PS3 To Have Integrated Online?

[Dirty Harry]

Ztgamedomain (www.ztgamedomain.com) Reports that Sony has posted on their web site recently (source (boardsus.playstation.com)) that they are in need of a "Junior PSP/PS3/PS2 Network Game Integration Engineer"
This role is to assist the game teams implement online elements in their products, and support the strategic online goals of the company. This will include writing and supporting libraries to help game teams concentrate their efforts on writing game code both for in-game networking, and for lobby functionality (e.g. Matchmaking, content download), supporting the use of key SDKs produced by the group in the U.S. creating the bulk of the networking middleware for use by the teams, and providing lessons learned/best practice for teams embarking on online projects.


While its early to assume anything, possibly this means that Sony will provide devs with a plug in to their games to get online support up and running with ease?

[Borys]

What the fuck is with the red font?

Somebody please "deredize" it.

[EvilBob46]

"Creating the bulk of the networking middleware for use by the teams?"

"In-game networking, and lobby functionality (e.g. Matchmaking, content download)?"

Sounds a lot like Xbox Live to me, or something similar. Xbox fanboys may beg to differ.

[Draft]

Does sound a lot like Xbox Live.

Being developed by a junior programmer.

One year before the system is supposed to launch.

MS must be shaking in their boots.

[Bubby]

Being developed by a junior programmer.

Yea. It's just completely impossible that they have people that have been working on it for months already.

[Draft]

Yea. It's just completely impossible that they have people that have been working on it for months already.yes that's right completely impossible.

[EvilBob46]

One year before the system is supposed to launch.


The fact that Sony has almost a year to work on an online service strengthens your argument because...?

[JazGalaxy]

"Creating the bulk of the networking middleware for use by the teams?"

"In-game networking, and lobby functionality (e.g. Matchmaking, content download)?"

Sounds a lot like Xbox Live to me, or something similar. Xbox fanboys may beg to differ.


O_o... that doesn't sound anything like Xbox Live. Not to say that it won't be, but those sentences have nothing to do with a Live-like system and everything to do with Sony apparently creating a networking middleware the same as developers create other such tool libraries in their dev kits...

[Royal Fool]

Sounds like basic modern PC game online functions... not like Xbox Live, but rather a self-contained per-game system. I wouldn't expect Sony to go any other route, honestly.

[Yeti2005]

I'll have to hunt down the article but I'm also certain Sony has already said that the PS3 will follow the PS2's online model (and not Xbox Live). The reason for this is because they wanted each developer to have the freedom to interact with the customer.

[SymetriX]

Lots of online games have match making, content downloads, lobbys, etc. Could be Socom 4.

It doesn't mean the PS3 will have a built in service like live. Especially when in every interview Sony keeps claiming they will leave online up to the developer as it exists today.

Although, IMHO, its a bad idea by Sony. I've played on Xbox Live with the orignal and the 360, and its hard to go back to configuring each game over and over again like on the PS2.

[EGO]

Hopefully it's Sony waking up. There's really only one game people on the PS2 is Socom, yet Live thrives (hey...! A rhyme!)

Seriously, the easier it is for people to do something, the more likely they are to do it. I know PC people like to fiddle, configure, conquer, but the average consumer wants plug-and-play. They want standards and they want things to work.

The average person doesn't know how or why their car, microwave, TV, DVD player do what they do, they just enjoy them.

If PS3 comes with a standardized interface that works, developers will make on-line a priority. If developers make on-line a priority, there'll be more games. More on-line games with a standardized interface means on-line takes off.

[Cubfan]

The only thing I don't like about Live is that I had to spend $100 on a little wireless adapter to connect my 360 to my wireless network. It probably cost them $15 to manufacture, those bastards :(

[Phanto]

Someone smell PS3 Live!?!?! WTF??? :confused: :confused: LOL :D

[Axiom]

The only thing I don't like about Live is that I had to spend $100 on a little wireless adapter to connect my 360 to my wireless network. It probably cost them $15 to manufacture, those bastards :(

Instead you could have used an ethernet bridge for around 50 bucks.

[ChaosDent]

It has been a while since I bought mine, but I found $75 to be the cheapest price for a proper ethernet bridge.

[SMES]

Instead you could have used an ethernet bridge for around 50 bucks.

Or an $8 ethernet cable. Oh wait, we all love to have everything wireless, sorry, forgot.

In that case there are tons of contained, hardware enabled wireless G network adaptors available cheap. Way cheaper than $100 and $50 if you look around. I purchased one almost a year ago for about $20.

[ruprect]

It sounds like middleware, and nothing like the resources I would suspect being required for an XBox Live type service.

Any plans to create an XBox Live type service for PS3 would be kept secret why? So them saying they are keeping with model of PS2 on-line just to throw people off?

Brilliant!!

[Player 1]

Someone smell PS3 Live!?!?! WTF??? :confused: :confused: LOL :D

Awesome!

When you guys ran a front page news article stating that Sony hadn't declared a centralized network / online system for their online strategy the tone was "Hahahha! You fools! Look at MS - they got it right with Xbox Live!! Sony R domed!!!1"

At that point (and in that topic) I stated how, if Sony were seen to be adopting a similar approach to the centralized online setup featured in Xbox Live that people would just bash Sony for 'stealing ideas'.

On the one hand, it's reassuring to always be proved right. On the other hand it's such a shame that gamers are so idoitically predictable (and assuming).

[Red Cloak]

The Red Font Has Convinced Me, Ps3 Online Is Awesome!

[GWhite]

At that point (and in that topic) I stated how, if Sony were seen to be adopting a similar approach to the centralized online setup featured in Xbox Live that people would just bash Sony for 'stealing ideas'.


Well considering the fact that Sony explicitly stated that they would not have a centralized on-line environment, I would not take a single hire as evidence to the contrary.

Even if they did create a centralized service it would be too late for the launch titles. Instead it would have to be like the original LIVE! for the XBox, arriving a year or so later and with little publisher support.

More probably this hire is for developer support, so that third-party PS3 devs can get platform specific help creating stand-alone online systems.

P.S. Sorry for feeding the troll.

[mister_slim]

On the one hand, it's reassuring to always be proved right. On the other hand it's such a shame that gamers are so idoitically predictable (and assuming).
Maybe you could reduce your idiotic generalizations? And work on the spelling?

[Zeal]

Awesome!

When you guys ran a front page news article stating that Sony hadn't declared a centralized network / online system for their online strategy the tone was "Hahahha! You fools! Look at MS - they got it right with Xbox Live!! Sony R domed!!!1"

At that point (and in that topic) I stated how, if Sony were seen to be adopting a similar approach to the centralized online setup featured in Xbox Live that people would just bash Sony for 'stealing ideas'.

On the one hand, it's reassuring to always be proved right. On the other hand it's such a shame that gamers are so idoitically predictable (and assuming).

You are fucking stupid. Sony has stated that they are not developing an online network, i.e., dedicated servers.

Since you seem to have horrible reading comprehension skills, I'll reiterate for you. Sony is stating that some games will use a built-in matchmaking service (i.e., Gamespy) to connect players together. The developers are responsible for their own online content, network and servers.

[Bubby]

yes that's right completely impossible.

Your point?

[gojira]

Or an $8 ethernet cable. Oh wait, we all love to have everything wireless, sorry, forgot.

Or if you're like me, $2.33. Buy the cat5e cable at Home Depot in bulk and add the little connectors yourself. My switch still has a couple of extra empty plug recptacles. (And that's a proper switch, I haven't heard of anyone using a "bridge" in years.)

At first, it did sound to me that Sony was saying "Oh, let's hire a new guy to start on some networking code, six months before the Japanese release." Good point about them probably having already started on this though.

[JazGalaxy]

At that point (and in that topic) I stated how, if Sony were seen to be adopting a similar approach to the centralized online setup featured in Xbox Live that people would just bash Sony for 'stealing ideas'.



O_o

Did anybody actually say this at all?

Player 1, I have to say it again, you are the biggest joke on this forum.

[EGO]

I have enough cable to run into the other room and up to my hub, but I really don't want the wires running all over my house, so I popped for the $99, phuk it. They just won't get another game outta me... oh wait, until DOA4 comes out, there's nothing worth buying anymore. ;)

[Dirty Harry]

I think miscontrued what i meant, i know sony isnt having a live based service, but possibly they are deveolping a generic plugin for games that enables online capabilities. So this saves the dev from making the game online capable themselves.

[Loganrapp]

Lots of online games have match making, content downloads, lobbys, etc. Could be Socom 4.

It doesn't mean the PS3 will have a built in service like live. Especially when in every interview Sony keeps claiming they will leave online up to the developer as it exists today.

Although, IMHO, its a bad idea by Sony. I've played on Xbox Live with the orignal and the 360, and its hard to go back to configuring each game over and over again like on the PS2.

Well, you really only have to do it once, because the only thing worth playing online is SOCOM and... SOCOM.

Honestly, though number 4 was pretty much the first thing I thought of when I saw that. That would explain only needing a junior programmer, as the SOCOM series has a number of senior programmers all over it already.

[Demize99]

Ths PS3 dev kit has network connectivity API's. There is no xbox live like system, each game does its own matchmaking, etc.

[Twigz'N'Berries]

Lets be honest, we don't know a thing about the PS3 including the information that has been told to us. We know Sony's track record on matching their promises. We also know that Sony knows how to market and sell their systems.

Just wait until the thing is out, or at least a month or so before the thing launches (whenever that is) before launching into a daisy chain about what the thing can or cannot do.

Don't we have enough 360 info to discuss? Hasn't MS made enough mistakes/successes to keep us discussing systems that have actually released?

[JazGalaxy]

Actually we don't know that sony knows how to market and sell it's systems. This is the first time they will have had any actually valid competition.

[Twigz'N'Berries]

Actually we don't know that sony knows how to market and sell it's systems. This is the first time they will have had any actually valid competition.
Well, I consider the fact that Sony held off competition from the Dreamcast, Xbox and Gamecube to be valid competition. Xbox and Gamecube had superior graphics and better capabilities than the PS2. However, the PS2 marketed its system as having the most graphics, slapped together an online solution to battle MS (though far, far inferior) and continued to work w/developers to keep exclusive titles (or desirable titles exclusive for several months). They marketed PS2 as the market leader and the #1 console to have...while relagating N and MS as second choices.

If topping 100 million units sold and countless pieces of software sold for it doesn't count as good marketing and selling, explain what does.

[Player 1]

RE: people responding to whatever I say

Why is it that so few of you ever bother to counter what I say - instead going for the kneejerk reaction of calling me names or criticising my character instead? If you feel that insulting me is a clever move then, I'm sorry to say, you're in the wrong. Insulting a person does not answer their comments - it just deomonstrates a childish mentality to lash out when someone says something you don't like.

This sort of behaviour is far more 'troll' like than my insistance on playing Devil's Advocate with a tendancy to represent the other side of an argument. I prefer not to bleat with the rest of the herd and see as many sides to an argument as possible - when I see a facet being utterly overlooked then I'll bring it to people's attention. It may rub people up the wrong way but, I hope, it will make them think.

Troll-like behaviour is calling names, making simple "u r ghey" responses or, in lesser cases, attacking a person's spelling in some effort to prove their point isn't valid.

Just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean I'm a troll - but people's insistance to lash out and call me names only serves to demonstrate how unthinking and intolerant this community is. Evil Avatar, as a whole, tends to lash out whenever I throw a 'ludicrous' idea at them (such as not calling Jack Thompson names).

Still, insulting me, calling me names and then accusing ME of being the troll is, I'm sure, perfectly justified in your world. After all - you guys have more posts than I do - so that MUST make you right.

And, JazGalaxy, based on your wild and inaccurate anti-Sony rant that got utterly destroyed by most of this community a few weeks back, I really find it difficult to accept ANYTHING you say with a hint of credibility.

[JazGalaxy]

Well, I consider the fact that Sony held off competition from the Dreamcast, Xbox and Gamecube to be valid competition. Xbox and Gamecube had superior graphics and better capabilities than the PS2. However, the PS2 marketed its system as having the most graphics, slapped together an online solution to battle MS (though far, far inferior) and continued to work w/developers to keep exclusive titles (or desirable titles exclusive for several months). They marketed PS2 as the market leader and the #1 console to have...while relagating N and MS as second choices.

If topping 100 million units sold and countless pieces of software sold for it doesn't count as good marketing and selling, explain what does.

I don't feel this is the case, and if you read The History of Videogames (a several thousand page book that is pretty much the gold standard on the videogames industry with mostly insider information from the industry bigwigs themselves) you'll find that nobody inside hte industry sees that as the case either.

Sony just happened to be in a good position. Sega self destructed (nobody in the industry really argues against this) and Nintendo was their own worst enemy for two whole generations with things like selling 80 dollar N64 games against 40 dollar PS games. The PS2 was mostly successful for the exact same reason the Xbox 360 is a big deal now. Hype and limited supply. Once the user base reached the size of critical mass, there was no way sony COULD lose. People developed for their system so that their games could reach the greatest number of potential customers. Again, that has nothing to do with Sony.

I would look at the Sony Vs. DS battle to see how Sony really performs against competition.

[JazGalaxy]

And, JazGalaxy, based on your wild and inaccurate anti-Sony rant that got utterly destroyed by most of this community a few weeks back, I really find it difficult to accept ANYTHING you say with a hint of credibility.

There's a large difference between "being destroyed by most of this community" and people not wanting to hear the truth. "Nuh uh!... NUH UH!!!" does not beating back the truth of a situation. I can find a large number of people in my church who still think George Bush is a good president because he's a "strong leader" who is "keeping us safe" and "a good christian". Just becuase they want to believe it is so, and refuse to believe anything diffrent regardless of support or fact, does not make it true.