why doesn't Sony just copy XBOX Live?

[Anthony1]

I don't understand why Sony just doesn't copy the Xbox Live service for their PS3 system? This is a chance for a fresh start for them, in regards to having a online service, and I don't see why they couldn't just basically copy what Microsoft is doing with Xbox Live and offer the same exact thing to PS3 owners.


I'm now used to how the Xbox Live service works, and when I get the Playstation 3, I expect for them to have a new thing called "Sony Online" or something like that. Sure, it will basically be a cheesy rip-off of everything that Xbox Live is doing, but who cares? Imitation is the best form of flattery. I expected them to copy Xbox Live a long time ago. I don't understand why they aren't offering a similar type of service.


Does anybody know why Sony just doesn't offer the same exact thing that Microsoft is? It couldn't be that hard to just copy the same basically deal... could it?

[Xizer]

Because Sony sucks.

[s1lence]

Given the success of live you would think Sony would do something like that for the ps3. It would give them control of their online community (what little of one there is now) which would be a great thing for the system. I believe there was an article in this months PSM that said Sony is looking to do something of that sort.

[hezeuschrist]

Because they're simply unwilling to front the cash for such an enormous undertaking. They may not even be able to execute such an amazing service as Microsoft has.

Don't forgot, the PS2 still has the biggest online community of any console right now, but thats obviously due to it having a 3 to 1 install base over the competitors. That'll change this generation and they'll have to rethink their strategy when Microsoft unlocks that accomplishment (pun intended).

[Cmtz]

Because Sony sucks.


Care to tell us why?


I really think they should do something like live. You know that many Xboxers will make the jump.

[njiska]

Because Sony sucks.

For once i'm gonna sort of agree Xizer. Except instead of saying Sony sucks, i'm gonna say Sony is an arrogant fuck of a company.

They like to do things their own way and don't really pay attention to the desires of their userbase, or to quality. That's why the company will be dead inside the next 10 years.

Sony has been clear that at the present time they are going to stick with the same business model they had in PS2 generation.

That a side, Sony does appear to still be looking into the PLaystation World Concept they unvieled at last years E3. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060118-6006.html

[Griking]

Don't forgot, the PS2 still has the biggest online community of any console right now, but thats obviously due to it having a 3 to 1 install base over the competitors.

Sony may have a larger install base but how does that translate into having the largest online community? Other than Final Fantasy off the top of my head I couldn't even name another PS2 game that has online capibility. I'm sure that there has to be a few more but I can't see that translating into having a larger online community than Xbox Live.

[stressboy]

Uhhmmm.. all the SOCOM games can be played online.

In fact here is a list:

http://www.us.playstation.com/onlinegaming.aspx?id=index

Didn't Live only get about 10% penetration this last gen? I remember back in July MS said they had 2 million subscribers, and I am sure that number has gone up since then. I am trying to dig up a link.

[buttasuperb]

Because Sony sucks.

haha, same thing i was gonna post.

[Kid Ice]

Does anybody know why Sony just doesn't offer the same exact thing that Microsoft is?

Perhaps because they're kicking Microsoft's ass in the marketplace?

[unwinddesign]

Because Sony has its big, stupid head up so far up its pompous ass that it thinks it can win against Microsoft without a similar online service.

Sony, it's time to take a bow and get the fuck out of dodge. You hacks got lucky with your Playstation, but now your luck is running out. Suck a fat one; you deserve it.

[SEGA-SAMMY]

I predict they'll announce a very similar service at e3 this year. ROFL

[Mr.FoodMonster]

To everyone that just bashed Sony in this thread.

You're all morons.

How do you (or, anyone for that matter) know that they AREN'T planning on doing such a thing? IMO, Live is the absolute best part about XBox. Not the games, not the system, not anything other then that. It brought online gaming to the masses with an incredible ease of use. Sony would be soooo stupid to not realize that. They've gotta be working on the same thing, and acording to nj's link, they probably are. Also...

That's why the company will be dead inside the next 10 years.
You honestly must be on some goooood crack if you think that. If any company even slightly associated with gaming is going to be 'dead inside the next 10 years' its the big N. And I hate to say it, but if the Rev. is a total dud, we can say goodbye forever.

[stressboy]

If any company even slightly associated with gaming is going to be 'dead inside the next 10 years' its the big N. And I hate to say it, but if the Rev. is a total dud, we can say goodbye forever.

I dunno...

Nintendo seems to realize that they are #3 in the home console market and appear to be positioning the Revolution for that spot. Of all three next gen consoles, I am probably the most intrigued by the Revolution, and can see me and my son having a lot of fun with that in a few years when he is a little older.

Regardless of what happens in the home console market for Nintendo, I can see them continuing to dominate the handheld market for a very long time.


oh.. and unwinddesign's post was even more worthless than Xizers, which is saying a lot.

[Half Japanese]

Don't forgot, the PS2 still has the biggest online community of any console right now, but thats obviously due to it having a 3 to 1 install base over the competitors.

Sony may have a larger install base but how does that translate into having the largest online community? Other than Final Fantasy off the top of my head I couldn't even name another PS2 game that has online capibility. I'm sure that there has to be a few more but I can't see that translating into having a larger online community than Xbox Live.

Like was said above, SOCOM is a huge part of that, as well as the Final Fantasy games, but I think the ace up the sleeve with the online gaming community (at least on consoles) are sports games. Notice how Madden and its ilk top the sales charts every year when they're released? I'm sure a ton of those people have been waiting for years to play online and with this generation it finally happened in a big way (with props to the X Band and Dreamcast for testing the waters). Also, the install base of online gamers on the ps2 is probably largely linked to one thing: $$$. It doesn't cost anything to play ps2 online (save for FFXI), but MS's service will run you about $6/mo. It's $6 well-spent, mind you, but not everyone sees it that way.

[PapaStu]

Well with this gen, Sony wasnt wiling to foot the bill and take that risk. So they left it to the game developers/publishers to cover their own asses for each game. And thats why the PS2 online is so spotty for some of the games. Hell even Zipper (a Sony developer and the makers of SOCOM) had big issues with getting their games to work with the subscriber base and to combat cheaters.

I'm thinking that the PS3 will have some better support since Sony's been able to see how many people play on their network, and the success of the XBL service and the dowfalls of their network. Just think of all the perks that are in XBL360 and the platinum card thing they just introduced and how many more companies are going to jump all over that because of the Sony name along with the buzz of the PS3.

[ProgrammingAce]

I'll tell you right now that sony isn't planning on a "Live" integrated network interface like microsoft has. As a matter of fact, they've told the developers that there won't be such a service. They needed to make a decision one way or the other early on in this cycle so that developers would have a chance to either support "Sony Live" or come up with their own solution. Sony chose to let the devs each come up with their own solution.

Live costs money, a lot of it. There's the R&D, the security, the bandwidth, the testing, the maintainance, the servers... Sony as a whole is hurting for cash, they really don't have the funds to start such a project. Live cost over a billion dollars by the time it was all said and done... If sony were to copy it, they would be betting their whole company behind the concept, and they're not confident enough to do it.

[Mr.FoodMonster]

I'll tell you right now that sony isn't planning on a "Live" integrated network interface like microsoft has. As a matter of fact, they've told the developers that there won't be such a service. They needed to make a decision one way or the other early on in this cycle so that developers would have a chance to either support "Sony Live" or come up with their own solution. Sony chose to let the devs each come up with their own solution.
Ok sir, I'll be sure to trust you, an anonymous person on the internet with no sources. You have saved the day! :roll:

[hezeuschrist]

I'll tell you right now that sony isn't planning on a "Live" integrated network interface like microsoft has. As a matter of fact, they've told the developers that there won't be such a service. They needed to make a decision one way or the other early on in this cycle so that developers would have a chance to either support "Sony Live" or come up with their own solution. Sony chose to let the devs each come up with their own solution.
Ok sir, I'll be sure to trust you, an anonymous person on the internet with no sources. You have saved the day! :roll:

I'll bet money he's right.

[unwinddesign]

To everyone that just bashed Sony in this thread.

You're all morons.


Fine, I'm a moron. But I'm a moron that speaks the truth. Sony is incredibly full of itself, and they're some of the most pompous assholes I've seen in the gaming industry.

Did I enjoy playing my PS1 and PS2? Absolutely. However, given the numerous problems and asshole moves Sony has made, they do not deserve to be number one. They were at the right place at the right time; the Playstation took off, and so it went.

However, they've already dropped the ball on this one. Remember Ken saying that the PS2 would feature all sorts of shit (similar to what the Xbox Live Marketplace is)? Nothing came of it. People aren't gonna fall for the same shit again. It's just not happenning. The Xbox 360 is a real contender, with one of the best business enterprises in the world backing it. Microsoft doesn't fuck around. If Sony doesn't get their head out of their fucking ass, they're going to be seeing themselves trailing Microsoft. Fast. I am not going to be playing games on some system where each fucking online game requires seperate registration, seperate friends lists; I want fucking integration and ease of use. And, judging from the numerous subscribers to Live, so do a lot of other people.

[hezeuschrist]

To everyone that just bashed Sony in this thread.

You're all morons.


Fine, I'm a moron. But I'm a moron that speaks the truth. Sony is incredibly full of itself, and they're some of the most pompous assholes I've seen in the gaming industry.

Did I enjoy playing my PS1 and PS2? Absolutely. However, given the numerous problems and asshole moves Sony has made, they do not deserve to be number one. They were at the right place at the right time; the Playstation took off, and so it went.

However, they've already dropped the ball on this one. Remember Ken saying that the PS2 would feature all sorts of shit (similar to what the Xbox Live Marketplace is)? Nothing came of it. People aren't gonna fall for the same shit again. It's just not happenning. The Xbox 360 is a real contender, with one of the best business enterprises in the world backing it. Microsoft doesn't fuck around. If Sony doesn't get their head out of their fucking ass, they're going to be seeing themselves trailing Microsoft. Fast. I am not going to be playing games on some system where each fucking online game requires seperate registration, seperate friends lists; I want fucking integration and ease of use. And, judging from the numerous subscribers to Live, so do a lot of other people.

You're just flat out wrong. Don't take that the wrong way, but everything you just stated as fact is purely your opinion.

What makes topics like this nearly impossible to discuss is that it's nearly impossible for any of us to put ourselves in the shoes of the mainstream gamer. But what's easy enough to say from working in a game store for a while, MOST people don't give Xbox live a second glance once they see it costs something, and since most casual gamers don't play more than a couple games online EVER, making seperate services for each one isn't a big hassle to them. As long as it's free.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Sony's online bid (as shitty as it is) being FREE is a bigger selling point than everything Xbox Live Gold has to offer.

[dbiersdorf]

You honestly must be on some goooood crack if you think that. If any company even slightly associated with gaming is going to be 'dead inside the next 10 years' its the big N. And I hate to say it, but if the Rev. is a total dud, we can say goodbye forever.

Actually, no, Nintendo still racks in more profit then both Sony and Microsoft in terms of their gaming channels, Nintendo could live forever if the Game Boy's success stays the same. It's that simple.

You don't know what you're talking about because actually, if any company were to crumble it is indeed Sony. Of course from a gaming standpoint that makes no sense, because they rule the console market. But have you looked at their performance in other areas? All of their electronics are inferior products, even Sony Pictures is a bust compared to the other movie districts. Sony's one claim to fame these days is the PlayStation. But what happens when they can't support the cash for everything else? Do they just become a video game company? What does that show to stock holders? Slowly but surely Sony dies off and it only hurts the PlayStation image.

It's the truth, and you're a moron if you think "Nintendo is doomed" like all you spit out of your asses. It's all out in front of you, just research it and you'll see.

[njiska]

To everyone that just bashed Sony in this thread.

You're all morons.

We're all moron's huh? Well i'd really like to see you prove that i'm a moron. I think my dig at Sony was more then justified.



That's why the company will be dead inside the next 10 years.
You honestly must be on some goooood crack if you think that. If any company even slightly associated with gaming is going to be 'dead inside the next 10 years' its the big N. And I hate to say it, but if the Rev. is a total dud, we can say goodbye forever.

Big N's gonna die huh? Well lets take a look at the financial states of the 3 companies shall we?

Big N - The company has huge cash reserves and has run in the black for all but one or two quaters since it was founded on November 6, 1889. Not to mention that the DS is a phenominal success and it's recently sold out in the land of the rising sun.

MS - The company is rich, Bill gates rich (yes i realize the irony in that statement) and further more they own the world. Windows has an enormous market share, Office is also huge and the company is bringing in so much cash that the millions lost launching the Xbox brand isn't even a thorn in their side.

Sony - Every division of the company is in the red, with the single exception of the PS3 which is flirting with red. The company is dumping billions in to Blu-Ray and the PS3 and unless they see the success that the PS2 brought them and DVD brought Toshiba, then they are fucked.

Further more Sony is currently being sued by just about everyone.

Right now Sony is appealing a court ruling that would see them have to pay Immersion $90 Million dollars and possibly withdraw all dualshock items from the market. That pretty much means everything PS2 in America.

The US government and several other groups are taking action against Sony for the DRM fiassco and that will result in several multi-millon dollar settlements (or worse court rulings)

Sony is also paying out a settlement for the PS2 DRE class action suit.

That's a shit load of money in Legal fees and settlements (plus the threat of lost income) and they're not bring nearly engough in to cover it. Even with the recent terminations, Sony is in rough shape.

See no crack, just logic. I'm no moron and i strongly suggest you re-examine your opinion.

[unwinddesign]

You're just flat out wrong. Don't take that the wrong way, but everything you just stated as fact is purely your opinion.

And how do you figure that? Are there some magical capabilities and downloadable content that I am unaware of on the PS2? Wasn't the GT series supposed to feature some sort of "garage" online where you could buy shit? Wasn't the PS2 supposed to be able to download media content etc. from the 'net? Can it? That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

As for my other statements, the PS1 and PS2 had problems. That's not secret. Quality control problems, for starters. The PS1 took off because of its well marketed 3D graphics, its price point, and Sega's stupid ass marketing. Right place at the right time; Nintendo and Sega left the door open, and Sony pulled off a coup.

The PS2 coasted along the sucess of the PS1 for awhile, but it has come into its own. However, online is the future. Digital media is the future. Usability for the mainstream is the future. Integration is the future. Game systems have evolved. If Sony does not bring something new to the table, their ass is fried. Right now, the evolution involves online gaming. Free online gaming? Yay, I can do that on my PC. The shitload of Xbox Live exclusive features? That's something worth buying a 360 for.

Furthermore, instead of simply saying "you're wrong," why don't you at least attempt to prove WHY I'm wrong -- that goes a long way. I'm willing to listen, and hell, if I am wrong, then I'll admit it.



What makes topics like this nearly impossible to discuss is that it's nearly impossible for any of us to put ourselves in the shoes of the mainstream gamer. But what's easy enough to say from working in a game store for a while, MOST people don't give Xbox live a second glance once they see it costs something, and since most casual gamers don't play more than a couple games online EVER, making seperate services for each one isn't a big hassle to them. As long as it's free.

That's not true at all. My friends are "mainstream" gamers. They all subscribe to Live. Those of them that own a PS2 have played it online for 1/50th of the time they've played Xbox Live.

Furthermore, the PS2 online service isn't free at all for the millions that have the first run PS2s. That requires the Network Adapter.


In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Sony's online bid (as shitty as it is) being FREE is a bigger selling point than everything Xbox Live Gold has to offer.

Most people don't even realize that the PS2 has serious online capabilites. Sony barely even advertises it. Why? Because the service blows. Quite frankly, it's borderline embarassing in many games. They kinda support online -- and kinda make a half assed attempt to advertise it -- but not really.

[hezeuschrist]

You're just flat out wrong. Don't take that the wrong way, but everything you just stated as fact is purely your opinion.

And how do you figure that? Are there some magical capabilities and downloadable content that I am unaware of on the PS2? Wasn't the GT series supposed to feature some sort of "garage" online where you could buy shit? Wasn't the PS2 supposed to be able to download media content etc. from the 'net? Can it? That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

As for my other statements, the PS1 and PS2 had problems. That's not secret. Quality control problems, for starters. The PS1 took off because of its well marketed 3D graphics, its price point, and Sega's stupid ass marketing. Right place at the right time; Nintendo and Sega left the door open, and Sony pulled off a coup.

The PS2 coasted along the sucess of the PS1 for awhile, but it has come into its own. However, online is the future. Digital media is the future. Usability for the mainstream is the future. Integration is the future. Game systems have evolved. If Sony does not bring something new to the table, their ass is fried. Right now, the evolution involves online gaming. Free online gaming? Yay, I can do that on my PC. The shitload of Xbox Live exclusive features? That's something worth buying a 360 for.

Furthermore, instead of simply saying "you're wrong," why don't you at least attempt to prove WHY I'm wrong -- that goes a long way. I'm willing to listen, and hell, if I am wrong, then I'll admit it.



What makes topics like this nearly impossible to discuss is that it's nearly impossible for any of us to put ourselves in the shoes of the mainstream gamer. But what's easy enough to say from working in a game store for a while, MOST people don't give Xbox live a second glance once they see it costs something, and since most casual gamers don't play more than a couple games online EVER, making seperate services for each one isn't a big hassle to them. As long as it's free.

That's not true at all. My friends are "mainstream" gamers. They all subscribe to Live. Those of them that own a PS2 have played it online for 1/50th of the time they've played Xbox Live.

Furthermore, the PS2 online service isn't free at all for the millions that have the first run PS2s. That requires the Network Adapter.


In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Sony's online bid (as shitty as it is) being FREE is a bigger selling point than everything Xbox Live Gold has to offer.

Most people don't even realize that the PS2 has serious online capabilites. Sony barely even advertises it. Why? Because the service blows. Quite frankly, it's borderline embarassing in many games. They kinda support online -- and kinda make a half assed attempt to advertise it -- but not really.

You're making assumptions upon assumptions. Your friends are not "most people."

Furthermore, the great majority of PS2 owners own a PS2, and nothing else. Just because you know a bunch of people who favor Xbox Live over the PS2 online service (myself and likely 99% of the community here as well) doesn't mean that there aren't a great deal of PS2 owners who don't care for all the features XBL offers for one reason: it costs money.

[Kittens_for_Peace]

How many times does a thread have to be derailed with the same old fanboy crap?


http://www.sushiesque.com/adorablog/images/britain_cat_wash_lo_8412842_2.jpg

[stressboy]

How many times does a thread have to be derailed with the same old fanboy crap?


http://www.sushiesque.com/adorablog/images/britain_cat_wash_lo_8412842_2.jpg


Well everyone knows that the gaming world would be nothing but sunshine and butterflies if a certain console company would go away.

[njiska]

Bunch of Pro-Live StuffBunch of pro PS2 stuff

The bottom line is this.

Live is the better online service. The voice service, market place and ease of use make it the better service. However the current number of users taking advantage of the Gold level, the level that pays the bills, is small by comparision to Sony.

The reason that Live has less registered users then the untrackable Sony online community, is because Sony's online service is free and free but crappy, always beats paying for quality.

Live costs a lot of money to run and considering Sony's financial shape it would be difficult for them to offer a simlar service.

However, Live Silver complicates things. It offers free online access to voice chat, leaderboards, Demos, trailers, and content downloads.

All of it so simple an adult could use it. This is where Sony could have a problem. Hardcore gamers want a Gold Live experience, casual gamers want a simple experience and Live Silver offers one hell of an experience.

The real question is do the people who use Sony Online want a Live or Live Silver experience? Answer that and you know whether or not Sony is making the right move.

I for one think that Live is a bigger selling point then Sony's system amongst those who are actually going to bother going online.

[unwinddesign]

How many times does a thread have to be derailed with the same old fanboy crap?




Fanboy? I'm analyzing Sony's online strategy. Woo, sorry I criticized it. Obviously if I don't like everything every company does, then I am biased. Wooooo. I enjoyed the single player games for PS2 a lot more than those on the Xbox. For multiplayer, and especially online, Live smokes PS2 no contest. And as more people move towards broadband and want to try out a few games online, Sony is gonna have a hard time competing with their lackadasical online offering.

The reason why Sony won't release something similar? Who knows. All I think is that if they don't, they're screwed. Hell, I'd really like them to -- even if Ken and Co. have massive egos -- but I just don't see them doing it.

[hezeuschrist]

Yeah, I'm really not sure where that Fanboy comment came from or who it was directed at. It's been a fairly civil discussion.

[njiska]

Yeah, I'm really not sure where that Fanboy comment came from or who it was directed at. It's been a fairly civil discussion.

Well Mr.FoodMonster was a little on the borderline with his Moron's comment, but it wasn't really that Fanboyish.

[lol monster]

maybe sony doesn't like nazis?
http://xboxnazi.ytmnd.com/

[Hep038]

Man I love these threads, they provide so much entertainment without even trying.


How many times does a thread have to be derailed with the same old fanboy crap?

I am guessing he is talking about the SECOND post in this thread. By the guy with the nintendo avatar.


Because Sony sucks.

I guess some people see this statement as a fact. To the rest of the world it might be viewed as a fanboy statment.


Would have been a nice topic to discuss until all the hate entered the discussion. Too bad. :(

[stressboy]

Maybe the term "anti-fanboy" crap would have been more appropriate.

[diskoboy]

Because Sony sucks.

For once i'm gonna sort of agree Xizer. Except instead of saying Sony sucks, i'm gonna say Sony is an arrogant fuck of a company.

They like to do things their own way and don't really pay attention to the desires of their userbase, or to quality. That's why the company will be dead inside the next 10 years.

Sony has been clear that at the present time they are going to stick with the same business model they had in PS2 generation.

That a side, Sony does appear to still be looking into the PLaystation World Concept they unvieled at last years E3. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060118-6006.html

Sorry. If Sony copied Microsoft, that still wouldn't get me to buy a PS3. And yes, I second the 'sony sucks' remark, and the 'sony is an arrogant fuck of a company'. Has anyone ever even bothered to look at their record on sony developed proprietary formats (memory stick, micro DV videotapes, MagicGate, the Betamax)? They force unwanted or needed formats down peoples throats.

Not to mention, the shoddy craftsmanship of both PS2 models, and the "cheese you can listen to outside" PSP -_- .... Sorry. I'll never buy another sony console, unless its on clearance for dirt cheap. I mean cheap, folks.

[Mr.FoodMonster]

The reason why Sony won't release something similar? Who knows. All I think is that if they don't, they're screwed. Hell, I'd really like them to -- even if Ken and Co. have massive egos -- but I just don't see them doing it.
You think that the end all of the upcoming console wars is going to be if there is a all inclusive multiplaying experiance? I dont know the exact numbers, but I'd be willing to say that less then 20% of everyone with either a PS2 or an Xbox even has the console online, or even cares about any kind of online playing. I'm not saying thats right or wrong, but such a small amount of people will decide what console they want to buy based on that systems online playablity. I could see maybe like, 20 years down the line that being important, but its just not important in this day and age. Hell, I bet 20% of the people that even use the internet have a Cable connection, and that is already required to play most console games online.

Its always been about the games. It'll hopefully always BE about the games. And, IMO, Sony has pretty much everyone beat at the moment.

[PS2Hawk]

SONY's main plan behind PS3 and CELL is to make the multiple processors communicate between each other. Like the new IBM processor.

For instance from wat I read and I would like to put it in best english I can, they wanted multiplay cells to communicate and divide the work between cells when people play multiplayer games. so if 4 people are playing one SPE on one CELL will handle online sound, one will handle collisions calcuations, communication on another and so on, the main core of the CELL will load up and run ur game but that sort of stuff requires SERIOUS bandwidth and I think 1 gigbit high speed will be minimum requirement if you want to communicate at the processor level and divide app.

But considering wat a few developers started, SONY will work on lite live, similar to SOCOM 3 ONLINE .. I played it briefly! it won't be as rich as Xbox Live. I don't think it will be like live though instead it will just be better stable online servers for next gen games and with Ed Freis at SONY now ... SONY better bring a solid online service.

[njiska]

SONY's main plan behind PS3 and CELL is to make the multiple processors communicate between each other. Like the new IBM processor.

For instance from wat I read and I would like to put it in best english I can, they wanted multiplay cells to communicate and divide the work between cells when people play multiplayer games. so if 4 people are playing one SPE on one CELL will handle online sound, one will handle collisions calcuations, communication on another and so on, the main core of the CELL will load up and run ur game but that sort of stuff requires SERIOUS bandwidth and I think 1 gigbit high speed will be minimum requirement if you want to communicate at the processor level and divide app.

But considering wat a few developers started, SONY will work on lite live, similar to SOCOM 3 ONLINE .. I played it briefly! it won't be as rich as Xbox Live. I don't think it will be like live though instead it will just be better stable online servers for next gen games and with Ed Freis at SONY now ... SONY better bring a solid online service.

I remember hearing about this but i don't think it will ever bare fruit.

Parellel processing is a bitch and even over a small scale setup like a lan network it would take a lot of extra design work for little pay off. See you may gain the power of the extra cell but that base unit still needs to have everything rendered and uniquely calculated on it. I don't think there's any crebitbility to that claim. It's also one that hasn't been stated in years.

[stressboy]

SONY's main plan behind PS3 and CELL is to make the multiple processors communicate between each other. Like the new IBM processor.

For instance from wat I read and I would like to put it in best english I can, they wanted multiplay cells to communicate and divide the work between cells when people play multiplayer games. so if 4 people are playing one SPE on one CELL will handle online sound, one will handle collisions calcuations, communication on another and so on, the main core of the CELL will load up and run ur game but that sort of stuff requires SERIOUS bandwidth and I think 1 gigbit high speed will be minimum requirement if you want to communicate at the processor level and divide app.


I can see that being a total mess, a real pain to implement, and I believe it is where the whole "get better framerates with your cell powered toaster" BS came from. I can see the CELL being used for that in high performance computing, but for running something like games? Doubtful.

[PS2Hawk]

SONY's main plan behind PS3 and CELL is to make the multiple processors communicate between each other. Like the new IBM processor.

For instance from wat I read and I would like to put it in best english I can, they wanted multiplay cells to communicate and divide the work between cells when people play multiplayer games. so if 4 people are playing one SPE on one CELL will handle online sound, one will handle collisions calcuations, communication on another and so on, the main core of the CELL will load up and run ur game but that sort of stuff requires SERIOUS bandwidth and I think 1 gigbit high speed will be minimum requirement if you want to communicate at the processor level and divide app.


I can see that being a total mess, a real pain to implement, and I believe it is where the whole "get better framerates with your cell powered toaster" BS came from. I can see the CELL being used for that in high performance computing, but for running something like games? Doubtful.

YES not to mention the cost to code the games that way and the time.

[Lothars]

Because Sony has its big, stupid head up so far up its pompous ass that it thinks it can win against Microsoft without a similar online service.

Sony, it's time to take a bow and get the fuck out of dodge. You hacks got lucky with your Playstation, but now your luck is running out. Suck a fat one; you deserve it.

LMFAO

if that's your reasoning why you don't think sony hasn't made an online service just like xbox live than your just a
idiot,

o and honestly this point doesn't seem analyising anything it seems to me that your just a sony basher.

I bet by this time next year sony will have a service just like xbox live

which I agree that it's one of the better things that Microsoft has xbox live

but to say they got lucky with the playstation and there gonna fail

stupid sony bashers

I still honestly don't see any reason why sony will have an online service just in time for the ps3 release.

[njiska]

Because Sony has its big, stupid head up so far up its pompous ass that it thinks it can win against Microsoft without a similar online service.

Sony, it's time to take a bow and get the fuck out of dodge. You hacks got lucky with your Playstation, but now your luck is running out. Suck a fat one; you deserve it.

LMFAO

if that's your reasoning why you don't think sony hasn't made an online service just like xbox live than your just a
idiot,

o and honestly this point doesn't seem analyising anything it seems to me that your just a sony basher.

I bet by this time next year sony will have a service just like xbox live

which I agree that it's one of the better things that Microsoft has xbox live

but to say they got lucky with the playstation and there gonna fail

stupid sony bashers

I still honestly don't see any reason why sony will have an online service just in time for the ps3 release.

Actually Sony did get lucky with the original playstation. If Nintendo hadn't choosen the Cart format and the Saturn hadn't been so complicated devs would not have given the PSX the support it recieved.

The PSX just happened to be in the right place at the right time. MS wasn't so lucky.

[Lothars]

Because Sony has its big, stupid head up so far up its pompous ass that it thinks it can win against Microsoft without a similar online service.

Sony, it's time to take a bow and get the fuck out of dodge. You hacks got lucky with your Playstation, but now your luck is running out. Suck a fat one; you deserve it.

LMFAO

if that's your reasoning why you don't think sony hasn't made an online service just like xbox live than your just a
idiot,

o and honestly this point doesn't seem analyising anything it seems to me that your just a sony basher.

I bet by this time next year sony will have a service just like xbox live

which I agree that it's one of the better things that Microsoft has xbox live

but to say they got lucky with the playstation and there gonna fail

stupid sony bashers

I still honestly don't see any reason why sony will have an online service just in time for the ps3 release.

Actually Sony did get lucky with the original playstation. If Nintendo hadn't choosen the Cart format and the Saturn hadn't been so complicated devs would not have given the PSX the support it recieved.

The PSX just happened to be in the right place at the right time. MS wasn't so lucky.

Well that's true but it's not really just sony getting lucky it's more of nintendo screwing up and sony deciding to go at it alone.

so good point there, thanks

[ProgrammingAce]

Ok sir, I'll be sure to trust you, an anonymous person on the internet with no sources. You have saved the day! :roll:

Uh... right... I'm the anonymous person who runs www.gamerhistory.com and just happens to own an Xbox BETA Live development kit that was only used by the people who developed Live... Let's just say that i didn't buy it off of Ebay... Might explain some of the articles up on my site too...

[Xizer]

Uh... right... I'm the anonymous person who runs www.gamerhistory.com and just happens to own an Xbox BETA Live development kit that was only used by the people who developed Live... Let's just say that i didn't buy it off of Ebay... Might explain some of the articles up on my site too...

That's a cool site, there.

As for Sony, their things have always been mediocre, yet popular for some reason. The PS1? Only 2 controller ports, memory card bullshit, shoddy craftmanship, and really, no "high-tier" triple A titles like Zelda or Mario. Yet it sells more than the N64's 4 controller ports, minimal memory card bullshit, and high durability.

The PS2? A ridiculous online service, which even the Dreamcast bested. Pathetic hardware (The Xbox only came out 1 year later but it had 3x the processing power of the PS2). STILL only 2 fucking controller ports. Pathetic game library for its first year. Nothing really innovative about it at all, yet once again it sells massive amounts. This was before it had a good game library.

I just don't get it. Fortunately, I see hope. The amount of dumbasses buying into Sony's bullshit spewing parade is less than it was in the PS2 era. Personally, I hope the Revolution and Xbox 360 crushes the PS3. Sony needs to get the fuck out of the console war, they've brought nothing new to the table.

[unwinddesign]

Because Sony has its big, stupid head up so far up its pompous ass that it thinks it can win against Microsoft without a similar online service.

Sony, it's time to take a bow and get the fuck out of dodge. You hacks got lucky with your Playstation, but now your luck is running out. Suck a fat one; you deserve it.

LMFAO

if that's your reasoning why you don't think sony hasn't made an online service just like xbox live than your just a
idiot,

o and honestly this point doesn't seem analyising anything it seems to me that your just a sony basher.

I bet by this time next year sony will have a service just like xbox live

which I agree that it's one of the better things that Microsoft has xbox live

but to say they got lucky with the playstation and there gonna fail

stupid sony bashers

I still honestly don't see any reason why sony will have an online service just in time for the ps3 release.

Absolutely I'm criticizing (re: not mindless "bashing," since there are instances that back up my points) Sony. They're dropping the ball and fucking themselves in the ass EVERY DAY they go without releasing a similar service.

Do I hate Sony? Hardly. If I had the choice between a PS2 and Xbox, I'd choose a PS2. I enjoy the single player games more on the PS2, and it also has a wider array of "niche" titles.

If Sony does not do something to combat Live, they are going to be in some very dangerous waters.

Finally, how am I an "idiot" if I think that's one of the (most likely) MANY reasons Sony doesn't release a similar service? Simply calling me an idiot doesn't prove anything at all. Read up on what Sony execs say -- they're cocky sons of bitches.

[Chuplayer]

I don't understand why Sony just doesn't copy the Xbox Live service for their PS3 system?

Because I absolutely do not want to pay a monthly fee to play Metal Gear Solid 4 online.

[njiska]

I don't understand why Sony just doesn't copy the Xbox Live service for their PS3 system?

Because I absolutely do not want to pay a monthly fee to play Metal Gear Solid 4 online.

Who say's you won't? The darkside of the Sony strategy is that even though you're not paying Sony monthly, doesn't mean the indiviual companies can't charge for the service.

Remember anything is possible.

Oh on a side not unless MGS4 gives me the online experience i've come to expect with live, i doubt i will play it online, MGS or not.

[ProgrammingAce]

Oh on a side not unless MGS4 gives me the online experience i've come to expect with live, i doubt i will play it online, MGS or not.

I think that's where you really are going to start running into trouble. If sony can't deliver something on the scope of live, then the developers aren't going to be able to front the cash either. With the developers however, it's a different equation. The developers are pressed for time to get the game to market, they really don't have the extra time to develop something with full voice chat, online co-op, "MSG TV" (a way to watch other games, like they have for Project Gotham 3), friends lists, etc. Microsoft gives the devs an easy way out and supports most of the online features themselves, the devs just use pre-written code given to them from microsoft. Even devs who make games for both consoles don't have much experiance with the nitty-gritty of the live system, they would have to start from scratch for the PS3 version.

The thing that may save sony is if someone comes up with a middleware solution to create a "live" type experiance for the PS3. Games share graphics engines, how about an online engine? You see it quite a bit in pc games, with gamespy and the like. Problem with doing that with the PS3 will be the security. Live is deeply integtrated with the 360 on a hardware level, sony is far too paranoid to let a 3rd party in on it's hardware secrets. If multiple games use the same online engine and a security flaw is found, it would be simple to crash a couple of dozen online games at the same time, cripeling the PS3 online experiance until the developers could patch the system. Talk about a black eye for all parties involved, sony, the middleware developer, and the game dev house.

[Damion]

How many times does a thread have to be derailed with the same old fanboy crap?


http://www.sushiesque.com/adorablog/images/britain_cat_wash_lo_8412842_2.jpg

No joking, The minute I See (Or Hear) "Such and such company sucks and you suck for liking them" or I see "M$" Or "$ony" I pretty much ignore what they have to say on the subject.

oh and one of my favs

FanBabys (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=142)

[njiska]

How many times does a thread have to be derailed with the same old fanboy crap?


http://www.sushiesque.com/adorablog/images/britain_cat_wash_lo_8412842_2.jpg

No joking, The minute I See (Or Hear) "Such and such company sucks and you suck for liking them" or I see "M$" Or "$ony" I pretty much ignore what they have to say on the subject.

oh and one of my favs

FanBabys (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=142)

Keep the good cats coming.

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=36

[neo-zen]

i have been playing consoles on line since the snes with the xband. (man i miss the xband)

i dont feel sony will do anything more than they already have with there online service for games.
i loved both resident evil games online, but the servers sucked most of the time.

i have been on xbox live for 3 years now and i love it, i never touched my xbox until rainbow six and xbox live, it was one of the best things microsoft could have done for the xbox.
im now online with the 360, no good games are using live right now so i will wait and see how it pans out. but it has alot of cool features. like i was playing hexic and my friend was watching a movie but we were still talking.

i think nintendo may have learned about not being online and i think they will have a service like live but only time will tell.

i hope to see all 3 do something online becuase i like games on all 3 systems.

[Nature Boy]

My $.02 - online importance is still *way* overblown.

What percentage of Xbox owners use Live? 10? 20 maybe? And that's the system you're *supposed* to buy if online is your thing!

I've never played a game online and I don't plan on doing so anytime soon. For me, the cost is still too high. I'd have to get a broadband hookup at home (I have free dialup, and for as often as I use the internet at home that's just fine thank you). Then I have to pay for the service itself.

No thanks. I'll spend that money on a couple of extra games, especially ones I'll still be able to play 10 years from now because they won't rely on a network that won't be there anymore.

[DonMarco]

My $.02 - online importance is still *way* overblown.

What percentage of Xbox owners use Live? 10? 20 maybe? And that's the system you're *supposed* to buy if online is your thing!

I've never played a game online and I don't plan on doing so anytime soon. For me, the cost is still too high. I'd have to get a broadband hookup at home (I have free dialup, and for as often as I use the internet at home that's just fine thank you). Then I have to pay for the service itself.
You sound like one of those virgins who say "sex isn't fun, sex isn't worth it, wait until you're married".

Playing online requires a brodband. Boohoo. It didn't 5-10 years ago. It didn't for PSO on the Dreamcast. Hell, it still doesn't for the PSO pirate servers, Starcraft, Diablo 2 and other still-awesome online games. With the xbox, it was all about gaining ground and doing things Sony didn't.

Four controller ports, built in hard drive, broadband modem built into the unit. Sony has alll of the above sold-seperately, until the PS2 slim models, which included the modem (something that costs less than $10 for PCs) but lost the ability to have a harddrive. Xbox Live, an online pay service maintained professionally helped boost replayability for a lot of games, especially Halo 2, any racing, sports, battlefield/battlefront 2, fighters like DoA or Guilty Gear, and FPS's. Any game that plays well offline multiplayer, really.

[XianXi]

How many times does a thread have to be derailed with the same old fanboy crap?


http://www.sushiesque.com/adorablog/images/britain_cat_wash_lo_8412842_2.jpg

No joking, The minute I See (Or Hear) "Such and such company sucks and you suck for liking them" or I see "M$" Or "$ony" I pretty much ignore what they have to say on the subject.

oh and one of my favs

FanBabys (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=142)

True.

I am a Sony Fanboy but I am not ignorant. I would like Sony to provide a better online experience also. I love my PS2, I picked up an XBOX only because I wanted to install a few NES roms on it and that is all, no games on the Xbox really grabbed me except for the SNK ports. But then sold it since I dont play it very often.

[unwinddesign]

My $.02 - online importance is still *way* overblown.

What percentage of Xbox owners use Live? 10? 20 maybe? And that's the system you're *supposed* to buy if online is your thing!

I've never played a game online and I don't plan on doing so anytime soon. For me, the cost is still too high. I'd have to get a broadband hookup at home (I have free dialup, and for as often as I use the internet at home that's just fine thank you). Then I have to pay for the service itself.

No thanks. I'll spend that money on a couple of extra games, especially ones I'll still be able to play 10 years from now because they won't rely on a network that won't be there anymore.

Halo 2 and Age of Mythology both saved me mucho dinero. I simply played them so much that the amount of other games I purchased dropped. And when I did buy other games, they'd be $20 - $30 style releases.

If I had no Live with Halo 2, I would have gotten maybe 30 hours out of the game, plus some random multiplayer. As it stands, I've gotten well over 500 hours of gameplay out of it.

Online really prolongs the life of a title and, in my opinion, is crucial to most games.

I can see where you're coming from -- and to be honest, an awesome single player experience always tops an awesome online one -- but it's definately worth checking out. With broadband prices dropping to $15, $20, $30 etc. for decent speeds, it's becoming more accessible all the time.

[Nature Boy]

You sound like one of those virgins who say "sex isn't fun, sex isn't worth it, wait until you're married".

Only because I've been waiting for you all my life sweetie!

(Comments like that make any online experience *so* gratifying... :roll: )

Wouldn't complaining about the price of broadband be more like being a virgin and complaining that the cost of a hooker is ridiculous and you'd rather find a partner the traditional way?

[GrandAmChandler]

I have an Xbox with 80+ games, and I have never used Xbox live. I don't like paying to play online for some reason. Never have, never will. I will stick to my free counterstrike on my PC 8-)

[Nature Boy]

I can see where you're coming from -- and to be honest, an awesome single player experience always tops an awesome online one -- but it's definitely worth checking out. With broadband prices dropping to $15, $20, $30 etc. for decent speeds, it's becoming more accessible all the time.

I appreciate the civil reply.

I don't have broadband at home because I still feel I don't need it. When the day my kids are old enough to surf comes (and it will eventually), I'll dive in head first, no question. Broadband itself isn't the cost I don't like, it's just a cost I don't see the need to incur just yet.

The cost I don't like is the Live subscription.

Why should I have to pay for a service on top of the price I've already paid for the console and the system? As a consumer I don't like the direction it leads me.

I understand how and why people *do* enjoy it, but I'm not convinced the industry will go that way. It relies too much on casual gamers to keep it at it's current lofty position, and casual gamers aren't at the point where online gaming is necessary. Especially as long as there are morons out there cheating and generally giving the online experience a bad name.

[DonMarco]

You sound like one of those virgins who say "sex isn't fun, sex isn't worth it, wait until you're married".
Wouldn't complaining about the price of broadband be more like being a virgin and complaining that the cost of a hooker is ridiculous and you'd rather find a partner the traditional way?
No. That would be a virgin complaining you have to pay for dinner, drinks, new clothes, haircuts and gifts when you are dating. Yes, in a perfect scenario nothing costs anything. But in the real world, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Microsoft doesn't run DSL/cable servies. They run servers. Get mad at Comcast or whoever your service lies under. Hell, I was on fiber optic for 6 months last year and paying around $70 a month for it. Split between three roomies, it was chicken feed. As more and more households go high-speed, the service plans will become more affordable and competitive. Wait another 5 years when high speed internet is cheap and fiberoptic is moving in.

[Nature Boy]

No. That would be a virgin complaining you have to pay for dinner, drinks, new clothes, haircuts and gifts when you are dating. Yes, in a perfect scenario nothing costs anything. But in the real world, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Sure there is, that's why I have a free dialup connection at home!


Microsoft doesn't run DSL/cable servies. They run servers. Get mad at Comcast or whoever your service lies under.

Apparantly my point is not getting across - I'm *not* against broadband internet connections. At all. Period. I just don't have one now and don't plan on getting one until my kids are older. I mentioned it *only* because it's one of the reasons I don't play online, but it's not *the* reason.

(So get off your high horses already!)

Even if I did have broadband I'm not interested in paying for a yearly subscription *on top* of my broadband connection. And, at this point, the majority of console owners seem to agree with me, which is why I don't see why Sony has to bother creating their own "Live" brand. It's a good idea for MS, as it allows them to distinguish their brand, but as long as Sony is moving consoles and games I personally don't think they need it.

It's the press that's pushing for it, not me.

[njiska]

No. That would be a virgin complaining you have to pay for dinner, drinks, new clothes, haircuts and gifts when you are dating. Yes, in a perfect scenario nothing costs anything. But in the real world, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Sure there is, that's why I have a free dialup connection at home!

Well no one said you couldn't eat out of the trash. Broadband is a meal, dial-up is nothing more then table-scraps. LOL

[EricRyan34]

fight fight fight!


Awwww, all the fanboys are angry (Whats new?) cause Sony is winning the console battle and their precious Revolution will be #3.



not bashing Nintendo at all, I love Nintendo, but i can ALSO love Sony