Slashdot Mirror
Sony Takes Aim at Xbox Live
Joystiq and the site ComputerandVideoGames are reporting on the first real action in the next-gen war. Sony is apparently readying a strong online service that will meet or exceed the features of Xbox Live. With no firm PS3 launch date yet released, the 360 still has the advantage, but if Sony is rolling out an online matching and media service with their (reportedly) more powerful console things could look bad for Microsoft's new system. From the article: "This story, together with the recent survey Sony conducted, should remove any doubts about Sony's online ambitions. Is it possible that Sony could create a network the size and scale of Xbox Live in such a short time. It has cost Microsoft, the world's largest software company, billions and taken years just to lay the framework for the current Live service. Sony is know for their hyperbolic marketing: the PS2's Emotion Engine, the PSP as iPod-killer; it seems unlikely they could take the crown from Microsoft on their first try, but any attempt is a huge relief. It was beginning to look like Sony didn't think the Live service was a valuable addition to console gaming, or a serious competitor to their hegemony. "
I'll believe it when I see it. Feature for feature and then some. Right. I have a bridge in NY and some beach front property in Arizona to sell you.
And the Emotion Engine is powering my workstation, Cell will dominate all electronics on the planet, the PSP will kick Nintendo out of the handheld market and beat the iPod in one fell swoop. Yada yada yada. Oh and something about incredible real-time CGI. When it all falls flat on it's face it's going to be whoever bought it's fault for not understanding the awe-inspiring vision that is exuded by the Sony corporation.
Put on your waders boys and girls, stand very still and brace yourself, the Sony people are talking and you wouldn't want to be killed by the bullshit.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Sony might having to perform a "me, too" not so much because of MS - but the combination of MS and Nintendo both having online services, plus both having a "purchase games via this interface" system (the Revolution possibly having a monthly subscription for playing the NES/SNES/N64 games).
Sony might have decided that if even Nintendo was doing an online route, they didn't want to be the last ones to the party. My guess is that they'll tell developers "You can still have the setup you want" (so if someone like EA wants to run thier own lobby/interface with ad revenue, they can), "... or you can use ours" (so publishers won't have to put all of thier resources into hosting servers - let Sony do it).
If so, I think it would be a good thing for Sony, if for no other reason than not look like the odd duck out.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Ok maybe I'm just jaded about having to pay for a console then pay MS for essentially just a NETWORK CONNECTION to other players, but why NOT make it free? (as in air) I know it would make my decision simple when it came to xbox 360 or PS3.
:| )
Actually when I heard you had to PAY to change the skins, I backed off completely. Where are the days when you paid for a product and just enjoyed it without a constantly being nibbled to death by Credit Card Ducks?
No sir, I will still to my "alternatives", as offline as they may appear to MS, Sony or Nintendo until one day one of these companies gets a clue stick and sets up their system to be more P2P in nature then B2B.
GIMME MY FREE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE! (not like the game, the console the internet connection cost me anything eh?
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
But I missed the most obvious thing.
Duh me.
When I finished reading how downloading games aren't just for pirates, and the use of Steam and MS Live for purchasing games, it became a "duh" moment as to why Sony wants their own online service:
Selling games. You can buy games off of Steam and Xbox Live for around $10 to $20 apiece, which brings us to a kind of "long tail" theory: not everybody wants to buy a game for $50, but there are probably plenty who will buy one for $15 or $10 if it's fun.
Sony can use that, and if they're making a good chunk of 25% off of each game sold, that's more revenue. Nintendo already stated they wanted to have independants on their online network, Microsoft has that now (see the success of "Geometry Wars" - and Sony sees those dollars.
I should have realized that first. I wasn't thinking greedy enough. I'm sorry.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
It actually is big news because for the longest time, Sony left it to all the game developers to develop all of the online features. The argument was that game developers WANTED to have finer control on all the implementation details. That was fine for large companies, like EA and Square-Enix, but obviously not so easy for smaller companies. (They want to make games, not re-invent the wheel with yet-another-implementation of authentication, leaderboards, in-game messaging, etc.) It also sucked for users, who now had to remember multiple usernames/passwords for multiple games, versus the nice single-login system with Live (and presumably Nintendo's system).
I'm guessing the fact that Nintendo revealed they were working on something similar (and you can already see some of the progress with wireless DS functionality in Mario Kart DS), really pushed Sony to do a complete 180 and claim they're going to have Live features, "AND MORE!!!!".
Personally, I'm doubtful they can really pull it off that quickly, if they truly intend on releasing this year. I'm guessing they'll just have some basic functionality, maybe an interesting feature or two that no one has yet (which I'm sure will be hyped plenty), but then miss a lot of the other stuff that Live does have. That will be "version 2", due out in 2007. Even if Sony is able to pull off the implementation (and yes, they DO have some online experience, thanks to Everquest and Star Wars: Galaxies), it's still a lot to expect from 3rd party companies to suddenly comply with whatever online API that they hack together in the next few months.
That said, it would be nice to have some online feature parity across all the consoles. It just drives more competition and (hopefully) good innovation.
-- jchenx
and now M$ is the incumbent to a firmly entrenched online gaming network
It's just that firmly entrenched means something totally different to Microsoft than Sony. The number of Live subscribers almost reached 0.4% of the number of PS2 owners in the last generation. No wonder Sony didn't try too hard to go after those customers...
Dispite all the hype, online gaming just isn't that big yet compared to the overall gaming market.
Chances are, even without an online service, if the PS3 doesn't win big this generation it won't be because of Microsoft. It'll be because of the PSP. The system that wins is the one with the big name games, and no developer is going to bet against Sony right now.
Abso-fuckin-lutely not. People are used to Sony's constant hype machine bullshit, and when you're already used to the stink it's pretty easy to tell reality from BS and this is utter BS.
The fact is, Sony's constant "we don't need a Live service to compete with MS" has been shown to be as last-gen-thinking as the PS2's graphics currently are. Sony NEEDS to compete on this front (XBox Live/Arcade is fantastic) and isn't currently in any position to do it...at least if they launch in '06. MS is already on iteration 2 of their service for god's sake.
Does (any Sony product) + (Rootkit Installed) = (Barrels of laughter at Slashdot)???
Never gets old does it? Boy, the laughs never stop here at Slashdot!
There's a reason for that. It's not the Live service itself; that's fine. It's not the technology; that's mature and stable. It's not the prerequisite ADSL; that's a sunken cost already. It's not even the subscription cost; that's so minor compared to the cost of hardware and ADSL and games that it barely registers on the credit card.
The problem with Live is the 2 million users... they're all asshats. Campers and twerps and abusers and nidjits and teasers and lamers but never a decent person worth playing a game with. It's all "ph0ck j00 l@mer i ph0cked j00r mom" and damn it to hell if I'm going to pay $29.95 per month to listen to that crap. The microphone headset was the stupidest thing Microsoft ever did; reading that abuse is bad enough but there's no way that I want to listen to some mouth-breathing 14 year old cursing in his pre-pubescent squeaky voice whenever I waste his talentless avatar.
Online games are ruined by the average gamer. No thanks. I'll play games with people I know, in the same room, so that the anonymity of Live can't tempt them into acting like an asshat.
hat's also why the Dreamcast tanked; it was a better console but PS2 had better games.
Wha... what?!? It was the EXACT OPPOSITE my friend. The Dreamcast has been known to have one of the best libraries available, even if it didn't quite match the PS2 on the hardware level (though still held its own). In fact, the PS2 had one of the most terribly launch titles available - the really good stuff took awhile to come down the pipeline. Meanwhile, Sega was experiencing a creative zenith at the time (which, was unfortunately overshadowed by PS2 hype). I love my PS2, but don't try and pretend it killed the DC on games at the beginning.