80$CAN for a GOLD account on Xbox Live to play ANY game you want is top-notch in my book. Charging an extra to play a specific game, like FFXI is a crime. A 'BAD' crime!!

I do say RRRAAAAAPPPPPPEEEEEEE!!!!

If I don't own an Xbox, you think I'd really care that much to know how Xbox Live operates? It's not like I get 100 people a day asking me about the Live service. It's one of those things that is a bit more geared toward owners of the system. Hell, I've never even gotten online with the PS2 save for a couple times on Ratchet and Clank 3.

And okay Jazz, I do see your point now, though I thought you were making a different one earlier.

Dude, what the hell? I admitted I was mistaken and thought wrong about the 360's online service. You practically jumped on the opportunity to point out an error that I made admission to. Now you're just being an asshole.

And I never said that the free online service was an absolute. I was making speculation. And damn you for putting words into my mouth -- I never said a thing about cheaper game play in general -- only in reference to MMORPGs under which I made an admission toward making a wrong assumption. Quit being such an ass and thinking you're the shit for pointing out mistakes.

Not gonna bother quoting because this post is going right underneath yours anyway.

And did you read the rest of that post? The entire post was directed toward MMOs. I didn't realize I needed to point that out one more time. Have I played 360 Live? No, but I have seen it. Friend's got it. Soooo what?

And yeah, you have been an ass. Pointing out flaws is one thing, but you've done so in an asshole kind of way. Onto the subject matter at hand --

I used to think that paying for online services would "garner more dedicated servers and a more reliable service" until Guild Wars came out. They seem to be doing fairly well right now, and I haven't heard of them having any major malfunctions with their servers yet. Blizzard on the other hand...

We might as well split this off into another thread, but I felt I had to fix a few misconceptions with the Guild Wars analogy.

1) They don't handle nearly as many people as World of Warcraft does.
2) It's not a real MMORPG. It's equivalent to something more like Diablo 2, where you have a common lobby, then individual game rooms. Thus, lots less server strain.

And Sony already has a kind of online service for the PS2 and PSP, but it's decentralized and completely up to the game company on how to run it (in terms of quality control). Hopefully the free service for the PS3 won't be like this.

Since we're on the topic of servers now, maybe comparing NCSoft to Blizzard isn't necessarily a good comparison as far as traffic strain goes. Ultimately, it'll boil down to how many people will get online with the PS3s. In my opinion, the Xbox got lucky when they used system link for multiplayer on Halo and saw how big of a success it was. The obvious progression at that point is going online, and they did.

I understand that the Xbox was able to go online before the big influx of online gamers, but if it weren't for Halo being such a smash hit with gamers would wanted to play multiplayer, I can't help but wonder if online gaming would've reached the peak it's gotten to.

Anyway, for right now I see this as a good thing. Sony's willing to shoulder the cost of a free online service, at least for now, and hopefully it'll be a more permanent thing. If it's free, that'll just attract more gamers to the prospect of online competition, and that's almost always a good thing.

Hi, I'm a PC gamer, I've been playing games online since I got my first copy of Command & Conquer: Red Alert. I've been dying for consoles to have decent online play ever since I realized how nice it is not to need all of your friends to come over to your house to play a game.

Okay, I'm basically done with online shit now. The next thing you'll tell me is that the GameGear was online and the NES had system link.

I know that the Dreamcast was online, but that's as far back as I know, save for PCs. As for whoever that mod is, I was a PC gamer for years before I even got online with any of my games, so with the exception of the later FPSs like Unreal Tournament and Battle.Net, I didn't think online gaming through a PC garnered a large crowd.

I'm so anti-Halo it's ridiculous, but playing games online through consoles other than the PC wasn't something that had really broken through until the Xbox and Halo. I'm aware that other consoles were capable of gaming online, but I don't think any of them drew very large a crowd. If they did, it wouldn't have taken this long for online gaming to really hit.

Again, (and I'm sorry to keep picking at your posts like this, I really am) Halo isn't online.

Halo 2 is. However, Xbox Live took off way before Halo 2 ever came out. Crimson Skies, a few of the Tom Clancy games, MechAssault, etc...

Multi-player Halo 1 was played generally as a split-screen 4-player game. Some rich kids might have hooked a few consoles and screens up for LAN play, but it didn't have online play.

The only problem with that statistic is chronology. How long has Battle.net been around (and gone unopposed, for that matter) compared to Xbox Live?

I always thought Quakeworld made everyone go nuts about online play.

Considering this is a thread about a console and not a PC, you'd know that I've been trying to stay on track with console online gaming. Goddamnit, I don't even know how we got to this point now.

Xbox Live proved that consoles can do online gaming quite well and steadily gain popularity. Since, however, this is a thread about the Playstation 3 and I wanna get back on track with the thread, if the PS3 really does maintain a free online service, I imagine they'll surprass Xbox Live as long as they've got the games to garner the support.

What are they lying about? They haven't lied about anything yet regarding the PS3's online service. And they never charged an additional fee for their online service for the PS2 either.

Edit: Left out a couple words. Sony has made abrupt changes to the PS3 itself, but they've thus far maintained their stance on free online play.

They didn't have an online service on the PS2, you ass. Developers handling their own systems and servers is not a free online service on Sony's part.
Just like Microsoft doesn't/can't claim its Windows XP and the new Vista paltforms have a free online service.

I'd like to know if the PS3 actually has an actual online service this time around or will they again simply pretend they do and hope no one notices.

What're you talking about? They had to have at least some form of online service to allow the games to get online in the first place. Sure they don't have a service like Xbox Live, but it was still there.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08..._online_plans/

http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2002/2/13-48

I'm sorry but a network adapter does not equal "online service". So maybe you want to explain just what the second link you provided even means.

The second article is basically a list of the ISPs Sony uses to allow gamers to get online. Those ISPs are providing Sony's online service in Japan.

SouthJag, even Nintendo fanboys have come to understand that Nintendo's online service is a joke. Why can't you come aroun on Sony's.

Sony has NO FUCKING CLUE what they are doing.