Which Console Is Leading The Online Race?

Thanks to GameSpy for their 'Sole Food' editorial discussing which console has the lead in the online marketplace. The author says: "If you asked me a year ago which console would be the online leader, I would have said Microsoft Xbox - no doubt." But, twelve months later, he's rapidly drawing other conclusions: "I forgot the most important lesson in publishing: Content is king. And most of the killer online content is not on the Xbox, but rather the Sony PlayStation 2." And, after citing specific examples of great titles on both PS2 and Xbox, he concludes: "There's just more games for the PS2, ergo there are more online games. It doesn't matter how good and how uniform the online user interface is if the content isn't there."

Comments

Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers!

[MBraynard]

There are about 20 mil PS2s in the US. There are maybe 7 Xbox's. Additionally, the PS2 online experience is opened up to dialup users.

As of right now, the Xbox has PS2 beat or dead even in pretty much ever catagory of game interest (Rainbow Six 3 vrs Socom2? No competition). But Xbox just doesn't have the install base to get the same numbers.

eh. Anyway, the real winner is the consumer; more than one online colsoe competitor makes gaming better not matter your preferred console.

but PC still beats both

[incubusnb]

PS2 - 20 Million users
X-Box - 7 Million
PC - you do the counting, its simply too high

i love my PS2 and i love my X-Box, but lets face it, neither of them are even close competitors to the online gaming giant that is the PC, every Genre is covered in many different ways and has many millions of users and all times of the day or night

AND, with a CP, games that are meant for single player, can be modded for Multiplayer (ie. GTA3 & GTA: VC)

Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote)

[Recoil_42]

to me, this really comes down to quality vs quantity.

i sure ps2 online is great, and EA has really driven it home; however XBOX live is absolutely fantastically, exponentially better than ps2 online. freinds list, effortless patches, easy login, downloadable content, voice for *every single game*, rankings, rosters, tournaments, clans, leagues, game invites... it is practically flawless, undoubtedly the best microsoft produect i have ever encountered..

in contrast, SOCOM is plagued by cheats, (and let's face it -- no one is going to develop a game that requires a 200$ hard drive just to prevent cheats) each game requires its own accoutn and password, EA is threatening to charge 10 bucks a month per game (someting MS won't allow, which is why EA has refused to develop games for xbox live, by the way)....

also, while i dont want to scream out "BIAS!" too loud, raymond (the article's author) has always been a huge ps2 fan..

lemme just end with a huge penny-arcade quote as i always like to do.. :)

----------

It was easy to think of EA's offering and Microsoft's offering as fungible initially. EA was doing theirs for free, and Microsoft had a pay service, and obviously free is... nice. But while I was being desiccated by Las Vegas nights soaked with alcohol, it seemed to me that their service is free because it sucks. It's free because it is so without ambition that it can be offered for nothing, until such time as they want to charge for it. Why else would they reserve the right, why else would they go through all the trouble?

I've spent enough time on Live with recent titles that it's impossible for me to compare the two approaches. You don't sign in to Live, you don't create a password, you push A. Every game supports voice and a universal friends list I can view from the web. I have a hard disk built in for content. There is an ethernet port. That's not so you can put a jelly bean in there in case you need it later, it's so you can put in a cable and access the Internet. You assholes.

That is all to say nothing about game invites. If I'm playing a game by Ubi Soft, I can still receive invites to play games from other developers - each publisher doesn't have it's own little fairy land where I can only play games with other people who have their games. I can be playing Crimson Skies and get an invite to play Ghost Recon. If I say yes, the tray pops out and I put in the other disc. Then, it joins me automatically. When I can do that with games from EA, I'll shut the fuck up. Until then, they need to act like big people and make choices that are of value to consumers.

---------------

Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote)

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire problem with the horrible monstrosity, the Xbox, is summed up in a sentence in your post.

"...effortless patches..."

"Effortless patching" will make the console game market the same cesspool of unfinished, buggy software that PC gaming currently is. Why bother to put another month of dev work into the game to polish it and fix those last few bugs, when you can just patch it after it's released?

The fact that console games were NOT patchable has meant that console game developers put a lot more effort into getting the game *right* before they release it. Release a premature console game that crashes or has other gamebreaking bugs, let that come out in a review, and your game will not sell.

"Effortless patching" is the *last* thing the console game market needs.

Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote)

[13Echo]

EA can charge as much as they please, just as SEGA charges for PSO. That's not the issue. The problem (for Microsoft) is that EA wishes to completely bypass the XBox Live service in favor of their own. We all know what happens when Microsoft doesn't get complete and utter control of such a thing. This is the issue. Microsoft is banking on total control of online content with this platform, hence the reason for its excellent network capabilities out of the box. XBox Live is a great service, however I don't blame EA for wanting to deny Microsoft control of their own (EA's) content. This is probably why many publishers are opting to stay away from the XBox Live service. It takes control (and general income) out of their hands. I can't tell you how many times I've heard XBox PSO owners complain about having to pay *two* fees. This is the reason that the PS2 is begining to eclipse the XBox live in online games, aside from the fact that more people own PS2 consoles.

Still, a recent GameFAQs poll shows that most gamers (almost 75%) really don't care too much about online gaming with their consoles.

http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.asp?poll=1434

Hmm... Maybe Nintendo had the right idea after all, with such a low-priority online initiative.

the moral of the story

[Geno Z Heinlein]

It doesn't matter how good and how uniform the online user interface is if the content isn't there.

One can't help but suspect that the uniform user interface created the lack of content. Even in the general population, freedom creates more opportunities and productivity, but the game creator demographic leans more libertarian than average.

My comment

[jonathan_the_ninja]

I think that any system that has a game that is worth playing is worth getting. When it comes to gaming, I just want to play the fun games.