What would be the outcome of only having one HD console?

[Tap In]

Don't forget demos a week late and 1vs100 game as a guest of a Gold member, the ultimate online gaming service!

you guys feel free to be as indignant as you want. It does not change the fact that the FREE version of LIVE has been as good as and for a long time, better, than anything else out there. the paid service is just gravy and getting better every day.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

my argument was that Live does not need to be completely FREE to be as effective as any solution out there, because the FREE version of LIVE already is (- online MP) and IMO has done it better since Nov 2005.

Though the service side is second to none, the lack of online play does mean the free service is severely lacking, rather like a car with air-con, in-car entertainment, GPS, yada yada, but no wheels. KongRudi's (rather sardonic) point was that MS are charging for the principle reason (in his opinion) to be online, and given no competition, it'd get worse. You can argue all the features you want, but if a person wants to be online to play games, they have to pay for that on XB360 and not on PS3, meaning feature wise, PS3 offers a better service (features a person highly values versus features they don't value as importantly) for free.

The competition here as helped shape the different services, I'm sure, and continues to encourage better services. However I disagree that 'lack of competition == no progress' and a raw deal overall. Software developers will still be competing with other software developers, pushing the envelope. Console manufacturers will still need to sell their consoles at a price people are willing to pay. Sony couldn't get away with charging £300 for PS3 for 10 years and constantly grow their install base even if it were the only console on the planet. They would still need to develop broad 1st party titles to attract customs of different tastes, and motion controls and the like to expand the audience and the PS brand past 100 million to 200+ million. Only if the company stops caring about growing profits will they stop pushing for technical developments. Sure, they wouldn't happen at the insane rate they do now (quite probably slowing down), but we wouldn't still be playing on 16 machines now even if SEGA alone produced consoles since the 80s.

 

[tha_con]

my argument was that Live does not need to be completely FREE to be as effective as any solution out there, because the FREE version of LIVE already is (- online MP) and IMO has done it better since Nov 2005.

But what exactly have they done better? That's the question I'm asking.

Pitting the two Free services against one another, I don't think you will find one sane person who will say Live is a better "Free" value than PSN.

I'm not going to argue that Live is better, that's not really questionable (though the margin of which it is better is rather small, IMO).

Either way, this really isn't the topic at hand, it's more or less a spin off.

 

[DrJay24]

you guys feel free to be as indignant as you want. It does not change the fact that the FREE version of LIVE has been as good as and for a long time, better, than anything else out there. the paid service is just gravy and getting better every day.

Indignant? You made and are continuing to make a highly subjective and IMO absurd comparison. Any online gaming service without the gaming is near useless unless you are a kid using it as a telephone.

If you want to get into an objective discussion comparing the two services then make a real list of both, don't include joke stuff like 1vs100 unless you want a list of Home mini-games.

 

[Tap In]

Though the service side is second to none, the lack of online play does mean the free service is severely lacking,

yes, true. I prefaced all of my arguments with (Online MP aside) because there are plenty of people who care not for that and where the Free service in their eyes is wonderful. Yet plenty of people feel it is well worth $50US/year to have Live as their online MP service because of the overall polish and feature set and sense of community.

 

[Acert93]

What percentage of gamers play online, and what percent access online services and don't play online (DL demos and game previews, buddy lists, download "arcade" games, messaging and chat, patches, DLC expansions, etc...). Knowing those statistics would give a better insight into the value of relative online services. Both "fail" in that they lack significant substance in popular genres (like MMOs on the PC) and it could be argued the PC, for example, did it sooner and better (but also gets big demerits for accessibility and fragmentation). There are all sorts of pros and cons--and subjectivity like the comment that Live is, in one person's opinion, a little better than PSN when a hardcore online gamer who wants uniform features across the entire platform would completely disagree. And of course there is the actual online-gaming content and what genres have been filled and their relative popularity.

That which scratches on man's itch is a poor product to another. Based on most gamer's previous consoles purchase either MS, Sony, and Nintendo know their customers quite well, or, the cynic says, fans of said platforms are happy with whatever they shovel out and sing the merits thereof. Either way few one any side bemoan their platfoms offerings because they are happy with them in general. Oddly I think users should kevetch about their own consoles more so the platform holders are listening to their install base desires instead of the "what is the other side saying about us?" approach which I do feel one platform, for good and bad, has been guilty of this generation as it appears to have been quite caught off-guard in peripheral strategies and their main one an abject failure.

As for one console... still hate the idea Vysez! What I do want to see though is a shift in the market where developers have a lot more significance and there can be a shift where software risk and innovation can become a staple in the industry.

 

[KongRudi]

Actually every facet of LIVE is already free EXCEPT for multiplayer online gaming. the FREE Live experience is still more complete than any console solution and growing by leaps and bounds.

the list above is a fear based fantasy IMO

Yeah, obviously..
I don't think the pricing is that way now, I'm just responding to what I think would become a potential outcome.

We do have competition now, and if MS changed their way's to that pricing scheme today, to something similar to what I suggested - most consumers would probably flee over to the competition in a heartbeat.

However, if they didn't have any competition.. and consumers did not have any option to switch provider to a competitor...
Then I think, enough consumers would probably have been willing to pay more, and MS (in my example) would earn more money, with more expensive pricing.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Actually every facet of LIVE is already free EXCEPT for multiplayer online gaming. the FREE Live experience is still more complete than any console solution and growing by leaps and bounds.

The car is free. The wheels are $10,000 apiece. And I just noticed Shifty already went there! (Great minds think alike.) The one thing I want to do with console online is play multiplayer games. Everything else that is supposedly so great about Live I already do via PC. If a console is just going to be "PC Lite," then I think there's no reason to have different consoles. You really only need two machines:

The PC, which is for "hardcore" users that are willing to fiddle around with drivers, install new components, run several different Internet apps, deal with intrusive DRM, etc for the sake of getting the absolute best graphical and online experience.

The PC-Lite (aka "the Xbox"), which is for more "casual" users that are willing to have inferior controls, be limited to a walled-off corner of the Internet, have downgraded graphics, pay for services that are free on PC, etc for the sake of ease of use.

Of course, if either MS or Sony decide to go the Nintendo route and make their next machine as un-PC-like as possible, the argument gets rendered obsolete immediately.

 

[rounin]

Just wanted to chime in as a PS3 owner. I don't play online multiplayer games vs other people (much..I do try them out on the games I have), so what Xbox Live Silver seems to be perfect for me.

 

[Arwin]

What gets me the most is that (as a PS3 and 360 owner) if you take out the cross game voice chatting and invites, the actual online gaming in terms of server side/technology, number of players, lag and so on has consistently been better for me on the PS3, and equal on most multi-platform games. That's partly because of the games I've played of course, but it's still ironic! For all the work Microsoft has done getting great racing games out there for instance, why couldn't they manage to bring one out using more than a pathetic excuse for an 8-player peer-to-peer network system that can't automatically configure itself properly (UPnP2) and breaks whenever two people out of the 8 haven't completely opened up their security for the 360's connection? It's not that I believe it's unsafe to open up that connection, it's just that you have to do it in the first place! Messing around with the settings in your router/switch/cable modem just isn't any fun. It pisses me off, and it's just the kind of thing that needs competition to get sorted.

Conversely, if it wasn't for Forza 3, GT5 Prologue probably wouldn't have been released in Europe and GT5 proper probably wouldn't come out before 2012.

Also I consider motion controls and pen-interfaces one of the most important recent innovations in gaming. It wouldn't have been the same if Nintendo hadn't attempted it, and they even partly because they felt they couldn't compete in terms of hardware with Sony and Microsoft so decided to take it into a new direction altogether.

Assuming that we need the general principles of competition to keep this thing moving forward, then I can think of a few alternatives, but so far I don't think they'll end up working.

For instance you could have all the developers/publishers choose a new hardware supplier every five years. Ditto for a new software/sdk and services supplier, and maybe even separate peripheral supplier. But considering that the other suppliers then won't have income for 5 years, that's just not going to work.

And even then, it silences consumers on an important part of the competition input, when maybe some of them aren't interested in HD content, others aren't in online services, others want to spend less on hardware or software or both, or just more, etc. etc. etc. While I think you may be able to find a model that works, I don't think you'll be able to find one that can work as well as the current model.

 

[tha_con]

Just wanted to chime in as a PS3 owner. I don't play online multiplayer games vs other people (much..I do try them out on the games I have), so what Xbox Live Silver seems to be perfect for me.

It doesn't really sound perfect for you. You try out multiplayers games that you have. Wouldn't you be peeved if you now couldn't try them out at all w/out a $50 subscription fee? I mean, you just try them out, after all, but now you have to pay for a peer-to-peer connection.

You can also add to that late demo's (Silver members generally have to wait a week for new Demo's) and also remove Netflix.

I just think it's foolish for anyone to say XBL Silver is better than any other free service, when every other free service let's you play your games online, which already makes them better than XBL Silver.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Different options, suiting different people differently. For some, free Live! will be better, and for other, free PSN. Without competiton PSN may well remain utter pants-ness, or MS would charge more for services.

 

[phil-t]

I don't think having a 'common' /single HD platform would work on many levels.

I just can't imagine MS/Sony et al getting around a table and deciding on what would be 'fair' to each.. They all wish to dominate the market, and I just can't see how the logistics would work, perhaps they all make hardware to this standard, and sell it at cost, how would they decide who gets what 'cut' of the software 'pie'?

It is a win-win for us consumers, the fierce competition will lead to many advantages of loss-leaders etc to entice us in, and obviously keep margins at reasonable levels..

I'm happy enough where we are, I'm glad that MS went' totally against my gut feeling and have performed much better then I thought, this is keeping Sony on their toes, and it feels like another price cut is around the corner if Sony want to put some impetus into their momentum..

 

[fearsomepirate]

I just can't imagine MS/Sony et al getting around a table and deciding on what would be 'fair' to each..

That's not how it would work. One would drive the other out of the market entirely. That's what a "one-console future" means, since, from the standpoint of MS and Sony, a console is a merely a low-spec PC with super-advanced DRM so they can control all the content. In other words, they're a lot like what Macs are, only way worse, but with the heroin of gaming to make you happy.

Edit: A one-console future with both MS and Sony would feasible if Sony would be willing to let MS own the OS and developer tools. They both have very different motivations. Sony is an entertainment device company--they want to make sure that whenever you're relaxing, you're doing it with a Sony gadget. MS is more of a supply-side software company--they want to make sure that if you're writing a program, you're doing it with proprietary MS APIs using MS tools, and that if you're selling a computer, you put Windows on it. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Nintendo's goal, by contrast, is to sell you a truckload of its own games, which it wants to develop for its own unique game devices, and make a boatload of money doing it.

 

[Tap In]

...but now you have to pay for a peer-to-peer connection.

you say that like ALL PS3 games run on dedicated servers (they don't) and that all x360 games are P2P (they're not).

Regardless, the ones that are P2P (which is not exactly an accurate description from what I hear btw) have been excellent experiences for me with no lag issues (CoD franchise, Halo 3, Red Faction is amazing in that regard, Far Cry2)

 

[tha_con]

you say that like ALL PS3 games run on dedicated servers (they don't) and that all x360 games are P2P (they're not).

Regardless, the ones that are P2P (which is not exactly an accurate description from what I hear btw) have been excellent experiences for me with no lag issues (CoD franchise, Halo 3, Red Faction is amazing in that regard, Far Cry2)

No, I say that like ALL PS3 games are free to play online (so long as they aren't subscription based...which none are...yet). I also say that like ALL 360 games require you to pay to play (which they do).

Regardless of that, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that any multiplatform game has better performance [online] on the 360 compared to PS3. P2P is still P2P. It is entirely dependant on the net code and your connection, not the service itself.

Edit: Clarified my point.

 

[Tap In]

No, I say that like ALL PS3 games are free to play online (so long as they aren't subscription based...which none are...yet). I also say that like ALL 360 games require you to pay to play (which they do).

Regardless of that, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that any multiplatform game has better performance [online] on the 360 compared to PS3. P2P is still P2P. It is entirely dependant on the net code and your connection, not the service itself.

Edit: Clarified my point.

I never claimed "better" connection. My observation was that you were pointed that paying for a "P2P connection" was a liability due to P2P.

There really is no discernible difference between the two MP experiences other than some have dedicated servers and some use a P2P-type of game play (on both machines) .

they are equal in online except for the obvious cost and differences in feature sets which Live clearly wins. It is up to the individual user to determine if $4/month is worth the feature set.

 

[DrJay24]

There really is no discernible difference between the two MP experiences other than some have dedicated servers and some use a P2P-type of game play (on both machines) .

.

How many P2P games are > 24 players? I'd call 40-60 player games a different experience. Also dedicated eliminates lag and host advantage, just ask the Gears 2 players how they like their P2P game.

 

[obonicus]

How many P2P games are > 24 players? I'd call 40-60 player games a different experience. Also dedicated eliminates lag and host advantage, just ask the Gears 2 players how they like their P2P game.

PS3 owners shouldn't throw stones, since from all indications Killzone 2 used P2P for 32-player games.

 

[Arwin]

Crap, the post I wrote disappeared through some stupid keyboard shortcut. Anyway, look, I'll be the last to claim that PSN is always better than Live. Especially in multi-platform titles and in the early days in particular, PSN online tended to suffer because on Live developers had a nice SDK and a standard featureset that Microsoft provided them with and that took care of most of their problems. On PSN on the other hand they had to do most of the work themselves, which resulted in either poor performance, features missing, or a combination of both.

On the other hand, Live being as strictly set-up as it was, Live initially couldn't even handle dedicated servers, similarly to not being able to support mods for Unreal Tournament, or alternative subscription fees for MMOs. On the other hand the PS3 supported dedicated servers at launch with Resistance for pretty much flawless 40 player games. Later we had Warhawk at 32 players, Resistance 2 with 64, Killzone 2 with 32, etc.

The best setup I think is one like Warhawk on the PS3, I think is still a combination of all of these, having dedicated servers for 32 player games, allowing someone with a fast enough connection to be the host of a 32 player game or less, and allowing people to use one of their machines as a dedicated server for 32 other players.

While Live should be able to do games with more than 20 players easily now with dedicated server support, the fact remains that a lot of titles published by Microsoft remain limited to very few players, and many of them contain pretty spotty P2P netcode to boot. The netcode even in P2P games for many Sony published titles just seems better, with even cross region play performing generally very well.

There's definitely a difference between the two services beyond the cost and feature set.