Common things in PS2 and PS3?

Even if the ps3 cost was a ?100 a year subscription it would take a split second for me to part with my cash, you just cant fault the amount of hours of enjoyment an online game can bring, its just such good value.

My best mate is as tight as a nuns ear hole ok, he plays his xbox offline alot, he reckons the ?30 is a rip off and wont subscribe, yet he smokes 20 fags a day and has at least 4 pints a night and 1 spliff, now dont get me wrong i like an occasional bevarage and a bit of socialising, but come one how is what he does not a waste of money compared to a one off limitless amount of gameplay
 
Playing online means different things to different people. If I had to pay, then I wouldn't play and do something else with my time. I'm not going to pay them money to play on top of buying the damn game.The monetary figure is irrelevant, it could be $5, I still would not pay if there was a console offering a free alternative.
 
what about if or when sony make us pay a subscription for ps3 does that mean then you would stop playing online?

Come on surely when you purchased your console the ?30 suscription was not a deciding factor in your final choice.

What about if the xbox was superior in all departments but you had to still pay the fee, would you still pick the ps3 because of that subscription fee.
 
I'd just play offline on ps3 if they made it a paid subscription. It depends on how much people play online, I barely get in 2-4 hours a week of BFBC2 online, rest is all offline. I sure as ████ won't pay to play those few hours a week online. I'd just play offline.
 
Fair enough mate, just trying to get across that for ?30 you well get your moneys worth.

I bloody spend that on nappys and milk in a week easy, :facepalm
 
haha I on the other hand am thinking vasectomy before I end up in a similar situation
 
FWIW online is also based on the game developer. NBA 2K11, for example, you can play online without an Xbox Live Gold subscription. EA are the opposite spectrum where you need to buy a new game to be able to play online (and I think they require Xbox Live Gold).
 
The endless console argument :p

Both are good for their own reasons but I prefer ps3 simply because there are WAY WAY less kids online, Blu Ray and better graphics.

Also this whole "I don't play online" or "I only play older games" argument is weak. If that is the case then you are part of a very small minority. Video gaming is totally moving towards online gameplay. Can't stop. wont stop

True enough, however I read a very interesting article in PC Gamer a while back that said that while online gaming is becoming the main force now, as PCs become more and more 'intelligent', you'll eventually have a situation where singleplayer AI will match, or even surpass online multiplayer and that's when the trend will reverse itself back towards singleplayer. Of course, online will still remain strong thanks to the social element and the factor of beating your fellow man/woman, as opposed to a computer AI. It'll be a more balanced situation though, where devs. will see that they can no longer fob off the singleplayer with a campaign that can be completed in a few hours (hello, CoD - stand up at the back there, I'm talking to you! Well, since CoD 2 at least. ;) )

Fair enough mate, just trying to get across that for ?30 you well get your moneys worth.

I bloody spend that on nappys and milk in a week easy, :facepalm

Didn't know you're a dad - congrats! Belatedly, of course. Girl or boy?
 
Bump.

So Yudi, did you end up buying a PS3?
 
FWIW online is also based on the game developer. NBA 2K11, for example, you can play online without an Xbox Live Gold subscription. EA are the opposite spectrum where you need to buy a new game to be able to play online (and I think they require Xbox Live Gold).

Old post but still.

Is this for real. So I have 2K11 sitting at home and I could be playing multiplayer online w/o a XBL Gold membership ?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top