Sony's Phil Harrison on Xbox 360 packages [Archive]

EvilBob46

08-31-2005, 01:53 PM

IGN (http://www.ign.com/) has a few comments (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/646/646955p1.html) from Phil Harrison, a Sony chief executive producer, on Microsoft's decision to offer two packages of its Xbox 360 system. It's important to note that the following comments represent only his personal views and not necessarily those of Sony as a whole. He says the different packages will "create confusion" among customers. "They don't know which one to buy, developers don't know which one to create for, and retailers don't know which one to stock." Harrison also gave props to Microsoft for their Xbox Live service but states that Sony intends to "to go beyond, to push further," presumably with a service of their own.

Snowcone

08-31-2005, 02:56 PM

It will be interesting to see how much they borrow from Live in developing their own system.

Kelegacy

08-31-2005, 03:09 PM

Hell, I dont care if they copy them completely with Live!, as long as they have a good service. It really is important in the next-gen. And Sony having an online service (and Nintendo for that matter) and pricing it cheaper than MS's will make for some great competition that will benefit us all.

The Xbox controller has evolved into a Dual Shock clone, so why shouldnt Sony do them one better and steal their Live ideas?

Zeal

08-31-2005, 03:09 PM

This is the first time Sony has acknolwedged plans for a future gaming network.

Leaving Hope

08-31-2005, 03:15 PM

I have to agree with Mr. Harrison's personal views about the different pages; I, too, and concerned and frustrated with Microsoft's decision to sell different packages.

It is not the extra $100 that bothers me, but rather the fact that developers will now have to code their software for the lowest common denominator, and that's a system without a harddrive. With development times reaching 2 years per title, and the normal crunch that is almost standard these days, how much time will developers be able to devote to optimizing load times for HDD users? Plus, there are bound to be games that require the HDD, only further confusing the user base. Every Xbox 1 came with a HDD; and now that it's not standard, I feel like something has been taken away.

Ever since the hype of E3, I feel like we've been on a downhill slide. Now the 360 HDDs aren't standard, the DVD-ROM discs don't have enough space for next-gen textures and video, developers are complaining about how difficult it is to code for a multi core system, games went up $10 per title, and Live went up $10 per year.

I am pleased that the XBox 360 has more RAM, a better video chip, and new features in Live, but in the end the cons are far outweighing the pros for me; that's disappointing, since I was excited for this round of consoles, and I usually purchase them when they first come out.

Roc Ingersol

08-31-2005, 03:20 PM

It is not the extra $100 that bothers me, but rather the fact that developers will now have to code their software for the lowest common denominator, and that's a system without a harddrive
You mean the system indistinguishable from the PS3?
Yeah, so most games won't use the HD. It'll be just like the last generation.

The hardware didn't make a lick of difference the last go-round.
I don't see why it would this time either.

JazGalaxy

08-31-2005, 03:22 PM

I'm always wary of the "go beyond" concept. While I do think Xbox Live could have a lot of stuff that is not present, I also think Sony has a penchant for trying to make a piece of hardware do things nobody really WANTS it to do...

rein

08-31-2005, 04:17 PM

This is the first time Sony has acknolwedged plans for a future gaming network.

No, no it's not. They just have not revealed exactly what the network will be.

I am pleased that the XBox 360 has more RAM, a better video chip, and new features in Live,

This is what is getting forgotten because of the confusion MS created with the dual sku. Even if they had left the hard drive out, people would be pissed for about a week and then moved on realizing it must not be needed. I think the three things you mentioned is a great step forward and what people should be talking about.

Twigz'N'Berries

08-31-2005, 04:20 PM

You mean the system indistinguishable from the PS3?
Yeah, so most games won't use the HD. It'll be just like the last generation.

The hardware didn't make a lick of difference the last go-round.
I don't see why it would this time either.

But why go backwards when you had such a good thing going. The HD was a major distinguishing feature of Xbox1. I loved being memory card free. I loved having the customizable soundtrack integrated into the game.
MS should come up to the level of competition...not down to it. I would have preferred one SKU w/the hard drive included.

Obviously due to the reactions found throughout the internet, I'm not the only one who would have preferred this. Instead of sprinting out of the gate, it looks like MS will stumble out of it.

...that said, I can't wait for my 360 and Oblivion!!

*Legion*

08-31-2005, 04:50 PM

THANK YOU SONY.

I have, for months, said here that I would love for them to copy Xbox Live, no matter how shamelessly. Why reinvent the wheel? I don't love MS (typing this on a Linux laptop!), but one thing is for sure: Xbox Live is something MS just plain got right. Hate the fee all you want, but they did a crapload of great things with Live, and look even better and more progressive with Live for the 360. I want that experience on Sony systems too - I don't care if they're just following instead of leading. Of course, if they can one-up MS, then all the better. But at least match the functionality.

Heretic Machine

08-31-2005, 04:59 PM

MosBen

08-31-2005, 05:06 PM

The reason to "go backwards" is because the HD was too expensive of a component to include in every machine, especially since it wasn't used much this generation. Also, you're still going to be able to do all the things you want to do (every game is required to support user playlists), just buy the $399 model. There might be people that don't care about those features, as well as Live, and for them perhaps the cheaper model will do well enough. Finally, as has been mentioned above, being the only company with an HD led to the component not being used much this generation and being the only company with an obligatory HD this next generation isn't going to make it be used any more.

Achilles

08-31-2005, 05:24 PM

PC games only charge you fees if the game is hosted on a company's servers, while when it's on your computer, and your connection then it is free. This is the way things should work, and Microsoft has set a really shitty precident for the console world with Live. I don't agree with your conclusion, but for PCs even if the game is hosted on a company's servers they don't charge for it. I usually play BF2 on EA's US servers which are hosted by that company and cost me nothing. Most companies that release multiplayer games host a couple of servers (EA hosts about 140 for BF2, but they're an exception).

Kelegacy

08-31-2005, 05:37 PM

Unless Sony's online plan is free, I'm not interested. Paying to host games on my god damn connection is unacceptable and Nintendo seems to be the only ones admitting to this. PC games only charge you fees if the game is hosted on a company's servers, while when it's on your computer, and your connection then it is free. This is the way things should work, and Microsoft has set a really shitty precident for the console world with Live.

Yeah, that still bothers me a bit. Outside of MMORPG's, I have never had to worry about paying to play online for my PC. And upping the price, no matter how functional it is, doesn't make me happy. Live is a good thing and I guess I'm willing to pay for it (i dont right now though) but to jack up the price makes me leery. I'd really have to love a game to want to pay once again to play it online.

Oh, and microtransactions make me itch all over too. I dont even like the sounds of them. That's the precedent I dont enjoy EVER being employed in videogaming. I already have to fill my car up with expensive fossil fuels, I dont want to spend money on a new outfit for some imaginary character or a paintjob for my imaginary Porche.

KDups

08-31-2005, 05:54 PM

Call me skeptical, but I highly doubt Sony will even come close to providing a service as good as Live! Remember their "PS2 will be an online multimedia hub!" in 2000? Yeah, that sucked.

I doubt Nintendo will have as robust a service either, but it's more forgivable when it's free.

roboflavinoid

08-31-2005, 05:54 PM

I already have to fill my car up with expensive fossil fuels, I dont want to spend money on a new outfit for some imaginary character or a paintjob for my imaginary Porche.
So, uh... don't. I mean, you pretty much have to fill up your car, which makes it a poor comparison when talking about cosmetic extras in a video game.
I just don't understand that kind of logic-- that by offering a product, a company is forcing you to buy it. Inevitably, the company is then resented for even making the offer. What kind of twisted sense of entitlement is that? It's everywhere nowadays and it drives me crazy.

Bydo_Empire

08-31-2005, 06:16 PM

Not to speak for Kelegacy, but I don't think he was talking about an "entitlement" as much as questioning where the market is for this kind of thing. Then again, who would have thought people would spend three bucks on downloadable ring tones?

No harm in *offering* a service or product. Unless of course, it gets to the point where your $50-$60 doesn't buy a complete game anymore (not cosmetic extras). I.E. "You want the final level? Only $4.99!!!" :P

Kelegacy

08-31-2005, 06:22 PM

So, uh... don't. I mean, you pretty much have to fill up your car, which makes it a poor comparison when talking about cosmetic extras in a video game.
I just don't understand that kind of logic-- that by offering a product, a company is forcing you to buy it. Inevitably, the company is then resented for even making the offer. What kind of twisted sense of entitlement is that? It's everywhere nowadays and it drives me crazy.

Because by offering it, people will buy. I just fear for the future of the industry if people start to adopt this shit. I wont buy this drivel, but who knows where it will lead someday? Stupider shit has happened.

Kelegacy

08-31-2005, 06:24 PM

Sloth

08-31-2005, 06:27 PM

I'll say that I have my concerns over this, but it's not a slam dunk catastrophe. I'll be getting the 360 with the HD though, and at the very least I can put custom soundtracks and such on it.

agentgray

08-31-2005, 06:48 PM

Phil Harrison? Wasn't he on the Jack Benny Show?

Deadend

08-31-2005, 07:12 PM

"You want the final level? Only $4.99!!!" :P

So, the first $4.99 download will be... the rest of Halo 2.

TrackZero

08-31-2005, 07:17 PM

roboflavinoid

08-31-2005, 07:39 PM

Yes! that's exactly what i meant. That's the direction I fear for gaming.
Yeah, I think we all agree, that would be seriously messed up.

Definitely, vote with your dollar. If you think it sucks, don't buy it. If you do buy it, maybe you actually wanted it? Wherever the money actually goes, that's where the developer goes.

mister_slim

08-31-2005, 07:47 PM

You know what's kind of odd? The 360 memory card is $40 for 64 megs, and the Rev is coming with half a gig of flash, plus SD memory slots.

This must be some new kind of math. Or maybe I'm delusional or something.

nonchalance

08-31-2005, 09:16 PM

More details over at www.gamasutra.com, guys.

Free registration required, and only highlights atm - they claim they'll have full details later today.
Those thinking Sony's going to come out with Sony Live! may want to read this.

- Pressed on the apparent success of Xbox Live compared to the PlayStation 2's online strategy, he indicated that the PS3 would have significant online capabilities, but stressed its nature as an 'open platform', commenting, in an obvious reference to competitor Microsoft: "Distinct from our competitors, we are happy for publishers to make their own financial agreements directly with consumers."

So no Live! awesomeness, more likely each game will run its own matchmaking system and waiting rooms, but I'd also see that as meaning free online services - however, when you add the fact that Sony's going to start charging for additional PSP content next year, maybe not.

Chris_D

08-31-2005, 09:28 PM

So no Live! awesomeness, more likely each game will run its own matchmaking system and waiting rooms, but I'd also see that as meaning free online services - however, when you add the fact that Sony's going to start charging for additional PSP content next year, maybe not.

It's nice not having to pay a fee to play (for some games) but Microsoft has been able to do some cool stuff by integrating LIVE across many different games (invites, profiles etc.). And over a year I don't think the money for LIVE is that significant, it's still far less than the subscription for a typical MMOG for example.

Rotting

08-31-2005, 11:03 PM

First sane thing I've heard from Sony in quite some time. However, the dual SKU is being made to be more of an issue than I believe it will be once it's in stores. Which is unfortunate, because it will cost Microsoft market share, further dividing the next generation of consoles. Ah well.

I agree that people seem to be making too much of a big deal out of having two SKUs. For me though it would feel like too much of a step backwards getting an xbox without a harddrive but that is the cool thing... I have to option to pick up the bundle that suits my needs.

Even if my gamecube and ps2 had superior hardware to my xbox, I would still preder the xbox simply because the harddrive really changed the gaming experience for me.

Quite honestly I cannot see many 360s being sold without the harddrive. Someone posted in another thread a valid point about their casual gaming friend at work who only plays the Burnout games. If that person were to buy the basic 360 would he still not have to buy the memory card (I really don't even know if the basic bundle comes with it :/ ).

If that were me, I would probably just spend the extra $60 and get the harddrive for the custom soundtracks but I don't know if that is considered a "hardcore gamer" feature or not.

Murmillo

08-31-2005, 11:22 PM

^^
That was me. Yes he would still need to buy a memory card when he goes over to the 360 if it isn't bundled by then but that $60 is another game to him. He might get interested in custom soundtracks thing or he just may contine being happy smashing cars for the hour or so a day he gets the chance.

Its hard to say how this will all play out, but too many people are running with the sky is falling for the 360 mentailty. I don't mind these discussions, I dont mind hearing your concerns, but hearing the proverbial "nail in the coffin because Mircosoft isn't including/doing X" over and over and over is pointless at the moment.

Until the PS3 launchs, and we can compaire the two, I have a feeling a lot of people may be having a hardtime swallowing thier words as they try removing thier head out of thier asses. (I may be one of them... :[ )

Babbster

08-31-2005, 11:37 PM

On XBL pricing: Y'all just wait until Microsoft unveils the Platinum service. $10-$15/month for full-on VOIP service (i.e., being able to call anyone with a phone as opposed to just Xbox 360 owners). I'm convinced that this is part of their "game" plan for the future since they already have capable hardware including the cordless controllers/headsets. :)

nonchalance

08-31-2005, 11:46 PM

It's nice not having to pay a fee to play (for some games) but Microsoft has been able to do some cool stuff by integrating LIVE across many different games (invites, profiles etc.).

This I agree with. Definitely.

And over a year I don't think the money for LIVE is that significant, it's still far less than the subscription for a typical MMOG for example.

This, I'm not so sure about - partly because I live in a significantly less affluent economy, probably.
Nonetheless, multiply all the costs by around 175%, and you'll end up with the Aussie dollar cost, which hurts badly.

The thing about this is blatant speculation follows that Sony will provide piss-all other than network structure, but not charge for it, MS will provide a beautiful, expensive service, and Nintendo will provide the best of both worlds and very few games that take advantage of it.

Mass merger time!

Chris_D

09-01-2005, 12:15 AM

Nonetheless, multiply all the costs by around 175%, and you'll end up with the Aussie dollar cost, which hurts badly.

Well I feel the pain cos being aus also, I'm used to paying 15/0.75 AUD for mmog subscriptions and earning about 1/3-1/2 the pay of our American friends for equivalent work. And they wonder why we laugh at them for complaining about $60 game prices (< 80 aussie). Remember how Silent Hill 3 hit the shelves for 110?

Vandenh

09-01-2005, 12:15 AM

"to go beyond, to push further,"

Chance of this happening .002%. This is an area where Sony doesn't have the expertise. Matching Live will already be hard enough for them since they have to start from 0. MS will very likely continue to rule th eonline arena with better features and better service. That said... good that Sony will even have an online service this time. It's about time. I trust Nintendo more with this. While Nintendo will probably not match Live, I don't think they want to anyway, they will probably offer something really easy and elegant.

Zeal

09-01-2005, 12:21 AM

I agree with Sony about the 360 packaging.

Rotting

09-01-2005, 12:28 AM

^^

Until the PS3 launchs, and we can compaire the two, I have a feeling a lot of people may be having a hardtime swallowing thier words as they try removing thier head out of thier asses. (I may be one of them... :[ )

I agree with this completely.

I know that eventually I will end up getting at least one of these new systems (and in time probably more as with the current gen) but until I see all of them I cannot bring myself to get one. Even if the 360 is $500 and the games are $60 (all Canadian dollars and I doubt either will be any cheaper than that at first), the system with two games after taxes will break the $700 mark. I can't in good conscience pay that much knowing that in March the PS3 will be launched and could be far superior than the 360 because seriously who _knows_ at this point.

Maybe it is because I have the whole mortgage thing to consider but four months is not that long to wait and see.

Then again... xmas is coming and I have been a good boy this year ;)

Morratut

09-01-2005, 12:57 AM

It would be good if Sony matched Live. It would be good for competition so it would be better for us gamers.

I get from Phils quote already that they probably will rely on developer/publisher of the games to provide their own online service per game. If thats ends up being the case then it won't be as good as Live. Fingers crossed though :)

The Xbox controller has evolved into a Dual Shock clone, so why shouldnt Sony do them one better and steal their Live ideas?

I can't see your train of thought at all Kelegacy on this :confused:

Xbox pad has a lot of differences to the PS pad. Also the 360 pad doesn't have 4 hand cramp inducing shoulder buttons. It has 2 shoulder buttons and 2 triggers.

nonchalance

09-01-2005, 03:25 AM

Remember how Silent Hill 3 hit the shelves for 110?

Yeah. And NWN.
And City of Heroes was $100 + $25 per month.
And people wonder why I don't play MMOs.

nonchalance

09-01-2005, 03:26 AM

Xbox pad has a lot of differences to the PS pad. Also the 360 pad doesn't have 4 hand cramp inducing shoulder buttons. It has 2 shoulder buttons and 2 triggers.

Compare the original Xbox controller to the Dual Shock.
Then the modified controller.
Then the Xbox 360 controller.

See why Kelegacy is suggesting a cloning process?

Morratut

09-01-2005, 04:11 AM

I don't think its a cloning process at all.

Original Xbox controller. People thought it was too big so they changed it to the S controller.Nothing like the PS2 controller.Because...
Analogue sticks at different posisions, better Dpad. Better triggers. Black and White buttons.

360 Pad. Evolution of the S controller.
Remove Black and White buttons and give shoulder buttons but keep the triggers.Keep the slightly different positions and type of the analogue sticks etc because thats already working fine.

Now if they changed the pad so it had 4 shoulder buttons in close proximity to each other.Worst dpad ever and two analogue sticks which had little travel and was slack as hell...then err yeah i could imagine the comment.

:D