Ken Kutaragi finally
cleared up most of the
uncertainty
around Sony's
Live-like online service
for the PS3 this week, outlining a rich environment in which players can interact, download content, play games for
free, and engage in micro-payments for in-game commerce. The service-formerly-known-as-
Sony-HUB is actually being
called the PlayStation Network Platform, and unlike Xbox Live, will offer owners some free gaming at the basic
subscription level as well as connect to the regular Intenet and allow members to host their own game servers. Kutaragi
also confirmed that games will be bootable from the PS3's hard drive, making it likely that Sony will be selling titles
from the original PlayStation and PS2 catalogs for retro gaming fun. Among the usual slew of video chat, avatar
creation, ranking, and other community functions we've come to expect from online play is the interesting addition of a
"matchmaking" feature, which we're presuming is of the romantic variety, and which you can probably expect
Philadelphia's ABC
Action News to issue an "important warning" to parents about in the near future.
[Via
Joystiq, thanks Luke]
posted March 18th 2006 8:00AM
whatever. that sounds too good to be true. eventually they will start charging for the basic service.
True - the cost for PS3's online also comes from the fact that you'll NEED the 60 (or less) GB hard drive to even get access to the online service.
Do I smell a fanboy? This doesn't seem too good to be true at all. Yes, Sony does make promises and then in the end, fails to deliver. But I don't think this is the case this time. This is a good move on Sony's part.
And people alway give Microsoft a hard time for stealing other folks popular ideas ...
I love abcs action news, stop bustin on it
where does it say on that slide that online gaming is free?
It dosen't say on that slide, but i says on Wikipedia that online/multiplayer gaming is free, just go to en.wikipedia.org and in the search box type playstation network, then click Go (not the one on Internet explorer, firefox, etc., the one on the web page just below the search box
#3 why do people like you think Microsoft came up with this idea for the console market?? Didn't Sega do the same thing with the netlink for Saturn way back in 1996? And then again with the Dreamcast. You give Microsoft way too much credit.
i'm sorry chris, i didn't realize microsoft invented online gaming.
"Matchmaking"? Ranking? Commerce? The rest of the communication/community? Xbox Live Silver? Free?
:S
How is it too good to be true. There is only one service in the world that makes your pay for multiplayer other than MMORPGs, Xbox Live.
""Matchmaking"? Ranking? Commerce? The rest of the communication/community? Xbox Live Silver? Free?
:S"
You forgot "Entitlement Management". (Achievements anyone?"
"How is it too good to be true. There is only one service in the world that makes your pay for multiplayer other than MMORPGs, Xbox Live."
-Bootes
The reason they make you pay for it is that they require a seperate network/servers etc to run the games that people want to play. When you play games like Counter Strike:Source, it's free because you play on privately owned servers. Not to mention that people still have to pay to have their servers hosted. Hosting a server costs go far beyond $15 a month. People even pay $80 a month to get a dedi box which comes with TeamSpeak and space for a website.
""Matchmaking"? Ranking? Commerce? The rest of the communication/community? Xbox Live Silver? Free?"
Nothing before "Xbox Live Silver" was invented by MS, and even that is just a "free" access, does not enable you to play online for free like this service claims. Geez, the fanboys are too soon to turn around now and say they've been ripped off, it's an online console service, there's only so many things you can do.
All of the companies have been ripping eachother off since the beginning, it leads to positive competition. No one company is any more/less guilty. Not "hey no fair!11 we thort of that!".
Sony always promises but either disappoints or never delivers. I think its best not to trust them. Especially since the older perverts will be harrassing you.
Likely all types of games that are already free to play online on the PC and PS2 will likely be free on the PS3. Games like Madden, Medal of Honor, SOCOM, etc. etc. (though I'm sure you'll have to pay to play MMORPG).
Also, I'm assuming larger companies like EA will host PS3 games on the same set of servers as their PC counter parts, unlike Xbox Live which requires the developer to hand over control to MS. So Sony doesn't need to fund and support the most expensive part of online gaming, because let's be honest, gamertags(user log ins), matchmaking, ranking, etc. is not hard to do (most dating websites can do that).
Remember, the concept of free online play is not new (hell even Nintendo doesn't charge for it), only MS employs the concept of paying to play every game online.
#10, yes you are right, but also so wrong at the same time. Microsoft doesn't host the games on their servers. If they did, well then I would understand the fee to play online. However, Xbox live is a P2P network and the actual Xboxs host the game and act as temporary servers. That is why there is a ridiculous amount of cheating in Halo 2 and a ridiculous amount of lag in most games (because peoples' upload in general is just horrible). Again if Microsoft actually hosted the games so it was a lag free experience, well then I would gladly pay the yearly fee. However that is not the case and all Xbox live does is keep track of your stats and sets up games for you in Matchmaking (in reality though I would rather have custom lobby gams but that is not the case for some reason...). Xbox live is crap. Everyone who praises it has obviously very little experience on playing online with PC's.
Microsoft always held 3 things over Sony's head with the XBOX.
1. Xbox live
2. Superior graphics
3. Halo
It looks like sony will match or surpass Xbox live and at the very least match the 360 in pure power. Halo dosent really matter because it's a overrated piece of garbage.
AGH! Micro payments! Here we go, down the Bill Gates Micro payment path. I don't like it. I like buying something and using it. This per-use idea just doesn't sit well with me. Does it others?
#15 sounds like a fanboy. Sony wont beat MS in any of those catagories. They will tie them at the very best. lol let me guess, you would rather play an RPG. figures
Well, it only seems natural that it'd be free "initially." How many games are going to be available at launch? Quite a few, sure, but certainly not enough to justify a monthly price tag. Once the community and content grows, a monthly access fee will seem reasonable.
Great forum, talk about all things to do with computer
go here:http://theworldforum.c-f-h.com/Forum/index.php
#17, you criticize #15's supposed claims that Sony will beat Microsoft in those categories but read his post again. It says Sony will at least tie them in those catgories. Sounds like you're the fanboy.
I posted this on Digg yesterday on this topic.
XBOX LIVE is where online gaming is @. Not to sound like a fanboy but Live on the 360 has really improved even over the xbox1 live service. Being able to chat with people on your friends list while in other games to co-ordinate a match is a great feature.Seems to me that sony pooped this online service out as an afterthought.The free basic service they'll offer no doubt will be there just to drop Sony films/music/tv shows onto that 60GB HDD / PSP. A unified online service may not seem like a big deal to sony fans, but those same fans I'll bet have never used the Live service to see what a great thing it is for gaming. This is something that should have sony fans up in arms. Believe me I want to buy a PS3 for some of their exclusive titles, but if they don't have their online shit straight, this is 1 sale they will lose .Putting the servers in the hands of devs could give Sony a "BLACK EYE" at launch. This could be a bomb. Imagine if the devs. don't get it right , problems w/ servers or whatever. What kind of storm would that lead to right after launch? What about when a new version of a game comes out will the dev. studio still maintain servers for the older version with the same bravado as for the new version? What about those great old school/casual games like are on xbox live? Surely the people behind geometry wars/gauntlet/zuma/marble madness/etc. don't have the same resources as a Valve Studios or EA. It's starting to stink like if Sony had a unified subscription network that they wouldn't be able to justify charging $15 a month for their MMORPGs on top of their yearly service fee. Think about it... $50 a year for their "LIVE" plus monthly fee for Star wars Galaxies or whatever other Sony MMO's are out there. And I'm betting there will be a lot more of those as well. And like someone else said online pc gaming is not free, someone is paying to host that server for Battlefield 2 (or whatever). And not everyone has Teamspeak...let alone the server address it's hosted on or the password or the headset for it!
"the PlayStation Network Platform, and unlike Xbox Live, will offer owners some free gaming at the basic subscription level"
It's not free if you have to pay for a subscription. This sounds no different than xbox live.
I'm guessing the "free" portion will be mostly advertising, but I am glad that someone agrees with me about Halo being overrated, not quite garbage but not as revolutionary as everyone claims.
The Original Halo was definately revolutionary. It put Xbox on the Map. Had great physics, sound, gameplay and Multiplayer! Halo 2 took the multiplayer to a whole nother level on Live and the Stat tracking on Halo2 was just amazing.
The PC online experience just doesn't add up to the all in one comprehensive online gaming you get with Live. There is no online experience that can match Live. Everyone has capability of a headset with ease, getting into matches is simple and there is a unified ranking system all under one roof. $50 a year is probably equivalent to $3-$4 extra for each title you purchase to enable Online playability. That is well worth it.
I spent probably 20hrs playing Halo 2 Single Player and CoOp...but countless hours on Live with Halo2. If I'm spending that much time online, I want the best experience possible. It makes it much more fun and hassle free and is well worth $4.11 a month.
Sony may give you some crippled online functionality for free...but don't bet on it being as good as Live.
I love playing on LIVE, one gamer tag for every game that feature alone is worth the $5.00 a month. All the chatting, messaging, and other stuff is just a plus. I actually hope that Sony starts charging every month a small fee and here is my reason why.
1. If it is a free service and does not generate revenue Sony may not be inclined to do much with the service in the way of improvments, or maintaince. And then the online service will go down hill.
2. They may have tons of advertisements and pop ups, and other crappy marketing schemes to help sponsor the service. Advertising agencies are already looking to find ways to get at the online community because they feel that the products and services that they represent are not being seen by gamers because they spend more time online playing games then watching TV where they get to see commercials.
For those who have never used LIVE let me make a comparison. Suppose you did not have a cell phone, so you used pay phones where ever you are. Think about how inconvient that would be. Every place you went you would have to give people a different phone number to get a hold of you. You may not know what that number will be before you get there. People trying to reach you would have to try a long list of numbers.
Honestly if you are willing to drop at least $425 for the PS3 and god only knows how much for each of the games what is $5.00 a month.
#17: Yeah Halo is garbage that is why it is the best selling game in history. In the first 24 hours of sale Halo 2 brought in over $120 million. Go back to playing your turn base RPG or Sudoku or whatever boring games you like to play. Halo & Halo 2 are getting older now and are not the best games out there any more. But they are fun to play and simple to learn. And before you go saying that Sony is going to match or surpass LIVE you better wait and see the hardware and service first then start making judgements.
I am not bashing Sony but I am just waiting until I have the PS3 in my gaming room, and the PNP service is up and running. Sony has made a few promises and exagerated in the past and not exactly came through.
PSNP? Pissin' Pee?
are they actually serious?
they could have run that acronym by any 12 year old in america to have figured that out.
HUB wasn't the best in the world... but at least it wasn't pissin' pee.
One of the major downfalls with many online games is that players, when losing, can quit the game without any consequences. Since there has been no greater network with user accounts, there has been no way to combat this. But with a network where you have an official account, Sony could come up with a way to rank users who play as to what kind of player you are. That way good players that finish their games could know and avoid players that quit every time they start losing. That way all of the bad rated players would have to play together since everyone would avoid them. It would be incentive for them to actually finish games they start.
Wow... you guys do realize that in order to use the features of XBOX Live! you must have the Hard Drive too? right??
You say you can smell a fanboy? it may be your self, trying to find faults where they don't exist. Sony isn't innocent, niether is Nintendo or Microsoft.
Actually, why isn't anyone here ragging on Nintendo?? they have yet to make any major online gaming plans (no, their download service doesnt count)!!
Seriously, I dont know what Microsoft charge for Xbox Live in the states but here in the UK its a meagre £39.99 a year, which is more than reasonable for the play you get out of it. If Sony decide to charge somewhere around the same its isnt really a problem until you got both consoles!!