|
Sony mulling PSN monthly fees?
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 15 December, 2009
According to Sony Computer Entertainment executive VP and CTO Masayuki Chatani, the company is mulling monthly subscription fees for the PlayStation Network.
"We would face difficulties if our business depended solely on the sell-and-forget model. After we sell the hardware, though, we continue to sell products such as content and services," said Chatani, via GI.biz."We can also accept ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
16. December 2009 @ 14:18 |
Link to this message
|
PSN uses the same P2P model Xbox 360 does, No difference. its up to game devs if they even want dedicated servers. some games even have both P2P and dedicated servers.
PSN isnt great, but its not bad.
Live is highway robbery and they get away with it every day. they have ADs for gold members, they make money everyday you power up your console and sign in online. its P2P model your paying them to use your connection. i would understand a donation based model but as it stands they are robbing you people that think "oh hey 50 bucks for a year ain't bad"
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
9 product reviews
|
16. December 2009 @ 14:28 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Amak:
Free? Yes. Good? Highly debatable. Honestly, free online is the only thing Sony has going for the PS3 right now. Yes, it has some good games (I want Valkyria Chronicles...) but the 360 honestly has better.
Justify your comment please. I disagree completely.
|
|
warriorp
Junior Member
|
16. December 2009 @ 16:17 |
Link to this message
|
bottom line...i aint paying for shit. i spend enough in the psn store. and to the 360 fan boys....the ps3 interface is a million times better. fhuck a 360 and their red lights
|
Senior Member
|
16. December 2009 @ 16:26 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Especially after the last 2 holiday seasons where LIVE! was crippled/unavailable for DAYS lasting up to almost 2 weeks in places
probably cause there is more live users than ps3s sold
|
|
scorch2
Newbie
|
16. December 2009 @ 17:33 |
Link to this message
|
Se7ven (Newbie) 16 December 2009 8:34
Quote:
i dont see how grown folks can really make a big stink over 50.00 a year what can you really get for 50.00 a year i spend more than that on coffee in a month.the point is if you can afford to buy a ps3 or a 360 than another 50.00 wont break the bank
For some people this 50.00 could be food! Just because they have xbox or a ps3, Like me that I can afford on line play. Yes, I have an xbox360 and not online play. I also have ps3 and wii. I already pay for internet why should I pay to use it again!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. December 2009 @ 17:38
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. December 2009 @ 17:45 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Se7ven (Newbie) 16 December 2009 8:34
Quote:
i dont see how grown folks can really make a big stink over 50.00 a year what can you really get for 50.00 a year i spend more than that on coffee in a month.the point is if you can afford to buy a ps3 or a 360 than another 50.00 wont break the bank
For some people this 50.00 could be food! Just because they have xbox or a ps3, Like me that I can afford on line play. Yes, I have an xbox360 and not online play. I also have ps3 and wii. I already pay for internet why should I pay to use it again!
Not all of of us are getting free net from our parents.....
|
Junior Member
1 product review
|
16. December 2009 @ 20:57 |
Link to this message
|
Zippy i read comments here more than i post because i dont like to get into ps3 360 mud slinging.if your comment was for me i must say i dont get free anything from anybody at 36 i'm pretty much pass that point in my life living off mommy and daddy. as i have four children of my own to provide free net for.so when i say 50.00 a year is pennies it is for me i have gainful income but that is just how i feel about it.just sit back and think about how many times you pissed away more than 50bucks on shit you cant even remember it will make you wanna go pour a drink.
|
Member
|
16. December 2009 @ 22:54 |
Link to this message
|
It's not the amount of money. I think it's more about the point of paying to use your own connection. MW2 for example, you pay x amount a month just to play online with your xbox while PC users and PS3 users pay nothing. What are you actually paying for? your not using microsofts bandwidth, your using your own and whoever is hosting the game.
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
16. December 2009 @ 22:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by 98sohc:
probably cause there is more live users than ps3s sold
Source confirmation please. And if you didn't know PC gamers have to sign up to Xbox LIVE! to play "Games For Windows Live" Online as well, which would pad their numbers. Not to mention how many repurchases have occurred from the bannings (of which are dead accounts but are *probably* still counted though MS would NEVER do that...right?). And last I read (earlier this year so I am sure it is off now but it throws up some questions) it was more like this ~
Live: 14 million users in seven years
PSN : 16 million users in two years
But I believe that was for PS3 + PSP for PSN. But that is still a "PlayStation" user/gamer. But that's just playing semantics now :) since MS does it as well with PC LIVE!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. December 2009 @ 23:01
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. December 2009 @ 23:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 98sohc:
probably cause there is more live users than ps3s sold
Source confirmation please. And if you didn't know PC gamers have to sign up to Xbox LIVE! to play "Games For Windows Live" Online as well, which would pad their numbers. Not to mention how many repurchases have occurred from the bannings (of which are dead accounts but are *probably* still counted though MS would NEVER do that...right?). And last I read (earlier this year so I am sure it is off now but it throws up some questions) it was more like this ~
Live: 14 million users in seven years
PSN : 16 million users in two years
But I believe that was for PS3 + PSP for PSN. But that is still a "PlayStation" user/gamer. But that's just playing semantics now :) since MS does it as well with PC LIVE!
Yay but a portion of live pay 50$ a year and that adds up to millions which should hep patch the profit leaks...still...nintendo is kicking both MS and sonys asses in that regard....
That aside both seem to gain a solid amount of ..er...numbers over time it dose help the 360 is old(and looks it :P)and the PS3 is becoming cheaper and worth getting.
|
|
Gnawnivek
Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 11:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Se7ven:
i dont see how grown folks can really make a big stink over 50.00 a year what can you really get for 50.00 a year i spend more than that on coffee in a month.the point is if you can afford to buy a ps3 or a 360 than another 50.00 wont break the bank because it look like both of them will cost you a few bucks sooner or later.PSN will be a pay service it just make sense with the money it will be a better service. bottom line if you like a service any service cell,satellite radio,cable you will pay for it.
Okay then, would you pay me $1 a month then? I'll send you an ass kissing e-mail every month, just to tell you how wonderful you're :)
Kidding aside, most of us (ahem, adults) have bills to pay, $50 a year is still money, which can be used to pay something else.
Now, say you want to get a gaming console for your cousins or nephews, are you going to pay $50 a year for them too? Well, if you leave them w/o the Gold membership, you're just being mean to get them a Xbox in the first place. If you're leaving that option to their parents (who don't game), what do you think?
I too agree that over time, Xbox will drop the fee. PSN is great, don't have to pay and game on-line.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. December 2009 @ 11:25
|
|
ToadWiz
Junior Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 17:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by 98sohc:
you guys are seriously sad!, i own a xbox 360 and trust me i am no fan boy, but i pay 50.00 for 13 months of xbox live service, which equals to about $3.85/month roughly, very small amount for so much in return, i am sure they will use the money even if they do start charging to make the servers way better, people probably spend more than that on toothpaste!!! really no need to bitch, i have play cod mf2 online on both consoles, and live is way smoother than psn.
What is SERIOUSLY sad is people like YOU. Just because you are willing to be a cash cow for Micro$loth, doesn't mean the rest of us should be willing to as well. Do you even understand the concept that people like different things, are willing to pay for different things, and choose to complain about things they don't like? Are you completely clueless or just a corporate shill trying to build support for the subscription model that Sony, M$ and others seem to want?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. December 2009 @ 17:42
|
|
ToadWiz
Junior Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 17:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Se7ven:
i dont see how grown folks can really make a big stink over 50.00 a year what can you really get for 50.00 a year i spend more than that on coffee in a month.the point is if you can afford to buy a ps3 or a 360 than another 50.00 wont break the bank because it look like both of them will cost you a few bucks sooner or later.PSN will be a pay service it just make sense with the money it will be a better service. bottom line if you like a service any service cell,satellite radio,cable you will pay for it.
I don't see how a theoretically grown person can be so self absorbed as to think that what (s)he is willing to put up with, the rest of us should also be willing to put up with. Do you live in a room of mirrors where you can admire yourself all the time or are you just a corporate shill trying to help make the subscription model acceptable to the rest of us?
Let me make a suggestion. If you truly feel as you do (and aren't a corporate shill) why couldn't you post, "I think I'm getting a good value for my $50. Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo/whomever needs the money to keep making quality games for us. If you want to support that, pay your money, but if you don't, I certainly understand."
I know people who, like you, spend $50+ on coffee per month. I don't happen to like coffee, so I don't spend my money on that. That doesn't make either of us more or less right than the other, and a GROWN person should be able to recognize that.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. December 2009 @ 17:46
|
Junior Member
1 product review
|
17. December 2009 @ 18:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
bottom line is this,some of us can piss away 50.00 a year and some cant i understand if money is tight and you cant swing it but some got a few bucks to piss away.if you dont like the pay model then by all means dont buy in to it,but for now live is 50.00 a year not much else to say.
todd logan
|
|
ToadWiz
Junior Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 18:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Se7ven:
bottom line is this,some of us can piss away 50.00 a year and some cant i understand if money is tight and you cant swing it but some got a few bucks to piss away.if you dont like the pay model then by all means dont buy in to it,but for now live is 50.00 a year not much else to say.
No, there's plenty to say. Live charges $50, as you say. Others are considering charging. It's possible (likely) that they pay some attention to what is being said about those plans. They see Live making money and want some, but they also want to maintain marketshare. So they carefully gauge the support level, can they charge $50 or could they charge $100, or perhaps they could make it on $20, or stay free.
I can easily afford $50, which doesn't make me special or those who can't wrong. I don't choose to pay $50, for the same reason I don't buy coffee - even if I can afford it, it's just not worth that to me. I'll search out free opportunities. If necessary, I'll look for those supported by open software, linux, or other non-corporate opportunities. People won't know these things exist if others don't tell them. Meanwhile the corps need to know the extent we will go to avoid paying whatever they demand.
BOTTOM LINE is that people are different. Only complete idiots conplain that there is something wrong with others who don't agree with them or aren't willing to pay what the idiot is willing to pay.
There's no justice; there's just us.
|
Junior Member
1 product review
|
17. December 2009 @ 20:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
OK you attacked my post if you dont like or want to pay for the live service then dont nowhere did i say there is something wrong with thoses who want to game online for free it is my choice to pay for live,it is you making a big stink over what 50.00 freaking dollars a year come on man give us a damn break.
todd logan
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. December 2009 @ 20:54 |
Link to this message
|
I've got an extra $50/year to spend. But I would never spend it on a subscription to play online, on principle alone. I wouldn't pay that to a company who's money making gimmicks are 100% transparent. From their "points" system of currency to the ridiculous price of the peripherals - peripherals that should be included up front. Why give $50/year to a Company that openly screws you (random portable memory device banning)? To a Company who had to replace all of my friends consoles 3 times each (one of them gave up completely and went to Sony).
I've spent about $1,500 in the last 2 years gaming on my PS3, so $50/year more isn't much to me. But I would give up online play completely if Sony ever did make it a pay service. With all the money I'm pumping into their machine, I would see it as complete disrespect to take away something that they've given me for free since the beginning. With free online play, I don't think twice about purchasing dlc, or even cheesy $10 games once in a while. And I can't complain at all about the online quality. Never had any issues.
Thankfully, after more consideration, I do agree with those who feel that it will be just for a premium service, and nothing will be taken away from their customers.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. December 2009 @ 20:55
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
17. December 2009 @ 21:09 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Sony has repeatedly denied that it will turn the PSN into an Xbox Live-style subscription model but has hinted at upcoming "premium" services.
This is the major reason why i choose Sony over Microsoft that the PlayStation Network is free.
The moment it becomes money orientated is when they will start loosing.
|
|
ToadWiz
Junior Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 22:35 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Se7ven:
OK you attacked my post if you dont like or want to pay for the live service then dont nowhere did i say there is something wrong with thoses who want to game online for free it is my choice to pay for live,it is you making a big stink over what 50.00 freaking dollars a year come on man give us a damn break.
Sorry, wrong again. I did not attack your post because you are willing to pay or because I am not. I attacked your post because it was an attack and deserved a response. You did it twice. " i dont see how grown folks can really make a big stink over 50.00 ..." "Grown folks" as if anyone who has an opinion different than yours is not grown up. "Big stink" as if not wanting to pay M$ to use their service qualifies as a big stink.
Disagreeing with M$ is not a big stink, unless of course, you are in the pay of M$. Not wanting to pay and being willing to speak up doesn't make us not grown. It just means we have an opinion and aren't afraid to state it.
It's people like you who make some of us feel that corporations pay corporate shills who post what you post to silence opposition to the subscription model of service. It's M$'s choice to charge what they want to charge, and your's to pay it, and mine to say, "Hell no, I won't pay." That's called freedom of speech, which even if you aren't American, is still a big concept in the Internet.
I have NO problem with your opinion. I do have a problem with an unwarranted attack, as if you and only you are the determining factor in what is a fair charge or not. When you attack me because you don't like my opinion, expect a response.
There's no justice; there's just us.
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
17. December 2009 @ 23:33 |
Link to this message
|
@ everybody complaining about the price of xbox live:
Nobody is forcing you to buy an xbox live subscription, if you don't want to pay for it that's you're choice. Microsoft is a company, and it's their job to make money. How would they make money if they did not charge for things? You don't complain that you have to pay for electricity so why should you complain that you CAN pay for xbox live? Afterall it is just a service, like electricity. Complaining about xbox live is basically like complaining that you have to pay for fresh drinking water even though you can get salt water free from the ocean.
Originally posted by Oner:
Live: 14 million users in seven years
PSN : 16 million users in two years
But I believe that was for PS3 + PSP for PSN. But that is still a "PlayStation" user/gamer. But that's just playing semantics now :) since MS does it as well with PC LIVE!
Not only does that 16 million include PSP and PS3 users (as you mentioned), but it also everybody on the playstation forums... how many million people do you think have signed up to the playstation website sinced it was made? I bet it's atleast 5m currently.
Originally posted by Oner:
Not to mention how many repurchases have occurred from the bannings (of which are dead accounts but are *probably* still counted though MS would NEVER do that...right?).
You do realise that the recent ban wave only banned consoles, not live accounts... right? It would be impossible for microsoft to exclude the xbox live accounts that are on the banned consoles from the figures (considering you can move accounts between consoles).
Originally posted by Oner:
I say give me the free one over a X-game chat option when you get SOOO much more at no cost
Proof?
Originally posted by Oner:
I say give me the free one over a X-game chat option when you get SOOO much more at no cost...not mention that it's in the works on the PSN for FREE
In the works yes. Ever get to consoles and can work on all games; unlikely: (text highlighted in red is most relevant)
Quote:
I promised you all an update on Cross-Game chat, so here it is.
And you're not going to like it.
As I told you before, Cross-game voice chat has been in the works for a while now. I mentioned last time that it was on target for 3.0 providing that we didn't hit any snags. Well guess what, we hit a snag! An all too familiar snag.
Time for a history lesson.
How many of you remember what it was like before FW 2.4? That's right - no in-game XMB. No custom soundtracks. In-game XMB was the most heavily requested feature at the time and we worked tirelessly in order to get it in (By "we", I mean Sony Japan - as I said before, FW isn't my department). It very nearly didn't happen, you have no idea how difficult it is to backport a feature like that onto a system (the game) that doesn't even know its there, but somehow we managed it. Well, for most titles. There are still the odd few titles out there that don't support in-game XMB ("black" titles).
Custom soundtracks was another one we had working in nearly every title. Obviously it was never going to work in black titles, but about 95% of the titles that worked well with the in-game XMB, had custom sountracks working as well.
So what happened? Why is it that titles HAVE to be developed specifically with custom soundtrack support when it was working more or less just fine?
Is it because Microsoft owns the patent on custom soundtracks in games?
This is something that makes me laugh every time I see one of the less educated ones spouting it off. That's an absolute fabrication. Patents don't matter, Sony as a while infringes upon thousands of patents through the whole company, both hardware and software. If you infringe a patent, you pay royalties to the owner or find a different way of doing the same thing that doesn't infringe. That's it. Microsoft infringes upon all kinds of patents we own but that's up to legal to sort out.
No, the reason we had to drop Custom soundtrack support like that has nothing to do with Microsoft. It does, however, involve a different company. A rather large company.
You see, one of their games happened to fall into the 5% that didn't support in-game custom soundtracks. And they did not like this.
When they found out that a new firmware update was going to suddenly make one of their games look inferior to just about every other game released, they protested. A lot.
They threatened everything, from legal action to dropping support for the PS3 all together.
What could we do? There was almost no way of getting it to work correctly due to the way their game was made (i.e. Poorly) and we certainly couldn't leave a broken implementation in there. That's when the hard decision was made to remove all support for older titles and instead adopt the "opt-in" approach that, to this day, most developers simply ignore. I have to hand this to Microsoft - they did their system right from the beginning and by completely separating it from the developers, they have universal support. Its very unlikely that you'll ever see mandatory support for custom soundtracks in games on our system, I'm afraid.
So yeah, lets nail this on the head: The next time someone starts blaming Microsoft for something the PS3 doesn't have, tell them they're an idiot, they don't know what they're talking about. Are we clear on this? This is a pet peeve of mine because while everyone's happy to go around blaming Microsoft, the real culprits are getting off scott-free. Of course, I can't actually name them directly or, should I get caught, I might even get done for slander (you can never be too careful), but you can figure it out - it's not Activision and they have a poor history with the PS3.
So what has this got to do with Cross-game voice chat?
Guess.
I warned you that we might hit a snag and we did. We've found a couple of titles that just don't like it. Similar to the custom soundtrack fiasco, it can cause lag, crashes, desyncronisation (very very bad when this happens), you name it. It can't be used in these games and it just so happens that some of these games are owned by the same company I've been talking about above.
So we're in a predicament: Cross-game chat is useless if only certain games support it. It's not too bad if its just the odd one that doesn't like it, but at this rate we'd have to drop support for the ENTIRE back catalogue, which would (As I said) make the whole thing useless.
Furthermore, we can't rely on developers to implement direct support for it. It didn't work with Custom Soundtracks, so why would it work here?
So right now, we're trying every little trick in the book to find a solution that works for everyone, but don't hold your breath on this one, so far it looks like the best you're going to get is a gimped implementation of it that only works with a handful of new games. Now as I said, FW isn't actually my department and even I'm not supposed to know some of this stuff, but this is actually where we are right now. It sucks majorly, but there you have it. Depending on the end result, it could come in FW 3.1 or it could come in FW 4.0, hell it might not even come at all but rest assured they are working very hard on it. And if it doesn't come, you know who to blame.
On the topic of in game voice chat (that microsoft has had for over a year), does anybody else see the increasing trend of playstation incorporating xbox's features? Just like how sony thought of including inter-game voice chat after microsoft did... kind of like how sony thought of online play after microsoft. Could it be that sony is stealing microsoft's ideas?
Post edited to correct bs.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. December 2009 @ 03:40
|
Member
|
18. December 2009 @ 00:32 |
Link to this message
|
You already pay for your internet, you also pay for the console and the games and all the add-on hardware.
If you think it's a good idea to pay to connect the hardware you paid for to the internet connection you pay for to play a game you paid for via P2P then go ahead, Bill Gates thinks it's a great idea.
|
|
rvinkebob
Member
3 product reviews
|
18. December 2009 @ 01:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by chris4160:
"and how they thought of rumble controllers after microsoft."
LOL WUT
Sorry, but I HAD to say that.
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
18. December 2009 @ 03:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by kiwi1:
You already pay for your internet, you also pay for the console and the games and all the add-on hardware.
If you think it's a good idea to pay to connect the hardware you paid for to the internet connection you pay for to play a game you paid for via P2P then go ahead, Bill Gates thinks it's a great idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying that is how businesses survive. If microsoft didn't charge for xbox live then they would find other ways to create income (e.g increased game cost). That would impact on everybody that plays xbox's, not just the 60% of people with an xbox that play xbox live (or whatever percentage it is.
Originally posted by rvinkebob:
LOL WUT
Sorry, but I HAD to say that.
I admit that probably wasn't the best comparison considering Dual Shock was around before the original xbox was even out. I was referring to the six axis controllers that did not have rumble that were the only ps3 controllers out at release (I believe the delay was because of a lawsuit filed against Sony). I withdraw the comment made about rumble controllers... I was in a rush at the end of the post (as you can tell by the grammatical errors).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. December 2009 @ 03:34
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
18. December 2009 @ 11:58 |
Link to this message
|
Sony had online gaming and in game chat with the PS2 before the xbox was out as well. MS did a much better job with online than the PS2. It is ms that copies, buys out, steals etc? other companies ideas. I?m not dogging ms, it has made money for them for a long time.
When it comes to the things that actually mater to most, there is not any difference with Live and PSN except PSN has Home and Live charges $50 for nothing. I put cross game chat with thing that dont matter to most. Just my opinion. We all make excuses to justify the choices that we make, rite or wrong.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
18. December 2009 @ 13:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Oner:
Live: 14 million users in seven years
PSN : 16 million users in two years
But I believe that was for PS3 + PSP for PSN. But that is still a "PlayStation" user/gamer. But that's just playing semantics now :) since MS does it as well with PC LIVE!
Not only does that 16 million include PSP and PS3 users (as you mentioned), but it also everybody on the playstation forums... how many million people do you think have signed up to the playstation website sinced it was made? I bet it's atleast 5m currently.
Source proof confirmation please (especially the last part about 5 Million). If you cannot then it would be safe to assume the same goes for or applies to LIVE! so your "point" would be moot and invalid. But that is to be seen while we wait on your proof.
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Oner:
Not to mention how many repurchases have occurred from the bannings (of which are dead accounts but are *probably* still counted though MS would NEVER do that...right?).
You do realise that the recent ban wave only banned consoles, not live accounts... right? It would be impossible for microsoft to exclude the xbox live accounts that are on the banned consoles from the figures (considering you can move accounts between consoles).
Yep, your right I made a mistake as I have read of some being fully banned, so in all fairness I will not argue/support that point as it is a small amount. But that still doesn't hide/change the fact of the repurchases padding MS's numbers.
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Oner:
I say give me the free one over a X-game chat option when you get SOOO much more at no cost
Proof?
I posted this in another thread so I will do so here
More first party & inhouse devs (20+ developers still open in the worst recession in a long time)
More true exclusives
More games coming out (since start of 09)
More higher quality graphics (exclusives & some properly made multiplats)
More reliable hardware
<From here down is related to FREE items on PSN...pertaining to your question>
More free services (PSN, Netflix access etc.)
More dedicated servers
Now the beginning part is a bit off the question but it doesn't hurt & hopefully you get the point. Though in reality the real point is that what I said was what I believe & WANT out of the PSN, not a statement pertaining to others. So I really don't need to give proof since that is what I think & would like...so asking for proof is kind of unnecessary honestly but I did so anyway at your request. Plus what I described here in reply is not opinion (about "more"). But factual.
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Oner:
I warned you that we might hit a snag and we did. We've found a couple of titles that just don't like it. Similar to the custom soundtrack fiasco, it can cause lag, crashes, desyncronisation (very very bad when this happens), you name it. It can't be used in these games and it just so happens that some of these games are owned by the same company I've been talking about above.
So we're in a predicament: Cross-game chat is useless if only certain games support it. It's not too bad if its just the odd one that doesn't like it, but at this rate we'd have to drop support for the ENTIRE back catalogue, which would (As I said) make the whole thing useless.
Furthermore, we can't rely on developers to implement direct support for it. It didn't work with Custom Soundtracks, so why would it work here?
So right now, we're trying every little trick in the book to find a solution that works for everyone, but don't hold your breath on this one, so far it looks like the best you're going to get is a gimped implementation of it that only works with a handful of new games. Now as I said, FW isn't actually my department and even I'm not supposed to know some of this stuff, but this is actually where we are right now. It sucks majorly, but there you have it. Depending on the end result, it could come in FW 3.1 or it could come in FW 4.0, hell it might not even come at all but rest assured they are working very hard on it. And if it doesn't come, you know who to blame.
On the topic of in game voice chat (that microsoft has had for over a year), does anybody else see the increasing trend of playstation incorporating xbox's features? Just like how sony thought of including inter-game voice chat after microsoft did... kind of like how sony thought of online play after microsoft. Could it be that sony is stealing microsoft's ideas?
Um in-game voice chat is not something MS invented so that doesn't mean Sony "stole/copied" it from them. There is no "increasing trend". To say that is quite misleading. Xgame chat in an online gaming setting is synonymous with each other and has been around WAY before the Xbox. Plus the "PSX" (Playstation DVR circa 2003) supported online game compatibility using an internal broadband adapter (source) and the PS2 did so at around the same time the original Xbox came out so again your point is kind of misleading & imprecise.
Originally posted by chris4160:
Post edited to correct bs.
You don't know how right you are! ;) J/K
Edit: Forgot to add this
On topic as I had explained previously in an earlier news post about the "PSN fees", it looks to be just as I had described ~
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/20934.cfm
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/20934.cfm
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/20934.cfm
All additional services/options that do not affect the free access to PSN or multiplayer gaming. One thing I definitely do not agree with is charging for Xgame chat, that would be some BS right there and would hope it comes via a FW update for all. Though I would pay for cloud storage/access in a heartbeat!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. December 2009 @ 13:04
|
