Sony Launches Online Sports Game Portal

Thanks to CNET News for their article discussing Sony's attempts to attract PS2 online sports players with a new portal. According to the site: "The new version of 989SportsOnline.com is set to launch Aug. 26 to coincide with the release of the football game 'NFL GameDay 2004'. The online service will feature message boards, tournaments, downloadable rosters and player rankings, and will let people who use a PS2 headset conduct voice chats." This further muddies the waters for online sports players, as "Electronic Arts, the independent publisher that dominates sports gaming, is putting all its online sports titles on the PS2 this year... EA has refused thus far to support Xbox Live for its sports games, citing concerns about the business model. Microsoft has its own sports lineup, XSN Sports, that also offers online play and lets people access message boards and player rankings." Which platform/online sports service is going to come out on top?

Comments

gamecube?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

Why aren't there any sports games offering internet play for the GameCube yet?? I've had my broadband adapter for ages, it's not like it's new hardware.

Re:gamecube?

[BTWR]

first off, a disclaimer: I am a nintendo fanboy and own NES thru Gamecube

Gamecube, for some reason or another, simply does not want to support broadband. It's yet another powerpad/light gun/super scope accessory that they have avaiable for a game or two but never really pushed.

I had a theory when mario kart:dd was shown and "reviewed" at E3. I was wondering "OK, the new gamecube2 will be out in 2005. "We already had one great 3-d version of mario kart (mk64) and here's a new one to whet our appetities. We'll pay $50 since we haven't had new tracks in 4 years, the graphics are SHARP and this LAN thing is cute. But i don't see why i'll be paying $50 for ANOTHER 3d one in 2005 (assuming mario kart is a lunch title)." So therefore, i have the idea that Nintendo may be PURPOSELY withholding internet support, so that it can be the reason to buy Mario Kart 256 when it comes out in 2 years. (Sorta how the new features with madden every year likely could have been easily implimented with the previous year's version, but you kinda get the idea that they decided to hold "fantasy option" or something for 2005 so that they could have "internet play" as 2004's push.)

Just a theory...

Re:gamecube?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

I'm very unhappy with the GameCube broadband support. I wish I knew that either (a) it was really really hard to program for or (b) hardly any GameCube owners are interested in playing online games.

The thing is, (a) has to be false since PSO was released so early, and (b) has to be false since PSO sold fairly well.

Oh well. At least there are projects to get Kirby and Mario Kart online (intranet) instead of just LAN, and supposedly the next Animal Crossing is supposed to be online as well. As a fanboy, know any decent sites which cover GCN rumors (especially network games)?

Re:gamecube?

[BTWR]

the ign 'cube boards have some very informed people on them. you might try there. it was there that i first heard about the tunneling project to get mario kart: dd online

Re:gamecube?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

While I have your attention... any success in the backup copy process for the GCN yet? You're now my official source of GameCube info.

Re:gamecube?

[Babbster]

It's not an actual lack of interest from GC owners (I don't have a BB adaptor myself because I won't buy it for just one game, especially when I already have one for the PS2 and Xbox Live), rather it's a combination fo the fact that Nintendo perceives a lack of interest - or perhaps more accurately a lack of demand - and the fact that Nintendo has other, potentially more lucrative areas to exploit (E-Card Reader and GBA to name two).

Because Nintendo understands that people don't want to pay much (if anything) for online gaming, they see each network adaptor sale as a one-off where people will pay for the adaptor and then buy games as they would have if they hadn't. Thus, Nintendo only gets to charge once for a low-margin item. With E-Cards and GBA connectivity, Nintendo not only gets the initial relatively low-margin hardware sale but they get the sales of higher-margin GBA games and ridiculous-margin trading cards.

Until they either a) figure out how to make big bucks (I'm thinking EQ bucks) on each online game or b) really start getting trounced by the other more net-friendly consoles (with market research showing that the lack of online titles is the big factor), Nintendo is going to keep moving at a crawl towards online console gaming.

Re:gamecube?

[BTWR]

thanks for the title...

Well, everytime i see anything on the gc boards on ign, it always turns out to be a scam. So AFAIK, there is no legitimate gc backup system yet.

Sony's setting up there pieces

[akudoi]

If sony plays this right, esp. with future support from EA's sports line. They can totally blow away Xbox Live IMO. Cudos for including support for the headset, voice chat is the "killer feature" for games I think.

Re:Sony's setting up there pieces

[PainKilleR-CE]

If sony plays this right, esp. with future support from EA's sports line.

You must've misread something:
Sony's service and EA's service are totally seperate. Even though the PS2 is the only console EA is supporting, the service Sony is launching is only for their 980 sports line, and won't support EA's games.

EA won't farm out their multiplayer to any other company unless they can get a lot of customer data at a lower cost than they have when hosting it themselves, so you're not likely to see them working with anyone else's service any time soon. The fact that MS requires anyone offering online play to use Live just means that EA's games will never be online on the XBox (because MS won't give EA customer data, and if you see EA games on Live at some point in the future, it means that MS gave in and gave them this data, or EA's had a complete change of heart somewhere about selling customer information).

Re:Sony's setting up there pieces

[Babbster]

It should also be noted that EA has said time and time again that they plan to eventually charge for the privilege of playing their games online. They've downplayed it more recently, but a big part of their dissatisfaction with Xbox Live is that XBL already charges a fee and EA isn't sure (rightly so) that XBL subscribers would pay an additional fee for matchmaking/roster updates on EA games.

Which One?

[gamgee5273]

Which platform/online sports service is going to come out on top?

CowboyNealSports.net, of course. :D

Obviously Sony

[falcon5768]

Just like Microsofts xBox model has pretty much killed any idea RPG's will be as big as they are on the Playstation, this will fianlly seal the deal, with only Microsoft bought companies like Bungie being the only thing xBox has going to keep it alive.

People are going to go with Sony simply cause EA is the better brand, even if Microsofts lineup is superior. Everyone has grown up with EA games, and knows what to expect.

Can you read?

[drewmca]

Um, are you people drunk or just incapable of reading? Their network is for 989 games. The reason EA doesn't support xbox live yet is because they built their own network up and want to get something from it. The article mentions that. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EA'S GAMES ARE PLAYABLE ON SONY'S NETWORK! They won't support it (yet) for the same reason they won't support xbox live. They have their own network and are big enough to force people to use it.
Quite frankly, Sony's network sounds like despite everything they said before about xbox live, they like the model. Some of the posters here do, too, judging from the "online voice will be the killer app" comment. That's been around for a year now on xbox.
People need to stop getting off so much when "their" system is perceived to be better than all of the other "crap" systems. One system is as good as another, or you may prefer one based on your own taste in games. The fact is, with 3 console makers pushing each other, we're all going to end up seeing better games and better features.

Re:Can you read?

[hawkbug]

You're kidding, right??

"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EA'S GAMES ARE PLAYABLE ON SONY'S NETWORK!"

No, EA games don't just play on a Sony-only network, they work on the INTERNET through EA servers, just like 90% of all online games out there, such as Unreal Tournament, you name it. Also, how does 989=Sony? Unless Sony owns 989, which I suppose it is entirely possible that they do, but as far as I know, they do not. So, when you say "Sony's network", I think you mean 989's network, right? That's why the PS2 is doing so damn well - people aren't forced to pay anything to join an online game, and that's the way it should be. You already pay for the internet access, you shouldn't have to pay EA (or anybody else) to play a friend over the internet. I say that they make the ps2 act as a host if you want, and screw the third party servers, just let people host their own servers and rooms, and people will be happier.

Re:Can you read?

[PainKilleR-CE]

No, EA games don't just play on a Sony-only network, they work on the INTERNET through EA servers, just like 90% of all online games out there, such as Unreal Tournament, you name it.

EA runs the servers for EA's console titles, the story was about Sony launching the network for Sony's 989Sports titles. People have apparently been confused by the mentioning of XBox Live and EA Sports, both of which are seperate networks that compete with Sony's 989Sports network.

Also, how does 989=Sony? Unless Sony owns 989, which I suppose it is entirely possible that they do, but as far as I know, they do not.

Sony owns 989. If you'd like, check playstation.com's news/press section for press releases on 989 titles and then scroll down to the 'about 989 Sports/Studios' section. It says the following (example: http://www.us.playstation.com/news/PressReleases/D 011690.asp )
989 Sports(R) is the sports software brand of Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. Known for its top-selling sports franchise titles such as NFL GameDay(TM), MLB(TM), NBA ShootOut, NHL FaceOff(TM), NCAA(R) Final Four(R) and NCAA(R) GameBreaker(TM)...

So, when you say "Sony's network", I think you mean 989's network, right? That's why the PS2 is doing so damn well - people aren't forced to pay anything to join an online game, and that's the way it should be.

No, he means Sony's network, although the two would be the same (because Sony owns 989), the 989 network is really part of Sony's larger network. Sony's model has nothing to do with whether or not you pay to play a game, either, because Sony's flagship online title is fee-based anyway. Sony doesn't want to offer you online service for all games on their platform, they want to be able to charge you $15/month for EQ, $15/month for SWG, and maybe even something for their other games, too. Oh, and don't forget the $15/month (or whatever it's going to be) to SquareEnix for FFXI, either.

You already pay for the internet access, you shouldn't have to pay EA (or anybody else) to play a friend over the internet. I say that they make the ps2 act as a host if you want, and screw the third party servers, just let people host their own servers and rooms, and people will be happier.

If EA decides that they can sell access to their servers for their sports titles, the PS2 and GC are the only places they'll be able to do it, because MS' model doesn't allow the games to charge an additional fee (over the Live fee). As it is, EA is just selling customer info collected from online players to sustain the server costs. Many game titles won't work well with console-hosted servers, while those that do have that option (on most consoles, including XBox).

Of course, the reason the PS2 is doing so well has absolutely nothing to do with their online strategy. Look at it this way: Sony proclaims that SOCOM is the #1 online console title, since it sold ~1 million units, yet Sony had only planned to ship 1 million network adapters by the end of this past March (after SOCOM had sold 1 million units). Chicken, Egg? Sony has no idea how many people are using their consoles online, and they never will. Anyone can pick up an adapter (although frankly, I can't find one unless I want to buy the console again), and they've been pushing a lot more of them out since they stopped forcing people to buy the hard drive at the same time (then again, the only online title I see myself playing on the PS2 anytime soon needs the hard drive, too), but it doesn't mean that everyone that bought the adapter is using it.

Brand loyality?

[MMaestro]

EA has refused thus far to support Xbox Live for its sports games, citing concerns about the business model. Microsoft has its own sports lineup, XSN Sports, that also offers online play and lets people access message boards and player rankings."

Hasn't EA supported Sony for years from the PS1 and into the PS2? I wouldn't be suprised if EA and Sony were in bed together when it comes to the online sports system.

Re:Brand loyality?

[Recoil_42]

they are. case in point: Battlefield1942 heres what basically happened: Battlefield1942 was supposed to have been ported to XBOX for XBOXLIVE this year -- but guess what? EA (the publisher) told DICE (the developer) that they wouldnt support it, because of agreements with sony. DICE decided to get Microsoft to publish it, and make it without EA's help... the very next *WEEK*, EA bought DICE, and released a press-statement thingie saying that they were very sorry, but the XBOX version of BF1942 would have to be cancelled, as the team was working hard on the road to rome expansion. The Road to Rome went gold two days later. EA has been doing alot to give XBOX the shaft; subpar ports of PS2 games, not supporting XBOX live, refusing to cooperate with microsoft on just about everything. ive pretty much stopped buying anything from EA anyways, as they are releasing crappy games now, anyways... Most of their PC games are getting zero-day patches already... bf1942, CnC:Generals...

Re:Brand loyality?

[Anonymous Coward]

can i ask a stupid question - what does it mean for a game to "go gold?" I assume it doesn't mean, like in music, that it's sold 500,000 copies. Sorry i'm ignorant here...

Re:Brand loyality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple: it means that the final version of the game is done, and that it's going to the publisher for distribution.

Re:Brand loyality?

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks :)

Re:Brand loyality?

[TexVex]

It means a "gold master" CD/DVD has been burnt and sent off for duplication.

I expect most game studios these days use off-the-shelf CD burners for the purpose these days. Back before CD burner technology got cheap, the dye was gold instead of green/teal. It was called "gold master" because it was a golden color and was used to create a glass master used in mass duplication of standard silver CDs.

Gamespy-ahoy!

[xxltjx]

As lons as we don't see another Gamespy spring up....this time for consoles.

Re:Gamespy-ahoy!

[Cyhwuhx]

.::: Gamespy has already developed a set of online-gaming features for Nintendo. Nintendo hasn't used them yet for GC games, but it's maybe possible for LAN-capable games (Kirby Air Ride, Mario Kart Double Dash!! and the like) to use them anyway. Either through tunneling or via built in software. Don't expect voice-support though.

Re:Gamespy-ahoy!

[Mattb90]

GameSpy do the matchmaking, buddy, etc. services for online PS2 games already. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3/4 both use it, and upcoming Warhammer 40K: Fire Warrior does this too.

And don't forget there's GameSpy Tunnel allowing you to play Xbox System Link games online (such as Halo) via your PC.

GameSpy is already in the console world, just not in quite the same way.

go play SOCOM

[Recoil_42]

there's one thing SONY lacks, and can never accquire on the ps2: patches. no matter how good the developer, no matter how good the testers, games will always have bugs that affect gameplay, and online games will always have people trying to exploit these bugs. go ahead and try to play SOCOM online -- whereas XBOX LIVE bans anyone with a modchip from online play, and sooner or later patches every vunerability that someone finds, SONY cant -- you cant download a 30-meg patch onto a 8 meg memory card, and even if you could, it would cost the players and extra 20$ each time a patch comes out (hmm.. interesting revenue model ;) ) anyways.. as a result, SOCOM is now plagued by masses of cheaters, and they cant be stopped. thats the main advantage MS has over sony.

Re:go play SOCOM

[PainKilleR-CE]

Actually, iirc, patches and similar updates (ie content updates) are the reason that Final Fantasy XI requires the hard drive add-on for the PS2. Of course, i could be wrong, they might have some other reason to require the hard drive (thinking, data should be stored on the server, so what could it be?).

yeah..

[u-238]

since the target demographic for these sports games are people who sit around reading forums all day

Re:Obviously Fanboy

[Recoil_42]

>Just like Microsofts xBox model has pretty much
>killed any idea RPG's will be as big as they are on
>the Playstation, this will fianlly seal the deal,

no, just japanese RPGs -- japan hasnt caught on to the XBOX as well as hoped (thats something of an understatement, actually -- MS is being slaughtered over there) and so no Japanese RPGs are coming out for it. but KoTOR? Fable? Morrowind? Baulder's gate? Fallout? Sudeki? XBOX has many RPGs coming out for it, just none of them japanese. (save for that sega rpg that i always forget what its called...)



>with only Microsoft bought companies like Bungie
>being the only thing xBox has going to keep it
>alive.

Ubisoft has put out some excellent games for the XBOX, and other developers are starting to come to it. Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon were both excellent. and SEGA has supported XBOX very much from the start. PDO, JSRF, GT2002, GTonline, NFL2k3/ESPN, Baseball2k3/ESPN, etc... SEGA still makes awesome games.

And dont forget Microsoft itself, which does make some pretty decent games...


>People are going to go with Sony simply cause EA is
>the better brand, even if Microsofts lineup is
>superior. Everyone has grown up with EA games, and
>knows what to expect. what was, no longer is. EA now makes some really, really buggy games, although alot of them are pretty cool (BF1942 and CnC:Generals, fir instance, take both categories; they are really cool games, but very buggy). And people dont go with sony because of EA, they go with sony because of Sony itself, Square, and Rockstar/TTWO. No one gives a horses ass about EA, if they need a football game, theres another 3 choices out there. Its the uniques that grab people's attention -- final fantasy, GTA3, etc...

Re:Obviously Fanboy

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

"No one gives a horses ass about EA, if they need a football game, theres another 3 choices out there. Its the uniques that grab people's attention -- final fantasy, GTA3, etc..."

I own a PS2 and, while I evaluate the crop of football games each year, the Madden series is one of my favorites. You appear to be a casual fan of football games, which is fine, but the hardcore player will seek out the best game - which in the past three years has been Madden. I do not give a horse's ass about Final Fantasy about would never ever consider buying a console simply because of something Square released. You may also want to take a look at some sales figures and realize that sports games are very popular sellers and EA's work, specifically in football (WSB 2K3 is the best baseball game), is one of the top sellers across all genres. Don't confuse what grab's your attention with what the majority of people are looking for.

Re:Obviously Fanboy

[Recoil_42]

Actually, im not a sports game fan at all. I get my views from what other people have told me and most of them say that 2k3/ESPN is a better game than Madden, which is growing stale.

But what i am saying is, its the uniques that make the console. Madden is on all three consoles, no? so then how would that affect a buyer's choice of console? it wouldnt. A person's choice of console is based much on the uniques, ie GTA, Halo, Zelda. I dont want to get snitty here, but as you said, "Don't confuse what grab's your attention with what the majority of people are looking for."

and what they base their choice of console on will NOT be the sports game, because it is out on all three consoles. they will purchase based on the uniques, and the specs of the console.

understand where im coming from here?

Re:Obviously Fanboy

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

You obviously haven't done your research. Madden is out for more than one console but one of the sellings points of the PS2 version is that it will be the only online playable version. So that is how Madden can affect a buyer's choice of console, even though you stated that "it "wouldn't."

NFL 2K3 is not better than Madden 2003.

Re:Obviously Fanboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is. In fact, it's more better.

Who needs servers anyway?

[razmaspaz]

Look at counter strike...It is a completely user supported network. I don't understand why they don't just make it possible to log onto any server. They could save themselves the effort and $ of supporting the online network and let gamers do it for them! I never understood why Blizzard went to so much trouble to shut down these fringe battle net servers, they are paying the power bill so you don't have to. Wake up!