Xbox live price going up !

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm glad that PSN is free, if it wasn't, I would not have a PSN account. I have no doubts that the PS3 is capable of a great online experience.

Improved gaming features don't necessitate a cost-for-all pricing model. Free to play MMO's are proving very popular. The idea is to allow people a free entry to try, and then you monetise the service with optional extras. In PSN's case, there is no option to even get these desired features. If Sony want/have to charge for them, they can do so, and could have done so with the announcement of PSN+ by either integrating services with that or rolling out a Gamer's Network or somesuch. Basically you keep PSN as is, only with the option for cross-game chat to those who subscribe, if you do it that way. Of course that has issues with sporadic chat support versus Sony's PSN solution, and I'm not sure that's the way to go. But it's an option. Free to play doesn't have to go away. Sony just need to compete with Live!, or forget that, they just need to actually play games online themselves, see how crap it can be, and improve things because they have a sense of pride in their services irrespective of what the rest of the world is doing!

 

[patsu]

It's the other way round. Free to play MMOs are coming to PSN. They are more awkward for a subscription-based closed network. The same for user generated content games. I am also interested to see if more of STEAM is coming to PSN.

What PSN and developers need is a business model to fund free online gaming. It is most likely not a technical problem.

 

[joker454]

As for your list of reasons, I think it's case by case, and you forgot "It's free" in your list. ^_^

I think in the end that's what this is all about, it's free. There are some people that simply won't pay a penny for anything regardless of how much better it is. It's like people that use rabbit ear antennas to watch tv, they don't care that Directv may be 10x better they simply refuse to pay for it no matter what. There are many people out there that will always chose the free option even if it's garbage, and that's who psn is targeting. It's less work on Sony's end because they can push the entire burden/blame on the lazy devs, and the pay-for-nothing client will be totally content with the sub standard experience so long as it's free.

There's also the 'you don't know what you are missing' factor. Many of these ps3 folk never touched a 360, but they may read forums and internet sites. So they may actually believe the nonsense said on many sites which claim psn is 'almost equal' to xblive. They will then be content that they have a pretty good free service, yet all the while they have no clue how crappy it really is because they never experienced a proper online service like live. It's like someone who never heard of air conditioning, he won't know what he is missing and he will be totally content and grateful for having a fan. But if he ever discovered this invention called an air conditioner he would realize just how crap a fan is. That's also what psn is counting on, most ps3 folk really don't know what they are missing and they honestly think they have a competent online service.

The same for user generated content games. I am also interested to see if more of STEAM is coming to PSN.

Fyi, steam coming to console has nothing to do with the openness of the platforms. It can just as easily go to live as it can to psn. It's purely business decisions on all parties that will dictate where it goes.

 

[ShadowRunner]

IMO neither has got it right for the average consumer. Sony should be able to offer an Xbox Live level experience, at a cost, for those who want it. MS should provide a basic PSN level service by adding basic online play to the Silver account.

To me as im not an avid online gamer PSN is the better deal, when i had Live i never once used any of those extra features people rave about. For others though Live is more than worth it. In the end neither PSN or Live suits everyone. Live is almost their if only they would introduce a multiplayer to the silver accounts, they wont though because they know they will lose a lot of Gold subscribers. PSN is most likely to evolve to provide both levels of service IMO because by introducing features as a premium they can make more money than they are currently.

 

[patsu]

I think in the end that's what this is all about, it's free. There are some people that simply won't pay a penny for anything regardless of how much better it is. It's like people that use rabbit ear antennas to watch tv, they don't care that Directv may be 10x better they simply refuse to pay for it no matter what. There are many people out there that will always chose the free option even if it's garbage, and that's who psn is targeting. It's less work on Sony's end because they can push the entire burden/blame on the lazy devs, and the pay-for-nothing client will be totally content with the sub standard experience so long as it's free.

There are also people in-between who don't want to pay for a peer-to-peer online party system because games can offer good enough and sometimes better experiences. Your mileage may vary. I'd like to keep it free because I don't think the casuals will pay for it, but I'd them to join us, especially with Move, Kinect/PSEye MP games. OTOH, they need to make it easy enough so that novice won't get confused by the UI.

There's also the 'you don't know what you are missing' factor. Many of these ps3 folk never touched a 360, but they may read forums and internet sites. So they may actually believe the nonsense said on many sites which claim psn is 'almost equal' to xblive. They will then be content that they have a pretty good free service, yet all the while they have no clue how crappy it really is because they never experienced a proper online service like live. It's like someone who never heard of air conditioning, he won't know what he is missing and he will be totally content and grateful for having a fan. But if he ever discovered this invention called an air conditioner he would realize just how crap a fan is. That's also what psn is counting on, most ps3 folk really don't know what they are missing and they honestly think they have a competent online service.

If you take a step back...

There are also people who tried Xbox Gold and decided to stay Silver. Not 100% of 360 users pay for the online service. Not 100% of PS3 online games have crappy MP. The good games usually have a good and immersive online experience.

Fyi, steam coming to console has nothing to do with the openness of the platforms. It can just as easily go to live as it can to psn. It's purely business decisions on all parties that will dictate where it goes.

Let's see.

Besides Steam Cloud, there is also Steam community service that may be interesting to PS3 users. FFXIV is also committed to PSN first. Developers can support user-mods more freely. A free PSN may also be more compatible with SOE's own free-to-play MMOs. An open platform indeed means a more open business environment.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think in the end that's what this is all about, it's free. There are many people out there that will always chose the free option even if it's garbage, and that's who psn is targeting. It's less work on Sony's end because they can push the entire burden/blame on the lazy devs, and the pay-for-nothing client will be totally content with the sub standard experience so long as it's free.

I don't agree with that interpretation, that suggests PSN is exactly what Sony want and thye just want cheap and for people to blame 3rd parties. In fact that seems pretty cynical, as if Sony deliberately chose the cheap option and consciously consider aggravated users blaming game developers instead of Sony.

I don't see Sony as being cheap, and they are certainly have rolled out features and services. I think instead they're basically incompetant and can't get their act together. They'll dither indefinitely about whether services should be free or not, and end up not releasing anything. I mean, they're willing to charge people for PSN content, so why not charge them for a selection of networking services? This is common Sony behaviour, having so much unrealised potential because they can't bring all the pieces together.

 

[obonicus]

I think in the end that's what this is all about, it's free. There are some people that simply won't pay a penny for anything regardless of how much better it is. It's like people that use rabbit ear antennas to watch tv, they don't care that Directv may be 10x better they simply refuse to pay for it no matter what. There are many people out there that will always chose the free option even if it's garbage, and that's who psn is targeting. It's less work on Sony's end because they can push the entire burden/blame on the lazy devs, and the pay-for-nothing client will be totally content with the sub standard experience so long as it's free.

What you're saying may be true, but it's needlessly hyperbolic. Unless you have funny definitions for 'total garbage', PSN doesn't qualify. Instead, PSN is 'good enough' for a segment of people. Or rather, for those who own more than one console, some might decide that the additional value of XBL over PSN isn't worth the money. (It really isn't the difference between rabbit ears and cable -- that's closer to Silver vs. Gold.)

That's my case; I haven't subscribed to Live! in a while, despite owning a 360 for longer than I have a PS3. When Gears 3 comes out I might pick it up to play coop with friends, but every other game I intend on playing online I get on PS3.

 

[joker454]

There are also people who tried Xbox Gold and decided to stay Silver. Not 100% of 360 users pay for the online service.

For sure, but many people also don't play online at all such as younger kids that might not be allowed by their parents. Also there are probably many as well that still use dial up for internet. So those people would just stay on xblive silver. In other words, the % of users on live silver in and of itself is not an indicator of unwillingness to pay for live gold.

Besides Steam Cloud, there is also Steam community service that may be interesting to PS3 users. FFXIV is also committed to PSN first. Developers can support user-mods more freely. A free PSN may also be more compatible with SOE's own free-to-play MMOs. An open platform indeed means a more open business environment.

When looking at something like steam, both platforms are just as open. If it made business sense for Microsoft to partner with steam then they would bend over backwards to make it all work on live. I think they see steam as a threat/competitor though so that would more likely be the reason to not bring it to live. To Sony though it could be a huge benefit.

I don't see Sony as being cheap, and they are certainly have rolled out features and services. I think instead they're basically incompetant and can't get their act together. They'll dither indefinitely about whether services should be free or not, and end up not releasing anything. I mean, they're willing to charge people for PSN content, so why not charge them for a selection of networking services? This is common Sony behaviour, having so much unrealised potential because they can't bring all the pieces together.

Ok, well I hate to generalize but I think this may very well be a Japanese issue here. I get the feeling that Sony is still stuck 10 years in the past regarding what's acceptable and what consumer expectations really are. When I see the ps3, the best stuff to me business wise has come from the west, not from Japan. Guys like naughty dog who supply brilliant tech and tools for example. Or look at move, they went to a company right near my house in LA to provide the pack in game. The Japanese influence, creativity aside, has been largely negative for them this gen because they haven't kept up. That's partly why I'm *really* hoping that steam and psn partner up. Right now Microsoft effectively has no competition online on console which quite frankly sucks because that lets them do anything they want. I simply don't feel that Sony is capable on competing in that space software wise because they just aren't a good software company, so I would love it if steam ran that part entirely. That would make then competitive again, if not put them ahead in short order.

What you're saying may be true, but it's needlessly hyperbolic. Unless you have funny definitions for 'total garbage', PSN doesn't qualify.

My definition of garbage is actually fairly simple. I try a product. If it sucks, it's garbage. I had a ps3 for a few years and tried psn many times until I recently sold it. For me psn was just too primitive and baredly functional, hence it's garbage. It's just so many little things that they do wrong. I mean even trophies are bad, how can they mess that up? You get trophy notifications around 5 seconds after you have done the event that triggered the trophy, so often you don't even know why you got the trophy. On live achievements are instant so you can tie them to an event. Also when you get an achievement on live, you can hit the Xbox button to instantly see a full description of the achievement. How do you do that on psn? You have to trudge all the way back to the xmb, who wants to do that in the middle of a game? I just want to quickly see what trophy I earned and then keep playing. I know many people will say yeah yeah that's not a big deal, but damn there are so many little deficiencies like this that added up totally mar the experience.

Ultimately I'm hoping they abandon their limited psn efforts and turn to a 3rd party like steam to run it all and get them back to 2010.

 

[obonicus]

My definition of garbage is actually fairly simple. I try a product. If it sucks, it's garbage. I had a ps3 for a few years and tried psn many times until I recently sold it. For me psn was just too primitive and baredly functional, hence it's garbage. It's just so many little things that they do wrong. I mean even trophies are bad, how can they mess that up? You get trophy notifications around 5 seconds after you have done the event that triggered the trophy, so often you don't even know why you got the trophy. On live achievements are instant so you can tie them to an event. Also when you get an achievement on live, you can hit the Xbox button to instantly see a full description of the achievement. How do you do that on psn? You have to trudge all the way back to the xmb, who wants to do that in the middle of a game? I just want to quickly see what trophy I earned and then keep playing. I know many people will say yeah yeah that's not a big deal, but damn there are so many little deficiencies like this that added up totally mar the experience.

Like I said, funny definitions. It'd be like me saying that XBL is complete garbage for what you pay for. I'm not, because it's not, my not liking something doesn't automatically make it terrible, childish internet standards notwithstanding.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Okay, so here I am trying to play Alien Breed online with my mate. We set a meet up time at 8.00. It's now 8:30, and we've played one silent game. First we trip up over who's going to host the game, because we can't chat, but eventually I tell him to host. We meet up, no voice chat. Try my US account. Again, trip a bit hosting but then we play a game. No voice chat. This game needs it. There are limited resources. You need to know who has ammo or not, who needs money to buy ammo, etc. So we agree to fall back to Skype.

At the moment I'm listening to him wrestling with getting audio to pass out through a device he can hear me on, as at the moment Skype is trying to pump it thorugh the HDMI. Aha! Success! Finally he can hear me.

So there we are. A typical PSN online experience, arsing about for an age. Anyway, we can actually play now. Just arranged tactics over chat, he's going to get all the shotgun ammo, I'll pick up all the rifles, etc. If only Sony employees played games, they'd understand this...

 

[tuna]

Okay, so here I am trying to play Alien Breed online with my mate. We set a meet up time at 8.00. It's now 8:30, and we've played one silent game. First we trip up over who's going to host the game, because we can't chat, but eventually I tell him to host. We meet up, no voice chat. Try my US account. Again, trip a bit hosting but then we play a game. No voice chat. This game needs it. There are limited resources. You need to know who has ammo or not, who needs money to buy ammo, etc. So we agree to fall back to Skype.

At the moment I'm listening to him wrestling with getting audio to pass out through a device he can hear me on, as at the moment Skype is trying to pump it thorugh the HDMI. Aha! Success! Finally he can hear me.

So there we are. A typical PSN online experience, arsing about for an age. Anyway, we can actually play now. Just arranged tactics over chat, he's going to get all the shotgun ammo, I'll pick up all the rifles, etc. If only Sony employees played games, they'd understand this...

I would not say that this is a typical PSN experience, I would say this is a PSN crap experience. If the devs did not want to invest in the time it takes to get voice chat on the PS3 why do you reward them with your money?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I would not say that this is a typical PSN experience, I would say this is a PSN crap experience. If the devs did not want to invest in the time it takes to get voice chat on the PS3 why do you reward them with your money?

It's a poor and common PSN experience. Yes, the devs should have included voice chat, which makes them stupid developers, but them being rubbish doesn't excuse Sony from also being rubbish! PSN should have a policy of voice chat in every game, and it's Sony's responsibility to ensure that happens no matter how it's implemented, whether 3rd party or not. As for investing in the game, how can you know if a game supports working voice chat or not over PSN? Firstly it's not a declared feature when included or not, so you won't look for it with the game (Alien Breed Impact is described on the PSN Store as having "Network Features" which one would take to be voice-chat, no? And "Network Play 2-4 players", which is false as it only supports 2). Secondly, online play without voice chat is so mind-numbingly stupid such that I'd assume every online title would attempt to support it in one form or other. And thirdly, voice chat can be included as a feature but be crap, like Borderlands and Warhawk, such that even researching the game and buying only those advertising voice chat, you can still buy a turkey.

Again, if PSN is supposed to be a network for gamers, it should, through whatever implementation, whether priced or not, provide a suitable solution to gamer's requirements. I don't see any excuses here. QA of the whole PSN experience is down to Sony. Nothing gets published without their approval, and they are ultimately responsible for the experience that end-gamers actually get. If they can't be bothered, or don't know how, to create an overall chat infrastructure, they only need have chat as a certification requirement for all online titles, and test it to make sure it works, and then at least that base will be covered. Every frustratingly poorly executed game has Sony to blame.

 

[obonicus]

So there we are. A typical PSN online experience, arsing about for an age. Anyway, we can actually play now. Just arranged tactics over chat, he's going to get all the shotgun ammo, I'll pick up all the rifles, etc. If only Sony employees played games, they'd understand this...

Don't get me wrong. There's fundamental stupidity to PSN and there really is something wrong with Sony when it comes to cross-game chat. They had the feature nearly ready to launch with Plus, then they backpedalled and didn't give us anything. At this point I'd prefer to see them just come to a decision. Put it in Plus, tell us they're saving cross-game chat for the next console, something.

Of course, with Microsoft deciding that it doesn't need to compete with PSN, Sony will come to a similar conclusion that they don't need to compete with Microsoft, and we all lose.

I still don't think it's garbage; or rather, I think it's all garbage (most of gaming in general, really), but I can live with it.

 

[corduroygt]

Okay, so here I am trying to play Alien Breed online with my mate. We set a meet up time at 8.00. It's now 8:30, and we've played one silent game. First we trip up over who's going to host the game, because we can't chat, but eventually I tell him to host. We meet up, no voice chat. Try my US account. Again, trip a bit hosting but then we play a game. No voice chat. This game needs it. There are limited resources. You need to know who has ammo or not, who needs money to buy ammo, etc. So we agree to fall back to Skype.

At the moment I'm listening to him wrestling with getting audio to pass out through a device he can hear me on, as at the moment Skype is trying to pump it thorugh the HDMI. Aha! Success! Finally he can hear me.

So there we are. A typical PSN online experience, arsing about for an age. Anyway, we can actually play now. Just arranged tactics over chat, he's going to get all the shotgun ammo, I'll pick up all the rifles, etc. If only Sony employees played games, they'd understand this...

Why didn't you use skype on your mobile phones and on speakerphone? That's what I usually do. You can even do it on the ipod touches if you have em.

 

[patsu]

For sure, but many people also don't play online at all such as younger kids that might not be allowed by their parents. Also there are probably many as well that still use dial up for internet. So those people would just stay on xblive silver. In other words, the % of users on live silver in and of itself is not an indicator of unwillingness to pay for live gold.

>_< I know people who play on PSN but don't subscribe to XBL on their 360. They are not cheap or poor or too young to appreciate value.

When looking at something like steam, both platforms are just as open. If it made business sense for Microsoft to partner with steam then they would bend over backwards to make it all work on live. I think they see steam as a threat/competitor though so that would more likely be the reason to not bring it to live. To Sony though it could be a huge benefit.

And that's why XBL is not open, my friend. Technical issues may be part of it (e.g., single sign-on for third party games), but they are seldom show stoppers. User generated content is another stigma too.

Ok, well I hate to generalize but I think this may very well be a Japanese issue here. I get the feeling that Sony is still stuck 10 years in the past regarding what's acceptable and what consumer expectations really are. When I see the ps3, the best stuff to me business wise has come from the west, not from Japan. Guys like naughty dog who supply brilliant tech and tools for example. Or look at move, they went to a company right near my house in LA to provide the pack in game. The Japanese influence, creativity aside, has been largely negative for them this gen because they haven't kept up. That's partly why I'm *really* hoping that steam and psn partner up. Right now Microsoft effectively has no competition online on console which quite frankly sucks because that lets them do anything they want. I simply don't feel that Sony is capable on competing in that space software wise because they just aren't a good software company, so I would love it if steam ran that part entirely. That would make then competitive again, if not put them ahead in short order.

No idea whether it's Japanese issue. But we all know this is Sony. ^_^
e.g., They went ahead to release PSPGo knowing that Qriocity has been delayed. They have Cross Game Chat but haven't released it. One of their divisions licensed music to MS exclusively, etc. Some of these decisions may be committed by western managers.

As for the best stuff on PS3, I see Demon's Souls, Valkyria Chronicles, Tourne, Blu-ray, MGS4, etc. I think we can find gems and turds on both shores. I think Gran Turismo 5 and The Last Guardian may be promising also.

My definition of garbage is actually fairly simple. I try a product. If it sucks, it's garbage. I had a ps3 for a few years and tried psn many times until I recently sold it. For me psn was just too primitive and baredly functional, hence it's garbage. It's just so many little things that they do wrong. I mean even trophies are bad, how can they mess that up? You get trophy notifications around 5 seconds after you have done the event that triggered the trophy, so often you don't even know why you got the trophy. On live achievements are instant so you can tie them to an event. Also when you get an achievement on live, you can hit the Xbox button to instantly see a full description of the achievement. How do you do that on psn? You have to trudge all the way back to the xmb, who wants to do that in the middle of a game? I just want to quickly see what trophy I earned and then keep playing. I know many people will say yeah yeah that's not a big deal, but damn there are so many little deficiencies like this that added up totally mar the experience.

That's my definition too. But I guess you already knew it and explained it above in bold. The differences may not matter to many people, especially if PS3 games do their job in where it matters. (See Modnation Racer).

I also don't think your achievement example is universal. I play PSN online and my achievements come fast (e.g., sniping the 50th Rapid Assault dude earned me the "Screeching Halt" achievement immediately).

Both XBL and PSN may evolve more and also further apart from each other *if* they keep their current stance/principles.

 

[Scott_Arm]

And that's why XBL is not open, my friend. Technical issues may be part of it (e.g., single sign-on for third party games), but they are seldom show stoppers. User generated content is another stigma too.

Is PSN really open? I doubt it. Valve didn't want anything to do with Sony for a long time, and bringing Steam to the PS3 is only something they've been able to do recently. Is that the norm, or is Sony giving them special privilege? EA has their own account system with its own social network that gets tied to your gamertag/id on both PSN and Live, but as far as I know neither platform has allowed anything like Steam before.

I can't see any way that Sony allows Steam to come to PS3 in the same way it exists on PC. Sony wants those content dollars and having a deal with Valve would eat into that. Unless they simply allow Steam services with the exception of the store. Steam could be a really huge thing on PS3, and maybe will see Battle Net in the future from Blizzard. It'll definitely solve some problems and add some serious advantages, but Valve wants to control content sale as much as Sony, so I'm not sure how it'll work. Sony would have to be desperate to let Valve take over control of content distribution.

 

[BadTB25]

Why didn't you use skype on your mobile phones and on speakerphone? That's what I usually do. You can even do it on the ipod touches if you have em.

Sounds like a workaround to get through the deficiencies of PSN that ought to be unnecessary for a well implemented service. And although it may work for a game with 2 players online, how do you get around the limitation for 3,4, 5, etc players?

 

[specwarGP2]

I think in the end that's what this is all about, it's free. There are some people that simply won't pay a penny for anything regardless of how much better it is. It's like people that use rabbit ear antennas to watch tv, they don't care that Directv may be 10x better they simply refuse to pay for it no matter what.

So everyone who picks PSN over live is a cheapskate? Lol whatever. Its all about value. I doubt anyone who has tried both services actually thinks PSN is better. People pick PSN over live because they dont think Live is $60 better than PSN.

Take away online gaming from gold and how much is all that other crap worth? There's a reason why you cant play online on silver.

 

[joker454]

And that's why XBL is not open, my friend. Technical issues may be part of it (e.g., single sign-on for third party games), but they are seldom show stoppers. User generated content is another stigma too.

That's not an xbl limitation though, that would be a Microsoft decision. Sony is identical in that regard, they aren't really 'open' as they will not allow just anything on there, it has to meet with their business goals. You can have multiple sign ins, EA has that already, although I loathe that with a passion, it's just more obfuscation that should be eliminated but that's just my opinion. You also have indie content remember, me and you can very easily make a game and put it up on live, easier than it would be to do so on psn. There's tons of user generated indie content in their indie section, far more than on psn. In the end something like steam would be treated the same for both Microsoft and Sony in that neither is more open than the other because of their services, it's all about if it meets their long term goals otherwise it will never happen no matter how open a platform claims to be. I'm not really sure why anyone calls either one open really because they aren't. The PC is open, the 360 and PS3 are locked up tight.

As for the best stuff on PS3, I see Demon's Souls, Valkyria Chronicles, Tourne, Blu-ray, MGS4, etc. I think we can find gems and turds on both shores. I think Gran Turismo 5 and The Last Guardian may be promising also.

Well I didn't mean games, I meant everything other than games, all the other related items that make up the console. They are behind in just about everything that Japan is in charge of. Online experience? Terrible, far behind the competition. Movie delivery? Weaker than the competition, which is incredibly bizarre as Sony own a bunch of movie studios so how they fell behind Live on that is beyond me. Indie game support? Very limited compared to the competition. Firmware and game patching? Horridly slow, far worse than the competition. Voice chat in games? In general, far behind the competition. Tools and support? While Japan was in charge, utterly appalling. With the west in charge (Naughty Dog), significantly improved although still not up to the competition but that's only because ND are also busy making games. Etc, etc... That's what I meant, on the software infrastructure that makes the console what it is, Sony are simply not keeping up with the competition.

I really think Sony need to look at themselves in the mirror and recognize their strengths and weaknesses. As a hardware company they are great. Sure everyone has an 'rsx' moment every now and then where they bollux something up, but generally speaking they excel at being a hardware company. They have tons of ips, games and movies. They have a strong brand name, brick and mortar support, etc, all the other things they have in their favor. But as a software company (not games, all the rest) they just can't keep up and it's really handicapping them in the grand scheme of things. They need to recognize that and partner up with someone to help them out.

I also don't think your achievement example is universal. I play PSN online and my achievements come fast (e.g., sniping the 50th Rapid Assault dude earned me the "Screeching Halt" achievement immediately).

I've never had the pleasure of an instant trophy, they have always been delayed. But irregardless, it's yet another inconsistent psn behavior that is a non issue on live.

 

[patsu]

Is PSN really open? I doubt it. Valve didn't want anything to do with Sony for a long time, and bringing Steam to the PS3 is only something they've been able to do recently. Is that the norm, or is Sony giving them special privilege? EA has their own account system with its own social network that gets tied to your gamertag/id on both PSN and Live, but as far as I know neither platform has allowed anything like Steam before.

According to Valve, it's Sony being open:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/1989...r_sonybashing_announces_portal_2_for_ps3.html

"When the PlayStation 3 was introduced, I was the one of the platform's biggest critics," joked president and co-founder of Valve Gabe Newell after striding onstage to howls of surprise. "However, Sony Computer Entertainment has proved that the PlayStation 3 is the most open platform of all the current generation consoles ...