Re: Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (PS3) plagued by online problems

On Mar 24, 6:11 pm, "Morgan" <Nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:9a4f2197-429b-4628-9287-8134065e2e20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 24, 10:25 am, "Morgan" <Nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:bf8b31fe-fd2f-444c-add4-0555745b1c52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 23, 5:18 pm, "Morgan" <Nos...@xxxxxxxxxx>
If MS want to charge stupid pe. . . I mean non-geeky
cool gamers for a
premium and very complex service of "forwarding on an
IP address to a bit of
software" then fine. But they shouldn't be stopping
people of above
subnormal intellect the choice of making a manual
connection.

Intellect has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of
whether people
care or should care about certain bits of knowledge.

Then please don't spout off as though only geeks have basic computer
knowledge. Also it is certianly not a difficult concept to workout.

Okay, perhaps I should have said computer geeks *and* dorks, LOL.

And this isn't "basic computer knowledge." "Basic computer knowledge"
is how to use Microsoft Word or a web browser. IP addresses may not be
that difficult but most people, not matter how smart or how well
versed in *using* a computer, will never learn this or even need to
know it.

Or just
letting SW companies code it into their games. Yah
know, like they've been
doing for years over on that terribly geeky platform
known as the PC, or as
I assume happens on the PS3.

PS3 games use network servers to play as well.

All these types of game do, the question is who's hosting the server.

I believe with the Sony network that publishers are able to offer
their own servers for online play (and charge for that if they want
since Sony only says that online play for *their* games is guaranteed
to be free) but Sony also has servers available for usage.

I don't think that any one gamer in an online game truly acts as a
host to the degree where his PS3 is not only the interface for the
player but also the device managing all the data for everyone in the
game.

You're more likely to find PC owners who will use a
wireless network than console owners. Most people
don't have wireless networks in their homes.

Irrelevant. MS are still overcharging for the
hardware. Please explain how
most people not having wireless (something that is
rapidly changing) is an
excuse to over charge.

The premium on the hardware price is a subsidy. Going in,
Microsoft
knew that they wouldn't be able to sell tons of these
things. They
need to be able to provide components for those few
people that would
use it but have to charge extra to those people to make
up for not
being able to spread certain manufacturing costs over a
large broad
group.

Well two things, firstly they've not actually to put any money into R&D for
this, they are simple IEEE 802.11 devices.

Which they still have to pay someone (maybe themselves) to
manufacture. Costs certainly drop a lot when you have many items to
manufacture but if you're only doing a limited manufacturing run each
time, your per-unit cost is going to be substantially higher.

I'm not saying this is the only factor in the higher cost. Obviously,
Microsoft is trying to make a pretty penny and can choose to do so
since it's a proprietary platform (and that's the way all console
manufacturers have been at one point or another).

Secondly I would contest your assumption that they've to mad many and that
they aren't in demand. I can't speak to the US but in the UK wireless
networks are common place.

Europe is definitely ahead of the U.S. in terms of technology but I
would still guess that there are more wired networks than wireless
connections there. Any data on that?

In any case, North America is Microsoft's biggest market so they're
likely going to focus more on the demographics here than in Europe or
especially Japan where it's pretty much a lost cause.

a quick scan from my house picks us five of
them in range of my router. I'd have though that they would generally be
the preferred method of connection to the internet. seeing as the other
option is a (most likely long) length of CAT 5.

Wireless can be dodgy and you take a noticeable hit in speed compared
to a CAT 5 cable. Before the advent of wireless here in the States,
you had a lot of geeks running the cables through the walls instead of
having loose cables all over the place (as is the case in my house
unfortunately).

I wouldn't say that the wireless connectors are in any less demand than a
"charge while you play" kit and certainly not any of the custom fronts.

I would say the play-and-charge kit is most certainly in higher
demand. That is something anybody can use regardless of whether they
have a wireless network in their home... and is definitely a useful
component. The alternative is replacing batteries every week (unless
you play a lot) or buying the even more expensive wall charger which
prevents you from playing if you run out of charge.

The custom faceplates were indeed stupid but Microsoft was trying to
push the whole customization aspect (all the way down to the presence
of a hard drive for crying out loud) and seriously misjudged the
underwhelming demand for $20 pretty pieces of plastic.

I'm not anti Xbox or anti PS3, I own both consoles
and a decent PC. I will however say it as it is and
admit that Microsoft are a bunch of fleecing
bastards.

Sony is no different. It's just easier to pick on
Microsoft.

Er, as far as the examples I've listed here go, Sony
are very different. The
PS3 has built in wireless and Sony don't charge not to
not block access to
the internet.

The Playstation 3 also started off $100-200 more
expensive than the
Xbox 360. They lost a lot more money per console when
they launched
than Microsoft did when they launched.

The PS3 has more powerful hardware under the bonnet, it makes sense that it
would cost more, also if you look at how much they cost now you're looking
at £250-300 for both the 360 Elite and the PS3.

Yes, but that's not the outcome Sony was hoping for. They were banking
on the assumption that people would rush out and buy $600 PS3s because
the PS brand was so strong. While I'm sure they're happy the price
drop increased their install base, I'm infinitely more sure they would
have been happier if they didn't need two price adjustments in one
year.

For typical accessories that people might actually want
to buy, Sony
tends to charge more than Microsoft. The two charge the
same for their
wireless controllers, but accessories such as power
cords,

How many people need to buy a power cord? They come with the console and
only a very small minority of people are ever going to need a new one. It's
also an industry standard power cable, there are alternative on the market..

How many people *need* to buy a wireless attachment for the Xbox 360?

In any case, this makes things even worse... on the off-chance that
you actually do need to replace it, it's a component that you MUST
have to do ANYTHING at all with the system and yet Sony is going to
charge you an arm and a leg for it.

The wireless attachment is strictly optional in every sense of the
word. You can play without it... you can even play online without it.
You can't even turn on the system without a power cord.

video
cables, etc. are all MUCH more expensive for the PS3 than
for the 360.
I believe there's a $30 difference between the "official"
HDMI cables
for the two systems.

You can pick up a non-official HDMI cable for about £5 if you know where to
shop. MS make sure that there is not alternative to their wireless adapter..

Besides the point. I'm simply stating that Sony overcharges for their
merchandise as well. What's more, the merchandise that Microsoft is
apparently "fleecing" everyone on is not core to the intended
operation of the machine. An HDMI cable... or at the very least a
component cable... is most certainly core to the intended operation of
the machine as Sony spent so many marketing dollars touting the high-
def capabilities of the PS3. And they don't even include a cable you
can use for high-def in the box.

I'm not "picking" on anyone. I'm simply stating facts.

Such as the fact that after you've spent $600 on a
high-definition,
ultra-modern, top-of-the-line game console that boasts
HDMI and a Blu-
Ray drive, all you get in the box is a 3 generations old
composite
cable? I don't think there's even a S-video plug on it
but I might
just not remember.

I'll agree that it should come with a HDMI cable but as far as I know only
the elite model 360 does. Also as I said, buying a HDMI cable isn't a big
deal.

Both the Arcade and the standard model come with component cables with
which you can get a high-def experience (1080p or not depends on your
television). The PS3 should have at least come with a component cable.
Whether it came with an HDMI cable didn't really bother me so much.

I'm a
big fan of the 360, I have more 360 games than I do PS3
ones. But I'm not a
fanboy and I did the whole "Mine is better then yours."
back when in was ten
years old.

It has nothing to do with fanboyism. I'm saying it's easy
to point out
Microsoft's misgivings but don't forget that Sony is just
as greedy a
corporation - their past deeds shouldn't be ignored or
forgotten just
because they threw in free wireless this generation.

I'm not suggesting that Sony aren't an evil money grabbing company, I'm
simply saying that in terms of the PS3 and the Xbox, MS fleece you a LOT
more.

And I'm saying in terms of the PS3 and the Xbox, they're pretty much
on par. Microsoft's premiums on wireless adapters and hard drives,
which most of the consumer base won't need, are high compared to
Sony's premiums on more common items like cables just to get started
playing the PS3 the way it should be played.

The free online play was pretty much a forced hand for
them because
their network was so immature that they couldn't
conceivably charge
anyone for it.

Er, that my whole point. Neither MS or Sony need to use their own network
and I'm not convinced that either of them are (they certianly wond be for
games where a user is hosting a game). At most they'll have some servers
hosting games. The network being used for gaming is the same network I'm
about to send this post over.

An interesting way to look at things.

You can be sure that by the next
generation, when Sony
has gotten all their ducks in order and actually have a
worthwhile,
robust network in place with all the bells and whistles
that Xbox Live
had before this generation even launched, they will
charge gamers a
monthly fee to use it.

Again I'm not sure what you mean by this, Microsoft uses the internet. If
you mean their network as the servers that they own then I have no problem
paying for servers to download demos off and stuff, I'll just opt to not
have the demos. However I do begrudge them charging for something that is
offered free on other platforms. In fact they aren't really providing the
service at all. They're just letting their hardware utalise something that
their customers already pay for access to.

I mean exactly what I said. Once the "Playstation Network" is in order
to the degree that the Xbox Live service was years ago, Sony will
start charging people to use it just like Microsoft is charging people
to use it now.

It won't be an option where you can choose to download demos and such
but you can still play games online without paying them for that
ability.

Sony isn't doing this out of the kindness of their heart. They chose
not to charge anyone to play on the Playstation Network right now
because it's an infantile service at the moment. In another 4 or 5
years, they will have matured it to the point where they can justify
charging $50 per year for people to play online PS3 games.
.

Loading