-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PSM tidbits - online, final hardware delivered
- Thread starter Wax Free Vanilla
- Start date
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
gofreak said:
Gotchya. Thats a bit murkier isnt it.
Rambus's Redwood FlexIO bus is a pretty major part of the overall architecture so that definitely wouldnt classify it as final kits. Perhaps only the big 1st party guns have the final hardware then (if PSM is to be believed). Dorio, the context of that quote was that RSX isnt so much exotic as it is "evolutionary". Which is pretty vague in its own right to be fair, but that particular phrase may lead one to think it isnt just a straight G70 derivative either.
myzhi said:
I think if Sony is serious about opening up a major revenue stream with some form of digital distribution like Sony Connect, then a free all-encompassing service on top would be the best way to go in maximizing its potential. Rope in the user-base right out of the box with a nicely featured and functional gateway for online play, communication and media convergence, and let the third parties drive the various business models in an open market. Sony can make their various killings with add-on mem sticks, different sized HDDs, downloadable content, MMO subscription services etc. and the third party publishers will likely enjoy the freedom the model allows as well.
Competing directly with XBL, I think a subscription based service from Sony will restrict their footprint in this area. As much as it gets laughed at, PS2 online in NA has a decent sized user-base that has gotten pretty used to the idea of plugging in and playing without any charged based overhead.
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
DCharlie said:
Every time I read one of your posts sweetheart.
But yeah, left myself open pretty bad there didnt I.
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
DCharlie said:
I deserved it for sorta ranting on ya like that, Im kinda cringing reading that back now. But the "fanboy analysis" stuff honestly bores the shit out of me.
I mean you're obviously an intellegent poster DCharlie, thats why its so sad to see you falling for it time and time again. *runs*...hehe
hukasmokincaterpillar said:
I would be glad if it's free, but don't see why Sony would want to pony up money to be backbone so everyone can use it freely. It works for PS2, because Sony's really just a portal to other companies servers. From what it sounds like, they are doing much more than that this time. Having a frontend similiar to XBL requires Sony to control / maintain almost everything. That's much more added cost that they need to make up somehow. Thus, I see Sony charging something.
As to them selling addons, M$ already does this ($99 wireless adapter card. Ouch.) and gets more $$$ from XBL. It's a way to make money. Don't see why Sony won't follow. Think people need to understand difference between running a portal vs XBLish network, and thus, understanding why one is free vs the other.
hukasmokincaterpillar said:Gotchya. Thats a bit murkier isnt it.
Like I say, I can't be sure. Just mixed messages going around. It is VERY possible that the underclocked RSX kits arrived for some in Dec, and now in Jan final kits are out (Barbarian did mention that it didn't come till later in Jan).
hukasmokincaterpillar said:
I'm fairly confident now it's a 8:24 setup, as expected, but with a decent amount of low level tweaks to tailor for PS3. It's in line with what they've told us, and it makes sense. As much as I'd love another 256MB of RAM off the GPU or something like that, I can easily imagine SCE having a keen eye on manufacturing right now.
I think the best news out of Barbarian's comment, though, is that there's now a lightweight API that lets you get down to the metal. This was, for example, one of Carmack's key points of contrast between PS3 and X360, and I doubt he was alone in wanting that.
SolidSnakex
Member
myzhi said:
Sony's mentioned before that they're trying to figure out how to get things to work for the people who don't want to pay and the ones that do. Not really sure how they're going to do that or if they're just going to dump the idea of still having a free network and going completely pay to play, or the other way. There's a big market for those that don't want to pay and I don't think they want to ignore them.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
I could imagine PS3 Online having two tiers:
- Free Multiplayer Service Including Messaging and Friends List
---------> Charge for Downloads (Service Charges ~$2.00 for a demo, let's say)
---------> Marketplace
- Premium Service including unlimited downloads
---------> Marketplace
I'd rather have a nifty service for free (marketplace doesn't interest me, but downloadable demos do) than pay for a service I may hardly use (except for when I'm off school).
- Free Multiplayer Service Including Messaging and Friends List
---------> Charge for Downloads (Service Charges ~$2.00 for a demo, let's say)
---------> Marketplace
- Premium Service including unlimited downloads
---------> Marketplace
I'd rather have a nifty service for free (marketplace doesn't interest me, but downloadable demos do) than pay for a service I may hardly use (except for when I'm off school).
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Let's call it a network use cost... or God forbid, the Shareware cost. Switch to a premium service, and don't pay the fucking shareware cost. It's a poor suggestion, but I think at one point, it may have been thought of.
Personally, I don't think Sony will offer such a system, but they have the problem of balancing those who do want to pay to play and those who don't. I, for one, don't want to pay, but if the functionality is bigger and better than Live, then I might be coerced to (i.e. 32 player MotorStorm, right now bitches).
Personally, I don't think Sony will offer such a system, but they have the problem of balancing those who do want to pay to play and those who don't. I, for one, don't want to pay, but if the functionality is bigger and better than Live, then I might be coerced to (i.e. 32 player MotorStorm, right now bitches).
Fishie flop oog
Banned
araganekyassuru said:
Long before AOL jumped onboard, long before the PS2 was released even, Sony was hyping their all engrossing network, a network where you could remotely order your PS2 to download a movie from the internet and start watching oit as soon as you got home, pause the movie and use the movies assets inside a game you had downloaded onto your PS2.
AOL had nothing to do with those claims, with Sony´s ambitious claims which were only designed to break hype for Dreamcasts network capabilities.
Don't know if it was mentioned, but a SCEE Job ad for "PSP/PS3/PS2 Network Game Integration Engineer" reveals that Sony is working on libraries for network game code and lobby functionality. It mentions that lobby functionality includes "matchmaking, content download".
What I'm wondering is if these libraries will provide the necessary hooks to tie everything third parties do back into a "central" sony service. The way I've always imagined PS3's network potentially working is a sony service running alongside third party services, with software "glue" tying everything together, so everything in terms of identity and communication was unified at least from the user's perspective (things like identity could be disjoint to the third parties).
What I'm wondering is if these libraries will provide the necessary hooks to tie everything third parties do back into a "central" sony service. The way I've always imagined PS3's network potentially working is a sony service running alongside third party services, with software "glue" tying everything together, so everything in terms of identity and communication was unified at least from the user's perspective (things like identity could be disjoint to the third parties).
Great, so paying for a Gold membership isn't necessarily about paying for what *I* do with the service but rather to pay for what others do with the service that may not pay at all. In fact, someone who may just want to use XBL for peer to peer online gaming could very well incur significantly less cost to Microsoft than a Silver member who text/voice messages back and forth regularly with their friends list and downloads gigs worth of free content on a regular basis.Jonnyram said:
You guys get charged more for a lot of things in Japan. There's obviously overhead for maintaining the XBL infrastructure but I doubt the overhead required to offer basic matchmaking services to get a peer to peer game going is really any greater than what it takes to maintain the AIM or MSN Messenger infrastructure, both of which have been free for years now.DCharlie said:
Peer to Peer my ass. You guys don't even know what the fuck you are talking about.
The Xbox Live infrastructure isn't peer to peer. It's client/server. You login to the server, messages are passed to and from the server. It's not fucking peer to peer.
There may be some functions that are peer to peer, but for the most part, ITS NOT PEER TO PEER.
Do you actually think that the entire Xbox Live model is based on peer to peer. Do you actually understand networking technologies?
If it was peer to peer - the entire system wouldn't work or if it did - it would perform like absolute shit.
The Xbox Live infrastructure isn't peer to peer. It's client/server. You login to the server, messages are passed to and from the server. It's not fucking peer to peer.
There may be some functions that are peer to peer, but for the most part, ITS NOT PEER TO PEER.
Do you actually think that the entire Xbox Live model is based on peer to peer. Do you actually understand networking technologies?
If it was peer to peer - the entire system wouldn't work or if it did - it would perform like absolute shit.
Games are peer-to-peer generally, though, right?Dr_Cogent said:
If that's the case, that's the bulk of the load right there. The client-server bit is simply information management, and (less simply, from a bw pov) content download? There are a crapload of online services that provide that kind of thing for free (membership management, information management and communication, "big downloads", I mean, not integrated necessarily with a gameplay service).
kaching said:
Online gameplay itself depends on the game. They aren't all peer to peer. Network traffic grows exponentially as clients join a game in a peer to peer model. Halo is most certainly not peer to peer, it is client/server.
And I wasn't talking about you specifically anyhow kaching. I just grow tired of people on here acting like they have even got a clue as to what they are talking about when it comes to networking in general.
I'm going to be surprised if Sony charges for their online service, same as if Nintendo charges a fee for their online service. I'm pretty sure they both see the potential in transactions. I'm surprised MS is still charging for Live Gold seeing how much they can make off of everything else. It might be working for them now with no competition, but if both of the other services are comparable AND totally free that is going to be hard to counteract. Yea, your silver is free but all joe consumer is seeing is the price next to Gold and only free on the others. There is so much more money to be made off of downloads and content and making an online community. I wouldn't be surpised to boot up one day to a McGriddle splash page either. Just another revenue source.
DarienA said:
XBL itself is not peer to peer. I know this. People keep saying peer to peer, and I don't think they even know what it is.
Like I said, it depends on the game. If there are a low number of online players, peer to peer makes sense. Once it starts growing though, peer to peer falls apart and blows up in your face. I never laid claim to say how many are peer to peer and how many aren't. The main XBL architecture is certainly not peer to peer. Games can determine which model they will use. The likes of games with 16+ players would simply not make sense to be peer to peer. Games with 4 players or less can fit into the peer to peer model easily.
I just grow tired of people spouting generalities as if they even know what the hell they are talking about.
gofreak said:
I couldn't ever make this call in general. I don't know all the details behind the infrastructure of Xbox Live.
Remember though, many of the things you use online that are free are paid for by something/someone. Ads usually. Would you want ads popping up in your games or something like that? I dunno if people would like that or not.
I personally have no problem with paying for Live. If others do, they can choose not to. I cannot say it is worth it for anyone else, but for me - it is.
Also, if Sony can offer the same thing for free, great! That will put pressure on MS to compete. Thats the thing, competition is good. Hopefully Sony is trying to compete with MS in the online space. It can only get better for us, the consumer.
Dr_Cogent said:
Not in your game, but ads around your "portal" could be tolerable..
That said, I think it's funny that the one thing that actually introduces significant cost (as far as I can see) to this model - big downloads - is the one thing that can also directly generate more revenue. It changes things from simply passing small data back and forth between client and server - which is probably cheap to do - to requiring large outgoing bandwidth. But that kind of microtransaction culture could help cover the cost of the rest of the system, without invasive marketing e.g. itunes doesn't advertise anything but what it's selling, and I'm sure the costs to run it are non-neglible.
I'm like you in that I can't be absolutely sure, but..I fail to see how a XBL-type service couldn't be viable as a free one.
gofreak said:
Agreed about ads around the portal could be tolerable.
If Sony can output something thats of high quality, ad based or microtransaction based or whatever, but is free in general - I say fuck yeah. I have my doubts, but hey - I'm not Sony and I don't know whats going on under the covers. I just want the service to be high in quality of service and features. If they can do it for free and not be intrucive - then great. Put pressure on MS to make theirs for free too.
Competition is good. This is why I cringe everytime I read people posting One console future ftw!
That would be disasterous for the industry IMO.
DarienA said:
Seems that way, but no.
Peer to peer would be:
1) user #1 connects to server (portal).
2) user #2 connects to server (portal).
3) server matches #1 & #2.
4) server drops off connection.
5) it's only #1 & #2 connected.
It's obviously not the case. You are still connected to XBL server since you can see / chat with other people doing other stuff. And, your world stats are universal and not different from client to client depending who you are connecting too.
SolidSnakex
Member
Ponn01 said:
Yah Sony is going to be pulling in alot of money with PS3 Connect. But as some have said, they can pull in even more if they charge people to even play online. Ofcourse it'd also be a big incentive for it to be free and be near XBL quality as it'd get even more people online and give them a chance to buy more stuff off Connect.
myzhi said:
That's the "architecture" side staying client/server, while the game itself is peer-to-peer. That really just requires small data to be passed back and forth during your game. I'd say chat might be peer to peer depending on the type, though (well, for example, if they ever do video chat, I'm sure that'll be peer to peer, probably).
gofreak said:
In game chat while playing I am fairly certain is client server as well. When you are playing a game, I believe all the players are connected to the chat server, and the server handles communication between clients. I am 99% certain I remember reading that about Xbox Live.
If you think about it too, if everyone was chatting, this would put too much of a load on everyone having to communicate the same data to each and every other client who is hearing them talk. I think there would still be too much network traffic to be efficient in a peer to peer model for that.
Now, chatting with a single person in xbox live chat - that may be peer to peer - but I really have no idea for sure.
arhra
Member
Not strictly speaking - most of them use (i've no idea if this is anything resembling a proper term, but it will illustrate the point adequately) "peer-servers"; that is, one of the clients is doubling up as a server for everyone else. A true peer-to-peer protocol is completely decentralised, with all the clients communicating with all the other clients, which scales horribly with additional clients (in a peer-to-peer system, everyone requires a certain amount of upstream and downstream bandwidth for each other peer, in a client-server system, only the server has that requirement, while everyone else requires a fixed amount of upstream, and an amount of downstream that scales with the number of clients - given the assymetric nature of most consumer internet connections, this works a hell of a lot better, since it only requires one person to have good upstream).DarienA said:
But that's completely irrelevant to the current discussion point, which is that xbl games are all player-hosted.
Larry Bird
Member
Competition FTW.
arhra said:
Don't think players are hosting the games. They may create the game channels for people to join, but it's still being hosted by M$ servers. Definitely, not like PC side things. Where, if I were to host a Quake server, my PC would handle all data / traffic. Highly doubt any one X360 is doing that.
VictimOfGrief
Banned
Sorry, we're WAY past that now. :lolgofreak said:
It should be obvious to everyone but the most autistic pedant that when talking about ONLINE GAMING, the term peer-to-peer is commonly used to refer to the client/server model being implemented between the players' machines rather than through a dedicated server hosted by the game company. Y'know, coz nobody has actually made an online game that uses a textbook peer-to-peer model since FOREVER.
And the point remains, we haven't had to pay for this before, so to hell with paying for it now when bandwidth and processing power are cheaper than ever.
And the point remains, we haven't had to pay for this before, so to hell with paying for it now when bandwidth and processing power are cheaper than ever.
Sea Manky said:
1. Peer to peer means peer to peer. Client/Server means client/server. One doesn't mean the other. Words mean things.
2. There are plenty of games that use peer to peer networking in them. All of the Command and Conquer games used it. Even Generals used it.
You are wrong on both counts IMO.
myzhi said:
The spectator stuff could be handled by MS while the game itself is hosted by a player. It'd just be a stream of events passed up to the server before being propagated out to spectators (it'd be a small small amount of data between the host and the server, and then out to each spectator - they'd take those incoming events, and then the engine would render it all locally on each end).
That doesn't sound like you specifically weren't talking about me though.Dr_Cogent said:
Fundamentally, the problem with the XBL Gold pricing approach is that its still very hamfisted in its method of reckoning the cost to the consumer. XBL Silver members can get away with absorbing more XBL infrastructure resources for free than a person who just wants to jump online for an occasional Burnout takedown race. And so what if Halo has a more a robust client-server infrastructure supporting it if that's not a game the particularly member is interested in playing and the games they are interested in playing online are all peer-hosted? MS needs to come up with a way to more smartly and accurately charge XBL members for what they actually use.