Reply to Thread

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

Live really is worth it. I had my PS2 online for about 20 minutes trying t play Tony Hawk a couple years ago...such a waste of time. The PS3 is probably a little better, but Live is done so incredibly well, you can't really touch it right now. Everything about it has been great. I was an XBOX hater...then got a 360 from the woman for Valentines Day this year and absolutely love everything about it...especially Live.

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

yes, it should have been better on ps2. as for ps3 online, im not having any problems with it. not saying it doesnt need work, but i personally dont find it as bad as people are making it be.

it needs more features like the invites and other things, but for what i use it for, playing games, it works perfectly fine right now...... but again IT NEEDS WORK, i know this, so post as many rolls eyes as you want. just stating what im seeing so far

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

sony's first real attempt should have been the ps2. it's ashame that people who drop $600+ bucks have to live with the growing pains of the sony online system.

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

sorry, im not bashing xbl, its a very nice setup, but theres nothing in it that makes a huge difference to me. i dont sent invites to people over live who arent in my game, i talk to them online with aim etc.. we all go into the game and then we play. so the whole cant send invites doesnt bother me. is sonys as good as m$'s, not even close, but being sonys first real attempt, its a good base to start with. as you stated, m$ has been at it for years now. you cant expect within 1 month of release for sonys to be 100% up and running with every feature enabled. it wasnt until 360, you know, 3-4 years after xbl was born on original halobox, did they finally add these features that make it great. like i said, they have catching up to do, when they add some stuff with updats and get everything working, then it would be more fair to put them side by side.

we all know xbl wasnt fully recognized till the 360. thats FINALLY when it was worth something more.

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

Live is leaps and bounds ahead of Sony's online. It's not even a question. If there's only one thing that can be said about the 360, it's that Xbox Live is MS' bread and butter. They've been building upon for over 4 years. Sony has A LOT of catching up to do if they even hope to be at the same level.

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

Minor differences, you're joking right? There are some glaring, huge differences. And without a unified setup like Xbox Live, it will be very hard for Sony to do some of the things. Since each game's online stup will differ.

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

what exactly is so funny? am i missing something here?

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

thing you gotta remember, xbox live was far from what it is now when 360 was launched. its come a long way since. being sonys first real attempt at online all the time service, i think its pretty nice. its pretty much xbl with some minor differences. which isnt a bad thing to "copy" since xbl is quite nice and easy to use. id say give ps3 online another few months and see what they add and make work with updates. a year from now, im sure ps3 online will have all the features ive heard people complain about.

i still get lag once in awhile when i play with random people in gears, but thats cause its a person hosting on the bare minimum for internet connection. as long as someone has good connection, game should be lag free. resistance for example, your playing with 32 more players than gears supports and ive yet to experience any lag. runs like your playing over a network or lan. but on the other hand, cod 3 on 360 supports 24 i believe it is, and ive yet to have any real problems with lag myself. so id say both online services are or will be very nice for each system in the future.

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

if xbox live is going to charge a monthly fee i think they need to start offering dedicated servers for latency sensitive games

So PS2 and PS3 dont charge for online play yet Xbox and 360 do???

any evidence to support that? and regardless, the amount of info being sent/received in a 360/ps3 game should be substantially greater than in a ps2 game, correct?