Support NeoGAF

[NG_Kris]

The term "free service" is misleading. The basic service is free, and unlike Xbox Live Silver, it is expected to deliver free multiplayer, but Harrison also said specifically that Sony will be pushing hard for paid downloadable content (e.g. tracks, levels, episodic content) as well as a strong focus on dynamic in-game ads.

There will be revenue streams to support Sony's online agenda, it just won't be primarily subscription supported. So, I don't think people should downplay the PNP yet just because it's "free".

 

[Tat]

Once you get a game started PS2 online works great so I'm all for PS3 online = PS2 online + friends list, invite etc.

 

[levious]

Oh, hahah, we get free pizza here at the office every month or so. I never eat it. It's some of the worst pizza I've ever tasted. Others like it though.

now imagine how bad it would taste if you paid for it!

 

[BlueTsunami]

now imagine how bad it would taste if you paid for it!

:lol

 

[Dr_Cogent]

now imagine how bad it would taste if you paid for it!

It would taste about the same. BAD!

If Sony makes a good product, I am willing to pay. If it's free and it's shit - I am going to be pissed. If its free and great - that's the best combo - but highly unlikely IMO.

 

[gofreak]

Lots of things I use on the net are free and great. It is possible, you know I'm sure Sony will have some growing pains, though, and really, how 'free' it's going to be will be down to third parties.

 

[jedimike]

This report is flat out wrong.

Phil Harrison CONFIRMS ON CAMERA during the GDC press meeting that multiplayer gaming will be included in the basic, free PS3 online service.

Several advanced community features are also demonstrated which match, or exceed features in the current Xbox Live service.

Phil very plainly stated that publishers may charge for episodic and additional content, like they do on Live, but community features and online gaming will be free, much like they currently are for the PSP.

I'm constantly amazed at the amateur level of research and guesswork that goes on by so-called game industry analysts like DFC. I hope people seriously don't pay money for their shit.

Here's the deal. Sony has no credibility. When Kaz Harai announced that the PS2 would be going online, he also promised that the PS2 will have its own version of the Netscape browser, e-mail, instant messaging, and streaming audio and video capability, among other functions.

Sony has a history of over promising... to the point where it becomes comical (4D). Analysts take several factors into consideration. One, is the amount of resources it takes to make a service like XBL. Because Sony has so much invested into the hardware, resources leftover for a robust Online network seems unlikely.

 

[Speevy]

I'd rather just wait for November. What you're playing on your PS3 then is pretty much what Sony is offering in the online arena.

 

[Tat]

I'd rather just wait for November. What you're playing on your PS3 then is pretty much what Sony is offering in the online arena.

Just like the first Live is just like Live now.

Oh wait...

 

[Speevy]

Just like the first Live is just like Live now.

Oh wait...

That's not what I mean at all. They can offer more features, but you get the basic idea of what they're charging for and what's free. (that's what this thread is about)

Also, you'll know whether they want something completely comparable to Xbox Live right off the bat, or if it's going to take time.

 

[Tat]

That's not what I mean at all. They can offer more features, but you get the basic idea of what they're charging for and what's free. (that's what this thread is about)

Also, you'll know whether they want something completely comparable to Xbox Live right off the bat, or if it's going to take time.

I see, my bad.

 

[element]

Here's the deal. Sony has no credibility. When Kaz Harai announced that the PS2 would be going online, he also promised that the PS2 will have its own version of the Netscape browser, e-mail, instant messaging, and streaming audio and video capability, among other functions.

Sony has a history of over promising... to the point where it becomes comical (4D). Analysts take several factors into consideration. One, is the amount of resources it takes to make a service like XBL. Because Sony has so much invested into the hardware, resources leftover for a robust Online network seems unlikely.

ding ding ding. Sony is pretty much coming to market with majority of the ideas they had for PS2.

 

[Kojiro]

I would argue this article pains a much more likely scenario than a situation where Sony's is truly competitive from a level of service standpoint. At least, out of the gate.

All I have to say is: :lol

 

[Tat]

Here's the deal. Sony has no credibility. When Kaz Harai announced that the PS2 would be going online, he also promised that the PS2 will have its own version of the Netscape browser, e-mail, instant messaging, and streaming audio and video capability, among other functions.

Sony has a history of over promising... to the point where it becomes comical (4D). Analysts take several factors into consideration. One, is the amount of resources it takes to make a service like XBL. Because Sony has so much invested into the hardware, resources leftover for a robust Online network seems unlikely.

You might as well blame AOL for that not happening in the end.

Sony has just as much cred as MS (raven demo, toy story graphics, only 1 sku with HDD etc) if not more.

 

[donny2112]

From reading the article, I got the impression that their main point wasn't in comparing PS3 online to 360 online, but that online in general is, and will continue to be, a niche impact on hardware sales.

One of the key areas of interest in today’s market is how important will online games be for the new console systems coming on the market. ... Over the past six years, all facets of online games have come a long way. However, online games are nowhere close to being the tail that wags the dog that many were predicting.

The goal of the three big hardware manufacturers (Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony) is to sell as many hardware systems as possible to build the largest possible installed base. Online games are only effective to the extent that they help accomplish this goal.

...

In our view what Sony has announced so far for the PlayStation 3 and online connectivity looks a lot like the PlayStation 2 with an online store and some inexpensive community features added on. ... Right now they probably don’t need the added expense and headache of a full-fledged online service, especially if there is no evidence it will get them to their goal of selling more hardware systems.

...

In other words Sony’s strength is retail and pushing hardware. Trying to compete head-to-head with Microsoft on a sophisticated network service does not necessarily make sense given current market conditions. It would be different if online connectivity was a key selling point for a game system, but right now it isn’t. The lack of online connectivity may be a weakness, but the PlayStation 3 will have online connectivity. Furthermore, the bulk of consumers may have a hard time distinguishing between online services.

Basically, the article is saying that Sony is focused on selling hardware and doesn't need a big online setup like Live to do that. Having online there, with even minimal improvements over the PS2, gives Sony the ability to say "We're online," and to the average consumer, according to the article, that's enough.

Imagine Average Joe consumer standing in a Best Buy or GameStop this holiday season and asking a sales clerk about the differences between the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation. Consumer: “wow, the Xbox 360 sure has a lot more games.” Clerk: “well the 360 has more games now, but the PS3 is newer and more powerful.” Consumer: “do these systems go online?” Clerk: “yes, they both go online, but the PS3 is free, you have to pay extra with the Xbox 360.” The issue of which online service is actually better is not even likely to come up in this scenario. In the consumer’s mind it is included for free with PS3 versus you must pay extra with the Xbox 360. That could even explain why a PlayStation 3 would cost more, Sony was nice enough to throw in the online service for free.

Of course, there is that core group of consumers that will pay attention. But how big is that core?

...

Sure everyone knows about Halo 2. But even with all its success Halo 2 sold to only about a third of the Xbox installed base. And of that third only about another third (at most) were Xbox Live subscribers. So we are still talking about a subset of a subset. When you are dealing with the type of hardware numbers Sony is looking for with the PlayStation 3, the Xbox Live subscriber base is a rounding error.

Again, the article isn't so much focused on the features of the PS3's online, but rather its impact on hardware sales. It says that PS3 could have something as minimal as PS2 online+ and still sell the most systems, because online play has an almost negligible impact on sales. It's like 360's backwards compatibility. If they can put it as a bullet point on a features list, the average consumer won't know the difference before purchasing the product.

As an aside, not that Nintendo's online is going to be some awesome Live-killer, but the article basically ignored Nintendo's online plans altogether. There wasn't really a point of listing Nintendo as a competitor to Sony and Microsoft based on the rest of the content in the article.

To put into perspective why DFC thinks online play will have such a minor impact on hardware sales ...

However, even with our strong growth forecasts we estimate that less than 25% of the new console systems get connected to an online service by 2011.

 

[jedimike]

You might as well blame AOL for that not happening in the end.

...and Macromedia? ...and RealNetworks? So you're saying everyone else is to blame but Sony? Typical.

Sony has just as much cred as MS (raven demo, toy story graphics, only 1 sku with HDD etc) if not more.

In your opinion. I don't really want to argue PR spin vs. PR spin, but I think that most everyone will agree that Sony's credibility at this junction certainly deserves to be questioned. Spring Launch, 1080P, 200fps, 4D, "realtime" footage, etc.

 

[xaosslug]

If Sony makes a good product, I am willing to pay. If it's free and it's shit - I am going to be pissed. If its free and great - that's the best combo - but highly unlikely IMO.

Beacuse it's your rite, right? :lol

Here's the deal. Sony has no credibility. When Kaz Harai announced that the PS2 would be going online, he also promised that the PS2 will have its own version of the Netscape browser, e-mail, instant messaging, and streaming audio and video capability, among other functions.

Sony has a history of over promising... to the point where it becomes comical (4D). Analysts take several factors into consideration. One, is the amount of resources it takes to make a service like XBL. Because Sony has so much invested into the hardware, resources leftover for a robust Online network seems unlikely.

What history? You mean last generation with the PS2, when AOL bailed on them down to the wire? Yeah, FUCK YOU, SONY!

I love how all Sony's plans that have failed to come to fruition are "lies" yet MS' straight up "lies" are MS just trying to make some money this time around/break even. Poor MS.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Both companies are liars. It's just that hardly anybody treats MS like a religion like they do Sony. It's funny to watch. Look at how many members here swore 'Spring 2006' was going to happen just because Sony said it would. Now we're right back where we were, taking everything they say as absolute truth, and refusing to even acknowledge the gaps and wiggle room between what they do say. MS gets heathy skepticism while Sony gets a solid cult of kool-aid drinking worshipers.

 

[arne]

I wonder why EA would suddendly start to charge you on the PS3. They probably would have charged you on the PS2 already.

IIRC, they did try to do this at one time. It was probably another $2 deal or something similar, but I remember something like that from turning me off to playing an EA sports game online at the time. It obviously didn't last.

I could be wrong but I distinctly remember something like this happening.

 

[Tat]

...and Macromedia? ...and RealNetworks? So you're saying everyone else is to blame but Sony? Typical.

So you're saying only Sony is to blame and not everyone involved? Typical.

In your opinion. I don't really want to argue PR spin vs. PR spin, but I think that most everyone will agree that Sony's credibility at this junction certainly deserves to be questioned. Spring Launch, 1080P, 200fps, 4D, "realtime" footage, etc.

Everyone thought Spring launch was for Japan only. PS3 will be just in time by everyones expectations in US and earlier than expected in EU.

360 was delayed in Australia (ZOMG MS LIAR!)

PS3 can still output 1080p. Blu-ray will be 1080p and Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom is one game confirmed to be 1080p.

It was 120fps and Ken was talking about movies. Any console could run games at 120fps btw. But they wouldn't look as good as say a 30fps game for obvious reasons.

4D is Ken being crazy (that's why we love him).

All movies showed at E3 2005 was realtime. Some where realtime games running there at that very moment and others were realtime movies running there at that very moment.

 

[DD-11]

Anyone who thinks that Sony can magically come up with a feature for feature service like XBL is absolutely insane. It's taken MS years to develop XBL, even with all their resources. It may one day become competitive, but not out of the gate. A little realistic thought will tell anyone that.

 

[PhatSaqs]

So you're saying only Sony is to blame and not everyone involved? Typical.



Everyone thought Spring launch was for Japan only. PS3 will be just in time by everyones expectations in US and earlier than expected in EU.

360 was delayed in Australia (ZOMG MS LIAR!)

PS3 can still output 1080p. Blu-ray will be 1080p and Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom is one game confirmed to be 1080p.

It was 120fps and Ken was talking about movies. Any console could run games at 120fps btw. But they wouldn't look as good as say a 30fps game for obvious reasons.

4D is Ken being crazy (that's why we love him).

All movies showed at E3 2005 was realtime. Some where realtime games running there at that very moment and others were realtime movies running there at that very moment.

 

[Beer Monkey]

It was 120fps and Ken was talking about movies.

Bullcrap. Movies are all 24fps (some video is 60fps) and Ken knows it. Secondly, Blu-Ray spec is not 120fps, and the movie playback is certainly Blu-Ray!

 

[SantaC]

Here's the deal. Sony has no credibility. When Kaz Harai announced that the PS2 would be going online, he also promised that the PS2 will have its own version of the Netscape browser, e-mail, instant messaging, and streaming audio and video capability, among other functions.

Sony has a history of over promising... to the point where it becomes comical (4D). Analysts take several factors into consideration. One, is the amount of resources it takes to make a service like XBL. Because Sony has so much invested into the hardware, resources leftover for a robust Online network seems unlikely.

this I agree with.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Bullcrap. Movies are all 24fps (some video is 60fps) and Ken knows it. Secondly, Blu-Ray spec is not 120fps, and the movie playback is certainly Blu-Ray!

The 120fps was shown on a slide containing HDTV resolutions, the DVD format (and Blu Ray) and was about movies.

 

[Tat]

At least Sony is nice enough to make goggles for their fanboys. Jealous are we? :lol

 

[bishoptl]

I don't know if this thread is going anywhere

 

[Mmmkay]

Bullcrap. Movies are all 24fps (some video is 60fps) and Ken knows it. Secondly, Blu-Ray spec is not 120fps, and the movie playback is certainly Blu-Ray!

There were different things referenced on that image Ken presented, and it seem most people mis-interpreted it on both sides.



It depicts the trends of video entertainment over the coming years, and it not about one specific format or feature. At the top there is the progression of TV resolutions expected over the next 5 years, then there's the associated market 'branding' that will be used to advertise those features. Third outlines the domeestic video media available. Fourth is the ambiguous one - does it refer to mastering framerate? What hi def movies will be filmed at? Or is it something else, perhaps it's really about TV vsync? Finally on the diagram is the PC standards which will correspond to TV standards.

 

[Marathon]

Bullcrap. Movies are all 24fps (some video is 60fps) and Ken knows it. Secondly, Blu-Ray spec is not 120fps, and the movie playback is certainly Blu-Ray!

120fps is the new Toy Story graphics claim.

 

[Gek54]

I cant believe people still talk about the 120fps statement as if it was ever meant to be an actuallity. He was only stating that the machine is more than capable at outputting 1080P video. We wont ever see games running faster than 60fps and even less likely will we see movies running at a faster rate.

 

[jedimike]

I don't know if this thread is going anywhere

I don't know either. The analysts credibilty got called out and I was just trying to explain how the analysts would come to the conclusions they did... which is essentially that online gaming still won't matter and that Sony's network won't be as robust as XBL.

Both are very reasonable conclusions, IMO.

 

[Tat]

I hope I doesn't come off as a Sony fanboy now.

It's just that seeing MS fanboys whine about the same Sony stuff over and over again gets tiresome.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[PhatSaqs]

I hope I doesn't come off as a Sony fanboy now.

It's just that seeing MS fanboys whine about the same Sony stuff over and over again gets tiresome.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

Dont worry about it. If you are a huge Sony fan you're in good company here at GAF

 

[Beer Monkey]

There were different things referenced on that image Ken presented, and it seem most people mis-interpreted it on both sides.

It depicts the trends of video entertainment over the coming years, and it not about one specific format or feature. At the top there is the progression of TV resolutions expected over the next 5 years, then there's the associated market 'branding' that will be used to advertise those features. Third outlines the domeestic video media available. Fourth is the ambiguous one - does it refer to mastering framerate? What hi def movies will be filmed at? Or is it something else, perhaps it's really about TV vsync? Finally on the diagram is the PC standards which will correspond to TV standards.

From that slide, it's all just the theoretical future of the video industry, beyond what Blu-Ray or PS3 are even capable of delivering. That stuff should never have been interpreted as being even relevant to PS3.

I don't know either. The analysts credibilty got called out and I was just trying to explain how the analysts would come to the conclusions they did... which is essentially that online gaming still won't matter and that Sony's network won't be as robust as XBL.

Both are very reasonable conclusions, IMO.

Extremely reasonable conclusions. Hell, for so long we've been hearing around here that it doesn't really matter if it's as good as Live as long as it's decent and free.

And you know what? That's a pretty accurate assessment. Even if the die-hard online 'community' sort of console gamers are disappointed with PS3 online, it's not really going to make any substantial difference to the bottom line. That's the most important thing here anyway, right? That my company sells more than your company? :lol

 

[Andokuky]

Anyone who thinks that Sony can magically come up with a feature for feature service like XBL is absolutely insane. It's taken MS years to develop XBL, even with all their resources. It may one day become competitive, but not out of the gate. A little realistic thought will tell anyone that.

Sony doesn't have to do it all themselves, that's why they partnered with GameSpy who has been doing this for years. Furthermore, have we forgotten about SOE? Sony has experience making online games and networks, even if they are just shitty Star Wars RPG's and god awful ports of EQ to PS2 that look like N64 games.

I don't get why people try to spin free online play into something bad. The only feature I wouldn't mind having on my PS2 from Live is the unified friends list and aparently this will not only be on PS3 but it will be free. Yea, downloaded content is be extra but it isn't free on Live either.

I'm glad it's not completely like Live. My Live account expired 2 months ago and I didn't bother to renew, it's laggy as fuck and it seems most of the games were put online simply because MS went to the developer and said "throw in something for Live". Plus Halo 2, good god who can forget that? If Sony wants to go to developers and say "if it's online you must put in these community features" and leaves everything else up to them then I'm all for it. The inclusion of a standard 60GB HDD alone gives PS3 online infinitely more potential than PS2.

 

[Mrbob]

This 'research' should have been done after E3 when more info is disclosed.

 

[Mmmkay]

From that slide, it's all just the theoretical future of the video industry, beyond what Blu-Ray or PS3 are even capable of delivering. That stuff should never have been interpreted as being even relevant to PS3.

Err, exactly. Welcome to the internet.