That awkward moment when you realize party chat wasn't available on Xbox in 2007....

That other awkward moment when you realize that your pants is down....cookies.

Define "up to snuff"? Because I had a blast with games like Kameo, Alan Wake, Lost Odyssey, Crackdown 1 and 2, Viva Pinata, etc. Just as much fun as I had this gen with games like Infamous or Resistance. So quality is subjective. If you're talking sales, well then MS and Sony have both failed. Also, you're joking about last gen, right? Halo? PGR? Forza? Links? Fable? Crimson Skies (while technically not a new IP, was dramatically different than the PC prequel and was just an AWESOME online title)? Rallisport Challenge? Phantom Dust? Among others that were not nearly as good as those. And they've made attempts this gen as well, people just overlook them. Games like N3, Too Human, Blue Dragon, Blade Infinity, etc etc.

If you truly care about which company is developing games you wouldn't ignore such a large and impressive selection of games as XBLA.

When did this thread go from network debate to exclusive retail game wars?

When we couldn't debate differences between the networks anymore. There's a vendetta.

Wow, can't believe this thread is still going. Kinda lame, you aren't paying, leave it. I don't come to your house and mock your Toyota Prius,,, Moving on. Lets make it interesting.


There was a thread about PS+ subs going up %295 and some other thing. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=150666&page=1# To me, this is Sony testing the water and preparing to charge for online sometime next generation, (Pay2play), so, if they say 10 year plan on ps4, 2023-2024 depending on launch.

I'm willing to bet FULL SIG control for a year if:

A) Sony never releases a pay to play model of any sort for the PS3 or the new gen's PS4.

B) I'm still active on this site!! LOL!!

I win if:

A) Sony release a Pay to Play online system for the PS4 or earlier.

Simple. I will take alterations to the stipulations, or at least consider them.

Thank you for your convoluated argument.

Its hilarious, you're under the illusion MS is fooling us to pay for a service that you feel should be free. People pay for Live because it offers things we want that the free services do not. I personally feel a service like Live can only be this successful when the competition is weak. In the case of PS3, very weak exclusive multiplayer games. And god knows they've tried to compete.

1. If you could go round someone's house to mock their Toyota Prius without getting hit, you so would

2. I doubt Sony will bring out a pay 2 play model if PS+ is sucessful. There are plenty of alternative revenue streams to subscription based services as free-2-play games have shown. The only way I see them incorporating a subscription is for streaming/Gaikai. So I'm not gonna bet with you c'os I think you're partly right.

When you talk pay to play do you mean restrict online multiplayer to a pay service? I'd take that bet and I don't take bets.

Sony is far more likely to provide additional features to the PS+ model why limiting new features to the basic model. Just like they are doing with the cloiud, with timed trials, and with automatic updates. I believe that the added discounts, the leverage of free games, and the subscription fee provides plenty of revenue or pofits to maintain the service. As is the service is making PlayStation stand out as consumers choice and aiding in the transition to all digital. PS+ will start to gather such a large menu of additional features over non members that it won't need to restrict online play.

Suddenly removing the online multiplayer compenent to their basic entry level will cause a huge backlash even if the PS+ offerings are substantial. Sony has proven this gen that an online platform is substainable without a required fee, software sales are testiment to it.

This is the problem with you and J_Allard, you're delusional. You pay for Live to play online games. PERIOD. It isn't for any other reason. You can list as many red herrings as you like to justify your payment, but you're being extorted in order to engage in the multiplayer aspect of your games.

Live is better than PSN, okay? Sure. PSN functions to support the online aspect of games. I couldn't care less for the smaller downloadable games. The only ones I've played are Flower and Limbo (which were fun though). 

MS may not be fooling you, but it's certainly extorting you and you can't opt out of the service if you wish to play online. 

You can call us delusional all you want but you're the guy in a forum for a console you don't even own arguing about a service you don't even use :)

Also, how on Earth can we not opt out of the service? If I ever get to the point where Live is not worth the money to me, I will simply stop subscribing and use my PS3 for online games. It's not rocket science.