[QUOTE="l1mIt"]

so 50$ goes to development tools that devs use to make the online infrastructure? for example if that was the reason VF5 didnt get online...wouldnt that just be lazyness from the devs?

Ninja-Vox

No, with PSN, they'd have to make their own online infrastructure. It would require significant time and investment on behalf of the developer; and clearly they thought that wasn't worth it. With xbox live, there's already a unified online infrastructure there. They just have to implement their game into it. Its much easier and doesn't require as big an investment as making your own game with PSN. Therefore the developers think its worth it.

Simple.

significant time would be how long?

[QUOTE="l1mIt"]

[QUOTE="themyth01"]XBOX360 has over double the amount of games online enabled over PS3, MS uses the $5 to maintain the servers. That's why xbox360 gets VF5 online, cows don't.LosDaddie

what servers are M$ maintaining? the demo and trailer servers? cause there are no dedicated servers for games that i know of... what does that 50$ have to do with VF5 being online?

$50/yr has everything to do with VF5 being online only for x360.

like what?

[QUOTE="l1mIt"]

what are the M$ development tools? is that what the 50$ a year goes to?

and whats this about PSN you need to invest in your own servers? vegas rooms on PS3 is running off someones DSL...but its free

Ninja-Vox

Because the developer has had to implement that themselves. Xbox Live, every multiplayer game is online thanks to the development tools microsoft have made. With PSN, if you want your game to be online you have to do that yourself. You have to make your own online infrastructure, or buy your own servers. And when nobody's playing anymore, the servers go bye-bye. Shut down, or moved on to another game. With xbox live, so long as somebody else wants to play you can ALWAYS get in a game, no matter how old.

Simply put, if a developer wants an online game on xbox live, its as easy as them deciding they want to. With PSN, you have to develop the whole thing yourself, as a developer, which just like last gen, turned a lot of companies off making online games for the playstation.

so 50$ goes to development tools that devs use to make the online infrastructure? for example if that was the reason VF5 didnt get online...wouldnt that just be lazyness from the devs?

XBOX360 has over double the amount of games online enabled over PS3, MS uses the $5 to maintain the servers. That's why xbox360 gets VF5 online, cows don't.themyth01

what servers are M$ maintaining? the demo and trailer servers? cause there are no dedicated servers for games that i know of... what does that 50$ have to do with VF5 being online?

If you want an online game on the xbox; microsofts development tools allow you to do that.

PSN? You have to invest in your own servers. Hence why there were games on the PS2 which weren't online, but WERE on the xbox. Same with the PS3. The only reason Motorstom and Resistance have decent online is because sony invested in servers. Simple as that.

With xbox live, every game you're guaranteed online play.

Ninja-Vox

what are the M$ development tools? is that what the 50$ a year goes to?

and whats this about PSN you need to invest in your own servers? vegas rooms on PS3 is running off someones DSL...but its free

[QUOTE="l1mIt"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"][QUOTE="l1mIt"]

lemmings try to justify the 50$ a year by saying it goes to M$ for hosting dedicated servers...

all the games ive played on XBL, the room in running off the hosts DSL line

Deihmos

Nah, it's not dedicated servers, it's the online features and services that help justify the cost. The recent news about VF5 lends some credence to that.

what "services" helped VF5 get online? if its not dedicated servers

Microsoft provides the whole online package. Everything is hosted by them so all developers have to do is implement it. With the PS3 it's left entirely up to developerswhere they mustpay fortheir own servers etc. As a result you will see some PS3games with great online and some with none or missing features.

what is M$ hosting for them?

[QUOTE="l1mIt"]

lemmings try to justify the 50$ a year by saying it goes to M$ for hosting dedicated servers...

all the games ive played on XBL, the room in running off the hosts DSL line

VoodooHak

Nah, it's not dedicated servers, it's the online features and services that help justify the cost. The recent news about VF5 lends some credence to that.

what "services" helped VF5 get online? if its not dedicated servers

lemmings try to justify the 50$ a year by saying it goes to M$ for hosting dedicated servers...

all the games ive played on XBL, the room in running off the hosts DSL line

what games have dedicated servers....

I would never spend that much money on video games :|goodlay

ive bet youve spent more playing WoW