Sony uninterested in taking on Xbox Live

Sony has apparently decided not to take on Xbox Live with an umbrella online service for the PlayStation 3.

The Official Playstation Magazine reported that Sony has elected not to use a central online gaming service for its upcoming PS3 console. Instead of using a unified system like Microsoft’s Xbox Live or Nintendo’s soon-to-be-launched Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, Sony is taking the same path as it did with the PS2. This means that it will be up to publishers themselves to provide players with online features and, likewise, for the players to have a separate account for each publisher in order to play online.

Live is widely regarded as one of the most attractive features of the current Xbox, and Microsoft seems intent on improving the online experience for the Xbox 360 by adding a marketplace where users can purchase additional content, improved matchmaking, and video chat. The effort that has been put into the TrueSkill matchmaking system alone is staggering. Developers working on PlayStation 3 titles will, however, be free to create online services of their own without having to worry about conforming to the standards of an umbrella service.

Comments closed
    • willyolio
    • 15 years ago

    personally, i don’t see why this is such a big deal. no CENTRALIZED online play. whoop de doo. i wonder how my online play on the comp works…

    yay! Steam! i just loooove Steam! oh no! FarCry, Guild Wars, FFXI don’t run on Steam! my life is ruined!!! omg!

    Battle.net? omg now there are two major online gaming networks instead of one! my entire life philosophy is being challenged!

    all we know for a fact is that MS will be charging an online fee for online access of any kind. there may even be additional charges for MMORPG’s and such released on the 360. for the PS3, it’s up to the developers. man, if SC:Ghost is on PS3 and has free online play over B.net… that would be cool.

    • wierdo
    • 15 years ago

    what’s this with xbox silver letting you only see stats? Also, if it indeed lets you play games too but only on certain days, then that’s pretty sneaky, like sex with clothes on or something.

      • indeego
      • 15 years ago

      sneaky or not, I’ll take what I can getg{<.<}g

    • albundy
    • 15 years ago

    its like buying a pack of baloney but when you open it, its phoney baloney!

    • PRIME1
    • 15 years ago

    Meh, I was not that big a fan of online console gaming. It seems to attract more foul mouthed 12 year olds, than it does good players.

    I am about to cancel my Live subsription. Of course they make you call and wait on hold to cancel it, otherwise it will automatically charge your credit card.

      • PerfectCr
      • 15 years ago

      I cancelled Live as well. It IS a great service, but I did get sick of the kiddies online playing. I have a PS2 and play a few games online and it is nice to not have to pay for it. The gameplay is just the same as Xbox Live, except with out the pretty dashboard and friends.

    • GokuSS2
    • 15 years ago

    Thank god. I was getting worried that they were going to copy microsoft.

    • Rousterfar
    • 15 years ago

    This is being taken out of context. What Sony is really saying is they are leaving most of the control over the servers and “online environment” up to different game companies. Don’t forget that many of the larger game publishers want this. Look at EA who MS had to fight tooth and nail to get to finally make games for LIVE. With LIVE, MS has the control. They have the control over the marketing date gathered and advertising on the network. Publishers want this for themselves.

    Plus Sony has been rumored for some time to be creating a unified chat and “friend” list system that will work independent of the game servers. This would give you a “LIVE” like feel without Sony maintaing all the control. A lot of publishers would like this.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, I love MS LIVE. I think it’s the best game environment I have ever played online in next to Blizzard’s B.Net. I am also sure that whatever Sony does here it won’t feel as “solid” as what LIVE will provide. That being said, everyone is blowing this way out of proportion. The PS3 will have a much more solid online experience then the PS2 ever had. The fact that the PS3 has networking built in right out of the box should make this clear to anyone.

    Plus don’t forget, there are far more people playing games online with the PS2 then the Xbox.

      • Arkham
      • 15 years ago

      True, and I think there are more SOCOM players alone than Xbox Live in total.

        • Decelerate
        • 15 years ago

        Wow, that’s a lot of people.

        I never imagined that SOCOM was *THAT* popular.

          • PLASTIC SURGEON
          • 15 years ago

          LOL. It’s not. But a great hype ad campaign by Sony though.

            • Rousterfar
            • 15 years ago

            There are more then 4 times as many PS2s sold as Xbox consoles. It stands to reason that there would be a lot more people playing online with a system with such a large installed base. Plus playing online for the PS2 is free and you will always find more people willing to do something for free then pay for it.

            • ripfire
            • 15 years ago

            “Free”. Ha! How long do you think that will last?

            • Kraft75
            • 15 years ago

            *[Quote [There are more then 4 times as many PS2s…]]*

            You mean PS2s like this first generation hunk of junk sitting in the corner of my closet, that broke down right after the warranty worn off five years ago?

            • Rousterfar
            • 15 years ago

            To be honest, early Xbox systems had a lot of defects too. The thing is when you sell over 4 times as many console as your nearest competition, you tend to have a lot more defective systems on the market. With almost 90 million PS2 consoles world-wide you will of course hear a lot more people complaining about broken systems even if you defect rate percentage is not that far off from that of your competition.

            While I would agree Sony’s consoles have had more issues then MS’ Xbox the difference is more then likely not as large as people make it out to be.

            Honestly, Nintendo is the only company to really make rock solid game hardware these days and even they had a lot of problems with the early run of DS systems.

            • Kraft75
            • 15 years ago

            Hehe I agree with you about pretty much everything you mention. I only had to get this off my shoulder. They all have defect now and then, but the first generation of ps2s were prone to this issue, of not being able to read a certain type of media. Sony didn’t do anything about it, and they should have made a special program for this problem.

            • Rousterfar
            • 15 years ago

            Actually Sony eventually did do something about it. They agreed to repair and replace certain first generation PS2’s well past the warrenty time. The problem was by the point they agreed to do this most people had already taken care of it themselves.

            Like I said, Sony’s early PS2 hardware did have a high defect rate, but to call them all junk while acting like MS released perfect hardware is nothing short of absurd.

      • muyuubyou
      • 15 years ago

      Exactly. Sony is just taking the libertarian approach, and I hope it works. I’m buying both and Nintendo too again, but sincerely I prefer a decentralized approach. I don’t need 1 million opponents, I just need a system that works flawlessly.

    • Arkham
    • 15 years ago

    That’s too bad, but I really couldn’t care less personally. The games will still be playable online and we still won’t have to pay for the 99% of them. I don’t have time to play with obnoxious punks whose sole mission is to annyone people online. I have my PC for that.

    An online service like this really only benefits career gamers. If I played an average of 30 hours a week. I could see this as being a big loss, but seriously, I have a job and a wife. So, what, I don’t have yet another profile to fill out? No biggie. None of my friends game, so I don’t have to worry about being ostracized in the playground the next day because I wasn’t online at a given time.

    It’s not going to stop me or anyone else from gaming online. This news is most relevant only in terms of fanboy ammunition. XBOX Live was actually the main reason I was turned off the XBOX.

    I would prefer that the third-party companies control their content, rather than one company. I always preferred Sony’s approach, though MS deserved kudos for their implementation of a GameSpy-Meets-MSN infrastructure.

    • Spotpuff
    • 15 years ago

    You might as well have titled this “Sony refuses to compete with Microsoft”, because I’m pretty sure most people realize or feel that one of the biggest downsides to consoles used to be lack of multiplayer. Xbox Live fixed that.

    GG sony.

      • Rousterfar
      • 15 years ago

      LIVE (as awesome as it is) did not win the console war for MS this gneration, what makes you think it will win it for them next?

        • ripfire
        • 15 years ago

        Didn’t they used to say that about Sony over Nintendo with PS1 back in the heydays?

        • Tupuli
        • 15 years ago

        This time Xbox2 will precede the Playstation3 release by a year, rather than the opposite. They’ve made some wins in the games dept. (e.g. FFXI) and fixed the majority of perceived defects in the previous design (e.g. too large, horizontal orientation only). All reports suggest that Xbox2 development is easier than PS3 development.

        Last but not least, MS can afford to lose beaucoup money on the Xbox2 in an effort to build market share.

        The only real advantage that sony has is the allegiance of its fans. I doubt that they’ll like waiting a year for a more expensive console.

        Having said, I don’t want MS to dominate the console market. I’d prefer if each of the three had 25% market share or more.

          • Rousterfar
          • 15 years ago

          The DC had a year lead on the PS2 and look where it got them. Plus MS won’t have the tech advantage they played so hard on this generation again. Sony’s system will be as powerful, if not more so then what MS is releasing.

          Oh and since when is getting a port of a game years old like FFXI that big of a deal? Square/Enix is still in bed with Sony and will stay that way for some time to come. MS is going to get a few games from them, but all the star titles will be on the PS3.

            • Pettytheft
            • 15 years ago

            Yes but preceding the DC we had the Saturn and before that was the 32x and SegaCD. All underperforming systems. People were wary of Sega by the time the Dreamcast came around. That and people bought into Sony’s hype machine. Anyone remember the prerendered FFshots that they claimed to be realtime. I cant lie, i was one of those people that bought into the PS2 hype.

            • Rousterfar
            • 15 years ago

            Not the “Sony hype” arguement again. Sony all but matched all the demos they showed off before the PS2 hit over the lifespan. Do you even remember what those prerendered FF shots looked like? Do you remember what the other demos looked like? None of them where something we have not seen in terms of animation and detail on the PS2 by now. Have you played a modern PS2 game? While it took some time, the PS2 delivered.

            Don’t believe me? Check out this amazing thread on Gaming-Age: §[<http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=34741&page=1&pp=50&highlight=ps2+tech+demos<]§

            • Pettytheft
            • 15 years ago

            It’s taken until 3rd generation games for the graphics to even approach what the tech demo’s looked like. I know the CG looks good but some of those tech demo’s claimed they were showing gameplay and they did not. Anyway it was just an added effect to the death of the Dreamcast. Sega was on it’s last legs anyway. They made it easy for Sony to kill them off. They kind of pulled an Atari.

            • Rousterfar
            • 15 years ago

            Sony never claimed you where going to see games that looked that good at launch. So what if it took till 3rd generation? The console is going to have a 6 year lifespan so it’s not like you are not getting plenty of time with fantastic looking games. Sony showed footage of what to expect from the PS2 in its *lifespan*, and the system delivered.

            Same goes with the Killzone footage for the PS3 they showed at E3. Games will be made that look that good, just don’t expect to see them right off the bat. That’s how consoles work.

            Hell I already feel like we have seen better then the PS3’s Killzone stuff with the MGS4 trailer. Kojima has said, and proved, that its real-time (just not gameplay, but the gameplay in MGS games is always nearly equel to the real-time cutscenes) and it was the most amazing footage I have ever seen of a game.

          • Rousterfar
          • 15 years ago

          Oh and I need to add that it’s quickly being forgot by gamers eager to touch the next great thing that MS launching this early is not really a good thing. When the X360 hits this fall the Xbox will have only been on the market 4 years. That is painfully short for a console lifespan. Compare that to the PS2 which will have had a lifespan of 6 years when the PS3 hits. Let me ask you then, who is being more consumer friendly? Your $299 will have lasted a hell of a lot longer with Sony then it did with MS.

            • ripfire
            • 15 years ago

            Again, that’s a bad example. Console lifespan is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that MS will stop selling Xbox and Xbox games once 360 comes out? Did Sony stop selling PS1 when PS2 came out? Will nVidia or ATI ever stop producing a new video card every year?

            Consumers will always buy something new regardless of what they have now. That’s what consumers do: consume. If they stop buying, then they’re not “consumers” anymore. That’s their option. They’re not forced to buy a 360 or a PS3.

            When does a product become “consumer unfriendly”? It’s when consumers are not given a choice, when producers limit consumer’s options, or they’re forced to make a choice. That’s basically what Sony is doing: limiting your choice with their proprietary bs.

            • lethal
            • 15 years ago

            AFAIK the current plan is to stop Xbox console production (in fact, nvidia already has a date to stop making the graphic chips) and focus totally in the xbox 360…. in the meantime, sony keeps sellling PSOnes 10+ years later….

            • Rousterfar
            • 15 years ago

            No one is saying the Xbox will stop seeing games when the X360 hits. Hell there are still PSOne games being made, but that’s not the point and you know it. When the new system hits it’s the “end” for the old one in terms of full developer support. Are you under some kind of fantasy that MS is going to be pushing the Xbox even close to how hard they will be pushing the X360? Hell most reports are that MS is planning to all but end production of Xbox hardware within a year of the X360 hitting.

            Once again, 4 years is a horrible lifespan for any game system.

            • indeego
            • 15 years ago

            What about a PC? They get less than 4 years. Or is the world’s PC manufacturer’s against the consumer here alsog{

            • Rousterfar
            • 15 years ago

            You can’t honestly think you made a point there.

    • lemonhead
    • 15 years ago

    Perhaps i’m PC biased, but I dont get my rocks off sending MS money every month(or subscribing) to play online for Live. I have a PS2 and use EA’s FREE service occasionally, it seems to work ok. I like ASE and the like better, but it does the job. anyhow, my point is that i don’t have to pay to use it. I guess for hardcore folks Live works better, more power to ya. I can save my $$ for another game.

    • DukenukemX
    • 15 years ago

    §[<http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/index.php?t=archives&date=last<]§ Except wouldn't the people be Japanese in this comic? It still does get the point out.

    • Decelerate
    • 15 years ago

    Interesting…

    Definitely a bad move though, if confirmed.

    • eckslax
    • 15 years ago

    This makes me feel better about choosing to go with the Xbox360.

    • Jive
    • 15 years ago

    PS3 just lost this console war. Big mistake on their part i believe.

      • bhtooefr
      • 15 years ago

      PS3 lost the console war back when Sony started releasing DRM rootkits.

        • SpotTheCat
        • 15 years ago

        most people don’t know sony released rootkits, let alone know what a rootkit is.

      • Crackhead Johny
      • 15 years ago

      Cool. I’m going to be the only PS3 owner!

      • Rousterfar
      • 15 years ago

      You are kidding right? Sony killed MS this generation in system sales with a console that was more then a year and a half behind in technology and was not online enabled out of the box at first. For all MS’s hype the X360 won’t win the next generation. It will be a lot closer next time around, but Sony has it in the bag.

      Don’t forget that MS won’t have the power advantage they did last time.

        • SpotTheCat
        • 15 years ago

        but it will have a large christmas release while sony waits for next year when most people won’t be interested in buying another console.

          • Rousterfar
          • 15 years ago

          Releasing a year after the DC didn’t hurt the PS2.

            • ripfire
            • 15 years ago

            You can’t compare DC to PS2 as 360 to PS3. Sega had a totally different business model than Microsoft. When DC came out, Sega was basically failing already.

            • Rousterfar
            • 15 years ago

            Considering the PS2 is currently outselling the Xbox by almost 2:1 in the USA (MS’s strongest market) I wouldn’t say the Xbox has done THAT well overall, but I of course see where you are coming from.

            While you can’t compare MS right now and Sega, that’s not really the point. The point is you can’t hold up releasing first as some kind of Golden Goose in the game industry when it has been proven that it does not always equel a win.

    • quarantined
    • 15 years ago

    That’s a shame.

    • blitzy
    • 15 years ago

    hmm not a smart move IMO, don’t undestimate multiplayer (online) gaming sony!

      • trintron
      • 15 years ago

      It depends. I’m not a big fan of multiplayer (online) games for example.

        • PLASTIC SURGEON
        • 15 years ago

        You are in the minority here. Figure this. The PS3 by conservative estimates cost $499US and offer zero based online support. Only supported by software game developers. While the cheaper XBOX360 will offer a dedicated serivce for almost ever single title released.
        Unless you’re a fanboy of said console, i see no reason to pick the ps3 over the XBOX360 if you have to choose one or the other…unless of course you have deep pockets to buy both.

          • droopy1592
          • 15 years ago

          ~$4 a month isn’t that bad, actually. Some people play $15 a month to play ONE game.

          With XboxLive you play ~$4 to play almost all of your games online.

          • trintron
          • 15 years ago

          When it comes to online gaming, I’m a PC fanboy. Does it require Xbox Live -like service, nope. Sony uses pretty much the same way mentality.

            • Pettytheft
            • 15 years ago

            It’s not the same, some of Sony’s games charge a monthly fee to play online. At a whopping $50 a year you get a premium service. If there was something as good as Live for the PC, I’d consider paying $50.

            • trintron
            • 15 years ago

            Not the same? What about WoW, which is a direct example from PC world. Some are free, some are not. With Xbox Live nothing’s free, even if you only own some crappy game and wanna try it online.

            I don’t pay anything for my online games and not planning to.

            • JavaDog
            • 15 years ago

            I thought Microsoft was saying that it would have a Standard LIVE! service that was free, and a LIVE! Gold that cost the $50yr?

            • trintron
            • 15 years ago

            You can’t *[

            • Pettytheft
            • 15 years ago

            You can play on certain days.

            • ripfire
            • 15 years ago

            “What about WoW, which is a direct example from PC world. Some are free, some are not.”

            Ha! Since when did Blizzard ever officially announce that you are allowed to play WoW on a third-party server?

      • Crackhead Johny
      • 15 years ago

      So the EQ and SOCOM people are underestimating the popularity of online gaming?

        • blitzy
        • 15 years ago

        apparently so, there is more potential for online gaming with this next generation of consoles than ever before (since they’re more powerful) the obvious next step is for a greater amount of player versus player gaming rather than player vs AI. Naturally there are types of games which will lend themselves moreso to being single player, but if you have noticed the trends with pc gaming the multiplayer component has become one of the most highly demanded aspects.

        leaving it up to the developers to handle their own multiplayer implementations could make things a lot less intuitive for the end users, it might also dissuade devs from doing multiplayer because of the extra hassles they may face. it also gives MS an advantage in that they can tout their multiplayer gaming service

    • SpotTheCat
    • 15 years ago

    Is it just me or is sony putting a lot more weight on its developers this time around. Perhaps I just feel this way because of biased news sources (not just from around here)

      • Shintai
      • 15 years ago

      You mean make a hyped design that is so hard to code at you need years of practice? Or the part where the game developers need to pay 17mio $ just to get started 😀

      Xbox360 gonna smack PS3 around. Why?

      1. Alot easier to code for.
      2. No ultra expensive development kits needed.
      3. No speciallized coding and massive thread debugging for trying to utilize SPDs.

      MS is just smarter than Sony. Sure PS3 might be the technological superior thing. But what use is there for it if we can´t use it.
      Reminds me of multithreaded games *hint* *hint*

      Xbox360 3 cores..2 will be used to boost GPU..not doing CPU related tasks.

        • IntelMole
        • 15 years ago

        I figure Microsoft got the drop on Sony this time around too.

        – It’s out earlier.
        – It’s going to be just as powerful for a long time to come (i.e. the date that people figure out how to get 2 TeraFlops out of the Cell arch, also known as the 12th of never).
        – Xbox Live *is* a good idea.
        – The controller is good (Touted as “perfect” by some, I’ll dig out a link if you’ve all got really bad memories and no access to Ars).
        – And Microsoft also now have the traction to get decent games out on the system, let alone the money for exclusives (Splinter Cell, anyone).

        Yet I still feel they won’t get the marketshare they deserve. No one got fired for buying a Sony :-D,
        -Mole

          • shalmon
          • 15 years ago

          yeah, things will certainly be on a more even playing field this time around because of those reasons….

          in addition to increased 3rd party support, the existence and implementation of live out of the box, and the “more attractive” & smaller redesign, the cost factor can definately come into play as well…especially come a year from now when sony releases their unit.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This