The XBL limitation is a result of MS's policy decision. It ties in with their general strategy of total control (peripherals and network). Indies are developers, not general users.
Sony really isn't that much different. I'm not sure where this Sony is open and gives flowers to everyone idea came about. They are just as hard assed and closed about their platform. For some things they may be more open than Microsoft, for others less so.
Look again. My list has games, non-games, and hardware. If you want to compare non-games, why do you bring up ND ? They only created games and gaming tools.
Because ND has a room of people that don't make games, they don't even crunch unlike the gaming people. Instead they do nothing but make tools, game tech, and visit companies to help them out. I mention them because they are the only thing in the ps3 universe (non games) to me that is even remotely competitive with the competition. On other aspects they are behind.
PS3's movie delivery strategy satisfies consumer needs better since Blu-ray demand is at least an order of magnitude larger than Internet delivery. Microsoft completely misread the video market. NetFlix, Hulu Plus, VidZone, BBC Player, DivX Network, Redbox, etc. are all possible because of the open approach. On top of that, there are so much more video delivery options and features (e.g., high quality DVD upscaling, standards-based DLNA, PlayTV/Torne, YouTube, etc.)
Some of that is already on the 360 like dlna support, netflix, etc, some were available first, and some are still way better like movie selection and ease of movie viewing. For the rest, some of them weren't standard on ps3, you needed to use the browser no? I did not have access to much of the stuff you mentioned on my ps3 without the browser. When I last used the browser it was about as unusable as psn to me, totally half baked and a very frustrating experience. The odd thing here to me is how the same people are having totally different experiences on the same box. The media experience on ps3 to me, aside from bluray which was excellent, has been really bad bordering on unusable. Terrible interface, terrible codec support, weak dlna support, streaming media issues, network disconnects, poor and/or late Netflix support, and a terrible browser. Even some of the stuff you mention like Divx, more divx files played correctly on my 360, the ps3 would fail more. Are we using the same ps3, or are we just really unlucky/lucky and that is leading is to opposite experiences on the same machine?
MS is not exactly hunky-dory either considering the fact that Mr. Ballmer has to seize control of their media division. They lost their HD DVD, VC-1 royalties, music playback platform, mobile phone OS and tablet OS strategies within a few short years -- considering their monopoly and size + depth of their software empire.
Yeah Microsoft has screwed up plenty, I'm very vocal about that although not on this forum as Microsoft already takes quite a beating here already. Although to be fair hddvd would have won if Warner had sided with them but in that circumstance it was Sony that cut the bigger check. Better that it died anyway, blu-ray is much better. I've openly said that the 360 is one of the few things Microsoft have done right in a long time because they had been screwing up for years. Seems like they are finally waking up though, albeit slowly.
*Shrug* might be a game issue ? or you weren't paying attention ? The original point is not everyone is willing to pay for XBL regardless.
I guess so, I still don't understand how people can use psn anymore than how someone can use rabbit ears for tv. Still makes me scratch my head because it's so bad, but to each their own.
XBL being more closed is also given as a reason for why Square isn't bringing FF XIV to the system. Square has been clear that they want to, but MS and them can't agree on how to monetize things.
As to whether Steam coming to PSN is because of 'business decisions', well, duh. Each platform's relative openness is also a 'business decision'. MS has decided that they like XBL to be closed and closely monitored, Sony is more laissez-faire. This has negative implications, of course, such as all the complaints about PSN's service.
Ok, I think people are being extremely naive about this. Sony is not more laissez-faire. They are pretty far from it as a matter of fact. Further, just because company x/y/z comes out and says Sony is more open, it doesn't mean it's even remotely true. You guys know every bit as well as I do that company pr will say anything to suit a purpose even if it is 100% a lie. I've seen it happen first hand tons of times as I'm sure many here have as well. There are so many underlying factors here that we don't know. For all we know, Valve approached both companies and said "hey pay us 5 million and we'll put steam on your platform", and Microsoft told them to leap off a bridge whereas Sony signed a tentative deal as long as Valve openly starts now pimping Sony. Then Valve pr begins their verbal diarrhea and people believe it. That kind of stuff goes on all the time. Just because someone says "it's more open" doesn't mean jack squat. Likewise with Square, we have no idea what the background details are. Rest assured, if Microsoft and Sony want something on their platforms, it will get on them. If they don't, they won't. For stuff like Unreal levels, it looks like Sony was more interested in that. For indie games it looks like Microsoft was more interested in that. Hence what you see now, user levels on Unreal on psn, and indie games on live. But c'mon guys, Sony being open? Really?
Wow, even devs are complaining about PSN? Is it really that bad? I thought most of the complaints were down to 360 users wanting to justify why they pay for live.
