


Edit: Doesn't that live number include the original Xbox too?

[Kamalot]

Which is about 2% of total console gamers.
Sure man. Whatever you want. I'm going back in this pool. Scoff at $165,000,000 if you like.

[fitbabits]

I hate to be the voice of reason here, but instead of talking, talking, talking about this, that and the next thing, Sony needs to produce! They have to contribute more to this generation than hype and empty promises. E3 is make-or-break for them in many regards. All the good will they gained from GDC has quickly evaporated because there's been nothing since then that's made people sit up and take notice (in a good way - there's been plenty negatives).

[Hemalin]

Sure man. Whatever you want. I'm going back in this pool. Scoff at $165,000,000 if you like.
When they could be making $10,000,000,000, I can scoff at $165 million.

[Kamalot]

When they could be making $10,000,000,000, I can scoff at $165 million.
?

Care to explain where this large sum of money resides?

[Hemalin]

?

Care to explain where this large sum of money resides?
That would be the hundreds of millions of gamers that don't play online against your millions of gamers that pay for Xbox live.

[Skyelan]

That would be the hundreds of millions of gamers that don't play online against your millions of gamers that pay for Xbox live.

And, much as I hate pointing out common sense, it'd be Kam's estimate ON TOP OF yours. Not mutually exclusive from one another.

Unless it's online-ONLY multiplayer, as with very few exceptions, that's a steaming pile of bullshit and should rot. :(

[Codicier]

Hey, to be fair, even if they promise that all their content would be free, I still wouldn't believe them anyways.

I don't blame you, neither would I. But then, I really don't care about the PS3 other than as an example of what not to do when trying to launch a console.

[Kamalot]

That would be the hundreds of millions of gamers that don't play online against your millions of gamers that pay for Xbox live.
Skyelan has it right. People are paying $50 a year to play games on Live. That's nothing more than the ability to play the games. Those same people still buy the games. That's more money right there. The $165,000,000 is above and beyond the money people are dropping on games and hardware. It isn't one-or-the-other. It isn't mutually exclusive.

Honestly, after having gone back over your posts, I don't know what your point is. You insinuate that one has to ignore the revenue of Live Gold accounts in order to make 1000-million dollars, that more than half of Unreal Tournament players didn't play online, and... is there some kind of point you are trying to make, or are we going to sit around and pick at nits all day?

Perhaps if you took a moment to formulate your point into a full post, and how it relates to the original post, I'd understand better what you are trying to get at. Yes, I just ended my sentence with a preposition. I'm a REBEL!

[Hemalin]

Honestly, after having gone back over your posts, I don't know what your point is. You insinuate that one has to ignore the revenue of Live Gold accounts in order to make 1000-million dollars, that more than half of Unreal Tournament players didn't play online, and... is there some kind of point you are trying to make, or are we going to sit around and pick at nits all day?

What I'm saying, is that I agree with Gorvi.
My main point this whole time : Online multiplayer gaming for consoles isn't yet important to a significant enough portion of the market as a whole for it to be a large priority. That's my opinion, yours may vary.
All we know is that 3 million(Where'd this number come from anyway?) are paying for online multiplayer. Who's to say they even care about unified friend's lists and cross game invites?

[JimmyDanger]

That would be the hundreds of millions of gamers that don't play online against your millions of gamers that pay for Xbox live.

I'll take most of those hundreds of millions of gamers, and watch them play Singstar, Madden or Buzz.

Before you all start talking about "hundreds of millions of gamers" - remember that GTASA (PS2's most successful title) only sold 14.88 million copies over 100 million or so consoles. In fact, when you look at attach rates - more than 2/3 of those "100 million gamers" would be lucky to buy one title a year.

Most of the industry knows there's a dedicated 10-15 million gamers out there who buy at least a game a month - and keep the coffers of this industry running over. The "mass market gamers" follow where the subsidised (by the hardcore) hardcore success story goes - more software, more price range, price-subsidised by success - platform.

At this stage - I see most of the casuals going to Wii - though I think it's still an even split in the Wii market between casuals and hardcores. Though the hardcores are befuddled by the lack of AA games.

I think a lot of devs are looking at - 10 million 360's - 4.2 million GOW's sold - and thinking carefully about their financial returns statements for 07/08. Even Wii Play (essentially a $10 extra controller pack-in game) has sold less (3.5 odd million - and 3.25 million odd for Zelda) - and Wii is not very far off 360's numbers at the moment.

Anyway my point was - 3+ million subscribers to an online console gaming service - compared to the size of the hardcore market (and also broadband penetration) - is quite impressive. And it means I can always get a game of Worms or Catan - so I'm happy.

[Durka-Dan]

How could Sony go from being an industry leader to an industry copycat so quickly?

<Lewis Black impression>
Because EVERYBODY and their sister has PS Home. And Live is the FIRST EVER to have an achievement system.. or for that matter ANY of their online features. "But it's the first time its been done on a console!" .. Yea because the difference between a PC and a console is so huge!
</Lewis Black impression>

I believe Microsoft really has you all fooled into thinking Live is innovative.. OMG.. the features they incorporated have been around for years in the form of mmorpg's, pc games, and other online communities..

But anywho.. I hope Sony doesn't start charging. That is really one of the big reasons I chose to buy a PS3 first. And they do need to put a few more of the standard features everyone has come to expect from an online community.

[Codicier]

<Lewis Black impression>
Because EVERYBODY and their sister has PS Home. And Live is the FIRST EVER to have an achievement system.. or for that matter ANY of their online features. "But it's the first time its been done on a console!" .. Yea because the difference between a PC and a console is so huge!
</Lewis Black impression>

I don't know what the fuck this is...


I believe Microsoft really has you all fooled into thinking Live is innovative.. OMG.. the features they incorporated have been around for years in the form of mmorpg's, pc games, and other online communities..


What the hell are you talking about? I don't think anyone believes Live is innovative in the way that you mean. Nobody is shocked by the existence of voice chat or leaderboards. What people are happy with is the common quality standard to which each Live feature is held, and the way in which it is integrated in a standard fashion across all parts of the console and it's games. The comparative quality and depth to Sony is what we're talking about. Live beats PSN right now, hands down.


But anywho.. I hope Sony doesn't start charging. That is really one of the big reasons I chose to buy a PS3 first. And they do need to put a few more of the standard features everyone has come to expect from an online community.

Where do you think people got the ideas that such features were now standard? I'll give you a hint, it's starts with "X" and ends with "-box Live".

[oldjadedgamer]

But anywho.. I hope Sony doesn't start charging. That is really one of the big reasons I chose to buy a PS3 first. And they do need to put a few more of the standard features everyone has come to expect from an online community.

If you look at the recent news about Tekken, Sony is already starting to let publishers charge for online play on the PS3.

While Sony themselves aren't charging, this may be the start of a disturbing trend where the publishers of the games also charge you to play their game online like Namco is doing right now on the PS3.

[Jack B]

personally don't care, I'd probably use it occasionally if it stays free, but definitely won't touch it as soon as there's a price with it (like i don't touch live).

either way, waiting for a price drop on the ps3 before i buy one in the first place.

that reminds me, is there a way to turn off those stupid achievement messages during gameplay? (on the 360).

Yes, just hit the Live button at any time and select personal settings. You can toggle on/off notifications during movies only or always.

[drakkarim]

Yes, just hit the Live button at any time and select personal settings. You can toggle on/off notifications during movies only or always.


THANKS! no more interruptions! :)

[Durka-Dan]

Live beats PSN right now, hands down.

From that statement right there, with the "Beats" part, yea. I can tell right now theres no sense in debating this out with you, since obviously you believe there is a competition at hand. I'm saying Live was not the first to do it yet any other company that from now on that, god forbid, incorporates a feature that happens to be on Live will be deemed by most on this board as "copycats". Live set the bar on quality and whats to be expected in an online community? Whatever dude..

[Codicier]

From that statement right there, with the "Beats" part, yea. I can tell right now theres no sense in debating this out with you, since obviously you believe there is a competition at hand.

Oh please, I said "beats" off-handedly. Any word you want to pick that means "is a better set of features and services than" would be fine. It's not like "beat" is a completely inaccurate term either since:

you believe there is a competition at hand.

Between Sony and MS? Some sort of competition you say? Well I never. :rolleyes:

I'm saying Live was not the first to do it yet any other company that from now on that, god forbid, incorporates a feature that happens to be on Live will be deemed by most on this board as "copycats".

That's a completely different topic. You said we acted like MS was being innovative. I responded by saying, no the only thing that MS is doing right is quality wise and consistency wise. I don't recall saying anything about Sony copying them in that exchange other than my saying that Live is of greater quality than PSN *at this point in time*, ya know, to keep on topic.

Live set the bar on quality and whats to be expected in an online community? Whatever dude..

Where do you get this online community stuff? I'm not going to compare Live to forums or clan sites or whatever; that is not what Live was ever intended to be or "compete" with.

In terms of integrated services on a console (a very specific classification) yes, they set the bar. (Considering they basically fucking invented it back on the original Xbox)

[Durka-Dan]

My original post was not meant to go against anybody here. Yes I did use kamalot's quote as a point for what I had to say. and what I have to say remains just as it did in the original post. That Microsoft, remember now this is a forum full of people's opinions, take them as you will, has not done anything innovative unless you call taking an online community to a console (that community being composed of said features). Which I then said was not really innovative, IMHO, since consoles these days are more or less PCs. Obviously you feel very passionate about all this with the needless language and such, but I said what I had to say. Perhaps if you can't be in a forum with open opinions without getting all worked up then maybe this isn't the place for you.

[Jack B]

My take. I don't care who's copying who. Often it seems, whoever takes credit for eventing something isn't technically the first anyway... (ie Apple taking credit for the Graphical OS, when Xerox actually beat them to it).

If in-game invites or chat or leaderboards make sense, then let Sony have them as well. I really don't care. It's good for gamers. It's like the Halo controls. Everyone copied them and why not?

Sony has said many times PSN would be everything Live is except free. Well, it isn't yet, but I would have no problem if they copied every last feature. I like Live. Sony has waffled a bit on things like entitlements and some other features, but at this point, just make it happen. If they decide to charge, the outcry from Sony fans would be deafening, so I don't expect they would, but who knows. My guess is Microsoft going to a free model is more likely.

[DangerousDaze]

Shall I tell you what really fucks me off? In the interview Lempel is asked to confirm that PSN will remain free forever. No one can make a promise like that because who knows what might happen in the future? So he makes a covering statement ("In time anything can change but right now we're happy with it.") and moves on. There's nothing in that statement that says Sony have any intentions of charging for PSN. Nothing.

But then we have EvAv hinting that Sony will charge for PSN, contrary to any evidence. It's only a hint though and that's not what I referred to in the paragraph above. No, what really fucks me off is Computer & Video Games who gifted their article (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=166187) with the headline "Sony to charge for PlayStation Network". Now that is outright bullshit at worst, and shit journalism at best. Way to go, C&VG. :/

[Johan]

But then we have EvAv hinting that Sony will charge for PSN, contrary to any evidence.

Absolutely ridiculous, too!!!

It's quite obvious Sony will never do that. They'll leave it to individual developers/publishers to do that! :D

/Oh shit...that might be a bit of evidence...woops! :(

[oldjadedgamer]

Absolutely ridiculous, too!!!

It's quite obvious Sony will never do that. They'll leave it to individual developers/publishers to do that! :D

/Oh shit...that might be a bit of evidence...woops! :(

Publishers are already charging to play online for PS3. Sony gets away from saying that they aren't charing for online play when they make publishers take the hit.

But everyone seems ok to pay to play online with the PS3. Everyone seems to want to line up in droves to pay for the right to play Tekken online on a machine that should be free anyway.

Boogles the mind.

[Codicier]

My original post was not meant to go against anybody here. Yes I did use kamalot's quote as a point for what I had to say. and what I have to say remains just as it did in the original post. That Microsoft, remember now this is a forum full of people's opinions, take them as you will, has not done anything innovative unless you call taking an online community to a console (that community being composed of said features). Which I then said was not really innovative, IMHO, since consoles these days are more or less PCs.

Well then perhaps you should word your posts more precisely, because it really sounded like you were saying that:

I believe Microsoft really has you all fooled into thinking Live is innovative.. OMG.. the features they incorporated have been around for years in the form of mmorpg's, pc games, and other online communities..

I responded to what you posted. That certainly sounded like a critique on the people here.

Really I couldn't care less about what you think in regards to MS's "innovation". My point (which you seem to have a hard time grasping) is that your opinion in this context is off-topic. This is not about MS's innovation, this thread was about the relative quality of the PSN network vs. that of XBL. In fact, it wasn't even about that, but rather that Sony was implementing similar features. Nobody pretended to think that MS was being innovative, only that Sony was copying MS to an extent.


Obviously you feel very passionate about all this with the needless language and such, but I said what I had to say. Perhaps if you can't be in a forum with open opinions without getting all worked up then maybe this isn't the place for you.

Yeah, I totally get it, I mean, what kind of language or content could you expect from a site with the tagline: "Daily Gaming News... With Attitude!" :rolleyes:

For the record I don't give a damn about online services, when it comes down to it. What I do care about, are people like you that come in and make sweeping statements about how we've "all been fooled" or somesuch nonsense.

If the way we discuss things offends your exceedingly delicate sensibilities (I am far from the worst there is on this site) then perhaps you should be the one to find another place to discuss news.

In fact, that's really insulting. I've been here almost a year now. I play games on Live with the members here and you come in with a join date of May 2007 and tell me that I should find somewhere else to post? Yeah...good show.

[the soUL TRAder]

I believe Microsoft really has you all fooled into thinking Live is innovative.. OMG.. the features they incorporated have been around for years in the form of mmorpg's, pc games, and other online communities..



You'll have to give many of us a break, see we just got over being "fooled by" Sony that Online was irrelevant.
Irrelevant to XBL seems like a huge innovative leap in that context. ;)

[Durka-Dan]

Since I've got time to do this all day then lets keep going then until a mod stops one of us..

I responded to what you posted. That certainly sounded like a critique on the people here.
You jumped on me earlier for picking apart words. Your taking that out of context. My comment about "MS has you all fooled" wasn't made literally man, chill out. Like I'm personally coming here to attack EvAv members. I REALLY think MS has you all fooled, right?

Really I couldn't care less about what you think in regards to MS's "innovation".
No I think you do care.. cause your still here.. still trolling..
My point (which you seem to have a hard time grasping) is that your opinion in this context is off-topic.
After posting that I did not think Live's features weren't that innovative (since we are talking about online features, riiight?) i went on to put my 2 cents in on the news.

This is not about MS's innovation, this thread was about the relative quality of the PSN network vs. that of XBL.
Que? No.. it wasn't..
In fact, it wasn't even about that, but rather that Sony was implementing similar features.
Woah.. thought I lost you there for a second, atleast we know what you REALLY thought this thread was about.. :rolleyes:
Nobody pretended to think that MS was being innovative, only that Sony was copying MS to an extent.
So then if you would please post all those existing communities and online portals that MS copied. Exactly, it's stupid because the list would go on and on. Which is why it's dumb to say Sony is copying MS. Everybody copies everybody. Saying that Sony is copying MS is just begging for an argument.



Yeah, I totally get it, I mean, what kind of language or content could you expect from a site with the tagline: "Daily Gaming News... With Attitude!" :rolleyes:
See I found your problem, you take things too literal. That's ok, there's gotta be a 12 step for you out there. Perhaps Anger Management. That way when somebody makes a statement you disagree with you don't go balistic on them. And if thats what EvAv expects then why is it against the rules here to flame?

For the record I don't give a damn about online services, when it comes down to it. What I do care about, are people like you that come in and make sweeping statements about how we've "all been fooled" or somesuch nonsense.
So you admit to flaming. I think your already on that 12 step. Congratulations on the first step, admitting you have a problem.

If the way we discuss things offends your exceedingly delicate sensibilities (I am far from the worst there is on this site) then perhaps you should be the one to find another place to discuss news.
You should be talking to a mirror. I was cool with everyone. I think everyone would agree you flamed first. I was just commenting and making a point, just like you do on a forum, and you singled me out.

In fact, that's really insulting. I've been here almost a year now. I play games on Live with the members here
Hrm.. Do I care what it is that you do? You stuck your nose in MY business and got offended off some little comment. Don't act like I care who you are or that being here a year makes you some kind of elder of the EvAv towns people. So you can take that year and shove it.

and you come in with a join date of May 2007 and tell me that I should find somewhere else to post? Yeah...good show.
I'm not worthy of your presence oh Lord-Of-One-Year. :rolleyes:

[violentp]

What are you ladies fighting about?

[fitbabits]

Durka & Codi - get a room! (And invite me!)

[violentp]

Durka & Codi - get a room! (And invite me!)

This I wanna see. *lights a cigar*

[fitbabits]

This I wanna see. *lights a cigar*
[cough, cough]

How am I supposed to know what the hell's going on??

[violentp]

[cough, cough]

How am I supposed to know what the hell's going on??

Just like any man party. Feel your way around.

God that joke may be a little too "festive" even for me.

[Johan]

An argument? And I missed it?

Wow...I'm losing my extra-sensory argument detection. :(

[Codicier]

You jumped on me earlier for picking apart words. Your taking that out of context. My comment about "MS has you all fooled" wasn't made literally man, chill out. Like I'm personally coming here to attack EvAv members. I REALLY think MS has you all fooled, right?

I can really tell what you're thinking...oh wait, no I can't. All I read was you acting like a dick and making a snide comment. Do I take things to seriously? No, I take things as I read them. I have no fucking idea what you really meant, so I would suggest making a point of clearly stating your intentions next time. If you meant it as a light-hearted joke, then do something to make that clear. Even sarcasm can be made clear, so it's not like I'm suggesting you post bulleted lists or something.


No I think you do care.. cause your still here.. still trolling..

You have a lot to learn about real trolling. And no, I don't care what you think, that much is true. I care about what you say as it regards EvAv and apparently me since you seem keen to argue. In fact, I'm not even going to argue the innovation angle with you anymore because it's just not worth it.


After posting that I did not think Live's features weren't that innovative (since we are talking about online features, riiight?) i went on to put my 2 cents in on the news.

Which really sounded like a troll because it addressed something unrelated to the topic and read like a pointless jab at people. But no, I'm the one trolling right. :rolleyes:


Que? No.. it wasn't..

That was what the discussion turned to, but the initial topic was indeed Sony implementing Live like features.


Woah.. thought I lost you there for a second, atleast we know what you REALLY thought this thread was about.. :rolleyes:

I didn't *think* this thread was about that. It was about that. Look back at what people were discussing. Whatever, continue trying to make me out to be a fanboy, I really don't give a shit.


So then if you would please post all those existing communities and online portals that MS copied. Exactly, it's stupid because the list would go on and on. Which is why it's dumb to say Sony is copying MS. Everybody copies everybody. Saying that Sony is copying MS is just begging for an argument.

Which is why if you look, you'll see I never said anything of the sort, only that *other* people did.


See I found your problem, you take things too literal. That's ok, there's gotta be a 12 step for you out there. Perhaps Anger Management. That way when somebody makes a statement you disagree with you don't go balistic on them. And if thats what EvAv expects then why is it against the rules here to flame?

First of all, I'm sorry if you think defending my position and reading things as written necessitates "anger management". Secondly, your lame pyscho-analysis crap is... well...just that.

Thirdly, my thing about what EvAv expects was in regards to cursing, not flaming. People do that here, that's just what we do. Maybe you should remember the actual point of contention before saying something.


So you admit to flaming. I think your already on that 12 step. Congratulations on the first step, admitting you have a problem.

No, really, you're hilarious. :rolleyes:


You should be talking to a mirror. I was cool with everyone. I think everyone would agree you flamed first. I was just commenting and making a point, just like you do on a forum, and you singled me out.

I saw a troll, and after one to many new yellows coming in and making one-off comments I said something. Now you tell me that you didn't mean it. I had no indication of that several posts ago, so like I said: say what you mean.


Hrm.. Do I care what it is that you do? You stuck your nose in MY business and got offended off some little comment. Don't act like I care who you are or that being here a year makes you some kind of elder of the EvAv towns people. So you can take that year and shove it.

Wow I don't even know where to begin with this one. YOUR buisness is not your buisness when you post something on a public forum. Your "little comment" was some ridiculous Lewis Black crap (?), and then your one-off that I commented on.

Fine, you don't care about me. That's cool. But your statement suggesting I leave was still exceedingly ironic given our relative histories here.

I'm not worthy of your presence oh Lord-Of-One-Year. :rolleyes:

My sides are, splitting, please, I don't know how much more hilarity I can take...

Listen, forum arguments never go anywhere. You don't like me, and vice-versa. Actually, if you had posted in the manner you're using to respond to me now, I would never have said anything: It's very clear on what you mean and grammatically correct. So, we can either both say fuck you to each other and then shake hands (metaphorically) and make up or you can respond point by point again to everything I said and use up more of your self-stated endless amount of time and my more normal finite amount of time.

Ball is in your court, and welcome to Evil Avatar.

[violentp]

An argument? And I missed it?

Wow...I'm losing my extra-sensory argument detection. :(

On the contrary, whatever you have was actually working quite well.

[Durka-Dan]

I have no fucking idea what you really meant, so I would suggest making a point of clearly stating your intentions next time. If you meant it as a light-hearted joke, then do something to make that clear. Even sarcasm can be made clear, so it's not like I'm suggesting you post bulleted lists or something.

I didnt bother to read beyond this point. Noted. I will try to be more clear on what I say next time.

EDIT: Ok I read the rest out of curiosity :D

[JimmyDanger]

No I think you do care.. cause your still here.. still trolling..


Mr Pot, may I introduce you to Mr Kettle.

Seriously though -the retroactive "I didn't mean that" - is the creed of the troll.

Carry on your handbags though girls - it's quite amusing..
(that is if Codicier could still be bothered)

[Codicier]

Mr Pot, may I introduce you to Mr Kettle.

Seriously though -the retroactive "I didn't mean that" - is the creed of the troll.

Carry on your handbags though girls - it's quite amusing..
(that is if Codicier could still be bothered)

It's cool Jimmy, we're pals now. Don't make me pull out the "copy-paste quote tags" on you now... ;)

[JimmyDanger]

Please, not the copy-paste-quote tags..I beseech thee.

Good to see you're not above resolving a disagreement Codi. Have you thought about a position in the Canadian Diplomatic Corps?

Still - I've got a tub of popcorn, a tasty beverage - and no bloodsports to watch. Oh well.

[drakkarim]

ok, have to throw my penny in.

i don't see anything Sony or MS doing as being 'innovative', they're just building on and 'improving' (in many cases just dumbing down for the masses really) previous technologies.

personally i don't use live, nor do i plan on wasting time with sony's home or whatever they call it.

what the 3 camps are doing is making multiplayer easily accessible to the masses by making everyone use the same interface/mechanism. that's great for increasing market share, but usually innovation takes second or third place to simplicity.

[Kamalot]

I can't believe I missed out on such a petty argument. :(

[Codicier]

I can't believe I missed out on such a petty argument. :(

Can we please either move on from that or let this thread die?


and btw Kam, I wouldn't bring up "petty arguments" if I were you. *cough*Kelegacy*cough*

Pot, meet giant fucking kettle.