"I urge PlayStation 3 owners to invite an Xbox 360 owner to their home on December 10th in order to promote console harmony."
I'll do that, thanks for the hint :)
It seems to me that EA and Sony may have some sort of deal because, we get the Battlefield 2 Beta, and now this Demo early? As well as Brutal Legend DLC for free...
@SeraphimJulius: Halfway into 2008 the PS3 made EA the most money (out of every platform). I don't know how, or how much it made them this year, but it might be one of the reasons. (If the article is true)
@SeraphimJulius: Peter Moore said a long time ago that the best multiplatform development strategy is to lead on the PS3. For that reason any demo will be ready sooner on the Ps3 than it will on the 360.
(well in theory anyhow)
I'm just glad they didn't make a deal with the devil *cough*xbox division*cough*.
@fanboyish: Ea Publishes Mass Effect 2 and Left For Dead 2 both of which are only on PC and 360 at this point. So i's only fair PS3 gets certain things first.
@playstationpwns: I don't think fairness has anything to do with it. It's business. I'm sure there is a reason that the demo is being released on PS3 earlier, be it technical considerations, licensing or hosting issues, targeting certain windows in the market, or whatever.
Large corporations don't do things to be fair or unfair. They do things to make money.
@dd528: I know that I'm just saying to those people who are complaining that it is only fair. I do not care honestly tho as I get All games for PS3 or PC and just ignore 360 exclusives cause honestly they are not that great.
@dd528: Well I can get 360 PC exclusives for PC and then PS3 exclusives on PS3. Personally There are enough games out there that can substitute and that are much better than
Fable
Forza
Halo
Gears of War
Crack Down
PC and PS3 definitly Fill The void and add some I don't want to support Microsoft and there trying to kill off PC support.
@playstationpwns: Oh for sure. I think there are more than enough great games available on every platform that most people can find plenty of titles to spend their time with. Except, maybe, the Mac.
I don't care about the 360 vs. PS3 nonsense but this gives MS what they deserve. Nothing pisses me off more than when a demo is released on the 360 and PS3, but on 360, only gold members can get it for the first week or so, yet the demo is available for all PSN users at the same time. Making you pay for demos to get them when the rest of the planet gets them is just another BS component of xbox live. And yes, I'm a gold member, but it still bothers me to see the forced separation just to further justify the price of gold. Not sure why but I'm feeling particularly bitter today.
@subnet6: Yes but they do that as a perk to those of us that pay for live. Apart from being able to play multiplayer what else would be the point of being a gold member if we didnt get something exclusive? I guess I understand why it would be upsetting but look at it as a reward for being a gold member. Otherwise we are all just paying to play online. Yes I do also realize there are more perks for being gold than just demos and multiplayer but its just one more reason for somebody to get a gold membership. Besides as far as this demo thing goes who really cares? Ok PSN gets it before XBL or gold members get it before silver. It's a demo. It isnt the retail version of the game. Regardless of who you are you are going to have ample opportunity to play the demo before the game ships on Feb. 9.
@Jonathan Hale: But that's the point. It's not a perk if PSN gamers all get it on the same date. It's a punishment for being silver. I would agree with you if the gold members were actually getting it early, but they are not. They are getting it the same time the rest of the planet does. But then MS hold it back from Silver members just because they can. It's lame. Simple as that. Also, multiplayer being gold only is just as bad. Why should I have to pay extra for a feature that should be included with the game? If they want to withhold advanced out of game features, that's fine. I respect that. Things like voice chat, or friends lists, or whatever, but they only withhold multiplayer because they know thats what people will pay for.
@Scrabbulor: I don't buy into boycotts. I think each consumer should make their own decisions. But me personally? I'll probably let the next xbox cook for at least a year before I consider buying it, just because I want to see what sort of hardware issues they're having. I was about to get a 360 when all the RRoD news started coming out. I waited until the falcon chipset in hopes of avoiding it, but still ended up getting it twice. I now have a new jasper unit and haven't had problems with it so far, but it's only about a month old.
@Mike Newlad: Damn it! You're absolutely right. I'm a hypocrite and part of the problem. Maybe that's partly why I'm pissed, because I'm actually pissed at myself.
Truth be told, I was silver only for the very reasons I mention, but there was a deal on Amazon last summer for 12+1 (13 months) gold membership for $29. For that price, I was finally convinced to give it a try so I could play online with some co-workers, I did it grudgingly and I'm still not happy about it. If it weren't for Netflix instant stream, I'd absolutely never renew gold. Even with Netflix, I've decided my threshhold is $40 per year. If I can't find it cheaper, I will simply go without. Period.
That being said, I'd like to be clear. I don't hate all the gold only features. I think having a silver (free/ad based) tier and gold (paid) tier makes perfect sense. What I DON'T agree with is which features they've assigned to each tier, and that fact that the paid service STILL pumps ads to my machine. Online multiplayer should be in silver because the games include those features on the disc. You shouldn't have to pay $60 for a game PLUS extra $ to play online. That's pure bullshit. But, I recognize that stuff like voice chat and friends lists or messaging are extraneous and DO cost money, so I have no problem if they put those on gold exclusive. I hope that clarifies this at least a little.
@subnet6: Explain where messaging costs anyone money? msn = free, skype = free, ichat = free, facebook = free. Have you ever paid for email? What do you think a message on the 360 is?
Hint: You can't send one without the internet. Oh and this post I just sent you, didn't cost me anything either.
Neither did the message I just sent my mate on the PS3 or the video conference we just had.
Also a guy who pays a prostitute is still a criminal regardless of how much the deed cost and as good as xbox live is, it's not better than sex.
@Mike Newlad: Who do you think wrote the network code to send messages (audio/video/text) between 360s? Do you suppose they wrote the code for free, or licensed it to MS for free? I think not. Sure, messaging is cheap and easily enough ad-driven, but the MS implementation is pretty good and works nicely. That kind of technology isn't free to develop. Whether or not you can use skype for free is irrelevant. But you your comment is missing the point. All I'm saying is that if they want to put certain non-game related features behind the curtain of paid service, I'm fine with that. Forgive my poor use of examples if you disagree with them. What I'm not fine with is when they control an aspect of the game that should be included in the purchase price (online modes) and then keep those back from us just to extort a further subscription fee, and then serve us ads on top of that.
@subnet6: I'm with you 100% on them making online gaming and all the features surrounding that available to silver, if they want to charge for access to other services such as Netflix, Facebook, etc I still think it's charging for nothing but what ever.
As for who wrote the code behind messaging on the 360. It will have taken a Microsoft programmer less than an hour to whip that bit of code up and lets not forget how many ads are on the 360 which should be paying for that service.
Comparison, Home vs Messaging. One's got plenty of multiplayer games, allows you to talk in real time to a group of people depending on proximity to others, etc the other lets you send and receive messages. One requires a subscription from Microsoft, the other is free.
Oh and as for who pays for the software running on the back of the 360, 30m people have bought that console. 10p from each of those consoles would be £3m, which is more than enough to pay for the development of messages.
-------
Anyway, let's not get back into it all. Your point that you already pay for the game and should have access to all the features is spot on but as I said, as long as you are willing to pay for xbox live (which you clearly are) then they aren't going to remove the fee.
@subnet6: No I understand what you mean. It doesnt make sense for them to charge for the features that other platforms offer for free and then snub the fanbase they have that doesnt have gold. However some of the features that live has over psn makes it worth paying for. At least it is for the time being. PSN will surely evolve to the point that XBL is and hopefully MS will see an issue. For the time being MS is still sitting on an online throne. Basically it sucks that MS charges for online and it sucks that they screw out those that dont pay for it, but, all we can do is complain and move on. As for this article itself about which platform the demo comes to first, I dont see it making a difference.
In a way it makes sense to put it on the PS3 first. The 360 has no real contender coming up to the game so it might have a higher chance of succeeding as a result.
However, the PS3 has God of War incoming and that's a direct and very strong contender to the game. I struggle to even settle at contender as in reality, Dantes Inferno is the contender and God of War is the king right now.
My point being that with God of War on the way, EA needs to try win over PS3 gamers hearts with Dantes Inferno more than they need to win over 360 gamers as many on the PS3 may pass it up in favour of God of War 3 and a full early demo could help change that.
@-MasterDex-:
with the god of war demo already out for a lot of people on the ps3, i dont think many people will skip GOW3 for this. they might buy both. but i put my money on gow3. especially after the gow3 demo, because its batsnot insane awesoemnesses.
@alienator303: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they'll skip GoW for Dantes Inferno but getting this demo out to them early might encourage them not to skip Dantes Inferno in favour of GoW.
@-MasterDex-: You could argue that the 360 does have a pretty strong contender in the form of the Famitsu-Perfect-Scoring version Bayonetta which debuts in NA around the same time as DI.
@OutsideTheBox: Ah! Had forgotten of Bayonetta! You're right, that is a contender. A contender at the level of God of War though? I guess we'll have to wait and find out how the battlefield looks after they've all been released.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
My PS3 hd on the other hand.....lots of room.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Still, nice.
12/01/09
I'll do that, thanks for the hint :)
12/01/09
12/01/09
[kotaku.com]
12/01/09
(well in theory anyhow)
I'm just glad they didn't make a deal with the devil *cough*xbox division*cough*.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Large corporations don't do things to be fair or unfair. They do things to make money.
12/01/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
Fable
Forza
Halo
Gears of War
Crack Down
PC and PS3 definitly Fill The void and add some I don't want to support Microsoft and there trying to kill off PC support.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/01/09
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, VISCERAL?! This is ridiculous.
12/01/09
The action one.
12/01/09
12/01/09
Playing Dragon Age mp3s from a BluRay? The PS3 doesn't do that.
There are somethings the PS3 will do, for everything else there's a patch.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Somehow I suspect the 2 week period is so they could do some lame ass tie in with the sin of Envy.
12/01/09
That...that sounds a hell of a lot more clever then any other sort of advertising they've put towards this game.
12/02/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
I completely agree with your hatred of the exclusive gold features but what I don't understand is how you can bitch about it, then pay for it anyway.
You are part of the problem. Abandon the 360 (or at least live) and get a PS3.
12/01/09
Truth be told, I was silver only for the very reasons I mention, but there was a deal on Amazon last summer for 12+1 (13 months) gold membership for $29. For that price, I was finally convinced to give it a try so I could play online with some co-workers, I did it grudgingly and I'm still not happy about it. If it weren't for Netflix instant stream, I'd absolutely never renew gold. Even with Netflix, I've decided my threshhold is $40 per year. If I can't find it cheaper, I will simply go without. Period.
That being said, I'd like to be clear. I don't hate all the gold only features. I think having a silver (free/ad based) tier and gold (paid) tier makes perfect sense. What I DON'T agree with is which features they've assigned to each tier, and that fact that the paid service STILL pumps ads to my machine. Online multiplayer should be in silver because the games include those features on the disc. You shouldn't have to pay $60 for a game PLUS extra $ to play online. That's pure bullshit. But, I recognize that stuff like voice chat and friends lists or messaging are extraneous and DO cost money, so I have no problem if they put those on gold exclusive. I hope that clarifies this at least a little.
12/01/09
Hint: You can't send one without the internet. Oh and this post I just sent you, didn't cost me anything either.
Neither did the message I just sent my mate on the PS3 or the video conference we just had.
Also a guy who pays a prostitute is still a criminal regardless of how much the deed cost and as good as xbox live is, it's not better than sex.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/02/09
As for who wrote the code behind messaging on the 360. It will have taken a Microsoft programmer less than an hour to whip that bit of code up and lets not forget how many ads are on the 360 which should be paying for that service.
Comparison, Home vs Messaging. One's got plenty of multiplayer games, allows you to talk in real time to a group of people depending on proximity to others, etc the other lets you send and receive messages. One requires a subscription from Microsoft, the other is free.
Oh and as for who pays for the software running on the back of the 360, 30m people have bought that console. 10p from each of those consoles would be £3m, which is more than enough to pay for the development of messages.
-------
Anyway, let's not get back into it all. Your point that you already pay for the game and should have access to all the features is spot on but as I said, as long as you are willing to pay for xbox live (which you clearly are) then they aren't going to remove the fee.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Also, no one gives two shites about how similar the game is to an old poem that probably less than 0.0000000001 of the population ever read.
12/01/09
12/01/09
However, the PS3 has God of War incoming and that's a direct and very strong contender to the game. I struggle to even settle at contender as in reality, Dantes Inferno is the contender and God of War is the king right now.
My point being that with God of War on the way, EA needs to try win over PS3 gamers hearts with Dantes Inferno more than they need to win over 360 gamers as many on the PS3 may pass it up in favour of God of War 3 and a full early demo could help change that.
12/01/09
with the god of war demo already out for a lot of people on the ps3, i dont think many people will skip GOW3 for this. they might buy both. but i put my money on gow3. especially after the gow3 demo, because its batsnot insane awesoemnesses.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09