Sony PS3 basic online service to surpass Xbox360 Silver

[ban25]

Sure. There's instant messaging and voice chat -- those are still larely p2p even though they have some cost like the matchmaking.

There's also a content download service, funded largely by the people who download paid content. Steam, Stardock Central, and iTunes are examples of other services that provide similar functionality.

XBL is more than a peer-to-peer gaming service, though. It allows a lot more stuff than that, and some of that stuff isn't restricted to paying customers.

 

[ban25]

Ok. Deep cleansing, breath. Now then:

And my original post:

Also, I didn't say 150 support resources, I said 150 team members for Xbox Live. Given a 2 million person install base across the world, I would be surprised if support is only 150 people strong. However, that's likely contracted out anyway, so it's harder to determine actual cost.

Is this an internet forum or a game of telephone?

Isn't more likely that they don't really need 150 support people paid $120k/year just to support their online matchmaking software? Maybe they farm out their support to a company in India who pays its employees $5/hour.

Yes online matchmaking costs money, but people are already spending money to play the game -- to get that functionality. These companies are not going into the red by providing free matchmaking -- they are making money hand over fist. I've played Diablo II on Battle.net for 6 years now and the only time I paid for the online service was the $40 I spent on the game.

 

[function]

Xbox Live isn't peer to peer btw. It's probably possible for games to work that way on it, but none of the games I've seen are.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Ok. Deep cleansing, breath. Now then:

Just stop while you're behind, Sis. It's obvious you don't have any idea about the technical and economical requirements of a P2P network such as XBL or Sony's newly proposed system.

It's free. It's that simple. MS is just inventing expenses in order to make people think they need to spend $60 a year. Why is it I can pop in FEAR, jump on the internet and immediately play people all over the world for free? The very same people in FEAR who have the very same IDs as they had in Counterstrike? Why is it I can just go into Civ IV multiplayer and see that the guy I want to game against is online or not? And if I want to play them in FEAR, but they're playing Counterstrike I can just send them a little text or voice message and tell them to come join me in FEAR instead!

All that for free! Uhh.. oh.. wait.

 

[Powderkeg]

Perhaps you're not clear on the technical details of a peer-to-peer network. It does have a cost associated with it, the cost of your internet access and that of the people you are playing with. The only thing Sony/Gamespy does is run a server with a list of active games -- so they send a few kilobytes of data to each player before they join a game.

So, when I send someone a Message on Live, and that person receives that message 2 days later when they finally log in, do you think that Message service is running on a Peer to Peer network?

How about the Marketplace? Do you think that is Peer to Peer?

How about the Gamertag info, which I can recover onto multiple Xbox/Xbox 360 systems. Is that stored on a Peer to Peer network?


Or is it possible that there is a massive server infrastructure that you competely failed to account for?

 

[ban25]

Xbox Live isn't peer to peer btw. It's probably possible for games to work that way on it, but none of the games I've seen are.

Oh I'm quite sure the overwhelming majority of games are, it's quite easy to check (use something like ethereal to monitor your network activity while playing a game). It's really the best model for most games (say an FPS with 16 or 32 players). Pretty much any game where you can "create" your own online session is peer to peer.

In fact, I googled this from Microsoft's support site:

http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;en-us;819072
"You may also experience latency on Xbox Live if you join an individual session whose host has limited bandwidth. Hosting a game session with limited bandwidth slows down the session for every player, as the peer-to-peer connection is using the host's line."

 

[ban25]

So, when I send someone a Message on Live, and that person receives that message 2 days later when they finally log in, do you think that Message service is running on a Peer to Peer network?

Please note that I never said a peer-to-peer service obviated the need for a centralized server, merely that the majority of load and network bandwidth is handled by the users themselves. Here's how the messaging probably works:

There is a centralized database storing information about users who are online. This includes their IP address. When you log on, your XBL software queries this host to retrieve the status of all the people on your friend's list. If you send a message to a friend who is online, it sends a message directly to this person using the IP address stored in the database. So, in this case, all the central server is doing is acting as a directory. If the friend you are messaging is offline, however, the message is sent to a repository on the server where it is stored until your friend logs on and retrieves it.

How about the Marketplace? Do you think that is Peer to Peer?

No, but it is not inconceivable that it could be implemented that way in order to distribute the network load across all users with a given file (like bittorrent or the service Gamespot is using). In any event, the network and server costs are recovered through the sale of paid content online -- much like Steam, iTunes, Connect, Stardock Central, etc.

How about the Gamertag info, which I can recover onto multiple Xbox/Xbox 360 systems. Is that stored on a Peer to Peer network?

No, it's probably handled the same way I described above, like Bioware and Blizzard handle it in NWN and Diablo II.

Or is it possible that there is a massive server infrastructure that you competely failed to account for?

I think it's clear that I've accounted for the necessary server infrastructure to provide such a service. Now whether you consider that "massive" or not is another issue...

 

[ImaginaryIndustryInsider]

I think it's clear that I've accounted for the necessary server infrastructure to provide such a service. Now whether you consider that "massive" or not is another issue...

I think you've accounted for a version of how the server infastructure could work in way that perfectly proves your point, but whether that's how it's actually does work is another thing completely.

The answer is probably more complex than "a totally free P2P, which could be easily duplicated by using companies X,Y,Z's methods."

If it was so cheap and easy to duplicate, both Nintendo and Sony would have created Xbox-Live clones last-gen.

 

[ban25]

I think you've accounted for a version of how the server infastructure could work in way that perfectly proves your point, but whether that's how it's actually does work is another thing completely.

The answer is probably more complex than "a totally free P2P, which could be easily duplicated by using companies X,Y,Z's methods."

Then my work here is done, LOL! This may not be exactly how Microsoft's system works, but I can't imagine it to be far from reality. Ultimately this is about a possible service provided by Sony and how it could work. I have demonstrated an implementation that would have marginal costs to the hosting company.

If it was so cheap and easy to duplicate, both Nintendo and Sony would have created Xbox-Live clones last-gen.

People do play online in both of those systems but neither shipped with the requisite hardware out of the box, so it's understandable that support is more limited.

 

[ban25]

Just stop while you're behind, Sis. It's obvious you don't have any idea about the technical and economical requirements of a P2P network such as XBL or Sony's newly proposed system.

It's free. It's that simple. MS is just inventing expenses in order to make people think they need to spend $60 a year. Why is it I can pop in FEAR, jump on the internet and immediately play people all over the world for free? The very same people in FEAR who have the very same IDs as they had in Counterstrike? Why is it I can just go into Civ IV multiplayer and see that the guy I want to game against is online or not? And if I want to play them in FEAR, but they're playing Counterstrike I can just send them a little text or voice message and tell them to come join me in FEAR instead!

All that for free! Uhh.. oh.. wait.

Sounds like what you're looking for is The All Seeing Eye, now run by Yahoo for $15/year. The trial version has more limited functionality (but still permits game matching) at no cost.

 

[inefficient]

$60 a year is nothing for the services they offer.

And if you are too poor to pay the $60, you really should be doing something better with your time than playing video games online.

 

[m1nd_x]

I dunno, maybe it's just me... but, the "basic service is free", line hints very deeply to either a limitation is in the basic service or that there'll be a premium service that offers more. Lets just hope the games aren't covered with ads.

 

[function]

Oh I'm quite sure the overwhelming majority of games are, it's quite easy to check (use something like ethereal to monitor your network activity while playing a game). It's really the best model for most games (say an FPS with 16 or 32 players). Pretty much any game where you can "create" your own online session is peer to peer.

Peer to peer is a terrible model for most multiplayer games, especially a 16 or 32 player game like a FPS. Bandwidth requirements for each peer scale linearly with each additional peer. Most Xbox Live games (like Halo 2, for instance) appear to be client/server where the host takes the role of a (none dedicated) server. It does not make any sense for them not to be.

In a game of Halo 2, for instance, you can tell when the host quits out becuase the entire game stops and you have to wait while another machine in the game is set up as the host. That's better than in many games though, which just dump you out to the game search screen if the host quits (other none-host users quitting has no effect).

Monitoring my bandwidth, when hosting games I could see that use was higher. When not hosting, bandwidth did not appear to scale linearly with the number of players. Granted, this was not a very scientific test, but it works for me.

In fact, I googled this from Microsoft's support site:

http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;en-us;819072
"You may also experience latency on Xbox Live if you join an individual session whose host has limited bandwidth. Hosting a game session with limited bandwidth slows down the session for every player, as the peer-to-peer connection is using the host's line."

Everyone is everyone elses peer on Xbox Live until a game is up and running, when one machine takes over controlling the games. Hopefully, that's the person with the best connection (stable, low ping, high bandwidth).

When one machine is responsible for decision making in a game and relaying much (or all) of the other machines update data, I call it the server. Unreal Championship even had the option to make your Xbox a "dedicated server". As opposed to the none dedicated server it would presumeably have been when you were playing on it.

 

[ban25]

Yes, you have described it for me. The players are the ones doing the game hosting, not Microsoft.

Peer to peer is a terrible model for most multiplayer games, especially a 16 or 32 player game like a FPS. Bandwidth requirements for each peer scale linearly with each additional peer. Most Xbox Live games (like Halo 2, for instance) appear to be client/server where the host takes the role of a (none dedicated) server. It does not make any sense for them not to be.

In a game of Halo 2, for instance, you can tell when the host quits out becuase the entire game stops and you have to wait while another machine in the game is set up as the host. That's better than in many games though, which just dump you out to the game search screen if the host quits (other none-host users quitting has no effect).

Monitoring my bandwidth, when hosting games I could see that use was higher. When not hosting, bandwidth did not appear to scale linearly with the number of players. Granted, this was not a very scientific test, but it works for me.



Everyone is everyone elses peer on Xbox Live until a game is up and running, when one machine takes over controlling the games. Hopefully, that's the person with the best connection (stable, low ping, high bandwidth).

When one machine is responsible for decision making in a game and relaying much (or all) of the other machines update data, I call it the server. Unreal Championship even had the option to make your Xbox a "dedicated server". As opposed to the none dedicated server it would presumeably have been when you were playing on it.

 

[Tap In]

I challenge sony to give me the free service that makes me just as happy as I am now with my persistent features ALL across ALL of the games:

Including:
-detailed friends lists
-messaging, chat
-information about their progression through EACH of the games that they have played offline on the machine
-their feedback as players (from other players)
-ability to mute any player consistently all across any games in which you ever encounter them
-the ability to set them as a preferred or avoided player for future matchmaking
-call up past gamers not on my friends list -
-seeing exactly what they are doing at that moment online (which game, current score, map, time left or if they're watching a movie)

I look forward to it as I will certainly be buying a PS3 and playing it online. If it sucks hind titty to LIVE you can bet I will renew my subscription for the $50/year and play there instead. If not and Sony meets my needs I'll be glad it's free. As it's been explained so far, I do not see how (for free) and without a LIVE interface built into the box how they will accomplish this task.

I gather from this thread that some here have never played for any extended period on Xbox LIVE and more importantly on 360's version of LIVE.

 

[Powderkeg]

Please note that I never said a peer-to-peer service obviated the need for a centralized server, merely that the majority of load and network bandwidth is handled by the users themselves. Here's how the messaging probably works:

There is a centralized database storing information about users who are online. This includes their IP address. When you log on, your XBL software queries this host to retrieve the status of all the people on your friend's list. If you send a message to a friend who is online, it sends a message directly to this person using the IP address stored in the database. So, in this case, all the central server is doing is acting as a directory. If the friend you are messaging is offline, however, the message is sent to a repository on the server where it is stored until your friend logs on and retrieves it.

And considering this includes voice messaging, what do you think the server and bandwidth requirements would be for 2+ million users? Add in administrative and maintenance costs, and what do you get?

No, but it is not inconceivable that it could be implemented that way in order to distribute the network load across all users with a given file (like bittorrent or the service Gamespot is using). In any event, the network and server costs are recovered through the sale of paid content online -- much like Steam, iTunes, Connect, Stardock Central, etc.

The vast majority of content is free, and judging by the download speeds people are receiving it at, it's clearly not a bittorrent type service. Most people don't have the upload bandwidth that I routinely receive files at.

Besides, files are occassionally removed, which you can't do with a bittorrent type service.

So you definitely have to have a file server system and enough bandwidth to support a netwrok with 2 million users, plus administrative and maintenance expenses to add in here. What do you think that would come to.

I think it's clear that I've accounted for the necessary server infrastructure to provide such a service. Now whether you consider that "massive" or not is another issue...

Speaking of accounting, since you have these servers and these employees, I imagine you'll need a building to put them in, won't you? Complete with electricity, gas, running water, trash storage and pickup, possible landscaping cost, employees to handle all of the logistal work, training, management, security, maintenance, cleaning, cooking if you are going to provide some sort of cafeteria, office supplies, snacks and drinks, copy machines, furnature, fax machines, etc..

What do you think that all adds up to?

Think that dollar or two you make off of a pay-to-download is going to cover all of that?


Fact is, it costs MS so much that the only reason they offer the Live service at all for the Xbox/360 is because they plan to offset the costs with income generated by other MS products that will be using the Live service such as Office Live, Vista Live, etc...

 

[dantruon]

If it's true this is awesome, maybe it will force MS to have theirs for free too.

I think this is based on the same info we already had, which didn't actually confirm online play for free.

this is the first time i ever saw you write something good about Sony action.

good on ya mate.

 

[-NakedZ-]

We have been trying to find out more on PlayStation 3 and the PlayStation Network Platform since Wednesday’s announcements, after the translation of Kutaragi’s words sounded a little odd to us.

First, the confirmation that every PlayStation 3 game requires a hard drive and the comments by Kutaragi that the HDD might not be included with every console were a contradiction so we checked with a few sources in the U.S. and Europe and we can now confirm that the PlayStation 3 will include a 60GB hard drive right out of the box. In addition, there will be bigger hard drives available for users to purchase.

Second, regarding the PlayStation Network Platform, we learned that the basic service will be free and include online gameplay, at least at launch; only specific titles like MMO games and premium services like online storage will require an additional fee.

We also learned that the PNP will only support online play for PS3 and PSP titles at launch and in the subsequent months it will add support for PS2 titles.

TeamXbox

So we're looking at free online play for a few months after launch?

.Z

 

[mckmas8808]

I challenge sony to give me the free service that makes me just as happy as I am now with my persistent features ALL across ALL of the games:

Including:
-detailed friends lists
-messaging, chat
-information about their progression through EACH of the games that they have played offline on the machine
-their feedback as players (from other players)
-ability to mute any player consistently all across any games in which you ever encounter them
-the ability to set them as a preferred or avoided player for future matchmaking
-call up past gamers not on my friends list -
-seeing exactly what they are doing at that moment online (which game, current score, map, time left or if they're watching a movie)

I look forward to it as I will certainly be buying a PS3 and playing it online. If it sucks hind titty to LIVE you can bet I will renew my subscription for the $50/year and play there instead. If not and Sony meets my needs I'll be glad it's free. As it's been explained so far, I do not see how (for free) and without a LIVE interface built into the box how they will accomplish this task.

I gather from this thread that some here have never played for any extended period on Xbox LIVE and more importantly on 360's version of LIVE.

I sorry Tap, but that's just dumb. Why would Sony have to give you ALL of those options for free? Why can't they give you 80% of what you just listed?

 

[patsu]

I thought Sony plays its cards relatively well (again). Offering free online game allows them to build/consolidate an online user base easier/faster. Once that base is built up, there are more than 1 ways to make money:
(A) Interactive marketing (aka Direct marketing) of contents and products
(B) Subscription or pay per use for value-added/premium services

What MS does for LIVE is less relevant to Sony because they are not really competing in the same space per se. Playstation users do not care about Xbox LIVE, and in general online game networks is not really a selling point when shopping for game consoles (yet).

What Sony does is more to attract PS users with great inertials (like me !) to try their online service.

As for infrastructural costs for online game services, I maintain that it is a large number, BUT not as expensive as people (especially Microsoft) say. In general, there is a minimal number of active users that Sony wants to achieve. Once that number is surpassed, Sony will start to make money off the online services.