PS3 in the US press...

Sure, it's possible that developers will all get together and agree on a standard for this and share code and infrastructure across competing companies and magically come up with a system as smooth and integrated as on the 360 some time in the distant future. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Jesus people....it's really quite simple:

1) The on-line experience with the xbox 360 and with a Gold membership is presently the best on-line experience. Hands-down.
2) PS3's experience is not as good. But it's free. (At least with Sony titles).

"Some time in the future" PS3's experience may be able to come up to par with what the 360 offers right now. Then again, the 360 experience is a moving target.

In the long run...no one knows.

Move along.

 

Certainly you should not hold your breath waiting for it.

Assuming Achievements is a make-or-break feature...

Sony will have to define it eventually. They don't have to wait for developers to come up with it. I'm just pointing out a way where the Open Network approach can do the same thing without Sony providing the same infrastructure as XBL. As I mentioned, there are more than 1 way to build up a vibrant and useful online game infrastructure.

The thing is online gaming on PS3 is free. That is the most important feature for now. It will likely lag XBL in many nice elements, especially due to its late start. The launch-day online components are also rough as reported by the press.

But its open approach can also take a life of its own. Within a week, we are already seeing grass-root effort to extend PS3's web experience (e.g., www.redkawa.com).

EDIT: Ah ! Joe Defuria said the same thing in just a few lines.

 

Thing is it won't be the same at all, what makes XBLive cool is the way it integrates all these things to create a really easy, community feeling. Everything from voicechat, to friends list, to ingame messaging to comparing achievements creates a cool sense of community, it's all very easy and well done, and encourages you to go online and play with friends. When taken as a whole it's really a great system. When you talk about each feature out of context, you really don't get a feeling for the experience XBLive creates.

You can pick apart certain features, and say that each one can be done in an open platform, which is true, but the individual components will never equal the sum of all the parts.

p.s. The one place where XBLive fails is the actual gaming, lag lag lag lag lag...go figure

 

What do you gain from achievements ? A higher gamescore? I don't see what the big deal is.

 

Sure, my point is if I refuse to pay a monthly fee, I wouldn't care for these integrated-niceness. I'll have the core online gaming experience and let the open platform charts its course... copying features and innovating as expectation rises. There are more than 1 way to skin the cat.

EDIT: Now remind me again, which PS3 game allows private servers ? There is one but my memory fails me.

 

Yeah, I didn't either really until I tried it. At work we have some internal forums, loads of us have our gamercards as forum sigs. I can see what the other guys have been playing recently, I can look up their gamertag on xbox.com and compare our achievements in the games we've both been playing, I can add them to my friends list through the web from xbox.com while I'm at work and then from any game see when they're online and what game they're playing. People compete over their gamerscores and achievements. For me it's added a lot of replay value to my games - I want to get the achievements because it's forever reflected on my camercard and through my gamerscore. I wouldn't have tried to complete Burnout Revenge for example if it wasn't for the added draw of the gamerscore bonus but it actually is a great challenge trying to get perfect ratings for every race that I would never have pushed for without achievements.

 

I agree with heliosphere.. When I played a game with some random people and if I like their playing style/manner/etc., the first thing I do is look at their gamerscore, see what kind of games does she/he like, and see what she/he achieves on these games. If her/his interest matches mine, then I send friend invitation. Simple as that. An universal gamerscore card tells you a lot about one person's interest and skills about a particular game. You cannot have it if it is not a standard feature on the system.

 

Hold the phone! You mean you guys have been praising this Live! for it's services, yet it "fails" at the one thing that matters? So why is it worth paying for again? Oh snap! Forgot about Achievements and Gamerscore! You guys are nuts, I tells ya!

 

What online games other than ones that have a "rank" system show how much skill you have in a game? How can you tell how much skill someone has in a game like Kameo or Condemed etc using achievements?

 

Uhm... Excuse me? I've had to listen to people telling me how Live is the second coming of Elizabeth Taylor and now you tell me that the one thing that should matter (not bloody buddy lists and all that group-wank material stuff) doesn't actually work properly?!

Honestly, i give up.

 

It bothers me personally, because I expect more for my $60, *cough* dedicated servers *ahem* but alot of people are absolutely fine. Also, I should add the caveat that I've probably played all of 2 hours online, ever, so my experiences might just be more bad luck than anything.

BTW: all the extra features you meantioned, are FREE

 

Easily, in the case of Kameo you would look to see what 'grades' they had recieved on various stages, and whether they had achieved those...uhh...achievement

Condemned, you would be able to see what difficulty the played the game on, what levels they passed, and how hardcore they are by the amount of birds they collected in each level, similar to COG tags in GOW.

I must admit, the very first thing I do when someone joins my friend list is compare games...for example, I know that Bobbler wimped out and finished GOW on casual (hehe) and that NucNAv is still tryiung to finish act 5 on hardcore! And conversely....everyone probably knows I'm gay and play Viva Pinata! (not serious on the gay thing...I know how this board likes to run with that shit )...and I'm still the baddest mofo around when it comes to NHL 07!

 

By how many of the 1000 possible points they've got for that game. Most game have some achievements that require a pretty high level of skill to achieve. At the very least you can usually tell how much of the game they've completed and on what difficulty level.

 

For single-player games, It shows ones interest: If his achievement score is very low in those games (such as Kameo and Condemended), it means he is not interested that much (mean he bought the game but tossed it after playing for a while).

In multi-player games, it's kind of an indicator about his/her skills. Actually, for skills, leaderboards are a much better indicator, but then you have to dig a little bit more for that.

 

Scooby, I think it depends on the game. I guess GoW checks the ping time as well and then returns only games that you have low ping times. I have never experiences lag problem with GoW. On the other hand, I guess some other games (like Prey) returns whatever it finds, so lag problem was pure luck..

Btw, what was the topic?

 

That really depends on who you are playing and the network conditions between parties.

I have played a bit with a friend and most of the time lag isn't an issue--and I am pretty sensative to it. It is just like PC gaming--when playing someone from Japan or Europe it is gonna suck most times. When trying to play someone on the opposite coast, it is gonna suck at times. Even with server based PC games I knew server areas I would get a good experience from (e.g. NY & NJ, Chicago, Dallas) and others that stunk (Seattle, Florida, LA). That is due to my location (Ohio) and looking at the 'net backbone diagrams it makes a lot of sense. Likewise server load always makes a big difference, and even assuming no processing bottlenecks, there are still connectivity ones. Having a dude with a whimpy DSL 756/128 connection server a 16 player game has a high propensity to suck.

Even if MS moved completely over to server based model location issues would still be relevant.

Quality is one of the biggest concerns for online gaming in general. Not only in regards to human interaction (noobs, jerks who ruin games, cheaters, foul mouthed players, etc) but also the consistancy of the actual gameplay experience.

This is exactly why MS has developed a host of features to flesh out the online service: Coop (which MS is pushing), Achievements, XBLA, Buddy lists, chat and voice messaging, demos, trailers, and so forth. These are areas MS has much more control on the quality of their end of the service.

Not that online gaming with Live is bad in my experience. My experience has been the opposite and being quite pleased with the general performance of online games with Live considering the fact they are not using a dedicated server/facility model like PC games but allow in many cases for users to host games on their console and with their own local connection. The down side is we won't see many 64+ player games with this model, but my PC experience has been in many games those stink anyhow. And allowing people to serve their own games means more "servers" more often and no reliance on legacy platforms. Meaning you can break out a 3 year old game and not rely on EA or whoever to still be hosting servers for it.

Btw, this would be a good new thread: How much have you played live and what has your experience been in regards to a) features and b) gaming performance. On the later, how does it perform in games with people in your general local geographical area, and outside. Finally, what would you alter and add?

Anyhow, sure you know most of this, but that has been my experience. About all I do is online game as well on the PC and Live has been a pleasant surprise for me in my experiences with it. YMMV

 

I'm curious about the future of Xbox Live, too. What improvement can it take to make it more attractive except for downloadable movies? Or has it reached the plateau already, only getting diminishing returns? Right now it seems integration with Windows Vista is its trend but I don't know anything other than that.

 

I think Scooby was the only person to fully understand my point about Europe's irrelevance to the war at the moment (the short-term).

The 360 continues to sell very poorly. Only in the UK does it do anywhere near what could be considered "well". PS2 continues to steamroller here in the UK and all across Europe and there is no let up for it.

For Sony not launching in Europe right now and waiting till March is not a huge deal, since MS is no where near as competitive here as it is in the US. No where near. 360 will gain market share in Europe but right now there is no indication that it will be a significant chunk of Sony’s previous advantage. Anyone see BBC News’ Click review of the PS3? I was shocked at the heavily pro-PS3 slant. The brand is extremely strong here.

The only threat is Wii in the short term and its success will not depend on PS3 at all IMO, it will either be a hit or miss all by itself. New demographics. It won't subjugate the PS3's market at the beginning.

FWIW I am a European and I am very pissed about the delayed launch but the underlying rationale for it is sound on Sony’s part. North America is all about Blu-Ray and Japan is about preparing the ramparts for the inevitable Wii frenzy.

 

I'm sorry but I would like to get a link or some sort of proof which backs up your speculation. Do you have sales numbers for the Europe? Basically I'm not disagreeing with you, I just wan't to know how you come up with that conclusion?