Sony Says No To Central PS3 Online Service

Saige writes "Online gaming fans are going to have to look past the PS3 to get their fix - Sony has announced that they are not doing a central service for PS3 online gaming. Instead, it will be done in the same manner as the PS2, where each company decides what effort to put into it. Considering how weak the online support has been for the PS2, this may not bode well for Sony, especially with more and more rumours that they won't be launching until at least the 2006 holidays." With the Live service such a success and Nintendo rolling out its WiFi network, it seems odd that Sony isn't going to try for something similar.

Comments

announced???

[B3AST!]

i don't see where they announced anything in that article....it still seems like speculation but maybe it would be easier to tell if we were able to read more than 2 paragraphs of the article

*shrugs*

Article hazy, try again later?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Source says that PS2 games "not doing well online" is apparently due solely to the merits of the online service, and doesn't even fathom how well they were designed into the equation. It also notes a few titles did well. So... what's the problem?

Re:Article hazy, try again later?

[Trepalium]

If you believe some of the Slashdot posts on this article, you can be sure that it has nothing to do with the fact the network adapter for the PS2 was a $50 add-on. If the Sega Genesis/CD/32X saga should've taught people, is that an optional add-on is never terribly successful. PS2 online gaming is weak for that reason alone, even if you ignore the benefits or drawbacks of the subscription-based XBL system.

Frankly, there will be plenty of time to determine a winner. The X-Box Live! system has certain advantages, and the PS3 method has other advantages. XBL will likely have more online playable games, and they will likely remain playable for as long as the income from the subscriptions pays for the expenses of maintaining the service. PS3 will likely have more free online playable games, but they may stop working if the publisher decides it wasn't popular enough, or if they've released a sequel and want people to buy that instead of playing the old ones. The Live system requires a subscription that might turn some people away, but it is a single subscription for nearly all online games. The PS3 system doesn't require a subscription, but individual games may. If too many games require individual subscriptions, this may alienate gamers, too.

This will be interesting to see which approach wins out in the end.

Re:Article hazy, try again later?

[dtfarmer]

The Live system requires a subscription that might turn some people away, but it is a single subscription for nearly all online games. The PS3 system doesn't require a subscription, but individual games may. If too many games require individual subscriptions, this may alienate gamers, too.

Ok, let me recap. $60/yr Live subscription pays for most games (except MMO.) PS2 is free for most games (except MMO.) $60/yr basically pays for a consistent gamertag and possible longer server support for older games. Probably worth it if you care about identity, but if no one is playing Madden 2001 online, server support doesn't matter.

Anyway, my point here is that time and time again people compare Live to PS2 online and state that Live's fee covers most all games, but that PS2 you might have to pay to play some games - there is no difference between the two statements. The type of games that would require a monthly fee for the PS2 are the exact same games that will not be covered by Xbox Live's $60/yr fee. So games that require individual subscriptions will alienate Xbox and PS equally, or could possibly irritate Xbox users more, since they might be operating under the (false) impression that they are paying MS for unlimited access to every game.

At least up to this point, I am not aware of a single console game outside the MMO genre that charges for online play. And so far MMO's have stayed away from Live. Why? I imagine for two reasons, Live might not be optimal for massive games requiring separate dedicated servers, and paying two fees (MS yearly, MMO monthly) to play one game might not go over too well. We'll soon see how it goes when FFXI makes it's way to Live, though.

Re:Article hazy, try again later?

[Trepalium]

Anyway, my point here is that time and time again people compare Live to PS2 online and state that Live's fee covers most all games, but that PS2 you might have to pay to play some games - there is no difference between the two statements.

My point was that there may be a few games that would request subscription from PS3 users where they would just accept a small amount of the Live revenue for X-Box users instead. My gut feeling is that these games would be a severe minority, but I can't underestimate that some publishers may get greedy and try it. I'd guess that any company that tries this (for a non-MMO game) will likely end up losing more far more in sales than their subscription system could ever hope to contibute.

It's quite likely that the identity persistence and integration that you mentioned (MSN Messenger for X-Box?) will end up being the only distinguishing feature separating X-Box and PS3 online systems, despite the fact that gamers will have to pay $60/yr for the X-Box (or use the VPN systems that allow you to convince the X-Box that it's on a LAN instead). Only time will tell.

Re:Article hazy, try again later?

[Delphiki]

You've clearly never tried playing a PS2 game online. I have. I couldn't get the network adapter to work with my router via DHCP, so I had to set all of the connection properties manually. Then it worked for Madden, but the same connection information wouldn't work when I tried to play online in Tony Hawk Underground. So I had to manually enter all of the connection information for that game separately. Plus there's the pain of having to create an account with every different game company, etc. I don't have an Xbox but I'm eagerly awaiting November 22, largely because of Live. I will probably get a PS3 too, because I'd hate to miss out on MGS4 and FFXII, but hell, I don't know if I'll be too eager to spend $400 for just those games.

Re:Article hazy, try again later?

[Anonymous Coward]

*pushes glasses back up nose*

Just a heads up, Final Fantasy XII is being developed for the PlayStation 2.

Re:Article hazy, try again later?

[dtfarmer]

My point was that there may be a few games that would request subscription from PS3 users where they would just accept a small amount of the Live revenue for X-Box users instead. My gut feeling is that these games would be a severe minority, but I can't underestimate that some publishers may get greedy and try it. I'd guess that any company that tries this (for a non-MMO game) will likely end up losing more far more in sales than their subscription system could ever hope to contibute.

I'd be really surprised to hear that MS is sharing revenue from Live. In fact as I wrote another reply it occurred to me that what you fear here could be more likely to happen on the 360, since Live Marketplace provides an easy way for publishers to charge users who have already shown a willingness to pay to play. Although I, like you, don't figure the market would be there for non-MMO games, so I doubt any Publisher would try it on either system - or if they did it would flop marvelously and that would end it.

It's quite likely that the identity persistence and integration that you mentioned (MSN Messenger for X-Box?) will end up being the only distinguishing feature separating X-Box and PS3 online systems, despite the fact that gamers will have to pay $60/yr for the X-Box (or use the VPN systems that allow you to convince the X-Box that it's on a LAN instead). Only time will tell.

Well, Live will have a few things that PS3 won't like Live Arcade, but I'm not sure how much of that is free vs pay-to-play content. And identity persistence is a cool thing - maybe even worth it. But I still haven't bought Live for the Xbox - when I have time to game, if I feel like playing online I can play on my PS2, but generally I end up playing something offline, so I've never seen Live as a must have...

Re:Article hazy, try again later?

[Delphiki]

Ok, then that makes it even less likely that I'll by the PS3. Well, until FFXIII but FFX was out like 4 years ago so the next single player FF after FFXII should be in like 2010?

Live a success?

[Anonymous Coward]

Xbox live is a great service, don't get me wrong. But with only 5-10% of Xbox owners subscribed to it I wouldn't call it a success.
Given how much can go wrong with a network connection (routers, firewalls, bad connections) I don't what to know how much money Microsoft is investing into the support alone...

Re:Live a success?

[generic-man]

When the Xbox 360 comes out, every 360 owner will have a "Silver" subscription to Live. Premium features like extra content will cost, but basic features like playing with your buddies on-line will come standard.

Re:Live a success?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand, the "friends list" and related features are free, but actual playing together will require a gold subscription. Of course, we don't know this until the new Xbox is released, and they can always modify what is allowed in a free subscription.

Re:Live a success?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, basic features like having the ability to buy more content will come standard; playing with your buddies will cost extra.

The fact is that while Microsoft forces people to pay to play their games online the boundries to people adopting online play on the XBox/XBox 360 are too high for average consumers (read: 80% of the market). For geeks the cost of broadband and XBox Live may seem minimal, and the difficulty with setting up your home to play online games may seem trivial, for the average person these are huge. Remember, the average person had difficulty setting their VCR's clock do you think they feel confortable setting up a wireless network or running cable through their house?

Re:Live a success?

[generic-man]

Ah, my mistake. Never mind about what you get for free.

I think you overestimate the expected market size of Xbox 360 Live. You can easily claim that Joe Sixpack doesn't have the broadband connection or the PC to play Worlds of Warcraft, but WoW is still chugging along and will make a ton of money. There are plenty of potential customers who can hook their broadband connection up to a game console. Wireless networking? Take a wardrive some time -- any populated area is swarming with $20 access points that couldn't all have been set up by "geeks."

Re:Live a success?

[hibiki_r]

Remember, the average person had difficulty setting their VCR's clock do you think they feel confortable setting up a wireless network or running cable through their house?

Well, Nintendo seems to think so.

Most users are not willing to pay for online play, and that's where I think Microsoft is wrong. Most people won't pay every month for something that they use a couple of hours a week, and that's how much the average console owner spends using a console. Even a serious gamer like me would have trouble justifying paying a montly/yearly fee to each console manufacturer to be able to play online. Free online gaming is a good way of making me buy games for your console. Making me pay a subscription while other consoles let me play online for free is a great way of making sure I buy more games for the other consoles.

Re:Live a success?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo's entire strategy is about people not building a wireless network; well at least not in the conventional way. Nintendo's usb wireless adapter is designed so that anyone with a PC will be able to set it up by simply plugging it in; this may not seem more complicated than seting up a wireless router but to someone who knows nothing about computers it is far less intimidating.

Re:Live a success?

[Saige]

Yes, online play for games is going to be restricted to Gold accounts only, though there will likely be trial weekends for everyone to play.

Games with subscriptions, such as any MMORPGs, will not require a Gold account - Silver will be sufficient. So you can only pay the game's subscription, and don't have to pay for Xbox Live too in the process.

Re:Live a success?

[thatguywhoiam]

You can easily claim that Joe Sixpack doesn't have the broadband connection or the PC to play Worlds of Warcraft, but WoW is still chugging along and will make a ton of money.

Your point is well-taken, but FYI, WoW can be played over a 56k modem - you don't need broadband (or a particularly fast PC either).

Re:Live a success?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds fabulous. I do look forward to disposing of the blooded and shriveled remains of my wallet.

Re:Live a success?

[Saige]

Yeah, cause that $50 a year is a horrible, ridiculously expensive option. I mean, wow, that's over $4 a month - how can anyone afford rent with such a huge cost?

You might have to skip a Starbucks stop one morning to cover the cost! Your life is ruined!

Considering that digital cable and some broadband costs more than that EVERY MONTH, I can't take seriously anyone complaining about the cost of Live.

Critical period all over again

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Sony's afraid of a strong central...government? In any case, this may not be a smart move with more and more people moving towards gaming on the 'net.

I see their point - but I disagree

[Dark Paladin]

I think that Sony's trying to cater to the publishers, most of whom want to run their own connection systems to charge customers (or not) by themselves. Companies such as Squeenix, Capcom, etc, all probably have their own ideas about how to charge clients, and don't want a middle man.

However, as the success of Live demonstrates, having a centralized system can be a very good thing. I don't use Live myself, but if I didn't have three wonderful little rug rats and if they had a good MMO attached to it (say like WoW of FFXI - coming soon) with voice support, I'd use it.

The question is - how will publishers react? Will they go "Good - we get to do what we want" and make for the PS3, or just use MS's easy to use and so far working Live system?

Re:I see their point - but I disagree

[RebelScum]

> The question is - how will publishers react? Will they go "Good - we get to do what we want" and make for the PS3, or just use MS's easy to use and so far working Live system?

I don't think that's a big mystery. Why would the publishers react any differently than they did with the PS2's model (since it's the same model)? Which means, not-so-great online service for PS3.

Have fun, Sony fans! Man, I love playing online with Live!

Re:I see their point - but I disagree

[superstick58]

I think that Sony's trying to cater to the publishers

You can probably count on this. Sony has known from the start that the best way to get ahead in the market is to ensure a wide selection of good games. This means the focus must be on attracting publishers to create these games. This focus is the main reason the Playstation was as successful as it was. If it is true that developers prefer the Sony method of "do it the way you want to" then they can look forward to more success.

Re:I see their point - but I disagree

[blueZhift]

Well actually FFXI is coming to the 360, so I guess they worked out how PlayOnline and XBL are going to get along. I don't think there are current plans for voice support though.

Anyway, I think Sony is hurting themselves a bit by not at least having a central service as an option or hub if you will. I think it's more likely that they simply haven't had the time to plan and test such a service thanks to Microsoft forcing the move to a new generation of hardware earlier than Sony would have liked given the money that the PS2 continues to bring in for them.

Re:I see their point - but I disagree

[skreeech]

but the ps2s online capabilities are a pay add-on which could make a big difference with the PS3s probably being included.

Re:I see their point - but I disagree

[Babbster]

No, I really don't think Sony is trying to cater to publishers with this decision. That really doesn't make any sense considering that everyone from big ole EA to little ole Hypnotix (now a part of EA - sad) ended up making games for Xbox Live. While it's true that if publishers want to sell extras on Xbox Live they'll have to give a cut to Microsoft, it's far easier to make that happen on XBL because the framework is already there. Doing the same on the PS2 (and now, apparently, the PS3) requires building the infrastructure. While a company like EA has the resources to make that worthwhile, other companies have to go to a lot of extra trouble to make it happen, and so far the majority don't seem willing to do so.

Considering Sony did a lot of talking from the debut of Live up to last year about how they were going to build their own similar online service, it seems more likely that they just decided it was going to cost them too much money. The short version is that Sony sees 5-10% of Xbox owners subscribing to Live and decides that's a bad sign. Microsoft has looked at those same numbers and decided it could be the tip of the iceberg. I figure MS is probably in the right on this since people like multiplayer gaming and broadband numbers are going up instead of down.

Re:I see their point - but I disagree

[Bobsledboy]

Wouldn't they just do the same kind of thing that they did with EA for live?

Developers won't support anything.

[Winterblink]

This will translate into most developers putting their effort into the X-Box Live enabled versions of their games, and half-assing their PS2 online efforts, if bothering at all.

Re:Developers won't support anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cause that really happened this generation. For a while, there were hardly any Xbox Live enabled games, whereas developers put resources into PS2 online games. For example, see EA's roster before 2004 (I think that was the year they adopted XBL). The issue is that PS2 games' online communities suck, the online experience is pitiful in most cases, and support from developers and players are half-assed in comparison to Microsoft's offerings. How many PS2 games offered online updates? And how many have large online user bases years after release (or even *1* year after)?

Re:Developers won't support anything.

[drinkypoo]

How many PS2 games offered online updates?

How many PS2s have hard drives?

Re:Developers won't support anything.

[Sparr0]

Sure, for games that don't matter. The important games are the cross platform ones. PS2's being decentralized means that games can be made to play PC vs PS3 (although it was rarely done for PS2). Or, better yet, that the PS3 can even run servers that PC players can play on.

Re:Developers won't support anything.

[CronoCloud]

So tell me, how many online enabled action RPG's are there on the X-Box

How many MMORPG's?

Is there an online enabled Risk game?

Online poker with support for a USB video camera?

When it comes to online game diversity the PS2 has it all over the Xbox.

Re:Developers won't support anything.

[CronoCloud]

All 3 of mine. :-)

One with a Linux kit
One with the FFXI HD
Another with an FFXI HD that I wiped to put Linux on.

Re:Developers won't support anything.

[AlexMax2742]

That's great. How many people play these games, exactly, compared to the people who play games over Xbox Live?

Re:Developers won't support anything.

[CronoCloud]

More than the numbers playing Crimson Skies, Mechwarrior or Steel Battaliion.

Live is all about Halo, The Xbox is basically a Halo machine, you know that. Microsoft would probably be better off doing a Halo 3 in a joystick device rather than making the Xbox 360.

You see with the Xbox, everyones playing Halo, but with the PS2 there's online games for every taste, so it's smaller numbers of players, playing a more diverse set of games.

I do know there's still over 10000 on SOCOM 2after the release of SOCOM 3, Last I heard EQOA was around 30000, FFXI dwarfs that. I'd lay odds you could take some of the more obscure online PS2 games, go online and see people playing.

Re:Developers won't support anything.

[AlexMax2742]

Do people still play Tribes: Aerial Assault? That was pretty much the only PS2 game I ever bothered playing for an extended period of time.

PS3 owners play on xbox-live

[LoverOfJoy]

This just in...Sony announces that all PS3's will come with a free Xbox live Silver subscription!

Re:PS3 owners play on xbox-live

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it's not like Microsoft couldn't create a venture to fascilitate the functioning of PS3 on Xbox Live! Make it cost half again as much as the Xbox native Gold version, and make it work, but just a scoach different to charge developers to use as leverage for exclusive titles and to apply pressure to avoid cannibalizing Xbox 360 sales. That could really hurt Sony later. Live is dope. I don't have an Xbox, but some of my friends do, and live is dope. If the war between the so-called 3rd generations consoles isn't decisive, if Microsoft hooks a significant portion of Sony's population on Live!, Sony might as well take to fighting the 4th round with stones. People are the killer app. Always were.

Full version of article

[zsazsa]

Here's the full version of the article.

It doesn't actually have much more as the bulk of the article talks about the possibility of multiple SKUs for the PS3.

Re:can't do it

[badasscat]

They probably know they can't pull it off like MS did, so they aren't even going to bother.

You know, success is relative. Let's look at some numbers here.

Number of PS2's sold: 90 million
Number of Xboxes sold: 24 million

Number of subscribers to Xbox Live: ~2 million

Amount of revenue MS has generated from the Xbox, Xbox Live, and Xbox games: -$4 billion (that's negative four billion dollars)

So, let's see. The decentralized PS2 has sold more than three times the number of Xboxes worldwide, and even among that much smaller Xbox user base, less than one in ten owners actually subscribes to Xbox Live. With a $4 billion loss, I literally just can't see what XBL has contributed to MS's bottom line - if the service itself has turned any sort of profit, it's buried under an avalanche of other losses related to the system.

If this is success, I'd like to see what gets termed failure around here!

Personally, XBL is one reason I'm waiting on buying an Xbox 360. I am actually averse to it, and I don't think I'm alone. It's one of the things that's given the current Xbox its reputation as a system for hardcore gamers; it's almost as if you have to have a little community of fellow geeks willing to play online to really get much out of the system. With MS focusing so heavily on even further promoting XBL for the 360, it's basically scaring me away as someone who likes to play solo and with friends or the wife in the same room. I'm just not interested in gaming with a bunch of immature, bitch-happy teen and pre-teen strangers, and I unfortunately (or fortunately?) do not have a little community of online geek friends around me to play games with.

I don't think I'm alone. The PS2 sold as well as it did because it catered to such a broad cross-section of gamers. I don't see that from the 360 - MS keeps saying they're trying to broaden the audience, but their actions say exactly the opposite. Every game has to be online, the system will always be online, buying the system automatically gives you an XBL account. Developers will need to make games with those things in mind. I don't want that. All I want is a little box that sits there and lets me play games either alone or with other people in my own house. Even approximately 90% of current Xbox users appear to feel the same way. I honestly think the heavy focus on Xbox Live is holding back both current Xbox sales as well as future Xbox 360 sales - it's scaring away offline players.

All three of the next-gen systems will be online in one way or another, but I prefer the model Sony and Nintendo are using, which is much more relaxed and feels less forced.

I don't see the problem

[Falconoffury]

I've played plenty of PS2 online, and I never felt that the online features were lacking. I could get into games with my friends and other people. I don't see an advantage to a central service.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Play xbox live for awhile. Compair. Program an online game for the ps2 and an online game for the xbox. Compair.

Re:I don't see the problem

[RebelScum]

Spell the words "compair" and "compare." Compare.

Re:I don't see the problem

[SalaciousPucker]

Sure, you don't have a problem, but XBOX Live (or any centralized service) is still 100 times better. The fact is...decentralized services are nice for the PC, but on a console the vast majority of people are looking for simplicity. XBOX Live is simplicity, and it's going to be even nicer when the OS of the console is designed specifically to work with it. Sony is being very foolish if they go this route. They are handing Microsoft another monopoly.

Re:I don't see the problem

[prockcore]

I could get into games with my friends and other people.

Yes, but you couldn't tell when your friend was online playing a different game. And with xbox live 360, you can tell if your friend is playing a single player game and you can send a request to him to play multiplayer.

It's really nice to just turn on the xbox, see that one of my friends is playing Madden, and send him a note that says "When you're done, wanna join me in burnout 3?"

Re:I don't see the problem

[skreeech]

have you programed an online game for both the ps2 and xbox?

Re:I don't see the problem

[CronoCloud]

But it is simiple, really simple. You create the connection save and games use it. And it's free for everything but EQOA and FFXI.

Re:I don't see the problem

[buffer-overflowed]

Well on the PC we use a combination of programs that ends up equaling or surpassing live. X-Fire for the friends/now-playing list and messaging, built in voice-chat in many games or private moderated ventrillo/TS servers, etc. etc.

Build your community of gamers and play on.

MS got about 90% of what's great about PC gaming in live, and simplified it. But I still can't see why I should have to pay for it.

true true

[Anonymous Coward]

i just can't stand to think that some 12 yr old kid is going to look up my gamer tag and see my lame ass low score and how i didn't get any 'wards' for the games that i own and laugh his ass off at me.

Sony has and is doing something similar.

[hackwrench]

http://www.station.sony.com/en/
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aslashdot.org +sony+station

Re:can't do it

[LordNimon]

it's almost as if you have to have a little community of fellow geeks willing to play online to really get much out of the system.

As someone with an Xbox and Xbox Live, I have to agree with this statement. Half the Xbox owners that I know don't go online, which is a real bummer for me because I don't like to play with people I don't know. The irony is that Xbox Live is a huge part of what makes the Xbox so great (IMHO).

Re:can't do it

[interiot]

Yeah, and any organization that's super-successful is doing everything right. Just look at US foreign policy.

I'm very surprised that Sony didn't at least do a half-assed copy of what XBox Live was. Because what XBox Live will be on the 360 is really the right way to go. I can't imagine that consoles 20 years from now won't basically be based off of some of the core features of XBox Live. Everything I've heard of so far just makes sense to me, and lots of friends and podcasters seem to agree.

Re:can't do it

[metamatic]

I'm just not interested in gaming with a bunch of immature, bitch-happy teen and pre-teen strangers, and I unfortunately (or fortunately?) do not have a little community of online geek friends around me to play games with.

Yes! I've played two PS2 games that had online play, but I didn't bother to try it out for either of them--even though I have all the hardware and just need to run an Ethernet cable across to the router.

Hardly anyone seems to have managed to make online gaming which is actually a sociable cooperative experience, that doesn't cost ridiculous amounts for a few hours a month of gameplay. The game makers keep churning out games to appeal to the same 10% of the gaming audience who are online already, ignoring what might draw in the other 90%.

Prognosticators, start your engines

[ReverendLoki]

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. It seems like this could make the online capabilities of the PS2 more robust, and doesn't tie any developer down to a specific framework for online gaming. Really, it just all boils down to specific implementation, and all the speculation at this point just boils down to a bunch of whistling in the dark.

Re:Prognosticators, start your engines

[interiot]

But the centralized features of XBox Live Silver (gamer card, friends list, the whole micropayments thing) really make sense to have set up by the console manufacturer. I'm really kind of stunned that Sony is waiting until the PS4 to implement these.

Re:Prognosticators, start your engines

[__aailob1448]

What the hell are you talking about? XboX live is devastatingly better than Sony's philosophy of leaving it all up to the developpers. Really, it's one of those things EVERYBODY (including sony!) admits to. Get it through your head: This is bad news. The PS3 would definitely have benefited in a major way from having something like Microsoft's Live .

Re:can't do it

[RebelScum]

You do realize the success of PS2 had nothing to do with its online service compared to MS's, right? By the time MS came out with Live, (or even the Xbox itself), Sony had a choke-hold on the industry. There's not much MS could have done last generation to catch up. So your argument really has no bearing on the subject at hand.

And your argument about being "averse" to Live? Well, then, just don't subscribe! Just because every 360 comes with a Silver account, doesn't mean you have to sign up. Heck, don't even plug the thing into your network if you don't want to go online! Nobody's forcing you!

And every game does not have to have online play. They just have to be Live-aware, which means that, while you're playing that game, if you're signed in to Live, it will show you your friends who are online, and stuff like that. Bare-minimum Live support is all that's required of the 360 games. Once again, if you don't plug the system up to Live, it will have absolutely no bearing on how you play and enjoy the game.

Oh yeah, how many PS2 games inspired "friends & family" local play as much as Halo did for the Xbox? And that didn't even support Live!

Re:can't do it

[Ectospheno]

Everything I've heard of so far just makes sense to me, and lots of friends and podcasters seem to agree.

And as the grand-parent post mentioned, the only people who seem to care are the "geeks". I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "lots of friends and podcasters" are in the 10% of XBox owners that use Live. The other 90% don't care.

Personally, I think online play is overrated. I agree with the grand-parent post -- give me a console that just sits there and lets me play games every now and then.

Re:can't do it

[0kComputer]

The XBox was a success for MS, even if the number don't show it. The Barriers to entry in the gaming console market were huge, and XBOX was at least able to get a toehold in. Thats a pretty big accomplishment, as far as losing money, thats a concept called loss-leading and its practiced in almost every business sector out there to gain market share.

On moronic assumptions

[supabeast!]

Developers don't add network support to PS2 games because the PS2 does not have a standard ethernet port - to get ethernet one has to buy an additional network device, which sells for $40 - about four times the cost of a decent ethernet adapter for a PC. This has lead to a very small installed base for the PS2 network adapter, so developers have little to gain from supporting it.

With the PS3 the situation is entirely reversed - the system has built-in networking capabilities, and, unlike the Xbox 360, will not require users to subscribe to an online gaming service. By not requiring users to subscribe, Sony creates a larger player base, and frees developers from being trapped in the proprietary world of a central service, meaning that developers have a GREATER incentive to develop network content for the PS3 than for the Xbox 360.

Re:On moronic assumptions

[Sparr0]

I got a USB ethernet adapter for my PS2 from the local compusa for $25, $15 after the $10 rebate. Played Tony Hawk 3 online for a while, was kinda fun.

Re:On moronic assumptions

[SScorpio]

While that was true when they first came out Sony started bundling the Network Adapters with the systems. Also the newer slimline PS2s have a built-in network adapter, but sadly not HDD support.

Re:On moronic assumptions

[__aailob1448]

Bullshit. The truth is that the developpers can CHOSE with the Xbox360. They can use microsoft's servers and all the standard tools and utilities that come with it (voice, IMs, rankings, categories and a whole other bunch of stuff) OR ,if their game is very heavily multiplayer and it's worth it for the developper to purchase and setup servers, beta test, tweak and maintain them and provide customer support for all of this, then they can use their own thing. That's exactly what Squenix is doing with FFXI. They're going to use their horrid PlayOnline software and make you pay THEM to play online. Bottom line, The Microsoft approach is the right one, the Sony approach sucks. Simple as that.

Re:On moronic assumptions

[CronoCloud]

because the PS2 does not have a standard ethernet port - to get ethernet one has to buy an additional network device, which sells for $40

All PS2's have either been bundled with network adapters or had them built in since late 2003. So the install base is large (though not as large as it would have been had the adapter been built into the PS2 from the start)

Re:can't do it

[interiot]

Yes, there are certainly a range of different consumers... Nintendo is going for the 40-year-old-mom market, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But just as you don't care about online play, there IS a specific market that DOES care about it, and that market shouldn't be ignored either, especially because they probably buy the largest number of games.

Re:can't do it

[KDR_11k]

You have all the hardware but have you registered with Sony and got a username and password? That's the big hurdle for me, I registered but it took months for the network disc to arrive and I already forgot my login and password by then.

Re:can't do it

[Ectospheno]

No, it shouldn't be ignored. It should get all the attention that 10% of one console deserves. Where we disagree is that you want it to receive more attention than that. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

Re:can't do it

[Alamoth]

I think the key here is the last line mentioned:

All three of the next-gen systems will be online in one way or another, but I prefer the model Sony and Nintendo are using, which is much more relaxed and feels less forced.

The PS2 never felt like it had to be an online system nor does the Cube. The XBox however truly lends it self to Multiplayer games. Let's face it, single player modes in Halo and most of the Tom Clancy games were fairly lackluster in replay value and overall storylines. Sure they were fun, but paled in comparison to some of the stuff coming out on the other systems (Mario: Anything, for example).

The XBox games are almost dependant on the multiplayer modes. Developers seemed to have put far more effort into that end of the spectrum than on other systems and it's because Microsoft has encouraged it, if not forced it.

Sony leaves it up to the game developers to decide if they want to include internet capabilities for their games. They are the ones who should make the decisions anyways, and they are the ones who should define the client properties, not Sony.

Take FFXI for example. Squeenix provides the client for that, but I am wary to see how it will interact with XBox live. Who want's to listen to 9 year olds whining about chocolate milk while you're questing for your level cap.

This brings up another point: XBox Live has a very negative stigma of being dominated by immature and brash gamers, something that doesn't need to be explained but is worth mentioning.

In short, XBox Live caters to a specific type of gamer and a specific type of game genre, and if Sony doesn't want to go down that route it has nothing to do with the capabilities of their system.

look into the future, You must

[imstanny]

Amount of revenue MS has generated from the Xbox, Xbox Live, and Xbox games: -$4 billion (that's negative four billion dollars)

Sounds scary, as I imagine you want it to sound. But you haven't looked at the meaning behind those numbers. While Microsoft did take a loss, they did so at the expensive of gaining Market share; something that will allow them to be profitable in the future.

It's almost a certainty that when you start a new business (in this case a gaming machine) the business will go in the red before it reeps the benefits of their investment sometime in the future.

Number of PS2's sold: 90 million
Number of Xboxes sold: 24 million
Number of subscribers to Xbox Live: ~2 million

Although speculative, I strongly suspect that the Live community will follow a similar trend to internet usage in general; it will grow.

Even approximately 90% of current Xbox users appear to feel the same way. I honestly think the heavy focus on Xbox Live is holding back both current Xbox sales as well as future Xbox 360 sales - it's scaring away offline players.

So you're proposing that a Microsoft stops focusing on its strengths (online gaming) and starts competing with PS3's strength's instead? The result will be 2 of the (more or less) same product being developed by different companies. Remember, part of what adds value to a product is distinction from a product that already exists and is prevalently popular (PS2).

HOLD ON

[apoc06]

granted the article supposedly comes from the november OPM, and quotes phil harrison. something about the article is missing. something seems off. if you read the entire article, it is written prior to the TGS [pre-september]. how much earlier? who knows? i do however know that this is the FIRST time they have announced anything regarding their online plans. so if the media has known this for at least three months, why is this big news now? something seems odd.

do i doubt that sony wishes to go this route? nope; they most likely will, but still this article is fishy. if a sony exec opened his mouth regarding their lack of a centralized online solution, youd best believe all of the lil media outlets and blogs would have jumped all over it before now.

What about costs?

[MMaestro]

frees developers from being trapped in the proprietary world of a central service, meaning that developers have a GREATER incentive to develop network content for the PS3 than for the Xbox 360.

Yeah, this also leaves developers with having to pay for all the extra costs of running their own server farm since Sony is too cheap and lazy to do so for them. Why not just pay the extra fee and have Xbox Live host their online gaming? Xbox Live has been successful in the past and the PS2 online has been a total piece of crap, shunned and ignored outside of Japan (an even then its success in Japan is argued as being unique to the country).

and, unlike the Xbox 360, will not require users to subscribe to an online gaming service.

The Xbox 360 will give users a free Silver account if they buy just the 'core' package. Sony has yet to top that.

Re:What about costs?

[dtfarmer]

The Xbox 360 will give users a free Silver account if they buy just the 'core' package. Sony has yet to top that.

...which cannot be used to play games online. With Sony, you do not need any account, let alone a Gold account to play online (excepting MMO's which will require one account with the publisher on PS, but two accounts to play on Xbox - Live and the publisher, unless you end up using Live Marketplace to pay your monthly fee to the publisher.)

Re:What about costs?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should really work for Sony's PR department. Only a mindless marketing droid could possibly see this as a "win" for Sony.

Re:What about costs?

[dtfarmer]

You should really work for Sony's PR department. Only a mindless marketing droid could possibly see this as a "win" for Sony.

I'm curious. What the hell does this have to do with the point I made. The great-grandparent poster was implying that the free Live Silver account was a good thing. I'm still trying to understand how it's good for the customer. I totally see how it's good for Microsoft/Publishers:

1. MS can use it to upsell you to Gold so you can play games online - you cannot play online with Silver.
2. MS can use it to patch backwards compatibility. (They don't have to get it right to launch, they can abandon it as soon as they want.)
3. Publishers can sell you buggy games and patch them later. (Your fault if you don't have a HD to hold the patches)
4. MS/Publishers can sell you additional crap after you've already forked out $60 for the game.

Ok, now that I'm done being a sarcastic ass, I'll level with you. I like the unified identity part. There are things that Live is good for. But saving you money is not one of those things. So let's look at the PS3/Xbox over their lifespan which we'll call 5 years: (ignoring that the Xbox's span has been 4 years and Sony will be at 6 years for the PS2 by the launch of the PS3)

To play games online on XB Live Silver over the next 5 years you'll spend nothing, and you'll have a gamertag, but you can't actually play online.
To play games online on XB Live Gold over the next 5 years you'll spend $300+, and have the same gamertag in every game.
To play games online on the PS3 over the next 5 years you'll spend nothing, have no gamertag, but you will be able to play online - free.

Some people might consider $300 significant. To a hard core gamer, or an MMO afficiando it's nothing, and probably well worth it. But to the majority - the casual gamer - why pay all that money for something that you can get for free?

Yeah, I know - Publishers could start charging for online play.... but has that happened yet in any game outside the MMO arena, on any console or any computer? Not that I know of, and I expect it to continue that way. I'd be surprised to hear publishers are getting any of the Xbox Live revenues, so if they want to charge for the PS3, what makes you think they won't charge for the Xbox? In fact, if publishers decide to try to charge, it makes total sense to try it out on the 360 first rather than the PS3 since they can conveniently use the Live marketplace to charge users, especially since those users have already made it clear they have no qualms with paying to play since they're already paying MS $60/yr.

So yes, while Live is perfect for hardcore gamers, I'm not convinced it's worth the cost to too many outside that demographic. Me? It's not worth it to me on the Xbox now - especially when I can do the same for free on my PS2, so my Xbox is and will remain a Live virgin for the foreseeable future.

Re:can't do it

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Huh? I don't know if something has changed significantly but the sequence of events for me went like this.

1. Went to store, bought network adapter and Socom 1.
2. Came home, plugged in adapter, set up network connection, saved settings to memory card.
3. Went online and played Socom.

What the hell kind of hoops has Sony implemented now??

Re:can't do it

[macshit]

The xbox, meanwhile, is going for the 15-year-old-mom market.

Re:Boycott Sony

[rabbot]

I couldn't agree more. the rootkit was the final straw for me with Sony. I will never purchase another product from them...ever.

Re:can't do it

[brkello]

God, what a stupid argument. How crap like this gets +5 insightful is beyond me. Maybe it is just because you say you won't buy an xbox.

If you don't like multiplayer over XBL, then don't play it. Buy games that are single player. It's like saying "Personall, the Internet is one reason I'm waiting on buying a PC. Iam actually adverse to it, and I don't think I am alone. It's one of the things that's given the PC its reputation as a system for hardcore gamers; it's almost as if you have to have a little community of fellow geeks willing to play online to really get much out of system". It's not like the system won't boot unless it is hooked up to a broadband connection. Of all the reasons not to buy a system, your has to be one of the worst out there. Just because people don't want to shell out extra money for the current XBL doesn't mean that 90% of XBox owners aren't interested. They might not have broadband, they might not be able to afford it, they might not even know it exists. The PS2 sold well because it was backward compatible and had solid games. XBox was just entering the market and expected to take a loss (though I am sure they hoped it was less of a loss).

Re:can't do it

[GrumblyStuff]

Well if we're going by profits, Nintendo actually won then. They had about the same amount of GameCubes sold as the Xbox but since they aren't sold as a loss (oppose to PS2s and XBoxes), they profited on each sale until they hit $99. It's probably the same with the portables too.

Re:can't do it

[Just Benjamin]

Don't forget the "modding community." Modded Xbox's can't use the official XBL.

Re:can't do it

[lasmith05]

Well they can still use xbl if they turn the chip off. A lot of mod chips have switches for that. Its just like warez'd games. You can't play them online usually so you have to buy the game.

Re:Boycott Sony

[bitwiseNomad]

Hear, hear!

Re:Boycott Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been saying that for years. Death to PlayStation! Long live games!

Re:can't do it

[SScorpio]

Sony hasn't changed anything. He's probably just taken too many hits off the crackpipe. Every PS2 online game has you create a seperate account, which can be good and bad. I'm also not sure about the newer games, but all of the old one also contained the files that allowed configuration of the network adapter right on the game cd so you'd never need to wait for a disk.

What about alternatives?

[rodm13]

What about other substitutes for online console gaming like XLink KAI and XBConnect? I've been using those to play Xbox, and in the case of KAI, PS2 and GameCube, online since the consoles started having online games. Both also show signs that they plan to support XB 360 and PS3 with thier services in the future, as well. And, both are FREE, with XBC charging for a "premium" version.

Netcraft Confirms: Xbox Live is Dying!

[Guppy06]

All kidding aside, I really don't see even the Xbox 360 having something as pervasive as Live, if for no other reason than because Square-Enix has Final Fantasy XI and the latest expansion pack scheduled to release for the system. Even if SE wanted to pull a PSO and have players charged twice (once for Live, once for PSO), forsaking the current scheme in favor of a Live-esque service for the X360 version of FFXI will only break compatability with gamers on the PC and PS2 platforms. I don't see SE abandoning PlayOnline.

Microsoft may or may not have a centralized online service for the 360, but I don't see it being mandatory as it is now.

Re:can't do it

[superpulpsicle]

The cheaters, screamers, and the annoying cable pullers who can't take a loss... this is the group that even money has no answer for. This has nothing to do with subscription. It's the quality of the gaming experience that is a problem.

No online gaming service can afford to hire a 24x7 judge/executioner for every game to deal with this bunch. There are just too many online games to be monitored. You can file complaints all you want and pay subscription thru the roof. Nobody is really listening.

Re:can't do it

[dootbran]

Very true about Halo, I never even thought of dragging a PS2 to a friends house. The only time I had ever done system link was once or twice with the original Armor Core on PSX. But there was a period where every couple weeks my friends and I would drag an extra XBox to my friends apartment and play some Halo and maybe PGR2 or Crimson Skies.

I'm sure the fact that we had several hundred feet of "link cable" already set up around the apartment made things easier but Halo was really what had us give it a shot.

Xbox live isn't free either

[cgenman]

While MS doesn't publish the costs, hosting a game on Xbox Live is not free to the developer... not by a long shot. Think MS doesn't take a cut of every online transaction, or a cost for every MB of bandwidth? Likewise, most developers have a server center of some sort. A full farm isn't necessary for most console games, and by not going through live you can do some of the networking peer-to-peer, saving further bandwidth and resources.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Xbox Live. I like the unified logon / communications idea. I don't think Live is totally necessary, but I like to see what MS can do with it. I'm also excited as a developer to see how hard / easy integration will be. Judging by what I've seen in public, the 360 appears to do everything Live related through separate, easy, drop-in apps... the way it should be done.

On the other hand, online console penetration is at 10%. So while it is a nice feature, it's a feature that 90% of your audience currently doesn't use. Microsoft wants to blaze that trail, and more power to them. But recognize that while their Live 360 stuff has recieved a lot of attention from the company, they're releasing without a single amazing must-have title. Sony, hopefully, is taking this time to focus on getting some killer titles ready out of the door. Sony is taking some of the saved resources and pushing to Blu-Ray with it. We'll see which approach is better... Sony going down the proven console road or Microsoft going down the, well, centralized Microsoft control model. Or Nintendo doing that weird Nintendo thing.

As another poster pointed out, Silver accounts don't let you play games online... Functionally all that allows you to do is buy content.

Re:Xbox live isn't free either

[MMaestro]

Why not just pay the extra fee

My words.

As for developers having a server center, depending on the popularity/success of the game, most developers lack the resources to handle huge loads. Don't forget that PC developers get away with this by having players host their own mirrors and console games such as Halo 2 or Splinter Cell more or less get special treatment due to the fact that Microsoft KNOWS it'll be a hit.

Re:can't do it

[metamatic]

I've got a network disk, it came with my PS2, which has the network adaptor built in. When I booted the disk to see what was on it, it offered to set up some kind of account for me, but since I've yet to see a game I want to play online there didn't seem to be much point.

I did use the network adaptor to download the latest updates for my Action Replay Max, but that's all I've used it for. I didn't need to use the network disk for that.

Basically, I only have the online capability because I had to buy a new PS2 and it came with everything. I wouldn't have bothered to buy it separately.

why live?

[skreeech]

I don't really care about voip in all games, although I haven't gamed on a console online before

I don't want people inviting me to game x while I'm playing game y

If I actually care if person x is online I'd have alternate means of contact with them.

What have I missed out on that would make me want this service? I trust devs of good games to be able to make their online work. Shitty devs with shitty games and shitty work done on online portions I don't care about because of the shitty game factor.

Re:Netcraft Confirms: Xbox Live is Dying!

[prockcore]

Microsoft may or may not have a centralized online service for the 360, but I don't see it being mandatory as it is now.

Not only is it mandatory, but microsoft has said that *every* game must be xbox live aware... even single player games. That means single player games will upload stats and high scores to your xbox live account. Friends can find you even if you are playing a single player game.

Re:can't do it

[blincoln]

I don't want that.

Neither do I.

I have all three of the current systems, and about thirty games total for them. If I'm playing multiplayer, it's with one other person who's sitting in the room with me.

I tried online gaming and it just wasn't my kind of thing. I like my games to be like interactive movies with a story arc, or a short party thing, like fighting games. I don't want endless rehashes of the same material, or online matches against people I don't know who cheat in any way possible.

I'm definitely holding off on any of the next-gen systems until I know which (if any) will give me that kind of experience.

Re:can't do it

[Anonymous Coward]

thats a concept called loss-leading

No it isn't, "loss-leading" requires you to actually be, you know, leading.

Re:can't do it

[CronoCloud]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more promotion of the PS2 games that support LAN play, but in the game store LAN parties it's all Halo instead of SOCOM, Star Wars Battlefront, or Gran Turismo 4.

Pure FUD

[fondue]

1. Hmm, is that the same Saige who posts on E2 and is a Microsoft employee?
2. The key difference between the PS2 and PS3 is that every PS3 is network ready out of the box. There won't be millions of offline legacy systems out there. As such it's meaningless to make a comparison between the way online play will be realised on the two systems.
3. Xbox Live still can't support non-trivial and persistent online games. Software support will go where the money and users are, not where the fanciest front end is. A lack of a unified gamertag doesn't stop 4.5m people playing WoW.

This is lame even by Zonk's standards.

Re:Pure FUD

[apoc06]

so this was submitted by a MS employee? interesting...

kinda makes my earlier comment seem warranted.

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167130&c id=13935377

also, it makes sense for them to start their smear campaign now right before their launch. look at all the posters here that make up their minds to go after the x360 due to this lil bit of FUD.

also, it doesnt make sense because sonys online department has been swinging towards at least a partially centralized server system for a while now.

Re:Pure FUD

[Saige]

Read my journal. I admit to working at MS.

That doesn't mean I'm doing it to represent Microsoft or anything like that. I'm a hardcore gamer too, and that's the part of me that's interested. The part of me that has been playing on Xbox Live since March and been totally impressed with how well it works and how much easier it is than online play on the PC, and wishes Sony would take a clue and do the same thing with the PS3.

I know it's not popular to believe it here on Slashdot, but we're people too. I own an Xbox, GC, and PS2 (along with about 10 older game systems). I use Firefox (cause tabs are that important), WinAmp (much more practical skins and kickass visualizations), and have a Gmail account (better UI, more storage space).

They haven't activated the chip in my head to control my thoughts in months. :)

Re:Pure FUD

[fondue]

I know you're genuinely enthusiastic about XBL and there's no orchestrated FUD campaign going on. I still think it's unfortunate (and basically disingenuous, regardless of the intention) to not mention that you have a vested interest and aren't speaking from an unbiased position.

A closed system that locks in developers and prevents entire genres of games from being viable isn't the only way to make online console gaming work. Live is great at what it does, but not everyone just wants to play driving and shooting games against a userbase mainly made up of American teenagers who dictate the content that's available.

Re:Pure FUD

[Saige]

Any "vested interest" as a gamer totally outweighs any such interest as a MS employee. If the 360 does well, I get, what, a few extra dollars of value in the little bit of stock I own? From a gamer perspective, if the console does well, I get to see more games and better games available for the system, and that will make me happier than an increase in stock value that might pay for a dinner out some evening. Should I include "Disclaimer: I will be buying a 360 and thus if the system does better I'll have more games to choose from"?

And claiming Live prevents entire genres of games has no basis in reality whatsoever. You think they're making developers sign contracts that requires them to only make certain types of games on Xbox Live? What a load of gibberish. Xbox Live is a framework that handles certain parts of online gaming so the developers don't have to worry about implementing it all over again - it doesn't prevent any types of games from being done over live.

BTW, lock-in? Ask EA about that - you sign in through Live, but then you're on EA's servers doing things EA's way. And here's a hint - EA's way is pathetic. The largest game developer out there, and they can't even do a halfway decent service compared to Xbox Live.

Re:Pure FUD

[apoc06]

okay... okay... okay...

but still, dont you think it odd that this gem of info would have been hidden away for months after TGS, if it was announced before then?

i dont know if the story is bogus, but the source seems questionable. thats all.

Re:Pure FUD

[buffer-overflowed]

Well, you went from being rather blaise about Live and the XBox to being really enthuisastic about it shortly after getting the admin job at Microsoft. Are you SURE they didn't put some mind-control serum in your hair dye? ;-)

Because I seem to recall you being more of a PC/Nintendo girl... Mario Kart: DD with your non-gamer SO and such.

Oh, and didn't you just nab your XBox because you got a pretty good discount on it and the games and figured what the hell? Or am I remembering this wrong?

I know it's not popular to believe it here on Slashdot, but we're people too.

Marketing department employees and executives aren't people! But that's not confined to Microsoft.

In all seriousness I think the change is more because you get to interact with the people doing the work in the XBox department, and all of these people are collegues you now share common ground with. So it's like getting excited and hyping up any friend's project. I still don't see anything special about or worth paying for in Live though. ;-P

Re:Pure FUD

[fondue]

Re "vested interest": It's not an issue of whether you stand to benefit financially. I don't think that you'd submit a news item one-sidedly criticising a Microsoft policy decision. But complaining about bias on Slashdot is kind of pointless, I guess.

"And claiming Live prevents entire genres of games has no basis in reality whatsoever."

How many MMORPGs are available on the Xbox again?

"You think they're making developers sign contracts that requires them to only make certain types of games on Xbox Live?"

I know for a fact that the third party contract makes it impossible to implement certain types of online game on the Xbox. They're not allowed to run games from their own servers without special dispensation. They're not allowed to connect to anything other than the Xbox Live servers or other Xboxes. They're not permitted to allow gamers on different platforms to play against Xbox users. The centralised subscription model makes it commercially suicidal to charge per-game subscription fees. This is why virtually all third party Xbox Live games run peer to peer. They're all FPS and driving games because they're cheap to put online, not persistent, and that's all that they can market to the incredibly homogenised 10% of the Xbox userbase that signed up to Live.

"Xbox Live is a framework that handles certain parts of online gaming so the developers don't have to worry about implementing it all over again - it doesn't prevent any types of games from being done over live."

See above. Developers can't cherry pick the beneficial features from the framework, they have to comply to the limitations as well. Xbox Live is an attempt to graft the product tying business model that works for traditional console games into the online space. It exists only to funnel revenue back to Microsoft. It won't work in a competitive environment, for the same reason the N64's expensive cartridges nuked third party support for the N64.

"Ask EA about that - you sign in through Live, but then you're on EA's servers doing things EA's way. And here's a hint - EA's way is pathetic. The largest game developer out there, and they can't even do a halfway decent service compared to Xbox Live."

If you thought about it for a second, you'd realise that EA's position is not one that they would choose to be in. They wanted to circumvent Live altogether, so that they could market online play to the whole of the Xbox user base, so that people who bought Madden on PS2 could play against people who bought it on Xbox (what with it being exactly the same game), and so that they didn't have to force their customers to pay an additional fee to take their games online. This would have been the ideal outcome for everyone involved.

Microsoft did not allow them to do this. The only reason EA games on Xbox have an online component at all (one that 90% of Xbox customers can't access) is because both MS and EA wanted EA's multiplatform titles to have identical feature lists on Xbox and PS2. It looked kind of stupid for MS to evangelise about online being the future when Madden and NHL only supported online play on PS2 and PC. They'll 'do it right' when it pays and when people can actually use it - which is why both Sony and Nintendo have chosen not to lock third parties into a closed system.

(Incidentally, they've drastically played down the "online is the future" spiel with the Xbox 360, for instance Robbie Bach said recently that they only expect 50% of Xbox 360 owners to ever take their machines online, let alone pay to play).

As for the actual EA/Live game experience, the only game that I've ever heard anyone complain about is Burnout 3, which is hardly a representative sample (having changed publishers midway through development and been rushed to market).

Re:Pure FUD

[Saige]

First, it wasn't an admin job, but a SDE/T position. A bit more technical. :)

And when I started, I wasn't interested in the Xbox. What got me to get one was that I spent a weekend at a (non-MS employee) friend's house dog-sitting, and they had an Xbox and KOTOR, which I started playing and really enjoyed. And since I could get discounted games and accessories from the company store (but not on the Xbox itself or non-MS published games), I figured it would be worth it and got one. This was in Jan.

I then bought Halo, liked it, so I bought Halo 2. After watching an internal H2 tournament, I decided to give online a try so I could check out multiplayer. It was decent fun, but when it - and Xbox Live - really took off for me was when I asked for some advice on Halo from an internal news group, and ended up with about a dozen gamertags to put on my friends list, and found myself with people to regularly play with.

Through those people I found PMS, then because it was known amongs some people that I was in the clan, I got a email from an Xbox Live guy bitching about a loss him and some friends had to some PMS girls, and next thing I know, I'm playing with them (including Major Nelson, e (who's in charge of Live), and other people).

So while working at MS did influence it, there were a LOT of other factors involved. Being excited about the 360 I'm sure though has a lot to do with being here because I get to see so many trailers and demos and stuff, and have got to put my hands on the console and play it a few times.

Oh, and I'm nowhere near marketing or PR, so I still qualify as a person, right? (And marketing, PR, and corporate lawyers all do not count as people, no matter what company they work for)

Re:can't do it

[KDR_11k]

I got a PS2 70k, it came with a notice that you'd have to register with Sony Europe to get the network disc and while registering it asks for a username and password. I did that, the disc arrived two months later and I didn't know what my login was anymore. I looked into the forums, seems to be a common issue and you're supposed to mail the customer support or something. Don't ask me what happens then, I only got that disc because it contained free demos (none of which turned out to be both for interesting games and playable) and a game called "Hardware Online Arena" so I couldn't be bothered to go through the customer support to get a login I wouldn't use anyway.

Re:can't do it

[Saige]

The gamer ratings that are a new feature on Live for the Xbox 360 are meant to help deal with this. As people play online and leave feedback for each other, the ones with more negative feedback are going to watch their ratings decrease, where the positive ones will increase. Thus those people who are fun to play against will be matched up with each other, and the groups of morons and asses will have to play others like them.

Will it work? We have to wait and see, but it should be better than how it is now.

BTW, they DO listen and act on feedback even on the current Live. It's just not always obvious they're doing so. People do get temporary bans and voice bans. Yes, voice bans. Those people you're playing against who appear to have no mic? Some of them may just not be able to use it because of how they've used it before.

MOD PARENT UP

[Lehk228]

it's too bad you got modded flamebait by a sony shill

PS2 was garbage PS3 probably won't be any better

Re:can't do it

[mister_slim]

Actually, recently MS has been discouraging split screen play in favor of Live play.

Re:can't do it

[Anonymous Coward]

GOF fan, then?