Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
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?
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.
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 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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
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).
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
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.
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.
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck