Xbox Live specsheet/comparison...

[DBJAY]

http://www.xbox.com/system/onlinespecsheet.htm?det=1

Interesting read. I couldn't find one factual mistake on the list, within reason of course. They can't list every online game (and every developer) for PS2 and Xbox, so those lists are abbreviated.

This does highlight some of the concerns I have with the PS2 approach. So many of the features of online gaming for the PS2 are publisher determined: such as price per game (like Final Fantasy Online.....free or pay?...It's pay in Japan, so for everyone else?), chat/voice functions, buddies list, etc.
If Sony is providing similar features for their network they really need to get that info out there.

The fact that there is no price or availibility mention by Sony for the hard drive yet is odd as well. As it is, Socom for 60, plus the network adapter makes it a 100 buck game. Adding in the assumed cost of a hard drive at least a 100, and that quite a chunk.

Also, after reviewing the latest EGM, some of the online experience (for PS2) through the games will be pretty limited on 56k. For example, only being able to play online with 2 people is kind of pointless. Didn't the Dreamcast get up to at least 4 for some games? SOCOM for example, is broadband only, which is ironic considering they are proud of their narrowband/broadband adapter when DC was being trashed by Sony for being narrowband only.

Of course, the largest concern is that with Sony's approach, if a publisher wants to go online, they have to have their own infrastructure to handle the game. No business can give away services for free, such as PlayOnline and Sega's fees for their servers for PSO (on GC + Xbox), so I wonder how effective this strategy to be? Sony's own Everquest for PC charges by the month, and pulls down some decent coin in the process.

[Black Sugar]

I don't even believe that Sony do have a plan about the online strategy.

Like Nintendo, the online future seem blurry. Unlike Nintendo, Sony still talk like they had something to offers.

As for the X-Box, well the console was put on the market for that purpose only. Online games.

[Havoc2049]

"Didn't the Dreamcast get up to at least 4 for some games?"

Phantasy Star Online was four per party. The lounges could hold up to something like 50. Starlancer could support like six or eight players on one board at a time and I think Quake 3 was the same. The dreamcast was really a good on-line console.

[Kid0_oIcarus]

I call bias, but a slightly informative read nonetheless.

I like how most of Nintendo's column is "TBD" :D

No glaring errors though... 'course- I only glanced at it. :D

[Pikachu]

The success of Xbox live depends on the number of highspeed Internet users who also happen to be an Xbox owner.

Unless highspeed grow up rapidly in the next few months....

[grahf]

Well I think sony is the only one with a clear plan here. They're basically just sitting the fence and seeing if online gaming will take off. They saw from the DC that it's done both; on one hand it was moderately successful, yet on the other, it wasn't milestone everyone thought it would be. I think when it all comes down, Sony is just still heavily committed to solo gaming at the moment. After all, there's more business in solo than online isn't there. Think about it. You go online. You play the same game. You don't buy another game for oh I don't another 8 months. Now compared this to when you would've buy 1 games every 3 months and it's obvious that sony is losing big bucks here. And we all know its the games that makes money. You can't make money if people can just mooch off a single game for a year+ now can you?

Overall, I think the only ones who'll be successful this generation are Nintendo and Sony. They're not as committed to online gaming as much as MS is and maybe this is their advantage. Who knows, maybe online gaming will a revolution that MS is looking for and it might give them a chance like Sony back when it introduce CD base mediums. But regardless, online gaming is just not very mature at the moment, so it's pointless to fully commit to it, something which both Sony/nintendo see well.

PS: I don't like gaming online anyway. I play games to get away from reality, not to get closer to it.

[aneep]

if u call wait n see as a clear plan, yeah ;)

-aneep-

[DBJAY]

FYI, Sony's plan is to let the publisher's handle it, like Square's Playonline or Capcom's dabbling, or EA's pc efforts. I don't call Sony's approach a plan, but a hands off, minimal effort approach.

Of course, Nintendo apparently has no plan, and will let Sega's PSO be the one lone title carrying the torch.

[Black Ace]

Originally posted by Kid0_oIcarus
I call bias, but a slightly informative read nonetheless.

I like how most of Nintendo's column is "TBD" :D

No glaring errors though... 'course- I only glanced at it. :D

Yeah comparing something to something unknown. Thats smart. :haha:

[DBJAY]

Now that it is out, the network adapter for the PS2, some of the list has proven to be accurate. There really isn't much Sony is offering in way of service and they are letting each developer determine how to deal with the online aspect. Even in the new PSM, they remark how the network adapter doesn't even allow for basic internet functions, like email. It's a good read, they point out the positives and a few of the negatives.