PS2 Online Pack

[NeilMcRae]

Sorry but SOCOM is about 100 times better than Moonwalk Recon. No lag, 16 player battles and a lobby that works. Yeah the keyboard part of SOCOM sucks but iuts a minor part of the game.

[NeilMcRae]

Its fairly well known they removed the modem, but it is an odd decision isn't it?

I would guess the buggy network disk is down to them having to hack out the modem support and convert it to pal (it runs full screen).

Are the two network setup disks totally different, or is the pal disk just a hacked down version?

Two discs are +completly+ different. PAL version is bugged to hell, US version is not. It was far simpler getting online with the US version than the UK version, and for those unsure, being an green box beta, MS had as many problems in the early days.

Neil.

[NeilMcRae]

Got my pack and set it all up within minutes. Must say that SOCOM doesn't compare to Ghost Recon at all. So far M$ are beating Sony with the online battle in my book.

So far,

Delivery of equipment, M$ 1 Sony 0
Quality of equipment, M$ 1 Sony 0
Ease of setup, M$ 1 Sony 0
First online 'demo', M$ 1 Sony 0 (Moto vs Socom = no contest!)
Lobby and communication, M$ 1 Sony 0 ('Virtual Keyboard' to talk? Are you serious?!?!?!?)

So, M$ are 5-0 up in my book so far. Lets hope the Beta tests make things better soon as I can't see Socom hooking me for all that long. Any news on GT4 being online? That would be special.

Zero,
What are you talking about?!

Delivery was identical, the quality of equipment is identical, althoug personally I find the Sony headset far more comfortable than the Live one. Ease of setup, well for the green box beta it wasn't so simple, but for me plug and play on the PS-2 network. I don't think you can compare SOCOM and Moto GP are they are completly different games, for me Moto GP sucks and its overrated, SOCOM on the other hand is fantastic.
THe lobby is an issue I agree but for me SOCOM as a single game is far superior to all the XBox Live games, I go back to SOCOM constantly and I've been playing for over 6 months.

Regards,
Neil.

[NeilMcRae]

So far seems no better + no worse than live - defi less lag in socom than in GR.

The cynic in me suggests that is because at the moment there is only a couple of hundred people playing.

Hundreds of thousands on the US game - no lag.

[ZeroRisk]

Neil, incase you hadn't noticed, this is a public forum and I'm stating MY PERSONAL OPINION about my findings with the new PS2 online pack.
I would apologise that my feelings for this online service and the game it comes with aren't as full of praise as yours but hey, it what I think so why should I!

I wasn't comparing the two games as equals, I was comparing the games as the first one you get with the service. I prefer Moto GP and due to it's success online I doubt I'm alone.

I find that the headset is pretty flimsy and it's not an official Sony one anyway. It comes with Socom and is made by Logitec. The Xbox Live one is created by M$ for Xbox Live and works with ALL games. There is no news that all PS2 online games will make use of the headset.

Socom may be a decent game, granted, but I personally think that GR is better. Again, this is MY OPINION. And sorry, I won't change it just because you say something different.

I am completely neutral when it comes to consoles and the services they all provide. It's painfully obvious that you are not.

Why I'm bothering to explain myself to you is beyond me but someone needs to tell you that you're not the centre of attention and other people have different views on things.

[Papercut]

Phew, easy now!

Neil's pov does strike me as pro-Sony too, but I don't think any offence was intended. It does come across as a little harsh, mind.

Neil -

re: deliveries - Sony have used a cheap business delivery company, and so there have been problems, mostly with re-deliveries. For the pre-release XBox Live used FedEx or UPS I think (someone like them anyway), who provide a better service. A small point, but an important one for a time limited trial.

re: headset - whether you find the logitech head set more comfortable or not, its hard to deny that the Live set is of a higher build quality.

re: beta troubles - pal ps2 network software really shouldn't be buggy when the service has already rolled out in the states. Other than server capacity and stability, there is no substantial technical difference between EUR and US. Most problems reported have been with the buggy network startup disk, which really, really shouldn't be the case.

re: headset/keyboard - well it depends which you prefer, but giving almost every online Live game headset support seems like a pretty definate plus to me. Personally I prefer to use a keyboard (habits die hard), but I'm glad Live gives me the option. Certainly not being able to use the headset in the SOCOM lobby is a stupid situation.

Also ZeroRisk makes a very good point regarding buddy lists, this is an almost essential feature for arranging games with mates. I wouldn't mind if this was per-game (as presumably some ps2 games will support buddy lists eventually), but again this is a silly omission for 'flagship' title SOCOM.

[NeilMcRae]

Have a chill pill man!

I was only responding to what in my view was an unfair comparisons.

The headsets are equally cheap in my view, the Xbox one is made by Plantronics, the Sony one is made by Logitech, and is officially a Sony product, SOCOM is published by SCE and as with Gran Tourismo and arcade sticks and GunCON Sony had someone else make the hardware.
The speech through playing is good and bad, I've had several occasions where someguy was having a conversation on his mobile to his girlfriend, someone askinfg their mommy if they can have a cookie and some guy with a baby that wailed all night. SOCOM's way of a walkie talkie is better
but to use the walkie talkie and shoot at the same time is hard.

SOCOM has had more success than MotoGP as you have to buy the game to play it, its not given away as a freebie! But the Live front end is better I agree, now all MS need are some decent games to play online as so far they have been average.

Regards,
Neil.

[NeilMcRae]

Again on the green beta there was a number of delivery issues, esp on the games where you had to sign for the new games as they arrived, despite it saying no sig required! Some people had to travel 100 miles to the nearest DHL depot.

For me I had no issues with the delivery from Sony or Microsoft.

In my view both the headsets are average, xbox one is less call centre like but I don't like either of them although I do prefer the way the xbox one hooked up via the controller. i'm looking at a hacking a blue tooth solution for this though.

I agree on the bugs on the network setup disc, and what SCEE are upto I don't know, the US BBA disc was childs play to get up and running and I don't know why they aren't using that. Same for the headset in the lobby which they should activate also.

However, its no surprise that Live is the better overall service, MS have a massive global network to support Windows, NT, word hotmail and MSN and building on this would have been very easy for them. Sony had to create the internet site and if you have the visability I have working for an ISP and seeing what they have done then they are definately learning and deploying quickly. For MS there are online synergies, but not so much for Sony and Nintendo.

Neil.

[Papercut]

However, its no surprise that Live is the better overall service, MS have a massive global network to support Windows, NT, word hotmail and MSN and building on this would have been very easy for them.

True MS had a large global network infrastructure to use, but the global directory and sign on services still needed building and deploying. Of course MS already had the right kind of skilled staff and the Passport technology available to them.

Sony had to create the internet site and if you have the visability I have working for an ISP and seeing what they have done then they are definately learning and deploying quickly. For MS there are online synergies, but not so much for Sony and Nintendo.

I guess what I'm saying is that Sony have had more than enough time to prepare to rollout online gaming, and they still seem to have been caught off guard. They have much less to do than Microsoft implemented for Live, there is no single sign on, no global directory, just simple list servers for each online title with the onus on the developer.

... if you have the visability I have working for an ISP and seeing what they have done then they are definately learning and deploying quickly.

I disagree, Sony are behind compared to their competitors. Yes, even with one online title, I'm claiming that Nintendo's online plans are more mature *. Also, what do you mean by visibility? Unless you have been deploying equipment on behalf of Sony (which might explain your viewpoint here ) I don't see that you have any increased 'visibility'.

* ... because by forcing each game to implement whatever online facilities it needs, they have simplified the whole process in a way Sony should have. There is no actual need for the PS2 network disk, each game should be able to set the network settings itself (and most seem to be able to). Sony are too busy trying to blur the lines to make it's online service look like Live. When all is said and done, there is no PS2 online service, just a crappy portal and a list server for each online title.

[Roost]

I don't know how much you've played Ghost Neil but you said that right at the beginning, have you played it much more?

There is lag if you play with a lot of Americans in co-op mode. But when you play any of the versus type modes without any AI in there there's no lag at all even with Americans (and i play with 2 Xb's connected to Live at the same time on my 512k ADSL connection).

If you like playing co-op so much more than if you stick to playing with friends or ppl in the UK there's never lag. I prefer playing with people in my friends list on most games, as if you join a random game especially on Moto there's always some spanner doing something idiotic or talking stupid so i have to..."Brotha! I can't understand one word from your god damn mouth!"

[NeilMcRae]

Papercut,

First I don't think Sony are pushing the online gaming in the way that MS are. My view is that Sony know its important but I think at the moment they are testing the waters for whatever PS-3 looks like, I do think Sony have been surprised by what MS have done with Live and they are trying to catch up - no doubt.

Sony had a much larger task than Microsoft had by a long way. MS run an ISP service, they have one of the biggest networks in the world, I know as the two of companies I work for provide some of their networking capability, MS have also had their PC online section for quite sometime, with game-voice etc.

MS have an authentication system with Windows that they can easily
modify to suit their needs, and its clear from debugging some of the handshakes when you logon that you are talking to Windows based servers, they use kerberos extensively.

Sony are in the process of deploying a network across the world to support online activity and as someone who has dealt with Sony on this believe me they are working with ISPs and Telcos in a very positive manner doing all the right things, as do Microsoft, however Microsoft have somewhat of a 5 year lead on online services than Sony. There was at one point around the time with 95 came out that MS was bulding MSN to compete with the Internet! They didn't want to do anything with the Internet. So interms of maturity Sony are doing well.

Are Microsoft ahead - yes no doubt, but Sony are catching up quickly, but in anycase last figures as I recall Sony had sold as many network adaptors as MS had sold Live packs, and remember remember the 15th of November when MS will start billing people for the use of Xbox Live - Still no clear indication of what this is going to be but its looking like 30-40 quid a year.

Regards,
Neil.

[Papercut]

Sony had a much larger task than Microsoft had by a long way. MS run an ISP service, they have one of the biggest networks in the world, I know as the two of companies I work for provide some of their networking capability, MS have also had their PC online section for quite sometime, with game-voice etc.

They do have a large network infrastructure, but MS are not an ISP. MS' network infrastructure is very loosely knit, it is really just a collection of disparate networks under a single corporate banner.

MS have an authentication system with Windows that they can easily modify to suit their needs, and its clear from debugging some of the handshakes when you logon that you are talking to Windows based servers, they use kerberos extensively.

I know, I mentioned they were using a version of Passport above. Passport is not particularly tied to Windows, just a nice Internet authentication method that happens to be developed by MS.

Sony are in the process of deploying a network across the world to support online activity and as someone who has dealt with Sony on this believe me they are working with ISPs and Telcos in a very positive manner doing all the right things, as do Microsoft, however Microsoft have somewhat of a 5 year lead on online services than Sony. There was at one point around the time with 95 came out that MS was bulding MSN to compete with the Internet! They didn't want to do anything with the Internet. So interms of maturity Sony are doing well.

Yes I know they were not interested in the Internet, but MSN was not designed to 'replace' it. MSN was just added content AOL style, designed to tempt AOL users over to MS. I don't see how this is related to online gaming service provision at all, MSN was a commercial flop and scaled back to practically nothing.

Are Microsoft ahead - yes no doubt, but Sony are catching up quickly, but in anycase last figures as I recall Sony had sold as many network adaptors as MS had sold Live packs, and remember remember the 15th of November when MS will start billing people for the use of Xbox Live - Still no clear indication of what this is going to be but its looking like 30-40 quid a year.

I disagree that Microsoft's existing network infrastructure gives them such a large advantage. Sony also has a large online presence.

The main advantage MS has is the skills and the technology to roll out Live, as I've already discussed. As I pointed out, Sony are not deploying anything like the kind of global single sign on system MS is, they are adopting a model more akin to online PC gaming.

MS' technical advantage is only important if you consider the Live single subscription model a big win over Sony's bazaar model. There isn't a clear winner either way between these two approaches as far as I'm concerned.

IMHO no matter how you dress it Sony have had more than enough time to roll out their online services, and the results have been slow to arrive and amateurish.

MS' technical advantage or otherwise does not change this fact, it has simply forced Sony to take its head out of the sand.

[NeilMcRae]

Papercut,

Sorry but most of what you posted is frankly garbage!

MSN was an online service akin to AOL and was in direct competition with the Internet - I'll try and dig out some of the classic BillG quotes on this. It came with Windows 95 and was one of the main reasons that the anti-trust stuff kicked off in the US and with the EU. It was a total failure I agree.

MS have Active Directory which is the cornerstone for authentication for Windows Networking. passport.net runs on this platform as just about every major corporate network in the world. Sony has mostly a web based network presence but they have been constructing a service provision network over the last year or so. Microsoft have had it for a considerable amount of time more than this. Microsoft run one global backbone, I've seen how its setup, I've met personally some of the people who run it, I know personally some of the Xbox Live net ops people in the UK.

Oh and by the way, have a look at Microsofts .NET services, if that isn't being an ISP then I don't know what is!

Regards,
Neil.
[ Internet Expert ]

[Papercut]

Sorry but most of what you posted is frankly garbage!

Sorry, but it isn't. Just a different viewpoint.

MSN was an online service akin to AOL and was in direct competition with the Internet - I'll try and dig out some of the classic BillG quotes on this. It came with Windows 95 and was one of the main reasons that the anti-trust stuff kicked off in the US and with the EU. It was a total failure I agree.

I don't see that we're disagreeing here. The anti-trust lawsuit was mostly about competitors not having early access to new MS APIs, about bundling IE with Windows to kill Netscape, and about forcing the inclusion of a MSN sign up tool on OEMs.

Yes Bill Gates did send memos about 'killing' the Internet, but by the time MSN emerged it was too late. By then they were just trying to grab a slice of the market share.

MS have Active Directory which is the cornerstone for authentication for Windows Networking. passport.net runs on this platform as just about every major corporate network in the world.

Active Directory does not provide authentication mechanisms, it is just a directory of user and machine accounts, with network service information.

NTLM, Kerberos, etc. are authentication mechanisms that the current Active Directory tools and services use to verfiy access rights.

Passport was designed primarily to be a single sign on for subscription web services; in which case it had to work better over the Internet (specifically firewalls) than previous MS authentication mechanisms did. Hence, it was developed for the Internet.

Sony has mostly a web based network presence but they have been constructing a service provision network over the last year or so. Microsoft have had it for a considerable amount of time more than this.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. You seem to be ignoring my main point, that Sony have had more than enough time to prepare regardless.

[ Internet Expert ]

What makes you think I'm not? The fact that I haven't felt the need to make any such claims myself?

[NeilMcRae]

No, I don't think Sony have had as much time. Online gaming was never the main focus for the PS-2, I think what they are doing now is to line up for the PS-3 which will have a more online bias. For me whilst the features of the single sign on are positive, I'd prefer good games, which frankly Live hasn't delivered yet, although with RTCW out today that might be about to change, and in my view what Sony has provided has been much better, but both are thin on the ground. I still wait with interest come November on how many people renew subscriptions to Live.

Active Directory is the cornerstone of the authentication and and network based resource management, i.e. a directory, for Windows. It has alot of other features but its prime design was for network based authentication. Passport is based on this, Sony don't have this type of capability without coding it themselves or buying it in. MS have had this type of technology as far back as MS LAN Manager, which came out about 11 years ago and have therefore much more experience in this field.

Regards,
Neil.