what I don't understand is why Microsoft and Sony are charging for on-line play. I've been playing NeverWinter Nights on-line for that last few months for free. So why is it that these mega corporations need to charge us for playing on line?

They are charging money because it costs money to set up and maintain these networks for gamers to play in. PC games work on a peer-to-peer basis wheras these consoles have to work off a different infrastructure that MS and Sony have to set up. Outside of that, Sony is charging because the way they set it up is costly for them. MS is charging probably because so far they've lost 750Mil bucks to this Xbox thing... because I think their network setup is easier and cheaper to maintain than Sony's. I could be wrong on all of that, but that was my impression.

I think you've got that completely backwards. Sony hasn't even done as much as Sega did preparing for 9/9/00; MS has put MUCH more into Xbox Live infrastructure.

As for paying fees per game... right now, there are no "normal" games on either system that charge extra. It's expected that MMORPG on both systems would have a fee. (The PSO fee is a Japan thing, by the way.)

Down the road, there is far more likelihood that extra fees would be on PS2. Sony's the one saying, 'Publishers, you handle implementing online in your games.' At some point, it's reasonable to think that they'll possibly try to cover any extra expenses this Sony decision has caused. Or, if they're popular enough, they'd do it to make a profit... think EA.

Why else would EA back PS2 online and avoid Xbox? Concern for their customers? Please. They lost hundreds of millions on EA.com, but still have their infrastructure in place. Which system is the only one where they potentially could actually recoup some of that? After one or two years of free Madden gaming, is it that outrageous to think EA could implement a fee to play all EA games?

Yeah, I'd agree that Microsoft has a LOT more invested in their online setup. Sony probably has to maintain the servers for their games (SOCOM, GameDay, etc), but that's about it.

I don't think EA only had us consumers in mind when they backed away from Xbox Live either. I'm not so sure about the payola from Sony theory though. To me, it just appears to be EA realizing that they're the 800 pound gorilla in console software, so they can do whatever they feel will benefit them in the long run.

How does Microsoft sell Xbox Live to 3rd party developers? Is it a "you just write the code, we'll handle everything else" kind of thing? Is there any financial appeal for a developer to write Xbox Live capable games (other than the fact that they don't have to deal with maintaining the network)?

As an aside, does anyone else remember EA's remarks a few years back about how they weren't going to be supporting the Dreamcast, and it would therefore fail?

Yeah, that pissed me off. Unfortunately, I think not having Madden on the Dreamcast DID play at least some role in it's demise. Sega's NFL2K series certainly helped fill that gap though.

On the other hand, how quickly would the Dreamcast have died if EA's NBA game HAD been ported over?

I remember that stupid comment. Thankfully Sega fought back with some truely awesome sports titles, rivaling and besting EA's offerings.

And quasi-off-topic, I don't see how IGN figures they can charge money to view their pages, being they have ads and their content is very similar to everyone else's...

I'd still rather get a PS2 because the games are better, IMHO.

Thats just dumb, not that funny at all.

I think it is very funny... The cups with strings part was the best.

I thought the pictures were quite funny!

Just to clear up some info here, XBox Live's subscription fee does not guarentee that is the only fee you'll need to pay. Developers are free to charge any additional fee that they want to. Microsoft will only collect royalties from companies for XBox Live if the developer charges fees to the consumer. So there is no guarentee as it is still up to the developer. You're less likely because companies won't have to pay for the server space, but then there are some companies who have their own infrastructure that they would like to use rather than use Microsoft's.

There are both ups and downs with XBox Live subscription. On the plus side, you will get one unique gamer tag, and you can find people online when they are playing other online games. But like the PS2, you're still likely to pay fees for some games. Another issue is that $50 gets you one account/record. You can have some guest accounts for friends who hop over, but if you live with someone, or have say a sibling, you will have to pay $50 per person if each person wants their own record which is something that MS is keeping track of in every game. There's no way to set it up so that you use one account service like in EQ where someone can create multiple characters so that each person can play their own with one service. It's a shame that they failed to do that because now you're paying more for an account than a service. This will be an issue with families.

So again, bottom line is the $50 fee doesn't mean you won't pay other fees as it's still up to the developer, and if you live with someone else or have family, they each will need to pay $50 to have their own gamer tag and record.

Also, if you've been reading the XBox Live Beta forum, there's been some mention of a Premium Content download section. Apparently, they're testing a feature that will allow publishers to sell additional downloadable content. For example, Revolt allows you to buy new cars for a dollar each. During the beta, this is actually free for testers to try, but presumably once the system goes live, real users will have a dollar charged to their credit card if they chose to download one of the premium cars.

This could be a very cool feature, or it could be horribly annoying. I guess it'll all just depend on how MS and other XBox Live publishers use it.

I consider it horribly annoying. I'm not payin a damn dollar for a new car, especially on a game like revolt.

the funniest part of this whole MS making fun of PS2 going online thing is that those of us with ps2 are having some major fun right now while MS is still beta testing. The joke was really ms showing they are more than a little upset that they are lagging behind Sony again. I guess that the permium content isn't bad but if the game is $50 then you shouldn't have to pay extra money to get new cars in racing games. That would be rather expensive in a game like GT3.

Trust me, don't even try going down that road.

As far as having to pay an additional 50 bucks to have an alternate account or whatever they call it, well it really really sucks. I first thought that MS's plan was better, but if If it's going to require familiy members and roomates to pay indivualy thats a real downer IMO.

come on guys ... plastic cups .... classic. online-gaming pissing contest - way not kewl.

OMG XBOX IS SO BIG LOLOMGLOL

Actually, I believe you get something like five 'guest' accounts for other family members when you purchase one starter pack. As long as you all use the same Xbox, you should be fine. I'm too lazy to dig up the link but I've read it in several places.

Seeing as XBL is still in beta, nothing is for certain. MS could certainly change things based on feedback, so it remains to be seen how it'll all actually work.

As of right now, my understanding of how the "guest" accounts work is that the registered XBL member logs on, and then up to 3 guests can pick up controllers and participate in the online game. Whether guests will be able to pick gamertags and whether the voice communicator feature will be active for them is unclear. Whether persistent records will be kept for guests, is very doubtful.

There is some mention here and there that users may be able to purchase additional gamertags for an account for a small additional fee. As of right now, there are no actual indications that this will be the case, i.e. there are no provisions to do this in the XBL setup or the Premium Content screens.

No on the Gametags.

Yes to the voice communicator feature. People on the XL Beta already figured that out. All you need are mini-stereo jack splitters and you can hook up as many mikes as you want to.

No on persistant records for guests.

Flay is correct. MS has gone on record as to say that in a scenario where you have a family with two brothers, a parent will have to pay $100 for the year if each brother wants their own gamer tag and record. You know for a fact that a kid isn't going to want to share his record. That just sucks when you look at all other services out there that even though you pay for one account, let you have multiple records or data so that each member of a family or household can use it. As long as you don't play at the same time, it's good.

Yeah - us poor xbox owners are just bitter cuz all we can do is play 16 player Halo, Tony Hawk 2x and 3, Nascar Heat, NFL Fever 2003, Moto GP, and any other game that supports system link online for free and have been able to for several months... I just got through with a game 4vs4 and had a blast. Didn't cost me a nickel.

You can bet MS won't let that happen in the long run. What sucks about 16 player halo is that you need to play four player split screen.

I prefer to play online games on the computer anyway... but playing halo online is fun - split screen or not. I have a 61" TV and even split in quarters, each screen is larger than my 21" PC monitor. I'm just saying that Xbox has had online games for awhile now and the PS2 is just now getting some... Xbox Live is just going to make Xbox's online experience that much sweeter. Back to the original point of this thread - it was just a funny goof on PS2... people shouldn't feel the need to get defensive about it and rag on MS. PS2 and MS both have a decent online plan. Both are better than nothing (GC) and not nearly as good as what you can get with a PC. It's just a joke... like Jack in the Box's commercials... they goof on Burger King and whatever. Burger King used to do it to McDonalds by showing a burger the size of a dime and then showing this mammoth burger to represent their own. Burger King and Jack in the Box both make better burgers than taco bell (who doesn't even make burgers), but neither are as good as what you can get at any decent restaurant. Nothing to get defensive about.