Viewing Thread:
"Pro Evo online...."

...on Xbox Live.

*runs*

FantasyMeister wrote:
> Personally I prefer TIF because it's more fun to play.

Haha, TIF is the worst football game I've ever played, it's awful. Bar maybe Virtua Striker 3.

Cyclone wrote:
> I wasn't arguing about Live being better. I was simply trying to
> understand Darwock's problems with it. I couldn't give a toss if you
> play PS2 or not.


was talking to tilt but ah well

It better be good offline, because I refuse to pay it. (for now, at least - until there's something really worth paying for)

Central station was free for me, I'm a beta tester. All I had to buy was Socom. For other people I guess you want to count the cost of the network adapter as a charge? Well it's hardly comparable to a yearly payment of double the price.. but regardless of that - PS2 online is an optional extra, which doesn't really seem to be Microsoft's intention for Live.

I wasn't arguing about Live being better. I was simply trying to understand Darwock's problems with it. I couldn't give a toss if you play PS2 or not.

*yawn* what is the point really? Just trying to start an argument and another stupid console war. Xbox live is better we know that, it should be seeing as you have to pay for it. Now shoo back to your beloved xbox forums and talk to each other about how great it is.

What, so Central Station is free?

£40 a year is cheap. It's true the Xbox suffers without Live, but to be honest, even offline it's pretty good.

It's not free, you have to pay £40 to get on to Live. That's what I'm talking about, Microsoft have put that service at such a high priority to using the console that everybody seems to accept the cost.

Patches are free, 95% of the new content is too. The extra content is not neccessary to play the game.

I'm more than satisfied with the Live service. It's concise, cheap, bloody fast, and has some fantastic games. I realise MS hyped other stuff, but they hardly do it for every new game. If they did, people would be bleating about it all day.

Ninja Gaiden patch didn't fix glitches. It actually added more enemies, more moves, different controls, better AI etc to the game. For free.

MS don't let developers send out patches UNLESS it's for a multiplayer component of the game, which has been exploited by glitching geeks. This way, the developer has to make a non-glitchy game or one that annoys everyone and consequently doesn't sell.

It's happened loads in the past, usually regarding racing titles (Codies in particular) and fighting games - many of the 2D examples I believe. Even SC2 was announced as being online at one point. I have read many discussions from disappointed people who had been lied to by false marketing hype, dI idn't pay much more attention as I didn't have an x-box at the time, and Live doesn't appeal to me anyway.

I don't like the way Microsoft approaches it - they attempt to make Live something essential (by releasing patches and bonus levels through the service) and then ask you to pay for it. Sony do it the right way, in that it is always an option and it doesn't cost you anything anyway. It's not required in order to have a glitch-free version of the game (the update to Ninja Gaiden in particular really riles me... I won't buy the game on the strength of that)

Well, they say it's got full Live playe, which Konami have confirmed.

What 90% of hyped Live titles have only got scoreboards?!