I think it was inevitable for Sony to do this. There was no backlash over having to pay for online over the Xbox Side. COD was selling more on Xbox (a P2P hosted mainly online game) compared to PS3. If people are willing to pay for online on the competing platform, there's little incentive left for Sony to keep things this way. Given the statistics, there was no reason to keep multiplayer free, while your competition raked in billions of dollars from subscription and still relied on P2P f...
I had thought Sony bent under publisher pressure and was going to pull a DRM on us... But I should have guessed better: They wouldn't announce such DRM after tweeting things along the lines of "We really like how passionate Playstation fans are"... It would be a big middle finger to the fans after speaking like that.
Yes, seeing something live always has a very different excitement... Can't tell you exactly why, but learning things as they unfold, the fact that anything could go wrong and you're witnessing it with thousands of people might be why.
I *hope* he is getting paid and not just a fanboy. If he's a fanboy and not getting paid, I'm genuinely sorry for him.
He probably means, on the cloud, the companies would have absolute control over content. Here, it's just the online portion of the game.
I don't think anyone should be angry about a review.
This is ridiculous. The least a company should do is to *either allow the community to continue to rent servers, thereby offsetting the costs of hosting it.
*Release a streamlined PC server software so people could host their own games.
The first one is easier for console games structure as the second choice may need modifications to the netcode to seek servers other than Sony's, that said, games could be designed to have configurable server addresses (or a final ...
KZ2 had the BEST community features amongst the multiplayer games I played. Forming clans, assigning administrators to clans, setting up matches... Plain AWESOME. It was superb fun but had some quirks. KZ3 had the potential to be the best multiplayer experience, had they improved upon KZ2. But they ditched community features, the ditched squad functionality (no spawn on leader anymore, meaning your squad only meant you saw different colored dots on the map), a play style that makes it very ha...
You know, $60 is still more than $50. And that's a month's content vs a yearly membership fee. AND if you are able to play as many games as Plus is offering, why not be a PS Plus member anyway?
Also, your statement makes very little sense:
*You claim many have already played these (probably paying full price)
*Then you claim they are not worth $60, which is for people who have not yet played these games, and which is the money that people would have to...
Indeed. And they could register simply multiple names, and I think Xbox One would still surprise us. Or maybe set up a proxy company just to acquire the names, do the transfer to Microsoft later. Then again, what do I know, I know nothing about Corporate stuff.
The guys at xbone.com say they are willing to transfer their domain for cheaper. (Kidding, but they'd probably settle for less.)
I can't understand the mindset that disagrees with this statement.
Why would they say PS Eye sold separately if it came with the system??
"Oh no, I just bought a second DS4, but I thought they'd give me a second camera with it!"
Why would they bother notifying user of PS Eye being sold separately, if it came default with the system?
It would be like saying DS4 requires PS4 and is sold separately (!). So no, this tells me PS Eye won't be bundled by default. I'd like to be surprised tho, I too think ubiquitous availaibilty of PS Eye would lead to many more games for it.
Exactly my sentiments. With no bundle, support would be limited, with bundle, price increases. I think in the end, Sony decided to push Vita combination, which requires games do not use vital motion tracking features. If games will only use motion tracking to enhance the experience and not provide the actual experience, then there's no reason to bundle it.
Now that I think of their Vita plans, it's much easier to understand reasons for not bundling Eye as default.
I think he thought he'd have to point the eye at the screen or something?
Countless times I've said elsewhere, they never talked about a bundle. They said the camera and DS4 was designed in parallel. I still thought they were going to bundle, but they didn't talk about any bundle (please find that part before disagreeing).
Also they never said Eye was required for the DS4 to work properly.
What does share button have to do with PS Eye? Do you want to stream your game or your image?
Bubs.. Funny :)
There are different schemes to remap those, like you say there's rear panel remapping. There's also button combinations but rear panel makes a lot of sense.
Does it support stereo output on the jack? The deault headset is mono, but the output could be stereo, no?