Sony gets NYT to play Cpt. Obvious

by Alexander Sliwinski { Oct 18th 2006 at 4:25PM }

The New York Times published a story today focusing on Sony's Playstation 3 jumping into the online arena. The story touts Sony's message that the Playstation 3 console is a long term investment worth the price tag. The story mentions Xbox Live and says that Sony will announce how they plan to combat that service at a press conference tomorrow in San Francisco -- OK, so why did this story run in the NYT today, instead of waiting the 24 hours for the real news?

The article also quotes Jack Tretton, the co-chief operating officer of SCEA as saying, "Every PS3 owner should be able to plug in Day 1 and take full advantage of everything we have to offer... there is freedom for the development community and freedom from the consumer standpoint." Sounds like Sony's new PR honcho Dave Karraker has Tretton on a tighter leash since the last PR fiasco, as he says almost nothing in this fluff piece.

The NYT story doesn't go into any detail about Sony's interface. It states that the Sony system will not be a central network like Microsoft's Xbox Live, but allows for publishers to set up their own networks. The one gamer interviewed in the article pretty much sums up the free service, "If Sony is going to tout that it's free, it better be good... It just can't be free and bad."

Karraker deserves a bonus for getting NYT to do a story that the Playstation 3 will have online capabilities. Well, duh! Gold star for Karraker suckering the NYT with a story full of analysts and Googleable data. That's what we pretend journalists do here at Joystiq.

Tags: new york times, NewYorkTimes, playstation 3, sony

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

JodyAnthony @ Oct 18th 2006 4:31PM

"the Sony system will not be a central network like Microsoft's Xbox Live, but allows for publishers to set up their own networks"

Then whats the difference between this and the ps2 online capabilities (at least when it comes to games..I know ps3 will "allow" you to use their free service to access all their virtual storefronts)

J.Goodwin @ Oct 18th 2006 4:39PM

"Every PS3 owner should be able to plug in Day 1 and take full advantage of everything we have to offer... there is freedom for the development community and freedom from the consumer standpoint."

Lesson for the day from Sony, "if it ain't there on launch day, it ain't coming."

RanWitScissorz @ Oct 18th 2006 4:39PM

Sounds like less games with online functionality (mainly those with online as an added feature and not the main premise of the game), due to developers having to invest in their own servers.

ncxcstud @ Oct 18th 2006 4:43PM

Whenever I see "developers hosting their own services" that screams to me that developers will eventually ask you to pay for their services to maintain their servers...

So, essentially the Sony online network is free, but you may have to pay EA, Ubisoft, etc...for them to upkeep and run their servers...

Carl Winslow @ Oct 18th 2006 4:46PM

"the Sony system will not be a central network like Microsoft's Xbox Live, but allows for publishers to set up their own networks"

Ugh. That that kind of crushes hopes for an Xbox Live killer.

RoroCo @ Oct 18th 2006 4:46PM

Sounds like the PS2 online game plan with additional GUI. That can't be good. XBLA is successful because the programmers are able to gain economies of scale with a centralized system.

They do not need to re-invent the wheel every time the introduce a new game.

This was proven last generation. It is a shame that Sony seems to be going down the same path this generation.

Ash @ Oct 18th 2006 4:48PM

XBL has had a year to establish... dont know how sony plans to rival that from day one...

Lefty @ Oct 18th 2006 4:50PM

and my biggest complaint

u can not talk or contact friends cross games. u have to be in the dashboard to view or reply to messages. like i said earlier this is a singling experience and does not connect gamers. to me thats upsetting. right now i am chatting with my brother while i play some geometery wars and he is playing madden. this would not be possible on the ps3. that to me is a deal breaker

ncxcstud @ Oct 18th 2006 4:51PM

#7 -

A year? Try at least 4 or 5.

Lefty @ Oct 18th 2006 4:52PM

ash

live is 4+ years old. my friends list from xbox is the same one i use for xbox 360.

voodooboo @ Oct 18th 2006 4:53PM

should be able to....

*should*

not will be able to?

Justin @ Oct 18th 2006 5:08PM

There is no way possible Sony can match Microsoft in the online arena. Sony is not a software company.

Joost Schuur @ Oct 18th 2006 5:10PM

Lefty: Xbox Live launched 11/15/02, making it almost 4 years old. The first online games on the PS2 came out in October 2001 (Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3).

Scott @ Oct 18th 2006 5:16PM

It's a little early to be claiming that the PS3 online setup is no different than the PS2's. Nobody knows what developers will do yet in terms of server hosting. They may find it much cheaper and easier to let Sony's servers handle the online component of their games. The article indicates this possibility:

“Sony’s telling developers: you can use our network if you don’t have resources to make one, or you can make your own servers,” Mr. Varanini said.

Mr. Khan @ Oct 18th 2006 5:21PM

It seems as though Sony REFUSES to learn from the past

Live kicked all Online Services' asses (and this is coming from a self-proclaimed MS hater)Sony should emulate it to beat it

Sony's willing to copy Motion-sensing tech, but they're not willing to copy LIVE?

What gives?

DojoRacoon @ Oct 18th 2006 5:28PM

I wanna know if anyone is buying the long term investment thing. If Sony believes the PS3 will last for ten years they're in for a big surprise. They will look like old gen when MS and Nintendo come out with their new systems most likely with new features. The best they will be able to do is add-ons ala Sega and we all know how well that turned out.

Justin @ Oct 18th 2006 5:39PM

Mr. Khan

Sony copied the motion-sensing technology because they had the know how. Sony does not have the know how to copy LIVE as they are not a software company.

Joe P. @ Oct 18th 2006 5:41PM

"pretend" journalists at joystiq, indeed. You guys are usually so quick to post links to negative news, but you must be slackin' today, since you haven't linked to this one yet:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=68840

Vlad, Blake, what gives?

Tom @ Oct 18th 2006 5:48PM

And this is worse than posting 6 different stories about standing in line for Wii preorders?

Roonil Wazlib @ Oct 18th 2006 5:48PM

Joe P.:

Microsoft admitting they fucked up is negative news?

Usedtabe @ Oct 18th 2006 5:50PM

Joe P,

At least Microsoft can admit their mistakes. Unlike another company who just ignores their own problems while trash talking their competition

Ben @ Oct 18th 2006 5:50PM

I'm actually impressed with the PR spin. Sony is asking the developers to provide the servers and networking backbone, and passing it off as "flexibility". Why would any developer want to do extra work and provide costly servers if they didn't have to?

Also, from the article:

"In addition, players will be able to connect directly to one another through the network, again avoiding a central server, a setup likely to give significantly better performance."

Um...what?

gamefan1975 @ Oct 18th 2006 5:56PM

this is a turn-around for Sony to get some positive press that didn't require some major announcement. What gives with all you idiots bashing them for doing something right? Shouldn't the comments section be designed to talk about this particular post, not the rest of the BS that you think you all know? No one has even seen the online stuff from Sony, so how can you claim it sucks? Idiots.

Joe P. @ Oct 18th 2006 5:56PM

@ #4: Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. PS2 owners have been gaming online for free, for years. To date, the publishers of SOCOM, FIFA, and many other games have NOT charged for online play, regardless of how this "screams" to you that they will. They don't charge for online play because it doesn't make financial sense. Games compete against each other based on features and playability. If your competition charges for online play, and you don't, guess who sells more games?

Sony plans to let developers use Sony's servers to host games, or their own. How is this bad? Talk to the many developers who've balked at MS's monolithic, "pay me!" approach to XBL, and see what they think. I'm looking forward to letting the markey decide based on features and price, which it will, no matter how many kiddies out there can't bear the idea that Sony may actually succeed.

SonyBlowsGoats @ Oct 18th 2006 5:58PM

Sony has had 4-5 years to come up with an answer to XBOX Live. What the hell have they been doing in that time?

Jason W @ Oct 18th 2006 6:00PM

When MS host its own server you can pluck in old games and they work great years later. Whacked was the fist xbox live game on the market (i think) and it still works to this day. The only games on live you cant play now are the ones that publishers host. The only publisher really pushing their own hosting is EA. They do this so they can kill off great not to old games, NFL Street 2 and not alow you to play it online. I hate publishers hosting their own games because they can force games to become DOA when it comes to online, just to make you buy the new ones.

Lefty @ Oct 18th 2006 6:09PM

and it wasn't really a f-up just they felt bad they had a lull in 1st party games. dev cycles were longer than expected. we see the same thing with nintendo and ps3. games being pushed back and with the wii its 3rd party online support being not till 2007. these things happen.

i am glad they came out and appologised but when u look at the next 6 months they are more than making up for it with hit after hit comming out from all genres

Lefty @ Oct 18th 2006 6:12PM

jason W

exactly. most donlt understand that either. as soon as it is no longer cost effective they will shutdown servers or consolidate them adding more lag. central service makes it so from day 1 to 10 years later u can play online. thats a good point many miss. but hey its free right lol. 14 cents a day worth every penny.

thats my 14 cents on the subject

dsub @ Oct 18th 2006 6:13PM

Joe P.-

microsoft admitting that they should have had more first party support throughout year one really isn't negative news. It's pretty much pointing out the obvious. That actually sounds like another story for Joystiq's Captain Obvious to point out.

Also, why in that article do they site DOA4 as a first party title? DOA4 is a third party exclusive.

Besides, MS has the first party content ball rolling for 2007.

hehehhehe @ Oct 18th 2006 6:50PM

Lemme play Capt. Obvious too. It's the New York Times, not some gamer's magazine. It doesn't expect most of its readers to be gaming blog readers and up to date on all the PS3 info.

ninja @ Oct 18th 2006 7:56PM

Does a majority of Joystiq readers go with one fact and forget everything else from the past? History, my friends...

Xfire - which basically offers what Xbox Live offers alone. Its up to developers to incorporate the feature.

Firmware Updates - Just like PSP, the PS3 will have the ability to receive firmware updates which can enhance the current set of features throughout the consoles life-time.

Open/Closed - with a closed platform, such as Xbox Live, developers are limited to features that Microsoft offers. In an open platform that offers a centralized network (I think every developer out there knows where this one is going), developers can expand on what features are already there making for a more immerssive community experience.

K_G @ Oct 18th 2006 8:08PM

If only the journalists at the NYT could do up some x/y charts and Venn Diagrams with inane axis titles/groups and call them newsworthy...I doubt a single one of you would not hesitate to push a old women down a flight of stairs as you rush out the the door if the NYT gave you a call for job interview to their empty trash cans. Yeah, what total &^%%&*'holes the NYT is for writing a broad overview on a product that hasn't even been released yet for their general audience. Can we shortly expect a similarly whiney post bitching about how the NYT didn't even put the closing of Clover studio on their front page?