[quote name='hone']I'd have to join the band wagon on sony dropping the ball. Seriously, build some better tools!!! Hire smarter CS people! Interface Design! UI ENGINEERS! jeez :| Also, scalability albeit isn't a flick of a switch, but they've had 2 years to build out a network by now. Even the VoIP stuff for BFBC is sony side. Game playing wise online, I've had NO other problems for BFBC besides VoIP and DICE is known to make some buggy ass games (look at BF on the PC). Consult/contract out to people who can do it.[/QUOTE]If anything, they just can't afford it right now (which is one reason they aren't dropping the PS3 price).
[quote name='js1']They could have followed halo 1, resistance, and just had two people play as the same person and just show hale by himself in the cut scenes. I don't see the big deal in that.
Either way, I'll still check this out at some point. Just not right now.[/QUOTE]No no no that's not what they want. When you play certain co-op games, there are two more characters who fit the story. That's what they were going for. I know for sure playing a co-op RPG with a character popping in and out wouldn't feel right (if they had nothing to do with the story).
But anyway, we'll be playing the game for a while anyway, so you'll get the chance to play with us (I still got a long way to go).
[quote name='js1']Amen to that! I don't know if I could bring myself to pay for online play either. That shit(interview) with Seth Luisi was the final straw for me and Socom. I traded it in today at GS, I did the trade 5 get the extra 30% got 22.75 after the deal + edge. Picked COD:WaW with the credit.[/QUOTE]The truth is, Seth Luisi doesn't have all the control over server issues, it's up to SCEA. I read somewhere from Dylan Jobe (the Warhawk creator) that it's up to SCEA because they have the control. There are only certain things the devs can do, but the majority is under SCEA's control. If you want to put the blame on anyway, put it on one of their network guys. And from what I heard, most SOCOM issues are fixed anyway (from people who played them, only around release it was painfully bad), so you are only missing out anyway.
You could never join a game in progress in CoD4 (from your friends list) unless it was private, and I don't see you complaining about it.
Although if you are upset with what Seth said, I seriously don't find it as bad as what Activision said (making me never want to buy another Activision game brand new
again).
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Yes, you are right. It takes forever for some things to update. But I broke these thresholds the other day, so I just think they are potentially glitched.
[/QUOTE]I was playing a few DM and it didn't register, so I'll see if it updates later. I did really well winning the match too (which rarely happens in FPS).
[quote name='smiggity']I refuse to pay for online play. If it gets to that point I will have to switch to PC gaming. Mana just admit it, from Socom up until now Sony has dropped the ball. Especially Socom. I mean has any game EVER been launched missing half the features in the manual? Doubtful. I just watched Qore ep 1 (Socom episode) again the other day and the shit that Seth Luisi was spewing was ridiculous. Pure lies. He is a straight up snake. Now he is saying that joining friends games was never promised, and is "difficult to implement" which is why "few games have this functionality". Typical Sony employee garbage bullshit. Not to even mention the fact that LBP is nearly impossible to play online, and it appears R2 is having problems as well.
Seriously, I dont know how you consistently defend them when they continually
everything up. There are NO excuses.[/QUOTE]If SCEA delayed these games (I'll admit right away that SOCOM was NOT ready for release. SCEA wanted certain features, didn't want to delay the game when it needed it. The team was suppose to get Confrontation done last year, but was busy with Combined Assault on PSP and could not work on two games at once), you all would have backlashed Sony for not keeping their promises delaying games to fix issues, then people would complain PS3 has no good games. That's why Sony had to release them as is, even if they have some network issues. If you are pissed at Sony, go sell the PS3. LBP has gotten better actually (I've been playing online lately, where the only issue seems to be is if someone late joins, but once they go to your pod it all works out).
Also, I do not believe Slant Six is owned by Sony; therefore, Seth isn't technically Sony property like Evan Wells (who works at Naughty Dog, which Sony owns).
Like I said before, there is a serious problem going on in the network that will not be solved overnight. It could be a firmware issue, could be just needing more servers, or an actual glitch in the network. I even know some people involved with PSN and heard how it is.
[quote name='Vanigan']
Overall, I think this is a combination of Sony's unfamiliarity with doing, well, everything related to networks and OS development. Meanwhile, MS has all sorts of resources for creating, maintaining, and developing networks and the OS to access it. Whereas MS is likely piggbacking XBL on one of its many server farms, Sony had to outsource even things like basic download hosting.[/QUOTE]Pretty much what I'm trying to say. Has Sony ever had this many major online games running at once before? Just look at firmware and how many issues they had getting features implemented due to the OS needing a lot of memory initially (along with fixing some features, then breaking some). That's pretty much where the problem lies (and most all the major PS3 games last year had no online). There's no doubt I see the network improving over time (as Sony works with it, kind of like how the PS3 firmware has gotten much better over time).
