Nov 7 2002, 3:45 pm
In response to Skysaw
|
|
Thrakkiss
 |
I still haven't opened up all of the characters. There are a *lot* of them. :)
|
Linux distributions for PS/2 have been around for years. PS/2 is an old IBM system. ;) PS/2 shouldn't run Linux, though. If I'm not mistaken, you need at least a 386 for it. -AbyssDragon | |
AbyssDragon wrote:
Linux distributions for PS/2 have been around for years. PS/2 is an old IBM system. ;) Many of the PS/2 models had a 386 or more. My college gave me one with a 486 back in the dark days. There is a table of PS/2 models here. | |
FuZzY DiCe wrote:
haha obviously not in everquest either...or tribes...or madden I am sure they will find a way. | |
Why the hell should we have to pay for something we could easily just plug in from a server or maybe attach a cable from our com to our xbox so we can get on the net. I mean 50$ is a rip job.
| |
I am not talking about current games. I am talking about future games.
And actually, you *can* update xbox games. | |
Because you are connecting to a server of thousands and thousands of xbox users, not just to another xbox. It has features that just putting your xbox "on the internet" couldn't provide.
It costs a whole lot of money to run the service, so they have to charge something. | |
Thrakkiss wrote:
Because you are connecting to a server of thousands and thousands of xbox users, not just to another xbox. It has features that just putting your xbox "on the internet" couldn't provide. I believe the argument is that no such service is needed. You can go online through your internet provider. (As a matter of fact, it's still required with Xbox Live.) There are free matchmaking and messenger services. Developers can release updates online. PC games have been running off of public/private servers for years and it's been free for players. (Someone pays for it in the end of course.) Xbox Live appears to be charging for a lack of features. Granted, it seems to be a reasonable price for pay servers and a headset in the short run. However, many may wonder why they can't just set it up like a PC. | |
Sure, PC users will get a much cheaper and easier online experience than an Xbox user ever will. That is one of the advantages of PC gaming. But the Xbox, despite heavy similarities to PCs, is a console.
So Xbox Live, in my opinion, is the best there is at the moment for online console gaming. Besides, its only $10 a month, and you get the first year with a $50 package. My only gripe with it is that it is broadband-only. | |
Thrakkiss wrote:
Sure, PC users will get a much cheaper and easier online experience than an Xbox user ever will. That is one of the advantages of PC gaming. But the Xbox, despite heavy similarities to PCs, is a console.[snip] Yes. The Xbox is a console. However, a game service is a game service. There is no real reason why an Xbox user can't have the same experience as a PC user. Xbox Live is nothing new. There have been pay services for the PC as well. Xbox Live is simply taking advantage of the fact that Xbox developers are not releasing server software like most PC games do. There is no technological reason. It is a business plan. | |
were speaking ps2 not xbox... and i doubt future games wont allow it. or else they wouldnt sell network adaptors
| |
ACWraith wrote:
However, a game service is a game service. There is no real reason why an Xbox user can't have the same experience as a PC user. Xbox Live is nothing new. There have been pay services for the PC as well. Xbox Live is simply taking advantage of the fact that Xbox developers are not releasing server software like most PC games do. There is no technological reason. It is a business plan. My point about the Xbox being a console is that the market for consoles is totally different from the PC market. Online gaming has been around for years when it comes to PCs, while it is relatively new for consoles. I wasn't trying to make it sound as if it were technologically impossible. Of course it isn't. Yes, it is a business plan. What else would it be? Microsoft (and other console developers) are testing the online waters, so to speak, and trying their own methods for it. Many people are willing to pay $10+ a month for games such as Everquest, and other MMORPGs. Why not pay $10 a month to play any Live-enabled that you own? The thing that I think makes Xbox Live worth it is the similarities it has to Blizzard's battle.net. While battle.net *is* free, there aren't many services out there of that quality that are free. It provides a "hub" where you can play any Xbox game with anyone in the world, download updates or the latest versions of games, use the voice communicator, etc. I think the best part of it is that all Xbox users will go to the same place for their online gaming, instead of being spread out over thousands of different locations. | |
FuZzY DiCe wrote:
were speaking ps2 not xbox... and i doubt future games wont allow it. or else they wouldnt sell network adaptors You said "console games". ;-) Some PS2 games are supposed to allow 56k modems, while others are supposed to be broadband-only. SOCOM is a good example of a game that is supposed to be broadband-only. I am saying that they will probably find a way, in future games, to be sure that 56k users can't play a broadband-only PS2 game. | |
I agree, voice communication in online computer games rocks! Unfortunately I have only tried it once with Half-Life which the next day my brother took my MIC up to Colledge Station, Texas with him. I'm probably going to go up there and steal it back so I can fully enjoy http://www.natural-selection.org, mwahahahaha!
<<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
Thrakkiss wrote:
[snip] Yes, it is a business plan. What else would it be?[snip] It should be an answer to the original question: "Why the hell should we have to pay for something we could easily just plug in from a server or maybe attach a cable from our com to our Xbox so we can get on the net?" ;) My problem was with your answer. Connecting to servers with large numbers of players can be done for "free". Putting your Xbox on the internet should provide the features Xbox Live is offering. Just because a company needs money to support a pay service does not mean people have to take that company up on the offer. There is no reason PC users should always get a much cheaper and easier online experience than console users. Unfortunately, the answer is closer to: "The Xbox business model has produced an artificial limit regarding third party servers." Granted, pay services having exclusive titles is nothing new. However, many of them died because people did not think that was a good enough answer for the original question. | |
were were speaking on ps2 console games ;P and there is a way to make it like that ...they dont have to "find" a way to they just see that quite a few people still use 56k and until DSL/cable is cheap and available in areas for everyone to get they wont restrict their service to broadband only...
| |
Thrakkiss wrote:
Online gaming has been around for years when it comes to PCs, while it is relatively new for consoles. In case you were wondering, online gaming services for consoles have been around since the early-to-mid 80s. One of the better services was run by a company named CVC, which eventually changed its name to America Online. Just thought you might like to know that ; ) | |
and the 56k doesnt lag at all well, took me awhile to reply, anyways there is a differance between using the two. The 56k might cause a little lag, I beleive. Also this will affect the rate which you download things. Xbox already has it so you can update games, and said they will be able to trade/give mods, download updates, ect. and I beleive in the ps2 demo-disc it said that they also allowed you to download things. If you've ever used a 56k in real life, you have to know that it will lag. If you want to try the closest thing to 56k, subscribe to aol and use the free hours they send you about every weekend. | |