More PS2 Users online than XBox Live. :D
- Thread starter daphatty
- Start date
WhipSmartBanky
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
Can't blame me for this one. [-X[quote name='bmulligan']well, don't you think you'll get more takers if you are offering something for free instead of $50 ? I'll bet that most of the x-box live subscribers have more hours logged than PS2 owners. I know I'd play more online if I had to pay for it.[/quote]
Some games on PS2 require a monthly subscription. Everquest and (soon) FF online. Sony doesn't make any money from the online part except for the hardware sales which is better for the developers and consumers IMO.
Some games on PS2 require a monthly subscription. Everquest and (soon) FF online. Sony doesn't make any money from the online part except for the hardware sales which is better for the developers and consumers IMO.
jdpimp
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan']well, don't you think you'll get more takers if you are offering something for free instead of $50 ? I'll bet that most of the x-box live subscribers have more hours logged than PS2 owners. I know I'd play more online if I had to pay for it.[/quote]
I have both, and I play my PS2 online probably about 5x more than I hit up my Xbox live. But who knows, maybe I'm in the minority, but I just thought I'd let ya know that we're out there...... and we're listening......
I have both, and I play my PS2 online probably about 5x more than I hit up my Xbox live. But who knows, maybe I'm in the minority, but I just thought I'd let ya know that we're out there...... and we're listening......
master_evil
CAGiversary!
Wow, that is surprising. I have both and I play more my PS2 online. I still think Live has the better set up, but can't beat the free service from Sony ( after purchase of the network adapter ).
Atreadon
CAGiversary!
Microsoft really oughta drop the price of the Xbox Live starter kit to $39.99, where the price of the PS2 Network Adapter currently is. After all, for those of us with a choice, it's either 40 bucks and then free play forever (PS2), or $60-$70 and play for a year (Xbox). Hmm.....
there are 3 reasons for this.
1. Madden Football.
2. Madden Football.
3. Madden Football.
I am friends with a bunch of people who wouldn't have bought a console if it weren't for this game. I wouldn't even call htem casual gamers, because they only games they even own are Madden and GTA.
That's why the numbers are so high. Not because of hardcore or even serious gamers, but for the guy who has a dorm room or dsl connection (or even dial-up) and for $250 can play football all they want.
I have both xbox live and the ps2 adapter, and I play Live a lot more, but for people who get a console on a whim and may not really want to make any sort of commitment, the ps2 online is the way to go.
1. Madden Football.
2. Madden Football.
3. Madden Football.
I am friends with a bunch of people who wouldn't have bought a console if it weren't for this game. I wouldn't even call htem casual gamers, because they only games they even own are Madden and GTA.
That's why the numbers are so high. Not because of hardcore or even serious gamers, but for the guy who has a dorm room or dsl connection (or even dial-up) and for $250 can play football all they want.
I have both xbox live and the ps2 adapter, and I play Live a lot more, but for people who get a console on a whim and may not really want to make any sort of commitment, the ps2 online is the way to go.
what xbl offers is simple. broadband battlefield. plain & simple. I have Ps2 & XB. love both. but xbl with voice, universal gamertag, and ONLY broadband gaming is more than worth the $. if i were sony, I'd be worried.
why?
considering how many people have a PS2 console compared w/ their online userbase is nothing to brag about.
MS can pat themselves on the back due to the fact that 750,000+ XBL members are PAYING members. when it comes down to the bottom line, that is an impressive number considering XBs console numbers.
and XBL is only $35-$50 yr to renew. for your $70 you get full version of MechAssault +headset +DLC and 1 year of service. great deal. if you're a CAG you can find older bundles and even this v3 bundle much cheaper. i.e Sam's Club has v3 for $50, and online sites always have clearance sales on older versions w/ expired acct (they still work)
PS2 online may be free but: $30-$40 for headset, $40 for adapter, no DownLoad Content unless your memcard ($20) can hold it or you've bought a $100 aftermarket Hard Drive is proof that Sony's online strategy needs to play catchup to MS. You add those prices together and it's the cost of another console.
I wouldn't be suprised if MS gives away 1 free year of XBL (completely free or buy 1 get 1 free) just to screw with Sony when XB2(2005) or PS3(2006) launches.
doesn't matter if you're a fanboy of either or both it sounds like simple everyday PR(-opaganda). and if MS and EA can finally iron out their differences, then Sony needs to work much harder.
I run a few companies and I would rather have 750,000 paying customers versus 1.5 million non-paying customers.
.
why?
considering how many people have a PS2 console compared w/ their online userbase is nothing to brag about.
MS can pat themselves on the back due to the fact that 750,000+ XBL members are PAYING members. when it comes down to the bottom line, that is an impressive number considering XBs console numbers.
and XBL is only $35-$50 yr to renew. for your $70 you get full version of MechAssault +headset +DLC and 1 year of service. great deal. if you're a CAG you can find older bundles and even this v3 bundle much cheaper. i.e Sam's Club has v3 for $50, and online sites always have clearance sales on older versions w/ expired acct (they still work)
PS2 online may be free but: $30-$40 for headset, $40 for adapter, no DownLoad Content unless your memcard ($20) can hold it or you've bought a $100 aftermarket Hard Drive is proof that Sony's online strategy needs to play catchup to MS. You add those prices together and it's the cost of another console.
I wouldn't be suprised if MS gives away 1 free year of XBL (completely free or buy 1 get 1 free) just to screw with Sony when XB2(2005) or PS3(2006) launches.
doesn't matter if you're a fanboy of either or both it sounds like simple everyday PR(-opaganda). and if MS and EA can finally iron out their differences, then Sony needs to work much harder.
I run a few companies and I would rather have 750,000 paying customers versus 1.5 million non-paying customers.
.
Hate to burst your bubble Mr. Rhee but Sony has nothing to worry about. Why? Because they don't charge third parties for online games. All they do is provide the hardware and let the third parties do the rest. Why do you think companies like EA are so successful on the PS2? Because they can do whatever they want and don't have to give up a piece of the profits. MS did a good thing providing a foundation but charging for it goes against the grain.
[quote name='jetblac']Xbox Live is wack simply because you have to pay yearly for it. add that on top of a high speed connection and that xbox is costing around $500 a year!!!! Bill Gates you greedy bastard.[/quote]
Another word for high speed connection is NO
ING LAG.
And do you think running a huge gaming network is cheap? You idiot.
Another word for high speed connection is NO
ING LAG.And do you think running a huge gaming network is cheap? You idiot.
Does anybody know if the 500,000 - 750,000 XBL users are actual paying subscribers or just people still using up their free subscription? Also to compare Sony's online user base to their world wide user base isn't a completely accurate way of looking at it. You can't just assume that everyone who owns a PS2 wants to be online or has the ability to be online. Online gaming is still a limited market and only appeals to certain gamers. Personally I could care less about online play because those games don't appeal to me. And I'm pretty sure alot of people would agree with me in saying that they would have bought their PS2 or XBox even if it didn't have online play.
[quote name='jetblac']Xbox Live is wack simply because you have to pay yearly for it. add that on top of a high speed connection and that xbox is costing around $500 a year!!!! Bill Gates you greedy bastard.[/quote]
...
Wow. That's just about the dumbest thing I've read all day. You think the broadband connection for the PS2 is free? Live is a $50/year expense, and I pay that gladly for the ability to mute irritating s**ts, keep a consistent user identity, maintain the friends list, and insure that the games aren't ruined by cheating. I'll also take the free downloadable content, and all the perks that come with the Live service. For $50, it's a very well spent $50. I get to voice chat with friends all over the country, play with people I'd never have met otherwise, and do all that through a consistent, fully supported interface.
The PS2's online system, on the other hand, is a complete mess. Some games support voice, some don't. Some games have to be stripped down for narrowband support. You don't know whether people you're playing with have a keyboard, voice chat, or nothing at all.
The fact that PS2's online plans have only 1.5 million, given their user base is FIFTY TIMES that of MS's shouldn't be seen as victory - it should be seen as a monumental failure on the part of Sony.
And in terms of "don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger," the smiley at the end of that sentence throws that statement right out the window.
seppo
...
Wow. That's just about the dumbest thing I've read all day. You think the broadband connection for the PS2 is free? Live is a $50/year expense, and I pay that gladly for the ability to mute irritating s**ts, keep a consistent user identity, maintain the friends list, and insure that the games aren't ruined by cheating. I'll also take the free downloadable content, and all the perks that come with the Live service. For $50, it's a very well spent $50. I get to voice chat with friends all over the country, play with people I'd never have met otherwise, and do all that through a consistent, fully supported interface.
The PS2's online system, on the other hand, is a complete mess. Some games support voice, some don't. Some games have to be stripped down for narrowband support. You don't know whether people you're playing with have a keyboard, voice chat, or nothing at all.
The fact that PS2's online plans have only 1.5 million, given their user base is FIFTY TIMES that of MS's shouldn't be seen as victory - it should be seen as a monumental failure on the part of Sony.
And in terms of "don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger," the smiley at the end of that sentence throws that statement right out the window.
seppo
Someone pointed it out before, too, but Sony's just listing the number of people who have *ever* logged in on *any* game with the PS2. So someone who bought a new PS2, with the NA, counts as one, even if they've only ever logged on once.
When I got SSX3 (for the PS2), I checked online to see whether it would be worth playing. There were 53 people online in the ENTIRE WORLD, according to EA's website. Fifty three.
No Live game would have numbers like that, within a week of launch. Hell, pick up ANY Live game, and you'll find a couple hundred, if not a couple thousand people online at any time. A brand new game will probably have 20,000 unique users in the first week, and that ramps up considerably over the next few weeks. And these are people who bought the game, who are paying for the online service, who are committed to playing online. Not someone who incidentally has an NA and a game with online capability, that has no desire to play.
The thing that baffles me the MOST, though, is what the deal is with daphatty's attitude of "PS2 gotz more online users! w00t! Suck it, MS!!!!!!one!!1"
Why even bother with such trivial nonsense? Who freaking even CARES anymore?
*sigh*
seppo
When I got SSX3 (for the PS2), I checked online to see whether it would be worth playing. There were 53 people online in the ENTIRE WORLD, according to EA's website. Fifty three.
No Live game would have numbers like that, within a week of launch. Hell, pick up ANY Live game, and you'll find a couple hundred, if not a couple thousand people online at any time. A brand new game will probably have 20,000 unique users in the first week, and that ramps up considerably over the next few weeks. And these are people who bought the game, who are paying for the online service, who are committed to playing online. Not someone who incidentally has an NA and a game with online capability, that has no desire to play.
The thing that baffles me the MOST, though, is what the deal is with daphatty's attitude of "PS2 gotz more online users! w00t! Suck it, MS!!!!!!one!!1"
Why even bother with such trivial nonsense? Who freaking even CARES anymore?
*sigh*
seppo
zzl365
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Ecks']I never cared for the whole Xbox Live thing because it charges for something that should be free. Paying just to be able to play online isn't something people should be supporting and embracing!
"Yes Microsoft, take more of my money!" Sigh.[/quote]
Bandwidth isn't free....ask anyone who runs a website, you can still play peer to peer games using a tunneling client and games that support system link, but you aren't using MS's infrastructure then, so it's not costing them anything. Yes, others have run online gaming services for free, but I have had almost 0 problems with XBL (not to mention the complete lack of lag)...the same can't usually be said for the other free online gaming services.
[quote name='jetblac']Xbox Live is wack simply because you have to pay yearly for it. add that on top of a high speed connection and that xbox is costing around $500 a year!!!! Bill Gates you greedy bastard[/quote]
[sarcasm]Yes, my xbox is costing me $500 a year, that broadband internet connection would just be sitting around doing nothing if it weren't for my XBox.[/sarcasm] It's not a matter of needing a broadband connection for my XBox, I didn't get it solely for that, but it's nice that my XBox can utilize it and let me play in a lag-free setting.
"Yes Microsoft, take more of my money!" Sigh.[/quote]
Bandwidth isn't free....ask anyone who runs a website, you can still play peer to peer games using a tunneling client and games that support system link, but you aren't using MS's infrastructure then, so it's not costing them anything. Yes, others have run online gaming services for free, but I have had almost 0 problems with XBL (not to mention the complete lack of lag)...the same can't usually be said for the other free online gaming services.
[quote name='jetblac']Xbox Live is wack simply because you have to pay yearly for it. add that on top of a high speed connection and that xbox is costing around $500 a year!!!! Bill Gates you greedy bastard[/quote]
[sarcasm]Yes, my xbox is costing me $500 a year, that broadband internet connection would just be sitting around doing nothing if it weren't for my XBox.[/sarcasm] It's not a matter of needing a broadband connection for my XBox, I didn't get it solely for that, but it's nice that my XBox can utilize it and let me play in a lag-free setting.
don't you think EA and others will start charging soon? I'd rather pay one price for a whole range of available online games. MS has proven the concept, now others will follow. time will tell. keep in mind you get what you pay for and sooner or later if you're getting your online gaming for free, it won't last. either the support or servers will die. nothing is free, especially bandwidth. w XBL only charging what amounts to $5 a month, it's a steal considering how high the costs: server/bandwidth/content/support. if anyone out there has hosted their own high-traffic site knows, it isn't cheap and it isn't free. my server costs are several thousand dollars a month. but it's the cost of doing business. so I'm happy and shocked that XBL is only $5. I'll do my part to make sure such a great service stays around. and if sony starts charging $5, I'll gladly pay if they offer similar options/services.
re: "going against the grain"
try convincing MSXBOX that 750,000+ people was a failure. this number doesn't even include people who signed up for the free 2-month promo offer. and if Halo2 ever comes out that number will go much higher. over 3,000,000 Halo #1 copies have been sold and I believe many will convert to XBL when #2 ships. Hopefully it will ship before MechAssault2 which also looks amazing.
http://microsoft.gamerfeed.com/gf/pr/5378/
but most of my time will be going to Steel Battalion: LOC for XBL. good grief. if anyone here owns SB, check out the japanese cockpits:
http://www.proto-type.jp/
(make sure to click on MODELS)
re: "going against the grain"
try convincing MSXBOX that 750,000+ people was a failure. this number doesn't even include people who signed up for the free 2-month promo offer. and if Halo2 ever comes out that number will go much higher. over 3,000,000 Halo #1 copies have been sold and I believe many will convert to XBL when #2 ships. Hopefully it will ship before MechAssault2 which also looks amazing.
http://microsoft.gamerfeed.com/gf/pr/5378/
but most of my time will be going to Steel Battalion: LOC for XBL. good grief. if anyone here owns SB, check out the japanese cockpits:
http://www.proto-type.jp/
(make sure to click on MODELS)
wookieballz
CAGiversary!
*Sigh*
I really should just ignore fanboys altogether, but I just had to clear some things up:
Whoever mentioned the ratio of online users to the installed base figures of each console made an excellent point; there is a greater ratio of Xbox users going online with their system than there is PS2 users going online with a PS2.
Secondly, the current Live base is 750,000 subscribers, not 500,000.
And what does it matter either way? The reason why I haven't taken my PS2 online is because there's nothing compelling to play other than SOCOM II (which isn't terribly interesting to me). The Xbox, on the other hand, has more great Live games than I know what to do with. Why should it matter which console has more online activity?
If you feel the slightest bit proud that your console of choice is beating out another in a certain aspect, just go find a new hobby...since you clearly don't care about what matters most: the games!
I really should just ignore fanboys altogether, but I just had to clear some things up:
Whoever mentioned the ratio of online users to the installed base figures of each console made an excellent point; there is a greater ratio of Xbox users going online with their system than there is PS2 users going online with a PS2.
Secondly, the current Live base is 750,000 subscribers, not 500,000.
And what does it matter either way? The reason why I haven't taken my PS2 online is because there's nothing compelling to play other than SOCOM II (which isn't terribly interesting to me). The Xbox, on the other hand, has more great Live games than I know what to do with. Why should it matter which console has more online activity?
If you feel the slightest bit proud that your console of choice is beating out another in a certain aspect, just go find a new hobby...since you clearly don't care about what matters most: the games!
we all should be grateful that we can even have this discussion. I for one am excited about being able to even play console games online. I'm just wondering what's taking Nintendo so long.
and to make all the xbl vs ps2ol fanboys happy:
www.starwarsbattlefront.com/
"Star Wars Battlefront will be optimized for PS2 online, Xbox Live and PC online. Console gamers will be able to battle against 16 players over the Internet or 32 players connected via LAN. PC gamers will be able to battle against 32 players over the Internet or 64 via a LAN. The game will also support voice chat through compatible headsets for the PS2 and Xbox console systems as well as PC."
XB owners may be able to use XBconnect or other tunneling software for 32. I'm just glad to see developers offering great games across many platforms.
and if anyone's interested in free XBOX online gaming, MS doesn't stop you from using system-link enabled games outside their XBL network. real generous and thoughtful of them, so thee's truly no need for bitching. the 750,000+ number doesn't include people using this technique:
www.xbconnect.com
all these XBOX games can be played free outside of XBL:
Amped 2
Brute Force
Corvette
Counter-Strike
Crimson Skies
Deathrow
Halo
Inside Pitch 2003
Links 2004
MechAssault
Midnight Club 2
Midtown Madness 3
Moto GP
Moto GP 2
Nascar Heat 2002
NBA Inside Drive 2004
NFL Fever 2003
NFL Fever 2004
NHL 2K3
NHL Rivals 2004
Project Gotham Racing 2
Return to Castle Wolf
Sega GT Online
Serious Sam
Soldier of Fortune II
Jedi Academy
Star Wars: The Clone Wars
TimeSplitters 2
Ghost Recon
Ghost Recon: Island Thunder
Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2x
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4
Tony Hawk's Underground
Top Spin
Unreal Championship
Whacked!
XIII
so is that enough for everyone?
and to make all the xbl vs ps2ol fanboys happy:
www.starwarsbattlefront.com/
"Star Wars Battlefront will be optimized for PS2 online, Xbox Live and PC online. Console gamers will be able to battle against 16 players over the Internet or 32 players connected via LAN. PC gamers will be able to battle against 32 players over the Internet or 64 via a LAN. The game will also support voice chat through compatible headsets for the PS2 and Xbox console systems as well as PC."
XB owners may be able to use XBconnect or other tunneling software for 32. I'm just glad to see developers offering great games across many platforms.
and if anyone's interested in free XBOX online gaming, MS doesn't stop you from using system-link enabled games outside their XBL network. real generous and thoughtful of them, so thee's truly no need for bitching. the 750,000+ number doesn't include people using this technique:
www.xbconnect.com
all these XBOX games can be played free outside of XBL:
Amped 2
Brute Force
Corvette
Counter-Strike
Crimson Skies
Deathrow
Halo
Inside Pitch 2003
Links 2004
MechAssault
Midnight Club 2
Midtown Madness 3
Moto GP
Moto GP 2
Nascar Heat 2002
NBA Inside Drive 2004
NFL Fever 2003
NFL Fever 2004
NHL 2K3
NHL Rivals 2004
Project Gotham Racing 2
Return to Castle Wolf
Sega GT Online
Serious Sam
Soldier of Fortune II
Jedi Academy
Star Wars: The Clone Wars
TimeSplitters 2
Ghost Recon
Ghost Recon: Island Thunder
Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2x
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4
Tony Hawk's Underground
Top Spin
Unreal Championship
Whacked!
XIII
so is that enough for everyone?
I have to admit, if I had broadband, $1 a week is a small price to pay for online game service. Irregardless of current subscribers or installed user base, what matters is the service concept. All these companies know that the monthly service fees will be the standard in the next generation of consoles. You can only sell a piece of hardware once (unless you make them to break them like a PS2). But the montly fee is the gravy train. Look at Comcast, they have 20 million subscribers paying $40 a month. That's 800 million dollars revenue a month. They have constant guaranteed cash flow.
You think PS3 online service will be free too? Guess again. You think Xbox2 live service will only be $50/year? HA!
You think PS3 online service will be free too? Guess again. You think Xbox2 live service will only be $50/year? HA!
[quote name='bmulligan']You think PS3 online service will be free too? Guess again.[/quote]
Yes I do think PS3's online service will be free. Sony is a hardware company first. I know this because I used to work there and (for some reason) they are stuck in that mentality. Yes, they have game development groups but for the most part they are autonamous. Individual developers (a la SOE and Square) may charge on a game by game basis. But Sony lacks the desire (and last I heard expertise) to run a service like XBL.
[quote name='bmulligan']You think Xbox2 live service will only be $50/year? HA![/quote]
I feel sorry for Xbox fans if they raise the price.
Yes I do think PS3's online service will be free. Sony is a hardware company first. I know this because I used to work there and (for some reason) they are stuck in that mentality. Yes, they have game development groups but for the most part they are autonamous. Individual developers (a la SOE and Square) may charge on a game by game basis. But Sony lacks the desire (and last I heard expertise) to run a service like XBL.
[quote name='bmulligan']You think Xbox2 live service will only be $50/year? HA![/quote]
I feel sorry for Xbox fans if they raise the price.
Theenternal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 9 (100%)
I believe xbox live exp is greater than ps2's. However whenever im not online I play my ps2 more than any of my systems.
suprsaiyanMAX
CAGiversary!
I may be conisdered stupid for not knowing this but doesn't Sony run like one of the largest online networks for PC games or something like that. Could be wrong though seeing as how I never get to play games online with my outdated PC.
[quote name='Mr. Rhee']wookieballz, if you're looking for good PS2 games, try checking out TRIBES again.
tribesaa.com
16 vs. 16 now instead of originally 16 total. no need to buy a new version of game. and if you don't have it, it's $15 everywhere.[/quote]
Yes!
Check out my thread here:
http://cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7533
tribesaa.com
16 vs. 16 now instead of originally 16 total. no need to buy a new version of game. and if you don't have it, it's $15 everywhere.[/quote]
Yes!
Check out my thread here:
http://cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7533
bread's done