its true.

anyone who posts their config in their signature is a mommas boy nerd.

but also, anyone who has a signature at all is suspect in my book.

You are all nerds!!!!

Explain to me please why people like to have sigs that say what their playing, or list system specs. As if anyone gives a shit. In my experience the latter usually involves some dickhead with a holier than thou attitude about the new radeon 9700 mommy bought him.

No offense of course.

This comment was edited on Mar 22, 23:35.

testing sig

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Playing: Freelancer, NOLF 2, Global Ops. On Deck: Breed, Enclave

If bill gates gave me moneies i would let him have his wayzorz with me all nightzors long.. why did i have so much green beeerzors.. why moses?



Dan
Intel 486SX, Trident video, 8MB RAM, 14" Generic Monitor, 100 MB HDD, Windows 3.11

Just to point out even further that Tanto "M$ Hater" Edge is full of BS:
I said:

the Xbox is not Live! capable from the start

He said:

You're right, I said the XBOX is DVD capable, you ignorant sod.

His earlier post:

Or paying ninety bucks (this is CDN btw) for this Live! service which the X-Box was capable of all along.

I guess I'm still a sod though

You completely ignored both common sense and everything you said.

Also, yes the CD does install new shit, but why should I buy a CD package for that? I've got this broadband modem included with my system... but I pay $90CDN for a headset and a CD, a bit of wire and a box?

Let's see, you'd hate to pay for new hardware and a new software for the price of a video game, which is the EXACT same thing as paying for Ultima Online (EA), which is followed by a monthly rate.

But I can't understand how you would hold sympathy for any company.

I'm not bleeding my heart out for MS (or Nike), but I am making sense of the matter. They give you new hardware and new software that makes the Xbox ten times better and suddenly expect it to be free? Cry out for EA to do that and I'd still yell at you.

A monthly fee is a yearly payment plan. If they charged me by the day I would still consider how much money I was spending each year.

A monthly fee is a way to pay by the month and then stop paying for it whenever you cannot afford to (of course you had better do it before the next billing period starts). The fact is, you get a year off and you completely ignored that, so your yearly fee is $50 (90 CDN), as opposed to $150 for Ultima Online ($30 for the game) or even EQ.

And Vice Versa.

Did you think this one through? I said the Xbox was too good for the PS2 and thus cannot get straight ports from the best games; you turn around and tell me that PS2 games cannot give straight ports because the Xbox is too good for them?

Anyway, once you realize your idiotic socialist view is completely off base (you COMPLETELY ignored the point about the payment plans, which actually throws your entire argument back out again), then you might what to come back with an educated guess at why people make my argument.

Am I Bill Gate's illigitamite son? I wish, wouldn't you like to get your hands on a few billion? Do I burn a Windows CD? I wish I could afford it, but these other plans from Sony's side wish to take it all from me on a pay-for-each plan.

EA is not in the ballgame because they're the worst cie to pay 2 play. Look at most of their titles these days (The Sims, Earth and Beyond, Ultima Online man that title is old), it even surprise me that Batllefield 1942 is not on that business model and their sports title too. RIP, Motor City Online and the detective game, screw the community of gamers, thank you for the initial 40$ and the 10$ per month for 12 months but we're not making enough money anymore so bye-bye.

Can you imagine what they would want for online titles like all their sport games and The Sims ?

If some cies found it OK to go on the X-Box Live business model it must not be that bad, SEGA has a great line (NHL 2K3 is even better then NHL 2003 and so is their footbal game) and Ubi has Ghost Recon, Inforgrames with Unreal and I'm pretty sure you will see ID titles on the X-Box Live too.

If EA (don't get Eidos problem, they don't have so many great titles that need to go online, maybe the soccer game but after that ?) and EA don't like it, fine. But have the courage to say what it's all about, money !

I think MS model is great for the customer, one account centralised for all the games, one fee per year. That's it. Of course, it's MS so they must be asking for way too much for outsourcing but that's the game. Don't claim some BS about control and other things.

I'm not saying MS is clean has white but EA should be the last cie to cry morality in this affair. I still don't get Eidos though.

My toughts.

Tanto Edge wrote:

Everybody loves Playstation, nobody considers that they're nearly cornering the Online RPG world. Why? Because they don't concern themselves with re-releasing hardware in order to befuddle would-be 'hackers'...

Funny you write that, because the PS2 has gone thru a # of revisions. A couple people have told me Sony has changed the PS2 hardware 8 times now. I'd imagine several of the revisions include modifications to thwart hackers and pirates.
This comment was edited on Mar 17, 01:14.

the Xbox is not Live! capable from the start
You're right, I said the XBOX is DVD capable, you ignorant sod.
(if you look, it installs new things; Xbox Live! was not done when the Xbox was released).
Though their hype suggested that A) It was ready to go B) Would be ready out of the box.
Also, yes the CD does install new shit, but why should I buy a CD package for that? I've got this broadband modem included with my system... but I pay $90CDN for a headset and a CD, a bit of wire and a box?
I must have missed something.

I do like the fact that Microsoft is controlling their server flow, I do. It does prevent companies from charging seperate amounts, so kudos to Microsoft for dealing simplicity like that. Now they have to make the companies see it that way.

B) making some of the money back that it lost from selling the Xbox for such a low price.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Microsoft. But I can't understand how you would hold sympathy for any company.
Does your heart bleed for Nike? They're forced to hire third world children at penny-per-day rates in order to sell us shoes for a profit?
Companies are not evil. People are evil.

A) helping the consumer down the road (as you're not charged for a YEAR)
You must have had your brain transplanted with a lemon at a young age.
A monthly fee is a yearly payment plan. If they charged me by the day I would still consider how much money I was spending each year.

You will not see quality games on the Xbox get straight ports to the PS2 (I'm ignoring net play) because the PS2 has much weaker hardware, as well as less memory, which requires less quality.

And Vice Versa.

Who are you? Are you Bill Gates' illigitamite son!? Do you burn a Windows CD in effigy to the great god of commerce each night prior to retiring?
People like you scare me.
Some people harbor opinions. You harbor corporate love.
This comment was edited on Mar 17, 01:04.

Although Xbox Live may be outselling PS2's modem, it's likely to be because many of the decent Xbox games are Xbox Live titles. For the PS2, there are few games out there that would make anyone want to buy a PS2 broadband adapter. However, as we've seen from reports the Xbox sells fewer consoles than the Dreamcast (!) in Japan. At least in the Japanese mind, the whole online thing isn't worth spending money on (I'm guessing there are a lot fewer broadband users there). Nintendo's online plans are nonexistent as well. Although I would wager that Xbox Live might sell pretty well in Korea, where broadband density is out-of-this-world.

Most of the games released for XBox Live are just like the PC, client/server. Microsoft's servers are used to help people find games, store account info, and keep global scores for each game. There are a few Microsoft servers setup for hosting but they are not really needed. The fees you pay for XBox Live probably goes toward keeping the match making servers running. In the future this will change once they start hosting MMORPGs. Then you will be paying extra to play.

I think the reason EA and Eidos don't want to make XBox Live games is probably because they are not allowed to use there own servers to run the game. They have probably already created these servers for use with the PS2. They are able to charge the customer for use of these servers. If they were to make games for XBox Live they would have to use Microsoft's servers, this is to give the player a unified match making system and for security. This puts EA and Eidos in a position where they really can't charge any money without backlash from the XBox Live community that already pays for the XBox Live service. Why would the XBox Live customer pay both Microsoft for the a match making server and then pay EA or Eidos to play the game which was already purchased and doesn't require there server once the game starts?

Last I heard XBox Live was out selling PS2's modem by 80%. This means there is a larger XBox online community than PS2. If EA or Eidos want to sell there games to XBox customers they better make them XBox Live compatible or else the gamers will go with the competition that are already XBox Live compatible.

the $90 dollars is in Canadian funds, or your $50 USD.

What's wrong with you people? I guess you're all of those "I hate M$" folks?

The whole idea behind Live! for the consumer:
{
Pay $10 a month after one year for Xbox Live! to play every game that is XBL enabled.
}
|| (OR)
{
Pay $10 a month after one year for all MS games.
Pay $x a month for Eidos games (assuming it's not per-game basis!).
Pay $x a month for EA games (assuming it's not per-game basis!).
}

It doesn't take an Econ major to figure out that #1 is better.

Or paying ninety bucks (this is CDN btw) for this Live! service which the X-Box was capable of all along.

Where do you get $90? For one thing, the Xbox is not Live! capable from the start (if you look, it installs new things; Xbox Live! was not done when the Xbox was released). And for another it's only $50, which you might see as an evil corporation taking over, but anyone else sees them A) helping the consumer down the road (as you're not charged for a YEAR) and B) making some of the money back that it lost from selling the Xbox for such a low price. You will not see quality games on the Xbox get straight ports to the PS2 (I'm ignoring net play) because the PS2 has much weaker hardware, as well as less memory, which requires less quality.

"People like consoles because they are simple to use"

Most people, at least. I play them because they're fun.

If the game isn't updated every month, I don't see why the developer should be paid every month. Microsoft provides a service (servers), the devopers don't.
No PC games have monthly fees except Massivly Multiplayer Online Games.
I think Live has been successful because it is simple. Just buy the headset and CD, and you can go online anytime with any game. People like consoles because they are simple to use

snafu, you can play your x-box online through Gamespy's Tunnel software already. Your x-box hooks up to your PC which connects with other players. Not sure of the specifics, I own an x-box (and a PS2 and a Gamecube) but they are primarily for my kids (daddy's toy is the pc...). From this, it seems fairly obvious that the pc server / x-box model is viable technically. I just don't see the typical console gamer doing it. It would appeal to a small slice of the console crowd -- those that already game online with PCs. As for an x-box server... it is basically a PC, with an intel processor, a hard drive and an Nvidia graphics card built in... I guess you could develop software that would enable it to do so if the games supported it. I imagine you would need MS permission to develop software for the x-box, and good luck getting that. And again, I think the relative complexities of it (I KNOW it doesn't seem complex to us) would put off most console gamers. Not to speak of things like lag / ping rates which the console crowd does not have to deal with ordinarily (and probably doesn't on x-box live weither).

*edit* Tanto Edge -- IIRC Splintercell is being released as a PC game as well, it's Unreal engined and probably (? not sure) modable the way most Unreal engine games are...

*edit 2, 3* Trouble with English today...

This comment was edited on Mar 16, 19:22.

Microsoft's problem (imo) is that they try to control what they should befriend.
Everybody loves Playstation, nobody considers that they're nearly cornering the Online RPG world. Why? Because they don't concern themselves with re-releasing hardware in order to befuddle would-be 'hackers' or release a system with the notion that it has DVD capability, only to charge fifty extra bucks later for a damned remote control that then allows the use of that included hardware.
Or paying ninety bucks (this is CDN btw) for this Live! service which the X-Box was capable of all along.
Not to mention having to pay the monthly fee (which is expected, but just another straw in a very large mound of hay).
Sony concerns themselves with putting out games by quality professionals. Microsoft concerns themselves with the bottom-line.
I find this absolutly hysterical.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Microsoft got somebody who was less concerned with dollar figures and PR and more concerned with what counted, that being CONTENT then maybe they would be able to get their ass out of the sling.
They're wasting resources where it is really not needed, and it's not in a detailed scope. It's in the overall picture.
Just spend the money on making the good games. Sure, they need to make money back but that's where they need to bend a little in order to attract the bigger and better publishers.
I have to wonder what Ubisoft is getting out of releasing extra content for Splinter Cell for the Live! service, as opposed to what they would have recieved if they had released it as a computer product complete with modding tools. Eh?

The bigger the company, the bigger their shovel.

How's this for incentive. People won't buy your games if someone else is making them in the same genre that does support xbox live.

That sounds like incentive alright...incentive for companies to make games for platforms other than Xbox.

I see the publisher's points, but how about letting MS make some money back on their investment.

Well, MS chose to get into this market...no one forced them. If Sony can deliver a better product at or around the same price to the consumer and still make money then I have no sympathy for MS. It seems to me that if MS isnt making any money off Xbox they can either get our of the biz or do something to increase their sales. More game titles would certainly make Xbox more attractive to the consumer...running off dev houses and publishers ISNT going to help MS.

1. Could an Xbox actually run as a server?
or
2. Could an Xbox log onto a PC based server?

snafu

Opinions are like A**holes, everybody has one and they usually stink
(all except mine of course)

Schnapple,

Here's a third option that could work: the Quake server format. Basically, release a server that can run on PC's and get others to run the servers for you, just like with HalfLife/Quake3/Unreal, etc. I doubt Nintendo would ever go this route because they'd probably like to control everything to ensure quality. But a third party developer could do it.

Sure there will be problems with it (for example, too many casual gamers versus the number people who will have servers available). But it's something I'd like to see some developer try out. After a few bumps, I think something like this could pan out.