PS3 General Discussion

[Jeremy Ricci]

Your fanboyism is showing again, Jeremy.

Why? I simply feel that with all the other charges MS attributes to the XBLA (which is severely over priced) then why should everyone be forced to pay $50 a year?

MS get's at *least* 25% of all profit from downloaded titles. They've made literally millions off of Geometry Wars, SFII, and soon Castelvania: SOTN.

Not to mention Lumines Live and many other downloadable titles on XBLA. That MORE than pays for their server costs. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the PS3 online service will have MORE users on it's online network after it's first year than the 360 will have by it's second.

And it'll still be free, and still offer up the same quality of online gameplay that XBL does.

 

[Jedi2016]

Same quality? That's highly debatable, and most would argue that MS's service far outshine's Sony's.

All you're doing is making an excuse as to why Sony's service isn't as good. Downloads are slow, servers go down, etc.. oh, must be because it's free.

Time to join the real world, pal. Does Jordan refund money for GTP's downtime to the Premium members? No. Does the phone company refund money for downtime if a truck hits a telephone pole? No.

I had a website a while back, had my own dot-com and everything. Only if there was an extended outage of more than a day would the company refund any of my money.

I just did the math.. assuming that the XBL servers were down for five hours, that equates to less than three cents in "usage". Do you really expect them to refund that three cents to all XBL users? Or give them all ONE MS Point to spend online?

No XBL user is going to complain about some downtime here and there, just because they're paying for it. In the real world, paying for something does not automatically imply 100% uptime.

You should also bear in mind that the majority of XBL users have Silver accounts, aka "free". Myself included. I can download anything I want without paying a dime. I have little interest in playing games against a bunch of twelve-year-olds who want to tell me how "pwned" I am all the time.

Downloadable games? Those don't pay the server fees, that money goes back to the developer/publisher who released the game/upgrade/content, not to Microsoft.

Think these things through, bub.. nothing is as simple as you like to pretend it is.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Same quality? That's highly debatable, and most would argue that MS's service far outshine's Sony's.

All you're doing is making an excuse as to why Sony's service isn't as good. Downloads are slow, servers go down, etc.. oh, must be because it's free.

Time to join the real world, pal. Does Jordan refund money for GTP's downtime to the Premium members? No. Does the phone company refund money for downtime if a truck hits a telephone pole? No.

I had a website a while back, had my own dot-com and everything. Only if there was an extended outage of more than a day would the company refund any of my money.

I just did the math.. assuming that the XBL servers were down for five hours, that equates to less than three cents in "usage". Do you really expect them to refund that three cents to all XBL users? Or give them all ONE MS Point to spend online?

No XBL user is going to complain about some downtime here and there, just because they're paying for it. In the real world, paying for something does not automatically imply 100% uptime.

You should also bear in mind that the majority of XBL users have Silver accounts, aka "free". Myself included. I can download anything I want without paying a dime. I have little interest in playing games against a bunch of twelve-year-olds who want to tell me how "pwned" I am all the time.

Downloadable games? Those don't pay the server fees, that money goes back to the developer/publisher who released the game/upgrade/content, not to Microsoft.

Think these things through, bub.. nothing is as simple as you like to pretend it is.

If my phone company drops service, I sure do get money back. Often. Especially with Cell phone and cable services.

You do not own a PS3, so I have no idea how you are comparing the service without having used both. I spoke only about the quality of gameplay service. When I log on to CoD3, FNR3, or even Madden, the quality of the online experience is the SAME as XBL. The only edge XBL has is it's features, and that is on the firmware, not the service. Given that it's firmware, the PS3 has (and right now is scheduled to update in march) plenty of time to catch up. I don't mind waiting, since it's free for everything.

Also, MS does reap benefits off the XBLA games. They don't just provide the service to developers for free. These costs, given the amount of XBL users and wide variety of games and content, go to MS in portions, and it is MORE than enough for them to pay for the server maintanence. They could pay someone 100K a year, a team of 10 people, and STILL have a TON of money left over for new servers, parts, and bills. I'd say that MS banks about 15-25 percent of the XBLA costs. No one knows for sure, but even at 15% they're making a KILLING.

Also, the quality of the XBLA games is dwarfed in comparison to the PS3 downloadable titles. And the PS3 titles are CHEAPER. Most titles on the PS3 download service range from $2.99 to $7.99.

On top of that, they aren't capped to 50MB and limited to classic arcade titles and ported 2D games. I just downloaded Tekken 5: Dark Ressurection, and it was only $15. 850MB downloaded in 30 minutes. Not bad for a free service right?

Point is, XBL is *not* worth $50 a year when competitors are offering the same quality of service, and catching up in features.

 

[Jedi2016]

Point is, XBL is *not* worth $50 a year when competitors are offering the same quality of service, and catching up in features.

Correction: It's not worth it to YOU. Just because something isn't worth YOUR money doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. Your opinion is NOT gospel for everyone in the world. It's high time you came to realize that. Just because someone thinks differently than you does NOT make them wrong.

 

[Swift]

Correction: It's not worth it to YOU. Just because something isn't worth YOUR money doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. Your opinion is NOT gospel for everyone in the world. It's high time you came to realize that. Just because someone thinks differently than you does NOT make them wrong.

Jedi, while I would normally agree with your statement. You are actually wrong in this case.

Since you do NOT have a PS3, you can't comment on the quality of the online service. So, while Jeremy may only have an opinion, it is based on experience while your's is based on hearsay and a few statistics.

Bottom line, it looks like the PS3 online is pretty decent and free. That automatically makes in on par with spending 50$. Will it be better, I have no clue, but as of right now it seems to be on the same level with the potential to be better. Time will tell...

 

[Zrow]

I do think that eventually XBL will be free, just to compete with Sony. Not for at least a year, though - you're still paying 200 bucks extra from the start.

Being a pay service does have it's benefits, anyway - it's pressure to MS to keep the service running fast and reliable. Sony has the "well, it is free" excuse right now.

Reminds me of some private vs. public debates in the Opinions forums...

 

[Jedi2016]

Since you do NOT have a PS3, you can't comment on the quality of the online service.

If you read my posts again, you'll find that I never offered an opinion on the subject. I simply repeated what I've read elsewhere, on many other forums besides this one, where large numbers of multi-console owners said they preferred XBL to PSN, despite the cost.

And, as mentioned, I also don't play games online, so the entire argument means very little to me anyway. But the discussion at hand actually wasn't about online gameplay, it was about downloading things, and whether the servers are up all the time. Jeremy's response was that it was "okay" if Sony's servers went down now and again, or download speeds were pathetically slow, simply because the service was free. Despite the fact that I can download all I want off of XBL, at higher speeds and more dependability than PSN, and I've yet to give MS a penny for it.

Oh, and let's not forget the fact that I can queue several files to download at a time, then I can watch a movie or play a game while it's downloading. Is Sony's lack of this feature also a side-effect of it's being "free"? Despite the fact that my XBL membership is also free?

And in the end, it really doesn't boil down to any of that. It boils down to Jeremy saying that "XBL isn't worth the money". As I pointed out, what's worthless to HIM isn't necessarily worthless to someone else.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Oh, and let's not forget the fact that I can queue several files to download at a time, then I can watch a movie or play a game while it's downloading. Is Sony's lack of this feature also a side-effect of it's being "free"? Despite the fact that my XBL membership is also free?

This is a firmware issue and NOT a PSN issue. And it's already been covered that in the March update when the PS3 launches in Europe this will be updated.

Some games are already showing early signs of multi-tasking. For instance, Tekken 5: DR enables you to go to the browser so you can surf the web from directly in the game, and I expect other games to follow suit, or at least for the firmware update to enable these features.

But naturally you want to judge the 3 month old service right now right? You don't want to pay attention to the fact that it already offers up a lot of the quality GAMEPLAY experiences in online gaming that XBL does for $50 a month, you just want to bring up other points right? Users don't pay $50 a month on XBL to download movies, that's free. They pay that price to PLAY GAMES. And that is the point, the price is to play online, and the PS3 matches that online gameplay.

 

[LaBounti]

I cant say which one I prefer. I just know until MS changes their XBL Arcade stratagey Sony will out do them in the downloadable content department. Some 40 games are being made for PS3. That does not include the future ps1 downloads that will increase when the PS1 emulator is released for PS3.

Jedi sometimes when you are used to one thing accepting somehting else is not easy. Most will say they prefer XBL, its a good sevice, but they shouldn't put a final judgement on Sony's PSN. Its new it looks new it feel new with room for much improvement. As far as speed I dont think either one is faster. Speeds vary you should know that. sounds like you are are putting a final judgement on it with your mini comparison rather than keeping an open opinion until Sony's upgrades it which they will like the've made many upgrades to the PSP, including features that were added based on survay's. But we are all open to our opinions.

 

[Tornado]

My point is that those who criticize PSN for not meeting the demand of serving out GTHD are now mute in criticizing the much more mature and tested XBL down time with little demand on it's servers.

I'm sorry, but for a paid subscription, it should NEVER go down. I can expect that of a free service, but paid? Absolutely unacceptable.

I agree with you both, but there is a big difference. PSN is slow right now because the demand is higher than Sony expected. XBox Live may have went down because of a server error, for all we know. Which, paid subscription or not, is very acceptable because it is no ones fault. If XBL went down due to server error, all the money in the world won't get it running until the server is fixed. Hell, people pay (including both of you) to use GTP and it has gone down before. Now, I don't know why it went down, but unless you know it wasn't some sort of hardware malfunction or bug you are in no position to criticise XBL, just as no one is in the position to criticise the just launched PSN.

Downloadable games? Those don't pay the server fees, that money goes back to the developer/publisher who released the game/upgrade/content, not to Microsoft.

EGM interviewed an XBLA developer and he said somewhere around 15%-30% of the money went to Microsoft, depending on how popular the game is.

Users don't pay $50 a month on XBL to download movies, that's free. They pay that price to PLAY GAMES. And that is the point, the price is to play online, and the PS3 matches that online gameplay.

While I agree with you (I've always hated the concept of XBL, despite being a rabid Sega-NET user all those years ago), it must be said that such a concept isn't new. Gamespy Arcade has been aroun since 2000, and MSN Gaming Zone did more or less the same thing from 1996-2006.

 

[LaBounti]

PSN is slow right now because the demand is higher than Sony expected.

Is it seems fine from where I'm sitting. PSN is not the same as XBL, not at the core at least. Even when I couldn't get into the PS Store I could still send and receive msgs. most complaints are about the PS Store during heavy traffic it just wont work sometimes. Thats pretty much it. Online games run perfect, Web browser works perfect. None of them seem intergrated like XBL. Meaning if PS Store is not working everyhting else will.

Basically its not the network, its the "PlayStaion Store".

 

[Jedi2016]

That's not a lot.

The only point I've ever tried to make on these forums is that the PS3 is not the end-all, be-all of gaming. It's not the Second Coming of Christ. Some people are just too blind to see past their own fanboyishness to understand that, even going so far as to downplay known faults in the system, or say that it's somehow "better this way".

I don't think I've heard your response to the whole scaling issue, Jeremy. What kind of TV do you have? Does it accept, and properly display, everything the PS3 will export? Or do you, unthinkably, acknowledge that MS's way is better?

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

I'd also like to bring up that the percentage of users that own a PS3 and use the PSN is higher than the percentage of users that own a 360 and use XBL.

Once PS3 has 8 million consoles out, it will have more users on it's network than XBL does, which could be a fatal blow to it's service if downloadable titles don't do well, but Sony seems to be putting a LOT of focus on the downloadable content and games, so this should single handedly save the PSN from death.

 

[Swift]

If you read my posts again, you'll find that I never offered an opinion on the subject. I simply repeated what I've read elsewhere, on many other forums besides this one, where large numbers of multi-console owners said they preferred XBL to PSN, despite the cost.

And, as mentioned, I also don't play games online, so the entire argument means very little to me anyway. But the discussion at hand actually wasn't about online gameplay, it was about downloading things, and whether the servers are up all the time. Jeremy's response was that it was "okay" if Sony's servers went down now and again, or download speeds were pathetically slow, simply because the service was free. Despite the fact that I can download all I want off of XBL, at higher speeds and more dependability than PSN, and I've yet to give MS a penny for it.

Oh, and let's not forget the fact that I can queue several files to download at a time, then I can watch a movie or play a game while it's downloading. Is Sony's lack of this feature also a side-effect of it's being "free"? Despite the fact that my XBL membership is also free?

And in the end, it really doesn't boil down to any of that. It boils down to Jeremy saying that "XBL isn't worth the money". As I pointed out, what's worthless to HIM isn't necessarily worthless to someone else.

LOL, I absolutely knew you were going to say something like that. I have a question, why do you get so passionate over something you don't use. You say you don't play games online but then have an opinion about an online gaming network. You don't own a PS3, but want to comment on it's online networks features, capabilities and gameplay.

Also, all the things that you mentioned that are "good" about XBL have nothing to do with actually playing games online. You get updates, accessories, new things for your games, but that doesn't mean you're playing other's online.

If something is free and offers the same kind of service being 3 MONTHS OLD that a service that has a several year head start and is charging for it's use...yeah, I think you have to give the free service a little bit of leeway here. Let's remember that the PSN and XBL weren't created at the same time. It's be like comparing the 360's game library toe the PS3's. Of course the 360 has more games since it was out a year before the PS3.

Take a it down a notch Jedi. I know you love to prove Jeremy wrong, but it's just not going to happen in this case since you have not experienced both networks to be able to tell the difference. And in gaming, yeah, I think that does matter.

 

[Jedi2016]

Swift. You're. Missing. My. Point.

We're discussing a difference of opinion. It's not an argument about whether one is better than the other, it never was. It's about what we THINK, and Jeremy's inability to comprehend the idea that his opinion might not be shared by everyone alike.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Swift. You're. Missing. My. Point.

We're discussing a difference of opinion. It's not an argument about whether one is better than the other, it never was. It's about what we THINK, and Jeremy's inability to comprehend the idea that his opinion might not be shared by everyone alike.

I just typed up a long POS post that didn't post and I lost it all...

here it goes again..

XBL Gold - $50 (you pay only for gameplay privledges)
PSN - Free

Gameplay online between the two (which is all you pay for) is nearly identicle.

So why am I paying for XBL gold if the PSN offers the same thing free? Does that NOT negate the benefit of a subscription purchase?

You CANNOT talk about the other standard features that are FREE when talking about the SUBSCRIPTION service, which ONLY applies to playing games online.

When you compare the price of the two, you have to COMPARE what you're paying for, and with XBL Gold, you're ONLY paying for the ability to play games online, everything else is free.

SO.

Since PSN is free, and performs just as well as XBL Gold when playing online, that should lead everyone to the conclusion that $50 =/= good service. It's simply a way for MS to milk everyone as much as possible since they make more than enough on the XBLA games.

 

[Jedi2016]

As I mentioned, Jeremy, I'm not trying to determine which is "better". I never WAS trying to determine which is better.

Since that conversation was completely wasted, let's tackle these two:

1) The PS3's scaling problems. Blu-ray and Gaming. 720p/1080i, and how you're screwed either way. You can either acknowledge the flaw, or you can say that it's the user's fault or not owning a 1080p TV.

2) And this is a funny one... a Sony rep's claim that in-store PS3's are designed to lock up intentionally to keep people from playing the system too long. The same thing most other people do with that "time limit" thing. Since it's a Sony rep, do you believe him?

 

[Swift]

Swift. You're. Missing. My. Point.

We're discussing a difference of opinion. It's not an argument about whether one is better than the other, it never was. It's about what we THINK, and Jeremy's inability to comprehend the idea that his opinion might not be shared by everyone alike.

And your opinion is?

Sorry, but you sound just as arrogant as you painting Jeremy to be. All of your points are complete opinion with nothing to back anything up. You say you entilted to that opinion and so is Jeremy. Except he actually has played on the PSN so his opinion has at least a decent foundation while your only foundation is, "The PS3 is not the second coming of Christ".

I totally get what you're saying about people's opinions. But this isn't a political forum(not this section anyway) so people can have overblown opinions all they want.

I personally think that both consoles are currently a waste of money at this time. Does that make me a fanboy? Does that make me hard headed? Nope, it just means that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it until something happens on one of those consoles to change my mind. I can justify my opinion and I know I'm "right" but all of my justifications are purely personal. So what's the point in arguing with me about it?

 

[DuckRacer]

Holy hell guys. Since I have all three consoles, if I fairly compare the online service of the 360 and PS3 (which I will), would you guys take it down a notch?

 

[LaBounti]

It wouldn't be fair thats a point thats been made a few time already.

And to Jedi that wasnt a "Sony" rep. It was refered to Motorstorm and since there are so many people that beleive everything thats how it spreads. Motorstorm's in store demo, you know the old version, does stop after a while, it happend to me at a wall mart then again the next day at a circiut City, Its a Motostorm Demo issue not a hardware thing.

 

[Tornado]

Holy hell guys. Since I have all three consoles, if I fairly compare the online service of the 360 and PS3 (which I will), would you guys take it down a notch?

You own a Mac. You hate everything.

Anyways, as leverage for an argument of hardwatre quality on another forum, I need to know anything about any problems the PS3 has been having before the person I'm arguing with uses them against me. Could someone enlighten me on them, if there are any?

 

[Jedi2016]

You're still missing my point, Swift, since you continue to bring up the whole "comparing the services" thing, when that was never what I was talking about.

All I'm trying to do is to get some people to understand that just because something has "Sony" imprinted on the front of it, doesn't necessarily make it better than something else.

As I've stated repeatedly, I used to be the same way. There was a time when I followed Sony just as blindly as Jeremy does. That Microsoft was the devil, anything even remotely related to the Xbox was utter garbage, and that Sony could do no wrong. Since I went multi-console and took my blinders off, it's like a whole new world, and now I find those people, who think as I used to think, utterly pathetic.

 

[Eric.]

Just in: Xbox 360 warranty has been increased to 1 year (from 90 days) to match the PS3.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

As I mentioned, Jeremy, I'm not trying to determine which is "better". I never WAS trying to determine which is better.

Since that conversation was completely wasted, let's tackle these two:

1) The PS3's scaling problems. Blu-ray and Gaming. 720p/1080i, and how you're screwed either way. You can either acknowledge the flaw, or you can say that it's the user's fault or not owning a 1080p TV.

2) And this is a funny one... a Sony rep's claim that in-store PS3's are designed to lock up intentionally to keep people from playing the system too long. The same thing most other people do with that "time limit" thing. Since it's a Sony rep, do you believe him?

I was never speaking about which was better, I was speaking about which was not worth it. I measure value against the competition. If I can get something of similar quality for free, then I think the item that is not free is not worth it. Does that make any sense? The only thing that you can compare as far as the price of XBL is the online gaming, everything else is free and does not apply to the worth of XBL Gold ($50). Hopefully that clears up what I'm trying to get accross.

As for the Scaling issue, I agree, it's a short coming, but it's not something that can't be solved via software scaling, that I'm sure of. Video processing is in fact the Cell's specialty. Who knows how it'll work out.

As for the Sony rep, I'll chalk it up to rumor and nothing else. Seriously now, are you giving me a he said she siad story? Our Sony rep is fairly intelligent out the GameStop I work at. It should also be noted that Sony Reps do NOT have any inside information, they simply come out to deliver the hardware and help trouble shoot it, so their comments on anything other than setting up the hardware is just their opinion or wack house ideas.

 

[LaBounti]

Avoid Fullauto2, at least rent it. Its unsatisfying in the gameplaying and car handling deparment. Graphics look nice frameate is ok, it just feels like it wasn't meant to be a racing game or a car combat. It is better than the first FullAuto but I feel like I'm playing something from the arcade in 1995 with better graphic.

Its headed back to gamefly so I can try another game.

It should also be noted that Sony Reps do NOT have any inside information, they simply come out to deliver the hardware and help trouble shoot it, so their comments on anything other than setting up the hardware is just their opinion or wack house ideas.

That right there killed the statment. It never should have gotten that far to make headlines. but anything that sounds remotely bad about Sony is news i guess, some sites have already shot this rumor down.

 

[Tornado]

Just in: Xbox 360 warranty has been increased to 1 year (from 90 days) to match the PS3.

Just in: We've known that for over a week now.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

utterly pathetic.

Screw you dude, don't look down on me like you're some sort of god, no one got personal and here you are trying to attack me indirectly to be smooth. Utterly pathetic? Can you possibly get any more out of line?

 

[Jedi2016]

Anyways, as leverage for an argument of hardwatre quality on another forum, I need to know anything about any problems the PS3 has been having before the person I'm arguing with uses them against me. Could someone enlighten me on them, if there are any?

The scaler is really the main problem. Unlike practically every other high-definition device out there, the PS3 does not have an internal scaler. Which means it's limited to spitting out only certain resolutions at certain times. This has caused a large number of complaints aimed at Sony, from people whose HDTVs can't display what the PS3 is exporting.

For example:

Let's say you have a CRT HDTV (direct-view or projection). These are typically limited to 480i/480p/1080i. If you're playing a game that's in 720p, you're screwed. Since your TV can't accept the signal, the PS3 will downscale the image to 480p, rather than upscaling it to 1080i.

On the flip side, the PS3's Blu-ray player is limited to those same resolutions as a CRT TV. So if you have a 720p TV, you're going to have issues when trying to watch Blu-ray movies. Some TVs accept 1080i signals, but most of those that do can't deinterlace them properly, resulting in an oddly-scaled 1920x540 signal, offering little improvement over standard DVD.

The bottom line is that the only type of TV that's capable of accepting and properly displaying everything the PS3 will attempt to export is a 1080p TV. Those are the only ones that offer FULL support of 480i/480p/720p/1080i/1080p.

People are calling it a major design flaw, and they're right.

Fact is, the X360 does it much better. Rather than selecting "available" resolutions like on the PS3, you select only one. ONE resolution in the Settings panel, and everything is scaled to that resolution before being sent to the TV, regardless if it's a movie or a game or whatever else.

 

[Jedi2016]

Screw you dude, don't look down on me like you're some sort of god.

Likewise. Don't look down on ME just because I don't bow before the altar of Sony anymore.

It's going to blow your mind when I get a PS3, isn't it?

 

[Tornado]

The scaler is really the main problem. Unlike practically every other high-definition device out there, the PS3 does not have an internal scaler. Which means it's limited to spitting out only certain resolutions at certain times. This has caused a large number of complaints aimed at Sony, from people whose HDTVs can't display what the PS3 is exporting.

No no, I mean like system-exploding overheating, PS2 style. Reliability related stuff. As far as I'm aware, there have only been rare cases of PS3's overheating and/or not booting up, but I need to make sure.