Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image | December 13, 2017

Scroll to top



Sony Online will not be Unified |

PS3According to Joystiq, the Official PlayStation Magazine says that the PS3 online model is to allow each developer to set its own price. Open architecture.

While Harrison admitted that the Xbox Live online gaming service is one of the things that Microsoft has done well, he said that Sony’s plan is to let publishers establish their own means for getting consumers online and to let the publishers interact with consumers directly instead of using Sony as some kind of buffer for the online experience.

Personally, I can’t say that I really care that much. I have an online adapter for my PS2 (I bought it used – man they’re expensive!). And I’ve played online two, maybe three, times. It just doesn’t do it for me. I much prefer having a couple friends in the same room as me, playing video games that way. (I hope there are lots of 4 player games for the PS3.) Do you remember social interaction? Gosh, what a concept. Online, even with a headset and microphone, is just too insulating from other players. And I’m not the only one that seems to think so. The Xbox with its much-vaunted Xbox Live has only about 10% of its users online. Ten percent! That’s a piddling number.

So the gist of it is that the PS3 will have online. It just won’t be as centralized and all-knowing (or expensive) as Microsoft’s option.

How important is a centralized online to you?

Joystiq – Sony sticks with non-unified online service
psinext – Sony to Forego a Centralized Online Network?

  • Tim Jansen

    I’d like to have a console with something like Xbox Live – on my PS2 I have an built-in network adapter, but I hardly use it, because a) the PS2’s multipayer UIs are annoying and b) I don’t have any PS2 games that I really want to play online. On the other hand, on the PC I play almost always online – mostly Tribes 2, sometimes other FPS. Unfortunately a system without a mouse is almost unusable for FPS and thus I am not sure whether I would actually want to play FPS on the PS3. At least I would like to do it sometimes without navigating through menus for 15 minutes.

  • I can get along alright with the PS2 controller doing an FPS. The PS3 will allow a keyboard and mouse (just like the PS2 did). The question is will developers use them? For the PS2 there was games like Unreal and Half-Life, but not all that many.

  • Agent864

    How about federated ? If sony doesn’t want to centrally manage online servers for all publishers why not publish a set of specs for a federation of servers and services that recognize one set of gamer id ‘s and implement some standard level of services. Sony can then just publish a nice store front for accessing all the publishers’ federated online services.

  • In my FAQ I mention that Sony was working on something more for online. From the FAQ:

    It will include associated friends lists, matchmaking and ‘intelligence’ services. It will continue to use the PS2 online model of allowing developers to independently set prices for their services.

    This fits well with your federated idea.

  • Before I say this, let me mention that I really like your site – now for the criticism:

    In response to your assertion that “… I’m not the only one that seems to think so. The Xbox with its much-vaunted Xbox Live has only about 10% of its users online. Ten percent! That’s a piddling number.” That is between 2 and 2.5 million users – making XBOX live the fastest growing online or broadcast service in history – even more so than cable television.

    No offense, but you are absurdly wrong – LIVE is a HUGE sucess and continues to grow at a rediculous pace.

    As for Sony’s plans and the seeming trend of Sony fanboys “not caring” about online services – that’s because the developer controled services available via Sony’s console are so miserable that you don’t know how good it can be with a service like LIVE.

    In my case, Live is perfect – much better than system link. First of all, I have a 32 inch samsung HD and a 50 inch toshiba projection, but I still don’t want to share my screen with others – split screen sucks (and no, I don’t want you hauling your TV over to my place either) – secondly, most of my friends are scattered across the globe – I can’t exactly invite them over to play 🙂

  • Then for you LIVE is a good solution. That’s great! For me, it wouldn’t make a difference. Thanks for posting!

  • Brandon

    I’m very glad that PS3 won’t have a centralized system. People always tout XBox Live as the best possible setup for online play but I’ve seen a fair amount of trouble with it too. People seem to forget that when they are playing on a server hosted by… say EA for example, they are still playing on a very big, capable, reliable, system that was setup by a very major game publisher. Think of PC gaming – when is the last time you heard a Doom III player say “oh man, it really sucks that the game has to connect to Id’s server before I can join a game”? Other than having centralized player stats, I can’t see the advantage of paying $50 plus an annual fee when I could spend that money on an online GAME and actually be playing.

  • Yes! I keep forgetting that annual online fee. Sometimes I feel like I’m being nickel and dimed to death, and this is another bill to pay I could do without.