Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Next-Gen Online Services Get More Goods

Posted by Zonk on Wed Nov 29, 2006 03:36 PM
from the three-little-consoles-all-in-a-row dept.
XBox (Games) PlayStation (Games) Wii (Games)
Now that all three consoles are competing in the online market, regular news about the three systems is beginning to be regularly released, as Virtual Console tries to top Xbox Live which in turn tries to overshadow e-Distribution. Sony's online offering is still being finalized now that the console is on the market, and limits on the system are still being decided upon. 500 MB is apparently going to be the cap for downloadable content via the service (much larger than Live's 50 MB limit). The company has also confirmed they'll be offering new version of retro games, to compete directly with Microsoft's service. Speaking of which, Double Dragon will be joining the other classic games on Xbox Live sometime in the future. This week's update was a patch for Texas Hold Em' , while the week before saw the much-anticipated (and well reviewed) Small Arms released to fans. Related to Microsoft's service, the much rumored Xbox Live Arcade joystick was formally announced by MadCatz this week. Not to be left out, Nintendo's Virtual Console grew by three titles this week; gamers can now download Super Star Soldier, Golden Axe, and Genesis classic Ecco the Dolphin. Like Microsoft, Nintendo has plans to release new content every week for the foreseeable future.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Two Weeks with the Wii 458 comments
In the 80s, kids of my generation cut their teeth on Super Mario Bros.. They went through high school with Mario Kart, and bonded with college friends playing Super Smash Bros. By 1999, though, the N64 had long since proven that Nintendo's dominance in American videogaming was over. The GameCube that followed was largely a disappointment. Nintendo failed to interest third party developers, and frustrated fans with long-delayed chapters of the Mario, Zelda, and Metroid franchises. Coming into this no-longer-next generation of consoles, Nintendo announced they were aiming for a Revolution, and then confused everyone by renaming it Wii. Their actions left a lot of people wondering if the company still had what it took to compete with committed powerhouses like Microsoft and Sony. The launch lineup is kind of tepid, and the controls really do take some getting used to. We've already established that they're not aiming to compete in the graphics race. So what is the console really like? Why is it selling so quickly? What does it have to offer? I've had two weeks to find out. Read on, so that you can get a feel for the system you'll definitely be playing (if not owning) at some point in the future.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Next-Gen Online Services Get More Goods 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Fuck that. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spazntwich (208070) on Wednesday November 29 2006, @03:44PM (#17039390)
    First thing Microsoft needs to do is include the wireless adapter with premium systems.

    No, believe it or not Microsoft, my router is not within 20 feet of my gaming console, and I don't feel like dropping $100 on your official wireless addon which places your console in striking distance of Sony, and way ahead of the Wii.
    • Then don't. My router is upstairs and I ran a network cable through the wall down to the entertainment center. Not an option for everyone, but is the best option IMO if you are fairly handy with household projects or know someone who is. Or you could spend like $40 on a wireless access point. No reason why you have have to buy the official adapter.
    • I just ran a cable. Considering that you probably want good latency for online gaming, as well as high speed for downloads and streaming media from your PC, I'd be using wired even if it were wireless. Not everyone is going to use the wireless, which is why its an optional accessory. Cheaper, 3rd party wireless options work just fine from what I understand.
      • yeah I also ran a cable... one thing that bothers me about the Wii is that it's WIRELESS ONLY and you have to buy a USB adapter if you want a wired connection... which seems rather messed up to me.

        and while I do agree that the official USB WiFi adapter MS sells is a rip-off, nothings stopping you from using a cheap wireless bridge if you're unable to wire a solid connection to your router.
      • XBox Live was designed and tested to work with wireless.
        I use a wireless connection ($40 WAP turned into a bridge using DD-WRT) and have never had any latency issues. I play online multiplayer with voice chat, download large demos, and regularly watch streaming movies from my PC.
      • I just ran a cable.

        Can you give a range of how much it might cost to get the landlord to allow this for typical rented residences in various regions of the United States?

      • Yea... Tiny...

        Anyway, back here in reality land...

        I had a problem with my wired connection. I had about 80' of Cat 5e (Xbox 360 in the basement, router is upstairs) and kept getting MTU errors. I tried the three different usb wireless 'cards' I had and nothing worked. I finally just dropped the $86 on the official wireless adapter (found it on sale in my town) and I got connected. Problem is it was a crappy connection that would drop every coupld of hours. Then I realized that I was connected to someones ro
    • Just buy a $30 wireless bridge and plug it into the ethernet port.
      I've got a wireless bridge feeding my xbox, tivo and 360 - it works like a champ.
      And when I upgrade to 802.11n or powerline, or god-knows-what-else - everything shares the benefit.

      the official add-on is definitely a shameless cash-grab, but it ain't required. and thankfully it's not built-in cost.
      I have no idea why anyone would want a device-specific wireless adapter at this stage of the game.

    • Re:Microsoft Better Scramble To Keep Up (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fistfullast33l (819270) on Wednesday November 29 2006, @04:10PM (#17039758) Homepage Journal
      I agree. Obviously the 360 has a better library than the PS3 right now but there's no way they can overcome a free service. If Sony can keep the pressure on with good online support then I think they have the advantage. I also heard you can plug a USB keyboard into the console? That would basically convert your PS3 to a computer. If you could chat using the keyboard and play with the controller you'll have a really nice combo that's hard to match.
      • Sony's online service is no match for Microsofts, that is why it is free. It boils down to that old saying, "you get what you pay for." Sony will pass the cost of online gaming onto developers and we all know how well that worked for the ps2.

        "I also heard you can plug a USB keyboard into the console? That would basically convert your PS3 to a computer. If you could chat using the keyboard and play with the controller you'll have a really nice combo that's hard to match."

        The 360 has been able to do this si

        • Re:Microsoft Better Scramble To Keep Up (Score:4, Insightful)

          by FatherOfONe (515801) on Wednesday November 29 2006, @05:31PM (#17041076)
          Ok, tell me why Microsofts service is so much better than Sony.

          I don't want to start a console war here, but I am curious why you believe Sony can't match or exceed Microsofts online service.

          I do want to say that I own a PS3 and here is what I like about the online experience so far.
          1. No points. I hate points and want everything in $$$.
          2. Parent account. I love that I can limit my son to what he does.
          3. Downloadable trailers. This is somewhat cool, and I love the 1080P stuff.
          4. Downloadable demos and games.

          Now I haven't tried the wireless headsets yet, nor have I tried RFOM to see what it is like, but I hope to try Marvel Ultimate Alliance soon via online play.

          I will say that I didn't like the following:
          1. Password restrictions - They suck and Sony is aware of it.
          2. Login account id issue. In short there is a bug with their wizard, again they are aware.
          3. Registration process - Man it takes a while without keyboard.
          4. Wireless setup message. There is an error message that is actually a success. They are aware.
          5. Can't do anything while downloading - Again they are aware.
          6. Large demo downloads of stuff. A HD in every system is nice.
          7. 1080i/720p issue. They are aware, but it isn't clear if a solution will be developed.

          From the forums I visit it appears that the RFOM online experience is very good and without a doubt Sony is playing catchup to Microsoft, but I am curious why you don't believe they won't catch up. From where I sit it appears that Sony has done a fair job of its online service at this point and it looks like they are working hard on making it even better.

          As you can tell from my post I am not about to sugar coat my experience with the PS3, but I will say that I do like the machine a lot and so far my family has loved the machine.

          Have you worked with both the 360 and PS3 online? If so what functionality is missing from the PS3 that can't be fixed with a code update?

          Also, how much does XBOX live gold/platinum (whatever) cost per year? If it is something like $5 to $10 then this isn't that big of an issue either, but if it is like $50 or $100 then I can see this being a larger issue for Microsoft.

          Either way, I will say the 360 games this year look very good and happy gaming. It looks like March will be the killer month for the PS3, in that a ton of great games come out that month... I just hope our tax check is good and that 1080P TV's keep falling in price.

           
          • "I do want to say that I own a PS3 and here is what I like about the online experience so far.
            1. No points. I hate points and want everything in $$$.
            2. Parent account. I love that I can limit my son to what he does.
            3. Downloadable trailers. This is somewhat cool, and I love the 1080P stuff.
            4. Downloadable demos and games"

            Microsoft has had 2, 3, and 4 for over a year now. Points aren't hard to figure out either, but I'll give you that one.

            Now for what it doesn't have. I stole this from Saige because I didn

          • From the forums I visit it appears that the RFOM online experience is very good and without a doubt Sony is playing catchup to Microsoft, but I am curious why you don't believe they won't catch up. From where I sit it appears that Sony has done a fair job of its online service at this point and it looks like they are working hard on making it even better.

            There's no doubt the PS3's online experience will improve with time, as they're able to add things. But as to "catching up" to Xbox Live? Remember, the Xbox Live team isn't going to be sitting there watching, but adding more functionality and improving what's already there. So Sony's attempt at catching up means hitting a moving target - and don't forget, there's all sorts of internal work that will undoubtedly have to be done for both systems to for increasing capacity, etc.

            By the time that the PS3's on

          • The main problem with Sony's service is that it isn't really a service. It's a gateway. With Xbox Live, as a developer you can make a couple of system calls, add one or two icons, and you have an achievements system. Sony "lets" developers handle achievements any way they want to, which means developers have to implement and debug whatever title-specific system they want. All of the matchmaking intelligence is handled server-side by Microsoft. All of the multiplayer server stuff is managed and handled
      • More then that you can run liunx on it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Thraxen (455388)
      Yeah, we'll see how long that free service lasts. And, sure, it may be lag free now, but that's because there are hardly any systems actually being played... low supply, thousands on Ebay, and many being held back for Christmas gifts. BTW, lots of people love GoW, not every game needs to be a 40 man riot to be fun.

    • Re:Microsoft Better Scramble To Keep Up (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HappySqurriel (1010623) on Wednesday November 29 2006, @04:14PM (#17039820)
      Microsoft better get a fucking clue. 50 dollars a year just for the privilege of playing games online? I don't think so. That adds up to 250 dollars over five years

      I'm no Microsoft fan but $50 per year works out to about $4.75 per month, if you compare that to a single game that Millions of people pay to play (WoW) I don't think that is too much to charge. I think that it all comes down to what services they're offering for the money; something as simple as having a uniform interface with the same services offered is worth a lot of money for some people.
        • Gee, let me make a wild guess that you don't sit around in the PS3 articles posting about how the $499 PS3 is only a few dollars more a year compared to the $399 which is a great deal since you get so much more for those few dollars every month...

          No ... mainly because the PS3 XBox 360 are products which (in my opinion) are both overpriced; even if I considered them to be reasonably priced I would still say that your comparison is flawed because a per month charge only makes sense if you're talking about a s
        • You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The charge has nothing to do with keeping the 360 from losing as much money as the Xbox. Live wasn't free on the first Xbox and there weren't even free Silver acounts for the first Xbox. The charge pays for lots of features that Live offers which Sony's service does not (see Saige's post). Also, Sony has already stated that they don't know if the service will remain free forever.
      • It not too much in tell you are paying that + monthly fee that you need to play a game
        Also $4.75 is too much when the same games on the pc have free on line play.
        • Then buy them on the PC, I've got nothing against PC games. But the PC versions have have achievements, a global friend's list, ranking ladders, match making based on rank, ability to send invites, etc, etc... That's what sets Live apart. You are getting something for your $50 bucks a year
    • Yeah, Sony really provides the same thing as Microsoft does, and does it for free.

      The PS3 has one friends list throughout all of the games right? With detailed presence information about what those friends are doing? How about being able to send text, voice, and images all in a message to a friend? And send and receive those in the middle of a game? What about game invites - can you be playing Resistance, and then get informed that a friend has just invited you to play Motorstorm? And when you get an invite, can you have it take you right into the game with that friend? Can you voice chat with a friend, while playing different games, and then continue the conversation while you change games and your friend starts watching a movie?

      And how about your game profile? Can you see what various games your friends have played, and when they last played them? How about being able to see that information from the web?

      Oh, that's right, the PS3 does NONE of that. You get a friends list that only works in some games, while other games have their own list. You can only read and send messages while you're not in a game, and you can't even see a game invite unless you're already in the same game - and even then, you still have to find that game.

      What the PS3 offers for free now is inferior to what the original Xbox offered years ago in terms of online service. Of course they're giving it away, since there's nothing there worth paying for.
      • Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29, @03:49PM (#17039456) = pwned

        Great post. Live has some very useful features. Just a couple of nights ago I was in the mood for some GoW co-op and was going to invite one of my friends to play, but then I noticed that their profile said they were "Watching a movie". So I didn't send the invite because I didn't want to disturb them. Little stuff like that makes the $50 yearly charge well worth it.
        • The 360 dash now has an option that will allow you to have notifications turned off while watching a movie. Meaning that people can't disturb you anymore if you don't want them to.

          So if you want to play with a friend, invite away!
      • Acutally... I have a 360, and while I hope the PS3 fails because of price and shoving Blu-Ray down our throat, your post is far from being impartial. You seem to like your Xbox quite a lot.

        EVERYTHING you are mentionning is available for free with XBox Live Silver. You can chat with your friend who's playing online for free even tough you are not Gold, you just won't be able to play the game with him/her. The ONLY advantages of the Gold account are

        1) early access to some content (multiplayer demos, betas and
        • Pictures in messages also require a gold account - though that's just a minor item.

          You're right though - most of the Xbox Live capabilities are available through a free silver account. I don't think it's wrong, however, to include them in a comparison between the PS3's free online play and the Xbox Live $50 a year online play, since you do get them - and if online play is what you're after, a silver account isn't really part of the picture.
          • I agree that the complete experience if waaaaaaayyy better on the 360, the online portion is really well executed on the 360, but if you are comparing them and trying to justify the 50$ tag, the comparison needs to be made on what that 50$ gets you. But hey, that's just me.

            Anyway, in the end, anyone with 250$ and a 360 wins over a PS3 with free online play. 250$ over five years is nothing in online fees. My high-speed cable Internet access costs almost 40CAN$ a month (20 gigs download, 10 upload, 500kiloByt
        • Did it occur to you that the fees paid by the Gold members might also be going to cover the costs of the features enjoyed by the Silver accounts too?
          • Maybe. Doesn't change the fact that his comparison was unfair. He should compared the the Silver membership to what Sony offers or in other words, compare MS's free offering to Sony's free offering. Sony has free online play, and MS has better integration between games and friend lists. I've only had a Gold account for a month now (got it a week or so before GoW came out), but so far free online play would rank higher for me than a buddy list. I can always call my friend on the phone and ask him if he wants
        • Clueless troll.
          • Yep. I post a list of things the 360 does and the PS3 doesn't do, and the response is vitriol and garbage and claims that's I'm the fanboy? (At least it should have been fanGIRL)

            Bah, I'm not wasting my time on that AC anymore...
            • Hey if I would have had mod points I would have modded you up! You posted exactly what I was thinking, everyone raves about how the PS3 has a "free" service but free != useable or fun. I am very happy with paying $50/yr for the 360 live service. Microsoft may have made a lot of stumbles in the hardware area in their console attempts, but they are a software company first and foremost, and Xbox Live is all about software - something they generally know something about, so i'm impressed by the way it works
        • You realize that's not even possible right? Currently there are more people playing Gears of War online than there are people who actually own a PS3. That's not an exaggeration, it's a simple fact. Even over the next few months, its unlikely Resistance will hit more total players online than Xbox gold members for a while, March at the absolute earliest.

          I'll admit, it's suspicious that Microsoft refuses to give a number for people who are actually paying for Gold service, and only state the number of co

  • Wii + DS = ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ShadowsHawk (916454) on Wednesday November 29 2006, @03:54PM (#17039530)
    I'm still waiting to see what Nintendo does with the DS connectivity. Also, why aren't we getting more demo download offers? That's one area where the PC is still beating the snot out of any console/handheld.
  • Golden Axe makes me all warm inside. I can't wait for the sequels to become availible. Even more importantly, Toejam and Earl is listed on the official Virtual Console website but hasn't been released yet! Give me my precious childhood memories! I demand nostalgia!

    Of course, people still look at me funny when I tell them I can play Genesis games on my Wii.
    • I hooked up my Wii in my dormitory's lounge last night to play some Super Smash Brothers Melee (we have no cube to call our own, have been borrowing one before several of us got Wiis). When I booted it up, one of the guys saw that I had Sonic, and he was terribly surprised. It was neat. And everyone looks at me funny when I tell them that I'm not playing the NES Bomberman, but the Turbografx Bomberman. No one even knows what it is =P
  • There is no limit to the size of downloadable content on XBox Live - at least none that I have seen. I've downloaded some game demos that were well over 1GB.

    The 50MB limit that is mentioned only applies to Live Arcade - the section with retro and "party" games.

    I'm not sure how that compares to Sony's 500MB limit - does Sony's limit apply to ALL downloadable content?
    • Live Arcade doesn't just limit "retro and party" games to 50MB... Live Arcade is the game download service for Xbox 360, which is why they're all retro and party games. This has the effect of allowing anyone with a memory card to download and play games... which is kind of dumb, considering it would take a full 50 dollar memory card to store one 10 dollar downloadable game.

      Sony is allowing things beyond "retro and party" games by allowing for larger download sizes. This will probably make games more expen
      • MS needs to up the XBLA limit to 650MB (CD size) or 1 GB. That way the PC games that fit on a CD can be put on the market. Limiting the DL size to 50MB will hamstring the amount of content. They're handing a bunch of games that can be easily ported to Sony.

        And I want the original UT on there damn it!

        Swi
      • Correct, Live Arcade is the download service for complete games. I said there was no limit on "downloadable content" -- the term used by the parent post. Personally, I download and play game demos more than I play XBLA games. That is the best feature of the XBox360 - the ability to get hands on experience with new release games without having to buy it or rent it.
        I agree that the limit for both will be increased as soon as it becomes prohibitive.
  • I can't believe that there aren't some hidden costs to Sony's online service. SOMEONE has to be paying for the infrastructure -- be it Sony or the software companies. In the end though, the consumer will be paying in one form or another -- either by increases in software costs or through other means. Nothing is free and Sony is in certainly no position to be giving any services away when they are already bleeding all over the place from console costs.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.