PS3 Online: How It Works Comments by Rob Fahey

Yawn.

It serves Sonys interest best that they provide a good Network Platform. That includes providing matchmaking for all games for the PLAYSTATION 3.

^_^ - Carrots are good for you says Mr. Rabbit.

But where is my LINUX, y little liars?! I just want this promised NETWORK OS and I'll be happy with my Firefox etc w/o your buggy proprietary browsers.

Bah Im just saying as usual the Sony crowd are speaking to soon, it could well be that as Wonga said: It may be just good enough to convince people which would then in turn force a reaction from MS. Or it could well turn out to be just not as good as people were hoping and clearly behind Xbox Live, which may mean MS dont change anything but I beleive they were planing to do it anyway at some point(they probably have a target to meet before they change the pricing).

I think MS could lower the price and offer the same thing since they have alot more subscribers than they used to(nobody really knows how much it really costs per person to keep it running MS say: $40-50 per machine... Sony fanboys and some EG staff seem to think it costs nothing which is bullshit as they would have offered it for free well in time for the PS3 launch... use your heads) but if they have to try and offer it for free then something along the line will change and there will be complaints from those who were happy with the way things already are/were.

The overwhelming majority of online games on both PS2 and PSP are totally free to play. Any assumption that this will change is based entirely on the fact that 4 years ago MS decided they would charge for something that PC gamers could get for free for many years, and somehow got away with it.

The history of online gaming is not limited to Live, and its future is not dictated by it either. The standard set for the Playstation brand is online gaming (excluding persistent online worlds of mmorpgs) being free to play, any publisher who would buck that trend would not be well recieved by consumers, or by Sony, unless they were offering something extraordinary, otherwise consumers will ignore their offering or buy a rival title with free play instead.

There are many people using the PS2 and PSP online, for free, right now. No amount of doomsaying about "there's no such thing as a free lunch" changes that fact. And when the PS3 comes at such a price premium over it's rival, it's a trump card they would be loathe to give away. Consider that 5 years Gold subscription adds £200 cost on top of what PS3 will offer straight out of the box. They call it "choice" I believe.

Roamer: You point is filled with holes.

Tell me, why does Online gaming work so well in PC titles then

Because the servers that provide a quality level of xbl are paid for, by gamers. No, servers don't grow on trees even though you might think so.

And I don't get why ppl are so worked up on it, if you can't afford to spend less than the price of a Big Mac (1,6 €) a month, you really should question yourself if you can afford to buy games.

Yeah Jiveguy. But we need to waste the time until we can really see, so why not with mindless speculation and pointless discussion over stuff that does not even exist yet? :)

Heh, cause me 360 is having a field day at ms techsup and there aren't any games on other platform's atm (well, I'm playing Settlers 2 \0/, does that count?).

But where is my LINUX, y little liars?! I just want this promised NETWORK OS and I'll be happy with my Firefox etc w/o your buggy proprietary browsers.

Seriously, wtf would you want with a (real) OS on a console? It sounds cool, but what other use does it have? Are you planning to make games with it? Or perhaps use calc or writer?
And the question is; does sony really want the PS3 to become a central for warez & home-brew (directly competing with their mini game stuff from the shop)? Isn't sony's pov with the psp to lock down stuff like warez amap? The only way I see them implementing a (real) OS is for tax reasons and even then only a seriously locked down version. I'm really looking forward to see how sony is going to handle this as it poses a serious problem.

So many people still congratulating Sony on their move to give free online gaming,sooo many of you still have no idea how smoothly and well it'll all run when it's actually being used by the public.
I still think it's only fair to lay off of the fact that MS is charging us for Gold accounts until we've actually experienced the PS3'S alternative freebie option.
Sure if it's released to the public in November and is still being given universal praise for how well it operates/ease of use/and definitely no hidden charges,then we can begin questioning why we're paying a bit for Live.....(Even though it's only like £3.70 a month,but what the hey)

It's not a move to give free online gaming, it's been free ever since the BBA was launched 4 years ago.

Ok,in their move to give the all in one online broadband experience through a console....For free!
I don't think that's been done before,jeeez.
And don't say the Dreamcast did it,I mean provoide an enjoyable experience :)

I doubt it will be perfect, but it really only has to be half as good as Live for people to wonder if £39.99 is worth it. Sony have a habit of over-promising and under-delivering (got that the right way round, Phil?) in this department, but as this report was an actual hands-on experience, mostly free of hyperbole, it gives me a lot more confidence in the set-up than I ever dared have, based on previous experience of what Sony offered in terms of non-game online periphery.

Like most people tghough, I hope it doesn't break as soon as soon as a few thousand people use it :¬]

US and Japanese Beta testers FTW!

It sounds to me like the Playstation 3 is really going to have a worthless online system. Games like Tony Hawk for the Playstation 3 can't be played online, but the Xbox 360 versions can. The same thing goes for games like Virtua Tennis 3. Games like Dead or Alive 4 on the Xbox 360 can be played online, but Virtual Fighter 5 on the Playstation 3 can't be played online.

See my point! The Playstation 3 is a CRAPPY online system!!!

"But to me the blandness and how empty of detail it all looks is a bit ''meehhh'', especially when it's on on a £425 super console connected to a giant HDTV :/"

Yeah, but if it is really like the PSP you shove a nice HD backdrop behind it and it looks fantastic:-)

@SexyBodyBuilderDude - Naming 2 games which lost online, and one which never had it is hardly a reason to call it a crappy online system is it? Stop trolling and read the article, comment on the article if anything.

/takes it out & swings it around a bit
/wanders off

I think people are forgetting that Xbox Live will soon be free. Haven't you heard? A while back, Microsoft acquired Massive, who are specialists in online and in-game advertising. I don't know when and I don't know how, but someday, we will be offered the option of free online gaming, if we choose to accept exposure to online advertisments. I know what Hughes is saying about free online gaming being the true standard, and not subscription-based online gaming, but I own a PlayStation 2, and find its online experience deeply flawed, and nowhere near the quality or smoothness of operation of Xbox Live. I have no problem paying for Xbox Live, as I can have no complaints with the service I have received. Let's see how PS3 online actually performs before we start making wild proclamations about how much of a rip-off Xbox Live is, shall we?

Style: What you say there is pure speculation. MS never claimed that it would be free ad based. They did say that they wanted to help dev's implement ad based content. So what is prolly going to happen is MS giving dev's tools to integrate ad based content. That doesn't exclude subscription though.

"Why don't you have a clear perception? When you go to a foreign country and exchange your money for different currency... Does matter to you how much a dildo costs in your original currency? It's irrelevant, you are trading in the new currency, And you can see the cost of the items in tokens, relative to how much tokens you have in your pocket.
ignore poster"

Wonga, it's the same reason why they give you chips in a casino. It is to dissasociate you from the fact you are spending money. It's a tried and tested psychological trick that the gambling industry is built on, but it even goes one better. Not only are you spending non-physical money, you are spending non-physical points.

Psychology 101

That's no way around it, the point system sucks. HOWEVER, it is still easy to keep a track of how much you're spending....by keeping track of how much you're spending. It's not really rocket science.

I don't get why people think this dashboard is really such a great deal. It simply is three things basically:

- a webshop
- a media player
- a matchmaking service between user IP's

A webshop, MS make good money on that.

A media player, nothing special.

That leaves the IP matchmaking.

I guess people think 360 consoles actually play online using this service. They do not. The service, as with PC's, tells each console the other consoles IP, does some optimizing, presents a nice lobby.

After you go into the game, the consoles know eachothers IP and it is all P2P. The playing online part does not cost MS server bandwidth. It's the setting up that does, and those are small low bandwidth requests. Of course, with millions of users at the same time, that does add up, but it is nothing spectacular for a company like Sony or MS.

Take into account the enormous advertisement potential of this dashboard of new media (new games, movies, songs) and the bandwidth for matchmaking and controlling your profile is a fair price to pay for a company that in turn gets so much control and direct feedback from users.

You really should not be asked to pay for it. And really, a fiver a month, that is a LOT of money for a service that does nothing more than connect you. As I said before, they ask it because they CAN (since you have to pay it without an alternative on consoles).

As for it being so much easier to use, well duh, of course, it is for a console audience. However that is a matter of software. You write the software once, update it once a while. This software can be considered part of the OS of the console. You pay for it when you buy the console. My opinion is that you should not pay for that on a monthly basis.

As I said before, it's a totally different kettle of fish for MMO games. Since we're talking multiplayer worlds where the bandwidth DOES go through their servers, the worlds are actively monitored, and content is usually being added throughout the lifetime of the game.

Thats a rather simplistic view of the whole thing bluebird. I'm sure the 5 euro (not 5 pounds as you say) a month is being used to pay for more than the datacentre costs.

Providing support and tools to developers would be one area that immediatly comes to mind. I thought it was very telling when one developer (either the tony hawk guys, or virtua tennis) came out a few weeks ago and said there was no online for their game on the PS3 because they just didn't know how to do it yet. The fact that its in the 360 version would make me assume that its not just because they don't know how to do online multiplayer in general. So are Sony just expecting everyone to do their own thing, and they just provide the basic network libraries to make it work (again, the article is great if you are looking for info on how swish it all looks, but very light on how games will work on the service).

I guess Sony also get to decrease their bandwidth needs by allowing you to visit any website to download demos, video and music...although this is a pretty big and naive assumption considering their obsession with DRM.

Jesus, I dont know :)

If it works, great. I'm not going to complain if microsoft are forced to start offering live gold for free as long as the service standards are maintained. If it doesn't work, I dont think its going to be any big loss to playstation fans who have been happy for years without a decent online service.

"I dont think its going to be any big loss to playstation fans who have been happy for years without a decent online service"

Whilst I agree with your suggestion that a lot of PS3 fans wouldn't mind too much right now, I not sure how long that will last. Online is about all sorts of things from multiplayer gaming, to downloadable games and content, to user created content (that third one is my personal bet for being "the next big thing").

I think it is important for Sony to be able to support all aspects of online effectively. Online is a great way of attracting new customers to gaming. The nature of online means that you can start to provide other kinds of product that are more than just the traditional multiplayer games that historically weren't so appealing to non-gamers.

With all that new customer potential Sony can't afford (and of course, they already know all this better than any of us) to be identified as the "not online" console. For consumers to view the 360 as "the console to get if you care about online" and the PS3 being the one to get if you don't, would be very damaging in future years. So I'm sure if there are issues affecting their ability to be "just as online" as the 360 (as you mention regarding TH8 for example) they will want to sort them out in the not too distant.

To everyone expressing outrage at Microsoft's audacity at charging £40 a YEAR for the live service, really, if you can't afford to shell out £40 once a year for Live Gold then maybe you should be out doing something more productive with your time, like looking for a better job maybe?

And another thing, that £40 is the RRP for a years subscription, it's pretty easy to knock at least 50% off of that price if you do a bit of investigation on t'nternet, my years subscription cost me £17.

Lets put it in perspective here £40 = a night down the pub. That is, if I don't go on the fruit machine (I live in London, £3 a pint is not uncommon)

:(

"To everyone expressing outrage at Microsoft's audacity at charging £40 a YEAR for the live service, really, if you can't afford to shell out £40 once a year for Live Gold then maybe you should be out doing something more productive with your time, like looking for a better job maybe?"

I don't think the problem lies in the ability to pay €50 per year, it's the feeling of paying money for something that ought to be free. Personally, I hate having to first give money to my ISP to be able to play online, then, on top of that, I have to pay money to Microsoft to be able to play my €70 game online. Even if the game is just me and my friend playing tennis against each other! Believe me, there are NO costs for Microsoft to keep those P2P balls flying.

On the other hand, Sony aren't exactly known to be anything but greedy and DRM obsessed. It sounds all fine and dandy.. until you try it out for yourself. The money has to come from somewhere, and if we buy new horse armour for our Oblivion steeds, the money ends up in Bethesda's pockets, not Sony's. Sony WILL have a big piece of the money cake, the question is just where and when they will bite.

Sony is known for hating MP3's ams DiVX formats..., I liked EG to talked about the supported media formats.

Trgarding MS points, whenever you buy more you get the amout you're paying in your currency on the dashboard...

Roamer; Online PC gaming as nothing to do with the Live system! The Live systems is an integrated online service, that one of its issues is providing every developer a network with dedicated servers, so the developers don't do online just if they don't want to. It's a private nework run by MS just for you, me and everyone that's willing to pay arround 7 euros per month.

How do you find your friend online?

How long did it take to set up your Console for online play?

What if you fancy playing someone else online when your friend is out, but don't want to get wiped out everytime by some kid that plays the game 18hrs a day, or wind up facing someone that can't manage to return 2 out of 10 of your serves?

What happens when the next big tennis game comes out and you want to take the multiplayer demo for a spin?

Fancy a chat while you play?

Now all these things are quite possible on a PC and will be on the PS3 no doubt, but as far as the 360 goes, you only have to ask yourself "how easy" are all the above to do, they are built right in, seamless, no messing about configuring servers, IP, MTUs, port forwarding or anything else. And that ease of use dosen't happen by accident, it costs money to sort out, and has been done for you.

That's where the money goes, now as for your statement that these things should be free, sorry, but why? And if you think for one second that Sony are supplying their service out of the goodness of their heart you really need to see a doctor.

One way or another you WILL be paying for the online service, whether it is in microtransactions a la GTHD, with charged for content making up the majority of actual game content, annoying in game product placement or even a premium on the cost of online games (I notice that no actual game pricing has been confirmed yet). But you will be paying one way or the other, Sony are not a charity, they are a profit making organisation first and foremost, and they plan to profit from this service.

Ok the Sony crowd simply havent played Live in most cases, they also seem to think they know better despite that... "Xbox-360 owners have no idea they can get the same thing for free on the PC or PS2" ect this is niave because many of the early subscibers to live were already fans of online gaming(like myself, all it took was a free trial given with a game to convince me they have a great service with Live). Lets get one thing clear though there ARE deffinatly server and bandwidth costs as Ive said earlier(its a closed and secure network you log onto live with your account, everything goes through MS's servers at some point and lag is less of an issue than it would be hosting on a standard broadband connection on a similar speced PC for instance*one of the first things I noticed, dodgy net code aside*. Some countries are still to recieve Live support, Portugal will join next month, why would there be any reason for delay if it was as simple as some Sony fans here beleive?), use your heads, why is it that Xbox remains the console with the most games featuring full online support?(its not that developers dont know how to because they do) The console most likely to take that crown is its successor; the 360 which has placed even more emphasis on Online play from the get go. The reason is because devs all run on tight budgets, adding online support DOES cost alot extra if they have to do it alone and fund everything themselves(its the only explanation and history will repeat itself if devs are again burdoned with too much on Sonys PS3 online service... )

Sony fans should wait and see and stop assuming they know better than everyone else, the majority of Xbox Live users are well aware of their options for online gaming, it simply IS one of the best services available and the cost is NOT all that great considering. Nobody would complain if it was free but then not many of them would switch to an inferior service just because it was free(unless they cant afford it or dont play online much at all... for that we have Live Silver and free trials).

Thats a rather simplistic view of the whole thing bluebird. I'm sure the 1,6 euro (not 5 pounds as you say) a month is being used to pay for more than the datacentre costs.

fixed.

Believe me, there are NO costs for Microsoft to keep those P2P balls flying.

Lol? Do you actually have any idea how much servers cost? How much support costs? the overhead costs alone are gigantic and then we aren't even talking about the normal costs. Sorry, but that statement is complete cock and bull.

And do you think that that 1gig demo that you downloaded last week was free? That noone paid for that? MS obviously has a magic pot with unlimited bandwidth and server space tucked away somewhere.

Phew... this thread stinks of desperate MS fanboys :P

Well no, it smells a bit more of Sony Fanboys that are able to read the future, Xbox owners have Live "now" and know how good it is and can clearly see it is worth the money, I myself have said that if the PS3 proves better online than the Xbox then I might switch. But when Sony happily pushes the Free word in every bit of PR they do while brushng stealth charges under the carpet (and they will be there, somewhere) and I see you Sony fans lapping it up it just winds me up, am I really the only one who can see what's going to happen?

So, on one hand we have Xboys defending the 11p/day cost of what is widely accepted as a superb online service and framework.

On the other we have the PStuds licking cream of their face becuse Sony have (a cock hair before launch) announced (another) free online service. None of them have experienced said service and the last one's track record speaks for itself.

Enough of this childishness: who's for a bit of Virtua Tennis 3 online?

lol, yeah, big time sonyboy me!

It's pretty funny that you're trying to pretend as though there's some danger of you actually buying a PS3 by claiming that you will 'if the online is better than the 360's', when you KNOW very well it isn't ever going to be though. Nice smokescreen.

It's pretty clear many of the posters in this thread are agenda spewing Xbots with no intention of ever buying a PS3 anyway, but it is ever so amusing to see them carry on as though this computer games console has them scared shitless :p

edit: LOL, and as if to prove my point about agenda serving fanboys, here's Jim Davids... er... I mean Rambaldi right on cue!

Jim Davids?

All this PLAYSTATION 3 news got all the guys at Microsoft and these Xbox Fangirls scared shitless.

Enough of this childishness: who's for a bit of Virtua Tennis 3 online?

That's a bit contradictory isn't it?

Should have used Tony Hawks as an example the Virtua Tennis is a bit of enigma, Sega is making Virtua Tennis where they're worried they might not be able to implement online in time for it's launch... yet the same damn Sega is pimping their online features in Full Auto 2.

Haha its funny how the people claiming "the Xbots are scared shitless" are the very ones who are always all over any bit of good news concerning 360 or bad news which they can use... hypocracy? yup I think so.

Very few Sony articles these days worth reading... first thoughts that spring to mind are "oh god what shit are they talking now then?"(The online service has yet to be seen, like alot of things Sony have been hyping up. Even after this article we still dont know too much about it so whats the fuss about?). They actually beleive MS or any "Xbots" have any concern for this(at worst they get the best service for free if you are talking about the Xbots), no most people are saying its a bit early for the Sony Zombies to be getting all excited.

Steroyd: Sega are only publishing Full Auto2; PSEUDO Interactive are the devs and wasn't online already in the first game thanks the the 360? ;) Online pretty much has to be in Full Auto2 now or there will be Sony tears shed everywhere.

The thread has been ruined. Too much cock waving.

Steroyd: Sega are only publishing Full Auto2; PSEUDO Interactive are the devs and wasn't online already in the first game thanks the the 360? ;) Online pretty much has to be in Full Auto2 now or there will be Sony tears shed everywhere.

Surely Sega could nicely ask Psuedo Interactive to "share" their net code to Sony's online service. :/

No, I really would switch.

Most of my mates are Sony through and through, and will probably have PS3s, however, after getting the Xbox I have been seduced by the online play and the ease of use of the live system. If the PS3's online offering doesn't at least come close to the Live system I'm not interested.

That's not to say that at some point it could catch up and I wont re-assess my position on a PS3 purchase, just at launch, it's not gonna happen.

BTW, my pro Sony friends are just a little put off by the thought of having to buy cars and tracks in racing games, and the general cost of the system. And won't be getting one at launch.

Well here are 6 links to videos of resistance online that people may find intersting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHOkyzElbVw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xKWvK0v3J0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2GVuQYXoxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1O4uZvBmW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MAE1vgGP3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkjJpq2dcpw

Oh come on!

The banter has been fairly low key so far, there no need to lower the tone that far!

LINUX ON THE PS3? OMG!!!! Or maybe not...?

Interesting article and mostly good thread... Here's something to add about the Linux question someone asked. I'm quite sure there *will* be Linux on the PS3, but probably for all the wrong reasons... anyway, here's some info about it:

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstat...

OK, here goes... The theory:

In theory, Sony would want to put Linux as an addition on the PS3, in order to allow hobbyists to write games for themselves, and even share them with others. However, that would require that they adapt their Linux pretty well in order to give access to the PS3 specific hardware. For instance, a very good OpenGL implementation would be necessary should anyone want to write a decent 3D game under Linux.

Then, you *may* of course use Linux to turn your PS3 into a living-room PC as well, using OpenOffice and the likes on your HDTV to even do some more serious stuff (keep in mind that everything will have to be re-compiled first due to the Cell CPU, but that isn't really an issue on Linux, really). However, I wouldn't be too excited, since a PS3 with only 256 MB isn't such an amazing hardware for today's Linux distros (mind you, I'm just writing this msg on a Linux PC right now, so it's a Tux fanboy writing).

The reality:

Well, sounds all pretty, and one could even think Sony is planning to compete with M$ on the field of home PCs as well, but alas... I don't think so. I think their real reason for boasting that "the PS3 is a computer" (which they did on several occasions) is an entirely different one: They have to pay much higher taxes for home entertainment electronics hardware than for PCs in many countries (don't ask me why). A recent report said that Sony would have paid about 50 million $ less on taxes if they could have get the PS2 be declared some sort of PC officially, instead of a game console.

I believe this is the only true reason for Sony to put Linux on the PS3, and because of that, it will again be a very crippled, mediocre implementation, just as it was on PS2 (I own the PS2 Linux; it did NOT provide any decent access to the hardware, and some - like the multitap adapter, for instance - couldn't be used at all).

OK, maybe that gave some insight - and my opinion - on the Linux side of the PS3. I do, of course, hope that Sony will prove me wrong..

Well, I guess it couldn't last. Well done children, one screwed thread. Its like bloody Lord of the Flies on here sometimes.

And everyso often it turns out that one of you is actually in your 20s rather than your early teens and suddenly I understand why so many people view gaming as an immature pastime.

"I wonder if Sony fanboys like to spit or swallow the juices of Sony's proclamations?"

/sigh

Ooh, in time it took to write that things have picked up a tiny bit. Me and my big gob.

Yeah Kanga, just pretend the swallow comment didn't happen and everything will be fine!

Had a look at the vids, and Live does do most of that stuff TBH, I did like the idea of ingame achievements (Medals & Ribons etc..) unlocking stuff that will be visible to other online players (Skins and the like) so people can instantly see that you are 1337

That is cool.

Stoner, I fully agree; can't understand why someone not interested anyway feels the urge to keep bitching around. However, nothing wrong with some live debate, then...

I for my part, altough being PlayStation owner for many years, was always extremely sceptical about Sony's foray into the online world. Reading that article makes me feel much more comfortable then, cause it shows that, this time, they apparently do put up some effort to create something decent. I don't care if it's "better" than XBL feature-by-feature or anything; online gaming is not *that* important, IMHO. As long as it's good and stable and userfriendly *enough*, I'm perfectly happy (given that I don't have to pay money for the basic services).

About the Sony/M$ debate: First I gotta admit that I have a longtime hate for M$ (I work in IT for about 20 years, and have my reasons), and in general, I hate their products. Needless to say that I don't own a 360. Nevertheless, some friends do and I do have to admit that it's probably one of the best end-user products they actually created, and XBL made quite a good impression on me. Still, it came a bit as a surprise to me to read here posts from XBox users, confirming that their online shop can be a pain to use, and that there is no web browser. Come again? This is the company that is owning the web when it comes to webbrowsers, or not? And the remarks about the not-too-user-friendly shop just confirmed that M$ needs a gentle kick in their behind from time to time before they start to implement some serious improvements again (proof: think IE would have tabbed browsing by now without the likes of Firefox doing it first?).

So, in other words, every 360 owner should look forward to some competition from the PS3 online service, cauze it will only help to force M$ to improve theirs as well.

One other thought concerning PS3 online play: I wonder if Sony will ever start to use their PC online game branch to create stuff for the PS3? Everquest, for instance, would be a good starting point to create something along the lines of WoW for PS3, and Planetside - altough not a very special shooter in itself - is at least the only massively-multiplayer-shooter I know so far. They should really do something with that...

Wow, I left a fairly informative and intelligent debate with some great ppl in favour of Live, and making good points, then a bunch of MS stooges show up and froth themselves up into a wank-sweat.

Live, great piece of work. To someone who doesn't live and breathe online gaming, it looks expensive. (And the "Get a better job" argument mattigan uses is every bit as arrogant as Sony's saying people should save for PS3 that had so many Sony-haters up in arms)

Sony's online offerings to date have been piecemeal, some good, some poor, but free for the last 4 years (although there are still people in this thread acting like those years, and the many many years of PC gaming, never happened), and no reason whatever to believe that will change.

For those who like to dip in and out of online gaming, PS3 is the way to go. £40 quid a year when you maybe fancy playing only once or twice a month is nobodies idea of value. For those wanting a more cohesive experience it seems likely Live will stay superior (although how much so remains to be seen).

However, as I stated, if Sony have got a more consistent system this time, for free, the price of a Gold Live account will look more expensive to those of us who aren't playing online every day.

Not for one second do I doubt the value of Live to those who praise it in this thread, and not for a second would I think that they represent the gaming public at large. A generalisation, maybe, but I've read a fair few people in the forums who are going to let their Gold account lapse once it's up.

MT, Calgon, Xerxes, the only people you're covincing is each other, and you make 360 owners look every bit as bad as KillahSouljah makes those of us who want a PS3. And Calgon, you state all the Sony news is boring, but you always seem to be on hand to talk about it length? And in frequently in highly tedious detail. For a console you are so consistantly negative about, and which you claim has no articles worth reading, you seem to read a lot of them, and expend a great deal of type on the subject.

@babyface - 100% agree!

babyface:

"is at least the only massively-multiplayer-shooter I know so far."

Huxley, for Xbox 360.

foamy:

OK, the only massively multiplayer shooter *in existence and played for some time now*... ;-) Anyway, didn't know about Huxley. Looks interesting... one more reason for Sony to do something about it. SONY YOU HEAR ME? I guess not...

Yeah I think Nth Korea shouldn't be sanctioned by the UN........If they don't get free online THEY'LL NUKE US ALL!!!!!!!!!!