Pros and cons of the different online strategies *Spawned from UE3 thread

[Arwin]

I'm a huge fan of Live. Why? mainly because it's seamless. When I turn on my 360, I'm auto logged in and know exactly how many friends are online and what games they're playing with one click of a button. Then I can always expect a tons of demo's and game videos from just one location vs. following threads on forums to know what's coming. If I feel like playing some old school games, marketplace takes care of that also. From that same tab, I can get movies/TV.

All that though, is in PSN, except movies/tv isn't nearly as widely available. On the other hand, you can also check the forums on the PS3. Seriously, though, that's something I'm getting a lot out of. I frequently read B3D from the PS3.

If the kids on an online game are being annoying, I can simply goto private chat with my friends and be done with it.

That, I guess isn't in PSN yet, still probably depends on the game. Though that said, I haven't needed it. People are surprisingly polite on PSN, as was mentioned in the 1up show.

Would I like it to be free? sure, why not. But I also understand that the paying membership is responsible for bringing the entire feature set to the rest of the community. At $4 a month, I not concerned. Hell, a starbucks drink can amount to about that much!

Live would be a valued service on ANY console.

Just saying that PSN isn't that far off the mark at this point.

 

[Acert93]

That, I guess isn't in PSN yet, still probably depends on the game. Though that said, I haven't needed it. People are surprisingly polite on PSN, as was mentioned in the 1up show.

My friend at work complains non-stop about the cursing and rudeness in Rainbow Six on the PS3.

@ Rainbow Man: As for features, the big difference is every game has a pretty standard featureset on Live. Voice chat features are an example of how games on the PSN show a lot of variety. Maybe collectively most PSN games have most of the online features Live offers, but independantly few games even get close, let alone a stable, unified framework.

Does anyone have a list of current PSN/Live features?

 

[slider]

A very worthy thread I think.

Just some randomly cobbled thoughts which I'll expand on later if I get a chance.

Live! When my 360 was still working (it died about a month ago due to "user error" & not RROD) I never subscribed to Gold membership - just because I knew PSN was free and part of me (being a tight-ass) resented having to pay.

But undoubtedly Live! is the more accomplished service.

PSN, fills me with hope and fear at the same time. Although some publisers - notably NCSoft and Epic - have made positive comments about the "open" nature of PSN. I can't believe there are no firm (or even rough) dates for:

a) Home
b) A competitor to MS' Live Video service (c'mon Sony, with your content!)

In the end I feel that both services will end up being similar in feature set. I'm gonna roll out an old cliche here but what I think Sony is struggling with is the infrastructure and software for a bullet proof service on such a large scale; (I mainly say this because of point "b" above). I mean to a layman point B strikes me as relatively easy. Right?

I think some of the issues in this interview are quite telling...

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=81949&page=1

Cat's litter needs changing & she's meowing so I'll try to be more coherent on my next post....

 

[patsu]

All that though, is in PSN, except movies/tv isn't nearly as widely available. On the other hand, you can also check the forums on the PS3. Seriously, though, that's something I'm getting a lot out of. I frequently read B3D from the PS3.

Yes, the web browser does come in handy when we want to call to arms in the GAF forum just before hopping into Resistance.

I am hoping PS Home can also launch the web browser via XMB. That way, organzing group games and waiting for people to show up can all be done within Home in an organic fashion. I don't really want them to use cellphones or IM to bug me to go online. There are also side entertainment and chat to keep people occupied before the bulk of 'em arrive.

Currently, the early comers would get some games going first. But sometimes it can be time wasting when different sub-groups went into their own games while waiting for more to show up, or the early birds to complete their games.

The more tools to help people organize games and clans, the better.

That, I guess isn't in PSN yet, still probably depends on the game. Though that said, I haven't needed it. People are surprisingly polite on PSN, as was mentioned in the 1up show.

My friend at work complains non-stop about the cursing and rudeness in Rainbow Six on the PS3.

It would depend on the games and their target audience. Resistance is pretty ok since Insomniac have mods monitoring the games. They can go into any live game to spectate when complains are filed. At this moment, they are head and shoulder above others in MP.

So far, MotorStorm and Resistance people are pretty well-behaved. But man, these guys are ruthless in game. I would imagine Warhawk should be fine too since people have full control over their servers.

@ Rainbow Man: As for features, the big difference is every game has a pretty standard featureset on Live. Voice chat features are an example of how games on the PSN show a lot of variety. Maybe collectively most PSN games have most of the online features Live offers, but independantly few games even get close, let alone a stable, unified framework.

It boils down to business model. The real benefit of PSN is its openness. The PSN guys get UT3 earlier and NCSoft exclusive online games because of it. There may be value added services on top of PSN in the works too (e.g., Gran Turismo TV).

If there is a way to fund VoIP universally (not impossible actually), it's a matter of plugging it into the mix. Old games will need to be patched, but these are not show stoppers.

I am more concerned about Sony going half-way like what they did with PSP. Things are improving but the risk is there.

 

[Rainbow Man]

Voice chat features are an example of how games on the PSN show a lot of variety.

Agreed! Features are better implemented - as a general rule - on Xbox. Except media playback where Sony has the edge. MS's absolute strength IS software develpment adter all. But PS3 generally has the same features. Even though they may not be as universal or as uniformly implemented.

(it died about a month ago due to "user error" & not RROD)

You didn't get angry and whack it dfid you?

I can't believe there are no firm (or even rough) dates for:

a) Home
b) A competitor to MS' Live Video service (c'mon Sony, with your content!)

There's no rough date for live video in euirope/rest of world either. MS is pissing on 19/20 of the world's population.

Home's basically inconsequential when it comes to playing online games I think. It as a concept is a bit funky IMO. Surely its biggest/only appeal is to adult geeks who like hanging out with people online so they won't have to hang out with people in person?

I really don't see how it would appeal to kids/youths, and for me personally I'd much rather play my games quickly selecting the game from a menu than load up a big graphics-heavy app first in order to walk across a game world - which takes more time - so I can load up my game..

I'm sure Home will be cool or maaybe evemn fun every once in a while - mostly just after Sony's released some new room or feature for it - but using it all the time? I don't see that happening. Not for me anyway.

In the end I feel that both services will end up being similar in feature set.

Probably yeah. It'll take longer for Sony though since they don't have MS's mad l33t skillz when it comes to software development.

On the other hand they have their almost bi-weekly firmware update schedule (which so far has been bothaa kind of a blessing and a curse) while MS has their bi-yearly.. So things could turn around I suppose if Sony gets their ship running nice and tight.

Peace.

 

[betan]

agree that Halo3 and PGR4 look to be adding LIVE features unparalleled in online console gaming by anyone yet.

What does PGR4 offer? I'm not familiar with its online capabilities.

they have servers but that doesn't necessarily mean the online games aren't p2p. the reason for their own servers is apparently to spam your email or something.

And to be able to cut the service sometime after to promote the new version?

Joshua, I think Forge is great, especially its realtime gameplay aspect. In terms of user created content however, I don't think its comparable to LBP.
I see Forge saves similar to UT3 mods, with easier setup but limited freedom.

I cannot imagine myself browsing all different mods though. The main problem is they don't generally offer single player experience and I don't like going through the rookie stages of online gaming over and over again especially for most likely purely balanced games.

So for me, both Halo 3 and UT3 need a good ranking system so I can try out the most popular ones and invest in mastering the ones I like.

In short I see myself as a lazy consumer rather than a creative producer in both cases.

Undoubtedly, Forge being more accessible will increase the number of producers but the few products that stand out will probably be copied to mods with even more interesting settings.

On the other hand, mods have the potential to lead to radically different experience like CS or TF.

LBP however is a totally different beast from both. In addition to all those marking points like ease of use, practically unlimited possibilities, simultaneous cooperative/competitive gameplay, etc, it does seem to encourage creating something for the sake of creating it.

People can play with creation tools without any intention of sharing or trying out other's levels.
Most importantly, it is something I can see myself using to make a birthday present for my nephew or to propose to my girlfriend. So for the first time, I'm more excited about being a producer than consumer in a game. That's a huge difference in my book. Hope it doesn't disappoint.

 

[mech]

I'm a huge fan of Live. Why? mainly because it's seamless. When I turn on my 360, I'm auto logged in and know exactly how many friends are online and what games they're playing with one click of a button. Then I can always expect a tons of demo's and game videos from just one location vs. following threads on forums to know what's coming. If I feel like playing some old school games, marketplace takes care of that also. From that same tab, I can get movies/TV.

You know PS3 has all those features bar the movies and TV shows right?

Tap In: EA requires people to log in through their servers on live, but the games are still P2P.

If people actually had dedicated servers on Live, I wouldn't feel nearly as ripped off. Fact is on all 3 full PS3 games I own (Resistance, Motorstorm and Warhawk) dedicated servers are provided and it makes a HUGE difference. You get absolutely massive games with barely any hint of lag... I love it. Whereas a lot of games on Live seem to be a laggy mess, and hosts get a huge advantage. I feel ripped off paying for that, especially since you get everything bar the P2P play with silver.

 

[-tkf-]

A comparison between PSN and LIVE on the essential list of "expected features" would be cool.

On the dedicated vs hosted servers. Whenever i have played online i have always gone after dedicated servers. Hosted servers always give an edge to the hoster and can be easily abused. However the private hosted server is perfect for playing with friends where the "edge" might not be so important.

Warhawk is the perfect example of how to do a online game, provide all options to everybody.

 

[Tap In]

A huge factor IMO right now beyond the unparalleled features* implemented across all games that XBL has is the number of games that implement CO-OP play. Ms has been encouraging Co-op from Day 1 and the feeling that Co-OP and the seamless integration with all of the services creates is a COMMUNITY. the money means nothing next to that. Just today I had an eleven year old boy (neighbor kid) tell me how cool Two worlds is on X360 because he can play co-op on live. He then listed GeOW, not for the visuals but for the fun he has playing campaign mode with online friends. Eleven!

The feeling of community that has been building since XBOX1 and now exploded with XBL 360 is a powerful tool for bringing like minded folks to the same platform for some multiplayer gaming.

*(do a search on my user name as I don't have time right now to reiterate all of the reasons that you may be unfamiliar with as to how XBL is more feature rich compared to PSN)

of course HOME may change Sony's position on that overnight depending on how it is implemented WITH retail games but that has yet to be seen and they need to find that community aspect if they hope to compete this gen IMO.

 

[patsu]

The community aspect for PSN already exist since the original Playstation. As long as Sony builds it, they will come. e.g., The Resistance community wasn't formed overnight even though it is a new game. People were already familiar with Playstation, Insomniac, etc. This is different from Microsoft starting from scratch with Xbox 1.

 

[betan]

A comparison between PSN and LIVE on the essential list of "expected features" would be cool.

On the dedicated vs hosted servers. Whenever i have played online i have always gone after dedicated servers. Hosted servers always give an edge to the hoster and can be easily abused. However the private hosted server is perfect for playing with friends where the "edge" might not be so important.

Warhawk is the perfect example of how to do a online game, provide all options to everybody.

I disagree. Resistance is the name of excellence in online gaming (servicewise).
Warhawk has great gameplay but it lacks party, squad chat and most importantly matchmaking.
I also don't see any immediate benefit of user hosted games vs Resistance's custom games . Custom games offer everything and aren't limited by upload speed of the host.

I generally have little problems with PS Network, but after Resistance, Warhawk looks like a PC game (again servicewise).

 

[Tap In]

The community aspect for PSN already exist since the original Playstation. As long as Sony builds it, they will come. e.g., The Resistance community wasn't formed overnight even though it is a new game. People were already familiar with Playstation, Insomniac, etc. This is different from Microsoft starting from scratch with Xbox 1.

an online community that is integrated into the dashboard allowing communication to/from Messenger, voice, video, text etc, without ever leaving the game/movie/store you are currently in as well as seamlessly joining games for multiplayer or Co-op from any of those locations from that one message, is a community aspect that has nothing in common with PS1, PS2 or PS3 atm.

Not to mention the integration on the web with the Xbox dashboard communication system to stay in contact from your computer to plan games.

 

[-tkf-]

I also don't see any immediate benefit of user hosted games vs Resistance's custom games . Custom games offer everything and aren't limited by upload speed of the host.

I generally have little problems with PS Network, but after Resistance, Warhawk looks like a PC game (again servicewise).

I don´t know enough about RFOM, what is a "custom" game?

 

[patsu]

an online community that is integrated into the dashboard allowing communication to/from Messenger, voice, video, text etc, without ever leaving the game/movie/store you are currently in as well as joining games for multiplayer or Co-op from any of those locations from that one message, is a community aspect that has nothing in common with PS1, PS2 or PS3 atm.

Nonetheless, the Playstation community exists long before, and people have been in touch with each other via the Internet. The mechanisms above are simply convenience instruments for them to communicate in-game and across-game. Together with achievement, they help to jumpstart and accelerate community building. However, they are by no means the only way to build a community. e.g., The Resistance in-game clan management tools plus existing Internet forums (e.g. GAF) is also a superb mechanism to jumpstart a community.

Some of the missing features will be in PSN as reiterated by Sony on their official blog. Then again, there are other interesting PSN features that's not common (e.g., dedicated server) or unavailable (e.g., RemotePlay, integration with external network game services, web browser) in XBL. Plus it's free.

As I mentioned, XBL and PSN will evolve in their own ways. It'd be futile to try to compare them as if they have to be one-to-one or equivalent. They may indeed diverge over time, but share some common features. XBL is not the only way to do a gaming network.

 

[betan]

I don´t know enough about RFOM, what is a "custom" game?

A custom game is one that is not "ranked". Similar to Warhawk's user hosted servers, one can create a game, choose gametype, map, number of players, password protection plus weapon availability, efficiency, etc.

The only missing option is the "ranked" flag, but I don't like user hosted ranked games anyway, mostly due to lack of any guarantee.

On the other hand, custom games come with all the benefits of real dedicated servers and I'm yet to see a case where the servers are full.

I suspect matchmaking allows very decent loadbalancing between ranked and unranked games in terms of server utilization.

The reason I said immediate is, user hosted (p2p) games have the advantage of continued availability. But I don't accept that as an excuse for not having enough dedicated servers.

I think Sony should have figured out server-sharing between different games, long ago.

 

[patsu]

A custom game can also be spectated by anyone, anytime if it was created with the spectate flag turned on (by default). I have entered into 40 player custom games and followed people around.

 

[wco81]

I only play online games, mostly sports.

PSN is inferior not only to XBL but to PS2 online when it comes to EA Sports games. At least with the PS2 versions, you could maintain an EA friends list where you could see where your friends were in games and message them directly.

Your XMB friends go online in Madden but you can't find them or contact them directly. It's one thing to be busted in Madden 07 but in Madden 08 too?

The Playstation Store is slow and they've added enough demos in a past few weeks so I'm okay with the number of demos they have (they need to add Lair, Warhawk and Uncharted demos though). Clearly though, they're not going to invest in infrastructure and bandwidth until it's necessary.

Fact is, as much as I like online gaming, it's a niche. I've been reluctant to buy certain other online games because few have the kind of following like Madden. For instance, NHL 08 is intriguing but my sense is that there would be few PS3 players online, compared to Madden and especially compared to the X360 version.

But that's all fine, as long as I don't have to pay. I can afford to pay but I won't. If Sony starts charging, I won't bother with online or will go PC gaming online. It's a hassle with the slow PSN download speeds and the busted messaging. I can work around these issues. I'd be pissed if I had to pay $50 or any amount and had to work around.

As for business models to pay for online gaming costs, adding to the price is a non-starter. Just another way to get you to pay for online play. Sony charged $50 for SOCOM at a time when most first-party PS2 games were $40. That was okay, it was a popular game and they did invest in infrastructure and most PS2 games were $50.

What they're doing with Warhawk sounds fine too. It would be a better deal if they add vehicles or maps as free downloads. Plus the ability to set up consoles as dedicated servers sounds like a great idea.

Halo without dedicated servers? You know all the promos they're doing for that game, just one of those little deals would have financed servers for months or years. Halo Wars the RTS sounds intriguing. They'd probably need servers for that? If they do, they might pull a WOW pricing scheme.

What I'm most interested in is multiplayer online with multiple consoles. Not such a new thing for shooters but completely new for sports games (well NHL Rivals did it). So NHL 08 does it and FIFA is suppose to do it. Remember MS touting watch modes? Did anything become of that?

Oh and EA is having problems this year trying to get highlights uploaded so people can view them on easportsworld.com. They should just upload them to youtube. Or save to your hard drive and you can upload them on your own. Yeah you can't get more geeky than watching clips of video games. But there are avid sports gamers who'd watch clips of competitors.

 

[Tap In]

Tap In: EA requires people to log in through their servers on live, but the games are still P2P.

BF2 is server based game play and I'd wager that it's not the only EA game that does so.

there are also some other server based XBL games. Test Drive Unlimited (Activision) and Chromehounds (SEGA) off the top of my head.

 

[Arwin]

Yeah, the spectating is really cool. That's the only thing I've done with Resistance online by the way, as I spent all my Resistance time initially on finishing the single player game first. I've been meaning to try some of the online matches in Resistance, but never gotten round to it yet because of all the other wonderful stuff. (yes, some people may find that hard to believe but it is a combination of me being interested in games with some depth and sticking to them a little bit longer, and me being somewhat gameplay time-limited ).

EDIT: Is download speed really such a big issue for people? That surprises me. All my downloads so far have been at full speed (though I have a relatively humble connection, mind).

 

[patsu]

It depends on your location and provider. PSN download speed for Yahoo SBC in Brentwood California is great; in Cupertino, average (for my friend's ISP) to excellent (for my client's network). Recently, PSN started to use the same CDN vendor (Limelight ?) as XBL at least for certain downloads. I'm not privy to their CDN use policy at this point.