What is Digg?35 Comments
- furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Live is the best part of the xbox 360. I cant tell you how many times I played marble blast just to get a little higher on the ranking boards.
Sony is kidding itself if it thinks it can just emulate Live and have a success. - Nezzari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I doubt Sony's network will be as stable and intuitive as Live. It may just be me but I've always found Sony software to be a bit weak. Also, Live didn't have much trouble streaming over half a Petabyte during E3. I highly doubt Sony is able to do that.
- phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Definitely. I find that playing against human opponents on different games on live is really fun. Human beings are unpredictable, and theres also that thrill of competition which makes online games great.
- mprobins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Judging by the "quality" of posts by Sony fanboys, I'm afraid you're going to be woefully disappointed by the audience Sony's online system attracts ...
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12sony's always been a bit 'weak' in their online department.
ps2's network thing was horrible and soe (sony online entertainment) has always been mediocre, especially with mmo's. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13What, are you just trying to troll? Get a life.
- biffsputnik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9That's why a free online service isn't a good thing.. how could Sony do that? For those that say the cost is built into the console price, what incentive does Sony have for continuing to upgrade servers, etc, after the launch period? None. And certainly shareholders won't see any expenditures for the service as necessary. That money from the consoles will already be money in the bank. The free side of Live is backed by the paid Gold subscribers, which makes for a good service for everyone. I am glad to see that even for Microsoft, the community gives credit where credit is due.
- mprobins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7To put the penetration figure into perspective, less than 50% of the homes in the US have broadband.
- zerochaos911, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8There is no way Sony can compete with Xbox live. The 2 things that made the 360 sell out was xbox live and knowing that the 360 would eventually have Halo 3(the most played series on live). PS3 needs a Halo killer to be successful online. Last I checked Killzone wasn't at E3. Hmm I guess the actual game play could not live up to the expectations of the E3 05 pre-rendered Video.
- Azap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6With live as an established success it gives ms room to experiment, try any things and be innovative, while Sony will need to carve out a niche for itself before it can truly to start to gain ground on live through creative ideas, games, and concepts.
- nayten, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@netdroid9
Since when were "kids" the dominating force in the market? A lot more adults purchase video games than children nowadays (for themselves, even!). - MasterGrief, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I've had xbox live for about two years now, and I think it's probably the best thing I've ever had a subscription to. Aside from mostly hassle-free online play, you can meet some really decent people there. I've got about three good friends now thanks to the Live service.
- cenithx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The silver accounts aren't as useless as they first seem. A lot of my friends who can't afford a Gold account just yet or an Xbox360 sign up to silver accounts and put them on 360 memory cards so they can attach their achievements to their live account.. meaning viewable online via xbox.com profiles, embed in forums/websites via gamercards.. compare stats to each other.. etc etc. Gamerscores are big atm.. people spend hours, days, weeks, just trying to get a few more achievements.. and what's the point if you can't flaunt your score online? Plus silver lets you download stuff from marketplace.
Me and my mates are definitely addicted to Live.. I easily spend 4-5 times more time playing on live than I do in singleplayer campaigns etc.. and one of the things I think makes live so brilliant is the updates, additions, content downloads, etc.. Sony will no way be able to compete with a free online service.. but then again it wouldn't suprise me if this is more Sony hype, and free means free ACCESS, eg.. silver account.. and actually playing online or downloading content requires points/payment like XBL (considering they're in the copycat mood lately)... just have to wait and see I guess. - Aharoni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just as Sony found a niche in movement-sensitive controller or twin SKUs during luanch?
Nhaa, most chances are that Sony would just blantly copy the successful formula of the Live and then blame MS for copying them in the first place. - netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8The Wii will be second at best. Sure, it's innovative, but kids want the new 'Playstation' or 'Xbox', not some nintendo thing they've never even heard of.
- Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The adults are buying things for the children.
- komatsu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Agreed! My friends and I are ALL about the online gaming points. Our competitiveness now transcends single games!!
- thushan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4if you grew up in the 80s or more the 90s and dont know Nintendo you should be be ashamed of yourself... kids these days are all about their iPods and whatever console sounds the "coolest" in the playground...
I love 360's live features and I doubt Sony can match its superiority.
My picks (not that anyone really cares) is Xbox 360 & Wii... - DeejayKnight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While I respect the majority of your comments (Xbox Live's low adoption rate among mainstream gamers, for starters), you lost me when you started calling names. You could have made your point just as dramatic without adding those, could you not?
I won't bother combating what you said, because for the most part you're correct. The thing that grates me though, is the fact that you said:
"The 360 targets the smallest demographic of gamers - hardcore onliners - and you douchebags think that's enough to take over the market."
On the same note, with a price tag of a minimum of $500, the PS3 is going after the hardcore market even more so than the 360 is. Mass market consumers won't purchase a $500 gaming machine. At that price, it'll only BE the hardcore gamers buying it, and after the Christmas season, sales will taper off due to people not having that kind of money to spend on a gaming system.
Regardless of how much money MS has made/lost with Xbox Live, disregarding it as a service equatable to something free is just as much a travesty as the pricing of the PS3. Would Live be better free? Of course, but they're liable to charge more for every piece of downloadable content if that change happens.
If you don't like Xbox Live, that's fine, but don't disrespect people because they don't agree with you... - LethalGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I played Halo2 for about a month before the control stick finally pissed me off, but I can say I easily played 100 games in that game. The games on there are 12-15min jobs, easy to rack up 6-8 in 2 hours of play.
Like someone said before, less than 50% of people in the US have broadband. Simple math - romainechester, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"If Sony can provide people with free online, then they might grab second place in the console wars. Wii being in first."
Ugh... - Dorv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry, Razor, but I'm that Joe Shmoe, "I buy Madden once a year" guy, and I specifically picked up my 360 this month knowing that Madden comes out next. I have been playing COD2 online like mad ever since I plugged the system in. Why? Because its easy. When I was in college I used to be into Online gaming. Jedi Knight II and Half-Life/Counterstrike were my games of choice. Playing on the 360 is SOO much easier than on my PC was.
Its easy for the PS2 to outsell the 360 right now considering the price differential.
I am, for what its worth, much more of a Sony fan than a 360 fan, but I bought the 360 because I couldn't stand to play Madden this year (again, Joe Schmoe here) on the PS2 on my new TV when I saw 360's graphics. Had the PS3 been out right now, I would have picked that up.
Also, I'm moving in with a buddy of mine next month that's had a 360 for a couple of months now, and still hasn't plugged it into the 'net. And he loves the hell out of it. - BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Agreed. The Xox 360 is pretty average without Live. Many of the most enjoyable, addicting aspects of the XB 360 are not possible without broadband and XB Live. Seeing as this only includes the attach rate for the 360. I think people that won't be using live, maybe because they still have dial-up, just won't purchase the XB 360 at all. As with the Top Ten Games on Live list, posted at www.majornelson.com weekly, he specifically states *Sorry, but I can%u2019t share title specific data." I don't think the truth is all that pretty. God forbid we might actually see some #'s posted to make the stats useful. They can spew all the numbers they want. I haven't seen the headline stating that MS has turned a profit from the XB 360. And yes I am a proud 360 owner, and Live, to me, is mandatory. 60% doesn't sound very high.
- Paladin27, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Heck, I don't even like Halo 2 that much and I've played probably 300-500 games over the past year on Live. Each game usually lasts about 8-12 minutes, so that's pretty believable. If you go over to Bungie and check out some of the top players on the weekly scoreboard, they have played thousands and thousands of games.
- Defkkon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A friend and I played Halo 2 for a couple hours a night, usually 3 or 4 nights a week, for almost 6 months straight. We did this instead of watching any television, and it was awesome. I don't know exactly how many games we played, but lets assume an average of 6-8 games played in 2 hours (which is about right) - I would say we played 600-800 games. I can definitely see where the 500 million games came from, since those 600-800 games were played by two people - so that's over 1200 games right there.
- romainechester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Don't get me wrong though.. I really like the Wii..
swean's comment just made me go "Ugh..." - rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1At their E3 press conference, Sony said they're only making the basic services of their online platform free. If you look at the basic services slide, it does NOT include online multiplayer, despite what you may think you heard from the speaker.
So, in effect, Sony is copying Xbox Live almost to a T, even going so far as to copy Live's price structure. - gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Hmmm, so 20% of xbox users don't have internet or hooked up telco? That number seems sort of large. Its its true, the other players in the console arena are fools for not pushing into that market.
- itsmekirby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3To take on MS, Sony would need to target things that MS did wrong, since the things that MS did right they did almost flawlessly. Their strategy would need to pull in more mature players than prepubescent brats (something MS failed in) as well as having a lower price tag. That said, judging by PS3's price tag, I think they have good chances in one of these categories and poor chances in another. I'm content with waiting to see.
- deter1ii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sony's online experience will be probably be great at first but it will also get stale pretty quickly. With sony's wide range of products, once the PS3 hits, rises and FALLS, Sony will put this project to the way side to focus on the future products. Just like with all of it's 2nd place products.
- razorsharp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You guys are idiots. Live isn't a technical wonder. 4 years ago, when it was new, it cost more to build/maintain than would ever be worth it. Only 5% of the market was online, broadband penetration was low, and at the time $50 a year didn't cover costs. Both Nintendo and Sony have been capable of creating a Live clone this entire time, but unlike M$, Nintendo and Sony don't squander money on unprofitable projects. Remember back when you guys were making fun of Iwata for saying that gamers didn't want to play online yet? Yeah, he was right.
Casual gamers hate XBox Live and it will never be worth the money to them. No one wants to pay $50 a year to play video games with kids that practice FPS's for 8 hours a day. XBox Live isn't M$'s trump card - you guys just have it and you assume everyone else either has it/wants it as well. If you market to gamers, gamers will come, but ever since the PS1 gamers haven't been the majority of the market. Video games are going mainstream, beyond their original nerd demographic. While you XBox fanboys keep rallying for Sony's death on the internet, 60% of the market is still playing single player games on their PS2. The PS2 continues to outsell the 360. MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ON THE PS2'S ONLINE SERVICE THAN XBOX LIVE. I, for example, stayed up all night playing MGS3. SOCOM's servers probably host more people than any XBox Live game with the noted excpetion of Halo2.
I think the Digg community is angry because they know the PS3 will do well. It's not the Digg console of choice, so like a Roman mob, you cheer for the gladiator you bet money on. You know why 60% of 360 users have Live? Because the 360 is a $400 paperweight without Live. Like the XBox, it's not a good machine for single player gaming (because first party titles always focus on Live or suck) and online gaming isn't the majority of the market. The majority of the market doesn't want to go play you on XBox Live so you can no-scope-head-shot them. The 360 targets the smallest demographic of gamers - hardcore onliners - and you douchebags think that's enough to take over the market. Of course, on a geek site like Digg most people will be 360 users, but what makes you guys think that Joe Shmoe "I buy Madden once a year" has the same interests as you? - RazorElite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Xbox Live is a fantastic service. Especially on the 360, and if you own a 360 and aren't connected, you're missing half the experience. Guess that's the reason for the high attach rate. Really don't think Sony's service is gonna compete anytime soon. Definitely not for free. I'm sure the UI won't be that great, the actual service such as speed won't be good and I have a feeling the service won't be very integretated, more like just a step up from PS2's online services. It's Sony. And if we didn't know before, by now we all know, Sony sucks. I got more faith in Nintendo's online capabilities.
- DoctorDee69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0These figures sound like marketing bull to me. 500 million games of Halo 2 served means EVERY Live subscriber has played 100 games of Halo 2. Many are just curious and signing up for their free subscription rather than active hardcore gamers...
- swean, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4All I can say is:
If Sony can provide people with free online, then they might grab second place in the console wars. Wii being in first.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is