Haze developer: PSN more flexible than Xbox Live

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"]huh? are u saying ms's not the publisher? :?gamergeekgeek

[QUOTE="tango90101"]

I love how sony backed devs conveniently leave out the part where their online games are limited life...

eventually they will pull the plug and you won't be able to play Haze using PSN.

with xbox live as long as two people have the same game you'll always have someone to play with online...

"flexible"..? yeah, right..:roll:

no_submission

Proof or GTFO.

It's because Haze will use dedicated severs while the 360 would probably use P2P service. You can assume that the devs of Haze will shut down the servers eventually because it costs a price to keep them running. P2P is free, but it's not really better. It all depends on connections.

[QUOTE="tango90101"]

I love how sony backed devs conveniently leave out the part where their online games are limited life...

eventually they will pull the plug and you won't be able to play Haze using PSN.

with xbox live as long as two people have the same game you'll always have someone to play with online...

"flexible"..? yeah, right..:roll:

no_submission

Proof or GTFO.

PSN is a non-p2p business model.

therefore, the dev/publisher are responsible for maintainance on the servers.

eventually they will have to pull the plug to make room for new versions of the game or delete it altogether.

common knowledge noob...:roll:

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="LTomlinson21"]What's there to "damage control?" I have no problem with PSN, just the fact that you are making it sound like Microsoft forces every dev tocharge for their released content onto the Market Place.:lol: You're trying to run from your first statement. Gears of War is an example, but Microsoft published it. Simple.:)LTomlinson21

Then what did your first statement of this topic have to with any of what the topic creator posted? The developers of Haze could release maps for free over Market Place if the publishers of the game allowed them too. I think you came into this topic just to try and put a bad spin on Xbox Live.:D

[QUOTE="LTomlinson21"]

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="LTomlinson21"]What's there to "damage control?" I have no problem with PSN, just the fact that you are making it sound like Microsoft forces every dev tocharge for their released content onto the Market Place.:lol: You're trying to run from your first statement. Gears of War is an example, but Microsoft published it. Simple.:)Dualshockin

Then what did your first statement of this topic have to with any of what the topic creator posted? The developers of Haze could release maps for free over Market Place if the publishers of the game allowed them too. I think you came into this topic just to try and put a bad spin on Xbox Live.:D

No. You seem to getting confused between your second and first post. You provided a link in your second post. I am talking about your first, yes first, post on the first page. Re-read it, then go back over my statement you just quoted here.

No. You seem to getting confused between your second and first post. You provided a link in your second post. I am talking about your first, yes first, post on the first page. Re-read it, then go back over my statement you just quoted here.LTomlinson21

You must've missed the issue with the Gears Maps,the one where Epic were forced by MS to put a price tag on them whilst they wanted to offer them for free?Dualshockin

Yes, Microsoft did put a price on the Gears maps because they published the game. That has nothing to do with this topic. Maybe you are trying to make it sound like if Haze wanted to release maps onto the Market Place they would have to charge. Not the case. Even though no where in the first post are maps being charged talked about.

what contradictory ramblings

what the heck is he talking about when he says 360 games have suffered

many developers have said the exact opposite

Thebettertwin

SIMPLY developping, it's easyer on the 360

but the rules for Live limits the developpement, thats what he sais

Wow people defending MS for charging for money in order to get the maps. Yes MS is puplisher but you guys make it seem that you like itwhen you have to dish out more money and this coming from people that keep talking about the ps3 price. Ya sure theres a difference between $500 and $5-10(whatever the cost of the maps) but you guys are defending that they put whatever PRICE they put on it and have to pay MOORE money and are fine with that.Andres001

Doesn't sony charge for maps too?

RFOM? How much for how many...? ;)

[QUOTE="no_submission"][QUOTE="tango90101"]

I love how sony backed devs conveniently leave out the part where their online games are limited life...

eventually they will pull the plug and you won't be able to play Haze using PSN.

with xbox live as long as two people have the same game you'll always have someone to play with online...

"flexible"..? yeah, right..:roll:

tango90101

Proof or GTFO.

PSN is a non-p2p business model.

therefore, the dev/publisher are responsible for maintainance on the servers.

eventually they will have to pull the plug to make room for new versions of the game or delete it altogether.

common knowledge noob...:roll:

Wrong.

Take Warhawk for example. Yes, there are quite a few servers provided by Sony/Incognito. However, it's possible to host a P2P game.

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"]You must've missed the issue with the Gears Maps,the one where Epic were forced by MS to put a price tag on them whilst they wanted to offer them for free?LTomlinson21

Yes, Microsoft did put a price on the Gears maps because they published the game. That has nothing to do with this topic. Maybe you are trying to make it sound like if Haze wanted to release maps onto the Market Place they would have to charge. Not the case. Even though no where in the first post are maps being charge talked about.

[QUOTE="THE_Rob_Himself"][QUOTE="Slashkice"][QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"]

link or you're a lier

Dualshockin

Here you go.

This is where you go wrong. The argument was never whether MS 'forced' Epic to charge for GeOW maps.

The argument was whether 360 games have suffered because:

Littlewood added that some Xbox 360 games might have been better were it not for Microsoft's restricting standards on Live

You attempted to give an example of a restricting standard on Live that impeded, reduced, or somehow made less a game, than what otherwise would have been.

Only your example is not a result of a restricting standard of Live.....ergo....you fail.

Try harder next time.

[QUOTE="astiop"]Yes, and you are also the only one completely ignoring the point that everyone who responded to you is trying to make. MS is the publisher, thus they can price it however they like, thus making your first post in this thread void. Pricing is not what the Haze dude is on about, but you made it sound like it was. Well, you are wrong, end of.Dualshockin

The harsh reality is that you try avoiding ownage by saing that you provided a link that doesn't prove you right in your first argument. You failed on so many levels in this thread it's not even funny.

[QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="no_submission"][QUOTE="tango90101"]

I love how sony backed devs conveniently leave out the part where their online games are limited life...

eventually they will pull the plug and you won't be able to play Haze using PSN.

with xbox live as long as two people have the same game you'll always have someone to play with online...

"flexible"..? yeah, right..:roll:

Vampyronight

Proof or GTFO.

PSN is a non-p2p business model.

therefore, the dev/publisher are responsible for maintainance on the servers.

eventually they will have to pull the plug to make room for new versions of the game or delete it altogether.

common knowledge noob...:roll:

Wrong.

Take Warhawk for example. Yes, there are quite a few servers provided by Sony/Incognito. However, it's possible to host a P2P game.

Really.. and i'll bet you think sony just gave these "incognito" servers away for free, right?

gawd... it's sad when cows have to resort to twisting reality just to defend a piece of overpriced plastic...

what P2P game is there for the ps3?

This is where you go wrong. The argument was never whether MS 'forced' Epic to charge for GeOW maps.The argument was whether 360 games have suffered because:

Littlewood added that some Xbox 360 games might have been better were it not for Microsoft's restricting standards on Live SUD123456

You attempted to give an example of a restricting standard on Live that impeded, reduced, or somehow made less a game, than what otherwise would have been.Only your example is not a result of a restricting standard of Live.....ergo....you fail.Try harder next time.

There is one clear cut advantage of PSN over Live and that is the lack of a unified ranking system like TrueSkill. I want the ability to play ranked games online with my friends despite what their "level" is. This ruined Gears for me, and while R^ Vegas has the ability to play with anyone we are forced to continually remake rooms after matches because of peoples True Skill.dru26

That has nothing to do with TrueSkill, but rather the system the developers put into place. Games like Halo, where the developers implemented a party system, show that it can be done. It just takes a bit more effort, and some devs will do it, others won't.

It has nothing to do with the TrueSkill.

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="astiop"]Yes, and you are also the only one completely ignoring the point that everyone who responded to you is trying to make. MS is the publisher, thus they can price it however they like, thus making your first post in this thread void. Pricing is not what the Haze dude is on about, but you made it sound like it was. Well, you are wrong, end of.astiop

The harsh reality is that you try avoiding ownage by saing that you provided a link that doesn't prove you right in your first argument. You failed on so many levels in this thread it's not even funny.

[QUOTE="Slashkice"][QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"]

MS published gears:shock:

Dualshockin

And? You wanted a link, I gave you one.

lol, wow. Epic doesnt charge anything for the maps. lol. Microsoft is charging for them, dont twist things around.

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"]huh? are u saying ms's not the publisher? :?gamergeekgeek

Okay... you just making up stupid stuff. *oh ownage*

Try and look at your first mistake. *oh he did'nt know. how sad*

[QUOTE="astiop"]

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="astiop"]Yes, and you are also the only one completely ignoring the point that everyone who responded to you is trying to make. MS is the publisher, thus they can price it however they like, thus making your first post in this thread void. Pricing is not what the Haze dude is on about, but you made it sound like it was. Well, you are wrong, end of.Dualshockin

The harsh reality is that you try avoiding ownage by saing that you provided a link that doesn't prove you right in your first argument. You failed on so many levels in this thread it's not even funny.

And since when was Blue Dragon supposed to be a Final Fantasy killer? Its more like a version of Dragon Quest, which wont even be on the ps3 anyway.

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"]You must've missed the issue with the Gears Maps,the one where Epic were forced by MS to put a price tag on them whilst they wanted to offer them for free?Tactis

[QUOTE="tango90101"]

Really.. and i'll bet you think sony just gave these "incognito" servers away for free, right?

gawd... it's sad when cows have to resort to twisting reality just to defend a piece of overpriced plastic...

what P2P game is there for the ps3?

Slashkice

Ya rly.

Warhawk does actually allow you to host your own servers.

Damn, I had that FAQ open just waiting for him to challenge me on that.

Massively owned, especially with this quote:

The first few days of the public BETA we didn't have a single SONY server running, but it didn't matter because there were soooo many players hosting their own servers!Dylan Jobe

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="Slashkice"][QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"]

MS published gears:shock:

kevy619

And? You wanted a link, I gave you one.

lol, wow. Epic doesnt charge anything for the maps. lol. Microsoft is charging for them, dont twist things around.

i dont think cows understand what a "publisher" is. but i dont expect much more from them

The statement "The job is done" is why I am literally surprised I am still responding to false claims; I keep on reading my first post,and find no whatsoever error in it. Whatever fills your bucket,I suppose ;)Dualshockin

Your first post was:

[QUOTE="Thebettertwin"]

what contradictory ramblings

what the heck is he talking about when he says 360 games have suffered

many developers have said the exact opposite

Dualshockin

Thebettertwin asks how games have suffered. Your reply was that MS (as publisher, even though you leave that fact out) charged for Epic's Gears of War maps. That did not make the game suffer. That was a publisher trying to make more money on an investment that they made in financing the game.

It does not change the original game at all. It just added more things to the game's multiplayer side. It didn't make anything suffer...

An they say EA Sports developers lean towards the 360:lol:...When Haze devs are doing the same towards PS3:lol:

[QUOTE="kevy619"][QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="Slashkice"][QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"]

MS published gears:shock:

gamergeekgeek

And? You wanted a link, I gave you one.

lol, wow. Epic doesnt charge anything for the maps. lol. Microsoft is charging for them, dont twist things around.

i dont think cows understand what a "publisher" is. but i dont expect much more from them

Perhaps- but at least cows know what the word 'exclusive' means.

[QUOTE="Tactis"][QUOTE="Dualshockin"]You must've missed the issue with the Gears Maps,the one where Epic were forced by MS to put a price tag on them whilst they wanted to offer them for free?Dualshockin

you are so dense. Devs dont decide what publishers charge. Do you think imsomniac decided it should cost $8 for two maps in resistance?

And since when was Blue Dragon supposed to be a Final Fantasy killer? Its more like a version of Dragon Quest, which wont even be on the ps3 anyway.kevy619

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"]huh? are u saying ms's not the publisher? :?gamergeekgeek

No, the link says MS forced Epic to put a price tag on their content, be they publisher or not. Your "link or liar" point was countered. Ownage Denied.

Get the thread back on track.

[QUOTE="Slashkice"][QUOTE="tango90101"]

Really.. and i'll bet you think sony just gave these "incognito" servers away for free, right?

gawd... it's sad when cows have to resort to twisting reality just to defend a piece of overpriced plastic...

what P2P game is there for the ps3?

Vampyronight

Ya rly.

Warhawk does actually allow you to host your own servers.

Damn, I had that FAQ open just waiting for him to challenge me on that.

Massively owned, especially with this quote:

The first few days of the public BETA we didn't have a single SONY server running, but it didn't matter because there were soooo many players hosting their own servers!Dylan Jobe

okay, i stand corrected...

that's ONE...

what else...?

btw; was that just the beta or is the final version for sale?

[QUOTE="kevy619"]And since when was Blue Dragon supposed to be a Final Fantasy killer? Its more like a version of Dragon Quest, which wont even be on the ps3 anyway.Dualshockin

Most of been some crazy fanboy. Lost Odyssey looks more like direct final fantasy competition.

[QUOTE="astiop"]

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="astiop"]Yes, and you are also the only one completely ignoring the point that everyone who responded to you is trying to make. MS is the publisher, thus they can price it however they like, thus making your first post in this thread void. Pricing is not what the Haze dude is on about, but you made it sound like it was. Well, you are wrong, end of.Dualshockin

The harsh reality is that you try avoiding ownage by saing that you provided a link that doesn't prove you right in your first argument. You failed on so many levels in this thread it's not even funny.

You brought up pricing of the gears content into this thread, but it had nothing to do with that the haze guy was on about. I don't care if you are right about ms pricing the gears content and I dont care if you had a link to back it up because some guy asked for it. It doesn't relate to why the haze guy prefers psn over xbl and that happens to be what this thread is about.

[QUOTE="Dualshockin"] The statement "The job is done" is why I am literally surprised I am still responding to false claims; I keep on reading my first post,and find no whatsoever error in it. Whatever fills your bucket,I suppose ;)SpruceCaboose

Your first post was:

[QUOTE="Thebettertwin"]

what contradictory ramblings

what the heck is he talking about when he says 360 games have suffered

many developers have said the exact opposite

Dualshockin

Thebettertwin asks how games have suffered. Your reply was that MS (as publisher, even though you leave that fact out) charged for Epic's Gears of War maps. That did not make the game suffer. That was a publisher trying to make more money on an investment that they made in financing the game.

It does not change the original game at all. It just added more things to the game's multiplayer side. It didn't make anything suffer...

Dualshockin has just been trying to play off what I have been telling him this whole time. Now that others have explained it, maybe it'll help.LTomlinson21

[QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"][QUOTE="kevy619"][QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="Slashkice"][QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"]

MS published gears:shock:

Vampyronight

And? You wanted a link, I gave you one.

lol, wow. Epic doesnt charge anything for the maps. lol. Microsoft is charging for them, dont twist things around.

i dont think cows understand what a "publisher" is. but i dont expect much more from them

Perhaps- but at least cows know what the word 'exclusive' means.

and they cry about Sigma being exclusive :lol:

You brought up pricing of the gears content into this thread, but it had nothing to do with that the haze guy was on about. I don't care if you are right about ms pricing the gears content and I dont care if you had a link to back it up because some guy asked for it. It doesn't relate to why the haze guy prefers psn over xbl and that happens to be what this thread is about.astiop

[QUOTE="astiop"]You brought up pricing of the gears content into this thread, but it had nothing to do with that the haze guy was on about. I don't care if you are right about ms pricing the gears content and I dont care if you had a link to back it up because some guy asked for it. It doesn't relate to why the haze guy prefers psn over xbl and that happens to be what this thread is about.Dualshockin

Why is PSN more flexible because Microsoft charged for maps of a game they published? All the Rainbow Six maps were free, I believe.

Not that this really matters, but there was a Gears map pack released for free with 2 maps.

what contradictory ramblings

what the heck is he talking about when he says 360 games have suffered

many developers have said the exact opposite

Thebettertwin

Dude Microsoft (aka M$ or "Make $") is way too restrictive when it comes to letting devs do what needs to be done in order to make their online game their own. One feature they stupidly disallowed was user created content. You might say "The content we get now is great we don't need that", well if you played recent PC games then you'd know the advantages of playing/creating custom maps/missions/characters/weapons/etc. This is why we also can't have games like Little Planet arrive on the 360 (not saying Little Planet said it couldn't just saying a game like it can't). As a modder (not a pro sadly) and a gamer I shake my fist at M$ for being DICtator..

*I'm not a fanboy and I only own a PC/360, I'm just a gamer speaking from a modder's and designer's perspective so yea.. I wish I had a PS3 and a Wii though ;)

[QUOTE="dru26"]There is one clear cut advantage of PSN over Live and that is the lack of a unified ranking system like TrueSkill. I want the ability to play ranked games online with my friends despite what their "level" is. This ruined Gears for me, and while R^ Vegas has the ability to play with anyone we are forced to continually remake rooms after matches because of peoples True Skill.SpruceCaboose

That has nothing to do with TrueSkill, but rather the system the developers put into place. Games like Halo, where the developers implemented a party system, show that it can be done. It just takes a bit more effort, and some devs will do it, others won't.

It has nothing to do with the TrueSkill.