The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well, since there is little to no talk about online gaming on consoles in these forums nowadays, I thought I’d just voice my opinions over the matter.
First of all, I must note how online gaming has evolved over the years – it certainly has come a long way from typing in IP addresses in DOS prompts to play Doom with some nerd in MIT (beat me as well!)
The Dreamcast demonstrated that online gaming could be achieved on consoles without the need for huge technical know-how, and when Quake III was released on said console, it was a moment of triumph for those (like me) waiting for worthy opponents without having to shell out £800 for the latest PC. The connection was speedy, even for a 33k modem, and the game servers were overloaded.
Phantasy Star Online then demonstrated that a relatively small infrastructure could handle global gaming, and the speech system was truly innovative, translating languages so you could play with Japanese RPG nuts without having to learn Japanese (trust me, don’t try it).
If anything, the Dreamcast demonstrated that online-gaming could be achieved easily, speedily and at low cost on a home console. Unfortunately, due to its inherent lack of popularity, the Dreamcast went under and so did the hopes of many like me L
Fast-forward two years and now we have the state of online gaming today. The three major companies have had to accept that online gaming is the future and they need a solid plan (except Nintendo, who’ve seemingly ignored it). Well that leaves Sony and Microsoft, and the two major players have both got plans.
Sony have already released their online package in Japan, and it has been met with cold reviews and un-warm feedback. This is partly to due with the fact that Sony had underestimated the sales. Releasing the on-line Final Fantasy 11 simultaneously with the pack resulted in delays and server problems, and combined with the fact that users had shelled out for a hard-drive and a modem as well as a copy of the game, made for some unhappy people.
I foresee that the same barrier will be encountered over here, firstly because of the fact that not too many people will be interested in online play, and secondly because of the price of both a hard-drive, a modem and the initial cost of the console add up to a less than modest amount.
This is where the Xbox will be more successful. It is clearly better value for money, at £10 less than the PS2 already it is better value than the opposition, and it already has the components for online play in it. If you are just looking to try out online gaming, you are not required to shell out for an expensive hard drive, you can just buy the online pack (£40 for a headset and mic, software and a free online game) and will be set for online play.
So that is why I own an Xbox, and I believe that many others interested in online play should pick one up – It’s better value, more powerful, cheaper, set for online play, and has a the force of Microsoft behind it.
First of all, I must note how online gaming has evolved over the years – it certainly has come a long way from typing in IP addresses in DOS prompts to play Doom with some nerd in MIT (beat me as well!)
The Dreamcast demonstrated that online gaming could be achieved on consoles without the need for huge technical know-how, and when Quake III was released on said console, it was a moment of triumph for those (like me) waiting for worthy opponents without having to shell out £800 for the latest PC. The connection was speedy, even for a 33k modem, and the game servers were overloaded.
Phantasy Star Online then demonstrated that a relatively small infrastructure could handle global gaming, and the speech system was truly innovative, translating languages so you could play with Japanese RPG nuts without having to learn Japanese (trust me, don’t try it).
If anything, the Dreamcast demonstrated that online-gaming could be achieved easily, speedily and at low cost on a home console. Unfortunately, due to its inherent lack of popularity, the Dreamcast went under and so did the hopes of many like me L
Fast-forward two years and now we have the state of online gaming today. The three major companies have had to accept that online gaming is the future and they need a solid plan (except Nintendo, who’ve seemingly ignored it). Well that leaves Sony and Microsoft, and the two major players have both got plans.
Sony have already released their online package in Japan, and it has been met with cold reviews and un-warm feedback. This is partly to due with the fact that Sony had underestimated the sales. Releasing the on-line Final Fantasy 11 simultaneously with the pack resulted in delays and server problems, and combined with the fact that users had shelled out for a hard-drive and a modem as well as a copy of the game, made for some unhappy people.
I foresee that the same barrier will be encountered over here, firstly because of the fact that not too many people will be interested in online play, and secondly because of the price of both a hard-drive, a modem and the initial cost of the console add up to a less than modest amount.
This is where the Xbox will be more successful. It is clearly better value for money, at £10 less than the PS2 already it is better value than the opposition, and it already has the components for online play in it. If you are just looking to try out online gaming, you are not required to shell out for an expensive hard drive, you can just buy the online pack (£40 for a headset and mic, software and a free online game) and will be set for online play.
So that is why I own an Xbox, and I believe that many others interested in online play should pick one up – It’s better value, more powerful, cheaper, set for online play, and has a the force of Microsoft behind it.
Well, since there is little to no talk about online gaming on consoles in these forums nowadays, I thought I’d just voice my opinions over the matter.
First of all, I must note how online gaming has evolved over the years – it certainly has come a long way from typing in IP addresses in DOS prompts to play Doom with some nerd in MIT (beat me as well!)
The Dreamcast demonstrated that online gaming could be achieved on consoles without the need for huge technical know-how, and when Quake III was released on said console, it was a moment of triumph for those (like me) waiting for worthy opponents without having to shell out £800 for the latest PC. The connection was speedy, even for a 33k modem, and the game servers were overloaded.
Phantasy Star Online then demonstrated that a relatively small infrastructure could handle global gaming, and the speech system was truly innovative, translating languages so you could play with Japanese RPG nuts without having to learn Japanese (trust me, don’t try it).
If anything, the Dreamcast demonstrated that online-gaming could be achieved easily, speedily and at low cost on a home console. Unfortunately, due to its inherent lack of popularity, the Dreamcast went under and so did the hopes of many like me L
Fast-forward two years and now we have the state of online gaming today. The three major companies have had to accept that online gaming is the future and they need a solid plan (except Nintendo, who’ve seemingly ignored it). Well that leaves Sony and Microsoft, and the two major players have both got plans.
Sony have already released their online package in Japan, and it has been met with cold reviews and un-warm feedback. This is partly to due with the fact that Sony had underestimated the sales. Releasing the on-line Final Fantasy 11 simultaneously with the pack resulted in delays and server problems, and combined with the fact that users had shelled out for a hard-drive and a modem as well as a copy of the game, made for some unhappy people.
I foresee that the same barrier will be encountered over here, firstly because of the fact that not too many people will be interested in online play, and secondly because of the price of both a hard-drive, a modem and the initial cost of the console add up to a less than modest amount.
This is where the Xbox will be more successful. It is clearly better value for money, at £10 less than the PS2 already it is better value than the opposition, and it already has the components for online play in it. If you are just looking to try out online gaming, you are not required to shell out for an expensive hard drive, you can just buy the online pack (£40 for a headset and mic, software and a free online game) and will be set for online play.
So that is why I own an Xbox, and I believe that many others interested in online play should pick one up – It’s better value, more powerful, cheaper, set for online play, and has a the force of Microsoft behind it.
First of all, I must note how online gaming has evolved over the years – it certainly has come a long way from typing in IP addresses in DOS prompts to play Doom with some nerd in MIT (beat me as well!)
The Dreamcast demonstrated that online gaming could be achieved on consoles without the need for huge technical know-how, and when Quake III was released on said console, it was a moment of triumph for those (like me) waiting for worthy opponents without having to shell out £800 for the latest PC. The connection was speedy, even for a 33k modem, and the game servers were overloaded.
Phantasy Star Online then demonstrated that a relatively small infrastructure could handle global gaming, and the speech system was truly innovative, translating languages so you could play with Japanese RPG nuts without having to learn Japanese (trust me, don’t try it).
If anything, the Dreamcast demonstrated that online-gaming could be achieved easily, speedily and at low cost on a home console. Unfortunately, due to its inherent lack of popularity, the Dreamcast went under and so did the hopes of many like me L
Fast-forward two years and now we have the state of online gaming today. The three major companies have had to accept that online gaming is the future and they need a solid plan (except Nintendo, who’ve seemingly ignored it). Well that leaves Sony and Microsoft, and the two major players have both got plans.
Sony have already released their online package in Japan, and it has been met with cold reviews and un-warm feedback. This is partly to due with the fact that Sony had underestimated the sales. Releasing the on-line Final Fantasy 11 simultaneously with the pack resulted in delays and server problems, and combined with the fact that users had shelled out for a hard-drive and a modem as well as a copy of the game, made for some unhappy people.
I foresee that the same barrier will be encountered over here, firstly because of the fact that not too many people will be interested in online play, and secondly because of the price of both a hard-drive, a modem and the initial cost of the console add up to a less than modest amount.
This is where the Xbox will be more successful. It is clearly better value for money, at £10 less than the PS2 already it is better value than the opposition, and it already has the components for online play in it. If you are just looking to try out online gaming, you are not required to shell out for an expensive hard drive, you can just buy the online pack (£40 for a headset and mic, software and a free online game) and will be set for online play.
So that is why I own an Xbox, and I believe that many others interested in online play should pick one up – It’s better value, more powerful, cheaper, set for online play, and has a the force of Microsoft behind it.
Hey Khalid, how come you're not on MSN?
Ah, there you are. :c)
meaningless to me. Cant get broadband. Anyways, I suspect £20 and £30 a month broadband fee's are too much for many UK console owners - and that doesn't include the price of your games.
From what I understand, the PS2 online sevice in America comes with no web browser, so in other words you'll be paying £20 odd just to play games online. That really isan't worth it, I have broadband on my PC, it costs me £25 a month and I only spend a fraction of the time playing games on the internet.
Doesnt matter if its ps2,Xbox, or GC, I would def want full web and email access. Seems pointless spending all that money and not getting web access.
I believe that Microsoft are working on the basis that if you already have broadband, you can use their software to allow the Xbox to connect to it. Thus, I'm assuming that you could use the same connection for your PC, as well as the Xbox. So even if you don't have Broadband, if you choose to get it you'll be able to use your PC for the web/net access rather than some tacky console software, and you'll be able to use the Xbox for games and other Microsoft media. If this is the case, then many Xbox owners who also have PC's will have more reason to get Broadband.
Korg wrote:
then many Xbox owners who also have PC's will have more
> reason to get Broadband.
But Korg, don't forget, you can't get Broadband. Unlucky. I may be switching soon! YAY. Prehaps you should switch to BT...
then many Xbox owners who also have PC's will have more
> reason to get Broadband.
But Korg, don't forget, you can't get Broadband. Unlucky. I may be switching soon! YAY. Prehaps you should switch to BT...