No gamerscore, no achievements on PS3
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Oct 23rd 2006 at 7:55PM }
Speaking with Game|Life, SCEA's executive vp Jack Tretton confirmed that PlayStation 3 user accounts will not feature an aggregate score based on gaming accomplishments, squashing rumors that Sony would counter Microsoft's gamerscore/achievement system with "entitlements."Tretton did suggest plans to incorporate a "pan-console" scoring system into first-party titles, but admitted that Sony had not decided on a name for this feature and that developers of first-party launch titles would likely pass on it. While excluded from Sony's aforementioned scoring system, third-party publishers will have the option to include their own achievement-like rewards, "on a game-by-game basis."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
fwacce @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:01PM
Again, only the hardcore gamer cares about their score being better than anyone else. The general populace couldn't care less, and this is the demographic Sony is going after.
Mike @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:01PM
that just suxs.
Nushio @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:02PM
Kinda like Nintendo then?
They've been doing it for a while, with Smash Bros Melee giving trophies and stuff for playing 50 hours, or Advance Wars giving medals for capturing 300 HQs...
I wouldnt mind if the Wii did this as well, there's no need for a globalized "gamerscore".
Thryon @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:01PM
While I do not think this will hurt Sony's sales of the PS3 any, as I already mentioned, those achievements are addictive and I do have to admit renting (and purchasing) games just to get them.
Matt Dusza @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:02PM
good. i find Gs and Achivements pointless. all they do is show off to people how much life you dont have by playing a game. Now what I find out what will happen is now that 360 fanboys will say sony is making a bad move by leaving them out and that theyre a great thing. But IF sony DID have a Gs or an achiement system of thir own, i guarentte you that everyone would say Sony is just copying microsoft. even the title of this very topic proves it that people are expecting Sony to take cues form MS, but will be called thieves if they DO use the 360's features.
Chris @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:03PM
Two word -- so what. I've been gaming console gaming since the 2600 and could really care less about 'gamerscore'. The whole scheme seems totally optimized for the upper 1% of hardcore gamers and, while cool for them, seems to occupy a lot of interface and attention for something so narrowly appealing.
Cloaker @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:10PM
#2. Did I just read your post correctly?
Idiotic statement. Sony does not gain a shred of the general gamer populace with their current pricing or distribution strategy. All this announcement does is give the hardcore fanboys something else to debate over.
And over.
And over.
BklynKid @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:07PM
No it won't affect sales, but those who have both consoles will probably miss getting achievements.
Jeff @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:06PM
So in other words, it's basically the total anarchy that the PS2 online system was.
Which is fine by me.
I agree with all of those comments so far about "achievements" and gamer scores and whatnot being pointless, and good for nothing but trash-talking among uber-nerds. I don't care whatsoever for them, and I don't even *like* the idea that everything I do online counts to some sort of aggregate number. I *want* to have different identities and different scores for every game - I mean seriously, what if I completely suck at a game? I don't want that following me around for the rest of my online life.
Sony's laissez-fare attitude towards online is a lot more my speed. Just let the developers figure out what they want to do for every game, and let users figure out what games feature the online components they want (or don't want). The one-size-fits-all approach of MS does not appeal to everybody, much as they obviously wish it did.
DBX00 @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:11PM
The key is that they are aggregating scores to create a 'gamerscore', but are instead keeping each top score separate on a game by game basis. They've basically made it so that you can be the top player in individual games instead of trying to fight your way to the top by being the top player in several games. I think this will still motivate people to play games to get the top score and will show off the achievements of more players. I can't fault Sony for trying something different, otherwise we would be complaining that all they do is copy.
Miniboss @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:11PM
I have an addition to Achievements. I think they're nice, and force you to play the games in different ways. And they're mandatory for developers to do (as far as I know). I don't really care about my global ranking, but it's neat to see how far my friends are in a game.
The thing is, Achievements and Gamerscores certainly don't hurt anything. Basically, Sony's online service is no different than what it was last gen. And that system doesn't let me talk to my friend while we're playing different games, which is something I actually use on Live. Sad.
Rabish12 @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:14PM
This isn't a major loss, but it's definitely a step in the wrong direction when Sony's trying to convince gamers that their online service will be better than (or at least as good as) Microsoft's.
Joshua Clare @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:17PM
fwacce, I don't consider myself a hardcore gamer but certainly a committed one. I have made very little effort to up my gamerscore immensely but it is interesting to have some sort of sembelance of how you are performing. As far as I'm concerned, this is yet another slip up from Sony. Sure many people won't give a s**t weather they have a record of their achievments or not, but quite a few will.
I still say Xbox FTW this generation, certainly as far as I'm concerned because I can't justify spending £425 on a console (by the way all you guys in the US who think you've got it bad having to pay $599 can check out the current exchange rate on £425 - our much delayed march 2007 release of the PS3 will cost a mere snip at $795)
Blackfish 95 @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:14PM
GP's and Achievements are fun. I think the idea of working for something, and collecting something is pretty universal.
I enjoy having a destination page to see what I've collected (both on the console and on the web) and compare what I've done to my friends.
I'm 38 yrs old and my 5 yr old son is now getting into it. He gets very excited when he sees that icon pop up while playing Lego Star Wars II :)
I think GP's and achievements are for everybody...
Lou @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:15PM
Uhm has anyone here ever played online with PS2, it is chaos. I don't think Live is great, and while I could careless about gamerscores and achievements it is kind of fun. However, I love how people have been saying for months that PS3 is the hardcore gamer system because of the price.
So now, the fanboys are saying that Live Gamerscores are only for hardcore gamers, and Sony doesn't want that. I think you confused the Wii with the PS3.
How many moms are going to shell out almost $1k (after games and a second controller) for their casual gamme sons.
Get you propaganda straight.
AoE @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:17PM
@DBX00, what you describe isn't different, it's stripped down. I'm guessing you haven't had much contact with the 360 yet? The way gamerscore, etc works is both ways. Yes you have the over-arching gamerscore, but you also have game-specific standings, even scoreboards for just yourself and your friends; some games even have scoreboards for specific maps and/or leves. So really, with the 360 system you can be as macro, or as micro about your scoring in games as you'd like.
Neil @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:18PM
This doesn't make a difference. I've racked up a lot of gamerpoints/achievements so far but my enthusiasm for them has dwindled over the past few months.
It was most addicting in the beginning when everyone started fresh from scratch, but now with ports like that the novelty has worn off it just seems like a system to reveal losers with no lives.
SomaXD @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:21PM
Personally i could care less about "gamer score" as i see it as fundementally flawed (buyingGS, cheatingGS, etc..)
Yeah its a fun little "gimmick" but it has no impact on anything. People now-a-days just think people on XBL with a high GS bought, or cheated them anyways, bringing the "bragging rights" to an extinction factor.
Negativecool @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:19PM
Personally, I’m letting out a sigh of relief. Because I’m not really a casual gamer, but I’m not really hardcore either. I’m one of those guys at the end of the round on an online FPS match, who is in the middle…with as many kills as deaths. Sometimes I’m all the way at the bottom, and sometimes I get lucky and pwn everyone. But for the most part, I am average and no one respects an average gamer.
My gamer score would be mediocre at best, and for me, my score would be more of a source of embarrassment than pride.
It’s bad enough that Resistance online will match me up with “teh nubes”…but that is were I belong…
amba @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:21PM
I don't care about a 'gamerscore', but what the public achievement system does do is encourage a person to use and keep a single profile (gamercard). Without that incentive, especially on a 'free system' it may be difficult to police unwelcome behaviour online.
CYRiX @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:20PM
GOOD MOVE SONY
Night Elve @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:21PM
I could not care less about Achievements / Entitlement ... I just wanna play not being a maniac that is going after many points to be the best of my friends in certain game.
Rask @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:24PM
You don't have to be a "hardcore gamer" or an "uber nerd" to enjoy gamerscores. I get a small buzz when I'm playing a game and I get the "Achievement Unlocked" message out of the blue.
When Enchanted arms was out, it was a great way to gauge where your friends were at in the game (since the game gave you the full 1000 over the course of the game.
It's also a great way to compare what your friends on your UNIFIED friends list have accomplished in a game compared to you.
The fact that everything is also available on xbox.com in real time is also pretty sweet.
I also know what my friends are playing and can ask how they like game X. Low score usually means they hated it or it's new. High score is a safe bet that they enjoyed the game(or are gamerscore whores).
Thinking of this in a business sense, this system is GREAT for everyone in the game industry. From the devs/publishers - who will sell more copies cause people will try more games (i'm guilty of trying games and entire new genres I wouldn't have given a chance before) to the rental chains to the trade-in retailers(when people get the full 1000 points of a game, they would trade it in for other games).
http://live.xbox.com/en-US/profile/Achievements/ViewAchievementSummary.aspx?WT.svl=nav
Anonymous @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:32PM
#2,
Please explain to me how Sony is going after the general populace with an expensive product with advanced technology that appeals to the small percentage of people with an HDTV?
carlos @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:32PM
I love achievements. It gives me a set goals to reach for each game, and it makes me fill like i've accomplished something once I've gotten them. They also add a lot to the replay value of the game since they give you stuff to do that is beyond the normal missions.
I'm sure the PS3 will do fine without them, but I think it is unfortunate for gamers that it will not have something like achievements.
Seer S @ Oct 24th 2006 12:09AM
Good riddance. This frees up development time.
polly @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:45PM
Wow. Broken promise from Sony #357.
I have to say that if you'd told me this before I had a 360, I would've said "who cares" too. But now that I have some experience with them, they do provide some enjoyment and challenge. It doesn't have to go so far as the guy on Ebay selling his tag with one of the highest gamerscores. It's really just about a sense of accomplishment and comparing them with friends. And it certainly adds a crack-like addictiveness to it all, as if games in general weren't addictive enough.
Your loss sonybots.
TB @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:46PM
No gamerscores, no achievments, no cross game msging, no cross game chat, every game doesnt have chat built in, no centralized service to ensure quality. WoW, I cant wait for ps3 online, lol.
Ben @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:14PM
#23, you said it best. I can't fathom why people hate gamerscore. If you don't care about it, then why do you get worked up in a huffy everytime the word is mentioned? No matter what you think, it does have some meaning. It's a way to guage progress in a game, in addition to guage how much time you spend gaming. Joe Smoe with 40,000 gamerpoints probably is quite the hardcore gamer, more than salley sue with 155. Doesn't mean she's less of a gamer, but it does mean that Joe Smoe plays a hell of a lot more. Don't like it? Fine, then stop whining, and let those of use that do enjoy playing games enjoy one of the many nice features of the Xbox 360.
Phil @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:50PM
Achievements are not just for bragging, but instead it gives you someting to work for after beating the game, and thus extends the life of the game. The Gamerscore is a way to add up all your achievements.
Rask @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:53PM
To be honest, Sony never promised this.
If I were a Sony customer, I'd be much more upset with the lack of a unified online infrastrusture (which was actually promised with PSN).
As it stands, the PS3 is purely a trojan horse for Blu-Ray and the Sony Store. A conduit so they can peddle a new movie disk format, Sony-BMG music, Sony Pictures music and Sony Television content directly to the end user.
Josh @ Oct 23rd 2006 8:55PM
At least we'll never hear Sony "entitlements" again...(maybe)
DeadPlasmaCell @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:01PM
"The general populace couldn't care less, and this is the demographic Sony is going after"
LoL!! That's gold! The launch quantity & Price of the console pretty much says "STFU" to that statement..
Matt @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:04PM
What bothers me about Sony is that they don't seem to care. They just don't seem to want to be "bothered" to... oh I don't know, think up names for services, or decide they actually want to introduce such services. I understand the online aspect of a system takes time... heck Xbox Live was pretty crappy until the 360 came out, four years later. But it seems that Sony is just in last place, even Nintendo seems ahead of them, with an idea of what they actually intend to do (as well as names for services and features).
johnjacob @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:12PM
In the future those achievements and points will be used to win prizes and other things.
Then we will see if people think its so stupid.The casual market will eat it up.
Eggman @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:35PM
I absolutely LOVE achievements... not cause I can brag about them to people online, not because i sit there religously trying to get at every single one (don't even bother with the hardcore ones) but because they give you a sense of accomplishment and reward for doing things in game. You can look back through your little badges and kinda feel proud of what you have. They also give you a really sweet incentive to do better at games (like geometry wars... GOTTA beat 500k now ^^;).
As for the responses claiming this is only for hardcore gaming nerds and sony isn't aiming for this kind of audience... gimme a fukin break. First of all, sony is targetting nothing but the most hardcore market with their tech'd out super computer (do u really think casual gamers give a shit about blu ray this and cell processor that? or even $600 for a fukin gaming console). Second, this feature isn't just for people trying to get every single achievement from every game... its for anyone that likes having a sense of accomplishment after completing an objective.
Badges and little trophies have been done before in games, yes. However, never to this degree where you have all of them on ur global account. This is whats so great about live, integration. You may play a game, collect the trophies and shelf it along with what u accomplished, but ur gamerscore/achievements follow u everywhere (including xbox.com and w/e live anywhere is).
Lefty @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:11PM
i am playing splinter cell again to get the rest fo the achievemnts from some of the choices i made last run thru. if a system gets you to find enjoyment in a agme and adds replay value its always a good thing. plus splinter cell is such a good game. i think achievments are a good thing and could care less what my total score is. just my feeling on it
Pulse @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:15PM
Let me just clear this up a little, first of all, this came out decades ago at Gamespot, I've already spent ages explaining my reasons for not being to concerned by this and if anything pleased.
I too thought a gamerscore would be cool, but then I thought about it, although a Gamerscore is cool, it forces you to buy more games, what if I don't want to buy more games? What if I want to stick with good ol' Fifa here because I hate FPS games as they don't interest me, what if I love Halo, and don't really care about Cricket games as I find them boring, why should I go out and buy or rent a cricket game just to get points online?
I should be able to play the game I enjoy, go online and reach top ranks in that game, without concern that while I'm playing Fifa, someone else is getting more Gamerpoints playing Halo then me, thats bang out of order, what the heck has Halo got to do with Fifa, 2 completly different genres, now, what do I do in this situation? Because it not exactly fair if some games are easier to play then others, you can't exactly say Halo on legendary is as difficult as Fifa on world class. A Halo player may not know the first thing about playing Fifa, and visa versa.
What Sony should have on thier main online, is the ability to see how well gamers have done in individual games, this has more importance to me then a big score overall. That way, you can challenge the person to a game at that particular game they play and are good at.
Next what exactly does the gamerscore proove? That someone else on thier Live is more geeky then me? That the higher the score, the less of a life that person has to me? Not exactly, but it comes across that way. Its not really fair that a person that has more money then you to buy loads of game and get a score you will never reach as you will never be able to afford the amount of games they have, basically what Gamerscore is telling me is that you have to be 1. A game nerd that can complete every game on Xbox possible on all levels of difficulty, unlocking all unlockables. 2. Rich, the more games, the more likely to have a higher score. 3. Spending day in day out (like World of warcraft people) playing games instead of going out and enjoying life to the fullest :P
Its already bad enough PS3 is expensive, why would any PS3 owner in thier right mind want to then go out and purchase a tonne load of games to stack up Gamerpoints, thats just stupid, so its a good idea in that sense.
To be honest, I don't really see the purpose of Gamerpoints at all, its not like as if it is some major award you can then show off to you kids later on in life, I know for sure I'd have a low Gamerscore if I played Live, I'm not a "Sit at home all day and play games" person, I play them when I have time, and its just nice to be able to challenge a gamer at a game I love, all that does is make the gamer more interested in collecting Gamerpoints rather then enjoying the individual games to the fullest, since when was fun competition.
Rant ....over....
skrills @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:20PM
@ 2
Oh really, you sure about that? You think Sony's going after the general populace.. with a $599 price tag?
Sure buddy, and George Bush went after Iraq because of WMD. Suuuure..
a Master Ninja @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:24PM
Some of you guys (mostly the people unfamiliar with the 360) just don't understand why people care about this.
Gamerscore: Completely pointless cumulative score from all the games you play, not many people give a damn about this.
Achievements: Legitamately clever way for competitive people to compare progress and ability in games. Also can add replay value to games by giving you a "new way to play" (ex: Survive for 60 seconds without firing a shot in Geometry Wars) and also a good indication of when you've done/unlocked everything.
Mike @ Oct 24th 2006 12:10AM
I personally like gamer scores among friends. I like comparing where I'm at in a game to where my friend is at it a game. I guess it's just the competitive side of my personality. It also adds a bit to the game. There are some things I would never have worried about doing in a game if it wasn't for the achievement system. It's also nice knowing that every game I buy will have them. If developers make cross-platform games, that being 360 and PS3 games, then perhaps there's a good chance that you'll see them on the PS3 version. Then again, if it's not manditory why should the dev waste time writing the code? All this news about the PS3 does is make me feel a bit less bad about selling my PS3 on eBay when I get it at launch.
Usedtabe @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:30PM
At first, I didn't care. But, since owning my 360 in March, I have come to realize I like the achievements. It's like you're own little parade for everything you do good in a game, all with a blinking trophy icon. It seriously makes me regret beating and trading in my 1st few games without getting the achievements. Definite replay value involved
bill pullman @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:41PM
"but then I thought about it, although a Gamerscore is cool, it forces you to buy more games, what if I don't want to buy more games?"
how the HELL does it force you to buy more games? i enjoy both the Gamerscore and Achievements, and my score is sub-3000. if you're feeling pressured to buy games due to the Gamerscore system, perhaps you need some time away from video games, since you're obviously taking it WAY too seriously. as for it being unfair for someone else to buy more games than you, and thereby boost their score, that's silly. should no one own a nicer car or bigger house than you, simply because you can't? this is gaming -- NOT communism.
also, i don't know why people think that someone with a high gamerscore sits at home and plays all day. maybe you're not owning up to something: some people are better at video games than others, and they complete games/achievements much faster than others. that doesn't mean they're losers, it just means YOU'RE not as good. accept it.
since the Gamerscore/Achievement thing is basically a bonus, and not integral to your enjoyment of an Xbox 360, maybe some of you could consider getting the hell over it, and accept the fact that some people enjoy the damn things.
Eric Hikade @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:42PM
Achievements really help sell 360's...oh wait.
Personally, I could care less. I've been playing games since 2600 and colecovision...I own a 360 and I could give a rat's ass about my gamerscore.
Sonic_EXtreme @ Oct 23rd 2006 10:00PM
Do some people really think the gamerscore is the only score xbl offers?? Like someone mentioned it before it ALSO has individual game scores from every game, along with tons of acheivements for passing specific things. You can also compare stats with friends or non friends. So while this is not a big feature being lost to some its a fun way of comparing to their friends. I for one always compare myself to my brothers.
Pulse @ Oct 23rd 2006 9:53PM
Who exactly are you bragging to, games are games, achievements I like, gamerscore is completly useless, you are you going to brag to? Other gamers? Thats about it, no one else would really give a monkeys backside :)
I like to complete games anyway, I hate leaving games unfinished, so achievements would be good for me, its an incentive to complete games before ditching them, Gamerscore is different, thats just another way to make you go out and spend spend spend on more games to up your score, and like I said, I'd rather play the one game I enjoy untill I get fed up of it and then get a new one, whats the point renting and buying new games to up a score that won't mean anything to you later on in life. What a complete waste of time :P
If Microsoft was giving out awards for members with superior high scores like free game deals, or a 100% certain chance of getting a free next gen Xbox 720, or free clothing, etc etc etc, then that would be enough incentive for anyone to get loads of gamerpoints other then that, forget it, what am I getting out of it? A waste of my time and life, in which I could be out with girls, clubbing, socializing and spending my money on more important things.
Ringworm @ Oct 23rd 2006 10:03PM
X-Box 360 has always come across to me as a scifi green & black overexposed B-movie type of gaming console with good graphics and a headset for online play. Every aisle is drenched in the colors of green slime that has been splattered from a monster who just got his head shot in a tough guy FPS game. Sorry, but I bleed Miyamoto's blood for eternity. Always have and always will.
visionep @ Oct 24th 2006 12:23PM
Because of this I can't see myself purchasing any cross platform games for the PS3, my purchases will be limited to system specific only.
If the games are pretty much the same but I can get achievement points for the 360 version I'll go with the better network and the kudos that I can brag to my friends about.
Pulse @ Oct 23rd 2006 10:30PM
Xbox has always come across to me as what its name says :S Nothing else, lol
Sonic, nobody said gamerscore was all it had to offer, we know it has acheivements and individual scores for games, but whatI'm saying for instance is that I wouldn't even notice that gamerscores were missing, thats how pointless it is to my life.
I wouldn't be caomparing scores as I'd be too embarrased to, ppl would just sse me as weird if I went around to my mates bragging about my gamerscore, they'd be like "......so?"
Now, if I played Pro Evolution now with a mate, and they saw how high up I was on the leaderboard, it doesnt mean I'm a sad old git with nothing else to do in my life but buy games and complete missions and train all day, it simply means I've lost little or no matches and have won or drawn most of my matches, thus making them realise that I'm one tough cookie.
Whether gamerscore is on PS3, Xbox, Wii or PC or even Hitopii 3000 coming out in 2090, it is still pointless. A leaderboard in the games I play is all I need, all I need to find out how good Frank is at Halo, all I need to find out how many matches George has lost in Fifa, all I need to find out if lee really is as good as he says he is at Gears Of War. The gamerscore tells me little or nothing at first sight except the higher it is, the sadder the person must be, lol.
Todzilla @ Oct 23rd 2006 10:29PM
i think it is great the way microsoft requires some sort of online interactivity for all games, even if it is just gamerscores. I see a problem with leaving it up to the developers whether or not they want make their game online. look at all the games on xbox that were online, but their ps2 counterparts were not. with an online system like xbox live why the hell wouldn't developers like valve jump all over the 360. with the ps3 (much like the ps2) there is no structure. just face it sony doesn't know a damn thing about online. after all they are an electronics company and they don't even make reliable electronics.