Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Playstation 2 Online Adapter: Is it worth it?

By theboz in Op-Ed
Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 08:05:43 AM EST
Tags: Technology (all tags)
Technology

After many years of playing video games on the internet with a computer, I purchased my first network adapter to work with a gaming console. Although there are only a handful of games out for it now, I decided to be an early adopter and try out the Sony Playstation 2 Online Adapter. I would like to share my thoughts with all of you and hopefully answer some questions you may have if you were considering purchasing this piece of equipment.


Availability
These things are tough to find. For reasons unknown, Sony had underestimated the demand for these things. Although released weeks ago, it took going to a larger city and being lucky enough to find three left in a Best Buy. Up until then, they were out of stock on many of the websites that sell gaming accessories. However, when I found one I did make the $40 purchase for the device and held off on buying a game just yet. The difficulty in finding these adapters is suprising, considering the lack of games that allow internet play. I am impressed that there is some demand for them.

Hardware Installation
This was very easy and took less than five minutes. Since the instructions are accurate in installation of both hardware and software, I won't list the details here. However, I will say that the installation is even easier than installing a network card in a PC. Since I do not have a dialup account, I plugged an ethernet cord into the PS2 and into my hub just like I would any other PC.

Software Installation
Sony seems to have had ease in mind. Although I did not try them, there were wizards to help you even sign up to use AOL with your PS2 if that is who your ISP is. However, since I have my own DHCP server I simply allowed it to pull an IP address from that and it was online in a few minutes. The setup for static IPs and inserting that information manually appears to be just as easy as putting a static IP on a Windows machine. A profile is created for your connection, so even if you have broadband, it only connects when you tell it to, much like a dialup connection would work. The down side of this is that it does take about 30 extra seconds to register with DHCP every time you want to connect to the internet.

The Games
So far, there are only a handful of games that are compatible with the Playstation 2 Online Adapter. The only ones that I am at all interested in that are out right now are Twisted Metal Black: Online, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3, SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals, and Tribes Aerial Assault. Personally, I bought Tribes Aerial Assault because it seemed to be the most like what I have played on the PC. First person shooters are the bread and butter of internet gaming, so that's what I went with first. The adapter also included a mail-in coupon to get Twisted Metal Black for free, so I sent that in rather than purchase a copy. There are also some American football games out, as well as a few others that are not quite as interesting.

The first thing I did was put in the setup/demo disc. There were only two playable demos, Frequency and Madden NFL 2003. I tried Frequency. It seems to be a mix between Beatmania and Tempest. It was fun, however nobody was in the chatroom for the demo version and I was not allowed to enter the chatrooms for people that paid for the full version. This also made me realize that a keyboard is essential for games like this. The Frequency network system is similar to battle.net where you connect to a chatroom and can find people to play with from there. There is a software keyboard that you can use, but it's difficult to write a lot with the dualshock controller. You can either buy the Gameshark keyboard for about $20, or just use any old USB keyboard. I opted to use my wireless Logitech keyboard which works fine. However, with nobody to play against in the online mode, I quickly gave up on this game.

Today I purchased Tribes Aerial Assault though, and am definitely happy with it. While not as full of a game as the PC versions of the Tribes games, a great deal of fun is still to be had. My main complaint is that you can't really type to other people to organize plans and such. Instead you can press on the directional keys to speak nonsense that sounds either excited or sad. Hopefully the next Tribes game for the PS2 will allow you to use the keyboard. Everything else is fine though. The graphics look great, I experienced no lag, and the controls were intuitive. Connecting to a game is more straight-forward than Frequency, as you are given a list of servers (hosted games) to connect to, and that's pretty much it. No chat, no various rooms, just the game.

Sony's Online Strategy
Microsoft expects you to pay a fee to them to be able to play games online with the X-box. Sony has taken a different approach, and left that up to the companies making the games instead. This is good right now, because so far everything is free, but in the future this may not be the case. Also, there is already a lack of standardization in each type of game you connect to. While games like Frequency have a centralized server, Tribes functions more like Napster did with the central server only there to link to people who are hosting games on their PS2s. I have heard that the Tony Hawk games don't even offer that, and are completely peer to peer and you have to connect to another person's computer without any assistance from the company that made the game. Once online console gaming catches on further, this could be detrimental to Sony.

Value
The network adapter is cheap. $40 for the adapter (which includes a $20 game) is not bad. Even if no more than 15 online games are released, it will still be a decent bargain in my opinion. I feel that the online adapter is the second extra piece of hardware you should purchase for your PS2 system, right after the memory card.

The Bottom Line
Given the price, the free game, the open nature of the system, and the few good games you can get right now, I am glad I bought the online adapter. More promising games are in the works such as Final Fantasy XI and an online version of Grand Theft Auto. I think that if you have broadband and a PS2, you should get this without a doubt. I believe Sony's online gaming surpasses the other systems out there and will be more palatable to those who don't want to shell out money every month to Microsoft just to play games online. It's a great alternative to PC online gaming for those of us who just want to sit back in a recliner to play games. It was definitely worth it to me, and should be worth it to any other PS2 owners out there. If you are used to PC gaming or only own an X-box, I wouldn't jump over to it just yet though.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Do you plan to buy a PS2 Online Adapter?
o Yes, and I already own a Playstation 2 10%
o Yes, but I have to buy a Playstation 2 first 13%
o No, and I own a Playstation 2 8%
o No, and I don't own a Playstation 2 56%
o Undecided 10%

Votes: 58
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Sony Playstation 2 Online Adapter
o many of the websites
o the details
o a handful of games
o Twisted Metal Black: Online
o Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3
o SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals
o Tribes Aerial Assault
o what I have played on the PC
o Frequency
o Madden NFL 2003
o Beatmania
o Tempest
o battle.net
o Microsoft expects you to pay a fee
o Also by theboz


Display: Sort:
The Playstation 2 Online Adapter: Is it worth it? | 88 comments (72 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
Suggestion for you... (4.33 / 3) (#9)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Oct 02, 2002 at 11:34:43 PM EST

"The down side of this is that it does take about 30 extra seconds to register with DHCP every time you want to connect to the internet."

Would there be a great problem in just using a static IP for the Dreamcast? I don't know how your network is set up, but maybe then there would be no wait.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."

dynamic hostnames (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Hana Yori Dango on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 01:42:45 AM EST

You couldn't really give each Dreamcast a static IP. What you COULD do however is have an ID number within the Dreamcast network or whatever that assigns you a DNS address which stays constant even though you might have a new IP every time you log in.

[ Parent ]
I don't see why (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 03:07:15 PM EST

If you owned static IP x.x.x.x and it was available, is there any reason it couldn't be assigned to the Dreamcast.

I don't know whether or not it would work through NAT, but that's another matter.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

LAN and consoles (4.33 / 3) (#10)
by Talez on Wed Oct 02, 2002 at 11:42:54 PM EST

It seems to me like a LAN adapter and a console go together as well as bread and butter.

Does anyone remember the Dreamcast BBA? Those things were presold before the delivery truck was even sent out.

I think with the BBA coming to the Gamecube, the Xbox having 100Base-T inbuilt and the PS2's online adapter, we might see a shift to consoles as the online game console of choice.

I know the most fun I've ever had with an online game was PSO Verison 2 (Import Japanese) on my good old Dreamcast. IMHO it even beats Evercrack.

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est

Something else that sucks about it (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by theboz on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 01:15:23 AM EST

In previous announcements, Sony had said that there would be a web browser included with this. However, I've not been able to find any documentation on this or find it on the system anywhere. That's too bad, as it would make a nice webtv type box even though you can't cache anything without the hard drive.

Stuff.

Sony does that a lot. (4.00 / 2) (#21)
by BinaryTree on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 02:12:59 AM EST

Make up bullshit press releases about far off technology that they have no designs or plans for years into the future.

Supposedly the Playstation 3 will have "biotech", according to one of them. It didn't elaborate on what it meant by that, it'll just have biotech of some sort.

It was originally in Japanese, perhaps the interpreter was full of shit.

[ Parent ]

Lot of features missing (4.66 / 3) (#35)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 09:24:40 AM EST

I'm probably going to pick up an online adapter, but I'd be more excited if there were more features. All it really allows you to do is play games online. It should have a web browser. Even dreamcast had a web browser, and that was a couple years ago. It would also be nice to stream MP3's and videos from a computer, but I'm sure Sony is against that idea.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Streaming MP3s and Videos (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by ecopoesis on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 11:31:23 AM EST

You can buy the Broad Q which lets you stream MPEG 1, 2, 4 video, Divx video, and MP3s from your PC.

--
"Yachting isn't just for the wealthy. :-)" - rusty
[ Parent ]

Don't forget to specify the protocol (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Wah on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 12:39:04 PM EST

http://www.broadq.com

Same goes for your homepage, BTW. :)
--
You didn't know we had cameras in your room, Parent ]

Stupid IE makes me lazy, and forgetful (nt) (none / 0) (#67)
by ecopoesis on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 09:11:31 AM EST


--
"Yachting isn't just for the wealthy. :-)" - rusty
[ Parent ]

Problems (none / 0) (#39)
by uniball vision micro on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 11:26:49 AM EST

"In previous announcements, Sony had said that there would be a web browser included with this. However, I've not been able to find any documentation on this or find it on the system anywhere. That's too bad, as it would make a nice webtv type box even though you can't cache anything without the hard drive."

I really loathe the whole concept that there should be all these "online games" that rely on participation of one sort or another just to get along. Having that getting screwed by a 10 year old in quake feeling dosn't fit the bill. Then you have to consider the lack of staying power of anything that requires a server of the company that is running it. I want my games to work 10+ years later not die in under 4.
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

Battle.net (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by steveftoth on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 02:16:55 PM EST

look at battle.net, all of blizzard's games require you to connect to battle.net to play them.  So if for sime reason they decide to discontinue battle.net you will not be able to play any of their games online without massive hacks.  I mean it really sucks having to create a VPN to play a game. which would be the only alternative to battle.net with their games.

Not that this will happen though with blizzard, they have yet to release a bad game since battle.net was started.  Though it would suck if they decided to get rid of the D2 realms someday, since actual characters are stored in their servers.  You can always get your WC3 record back, but a level 90+ character is a HUGE investment in time.

[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0) (#53)
by mercutio on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 03:36:59 PM EST

As I understand (but I may be wrong) Blizzard added the ability (via a patch) to play TCP/IP games outside of Battle.net for WC3 and maybe D2 after the whole "bnetd" controversy came up.  As I understand, the bnetd people said they made the server so that people could play TCP/IP games outside of Battle.net so in response Blizzard added that ability to rid them of that argument.

But, I may be wrong.

[ Parent ]

AFAIK (none / 0) (#55)
by steveftoth on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 05:01:28 PM EST

war 3 supports tcp/ip games, but you have to be on the same network because it uses DirectPlay technology from MS.  IF you can play on a random ip then that's news to me.

Diablo 2 you can enter any IP I believe and I think that's how open Battle Net works.  

Regardless, if they shut down the realms we lose our characters, though you might be able to export them.  But once they  are in the wild then they are able to be hacked and whatnot.

[ Parent ]

Linux kit compatibility? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by mcc on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 01:39:31 AM EST

Has anyone heard if this thing is compatible with the PS2 Linux Kit? I know the linux kit comes with an ethernet adapter. Can you use the linux kit ethernet thingy with the mass-market internet games? Can you use the mass-market ethernet adapter to connect to the internet from PS2 Linux?

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
I think it's the same (4.50 / 2) (#18)
by theboz on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 01:52:08 AM EST

The NIC in the Linux kit and this one are the same as far as I know. In fact, this one also has a connector for a hard drive of some sort (I haven't played around to see if it takes a modified IDE cable or what yet.)

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Standard IDE (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by steveftoth on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 11:45:49 AM EST

you can plug a standard IDE drive into the linux kit, I don't see why they would change it.  Though it doesn't matter, because without the Sony software to partition the drive properly, no video game will recognise it.  

Some games already recoginise it, I guess that they FFX Internation version from Japan has an option to install the game to the HD for faster load times.  I don't know about the american games.  

[ Parent ]

Very good... (none / 0) (#52)
by theboz on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 03:29:21 PM EST

If I can find the software somewhere to download online, I can probably go ahead and put a hard drive in then. I will research this later.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

If I can't actually TALK to people (2.50 / 2) (#17)
by Hana Yori Dango on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 01:46:35 AM EST

then crap on this... Planning by keyboard was cool when you have a 2kB/s upload cap but honestly, they're gonna have to give me a better interface than a keyboard before I'm biting.

(Oh I dont actually play video games, but if I did that's what I would say ;)



It depends on the game (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by theboz on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 01:55:18 AM EST

I know that SOCOM gives you a microphone to use to actually talk, improving upon the idea of using a keyboard. Some games do let you use a keyboard though, like Frequency. I just haven't figured out why Tribes doesn't. It makes it hard to work as a team.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Just shooting in the dark here (3.00 / 1) (#20)
by Hana Yori Dango on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 02:03:50 AM EST

But I would figure there just has to be a third-party p2p voice client scheme for Tribes, seein as how it's so hugely popular. Anybody got info about it, I'm curious.



[ Parent ]

3rd party chat (none / 0) (#65)
by treetops on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 09:01:58 AM EST

But I would figure there just has to be a third-party p2p voice client scheme for Tribes, seein as how it's so hugely popular. Anybody got info about it, I'm curious.

Radio Shack has some 3rd party voice chat systems available, starting at $9.99.


--tt
[ Parent ]
+1 cos (2.00 / 4) (#23)
by dvchaos on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 02:23:19 AM EST

Theirs too little news around this news site. perfection is great, but when the search for perfection hinders the whole project and purpose, it really starts to suck ass.(aka - no news cos theirs always a reason), just lighten up a little. enjoy more :)

--
RAR.to - anonymous proxy server!
Cross-Platform Multiplayer Games? (4.50 / 2) (#24)
by Rasman on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 04:58:08 AM EST

Are there any games that allow online PS2 users to play against online PC users? If not, it seems like a pretty obvious idea. No doubt we'll see it soon...

---
Brave. Daring. Fearless. Clippy - The Clothes Pin Stuntman
Actually... (4.00 / 1) (#43)
by steveftoth on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 11:52:48 AM EST

every game that has been anounced so far that has a PC version. Has stated that it will NOT work with the PC version, so don't hold your breath.  I think that this is on purpose for multiple reasons.

It's easier to debug a game when you don't have to make it x-platform.  Console games have much shorter development cycles in general then the PC games. (Daikatana, War 3, etc... all really long)

It makes it more fair of a play experience since a ps2's maximum resolution on a tv is like 500 by 350.  Unless they release the HDTV adaptor and they start using it.  People playing half life at 1600x1200 would have a huge advantage over someone playing on their ps2.
Most importantly, it forces people to buy not only a PS2, but another copy of the game.  Which as we all know means less money for us, but more the Sony and Company.  Which is the whole reason for them doing anything at all.

[ Parent ]

Some will (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by theboz on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 12:44:13 PM EST

Final Fantasy X, for example, will have a PC version that is compatible with the PS2 version (according to what I read about a month ago) and will probably be the first game to require the PS2 hard drive. Everquest will not require the hard drive, and I'm not sure if it will work with a PC version or not. It's still too early to know about much more though.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

EQ (3.50 / 2) (#49)
by steveftoth on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 02:18:33 PM EST

the online EQ for PS2 will not work with the PS2, they stated that it's like another world that is not in the current EQ universe.

[ Parent ]
Whoops., (4.00 / 2) (#50)
by steveftoth on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 02:19:16 PM EST

Ment to say that the PC version will not be compatable with the PS2 version.

[ Parent ]
Microsoft Finally Gets It Right (4.50 / 4) (#25)
by DarkZero on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 05:04:16 AM EST

A flat fee of $50 per year (less than half the price of any MMORPG on the PC) that lets you play any multiplayer game, including every MMORPG for the system, and it also comes with a restriction against dialups and a headset. Plus, there will be actual online support for the features of the hard drive, such as downloading new levels and characters for your single player games, unlike the situation with Sony where the hard drive will just die in obscurity due to the chicken-and-egg problem no one buying the hard drive because it lacks useful features and no one making useful features for it because it lacks a user base.

I've laughed at every strategy that Microsoft has had for the X-Box. They lose $100 on every system sold, they paid hundreds of millions of dollars for a second party publisher that has lost all of its popularity, they pay supposedly huge sums of money for "X-Box exclusive" features in multi-platform games, even if it's just adding Kraven the Hunter to a Spider-Man game, and they seem to have publishing standards far lower than Sony's or Nintendo's. This time, however, it looks like they could have a winner. They're offering useful hardware, solid gameplay, and dirt cheap MMORPGs for just $50 per year.

If True Fantasy Live Online came to America and the X-Box ever stopped being a huge money pit that could be cancelled at any moment, I could see myself considering buying the Evil Green Box.

Don't know about "dirt cheap MMORPGs" (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Master Of Ninja on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 06:22:07 AM EST

I was under the impression that $50 was the fee for the XBox live service itself, and for the ability to have one profile, and use the "free" (or what the $50 pays for) online games servers. I don't think it would be viable for other companies to make MMORPGs which fall under the standard $50 service charge - I'm pretty sure for the MMORPGs you'll have to pay an extra monthly service charge (just like UO, Everquest etc.).

MS might grant your wish and give everybody free access to one MMORPG, but I don't think it would have as many features as the paid-for versions. I would also be interesting to see how much a free MMORPG is abused (the PKills, kill stealing and all the other crap that seems to be associated with these games).

My opinion is that I like Sony's system better. From being a PC gamer, I'm used to the 'free' servers, although these have problems associated with them. For some games, I really think the ISP should host the servers as you do (or are) going to pay them the money for the broadband really needed for gaming. Some games like MMORPG's do seem to be needing more regulation, so they might deserve the money if you like that type of game (i don't).

(slightly OT bit- I think there is a way to get free online gaming for the XBox by hooking the system up to a PC, and using some software to fool the XBox into thinking it is playing over a LAN. Should be a better solution if the Xbox Live system turns out to be a bit overpriced and not worth it.)

[ Parent ]
Publishing (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by DarkZero on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 09:25:47 AM EST

Microsoft gets the final decision on whether or not a game is published and so far they seem to be exercising that right in order to make everyone conform to the X-Box Live program, so it looks like no one will be allowed to make their own pricing decisions regarding X-Box MMORPGs. However, I doubt that that really matters. Right now, and probably for the entire life of any MMORPGs that would be released in the near future, Microsoft is a big fan of the "throw cash at the problem" strategy. Microsoft may charge just $50 per year for the X-Box Live program, but I seriously doubt that that is the total sum of money that's being shared between Microsoft and the companies that are participating in X-Box live.

(slightly OT bit- I think there is a way to get free online gaming for the XBox by hooking the system up to a PC, and using some software to fool the XBox into thinking it is playing over a LAN. Should be a better solution if the Xbox Live system turns out to be a bit overpriced and not worth it.)

Yes, there is, but I doubt it works with MMORPGs. And if Microsoft can entice just a couple of developers to make MMORPGs for the X-Box, I'mthat would be three different MMORPGs that you can play for just $50 per year, instead of the $90-$120 per year that individual games for the PC charge. I think X-Box Live might be a rip-off for strictly non-MMORPG gamers, but only because I'm not really sure right now of whether or not the level and character add-ons for single player games from X-Box Live can be downloaded from independent sites.

[ Parent ]

Prices range from $500/yr to $500/MONTH (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by pin0cchio on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 07:08:30 PM EST

and it also comes with a restriction against dialups

That's the problem. Not everybody lives within the reach of broadband. For many would-be subscribers, XBox Live would cost $6,050 per year: $500/month for T1 service (the cheapest broadband available out in the sticks that's faster than 128 kbps ISDN and doesn't have 1000ms ping) and $50/year for an XBox Live subscription. Even many families who have the luck to live in an area where cable or DSL Internet access is available aren't willing to dish out $480/year for broadband in addition to the XBox Live subscription.

Microsoft: If the price is too high, too few will buy.


lj65
[ Parent ]
But... (none / 0) (#62)
by KILNA on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 04:31:31 AM EST

How many of the homes already have a computer? Broadband use is spreading rapidly, and it isn't just for game consoles. The tykes can pester mom and dad to get a cable modem for school work. The adults (the actual majority of gamers) can justify it for the reasons adults usually justify a broadband purchase, Ebay and porn. A game console with ethernet is one of many reasons to get high-speed connectivity, and I think the x-box may have a good chance of piggybacking.

[ Parent ]
Some places are much cheaper (none / 0) (#81)
by DodgyGeezer on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 01:21:29 PM EST

My ISP (www.istop.com) charges about CDN$50 for a 3.5mbs/800kbs connection.  It's not on their prices page at the moment as they are not currently accepting new sign-ups due to policy changes at the telco.  They have a non-PPPoE version of this service available for under CDN$100.  I don't have either of these services as I'm at least 4.5km from the CO.  

With fast path channelisation of the DSL, ping times to the first hop are 10-20ms.  Upstream can be 50% of a T1, with an annual cost close to USD$375.  For people who are happier or only able to get slower broadband (like myself), e.g. 1.2mbs/160kbs, pay as low as USD$225 per annum.  The biggest problem with my connection is that I I am forced to use interleaved channelisation, which adds an extra 40-50ms to the first hop.

[ Parent ]

Missing poll potion... (4.50 / 2) (#29)
by evilpenguin on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 06:44:56 AM EST

"Already have one".

I bought one the day they came out (conveniently, this was the same day that SOCOM was released).  Indeed, they were scarse -- if I didn't  pre-order it at my local EB then I would have been screwed.  Sony must enjoy shooting themselves in the foot or something.

SOCOM itself is kind of boring.  I guess I was just expecting too much from it.  You can tell that the designers paid attention to the smallest detail, but... it's still just average.  I've played it twice since I got it and never touched it again.

THPS3 is like crack to me, and I love it.  But online play really doesn't add anything to the game.  Frequency is magically delicious, and is recommended to anyone with a sense of rythm and affection for bright, psychadelic colours.  

Of course, what I'm really excited about is Final Fantasy XI.  Every other online title is just a pretty distraction.
--
# nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty

Got it.. - Love it... (3.33 / 3) (#31)
by hvangalen on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 07:07:57 AM EST

I got the Adapter that came with the PS2 Linux Kit.

Still enjoying the hell out of it (although I haven't got that many on-line games)..

It's great, and definitely worth it !

SOCOM is pretty sweet (4.00 / 2) (#33)
by ennui on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 08:46:03 AM EST

What I'm curious about is how long until somebody gets ambitious with a gameshark or similar device and figures out ways to cheat in online games. I imagine somebody cheating in madden 2003 and their guys move twice as fast and can't be tackled is going to raise issues, hopefully they'll be able to come up with a punkbuster-like thing before cheaters ruin it.

"You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone." -- Al Capone
NAT? (4.50 / 2) (#34)
by br284 on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 09:19:41 AM EST

Does the PS2 Ethernet play well behind a NAT box? If so, this may be another thing that pushes me towards getting one...

-Chris

Perfectly fine (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by theboz on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 10:15:22 AM EST

I use NAT, which is why I have a DHCP server running at home that my PS2 picked up an IP from. I haven't run into any issues so far, even though my PS2 is not in the DMZ or anything. Once I can get my linux box running again (but with a wireless NIC) I will run a portscan, sniffer, etc. on it to see what all is going on. Perhaps that would be worth another article here, perhaps just a diary.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Awesome (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by br284 on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 10:29:56 AM EST

I would love to see an article like that. I'd write one myself, but alas I have no PS2.

-Chris

[ Parent ]

more incentive... qcast (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by jt on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 11:29:21 AM EST

QCast looks like a nifty program, and would probably be my main reason to get the broadband adapter... it basically lets you stream content (e.g. Divx movies) from a computer on your LAN to your PS2 for output on your TV.

Low availability (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by steveftoth on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 12:02:37 PM EST

they want only the hard core gamers to get these things because they are still getting all the bugs worked out.  Yes, they already released it in Japan, but Japan is like the beta test market for the US.  If they can get it to work there, they send it over here and then the HC people test it before they do a general release for the normal people.   That's why they released it way before x-mas, so that they can get all the bugs worked out before x-mas when the 'normal' people get their hands on it.  

Releasing it early also generates more word of mouth if it's good, which from your review sounds like it is, but needs more games.

BTW, if online gaming catches on I think that it will be better for Sony, not worse.  Think about it, if a game server dies, goes down or whatever, then who is the consumer going to blame?  Sony, no they have taken themselves out of the loop and said that we are only providing the hardware, the software is up to the game maker.  MS on the other hand has said that they are hosting everything, it's one huge integrated MS experience.

So if a game server dies the consumer will most likely blame not the game maker, but MS because they are the face that the consumer sees.  I mean if a x-box live game server goes down, was it the server code crashing?  was it ms's internet connection, their admins?  You don't know so you blame MS.   I mean people still have to buy the games, so Sony gets a cut no matter what.

(If you couldn't tell, yes I'm a Sony fanboy)

I know who I'll blame (none / 0) (#70)
by Silent Chris on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 09:34:22 AM EST

The idiot hosting a PS2 game "server" on an asynchronious connection.  Many cable users down even know they have a 128kbit upstream.  What's going to happen when Joe User tries to have 4 people log on to his PS2 at once for a FPS, and they all get crappy lag (not to mention him playing on the "server", which will drag things down further)?

I'll pass.  I'd rather pay a few bucks for a decent connection to Unreal Tournament than combat thousands of people who don't know shit about bandwidth.

[ Parent ]

yeah, asynchronous connections don't work (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by senjiro on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 10:50:43 AM EST

which explains why no online multiplayer games on the PC platform work! You continue to harp on the misconception that cable modems/DSL are crappy for online games because they have a limited upstream. As anyone who has played PC online in the past, say, 3 years, will tell you, cable hosts make excellent hosts. The majority of games are still written to support people on 56k modems, my friend! 128k upstream is far far superior to 4k! If you were correct in your assumption, there would be no multiplayer games on the internet, at all.

Stop being an Xbox cheerleader and provide some good analysis.

it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
Actually... (none / 0) (#75)
by Silent Chris on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 10:56:46 AM EST

Most people argue that cable does not provide good game hosting.  I played Unreal Tournament for several years, and the best hosts were T1 connections (college students) with dedicated upstream and downstream.

Find me a good server, and I bet it's synchronous.

[ Parent ]

both statements tru (none / 0) (#82)
by senjiro on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 02:05:27 PM EST

I was mixing, not confusing 4k and 128 (mea culpa), I should have been more clear and said 4k vs. 16k. Anyway I will grant that someone who is limited to 128k up is not the _best_ host around, and T-1 or better is preferable. In my area, all cable connections get at least 30-40K upstream, and the majority of the RR connections can get more even than that (60-100K). SilentChris' statement that cable connections hinder gameplay are way off base, which is the only real point I was trying to make. We can argue all day about whether a host is good or great, but the bottom line is that cable modems do fine for online play.

it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
Upstream and downstream? who cares!!!! (none / 0) (#87)
by steveftoth on Sat Oct 05, 2002 at 02:02:29 AM EST

When it comes to online games and lag, the bandwidth matters little to none.

All that matters is the ping, aka the latency. The actualy bandwidth is almost never the bottleneck.  128K could probably run 6-10 people no problem if your connection had no latency.

Modems are the worst because of the way that they work, it's just not possiable to get a lower ping then 150 on a modem.  The ping from you to your ISP is going to be at least 100ms, even more if you turn on compression or encryption features.

Cable modems should be good, but it is very dependent on the actual system you are on.  There is lots of room for error on a cable since most coax cable that people use is badly shielded, and if someone in your neighborhood has their cable hooked up to like 20 tvs (like a frat house).  Or is illegally sharing it with multiple houses (god forbid!) then you can introduce more error to the cable system which causes retransmits of your data and thus LAGGGGG.

DSL should be better, but then it is dependent on how far you are from your Central Office (the fiber!).  And if you are in the boondocks, then most likely you are behind multiple conversions from digital to analog signals which causes MASSIVE lag.

Once you get your packet to the fiber based internet, it goes very fast, and with almost no lag.  Getting it there is the hard part.

So to recap, bandwidth ... small factor in determining your gameplay experience.
latency  ..... that's what it's all about.

If you've got a good isp, then an ISDN line will do just as well as a DSL/CAble sometimes.  Just depends on your location.

[ Parent ]

My experience of hosting a game server (none / 0) (#80)
by DodgyGeezer on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 01:11:34 PM EST

I used run a Quake 3 server on a machine on my LAN and forward the ports to it from my router.  I would then play on another machine on the network whilst my friends connected from over the internet.  I had somewhere between 100 and 120 kbs upstream.  I could only handle 2-3 internet users before they started complaining of major lag and inconsistent latency.

Also why are you comparing 4k to 128k?  I think you're mixing bits and bytes.  What is the upstream of V.90?  28.8 or 33.6kbs?  I believe V.92 improved this recently.  Your statement should have been either 30kbs vs 128kbs or 4kBs vs 16kBs.  Where I live (Toronto), most of the DSL is 1.2mbs/160kbs, although they've just started offering premium services of 3.5mbs/800kbs (you need to be close to the CO for this).  Cable was 3mbs/320kbs, but they've pulled that down - the upstream could be down to 128kbs now.

[ Parent ]

Dedicated Server ports to various platforms. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Jaritsu on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 01:31:35 PM EST

I'll admit, the only online console gaming I have done has been Halo on the xbox. Getting into a 8 person CTF map the other day I noticed that we seemed to be taxing the system that was hosting the game a bit much, not only was it hosting, it also had 2 players logged in playing.

I got to wondering if any companies have ever released or plan on releasing a dedicated server for a game such as Halo on a more apropriate server only platform.

A game that would qualify I think would be Unreal Tournement. I has a Linux and Windows dedicated server in place already (for the PC version). I would think you could write up a PS2 only "mod" that could be optimized for the PS2 version and only allow PS2 clients.

Another thing to consider is this, John Carmack once said (when asked about porting Doom3 to Xbox) something along the lines of how much easier it is to optimize code for a unified platform such as a console, and that this may be the reason that they could get Doom3 running on the otherwise meek (read: meek for the system reqs that doom3 may demand) Xbox. Would this also be true for networking code? and if so we could see the answer to some online lag issues that plauge online games in the MMORPG catagory.

"Jaritsu, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - Kintanon

Online gaming on PS2 sucks (none / 0) (#54)
by Silent Chris on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 04:21:31 PM EST

If you're going to go online gaming, there's no point in going with anything other than an Xbox.  

Nintendo's plans are non-existant, but Sony's are laughable.  You have to assume players will buy the broadband adapter.  You have to assume, for voice communication, they will buy SOCOM.  You have to assume, for the really nice games, people buy the hard drive.

All of this stuff is available out of the box with Xbox.  That doesn't mean it's the best, but it's a far more cohesive plan.

as the article clearly states (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by senjiro on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 05:14:03 PM EST

One of the big detriments to the Xbox Continuum is the Pay to Play strategy. IMHO, this will be an Xbox online killer, although it syncs perfectly with Microsofts overall strategy (pay me for something, no, ok now pay me again for it, now again, now again...).

Also as the article says, the demand for the PS2 adapter is terrific, you have to rob helpless old ladies to get one, so your comments about assumptions are way off base. With Xbox you have to assume that there are people out there clueless enough to pay a recurring fee for something they have already paid for.

it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
Guess what! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Inoshiro on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 06:00:36 PM EST

Online gaming is a service. If I'm connecting to a centralling running server, I should be paying for its time. Otherwise the service will go away, because nothing is free.

Shenmue 1's passport disc went away because it was free. Phantasy Star Online is still around because v2 requires payment (which also supports version 1). Pay to play has been around for a long time, Mr. Troll, if you'd only look at the examples of Ultima Online or Everquest.

The biggest problem with the Xbox right now is a lack of great games, not that you have to pay for a service.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Guess what! You're Wrong! (none / 0) (#66)
by senjiro on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 09:03:43 AM EST

Ever heard of a little franchise from Blizzard known as the Warcraft universe? It's great, there's a centralised server that everyone connects to. Feature rich interactive gaming environment. Supports Starcraft and Warcraft III. Monthly cost?? ZERO!

You're right, Mrs. Troll, pay-to-play has been around for a long time, no one said it hadn't. While Everquest and Ultima are definitely popular games, you have to understand that their backing is not the majority of _all_ online gamers. Which FPS or RTS games require monthly fees that people actually pay? oh, that's right, none My point is that besides MMORPG folks, no one is interested, used to the idea, or willing to pay monthly recurrings!


it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
You *are* paying (none / 0) (#69)
by Silent Chris on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 09:30:13 AM EST

B.net has advertising.

Also, Blizzard uses the service more to prevent privacy than anything else (with the CD keys being verified).  To them, it's cost-effective to shell out for servers and let players play online in exchange for less CD-Rs of WarCraft III floating around.

[ Parent ]

err... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by senjiro on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 10:06:19 AM EST

one ad, on the top of the screen, is hardly the same as shelling out a monthly recurring fee.

Also, Blizzard uses the service more to prevent privacy

I'm just going to let that stand on it's own merits :-). What you meant was "piracy" I think. Whatever Blizzards motivations are, and I agree that Bnet does cut down on piracy, that's fine and just. To bring it around to my original post: I paid Blizzard for Warcraft. They provide me an excellent online service. I pay them once. I use it a million million times. That is how it should be.

it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
Of course! (none / 0) (#58)
by Silent Chris on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 06:24:16 PM EST

Yes!  Obviously, no one will pay for online games!  (cough Everquest -- biggest online game in history cough)

The assumption that Sony's service will always be free is also laughable.  For $50, you get online with Xbox.  For $40, you get the adapter for Sony.  You then have a year online with the Xbox, and a group of developers that may or may not charge for games individually on the PS2.  

You don't think Sony is going to work some kind of strategy with developers, particularly on MMORPGs, that involves pay-to-play?  If the developers are going to host their own servers (which they have to under Sony's strategy) don't you think some of the costs are going to be recouped by players?  

The peer-to-peer model works fine for games like Tony Hawk -- when titles start needing consistent environments (like MMORPGs) or updates (sports titles), that server is going to have to be housed somewhere, and it's going to cost money.  Microsoft is just centralizing the business model -- which, in my mind, makes a lot of sense.

[ Parent ]

XBox already online (none / 0) (#60)
by DodgyGeezer on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 07:14:37 PM EST

Pay to play?  Surely any network capable XBox game can be played online?  From what I've seen on Gamespy's website, online gaming already exists for the XBox, without MSFT's service.  Has anybody tried to do this?  

I'm guessung that some of the games designed for multiplayer on a LAN won't cope too well with the internet latency, nor will they be optimised for lower bandwidth connections (i.e. they currently require at least 128kbs upstream per additional user), which is getting to the upstream limits of many broadband connections due to new caps these days).  

I'm also guessing that the Gamespy system is nothing more than a glorified VPN, and could easily be mimiced for personal games with friends via a multihomed PC.


[ Parent ]

I bet you've never tried it (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by theboz on Thu Oct 03, 2002 at 09:03:33 PM EST

There are not really any games I like on the X-box now, nor are there any in development. That is one category Sony easily beats Microsoft in. Where are Grand Theft Auto and Final Fantasy on the X-box?

Then, the fact is that you do not always require a centralized server for gaming with the Playstation model. I believe Tony Hawk 3 allows you to play against another computer online where you or another person function as the server. There's no need for paying if you're making a direct connection to someone else.

Also, the demand for the broadband adapter is high so your argument about that is worthless. The voice communication in SOCOM simply uses a USB mic. It's the only game to include a mic so far, but you can probably use a generic USB mic instead.

In any case, the games are what is most important, and unless the X-box gets something better than Halo (which I found extremely boring) then all the online play in the world won't matter for the X-box.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Yes, I have tried it (none / 0) (#68)
by Silent Chris on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 09:27:42 AM EST

My little brother has SOCOM.  It was ok, but lag was pervasive (and it was silly to have to type text in the "chat rooms" when you have the mic).  As a test, I actually hooked the mic up to a PC and Windows XP detected it.  I had far more fun with this.

So far, Final Fantasy has been announced to support online (sort of -- when they get the game finished).  Grand Theft Auto is still up in the air.  

That said, I could turn your statement right back at you: there's not many games on the PS2 I like.  Final Fantasy turned sour, in my mind, after FFIII (and I can always play the first 3 in emulation.  I have Grand Theft Auto on the PC, and I can do far cooler things with it (tweak missions using various hacks).

As for Xbox, I'm looking forward to the following games:

Unreal Championship (I'm hoping this runs better than my copy of UT2003 on my PC)
Whacked
Any of Sega Sports' games

The "server/client" peer-to-peer model for PS2 is going to be interesting.  How smooth is gameplay going to be when most players have an asynchronous connection (faster downstream than upstream)?  If I'm playing someone with cable, and their PS2 is acting as a server for 4 players, how are they going to pump the data through 128kbps?

Also, how powerful of a server can it be at 300 mhz with around 32 MB RAM?  There's a reason most online games (like Quake and Unreal Tournament) use dedicated servers -- if a person is playing while serving, the game tends to be very slow for everyone else.  How much slower will it be with antiquated technology?

[ Parent ]

you bring up an interesting point (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by senjiro on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 10:12:48 AM EST

although in a trollish fashion. You were digging on the ps2 in your original post for not having the integrated online system out of the box. Realise that the ps2 is, what, 2 years older than the Xbox? Realise that even with this limitation, they are providing the same quality (ooh, wait, better because it's free) online service than Xbox. Realize that the ps2 runs Linux very nicely, providing an entirely new use for it that, if Microsoft has it's way, Xbox never will. In other words, I bought a game system, that doubles as a workstation with full video, music, internet, and web capabilities. Can't get that with Xbox. Your claim that ps2 is "antiquaited" is the troll, and I would point out that this antiquainted technology is still, fully one year after the Xbox was released, killing Xbox in retail sales.

And you fail to adequately address theboz's comments that there are no games for Xbox. If you would kindly reference any online or analogue gaming mag/forum/board/water cooler you will see that the vast majority of console users and business analysts agree: until Xbox has some titles, it will not win the console wars.

it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
Point by point (none / 0) (#76)
by Silent Chris on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 11:02:28 AM EST

Realise that even with this limitation, they are providing the same quality (ooh, wait, better because it's free) online service than Xbox.

Yes, with their (ahem) one game.  And Xbox's system hasn't even debuted yet.  Great time for comparisons.

Realize that the ps2 runs Linux very nicely, providing an entirely new use for it that, if Microsoft has it's way, Xbox never will.

That's funny.  I run Linux on my Xbox right now.  And I don't pay a red cent to a corporation to do it, unlike the Sony version.

In other words, I bought a game system, that doubles as a workstation with full video, music, internet, and web capabilities.

You did not buy a system that supports internet or web capabilities out of the Xbox.

Can't get that with Xbox.

Already am.  Been playing Halo online for months.

Your claim that ps2 is "antiquaited" is the troll, and I would point out that this antiquainted technology is still, fully one year after the Xbox was released, killing Xbox in retail sales.

This has nothing to do with the fact that Sony has been in the console market for more than 6 years, and Microsoft is barely finishing its first?  Considering one year of sales matches a veteran (Nintendo) I think that's pretty damn good.

And you fail to adequately address theboz's comments that there are no games for Xbox.

Right.  That's why these critically acclaimed games are not sitting on my home entertainment shelf:

Jet Set Radio Future
Rallisport Challenge
Halo
Oddworld
Max Payne (best version)
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2X and 3 (best versions)
Genma Onimusha (best version)

To deny many Xbox games is to deny many PS games.  You're shooting yourself in both feet, buddy.  TheBoz doesn't know what he's talking about (and apparently neither do you).

[ Parent ]

ok, point by point (none / 0) (#84)
by senjiro on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 02:56:24 PM EST

This is turning into a religious war. I'll let my side go after this post.

Yes, with their (ahem) one game. And Xbox's system hasn't even debuted yet.

One is more than none, and as we all know, there are and will continue to be more games released on the playstation platform than xbox.

That's funny. I run Linux on my Xbox right now. And I don't pay a red cent to a corporation to do it, unlike the Sony version.

Really, Wow! And forevermore, Microsoft will fight you for that right. And I know that running linux is a violation of the EULA for Xbox, so I'm telling on you!

Your next two comments misunderstood me. Xbox does not support linux (officially) therefore, without breaking the law, you cannot surf the web, check email, stream video or anything else that I can do with my *legal* copy of linux on the ps2.

To deny many Xbox games is to deny many PS games. You're shooting yourself in both feet, buddy. TheBoz doesn't know what he's talking about (and apparently neither do you).

Do you live in a cave in Redmond or something? Please go to any console gaming site and notice that there are hundereds of titles for ps2 and like, 12 for Xbox. The bottom line is that it is a matter of choice, as I mention in other threads on this story. I like ps2. I don't like the games for the XBox. I think, ultimately, that Xbox will lose in the long run, but enjoy it if you wish.

it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
Xbox is a superb online platform (none / 0) (#79)
by byronm on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 11:55:39 AM EST

You have to realize yourself that the DreamCast was out 16-18 months before the PS2 and IT TOO had online capabilities OUT OF THE BOX.

It was sony's design to limit what was inside the PS2 to create an aftermarket demand, after all they make the largest profit on licensing or aftermarket parts, so why include them?

PS2 is fun, but we are talking about game choices. I for one Prefer Sega GT 2002 over GTA, i prefer Munch's Odysee, i really like Outlaw Golf, THPS on the xbox smokes all other systems and really, it comes down to a choice.

By design, the Xbox is much better for online games. Setup your Gamer ID and it is included on your xbox anytime you boot. Save it to a memory card and take it to a friends and play online with YOUR id on your friends xbox. No hassle of remembering settings and a much more organized system of stats, clansl, score keeping, trading, friend lists and community.

That is what online gaming is about. Half the time i wasn't fragging people i was on websites or searching for buddies or clans or communicating with people. Xbox live has this BUILT IN ACROSS EVERY GAME.

I know, because i'm beta testing and love it :)

[ Parent ]

choices (none / 0) (#83)
by senjiro on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 02:12:08 PM EST

I agree with most of your post. I personally don't find any of the Xbox offerings to be all that great right now. Maybe in the future they'll have something that catches my eye. Bottom line: some people like the games for Xbox, some for PS2, but the unavoidable fact is that there are hundereds of games for the ps2 to choose from, and dozens for the Xbox.

By design, the Xbox is much better for online games.

I continue to think it's funny that some of the people in this thread are comparing Xbox to PS2 without really taking into account the fact that PS2 is old. The point I'm trying to get across is that whatever the limitations of PS2 online, when you consider that it's competing with a system desinged fully a year after it was rolled out, it's not bad.

and, for me personally, I couldn't give a whelps whoo hah about "online buddies" and the like. Been there, done that. I have meatspace friends that I play online with, and meet ppl occasionally ingame. By and large I'm there to play, not for some social interaction.

it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
Missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by theboz on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 11:11:59 AM EST

My little brother has SOCOM. It was ok, but lag was pervasive (and it was silly to have to type text in the "chat rooms" when you have the mic).

So, you tried one game and instantly hate a piece of hardware that the game makes use of, and all the other games out now and that will come out for it that will use completely different means of internet play. Your complaint about typing in chatrooms is not very good. Most chatrooms I have seen with voice allow typing too, since voice chat is not really that great yet. Perhaps they didn't feel it was necessary to include it, in either case it only has a bearing on the SOCOM developers.

So far, Final Fantasy has been announced to support online (sort of -- when they get the game finished).

Squaresoft is not Blizzard, so I don't expect that to take too much longer. It may not be a great game because of the nature of the previous FF games being one-sided and for one player, but that remains to be seen. Still, it is the main reason I wanted a PS2 NIC.

Grand Theft Auto is still up in the air.

I've read an official statement from Rockstar saying that they plan to make an online version of GTA. What this means exactly could change, or they may go out of business or be bought and not be able to do it, but so far they've not given me a reason to not believe them.

That said, I could turn your statement right back at you: there's not many games on the PS2 I like.

I believe this is merely opinion, as was my statement. However, I am considering getting a GameCube because there are games I want that are on that system as well. It means a great deal more to me that I don't know of any games I want that are X-box exclusive.

Final Fantasy turned sour, in my mind, after FFIII (and I can always play the first 3 in emulation.

More opinion, which goes against the vast majority of Final Fantasy fans. I guess you never played FF7, which most consider to be the greatest one ever.

I have Grand Theft Auto on the PC, and I can do far cooler things with it (tweak missions using various hacks).

There are some advantages to the PC version, but it's still not the same as playing games on a console. I bet if you could play GTA3 on the X-box you would still prefer that over the PC because it's more relaxed and easier than playing on the PC.

As for Xbox, I'm looking forward to the following games:

Unreal would be fun, but I'm not a huge FPS fan. I like Tribes, I like UT, and I like Q3A, but none of those are "got-to-have" games for me. I have never heard of Whacked so I don't know what it is, and I find most sports games boring. This is all opinion though so it just shows we like different things.

The "server/client" peer-to-peer model for PS2 is going to be interesting. How smooth is gameplay going to be when most players have an asynchronous connection (faster downstream than upstream)? If I'm playing someone with cable, and their PS2 is acting as a server for 4 players, how are they going to pump the data through 128kbps?

I don't really see this as a problem that Sony has to address. Only some games like Tony Hawk seem to work this way right now. In any case, if you make a game and optimize it so that it will run on a modem, then 128kbps is going to be plenty. Most of the big games are going to have dedicated servers anyway.

Also, how powerful of a server can it be at 300 mhz with around 32 MB RAM?

A year ago I ran a Shoutcast radio station on a 133mhz AMD with 32MB of RAM, along with Apache and a few other things. It seemed to work perfectly fine even though I had like 200 hits a day on the webserver (mostly CodeRed though) and 2 - 5 listeners on the shoutcast station. Just because Windows wouldn't run well doesn't mean something smaller and more compact for games won't.

There's a reason most online games (like Quake and Unreal Tournament) use dedicated servers -- if a person is playing while serving, the game tends to be very slow for everyone else.

That's sort of a strawman argument you're proposing there. When I said that some games would be peer to peer you pretend that I stated they all would be that way and that is what Sony is pushing. This is incorrect. Some games will have a p2p connection, mainly two-player games and such. When you start getting into games like Tribes for example, you connect to a server. I think you're just complaining in order to make Sony look bad because you're a Microsoft zealot.

How much slower will it be with antiquated technology?

We're not talking about trying to run UT on an Apple IIe here.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Offensive (none / 0) (#78)
by Silent Chris on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 11:16:55 AM EST

you're a Microsoft zealot

Ok, that's just offensive.

[ Parent ]

IMHO (none / 0) (#86)
by senjiro on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 04:28:07 PM EST

while i don't know if offense was his intent, that is how you are coming across in most of these posts. Most of your arguments are the same used by Xbox apologists in gaming mags for the past year.

it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
I think all of you are missing the point (none / 0) (#88)
by jschlesinger on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 03:32:29 PM EST

The point is that every system has it's strengths and weaknesses, which is exactly why I own all 3. I get the best of all 3 worlds, and I don't play favorites to any one of them. We all have our strong points and weaknesses for every system, so I'm not going to waste our time by listing my *opinions* here.

[ Parent ]
Sony didn't underestimate demand. (none / 0) (#63)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 07:05:14 AM EST

They estimated how fast they could add consoles to their gaming network without getting lots of bad press for crashes and slow performance.

In my mind - they did it exactly right. They've got people like TheBoz driving all over creation looking for adapters and they don't have to worry about overloading themselves.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


Not sure I agree (none / 0) (#64)
by theboz on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 09:01:03 AM EST

They estimated how fast they could add consoles to their gaming network without getting lots of bad press for crashes and slow performance.

They don't even have a network at this point. All they have is allowing the game makers to set up their own servers for you to connect to, or P2P connections. All Sony has done is offer a NIC that can get online, so I don't think there was much risk for them.

In my mind - they did it exactly right. They've got people like TheBoz driving all over creation looking for adapters and they don't have to worry about overloading themselves.

Actually, I don't think there are people going through that much trouble. I was in a larger city and visited Best Buy, so I picked one up when I saw it, and I generally go to Best Buy once a week where I live anyways and that was one of the things on my list. I doubt I'm a typical gamer though, I buy electronics like they're crack. About three or four weeks ago I bought a GPS reciever on a whim just because I walked by them and thought they were cool.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Perhaps you're right. (none / 0) (#85)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 03:15:17 PM EST

I've been religiously avoiding getting into online games, because I cherish those few minutes of idle time I have left in a day - and I well know what would happen if I got into online games...


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

Availability and Sony (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by jayhawk88 on Fri Oct 04, 2002 at 09:53:36 AM EST

"For reasons unknown, Sony had underestimated the demand for these things."

Yeah, like they "underestimated" the demand for the PS2 when it first came out. Oh wait, that was "production problems". At least they bothered to change their excuse this time.

You're probably right though about underestimated demand; hard to believe Sony would have thought they could drive a market frenzy on an item like this by articially limiting supply.

Personally, I see FFXI as being the "killer app", to coin a cliche, for this adapter. I know that's about the only game that would sell me on one.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
The Playstation 2 Online Adapter: Is it worth it? | 88 comments (72 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!