Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Seriously though, I think that platforms that are easy/easier to mod/pirate would be the more popular. But thats another issue for another time...
Karma whoring
"... ergo there are more online games."
:-)
Who wants to bet he wouldn't have said "ergo" if it wasn't for the whole Architect conversation in Maxtrix: Reloaded?
My sig can beat up your sig.
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)
/. is overrun by bed-wetting elitist nerds
let it be known, for anything other than servers, a *nix OS sucks
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.
---------------
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
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.
Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars.
Oh..., you're talking about game consoles...
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Hm? I think you must mean Cock Box.
What about the ButtseXBox?
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
There's just more games for the PS2, ergo there are more online games.
how does one imply the other?
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.
I love NetHack.
It's a open vs. close system issue... historycally open system always won... but I don't see why in the future should it have just an online console, today the market is large enough to allow more systems to attain the critical mass.
Moreover there's no need to be number one to survive and even flourish; afaik Burger King and Pepsi are all but about to go out of businness, and their chances to become #1 are just marginally higher than zero.
Is there somewhere you can get a list of what games are available on x-box live and PS2 online?
I appreciate your "pity" for my "foolishness," but you must realize that Gamecube gamers are generally well-aware of the network situation before they buy the machine... And really, we don't care. In fact, you'll find that from my GameFAQs link in an above post, most gamers don't care about online gaming in a console right now.
I've got PSO on my Gamecube, and overall it costs me less to play it than an XBox Live owner, evern if I have to buy an adapter to play it online. Is that so foolish? You get to pay two fees for the same service (as well as the price for a Live kit). Granted, there are extra games, but I can always play those same games on the PC *for free*, and use a headset with Teamspeak or Roger Wilco if I choose to do so. Frankly, neither the XBox nor PS2 have any other titles that appeal to me for online play... But to each his own. I'll go sit in a corner by myself; a foolish image of a man, along with his Gamecube - wallowing in self-pity over the state of online gaming... *SOB*
They make a damn fine Joystick (not the best, but better than most, and the best one that I've owned).
Keyboards and mice are superb too.
I also really enjoy Slashdot, which while technically not a Microsoft product, this place really gets a lot of mileage from that company.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
If you cross the Atlantic to here in Europe you will notice that the assumption that the Xbox will be ahead of the PS2 is actually true, and indeed the structure of the PS2's online system in Europe (the fact that is complicated and disjointed) does play a part in putting people off, but it is still not the main issue. Ironcially, the main issue is also about content, but over here, the Xbox is winning on this front. After all, previously the only PS2 game that's going to make you go online with it is SOCOM, whereas on the Xbox they have Ghost Recon (and Island Thunder), Unreal Championship, Midtown Madness 3, Return to Castle Wolfeinstein and MotoGP2. Its not the greatest range in the world, but its certianly more admirable than just SOCOM :P Things are a bit different this month, with the EA Sports/BIG titles ramping up PS2 Online support, but the crap network infrastructure on FIFA 2004 and SSX3 is already putting people off. Word gets round quick with such high-profile titles, and with Xbox Live growing far more quickly worldwide than PS2's Europe-only online system, I don't see a change in fortunes in the long term either.
Mattb90
Editor, allaboutgames.co.uk
He left out the second "million". He meant 20 million ps2, 7 million xbox; which is about right according to the numbers I found through Google.
hardcore gamers make up the majority of the xbox numbers. naturally you'd expect to find more of them in a college setting.
ps2 sales have predominately been to casual gamers. why else could the ps2 have 4x the installed base and yet there's still an actual competition on the game sales chart each month?
one would expect even a halfway decent title for the ps2 to have 2x the numbers as a good xbox game, and yet that doesn't happen.
because xbox gamers buy more games. because they have more hardcore gamers - and hardcore gamers buy more games.
hell, alot of the ps2 installed base was solely due to the dvd playback functionality. that and 'playstation' was the name on the tongues of parents come the holiday season. 'xbox' is relatively new, and parents are always buying last generation's winnner. (note strong n64 console sales despite ps1 overall dominance)
but frankly, i could care less whether there are 'more' people on one service or not. pc gaming taught me that you're better off -not- playing than playing against HPBs. it just isn't fun to try to shoot someone with a 400ms ping. xbl does its damndest to minimize lag, and for that i applaud it. (though they'd do better to have more highbandwidth dedicated servers like unreal has)
microsoft had the foresight to realize that a consistant, quality experience was the way to bring console gamers online to stay.
Sony's just trying to keep up, and as the original poster pointed out - is leading due to their raw numbers. keep in mind, their lead isn't that significant, and their product is -free-. microsoft can not only charge for their better product - but they can charge -and- compete with free.
that's an achievement.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
...or even listen to an author that lists 'Britney's Dance Beat' as his top 5 online game.
What a tard.
Did you also notice that the games they list are also available on other gaming platforms?
What a tard.
Gotta stick with Tech TV's X-Play for somewhat acurate game reviews.
Dolemite
___________________
Save the World! Use a Quote!
I guess I am one of the 75% that doesn't really care about online gaming on my console. I won't say you are incorrect about MOST online players buying more games since I never worked at EB. I will say you are wrong about me and everyone I know. I've bought enough console games to average around 2 games a week since the PS2 came out. Yes, that is more than 300 games. I own 1 XBox game and 0 (that I know of) console games with online features. My point is that you don't have to play online games to be a "Hardcore" gamer. Keeping on the topic, if I were to play online games I would likely choose the XBox because of the hard drive and network card being built in.