Best game console

[cmdrdredd]

xbox is broadband online only so no 56k laggers on there. Plua PS2 doesn't support voice chat. In XBOX Live you can invite your friends to your game even if they have started their own game or are currently playing.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: PCMarine
Xbox live was a wise move by Microsoft IMHO

The real test for Xbox Live is next year when they begin to charge monthly. Anyone (including me) would pay 50 dollars to play with no lag, but the true test of keeping the average consumer is whether they are willing to pay 9.95 to 19.95 monthly for the service.

I personally don't think Mass consumerism of online gaming will be accepted for a while but with the raw power of Microsoft it will be interesting to see how things are played out.

Besides, they actually got people to upgrade from 98se to ME to XP all within the space of a few years.


And for the comment that the Xbox "blows" the Ps2 out of the water...yeah 😉 and you admitted it yourself - Xbox doesn't have that variety that can be found on the Ps2.

Btw, I'm VERY sorry if I play my games, not my consoles.

I sure hope they don't charge a montly. I'm unwillingly to spend that much more for online gaming. $50 is an awesome deal. But im willing to spend about $80 for a year. If they charge by month, they should offer packages of 6 and 12 month subscriptions, with a discount over the next.

 

[magomago]

PS2 - every game you play online is handled through the game developer. So, each of these companies can charge whatever they want, which is fine. But what if you played 4 different games from 4 different developers? You would have to creat 4 different accounts for the games and pay 4 different bills a month.

My point is HAVE they. Developers realize that they will not getting people paying money for EVERY SINGLE game! Show me of one developer that has CHARGED MONEY TO PLAY. There are none! As MMORPGS appear a charge will incur, but this was known from the beginning and even PC MMOPRGS charge money.

It seems most of you WANT hyperpluralism to occur. Just like in the PC World where people set up their own CS servers, the same will happen with the Ps2. If not, then developers must be ready for the fact that if they charge money then people WILL NOT BUY IT.

EA spent millions getting their servers up and ready...why should they all the sudden forfeit it to Microsoft?


Most of you guys think it will this payment will go the extremes. You fail to think rationally, and that is where "fanboyism" emerges.

 

[magomago]

xbox is broadband online only so no 56k laggers on there. Plua PS2 doesn't support voice chat. In XBOX Live you can invite your friends to your game even if they have started their own game or are currently playing.

I have tried that voice comm. RARELY did anyone talk. Most games were absoultely silent where no one talked. Even worse was when you knew you were playing an obese person because you could hear their labored breathing through the damn headset. The other scenario that was common was people yelling and argueing in the background. The head set didn't prove to be as popular as Microsoft hoped it would be.

And when I would get someone to talk with they would stick it on the most annoying voices known to man IE: Robotish voices.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: magomago

PS2 - every game you play online is handled through the game developer. So, each of these companies can charge whatever they want, which is fine. But what if you played 4 different games from 4 different developers? You would have to creat 4 different accounts for the games and pay 4 different bills a month.

My point is HAVE they. Developers realize that they will not getting people paying money for EVERY SINGLE game! Show me of one developer that has CHARGED MONEY TO PLAY. There are none! As MMORPGS appear a charge will incur, but this was known from the beginning and even PC MMOPRGS charge money.

It seems most of you WANT hyperpluralism to occur. Just like in the PC World where people set up their own CS servers, the same will happen with the Ps2. If not, then developers must be ready for the fact that if they charge money then people WILL NOT BUY IT.

EA spent millions getting their servers up and ready...why should they all the sudden forfeit it to Microsoft?


Most of you guys think it will this payment will go the extremes. You fail to think rationally, and that is where "fanboyism" emerges.

OK.

So currently outside of SOCOMM for PS2, what other games on PS2 can be played online?
what did i hear? the SEGA 3K series.

Who handles the Sega servers and what not, for both PS2 and Gamecube, but not for XBOX?
What did hear? Sega themselves. They aren't charging but i assume they will shortly.


FANBOYISM? Because i've told it the way SONY has it outlined in their online gaming plan? The point is, they haven't done crap to setup anything that resembles XBOX Live. MS did, SONY did not. Though you are probably right, about developers charging for game time, as you did point out. When they do ... will it be through sony and let sony handle the servers or will be through their own servers and pocket the money.

All i said was, at the current state, XBox as an advantage (for the 12 month subscription) over PS2 because they (MS) are handling everying online.

Now let's get back to the original question of the thread.

What is considered the best /most popular game console? -- then someone brought XBOX LIVE. I said the obvious. People post what they think and so did I. Did i slant negatively against PS2? No.

Looks like the only one who can't get over fanboyism, is you. Unless that remark wasn't directed towards me, then the current statement doesn't apply to you.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm gonna get flamed for this but...

Hardware-wise, the PS2 is the Sega Saturn of this generation. Difficult to program for and underpowered with an odd-ball hardware design.

Software-wise, the PS2 does have some really great games. So does the Xbox and GCN. As far as I'm concerned, when you take away all the cross-platform titles, there are not that many really must-have titles compared to the GCN and Xbox. My $0.02.

BTW, in-game DD 5.1 with 480p completely owns the PS2 if you have the hardware to take advantage of it

 

[magomago]

OK.

So currently outside of SOCOMM for PS2, what other games on PS2 can be played online?
what did i hear? the SEGA 3K series.

You are kidding me? THPS 3 and 4. Tribes: Aeriel Assault (I prefer the Pc Version though), Frequency, Madden, Twisted Metal, ATV Offraod Fury 2...there were about 10-16 games launched with the NA. Those were off the top of my head

Who handles the Sega servers and what not, for both PS2 and Gamecube, but not for XBOX?
What did hear? Sega themselves. They aren't charging but i assume they will shortly.

What makes you assume this? They charge money for the MMORPG Phantasy Star, but that is a different case. If they did they would be pummeled by EA in sales, especially their sports series. They are trying to catchup to EA, not lag behind

FANBOYISM? Because i've told it the way SONY has it outlined in their online gaming plan? The point is, they haven't done crap to setup anything that resembles XBOX Live. MS did, SONY did not. Though you are probably right, about developers charging for game time, as you did point out. When they do ... will it be through sony and let sony handle the servers or will be through their own servers and pocket the money.

All i said was, at the current state, XBox as an advantage (for the 12 month subscription) over PS2 because they (MS) are handling everying online.

Again, it depends your vewiponit of it. Sony has not taken the walled garden approach. It has taken the path of PC gaming itself since it is more familiar and will not FORCE a cost upon the consumer. This in the end is the safest approach because it assumes OG will EVENTUALLY succed, but it leaves the path open to how to get there. The main problem finanically with OG for M$ is that they have dumped billions and billions into their network that is MUST succede. It must have tens of millions of gamers PAYING or else it will will be a failure

Now let's get back to the original question of the thread.

What is considered the best /most popular game console? -- then someone brought XBOX LIVE. I said the obvious. People post what they think and so did I. Did i slant negatively against PS2? No.

Looks like the only one who can't get over fanboyism, is you. Unless that remark wasn't directed towards me, then the current statement doesn't apply to you.

Actually it was directed toward you. Someone said XBOX Live was a wise move - I pointed out the flaws within it. And I am true, arn't i? It _must_ succced because Microsoft has put too much money into it to be unless less than a huge success. Also, just like I stated earlier they key will be if Microsoft can actually KEEP its customers AFTER the initial one year for 50 dollars deal. Because 50 dollars for a year is nice - 9.995-19.95 (possibly even more to access a "premium" game such as a MMORPG) a month is where the consumer will start to question.


=============

As to the comment about the SS and the PS2 i'd have to disagree (mainly because Sega is an area where I know a LOT about). The Saturn's main problem was that it initally was made as the ultimate 2d gaming machine - Early specs show a 16MHz NEC Cisc CPU (can't remember the name however I know that it was the first commonly used CISC in Japan) powered the console. When Sony announced their specs (the farking processor was basedon the R3000A!!! The Indigo used an OLDER version which meant this thing was powered) and showed it was a 3d gaming machine Sega had to scramble...quickly.

That is where the Saturn's fault lies in. With a year to go to launch they couldn't spend the time to recraft a console. They decided to use parts on the shelf and threw in 2 SH2s and 2 Beefed up VDPs instead. The problem was the the system wasn't "in harmony" because it wasn't made to be based on Hitachi's SH2.

The PS2 had PLENTY of time and was carefully constructed with the idea of the EE in the beginning.

the games are proof enough themselves.

Let us take Yuji Naka - creator of the Sonic series. SEGA's BEST developer (he even made a NES emulator for the SEGA Genesis) spent a LONG TIME perfecting his game which was supposed to show the "true power" of the Saturn. It came in the form of Nights. Nights was the best example of the power of the Saturn. However it shows that even with the greatest genius, 100% pure SH2-asm, Nights was a 2D game in a 3d uniserse.

That is what the Saturn was, due to the fact it was cobbled together- It was a 2D system that handled 3d objects VERY well.

The Ps2 has to be coded in ASM to acheive results comparable to the Xbox and GC -this is something that Sony doesn't hide. The games that were supposed to deliver DID. FFX was amazing, MGS2 was incredible (the first scene where you see snake jump off the bridge is NOT a movie. Beat the game and you unlock the feature of slightly tilting the camera during a cut scene. You can do it during the into). Jak and Daxtor finally silenced all those who said that the Ps2 could not show great games with huge draw distances (It eliminated them....). Ratchet and Clank took the idea of J&D and then tossed twenty enemies moving simultaneously onscreen without a drop in its 60FPS.

However there is a catch - one must program in assembly because the Ps2's two vectors understand ONLY assembly.

So the PS2 can compete - abliet it must be coded in pure assembly (Insomniac stated that Ratchet and Clank uses about 50% of the Ps2's resources. They even stated that it could not be done on the Xbox without lowering the framerate to 30FPS because the P!!! [or celeron...] was made to do linear algebra like the EE is. They also noted though that nVidia suprised everyone in 2001 with something they thought was impossible and that they do have games coming out for the Xbox) and that is the kicker. Most developers don't want to code in assembly for timely reasons.

And just by looking at it. The Ps2's CPU is like a "3 in 1" deal..almost like the trinity if you are a Christian. The SS has two independant Sh2s inside and even by utilizing both at the same time you had latency problems by having to wait for one to "catch up". Even by acheiving sync there would be a drop in resources

so initially while the SS=Ps2 idea maybe feasable, it is flawed with many misconceptions. But that doesn't stop me from playing my saturn.

And feel free to argue the history of SEGA with me if you must 🙂

 

[flavio]

I think it's all about who wins Christmas right now. If the PS2 continues to dominate thenmkes a huge difference.