PS3's online service.....it sucks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bowhuntr11

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
8,289
Does anybody else think that their online service sucks? Maybe I am missing the features but you can't invite a friend to play a game with you? You can't be in a game and talk to one of your friends or even see if they are online? How do you play with one of your people on your friends list, other then starting a chat conversation with them before you enter a game?

I hope there a way you can do this, and I am just missing it.

Also, anybody that has NBA07...Is there not a franchise mode? WTF is up with that? Probably should of got 2k7, if thats the case.

Sorry, just thought NBA07 would be a good game to play on my system, especially online..but doesn't look to be the case.
 
It is missed, i hope its in a future update, if not then yes the friends community does suck!
 
Psychotext said:
/awaits the deluge of "It's free, don't complain" posts
Click to expand...



Its free, dont complain.

But seriously, its up to the game devs to incorporate the friends lists into their games, Ridge Racer does it just fine. Sony does have some work to do on their online services and the changelist for the upcoming huge march firmware addresses many of these issues. But in the meantime i look at it as Sony is presenting a free online service which allows developers to do with it as they wish. I can deal until its tweaked, plus having a 360 also makes it easier to swallow.
 
4saken said:
Its free, dont complain.
Click to expand...

Ok I know its "free" after I paid $640 for it, just wish when I pushed the PS Button, I could at least view my friends and see if they are online or something without having to quit the whole game.

4saken said:
the changelist for the upcoming huge march firmware addresses many of these issues.
Click to expand...

Sweet...Got a link to the list? I am at work and can't go searching all the gaming sites...

4saken said:
plus having a 360 also makes it easier to swallow.
Click to expand...

I have a 360 and wii also, but it still sucks lol...
 
I've got all 3 systems and the 360's *BY FAR* the best as far as online goes. The PS3 has a lot of potential (as does the Wii) but both pale in comparison to the 360's current Xbox Live.
I think the Wii has all of the groundwork for a service like Live, while the PS3 will likely need an overhaul of it's OS and probably it's online store, too. It feels like it was designed for a PC, but yet it's ugly and tough to navigate on a console.
In terms of online play, there's no competition. The PS3's might be free, but until it becomes at least a little more centralized and integrated, it's going to be a miserable experience.
 
This is the problem with Sony's online service. It was basically non-existent before the launch of the PS3. Xbox Live didn't release until a year after the original Xbox, and since then, over the course of over 4 years, it has been constantly improved and enhanced. Sony, despite what they might have said, would have never been able to come right out of the gate with something even remotely as good as Live. With the exception of it being free, there's no other real advantage.

They did a few things wrong, including not having one gamertag/id for a friends list, that works across all games. It will eventually happen, but right now some games require different accounts. Certain people will whine about how you have to pay 50 bucks a year (less if you find a good deal) for an Xbox Live Gold account, but Microsoft got it right.

I'm sure Sony will eventually get there, but it'll be a while, with numerous patches and updates.
 
Jerome36 said:
This is the problem with Sony's online service. It was basically non-existent before the launch of the PS3. Xbox Live didn't release until a year after the original Xbox, and since then, over the course of over 4 years, it has been constantly improved and enhanced. Sony, despite what they might have said, would have never been able to come right out of the gate with something even remotely as good as Live. With the exception of it being free, there's no other real advantage.

They did a few things wrong, including not having one gamertag/id for a friends list, that works across all games. It will eventually happen, but right now some games require different accounts. Certain people will whine about how you have to pay 50 bucks a year (less if you find a good deal) for an Xbox Live Gold account, but Microsoft got it right.

I'm sure Sony will eventually get there, but it'll be a while, with numerous patches and updates.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. The xbox live we have now is a product of several years of refinement, and is the second major iteration. Its also the result of microsoft pushing developers really hard towards online integration, something sony doesn't do as much of and nintendo does nothing of whatsoever. Sony's service doesn't look too bad considering its brand new. It'll get better with time. Just be thankful its not the wii's online vaporware.
 
Microsoft will most likely always be on the top when it comes to the online interface and integration because of the experience as a software company. So i guess the bar is set pretty high, but i think for nintendo or sony to be able to reach it is pretty outlandish as far as expectations go.
 
Sony's service reminds me alot of Microsoft's Live when it was first released.

I think m$ made the right move in handling alot of the friends/invite/messenging service themselves instead of just handing it off to the devs.
 
It's sad though that sony, coming in so many years later, didn't have a basic level of functionality...xbox live sucked when you couldn't download in the background, but they finally fixed it. So what was sony thinking, having seen the foolishness of xbox's error there, and not come out of the box with this feature? That's just one example of something they should have done from day one.
 
Technoob said:
It's sad though that sony, coming in so many years later, didn't have a basic level of functionality...xbox live sucked when you couldn't download in the background, but they finally fixed it. So what was sony thinking, having seen the foolishness of xbox's error there, and not come out of the box with this feature? That's just one example of something they should have done from day one.
Click to expand...

You know, I was thinking that. I started DL'ing GT:HD the night my machine arrived (note that the DL never worked at ALL last Friday) and I noticed you couldn't download something and do anything else at all at the same time. You'd think that since MS got so many complaints and fixed it, they might've done the same thing. It's strange, but the more I play with the PS3, the more it seems like they did everything "their way" and just ignored MS's pitfalls.
Audio's another one. The PS3 isn't always in 5.1+ surround mode and it seems that actually making it do 5.1+ in some cases like movies can take a little playing around. Not all of their wonderful Blu-Ray demos are in 5.1 either. Sometimes it's like they just didn't bother to do anything more than what was needed.
 
I agree, Xbox Live is miles ahead.
But as people say, they've had a big head start, Live has been out since the beginning of single celled organisims. Give Sony time.
 
Best part about Xbox Live is .. its FREE! Well atleast the Silver accounts are. All 360s get free XBL Silver accounts. Whats the difference between Gold/Silver ?

Gold lets you play online.

A Silver account will still allow you to download all the content (games/demos/themes/movies/tv shows), access friends lists, and everything. If you want to play online you need Gold. Gold retails for $49...

...however....

www.ebay.com You can find XBL Gold cards for as low as $25 sometimes.. and thats for 12 months. That $25 buys you the best online experience to date. XBL is the ONLY unified online gaming service that spans an entire scope and is integrated seemlessly into everything you do. There isn't even anything on the PC that compares to XBL (well until Live Anywhere comes out for Vista ;) ).

I think Sony is cool for having a free online service.. Its cool, but it sucks compared to XBL. Sometimes you just get what you pay for. XBL is worth every penny.. and those too cheap to pay for it can either use their Silver account or just miss out while the rest of us enjoy the best online gaming service to date.

:D
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
theNoid said:
Best part about Xbox Live is .. its FREE! Well atleast the Silver accounts are. All 360s get free XBL Silver accounts. Whats the difference between Gold/Silver ?

Gold lets you play online.

A Silver account will still allow you to download all the content (games/demos/themes/movies/tv shows), access friends lists, and everything. If you want to play online you need Gold. Gold retails for $49...

...however....

www.ebay.com You can find XBL Gold cards for as low as $25 sometimes.. and thats for 12 months. That $25 buys you the best online experience to date. XBL is the ONLY unified online gaming service that spans an entire scope and is integrated seemlessly into everything you do. There isn't even anything on the PC that compares to XBL (well until Live Anywhere comes out for Vista ;) ).

I think Sony is cool for having a free online service.. Its cool, but it sucks compared to XBL. Sometimes you just get what you pay for. XBL is worth every penny.. and those too cheap to pay for it can either use their Silver account or just miss out while the rest of us enjoy the best online gaming service to date.

:D
Click to expand...

QFT:cool:
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I dont buy the "xbox live costs money" bullshit.
$50 a year for online entertainment, thats like 13 cents a day.

You probably spend more on drinks, coffee, beer or almost anything in a week, than $50

$50 isnt even enough to cover 2 people going to the movies anymore. Whats almost the cost of one game to allow you access to the best service going for online gaming. If online isnt your thing, than i can understand. But if online play is and your only argument is that it costs money, than you have an IQ smaller than the price.

You get what you pay for, and for the quality of the Live service its worth every penny, mabye more.

Anyhow im gonna go back to some RB6 now....
 
I dont buy the "xbox live costs money" bullshit.
$50 a year for online entertainment, thats like 13 cents a day.

You probably spend more on drinks, coffee, beer or almost anything in a week, than $50

$50 isnt even enough to cover 2 people going to the movies anymore. Whats almost the cost of one game to allow you access to the best service going for online gaming. If online isnt your thing, than i can understand. But if online play is and your only argument is that it costs money, than you have an IQ smaller than the price.

You get what you pay for, and for the quality of the Live service its worth every penny, mabye more.

Anyhow im gonna go back to some RB6 now....
 
yep, well said


a lot of pc games dont come quit as good as live since pc spans a whole lot
 
MaxKool said:
$50 isnt even enough to cover 2 people going to the movies anymore.
Click to expand...
Wow....where do you live? I estimated the cost for 2 people plus 2 overpriced drinks and a shared large popcorn and came up with around $26. I agree that XBLive is a good value for the level of service it provides...I just use the free silver for now though.
 
joemama said:
Wow....where do you live? I estimated the cost for 2 people plus 2 overpriced drinks and a shared large popcorn and came up with around $26. I agree that XBLive is a good value for the level of service it provides...I just use the free silver for now though.
Click to expand...

'round here (Denver) it's about $35, although depending on the theater it could b hit $40. Tickets are usually $12-14 each, drinks are $3-4, and the popcorn's $4. Don't forget the iMAX versions of new release movies are getting more common. In 10 years we're all going to want to go back to 4:3 to match iMAX ;)
Either way, $50 for a full year of excellent service is worth every cent. I'd rather pay for something that works flawlessly than get something half-ass for free.
Right now the PS3 service is lousy, but it has the groundwork in place to hopefully get better. Still, until they do charge or overhaul it completely, it's not going to even be in the same league as XBL.
 
That's_Corporate said:
I agree, Xbox Live is miles ahead.
But as people say, they've had a big head start, Live has been out since the beginning of single celled organisims. Give Sony time.
Click to expand...
Sony shouldn't get the chance to come out a year late, and have more time to improve on what should have been there since the beginning.

What's worse is Sony can't add a lot of the features that made Xbox live great. No friends list, no gamerscore, no voice chat out-of-game.
 
That's_Corporate said:
I agree, Xbox Live is miles ahead.
But as people say, they've had a big head start, Live has been out since the beginning of single celled organisims. Give Sony time.
Click to expand...

Sony's *had* time, PS2's had the capability of online since at LEAST when Xbox Live came out, possibly before. In all those years, Sony's done precisely *dick* with building a real online service.

The fact is this: Sony doesn't have the infrastructure or the in-house talent to build the equivalent of Xbox Live, much less do it and give it away free. An online service is 100% software engineering, and Sony's a HARDWARE company. You can safely say MS doesn't have the fortitude of Sony when it comes to building hardware, and you can equally safely say that Sony doesn't have a *prayer* of catching up to Microsoft in the software services arena.

I'll be as blunt as possible: PS3's online service will NEVER match what Xbox Live has *today*, much less what it will have in a year, 2 years, and beyond.
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
Sony's *had* time, PS2's had the capability of online since at LEAST when Xbox Live came out, possibly before. In all those years, Sony's done precisely *dick* with building a real online service.

The fact is this: Sony doesn't have the infrastructure or the in-house talent to build the equivalent of Xbox Live, much less do it and give it away free. An online service is 100% software engineering, and Sony's a HARDWARE company. You can safely say MS doesn't have the fortitude of Sony when it comes to building hardware, and you can equally safely say that Sony doesn't have a *prayer* of catching up to Microsoft in the software services arena.

I'll be as blunt as possible: PS3's online service will NEVER match what Xbox Live has *today*, much less what it will have in a year, 2 years, and beyond.
Click to expand...


Definitely. No one will ever match MS's online service. At least not in this gen or the next gen. Just given the resources in money and experience on the software/online end MS has, it cant be expected, and i dont expect it.


But that being said, for what the PS3 online service is, its fine. Going in expecting Sony's online to be as polished as MS's would be unrealistic anyway.
 
4saken said:
Definitely. No one will ever match MS's online service. At least not in this gen or the next gen. Just given the resources in money and experience on the software/online end MS has, it cant be expected, and i dont expect it.


But that being said, for what the PS3 online service is, its fine. Going in expecting Sony's online to be as polished as MS's would be unrealistic anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's unrealistic, but I still think the bitch is legitimate. WHO lead consumers to believe that Sony's online service would be as good as Live but free? SONY. Who has failed on every account to deliver on said expectation? SONY. Who got the shaft? Any consumer who expected PS3 to have a Live-like online service for free. I completely *agree* that it was an unrealistic expectation from the get-go, but there's nobody to blame for it but Sony.
 
4saken said:
Definitely. No one will ever match MS's online service. At least not in this gen or the next gen. Just given the resources in money and experience on the software/online end MS has, it cant be expected, and i dont expect it.


But that being said, for what the PS3 online service is, its fine. Going in expecting Sony's online to be as polished as MS's would be unrealistic anyway.
Click to expand...

Sony had the entire lifespan of the original xbox, then a full year of seeing what the 360 did right and wrong with xbox live. I think MS has better tools, BUT...the fact that sony didn't even ship with the simple things, like downloads in the background, or even hell...downloads that can resume. Downloads that have to be restarted if you interrupt them is so 1995.

So I agree that sony probably never was going to come out and dominate XBL, but they really look like they just threw it together and learned absolutely nothing during all the time they had to get it right.
 
Technoob said:
Sony had the entire lifespan of the original xbox, then a full year of seeing what the 360 did right and wrong with xbox live. I think MS has better tools, BUT...the fact that sony didn't even ship with the simple things, like downloads in the background, or even hell...downloads that can resume. Downloads that have to be restarted if you interrupt them is so 1995.

So I agree that sony probably never was going to come out and dominate XBL, but they really look like they just threw it together and learned absolutely nothing during all the time they had to get it right.
Click to expand...

I attribute it directly to their arrogance. They're so convinced of their own right to dominate the industry that they think they don't even have to *compete* in order to win. It's just absurd. Sony circa 2005-Present reminds me *immensely* of Nintendo circa 1995-98ish. With any luck they'll go down the same road, because a hefty serving of Humble Pie seems to have done worlds of good for Nintendo.
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
I attribute it directly to their arrogance. They're so convinced of their own right to dominate the industry that they think they don't even have to *compete* in order to win. It's just absurd. Sony circa 2005-Present reminds me *immensely* of Nintendo circa 1995-98ish. With any luck they'll go down the same road, because a hefty serving of Humble Pie seems to have done worlds of good for Nintendo.
Click to expand...

Yep, Sony Definitly is a bit arogent right now, and they definitly could use some of that humble pie.
 
i would definitely see something like the gamerscore on Sony as a plus, but its not really got me down a whole lot, patches, demos are great. i dont much like online on a console anyway, and on top of that it seems that almost every single xbox game relies on its multiplayer to carry it. almost every dev says " oh heres a bunch of single player missions to give you some rudimentary skills now go play the multiplayer" im seriously not getting a console to play games online. but then again thats just personal choice. but i do agree that Sony did fuk up on some of the things, ie no background dowloads etc etc, but that can hopefully be fixed
 
Sony's online service is not everything that Xbox Live is, but....

1) It's free.

2) It's a hell of a lot better than what the PS2 offered.
 
Those who have crap to put in threads, do me a favor; reroute yourselves to a damn bathroom.

Keep the thread clean.:rolleyes:
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
I attribute it directly to their arrogance. They're so convinced of their own right to dominate the industry that they think they don't even have to *compete* in order to win. It's just absurd. Sony circa 2005-Present reminds me *immensely* of Nintendo circa 1995-98ish. With any luck they'll go down the same road, because a hefty serving of Humble Pie seems to have done worlds of good for Nintendo.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Sony make any of the mistakes of 1990's Nintendo(or while we're at it, 1990's Sega).

The worst thing they've done is make the PS3 rather costly. If it were priced at $300-$400, nowhere near as many people would be complaining.
 
Sony's online srevice is patchwork, MS's is a complete fully integrated service. Worth every penny.
 
Lord Nassirbannipal said:
Sony's online service is not everything that Xbox Live is, but....

1) It's free.

2) It's a hell of a lot better than what the PS2 offered.
Click to expand...

Right now, seeing as the prices of the two systems is considered rather "large," until these consoles reach a price where people can easily pick up both with out eating only TV dinners for the next two months people strive to find out points of which one they want to purchase. Things that make the console stand out between the others, and make them want to purchase it.

Well as far as a gaming console goes, the PS3 doesn't have very much that stands out from the 360, games sure as hell isn't it, the 360 is extremely dominant now with back to back block buster like titles; the online service maybe? something alot of pro-ps3'ers were talking about before it launched about how great it could be and that its free ... seems to be pretty shitty and exactly what you would get with something free (i think they managed to out do b.net though!); the 6-axis controller? if thats your key, then I think you are looking at the wrong consoles.

Either way you look at it, the online service would of played a critical role in setting the PS3 away from the 360, if it was at all comparable and free, then they would of had a good point to have the system, instead its free and looks like steam only missing alot of features from it
 
Lord Nassirbannipal said:
I haven't seen Sony make any of the mistakes of 1990's Nintendo(or while we're at it, 1990's Sega).

The worst thing they've done is make the PS3 rather costly. If it were priced at $300-$400, nowhere near as many people would be complaining.
Click to expand...

Whether you've seen it or not isn't really relevant; seeing things is a lot easier without blinders on.

Anyone with reason already knows of the many serious blunders that Sony has made thus far. Everyone else is just unwilling to see it.

The PS3 network, as it stands now, isn't even as good as Xbox Live was when it first launched (Let alone what it has evolved into today). It was a service that was shoe-horned in (Hell, they didn't even seem to know whether they were going to bother until last year).
 
One really strange thing I noticed last night is that if you want GT:HD 1.1...you have to re-download the whole game even if you have 1.0 already. A full 625MB. Luckily I have a decent connection, but because of the traffic getting this game, it took hours. I wonder if dynamic patching is an option?
 
I had xbox live on the original xbox and didn't use it often enough. But hell i played those demos online for hours upon hours because it was easy to do. Finding friends was easy in Unreal, playing them was so much fun.

The more and more i think about it i might purchase the 360 for their live service, it was outstanding.

I can't believe Sony didn't make a service like this, 50 a year is chump change and i know people who argue me consistently that the Ps2 and ps3's online service is free.


Free sucks, charge 50$ and make something worthwhile sony.
 
I guess maybe sony doesn't care so much to make it like live because they focus more on the actual console and single player experience... rather than crappy games with okay online multiplayer that's only really fun when you have a bunch of friends who also have no lives to sit and play with you.

shrug.
 
Plus, deals can be had pretty often where you can get the Live 12+1 month cards for $39.99 or so, or $49.99 with a whole bunch of points.

12+1 month at 49.99 - $3.85 per month

12+1 month at 39.99 - $3.08 per month

really, it isn't much...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top