🚀 go-pugleaf

>> I don't really see the whole "tying up the TV" argument, either.
>> Anyone that plays videogames ties up the TV whether they are playing
>> online or not.
>
> Right, but they can stop instantly once Grandma wants to watch
> "Matlock" or some such thing.  If the kid starts crying about one
> more level or another half hour, that'll be the end of the online
> gaming in that house.

They've been doing that with offline games for years, but offline gaming lives
on with whiny kids and their whiny grandmas.



>> I do agree with you about the fee argument to some extent.  NOBODY
>> likes to pay to play.

Free is fun, but when people must pay, pay PER play has decades of success
behind it.  That was how arcade games worked, how movie theaters still work, and
essentially how Blockbuster works.  It's also how candy, soda and beer work.
People like to get the latest entertainment for pocket change.



>> That goes for PC's or consoles.  Could you
>> imagine if someone tried to charge for an online FPS deathmatch on
>> PC's?

Not on PCs, but Doom might've become popular as an arcade game.



> Sony's supposedly going to try with an add-on modem/broadband adapter
> but if it costs much more than $35 or so, I think it's doomed.  It's
> the old catch-22.  Nobody will make games for something nobody is
> buying, and nobody will buy something nobody is making games for.

Exactly.  That's why the only hope for online gaming is as the primary feature
of the next generation's consoles.