360 one of Endgadget's "10 gadgets that defined the decade"

[dobwal]

I have to disagree as well that it is the 360 that changed the industry. The online features that we have in consoles today have been in plans much earlier than most of us tend to believe.

Both Sony and MS have been waiting for the right time to add these features in a manner that it gives the maximum value to the consumers.

Sony has been talking about distribution, online gaming, movie and music management in PS2 since before its release. It was part of the "Computer Entertainment System" vision. It was only a matter of appropriate execution. And the PS2 did not seem like the best option to try and do all these meaningfully. Their plans found fruition in PS3

The XBOX did try to implement those ideas but it wasnt that well implemented either.

Sega showed that a good idea is the worst if not done at the right time. The same visions they expressed with their online plans for the Saturn and the DC are strikingly similar to what Sony and MS did this generation. But the technology at the time and costs meant a very impractical execution both business wise and consumer wise.

The console industry today is formed by a simultaneous/joint effort by both Sony and MS. Someone happened to release its product earlier. And despite who is or was having the best service and implementation, the industry would have changed to what we have today regardless because users for the first time could enjoy these features and services better and easy at lower costs n a PS3 and 360.

But Nintendo ALSO contributed in its own way. Because for the first time people care about motion control features and the industry is evolving towards incorporating hybrid motion sensing and traditional game controlling methods.

Planning a vision and successfuly executing a vision aren't the same thing. Sega deserves credit for bringing innovation to its hardware but MS deserves credit for actually helping innovate the market.

Its not like the Iphone, when first introduced, did anything not offered by other smartphones. However, its success have pushed others to put greater effort to take advantage of the accelerated growth of the smartphone market. A phone like the Iphone was destined to happen but Apple was smart enough to use the success of its Ipod and a very user friendly and sleek interface to realize that phone and move the whole market forward as a whole in a matter of 2 years. For US, the smartphone market is going from a very niche part of the cell phone market to literally the cell phone market in a relatively short period of time.

Sony, MS and Nintendo have all used their current gen hardware to push content delivery on console to a different level. MS's Live on the 360 has been spearheading that effort and now we have three centralized online content delivery services that are much further along than they were 4 years ago. We are going from 2 million subscribers of Live in late 2005 on the Xbox1 to 60+ million making use of their console online services in some form or fashion in late 2009.

 

[specwarGP2]

Its not like the Iphone, when first introduced, did anything not offered by other smartphones. However, its success have pushed others to put greater effort to take advantage of the accelerated growth of the smartphone market. A phone like the Iphone was destined to happen but Apple was smart enough to use the success of its Ipod and a very user friendly and sleek interface to realize that phone and move the whole market forward as a whole in a matter of 2 years. For US, the smartphone market is going from a very niche part of the cell phone market to literally the cell phone market in a relatively short period of time.

apple unfairly takes a lot of credit for things that others have done before. Like the chiclet style keyboard. Sony did that years before apple ever started using them on macs.

 

[Nesh]

Planning a vision and successfuly executing a vision aren't the same thing. Sega deserves credit for bringing innovation to its hardware but MS deserves credit for actually helping innovate the market.

Its not like the Iphone, when first introduced, did anything not offered by other smartphones. However, its success have pushed others to put greater effort to take advantage of the accelerated growth of the smartphone market. A phone like the Iphone was destined to happen but Apple was smart enough to use the success of its Ipod and a very user friendly and sleek interface to realize that phone and move the whole market forward as a whole in a matter of 2 years. For US, the smartphone market is going from a very niche part of the cell phone market to literally the cell phone market in a relatively short period of time.

Sony, MS and Nintendo have all used their current gen hardware to push content delivery on console to a different level. MS's Live on the 360 has been spearheading that effort and now we have three centralized online content delivery services that are much further along than they were 4 years ago. We are going from 2 million subscribers of Live in late 2005 on the Xbox1 to 60+ million making use of their console online services in some form or fashion in late 2009.

The point is, MS did not innovate the market. It was going to happen this generation MS or no MS

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's true of many technologies though. If whoever invented something didn't invent it, someone else would have. I don't think we should take away from what MS did on account the market was heading in that direction anyway. Otherwise we'd have to do the same to the iPhone, Eyetoy, DS etc., none of which were the first to do the thngs they are reknowned for.

 

[Nesh]

I should have emphasized on "this generation", Both Sony and MS contributed "simultaneously" with the PS3 and 360 for what we have now and the form of the industry now. Whichever that company was that released first (ie even if Sony came first with the PS3) this generation it would have come up with a very functional and integral online functionality/service for the first time that would have marked the new evolution. The credit goes for both MS and Sony. The only difference is that MS was able to release earlier and thus it got the sole credit for something that was going to be released by competition regardless in the same generation.

 

[dobwal]

I should have emphasized on "this generation", Both Sony and MS contributed "simultaneously" with the PS3 and 360 for what we have now and the form of the industry now. Whichever that company was that released first (ie even if Sony came first with the PS3) this generation it would have come up with a very functional and integral online functionality/service for the first time that would have marked the new evolution. The credit goes for both MS and Sony. The only difference is that MS was able to release earlier and thus it got the sole credit for something that was going to be released by competition regardless in the same generation.

Before, simultaneously or after is often irrelevant. Look at the touch tablets. You talking about a market based on tech thats been around for years. Apple, MS and Google are all said to be working on such tech with all three of the companies' respective products due this year. Its not going to matter who released first, second or last. The company or companies that finds mass market success with these particular products are going to get credit for innovating a market that as of right now doesn't exist.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I should have emphasized on "this generation", Both Sony and MS contributed "simultaneously" with the PS3 and 360 for what we have now and the form of the industry now. Whichever that company was that released first (ie even if Sony came first with the PS3) this generation it would have come up with a very functional and integral online functionality/service for the first time that would have marked the new evolution. The credit goes for both MS and Sony. The only difference is that MS was able to release earlier and thus it got the sole credit for something that was going to be released by competition regardless in the same generation.

I certainly wouldn't have used the word simultaneously. Additionally I have my doubts that the PS3 solution would be as robust as it currently is had MS not basically forced Sony to attempt to bring their online/media offerings up to par.

Add to that, much of what both Sony and MS have in this generation is basically just an expansion (Especially in the case of the X360) of what MS started on the Xbox 1 with some help with a bunch of hackers (cracking the system and then offerings such as XBMC).

X360 just expanded and virtually perfected the experience as well as taking a queue from XBMC and turning the console into a home media gateway. It's a credit to Sony to that betweent he launch of PS3 to now, that they have brought their online and media offerings from Sub-Xbox 1 to relative parity to X360.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Before, simultaneously or after is often irrelevant. Look at the touch tablets. You talking about a market based on tech thats been around for years. Apple, MS and Google are all said to be working on such tech with all three of the companies' respective products due this year. Its not going to matter who released first, second or last. The company or companies that finds mass market success with these particular products are going to get credit for innovating a market that as of right now doesn't exist.

It's going to be sad if Apple or Google end up with the credit for touch tablets as that market segment wouldn't even exist without MS basically doing all the R&D and prototyping for Tablet PCs in the first place...

Then again I suppose it's only fair since not many people give the Apple Newton credit for starting the whole PDA market. And likewise for Apple getting credit for creating the MP3 player market.

Regards,
SB

 

[AzBat]

BTW Microsoft & Ballmer used this "award" in their CES presentation. Isn't that neat? LOL

Tommy McClain

 

[Dr. Nick]

Awards have always been great PR. See how many games come with a best of award from some website. It's usually an attention grabber.

 

[Nesh]

Before, simultaneously or after is often irrelevant. Look at the touch tablets. You talking about a market based on tech thats been around for years. Apple, MS and Google are all said to be working on such tech with all three of the companies' respective products due this year. Its not going to matter who released first, second or last. The company or companies that finds mass market success with these particular products are going to get credit for innovating a market that as of right now doesn't exist.

I am not talking about who came up with the technology or that it really matters who came first. We are actually saying almost the same thing here. Despite that it doesnt matter who released first or not, because MS were able to release first in the market with these features, many have the false impression that it was MS that changed the industry, that it wasnt going to happen without them and that Sony offered service and online features because of MS. In reality both MS and Sony contributed in this. No matter who released first, the industry would have become what we have today by the time that these features found their way in the market through the PS3 or 360

I certainly wouldn't have used the word simultaneously. Additionally I have my doubts that the PS3 solution would be as robust as it currently is had MS not basically forced Sony to attempt to bring their online/media offerings up to par.

Add to that, much of what both Sony and MS have in this generation is basically just an expansion (Especially in the case of the X360) of what MS started on the Xbox 1 with some help with a bunch of hackers (cracking the system and then offerings such as XBMC).

X360 just expanded and virtually perfected the experience as well as taking a queue from XBMC and turning the console into a home media gateway. It's a credit to Sony to that betweent he launch of PS3 to now, that they have brought their online and media offerings from Sub-Xbox 1 to relative parity to X360.

Regards,
SB

I agree that MS started with a better online service structure than Sony's. This does not mean though that the service and features werent in a form that they would start to make the industry follow as standard in the console market.
I accept that MS's participation partially made Sony's online service and offerings better but only as far as that.
The PS3 was going to have media features regardless of XBOX1, a bunch of hackers that worked on it and the Media Center.

 

[dobwal]

I am not talking about who came up with the technology or that it really matters who came first. We are actually saying almost the same thing here. Despite that it doesnt matter who released first or not, because MS were able to release first in the market with these features, many have the false impression that it was MS that changed the industry, that it wasnt going to happen without them and that Sony offered service and online features because of MS.
In reality both MS and Sony contributed in this. No matter who released first, the industry would have become what we have today by the time that these features found their way in the market through the PS3 or 360

Most market would be where they are today even if major innovators of those market hadn't brought forth new features to push the market forward. If you can't move the market forward, your competitor will. The fact is Live was the first successful launch of a unified online service and MS used Live along with the 360 to move online content delivery on a console to the mainstream.

Sony didn't even announce plans for a unified service (PSN) until May 2006, which is basically six months after the 360 is released. When you look at Sony hardware timeline and compare that to its software timeline, it doesn't appear as if Sony was very much in line with MS's thinking on an online content delivery model. The fact is Sony's online delivery service could have been much further along than is was at the initial launch of the PS3.

The PSP was the perfect hardware for the initial release for an unified service especially considering it had wifi, storage and was released at the end of 2004. You do know that the PSP predates the fifth gen Ipod which were the first Ipod capable of video playback. But Apple had better focus on an unified online content delivery service and itunes recieved video support 6 months before a video capable Ipod showed up. Nevertheless the both showed after the release of PSP. The PSP despite its age has lagged behind in content delivery and is evidence that Sony was not as forward thinking as others when it came to content delivery.

Further evidence includes PSN not launched until the PS3 is released (4 years after Live). The PSP doesn't get direct access to the PS Store until 2008 (2 years after being available to the PS3). The video download service for PSN wasn't launched until summer 2008 (fall of 2006 for Live). Things like trophies aren't added until 2008.

Yes, we would have eventually got where we are with Sony, but MS allowed for the current market to exist today not tomorrow. And its very doubtful that the HD console space would have as robust unified contently delivery systems, which exist right now if we were strictly dependent on Sony and there was no MS, Xbox or Live.

But Sony does deserve credit because the Xbox market is only alittle more than half of the HD console market and Sony online delivery serive has moved far in a short period of time even though perhaps somewhat haphazardly.

 

[Dregun]

Most market would be where they are today even if major innovators of those market hadn't brought forth new features to push the market forward. If you can't move the market forward, your competitor will. The fact is Live was the first successful launch of a unified online service and MS used Live along with the 360 to move online content delivery on a console to the mainstream.

Sony didn't even announce plans for a unified service (PSN) until May 2006, which is basically six months after the 360 is released. When you look at Sony hardware timeline and compare that to its software timeline, it doesn't appear as if Sony was very much in line with MS's thinking on an online content delivery model. The fact is Sony's online delivery service could have been much further along than is was at the initial launch of the PS3.

The PSP was the perfect hardware for the initial release for an unified service especially considering it had wifi, storage and was released at the end of 2004. You do know that the PSP predates the fifth gen Ipod which were the first Ipod capable of video playback. But Apple had better focus on an unified online content delivery service and itunes recieved video support 6 months before a video capable Ipod showed up. Nevertheless the both showed after the release of PSP. The PSP despite its age has lagged behind in content delivery and is evidence that Sony was not as forward thinking as others when it came to content delivery.

Further evidence includes PSN not launched until the PS3 is released (4 years after Live). The PSP doesn't get direct access to the PS Store until 2008 (2 years after being available to the PS3). The video download service for PSN wasn't launched until summer 2008 (fall of 2006 for Live). Things like trophies aren't added until 2008.

Yes, we would have eventually got where we are with Sony, but MS allowed for the current market to exist today not tomorrow. And its very doubtful that the HD console space would have as robust unified contently delivery systems, which exist right now if we were strictly dependent on Sony and there was no MS, Xbox or Live.

But Sony does deserve credit because the Xbox market is only alittle more than half of the HD console market and Sony online delivery serive has moved far in a short period of time even though perhaps somewhat haphazardly.

But when does this end? We could go back last generation and say if it wasn't for the PS2 threatening MS's future of wanting a computer in every room Xbox wouldn't even exist.

Here is a funny quote I found when Steve Balmer was indicating back in January of 2006 that Sony had no online strategy.

"t's always important to remember that more people play online games through PlayStation 2 than any other consoles," he told this website in December. "On a worldwide basis it is the most popular online console by virtue of the size of the installed base."

So before the Xbox360 the PS2 had the largest online usage and they accomplished that without live. I think too much credit is given to Live, the model we see today of playing games Online with the PS3 hasn't changed since the PS2! Only difference is a market place to buy and download content and to me that hardly makes playing "online" more fun because of it.

 

[eastmen]

So before the Xbox360 the PS2 had the largest online usage and they accomplished that without live. I think too much credit is given to Live, the model we see today of playing games Online with the PS3 hasn't changed since the PS2! Only difference is a market place to buy and download content and to me that hardly makes playing "online" more fun because of it.

you have numbers to back this up ? I don't believe for a second that the ps2 has the largest online usage when compared to the xbox 1 and halo 2.

I just don't see it at all. Esp considering you needed expensive add ons to go online. Please back up this fact you've given us.

 

[makattack]

you have numbers to back this up ? I don't believe for a second that the ps2 has the largest online usage when compared to the xbox 1 and halo 2.

I just don't see it at all. Esp considering you needed expensive add ons to go online. Please back up this fact you've given us.

Heck, I recall that people were playing XBox1 games that had System Link features online back before Live even... went live.

They were using proxy servers setup on PC's -- in fact, it was very much like PC online gaming. You download a lobby system for finding games/friends onto a PC, create an account, run it, configure your XBox to "connect" to the PC, and lo, you can play Halo1 online... and many other games. If I recall, Gamespot, and another group had competing software that did this.

A google search reveals: http://www.xbconnect.com/

Seems it's still active, and I suspect used by 360 owners who only have silver, but want to play online. Although, only a few games are supported:

http://www.xbconnect.com/index.php?topic=supportedgames

The list indicates a much larger XBox1 support.

 

[Nesh]

Most market would be where they are today even if major innovators of those market hadn't brought forth new features to push the market forward. If you can't move the market forward, your competitor will. The fact is Live was the first successful launch of a unified online service and MS used Live along with the 360 to move online content delivery on a console to the mainstream.

Sony didn't even announce plans for a unified service (PSN) until May 2006, which is basically six months after the 360 is released. When you look at Sony hardware timeline and compare that to its software timeline, it doesn't appear as if Sony was very much in line with MS's thinking on an online content delivery model. The fact is Sony's online delivery service could have been much further along than is was at the initial launch of the PS3.

The PSP was the perfect hardware for the initial release for an unified service especially considering it had wifi, storage and was released at the end of 2004. You do know that the PSP predates the fifth gen Ipod which were the first Ipod capable of video playback. But Apple had better focus on an unified online content delivery service and itunes recieved video support 6 months before a video capable Ipod showed up. Nevertheless the both showed after the release of PSP. The PSP despite its age has lagged behind in content delivery and is evidence that Sony was not as forward thinking as others when it came to content delivery.

Further evidence includes PSN not launched until the PS3 is released (4 years after Live). The PSP doesn't get direct access to the PS Store until 2008 (2 years after being available to the PS3). The video download service for PSN wasn't launched until summer 2008 (fall of 2006 for Live). Things like trophies aren't added until 2008.

Yes, we would have eventually got where we are with Sony, but MS allowed for the current market to exist today not tomorrow. And its very doubtful that the HD console space would have as robust unified contently delivery systems, which exist right now if we were strictly dependent on Sony and there was no MS, Xbox or Live.

But Sony does deserve credit because the Xbox market is only alittle more than half of the HD console market and Sony online delivery serive has moved far in a short period of time even though perhaps somewhat haphazardly.

Allow me to make a few clarifications,

The PSP had a service of some form along with a media manager before the release of the 360 and in a similar fashion as the iTunes (limited content though). Demos, videos, music and add ons were available for download. So that alone gave a hint that Sony was going to make something similar for the PS3. The fact that Sony announced PSN in 2006 does not mean that MS contributed to Sony's decision.

Sony has also been working on Home before for the PS2 which is another indication that Sony was planning for online applications and features. And thats probably what made MS create Avatars and the "newly" announced Game Room.

The so called "unified" service of iPod is not necessarily that "seamless" since when I had my iPod I had to use the iTunes to convert/add music to it. The PSP worked in the same fashion as the iPod (connect with PC to add media), only I could add my content from almost every source that my PC had access to, plus I could have RSS feeds and download some content from the web browser. My PSP served me much better than the combination of iPod+iTunes except for the size and design of the product that made it less practical to carry and use everywhere.
(Similarly my 360 is less flexible than my PS3 because I can not simply copy media on it)

The breakthrough came with online-ready consoles that provided easy, fool proof services that co-existed with the console's OS UI for the first time. And although my PS3 was a bit late in improving the form of the Playstation Store and some other features and lacked a bit compared to Live, it satisfied these elements. At the same time the original 360 UI was terrible to navigate and it didnt have that "seamless" feeling that we have today with NXE but had a more complete service. Sony improved the PSN's features and form and MS improved the UI. Both the service and the UI were necessary and key elements into transforming the industry and both followed each other's trails.

Also lets not forget how the web browser in the PS3 enabled video streaming from sources that you can not from the 360 and it was the first console to support flash as well as introduce other servuces like the BBC player first

What I see is a continuous cross-competition between the 2 big companies that defined the industry/decade. Not only one

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Allow me to make a few clarifications,

The PSP had a service of some form along with a media manager before the release of the 360 and in a similar fashion as the iTunes (limited content though). Demos, videos, music and add ons were available for download. So that alone gave a hint that Sony was going to make something similar for the PS3. The fact that Sony announced PSN in 2006 does not mean that MS contributed to Sony's decision.

Sony has also been working on Home before for the PS2 which is another indication that Sony was planning for online applications and features. And thats probably what made MS create Avatars and the "newly" announced Game Room.

The so called "unified" service of iPod is not necessarily that "seamless" since when I had my iPod I had to use the iTunes to convert/add music to it. The PSP worked in the same fashion as the iPod (connect with PC to add media), only I could add my content from almost every source that my PC had access to, plus I could have RSS feeds and download some content from the web browser. My PSP served me much better than the combination of iPod+iTunes except for the size and design of the product that made it less practical to carry and use everywhere.
(Similarly my 360 is less flexible than my PS3 because I can not simply copy media on it)

The breakthrough came with online-ready consoles that provided easy, fool proof services that co-existed with the console's OS UI for the first time. And although my PS3 was a bit late in improving the form of the Playstation Store and some other features and lacked a bit compared to Live, it satisfied these elements. At the same time the original 360 UI was terrible to navigate and it didnt have that "seamless" feeling that we have today with NXE but had a more complete service. Sony improved the PSN's features and form and MS improved the UI. Both the service and the UI were necessary and key elements into transforming the industry and both followed each other's trails.

Also lets not forget how the web browser in the PS3 enabled video streaming from sources that you can not from the 360 and it was the first console to support flash as well as introduce other servuces like the BBC player first

What I see is a continuous cross-competition between the 2 big companies that defined the industry/decade. Not only one

You can say that about almost every single innovation ever created however. But there will likewise almost always be one person/corporation linked that innovation.

In this case, not only was X360 generally considered the first to successfully implement what we consider the modern online console gaming experience and media integration, they also propelled far enough into consumer consciousness that it basically forced it's competitor(s) to accelerate their developement to match it's efforts.

Most anyone would consider it the driving force behind what we have now, rather than a situation where X360 had no had these features and we might possible be thinking about those features maybe/possibly being implemented at some point in the future.

With increasing parity now, we're obviously seeing increased idea "sharing." Obviously X360 wouldn't have Avatars if PS3 hadn't first pushed home, for example.

But going back to 2003, who had a robust online gaming experience with media portal? Xbox 1. Did it have mass consumer recognition? No, the userbase was just too small and online gaming was still fairly niche. So it's obviously not going to get recognized. Additionally media portal functionality required hacking the console (invalidating your warranty) and installing a 3rd party application.

Fast forward to 2005. X360 is released and will eventually push all this into the mainstream consumer conscious. Where is PS3? Still in a we hope we can do it stage.

Move onto 2006. PS3 launches with a bare skeleton of features compared to X360, it can hardly be considered to be pushing anything considering it's still chasing what Xbox 1 accomplished much less what X360 currently offered at the time.

Sometime between 2007 and present day, PS3 has finally reached rough parity. And each service now has a similar set of features while also still having some system specific features.

By any method I can think of, X360 and possibly Xbox 1, can be considered as the driving force behind the current online gaming + media portal integration (for consoles) we enjoy today.

Put it another way. If we were discussing this back in 2005/2006 what console would be acknowledged as currently introducing and offering to the consumer in an actual product, these features?

Regards,
SB

 

[makattack]

The so called "unified" service of iPod is not necessarily that "seamless" since when I had my iPod I had to use the iTunes to convert/add music to it. The PSP worked in the same fashion as the iPod (connect with PC to add media), only I could add my content from almost every source that my PC had access to, plus I could have RSS feeds and download some content from the web browser. My PSP served me much better than the combination of iPod+iTunes except for the size and design of the product that made it less practical to carry and use everywhere.
(Similarly my 360 is less flexible than my PS3 because I can not simply copy media on it)

Must be a long time ago. Since 2005 (when I first got an iPod -- the original Nano) I've been using media players other than iTunes to load my iPod. Still do. I'm now using Amarok, but used to use RhythmBox. Oh yeah, I don't use Windows or Mac... linux since 1995.

I refuse to use closed systems. Funny enough, you would think that would make me avoid consoles, but I have no patience for PC gaming -- especially on linux. I use both the 360 and PS3 and think the 360 is actually the most open, for my purposes. What makes it so? XNA Game Studio. I think that this alone makes it my vote for "console of the decade." Believe me though; I am loath to accept the idea that I have to use MS products -- and program in C#. My day job is all about Java. Yet, I have to admit C# has its fine points.

 

[Dregun]

you have numbers to back this up ? I don't believe for a second that the ps2 has the largest online usage when compared to the xbox 1 and halo 2.

I just don't see it at all. Esp considering you needed expensive add ons to go online. Please back up this fact you've given us.

I was referring to the quote a member of Sony said in rebuttal to Balmers criticism of Sony's lack of an online strategy.

However after searching the internet here is what I found.

Sony Figures

3/5/2004

Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) has weighed in with some facts and figures related to its apparently booming online PlayStation 2 community. The company said the PS2 online audience grew to a total of 2.6 million users this month, with over 67,000 new users registering online in February, a 239.0 percent jump over the previous year.

LINK

MS Live Figures

20 July 2005

Xbox LiveUnrivaled content and player experiences continue to fuel exponential growth of worldwide online community.

Once again breaking new ground and proving that gamers around the world crave personalized and social online experiences, Xbox Live®, the premier global online console games and entertainment service from Microsoft Corp., now unites 2 million gamers from around the world. Xbox Live continues to grow exponentially, having doubled its online, dynamic community in just one year — the equivalent to adding one Xbox Live member every 30 seconds.

Link

Over a YEAR later and Live was still behind Sony when it came to the amount of people playing Online with the PS2.

Another defunct myth is that Sony had no intentions of doing anything with its Online systems until after the Xbox360 was launched with an improved version of Live.

Here is an article taken from E3 2004

For its new online plans, Sony claims it won't interfere with online PS2 titles, allowing developers to keep control and keep their intellectual property (a jab at Microsoft's heavy involvement with Live-enabled titles). "The content creator controls its own destiny," said Hirai. But Sony does plan to build an infrastructure around a standard protocol that developers can use and plug into their games, help developers with billing, and offer mini-transactions that mimic the iTunes model -- gamers will be able to purchase downloadable content, user-created content (GT4 experts could sell souped-up cars to newbies), episodic content, access to persistent worlds, and other entertainment content. No launch details or specifics were given for this new PS2 online model, but it is under development. To help with the storage of this content, Sony will also be releasing a larger-format memory card -- again, no details there either. Hirai sums it up: "We must evolve the experience of online gaming. Non-revenue-generating online gameplay is the norm, but not for long."

Link

I don't know about you but it sounds to me that what they wanted to do in 2004 is pretty much what we have now ala PSN. In fact they had the "User-created content" within the PSN without GT4 but with Little Big Planet instead.

 

[Dregun]

Also I could be wrong, BUT; I remember buying Socom with a headset so when I played online I could voice chat. A headset was provided when one purchased Live..so is it safe to say they came out around the same time for voice chat support?

Found it, Socom was released with a headset in August 2002
Live was debuted at E3 2002 (May)

After going back and reading the history of what was done when and who had plans for what I find that Live was merely an extension to what they already accomplished back with the original Xbox. Live on the 360 is now much more refined.