GTA creator criticising Sony online plan

[RancidLunchmeat]

I've got a better question... why does anybody thing that Sony can provide an intregrated online service that will handle single user ids, single credit card purchases etc, single stat compliations, throughout their network without providing a hardware infrastructure that will cost extra dollars and result in passing that cost off to the consumer?

Sure.. it's all great and dandy that I can play BF or F.E.A.R. or HL2, or whatever.. all online for free from my PC.

But what I do in F.E.A.R. isn't related at all to what I do in HL2.

LIVE! changes that. It makes it so that if I'm playing some great player in Halo2, I can go play them in Madden 2007. HEY! You might have beaten me in THIS game but how about this OTHER GAME? Wanna go, fool?

If Sony is going to provide that same service for FREE, then clearly, they've got the advantage because we have to pay for that kind of service with MS.

But that isn't what they are even advertising. I find it extremely amusing that people are taking what MS is offering and then somehow believing that Sony is going to offer that service for FREE.

Does anybody have any idea how much money it cost MS in order to develop the hardware and the software necessary in order to accomplish their LIVE! Anywhere system?

I'd bet that the cost of the LIVE! infrastructure that MS has created blows away their supposed 'xbox loses', because the entire point of the Xbox (and the 360) was to get into the living room to do exactly what they are doing now, which is onyl accomplished by the NETWORK!

To believe that Sony completely ignored the network last generation (when MS spent a great deal of their 'losses' creating one), and can somehow now provide an equal network for FREE, is just astonishing.

What you're going to get with the PS3 network is going to be a slight improvement over the PS2 network, and that's only because every PS3 will be network ready while every PS2 wasn't.

If the PS3 network is as good as LIVE! (Xbox) I'd be shocked. And it won't come close to Live! Anywhere for the 360.

They simply didn't put their resources behind that venture because they couldn't afford to. If they did, each PS3 would cost $900 instead of $600.

 

[-tkf-]

http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6653

In an inteview with Edge Magazine, Jones said, “I seriously question Sony’s policy of leaving it down to publishers to come up with their own standards for each [online] game. I completely disagree with it. I’m not going to put my credit card details with five different companies for some bits of downloadable content. Sony is a huge force, and definitely has been with the PS2 – but now I see it being, at worst, a 50/50 race, but as time goes on I lean more and more towards Microsoft."


What's your opinion on this?

What he loves about LIVE was the reason why EA took so long to get onboard on XBOX live afaik.

 

[inefficient]

Not creator of GTA3

It should also be further qualified that he is not the creator of GTA3 but rather the original 2D gta games.

The 2D games were nice and all, but they cannot be compared to the record shattering earth moving monster that GTA3 became.

 

[Crayon]

What you're going to get with the PS3 network is going to be a slight improvement over the PS2 network, and that's only because every PS3 will be network ready while every PS2 wasn't.

I don't think you're qualified to tell me what I'm going to get with the PS3 network.

In fact, I know you're not.

They are going to make the network for world peace. They are going to make if to sell you schloads of music and media downloads. No reason to charge for peer to peer gaming and *omg* voice over ip and *swoon* INSANT MESSAGING.... stop stop, I need to slow down.

Sorry, I cant go on. The thought of getting all kinds of shit that should be free for free kind of gets me wound up. I need a cig.

 

[xmu]

Umm, didn't Phil Harrison state at GDC'06 that they'll have centralized servers and a unified user id across all services?

 

[rabidrabbit]

Yea, but Sony lies, obviously.
At least according to some.

Don't smell the fishy here, they've clearly said it going to be free. The money comes from downloadable content.
At least the Sony games are. From what I understand, 3rd parties would be free to charge if they see it fit, but I doubt they will other than some MMORPG's.
The pressure is there for free online play, it would be very difficult for a publisher to justify and market a charge for online play.

One could, however, ponder whether online play is truly "free" if we get hal a game for our €59.99, with the rest downloadable online in form of "extra" maps, weapons, characters... If for example a Singstar game came wit 5 songs on the disc, with hundreds of additional songs downloadable for charge, the line gets blurry between free and paid online play.

Nothings truly free though in business, only on charity. It is marketed as "free" but there's always a cost. You might not be forced to pay for it, but you might want to

 

[liolio]

Guild wars is a good exemple of free online paying, but not all company will chose this politic if they have choice most of them will chose to tax consumer.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I've got a better question... why does anybody thing that Sony can provide an intregrated online service that will handle single user ids, single credit card purchases etc, single stat compliations, throughout their network without providing a hardware infrastructure that will cost extra dollars and result in passing that cost off to the consumer?

Chances are those costs will be passed on, but through other models such as content downloads.

Guildwars is just one of a new breed of 'free to own and play' games. It's a market that's evolving and looking quite viable, and more are trying it out. Here's a well balanced article on the matter : http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3726&Itemid=35

 

[hey69]

why would the cost be passed on ? you already pay that extra service when you buy your game (like on pc )

 

[Sethamin]

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

That being said, I'd prefer to compare a released product to a released product, not "What Phil Harrison said" to a released product. The great thing about unreleased products is that you can pour all your wishes and dreams into them and get out rainbows and puppy dog tails.

Learn to develop some healthy skepticism people; when was the last time Sony delivered exactly what they promised? I don't think I'm going out on a limb to predict that the service will have some problems at launch and there'll be some caveats to their promises; the real question what they'll be. Only time will tell.

 

[patsu]

Yap, over the years (being an early adopter), I have already developed a stomach and mind for disappointments and skeptisms. The point is:

* It is probably impossible for Sony to offer an online gaming experiences that are on par with XBL. The latter has a multi-year head start. Software + network is MS's strength. Sony's reference today should be the average PC online games (SOE ?).

* Free is free. While some people argue that they don't need Blu-ray to enjoy gaming, it's also true that unified messaging does not contribute to gaming (It's a convenience and ease of use thing).

I suspect MS will react to Sony's play and try to offer a superior experiences for free. But that's just the good part about competition. So I'm in general positive about Sony's direction from consumer perspective.

 

[one]

IIRC, his new game (All Points Bulletin) is going to be published by Webzen not only on Xbox 360 but also on PC. It's funny that he is against PC-style multiplayer.

 

[scooby_dooby]

BEst case scenario is SOny offers a free online gaming service, with unified username that basically matches XBLive's features. This would possibly force MS to adopt a similar approach, perhaps by embedding marketing and offer their service for free as well. Everyobody wins.

I just don't see Sony coming through, it doesn't seem like they've allocated nearly enough resources towards online gaming.

 

[Jimboc]

Online gaming is DEFINITELY free, both 1st and 3rd party. I've spoken to many a SCEA rep who have claimed as such. The only exceptions would be certain persistent MMO type games.

They have been asked the same question so many times, they recently updated the official PS3 site with the info:

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/about.html Question #13

We are sticking with our philosophy of maintaining an open platform; the online basic services such as playing online games, accessing downloadable content, and staying connected with your friends online will be offered to PLAYSTATION 3 users at no charge

.

 

[Crayon]

I just don't see Sony coming through, it doesn't seem like they've allocated nearly enough resources towards online gaming.

There's alot of us...No I just speak for myself.

Much like yourself, I don't know shit about the hard facts like how much Sony has spent, either. Or exactly what they are going to offer. =) - Yet I expect alot more than you do out of the service. Just think; Puppy Dog Tails!!!

Anyone notice that I forgot to type "not" in my previous post; producing the statement that Sony is buildid their network for world peace? yikes.

Anyhow. The "best case scenario" would be Sony having a network on day one that has all the features of MS' premium service for free. With more varied content to choose and a smoother (please) interface. Not exactly what I'm expecting, but sounds reasonable for a "best case".