SONY is planning their own version of XBOX LIVE!!

EDIT: Looks like it is going to happen: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/31/sony-declares-full-on-assault-on-xbox-live/

This would be sweet. I love Xbox Live and I think it sets the standard for all future consoles to incorporate and improve on. The global rankings and achievements alone make me want to play a game more in-depth than I maybe would ordinarily. This can only be good for us (well, excluding the fact that if all 3 next gen consoles have an integrated online component that costs $50 per year to use...$150 per year? Ouch!)

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/18/sony-targets-xbox-live-with-questionnaire/

That would be pretty cool. It would be even cooler if they had a free and pay versions, because honestly I dont have any problem with the PS2 online.

it would be nice, as most ps2 games that I have played online have shitty servers/connections. EA madden setup is broken, nfl blitz. Socoms was ok, but nothing compared to what msft had with halo 2

Live is what sets the 360 aside from other consoles. I honestly dont think that all other companies have been convinced that its even worth it to have a robust online service. Especially when Live has already snatched those people up.

Sony can say, xbox 1 live membership was 10% of install base, we sold 100 million PS2's...Whats online?

Live is certainly awesome if you like online games. However, its clear the the MAJORITY of consoles users, still dont care.

I have no interest in online gaming, but even I have lots of respect for the standard that Live has set. I AM interested in downloadable content.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Live is what sets the 360 aside from other consoles. I honestly dont think that all other companies have been convinced that its even worth it to have a robust online service. Especially when Live has already snatched those people up.

Sony can say, xbox 1 live membership was 10% of install base, we sold 100 million PS2's...Whats online?

Live is certainly awesome if you like online games. However, its clear the the MAJORITY of consoles users, still dont care.[/QUOTE]
You are completely off base... The majority of users don't care at all about online?

If Sony or Nintendo takes your attitude and says, if we don't have it, then it must not matter, then they're going to lose a ton of customers to MS. I seriously hope that Sony introduces some kind of passable online component, because anything is better than what they have now. Nintendo pretended the internet didn't exist with Gamecube. As time goes on, and as broadband gains popularity, the online factor is only going to grow in signifigance.

What XBL has done well lately, is appeal to the people that aren't terribly interested in online gaming, with downloadable content, such as demos, full games, trailers, etc. Its a great hook. And while they're there, they might as well give this online game thing a try, even if its something casual like poker. Theres a lot of potential there.

XBL was the most innovative thing that happened in the previous gen, and it does set Xbox apart from the other consoles. If your Sony or Nintendo, why not take that advantage away? Why not do what they did? 10% of 100 million PS2's is still a huge amount of potential sales that they're conceding to MS.

everyone knows this whole online internet thingy is just a fad. it will go the way of the dinosaur and vinyl records within five years.

Just as the consoles have different strengths, there are many differences in their user base(yes, I know people have more than one console).

If Nintendo's DS online strategy is an indication of the Revolution Strategy, we'll know that they are emphasizing easy and free over robustness/features.

If other companies thought it would be PROFITABLE to have a Live clone for their user base, you can bet that they'd be planning on it. Nintendo doesnt appear to. I really doubt that Sony is planning on it, but who knows.

And yes, the majority of console users dont care at all about online. I feel fairly comfortable saying that.

What sells the machines are what sets them apart, not what makes them the same.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']If other companies thought it would be PROFITABLE to have a Live clone for their user base, you can bet that they'd be planning on it. Nintendo doesnt appear to. [/QUOTE]

I don't know about that - Nintendo is going to have to deliver thier back catalog somehow and a centralized online hub seems to be the easiest way to do it... so if you already have the system in place, why not offer online play, global rankings, etc.?

[quote name='javeryh']I don't know about that - Nintendo is going to have to deliver thier back catalog somehow and a centralized online hub seems to be the easiest way to do it... so if you already have the system in place, why not offer online play, global rankings, etc.?[/QUOTE]

While I see where you're coming from, I dont know whether or not Nintendo will necessarily decide that its worth it to go and have those extra features.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']

And yes, the majority of console users dont care at all about online. I feel fairly comfortable saying that.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say that the majority of console users don't care at all for online gaming. I'd rephrase that to say currently the majority of console users do not play games online for whatever reason. I'm sure a sizeable portion of those that don't play online have at least some interest in it but for whatever reason whether it's XBL subscription costs, no centralized service with Sony, no broadband, lack of appealable online games, etc. . . choose not to.

[quote name='dafoomie']You are completely off base... The majority of users don't care at all about online?

If Sony or Nintendo takes your attitude and says, if we don't have it, then it must not matter, then they're going to lose a ton of customers to MS. I seriously hope that Sony introduces some kind of passable online component, because anything is better than what they have now. Nintendo pretended the internet didn't exist with Gamecube. As time goes on, and as broadband gains popularity, the online factor is only going to grow in signifigance.

What XBL has done well lately, is appeal to the people that aren't terribly interested in online gaming, with downloadable content, such as demos, full games, trailers, etc. Its a great hook. And while they're there, they might as well give this online game thing a try, even if its something casual like poker. Theres a lot of potential there.

XBL was the most innovative thing that happened in the previous gen, and it does set Xbox apart from the other consoles. If your Sony or Nintendo, why not take that advantage away? Why not do what they did? 10% of 100 million PS2's is still a huge amount of potential sales that they're conceding to MS.[/QUOTE]


well if my memory is correct, Nintendo was the first console maker to go online with either the NES or SNES where you could download content. I seriously think that even though I wanted online play for the cube, not enough people actually care yet. Wait till over 50% of the US has high speed internet, which would mean like 80% of gamers, then online gamin will be mainstream. Until then its just for the hardcore or a nice extra.

[quote name='dcfox']I wouldn't say that the majority of console users don't care at all for online gaming. I'd rephrase that to say currently the majority of console users do not play games online for whatever reason. I'm sure a sizeable portion of those that don't play online have at least some interest in it but for whatever reason whether it's XBL subscription costs, no centralized service with Sony, no broadband, lack of appealable online games, etc. . . choose not to.[/QUOTE]

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but to me, things like endless fragfests have no appeal. I play videogames with the idea of an end in sight; a goal. I play a game until I beat it, and I go to another one.

To me, it's not a sport where I'm striving to get my ranking up on a worldwide database. I also sort of fear games that can potentially go on forever because I'm afraid that if I like it, it'll steal my life away.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']well if my memory is correct, Nintendo was the first console maker to go online with either the NES or SNES where you could download content. I seriously think that even though I wanted online play for the cube, not enough people actually care yet. Wait till over 50% of the US has high speed internet, which would mean like 80% of gamers, then online gamin will be mainstream. Until then its just for the hardcore or a nice extra.[/QUOTE]
With DSL costing $14.99 a month right now, how long do you think it'll be before more people have broadband than dialup?

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']And yes, the majority of console users dont care at all about online. I feel fairly comfortable saying that.[/QUOTE]
The majority of console users not being online is a fact. But taking that, and saying that the majority of console users don't care about online is a logical leap.

The next two generations will see an explosion of people using their consoles online. MS is ahead of the curve. If PS3 doesn't follow suit with a half decent online service, you'll see that as a driving force behind 360 sales. It'll be a huge mistake on their part. Nintendo I could see getting away with it again for another generation, if they wanted to.

Theres more to this than the monthly fees. Its a feature that sells you more systems. It drives sales for certain titles (Mechassault wouldn't have sold 10 copies without XBL support). And theres all kinds of additional revenue, such as premium content, advertising, etc.

[quote name='Vegan']Well, I can't speak for everyone, but to me, things like endless fragfests have no appeal. I play videogames with the idea of an end in sight; a goal. I play a game until I beat it, and I go to another one[/QUOTE]
There are games that I play with that in mind, absolutely. But there are other games that I play, to try and be the best. Ever play something like Goldeneye with a group of friends? Or a party game? Or have you ever played something like Street Fighter at an arcade with a whole bunch of people, with everybody playing the winner? Its a lot like that. Its not all ultra competitive stuff, theres a lot of casual games to play online, too.

Theres absolutely nothing wrong with not being interested, its not everyones cup of tea. But I can't imagine not playing games online. I've been doing this for a very long time, going back to DOS games, and even MUD's.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']well if my memory is correct, Nintendo was the first console maker to go online with either the NES or SNES where you could download content.[/QUOTE]
The Atari 2600 had a service called Gameline, where you could download games through an attached modem. The service failed, but the company became what we know today as AOL.

Sega Channel came in 1993 for the Genesis, and Xband came for the SNES and Genesis in 1995. The NES and SNES also had an unlicensed peripheral called the Teleplay, but this didn't come out until after Sega Channel. So, Nintendo is 3rd at best behind Sega and Atari, if you consider a 3rd party accessory to be their online offering.

[quote name='dafoomie']With DSL costing $14.99 a month right now, how long do you think it'll be before more people have broadband than dialup?
[/QUOTE]

DSL has been that price for a long time. You'd be surprised how many people just don't consider it a priority.

[quote name='Vegan']DSL has been that price for a long time. You'd be surprised how many people just don't consider it a priority.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say a *long* time, but quite a while, yes. Market penetration has been up steadily, 60% of internet users have broadband. They probably fudged that number a little bit, but even half is pretty good.

I think Sony should follow MS with the online strategy. I would love to turn on Soul Calibur to find someone waiting to fight.

Incorporating online play into games like X-Men Legends or Prince of Persia would be great.

I just don't want games to demand or focus heavily on such aspects. I want games to be just as fun with no internet connection as they are with one.

Sony could still do well without a central service, as most of my friends don't even have a network adapter. Including the adapter from the get-go is going to change that though.

I like the fact that LIVE works soo well, but Im not willing to pay for it yet.

99% of the online playing I do is first person shooters, and I play those on my PC. I would also be interested in playing Racers and Fighting/Wrestling games online, but not for a monthly, or yearly subscription fee. I want my consoles to have robust online capability, cos I like choice, but I own an Xbox and a PS2 and I have never taken them online even once. And when Im choosing a next gen console, its online capability does not factor into my purchasing decision.

LIVE is $75 a year or so right? What happens when the first mmorpg comes out and they charge you $15-20 a month on top of that??? And then they nickel and dime you to death buying extra levels, items, cars, whatever in that bullshit 'marketplace' you gonna buy all that stuff too? Now your spending hundreds of dollars a year online for virtual goods and services. And I didnt even begin to factor in costs of extra wireless cards/access points for these consoles. If a $500 laptop comes fully capable of wireless access right out of the box why doesnt the X360?

[quote name='Puffa469']I like the fact that LIVE works soo well, but Im not willing to pay for it yet.

99% of the online playing I do is first person shooters, and I play those on my PC. I would also be interested in playing Racers and Fighting/Wrestling games online, but not for a monthly, or yearly subscription fee. I want my consoles to have robust online capability, cos I like choice, but I own an Xbox and a PS2 and I have never taken them online even once. And when Im choosing a next gen console, its online capability does not factor into my purchasing decision.

LIVE is $75 a year or so right? What happens when the first mmorpg comes out and they charge you $15-20 a month on top of that??? And then they nickel and dime you to death buying extra levels, items, cars, whatever in that bullshit 'marketplace' you gonna buy all that stuff too? Now your spending hundreds of dollars a year online for virtual goods and services. And I didnt even begin to factor in costs of extra wireless cards/access points for these consoles. If a $500 laptop comes fully capable of wireless access right out of the box why doesnt the X360?[/QUOTE]

Live is $50 a year. That's not very expensive at all. If I wasn't late for lunch, I'd argue a bunch of your other points as well.

All in all, Sony has a lot of work to do if they want to develop an online service anything close to what Live is. Microsoft had a lot of experience in developing user interfaces, operating systems, and online software. Sony's efforts in those areas are far less experienced or satisfactory.

If Sony wants to be credible as an online gaming machine with the PS3 they are going to have to adopt a lot of ideas from XBL to become successfull.

As a PC gamer I can't stand XBL. The interfaces are minimal and slow. I have a 6mbit cable connection. It can take a minute or more just to load a game room. Additionally, since its so easy to access and the console majority are 'stupid' people, it makes for a very unenjoyable time when every idiot 12 year old has mommy's credit card. By stupid people I mean people that find installing a PC application difficult. So maybe not stupid stupid, but not tech savy. Although the two can go hand in hand.

[quote name='Kayden']As a PC gamer I can't stand XBL. The interfaces are minimal and slow. I have a 6mbit cable connection. It can take a minute or more just to load a game room. Additionally, since its so easy to access and the console majority are 'stupid' people, it makes for a very unenjoyable time when every idiot 12 year old has mommy's credit card. By stupid people I mean people that find installing a PC application difficult. So maybe not stupid stupid, but not tech savy. Although the two can go hand in hand.[/QUOTE]

Well, it's one of the downsides. However, with most of my experiences with PC online play, I've met the same 12 year-olds and plenty of people who feel that hacking their game so they can get instant head-shots, 1-hit kills, immortality and teleportation abilities is the only way to play. Unfortunately, it's just more crap to slog through either way when all you want is a quick, fun game.

And, as far as interfaces are concerned, I heartily dislike the majority of Live UIs for most games. Personally, I'm all for more companies emulating the better interfaces such as Halo 2 and DoA: Ultimate, especially since they are easy to join, easy to set up, and have a variety of interesting and worthwhile options. I'm getting fairly sick of "Choose Quickmatch and wait for us to find one random game that you may or may not want to join".

Oh well, I just hope for better UIs, for the most part. I have the tendency to Mute every single person I come across who pulls anything idiotic, so that cuts down the wonderful throng of people I'd rather not listen to or deal with fairly easily. But, seriously, considering I've been paying barely $2 a month for over the past year and a half, I can't complain too much. Thank you, CAG!

I used the free trial cards and still felt shafted. :lol:

The one time I had fun playing online was with Sweaney in Phantom Dust.

As for cheating, its not that much of an issue with 95% of the games I've played online. I've heard CS is horrible, but then again, its popular. And as we all know, everything that is popular sucks. Everyone wants to do it because its the cool thing to do and then it just becomes cheapened when every idiot has had their go. I remember CS when it first came out. It wasn't any more fun than it is now; just team deathmatch with 'real' guns. The only game I've ever seen cheaters really affect the system was Diablo 2. From what I've heard the same thing happened with Diablo 1.

While being on a pc makes it easier to cheat, it also makes it much, much easier for the cheats to be thwarted. Programs like Punkbuster check for suspicious activity and ban you globaly from any server using the service.

Lastly, I'd just like to hit on the subject of quick play. For PC games you hit quick game, 10-20 seconds and you're in the game. For XBL I always get 'checking for games' for about 40 seconds. Then I get joining game for another 20. However, it took so long that the game is already full. So now it takes another 20 seconds for the XB disconnect. Then I need to search again. I find a room, enter and then get booted by the host. Rejoin, finally start. Game takes 2 minutes to load. Start race and I find out every takes the Enzo Ferrari. The race is over before I finish my first lap. Yes, that was fun.

[quote name='Kapwanil']Well, it's one of the downsides. However, with most of my experiences with PC online play, I've met the same 12 year-olds and plenty of people who feel that hacking their game so they can get instant head-shots, 1-hit kills, immortality and teleportation abilities is the only way to play. Unfortunately, it's just more crap to slog through either way when all you want is a quick, fun game.

And, as far as interfaces are concerned, I heartily dislike the majority of Live UIs for most games. Personally, I'm all for more companies emulating the better interfaces such as Halo 2 and DoA: Ultimate, especially since they are easy to join, easy to set up, and have a variety of interesting and worthwhile options. I'm getting fairly sick of "Choose Quickmatch and wait for us to find one random game that you may or may not want to join".

Oh well, I just hope for better UIs, for the most part. I have the tendency to Mute every single person I come across who pulls anything idiotic, so that cuts down the wonderful throng of people I'd rather not listen to or deal with fairly easily. But, seriously, considering I've been paying barely $2 a month for over the past year and a half, I can't complain too much. Thank you, CAG![/QUOTE]

I don't play online that much at all. It would be great if Sony or Nintendo offered a LIVE like service for free. I'm not complaining about paying for it its just that the M$ boys would lose their crutch to lean on. While I also love the idea of online play I am totally aganist everything that comes with it. Here buy this wallpaper for $1, here buy music, here go shopping etc. etc. I have no intrest in my gaming console being anything but a gaming console. I don't need an HD-DVD player or a Blu-Ray one either....just get rid of the ing load times and I'll be happy.

[quote name='Kayden']Lastly, I'd just like to hit on the subject of quick play. For PC games you hit quick game, 10-20 seconds and you're in the game. For XBL I always get 'checking for games' for about 40 seconds. Then I get joining game for another 20. However, it took so long that the game is already full. So now it takes another 20 seconds for the XB disconnect. Then I need to search again. I find a room, enter and then get booted by the host. Rejoin, finally start. Game takes 2 minutes to load. Start race and I find out every takes the Enzo Ferrari. The race is over before I finish my first lap. Yes, that was fun.[/QUOTE]
So you've based your entire judgement of XBL on one game? Interesting. And if I based my entire judgement of PC gaming on Half Life 2 when Steam was having major problems, I'd probably think there was no such thing.

[quote name='javeryh']This would be sweet. I love Xbox Live and I think it sets the standard for all future consoles to incorporate and improve on. The global rankings and achievements alone make me want to play a game more in-depth than I maybe would ordinarily. This can only be good for us (well, excluding the fact that if all 3 next gen consoles have an integrated online component that costs $50 per year to use...$150 per year? Ouch!)

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/18/sony-targets-xbox-live-with-questionnaire/[/QUOTE]

If they knew what was good for them, they would!

That's the one clear advantage Xbox has over PS2: online play. MS has proven that people will pay a fee for quality online service. I don't think Sony can go another generation with a sub-standard online service, even if it is free.

I actually forgot that you had to pay for Xbox live.

Screw that.

If I want to play online I'll get Counterstrike for the PC and play for free.

That was just onf many simular instances. Halo 2, Phantom Dust, Forza... all took forever to join games over 4 months.

I got HL2 shortly after release and didn't have a problem. Nor the two other times I installed it. It took like 4 hours to install it off the net, but thats not bad seeing how its like a 4GB game.

And no such thing as what?

[quote name='dafoomie']So you've based your entire judgement of XBL on one game? Interesting. And if I based my entire judgement of PC gaming on Half Life 2 when Steam was having major problems, I'd probably think there was no such thing.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that anyone will be providing a free service to the caliber of Xbox Live. There's a huge difference in operating costs between Nintendo's current Wifi service for the DS and something like Xbox Live that's hosting gigabytes of downloadable content. Something like that is just way too costly to give away as a free service.

[quote name='Vegan']I don't think that anyone will be providing a free service to the caliber of Xbox Live. There's a huge difference in operating costs between Nintendo's current Wifi service for the DS and something like Xbox Live that's hosting gigabytes of downloadable content. Something like that is just way too costly to give away as a free service.[/QUOTE]


s Isn't all that downloadable content something you have to pay for?

Additionally, the internet is 99% free downloadable content and theres petabytes of info out there.

[quote name='Kayden'] That was just onf many simular instances. Halo 2, Phantom Dust, Forza... all took forever to join games over 4 months.

I got HL2 shortly after release and didn't have a problem. Nor the two other times I installed it. It took like 4 hours to install it off the net, but thats not bad seeing how its like a 4GB game.

And no such thing as what?[/QUOTE]
I've never, ever waited 40 seconds plus 20 seconds more to get into a game. You're either exaggerating or just making it up completely. Especially with Halo 2, say what you will about the game itself (and there is plenty to criticize), but matchmaking is easy and fast. I've never played Forza online so I don't know if that particular game has any online problems.

When Half Life 2 came out, there were problems with Steam. Problems like, oh, having to register your game online before you could install or play it, but registering didn't work at all when the game launched, and had major problems through Christmas. Problems that would prevent you from ever playing a game that you paid for. I'm not criticizing the PC as a platform, but please, every system has its problems. and pros and cons.

Half Life 2 might as well have been Derek Smart's Desktop Commander the first week or two it was out.

[quote name='Kayden']s Isn't all that downloadable content something you have to pay for?

Additionally, the internet is 99% free downloadable content and theres petabytes of info out there.[/QUOTE]

A lot of downloadable content is actually included in the $50 a year.

"The PC has free gaming" argument is getting kind of tired in this thread. Ask the huge majority of people that have Live if it is worth $50 a year, and the overwhelming answer will be yes. Ask them if they play online multiplayer games on their PC and the overwhelming answer will be no. There will be exceptions, but I'm positive that that is how the results would turn out. Online PC gamers are a different breed than Xbox Live users. I get that PC gamers don't understand why people would pay for Xbox Live, but I also have no desire to play online games on my PC regardless if they are free or not. It's almost an entirely different issue alltogether.

[quote name='shipwreck']A lot of downloadable content is actually included in the $50 a year.

"The PC has free gaming" argument is getting kind of tired in this thread. Ask the huge majority of people that have Live if it is worth $50 a year, and the overwhelming answer will be yes. Ask them if they play online multiplayer games on their PC and the overwhelming answer will be no. There will be exceptions, but I'm positive that that is how the results would turn out. Online PC gamers are a different breed than Xbox Live users. I get that PC gamers don't understand why people would pay for Xbox Live, but I also have no desire to play online games on my PC regardless if they are free or not. It's almost an entirely different issue alltogether.[/QUOTE]
I agree with the entire statement, though I play online with my Xbox and my PC. They're two completely different things, its apples and oranges. I've been playing games online with my PC for more than 10 years, and I won't stop now, but its the exact same argument between PC vs console, without even considering the online part. They just have different types of games for different audiences. I get my RTS fix on PC, and I get my arcadey/action and JRPG fix on consoles.

[quote name='Kayden'] Lastly, I'd just like to hit on the subject of quick play. For PC games you hit quick game, 10-20 seconds and you're in the game. For XBL I always get 'checking for games' for about 40 seconds. Then I get joining game for another 20. However, it took so long that the game is already full. So now it takes another 20 seconds for the XB disconnect.[/QUOTE]

Now, with the better UIs for Live like I mentioned earlier (Halo 2, DoA:Ultimate) I'm typically spending around 20 seconds for sign-in/setup/grouping up and around 15 to 25 seconds in finding a game and being in a game. So, overall, a good 40 seconds to start but afterwards it's pretty much around an 18 second or so average for me. With the better UIs you're into a game far faster, for the most part. It also doesn't hurt that most of those games still have a good number of random people playing at all times of the day.

Now, toss in something like Phantom Dust or Guilty Gear X2 #Reload or Outrun 2 and...well, you could be looking for a match for a good half a minute to a minute with no result. It's a shame, it really is, and I really wouldn't mind if some of the designs could toss off an estimated number as to how many people are currently playing what I'm playing, but that could be asking for a bit too much.

Honestly, it really all depends. I know that I was having a lot of issues with Halo 2 once I set up here mostly because the XBox was new, I had just tossed on everything from the Map Pack, and Live basically had no idea about my average connection or any of the specifics. As I played more the wait times and the load times decreased dramatically (at least by around half) since it could pair me better with other players.

I love Live as far as console online-play is concerned. It certainly has its faults and its issues, no doubt about it, but for what it is I'll take it any day of the week. Well, that and I toss in a game I just bought from EB, call up some friends and ask them to turn on their boxes and we're good to go. Unfortunately, various computer issues have been keeping us apart as of late and while it may be nice that most of us can be up for a bit of the ol' computer FPS joyrides some other friends are cursing out their motherboards!

Sony's already went and stated that there won't be a central server for the PS3 like XBox Live :/

..who knows.

[quote name='Scorch']Sony's already went and stated that there won't be a central server for the PS3 like XBox Live :/

..who knows.[/QUOTE]

Agreed - I was looking for this sort of comment in this thread and was astounded it's the last post.

[quote name='Kayden']Additionally, the internet is 99% free downloadable content and theres petabytes of info out there.[/QUOTE]

You pay for internet access, don't you? You pay because it costs an ISP money to serve you. The person who's hosting the content is also paying someone to dish out the content.

Looks like it is about to happen: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/31/sony-declares-full-on-assault-on-xbox-live/

Now this is going to get interesting... the PS3 was going to be the powerhouse while the 360 would be the online concole. Slowly it's being discovered that the PS3 isn't that much more powerful than the 360 so the 360 looks like it'll have an advantage on the online field.

But now, it'll be a more fair battle.

PS- those of you that want to argue that the PS3 is technically better, go ahead. Until I see those graphics with my own eyes, I won't believe it.

No real details yet, but it's certainly good to hear something is in the works.

If it is true, I'm sorry, but this fuels the DRM capability in my mind.

[quote name='Vegan']You pay for internet access, don't you? You pay because it costs an ISP money to serve you. The person who's hosting the content is also paying someone to dish out the content.[/QUOTE]

Yay, you can point out the obvious. You have to pay for the ISP with live too.
With Live you have to pay for the ISP, the live service and then the $2 map/character/etc. With PCs you pay for the ISP. Web browsers are free and faster. If you look hard enough, you can find anything for free. Additionally, user created content isn't something thats really feasible with consoles. Developement tools are much more refined for PCs. Finally, there is an open distribution model. You don't have to rely on one sorce to get what you're looking for.

[quote name='Kayden'] Yay, you can point out the obvious. You have to pay for the ISP with live too.
With Live you have to pay for the ISP, the live service and then the $2 map/character/etc. With PCs you pay for the ISP. Web browsers are free and faster. If you look hard enough, you can find anything for free. Additionally, user created content isn't something thats really feasible with consoles. Developement tools are much more refined for PCs. Finally, there is an open distribution model. You don't have to rely on one sorce to get what you're looking for.[/QUOTE]

As I stated before, this is a totally different market. Unless you want to talk about console online services, take your fancy sig specs elsewhere.

I'm glad Sony is going online. I have XLive and I love it. All we need to do now is wait and see how it turns out. I know there are some PS2 games out there I would love to play online with.

Here's one thing I don't get. People say they want it for free. That would be great if it could happen, but you need to think about cost. The man time and hardware isn't for free. Sure PC gaming has "free" but it's usually for one game(CS, Guild Wars, Unreal Tournament..etc). XLive and Sony is catering to more than one game. They are trying to make things happen that could easily be done on a computer. Sure, if I wanted to find out what my friends are playing, I could use Teamspeak or AIM. but w/Xlive I could just see who's online and take it from there. The price for online console gaming is about the cost of one VG and that's not bad compared to an MMO - $15 per month, $50 for 6 months, etc...

I use live and its great but to me its not something that would make me want that console more than the others. My PS2 gets the most time even more so than my 360. I just want good games on all genres not just great FPS and racing games. I love my 360 and live but i would be okay without Live.

Just on the whole PC vs Console gamer, here is my take. . .
I love to play console games. I've been playing console games since I was about 6 years old on the old Atari 2600. I have tried many times over the years to get into PC gaming with no luck and now that I work on a computer for over 8 hours a day I do not want to go home and sit in front of a PC gaming for 5 hours. I like to sit in my lazy boy and play on my TV. I do play PC games occasionally but not as much as console.

Now for Online . . .
This is where live is a great service. I can hop online at any time see who is playing and have a good time with my friends who I can't see as often because they are either married or working different schedules. Most of my friends are in the same boat and do not like PC gaming, not that I don't like it, but I just can not sit in front of a computer for a whole day.

As for a PS3 online service similar to live is something I'm all for. I have played some PS2 titles online and did actually have some fun playing with a few friends of mine, but we do not play that often and most of us really enjoy the ease of XBL. The 360 has taken the service to the next level and I hope they continue to update the interface. Sony and Nintendo both need to view XBL as a starting point and create from there.

I truely think that for the PS3 to hook me in it would need some kind of robust online service and some games that really use it. I'm not talking about the sports titles or your FPS but something unique.

An example I just thought of — wouldn't it be cool to play through time attack on Shadow of Colossus and be able to post your high scores online in a leader board? This particular game does not need to be online but adding this to the game could add replay value.

While i think the halo 2 multiplayer interface is good, I loved the original socoms interface in chosing rooms, or creating your own.

sony has some serious catching up to do

i'll believe it when i see it...same as their new console.