Differences between xbl and psn(online only)

[tha_con]

Well, there'd also be the implementation of the P2P code. It's pretty much standardized on the X360, but PS3 devs are on their own correct? So it's possible some devs could be reinventing the wheel so to speak so implementation could vary between different devs. Which in turn could affect how well online plays in one title versus another title.

Regards,
SB

I can't be certain, but I'd be willing to bet that Sony's 3rd party development tools include some sort of online infrastructure for developers to use.

I think you picked the worst possible game to use for an example, Warhawk's online was appalling. It was a fun game....when it worked, which was rare. It was so hard to ever actually get online working, let alone even getting in a game. I presume they fixed it eventually but I never found out, I got so fed up with connection errors that I eventually just sold the game. It seemed pointless to own an online only game that rarely worked online. Warhawk at launch was the poster child of how not to do online, it really reflected badly on the state of PSN at the time.

So what you're saying is you tried to play it once or twice and then sold it? Those problems lasted all of maybe 3 weeks or so? I could easily use Gears of War 2 to illustrate how "terrible" XBL is, as Gears 2 had a crap load of issues online during it's first month. Let us not forget the CoD4 holiday fiasco, and the same that happened with Halo 3. Should we say that those reflect poorly on XBL as well? Or give them a free pass?

 

[Asher]

What Gears of War II issues? The CoD4 holiday fiasco -- was that the holiday that XBL was down for days due to millions of people on at the same time?

Halo 3's launch, I'm not aware of any issues that existed then. I certainly played just fine.

Quite a different scale of a problem than the Warhawk one, I would think.

 

[joker454]

Also Joker, ps3 background downloading resumes for single player/offline games. So "frequently" is a little exaggeration, as always.

It depends. If you only play games on your PS3 then it's not frequent. If you split your time with games and movies, using the PS3 as the media server it's intended to be to play dvd's, blu-rays, and other videos, then it will be frequent. If you primarily use the PS3 for movies, then your downloads will effectively never complete, which makes it far worse than frequent.

So what you're saying is you tried to play it once or twice and then sold it? Those problems lasted all of maybe 3 weeks or so? I could easily use Gears of War 2 to illustrate how "terrible" XBL is, as Gears 2 had a crap load of issues online during it's first month. Let us not forget the CoD4 holiday fiasco, and the same that happened with Halo 3. Should we say that those reflect poorly on XBL as well? Or give them a free pass?

No, I tried to play Warhawk for days and could never connect. Then it brielfly worked, then went back to connection issues so I gave up. For an online-only game that is simply unacceptable. I played Gears 2 coop and Halo 3 coop with no issues, so I'd have to take your word for it that they had non-functional online like Warhawk. Either way, all games can have online issues, but there is more that can go wrong on PS3 online because there are far more variables to it, and because they are often re-inventing the wheel, it makes it more likely that new code can have new issues.

 

[betan]

betan: It's interesting you max out at about twice the download rate I've got even though NJ is actually fairly close to Toronto. We should be using geographically the same servers. It shouldn't be the internet backbone between Toronto and NY/NJ, because I assure you that it is a very beefy line. The PSN servers have always been noticably slower than Xbox Live's here. I can't think of anyone to blame here but Sony for it, but it is highly suspicious to me someone so close to me as you could have at least twice the speed.

It's OK Asher, since you are one of "those" who likes to post only negatives on one console and only positives on another, I find (all) your claims suspicious too, to say the least.
But in this case, I believe you when you say you don't know anyone with good PSN download speeds. Why you say?

First, your psn friendlist is(was?) empty.
Second, we don't use the same servers. It's load balanced. I went back to my ps3, start downloading dirt demo and tcpdumped the headers, and Akamai server I got (96.17.160.114) is in Brisbane (AU), so the load balancing is probably global. (I need to check it some other time a couple of times to see if that's the case ). I'm from 68.83.181.255 subsubsubnet. What're your servers?
Third, you consider 1MB/s slow.

edit: ~An hour later, 64.215.158.81 (CA(l))

It depends. If you only play games on your PS3 then it's not frequent. If you split your time with games and movies, using the PS3 as the media server it's intended to be to play dvd's, blu-rays, and other videos, then it will be frequent. If you primarily use the PS3 for movies, then your downloads will effectively never complete, which makes it far worse than frequent.

Well, if you use the PS3 primarily for movies, I doubt you need background downloading that frequent.

Jokes aside, video playback doesn't stop background downloading, unless it's streamed from net (shocking eh?). I find the case for DVD very puzzling though, cannot think of any acceptable reason for that.

Best of luck to those who use ps3 only for DVD/BD and try to download stuff in the background frequently.

 

[patsu]

Warhawk has a solid reputation for being a great online game. Although i can't pilot the plane, I could get in and poke around every single time. The fact that joker454 was having persistent problem implies that his ISP may be blocking or trottling Warhawk port(s). His best course of action was to file a support ticket with his ISP. Too bad he gave up before investigating the issue.

Download speeds are probably impossible to compare, presumably people in different areas get different results.

The operators have ways to monitor their network performance from different corners of the world. In any case, they use CDN (third party or in-house). So performance should be good, except in some parts of the world.

I've always had fast speed XBL, on PSN my speeds are very slow, I usually let PSN demo downloads go overnight. But that's in LA, presumably others get different results. XBL does more in the background anyways, so XBL demos finish while I'm doing other stuff on the 360 whereas PSN will frequently stop background downloads depending on what you are doing on the PS3. So to me, downloading in general on PSN is a painful process.

Just remember to check with your ISP this time. With the built-in web browser and firmware 3.0, you should be able to estimate your available bandwidth instead of making potentially bad assumptions. For all we know, your PS3 may be faulty.

Regarding what you can and can't do on XBL and PSN, ultimately publishers with clout will be able to get away with anything.

Well... MMO games for XBL is still a pain. Microsoft is also averse to user generated content on XBL in the mean time. Microsoft has lost the hardware security to the modders. If they lose XBL security also, the entire business model will go down the toilet.

Microsoft will push back more on XBL because they realize a unified experience is what's is better for consumers, just like with any other product out there. Publishers know this as well so typically they will just go with the guidelines. It saves publishers money going that route anyways since the online process is unified and streamlined, they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. With PSN though, publishers are saddled with dozens of codebases of online solutions from all the companies they own or work with, all of which must be maintained. It's not a good situation at all.

It cuts both way. When you reinvent the wheel, you have opportunities to innovate too. While many developers wrote/write bad network code, they will improve over time. If online gaming is so important, the industry will benefit more when everyone can innovate freely. I personally think that online gaming is just starting to get interesting. There should be a lot more interesting ideas.

The problem with PSN is its usability. It is possible to have a good UI and one single user id even in a multi-party network. The XMB Chat room concept is actually a pretty advanced and usable model for online gaming. Unfortunately, it's not fully integrated yet.

 

[joker454]

Warhawk has a solid reputation for being a great online game. Although i can't pilot the plane, I could get in and poke around every single time. The fact that joker454 was having persistent problem implies that his ISP may be blocking or trottling Warhawk port(s). His best course of action was to file a support ticket with his ISP. Too bad he gave up before investigating the issue.

When it worked the game was great. But c'mon, I'm not gonna start calling isp's when a single game doesn't work. How do you think they would respond when I told them every other game I have works fine online, but this single PS3 game doesn't. I suspect I'd be laughed at. No thanks

For all we know, your PS3 may be faulty.

I'm on my third PS3. I had a launch 20gb, a 40gb model, and now a PS3 Slim. I suppose they could all be faulty, but I'd say that's unlikely.

Well... MMO games for XBL is still a pain. Microsoft is also averse to user generated content on XBL in the mean time. Microsoft has lost the hardware security to the modders. If they lose XBL security also, the entire business model will go down the toilet.

Probably because they want a good mmo. You get only one chance at a first impression, if they are gonna take an mmo it needs to make a big splash. If Blizzard called and asked MS to allow World Of Warcraft on the 360, I guarantee you MS would throw away their rules and accomodate them in every and any way possible. Microsoft bends the rules when there is a benefit, remember when EA muscled them into relaxing their online rules years ago on the original Xbox.

It cuts both way. When you reinvent the wheel, you have opportunities to innovate too. While many developers wrote/write bad network code, they will improve over time. If online gaming is so important, the industry will benefit more when everyone can innovate freely. I personally think that online gaming is just starting to get interesting. There should be a lot more interesting ideas.

The only problem with that theory is that we're four years into this generation, and PSN and its games are still missing lots of stuff. If there are innovations in the pipleline then they really need to hurry up and release them before they miss this generation entirely.

The problem with PSN is its usability. It is possible to have a good UI and one single user id even in a multi-party network. The XMB Chat room concept is actually a pretty advanced and usable model for online gaming. Unfortunately, it's not fully integrated yet.

PSN's biggest problem will vary depending on who you ask. Some will hate that basic features on XBLive are still after all these years missing on PSN. Some will hate that demos tend to arrive later on PSN compared to XBLive. Others will hate the non unified and haphazard approach to online support in PSN games. It depends who you ask. Personally I can't stand that all PSN games don't come with demos. I wanted to try Flower and Fat Princess, but neither has a demo. What's the point then? That drives me nuts, and makes me want to slap someone over there. Business 101, provide a damn demo! But that's just my biggest pet peeve.

 

[patsu]

When it worked the game was great. But c'mon, I'm not gonna start calling isp's when a single game doesn't work. How do you think they would respond when I told them every other game I have works fine online, but this single PS3 game doesn't. I suspect I'd be laughed at. No thanks

They will just analyze that may be they (or your router) block a port they are not supposed to. Come on, they handle more stupid questions from casual users day in and day out. Not everyone looks for an easy way out at work.

I'm on my third PS3. I had a launch 20gb, a 40gb model, and now a PS3 Slim. I suppose they could all be faulty, but I'd say that's unlikely.

Then it's likely to be your "local" network issues since there are a lot of satisfied Warhawk players ?

Probably because they want a good mmo. You get only one chance at a first impression, if they are gonna take an mmo it needs to make a big splash. If Blizzard called and asked MS to allow World Of Warcraft on the 360, I guarantee you MS would throw away their rules and accomodate them in every and any way possible. Microsoft bends the rules when there is a benefit, remember when EA muscled them into relaxing their online rules years ago on the original Xbox.

Still... your previous statement is false. You won't be able to get away with everything even if you're a big player. It's case by case. EA bulldozed the original XBL because (i) the latter started from zero base (and not proven), (ii) perhaps the original rules were even more strict compared to now ? The first implementation of XBL may be too limiting.

The only problem with that theory is that we're four years into this generation, and PSN and its games are still missing lots of stuff. If there are innovations in the pipleline then they really need to hurry up and release them before they miss this generation entirely.

PS3 is 3 years old. Xbox 360 is 4. They both lack features that are in their competitors. I am sure they are both trying to hurry up.

PSN's biggest problem will vary depending on who you ask. Some will hate that basic features on XBLive are still after all these years missing on PSN. Some will hate that demos tend to arrive later on PSN compared to XBLive. Others will hate the non unified and haphazard approach to online support in PSN games. It depends who you ask. Personally I can't stand that all PSN games don't come with demos. I wanted to try Flower and Fat Princess, but neither has a demo. What's the point then? That drives me nuts, and makes me want to slap someone over there. Business 101, provide a damn demo! But that's just my biggest pet peeve.

Well... PSN is free. You don't have to pay to play online games. As a basic service, it did not go down during Christmas and holidays. Business 101 says if demo is effective in selling games, then it'd be everywhere. Otherwise, it's probably not a good (enough) tool from business perspective.

 

[joker454]

Then it's likely to be your "local" network issues since there are a lot of satisfied Warhawk players ?

I think you're reaching a bit here PC games patch and work online fine. 360 games patch and work online fine. PS3 games patch fine, and I was able to play user LBP levels fine. I can get into Home, that works. It was just Warhawk. Plus I know I'm not the only one who had issues with that game at launch.

Still... your previous statement is false. You won't be able to get away with everything even if you're a big player. It's case by case. EA bulldozed the original XBL because (i) the latter started from zero base (and not proven), (ii) perhaps the original rules were even more strict compared to now ? The first implementation of XBL may be too limiting.

I still think they are flexible. Microsoft and Sony aren't invincible, they are definitely mailable and they have to be to a certain extent. If they piss off a big publisher too much then the publisher can push back in a variety of ways. We've seen over the history of consoles how you can be on top one generation, and fall flat the next. Karma is a bitch, so it helps to not be a total ass to the software people. If one of the big boys wants to put their mmo on live, it will end up on live, assuming its a valuable and noteworthy ip.

Worse case, if Microsoft and Sony became intolerable to work with, then maybe EA and Activision put aside their differences and launch their own joint console with help from say Intel, and pull all their ip's from the other consoles. Madness? Maybe...or is it? The point being, you don't want to totally piss off the big boys. Keep them hooked and keep them happy.

PS3 is 3 years old. XBL is 4. They both lack features that are in their competitors. I am sure they are both trying to hurry up.

I'm curious...what does PSN offer that Live doesn't? Pleeeeeeeeease don't say Home

Well... PSN is free. You don't have to pay to play online games. As a basic service, it did not go down during Christmas and holidays.

The 'free' argument doesn't matter. My steak was fresh, yours was spoiled. But yours was free right so it's ok right? In the end it doesn't matter, I'm left satisfied, and you are left with a stomach ache. Hiding behind the 'it's free' mantra doesn't work, at some point they have to decide to start being competitive or be left behind.

Business 101 says if demo is effective to sell games, then it'd be everywhere. Otherwise, it's probably not a good (enough) tool from business perspective.

Flower and Fat princess are supposed to be good and well rated games, therefore a demo would benefit them. For them to not provide a demo is a mistake. The typical perception today is that no demo means the game sucks, so no demo automatically gives a negative impression. If your game doesn't suck, then make a demo. From a users perspective, not having demos for everything is maddening. PSN could offer a million games, and it would all be worthless to me if they didn't include demos.

 

[Asher]

It's OK Asher, since you are one of "those" who likes to post only negatives on one console and only positives on another, I find (all) your claims suspicious too, to say the least.
But in this case, I believe you when you say you don't know anyone with good PSN download speeds. Why you say?

First, your psn friendlist is(was?) empty.

There's one person on it, actually. If it's telling you it's empty, that's yet another failure of a rather obvious feature on Sony's behalf -- but I shan't say that for fear of being "negative".

And of course it's near-empty, I don't play online much on the PS3 at all. I've discussed this at length with other people on this site before. I almost exclusively play online on the 360 for a large variety of fairly obvious reasons, which would be off-topic here.

Second, we don't use the same servers. It's load balanced. I went back to my ps3, start downloading dirt demo and tcpdumped the headers, and Akamai server I got (96.17.160.114) is in Brisbane (AU), so the load balancing is probably global. (I need to check it some other time a couple of times to see if that's the case ). I'm from 68.83.181.255 subsubsubnet. What're your servers?
Third, you consider 1MB/s slow.

edit: ~An hour later, 64.215.158.81 (CA(l))

This is clearly part of the problem. If Sony is loadbalancing globally, that explains the inconsistent speeds I see. You can have Akamai do regional loadbalancing (we use them as a CDN at work and they only use US/Canadian east/west servers for our site since we're exclusively in Canada).

As I said before, there are different tiers of service with Akamai and other CDNs. Given the PSN is free and XBL is not, it would not surprise me in the least if Sony were at lower tiers of service than Microsoft is/was.

 

[patsu]

I think you're reaching a bit here PC games patch and work online fine. 360 games patch and work online fine. PS3 games patch fine, and I was able to play user LBP levels fine. I can get into Home, that works. It was just Warhawk. Plus I know I'm not the only one who had issues with that game at launch.

Huh ? Unblocking or forwarding Warhawk ports is reaching ? I am just saying your Warhawk problem may be local. The network support staff would be more than happy to help you solve a real problem.

I still think they are flexible. Microsoft and Sony aren't invincible, they are definitely mailable and they have to be to a certain extent. If they piss off a big publisher too much then the publisher can push back in a variety of ways. We've seen over the history of consoles how you can be on top one generation, and fall flat the next. Karma is a bitch, so it helps to not be a total ass to the software people. If one of the big boys wants to put their mmo on live, it will end up on live, assuming its a valuable and noteworthy ip.

...

Still... MMO is a problem. User generated content is a problem... regardless of what you think whether MS is invincible or not.

I'm curious...what does PSN offer that Live doesn't? Pleeeeeeeeease don't say Home

Free online gaming, user generated content, alternate online models like MMO, larger downloadable PSN games.

Actually, Microsoft clearly borrowed elements from Home. So pleeeeeeeeeeeese don't underestimate it. They may be forced to borrow more from Home in the future again.

The 'free' argument doesn't matter. My steak was fresh, yours was spoiled. But yours was free right so it's ok right? In the end it doesn't matter, I'm left satisfied, and you are left with a stomach ache. Hiding behind the 'it's free' mantra doesn't work, at some point they have to decide to start being competitive or be left behind.

Free is one of the most powerful benefits in marketing. Why should Sony hide behind it ? It is front and center to their online strategy. Your example above is flawed because you assumed satisfaction is a 1 or 0 attribute. It's not. Online gaming on PSN can be fun and free at the same time. It may lack some features but it is by and large functional. The fact that it didn't crash like XBL during the holiday season is also a plus.

Flower and Fat princess are supposed to be good and well rated games, therefore a demo would benefit them. For them to not provide a demo is a mistake. The typical perception today is that no demo means the game sucks, so no demo automatically gives a negative impression. If your game doesn't suck, then make a demo. From a users perspective, not having demos for everything is maddening. PSN could offer a million games, and it would all be worthless to me if they didn't include demos.

Nope. No demo may mean the game suck on XBL. But on PSN, there is no enforced expectation like this. Ultimately, the developers have to decide whether the demo is worthwhile for them. If demo is a great sales tool, everyone would have done it without Microsoft forcing them to do so.

 

[Asher]

Still... MMO is a problem. User generated content is a problem... regardless of what you think whether MS is invincible or not.

I don't see how user generated content is a problem. There's several very notable games that support some form of user-generated content: Guitar Hero World Tour/5, Forza 2/3, and Halo 3 (Forge) most notably.

There's been no killer app for it a la LBP, but I don't see it as a systemic problem with XBL.

Free online gaming, user generated content, alternate online models like MMO, larger downloadable PSN games.

Free, it has. User-generated content, see above. MMOs, yes they're more amenable to them but it's also widely known that Cryptic (Star Trek Online, Champions Online) and Turbine (undisclosed MMO) are working with Microsoft on launching MMOs on XBL "soon". It's a business issue, not a technical one. As for downloadable games, I don't think this is a checkbox argument anymore with the release of large games like Shadow Complex on XBLA.

Actually, Microsoft clearly borrowed elements from Home too. So pleeeeeeeese don't underestimate it. They may be forced to borrow more from Home in the future.

What exactly did they borrow from Home? Avatars are a direct ripoff of the Mii feature on the Wii, that's the only thing I could possibly think of...

Free is one of the most powerful benefits in marketing. Why should Sony hide behind it ? It is front and center to their online strategy. Your example above is flawed because you assumed satisfaction is a 1 or 0 attribute. It's not. Online gaming on PSN can be fun and free at the same time. It may lack some features but it is by and large functional. The fact that it didn't crash like XBL during the holiday season is also a plus.

The fact is it didn't crash like XBL during the holiday season because there wasn't near the scale of the demand on the XBL. By the way, XBL was fine the past holiday season. It was just the one where it went down due to insane demand levels, it's been rock solid ever since. Which, as I've discussed with you before, is more than I can say with the free Sony services on PSN (Home and the Store), which disconnect me early and often...even today when I was trying to download the NHL demo.

What joker's point is, I think, is that "free" is nice when it's a great service. The unfortunate thing, for Sony, is that they have a "free" service which, frankly, isn't that pleasant to work with. It's inconsistent, lacking features people deem basic, etc. There's definitely a market for that, but unfortunately it doesn't really match up with the (historical) price of the device. People who will use a free service instead of a better paid service could be considered "frugal", but this "frugal" customer would also be the person who would likely buy the 360 for $100 less than the PS3 to play largely the same game.

You could give me a free 720p HDTV that I'd accept and put somewhere, much like I've created my PSN account, but when I've got a 1080p TV that I paid a pretty penny for, I'll continue using it. Free is great, but only to people who cannot afford to spend money on their entertainment. While I appreciate that demographic (students, children, cash-strapped families, etc), it is not a demographic I'd be gunning for with my business models.

If demo is a great sales tool, everyone would have done it without Microsoft forcing them to do so.

Demos are demonstrably and historically great sales tools. The problem is they cost money and time to make, which most developers can't do unless a gun is put to their heads. I don't buy games unless they have solid reputations or have a demo. Which means I don't think I've ever bought a PSN game, which is unfortunately as I've heard many of them are quite good. I just don't want to risk it. I can't sell it if I don't like it.

 

[tirminyl]

What Gears of War II issues? The CoD4 holiday fiasco -- was that the holiday that XBL was down for days due to millions of people on at the same time?

Halo 3's launch, I'm not aware of any issues that existed then. I certainly played just fine.

The only thing I can think of happening around that time was XBL going down around Christmas 2007. If they are using the excuse that it was due to millions of users on at the same time...isn't that what they are supposed to be prepared for? Didn't they already go through that once before as well? Not to mention the mess of people Live profiles being corrupted or not being able to play games locally on their console because the network was down.

Best of luck to those who use ps3 only for DVD/BD and try to download stuff in the background frequently.

There is also the option to turn off the PS3 after downloads are finished. I agree it should be on by default, but the option is there.

Flower and Fat princess are supposed to be good and well rated games, therefore a demo would benefit them. For them to not provide a demo is a mistake. The typical perception today is that no demo means the game sucks, so no demo automatically gives a negative impression. If your game doesn't suck, then make a demo. From a users perspective, not having demos for everything is maddening. PSN could offer a million games, and it would all be worthless to me if they didn't include demos.

If you know the game is good then get it. From a publishers perspective a demo doesn't necessarily sell the game. You have many games that provide a bad demo that really doesn't get the point of the game across. Users play it, get a bad taste, share their opinion with friends and thats that. One could argue that the developers should have provided a better demo but some could be hard to split and give good gameplay without giving away the story.

Point is, game demos go both ways. If I am iffy on a game, a demo would be nice but I would most likely rent the game or just pass. If I know I like the game then I will get it. I don't need a demo to confirm what I have already seen. That is just me though.

I'm curious...what does PSN offer that Live doesn't? Pleeeeeeeeease don't say Home.

Free multiplayer and day 1 demo access (even if you don't think PSN has demos). I don't keep an active Live gold membership but I am constantly reminded that I can't hop online and play L4D randomly or download a new demo. Hell, sometimes I feel like I should be lucky to sign in as a silver member. Of course this will be nothing more than arguing opinion on what someone prefers or feel is useful to them. I just need the basics. I don't care about party chatting with people while they play their own games. I'm busy playing my game, bugger off and play your own game.

Again, personal opinion on what feature is important to x person.

The fact is it didn't crash like XBL during the holiday season because there wasn't near the scale of the demand on the XBL. By the way, XBL was fine the past holiday season. It was just the one where it went down due to insane demand levels, it's been rock solid ever since. Which, as I've discussed with you before, is more than I can say with the free Sony services on PSN (Home and the Store), which disconnect me early and often...even today when I was trying to download the NHL demo.

Then maybe you need to look into your local network settings. XBL has still gone down but nothing like it did that holiday. I assume those recent events were due to insane demand as well?

Also all this talk about basic features? What is basic features? From reading various forums, XBL getting Twitter and Facebook integration is another "basic" feature that PSN must provide or else it will remain leagues behind XBL. Is every thing Microsoft adds to XBL a basic feature now?

 

[joker454]

Huh ? Unblocking or forwarding Warhawk ports is reaching ? I am just saying the problem may be local. The network support staff would be more than happy to help you solve a real problem.

Ok, let me simplify the issue. If i have to call an isp to play a console game, then something on said console is poorly implemented. No one should have to call their isp to play a game, period. It's not like my network is magical in any way, every other device on our network functions perfectly fine.

Free is one of the most powerful benefits in marketing. Why should Sony hide behind it ? It is front and center to their online strategy. Your example above is flawed because you assumed satisfaction is a 1 or 0 attribute. It's not. Online gaming on PSN can be fun and free at the same time. It may lack some features but it is by and large functional. The fact that it didn't crash like XBL during the holiday season is also a plus.

It's a weakness in their strategy. For one, people that go with free are less likely to spend money on other stuff. It's like that Cable vs. DirecTV argument. Cable may have more subscribers, but they are 'cheap' subscribers that don't spend much money beyond the basics. DirecTV on the other hand costs more and has less subscribers, but those same subscribers spend more money on other stuff and therefore have more value from a business point of view. XBLive can be easily had for $30/year. If $2.50 per month represents an Insurmountable Obstacle (tm) to some people (even with all the added benefits of XBLive), then these same people would probably not be spending as much money on other stuff online anyways. So as clients, they are less valuable. It's moot anyways since I don't personally believe that PSN will be free forever.

Nope. No demo may mean the game suck on XBL. But on PSN, there is no enforced expectation like this. Ultimately, the developers have to decide whether the demo is worthwhile for them. If demo is a great sales tool, everyone would have done it without Microsoft forcing them to do so.

Let me simplify this one also. If you personally had the choice of having the state of PSN demos be primitive as it is now, or having every single PSN product have a demo, which would you prefer? Can you really say with a straight face that you prefer that demos not be available for many of the games?

 

[joker454]

If you know the game is good then get it.

That's the problem...I have no idea if the game is good because I can't play a demo! I'm not about to start guessing by buying games and hoping they are good. Sorry but there is no need to do that when I can get demos on the other platform. So this one simple issue renders PSN mostly worthless to me.

and day 1 demo access (even if you don't think PSN has demos).

You do not get day 1 demo access, demos on PSN are frequently delayed. This of course is purposely done because Sony chargers publishers for the bandwidth. So, put the demo on the 360 first where there is no bandwidth cost, and that might reduce how many download the demo on PS3 later, hence saving the publisher piles of money.

 

[tirminyl]

You do not get day 1 demo access, demos on PSN are frequently delayed. This of course is purposely done because Sony chargers publishers for the bandwidth. So, put the demo on the 360 first where there is no bandwidth cost, and that might reduce how many download the demo on PS3 later, hence saving the publisher piles of money.

What demos are frequently delayed? Is this the same "delayed" that millions of silver users have to face when a demo is released on the 360 first?

When a demo is released on PSN, ALL PSN users get day 1 demo access.

 

[RobertR1]

Fat Princess, Killzone 2, SOCOM and Warhawk had major server issues during launch. Just browse a popular forum and look at the thread history. It's a joke to think people need to call their ISP over this. When Gears 2 had it's issues, no one suggesting calling up the ISP over it.

The demo's on PSN would be a great offering for their downloadable games. There have been quite a few well regarded game on Live Arcade and every single one had a demo. Since the DL games tend to carry buzz through word of mouth (due to lack of retail marketing), a demo can really help the process out. The apologist stance and worse yet, 180 degree spin on a lack of a demo and calling up your ISP over a game's poor online implementation at startup is pitiful.

 

[Asher]

Then maybe you need to look into your local network settings.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with them. I run DD-WRT on a Linksys 310N, no other devices have any issues whatsoever. I can't fathom what configuration setting it could be as it's essentially all default configuration settings. If the answer is repeatedly to blame the user or the user's equipment even when all of the other consoles, devices, and computers work reliably just fine, perhaps the problem is in the most obvious place?

XBL has still gone down but nothing like it did that holiday. I assume those recent events were due to insane demand as well?

I'm personally unaware of any unexpected downtime recently. When was that?

Also all this talk about basic features? What is basic features?

Universal friendslist in all games on the platform, mandated and systematic, consistent support for voice chat, cross-game messaging and game invites, universal support for trophy browsing, friends browsing, etc. These are rather fundamental to how I, and I presume many other console online gamers, use our systems.

From reading various forums, XBL getting Twitter and Facebook integration is another "basic" feature that PSN must provide or else it will remain leagues behind XBL. Is every thing Microsoft adds to XBL a basic feature now?

Frankly, this is an offensively absurd strawman. I actually loathe the addition of "features" like Facebook and Twitter. I see it as pointlessly stupid and bloatware.

I'm referring to the true basic features -- features that revolve around building a gaming platform for a gaming community. Making it easy for people to connect and play with their friends.

 

[patsu]

I don't see how user generated content is a problem. There's several very notable games that support some form of user-generated content: Guitar Hero World Tour/5, Forza 2/3, and Halo 3 (Forge) most notably.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...live-not-ready-for-user-generated-content.ars

Free, it has. User-generated content, see above. MMOs, yes they're more amenable to them but it's also widely known that Cryptic (Star Trek Online, Champions Online) and Turbine (undisclosed MMO) are working with Microsoft on launching MMOs on XBL "soon". It's a business issue, not a technical one. As for downloadable games, I don't think this is a checkbox argument anymore with the release of large games like Shadow Complex on XBLA.

As I mentioned above, XBL and PSN will hurry to overtake each other. Will see what comes out of these MMO announcements. It is indeed a business issue. As for large downloadable games, Microsoft is trying to close the gap and have announced newer plans, but PSN has already done this for the past 3 years.

What exactly did they borrow from Home? Avatars are a direct ripoff of the Mii feature on the Wii, that's the only thing I could possibly think of...

Purchasable and sponsored items for the Avatar ? Sony sold 1 million worth of Santa Claus clothing items within the first week. You'll see more Home-like business models for the Avatars (e.g., Advertisements with Avatars)

The fact is it didn't crash like XBL during the holiday season because there wasn't near the scale of the demand on the XBL. By the way, XBL was fine the past holiday season. It was just the one where it went down due to insane demand levels, it's been rock solid ever since. Which, as I've discussed with you before, is more than I can say with the free Sony services on PSN (Home and the Store), which disconnect me early and often...even today when I was trying to download the NHL demo.

PSN user base has increased too. So far there has been no worldwide failures partly also because each game handles its own infrastructure. There are fewer "single point of failure". Isolated connection problems will always be there even for XBL.

What joker's point is, I think, is that "free" is nice when it's a great service. The unfortunate thing, for Sony, is that they have a "free" service which, frankly, isn't that pleasant to work with. It's inconsistent, lacking features people deem basic, etc. There's definitely a market for that, but unfortunately it doesn't really match up with the (historical) price of the device. People who will use a free service instead of a better paid service could be considered "frugal", but this "frugal" customer would also be the person who would likely buy the 360 for $100 less than the PS3 to play largely the same game.

My point is: Yes. there are nice XBL features but free is still a valid and fundamental benefit. You can play *any* PS3 online game for free. He/she doesn't have to be frugal. People may just think that it is not worthwhile to pay for the P2P online infrastructure.

Demos are demonstrably and historically great sales tools. The problem is they cost money and time to make, which most developers can't do unless a gun is put to their heads. I don't buy games unless they have solid reputations or have a demo. Which means I don't think I've ever bought a PSN game, which is unfortunately as I've heard many of them are quite good. I just don't want to risk it. I can't sell it if I don't like it.

Business people are not stupid. If demo improves profit (not just revenue) on an overall scale, they will gladly do it without people pushing them. From user perspective, consumers would love it. But at the same time, they can also abuse it.

 

[Asher]

What demos are frequently delayed? Is this the same "delayed" that millions of silver users have to face when a demo is released on the 360 first?

When a demo is released on PSN, ALL PSN users get day 1 demo access.

A lot of my PS3-only owning friends were actually quite livid that the NHL 10 demo was delayed on the PS3. It's not the first time.

It's an advertised limitations of Xbox Live Silver and it's an undocumented surprise with PSN so I don't think it's a big deal. In the case of NHL 10 I'm fairly sure XBL Silver users got it before the PS3 people did, in any case.

 

[tirminyl]

It's a weakness in their strategy. For one, people that go with free are less likely to spend money on other stuff. It's like that Cable vs. DirecTV argument. Cable may have more subscribers, but they are 'cheap' subscribers that don't spend much money beyond the basics. DirecTV on the other hand costs more and has less subscribers, but those same subscribers spend more money on other stuff and therefore have more value from a business point of view. XBLive can be easily had for $30/year. If $2.50 per month represents an Insurmountable Obstacle (tm) to some people (even with all the added benefits of XBLive), then these same people would probably not be spending as much money on other stuff online anyways. So as clients, they are less valuable. It's moot anyways since I don't personally believe that PSN will be free forever.

It also works the opposite way. Since I have to spend money to maintain a membership to enjoy the full benefit of my games, I don't purchase anything off XBL. Since I have a free membership that allows me to do the most important thing I want to do for free, online multiplayer, I spend lots of money on PSN.