News

Comment by: Se7ven (Dec 17, 2009 01:57)

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.

Comment by: kiwi1 (Dec 17, 2009 03:54)

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.

Comment by: Oner (Dec 17, 2009 03:58)

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!

Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Dec 17, 2009 04:57)

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.

Comment by: Gnawnivek (Dec 17, 2009 16:22)

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.

Comment by: ToadWiz (Dec 17, 2009 22:33)

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?

Comment by: ToadWiz (Dec 17, 2009 22:36)

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.

Comment by: Se7ven (Dec 17, 2009 23:18)

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.

Comment by: ToadWiz (Dec 17, 2009 23:44)

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.

Comment by: Se7ven (Dec 18, 2009 01:06)

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.

Comment by: emugamer (Dec 18, 2009 01:54)

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.

Comment by: borhan9 (Dec 18, 2009 02:09)

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.

Comment by: ToadWiz (Dec 18, 2009 03:35)

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.

Comment by: chris4160 (Dec 18, 2009 04:33)

@ 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.

Comment by: kiwi1 (Dec 18, 2009 05:32)

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.

Comment by: rvinkebob (Dec 18, 2009 06:14)

Originally posted by chris4160:

---

"and how they thought of rumble controllers after microsoft."

---

LOL WUT

Sorry, but I HAD to say that.

Comment by: chris4160 (Dec 18, 2009 08:32)

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).

Comment by: glassd (Dec 18, 2009 16:58)

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.

Comment by: Oner (Dec 18, 2009 18:16)

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!

Comment by: kikzm33z (Dec 18, 2009 20:53)

OK, the PS3 is currently outselling the 360 by more than 100,000 each week ever since the price cut.

If there is only the option to pay to play online, then soon enough people will go to the 360, which clearly has the better online service.

I think that it's more important to keep console sales high than to make a little prophet from a subscription service.

Comment by: ToadWiz (Dec 19, 2009 00:50)

Originally posted by chris4160:

---

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.

---

M$ was doing just fine before they started charging for Live. After all, they didn't get a 95% of the OS market through charging for Live. Also, while I agree that companies will do whatever they can to increase their profits, that doesn't mean any specific attempt to pry more change from my pocket shouldn't be resisted.

If you want to feel sorry for poor, needy, struggling M$ and give them your money, that's your choice. But what you wrote says that you want me to pay a share of what you think is fair without checking to see if I agree with that or not. Sorry, I don't and I will no more allow YOU to pick my pocket without comment than I will allow M$.

Comment by: DVDBack23 (Dec 19, 2009 18:27)

PSN still free for everyone:

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/20934.cfm

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Dec 19, 2009 18:47)

Se7ven
No my point was a generalization that paying for live is silly regaurdless of who you are but you "have" to pay it if you do multiplayer on the 360 and MS really should have made it so you could MP without the subscription but instead of trying to make it better they are avoiding it and delaying the enviable...

chris4160
Mmmmmmmmmmmm I see so much slant in your posts.... but anywway lets boil it down to the this PSN is free for all and offers as much or more choice than live at the cost of some bandwidth issues, live is more stable on er.....lets say lesser abused games shall we...but MS has done little to open it up and really offer a solid and great free pioneers they are goign to wait till sony dose it then beat them over the head saying they did it frist or some low brow PR crap MS and phony pull. In the end sony is doing more for less and at least gets that much in some facet of their over all business model...MS is just being cheap and stubborn deineing the sky is blue....

wait....I haz to say more
Oh and next you'll say ISPs and the net are copying live for letting people use face book and such....... copying is not copying if it falls outside of the norm IE copying rumble features would be copying if sony was the only to do it in a controller for that matter copying motion control would be copying the WII if the copy did the whole minimalistic retro tech thing the WII dose....... I mean you may can say they are copying the eyetoy with the natal and all but frankly the tech and interest has hit hard enough to make them try and develop it........ ya know....copying is flattery and respect for the idea/ideal it may not always come out in a worthwhile way but its far from highway robbery complete with hot anal action the way the suits make it out to be and all....

Comment by: chris4160 (Dec 21, 2009 07:47)

Originally posted by Oner:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Sony announced a landmark this week for its PlayStation Network: 20 million users worldwide, as of February 20. According to the presser, that breaks down to 5 million in the first 14 months of service, 5 million more 8 months later, and an additional 10 million the 7 months after that. There's quite a few caveats to consider here, as that includes PSP and PS3 users as well as anyone who wishes to use the official PS forums, whether or not they own one of the aforementioned consoles.

---

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/26/plays...ll-way-more-pr/

I would like to know where you got the 16m in two years claim from. According to Sony (assuming engadget got their info from Sony), PSN had 10m users in 22 months. That would mean they would have had to get 6 million users in 60 days to get to 16m in 2 years (if the 16 million in 2 years claim is correct). That's 100,000 members a day (on average). Prior to that date they had only got approx an average of 15,000 users subscribing a day.

Originally posted by Oner:

---

(especially the last part about 5 Million)

---

I stated that "I bet" referring to an educated guess, not an official number. Considering the official ps3 home website gets "1,812,065 U.S. visitors per month" (total of 4.6m worldwide)(according to whois.com, see here for more details) 5m doesn't seem that hard to believe (I realise that not all of the 4.6m would go onto the ps3 forums, or let alone register).

Originally posted by Oner:

---

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.

---

I know that in-game voice chat is not something that Microsoft invented. But AFAIK they were the first to bring it to gaming consoles, were they not?

Also, I agree there is no increasing trend, Sony has been copying Xbox 360's features at a steady pace since it was released. To say that Sony is not copying xbox is being ignorant. You all say, PSN is pretty much the same as xbox live. HOW WOULD IT BECOME LIKE XBOX LIVE WITHOUT COPYING???

Originally posted by Oner:

---

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.

---

Xbox live was unveiled at E3 in 2002 (source), well over a year before the PSX was announced in December 13th. So your point point is kind of misleading & imprecise.

Originally posted by ToadWiz:

---

M$ was doing just fine before they started charging for Live. After all, they didn't get a 95% of the OS market through charging for Live.

---

Xbox was not doing fine before they started to charge for Live, infact Microsoft had lost money off the xbox. Therefore they had to find ways to bring themselves out of a loss/reduce amount lost from the xbox, not OS.

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

lets boil it down to the this PSN is free for all and offers as much or more choice than live at the cost of some bandwidth issues

---

Not with the inclusion of premium services, pretty much everything is taken away/not going to be included for non paying members apart from online gameplay.

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

live is more stable on er.....lets say lesser abused games shall we

---

Oh yes, because Call of Duty 4, one of the most popular First Person Shooters ever is a "lesser abused game".

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

copying is not copying if it falls outside of the norm IE copying rumble features would be copying if sony was the only to do it in a controller

---

Yes, copying would be if microsoft copied something that only other gaming consoles have... NOT OTHER PRODUCTS. Saying that a gaming console company using another products features (that is not a gaming console) is copying is like saying that Sony didn't copy xbox's guide button because a mobile phone has a button in the middle of the screen (not saying that Sony did, it is just an example, don't take it out of context). For the record, I would not say "Oh and next you'll say ISPs and the net are copying live for letting people use face book and such" for the reason stated above.

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

mean you may can say they are copying the eyetoy with the natal and all but frankly the tech and interest has hit hard enough to make them try and develop it

---

To be honest I think all that motion sensoring sh!t is a load of rubbish. It's good for casual gamers but honestly who wants to move when they are playing games? I know I don't (I realise how lazy that sounds). It's kind of sad to think that the next gen, or the gen after that will be primarily based upon motion sensoring just because some parents (40m of them albeit) bought their spoilt kid a Wii.

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Mmmmmmmmmmmm I see so much slant in your posts

---

Slant, or truth? I think it's the latter :P

Originally posted by kikzm33z:

---

OK, the PS3 is currently outselling the 360 by more than 100,000 each week ever since the price cut.

If there is only the option to pay to play online, then soon enough people will go to the 360, which clearly has the better online service.

I think that it's more important to keep console sales high than to make a little prophet from a subscription service.

---

It really depends on the quality of the service. Sometimes it may be needed to keep the service alive (definately not $50 a year though, in Live's case). If the PSN subscription service does go ahead then xbox live's price should decrease (I doubt it will happen though considering how greedy MS is).

Comment by: Oner (Dec 21, 2009 18:52)

Originally posted by chris4160:

---

I would like to know where you got the 16m in two years claim from. According to Sony (assuming engadget got their info from Sony), PSN had 10m users in 22 months. That would mean they would have had to get 6 million users in 60 days to get to 16m in 2 years (if the 16 million in 2 years claim is correct). That's 100,000 members a day (on average). Prior to that date they had only got approx an average of 15,000 users subscribing a day.

---

The 16 million PSN users was off of memory and after checking my links and verifying it was actually 20 Million in 27 months (2 years 3 months) so I was actually LOW. Funnily enough it looks that both of our information is from the same source indirectly/directly ~ (Sony's press release that said 20 Million as you linked to).

So while I was wrong about the amount (although it worked out in my favor being short 4 million) by going off of memory your correction actually supports my point even more so. Thank You! And while we are on the topic of PSN users here is the most current total ~

Quote:

---

...there are more than 31 million registered PlayStation Network accounts worldwide, making it one of the largest online networks in the world. To date, more than 650 million pieces of content have been downloaded worldwide from PlayStation Store

---

Source quote from here

Originally posted by chris4160:

---

Originally posted by Oner:

---

(especially the last part about 5 Million)

---

I stated that "I bet" referring to an educated guess, not an official number. Considering the official ps3 home website gets "1,812,065 U.S. visitors per month" (total of 4.6m worldwide)(according to whois.com, see here for more details) 5m doesn't seem that hard to believe (I realise that not all of the 4.6m would go onto the ps3 forums, or let alone register).

---

So you don't have an official number then? So why would you link to whois.com in an attempt to bolster your statement of "I bet" in some way that does not equate to fact? Links to how many hits/visitors of a site does not mean or prove anything. Sorry.

Originally posted by chris4160:

---

Originally posted by Oner:

---

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.

---

Xbox live was unveiled at E3 in 2002 (source), well over a year before the PSX was announced in December 13th. So your point point is kind of misleading & imprecise.

---

The operative word *unveiled* does not mean implemented. They are 2 totally separate things, but honestly that doesn't really matter as my concern is why did you focus on the PSX to make your point when you totally forgot/failed to mention/discuss the latter part of my sentence/comment about "...the PS2 did so at around the same time the original Xbox came out..."? I guess I thought I wouldn't have to explain about how the PS2's Network adapter launched in 2001 (which also doesn't account for the dev time leading UP TO it's launch) but it looks like I will have to now ~

Quote:

---

The network adaptor was released on July 19, 2001 in Japan (together with the Hard disk drive) , in August 2002 in North America and in June 2003 in Europe. Two models were available - one with a dial-up modem and an Ethernet (RJ-45) jack for broadband Internet connection (sold in North America), and one with only an Ethernet interface (sold in Europe and other regions). A start-up disc ("Network Access Disc") is included with the Network Adaptor and installs a file on the memory card for connection settings which are accessible by all but one Network Adaptor compatible game.

---

Source ~ Wiki

So I say again your point is kind of misleading & imprecise. If you were just mistaken then fine (just as I was earlier 16 vs 20 & MS bans) but I believe you were just splitting hairs or omitting information to make your point seem valid; but that's just me.

Oh and just in case ~

Your Quote & Source

Originally posted by chris4160:

---

Xbox live was unveiled at E3 in 2002 (source), well over a year before the PSX was announced in December 13th.

---

Added to this quote & Source ~ Wiki

Quote:

---

On November 15, 2002, Microsoft launched its Xbox Live online gaming service,

---

Plus my earlier Source & Quote ~ Wiki

Quote:

---

The <PS2> network adaptor was released on July 19, 2001

---

Shows who really "copied" who. I would say that little "confusion" has been made PRETTY clear for all to see now ;). Though I will make it easier and say that I actually don't believe even MS "copied/stole" the idea (before you assume I do) because internet & gaming (just like cross game chat) goes synonymous with each other.

Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660