I'll feel better when you acknowledge that I'm right in every circumstance.

Yeah, I know... just look at how much more active the One thread is compared to the PS4... it's amazing!

And I didn't see anything posted about the new PS+ games in the PS3 thead.

Fine!

I acknowledge the following: "I'm right in every circumstance".

It's in the PSN thread...thought that's what you meant, as it's the equivalent of the space bucks thread.

It's a straight up fucking soap opera of a train wreck over there. You can't make this shit up, and it's hard not to look or post. From the first day of E3 till now it's been...yeah..."amazing" is a guess a positive word you could use.

Sony, by comparison has been either on a very steady and planned course, or at a minimum, they've been savvy enough to simply keep quiet while Microsoft repeatedly punch themselves in the face.

So yeah...we end up talking about how much PS Plus is going to suck...or apparenly not.

The only people who would think PS Plus is going to suck (or the fact that they now have to pay to play online) have had their heads.... in the sand.

PS Plus has been the best thing going for getting free games and discounted games.


Sony is smart to keep quiet about anything else as long as possible.

I only hope they improve the things that really need improving, especially multiplayer.

I actually don't have a problem with online multiplayer or hooking up with friends on PS3. Sure it could be better, and with a paid service, I expect it to be, but I was generally satisfied with online play.

Netflix etc are also fine, bordering on awesome.

What I do have a problem with is virtually EVERY OTHER online function the system does...the store, long downloads followed by long installs, constant firmware updates, etc. There's nothing worse than loading up a game to play it and then waiting 10-15 minutes for the system to get its shit together.

It's not all cupcakes and handjobs in Sonyland. I have some expectations for a modern consumer electronic device, but I think they've learned.

My group of friends tried the online a few years ago, and just trying to talk to each other was a joke.

But I am also talking about Local MP, on the 360 each person has their own account and is in the game as themselves. With the PS3, it was just me and basically guests.... I never saw away to have more than one profile active at the same time, in the game.


But yeah, all that other download and update stuff needs to be improved 500%

It would never occur to me to even try that. For seeing which friends were online and what they are playing and for sending invites or jumping in their games, PS3 worked fine. It's pretty basic functionality compared to Live, but it worked and was free.

Communications were hit or miss but only because the PS3 was 1) compatible with damn near any headset and 2) never came with one packed in the box. I wouldn't change the former, and I'm glad Sony changed the latter for PS4.

Edit...were you playing Warhawk? Sounds like Warhawk.

Warhawk and MotorStorm I believe... not sure if we tried any others.

I just firmly believe that Sony, PS4 and PS+ will make online play and communication so much better this time around. I've heard the stories and have friends with PS3's but have never seen or experienced online thru the PSN.

It just seems they're clicking on all cylinders right now and everything is going to plan. I think we'll hear and see more between now and release. I guess if I had a PS3 I would probably have some doubts. But even being with MS and Xbox as long as I have, I still have more faith in Sony right now than MS considering the "Soap Opera" going on.

In theory, with the PS4, they're doing everything Microsoft is doing right with the 360 now in the current-generation. Well, with the exception of the free games which they've already dropped the ball on despite being a few weeks old.

However, execution is a whole other ball game. With Microsoft throwing more money at building server farms and allowing specific developers like Respawn to use them, we may get an even better era of Live. Sony has a lot of work ahead of them if they want to compete with Live. PS+ has some great aspects to it besides the free games, like updating your games at a set time, but it could be something special if Sony gets it right. However, I don't expect it to be as the utopia everyone is expecting it to be on launch. Or hell, even for a few months after...

I agree.

And if preorders are any indication, their servers aren't going to get eased into this generation like they were the last one. They are going to get hit hard.

But at the end of the day, this business is more important to Sony than it is to MS, and they've been humbled, so like K&A, I think they'll sort it out.

However, Sony doesn't have the cash flow (or technology) that Microsoft has to get a plethora of servers up and running.

I'll buy cash flow, but technology? For servers?

If Sony sets up something equivalent to Live circa 2008, I'd be very happy with that, and that was 5 year old technology in 2008.

I think the only two things holding them back now are cash flow (from doing it for free) and the PS3 itself, which seems to have some structural limitations on how it sends and recieves data.

It was a game specific feature to have multiple PSN accounts logged in once. You could do it in the Little Big Planet Games, I think Borderlands 1 and 2 as well could do it. It wasn't something that was done system wide.

Here's how Microsoft won Respawn over for exclusivity for Titanfall:
Full article here. I know that Sony has mentioned they'll have "cloud capabilities," but they haven't sold it like Microsoft has.

Sony might be humble now, but this could be a deal breaker to those jumping ship from Microsoft. If the Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty crowds suffer from online multiplayer issues, they could lose stock with those gaming communities overnight. Microsoft will then have their chance to reign them back in when games like Titanfall and Halo 5 are launched. This is why I'm purchasing BF4 and COD:G on the XO and not the PS4, because I trust Microsoft's online capabilities far more than Sony's.

Again, the console wars haven't even truly started yet. While Sony has forced Microsoft's hand through arenas like promotion and policy, when the actual launches happen, it may go the complete opposite way.

Actually how MS won Respawn exclusivity for Titanfall was money.

Any other reason given is just to make it seem like a reason other than the real one of money tossed at them.

That is how all "exclusives" happen. Some money changes hands and a developers goes exclusive on a title.

Agreed. There are obviously a ton of gamers who play the BF and COD franchises alone. Sure, they might not care which system they play on, and the majority may gladly go from X360 to PS4 for this gen, but if their experience is terrible (glitching, slow matchmaking, bad chat support, whatever), and MS manages to prove that their Live experience on the XO can remove those issues, then those hardcore FPS guys very well might jump on the XO when those big exclusives launch.

If both consoles fix these issues, great. But if Sony can't catch up on that front, then they can no longer use the, "at least it's free" argument. They need to deliver a solid experience that's not masked by, "Look! Free games!"

And no, Sony has no equivalent service to Azure. It's not as simple as just building a bunch of servers. Azure makes a killing from enterprise customers, and that cashflow (as well as Live subscription money, and publisher server-access fees), is what will keep it running smoothly.

I don't think it was money per say, I think it was MS giving Respawn carte blanche in terms of technology, servers, etc. I don't think money was the deciding factor, it was whichever platform was going to give them the resources to build the game and this has been a talking point in every interview Respawn has done.

I know this thread is mostly a circle jerk of Sony fanboys, but Titanfall is an important game for the next generation. It's not only a new IP, but it's from the original developers of Call of Duty (Jason West, Vince Zampella, and the rest of the Infinity Ward team that left with them after the release of Modern Warfare 2). This and Bungie's Destiny are the two games that all eyes are on in 2014. Whereas Destiny was designed with cross platform in mind, Titanfall is specifically for that of the Xbox One (Respawn has none of Microsoft's resources for the PC version whereas the 360 release will be ported from another developer).

Battlefield 4 has the advantage that DICE has always used dedicated servers regardless of the platform, but a lot of Live players are used to such functionalities like party chat whereas Sony will be going live with feature on the PS4 for the first time. I'm assuming Call of Duty: Ghosts will be similar to the past console releases of the franchise where matchmaking is done via the network and consoles. This is where the Xbox One has the advantage due to the console's multitasking and improved matchmaking capabilities.

While I know the online gaming community shits on the Battlefield and Call of Duty franchises, they're the games that will sell and sway people in determining which console to get. Even if Black Ops II sold less copies than past games, it still moved over 23M units between the 360 and PS3. Battlefield 3, being the highest selling game in the franchise, sold over 13M units between the two consoles... and a whole slew of players might discover the game now that it's currently free for PS+ members.

Oddly, I can't think of one, and this is a patently douchey thing to say. I stopped reading your post right there, so I hope I didn't miss anything too interesting.

Objectively, one console has had a very successful design and launch strategy, and the other has not. Comments to that effect in either thread reflect fact, and your namecalling only serves to undermine your own credibility and highlights your own bias.

I'll go as far as to say that you won't find a single regular poster in this thread who hasn't been critical of Sony.

It seems like Amazon might have changed my pre-order from the launch edition to the standard edition. I just got an email that they have received my order, I placed it on June 10th, and that it will ship by their unknown date of December 31st. They better not screw up my order and they better not charge my card before they actually ship it months from now. Can everyone else check their Amazon pre-orders and see if there is anything going on as well? Thanks!

Mine still says I preordered the launch edition when I click on that bundle. No other indicator anywhere of the launch edition but I have the email that clarified it too. I also ordered on June 10th.

My order page doesn't indicate Launch Editiom and has a release date of Dec. 31. But, when I go to the product page, it only shows that I've ordered the console on the Launch addition version and not the regular version. So, mixed signals, but I think it'll work out.