Unfortunately, the online multiplayer is about the only part of Fireteam Bravo 3 that can be called entertaining. The game is thoroughly competent, but there is little to capture your interest. The mission structures lack creativity, and the bland story casts a pall of boredom over the whole campaign. Fireteam Bravo is technically sound, but without any tactical tension or invigorating spark, the game feels lifeless and hollow.
"Sony's PlayStation Network has come a long way since its debut on the PlayStation 3 and has consistently received praise for remaining free unlike Xbox LIVE, Microsoft's competitor. While this is an excellent aspect of the PlayStation Network for PlayStation gamers, the negative results have had its showing throughout the past and just recently with an announcement from Sony Computer Entertainment Europe."
-TheGamerAccess.com
Sony definitely needs to improve on a lot of things involving their online service. Some things changed up can make the experience on PSN a whole lot better.
like what? name something. im so sick of trolls talking smack about psn when there is nothing wrong with it. its incredible, IF i want ps+ i get free games and so much more ect...if i dont want to pay, thats fine.
Support? like charging you to use netflix? charging you to play online ? and support? i get supported with tons of free games and cloud services free themes ect, not to mention pc/ps3 cross-play? do you have that? and nice touch on that "SONY" remark, pretty mature.
I prefer PSN over XBL for two reasons:
1. I don't HAVE to pay to play online.
2. I don't have to listen to ignorant and racist comments from stupid kids.
Sony may need to improve stuff like match-making, but that's all they need to change, not the pricing model!
@gaffyh,
Hilarious comments. BTW I hear little kids yelling racist ignorant comments on PSN all the time.
Just another FAIL article from Nick. I think Nick would be better at scalping tickets in front of a stadium.
On topic, I own a 360 and a PS3. Since buying my 360 around 3 or 4 months ago, I haven't turned it on for the last two months. I don't find LIVE to be anything special. I don't need to leave voice messages, and while cross game chat is nice, I could really care less about it. The minute Sony starts charging for online play, is the point in time where I become a 100% PC gamer.
@ Laxman
No. It's not because Microsoft charges $60 per year that XBL has better "support, reliability, features". That's nonsense that only a loyal, invested fanboy could muster.
It's because Microsoft has been in the online gaming space longer with more experience and they have a lot to lose if they let their service decline, so they stay competitive.
Believe me when I say, Sony have found their model for charging users, and that goes by the name of PS+. All Sony needs to do is continue adding value to it with certain requested major features and keep the online free and they're set. One of Sony's fundamendal edges is consumer choice, and looking at their strategy with PS+ it makes no sense to be charging for online play when something like Plus exists.
Increase the enticement of your service with pure value, and people will warm to it. That is their strategy. MS's strategy is keep charging for online, increase the price every now and again, and keep adding features that aren't related to gaming (that are free to everyone else). Keeps them in good shape financially, but doesn't do anything for my respect towards them.
It's not poor form from "$ony" that their services aren't as solid as Live either. It's fairly impressive that their services are as good as they are, compared to the start of this gen if anything.
Now I know it's hard for some of you Xbox fans to accept but Sony has a culture of offering consumers choice. You don't even have to be a fanboy to notice this. They have always offered the most diverse games and been about open platforms, free options. That will not change, and that makes my experience better than cross-game chat on the Xbox. For me, PS+ is better than XBL Gold any day of the week, since GAMES >>>>>>> FEATURES! And like I mentioned - features that are free everywhere else. Lol.
Like what?? it's free. It works. so who's complaining? cause clearly its not me.
Another ridiculous observation from the same site.
Failed journalistic pustules.
Think about this. You buy a game. Eula arguments about ownership aside, you pay for all of the game. If the game has Single Player you pay for that. If the game has Single Player and Multiplayer you pay for that. If the game is Multiplayer only you pay for that. It's your game.
Now along comes a company that says, "Hold on there a minute. We don't care if you paid for that Multiplayer. You do not get to use that part unless you pay us money on the side."
It's a form of legalized extortion really. Never mind if that game appears on 5 other platforms without such intrusion and demand. This one company is intent upon forcing you to pay more money without concern you already pay to access the internet. They want a cut.
There is no choice. You don't pay, you don't play. Right off the bat a service that provides layered choices that serve the player is already light years ahead. It's confounding anyone would think otherwise. Maybe that's the issue. There wasn't any thinking involved when this piece was thrown together and came crawling out of the dust bin screaming for a webhit.
So look here Nicky. Before you get any more bright ideas you need to start thinking these absurd, erred postulations through with a bit more thoroughness.
And remember everyone, go up to the top and click on the blue gamerabcess.com and vote the site and story according to their quality.
"Support, reliability, features"
Support? http://www.destructoid.com/...
It takes a media circus just to get real support from the XBL team.
Reliability? http://www.joystiq.com/2007...
Yeah, yeah, PSN was down for month. That doesn't change the fact that XBL had a long term issue itself. And occasional maintenance is not a lack of reliability.
Features? Crosschat and......what? Features that are free elsewhere? A cable box function that can be done better and get all the channels with....well, a cable box?
PSN provides what I need from a game console for free; gaming. And between PSN and PC, I don't see why I should be paying for online play. PSN even manages to have a pay service that adds things without forcing me to pay to play online.
Laxman got reported for trolling? Silly, sensitive fanboys
Edit: Morganfell, there is a choice. Don't buy a 360. Since your whole argument revolves around multi-plats that solves the problem.
The thing I gripe about Xbox is that if I have to pay the full price. Which lets get one thing right here how many of use have? We are all smarter then that and pay 45 to 50 bucks and not the 60. I pay for something and I dont want to see ads. I love my ps3 since day one I got my Xbox and try it out for a year but for some stuff the have a Internet problems here and their was not worth it to me. I can't even message my friends because I don't have gold. I did like the music service they had but I am not paying 50 bucks a year for it, rather spend the money on a roku box. (which I did)
Most games that don't run their own servers, you have to find the right room with a goo enough speed. (and no I am not running no p.o.s 3 mbs when I was getting up to 20 and stuff boot me out for time outs wtf. I like the apps Xbox uses but I will wait till they hit the psn before I pay again.
Give me a break. I enjoy PSN and I'm happy that it's nothing like LIVE.
STOP these articles NOW! You may have gotten away with it for a few years when LIVE was better (by a fraction) but I'm sorry but PSN is far better than LIVE. It's over as far as I'm concerned. Once upon a time your argument was valid but now it is vacuous
Well said.
Xbox players say that they are happy to pay for Live for all the features it provides therefore people should stop saying it should be free, well then the same goes for PSN.
Stop saying that Sony should charge for PSN. What ever features Live has that PSN doesn't, PSN users are fine without it. I really don't see any feature that warrants me paying an extra fee just to get access to the other half of my game that I paid full retail price for.
Sony does not need to charge for PSN. PSN users are fine with PSN as it already is. The PS+ model works just fine.
I'd assume a significant portion of "N4G" posters here are dedicated to our "hobby" of "adult electronic entertainment" i.e "gaming" to have both consoles and services. I have both and get alot of enjoyment from the two in different degrees. especially since I started gaming on a Magnovox Odyssey in 1978! Back then if I bought a game that needed a patch.. tough luck! Online was unheard of! Seems to me gamers today are kindof spoiled and unappreciative of what we have to game with!
That said, PSN being free and the majority of games have an online component really makes MS's service sub-par to PSN's imho! I paid $600.00+ for my box, pay my monthly cable broadband fee, and paid for my $60.00 game, paying to play, to me, is redundant to say the least!
For multiplatforms the online experience is the same on PSN. SO why should I pay for this service ?
No Xbox needs to adopt sony's price model...OF FREE...
I pay for PS Plus, but hell they give you games, I have totally come out ahead of the yearly fee for plus, with the amount of free stuff I get.
I Think Sony needs to improve on things like there network going down, sometimes everything on my Playstation works except for the store... its frustrating.
I'm pretty sure xbox would have a higher % of there players online if they could at the very least play games online for free...
Other than making people pay for it xbox live and PSN are the same, they both offer tons of content other than gaming, they both have problems, and the both could be better, but then again Playing games on pc online also has it's issues... we can all agree on one thing nintendo needs to do some serious catching up when it comes to online gaming.
I really see nothing wrong with PSN and any real update is only going to come when they can overhaul entirely for new hardware.
Besides that if Sony keeps the Free to game model its more than likely people will come back to them when they are tired of paying for XBL.
Nintendo sees free to game as a positive measure as well.
What the hell does it need? U log on and u play games online.... seriously its free and offers pretty much everything xbox has. Wtf more do u need to play a game online? Seriously, anwser this question.
I wouldn't mind if it was the same price as ps+ and that it included all the ps+ benefits.
This fails on one major point. A major selling point is free online with the option of a subscription service (which is very good). The shutting down servers is partly to do with money but just because he plays these game doesn't mean everyone does anymore. I wonder how many people do. Even with a subscription model I would expect these servers to be still shutting down because it probably still wouldn't be cost effective to have them.
Yea they need to allow free online just with a subscription that has added benefits so you have options.
Exactly. Servers shutting down really has nothing to do with subscriptions. If I was paying $50 a year for PSN, MotorStorm isn't going to magically gain players. If anything, it would lose players. Force people to choose between paying and not playing, and you're undoubtedly going to reduce the number of players who actually can play.
As much as I loved Pacific Rift, I'm done with it. So are most people. I'd like to see the servers for such a fantastic game stay open, but I'd rather not pay a yearly fee just so I have the option to go back to it only to find nobody else playing.
there is any lag on PSN(like GoW 1/2 on Xbox 360). I don't want to pay $60 just to talk with my "friends" cross-game.
Meh cross game chat is a pretty basic feature. If I have it for free on Vita and Steam and the quality is equally as good as cross game chat on Xboxlive, why should I even pay for it?
XperiaRay
A Look Back at the Past SOCOM Games
One of the things that fails this entire series is lack of promotion by SCEE, since day 1 socom has had almost 0 advertising in the EU, most people don't even know it exists or think its an FPS.
Ok, why have I never played these games?
They sound right up my alley. The tactics, the stealth, the squad commands.
I'd always thought they were aimed more at online play, I never realised the single player was so substantial.
When the first game came out, Conflict Desert Storm came out too and I was really into it, at least for the first two games. Maybe thats why I never got into them.
Now I'm hoping this will be the next HD remake. To be honest I think the fanbase would go nuts over it if all the online features were intact.
The little handheld that could has had a good last year, pumping out some impressive games that will help define the platform when the history books swing around to Sony’s foray into the handheld space.
Here are just ten games that set the PSP on fire this year, probably the last year of the PSP’s heyday.
I found SOCOM Tactical Strike a great game on PSP, but the others i havent liked as much. I loved SOCOM CONRONTATION on ps3 though, I personally thinks its brilliant, i dont understand why so many people were complaining about it...
i liked it and plan on gettin this game asap. i need some action on the psp.
I hope this game will be good cause face it us psp owners dont have alot of games to look forward too.
I played the demo and it was ok, but like other Fireteam bravo games the campaign usually isn't that great its the online that everyone tends to play.