Sony PS3 basic online service to surpass Xbox360 Silver

[seismologist]

It's a good idea becuase the more active users online the more they can make money through the marketplace..

That's why I think the XBL silver service is dumb. Those people who can't play games online are less likely to be online at all, and less likely to buy anything from the marketplace.

Lets face it, that's where the real money is. $2 level packs or other extras to use online in your favorite game.
Not gouging people $5 a month for peer 2 peer online gaming.

 

[Asher]

Lets face it, that's where the real money is. $2 level packs or other extras to use online in your favorite game.
Not gouging people $5 a month for peer 2 peer online gaming.

Do you really think MS makes even a significant fraction of its revenue from XBL from the level packs and addons?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Do you really think MS makes even a significant fraction of its revenue from XBL from the level packs and addons?

I don't. But if you can gte users to buy their MP3's over your PS3 service, you're talking big money, and they way to encourage that is offer as many free internet options as possible to get people online. Live Marketplace is in it's infancy. When there's plenty of content for sale then revenue should dwarf that $60 a month.

 

[pipo]

As it's been explained so far, I do not see how (for free) and without a LIVE interface built into the box how they will accomplish this task.

I gather from this thread that some here have never played for any extended period on Xbox LIVE and more importantly on 360's version of LIVE.

QFT.

The interface to Live is why it works. I hope Sony have been planning a good alternative, because I don't think Nintendo will provide something which will push MS...

 

[Urian]

If I am not wrong the only thing that Sony has confirmed is that SCE WW and second parties online games are going to run in SOE servers and that the third parties can add their servers to the infraestructure if they want and put a tax for playing if they want.

In other words, Sony hasn´t an infraestructure for the third parties online games.

 

[Titanio]

There is a "common infrastructure" for all parties (whatever functionality that provides), but third parties are allowed to, and have to, plug their own servers in.

 

[c0_re]

There is a "common infrastructure" for all parties (whatever functionality that provides), but third parties are allowed to, and have to, plug their own servers in.

Sure it's called TCP\IP, this is a pretty general statement to say the least. Hopefully Sony can get together with GameSpy and come up with somthing similure tot he PSP\Vista Media interface(like someone said earlier), I mean GS has been working with online gaming(game matching\finding bla bla bla) for going on what 6-8 years now?

I think it's probably a little unrealistic for anyone to think Sony is going to give a away or even offer a service = to Xbox Live Gold on XB360. I think if you can play most games online for free this may force Microsoft to offer more free gaming days like they are for the end of this month.

 

[patsu]

Ha ha ! I hope it's more than TCP/IP. Off the top of my head, there are some common facilities such as user registration and login, some client listener code for community/communication, and some sort of UI shell that should be common for all games.

My theory is: Sony's "competition" is the current online reality: 95+ % of playstation users are not online yet. If they can improve that number substantially (including PS2, PSP and PS3 users), then they win. The online aspect allows them to recover/make more money, consolidate their content divisions, and stake a claim in digital distribution in the face of iTunes + iPod.

The initial investment should be relatively small compared to their hardware investment. Attracting people from Xbox LIVE is probably a bonus for them right now.

 

[rounin]

I sorry Tap, but that's just dumb. Why would Sony have to give you ALL of those options for free? Why can't they give you 80% of what you just listed?

QFT. I agree that those all those options should not be given for free. You said 80%? I'd say Sony should give detailed friends list and messaging and MAYBE voice chat. The other features are just plain extra that the user can pay for if they want them.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well comparing games/achievements with friends is pretty sweet, doesn't sound to hot on paper but in practice it's a fun feature.

I agree though, sony just needs to get a universal friends list w/ free gaming, done deal, most people will be happy.

However, I think you guys are dreaming again, this was not confirmed anywhere other than the mysterious 'sony rep'

 

[Seb555]

You know, if Sony wanted to the whole system COULD be P2P including messaging, etc. What if when you shutdown the PS3, it simply went into low power mode, where it remained being able to communicate with the central servers, etc.

This way if you sent a voice/text message to someone that was not online at the time and then "shutdown" the PS3, it would occasionally check with the network so as soon as the person DID come online it could send them the message then.

It could store and forward "bittorent" like files to other people while you're not using it, etc etc.

I'm not saying that this is what Sony is planning ( just that it's possible ) and they do keep hyping the whole CELL and the Network message.

 

[Tap In]

QFT. I agree that those all those options should not be given for free. You said 80%? I'd say Sony should give detailed friends list and messaging and MAYBE voice chat. The other features are just plain extra that the user can pay for if they want them.

Exactly

it's nice to have those features (built into the hardware) and as I've been trying to point out, it's worth paying for. Free is not always good if it is a PITA to use.

Trust me, the first version of LIVE was ok but it was annoying having each game "trying" to support even half of the features that X360 LIVE now employs across the board.

I would have preferred to see Sony build a similar system that functioned more like LIVE and charge me $29.99/yr for it than to give me a free, poor man's live.

As I said, I'm buying a PS3 so I'll see first hand. Gaming for me is 90% done on LIVE now. I rarely play offline anymore. That is a growing trend as far as I can tell from the people I meet online. Online gaming will be huge 10 years from now, like it or not, IMO of course. :smile:


Edit:
Not to mention that the current state of LIVE supposedly drastically reduces the amount of work required by Devs to support online in their game. The basic interface is built in so they only need AFAIK, to hook into it and not build an entire interface to support the features of their own for each game, as they did with Xbox 1 (or will have to do for the Sony Network). I'm sure we're paying to subsidize the work that went into that interface as well. (which is the X360 OS)

 

[c0_re]

Edit:
Not to mention that the current state of LIVE supposedly drastically reduces the amount of work required by Devs to support online in their game. The basic interface is built in so they only need AFAIK, to hook into it and not build an entire interface to support the features of their own for each game, as they did with Xbox 1 (or will have to do for the Sony Network). I'm sure we're paying to subsidize the work that went into that interface as well. (which is the X360 OS)

I've heard this as well I wonder to what extent it's true and how easily stuff just plugs in

 

[Sxotty]

I think its a great point actually. Using WoW as a barometer of 'best case scenario', that would put 6 million of your total userbase hopelessly addicated to the game and unable to think of buying anything else.

Seems like it becomes less and less important the bigger the userbase is, that is it becomes a proportionally smaller %.

What doesnt change over time, however, is the 1 billion dollars (less costs) per year in revenue from the $15 (or is that 1200 points?) a month subscription fee.

I agree its definitely a different thought process when youre (MS and Sony) trying to maintain a 'fertile' platform for publishers though.

Remember if WOW is on the ps3 sony may get $2.00 out of that $15.00 and that would likely be enough to make them happy.

 

[Diamond.G]

Remember if WOW is on the ps3 sony may get $2.00 out of that $15.00 and that would likely be enough to make them happy.

Wouldn't it make more sense for blizzard to charge console players more if the console maker chooses to get royalties (your 2 dollar charge) than to take it in the pocket? Of course if the console makers were to have gave blizzard lots of money the question could be moot...

 

[emacs]

on the PS3, i would be keen to download and play old classic arcade games from the 1980s. yes, MAME, does serve its purpose but gaming on a console is different and i'm guessing playing the likes of Defender would be great for old school fun

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I'm sorry.. but it just hasn't been pointed out yet (that I saw) in all this "How much does the infrastructure cost VS whether or not it even exists VS whether it can be free or not" babble...

Do you all realize that once Sony starts trying to compete with MS in THIS space and THIS domain that they are now competing with MS on MS's home turf?

User interface, ease of access, interlinking game to game and system to system... these are all SOFTWARE issues?

If there is any battlefront that MS would LOVE to have, it's this one. Sure... Sony COULD build a more powerful machine (that wil also cost more.. different thread, let's not threadjack), but can they actually provide the functionality and the infrastructure that we are talking about?

If somebody could, they would have, and WINDOWS wouldn't be the dominate OS.

Seriously... ask yourself this question: If the console battle comes down to WHICH online service offers the MOST functionality with the EASIEST use, who do you put your money on? Sony or Microsoft?

Sure... I agree that Sony needs to be able to compete in this space, it's obvious that they do, but this is something that MS targetted as their KEY STRATEGY as soon as the Xbox was released.

If the user interface and interaction becomes the MOST IMPORTANT factor in the console wars? Sony is screwed, period. Because that brings the battle away from GAMES, awayt from TECH, and into the realm of SOFTWARE.

And if you think that Sony can actually battle MS in the realm of SOFTWARE, you are either out of your mind or a huge fanboi.

 

[mckmas8808]

That is a growing trend as far as I can tell from the people I meet online. Online gaming will be huge 10 years from now, like it or not, IMO of course. :smile:

No it's not in your opinion. You are 100% correct. It's a fact and we all (here at B3D) know it. 10 years from know (actually I think about 5 to 7) online gaming will be the thing that changes video games. It'll be sorta like the arcade of the 21st century.

This is one thing about the Xbox brand that I totally love. GO MS!

 

[wco81]

Yeah Sony has a poor track record on UI and software in general.

That's okay, if they give me a virtual keyboard and I have to tap in IP addresses manually, I can deal as long as the online play is free. Anyone who's played online on the PC can make do, using instant messaging on a computer to set up games.

And all I do is play online but online gaming will forever be a niche.

 

[mckmas8808]

And all I do is play online but online gaming will forever be a niche.

How can you say that? 10 years from now broadband in itself will be like having cable or satellite TV.