PDA

View Full Version : Dualshock 3 & Cheaper PS3 on the way!


Lyme
09-27-07, 02:44 PM
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/09/24

I guess the hidden costs with older PS3 system just went up, unless you expect Sony to replace the DualShock 2.5 with the 3 for free.

http://www.dailytech.com/FCC+Filing+Provides+Peek+at+New+PlayStation+3+Mode l/article9067.htm

Looks like there is a even more slimmed down version of the ps3 on the way. Maybe if Sony is lucky the savings of the cheaper system will not increase the price due to the new controller.

tornadog
09-27-07, 03:12 PM
the 360 is still the king of hidden costs, covering more than the cost of the system in hidden costs !!!!

Lyme
09-27-07, 05:54 PM
the 360 is still the king of hidden costs, covering more than the cost of the system in hidden costs !!!!

Which are the hidden ones again?

S.I.N
09-27-07, 07:10 PM
Which are the hidden ones again?

Playing over the internet with others.
The fact little gamer pics cost money.
The HD addon.
WiFi.
Ring of death.:headexplode:

Not really hidden except the red rings but cost you dont have to worry about those costs with a PS3. And at $399 it further shows the better designed system.

Zelda_fan
09-27-07, 07:16 PM
Playing over the internet with others.
The fact little gamer pics cost money.
The HD addon.
WiFi.
Ring of death.:headexplode:

Not really hidden except the red rings but cost you dont have to worry about those costs with a PS3. And at $399 it further shows the better designed system.

-You can't expect them to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in upkeep costs for those servers? Someone has to pay for it.

-I'd never use it

-I'd never use it

-Never happened to me

3DBrad
09-27-07, 07:45 PM
Sony already said that PSN probably won't always be free.

Lyme
09-27-07, 07:47 PM
-You can't expect them to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in upkeep costs for those servers? Someone has to pay for it.


People started getting in a huff when EA started pulling down the servers to older games, and yet PS3 folk believe that Sony will run them for ever.

S.I.N
09-27-07, 07:48 PM
-You can't expect them to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in upkeep costs for those servers? Someone has to pay for it.

-I'd never use it - So what? Many others will.

-I'd never use it - So what? Many others will.

-Never happened to me - Happend to a whole lot of people including many here to the point they had to finally acknowledge it.

And Microsoft doesn't offer dedicated servers. Its the users bandwidth being used to host games at all times. And thats the head shaking part so in affect they are charging us to use our bandwidth. And you would think there service would be free being that they are charging for wallpapers and avatars. Hell they basically have people paying for advertisements because those gamerpics and themes should be free to promote the games. Its such a nickel and dime operation its pathetic and I could understand them charging for those little things if the net access part was free but it is not and is a rip off.

Marvel_us
09-27-07, 09:15 PM
Sony already said that PSN probably won't always be free.

Talk about taking something out of context. The interviewer asked the Sony rep if PSN will ALWAYS be free. Of course the guy can't say it'll "always" be free. Who knows how it will be for PS4, 5, 6.... What he did say is that their current model for PSN will remain free.

Lyme
09-27-07, 09:23 PM
And Microsoft doesn't offer dedicated servers.

*cough* What? MS pretty damn well insists on running the servers.

S.I.N
09-27-07, 10:11 PM
*cough* What? MS pretty damn well insists on running the servers.

What game on live runs on a dedicated server?

Zelda_fan
09-27-07, 10:16 PM
What game on live runs on a dedicated server?

I'm pretty sure all of them, unless I'm seriously mistaken. MS made a huge deal about the fact that all XBox Live content was ran through closed servers that they control.

|MaguS|
09-27-07, 10:26 PM
I'm pretty sure all of them, unless I'm seriously mistaken. MS made a huge deal about the fact that all XBox Live content was ran through closed servers that they control.

I thought so too but was proven wrong. I was discussing why Halo 3 only had a 16 player limit and I think it was Lyme who pointed out that its because Xbox Live sets up the servers off the players box which is also why games on the Xbox usually have a worse graphically MP component due to having to run the server and the players client together.

knghtwhosaysni
09-27-07, 10:53 PM
Why would the rings of death be a cost?
Mine was out for a week and a half or so and shipping was prepaid.

And yeah, I don't know of an Xbox game that uses dedicated servers... Battlefield might, but I know for sure that all the games I have use the Xbox to host the game.

Mr_LoL
09-28-07, 11:01 AM
So lets say I wanted to play TDU over live. Who will be hosting the actual game servers. Microsoft or Atari?

3DBrad
09-28-07, 11:03 AM
Yeah, why should someone pay so much per year and not get dedicated hosting?

nekrosoft13
09-28-07, 11:21 AM
The HD addon.
WiFi.
.

HD addon and wifi are not required componets on gaming console.

no reason to force everyone to pay more, when only select few will use it.

Lyme
09-28-07, 12:36 PM
Yeah, why should someone pay so much per year and not get dedicated hosting?

$50 a year is pocket change, t works out to be less than $4.50 a month. I spend more than that on lunch in a single day, it costs about that much to get a beer in a bar, heck most Starbucks coffee's cost more than that.

Otherwise there are a few games that use dedicated hosting, but it is hard to tell if they are hosted by MS or by the companies that made the game.. like the FF MMO, and TDU, and phantasy star online.

http://www.ironmanmovie.com/ Sweet!

Camp0rz
09-28-07, 01:49 PM
Microsoft does run servers for live, but they're used for the distribution of content.

It was rumored that bungie would have dedicated servers for halo 3 since halo 2 suffered from host advantage and cheating as a result of making player's boxes hosts.

Mr. Hunt
09-28-07, 01:53 PM
I wish Microsoft would actually let people host a dedicated server if they wanted... PS3 has it and I am so thankful because I would hate to play Warhawk with a bunch of lag :(.

S.I.N
09-28-07, 01:56 PM
HD addon and wifi are not required componets on gaming console.

no reason to force everyone to pay more, when only select few will use it.

There are a lot of things not required to get the full use out of a product but the inclusion of them can add significantly to its enjoyment or how you use it. Just look at computer components like motherboards. But thats not the point. The console has those features so why bitch? $100 more for a HD player, wifi, and free online as appose to paying $350 from the competition is a bad deal?

Xav
09-28-07, 07:37 PM
There are a lot of things not required to get the full use out of a product but the inclusion of them can add significantly to its enjoyment or how you use it. Just look at computer components like motherboards. But thats not the point. The console has those features so why bitch? $120 more for a HD player, wifi, and free online as appose to paying $350 from the competition is a bad deal?

Well it depends on how you look at it really. Do I use wifi on consoles? Nope. Do I think I will in the lifetime of these consoles? Nope.

Do I need Blu-ray? Nope. Would I have bought a cheaper PS3 without it? Yep.
You cant really toss the HD part in there since MS is giving you the choice as to what you want. Maybe you don't like/want Blu-ray? Well guess what? YOU'RE GETTING IT!! :thumbdwn:

As for the free vs. $50 a year.... after playing around with both services I'm happy to. I spend that in 4 trips to Wendys.

Until Home comes out and I can test it myself then I'm going to judge PS3s online by what there is NOW...and NOW Live runs rings around it.

If Home changes things...it's good for Sony and a win win for me. If not then..I guess I'll live with it. :)

Don't get me started on how I have to play 95% of PS3 games in 480p since Sony doesn't have a scaler in the thing. 360 I get everything in 1080i.

Anyway..back to the topic at hand!

Lyme
09-29-07, 11:21 PM
I wish Microsoft would actually let people host a dedicated server if they wanted... PS3 has it and I am so thankful because I would hate to play Warhawk with a bunch of lag :(.

That is a interesting comment if you think about it. Take Halo3 for example in which your lag is that of which ever connection the game is being hosted on, in addition Halo3 will change the host to be the one with the best connection to all the clients. Then we have games like Counter-strike, warhawk, Unreal tournament (most pc games, you get the idea), where your lag is and will always be that to the data center host. If the host is in say Japan and your somewhere in the USA, then your connection will suffer and possibly give others a unfair advantage.

As such the tradeoffs between the two are not as simple as one may make it seem:
a) client hosted
-There always are servers because your running it.
-The lag is what it is to the best machine, and can be dynamically changed.
b) server hosted
-If the server software isn't public, your plug may be pulled sometime down the line.
-The lag is what it is to the server, no matter where you live.
-You can potentially have more players at once.
-Requires dedicated server hardware and bandwidth.