Sega Rally Revo

[puke_face]

Wait, my fault? You're the guy that think's he's smart by answering a PSN question with an Xbox Live is better answer. It's because of people like you that I hate the 360 and Xbox Live. Snide comments and rude remarks will only get you so far before people actually get pissed off.

agreed.

[nateup2]

Wait, my fault? You're the guy that think's he's smart by answering a PSN question with an Xbox Live is better answer. It's because of people like you that I hate the 360 and Xbox Live. Snide comments and rude remarks will only get you so far before people actually get pissed off.

agreed.

No, I said that the problem is that PSN is garbage, which is actually the correct answer. I know because I still tinker around with it every now and then. If you are going to be that hurt by the truth, then you are going to have a tough life.

You oversensitive little fellas make me laugh. And why on earth would I begin to care if you "get pissed off" at me for stating the obvious? There is no tech help answer to the question. The answer is, you can't get a game because you are using PSN. Sorry if you are soooo in regret of your purchasing decision that you are going to get all bothered at me.

Unbelievable

and as many morons can join in your butt-hurt (agreed.) as want to... still doesn't change anything.

This thread is now dead to me. I have already said the same truth a few times now, so further whining will go unresponded.

[MrPopo]

The objection is to the blanket statment "The PSN is garbage." I'm not arguing whether or not that statement might be true. I'm simply saying that "The PSN is garbage" is not a valid reason for being unable to find a game. Things that are implied by that statement, such as "The PSN has bad matchmaking" or "No one plays on the PSN", are valid reasons for being unable to find a game.

Conversely, one could make the argument that "The PSN is garbage" is false as a reason for being unable to find a game, as this would imply I wouldn't be able to find people in SF4 or Rock Band, which is clearly not the case.

You were called out for making an unhelpful statement. You then defended your statement as being helpful, even though others are disagreeing. I don't see any "butt hurt" going on here.

[aaron]

i need to pick this up, apparently. i almost did but opted for lost planet (which i haven't touched) instead. whoops.

[Niode]

The inferiority of PSN to Xbox live is clear, on those grounds he does have a point. The fact that the Xbox live infrastructure is required by all developers to be supported as apposed to the "whether the dev feels like it or not" means that if a game underperforms at retail, a game such as Sega Rally Revo, then Sega will have very little commitment to keeping the servers running for matchmaking especially if there are few people playing. It's not worth the overhead to keep them running 24/7 if only a few people use it every now and then. Because Live's matchmaking service is running all the time for all games on the service it allows all games to function the same. The only thing limiting the available games open to you is locality and simply, whether there are people out there that want to play that particular game.

PSN has it's advantages in that it's free, but when the service isn't going to be supported the same by all devs you get the mishmash of support seen on the PS2's network games. ALL Xbox games are still playable on Live and they will still continue to be supported until the end of the Live service which could be a long time given the success of the service as a whole. How many games on the PS2 still run properly online today?

Oh yeah, and don't give me the crap about PC gaming being free. It isn't free, somebody somewhere has to foot the bill for the servers, without servers, no gameplay. I agree that all Xbox Live is giving you is a matchmaking service all the games are run P2P but still, there has to be a server out there to offer the support, there has to be a server in place for voice chat. The infrastructure has to be there to connect the users, even if the game/netcode is ran P2P. PSN doesn't even offer you this. All online play is entirely controlled by the devs, Sony wants nothing to do with it. Which is why the service suffers as a result.

[MrPopo]

Oh yeah, and don't give me the crap about PC gaming being free. It isn't free, somebody somewhere has to foot the bill for the servers, without servers, no gameplay. I agree that all Xbox Live is giving you is a matchmaking service all the games are run P2P but still, there has to be a server out there to offer the support, there has to be a server in place for voice chat. The infrastructure has to be there to connect the users, even if the game/netcode is ran P2P. PSN doesn't even offer you this. All online play is entirely controlled by the devs, Sony wants nothing to do with it. Which is why the service suffers as a result.

This is a point I want to address. The difference between PC gaming and PS3 gaming is that with PC gaming you have the option of third parties to pay for the servers. Both PC and PS3 both involve the devs creating servers (as most PC games will have a few dev servers to get things jumpstarted), but for the PS3 you can't run your own server; only the devs can. That's the reason why you can still find people to play with even on old PC games like Quake 2; if you want to play it chances are others do as well, and have already set up a server.

I do agree that as a result of this decision the PSN suffers in comparison with Live. However, too many years of "free" PC gaming has meant that you have to provide far more than the old Gamespy matchmaker for me to even consider paying money. I'm willing to suffer through some bad matchmaking as a result, as online play has never been a big deal for me anyway.

[Ack]

I suppose I should take a moment to note that sometimes companies contract servers out to other companies to allow them to run. This can lead to negative consequences in some cases, as it did with Resident Evil: Outbreak, where the company Capcom contracted with decided to stop hosting but has either withheld information or the ability for Capcom to host the servers in the United States, hence why no servers currently run here(though the Japanese servers are still up).

And no, I don't know the full details beyond this, so don't ask.

[Niode]

But that's the thing. What choice have you got. Pay for it and get a service which works as well (if not better) than what's available on the PC AKA Live. Or don't pay for it and get a barely supported half arsed network AKA PSN. There are some exceptions to the rule like Warhawk and MGO but a lot of my games are barely supported online, Motorstorm is terrible and very rarely I can get a game that lags quite a bit otherwise it's a terribly bad lag or no matches at all.

I don't like paying for Live especially since the PC version of Live is free.

Ack has brought up another good point about third party servers. If you have any issues with the servers, what are you going to do, contact the publisher's tech support who will go "We don't know, we don't own/run the servers. Contact the third party" who will no doubt turn around and say "you aren't our customer, we don't have to give you technical help". Which, having worked in call centres for several years, happens all the damn time, and it's so fucking annoying.

[fast]

I have always been curious why the companies dont sell dedicated servers for their games. I mean I know plenty of guys who would have paid for them for Halo 2 or Steel Battalion, and still would. If the price was right, I would buy one for a game I like.

[puke_face]

I have always been curious why the companies dont sell dedicated servers for their games. I mean I know plenty of guys who would have paid for them for Halo 2 or Steel Battalion, and still would. If the price was right, I would buy one for a game I like.

That would be awesome, just thinking of all the Call of Duty servers not timing out makes me drool a little bit, lol. I would pay for them, especially if the server only went down when they didn't have enough funds to keep it going, in which case, even one person (if one were so inclined) could keep the servers up themselves just by paying for it out-of-pocket, or with say a group of friends wanting to play that same game. All those wonderful ps2 and dreamcast servers would possibly be up still. what a world it could be......