Well for a start, see that little button in the middle of the PS3 and 360 controller? Yeah, that one, the clear one. Well on the 360 that brings up a whole load of useful community features, check my download progress and let me play my music over my games. On the other hand, that button on the PS3 lets me quit my game.
So Silver accounts don't let you do these things? Wierd.
It does, but the gold members are asupporting the whole service with their money. The way I see it is that MS have it backwards, Online play should be free and all the awesome stuff should be paid for.
Either way I'm not fussed since it's only £3 a month. I'd pay for PSN if it had all the same features.
The biggest difference—to me, anyway—is cross-game compatibility. When I go online, I can see what games all of my friends are playing and can send them a message or invite them to any game that I want. If I'm playing CoD4 and my friend shoots me an invite to play Rock Band, I can pause, accept, pop in my game disc and immediately pop into a game with him.
Ostensibly, the PS3 in-game XMB that will kind of let you do this is coming to the PS3—although I've seen it promised for months now—and there might be some kind of this functionality in Home when it launches, but the 360's Live integration with every single game is wonderful.
Well, I guess that's a difference. On PS3 you have to actually be playing the game that you want to invite someone into. I mean, I suppose you could send a message saying "hey, want to play Rock Band?" but it's not an "official" game invite. But you can see what games people are playing and they can invite you from a different game, then you can change games and join them. So it's not quite as seamless in that regard, such as instantly popping you into their game when you boot.
I think in your second paragraph you're describing messaging in-game. Yeah, Sony kind of made a snafu there. I don't think of that as part of the PSN/Live service at all, but rather an OS thing. What Sony did was make messaging, chat, and such available in-game, but at the discretion of the game developer. Giving that kind of freedom wasn't a good idea after all, because game developers have been disallowing it for the most part.
It's worth emphasizing that because of the integrated Live system, every 360 game has some sort of online features even if it's just online leaderboards (which are more fun than I would have thought). Sometimes, like in the case of Virtua Fighter, this results in the 360 version getting online play when the PS3 version did not.
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
corin7 on
0
Forever Zefirocloaked in the midnight glory of an event horizonRegistered Userregular
edited December 2007
Get the one that has the games you want to play.
Do you want to play Resistance and/or Uncharted, maybe FFXIII or MGS4 later? That's PS3.
Do you want to play Halo 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, and/or Forza 2? Those are on Xbox 360.
Easy!
Forever Zefiro on
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
Well for a start, see that little button in the middle of the PS3 and 360 controller? Yeah, that one, the clear one. Well on the 360 that brings up a whole load of useful community features, check my download progress and let me play my music over my games. On the other hand, that button on the PS3 lets me quit my game.
So Silver accounts don't let you do these things? Wierd.
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
Well, I guess that's a difference. On PS3 you have to actually be playing the game that you want to invite someone into. I mean, I suppose you could send a message saying "hey, want to play Rock Band?" but it's not an "official" game invite. But you can see what games people are playing and they can invite you from a different game, then you can change games and join them. So it's not quite as seamless in that regard, such as instantly popping you into their game when you boot.
But the PS3 friend lists are limited to each specific game, right? I've heard that voice chat and such are great when you have people on your friend list, but you have to build your list up for each game that you play, so your Resistance list would be different from your Warhawk list, etc. Because 360's Live is constant across all games, I just add corin7 once and he'll be on my list all the time, so if I added him while playing Gears and then 6 months later see that he's playing Rock Band, I can toss him an invite and join him right there.
The game-specific lists are what kind of kills the experience for me -- I love playing Mario Strikers Wii online, but I can never tell when some of the friends I have in the game are online unless I actually boot up Strikers and go to the Friend screen. With the 360, every time I boot the system I get a glimpse of what all of my friends are doing all of the time. Sometimes it helps me decide what I'm actually going to play.
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
I don't disagree. However if I were deciding between PS3 and 360, that would be a pretty unconvincing argument for the greatness of Live, and why I should get a 360.
Since no 360 fan is stepping up to the plate, I'll try to put the list together:
Disclaimer: I've never even picked up a 360 controller
For the cost of Live, it appears you get (and not get on the PS3):
Gamerscore, a measure of how many, and how completely you play, games
Cohesive one-stop-shop friends lists that you can take from game to game
First access to free add-on content (by a week or so)
Ah, yes, tracking game progress and such. I didn't think about that. XBL does do that better, since PSN doesn't do it at all. PSN does have a "cohesive one-stop-shop friends lists that you can take from game to game." I don't understand the 3rd one, but it sounds good.
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
Yes you can. A friend and I used to send messages back and forth while he was logged into his silver account.
urahonky on
0
Forever Zefirocloaked in the midnight glory of an event horizonRegistered Userregular
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
I would pay $60 for Super Metroid if I had to. People can beat that game in under 1 hour.
Forever Zefiro on
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
I would pay $60 for Super Metroid if I had to. People can beat that game in under 1 hour.
So playing it on your first run without a strategy guide... Would take you under 1 hour? I don't think so.
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
I would pay $60 for Super Metroid if I had to. People can beat that game in under 1 hour.
I beat tetris ds in that amount of time. Worth every penny though.
Edit: just the tetris though, not the puzzles
I don't disagree. However if I were deciding between PS3 and 360, that would be a pretty unconvincing argument for the greatness of Live, and why I should get a 360.
Since no 360 fan is stepping up to the plate, I'll try to put the list together:
Disclaimer: I've never even picked up a 360 controller
For the cost of Live, it appears you get (and not get on the PS3):
Gamerscore, a measure of how many, and how completely you play, games
Cohesive one-stop-shop friends lists that you can take from game to game
First access to free add-on content (by a week or so)
Ah, yes, tracking game progress and such. I didn't think about that. XBL does do that better, since PSN doesn't do it at all. PSN does have a "cohesive one-stop-shop friends lists that you can take from game to game." I don't understand the 3rd one, but it sounds good.
It's something I just read about. Something free came out on Live and apparently Golds get to download it a week before Silvers. This is not uncommon from what I gathered context-wise.
My preference would be that someone in the know could provide more specifics on what Live Gold gives you for the money, marginally over the PS3. It would be good for me to know since I'll be buying a 360 someday and I'm not convinced I want to pay for a Gold account.
Well for a start, see that little button in the middle of the PS3 and 360 controller? Yeah, that one, the clear one. Well on the 360 that brings up a whole load of useful community features, check my download progress and let me play my music over my games. On the other hand, that button on the PS3 lets me quit my game.
That's an OS thing, nothing to do with the online service. I think I can see how they would be confuse though. My view is probably a little skewed from a basic consumer view, being a software developer.
I'll give you that access to the Dashboard is a great option, and 360 does that, PS3 doesn't. But that does bring up another point. The interface. I played around with Dashboard a lot and it's so utterly disorganized that it's just not fun to use. Sometimes it takes me a while to find something that I downloaded. XMB is definitely better in organization and a nice, clean, streamlined look. Of course it's all opinion, but XMB > Dashboard in mine.
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
Yes you can. A friend and I used to send messages back and forth while he was logged into his silver account.
Thanks! So, so far your Live subscription $ definitely goes toward enabling online multiplayer. Check. What else?
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
No worries man. After watching some of the making of features I can pretty much promise you the budget for HS exceeded Persona and was probably comparable to Oblivion. The reason it is short is because they spent that budget on art, animation, and voice acting. I don't think it is going to be a trend in games. I just think for every Oblivion that we get there will be a team that gives us a HS or Darkness. Variety you know? If you can't justify $60 for a solid 10 hours of gaming that is cool. I just hate to see people driven away from an aboslutely stunning game. IMO Heavenly Sword is the high bar for art in a game as of now.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
Actually, I think the trend is going the other way. Thinking back to the games of yore, they had very little content, and were more expensive than today's games (with inflation).
Pong, River Raid, Pitfall, Super Mario Bros, Metroid, Excitebike, Gyromite, Ghosts & Goblins, Golden Axe, etc. Anything not an RPG was actually way shorter than 10 hours... games are actually getting progressively longer and better looking.
Well for a start, see that little button in the middle of the PS3 and 360 controller? Yeah, that one, the clear one. Well on the 360 that brings up a whole load of useful community features, check my download progress and let me play my music over my games. On the other hand, that button on the PS3 lets me quit my game.
That's an OS thing, nothing to do with the online service. I think I can see how they would be confuse though. My view is probably a little skewed from a basic consumer view, being a software developer.
It was more of an example where Live is useful. The OS allows access to all the awesome features of live; adding friends, lookign at people you've played with previously, sending messages ingame, voicechat in different games, checking friends game progress or what they're playing, sending game invites. All of that can be done at the push of a button, I'm aware that it's powered by the OS, but the OS without the features of live would be pretty pitiful.
I was disappointed when I started using the PS3 as all these features had become second nature to me, I expected them to be there and they weren't.
I'll give you that the blades are cluttered though, it's gotten worse with every update. Though I don't feel the PS3 is substantially better either, navigating the PSN store is nightmare.
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
No worries man. After watching some of the making of features I can pretty much promise you the budget for HS exceeded Persona and was probably comparable to Oblivion. The reason it is short is because they spent that budget on art, animation, and voice acting. I don't think it is going to be a trend in games. I just think for every Oblivion that we get there will be a team that gives us a HS or Darkness. Variety you know? If you can't justify $60 for a solid 10 hours of gaming that is cool. I just hate to see people driven away from an aboslutely stunning game. IMO Heavenly Sword is the high bar for art in a game as of now.
The Darkness was really short? I thought I put about 13-15 hours into it. Not including multiplayer (which wasn't too bad...). I think that if a game's playability is less than 15 hours (if for only the single player) then it's a rental. I just want the bang for my buck.
I mean, Super Smash Bros: Melee has OVER 300 hours clocked into it from my friends and I. And I paid $50 for it back in the day. I just can't see myself playing that game in two years and thinking: "Definitely worth the $60 I paid for it." if it's only 10 hours long. However, that's where the phrase: different strokes for different folks, comes into play.
We are all crossing into the realm of war. Peace brothers!
:whistle:Why can't we be friends....:whistle:
Anyways... to most people, paying for Live is nothing... its a small cost and for what they get they're happy. But this is definately a YMMV situation. I come from the tangled jungle of PC gaming and the thought of paying any money whatsoever for a P2P online service doesn't sit well with me. I feel the pain having to do it with Gears Of War on the PC since MS decided to integrate live into that (I'm not paying shit... silver accounts can play for free) and the lag on the versus games can be unbearable. I can't imagine paying for that. And this is only 8 people... Ive played 64 players on Battlefield 2 and not a bit of lag whatsoever.
As for the PSN it lacks alot of the integrated features of live but to be honest I get along fine without them and Ive seen live on the 360 in action. The only thing I wish is that more PS3 people used headsets... but thats about it.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
Yes you can. A friend and I used to send messages back and forth while he was logged into his silver account.
Thanks! So, so far your Live subscription $ definitely goes toward enabling online multiplayer. Check. What else?
Subsidizing silver memberships? MS wants everyone to have access to marketplace, games, etc. (that's how they makes the monies) so instead of charging to access these items they instead make it free and charge a pretty nominal fee (when viewed in connection with how much games cost, etc.) for those who want to play multi-player. Great deal for Silvers, not so great for gold, but either way the service they are providing is obviously viewed by enough people to justify a $50 price
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
Yes you can. A friend and I used to send messages back and forth while he was logged into his silver account.
Thanks! So, so far your Live subscription $ definitely goes toward enabling online multiplayer. Check. What else?
Subsidizing silver memberships? MS wants everyone to have access to marketplace, games, etc. (that's how they makes the monies) so instead of charging to access these items they instead make it free and charge a pretty nominal fee (when viewed in connection with how much games cost, etc.) for those who want to play multi-player. Great deal for Silvers, not so great for gold, but either way the service they are providing is obviously viewed by enough people to justify a $50 price
Yup.
$50 a year is less than the cost of one game.
I can pass up one game per year in order to pay that price, and have access to the quality of theonline service.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
Actually, I think the trend is going the other way. Thinking back to the games of yore, they had very little content, and were more expensive than today's games (with inflation).
Pong, River Raid, Pitfall, Super Mario Bros, Metroid, Excitebike, Gyromite, Ghosts & Goblins, Golden Axe, etc. Anything not an RPG was actually way shorter than 10 hours... games are actually getting progressively longer and better looking.
Well you're right on that, that's for sure. The problem is that all of us are maturing as gamers, just like the games should be over time. I mean, I know I put countless hours into Perfect Dark/Goldeneye even on the single player. Final Fantasy 7 has two or 3 save spots on my memory card with at least 70+ hours, and that's just from me.
I think back in the day it was easier to please us. At least as kids... But honestly I can't remember how much an NES cartridge costed back then... Because my parents would buy them for me.
I suppose I should have changed it from "I just hate to see this.." to "I WOULD just hate to see this becoming..."
The Darkness was really short? I thought I put about 13-15 hours into it. Not including multiplayer (which wasn't too bad...). I think that if a game's playability is less than 15 hours (if for only the single player) then it's a rental. I just want the bang for my buck.
I mean, Super Smash Bros: Melee has OVER 300 hours clocked into it from my friends and I. And I paid $50 for it back in the day. I just can't see myself playing that game in two years and thinking: "Definitely worth the $60 I paid for it." if it's only 10 hours long. However, that's where the phrase: different strokes for different folks, comes into play.
That is the thing where do you draw the line? Heavenly Sword is 10 hours and not worth it? The Darkness is 13 and it is? I mean it is 3 hours difference? In both cases they have some of the best extra features I have ever seen and they both have serious replayability, for me atleast. To each their own I suppose. I do agree the play time is worth mentioning because there are people out there like you. But I just thought the whole I pity the fool (mr. T voice) who will pay for a 10 hour game was a little over the top. Heavenly Sword is a AAA title that a lot of people are going to love.
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
Yes you can. A friend and I used to send messages back and forth while he was logged into his silver account.
Thanks! So, so far your Live subscription $ definitely goes toward enabling online multiplayer. Check. What else?
Subsidizing silver memberships? MS wants everyone to have access to marketplace, games, etc. (that's how they makes the monies) so instead of charging to access these items they instead make it free and charge a pretty nominal fee (when viewed in connection with how much games cost, etc.) for those who want to play multi-player. Great deal for Silvers, not so great for gold, but either way the service they are providing is obviously viewed by enough people to justify a $50 price
Okay .. I'll add that. Let me see if I can paraphrase that .. let me know if I mess it up:
For the cost of Live Gold you get:
1. Online multiplayer
2. The .. um .. joy of subsidizing free Silver accounts by .. uh, giving Microsoft money to support the infrastructure .. because nothing spells fun like .. hmm ..
You know what, forget it. Back to the drawing board. Any other candidates?
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
I would pay $60 for Super Metroid if I had to. People can beat that game in under 1 hour.
So playing it on your first run without a strategy guide... Would take you under 1 hour? I don't think so.
No, on my first run it took me 7 hours.
And ZOE2 took me about 5-6 hours I think on the first run.
It's not just about the length of a game.
Forever Zefiro on
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
The Darkness was really short? I thought I put about 13-15 hours into it. Not including multiplayer (which wasn't too bad...). I think that if a game's playability is less than 15 hours (if for only the single player) then it's a rental. I just want the bang for my buck.
I mean, Super Smash Bros: Melee has OVER 300 hours clocked into it from my friends and I. And I paid $50 for it back in the day. I just can't see myself playing that game in two years and thinking: "Definitely worth the $60 I paid for it." if it's only 10 hours long. However, that's where the phrase: different strokes for different folks, comes into play.
That is the thing where do you draw the line? Heavenly Sword is 10 hours and not worth it? The Darkness is 13 and it is? I mean it is 3 hours difference? In both cases they have some of the best extra features I have ever seen and they both have serious replayability, for me atleast. To each their own I suppose. I do agree the play time is worth mentioning because there are people out there like you. But I just thought the whole I pity the fool who will pay for a $10 game was a little over the top. Heavenly Sword is a AAA title that a lot of people are going to love.
Well, I do regret the purchase of The Darkness. It's a great, GREAT game. Story was top notch... But I thought the Multiplayer would redeem it, which it was pretty broken. It was 13-15 hours singleplayer, and probably about 5 hours on multiplayer. If heavenly sword had a multiplayer, then it would be a lot easier for me to personally justify the purchase of it.
Yeah, I retract my pity statement. That was a little over the top.
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
Yes you can. A friend and I used to send messages back and forth while he was logged into his silver account.
Thanks! So, so far your Live subscription $ definitely goes toward enabling online multiplayer. Check. What else?
Subsidizing silver memberships? MS wants everyone to have access to marketplace, games, etc. (that's how they makes the monies) so instead of charging to access these items they instead make it free and charge a pretty nominal fee (when viewed in connection with how much games cost, etc.) for those who want to play multi-player. Great deal for Silvers, not so great for gold, but either way the service they are providing is obviously viewed by enough people to justify a $50 price
Yup.
$50 a year is less than the cost of one game.
I can pass up one game per year in order to pay that price, and have access to the quality of theonline service.
What do you get for the Gold price that you can't get, other than item #1 I listed, with a Silver?
The PS3 friend list is in the XMB. Each game can have its own seperate friends list though... but unless im mistaken your XMB friends list is automatically imported into the games friend list.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
Well for a start, see that little button in the middle of the PS3 and 360 controller? Yeah, that one, the clear one. Well on the 360 that brings up a whole load of useful community features, check my download progress and let me play my music over my games. On the other hand, that button on the PS3 lets me quit my game.
That's an OS thing, nothing to do with the online service. I think I can see how they would be confuse though. My view is probably a little skewed from a basic consumer view, being a software developer.
It was more of an example where Live is useful. The OS allows access to all the awesome features of live; adding friends, lookign at people you've played with previously, sending messages ingame, voicechat in different games, checking friends game progress or what they're playing, sending game invites. All of that can be done at the push of a button, I'm aware that it's powered by the OS, but the OS without the features of live would be pretty pitiful.
I was disappointed when I started using the PS3 as all these features had become second nature to me, I expected them to be there and they weren't.
I'll give you that the blades are cluttered though, it's gotten worse with every update. Though I don't feel the PS3 is substantially better either, navigating the PSN store is nightmare.
Very true, the OS features that facilitate the online experience are better on 360 than PS3.
I've heard others complain about the PS store too. I don't get it. I find it pretty simple and easily navigable. I can't really imagine how they'd improve on it. They have added some better organization lately, that is kinda nice.
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
I would pay $60 for Super Metroid if I had to. People can beat that game in under 1 hour.
So playing it on your first run without a strategy guide... Would take you under 1 hour? I don't think so.
No, on my first run it took me 7 hours.
And ZOE2 took me about 5-6 hours I think on the first run.
It's not just about the length of a game.
Okay. 7 hours... Now how much did you pay for it, when it first came out? $50? For an SNES game, right? If we do some number crunching (now bear with me):
$60 / 10 = $6 an hour of entertainment.
$50/ 7 = $7.15 an hour of entertainment.
Now. Obviously (to me) looks like HS is the better "deal". But really, how often were you actually playing HS? There are a TON of cutscenes, and adding the QTE stuff... I'm sure it would be on par with Super Metroid.
Plus I'm a collection whore, so I have to get most everything on my first run through.
EDIT: Plus, like I said above, we were very easy to please back then. You can now buy Super Metroid for $6 on the Wii, and play it with the classic controller just fine.
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
Yes you can. A friend and I used to send messages back and forth while he was logged into his silver account.
Thanks! So, so far your Live subscription $ definitely goes toward enabling online multiplayer. Check. What else?
Subsidizing silver memberships? MS wants everyone to have access to marketplace, games, etc. (that's how they makes the monies) so instead of charging to access these items they instead make it free and charge a pretty nominal fee (when viewed in connection with how much games cost, etc.) for those who want to play multi-player. Great deal for Silvers, not so great for gold, but either way the service they are providing is obviously viewed by enough people to justify a $50 price
Yup.
$50 a year is less than the cost of one game.
I can pass up one game per year in order to pay that price, and have access to the quality of theonline service.
What do you get for the Gold price that you can't get, other than item #1 I listed, with a Silver?
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
Yes you can. A friend and I used to send messages back and forth while he was logged into his silver account.
Thanks! So, so far your Live subscription $ definitely goes toward enabling online multiplayer. Check. What else?
Subsidizing silver memberships? MS wants everyone to have access to marketplace, games, etc. (that's how they makes the monies) so instead of charging to access these items they instead make it free and charge a pretty nominal fee (when viewed in connection with how much games cost, etc.) for those who want to play multi-player. Great deal for Silvers, not so great for gold, but either way the service they are providing is obviously viewed by enough people to justify a $50 price
Okay .. I'll ad that. Let me see if I can paraphrase that .. let me know if I mess it up:
For the cost of Live Gold you get:
1. Online multiplayer
2. The .. um .. joy of subsidizing free Silver accounts by .. giving Microsoft money to support the eh, infrastructure .. because it's good to, umm ..
You know what, forget it. Back to the drawing board. Any other candidates?
Oh please, try not to be that obtuse (unless you aren't that bright, which I don't believe is the case). It's very simple actually. The integrated LIVE service that MS offers (which has more features and is superior to its competitors) costs money. There are 2 ways to pay for this cost:
1. Everyone (including Silvers) pays a fee
2. Golds pay more to cover the Silver cost.
Either way, the Gold members are going to have to pay something to enjoy a service that obviously provides value (else no one would pay for it). They just happen to pay more so the Silvers get that access for free.
You may not place a lot of value on those services and feel that free multi-player without the other features LIVE offers is a better approach, but, guess what, that is just your opinion. The market clearly disagrees with you as evidinced by the millions of people willing to pay for Gold and the generally positive reviews that the service has received. So in summary we are left with your opinion (which you are entitled to) versus the market. I choose you Market! If you don't like the service, don't use it.
The PS3 friend list is in the XMB. Each game can have its own seperate friends list though... but unless im mistaken your XMB friends list is automatically imported into the games friend list.
I've never encountered a game that kept a separate friends list. I suppose one could program that into any game on any system though, so I don't think it's a PSN thing.
Posts
Either way I'm not fussed since it's only £3 a month. I'd pay for PSN if it had all the same features.
PSN = Wicker86 ________ Gamertag = Wicker86
I think in your second paragraph you're describing messaging in-game. Yeah, Sony kind of made a snafu there. I don't think of that as part of the PSN/Live service at all, but rather an OS thing. What Sony did was make messaging, chat, and such available in-game, but at the discretion of the game developer. Giving that kind of freedom wasn't a good idea after all, because game developers have been disallowing it for the most part.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
You'd probably find there was a larger PA community online to play with, too.
It is possible to make poast without being offensive you know?
People play games for different reasons. I like being immersed in a world. My favorite games are interactive movies. I like a solid story, good characters, great graphics, and solid animation these things suck me into the game. The Darkness, HL2 etc are at the top of my list. Heavenly Sword tickles all my spots as well, for said reasons.
Thank you for your pity though it will bring me comfort.
Do you want to play Resistance and/or Uncharted, maybe FFXIII or MGS4 later? That's PS3.
Do you want to play Halo 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, and/or Forza 2? Those are on Xbox 360.
Easy!
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
Silver accounts let you do mostly everything aside from the actual online multiplayer. I forget if you can actually send messages or not -- I think you can, but you can't from xbox.com, that much I know. Gold members also get access to occasional demos/trailers/etc. early, although the lion's share of stuff is accessible to both Gold and Silver at the same time.
But the PS3 friend lists are limited to each specific game, right? I've heard that voice chat and such are great when you have people on your friend list, but you have to build your list up for each game that you play, so your Resistance list would be different from your Warhawk list, etc. Because 360's Live is constant across all games, I just add corin7 once and he'll be on my list all the time, so if I added him while playing Gears and then 6 months later see that he's playing Rock Band, I can toss him an invite and join him right there.
The game-specific lists are what kind of kills the experience for me -- I love playing Mario Strikers Wii online, but I can never tell when some of the friends I have in the game are online unless I actually boot up Strikers and go to the Friend screen. With the 360, every time I boot the system I get a glimpse of what all of my friends are doing all of the time. Sometimes it helps me decide what I'm actually going to play.
Sorry corin, I didn't mean to offend you. I just think it's crazy that some people are willing to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts them 10 hours.
I just hate to see this becoming the current trend in video games. "Let make it pretty!" and then cut the game short down to 10 hours. You can't tell me that they could have made the game a lot longer... You know it's not a space issue, because it's on a Blu-Ray disk. I just honestly think they cut it short to release it. Since that was supposed to be one of those flagship titles.
I didn't get very far into it, does the ending leave it open for a sequel?
Yes you can. A friend and I used to send messages back and forth while he was logged into his silver account.
I would pay $60 for Super Metroid if I had to. People can beat that game in under 1 hour.
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
So playing it on your first run without a strategy guide... Would take you under 1 hour? I don't think so.
Edit: just the tetris though, not the puzzles
PSN = Wicker86 ________ Gamertag = Wicker86
It's something I just read about. Something free came out on Live and apparently Golds get to download it a week before Silvers. This is not uncommon from what I gathered context-wise.
My preference would be that someone in the know could provide more specifics on what Live Gold gives you for the money, marginally over the PS3. It would be good for me to know since I'll be buying a 360 someday and I'm not convinced I want to pay for a Gold account.
I'll give you that access to the Dashboard is a great option, and 360 does that, PS3 doesn't. But that does bring up another point. The interface. I played around with Dashboard a lot and it's so utterly disorganized that it's just not fun to use. Sometimes it takes me a while to find something that I downloaded. XMB is definitely better in organization and a nice, clean, streamlined look. Of course it's all opinion, but XMB > Dashboard in mine.
Thanks! So, so far your Live subscription $ definitely goes toward enabling online multiplayer. Check. What else?
No worries man. After watching some of the making of features I can pretty much promise you the budget for HS exceeded Persona and was probably comparable to Oblivion. The reason it is short is because they spent that budget on art, animation, and voice acting. I don't think it is going to be a trend in games. I just think for every Oblivion that we get there will be a team that gives us a HS or Darkness. Variety you know? If you can't justify $60 for a solid 10 hours of gaming that is cool. I just hate to see people driven away from an aboslutely stunning game. IMO Heavenly Sword is the high bar for art in a game as of now.
Pong, River Raid, Pitfall, Super Mario Bros, Metroid, Excitebike, Gyromite, Ghosts & Goblins, Golden Axe, etc. Anything not an RPG was actually way shorter than 10 hours... games are actually getting progressively longer and better looking.
I was disappointed when I started using the PS3 as all these features had become second nature to me, I expected them to be there and they weren't.
I'll give you that the blades are cluttered though, it's gotten worse with every update. Though I don't feel the PS3 is substantially better either, navigating the PSN store is nightmare.
PSN = Wicker86 ________ Gamertag = Wicker86
The Darkness was really short? I thought I put about 13-15 hours into it. Not including multiplayer (which wasn't too bad...). I think that if a game's playability is less than 15 hours (if for only the single player) then it's a rental. I just want the bang for my buck.
I mean, Super Smash Bros: Melee has OVER 300 hours clocked into it from my friends and I. And I paid $50 for it back in the day. I just can't see myself playing that game in two years and thinking: "Definitely worth the $60 I paid for it." if it's only 10 hours long. However, that's where the phrase: different strokes for different folks, comes into play.
If you go to your downloads list, it will find things for you.
:whistle:Why can't we be friends....:whistle:
Anyways... to most people, paying for Live is nothing... its a small cost and for what they get they're happy. But this is definately a YMMV situation. I come from the tangled jungle of PC gaming and the thought of paying any money whatsoever for a P2P online service doesn't sit well with me. I feel the pain having to do it with Gears Of War on the PC since MS decided to integrate live into that (I'm not paying shit... silver accounts can play for free) and the lag on the versus games can be unbearable. I can't imagine paying for that. And this is only 8 people... Ive played 64 players on Battlefield 2 and not a bit of lag whatsoever.
As for the PSN it lacks alot of the integrated features of live but to be honest I get along fine without them and Ive seen live on the 360 in action. The only thing I wish is that more PS3 people used headsets... but thats about it.
Subsidizing silver memberships? MS wants everyone to have access to marketplace, games, etc. (that's how they makes the monies) so instead of charging to access these items they instead make it free and charge a pretty nominal fee (when viewed in connection with how much games cost, etc.) for those who want to play multi-player. Great deal for Silvers, not so great for gold, but either way the service they are providing is obviously viewed by enough people to justify a $50 price
PSN = Wicker86 ________ Gamertag = Wicker86
Yup.
$50 a year is less than the cost of one game.
I can pass up one game per year in order to pay that price, and have access to the quality of theonline service.
Well you're right on that, that's for sure. The problem is that all of us are maturing as gamers, just like the games should be over time. I mean, I know I put countless hours into Perfect Dark/Goldeneye even on the single player. Final Fantasy 7 has two or 3 save spots on my memory card with at least 70+ hours, and that's just from me.
I think back in the day it was easier to please us. At least as kids... But honestly I can't remember how much an NES cartridge costed back then... Because my parents would buy them for me.
I suppose I should have changed it from "I just hate to see this.." to "I WOULD just hate to see this becoming..."
That is the thing where do you draw the line? Heavenly Sword is 10 hours and not worth it? The Darkness is 13 and it is? I mean it is 3 hours difference? In both cases they have some of the best extra features I have ever seen and they both have serious replayability, for me atleast. To each their own I suppose. I do agree the play time is worth mentioning because there are people out there like you. But I just thought the whole I pity the fool (mr. T voice) who will pay for a 10 hour game was a little over the top. Heavenly Sword is a AAA title that a lot of people are going to love.
Okay .. I'll add that. Let me see if I can paraphrase that .. let me know if I mess it up:
For the cost of Live Gold you get:
1. Online multiplayer
2. The .. um .. joy of subsidizing free Silver accounts by .. uh, giving Microsoft money to support the infrastructure .. because nothing spells fun like .. hmm ..
You know what, forget it. Back to the drawing board. Any other candidates?
Like I said, I come from the PC Gaming world and we invented annoying fucksticks on a microphone. Just mute em.
No, on my first run it took me 7 hours.
And ZOE2 took me about 5-6 hours I think on the first run.
It's not just about the length of a game.
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
Well, I do regret the purchase of The Darkness. It's a great, GREAT game. Story was top notch... But I thought the Multiplayer would redeem it, which it was pretty broken. It was 13-15 hours singleplayer, and probably about 5 hours on multiplayer. If heavenly sword had a multiplayer, then it would be a lot easier for me to personally justify the purchase of it.
Yeah, I retract my pity statement. That was a little over the top.
PSN = Wicker86 ________ Gamertag = Wicker86
What do you get for the Gold price that you can't get, other than item #1 I listed, with a Silver?
No, it's not.
Very true, the OS features that facilitate the online experience are better on 360 than PS3.
I've heard others complain about the PS store too. I don't get it. I find it pretty simple and easily navigable. I can't really imagine how they'd improve on it. They have added some better organization lately, that is kinda nice.
Okay. 7 hours... Now how much did you pay for it, when it first came out? $50? For an SNES game, right? If we do some number crunching (now bear with me):
$60 / 10 = $6 an hour of entertainment.
$50/ 7 = $7.15 an hour of entertainment.
Now. Obviously (to me) looks like HS is the better "deal". But really, how often were you actually playing HS? There are a TON of cutscenes, and adding the QTE stuff... I'm sure it would be on par with Super Metroid.
Plus I'm a collection whore, so I have to get most everything on my first run through.
EDIT: Plus, like I said above, we were very easy to please back then. You can now buy Super Metroid for $6 on the Wii, and play it with the classic controller just fine.
Why does that matter?
Item #1 is worth the price to me.
Oh please, try not to be that obtuse (unless you aren't that bright, which I don't believe is the case). It's very simple actually. The integrated LIVE service that MS offers (which has more features and is superior to its competitors) costs money. There are 2 ways to pay for this cost:
1. Everyone (including Silvers) pays a fee
2. Golds pay more to cover the Silver cost.
Either way, the Gold members are going to have to pay something to enjoy a service that obviously provides value (else no one would pay for it). They just happen to pay more so the Silvers get that access for free.
You may not place a lot of value on those services and feel that free multi-player without the other features LIVE offers is a better approach, but, guess what, that is just your opinion. The market clearly disagrees with you as evidinced by the millions of people willing to pay for Gold and the generally positive reviews that the service has received. So in summary we are left with your opinion (which you are entitled to) versus the market. I choose you Market! If you don't like the service, don't use it.