PDA

View Full Version : PSO2 NEEDS to be on Wii-U.



ChronoTrigga
Jun 9, 2011, 01:26 AM
Just saying. Who agrees with me?

Tyreek
Jun 9, 2011, 01:27 AM
I knew someone was gonna do this eventually lol. Honestly, as interested as I am in the Wii-U's functions, I don't think PSO2 needs to be on it.

BIG OLAF
Jun 9, 2011, 01:29 AM
This trolling attempt is less obvious.

...just kidding :-P. But, seriously: No.

Vashyron
Jun 9, 2011, 01:45 AM
http://cache-01.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/06/untitled-2_01.jpg

:>

Tyreek
Jun 9, 2011, 01:47 AM
I knew that would be the seed that spun this very thread lol.

Dongra
Jun 9, 2011, 02:39 AM
http://cache-01.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/06/untitled-2_01.jpg

:>
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!

RemiusTA
Jun 9, 2011, 03:27 AM
PSO2 NEEDS to be on PC.

I see absolutely no reason this game would make Wii-U and not the other two. Sure, the controller = better possibilities...but this argument is no different than any other "this game needs to be on x system" argument. From what we've been shown, there isn't a damn thing this graphical engine can output that the 360 can't do. And the PS3 is stronger than the 360.

Niloklives
Jun 9, 2011, 04:08 AM
Dont forget that the game is built for the PC so anything they do for any console is going to be similar to that. Try to fail less, guys.

Legato Bluesummers
Jun 9, 2011, 04:23 AM
I hope not, cause that would mean I would have to buy one.

Wayu
Jun 9, 2011, 04:30 AM
Sucks for you, then, those who don't have good PCs.

Myself included. ^^;

-Wayu

NoiseHERO
Jun 9, 2011, 04:54 AM
http://cache-01.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/06/untitled-2_01.jpg

:>

Someone got bored.

and "..." @ pso's menu.

yoshiblue
Jun 9, 2011, 05:19 AM
Someone got bored.

and "..." @ pso's menu.

I could do better. Lol at my CTF application.

AnnabellaRenee87
Jun 9, 2011, 06:09 AM
So I seen this on Kotaku yesterday and thought, Oh wow PSO-World is going to have someone crying for Wii U support now.

http://kotaku.com/5809816/these-are-the-wii-u-games-of-your-dreams/gallery/

Sigh really people, This game does NOT need a console port, It needs to stay on the PC.

And besides I may not get the Wii U as I feel as though I didn't get my moneys worth on the Wii, I have had the console since 2007 and own all of 3 games on it. Nintendo has been dropping the ball since the GameCube.

Alnet
Jun 9, 2011, 06:53 AM
Just saying. Who agrees with me?
I don't.

I still think it should be PC-only, given that it'll be easier to unify the worldwide servers, should that ever happen. Plus if Nintendo continues the absurd way it's been handling online play, why would you want to play an online game on their console at all?

r00tabaga
Jun 9, 2011, 09:02 AM
It definately should. Been saying it for weeks.

Shinji Kazuya
Jun 9, 2011, 09:21 AM
NO U!

Aumi
Jun 9, 2011, 09:21 AM
Why, OP? I honestly don't see any reason for it to be specifically on the Wii U. I wouldn't mind seeing it on consoles, as I'm a console gamer myself, but I see no reason why you would be so enthusiastic about the idea of it being on the Wii U specifically. Why not the PS3? Why not the 360?

EDIT: Of course, as many others say, being on one platform only, the PC, makes a unified worldwide server easier. And I'd rather want a worldwide PC server than having servers split op just for the sake of having console versions.

blace
Jun 9, 2011, 11:21 AM
It looks downright uncomfortable that's what.

Edit: this pretty much sums up whatever the gaming industry is heading towards: http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20110608

Canard de Bain
Jun 9, 2011, 11:40 AM
Not me. You are shooting the game in the foot if you want it to be on a console.

RemiusTA
Jun 9, 2011, 12:23 PM
It's not the console that's the issue, it's the online. And i dont think WiiU is going to ship with a HDD.

Honestly, PC can keep it going for years, but it's not like they're eventually going to just update the engine in a couple of years when it becomes outdated again. They're GOING to have to remake the game. The console argument isn't so farfetched. Im sure all of us would prefer it to be on a console as well.


But i dont know why ANY of you care that much. It isn't like our version is going to stay on par with the JP version anyway. We might as well get a fucking console port for our troubles.

Tulio07
Jun 9, 2011, 12:46 PM
Does it need to? no

Would it be nice? yes

Zyrusticae
Jun 9, 2011, 04:11 PM
Just a note for those who are interested in this thing for the controller... apparently you only get the one that comes with the system itself, and for multiplayer you'll end up having to use whatever the Wii-U version of the "classic controller" is.
[Source] (http://www.gamesradar.com/wiiu/wii-u/news/e3-2011-dont-worry-extra-wii-u-controllers-might-not-cost-you-a-thing-because-you-might-not-be-able-to-buy-them/a-20110609103213589049/g-20110608105930363017)

Malachite
Jun 9, 2011, 04:51 PM
That's actually good news to me, lol. Even though I like the controller, I would much rather have a 'classic' version.

Hopefully too many games won't force you to use the controller screen.

ARASHIKAGE
Jun 9, 2011, 08:06 PM
I would absolutely love to see PSO2 on the Wii U, Nintendo is getting increasingly better at handling online play, come back home baby!

No longer would we get confusing looks from the GameStop personnel when we say we are here to pick up the new Phantasy Star game.
For many of us it went like this: "Hi I'm here to pick up the new PSU AOTI please, I had it reserved." "PSU AOTI, what is that?" "It's a Phantasy Star online game expansion to the Phanatsy Star Universe game." "I never heard of it." "Sigh... I know can you please check the back because it was released today." *checks back room* "Oh is this it?" "Yeah that's it...thanks."


Edit: *Looks on the back of the case* "Oh wow look at that two-headed white dragon! I can't wait to take this game home a slay that thing!" *One and a half years later* "Oh cool now I get to slay that two-head white dragon on the game case!"

RemiusTA
Jun 9, 2011, 08:09 PM
^ ^

That scenario is Sega's fault and ONLY Sega's fault. When you make zero attempt to advertise, then people dont know about your product. It isn't like PSU sold itself -- no, fans of the original games and those who played the demo are the ones who payed to play the game. I guarantee you, the 360 demo was the reason the 360 version of the game was populated more than PC/PS2.


Nintendo has never, ever, EVER been good at online play. Never in their lives. This hopefully will be first console where their online doesn't suck.

ARASHIKAGE
Jun 9, 2011, 08:14 PM
^ ^

That scenario is Sega's fault and ONLY Sega's fault. When you make zero attempt to advertise, then people dont know about your product. It isn't like PSU sold itself -- no, fans of the original games and those who played the demo are the ones who payed to play the game. I guarantee you, the 360 demo was the reason the 360 version of the game was populated more than PC/PS2.


Nintendo has never, ever, EVER been good at online play. Never in their lives. This hopefully will be first console where their online doesn't suck.
So let Nintendo produce it again, maybe they will use some of those buckets of Wii cash to advertise. Monster Hunter had plenty of add time when it came out on the Wii. (Almost too much)

Tetsaru
Jun 9, 2011, 09:03 PM
I wouldn't want to see PSO2 on the Wii U, for several reasons:

1 - Everyone would have to buy a new console. That, and I expect those tablet-style controllers to be expensive as fuck.

2 - Possibility of waggle controls and developers making gimmicky gameplay to in an attempt to accommodate and get used to programming for the new peripherals. Sure, it can be innovative, but it can also be very frustrating when you combine inaccurate or unresponsive player inputs with network and server lag.

3 - Nintendo's online support is horrible; fuck Friend Codes, and how will updates and patches work? The original Wii didn't even have an ethernet port. Of course, we don't really know all of the Wii U's official specs at this time, but I'm not holding my breath...

4 - IF they decide to make ports to other consoles, they'd probably have to leave out or drastically change certain features.

I say keep it PC, please.

And yes, it would help tremendously if Sega actually advertised more of their games... they used to have some awesome ads back in the day.

Niloklives
Jun 10, 2011, 04:14 AM
I'm one of the proponents of PC exclusive and I still don't know what features you think they'd have to take out. the only features that would be removed would be kb shortcuts, really

PS3 has a built in HDD and 360 has an optional one so DLC/content updates are far from impossible. and as far as the wii you could get a usb-ethernet dongle if you really wanted to but it does have wifi. even 802.11b is enough for lagless gaming if the netcode is half decent. the reason Wii would be ridiculous is because of the friend codes, shit graphics and lack of storage options.

I agree though, anything short of a direct port to Wii-U would result in gimmicks being implemented to validate the bullshit nintendo is trying to sell. in addition we all know there's no way in hell nintendo would play nice with PCs, so if the game did come out for Wii-U you'd only have the people who liked PS and were willing to give nintendo their money for a console to play with. I hope the ten folks who do all get along.

ARASHIKAGE
Jun 10, 2011, 05:19 AM
I agree though, anything short of a direct port to Wii-U would result in gimmicks being implemented to validate the bullshit nintendo is trying to sell. in addition we all know there's no way in hell nintendo would play nice with PCs, so if the game did come out for Wii-U you'd only have the people who liked PS and were willing to give nintendo their money for a console to play with. I hope the ten folks who do all get along.

Worldwide sales figures:
Wii– 86.01 million as of 31 March 2011
Xbox 360– 55 million as of 4 June 2011

United States sales figures:
Wii – 30 million as of 10 August 2010
Xbox 360 – 18.6 million as of 31 December 2009

It's a little over ten folks... Nintendo wouldn't have to "play nice" to be successful with PSO2. Imo Nintendo would sell many thousands of copies more than the PC, and it would get the spotlight it deserves. If Nintendo starts handling online play better (which they are working on) you are looking at an online community that crushes Xbox Live. I've played many Nintendo wifi games that run smoothly; Monster Hunter, Goldeneye... and it's just getting better.

Did you see the Wii U graphics teaser video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYbng0gKxAo

PSO2 would look beautiful on this system.

All that aside, for many of us it's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy a console than it is to set up a $800 gaming pc. Take my money Nintendo! :-D

r00tabaga
Jun 10, 2011, 07:28 AM
@Tetsaru: Wii U has already been confirmed to now have "gamertags" and no more Friend Codes.
@Nilok: Hotkeys on cntroller/tablet thingy
@Arashikage: "All that aside, for many of us it's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy a console than it is to set up a $800 gaming pc. Take my money Nintendo!"...I totally agree, now prepare to get pwned! People here are gonna rip you to shreds on that one.

Malachite
Jun 10, 2011, 07:54 AM
I wouldn't want to see PSO2 on the Wii U, for several reasons:

1 - Everyone would have to buy a new console. That, and I expect those tablet-style controllers to be expensive as fuck.

2 - Possibility of waggle controls and developers making gimmicky gameplay to in an attempt to accommodate and get used to programming for the new peripherals. Sure, it can be innovative, but it can also be very frustrating when you combine inaccurate or unresponsive player inputs with network and server lag.

3 - Nintendo's online support is horrible; fuck Friend Codes, and how will updates and patches work? The original Wii didn't even have an ethernet port. Of course, we don't really know all of the Wii U's official specs at this time, but I'm not holding my breath...

4 - IF they decide to make ports to other consoles, they'd probably have to leave out or drastically change certain features.

I say keep it PC, please.

And yes, it would help tremendously if Sega actually advertised more of their games... they used to have some awesome ads back in the day.

1. Uh, why? It's coming to PC, so if you were already getting it on PC, and they decided to also release it for another console... why does that mean anybody would HAVE to buy a new console? That made no sense at all. It coming out on more than one platform isn't going to force anybody to buy anything they weren't going to in the first place lol.

2. Valid enough, those are annoying.

3. As r00t said, they already announced the updates to that. Also, most people who have an internet connection also have a wireless router, as most routers nowadays are wireless.

4. What features would they have to change? They wouldn't have to change anything at all, lol. The only real difference between PSO on GameCube and PSO on PC was the hotkey bar, and that could be done on the new controller. Again, makes no sense.

Akaimizu
Jun 10, 2011, 08:48 AM
The only bad thing (And it's a big thing) I see with opening up to Wii U support is that they'll have to split their efforts to support 2 platforms. If it were other companies that have proven to be able to handle it, I'd be fine with it. But I want this company to prove they can dole out the support they *need* to dole out on one platform first, before I trust them to be able to do it on 2. Plain and simple. They'll need to use the PC-only as a proving grounds. If they can't do proper world-wide support on that, I'd doubt the Wii U support would be anything I'd want to invest in.

Niered
Jun 10, 2011, 09:35 AM
A GAME HAS MENUS? SURELY IT CAN BE MADE BETTER WITH A TOUCH SCREEN.

No. Nope. Not at all.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't play fine on the Wii U, (Youre never going to get it though, simple as that) but if the logic here is MENUS=WII U MASTERPIECE then I would politely ask you refrain from game design at any point in the future.

Malachite
Jun 10, 2011, 11:15 AM
Yup, never gonna happen, with certainty. I mean, PSO has never been on consoles before, right?

Naw, none of them have. (except all of them)

RemiusTA
Jun 10, 2011, 01:57 PM
So let Nintendo produce it again, maybe they will use some of those buckets of Wii cash to advertise. Monster Hunter had plenty of add time when it came out on the Wii. (Almost too much)Nintendo isn't making the game, Sega is. It'll come out of their pockets.

And honestly, im not for gimmicks, but i can definitely see how menus could be made better on Wii-U. Honestly, it's a Nintendo DS where the main screen is your television. Not to mention with 1080 HD graphics. And the screen streams from the console, which means it technically will be just as nice quality as what comes from the television (if the game is made to stream specific stuff from the console.) I wasn't hype for the Wii, but Wii-U is definitely a step in the right direction for me. It compromises absolutely none of the more modern gameplay schemes, yet still gives the option to add to the experience. I actually support Nintendo on this.

But as much as i like the concept, I dont think PSO2 really has to go on the system. It's a console, so it still lacks the versatility a PC has. But I will admit, playing PSO on my big screen with my quick menu or Customization window on my touch screen (Or PSU, where i can link shit to my weapons and change my stuff on the touchscreen) would be cookies yo.

Zyrusticae
Jun 10, 2011, 01:57 PM
Gawd, you're all so obnoxious.

If they wanted it to be on consoles they would already have said as much. The fact that the other games were all console has absolutely no bearing on this fact.

Now stop with your boring, silly, and obnoxious stupidity.

RemiusTA
Jun 10, 2011, 02:05 PM
Oh yeah.

Blind Wii-U hate is funny. People need to learn to open their eyes. I haven't heard a single argument against the Wii-U that's valid yet -- it does pretty much EVERYTHING the PS3/360 can do (all the same buttons, "sixaxis", camera on the controller, ect ect) and then some. The only thing it DOESN'T do on par with 360 and PS3 is Motion Sensing (Sony's technique is superior and it doesn't have kinect), but it has support for the Wii remotes anyway, so nobody is going to care. And the ONLY reason ANYONE cares about the Playstation Move is because it does the Wii's motion sensing on a system with more horsepower.

But the Wii-U is on par with (if not allegedly STRONGER) than the PS3. So moot point. The features that Wii-U adds to the table are all much more "hardcore friendly" than anything the Wii did, which was all "casual friendly", which is the very reason Microsoft and Sony came out with those products in the first place. And the funniest thing is, Nintendo could continue to release "wii games" for the Wii-U, which use the same motion features but boast Next-Gen HD graphics using the new system's hardware. Super Mario Galaxy 3 can use the Wiimote and Nunchuck but have HD graphics. Good shit.


You have to hand it to Nintendo. Their gift of foresight is admirable, and their business models are starting to get very effective. While Sony and Microsoft are attempting to recreate the Wii's success, they dropped it and moved onto something else. But their biggest competition at this point is most definitely going to be the Playstation Vita. It shits all over the 3DS. And if Sony plays their cards right, it might allow sony to compete with the Wii-U on it's own turf.

This is going to be one interesting generation. Sony and Nintendo are about to body Xbox something fierce if Microsoft doesn't do something. Kinect is more gimmicky than anything the Wii ever tried to pull.

jayster
Jun 10, 2011, 02:18 PM
I'd laugh my ass off if they announced splitscreen support for PSO2 and then all the WiiU players hopes and dreams are shattered because it only supports 1 controller...

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/09/wii-u-currently-only-supports-one-wiipad/

Of course, they can use classic controllers but that kinda defeats the fun of the new WiiU. Might as well get it on a console/pc with the strongest population.

RemiusTA
Jun 10, 2011, 02:38 PM
Oh....

Only 1 controller per system? That's rules a couple of things out, gotta admit. But im not really too surprised. Well, the information isn't complete right now, but that sort of rules out the idea of an FPS where everyone got their own screen or something. Which would have been REALLY neat.

Take that with a grain of salt, though. Im pretty sure NINTENDO of all people wouldn't release a system with support for only 1 of its controllers. Expect a followup announcement with a Wii-U controller that doesn't have a screen on it.

So yeah, at the very least, this means Multiplayer is still confined to Splitscreen. Honestly thats no big deal, though.

jayster
Jun 10, 2011, 02:47 PM
Oh....

Only 1 controller per system? That's rules a couple of things out, gotta admit. But im not really too surprised. Well, the information isn't complete right now, but that sort of rules out the idea of an FPS where everyone got their own screen or something. Which would have been REALLY neat.

Take that with a grain of salt, though. Im pretty sure NINTENDO of all people wouldn't release a system with support for only 1 of its controllers. Expect a followup announcement with a Wii-U controller that doesn't have a screen on it.

So yeah, at the very least, this means Multiplayer is still confined to Splitscreen. Honestly thats no big deal, though.

You can still play splitscreen but you have to use non touchscreen controllers. But I feel like that takes away the whole reason to get a WiiU.


This is basically how it'll work:
http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/220292/e3-2011-only-one-touchscreen-controller-per-wii-u/

Malachite
Jun 10, 2011, 03:27 PM
Gawd, you're all so obnoxious.

If they wanted it to be on consoles they would already have said as much. The fact that the other games were all console has absolutely no bearing on this fact.

Now stop with your boring, silly, and obnoxious stupidity.

Yes... because everyone knows previously exclusive PC titles have never been ported to consoles. Never, ever >>

I think you're the one who needs to stop with the obnoxious stupidity.

ARASHIKAGE
Jun 10, 2011, 04:17 PM
The only bad thing (And it's a big thing) I see with opening up to Wii U support is that they'll have to split their efforts to support 2 platforms. If it were other companies that have proven to be able to handle it, I'd be fine with it. But I want this company to prove they can dole out the support they *need* to dole out on one platform first, before I trust them to be able to do it on 2. Plain and simple. They'll need to use the PC-only as a proving grounds. If they can't do proper world-wide support on that, I'd doubt the Wii U support would be anything I'd want to invest in.

I would have to agree, splinting efforts would make it tough for updates and support. But we have already seen this first hand! And where does Nintendo have to "prove" itself here in that area? The only other time this happened was hmm... on the Sony PS2 and the PC. How come we are not chastising Sony for the collapse of PSU PC? Even Japan dropped the PS2 and is PC and Xbox only now. Both systems get the game, different servers, who is complaining about that? It feels like finally the dust has settled and ST realizes what works and what doesn't work. The Wii U could absolutely work.

The Wii has been out since 2006, the same year PSU was released. Instead of ST waiting to release PSU on a next gen console, they decided to release it on the PS2. I assume everyone here knows this story and what happends next, so I'll just say it. We have a new powerful system coming out for PSO2 to run comfortably on, and we know it won't be obsolete until well after 2019. It seems like the only argument the PC side has is that the Wii U can't be upgraded if needed, and PC are so great at that.
WiiUnited yet!? :D

RemiusTA
Jun 10, 2011, 04:34 PM
You can still play splitscreen but you have to use non touchscreen controllers. But I feel like that takes away the whole reason to get a WiiU.


This is basically how it'll work:
http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/220292/e3-2011-only-one-touchscreen-controller-per-wii-u/


I figured as much. The limitation rises from the ability for the screen on the controller to display basically HD graphics.

I figured that because games that run splitscreen have to draw the same scene multiple times anyway, that transmitting each specific scene to the controllers wouldn't be that big a deal. (which is why multiplayer Gears of War / Halo / whatever looks worse in splitscreen than in single player.) But apparently it is an issue. It means that if they DO allow this to happen, the games will (obviously) have to be tailored to it. The system itself is doing all the work, so games that use controller screens for multiplayer are going to have to sacrifice graphical power to maintain function.

Well, that limits the best Wii-U experiences to singleplayer games. Or at least games with engines specifically designed for multiple controllers. It's a definite sacrifice.


Funny thing is, people are all gung-ho for Online Multiplayer (since splitscreen with REAL FRIENDS is all but dead this generation. Pity.), but now that Nintendo basically says "hope you like online multiplayer", people start bitching. Fanboys are amazing.

Kyrith_Ranger_Pso
Jun 10, 2011, 04:40 PM
i think it'd be awesome to have PSO2 on Wii U

joshboyd1209
Jun 10, 2011, 05:04 PM
In response to the topic title I'm going to have to say PSO2 does not NEED to be on the WiiU.

Shinji Kazuya
Jun 10, 2011, 05:08 PM
PSO2 needs to be on PC. Anything else?

ARASHIKAGE
Jun 10, 2011, 05:22 PM
PSO2 needs to be on PC. Anything else?
PSO2 will be on the PC, we are not debating this.

Tetsaru
Jun 10, 2011, 05:59 PM
@Tetsaru: Wii U has already been confirmed to now have "gamertags" and no more Friend Codes.

Source please? I don't remember hearing that or the actual Wii U console specs itself in any of Nintendo's E3 coverage (other than just "it'll be stronger than the PS3" and other generalizations), but I might have missed something.


@Arashikage: "All that aside, for many of us it's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy a console than it is to set up a $800 gaming pc. Take my money Nintendo!"...I totally agree, now prepare to get pwned! People here are gonna rip you to shreds on that one.

Lol, I think if you really tried, you could get a functional gaming PC, albeit a lower-end one, for around $500. That's less than what the PS3 cost when it first came out.

Besides, we still don't know how much the Wii U is going to cost. I bet those tablet-style controllers are going to be expensive too, seeing all the things they're capable of. Personally, I'd be surprised if the controllers by themselves were less than $100 each; buying multiples of them would be costly. And even if each console could only support one at a time, you'd still have to invest in Wii Remotes and all the attachments for them too, depending on what game you were playing and if you wanted to have some multiplayer stuff going on.

So yeah, depending on how much you're willing to spend, either one could be pricey, but a PC would allow you to do tons of other things besides gaming. Granted, modern consoles are getting more and more PC-like all the time...


1. Uh, why? It's coming to PC, so if you were already getting it on PC, and they decided to also release it for another console... why does that mean anybody would HAVE to buy a new console? That made no sense at all. It coming out on more than one platform isn't going to force anybody to buy anything they weren't going to in the first place lol.

They'd still be tempted to buy it for Wii U if they have an old computer. Not everyone knows about places like Newegg and TigerDirect where they can get PC parts for a lot cheaper than name brands like Dell, much less know how to assemble them properly.


3. As r00t said, they already announced the updates to that. Also, most people who have an internet connection also have a wireless router, as most routers nowadays are wireless.

True, but I'd prefer a broadband or fiber-optic connection over wireless any day. Wireless may be more convenient, but from my experiences, a wired connection is usually faster and more stable. As long as it can get online one way or another, I'm cool with it, but slower speeds and random disconnects just leads to an overall worse gaming experience for me.


4. What features would they have to change? They wouldn't have to change anything at all, lol. The only real difference between PSO on GameCube and PSO on PC was the hotkey bar, and that could be done on the new controller. Again, makes no sense.

I was mostly referring to the motion-control/Wii U controller support-type stuff. I'm sure they could get around such things on the PC (or on other consoles), but that could possibly mean more development time to cater to each port, which might eventually translate into "PC gets updates faster than Wii U," and then we'd have another PSU situation on our hands. I don't think anyone here would want that.


Yup, never gonna happen, with certainty. I mean, PSO has never been on consoles before, right?

Naw, none of them have. (except all of them)

I'm pretty sure Blue Burst was PC-only. :razz:



But yeah, my stance is still unchanged - PC only or bust.

Zyrusticae
Jun 10, 2011, 06:08 PM
Yes... because everyone knows previously exclusive PC titles have never been ported to consoles. Never, ever >>

I think you're the one who needs to stop with the obnoxious stupidity.
Post-launch?

Never hear of it.

I've heard of plenty of titles that get ported from console to PC. In fact, there are so many of these that it is a big cause for much PC gamer rage and hatred for console gaming due to "dumbed down" gameplay and UI elements.

Vice-versa, I can honestly count them on one hand. Supreme Commander. The Orange Box. And... that's it, honestly. I'd hardly call a small handful (literally) of games precedent.

And for that reason, I say don't get your hopes up. Manage your expectations. Don't be like all those guys clamoring for a PS3 version of Blade & Soul only to have their hopes and dreams crushed at the end.

Malachite
Jun 10, 2011, 06:43 PM
Lol I'm not looking forward to any console port; I'm getting it for PC. I'm just saying that it's not completely absurd to imagine it might come to consoles.

Anyway, valid enough points from all sides.

RemiusTA
Jun 10, 2011, 08:01 PM
It has nothing to do with Valid points -- this is the PSO2 forum. The only point that matters is the point of the person making the fucking post.

ARASHIKAGE
Jun 10, 2011, 09:54 PM
It has nothing to do with Valid points -- this is the PSO2 forum. The only point that matters is the point of the person making the fucking post.
Simmer down now, I want my voice to be heard as much as the next guy but I enjoy hearing both sides, or else I wouldn't care to post here. When Tetsaru posts I listen because I respect his opinion even when we are on opposite sides.

@Tets: I'm a console gamer, computer upgrades are difficult for me to understand. You see I have Dell that can barely run FaceBook games, I keep hearing how PCs are infinitely upgradable. That may be be true if you have techs skills, I don't, so I'd be paying for some. There's no use in craming new hardware in a Dell so I would either purchase all the parts online (thanks for the links btw) or I'd be walking into Frys (most likely). I would be doing all this to play one video game, it's true that PC can do other things, but that's not what I buying it for, that's what I'm paying for. When my old crappy Dell can still do all those other things. :-?

PSO2 WiiUnited I stand!

Kaziel
Jun 10, 2011, 10:22 PM
Every time I log in I see PSO2 ON CONSOLE X.

You guys are going to be very disappointed.

MESeele
Jun 10, 2011, 10:42 PM
It looks downright uncomfortable that's what.

Edit: this pretty much sums up whatever the gaming industry is heading towards: http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20110608

Isn't that the truth.

I used to be a nintendo fan before they seriously screwed up, and I don't own a gaming worthy pc, but even I say a console version is a bad move. Console MMOs in general are a bad move and only serves to the detriment of the game's potential.

Zyrusticae
Jun 10, 2011, 10:57 PM
Every time I log in I see PSO2 ON CONSOLE X.

You guys are going to be very disappointed.
My thoughts exactly.

Seriously, you guys. The sooner you come to terms with this, the less pain you'll have to endure in the long run. ;-)

ARASHIKAGE
Jun 10, 2011, 10:57 PM
Isn't that the truth.

I used to be a nintendo fan before they seriously screwed up, and I don't own a gaming worthy pc, but even I say a console version is a bad move. Console MMOs in general are a bad move and only serves to the detriment of the game's potential.

"I think PC is bad, bad for PSO2, PC bad." -illustration of an absurd post.

Tell me how Nintendo "screwed up", how is console a bad move, how are console MMOs bad, how does it hurt the games potential? I'd love to hear some reasons please.

Akaimizu
Jun 10, 2011, 11:30 PM
And where does Nintendo have to "prove" itself here in that area?

They don't. You read my post wrong. I was talking solely about Sonic Team. It's Sonic Team that has to prove they can actually do worldwide support on one platform, first. Nintendo has nothing to do with this aspect. Trying to do world-wide support (which is already a task) and adding a second platform to it, that's a bit of a leap for Sonic Team. I'd be happy they start concentrated and show they can handle it, and then (when they can) scale up to support other platforms. However, not until they are ready to do so.

Otherwise, it'll be yet another Phantasy Star game for which support is grossly lopsided, and they fail to make the player numbers again, because they can't match the competition. A competition which generally does PC-only games. It was their choice to go PC, in the first place. They already opened that can of worms, so they'll have to deal with it. I already said, many times on this forum, that if they plan to attack the PC realm, they better put up a stronger effort than they've done before.

The Consoles are way more lenient for expected standards to hold onto the player-base. I even stated that back when PSU was first coming out, in the States. Even called the possibility of PC servers dropping in population first. Of course, nobody wanted to believe that, back then. Something that made me wonder if I was the only relic, of being there for the entire PC MMO craze on that platform, to have seen these patterns. I'm not blind to the reasons that a number of PC MMOs arrived and went. I was in em, witnessing the complaints and issues, first hand.

Sadly, I think Sonic Team will have to see if they can hack the PC-front and then perhaps invest on console delivery. If they go spreading themselves too thin, I can almost guarantee the PSU (And even PSO) syndrome will just repeat itself.

ARASHIKAGE
Jun 11, 2011, 12:54 AM
They don't. You read my post wrong. I was talking solely about Sonic Team. It's Sonic Team that has to prove they can actually do worldwide support on one platform, first. Nintendo has nothing to do with this aspect. Gotcha, I thought you were still talking about Nintendo because you just called it "company", my mistake.

Does anyone think the 3DS could run this game? I don't mean to go off topic just curious, because the 3DS is said to share the new Super Smash Bros. with the Wii U.

Niloklives
Jun 11, 2011, 04:56 AM
@Tetsaru: Wii U has already been confirmed to now have "gamertags" and no more Friend Codes.
@Nilok: Hotkeys on cntroller/tablet thingy
@Arashikage: "All that aside, for many of us it's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy a console than it is to set up a $800 gaming pc. Take my money Nintendo!"...I totally agree, now prepare to get pwned! People here are gonna rip you to shreds on that one.

no, sorry. not the same thing at all. I'm sorry if you think it is.

r00tabaga
Jun 11, 2011, 09:49 AM
no, sorry. not the same thing at all. I'm sorry if you think it is.

Ok, what is the problem now? You don't think hotkeys can be done on a tablet style controller??? You are always right so I might as well just forget this argument.

Malachite
Jun 11, 2011, 10:19 AM
I don't see any reason why hotkeys couldn't be implemented on Wii U's controller.

r00tabaga
Jun 11, 2011, 12:59 PM
I don't see any reason why hotkeys couldn't be implemented on Wii U's controller.
Hotkeys, map, inventory & MAG feeding could easily be implemented with that controller. I think it would be REALLY cool to have Casts look for hidden traps with the controller by using it like a scope. They demo'd a few games like this already.

Arrow
Jun 11, 2011, 03:53 PM
Hotkeys, map, inventory & MAG feeding could easily be implemented with that controller. I think it would be REALLY cool to have Casts look for hidden traps with the controller by using it like a scope. They demo'd a few games like this already.

skip to 3:20 in this (http://e3.nintendo.com/hw/#/video/HW_demo) video :D

lostinseganet
Jun 11, 2011, 07:35 PM
but iff the system has a harddrive then mayyybe...nes, yo

Recron
Jun 11, 2011, 09:55 PM
I think it would be a pretty good Idea to have a WiiU version there is a lot of potential for it, simplyfing menus , making it easier and quicker to equip weapons and use technics on the fly and things like that and like someone said it could be used as a trap sensor for casts.

I don't see any reason why not aside from
people assuming that Sonic team wouldn't do a competent job of it, sure the game doesn't NEED a port, but going by that logic the game doesn't even NEED to be made its just nice that it is being made and it would be nice to have a version on the WiiU.
I actually think that there's a good possibility that there would be a WiiU version of the game Later down the line.

Akaimizu
Jun 15, 2011, 11:01 AM
It's not a question of going by that logic. Or any brash assumptions. This is by Sonic Team's proven track record. Companies gain a reputation by repeated cases, and people are just citing them. This is true for any business out there. Sonic Team will have to prove they can do it first, before jumping in with people expecting that they can do an immediate 180. A 180, that isn't exactly that easy to perform.

We know they can Make a Phantasy Star online experience. What has been in question is their ability to do world-wide support of it. Just from recent Wii U suggestions, this is sounding like a much bigger project by incoporating all sorts of non-PC features for a Wii U port. That requires a good amount of members and team support to do such a thing. True, we don't know how much Sonic Team has grown since before, or if they grew at all. Thus the speculation that we're dealing with the same folks from the previous release is the closest to a safe assumption one can make.

I'm all for adding support down the line. If Sonic Team can handle it, that's great. But to do it right from the starting gate, I'm 90% convinced, they'll stumble. They have yet to prove this thinking wrong, but supported it a number of times. A boy can cry wolf but so many times.

yoshiblue
Jun 15, 2011, 02:53 PM
I got a Wii-U! Soooo....who wants to be eggman?

RemiusTA
Jun 15, 2011, 03:04 PM
Why is this argument going on so long?

By the time PSO2 is old enough on PC for them to start considering porting it, the new Xbox and PS3 will already be on their way out the box, and will most likely be much better platforms suited for the game.

But having a HDD and good graphics are NOT why this game is PC only. Im almost certain it has to do with the online modes. And i assure you, going through Nintendo's content assurance bullshit will be no better than Sony's or Microsoft's, seeing Nintendo for the longest has been too afraid to even let random players message or even keep track of eachother without memorizing a 6 trillion number code.

Shinji Kazuya
Jun 15, 2011, 03:25 PM
PSO2 won't be on Wii-U.

Kaiyou_Trinon
Jun 16, 2011, 03:23 AM
I'm not gonna lie, that does look pretty cool. -Points to the PSO 2 Wii U thingy- For the simple reasons of it being touch screen, but that aside it doesn't need to be for the Wii U. I'm just hoping for the best, for PSO 2 to be great.

yoshiblue
Jun 16, 2011, 03:46 AM
A Megaman X game would be cool. You could be support warning your friends on up coming danger and control air strikes and artillery.

NoiseHERO
Jun 16, 2011, 03:50 AM
They are making a megaman mmo that has megaman X and original megaman mixed in...

But it actually looks horrible... it a slow and clunky version of the side scrolling games...

ChronoTrigga
Jun 16, 2011, 04:05 AM
I don't.

I still think it should be PC-only, given that it'll be easier to unify the worldwide servers, should that ever happen. Plus if Nintendo continues the absurd way it's been handling online play, why would you want to play an online game on their console at all?

The same reason I got a Dreamcast purely because of PSO.

yoshiblue
Jun 16, 2011, 04:20 AM
They are making a megaman mmo that has megaman X and original megaman mixed in...

But it actually looks horrible... it a slow and clunky version of the side scrolling games...

Can't wait for Megaman Legend 3

moorebounce
Jun 16, 2011, 06:26 AM
There are a lot of games that need to be on the WiiU

I always felt some company should have made a color LCD screen that plugged into the VMU slot in the Dreamcast controllers. Making the screen bigger and better but not the size of the WiiU controller though.

At this point it seems like a good idea but the kicker will be the price. you would have to think the WiiU controller has to be in the $200 to $300 range by itself.

Can you imagine all the brats who throw their controllers when they get upset. I would love to see the look on their faces when they realize they just threw their WiiU controller. lol

Sord
Jun 16, 2011, 06:39 AM
I guess I should start by saying that I thought the Wii was complete and total trash. Did it sell well? Hell yes it did. As a marketing idea it was great. A cheap ass system anyone can afford and thus plenty of families will buy, and then all Nintendo has to do is rub it's little grubby hands together while you buy peripherals out the ass (plus, even if the system is shit, you have to hand it to Nintendo for producing good titles.)

Gotta have all the wii motes, oh, but wait, the chuck is sold separately! Oh, and how 'bout you buy this cheapy plastic gun holder for them? Or how about a steering wheel? And since our controllers are designed to be about as ergonomic as a brick, have some jackets to put on your remote (while this was eventually packaged with 'motes and technically free if you bothered to bug Nintendo about it with your old controllers, most people I know bought separately.) Oh, you realized playing a video game with a remote control layout and crappy motion sensor was a shitty idea but don't want to use that old gamecube controller? Here, buy our classic controllers! Oh, but wait! Have a newer model, this time it's just like Sony's regular controllers! Oh, and we know it took us awhile to get around to it, but now our remotes have better motion sensors (but it still screws up sometimes anyways!) Oh, and how about a pad, just a big fat pad you put on the ground and do stuff with. You can use it to exercise, something that doesn't require a TV or any real tech at all. CHA CHING.

The Wii didn't succeed because it was a good gaming console, it sold well because it was sellable to a far larger audience than just a plain good gaming console can cover. Anyone remember shit like Zumba fitness topping gaming charts in the UK despite heavy hitter big name releases like Portal 2 and Black Ops? Yes, it was multi-platform and not just on Wii, but it goes to show there's a huge ass audience out there willing to buy gaming tech that aren't really, well, gamers, and Nintendo hit that market first and that's why they got their moolah. Hell, Zumba probably wouldn't have even come around if the Wii Fit hadn't been made and topped charts when it was released. People buy gimmicky shit, Nintendo realized this and beat everyone to the punch first. That's why it sells well, it has nothing to do with being a "good" system, which it isn't. It's a good marketing tactic.

I'm not saying that the WiiU won't sell and be profitable, but I'll be damned if I'm going to accept it as a good game system before I actually see any good, fully fleshed out games on it.

moorebounce
Jun 16, 2011, 08:13 AM
@Siyamak The company you're thinking about is Microsoft. Buying little plastic add-ons doesn't compare to what M$ did with their console. The Wii and PS3 was wireless out the box and the Xbox 360 wasn't but for $99 more you could change that. Getting on the Wii and PS3 networks are free but to get on M$ network you have to pay $50 outside of what you had to pay your ISP. Let make a text pad add-on so people can type faster from their controllers for another $30. Lets give them a webcam for another $30 and a headset for $25. Oh wait a minute M$ knew the consoles were built crappy but felt it was cheaper to replace them. If you were one of the lucky ones that your 360 died after your warranty was over you have to pay to get it fixed or buy a new one.

What Nintendo did doesn't even come close to what M$ did.

Akaimizu
Jun 16, 2011, 11:15 AM
Not really. I technically saw more gimmicky stuff with Nintendo, before others decided to follow suit.

There was actually good reason for not having wireless built in, and the proof was actually what happened later. Microsoft was leery about the timing, and how we were on the verge of finalizing a Wireless-N wireless network. It wasn't completed yet and still in contention. So the overall benefit was that once Wireless-N got finalized, they can sell the Wireless-N and be the first console to support it. Afterwards, they built in the full wireless (including N) into future console releases. Back then, it was also an environment where a small amount of consumers had wireless routers in their house. Times have really changed, now.

The Text pad was unnecessary, but only for those who like it. Of course, existing keyboards, and USB dongle wireless ones always worked. It was, by far, not a selling point.

So technically, until Kinect and Move came out, the extras were basically the wireless connection, and Live (which was in before 360). PS3 was the only of the 3 which had both wireless and wired built in.

Live is still a question, but it did prove its case. Up until then, free console connect play was shoddy. They took no money, but very little money ever went to improving online play outside of basics, forced 3rd parties to have to do it all on their own, and frankly, they weren't great at doing that. Thus why, for a long time, if it wasn't Xbox, there was very little online support on the system. PS2 got several notable ones, but we're still talking a small number to choose from. Gamecube, way way worse. Dreamcast was also struggling with getting online games on its free-to-play system, too.

Still, Live came out swinging. While it had a cost, the support for its online and improvements have been second to none since there's actual funding behind it all. Greatly improved for 360, with a system of layers nobody (to this day) established. I knew Sony would eventually come up with a Paid version of their service, to help get similar funding so they can have funding to improve their networks accordingly.

Still, with so many PS3 owners hardly even touching online, they're using a free Sony service in the same capacity of the Free Silver Xbox Live Account. The principle is nice, but take advantage of it, people. From what I see it, when PSN's service finally reaches anything as integrated and well developed as Live, where they establish as many layers of standard services 3rd parties don't have to code so much for which really push online gaming and communications; Microsoft will likely have their hand forced to be competitive on the pricing aspect. This is my hope, actually. I've had years of proven doubts a free service can compete, but if someone can make alternative revenue work to make and improve a solid system, everybody should follow suit.

Sord
Jun 16, 2011, 06:44 PM
@Siyamak The company you're thinking about is Microsoft. Buying little plastic add-ons doesn't compare to what M$ did with their console. The Wii and PS3 was wireless out the box and the Xbox 360 wasn't but for $99 more you could change that. Getting on the Wii and PS3 networks are free but to get on M$ network you have to pay $50 outside of what you had to pay your ISP. Let make a text pad add-on so people can type faster from their controllers for another $30. Lets give them a webcam for another $30 and a headset for $25. Oh wait a minute M$ knew the consoles were built crappy but felt it was cheaper to replace them. If you were one of the lucky ones that your 360 died after your warranty was over you have to pay to get it fixed or buy a new one.

What Nintendo did doesn't even come close to what M$ did.

For starters, wireless functionally actually requires at least some actual tech, and is useful. Things like the wii gun and wheel where literally just pieces of plastic that changed how a controller was held. It didn't have an actual functionality at all. I knew several people that claim that the gun controller made it harder for them to aim and use the wiimote. Course, they didn't figure that one out until after they bought it. Furthermore, no one I know bought that texting controller, why bother when all you need is a USB keyboard? An item almost any household with a computer is likely to have nowadays. That was a rather bad item to market.

Now where MS did strike some gold is their online services. You're totally right. They convinced everyone it was ok to charge for multiple instances of Live on one single system. You have a family of 4? Or even better, a dorm full of videogamers. They buy one Xbox, but each has to pay a separate fee to get their account on Live, and for some reason people accept this, despite the fact when you buy Internet from an ISP, you can hook it to a router and everyone has equal access to all portions of the internet provided there's enough bandwidth.

I'm not saying that the other companies aren't using douchebag marketing moves to make money. Never have. Plenty of companies do it. What I'm saying is that sales of the Wii do not constitute proof that it was a good gaming system. It shows that people are suckers, and Nintendo exploited that first harder than anyone, and that's why they came out on top. MS and Sony realized this, and came out with their equivalent gimmics later (Kinect and Move) but Nintendo had already established it's foot in the door with that which is almost always an advantage in marketing.

So until I actually play the WiiU (and see it's prices) and decide for myself, I'm not expecting it to be a great gaming system. I'm expecting Nintendo to make a butt ton of cash off of it, but that's not the same as making a good gaming console.

An excellent example of how they are already selling things on the WiiU: any one see the Wii U round table concerning Killer Freaks from Outer Space? In it, they show you aim using the Wii U Pad, physically turning your body to look around and aim at things. The announcer argues that this will be an easier form of aiming than a controller for people that don't play shooters, and he's totally right. It's much much easier for people to grasp "point and shoot" than "this stick controls this plane, and this one controls the other plane, and you have to use them together to move and look at anything." Have you ever sat down and watched someone play a modern shooter for the first time, having never played any shooters before, ever? I have, and each time it comes out pretty much the same. The user has trouble using both sticks at the same time. They don't turn left and look up at the same time to move their reticule diagonally across the screen, they just turn left, then make a sharp 90 degrees up as two separate actions. Instead of aiming, they'll try and move their character around to get the reticule to line up with a headshot. It's awkward and weird for them and it's not until several hours later that they will start to fully comprehend the use properly. It's not gonna be like that with a point and shoot. Light guns proved that in the arcade ages ago.

However, as it should be abundantly obvious, the Wii U pad just won't be as accurate or as fast at a higher level. For starters, you must physically turn your body, which is slower and a whole lot more effort than pushing a joystick a centimeter to the left or right with your thumb. Second, some people are shaky, plain and simple. If that controller shakes, so will your reticule, which is going to throw shit off. Thumbs don't really do that. Then of course, there's something even more accurate than sticks, a PC mouse.

Right there, straight out of E3, we already have an example of how WiiU is definitely marketable... and a poor excuse for a shooter control at a higher level. This is exactly what core gamers are talking about when they say Nintendo sells to casuals. There are plenty of people willing to settle with smaller learning curves, even if it means in the long run they won't have as much actual gaming skill.

yoshiblue
Jun 16, 2011, 07:06 PM
Now where MS did strike some gold is their online services. You're totally right. They convinced everyone it was ok to charge for multiple instances of Live on one single system. You have a family of 4? Or even better, a dorm full of videogamers. They buy one Xbox, but each has to pay a separate fee to get their account on Live, and for some reason people accept this, despite the fact when you buy Internet from an ISP, you can hook it to a router and everyone has equal access to all portions of the internet provided there's enough bandwidth.



That I can't be sure of. I knew alot of people who would create those free one month accounts. Then they beg for ms points lol.

Sord
Jun 16, 2011, 07:22 PM
That I can't be sure of. I knew alot of people who would create those free one month accounts. Then they beg for ms points lol.

I know what you're talking about. I've had friends who would get multiple free months from other people (hell, I've done it.) There are ways to cheat the system, but the fact you can do it isn't advertised, and only people who look into it or are told by others know about it. There are other market savvy ways to get around paying more for Live. Like when MS raised the subscription prices, but some online and even local retailers were selling the old Live cards, which allowed you to get Live subscriptions for the older, cheaper price (even cheaper if the card is on sale!) It's not like MS wants you to do this though, and they know that there will inevitably be players that won't do this, and they will make a profit off of those people.

Akaimizu
Jun 16, 2011, 08:09 PM
Actually, I took advantage of something MS actually did offer. Up to 2 years at half the price. So in a way, I'm paying less for Live than pretty much anybody paying the old price until 2013. This wasn't a cheat, though. MS actually advertised that deal.

Sord
Jun 16, 2011, 08:40 PM
That's pretty cool. Was it a sale or just a typical buy-a-longer-subscription-pay-less-per-month deal.

SStrikerR
Jun 17, 2011, 12:26 AM
I really don't care. It doesn't NEED to be on any specific thing.

Niloklives
Jun 17, 2011, 04:35 AM
Not really. I technically saw more gimmicky stuff with Nintendo, before others decided to follow suit.

There was actually good reason for not having wireless built in, and the proof was actually what happened later. Microsoft was leery about the timing, and how we were on the verge of finalizing a Wireless-N wireless network. It wasn't completed yet and still in contention. So the overall benefit was that once Wireless-N got finalized, they can sell the Wireless-N and be the first console to support it. Afterwards, they built in the full wireless (including N) into future console releases. Back then, it was also an environment where a small amount of consumers had wireless routers in their house. Times have really changed, now.

The Text pad was unnecessary, but only for those who like it. Of course, existing keyboards, and USB dongle wireless ones always worked. It was, by far, not a selling point.

So technically, until Kinect and Move came out, the extras were basically the wireless connection, and Live (which was in before 360). PS3 was the only of the 3 which had both wireless and wired built in.

Live is still a question, but it did prove its case. Up until then, free console connect play was shoddy. They took no money, but very little money ever went to improving online play outside of basics, forced 3rd parties to have to do it all on their own, and frankly, they weren't great at doing that. Thus why, for a long time, if it wasn't Xbox, there was very little online support on the system. PS2 got several notable ones, but we're still talking a small number to choose from. Gamecube, way way worse. Dreamcast was also struggling with getting online games on its free-to-play system, too.

Still, Live came out swinging. While it had a cost, the support for its online and improvements have been second to none since there's actual funding behind it all. Greatly improved for 360, with a system of layers nobody (to this day) established. I knew Sony would eventually come up with a Paid version of their service, to help get similar funding so they can have funding to improve their networks accordingly.

Still, with so many PS3 owners hardly even touching online, they're using a free Sony service in the same capacity of the Free Silver Xbox Live Account. The principle is nice, but take advantage of it, people. From what I see it, when PSN's service finally reaches anything as integrated and well developed as Live, where they establish as many layers of standard services 3rd parties don't have to code so much for which really push online gaming and communications; Microsoft will likely have their hand forced to be competitive on the pricing aspect. This is my hope, actually. I've had years of proven doubts a free service can compete, but if someone can make alternative revenue work to make and improve a solid system, everybody should follow suit.



I'm not going to sort through all this, but I'll just say 802.11G is more than enough for network play. G supports 54mb/s and while this is slightly less in real applications, most ISPs dont support more than 6 MB/s and the ones that do typically top out at 20. it was far less than this when N was pioneered and there is no way that even today N has any practical use outside of a LAN. N is a gimmick just as much as nintendo's absurd accessory game. Selling a wireless addon for half the price of their entry level console is a slap in the face. You really sound like a MS fanboy with arguments like that.

Akaimizu
Jun 17, 2011, 08:11 AM
Not really. I'm just not over-looking any details, that's all. I could've plugged it in directly, but I chose to go wireless. I also realize I was a bit of an early adopter, at the time, and was fully aware of the contention as well. G is good, the promise of N was the new hotness in the tech sector. But alas, it was in contention for the standard. I went through the whole G and N router thing before.

And how would my post even be regarded as an MS fanboy when I clearly state I'm rooting for the competition to stand up to it, on features, so that their hand is forced. I obviously have all 3 systems and play them, and clearly know their differences. Just because I said that MS has a stronger online service doesn't immediately paint me as a fanboy any more than saying iOS devices have stronger App support than Android makes one an Apple fanboy.

r00tabaga
Jun 17, 2011, 08:14 AM
I didn't see any MS fanboyism either...I am however staying out of this battle.

Niloklives
Jun 17, 2011, 03:58 PM
Not really. I'm just not over-looking any details, that's all. I could've plugged it in directly, but I chose to go wireless. I also realize I was a bit of an early adopter, at the time, and was fully aware of the contention as well. G is good, the promise of N was the new hotness in the tech sector. But alas, it was in contention for the standard. I went through the whole G and N router thing before.

And how would my post even be regarded as an MS fanboy when I clearly state I'm rooting for the competition to stand up to it, on features, so that their hand is forced. I obviously have all 3 systems and play them, and clearly know their differences. Just because I said that MS has a stronger online service doesn't immediately paint me as a fanboy any more than saying iOS devices have stronger App support than Android makes one an Apple fanboy.

because you're clearly stating that you think it was a smart move to wait for N when it has nearly no use and then charge their customers up the ass for a feature that should have been there to begin with.

Akaimizu
Jun 18, 2011, 03:35 AM
It also was the very first current generation console to release. It had the same broadband capability built-in that all previous consoles, sans Xbox, made you buy external hardware to get your hands on when they launched. And just about everybody, who had broadband, could at least plug it in somehow. Very few household situations would force someone to take the wireless route. There's always the cheap alternative, and/or method to do it with absolutely no extra money given to Microsoft. Was it the wisest choice? Maybe not. But there has been cases of issues of fragmentation stunting progress due to releasing hardware stuck in the old tech. Even when your later revision has built-in improved wireless capability. Note the DSi and it's mostly unused WPA capability. It was perhaps an overly-cautious business choice given the climate.

Still. We were comparing this to the Nintendo thing. How is this even comparable? If you think I'm being fan boyish, let's look at it from the point of what the customer *has* to buy to use it. The perspective this whole thing supposedly started with. For 360 and Ps3, everything up until there were move or kinect-specific games, can you play even the main basis of single-player video gaming with everything that was included right in the box? Provided you have a Tv set you can connect to? Yes.

Even in the very early days of the Wii, a great majority of the single-player games, alone for it, required you to buy additional hardware or you weren't playing it. Generally in controllers like the nun chuck and/or the classic controller. There was no workaround. No alternative. You paid Nintendo more money for imperative hardware to play controller-based games. Is it as expensive as the Microsoft wifi-add on? No. But it was necessary to buy. Which is the whole point. Optional vs. Non-optional. This whole conversation wouldn't even have come up if no-one compared non-optional with optional equipment as if they were the same. I also don't want to fall into the fallacy of comparing choices in a totally different consumer climate from what is now as if it always was like this.

NoiseHERO
Jun 18, 2011, 03:49 AM
How about; This gaming generation sucks, period...

Nintendo's doing whatever they want, Microsoft is greedy and evil, and Sony is bad at spending money.