Pandora Live!

[zxxgp]

I am also not going to pay money to play online when I can play games online on my computer for free.

Who's paying?

The people that are using Xboxs are paying for xbox live. (if they wish to play games online)

 

[rabidpoobear]

I am also not going to pay money to play online when I can play games online on my computer for free.

Who's paying?

The people that are using Xboxs are paying for xbox live. (if they wish to play games online)

What some people seem to be missing here is that Xbox Live is a completely different service than you get from a computer, a Wii, or a PS3. It is a centralized server farm hosted by Microsoft that allows you to play games through them.
So even if you're unable to properly configure your router and such, your friends can still find you and play games with you, because you both connect to this centralized server. And all the games are run through this system, so the interface is completely regular and easy for the devs to implement, because they don't have to:
1. write their own client/server code, and try to make it efficient.
2. write a game chat room to help people find games to play
3. come up with a friend management system that probably won't be compatible with other games
4. maintain servers for people to play on.

So 360 users have the advantage that, even if they want to play an unpopular game from 3 years ago, they will still be able to find other users. On another system, the company might have decided to take down their servers since not many people were playing, and then that game just loses its online capabilities.
Not to mention that having a single company (Microsoft) host all of the servers will result in more consistency / reliability (or they'll get crucified) and speed / efficiency than some hacked-together "just get it working enough for release" server custom-made by a game company.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Prometheus]

I am also not going to pay money to play online when I can play games online on my computer for free.

Who's paying?

The people that are using Xboxs are paying for xbox live. (if they wish to play games online)

But what do paying Xbox Live users have to do with the concept for an online play setup for the Pandora...?

 

[zxxgp]

I am also not going to pay money to play online when I can play games online on my computer for free.

Who's paying?

The people that are using Xboxs are paying for xbox live. (if they wish to play games online)

But what do paying Xbox Live users have to do with the concept for an online play setup for the Pandora...?

I was saying I do not want to end up paying for a central server to play games off of. (as rabidpoobear so elegantly put) I have no issues with online support for the Pandora as long as it does not cost me anything.

 

[Prometheus]

I may very well be mistaken, and please pardon me if I am, but I'm not aware of anywhere where a paid Pandora service has been talked of. :blink:

 

[mechanizeddeath]

What some people seem to be missing here is that Xbox Live is a completely different service than you get from a computer, a Wii, or a PS3. It is a centralized server farm hosted by Microsoft that allows you to play games through them.

that was explained quite well. many people still don't understand the system and it's been out for over 5 years.

a lot of people seem to think that there aren't going to be enough Pandoras sold to justify the creation of an XBL-like system. i've seen small but dedicated groups of gamers who will STILL play a particular Xbox Live game, years after release, simply because they enjoy it and have a similar timeframe during which they are able to play. Rainbow Six 3 comes to mind first, as i still see people on my friends list playing it once or twice a week, and it came out in 2003.

 

[rabidpoobear]

What some people seem to be missing here is that Xbox Live is a completely different service than you get from a computer, a Wii, or a PS3. It is a centralized server farm hosted by Microsoft that allows you to play games through them.

that was explained quite well. many people still don't understand the system and it's been out for over 5 years.


Thanks
It's unfortunate, because many people claim superiority of the Playstation network because it's free, when really Microsoft could've made a free gaming network but chose not to. And I think the 360 is the better for it.

Ah, and I'll just go ahead and preemptively say here that I don't have a 360. I have a Wii and I play mostly PC games. I like the XBox Live system because it's the best solution to multiplayer on a console right now. It's not fanboyism.
As far as Pandora Live! is concerned, I think that the IRC system mentioned by Chip is pretty clever, and I would be happy to help work on it, because it piggybacks off of already-existing, stable servers. Heck, we could even make a quick prototype of it, if people are interested in that. I just started up school (my last semester before I get a B.S. in C.S. ) so I don't have a ton of time to work on it, but I could make a quick mockup of it. I've done plenty of IRC programming before, making bots and such. It is really quite easy.

I don't suppose it violates the ToS of any of the IRC channels to host a system like this?

[edit] the mockup could even turn into a little "friends viewer" so people could chat with their buddies on the Pandora from a PC and share pictures and stuff with them [/edit]

 

[Red Ring Rico]

I was saying I do not want to end up paying for a central server to play games off of. (as rabidpoobear so elegantly put) I have no issues with online support for the Pandora as long as it does not cost me anything.

Ah, that's what threw me off =P. I thought you were implying it would be a paid service for P&|A.

 

[AireTamStorm]

It's unfortunate, because many people claim superiority of the Playstation network because it's free, when really Microsoft could've made a free gaming network but chose not to. And I think the 360 is the better for it.
Eeeh, Sony does host quite a few servers for the PlayStation Network, so you really can't say that a server farm is a real advantage of XBL over PSN. For most games, PSN has shown less lag, but that may be due to the lower user count.

Games labeled with the PSN logo (kind of like the 360 counterparts get the "Live" logo) are hosted on Sony servers. The PS3 detects your NAT "type", and will configure an external server to act as a bridge when it is impossible to directly connect on both sides. I have a very fast connection with an openly configurable router, so I like being able to host games on my bandwidth.

When Home rolls out, we'll probably see more games running on dedicated servers from Sony. Home isn't just a 3D avatar space, it is a framework for social networking and multimedia sharing. You're able to do things like put your music (mp3 from your PS3 hard drive) on a jukebox in your Home space, and have everyone that you invite there hear it as well. For many people, their connections just will not cut it when they try to stream an MP3 to 10 users. Thats where the user streams it to a Sony server, an the server streams it out to the rest of the clients. If Home allows you to put up virtual TVs, and stream your own videos, then that is even more of an example.

Framework wise, the PSN implementation is a better model in my opinion, but unfortunately it hasn't really taken advantage of its strengths.

I'm a PS3 owner for all those concerned. I considered getting a Wii, but Nintendo hasn't made a very good attempt at catering to their "hardcore" user base, which is where all the titles I want are. Next Zelda, I'll jump over and grab a Japanese unit.