Support NeoGAF

[Cerebral Palsy]

I won't buy a PS3 unless it has an online service that rivals XBL. Online gaming was a freaking disaster on the PS2. I can see why Nintendo bailed out with the Gamecube.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Yup. In certain conditions of course. Being Sony i would make a pleasure in making my competition eat dirt the most possible. I have the brand, i have the revenue, i can risk some expensive shit like my new console, i can risk another dime on a well-done live-like service. What if i alienate my competitor? What if i grab the majority of all online gamers and Xbox owners who know would buy games from me?
It's all about competition and how you want to tackle your opponents. When you're alone, you charge, hence Microsoft charging. If Sony was there before with something equal or better, Microsoft would give you more. It can mean less money or more features for the same money.

MS is in a much better position to get into a bleeding war with Sony right now. Plus, XBOX Live has 3 years of revenue building behind it, while Sony Online has none. So, if Sony goes free, and XBOX Gold goes free, then it then comes down to games and how well the online is implemented in them.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

If Sony is serious about advancing an online marketplace (like Connect), a free model with the core P2P/community based features on the surface would make the most sense one would think. It would guarantee a much more rapid growth to an online community compared to any charge based model, and open up further revenue streams in the process. More people in your "store" more often obviously means more potential customers to transact the content being marketed in such a space. As well as more consumers willing to pay additional fees for subscription based games like MMOs, and more people paying extra for proprietary peripherals to enhance the experience (additional mem sticks, hard drives, Eye Toy, keyboard etc.). Think of it as online razor blades.

Oy...Business-Age got to me again, heh.

 

[siamesedreamer]

The thing is, Sony doesn't have to do a complete ripoff of XBL to have a solid Online plan. They just need the essentials (friends list, headset support for all games, universal login), give those tools to 3rd parties to integrate those features and handle the rest on the infrasturcture side. That way they can keep it free and still have a somewhat cohesive experience. Its not ideal (like XBL is), but if it means its free I'm sure many gamers will do just fine with it.

MS has set the standard and I don't think Sony should offer anything less or it will look like another half assed attempt.

Even if they go that route (friends list, headset support for all games, universal login), you as an Xbox Live member know that at this point those three things aren't enough. Little things like cross game messaging is just as important (if not more) as anything else.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

I won't buy a PS3 unless it has an online service that rivals XBL and has a game that betters the experience one can find already on X360. Why would I pay more to play Socom 4 if I love playing The Outfit on my X360?

fixed for me

 

[Dr_Cogent]

MS has set the standard and I don't think Sony should offer anything less or it will look like another half assed attempt.

Even if they go that route (friends list, headset support for all games, universal login), you as an Xbox Live member know that at this point those three things aren't enough. Little things like cross game messaging is just as important (if not more) as anything else.

Cross game messaging is awesome. Also, I love how MS has seperated that shit from the game entirely and is all handled in a standard way now. That's friggin sweet.

 

[Ranger X]

Thing is, I am sure there is more to it than that. Sony investors need to be for it. Sony, from everything I keep hearing, is hurting financially, so I am sure it would present itself as a risk too. I am sure there are a shitload of factors we aren't even considering on here.

Yep, we aren't them and that's why we can't be sure of stuff. So we can't be sure they can't pull it off. If only for the sake of this entertaining discution, i would risk more in Sony Entertainment than other Sony division simply because Sony Entertainement is the only part of Sony that is healthy. The bad financial state of Sony is when we take it as a whole.

 

[Ranger X]

MS is in a much better position to get into a bleeding war with Sony right now. Plus, XBOX Live has 3 years of revenue building behind it, while Sony Online has none. So, if Sony goes free, and XBOX Gold goes free, then it then comes down to games and how well the online is implemented in them.

Yeah but then it could be Microsoft who's getting hurt the most since everybody is free, it's other factors that will bring customers like brand recognition and software support. And in those area, Sony is at a clear advantage right now.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

Pretty good for 'worst looking title' I would say.

LOL CHARACTER DESIGN

Finished product > pre-alpha


Here's a low poly concept of a covenant elite.

LOL CHARACTER DESIGN

own3d!

You got served spinnington

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Yeah but then it could be Microsoft who's getting hurt the most since everybody is free, it's other factors that will bring customers like brand recognition and software support. And in those area, Sony is at a clear advantage right now.

If Sony can attach a KILLER online experience to one of their brands that supercedes anything XBL can offer, then we will all be in for a real treat. Competition is good!!!

 

[Borys]

What if MS keeps the current (former) 2M of Xbox Live users + maybe 100% more for a total of 4M online users during the console lifecycle while Sony gets 10M (about 10% of targetted userbase) new online gamers who never, ever played online - cause they had only PS2 last gen?

Who will be the winner then? The answer is clear - Sony, from zero to hero. Yes maybe SW service will be quite than Live but casuals do not care.

"Hey it's PS3 and I can get online, for free! And it *works* [not like my PC!]"

MS may keep the hardcore for what it's worth it - the real money and potential lies within the untapped 99M PS2 users, 18M Xbox users and 20M GCN users who never, EVER played online.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

If Sony does come up with a centralized model, I sure hope they have the ability to "prefer" or "not prefer" other players and submit reviews of other players like on Live. This functionality is very cool for Live since eventually the punk ass bitches who are nothing but assholes online will not be matched up with me (in theory at least).

Reputation on Live is cool.

 

[jedimike]

I don't think Sony can afford to offer a service similar to MS's for free. I don't know every little detail about how XBL works, but I do know that MS has 4 data centers... 1 in Redmond, 1 in London, 1 in Tokyo, and 1 in Tukwila that's used strictly for billing, point redemption, etc.

There are hundreds of servers and each room is wired for power redundancy, security, and cooling. MS can control every server from Redmond... so a staff of four manages all the servers from Redmond.

So once Sony spends the money to set it up, they'll also have to spend money to maintain and upgrade. Then you have to factor in the biggest cost of it all... the fat internet pipeline that feeds the centers.

Is Sony secure enough financially to offer a $299 PS3 and a free on-line network?

 

[User 406]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol Ahahahahah! Comparing Xfire to Xbox Live - that's fucking rich.

Yeah, it is kind of a lopsided comparison, considering that Xfire has had twice the adoption rate of Xbox Live. ICE BURN

The point remains, and no amount of shouting "IT'S EXPENSIVE, SERIOUSLY" is going to change it:

XBL Silver is what everyone is in love with, but that's the part you don't have to pay for.

XBL Gold is the central facet of what the service is about, but that's the part nobody else charges for.

So what are you paying for? Or a better question for a consumer instead of a viral marketer: Why should you have pay for it?

 

[snatches]

My guess is MS is already hard at work on an advertising model that will allow XBL to be free. Sony has another advantage with going with a free Sony connect like Hub in that they can help cover costs by selling their own product (Sony Music and Pictures Group stuff, + anything currently offered on XBL).

Sony can use SCE to really drive growth in their other businesses in a real and tangible way, plus get casual PC users to abandon their PC's, using the PS3 to surf the net and check email, etc........

XBL will be free by the end of '07 at the latest. And MS will include an Internet Explorer for 360 free download to Marketplace by the end of '06.

My predictions: pulled straight from my ass.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Is Sony secure enough financially to offer a $299 PS3 and a free on-line network?

Absolutely, and with hard drive included!

Also, you get massage with happy ending!

 

[Danthrax]

Sorry to barge in on everyone's little discussion of Sony's fiscal feasibility and the wonders of Xbox Live and such, but have we actually confirmed that this "Sony World" thing is true? Has anyone actually called GameShout or anything?

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Absolutely, and with hard drive included!

Also, you get massage with happy ending!

SOLD!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[snatches]

Sorry to barge in on everyone's little discussion of Sony's fiscal feasibility and the wonders of Xbox Live and such, but have we actually confirmed that this "Sony World" thing is true? Has anyone actually called GameShout or anything?

You call them. I'll wait here.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Yeah, it is kind of a lopsided comparison, considering that Xfire has had twice the adoption rate of Xbox Live. ICE BURN

The point remains, and no amount of shouting "IT'S EXPENSIVE, SERIOUSLY" is going to change it:

XBL Silver is what everyone is in love with, but that's the part you don't have to pay for.

XBL Gold is the central facet of what the service is about, but that's the part nobody else charges for.

So what are you paying for? Or a better question for a consumer instead of a viral marketer: Why should you have pay for it?

Ice burn? Uh, you do realize that Xfire does not provide the same functionality that Live does. If you think it does, you aren't familiar with Live.

 

[Prine]

I won't buy a PS3 unless it has an online service that rivals XBL. Online gaming was a freaking disaster on the PS2. I can see why Nintendo bailed out with the Gamecube.

same here. Im only going online on both Rev and PS3 IF they have a system thats as good or as near to Live as possible.

Whole reason im not really looking foward to MGS3 subsistence, its on PS2 online, automatically a no go area

 

[Beer Monkey]

If every single online PC game used Xfire (with standard voice chat), then you could start to compare it with Live. Nothing on the PC gives the convenience of Live because you are still faced with hundreds of different standards.

Consoles and PCs are apples and oranges. Look at how games like Psychonauts cost $30 on the PC and $50 on consoles at launch. Consider how anybody can write a PC game without paying licensing to the hardware makers. PCs aren't consoles and any comparison to their varying business models is inherently flawed.

 

[Mrbob]

Wyzdom, you find this quote a lot because for the most part in life - it's true. When something is free - it usually sucks.

If it's free - I find it very hard to believe they are going to be able to provide us with a service comperable to Live. Very hard. If they can, great - but I have my doubts - big time.

Perhaps Sony can create the worlds largest battle.net?

Blizzard intgrates the entire online experience over this service, and it is for free. They get money back from the extra sales they generate with their games. Now, this is a special circumstance, but perhaps one Sony can strive for. If they can get some banner advertising going over chat rooms and game rooms is this such a big deal? It would be a nice way of generating revenue without directly charging the consumer.

It can't be any worse than PS2 online. And it better be a hell of a lot better. The hoops I had to jump through to get online with Madden on PS2 is crazy. Makes me appreciate Xbox Live even more.

 

[Danthrax]

They're prompt at GameShout. Their Executive Producer replied to my e-mail thusly:

I am sure someone in Editorial can answer you, but Sony has been on
GameSHOUT Radio a few times mentioning the service, and they also inked the
decision to have a "Live" service when they presented the PS3 model at their
press gathering at E3.

So it's not really that "new" of a story, so to speak.

-Andy

Andy Hodges
Executive Producer
GameSHOUT

So, uh, yeah. Guess it's true. o.o

 

[Dr_Cogent]

They're prompt at GameShout. Their Executive Producer replied to my e-mail thusly:



So, uh, yeah. Guess it's true. o.o

Believe it when you see it. Don't take anything for face value. Talk is cheap.

 

[Mrbob]

They're prompt at GameShout. Their Executive Producer replied to my e-mail thusly:



So, uh, yeah. Guess it's true. o.o

Game on.

E3 shall be very interesting.

 

[User 406]

If every single online PC game used Xfire (with standard voice chat), then you could start to compare it with Live. Nothing on the PC gives the convenience of Live because you are still faced with hundreds of different standards.

Nobody's arguing that there's a standard for PC online gaming. Bringing up Xfire simply illustrates the point that offering a service that encompasses the kinds of community features that XBL Silver provides doesn't require the kind of colossal expense some people are suggesting that only a huge megacorporation could handle and even then they'd have to charge for it. And the fact is, MS doesn't charge for XBL Silver anyway.

Consoles and PCs are apples and oranges. Look at how games like Psychonauts cost $30 on the PC and $50 on consoles at launch. Consider how anybody can write a PC game without paying licensing to the hardware makers. PCs aren't consoles and any comparison to their varying business models is inherently flawed.

Quite right, which begs the question that if the hardware makers are raking in license fees, why would they have such a hard time funding online matchmaking services? If anything, they should have an even easier time of it, since they don't have to deal with a huge amount of varied configurations and can lock it all down under one umbrella.

 

[Matlock]

*opens up thread*
*notices Sea Manky trolling and/or ignoring 90% of the features of XBL*
*notices people still falling for it*
*closes thread*

 

[kaching]

If every single online PC game used Xfire (with standard voice chat), then you could start to compare it with Live. Nothing on the PC gives the convenience of Live because you are still faced with hundreds of different standards.

Live isn't anymore unifying in the console world than Xfire is in the PC World. You're arbitrarily limiting yourself with XBL, just like you would be if you opted to only play PC games online through Xfire.

 

[kaching]

*notices Sea Manky trolling and/or ignoring 90% of the features of XBL*

Really? I see him acknowledging multiple times now that 90% of the features of XBL are free through Silver.

 

[Danthrax]

Believe it when you see it. Don't take anything for face value. Talk is cheap.

Mmkay, so IGN's PS3 FAQ corroborates Hodges' statement about the Live-like service being announced at E3, but it seems no details besides P2P in-game item swapping were given at that time:

Will the PlayStation 3 use the same network setup as the PlayStation 2?
No, Sony confirmed at an E3 2004 press conference that it is currently working towards a new universal networking hub, which in no uncertain terms is similar to Microsoft's Xbox Live. Specifics about how that network will work (outside of confirmed peer-to-peer in-game item swapping) are still unknown.

As far as the "Sony has talked about it on GameShout's radio station" statement, I can't find archived radio broadcasts on the site. So I don't know if we'll be able to back this up, but I have a feeling all they did on the radio station was mention its existence -- no details and probably not the name "Sony World."

Now, this part of the original story on GameShout is really what's in question here:

The new PS3 video game console will include such a service which will allow gamers to communicate, compete, and participate in live in-game tournaments.

IGN's PS3 FAQ doesn't support these claims, and GameShout gave no attribution to the information.

1Up has a story about George Harris basically talking about microtransactions in Sony's online service:

At the Game Developers Conference Europe taking place in London this week, Sony's chief executive in charge of worldwide development, Phil Harrison, gave a keynote speech outlining the ways Sony's PS3 will challenge Xbox Live. Sony's network will provide an "open platform" to enable publishers to reach consumers, as opposed to the "controlled environment" offered by Microsoft's Xbox Live service. ...

How exactly this "open platform" would work was barely sketched out. However, Harrison did mention that games would move towards more downloadable, episodic content, a theme that has also been in the mouths of Xbox executives. "The idea that people can graze content is fundamental to the PS3 experience," Harrison said. "There is an unstoppable trend towards digital downloading of content."

1Up also published a story two days ago about this quiz, and in it they reproduced the questions found in the questionnaire:

# 1. On a typical day, how often do you play games online?
# 2. Do you own a PSP?
# 3. What is your preferred Online gaming format?
# 4. What Online Gaming Formats do you own?
# 5. Do you think you will purchase a PS3?
# 6. A single identity and password for all online games?
# 7. Global Lobbies allowing you to play against anyone in the world?
# 8. Game Lobbies should be language based. (English, French, German etc)
# 9. Game Lobbies should be based geographically.
# 10. A standard, interactive lobby structure for all games.
# 11. Headset support in all online games?
# 12. A QWERTY keyboard as standard for messaging.
# 13. USB Keyboard support for every online title.
# 14. Friend List allowing you to see online/offline status?
# 15. Friend List allowing you to see what game your friends are playing?
# 16. Private Messaging across games?
# 17. A feedback rating allowing you to choose who you play against?
# 18. Ability to remove players out via a majority vote?
# 19. Game Host has the ability to remove players?
# 20. Automatically filter opponents based on connection quality?
# 21. The ability to download music, game demos and other content?
# 22. Ability to access the dedicated game forum whilst in game?
# 23. Ability to take screenshots during the game and share them with friends?
# 24. Ability to take movie clips in game and share them with friends?
# 25. Ability to play my music during a game?
# 26. An in game grief reporting system?
# 27. Ability to access and manage your gaming profile via PC, PSP as well as PS3?
# 28. Community features without the need for a game disc.
# 29. Ability to choose an Avatar for all online titles.
# 30. The inclusion of a web browser.
# 31. A specific lobby only for Adults.
# 32. Service should feature a Global Ranking system for each game.
# 33. Game Lobbies should be Eyetoy compatible.

Aha. Now, this questionnaire still does not confirm a thing and, oddly, has no language about playing tournaments such as those GameShout mentions.

Moral of the story: GameShout's story is uncorroborated hearsay and nothing has been confirmed beyond an abstract concept of a centralized online hub.

Oh, and item switching for said online hub. And microtransactions.

 

[monkeymagic]

You get what you pay for. If Sony comes out with a free model - its features will reflect that.

Hey I got this search engine I've just built.

Only $5 a month to access it.

Much better than Google since that's free and you get what you pay for right?

Apart from exaggerating the costs of setting up an online infrastructure like Live, you forget that Sony owns content across games, movies and music (unlike MS).

That's where they will make a lot money and they will need to let consumers access that for free in order to do so.

Imagine if you had to pay just to access Amazon, iTunes or Connect :lol

 

[monkeymagic]

Who will be the winner then? The answer is clear - Sony, from zero to hero. Yes maybe SW service will be quite than Live but casuals do not care..

Playstation already has more online players than Live.

If they continue to offer free access and add the Connect content for PS2, PSP and PS3 owners they will be making more money than Live in under 12 months.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Live isn't anymore unifying in the console world than Xfire is in the PC World. You're arbitrarily limiting yourself with XBL, just like you would be if you opted to only play PC games online through Xfire.

Nonsense. PC is a platform. Xbox is a platform. Live is more unifying than Xfire, period. :lol

 

[Vince]

Imagine if you had to pay just to access Amazon, iTunes or Connect :lol

I like this parallel, well said. I may steal it.

 

[DCharlie]

lets wait and see what Sony does first huh?

 

[monkeymagic]

lets wait and see what Sony does first huh?

GAF would be a very silent place if we did that.

Anyway why wait:

- PS2 free online
- PSP free online + Connect
- PS3 free online + Connect + login/buddy features?

I see a pattern emerging and one that will satisfy everyone that has become accustomed to playing games online for free.

Those that pay for XBL will obviously treat it with derision if it doesn't match every tiny detail of Live but that's never bothered the millions that played PS2 online so I don't think it will bother PSP or PS3 owners.

 

[DCharlie]

I see a pattern emerging and one that will satisfy everyone that enjoys free online play.

again, we shall see what happens.

I don't expect it to be free for us here in Japan. Whether that filters down to the US is another matter.

Actually, the log on might be free - but the "channels" won't be. Harrison mentioned that it would be up to individual companies to manage thier "financial relationship" with the players. They could charge nothing, or they could charge. In Japan - they charge - and "a pattern emerging" here is that to play online, you pay. Roughly about $10 a month per company.

 

[monkeymagic]

Actually, the log on might be free - but the "channels" won't be. Harrison mentioned that it would be up to individual companies to manage thier "financial relationship" with the players. They could charge nothing, or they could charge. In Japan - they charge - and "a pattern emerging" here is that to play online, you pay. Roughly about $10 a month per company.

I think that's where we will see online content heading over the next 10 years but that model (wrt console gaming) won't work or be accepted in NA and certainly EU for some time to come.

 

[Agent X]

Sony would be wise to not take advantage of gamers by placing fees and allow online gaming to grow. Payment should only be for stuff like downloading games and expansion packs as examples. Sony should also look into full PS3 games for download as an alternative to going to retailers.

Good points, although I would say that the only "full PS3 games" that are sold initially should be smaller and simpler games that are not being sold in stores--kind of like what Microsoft is attempting with X-Box Live Arcade. If they sell (via online downloads) the same games that are being pressed on discs and sold through retail, then in a sense they would be competing with the retailers. This might irk retailers if they fear that Sony would have an opportunity to undercut them. One possibility for such a program to work would be if Sony agreed to give brick-and-mortar retailers an exclusive window (such as 3 months) where the game would only be available on a physical disc, before making it available for download.

XBL Silver is what everyone is in love with, but that's the part you don't have to pay for.

XBL Gold is the central facet of what the service is about, but that's the part nobody else charges for.

So what are you paying for? Or a better question for a consumer instead of a viral marketer: Why should you have pay for it?

These are also good points.

The ability to play games online should be free. I can understand charging a fee for massively-multiplayer games, due to maintenance and support needs. But for basic peer-to-peer games...no way should there be a fee. The costs of maintenance for such games are much lower, and is usually factored into the development cost of the game. Therefore, the gamer is indirectly paying a tiny portion of those maintenance costs every time he buys an online-enabled game, whether he actually chooses to play online or not.

Now, with that in mind, I could maybe--just maybe--accept some justification for the X-Box Live service fee if online games on X-Box were cheaper to buy compared to the corresponding PS2 versions of the same games. Like, you'd pay $50 for the PS2 version of Madden NFL 2007, but only $40 for the X-Box version of Madden NFL 2007, because the costs of online maintenance would thus be defrayed by the X-Box Live subscription fee...am I right? Again, think about what Sea Manky said above, and consider this purely from a consumer perspective: How are you benefitting from the current arrangement?

What a lot of people are forgetting in the "Sony vs. Microsoft" argument of online philosophies is that there is at least one other major player--Nintendo. While Nintendo hasn't done very much in the way of online gaming, it looks like that is starting to change, and Nintendo's indication is that online play will be free.

So, if Microsoft is pay-to-play, and Nintendo is free, then Sony's got an important decision to make:

1. Offer a free online service, compete with Nintendo's rookie online efforts with a far lower base of fans playing online, and force Microsoft into a tough position as the "odd man out" by being the only major manufacturer to charge mandatory fees for playing online.

2. Make it pay-to-play, have to compete for mindshare with Microsoft who already has an existing userbase of people willing to pay for online gaming, and (possibly more importantly) hand exclusive domain to the free online gaming market to Nintendo.

If I were calling the shots at Sony, I'd be choosing option 1 without a doubt, because I could at least squeeze out Microsoft, and pray that Nintendo doesn't become some mammoth online gaming juggernaut overnight. OTOH, choosing option 2 would be nearly suicidal, because they'd lose out to both Microsoft and Nintendo for entirely different reasons.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

lets wait and see what Sony does first huh?

...and what fun would that be?

 

[Yamaha98]

How does XBC work on the PSP?

Does have a active friends lists log?
Provides a who's online & who's not?
Able to tell what they are playing?
etc etc

 

[Mrbob]

again, we shall see what happens.

I don't expect it to be free for us here in Japan. Whether that filters down to the US is another matter.

Actually, the log on might be free - but the "channels" won't be. Harrison mentioned that it would be up to individual companies to manage thier "financial relationship" with the players. They could charge nothing, or they could charge. In Japan - they charge - and "a pattern emerging" here is that to play online, you pay. Roughly about $10 a month per company.

Everything over Xbox Live from EA is handled directly on their servers now. You transfer from Xbox Live to EA servers when you play online. If EA is going to charge for PS3 online, you will also get charged to go online on 360. This is on top of the Xbox Live yearly fee.

 

[Ranger X]

I think that's where we will see online content heading over the next 10 years but that model (wrt console gaming) won't work or be accepted in NA and certainly EU for some time to come.

And it's gonna happen alot faster if we continue to word out that it's ok to pay for Xbox live and defend it like if we were Microsoft or something.
Each favorable post even just on some lost message board is a microstep toward brainwash and handing our wallets to those who already have the money.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I just hope Sony has their PS3 Connect store up from day 1 when the PS3 is released. A demo of MGS4 at that point would be a nice addition too.