Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Networking Sony Entertainment Games

Sony Says No To Central PS3 Online Service 114

Posted by Zonk from the this-is-a-mistake dept.
Saige writes "Online gaming fans are going to have to look past the PS3 to get their fix - Sony has announced that they are not doing a central service for PS3 online gaming. Instead, it will be done in the same manner as the PS2, where each company decides what effort to put into it. Considering how weak the online support has been for the PS2, this may not bode well for Sony, especially with more and more rumours that they won't be launching until at least the 2006 holidays." With the Live service such a success and Nintendo rolling out its WiFi network, it seems odd that Sony isn't going to try for something similar.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Says No To Central PS3 Online Service More

Sony Says No To Central PS3 Online Service

Comments Filter:

  • announced??? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by B3AST! ( 916930 )

    i don't see where they announced anything in that article....it still seems like speculation but maybe it would be easier to tell if we were able to read more than 2 paragraphs of the article

    *shrugs*

  • Source says that PS2 games "not doing well online" is apparently due solely to the merits of the online service, and doesn't even fathom how well they were designed into the equation. It also notes a few titles did well. So... what's the problem?

    • If you believe some of the Slashdot posts on this article, you can be sure that it has nothing to do with the fact the network adapter for the PS2 was a $50 add-on. If the Sega Genesis/CD/32X saga should've taught people, is that an optional add-on is never terribly successful. PS2 online gaming is weak for that reason alone, even if you ignore the benefits or drawbacks of the subscription-based XBL system.

      Frankly, there will be plenty of time to determine a winner. The X-Box Live! system has certain a

      • The Live system requires a subscription that might turn some people away, but it is a single subscription for nearly all online games. The PS3 system doesn't require a subscription, but individual games may. If too many games require individual subscriptions, this may alienate gamers, too.

        Ok, let me recap. $60/yr Live subscription pays for most games (except MMO.) PS2 is free for most games (except MMO.) $60/yr basically pays for a consistent gamertag and possible longer server support for older games. Pro

        • Anyway, my point here is that time and time again people compare Live to PS2 online and state that Live's fee covers most all games, but that PS2 you might have to pay to play some games - there is no difference between the two statements.

          My point was that there may be a few games that would request subscription from PS3 users where they would just accept a small amount of the Live revenue for X-Box users instead. My gut feeling is that these games would be a severe minority, but I can't underestimate t

          • My point was that there may be a few games that would request subscription from PS3 users where they would just accept a small amount of the Live revenue for X-Box users instead. My gut feeling is that these games would be a severe minority, but I can't underestimate that some publishers may get greedy and try it. I'd guess that any company that tries this (for a non-MMO game) will likely end up losing more far more in sales than their subscription system could ever hope to contibute.

            I'd be really surpri
    • You've clearly never tried playing a PS2 game online. I have. I couldn't get the network adapter to work with my router via DHCP, so I had to set all of the connection properties manually. Then it worked for Madden, but the same connection information wouldn't work when I tried to play online in Tony Hawk Underground. So I had to manually enter all of the connection information for that game separately. Plus there's the pain of having to create an account with every different game company, etc. I don't have

  • I see their point - but I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel@@@johnhummel...net> on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @02:31PM (#13934624) Homepage
    I think that Sony's trying to cater to the publishers, most of whom want to run their own connection systems to charge customers (or not) by themselves. Companies such as Squeenix, Capcom, etc, all probably have their own ideas about how to charge clients, and don't want a middle man.

    However, as the success of Live demonstrates, having a centralized system can be a very good thing. I don't use Live myself, but if I didn't have three wonderful little rug rats and if they had a good MMO attached to it (say like WoW of FFXI - coming soon) with voice support, I'd use it.

    The question is - how will publishers react? Will they go "Good - we get to do what we want" and make for the PS3, or just use MS's easy to use and so far working Live system?
    • > The question is - how will publishers react? Will they go "Good - we get to do what we want" and make for the PS3, or just use MS's easy to use and so far working Live system?

      I don't think that's a big mystery. Why would the publishers react any differently than they did with the PS2's model (since it's the same model)? Which means, not-so-great online service for PS3.

      Have fun, Sony fans! Man, I love playing online with Live!
    • I think that Sony's trying to cater to the publishers

      You can probably count on this. Sony has known from the start that the best way to get ahead in the market is to ensure a wide selection of good games. This means the focus must be on attracting publishers to create these games. This focus is the main reason the Playstation was as successful as it was. If it is true that developers prefer the Sony method of "do it the way you want to" then they can look forward to more success.

    • Well actually FFXI is coming to the 360 [playonline.com], so I guess they worked out how PlayOnline and XBL are going to get along. I don't think there are current plans for voice support though.

      Anyway, I think Sony is hurting themselves a bit by not at least having a central service as an option or hub if you will. I think it's more likely that they simply haven't had the time to plan and test such a service thanks to Microsoft forcing the move to a new generation of hardware earlier than Sony would have liked given the mo
    • No, I really don't think Sony is trying to cater to publishers with this decision. That really doesn't make any sense considering that everyone from big ole EA to little ole Hypnotix (now a part of EA - sad) ended up making games for Xbox Live. While it's true that if publishers want to sell extras on Xbox Live they'll have to give a cut to Microsoft, it's far easier to make that happen on XBL because the framework is already there. Doing the same on the PS2 (and now, apparently, the PS3) requires buildi

  • Developers won't support anything. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Winterblink ( 575267 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @02:31PM (#13934630) Homepage
    This will translate into most developers putting their effort into the X-Box Live enabled versions of their games, and half-assing their PS2 online efforts, if bothering at all.

  • PS3 owners play on xbox-live (Score:3, Funny)

    by LoverOfJoy ( 820058 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @02:39PM (#13934679) Homepage
    This just in...Sony announces that all PS3's will come with a free Xbox live Silver subscription!

  • Full version of article (Score:4, Informative)

    by zsazsa ( 141679 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @02:40PM (#13934686) Homepage
    Here's the full version of the article [findarticles.com].

    It doesn't actually have much more as the bulk of the article talks about the possibility of multiple SKUs for the PS3.
  • I've played plenty of PS2 online, and I never felt that the online features were lacking. I could get into games with my friends and other people. I don't see an advantage to a central service.
    • Sure, you don't have a problem, but XBOX Live (or any centralized service) is still 100 times better. The fact is...decentralized services are nice for the PC, but on a console the vast majority of people are looking for simplicity. XBOX Live is simplicity, and it's going to be even nicer when the OS of the console is designed specifically to work with it. Sony is being very foolish if they go this route. They are handing Microsoft another monopoly.
      • But it is simiple, really simple. You create the connection save and games use it. And it's free for everything but EQOA and FFXI.

      • Well on the PC we use a combination of programs that ends up equaling or surpassing live. X-Fire for the friends/now-playing list and messaging, built in voice-chat in many games or private moderated ventrillo/TS servers, etc. etc.

        Build your community of gamers and play on.

        MS got about 90% of what's great about PC gaming in live, and simplified it. But I still can't see why I should have to pay for it.
    • I could get into games with my friends and other people.

      Yes, but you couldn't tell when your friend was online playing a different game. And with xbox live 360, you can tell if your friend is playing a single player game and you can send a request to him to play multiplayer.

      It's really nice to just turn on the xbox, see that one of my friends is playing Madden, and send him a note that says "When you're done, wanna join me in burnout 3?"

  • Prognosticators, start your engines (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ReverendLoki ( 663861 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @03:11PM (#13934971)
    I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. It seems like this could make the online capabilities of the PS2 more robust, and doesn't tie any developer down to a specific framework for online gaming. Really, it just all boils down to specific implementation, and all the speculation at this point just boils down to a bunch of whistling in the dark.
    • But the centralized features of XBox Live Silver (gamer card [xbox.com], friends list, the whole micropayments thing [winsupersite.com]) really make sense to have set up by the console manufacturer. I'm really kind of stunned that Sony is waiting until the PS4 to implement these.
    • What the hell are you talking about? XboX live is devastatingly better than Sony's philosophy of leaving it all up to the developpers. Really, it's one of those things EVERYBODY (including sony!) admits to. Get it through your head: This is bad news. The PS3 would definitely have benefited in a major way from having something like Microsoft's Live .

  • On moronic assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @03:19PM (#13935046)
    Developers don't add network support to PS2 games because the PS2 does not have a standard ethernet port - to get ethernet one has to buy an additional network device, which sells for $40 - about four times the cost of a decent ethernet adapter for a PC. This has lead to a very small installed base for the PS2 network adapter, so developers have little to gain from supporting it.

    With the PS3 the situation is entirely reversed - the system has built-in networking capabilities, and, unlike the Xbox 360, will not require users to subscribe to an online gaming service. By not requiring users to subscribe, Sony creates a larger player base, and frees developers from being trapped in the proprietary world of a central service, meaning that developers have a GREATER incentive to develop network content for the PS3 than for the Xbox 360.
    • frees developers from being trapped in the proprietary world of a central service, meaning that developers have a GREATER incentive to develop network content for the PS3 than for the Xbox 360.

      Yeah, this also leaves developers with having to pay for all the extra costs of running their own server farm since Sony is too cheap and lazy to do so for them. Why not just pay the extra fee and have Xbox Live host their online gaming? Xbox Live has been successful in the past and the PS2 online has been a total p

      • The Xbox 360 will give users a free Silver account if they buy just the 'core' package. Sony has yet to top that.

        ...which cannot be used to play games online. With Sony, you do not need any account, let alone a Gold account to play online (excepting MMO's which will require one account with the publisher on PS, but two accounts to play on Xbox - Live and the publisher, unless you end up using Live Marketplace to pay your monthly fee to the publisher.)
      • While MS doesn't publish the costs, hosting a game on Xbox Live is not free to the developer... not by a long shot. Think MS doesn't take a cut of every online transaction, or a cost for every MB of bandwidth? Likewise, most developers have a server center of some sort. A full farm isn't necessary for most console games, and by not going through live you can do some of the networking peer-to-peer, saving further bandwidth and resources.

        Don't get me wrong, I do like Xbox Live. I like the unified logon /
        • Why not just pay the extra fee

          My words.

          As for developers having a server center, depending on the popularity/success of the game, most developers lack the resources to handle huge loads. Don't forget that PC developers get away with this by having players host their own mirrors and console games such as Halo 2 or Splinter Cell more or less get special treatment due to the fact that Microsoft KNOWS it'll be a hit.

    • I got a USB ethernet adapter for my PS2 from the local compusa for $25, $15 after the $10 rebate. Played Tony Hawk 3 online for a while, was kinda fun.
    • While that was true when they first came out Sony started bundling the Network Adapters with the systems. Also the newer slimline PS2s have a built-in network adapter, but sadly not HDD support.
    • Bullshit. The truth is that the developpers can CHOSE with the Xbox360. They can use microsoft's servers and all the standard tools and utilities that come with it (voice, IMs, rankings, categories and a whole other bunch of stuff) OR ,if their game is very heavily multiplayer and it's worth it for the developper to purchase and setup servers, beta test, tweak and maintain them and provide customer support for all of this, then they can use their own thing. That's exactly what Squenix is doing with FFXI. T
    • because the PS2 does not have a standard ethernet port - to get ethernet one has to buy an additional network device, which sells for $40


      All PS2's have either been bundled with network adapters or had them built in since late 2003. So the install base is large (though not as large as it would have been had the adapter been built into the PS2 from the start)

       
  • granted the article supposedly comes from the november OPM, and quotes phil harrison. something about the article is missing. something seems off. if you read the entire article, it is written prior to the TGS [pre-september]. how much earlier? who knows? i do however know that this is the FIRST time they have announced anything regarding their online plans. so if the media has known this for at least three months, why is this big news now? something seems odd.

    do i doubt that sony wishes to go this route? n
  • What about other substitutes for online console gaming like XLink KAI [teamxlink.co.uk] and XBConnect [xbconnect.com]? I've been using those to play Xbox, and in the case of KAI, PS2 and GameCube, online since the consoles started having online games. Both also show signs that they plan to support XB 360 and PS3 with thier services in the future, as well. And, both are FREE, with XBC charging for a "premium" version.
  • All kidding aside, I really don't see even the Xbox 360 having something as pervasive as Live, if for no other reason than because Square-Enix has Final Fantasy XI and the latest expansion pack scheduled to release for the system. Even if SE wanted to pull a PSO and have players charged twice (once for Live, once for PSO), forsaking the current scheme in favor of a Live-esque service for the X360 version of FFXI will only break compatability with gamers on the PC and PS2 platforms. I don't see SE abandoni

    • Re:Netcraft Confirms: Xbox Live is Dying! (Score:4, Informative)

      by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2005 @11:39PM (#13938529)

      Microsoft may or may not have a centralized online service for the 360, but I don't see it being mandatory as it is now.

      Not only is it mandatory, but microsoft has said that *every* game must be xbox live aware... even single player games. That means single player games will upload stats and high scores to your xbox live account. Friends can find you even if you are playing a single player game.
  • I don't really care about voip in all games, although I haven't gamed on a console online before

    I don't want people inviting me to game x while I'm playing game y

    If I actually care if person x is online I'd have alternate means of contact with them.

    What have I missed out on that would make me want this service? I trust devs of good games to be able to make their online work. Shitty devs with shitty games and shitty work done on online portions I don't care about because of the shitty game factor.

  • Pure FUD (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fondue ( 244902 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @05:11AM (#13939630)
    1. Hmm, is that the same Saige who posts on E2 and is a Microsoft employee?
    2. The key difference between the PS2 and PS3 is that every PS3 is network ready out of the box. There won't be millions of offline legacy systems out there. As such it's meaningless to make a comparison between the way online play will be realised on the two systems.
    3. Xbox Live still can't support non-trivial and persistent online games. Software support will go where the money and users are, not where the fanciest front end is. A lack of a unified gamertag doesn't stop 4.5m people playing WoW.

    This is lame even by Zonk's standards.
    • so this was submitted by a MS employee? interesting...

      kinda makes my earlier comment seem warranted.

      http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167130&c id=13935377 [slashdot.org]

      also, it makes sense for them to start their smear campaign now right before their launch. look at all the posters here that make up their minds to go after the x360 due to this lil bit of FUD.

      also, it doesnt make sense because sonys online department has been swinging towards at least a partially centralized server system for a while now.
      • Read my journal [slashdot.org]. I admit to working at MS.

        That doesn't mean I'm doing it to represent Microsoft or anything like that. I'm a hardcore gamer too, and that's the part of me that's interested. The part of me that has been playing on Xbox Live since March and been totally impressed with how well it works and how much easier it is than online play on the PC, and wishes Sony would take a clue and do the same thing with the PS3.

        I know it's not popular to believe it here on Slashdot, but we're people too. I own
        • I know you're genuinely enthusiastic about XBL and there's no orchestrated FUD campaign going on. I still think it's unfortunate (and basically disingenuous, regardless of the intention) to not mention that you have a vested interest and aren't speaking from an unbiased position.

          A closed system that locks in developers and prevents entire genres of games from being viable isn't the only way to make online console gaming work. Live is great at what it does, but not everyone just wants to play driving and sho
          • Any "vested interest" as a gamer totally outweighs any such interest as a MS employee. If the 360 does well, I get, what, a few extra dollars of value in the little bit of stock I own? From a gamer perspective, if the console does well, I get to see more games and better games available for the system, and that will make me happier than an increase in stock value that might pay for a dinner out some evening. Should I include "Disclaimer: I will be buying a 360 and thus if the system does better I'll have

            • Re:Pure FUD (Score:2, Insightful)

              by fondue ( 244902 )
              Re "vested interest": It's not an issue of whether you stand to benefit financially. I don't think that you'd submit a news item one-sidedly criticising a Microsoft policy decision. But complaining about bias on Slashdot is kind of pointless, I guess.

              "And claiming Live prevents entire genres of games has no basis in reality whatsoever."

              How many MMORPGs are available on the Xbox again?

              "You think they're making developers sign contracts that requires them to only make certain types of games on Xbox Live?"

              I kn
        • okay... okay... okay...

          but still, dont you think it odd that this gem of info would have been hidden away for months after TGS, if it was announced before then?

          i dont know if the story is bogus, but the source seems questionable. thats all.
        • Well, you went from being rather blaise about Live and the XBox to being really enthuisastic about it shortly after getting the admin job at Microsoft. Are you SURE they didn't put some mind-control serum in your hair dye? ;-)

          Because I seem to recall you being more of a PC/Nintendo girl... Mario Kart: DD with your non-gamer SO and such.

          Oh, and didn't you just nab your XBox because you got a pretty good discount on it and the games and figured what the hell? Or am I remembering this wrong?

          I know it's not
          • First, it wasn't an admin job, but a SDE/T position. A bit more technical. :)

            And when I started, I wasn't interested in the Xbox. What got me to get one was that I spent a weekend at a (non-MS employee) friend's house dog-sitting, and they had an Xbox and KOTOR, which I started playing and really enjoyed. And since I could get discounted games and accessories from the company store (but not on the Xbox itself or non-MS published games), I figured it would be worth it and got one. This was in Jan.

            I then

Slashdot Top Deals

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Close