PS3 Online: Live in your world.... and stay there [Archive]

Red Cloak

11-02-2005, 02:04 PM

Looks like Phil Harrison isn't looking to expand 'Sony Online' much more than it has with the PS2 and PSP.

Harrison on PS3 Online

As we suspected months ago in our interview with Epic’s Mark Rein, it looks like Sony will in fact go with an open architecture for its online model. What does that mean, exactly? Basically, the way that the PlayStation 2’s online model operates will be applied to the PlayStation 3. While Harrison admitted that the Xbox Live online gaming service is one of the things that Microsoft has done well, he said that Sony’s plan is to let publishers establish their own means for getting consumers online and to let the publishers interact with consumers directly instead of using Sony as some kind of buffer for the online experience.

Unfortunately, by going with this model, Sony runs the risk of repeating its mistakes. The PS2 online model has proven to work with some sports games, a few shooters like SOCOM, and Final Fantasy XI, but outside of those, very few PS2 games have found success online. If Sony does a better job of promoting the online experience with the PlayStation 3 and at least attempts to have some sort of unifying structure, then this may not be the case. As it stands, Sony must have a decent plan in place if it hopes to make this model a success...
Source (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdoup/is_200511/ai_n15351478)

Wow, talk about dropping the proverbial ball.

Dabombpizza

11-02-2005, 02:20 PM

An open method can work as proven with the PC, it's just that some structure makes things so much nicer.

Oh...and Red Cloak, could you keep the bias out of the news post?

tenchiker

11-02-2005, 02:24 PM

Oh dabomb if you don't like it go to a different site.

Steele Johnson

11-02-2005, 02:27 PM

what a stupid decision. :eek:

Donut11

11-02-2005, 02:28 PM

Man, two years from now when the number 1 game on XBox 360 is a download that cost $15, Sony is going to be scrambling.

Oh, Dabomb, you might want to read the Evil Avatar motto on the upper left of your browser window.

Dabombpizza

11-02-2005, 02:29 PM

Red Cloak

11-02-2005, 02:31 PM

Xerxes

11-02-2005, 02:32 PM

LOL... 30 cell chips, no gameplay videos within a 6 months of it's supposed release, the bulkier looking case, and now this; not changing it's already crappy online model.

It's like Sony has a gun pointed at it's foot and waiting to be dared to shoot it. I mean you can only ride on having the biggest install base for so long. Look at Nintendo. They'll rule Japan but that's a gimme.

Xerxes

11-02-2005, 02:35 PM

Nobody posted the new Nintendo controller and said "Wow, that's gh3y".

:confused:
Were you sick that week? It was gay, gey, ghey, gh3y, ggggg-gay, gigli, and everything else under the sun.

riposte101

11-02-2005, 02:39 PM

Take off the goggles, this is big.

Because not having a central online service really hurt the PS2... PS3 is going to be just fine.

Citizen Philip

11-02-2005, 02:40 PM

Take off the goggles, this is big.

I am hungry. Red Cloak deliveres the FUD. All is well.

Heretic Machine

11-02-2005, 02:41 PM

Can the PS3 have a worse launch than the 360? My 8-ball says yes.

Sion

11-02-2005, 02:44 PM

Well, the console war is over folks, 360 has won.

Dabombpizza

11-02-2005, 02:45 PM

Take off the goggles, this is big.
Goggles are off. This is big. It means PS3 will have no online service to speak of. Unless devolpers realize that this is the online generation, unlike the current one, and produce stuff much akin to the PC which has the largest online population.

And as far as dropping the proverbial ball? I don't remember Sony promising and online world, so no ball was dropped unless you were carrying your own.

Yes, Sony is going to suck online, but I already new that.

EDIT: Now the question should be is sony going to suck in your house, but we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion on that.

trip1eX

11-02-2005, 02:46 PM

YOu forget you don't have to pay $50/yr to play online with the PS2.

RandomViolence

11-02-2005, 02:46 PM

Errr.

Stupid.

T-Dub

11-02-2005, 02:46 PM

As an avid PC gamer I am a dyed in the wool x-box hater, but I will concede that the x-box live model is very provocative. It may not be original, but it has taken things that work well on the PC individually (teamspeak, buddy lists, favorite servers) and consolidated it down to one easy to use system that is cross game no less.

As a nintendo "fanboy" I've always been very disappointed in their lack of an online portal though they seemed to have recognized the error of their ways and I look forward to a WiFi Nintendo Revolution.

I've owned a PSX & PS2 for a long time now, but I've always felt that Sony as a whole has a sort of corporate arrogance. They are top dog in many areas so they don't necessarily feel the need to inovate and they seem to resist following in their competitors footsteps even when they have clearly made a mistake. Their proprietary memory cards and more recently the Blue-Ray debate are just a few examples of this.

Despite this I am still shocked that they are not following the X-box Live model which is clearly the best foray into online play yet; at least as far consoles go. My only guess is that they got a slow start on the PS3 and only after feeling the heat from the x-box 360 did they move their release cycle. I'm guessing that they will release an online portal at some point however, not to simply doesn't make sense.

Red Cloak

11-02-2005, 02:46 PM

The ball has been dropped. What a monumental mistake. There is no way to spin this news.

Gerbs

11-02-2005, 02:46 PM

Xbox live and microtransactions are going to be a big thing in the coming generation. If Sony doesn't follow with something along those lines, they're going to miss out on the 50 cents that I would have spent to download a pair of white sneakers for my Killzone 2 character! If I could afford a PS3 AND a 360 I mean. And white digital sneakers.

RandomViolence

11-02-2005, 02:47 PM

YOu forget you don't have to pay $50/yr to play online with the PS2.

You're right, but guess which console I play online with anyway?

T-Dub

11-02-2005, 02:48 PM

YOu forget you don't have to pay $50/yr to play online with the PS2.
So if you get paid every two weeks like me that's a wopping 96 cents per paycheck? I've never owned an x-box, i hate them, but if I did you can guarentee I would pony up that triffling amount.

Kelegacy

11-02-2005, 02:51 PM

Is there some way to put a guy on your ignore list and also block his newsposts? If there isn't, can someone invent a way? PLEASE?

Murmillo

11-02-2005, 02:52 PM

Well, the console war is over folks, 360 has won.
Thats if people can buy one! -RIM SHOT! SHOOT SCORES!

If you wished to be an online gamer and had a PS2, you were really out of luck. To enjoy the most out of a PS2, you either had to have lots of friends, siblings or a really good loner.
One of the reasons PC are so popular (still) is because of online gaming. Sure you can say PC survives by "real" RPG's and RTS's.. but look at the bulk of online gaming. FPS is where its at. Half-Life(and mods) BF1942, CS, BF2..
And look how good Halo2 did with its online bit.

I'm not saying the PS3 won't do well, I expect that it still will, but if you wish to be an online gamer, either stick to the PC or take a 360.

T-Dub

11-02-2005, 02:58 PM

Unless devolpers realize that this is the online generation, unlike the current one, and produce stuff much akin to the PC which has the largest online population.

The question is, how many of them do it well? The answer is very few. A clean online interface must be further down the priority list than the credits page. The only game I've ever known to even come close was Tribes 2 and everyone still ditched the in-game chat for the far superior teamspeak.

If the console manufacturer can supply developers with a simple IDE for their online interface it will encourage more online games and allow developers to focus on other parts of the game. As a coder I have a love affair with centralized code and IDE interfaces. Why re-write map software when you can use google maps? Bulltin Boards? Allow the producers of the content to put their energies into inovation instead of having to rehack the same piss poor interface over and over again.

This is the whole point of consoles for pete's sake.

Ernst_Jager

11-02-2005, 02:58 PM

Content delivery and online gaming IS the real next gen. Without this Sony will definitely be playing catch up with Microsoft.

Sloth

11-02-2005, 03:02 PM

I don't know how any company could look at XboxLive and think, "we don't need to do that" Seriously who are these executives because I think I could do a better job than them at half the salary. Send me an email Sony. The guys you got in the office suites are too busy snorting lines of coke off a hookers ass than coming up with ways to make the PS3 better.

Dabombpizza

11-02-2005, 03:05 PM

The question is, how many of them do it well? The answer is very few. A clean online interface must be further down the priority list than the credits page. The only game I've ever known to even come close was Tribes 2 and everyone still ditched the in-game chat for the far superior teamspeak.

I believe they might do it if it is percieved as necessary in the next generation. In this current generation online is an after thought except for the xbox. If it becomes one of the necessities to pushing units out the door you damn well bet it's going to be there.

However, do I think Sony is going to be ahead in the online wars? No, not at all. They will definetly be playing catchup, if they play at all. But I'm sure they have some sort plan, Sony, with all its advisors, cannot be that stupid...maybe.

Dracula-X

11-02-2005, 03:05 PM

This is as relevant as Live is to ***'s bottom line. Live subscribers are a mere fraction of the Xbox base. And the PS2 seemed to fair well anyway, didn't it? Yeah, that's what I thought. A ball can't be dropped when there is no ball.

This isn't to say that Live won't be huge in the next generation, it just may well be. It's one of the few things *** really got right and it's doing its best to cultivate it. As of right now and the near future, It's still niche.

Dabombpizza

11-02-2005, 03:12 PM

Is there some way to put a guy on your ignore list and also block his newsposts? If there isn't, can someone invent a way? PLEASE?

What, no one yells at you for speaking out?

Lexicon

11-02-2005, 03:14 PM

Take off the goggles, this is big.

Yes online gaming is important but even with how smooth xbox live has been for MS. Only 10% of xbox users subscribe to live. So its just part of the overall picture. When even 9 out of 10 xbox users don't use live this gen its obviously not as big a deal breaker as some make it out to be.

trip1eX

11-02-2005, 03:17 PM

You're right, but guess which console I play online with anyway?
Who cares?

Guess which console has more online gamers? Hint: it ain't the xbox.

Paltry

11-02-2005, 03:19 PM

I had given up on consoles until xbox live. It takes the best of the pc world and brought it to your tv screen. It was a huge step in gaming and it can only continue to grow, at least, I hope. I would hate to the console world stagnate due to these kinds of decisions.

bean19

11-02-2005, 03:21 PM

Obviously you haven't read the previous posts. Red Cloak posts and then runs. But honestly, shouldn't one be a little less bias when posting news articles? I mean, "Dropping the proverbial ball"? Read the freakin' article, it doesn't denounce Sony, just casts a bit of shadow into it's online future. There's no speculation, such as "I wonder what sony is going to do..." only denouncement. Nobody posted the new Nintendo controller and said "Wow, that's gh3y".

I'm not sure I agree, as the italicized bit is for opinion writing, but with the console wars being such a touchy subject, I'd avoid such a black or white opinion.

I think that the PS3 could benefit greatly by having features like those in Xbox Live, but I don't think that they are necessarily "dropping the ball". The system definitely has a lot of things going for it beyond online play.

bean19

11-02-2005, 03:25 PM

What, no one yells at you for speaking out?

Because Kelegacy is pretty. :)

bapenguin

11-02-2005, 03:26 PM

Yes online gaming is important but even with how smooth xbox live has been for MS. Only 10% of xbox users subscribe to live. So its just part of the overall picture. When even 9 out of 10 xbox users don't use live this gen its obviously not as big a deal breaker as some make it out to be.

You are looking at something of the past. Online gaming is getting bigger and bigger. When you throw in XBox Live arcade and it's "non-hardcore" games and multiplayer, you may see a lot more subscribers moving forward as it hits a whole new gaming target.

Decentralizing your online system is just idiotic, Nintendo is following Microsoft and having universal cross game ways to communicate, etc. If this is true, it's a bad move on Sony's part.

While I don't think the %'s will flip flop, I would be surprised to see 25-30% of users as subscribers to Live, and 50% as users of Live Silver.

Dabombpizza

11-02-2005, 03:26 PM

Because Kelegacy is pretty. :)
But you said you loved my personality! *sniff* Well, I guess you might as well poor a bucket of pigs blood over my head...

bapenguin

11-02-2005, 03:27 PM

Who cares?

Guess which console has more online gamers? Hint: it ain't the xbox.

Any Proof? I'm curious.

Dabombpizza

11-02-2005, 03:35 PM

Any Proof? I'm curious.
I would imagine the PC...just a wild obvious conclusion.

Sl1pstream

11-02-2005, 03:37 PM

I would imagine the PC...just a wild obvious conclusion.

He was talking about a console, so I assume he meant PS2. Too bad he doesn't have any proof to go with his statement.

Dracula-X

11-02-2005, 03:39 PM

What, no one yells at you for speaking out?
Something about sexual favors comes to mind... I dunno... ;)

Vandenh

11-02-2005, 03:41 PM

Lexicon

11-02-2005, 03:42 PM

You are looking at something of the past. Online gaming is getting bigger and bigger. When you throw in XBox Live arcade and it's "non-hardcore" games and multiplayer, you may see a lot more subscribers moving forward as it hits a whole new gaming target.

Decentralizing your online system is just idiotic, Nintendo is following Microsoft and having universal cross game ways to communicate, etc. If this is true, it's a bad move on Sony's part.

While I don't think the %'s will flip flop, I would be surprised to see 25-30% of users as subscribers to Live, and 50% as users of Live Silver.

Looking at something of the past? I thought I was looking at the present, whereas you are looking at the future.

Even if you hit 20- 30% online gaming is still just one element. I'm not saying that a centralized system is bad or that not having one is good, my point is it isn't the end all be all of the console wars as some people say. Except for velocity girl now she HAS to have xbox live.

Dabombpizza

11-02-2005, 03:43 PM

He was talking about a console, so I assume he meant PS2. Too bad he doesn't have any proof to go with his statement.

Well if it's a console then he's retarded.

TheEpicOfTyler

11-02-2005, 03:44 PM

I remember numbers a while back that showed more SOCOM players on at any given time than XboxLive. That was a long while ago though, so that may have changed.

Murtaug

11-02-2005, 03:44 PM

So if you get paid every two weeks like me that's a wopping 96 cents per paycheck? I've never owned an x-box, i hate them, but if I did you can guarentee I would pony up that triffling amount.

I think your math is off, but your point is still valid. It's actually closer to $2.20 every two weeks, still not going to break the bank though. ;)

Unless you are paying only $1.92 a month for live, and if so.. how?

Dabombpizza

11-02-2005, 03:45 PM

I remember numbers a while back that showed more SOCOM players on at any given time than XboxLive. That was a long while ago though, so that may have changed.

Hmm...Halo 2 vs SOCOM...which would win...which would win.... :D

Vandenh

11-02-2005, 03:47 PM

>I remember numbers a while back that showed more SOCOM players on at any given time than XboxLive

Yeah right... link?

Lexicon

11-02-2005, 03:48 PM

>Guess which console has more online gamers? Hint: it ain't the xbox.

Online adaptors sold != people actually playing

PS2 online is probably well below Live... Sony never gave us any numbers.

PS3 seems to be falling apart every month... I wonder what Sony *will* do right?

As of August 2004 #s were 1.4mil registered online users in North America for ps2 and in July 2004 1mil for xbox live. Only numbers I could really find for ps2. I didnt make the statement not saying he is right just putting out what little info I could find.

nonchalance

11-02-2005, 03:53 PM

As of August 2004 #s were 1.4mil registered online users in North America for ps2 and in July 2004 1mil for xbox live. Only numbers I could really find for ps2. I didnt make the statement not saying he is right just putting out what little info I could find.

I'm registered for PS2 online.

I registered, loaded it up, found no players for my game of choice, and logged off again.

No further play.
Still registered.
See my point?

midrael

11-02-2005, 04:00 PM

Disappointing - Yes.
Stupid - Most Probably.

I have to admit, this is both surprising and not surprising. Somehow, Sony ignoring their online audience doesn't truly blow me away anymore. They've been doing it for years heh.

Well, the console war is over folks, 360 has won.

This is just ignorance. More likely, it'll cause the gap between Sony and Microsoft to grow smaller. The hardcore online genre of games will obviously lean towards the 360, but with this still being a niche market, Sony still will be a behemoth of a company in the world of console gaming.

Again, I'm disappointed. A really well-done version of Live on the PS3 I think would have truly introduced the world to online gaming. That's when I think it would have taken off. This is just going to slow things down.

Murtaug

11-02-2005, 04:02 PM

It is kinda sad to see that Sony has missed the point of a 'Live-like' service, and that fact probably just sealed my choice for what next-gen system I will pony up for. I got into the Xbox late in the game, I bought one September of last year? (just after Fable was released anyway), and I have to say that my love of the Playstation 2 has done nothing but gone downhill. Aside from some exclusive titles, and the first party stuff, I always hit the Xbox version of any title I pick up if possible.

I've not been a steady subscriber to Live, I have used a few of those 2-month trials from time to time, but it is certainly a solid service and something Microsoft did absolutely right. I own an online adaptor for the PS2, and any game I have played on the PS2 has been a chore to play online. A couple have required their own 'profile', and some do not even want to work with my routers firewall. Never a problem with the Xbox, ever.

Aside from the whole multiple bundle fiasco, I think Microsoft is doing things right this generation; I'm pretty sure where my money is going, it will take a major shakeup from the Sony side of things to change that at this point too.

Zanzibar

11-02-2005, 04:13 PM

As of August 2004 #s were 1.4mil registered online users in North America for ps2 and in July 2004 1mil for xbox live. Only numbers I could really find for ps2. I didnt make the statement not saying he is right just putting out what little info I could find.

July 2004: 1mil Xbox live users.
November 2004: Halo 2 released.

Anyone know post-Halo 2 numbers?

Kelegacy

11-02-2005, 04:14 PM

What, no one yells at you for speaking out?
To be honest, I was hoping for a bit more hostility. I don't enjoy people who are so one sided and system loyal that they go out of their way to try to damage another system...one that isnt even out yet. He's a fuckup, pure and simple. I wonder if he raises baby goats, dies them green, and sacrifices them under an altar of Windows.

Look, you can have system loyalty--I think everyone here has a bit of love for one system over another--but when every post you type, when every topic you submit as news is slathered with such one-sided negativity, dripping in secret glee, you lose all integrity in my book. Our buddy bapenguin loves the Xbox; that much is obvious. However, though he usually is the one posting the Xbox good news, he stays relatively objective, keeping his system love away from the flames of another's enjoyment. He knows, as most of us know, that in the end, gaming is ensconced in fun and enjoyment. Sure, you can rib on another console or company, but when you become a demon in the wings, a rancid, obvious demon, you should be ignored so the evil can break apart and dissipate, making you powerless and nonexistent.

It just annoys me, is all. Yet we always eat right out of his goddamn palm.

ezra

11-02-2005, 04:17 PM

Yeah, that's what I thought. A ball can't be dropped when there is no ball.

A note to everyone who thinks that online is not an important investment at this point: I'd really like you to tell me that in five years. Online is only going to get bigger as it becomes easier to implement, and cheaper, and Microsoft already has a huge lead on Sony in this area.

Looking at something of the past? I thought I was looking at the present, whereas you are looking at the future.

What I want to know is this: What kind of idiot plans for the present?

Twigz'N'Berries

11-02-2005, 04:22 PM

My opinion:
Because not having a central online service really hurt the PS2... PS3 is going to be just fine.
PS2 had a massive install base before the Xbox launched...even greater when Live launched. As Live grew in popularity, so did MS. True, only 10% of MS's install base use Live. But, some didn't have broadband access for awhile. I'm pretty sure Live will capture a larger audience this gen. Especially now that you don't need a credit card and can buy 'airtime' in various packages. For PS3 to completely discard this gaming aspect, it dismisses some of its loyal users who decided not to make the switch to Xbox because they believed it when Sony said they were working on their own online solution.
YOu forget you don't have to pay $50/yr to play online with the PS2.
Too true...but you have definitely gotten what you paid for. I do not feel Live is overpriced for what you get. But, this is easily a personal decision. Please, also don't forget that Xbox Live Silver will be free to everyone who has broadband. If MS uses this correctly, it will increase their Gold subs.
Well, the console war is over folks, 360 has won.
This is obvious sarcasm. Given the debacle which the 360 launch is degenerating into, Sony is probably feeling a lot more confident in their decision to take it slower and not rush things.
Guess which console has more online gamers? Hint: it ain't the xbox.
Right...but when you compare percentages, the Xbox is a runaway success. Now, those PS2 fans probably felt that the PS3 would have a better online solution than Live this go 'round. You may have a few defectors. By no means will this significantly hurt the PS3. But, it will give pause to those who like to game online. At the least, there will be more dual owners (PS3 and 360) due to this.
>Guess which console has more online gamers? Hint: it ain't the xbox.
Online adaptors sold != people actually playing
PS2 online is probably well below Live... Sony never gave us any numbers.
PS3 seems to be falling apart more and more every month... I wonder what Sony *will* do right?
http://www.psxextreme.com/scripts/news2/new.asp?newID=2390
says 2.6 million PS2 so far (back in february)
http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2005/7/21/778
xbox was roughly 2 million (back in July)

There are your statistics. I have no idea of the acurracy of PSX, but arstechnica, i have found, is pretty good.

As far as the PS3 falling apart, I would worry more about what my beloved 360 is going through. MS seems intent on stubbing their toe in everyway possible. MS will gain marketshare purely through early adopters and its loyal fanboys. However, Sony will still be the king of the hill due to its exclusive franchises and its loyal fanboys. Hell, Nintendo's fanboys have kept it hanging around.

Lastly, I really do not think it will be as huge a factor in console sales as many people think. I personally do not put too much stock in Sony abandoning the inhouse online scheme. I honestly think they have leaked bad info to many sources so that when they are closer to launch, the PS3 will seem more amazing.

King Drewsky

11-02-2005, 04:29 PM

Reanimated

11-02-2005, 04:32 PM

lol, Sony is fucked.

Twigz'N'Berries

11-02-2005, 04:32 PM

Take off your blinders, sony fanboys. You guys should be pissed. Don't you want a good online service for your console? Don't you want to be able to play Madden 2007 online and be able to hook up with your friends easily? Don't you want a feedback system that punishes cheaters? Don't you want to be able to download demos of upcoming games? Don't you want a matchmaking system that uses advance algorithms to ensure that games are evenly matched? Sony is making a huge mistake by letting the developers handle the online portion.
EA is a poor example to use. They are huge and have enough servers and cash to support their own games. PS3 is relying on developers to pay a much higher premium to develop on their console...they also now have to invest money in maintianing their own servers. It seems the developers will have to bare a large cost if they wish to support the PS3. It will be interesting to see how long they will have to go before they see a profit...which in turn is tied to the cost of the actual unti to consumers.

Lexicon

11-02-2005, 04:44 PM

I don't even know why I bother to post in Red Cloak threads anymore, Kelegacy sums up my feelings on the issue pretty nicely.

I'll toe the party line. This news about a non released system clearly shows that this other non released system is far superior and since you can only afford to buy one the one coming out sooner is best and the other is teh gay.

Unless you are waiting to only buy the ps3 or only the revolution in which case your sole choice is the best and all the others are also teh gay.

Zurik

11-02-2005, 04:45 PM

Take off your blinders, sony fanboys. You guys should be pissed. Don't you want a good online service for your console? Don't you want to be able to play Madden 2007 online and be able to hook up with your friends easily? Don't you want a feedback system that punishes cheaters? Don't you want to be able to download demos of upcoming games? Don't you want a matchmaking system that uses advance algorithms to ensure that games are evenly matched? Sony is making a huge mistake by letting the developers handle the online portion.

Not a sony fanboy, but I could care less if they have online. For FPS and MMOS, that's what I got a pc for. The reason I have a ps2 is for rpgs, and I'll wait and see which system has the good companies(Nippon Ichi, Atlus, Square-Enix)before I decide. If everyone only cares about online games, then Microsoft would have been the obvious choice.

bobbler

11-02-2005, 04:48 PM

This is actually kind of old -- This was said a bit after E3.

Oh the silliness.

Demo_Boy

11-02-2005, 04:49 PM

triplex: silver is free. i think this means you can get the live arcade stuff without paying the sub fee

Demo_Boy

11-02-2005, 04:51 PM

if this is true and i believe it is, then the reason sony is not doing the service method, is because it is REALLY f***ing hard to implement.

basically MS wins because they did years of legwork on Zone with PC games.

Sensei-X

11-02-2005, 05:09 PM

This sounds like Sony is just damn lazy, I mean they have a music download service, a movie download service coming out soon in Japan for PSP (and hopefully here in the US too), all these things require lots of servers and bandwidth and they've gone ahead and done them anyway. Yet when one of their flagship products needs a centralized online play service they suddenly can't pull it off.

The current generation online system is a joke, cheaters run rampant, not enough people play, most developers don't bother implmenting netplay on their games, and it's just a hassle to use. I have a network adapter and quite frankly it was money badly spent. If anything the best incentive for buying a PS2 Network adapter was not any of their online games, it was HD Loader, so if network adapters=online players the numbers are WAY off.

Achilles

11-02-2005, 05:19 PM

My thought is that maybe a couple publishers which have their own proprietary online service arm wrestled Sony into submission on this one. Namely EA. It’s a big advantage to be the only 3rd party that offers online games on a system, and that’s basically EA right now on the PS2.

A service like Live with its plug-in utilities would help more developers easily compete in the online space as we see with smaller publishers who have been putting Live aspects in Xbox games. Nearly every big Xbox game that comes out these days has some kind of Live features, even if it's just a leader board. Without MS's infrastructure this wouldn't exist, and people who have built their own would dominate.

I don't blame Sony for this one, I suspect they were politiked.

Kefkataran

11-02-2005, 05:27 PM

Could we just not have Red Cloak post's go to the main page? I think most people here agree that his posts are biased in a way that really isn't good.

Morrolan

11-02-2005, 05:28 PM

Demo_Boy

11-02-2005, 05:30 PM

Well look at EAs online service for their games.

I heard players struggle massively with it. Now if EA struggles to make a tight online service with their massive teams, its no surprise that Sony, whom hasnt really tried to do online service is way way out of the action.

Maybe Sony should buy Blizzard, put WOW on PS3, that would make the online war about even.

AspectVoid

11-02-2005, 05:48 PM

Achilles

11-02-2005, 06:03 PM

I still don't think this means anything for Sony. Look at the numbers. The amount of people who use consoles online is still only around 10%. The last figures released for Live were around 2 million custormers. Microsoft has sold over 20 million x-boxes. When it comes to the grand scheme of things, frankly, online just does not matter right now.I'd argue that those 10-20% are also the 10-20% that buy the most games. In that case it well serves Sony and MS to cater to them. It's good to cater to the market that buys one game a year, but the market that buys 20 a year is probably also the same group of people who are willing to pay for an online service, MMORPG subscription fees, etc, and they're your main source of income.

nonchalance

11-02-2005, 06:22 PM

if this is true and i believe it is, then the reason sony is not doing the service method, is because it is REALLY f***ing hard to implement.

If Nintendo and MS can both do it, then surely Sony should be able to.

Demo_Boy

11-02-2005, 06:41 PM

If Nintendo and MS can both do it, then surely Sony should be able to.

Nintendo is implementing what?
I havent seen any interface for it.
Its not out till the fat lady sings.

Xerxes

11-02-2005, 06:41 PM

Xbox is going to tweek the numbers a bit. Xbox Live silver will be on every xbox. Isn't there like 20 million Xboxs sold. If over the same five year period the same followers and such. You get the point.

nonchalance

11-02-2005, 06:56 PM

Nintendo is implementing what?
I havent seen any interface for it.
Its not out till the fat lady sings.

I haven't seen any interface for the PS3's blu-ray player either. Does that mean it won't actually have one?

Revolution announced at E3 that
Revolution will feature an online matchmaking service ala Xbox Live with downloadable content in the form of a library of archived games.
And we know DS will have skill-based matchmaking, buddy lists and unique gamertags.

It's not fucking hard.

*Legion*

11-02-2005, 09:04 PM

An open method can work as proven with the PC

Except the PC is an open platform itself.

How fun would PC gaming be without IM clients like Xfire (or even traditional IM clients), server browsers like Gamespy or All-Seeing Eye, and various other creations like PunkBuster, TeamSpeak, etc. etc. etc. ??

This sounds like all the disadvantages of an open system with none of the advantages for the PS3.

*Legion*

11-02-2005, 09:09 PM

I'd argue that those 10-20% are also the 10-20% that buy the most games. In that case it well serves Sony and MS to cater to them. It's good to cater to the market that buys one game a year, but the market that buys 20 a year is probably also the same group of people who are willing to pay for an online service, MMORPG subscription fees, etc, and they're your main source of income.

Games like SOCOM prove your point well. And sports games, which were already popular but have enjoyed nice spikes since going online.

Not to mention that growth is rapid, and it's not going to be only 10-20% in 2007, 2008, etc.

Cyrano

11-02-2005, 09:38 PM

Some guy from Sony said this in a interview on G4 during E3.

Nessus

11-03-2005, 12:19 AM

Personally I'd rather not pay a monthly fee.

I'm hoping Nintendo will be able to provide something in between Xbox Live and Sony's non-existant plan with Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection.

Xerxes

11-03-2005, 12:32 AM

Nessus. I could see Nintendo pulling it off. Ok I can't but for the sake of argument I can. I would say they could offer what Xbox Live is now. What it's going to become while not much is still quiet alot. More enriched community aspect. You don't want to play with kids and cry babies? You can see ratings now. Rankings. Skills of the players in the game with you. Better building of friendlist if you don't have friends on live already. Also the xbox.com has the gamer cards somewhat online. It's kinda like in ID4, you don't know what it really can do until Xbox 360 finally comes out.

Player 1

11-03-2005, 01:34 AM

The ball has been dropped. What a monumental mistake. There is no way to spin this news.

Hmm. Redcloak. Interesting.

People have responded to this news by making obvious comparisons to Microsoft's Xbox Live service. I have to wonder that, if Sony *had* emulated such a service, you'd be just as critical of Sony for being 'shameless lazy copycats'.

I guess, you'll damn them if they do and you'll damn them if they dont. I can't help wondering how many people mentally 'switch off' the instant they see your name as the news poster. I can't imagine that's a rewarding experience for you.

As for me, I've dipped my toe into Live waters and enjoyed it - but I think I'm an unsociable gamer. So, for this gamer, this news doesn't sway my opinion of the next gen competitors. I'll certainly be interested to see which online idealogy proves to be more succesful though.

nonchalance

11-03-2005, 02:46 AM

You don't want to play with kids and cry babies? You can see ratings now. Rankings. Skills of the players in the game with you.

This stuff has already been announced for DS.

Better building of friendlist if you don't have friends on live already. Also the xbox.com has the gamer cards somewhat online. It's kinda like in ID4, you don't know what it really can do until Xbox 360 finally comes out.

This is where Live shines - the community aspect - and that's the bit that Nintendo and Sony aren't going to be able to copy. Not for some time, at least. The rest is just copycat stuff.

Vandenh

11-03-2005, 03:12 AM

>This stuff has already been announced for DS.

Hmmm.. let's wait until we see what Nintendo has done. Right now nothing can touch Live and I think Sony is making a big mistake not implementing something similar (then again maybe they just can't do it).

bapenguin

11-03-2005, 04:34 AM

Looking at something of the past? I thought I was looking at the present, whereas you are looking at the future.

Even if you hit 20- 30% online gaming is still just one element. I'm not saying that a centralized system is bad or that not having one is good, my point is it isn't the end all be all of the console wars as some people say. Except for velocity girl now she HAS to have xbox live.

True, but for the people who enjoy online gaming (myself included), this pisses me off. Live and Halo 2 Matchmaking has really spoiled me.

AspectVoid

11-03-2005, 05:47 AM

I'd argue that those 10-20% are also the 10-20% that buy the most games. In that case it well serves Sony and MS to cater to them. It's good to cater to the market that buys one game a year, but the market that buys 20 a year is probably also the same group of people who are willing to pay for an online service, MMORPG subscription fees, etc, and they're your main source of income.

I believe that they're the vocal majority, but not the actual majority of where Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo get their profits from. I believe that it's the uninformed consumer, the one who makes Enter the Matrix the top selling game for a year, that gives the companies their biggest profit.

But then, I'm a big believer in the powers of stupidity.

Roc Ingersol

11-03-2005, 06:32 AM

Making console gamers deal with the BS that PC gamers barely put up with just underscores that Sony still doesn't think online gaming matters.

Last gen? They were right - from a cost/profit standpoint.
This gen? I guess we'll see.

bean19

11-03-2005, 08:58 AM

One of the big sellers for the Xbox Live rig is the Friends List. People see their friends playing Game X instead of Game Y where they met. They get a message from their friend saying, "Hey, come play Game X with me!" and then this person feels word of mouth peer pressure to go buy a new game.

That is, if there are a lot of really good multiplayer games for the system. Otherwise, it's just a decent matching service with lots of bells and whistles.

Captain Awesome

11-03-2005, 09:27 AM

Grave

11-03-2005, 11:26 AM

What? Xbox is more geared towards gamers and Sony is moreso geared to casual consumer electronics? No, NO you are lying and are a liar.

Maybe I'm too much in the "past" but as far as marketing to gamers I think sony pretty much understands that dedicated gamers are going to buy their system regardless of whether it has solid online support or not.

I will buy an Xbox 360 for solid online games, and hopefully continued support of the 2d fighters I laggily enjoy on xbox live along with halo.

I will buy a PS3 for games like DMC 4 and MGS 4 and RPGs, I know thats sad but just because they are sequels doesn't mean they won't be great games.

I will buy a Revolution for Smash Brothers

I look at myself as your average person who is dedicated to gaming, I don't have a lot of money but I can scrap together what I need to pick up whatever I want to get. (Ramen for a few months to buy the PSP)

In all honesty if I'm sony's marketing department should I not be making the assumption that it will be the games that sell the console not their online support?

Xerxes

11-03-2005, 12:26 PM

This stuff has already been announced for DS.

Again, not at the level of what live is becoming. No voice there either.

Twigz'N'Berries

11-03-2005, 01:45 PM

This is what made thr first Xbox so strong and Gates has enough cash to keep putting into it until it works and it did. Lag-free online play and it runs really well. I was hesitant before trying it and was very impressed. From the looks of the Xbox 360 Live, they have covered all the areas to make online play all the more enjoyable with text/sound and player blocking. Tons of options to customize your online choices as a player.

I remember Sony stating that PS3 online would be the same as PS2 online awhile back and thought it was just a dumb rumor. I honestly believe that Sony still doesnt grasp the idea of online play mechanics. SOE has been running into bad financial troubles after the release of EQ2 and SWG. Blizzard just helped annihilate their PC gaming side of things. I guess It happens when you get "comfortable" and think you don't need to improve on anything.

They should really consider a strong network for the PS3. They have more than enough titles that would benefit from a healthy online center.
I agre with a lot of what you are saying. Unfortunately, I just don't see Sony being dethroned anytime soon. They have too big of an install base. But they are showing signs of the complacency bug and unwillingness to change that made the mighty Mintendo fall. Time will tell, but one thing seems apparent, MS has gained ground with their 360 with gamers and it isn't even out yet.

(But if they keep delaying titles, it will lose it pretty quickly. That was the biggest complaint with the Xbox....the games were always delayed and overhyped).

mister_slim

11-03-2005, 04:01 PM

So, who dropped the ball here? I'd say Red Cloak, but he's a troll, and probably knew what shit he was submitting. So it would be whoever approved the news post that dropped the ball. This might have been news over a month ago, when the OPM it was in came out. It would have been news two months ago, when Phil Harrison made those comments in the GDC Europe keynote (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050831/carless_02.shtml), at the end of August. However, I suppose those contained too much actual information to troll EvAv with. Anyway, can we stop with this shit?

Kelegacy

11-03-2005, 04:15 PM

People here are talking about how online gaming is the end-all. Well, where were you all before Xbox Live was created? Online gaming has been around for a very long time, the Xbox only streamlined it a bit. Another console with weaker online components is something I just shrug at. Yes, it would have been very nice (and maybe Sony will get a black eye this round so that they are forced to change) but the fact of the matter is all 3 systems currently have incredible games you cannot play online. I actually enjoy being offline much more than on, because I enjoy aspects of games that real-life people sometimes ruin for me.

If the PS3 gives us some excellent SP games or just allows for "okay" online capabilities like with the PS2, then most people wont give a shit. Plus, playing online with the PS3 will be free, like with the PS2. You sacrifice the frills of a regular online service, yes, but many people don't give a crap about that stuff...hence the reason why the percentages of online vs. offline players are so lopsided.

Plus, online games usually revolve around a couple genres. I loathe MMO's, but the day a non-MMO game like Baldur's Gate (remember that it had multiplayer??) comes to the consoles, I'll be ready to jack in.

Kefkataran

11-03-2005, 04:27 PM

Anyway, can we stop with this shit?

Like I suggested many news posts earlier, there needs to be a rule against approving stories by Red Cloak. He's obviously trolling and sensationalizing.

Morratut

11-04-2005, 04:38 AM

Well I think Sony is fucking retarded. I may have got a PS3 if it had a good online service. Not anymore. I'm probably not going to own a PS3 now.

Kefkataran

11-04-2005, 08:37 AM

Well I think Sony is fucking retarded. I may have got a PS3 if it had a good online service. Not anymore. I'm probably not going to own a PS3 now.

If you only play games for online, then that *might* make sense.

Eon

11-04-2005, 08:49 AM

Well, we're clearly in Online country here. I wonder if this is a big deal outside of Online country, though?

Nah... thought not...

Online is NOT what the next generation until EVERYONE has a broadband line that they can plug into as easily as plugging it into the mains. That isn't now. Still isn't.

And online communities? Shit, man - that's pretty much hardcore territory right there! Most people have groups of friends that they spend time with out in the REAL WORLD without making surrogate communities online. I can't see everyone switching from a "What shall we get together and do tonight" model to a "What should we get together online and do tonight" model - just because Jay Allard thinks they ought to.

I can see them throwing SCIV in the PS3 or X360 and having at it with a few tinnies next to the couch though - and online has exactly fuck all to do with that.

mister_slim

11-04-2005, 01:29 PM

Well I think Sony is fucking retarded. I may have got a PS3 if it had a good online service. Not anymore. I'm probably not going to own a PS3 now.
Maybe you should read the Gamasutra bit I linked above.

Kelegacy

11-04-2005, 03:13 PM

Are more online games sold over SP-only games? I personally liked it when there were NO online-centered games, back when RPGs were without the MMO part (and fun) and shooters had some sort of semblance to story, instead of just tossing a bunch of arenas together and letting you fight it out that way. At least Tribes: Vengenance catered to both groups of people.

Obviously I could give two shits about multiplayer. I will probably change my mind in the coming years, which makes Sony's plans unfortunate, but no where close to being a deal breaker. If you buy a console solely for online, then you're in the wrong gaming field. Get a PC.