MS says Sony has no strategy for on-line

[patsu]

I think Microsofts mistake with Live is that they fail to realize that they could potentially make a lot more money by offering a free service (and get more people online, including casual gamers.) and taking a small percentage of every download, microtransaction and tournament.

To be fair, they leaped early. But you're right, Microsoft should try to sustain the lead by understanding the online economy and dynamics better than anyone else. There are indeed different online business model experiments by various game companies.

As an outsider, I get the feeling that XBL is operationally and tactically advanced, but may not be a strategic breakthrough (yet)... until Microsoft or anyone can find a way to grow the adoption and usage by leaps and bounds. But that's just me.

 

[Titanio]

No, we have context for Halo 3. We've seen Halo 1 and Halo 2. We have not seen version 1 yet of Sony's online strategy.

We have, we've seen more via PSP too, whatever you may think of it. And Sony have talked about it, even if they've not blown the lid off it yet.

No offense, but it's simply stupid to think Sony does not have an online plan for PS3, that no such thing exists.

 

[pegisys]

I think Microsofts mistake with Live is that they fail to realize that they could potentially make a lot more money by offering a free service (and get more people online, including casual gamers.) and taking a small percentage of every download, microtransaction and tournament.

besides the tournaments that exactly what they are doing with the silver package

they might end up making more money from silver customers buying stuff off of marketplace then gold customers just paying the 50 bucks a year to play online

 

[Sis]

We have, we've seen more via PSP too, whatever you may think of it. And Sony have talked about it, even if they've not blown the lid off it yet.

No offense, but it's simply stupid to think Sony does not have an online plan for PS3, that no such thing exists.

You are mistaking "have they thought about it" with "they are going to have something ready".

I'm sure they've thought about it. I'm sure Steve Ballmer is sure they've thought about it. Whether they will have something ready is a matter of blind faith. Whether what they offer is on par with Xbox Live first gen, let alone second gen, is a matter of faith.

 

[Ben-Nice]

The major difference between Sony and MS is the online component. MS basically is putting a tremendous amount of stock in Live. Sony is more like " we didn't do enough with the PS2 online. We will improve that on the PS3 but it's too soon to invest a billion dollars into it". Live is good but I personally don't think it's that important. I mean I have no problem with PC gaming online and there isn't a unified service. The one advantage to not having a Live service is the serve size. Live has to use MS servers so all the games max out at like 32 players. BF2 for the 360 is 24 players. COD2 online is 8 player (which is pathetic) that is lame. I think on the PS3, say for unreal or something they will have there own dedicated servers. It was rather obvious PS2 online was not very good because the system wasn't made to do it out of the box. The PS3 online will be better but nothing like Live and I most definitely think that is not what will make or break them...YET.

 

[Titanio]

You are mistaking "have they thought about it" with "they are going to have something ready".

I'm sure they've thought about it. I'm sure Steve Ballmer is sure they've thought about it. Whether they will have something ready is a matter of blind faith. Whether what they offer is on par with Xbox Live first gen, let alone second gen, is a matter of faith.

This isn't about Kutaragi thinking about it in his spare time. The question is whether they have a plan. Quality is irrelevant - it's simply about whether that have a plan or not. It is silly, IMO, to think they do not have a plan.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself..

 

[patsu]

Yes. I think the online war will be fought based largely on economics (pricing model, buddy/family plans, reaching out to non online gamers or even casual gamers, how easy/cheap it is to get any content provider to offer a service, ...). Specific features in XBL does not and probably will not make a big difference as long as the entire package is easy to use.

The current XBL lead is tactical and operational. It is *NOT* difficult to set up an online ecology for the Playstation and Nintendo franchises. The draw is already there for years. However it is very difficult to set up one that can sustain on its own and even make as much money as possible. So I'm glad Sony and Nintendo take their time to think through.

Regarding Sony's "hard" online infrastructure, I'm guessing they will offer:

* Client-side single sign-on (as opposed to XBL's server-centric approach).

* Marketplace to simplify business-to-consumer and consumer-to-consumer trading
- CONNECT being a flagship store
- Combination of *peer-to-peer* and server-centric approaches
- Possibly support BD-J for seamless, downloadable content in the future (Unlikely at launch)

* Libraries to simplify standard online services deployment for game developers

* Options to use selected Internet services (e.g., Yahoo IM, AOL IM, GoogleTalk, ...)
- Possibly partner with google to crawl and search PS3 content on Sony-Online enabled sites, so the search result appear better on SD and HD TV sets.

* Tie in with existing Sony efforts such as PSP, LocationFree, DLNA, ...

The rest will probably be "soft" offerings including free/preview Sony content. That's a great starting point for me.

EDITED: Added more stuff to wish-list above

 

[Sis]

This isn't about Kutaragi thinking about it in his spare time. The question is whether they have a plan. Quality is irrelevant - it's simply about whether that have a plan or not. It is silly, IMO, to think they do not have a plan.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself..

Titanio, I think I get what your saying but I believe I covered that in my earlier posts. As of today, Sony's online plan could be as sparse as the PS2--unlikely, or as rich as Xbox Live for the 360--also unlikely. It falls somewhere in the middle, but that's a pretty large middle ground.

I don't know, maybe I'm missing the point. But if you were Steve Ballmer, how would you respond to being asked "how do you think Xbox Live stacks up against Sony's online offering?" Because I can almost gaurantee all the questions were worded to get the best sound bite and Next-gen--which apparently feeds on these kind of over-the-top, meaningless articles--lead with the quote.

EDIT: just noticed it was gameindustry.biz, not next-gen. Hard to tell those two apart...

 

[winstonsmith1978]

besides the tournaments that exactly what they are doing with the silver package

they might end up making more money from silver customers buying stuff off of marketplace then gold customers just paying the 50 bucks a year to play online

exactly, so why not get rid of the Silver and Gold package, open up Live to everyone, and make a great online community and also make lots and lots of money.

This is whats preventing Live from really shining. But in Microsofts defence, they may make a switch if Sony and Nintendo actually put some pressure on them.

 

[Avon_Implosion]

And i wouldn't expect him to say anything otherwise. Live is MS' only real icon which sets them apart from Sony and Ninty...i dont think they would ever acknowledge that their rivals have a service that competes with Live, let alone a cohesive online service at all.

 

[ban25]

The assumption you seem to be making is two fold: 1) Duplicating the Xbox Live service is easy to do and 2) Duplicating the Xbox Live service is cheap. I will be very impressed if Sony is able to immitate Xbox Live with their first version. I'll be even more impressed if it's free.

Huh? Never used ICQ or the all seeing eye? I'm surprised people let themselves be charged $50 a year for such basic services.

 

[ban25]

Is that kind of motivational display just an American thing? Because where I'm from, I wouldn't find it the least bit motivating - it was just embarassing to watch. If I had been in the room I'd just have sunk into my chair and started asking myself why I was having to deal with this company, and whether anyone would miss me if I sneaked off down the pub instead of turning up for the rest of the conference...

Actually, I was thinking British...i.e. Ricky Gervais and the Office.

 

[mckmas8808]

Titanio, I think I get what your saying but I believe I covered that in my earlier posts. As of today, Sony's online plan could be as sparse as the PS2--unlikely, or as rich as Xbox Live for the 360--also unlikely. It falls somewhere in the middle, but that's a pretty large middle ground.

I don't know, maybe I'm missing the point. But if you were Steve Ballmer, how would you respond to being asked "how do you think Xbox Live stacks up against Sony's online offering?" Because I can almost gaurantee all the questions were worded to get the best sound bite and Next-gen--which apparently feeds on these kind of over-the-top, meaningless articles--lead with the quote.

EDIT: just noticed it was gameindustry.biz, not next-gen. Hard to tell those two apart...

Sony has already stated that online will be built into the PS3 unlike what the PS2 had. To me online was an add-on just as must the HDD for the PS2 was an add-on. Sony has said that online will be within the DNA of the PS3. So I'm expected something like what MS did with the Xbox just with Sony's on flavor.

 

[a688]

Sony has already stated that online will be built into the PS3 unlike what the PS2 had. To me online was an add-on just as must the HDD for the PS2 was an add-on. Sony has said that online will be within the DNA of the PS3. So I'm expected something like what MS did with the Xbox just with Sony's on flavor.

How much in the "DNA" will the online really be with the PS3 (at least in regards to games). I have a feeling that in the "DNA" means ethernet is built in from the get go this time, not that they have a xbox live type service.

 

[one]

How much in the "DNA" will the online really be with the PS3 (at least in regards to games). I have a feeling that in the "DNA" means ethernet is built in from the get go this time, not that they have a xbox live type service.

Maybe these guys know something, duh

http://www.devstation.scee.com/speakers

Micha Werle
Senior Engineer

Micha joined SCEE in early 2002 and has been applying his networking skills and knowledge in the area of online console gaming ever since. His current focus is integrating middleware with the SCEE Networking Gaming Service as well as working on new network-related technologies both for established consoles as well as the upcoming PS3.

Micha is going to present a low-level overview of PS3 networking.

Mike Kavallierou
Director

Mike has been back at SCEE since May 2003, having spent the previous 2 and a half years at Microsoft working on Xbox and Xbox Live. His first industry job was also at SCEE working on PlayStation and PlayStation 2 in developer support up until the day of European launch. He has a great collection of NDAs from his previous employers, and his current focus is network technologies on all platforms.

Mike is going to talk about PS3 networking.

 

[mckmas8808]

How much in the "DNA" will the online really be with the PS3 (at least in regards to games). I have a feeling that in the "DNA" means ethernet is built in from the get go this time, not that they have a xbox live type service.

We are going to have to wait and see. Hopefully at the Feb. event we will know something more. If not maybe some devs can leak some of the things that will be said at the Devstation meeting.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

We are going to have to wait and see. Hopefully at the Feb. event we will know something more.

Assuming there is a Feb event...

 

[mckmas8808]

Assuming there is a Feb event...

Okay Joe come on man. Enough with the funnies.

 

[Powderkeg]

I think Microsofts mistake with Live is that they fail to realize that they could potentially make a lot more money by offering a free service (and get more people online, including casual gamers.) and taking a small percentage of every download, microtransaction and tournament.

Sony and Nintendo may see this. I compare it to Magic Online, if you've ever played this game online, then you'll realize how great of a system they have. You give them real money and convert it into tickets(similar to xbox points or whatever their called) but then, when you enter a tournament, it costs a certain amount of tickets. MO keeps a small amount of the real money a filters the rest back into the system as prizes or remaining tickets for the winners of the the tournament.

Casual gamers don't want to pay for Comcast and games and systems and then have to pay Microsoft more for going online. Microsoft could potentially get a lot more people online and still make lots of money with a free system.

You've clearly never seen the Xbox Live marketplace.

MS is going to make a fortune online. People are already PAYING for gamertag pics (Anywhere from 25 cents to a couple of dollars) changing Gamertags ($8.50) skin packs for some games, Dashboard themes, Xbox Live arcade games, etc...

And it's not one or two, it's huge numbers of them.

You see, MS sells Marketplace "Points" which you can then use to buy items in the marketplace. The Marketplace points usually cost around $20 for 1800 points, and there are a ton of little customizable items, options, and games for sales.

MS knows where the real money is, and they'll make a ton off the marketplace.

 

[winstonsmith1978]

You've clearly never seen the Xbox Live marketplace.

MS is going to make a fortune online. People are already PAYING for gamertag pics (Anywhere from 25 cents to a couple of dollars) changing Gamertags ($8.50) skin packs for some games, Dashboard themes, Xbox Live arcade games, etc...

And it's not one or two, it's huge numbers of them.

You see, MS sells Marketplace "Points" which you can then use to buy items in the marketplace. The Marketplace points usually cost around $20 for 1800 points, and there are a ton of little customizable items, options, and games for sales.

MS knows where the real money is, and they'll make a ton off the marketplace.

I know how it works but i would like to see Microsoft branch out to get more casual gamers. Online will be a huge succes for Microsoft, when they get around 50% of their xbox owners online. I'm not sure charging $50 dollars a year will bring in those numbers.

A free service wouldn't actually be free. Microsoft would still make the same amount of money by bringing in more people. It's a great service but theres room for improvement. The only people i know, on Live, are hardcore gamers but yet casual gamers own xbox's and high speed internet connections. Imagine what microsoft could do, if they got them online.

the fact that microsoft has opened up a little with their silver service, shows that it's not perfect. but i still see the average joe having no part with Live, simply because of the $50 dollars.