Consoles Push Online Gaming

1up.com has a look at how next-gen consoles will effect the future of gaming online. From the article: "There's little argument even amongst developers that Microsoft has a superior online service, but In-Stat analysts believe that Sony deciding on a pay-to-play service or free gaming is crucial to the expansion of online gaming. 'Microsoft is the only console maker so far to launch a paid subscription service,' says In-Stat analyst Brian O'Rourke."

Comments

Nintendo WiFi

[Goalie_Ca]

Follow nintendo's, and pretty much every PC game, and offer online play for free. Mariokart DS online is quite fun. In fact something like 40% of people have played online which supposedly trumps the stats for every xbox game combined. And this is just a handheld device!!

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[Red Flayer]

" Follow nintendo's, and pretty much every PC game"

Quick, what was the largest grossing videogame in 2005?

World of Warcraft. Pay to purchase, pay to play. Subscription service and content only available online = $$.

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[Anonymous Coward]

MMO games are bad to bring into conversations like these because they are a beast of their own. Basically, it would be like having a conversation about Movie box office results where someone says "Movies are underperforming because the cost to go to a movie is too high and the quality is not there" and then having someone pipe up "Yeah, but look at the Rolling stones; they charge like $100 per ticket are always sell out. Price doesn't matter to anyone."

For the most part, people (who don't surf slashdot; ie 90% of the population) are not jumping at the idea of online play; they have to be eased into it before they could see the benefit of paying money to do it. Think of it this way, if Quake and Unreal Tournament had never been released (or whatever games got you started into online play) how likely would you be to spend $50-$100 a year to play games online?

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[ivan256]

Quick, name withc console it was available for... Which for-pay integrated online service it works with... How it relates to this article in any way whatsoever...

Oh, wait.

World of Warcraft is a great example though. It's a great example of why it doesn't matter if you have a Live style integrated offering or not.

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[Red Flayer]

" MMO games are bad to bring into conversations like these because they are a beast of their own."

The point holds, though, that they are reason enough for a company to include online service with their handheld. They are products with a large market and potential for very high-revenue low-cost streams.

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[Irish_Samurai]

It may have been the number one grossing game, but a more telling statistic would be the number one netting game.

WoW has to pay for servers, server admins, developers for patches, artist for artwork, paid GMs, rules localization of their many servers (PvP vs. Non-PvP), account processing and maintenance (financial), and a help desk - just to name a few.

Take another online heavy game like SOCOM 3. They have to maintain servers, but not persistently - that is a much easier task, and one I would say is cheaper too.

Also, since there is no financial account to maintain you can get rid of that cost, and the cost of GMs since they don't exist either. Help desk doesn't have to be as expansive as its most likely only technical help.

I believe in the free online method. If a game wants to have online components, let the company making the game cover the costs. I personally could care less what my stats are across all games compared to other players. The cross game friend feature is pretty cool, but not a deal breaker.

A bigger problem with online subscribtion methods for consoles is that they unfairly leverage their costs against people who only play a few hours a week, while those that play multiple games online reap the greatest benefit. If you played all of your games online, then I can see how XBOX Live would be pretty cool. What if you only play one game online like me? It's just not worth the cost.

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[Red Flayer]

"World of Warcraft is a great example though. It's a great example of why it doesn't matter if you have a Live style integrated offering or not."

It's still a growing market. If your game is 'teh hotness' people will pay for online service, whether it's single-console (or handheld) specific or not. Or how about tiered systems? F2P for all, P2P content for some?

It is relevant to the article, and particularly to the OP, since the amount of revenue that MMORPGs have the potential to bring in is HUGE. Or the fact that many other games besides MMORPGS can have huge secondary revenue streams by only offering content upgrades to people to pay for an online subscrition. Why give it away when people will pay?

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[Red Flayer]

I'd like to see end-of-year figures, but I'd bet that WoW will also be the number one netting game as well in 2006.

"A bigger problem with online subscribtion methods for consoles is that they unfairly leverage their costs against people who only play a few hours a week, while those that play multiple games online reap the greatest benefit. If you played all of your games online, then I can see how XBOX Live would be pretty cool. What if you only play one game online like me? It's just not worth the cost."

They don't have to only offer unlimited play. Pay for 10 hours a month, or 20, or unlimited, or pay by the hour (prepaid cards, etc).

I believe in the free online method. If a game wants to have online components, let the company making the game cover the costs. I personally could care less what my stats are across all games compared to other players. The cross game friend feature is pretty cool, but not a deal breaker.

Tiered is the way I think they'll go with most games. Extra content for subscribers, but available free as well.

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[ClamIAm]

The point holds, though, that they are reason enough for a company to include online service with their handheld. They are products with a large market and potential for very high-revenue low-cost streams.

"The point holds"? Dude, your original post was about how the "largest grossing" game of 2005 was World of Warcraft. "Gross", when used by businesses, means income before expenses. A game can be the "largest grossing ever" but still be unprofitable.

But more to the point, the logic you use here is just really flawed. Let's recap the discussion:

"Follow Nintendo and PC games and have free play ... Mario Kart DS has 40% online, this is greater than all Xbox games combined." --Goalie_Ca

Here we have somebody saying you don't need a subscription service to have a profitable, popular online game. This is backed up by the fact that 1)PC game developers have released games with free online components for years. If it was unprofitable, they wouldn't keep on doing it. 2)Nintendo, of all companies, has free online play. If you follow the history of this company at all, they protect profit at nearly all costs.

"World of Warcraft is the largest grossing game in 2005. Online-only content with a subscription service equals lots of profit" --Red Flayer

This doesn't logically follow from what the OP was saying. He was saying that it's possible to have a popular and profitable online game/game service without charging for access. While it's true that WoW is raking in cash, you stated that it's the largest grossing game of 2005. This doesn't mean it's profitable, nor does it necessarily mean it's popular. (I realize that WoW is popular. This isn't relevant)

"MMO games are bad to bring into conversations like these because they are a beast of their own. It's like comparing how movies are doing poorly but people will still pay $100 to see the Rolling Stones" --Anonymous Coward

Here we have the valid point that just because two things are similar (Mario Kart and WoW are both videogames) doesn't mean you can directly compare them.

"The point holds, though, that they are reason enough for a company to include online service with their handheld." --Red Flayer

The fact here is that you never made this point to begin with. Further, I have not seen any research that shows there's a huge MMO market for handheld gaming, nor that this is a reason Nintendo developed their online service for the DS. So what does this mean? It means that the point (which you never made) logically does not follow from the reply by Mr. AC.

You also state that MMO games have the potential for a large market, high revenue, and low costs. Here is a flaw, though: every business and product has the "potential" for a large market, high revenue, and/or low costs. If I start a business where I watch TV in my boxers and people can pay for the priveledge of watching me, there is indeed the potential for a the things you state. The problem with this business model is that there isn't very much potential.

So, if we look at your replies to people, we see a pattern of either not really following what they're saying, or using faulty logic to make points that don't relate to what they said. I'm not trying to be a dick here, either.

Looking at the posts you are making here, you actually remind me a lot of myself when I started posting on web forums. My logic was sloppy, I misread peoples' posts, and generally caused havok as people tried to correct me (often making me angry). I suggest that you try and think out your points a bit more and make sure that your replies are relevant to what people have said before you. This helps reduce the noise of discussion, as well as allowing people to better understand what you are trying to say.

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[ivan256]

Why give it away when people will pay?

We're way off topic now, but what the hell...

The answer is that the number of games that people are willing to subscribe to at once is limited. World of Warcraft is hugely profitable. You don't think that right now there's somebody thinking that they can make some money by providing a good online game at a lower cost to the player in order to steal away a little bit of that player base?

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[apoc06]

also, he failed to acknowledge the popularity of free MMO games or even free casual web games if we want to REALLY nit-pick. they may not charge direct fees, but they are growing in numbers by leaps and bounds in terms of numbers of players online and revenue.

the industry has several different models that work well for different types of products. each console doesnt target the exact same markets. the xbox targets the hardcore and pc crossover market. they are generally the market that appreciates things like everyone having mics, etc... nintendo consoles are generally marketed to more casual and younger markets. if you rarely play games and for not long marathons in the first place, would you /really/ be inclined to pay for a service you dont use, no matter how cheap the fee is? some people just want to play. they dont want any company double-dipping in their pockets. i appreciate sony and nintendo for taking that type of initiative on their handhelds at least. as time progresses, im sure that even they will raise their free online quality to xbox-live levels. the ps3 and revolution are still largely wildcards, so who knows? ... they might be released with services that surpass live quality; being that neither company likes being "one-upped" by the competition. [excuse the pun]

Re:Nintendo WiFi

[ClamIAm]

Well said. I don't have much to say that would really add anything. Oh, and he's still replying to other posts I've made on this thread. >_>

Re:News?

[ivan256]

Yes, please Captain Obvious, show Red Flayer how to read the article. Also, perhaps how to read a business report.

Here's a hint for you. There is only one console player that is/has been steadily losing money, most gamers don't care to play online, and this article is talking about how Sony may decide on a free service to compete with Microsoft's for pay service.

Read, think, comment. In that order, please.

Re:News?

[ClamIAm]

My high school geometry teacher had a sign on his wall that said "READY, FIRE, AIM". In the bottom corner, in small handwriting, was written "oops".

Re:News?

[Red Flayer]

The article? Read it. It said almost nothing. Was referring to the summary.

FTA:"There's little argument even amongst developers that Microsoft has a superior online service, but In-Stat analysts believe that Sony deciding on a pay-to-play service or free gaming is crucial to the expansion of online gaming. "Microsoft is the only console maker so far to launch a paid subscription service," says In-Stat analyst Brian O'Rourke."

How does this say that Sony may have free online gaming to compete with MS's pay service?

The article says nothing like what you say it does.

Also, it doesn't matter if most players don't want to play online -- what matters is
(1) whether most players two years from now will want to play online; and
(2) where the most cash comes from, games sales or online subscriptions/fees.

So, please, get a clue yourself and bother to read the article, go back and read my post, and understand why it's such an obvious move by Sony.

grammar nazi alert

[boog3r]

affect/effect, meh! who really cares?

in this context:

effect = make gambling bigger
affect = make gambling bigger or smaller

the author probably wanted to use affect.

Re:News?

[ClamIAm]

Also, it doesn't matter if most players don't want to play online -- what matters is
(1) whether most players two years from now will want to play online; and
(2) where the most cash comes from, games sales or online subscriptions/fees.

My first reaction to this is that yes, it DOES matter if most players don't want to play online. For your argument to be valid, it should hold in all situations where most players don't want to play online. But let's say that only ten people want to play games online. Your argument doesn't hold then. Nobody would be making online games or creating Live-type subscription services (for profit, anyway). There would be no money in it.

But then you contradict yourself and say that it matters if most gamers want to play online. The only difference is, you think it matters in 2008. Why is this? Is 2008 the magical cutoff date after which no one is allowed to change their mind about whether they want to play online anymore?

And while it does matter to the games industry whether more money can be made through game sales ("box" sales) or subscriptions, it doesn't have any direct bearing on whether "online gaming" is profitable, or potentially successful. The reason for this is that both models have shown that they can be successful, and both models have shown that they can fail.

If box sales are more profitable (let's say 50.001%) than subscription sales, this doesn't mean that Blizzard is going to pull the plug on WoW next week. It also doesn't mean that online gaming is suddenly worth doing. Also also, it doesn't mean that online gaming is unfeasible. Look at FPS games, or even Guild Wars. They don't have subscription fees, and they're still going.

If subscription sales are more profitable than box sales, this doesn't mean that every console manufacturer has to copy Microsoft. My arguments here are practically identical to the ones above for box sales, save they are flipped around.

Re:News?

[Red Flayer]

"The only difference is, you think it matters in 2008. Why is this? Is 2008 the magical cutoff date after which no one is allowed to change their mind about whether they want to play online anymore?"

I was pointing out that for someone like Sony to plan its business based upon today's market would be imbecilic. The game market is changing, and choosing to ignore online gaming would be beyond foolish.

"If subscription sales are more profitable than box sales, this doesn't mean that every console manufacturer has to copy Microsoft. My arguments here are practically identical to the ones above for box sales, save they are flipped around."

You're ignoring the fact that the goal is not to 'make some profit', but to 'maximize profits.' This means box sales + online sales.

There's also the issue of being seen as a tech laggard -- if you don't have good online capability, you WILL lose market share to competitors that do.

"Look at FPS games, or even Guild Wars. They don't have subscription fees, and they're still going."

You're looking at individual games, not at consoles. Different product, not comparable. There is no reason for Sony NOT to offer a subscription service, in addition to a free service (which would cost them money to operate, BTW -- so box and console sales would have to subsidize this). Why would they pass up a chance at more revenue, when they will be faced with extra costs?

Nintendo

[Phantasmo]

Nintendo's WFC is going to be the most interesting online service. Halo + Live is great but at $6 a month you have to play a lot to make it worthwhile.
Compare this with (for example) Timesplitters 4 with strong WFC integration and an excellent map editor, along with the excellent Revolution controller. I can definitely see Revolution taking a huge chunk of the online shooter market. If Nintendo could get the Timesplitters team to make a Revolution-exclusive Goldeneye remake, they'd be set for this generation.

Also, developers would probably prefer developing for WFC over the other options. With X-Box you have to use Live if you want to support online play, and that means that only 10% of X-Box owners will actually play it. Pretty much anyone with a Revolution and an Internet connection will be using WFC, so you'd reach a lot more players.

Re:Nintendo

[Phantasmo]

Revolution won't have ethernet but there'll certainly be a USB-based adaptor. However, I don't think that WFC is terribly complicated. Turn unit on, select AP, play game.
It's pretty hard to buy a non-wireless router nowadays, and they're getting dirt cheap. And people will buy routers for online play - what else are they going to do, swap the cable between the console and computer?

It's up to the developers to decide if they want dial-up users playing their games. It's not like Revolution is going to have voice chat in any case.

Finally, I think the PS3 will also have a no-subscription, wireless capable internet connection. So, what's the difference? Just the controller?
Besides about $200? An online service (PS3 is the same as PS2, just give developers the docs for the ethernet card) that is able to deliver patches and extra content, as well as allowing players to track stats, find friends and match up against players with similar skill levels. Seems a bit better than leaving every developer to start from scratch.

Re:Nintendo

[rohlfinator]

"Also, the compromises make to MK:DS in online play make me think that perhaps wireless isn't too suited to gaming full stop, I hope the Rev has a proper ethernet port."

The compromises in MK:DS are completely unrelated to the choice of Wi-Fi. (I'm assuming you're referring to the limited matchmaking system and lack of chat.) Those are due to Nintendo's policies regarding online games, primarily the idea that the games be relatively easy to use and safe for players of any age. It's entirely possible for DS games to use text chat (possibly even voice chat), but Nintendo has chosen not to support it in all games, probably to avoid profanity and unwanted trash-talking.

A more traditional matchmaking setup is also very possible, but an auto-match solution like the one Mario Kart uses is more convenient and generally faster. For a portable system like the DS, simplicity and speed are important. My guess is that the Revolution's WFC will have more options available, simply because it'll be designed for longer, more serious periods of play.

Really, the only inherent problems to using Wi-Fi are router compatibility issues and dropped connections. While both are annoying, they should improve as time passes and the technology improves.

Re:News?

[ClamIAm]

You're ignoring the fact that the goal is not to 'make some profit', but to 'maximize profits.' This means box sales + online sales.

I agree that the goal of business is to maximize profit (in general). But it does not follow that this means "box sales + online sales". It might mean that a company decides to go one way or the other, or a combination. It all depends on what would maximize their profits. You're looking at individual games, not at consoles. Different product, not comparable. There is no reason for Sony NOT to offer a subscription service, in addition to a free service (which would cost them money to operate, BTW -- so box and console sales would have to subsidize this). Why would they pass up a chance at more revenue, when they will be faced with extra costs?

First, the fact that I use individual games as examples in support of a point does not mean that I'm letting the examples make the point for me. When I referenced these games, I was talking about the fact that it is possible to have profitable online gaming without relying on a specific business model or a combination of both box + subscription sales.

Also, the Internet helps in allowing any game developer or publisher to become a gatekeeper similar to what console manufacturers are. All that is required is a computer architecture that it is free to develop for. This means computer operating systems such as Windows, OS X or Linux. Valve Software has done exactly this with Steam. It is almost exactly what a console is, except done in software rather than hardware. Because of this, comparing physical consoles to games is fine, as they are basically the same thing now.

You say that there is no reason for Sony not to offer a subscription online service. But earlier you stated that the goal of business is to maximize profits. So offering a subscription service only makes sense if it allows them to maximize thier profits, right? This means that there is a reason for sony not to offer this service, and you gave the reason yourself!

Re:News?

[ZakuSage]

Can I get some confirmation that SCE is actually losing money? I've heard that Sony is losing money, mostly because of it's crappy TV sales and what not, but SCE losing money seems a hell of a lot more like an unfounded rumour, considering the PS2 is not sold at a loss...

Re:News?

[Red Flayer]

"This means that there is a reason for sony not to offer this service, and you gave the reason yourself!"

And yet I pointed out that online services have been demonstrated to be profitable when done properly. Missing out on this opportunity would be a big mistake for Sony, seeing as their pockets are very deep and can absorb the cost of starting up such a service.

You can twist my words all you like, but my point still stands -- Sony will be instituting some form of online service (which has been obvious to analysts for months now), and will likely in time convert the service to at least a pay-optional tiered system. While Sony has consistently stated that they will be using an 'open' online format, meaning game developers will retain the costs associated with and the revenues derived from hosting online play, Sony has always hedged it statements with "currently" or "as of now." They state that they believe pay-to-play online gaming presents too much of a barrier for most gamers, they also recognize the income potential -- SOE has done pretty well with offerings (until very recently).

Note also that Sony created a unified platform for 989 sports games in 2003, so they have some experience with running a unified platform. This was in response to MS gaining a pretty big lead in online sports gaming in 2002 and 2003, and to compete with the revamp of XBoxLive.

I don't think Sony will commit the same mistake again, allowing MS to establish a firm lead in onlinwe gaming. A distributed platform for online gaming may do just that, since Sony will not be able to control the quiality of online offerings for PS3.

The only reason that Sony wouldn't establish their own unified platform is because some developers (EA, for example) don't want to play by those rules -- but with MS already doing it, Sony would be the only other major option for EA -- who've stated in the past that they don't like MS's business practices and prefer not to develop for their consoles.

All in all, as the online gaming market develops, I'm 99% certain that console makers will need to establish a unified platform, that they charge for, in order to stay competitive. It's quite possible they'd also offer a distributed platform for online gaming, a la PS2, but Sony would be foolish to allow themselves to lag behind in online gaming, which is the fastest growing segment of the gaming market (in dollars, not in percentages -- I'm still a little unsure of the 'casual gaming' figures bandied about on the net.)

As a PC Fanboy...

[mofomojo]

I must say that consoles are doing nothing new.

How much is a lot?

[Corngood]

Nintendo's WFC is going to be the most interesting online service. Halo + Live is great but at $6 a month you have to play a lot to make it worthwhile.

Compared to other forms of entertainment, you certainly don't have to play a lot to make that $6 worthwhile. You might feel that you deserve free online play, and it might even make economic sense, but at the end of the day, people will find $6 to be a bargain even if they play only a few hours per month.

Re:How much is a lot?

[SetupWeasel]

I'm still bothered by MMOs actually charging for the game discs.

Re:News?

[ivan256]

How does this say that Sony may have free online gaming to compete with MS's pay service?

This part right here:

[...] In-Stat analysts believe that Sony deciding on a pay-to-play service or free gaming is crucial to [...]

What they're saying is that game developers won't start moving their cross platform content online in a signifigant way until Sony makes a decision on whether they're going to have a for-fee Live style service, or something free and less cohesive.

Make sense to you now?

Re:News?

[ClamIAm]

And yet I pointed out that online services have been demonstrated to be profitable when done properly.

You made a statement, backed up by no evidence, that this was the case. So I'm just supposed to accept this without doubting you?

You can twist my words all you like, but my point still stands -- Sony will be instituting some form of online service (which has been obvious to analysts for months now), and will likely in time convert the service to at least a pay-optional tiered system.

I am not twisting your arguments. What I was referring to here was when you stated there is "no reason" for Sony to not offer an online service. Yet I pointed out the flaw in your logic. You stated (and I agree) that businesses try to maximize profit. Offering an online service may not maximize Sony's profit. This means that your point does not stand.

While Sony has consistently stated that they will be using an 'open' online format, meaning game developers will retain the costs associated with and the revenues derived from hosting online play, Sony has always hedged it statements with "currently" or "as of now."

I think you're reading way too much into this. It's far more likely Sony's just trying to cover their asses here. If they said "we're always doing it this way no matter what", developers might be discouraged from going with Sony, and other companies could have a field day if they change their mind. Unless you have evidence to back up your claim, there's really nothing to see here.

Note also that Sony created a unified platform for 989 sports games in 2003, so they have some experience with running a unified platform. This was in response to MS gaining a pretty big lead in online sports gaming in 2002 and 2003, and to compete with the revamp of XBoxLive.

Again, I think you're reading too much into this. If a game developer (989 studios) has a couple of games that are going to offer similar online functions, it would make it much easier (both technically and financially) to use a unified platform. This way, they have lower overhead when it comes to developing the tech for the service. And you also have no evidence that it was in response to what you claim.

I don't think Sony will commit the same mistake again, allowing MS to establish a firm lead in onlinwe gaming.

The thing is, MS hasn't established a "firm lead" in online gaming. All they've done is started a console service that has attracted (as of now) the most people. This doesn't mean that it's financially sound, nor that growth will continue. And PC games still have far more online players than consoles.

All in all, as the online gaming market develops, I'm 99% certain that console makers will need to establish a unified platform, that they charge for, in order to stay competitive.

Once again, where is the evidence for this? The arguments that you use have all relied on flawed assumptions or things that logically do not follow from your starting points, and sometimes a combination of both. Unless you can re-formulate your aguments to remove these problems, none of your points "still stand".

Re:News?

[apoc06]

the playstation division is one of the few areas of the sony company thats turning a profit. to them the playstations are proven winners, thats why now they are able to push a lil harder in the research and development of their consoles [PSP, and PS3] than their competitors. whereas, before they relied on heavier marketing than thier competition. the funny thing is the fact that they are using the playstation brand to prop up their other divisions. ps3 selling blu-ray... psp selling umd sony movies... the ps3s 1080p is going to sell plenty of HDTVs for them.

i guess hes a little mixed up in regards to the well known fact that nintendo consoles are rarely sold at a loss. just because its consoles are sold at a loss doesnt equate to the division losing money. sony makes most of its profit through licensing and software sales.

they may take a slight hit on every console sold, but overall they make a profit during the course of each of those consoles' lifecycles. as a company sony is losing money, but not the playstation brand itself overall.

Re:News?

[Red Flayer]

"You made a statement, backed up by no evidence, that this was the case. So I'm just supposed to accept this without doubting you?"

No, it's common knowledge that online game platforms can be profitable. If you doubt the common knowledge, go ahead and do the research yourself.

"You stated (and I agree) that businesses try to maximize profit. Offering an online service may not maximize Sony's profit. This means that your point does not stand."

My point is that it will increase Sony's profit, or perhaps decrease their losses. Unless Sony can't figure out how other companies have made it profitable to them (which I doubt, since they've demonstrated that they can do it themselves), it will be a profitable venture.

"And you also have no evidence that it was in response to what you claim"

Do a quick Google, particularly for articles in 2003. It's repeated enough in the professional literature that I have no problem accepting it as being true. Also, look at the timing of the XBoxLive update and Sony's 989 platform.

Please, if you're going to read every sentence so critically, do some research yourself -- after all, I'm assuming that you must have some knowledge on the subject, or you wouldn't be disputing my perspective, right? I'm not going to compose an essay for you, I expect that you would bother doing a little research on your own if you disagree that much.

Re:News?

[ClamIAm]

No, it's common knowledge that online game platforms can be profitable. If you doubt the common knowledge, go ahead and do the research yourself.

I agree that it's common knowledge that online game platforms can be profitable. That's not what I'm disputing. What I'm disputing is that an Xbox Live-type service can be profitable. I've already made the argument and linked an article in one of my earlier replies to you that backs up my doubt.

My point is that it will increase Sony's profit, or perhaps decrease their losses. Unless Sony can't figure out how other companies have made it profitable to them (which I doubt, since they've demonstrated that they can do it themselves), it will be a profitable venture.

And you have no evidence that it will increase Sony's profit, as it is still uncertain whether Live-type services are profitable. See above.

Also, Sony has not demonstrated that it can do the type of service that Live does. If you are referencing 989 sports, that is one developer, and also owned by Sony itself. Xbox Live is a service that any game developer can use for online play (theoretically, at least. I don't think they'd let Sony connect PS3s to it). If you're referencing something else, it would be nice to actually say what you're talking about.

Do a quick Google, particularly for articles in 2003. It's repeated enough in the professional literature that I have no problem accepting it as being true. Also, look at the timing of the XBoxLive update and Sony's 989 platform.

Please, if you're going to read every sentence so critically, do some research yourself -- after all, I'm assuming that you must have some knowledge on the subject, or you wouldn't be disputing my perspective, right? I'm not going to compose an essay for you, I expect that you would bother doing a little research on your own if you disagree that much.

The most obvious flaw with your reasoning here is that all the arguments you've used so far have not been backed up by any links or references to people who actually know WTF they're talking about. Why should I have to do your research for you? You are making all these claims, yet you won't back them up with things like press releases, industry analysis, or interviews.

I certainly hope you never have to either do any schoolwork or get a job. When your teacher or boss asks you how you came to a conclusion and you tell him/her to "go do the research yourself", you won't find yourself successful for much longer.

I am not implying one of us is smarter, just that when someone questions you, you should have either a good explaination, or other evidence to back up your claim. All of your explainations so far have relied on speculation or flawed reasoning, and you've shown no outside evidence. So unless you correct these problems, your arguments are not really plausible.