Playstation "Live"

[passerby]

Also from "Encouraging Innovation in Game" keynote delivered bu Sony's Andrew House, this particular detail reported by gamespy caught my attention: http://archive.gamespy.com/gdc2004/house/

Accoding to House, SCEA believes it's headed in the right direction with its online initiatives. For 2004, it plans to shore up its existing plans by creating a standard protocol that will "bind the islands:" Users will have a single log-on, easy-to-understand billing, and widespread community features. Basically, Sony plans on catching up to Xbox Live's functionality, but without taking over the customer relations, which will still be controlled by the content developers.

Emulating XBox LIVE acknowledges the advantages of LIVE. But the "without taking over the customer relations" part is going to make things interesting, especially where EA is concerned.

 

[PARANOiA]

Notice billing is mentioned.

Well, now, amazing that even Sony acknowledges implementing an online infrastructure costs money So much for the "Live! is a rip-off, M$ sucks" stuff..

 

[Vince]

Notice billing is mentioned.

Well, now, amazing that even Sony acknowledges implementing an online infrastructure costs money So much for the "Live! is a rip-off, M$ sucks" stuff..

Notice that it doesn't state what utilities will necessitate billing? Notice that you comment regardless?

Also, AFAIK I've been playing SOCOMI&II for free on Sony's servers....

 

[Ty]

Also, AFAIK I've been playing SOCOMI&II for free on Sony's servers....

Yes it's free. Which probably helps to explain how the PS2 is way ahead of XBox connectivity #s (and of course having a user base several times larger helps too). SOCOM hits 70k unique users a day. Whew.

 

[cthellis42]

Well, billing will certainly apply from case to case, and it's easier to cover if it's handled centrally, but I don't think they'll be going too far that way--the market has shown itself pretty leery thus far. In the meanwhile, the more advantageous features they can stack in without adding a subscription charge, the better. If they're indeed planning on encorporating video-conferencing via the EyeToy and other plans, they're better off tossing in as much as they can cover otherwise.

 

[Qroach]

All I could say is that I knew this was heading this route from the very start. All the people bitching abuot xbox live will be suprised to find out sony is going to do something similar.

 

[ChryZ]

All I could say is that I knew this was heading this route from the very start. All the people bitching abuot xbox live will be suprised to find out sony is going to do something similar.

Nope, we are going to bitch about Sony too ... charging for peer-to-peer gaming deserves it

 

[Qroach]

Nope, we are going to bitch about Sony too ... charging for peer-to-peer gaming deserves it

What difference does it make if it's peer to peer or a client server setup, you're still playing online against other people. does having dedicated game servers make it more worth the money? Once again I'd ask "why" would it?

Vince, if you really think Sony is setting up a billing system only for the developers, I think you're looking at it wrong. Sony is setting up the billing for themselves first, and then any develoeprs that want to charge pay for play, can after that. I'd be willing to wager some large some of cash on the fact sony is going to setup their online network in way that almost emulates xbox live, right down to charging a yearly or month fee for access.

 

[Guden Oden]

What difference does it make if it's peer to peer or a client server setup, you're still playing online against other people. does having dedicated game servers make it more worth the money? Once again I'd ask "why" would it?

Um, if they make you pay for peer-to-peer online play, what exactly are you then paying for? What is it they're giving you in return for your money?

Nothing, that's what. That's what you call a 'rip-off' in plain English.

Users paid for the game when they bought it, they pay your internet fee to your ISP, why should anyone then pay extra for the privilege of doing P2P gaming when no outside parties are involved and everything that is needed to play online has been bought and paid for once already?

 

[Qroach]

Um, if they make you pay for peer-to-peer online play, what exactly are you then paying for? What is it they're giving you in return for your money?

Matchmaking, stored stats, tournaments, prizes and a ranking system. If you've played Xbox live you shouldn't need to ask that question.

Nothing, that's what. That's what you call a 'rip-off' in plain English.

Nonesense.

Users paid for the game when they bought it, they pay your internet fee to your ISP, why should anyone then pay extra for the privilege of doing P2P gaming when no outside parties are involved and everything that is needed to play online has been bought and paid for once already?

As I said before, what difference does it make if it's peer to peer, or client user relationship when it invovles paying for it? A few of you keep saying "peer to peer" in a bad way for some reason, but have yet to say why does it matter? That's just it, to the end user a peer to peer or client server just doesn't matter and for most the majority of online games, you just don't need dedicated servers that users can't control. You need dedicated servers for Massively multiplayer games, but why would you need to them other than that reason.

 

[function]

Xbox Live offers a centralised player matching service, that also handles communication, billing and downloads / patches. At the end of the day, if you don't think it's worth it, you shouldn't pay for it.

Also, how many Xbox games are actualy peer to peer? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but then again I've not played too many. Just stuff like PGR2 and Unreal Championship. Perhaps PSO [is peer to peer], I'm not sure how that works.

 

[whipper snapper]

Sony already does this in Europe with Central Station, buddy lists, match making, email and IM, competitions etc, etc. All for free.

 

[Qroach]

You meen "aren't" peer to peer, right?

You're right, the only game that isn't peer to peer right now is PSO. There's no point in writting and supporting a dedicated game server for something that supports 16 or less players. It may be a popular thing to do with PC titles, but that because it's easier than integrating the game server directly inside the game.

 

[Qroach]

Sony already does this in Europe with Central Station, buddy lists, match making, email and IM, competitions etc, etc. All for free.

...and how many games support this? I've tried to support this in a pool game I worked on, and it was totally horrible. Undocumented, with very little developer support. We ended up just switching to gamespy which worked flawlessly.

Btw, if they are doing all that for free, why would they add billing to that? Well IMO, someone has to pay for that service if it's large enough.

 

[Qroach]

Well anyway, I have work to do, but if anyone can come up with a good argument on why a online service that is made up of dedicated servers is worth paying for, and a online service that is mostly made up of peer - peer games isn't worth it to the end users, then please post your resoning behind that.

 

[London Geezer]

Well anyway, I have work to do, but if anyone can come up with a good argument on why a online service that is made up of dedicated servers is worth paying for, and a online service that is mostly made up of peer - peer games isn't worth it to the end users, then please post your resoning behind that.

Personally, i'm not online, but if i was, i would pay, just "for the trouble".

Still, i can understand how some people can think that P2P is not worth the money because Sony/MS are not "doing anything" when i play as P2P, such as provide servers (which are an investment that needs to be supported financially to run) and services (also needs financial support to keep running).

As i said, i would still pay, game developers could do with bigger budgets for their games. In the end the more money they have to make games, the happier i am. In the end i see it as a return on my investment Just don't burst my bubble ok?

 

[Farid]

Btw, if they are doing all that for free, why would they add billing to that?

We don't know how the billing will be used.
It could be used only for "special downloads" (add-ons, musics , movies...)
It also be used for some "specific" games such as MMORPGs, or it may be offered as a solution for the Publishers who wants to make you pay for the online gaming.

It just make the whole possibilities of online gaming , easier from a publisher and a consumer point of view.

For example , if EA wanna charge you for online gaming on Madden (or whatever) and Capcom charges you for monster hunter ,and you downloaded an add-on for everquest, you won't receive 3 bills....but only one.

If you want people to pay something , you have to make easier as possible...

But we have to keep in mind that doesn't mean (for the moment at least , if i 've understand everything right) that sony goes the 100% online billing.

 

[function]

You meen "aren't" peer to peer, right?

You're right, the only game that isn't peer to peer right now is PSO. There's no point in writting and supporting a dedicated game server for something that supports 16 or less players. It may be a popular thing to do with PC titles, but that because it's easier than integrating the game server directly inside the game.

I think some people may be confusing "peer to peer" with "none dedicated server run on an Xbox".

Just because someone is paying on a machine doesn't mean it's not a server. Likewise, just because every machine in a game has a player, doesn't mean it's a peer to peer game.

In a game like Unreal Championship, it would make no sense not to use a client / server setup like the PC does, as you'd be greatly increasing network traffic and latency by having every peer communicate with every peer.

I'd also be suprised if in a game like Moto GP or PGR2 the "host" wasn't also the "server" by another name. Writing a game that won't just bounce you out if the host disconnects should be possible - either you just continue on your own or another machine takes over as host.

 

[ChryZ]

Well anyway, I have work to do, but if anyone can come up with a good argument on why a online service that is made up of dedicated servers is worth paying for, and a online service that is mostly made up of peer - peer games isn't worth it to the end users, then please post your resoning behind that.

dedicated servers = service involved with many costs (bandwidth, servers, ISP costs, etc)

I understand the costs behind it, paying for it is a fair deal.

peer-to-peer = my bandwidth, my hardware, my ISP costs

Paying for match-making is IMHO a rip-off, if anybody needs tags, stats, server-driven-voice-over-ip, etc then they should charge for it as a service.

 

[Qroach]

No you're right function, most of the peer-peer games on xbox are still really client server, they just aren't dedicated. Real peer to peer is like sega's sports games wher enly two people can play.