Support NeoGAF

[Zaptruder]

i would kill for a 24Mbit/s connection and only pay USD$100.

I pay about that much for a combined total of 3Mbit/s, asynchronous.

If you get a synchronous 24Mbit/s....

It sounds impressive.

In practice, because this is australia, it's not that great.

20mbit after line attenuation

... somehow translates to about 1.5MB per sec download from ISP

... and about 100kB max per overseas connection...

often only pulling 50kB per torrent... but still, means I can do multiple torrents that total to about 300KB per second.

It's also asynchronous... 24 down/1.5 up.

I'd also kill for a perfect lagless 24 down/up connection for 100 USD.

 

[R3Z]

i would kill for a 24Mbit/s connection and only pay USD$100.

I pay about that much for a combined total of 3Mbit/s, asynchronous.

If you get a synchronous 24Mbit/s....

Its basically ADSL2+ which doesnt currently give equal async speeds. Its upto 24mbs downstream (usually alot less) and upto 1mbs upstream.

 

[HokieJoe]

Hey... I'm been raped on my internet prices, doesn't mean I like it.

It's just the best value plan for a heavy user like myself in this country... yeah, we get shit deals.

Incidentally, T1(1.5mbit) is still fast? the new standard is T3... and even that's a bit lame compared to japanese connections. FYI, I have a 24mbit connection in australia with a 40/40 gig cap... and it's 150 bundled with phone. ****in ripoff, but hey, for an equivalent connection of say... Telstra, the most popular carrier in australia, you'd be paying more than 500 bucks a month in download charges... if they even let you download that much :/

For me... given all those conditions, an extra 5 bucks a month (in reality, it's more like 8 AUD a month... 11 if you pay monthly like I did) for a service I might use 20-30 times on a good month, or none at all in a bad month. Especially when that service despite the bells and whistles... the core service doesn't perform upto the expectations that a premium paid for service should deliver.

Even worse is the idea of paying a seperate fee for everything you subscribe to, use or not. Thankfully the internet hasn't gone that way... and that indeed, consumers have for the most part created enough demand to justify free alternatives.

I'd say a 24Mb pipe AND phone service is quite a good deal. Hell, I know people who pay $150 for just their long distance bills here in the States.

EDIT:

Didn't see you clarification on the 'real' speed. I would like to add that most connections I've researched here in the U.S. are asynchronous as well. I have 8Mbps down from Comcast, but the upload is much lower, like 384Kbps or 512Kbps I think.

 

[Scottlarock]

the amount of time I just read this thread could have paid for 1.5 years of XBL. acousticvan, you owe me $75 for my lost in hours on the job for being a idiot.

 

[arne]

It sounds impressive.

In practice, because this is australia, it's not that great.

20mbit after line attenuation

... somehow translates to about 1.5MB per sec download from ISP

... and about 100kB max per overseas connection...

often only pulling 50kB per torrent... but still, means I can do multiple torrents that total to about 300KB per second.

It's also asynchronous... 24 down/1.5 up.

I'd also kill for a perfect lagless 24 down/up connection for 100 USD.

aha, "in theory"

I max at just under 300kb/s downloads over HTTP to good fast servers. realistically I get about 2,700kb/s down and 600kb/s down.

still doesn't matter, i'm sure there's multiple hops adding latency to your connections and that's the real culprit. because, iirc, XBL technically only uses about 64kb/s up and 64kb/s down for gameplay (according to the Xbox dev team blog).

 

[Zaptruder]

aha, "in theory"

I max at just under 300kb/s downloads over HTTP to good fast servers. realistically I get about 2,700kb/s down and 600kb/s down.

still doesn't matter, i'm sure there's multiple hops adding latency to your connections and that's the real culprit. because, iirc, XBL technically only uses about 64kb/s up and 64kb/s down for gameplay (according to the Xbox dev team blog).

Obviously, the location is a big disadvantage to me...

at there in lies my point...

would you pay 50 bucks a year for a sub-optimal service, where other services don't even charge?

I guess it's not really MS's fault, but at the same time, there are solutions to make the service better for all of us... which is something I'd really expect given the premium nature of the service.

 

[Borys]

I can eat a handful of dirt for free, while ice cream would cost me money.

:lol

This thread is just wow. Who banned Razoric

 

[VALIS]

Well, I didn't want to compare the PSN to dirt, exactly. I don't have a PS3 so I don't know how good or bad their network is. My point was to show how stupid acousticvan's contention is that the PSN is automatically better than XBL because it's free. Like I said, dirt's free, too. Eat some and tell me what ya think.

 

[Zaptruder]

Well, I didn't want to compare the PSN to dirt, exactly. I don't have a PS3 so I don't know how good or bad their network is. My point was to show how stupid acousticvan's contention is that the PSN is automatically better than XBL because it's free. Like I said, dirt's free, too. Eat some and tell me what ya think.

The logic is specious because the two things are unlike.

It's not a good comparison.

A better comparison would be tap water vs bottled water.

Bottled water is better because you get the convenience of it been in a bottle right? You pay for that overall package don't you?

No, I don't want to pay for the bottle, I just want some water.

 

[Tieno]

The logic is specious because the two things are unlike.

It's not a good comparison.

A better comparison would be tap water vs bottled water.

Bottled water is better because you get the convenience of it been in a bottle right? You pay for that overall package don't you?

No, I don't want to pay for the bottle, I just want some water.

Tapped watter here tatstes awful. Feels like they're killin' my tastebuds (like mixed with soap), I've gotten used to it though...still awful.

 

[westical]

****in' Xbox live keeps charging your credit card regardless of which option you choose (yearly, quarterly or monthly). I gotta cancel that shit, the dirty bastards. It's just like a porn site; you sign on for a week of play forget about it, and they keep charging your card.

So it's Microsoft's fault you didn't read the terms & conditions when you signed up, nor can you remember who you've given your credit card details to? What happened to the days when people didn't blame everyone else for their mistakes?

 

[VALIS]

The logic is specious because the two things are unlike.

It's not a good comparison.

A better comparison would be tap water vs bottled water.

Bottled water is better because you get the convenience of it been in a bottle right? You pay for that overall package don't you?

No, I don't want to pay for the bottle, I just want some water.

I didn't say Xbox Live was better because you have to pay for it, only that it's not worse because you have to pay for it.

And yeah, the water analogy is good. If you want to quench your thirst, tap water will do it. If you want something better tasting, you have to pay a little for it. That a person prefers one or the other is not an issue. But acousticvan kept saying tap water is better because it's free, which is not a very good argument.


(and technically, you do pay for tap water, at least in the US)

 

[Zaptruder]

So it's Microsoft's fault you didn't read the terms & conditions when you signed up, nor can you remember who you've given your credit card details to? What happened to the days when people didn't blame everyone else for their mistakes?

Sure, I'll take some liability; which is why I'm only bitter about it, and not harassing MS staff about it.

Honestly though, would it be so hard to include a once off one month payment? No.

 

[Zaptruder]

I didn't say Xbox Live was better because you have to pay for it, only that it's not worse because you have to pay for it.

And yeah, the water analogy is good. If you want to quench your thirst, tap water will do it. If you want something better tasting, you have to pay a little for it. That a person prefers one or the other is not an issue. But acousticvan kept saying tap water is better because it's free, which is not a very good argument.


(and technically, you do pay for tap water, at least in the US)

You know... there are more regulations covering the safety of tap water then there are of bottled water?

That bottled brands like Dasani are pretty much bottled tap water?

Bottled water is far from necessarily better; it's only perceived as better because people are paying ludicrous amounts for it... and few have bothered to challenge the default assertion that a paid for good or service is a superior one.

 

[plagiarize]

You know... there are more regulations covering the safety of tap water then there are of bottled water?

That bottled brands like Dasani are pretty much bottled tap water?

Bottled water is far from necessarily better; it's only perceived as better because people are paying ludicrous amounts for it... and few have bothered to challenge the default assertion that a paid for good or service is a superior one.

[WATERWARZ]

Dasani is *purified* water. their purification process is award winning. heck, they made water from the Thames in London drinkable with it, and that's astonishing.

dasani and aquafina profess not to be spring water but to be as close to pure H2O as possible, and they are... and because of it they taste VERY different to tap water, and have none of the additives and chemicals that tap water has (usually for good reason mind).

of course a lot of people prefer the taste of purified tap water to tap water. same reason Brita are still in business.

[/WATERWARZ]

 

[Zaptruder]

[WATERWARZ]

Dasani is *purified* water. their purification process is award winning. heck, they made water from the Thames in London drinkable with it, and that's astonishing.

dasani and aquafina profess not to be spring water but to be as close to pure H2O as possible, and they are... and because of it they taste VERY different to tap water, and have none of the additives and chemicals that tap water has (usually for good reason mind).

of course a lot of people prefer the taste of purified tap water to tap water. same reason Brita are still in business.

[/WATERWARZ]

Ok, that may be the case with Dasani, but there's little doubt that some unscrupulous water bottler will simply use tap water... depending on where you are, it's perfectly drinkable... and served chill, the taste is negligible.

Whatever the case is, the peer to peer matchmaking service that Xbox Live charges for is a bit more akin to tap water then distilled water.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Good god this thread is a shithole.

I'm away for half a day and come back to a total zoo.

Hey, for all the people bitching about how little Live costs over the course of a year, how many of you complained about the PS3 price? If so-- hypocrites. If not, were you anywhere near as vehement defending the price differential between 360 and PS3?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Oh, and I think people miss the real message in Moore's statement, which is not that Live is better (duh) bu that PSN will never be good. That's just FUD. I know if somebody were offering a free service that might someday rival mine, I'd be trash-talking it, too.

The real question is not whether or not PSN as it stands today is as good as XBL (no) or whether Live is worht the price difference (yes, to most people-- darn cheap and fgeature rich) but rather, will PSN improve the the point where feature-difference shrinks to less than the cost-difference as perceived by purchasers. What's goin on in this thread is that people for whom that threshhold has already been reached (people who value "free" over a small fee, mostly) are arguing with people for whom that threshhold has not been reached. That and veiled system warriors.

What people are realy missing in the long-term outlook. Sony will improve PSN, the questions are 1) to what degree 2) how soon 3) will XBL respond, either with further enhancements or a lowered/removed fee?

Stay tuned...

 

[Busty]

Well, I didn't want to compare the PSN to dirt, exactly. I don't have a PS3 so I don't know how good or bad their network is. My point was to show how stupid acousticvan's contention is that the PSN is automatically better than XBL because it's free. Like I said, dirt's free, too. Eat some and tell me what ya think.

 

[Zaptruder]

Good god this thread is a shithole.

I'm away for half a day and come back to a total zoo.

Hey, for all the people bitching about how little Live costs over the course of a year, how many of you complained about the PS3 price? If so-- hypocrites. If not, were you anywhere near as vehement defending the price differential between 360 and PS3?

If MS was giving away corepacks for free, then hell yes I'd be bitching about the price of the PS3.

 

[J-Rzez]

Well, I didn't want to compare the PSN to dirt, exactly. I don't have a PS3 so I don't know how good or bad their network is. My point was to show how stupid acousticvan's contention is that the PSN is automatically better than XBL because it's free. Like I said, dirt's free, too. Eat some and tell me what ya think.

No, free doesn't make it better... just like "paying" for something doesn't make it better either...

The matter is this, and coming from that I own/use both... Sony has brought to the table MORE than what people expected... In fact, so much that it has chisled away alot of "you get what you pay for motto" that XBL carries... and in the coming march when they update everything and you get live video talk, during games even, they'll be raising another flag to MS... They're whittling away at the features that XBL brings to you, and you know the ones they don't, or, need polishing, they're going to be working on it... We've got a lot of updates already, and look no further to the PSP to see how it's a comparision to how often we'll be getting updates...

My problem with XBL now is this... I've never seen so much lag before on XBL on the original xbox... now, it's everywhere... even their big-name titles such as Gears has lag more oft than not... The voice chat is not as clear as it used to be, you get those black-outs where you can't hear certain people, while others can't hear you... Yeah, it's great that there's so many ways to socialize on there, talk to others while they're doing something else... leave them a voice mail... etc... but they're overlooking the KEY element to online gaming, and that's the gaming part itself... The lag is getting rediculous anymore... And that's the #1 reason for online gaming, playing the game... You can say you're having fun socializing with people on there so who cares about the gaming element, but you can socialize with people on the net, phone, or better yet, in person... Yeah, I love chatting, WHILE I'm gaming though...

Also, just because MS lays the ground work down for Online, doesn't mean the devs instantly created a flawless online experience... Saint's Row online, for one example, was utter-trash when I played it last... It's been a while, so maybe they fixed it, I dunno... but when I played it, it was trash, you couldn't talk most of the time, lag was rediculous...

Personally, I paid for the year of XBL, but it's not THAT much of a step ahead in quality that people automatically assume it is in comparision to Sony's service... Yes, like I said, there's still a couple more features to XBL, but the quality just isn't necessarily there to justify the money...

 

[Kiriku]

What I would like to know is, exactly where does my money go, the money I pay for Live? What do MS actually spend them on? Or are we mostly paying just because MS can charge for the service since it's unmatched?
And if the money is spent on making Live better, I would like to consider my money a donation of sorts, in which case I'm waiting for a "thanks" from MS for my kind contribution.

 

[PhatSaqs]

No, free doesn't make it better... just like "paying" for something doesn't make it better either...

The matter is this, and coming from that I own/use both... Sony has brought to the table MORE than what people expected... In fact, so much that it has chisled away alot of "you get what you pay for motto" that XBL carries... and in the coming march when they update everything and you get live video talk, during games even, they'll be raising another flag to MS... They're whittling away at the features that XBL brings to you, and you know the ones they don't, or, need polishing, they're going to be working on it... We've got a lot of updates already, and look no further to the PSP to see how it's a comparision to how often we'll be getting updates...

My problem with XBL now is this... I've never seen so much lag before on XBL on the original xbox... now, it's everywhere... even their big-name titles such as Gears has lag more oft than not... The voice chat is not as clear as it used to be, you get those black-outs where you can't hear certain people, while others can't hear you... Yeah, it's great that there's so many ways to socialize on there, talk to others while they're doing something else... leave them a voice mail... etc... but they're overlooking the KEY element to online gaming, and that's the gaming part itself... The lag is getting rediculous anymore... And that's the #1 reason for online gaming, playing the game... You can say you're having fun socializing with people on there so who cares about the gaming element, but you can socialize with people on the net, phone, or better yet, in person... Yeah, I love chatting, WHILE I'm gaming though...

Also, just because MS lays the ground work down for Online, doesn't mean the devs instantly created a flawless online experience... Saint's Row online, for one example, was utter-trash when I played it last... It's been a while, so maybe they fixed it, I dunno... but when I played it, it was trash, you couldn't talk most of the time, lag was rediculous...

Personally, I paid for the year of XBL, but it's not THAT much of a step ahead in quality that people automatically assume it is in comparision to Sony's service... Yes, like I said, there's still a couple more features to XBL, but the quality just isn't necessarily there to justify the money...

Have you tried playing Madden online for PS3? How about NBA2K7? I've experienced just as much lag in those games as you do on any other online game on Live along with the invite/game finding implementation being much worse to boot. There are bad experiences to be had on both. Quit using Resistance as the poster child for PSN and look at the overall implementation. It's terrible compared to Live in terms of consistancy and seamlesness right now. Sure it'll change but that's because it has to if it really wants to compete with XBL even if it's free.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Sure it'll change but that's because it has to if it really wants to compete with XBL even if it's free.

Or maybe EA's net code wasn't implemented well enough. Maybe they already have ideas on how they should do it next time or they probably have an ability to fix the current games they already released. So maybe it'll change because they're learning as they go. Although I'm sure they had enough time to spend on the hardware most of it might have been spent on who knows what. Most of their games were ports but they had a lot to port. Maybe enough R&D wasn't put on optimizing net code. The first ea games on ps2 didn't have online, they didn't have to be all over every aspect of learning the console's architecture at once for launch.

With sony's first party groups the only thing they had to worry about was one console and they could get info from the other sony devs probably.

 

[J-Rzez]

Have you tried playing Madden online for PS3? How about NBA2K7? I've experienced just as much lag in those games as you do on any other online game on Live along with the invite/game finding implementation being much worse to boot. There are bad experiences to be had on both. Quit using Resistance as the poster child for PSN and look at the overall implementation. It's terrible compared to Live in terms of consistancy and seamlesness right now. Sure it'll change but that's because it has to if it really wants to compete with XBL even if it's free.

Yes I did play Madden online for my PS3, and didn't like it... and here's the problem...

I've experienced just as much lag in those games as you do on any other online game on Live

This shouldn't be for a paid service... it's unacceptable... invite/game finding implementations are not worth the added money... It's the core aspect that they're slacking on, and that's the way the game plays... that's all I'm saying...

People like using Resistance for a reason, because it's the best next-gen online gaming experience there is right now, and it's free... and, if one Sony game can do it, maybe others will as well... and this is from Insomniac, who while had their hands in online games before, were never really noted as great when it came to this... If Sony's studios are helping out with this as well, then you can expect more great games from them... I'm personally curious how the next-gen Socom will turn out, where the game's main point is online, and by Zippers half-fast, just get another title out to hold people over last attempt, you know they're working hard on something good for the PS3, as they've said before...

Don't get me wrong, it is different across the boards, as there will be good and bad everywhere... it's just the fact that a game on Sony's network right now, is the measuring stick for all other online games to come, and that's the point... Until Halo 3 comes out, I don't know what else to expect to out-shine it either... I do expect Halo 3 to dance all over it though... I hope it does at least... But, Bungie never let down before with their MP experiences...