PS3 Online, hard drives and on the road


Recommended Posts

XBL kicked ass from day one :huh: The same cannot be said for PSN..

No it didn't. Far from it. XBL on the original Xbox was very similar to the PSN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft's first attempt was/is better than Sony's third attempt :/

Its evolved into a better service. Sonys 3rd attempt? The PSN really is the first time they have focused on multiplayer online. All the other attempts (2 others?) were just add ons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You quoted me before the edit, Neowin is super-slow for me tonight, so I had a little trouble editing :)

But the Online on PS2 was still an online service, no matter how you twist and turn it. They were able to learn from it and I see it as an attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft's first attempt on their first console was almost better than Sony's second attempt on their third console. :/

QFT :yes:

They aren't software giants for nothing :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You quoted me before the edit, Neowin is super-slow for me tonight, so I had a little trouble editing :)

But the Online on PS2 was still an online service, no matter how you twist and turn it. They were able to learn from it and I see it as an attempt.

And they did, the PSN is better than the online service on PS2. As I said though, Sony were not 'concentrating' with online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the online service for the PS2 was down purely to the developer/publisher of the game, sony merely made the hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the online service for the PS2 was down purely to the developer/publisher of the game, sony merely made the hardware.

Which isn't too far off the strategy they've used for the PS3 also, and it shows..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Online last generation was not a huge focus at all, far from it.

The PS2 won on game quality, not online quality, I think that's quite obvious. None of us really cared enough about multiplayer on a console last generation, but it's a whole different ball game this gen, as consoles borrow a lot more from the PC, and more FPS titles hit (FPS titles are usually the kings of online multiplayer).

However even although the xbox bombed in comparison to the PS2, working on an online service back then has helped MS greatly this generation. I guess IMO it's the most positive thing you can take from the existence of the xbox.

Sony neglected online last generation, and won the war, but now they're behind on this generation due to the neglect and inexperience. However I will say it's nice to see them going down a slightly different route than live, being more ambitious and not just knocking off live 1:1. I'll give them that, but that ambition and creativity better lead to results.

Worthwhile trade off? Well Sony will say look at the PS2 still selling, and the popularity of the PS brand worldwide, MS will say, look at how Sony is lagging behind on online this generation.

If the PS3 pulls through, worthwhile trade off I guess? Probably. Those who support the PS have had to put up with a lot of crap since launch due to Sonys neglect for online, but I guess we'll forget that if they give us what we want. If they don't, well they're going to lose loyal fanbase to the guys on the other side of the bridge who are reveling in tearing Sony a new one just now.

I think they'll pull it off though ;)

Edited by Audioboxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Online last generation was not a huge focus at all, far from it.

The PS2 won on game quality, not online quality, I think that's quite obvious. None of us really cared enough about multiplayer on a console last generation, but it's a whole different ball game this gen, as consoles borrow a lot more from the PC, and more FPS titles hit (FPS titles are usually the kings of online multiplayer).

However even although the xbox bombed in comparison to the PS2, working on an online service back then has helped MS greatly this generation. I guess IMO it's the most positive thing you can take from the existence of the xbox.

Sony neglected online last generation, and won the war, but now they're behind on this generation due to the neglect and inexperience. However I will say it's nice to see them going down a slightly different route than live, being more ambitious and not just knocking off live 1:1. I'll give them that, but that ambition and creativity better lead to results.

Worthwhile trade off? Well Sony will say look at the PS2 still selling, and the popularity of the PS brand worldwide, MS will say, look at how Sony is lagging behind on online this generation.

If the PS3 pulls through, worthwhile trade off I guess? Probably. Those who support the PS have had to put up with a lot of crap since launch due to Sonys neglect for online, but I guess we'll forget that if they give us what we want. If they don't, well they're going to lose loyal fanbase to the guys on the other side of the bridge who are reveling in tearing Sony a new one just now.

I think they'll pull it off though ;)

Speak for yourself! It was a huge factor for me and pretty much changed the huge grip PC gaming had over me and the switch to consoles. To say it wasn't important for many I think is very biased Audio. There is no doubt it was very important. Not just for gamers but the industry over all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speak for yourself! It was a huge factor for me and pretty much changed the huge grip PC gaming had over me and the switch to consoles. To say it wasn't important for many I think is very biased Audio. There is no doubt it was very important. Not just for gamers but the industry over all.

Uhh I'm going by my opinion of last generation, and where the sales were as well.

I think it's damn obvious online on consoles last generation was nowhere near as important as it is this generation on the whole.

If you owned an xbox, yeah sure you'd of loved online, but Sony got away with a half arsed attempt at online last generation, and won the war by a great leap - Hence my opinion that online was nowhere near as important last generation.

You think if Sony offered online on the scale of the PS2 this gen they'd win? No they wouldn't.

The casual gamers, that will have made up the majority of the 130 million PS2s out there, are much more aware of online this generation and there is much more XBL vs PSN media discussions.

Online is critical this generation, where as last gen you got away with a half arsed attempt (PS2) and no attempt (Gamecube).

Even Wii owners are getting up in arms about the poor network setup the Wii has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats the problem to many online dependant based console games. Short cookie cut single player modes. I feel for the people on a dial up connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh I'm going by my opinion of last generation, and where the sales were as well.

I think it's damn obvious online on consoles last generation was nowhere near as important as it is this generation on the whole.

If you owned an xbox, yeah sure you'd of loved online, but Sony got away with a half arsed attempt at online last generation, and won the war by a great leap - Hence my opinion that online was nowhere near as important last generation.

You think if Sony offered online on the scale of the PS2 this gen they'd win? No they wouldn't.

The casual gamers, that will have made up the majority of the 130 million PS2s out there, are much more aware of online this generation and there is much more XBL vs PSN media discussions.

Online is critical this generation, where as last gen you got away with a half arsed attempt (PS2) and no attempt (Gamecube).

Even Wii owners are getting up in arms about the poor network setup the Wii has.

You said "us", thus not personal, you are speaking on behalf of others. Online was important, full stop. Bicker about it all you want, but if it wasn't for MS' push last gen Sony wouldn't give a toss this gen either. Even Sega knew that going online was the way to go before the other 3, sadly the hardware (DC) and third parties weren't there to back it.

Sony could have gained an ever greater lead if they had pushed the online more, but they said themselves it wasn't something that should be included on consoles. Again, back tracking and eating their words a few years later..Do some research.

And fyi, Gamecube has online also ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said "us", thus not personal, you are speaking on behalf of others. Online was important, full stop. Bicker about it all you want, but if it wasn't for MS' push last gen Sony wouldn't give a toss this gen either. Even Sega knew that going online was the way to go before the other 3, sadly the hardware (DC) and third parties weren't there to back it.

Sony could have gained an ever greater lead if they had pushed the online more, but they said themselves it wasn't something that should be included on consoles. Again, back tracking and eating their words a few years later..Do some research.

And fyi, Gamecube has online also ;)

Well I think im justified to say us, seeing as I hold a firm belief that to the majority, online on a console last generation wasn't anywhere near as important this generation.

Even developers on consoles last gen weren't as online crazed as they are now.

I didn't say it wasn't important full stop, so I don't know why the resistance from you. All I said was it wasn't AS important, and developers outside of MS easily got away with half assed services and in the case of the PS2 obliterated the competition with a half arsed service.

If online gaming was the giant it is now last generation, the xbox would have sold a lot more. Part of it was simply to do with lower rates of broadband., keep that in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason it is such a craze this generation is because of what Microsoft started..

You may not have witnessed the experience because you were tied up on the PS2, but multiplayer was a huge aspect last generation (and I'm not speaking for myself here, just look at the sensation Halo 2 caused).

I just get the feeling here you are saying online didn't matter until Sony said so and entered the market themselves. Which is as much true as their "HD starts when we say so" BS. Fair enough if it wasn't important for you, for the rest of the industry it was. The proof? Every console now has some sort of online service (Y)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason it is such a craze this generation is because of what Microsoft started..

You may not have witnessed the experience because you were tied up on the PS2, but multiplayer was a huge aspect last generation (and I'm not speaking for myself here, just look at the sensation Halo 2 caused).

I just get the feeling here you are saying online didn't matter until Sony said so and entered the market themselves. Which is as much true as their "HD starts when we say so" BS. Fair enough if it wasn't important for you, for the rest of the industry it was. The proof? Every console now has some sort of online service (Y)

Obviously... MS pioneered online on consoles, even the cows in the fields around the world know that.

But that doesn't change my opinion that online last generation didn't matter as much to the majority, as the console online experience was a fledgling one - That is all im saying.

Over a hundred million people bought a PS2 and never experienced Live, that is a contributing factor to why online on consoles never got the respect last generation it is now. Sony/Nintendo can't half ass it again, or they'll sink - Well Nintendo think they can, but we'll see.

I just get the feeling here you are saying online didn't matter until Sony said so and entered the market themselves. Which is as much true as their "HD starts when we say so" BS.

Uhh no. (N)

Don't think it's reasonable to chuck me into that sort of category of people :/

Edited by Audioboxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I just can't see your point of view on this, it's skewed beyond belief.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found that players overall are worse on Live. Noticeably worse. That is not to say there are not idiots on the PSN too, there definitely is, but way less than there are on Live.

As far as download speeds , the PS3 is the winner for me. I can download a 1.5 GB file off of the PSN in under 10 minutes (that is on release day) while I have waited upwards of 8 hours on Live (also on release day) in the beginning, although Live has gotten better, it is noticeable when their servers get slammed and things do take awhile to download sometimes, now sometimes like one to two hours. The simple truth that there are more people on Live does not help things. When it comes to movies and such on the Marketplace, those speeds are always top notch, so they obviously dedicate more bandwidth to them.

I do experience Lag on Live sometimes, while on the PS3 I cannot recall experiencing any. Granted since I have owned both consoles, my online experience with the consoles has probably been 90%-10% in favor of the 360, so there has been a much greater chance for me to experience Lag, but I do prefer dedicated servers to host's hosting a match anyday, that is just the old PC gamer in me talking.

Just thought I would answer some of your questions since this has gotten off track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, now on to the comparison. I own both a PS3 and an 360, and have found myself using only the 360 for gaming. As far as live goes, it's like comparing a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta. Live has dedicated servers and bandwidth. It is built as a paid-for service and this shows through bandwidth and frequency of updates. Live can be updated every few days/a week but PSN can go baren for months.

Fiesta to a Veyron, give me a break! it's more like a Mustang GT to a Shelby GT500... and regarding the "lack of updates" on PSN, its updated every week, yeah it's gone maybe a week or two in a row without updates but thats it. Not a month...

Please, if you want to argue, use valid points :shock: Sweet f****** j**** you can REALLY tell which forum this was posted in...

god dude, I have never seen you make a positive post in the Sony forum. If you don't like it why do you keep posting bull**** here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a 360 and PS3 owner and love both.

The PS3 is slightly behind in most features right now, but many sources suggest that in the next firmware update (in coming weeks) adds a trophy feature (akin to Xbox Achievements) and in-game XMB (custom soundtracks, friend lists, web browser etc.) - once this has launched the elements most people will most often use will be pretty much on-par.

The 360 has the advantage on the arcade that you can download trials of any of the titles there, the PS3 has this on a very small selection of the titles available.

New demos, game trailers, movie trailers, backgrounds, themes and add-ons are added to the Playstation Store every thursday like clockwork (some weeks better than other weeks in terms of content) and the Store has recently had a huge overhaul (see comparisons I've posted below). You can also buy FULL GAMES on the PS Store such as GT5 and Warhawk, which is very convenient and also classic PS1 games.

post-93295-1211335979_thumb.jpg

The 360 Marketplace has changed slightly since it's launch but they got it pretty much right the first time. But the PS Store is still expanding, with the new look they're launching movie/tv downloads soon and also have PSP game downloads.

Of course, the main advantage of PSN is that it's free - and if all you want to do as soon as you get the console is play a game online, download some demos, customise the look of the console's OS etc. then I'd go for the PS3. If you really want movie rentals immediately, want integration with other MS products (like MSN Messenger and Zune) I'd go with the 360.

As others have said, Xbox Live is pretty solid as it is and huge updates have pretty much stagnated, PSN however is still innovating with Home and all the new things that come along with that.

At the end of the day though, go with the service most of your friends have. There's no point having Xbox Live to play GTA IV with your PS3 buddies, and vice-vera.

If you need more hdd space, it's easy to replace (<5 min job) without ruining your warranty. The 360 can only accept Microsoft made drives (easily) because of it's shell.

I personally play on PSN more, it does everything I need it to do for ?40ish less than Xbox Live a year, with the promise of cool features like Home coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously... MS pioneered online on consoles, even the cows in the fields around the world know that.

But that doesn't change my opinion that online last generation didn't matter as much to the majority, as the console online experience was a fledgling one - That is all im saying.

Over a hundred million people bought a PS2 and never experienced Live, that is a contributing factor to why online on consoles never got the respect last generation it is now. Sony/Nintendo can't half ass it again, or they'll sink - Well Nintendo think they can, but we'll see.

Uhh no. (N)

Don't think it's reasonable to chuck me into that sort of category of people :/

I used to play Halo online over XLinkKai and XBConnect. Trust me, the community was(is?) equally strong. I don't know if you had xbox or not but if you just had ps2 then your opinion makes sense. XBOX online - official or not - multiplayer always had a strong following and hence online service as well.

I remember playing online with RTCW, while not as big as now - I never had problems finding games. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to play Halo online over XLinkKai and XBConnect. Trust me, the community was(is?) equally strong. I don't know if you had xbox or not but if you just had ps2 then your opinion makes sense. XBOX online - official or not - multiplayer always had a strong following and hence online service as well.

I remember playing online with RTCW, while not as big as now - I never had problems finding games. :)

This is where it seems yourself and DM misunderstand what im saying.

I know the xbox online realm would of been strong, of course it was, it was a great service.

All im saying is due to it

a) Being a new and fledgling service

b) Lower broadband rates

c) Less FPS orientated titles/less multiplayer orientated titles on consoles

d) PC gaming was a lot stronger for online games (now tables are turning a bit - See COD4 console sales/Halo 3 sales)

The overall gaming community did not see online AS important last generation, and it's why the PS2 got through with a half assed service - To be fair, practically no service.

Now that we're seeing more online games, more FPS titles on consoles, other important online features like DLC/patches/Digital distribution of media, it's crucial to have a good online service, and the consumers want one in larger numbers than last gen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.