Comparing XB Live, PS Network, and WiiConnect24 as is
by Blake Snow 
{ Jan 18th 2007 at 5:55PM }
Game Informer highlights the pros and cons of online console play comparing Xbox Live, the PlayStation Network, and WiiConnect24 side-by-side as is. If you have the luxury of owning and experiencing every service, not much is new here. But it's a good and balanced read, nonetheless, for the uninitiated.As you can expect, Xbox Live is highly acclaimed in the comparison though both Sony's and Nintendo's offering are given handicaps for their being new to the party. And while Sony is experiencing growing pains, Game Informer believes the company has the resources to deliver an "Xbox Live--at no extra charge," and who's against not having to pay monthly service fees for a comparable network?
With regards to Nintendo, no one really knows what the company has up its sleeve (if anything) as they currently don't support online gameplay. But there is a glimmer of hope; Nintendo is planning to release four new first-party games this year all reportedly supporting "online play." While not a lot, this is a first for a company that has yet to publish an online-enabled console game (only Sega did for GameCube). But those 16-digit console codes have us sweating the potential.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jsn @ Jan 18th 2007 6:02PM
oh please, Sony has the resources to build xbox live, free of charge... my ass! Right now sony's resources are cut pretty thin and the reason it's free is because Sony didn't want the responsibility of building anything..
That's why online play or connectivity period, is optional for their games. They didn't want to invest in and have to manage an online service, so the quality of it will ALWAYS be second rate.
Ben @ Jan 18th 2007 6:05PM
"And while Sony is experiencing growing pains, Game Informer believes the company has the resources to deliver an "Xbox Live--at no extra charge," and who's against not having to pay monthly service fees for a comparable network?"
The Xbox fanboys :p
Seriously though, If PSN ever caught up to Xbox Live, I think we'd see some serious price cuts very quickly on MS's side. But then again, MS is unlikely to let Sony catch up; it's not like they sit in their offices and hang out while the guys at Sony chug along.
Matters @ Jan 18th 2007 6:09PM
I agree with jsn and on top of that who cares if their service is free when I can still get an xbox 360 with a few years of (the much better) XBL Gold service and still come out on top or better yet do the Wii360 combo.
JJ @ Jan 18th 2007 6:09PM
JSN not to burst your bubble but its not like Xbox live is doing anything special that hasn't been done on the PC before... in fact as much as i love Live.. since a mjority of the games i play are hosted by other peoples systems and dependent on that for connection speed... why am i paying a monthly fee to host games?
I still stand by that Live should be free, but then i guess these companies gotta make money somehow and if sony CAN ( IF ) then who the heck can complain and why would you want too? Unless of course you're not a gamer and just like to harp on a company.
Besides whats wrongw ith having optional online support? Seems to be working for the Wii, and not every game is needed to be able to play online and just like with high definition not Everyone plays online anyway.
dori. @ Jan 18th 2007 6:26PM
Apparently the Wii friend code system sees usage based on who the developer is.
For example, the Pokemon Stadium Wii (forget the real name atm) has a separate friend code from the system. But Elebits (by Konami) uses the Wii console code.
dirtyone @ Jan 19th 2007 12:50PM
your paying 50 bucks a year for a gamertag
Sean @ Jan 18th 2007 6:18PM
"who's against not having to pay monthly service fees for a comparable network"
I am. The $50/year fee cuts down on the jackholery. By tying an account to a credit card, it makes it really hard to get around being banned.. you'll have to get another credit card with a different billing address.
Eddie Rek @ Jan 18th 2007 7:15PM
First of all: I gladly will continue to pay MS for xbox live, as it is an awesome feature that has revolutionized console gaming.
Second: If you pay $7.99 per month it would cost you over $85 a year.
You should just pick up an annual subscription for less than $40, often on sale.
$40?? to have the best online gaming service available?? NOT BAD AT ALL.
jsn @ Jan 18th 2007 6:20PM
#4, you aren't bursting anyones bubble and the point of the discussion had nothing to do with PC. We're talking consoles. While I agree gold SHOULD be free, the fact that they charge for it is why they continually expand and upgrade the service. When you make no money off it, you aren't going to put much money into it to make it better.
Their service also allows game developers to focus on making games and not writing net code and building lobbies for their games. There is a pre-built framework with a consistent UI that everyone who uses live knows well that they can hook into if they choose. This is especially nice for console developers who have zero experience coding online games.
Matters @ Jan 18th 2007 6:24PM
I agree JJ, but don't forget who dominates the PC software world.
If anybody is going to give us software as good or better than what we've had on the PC for a while now it's going to be Microsoft not Sony (unless they pull their heads out of their asses).
I do agree that it seems funny paying money for XBL and then having games hosted off our own machines. That seems lame and gives the host a slight advantage (I would think. My roommates hog the 360's) On top of that we get charged for other crap that we should get for free, but whatever. In the end it's still a pretty sweet service. I'd prefer if games were hosted more like battle.net though (assuming battle.net is the same as I remember it from back in the day).
Microsoft is probably already working on the next generation releases of XBL. By the time Sony catches up they'll be behind again. They'll need to do some serious research and innovation if they want to surprass XBL now or in the future.
SammyDKat @ Jan 18th 2007 6:25PM
I'd rather play against paying customers that can be denied service for cheating & being jerks.
JJ @ Jan 18th 2007 6:27PM
Sean i'd have to disagree with you on the jerks thing... i still find plenty of em online on the 360 regardless of needing the credit card or time card or whatever.
There's still just as many lame online gamers as anywhere else.
JSN that is true, but if one can offer the same without having the need to charge for it... I dont see why it cant be anything but a GOOD thing. Whose to say they cant send out the framework in a DEV kit or osmething of that nature? (i'm not a programmer so i wont even try to sound like i know what to do) but given the fact that online support has beena round for YEARS now, i dont think its too big a hurdle.
heck i remember playing killer instinct online on my SNES years ago (thanks xband) and that did pretty much the same thing we're doing now only now its more streamlined.
and they could still expand and upgrade the service without charging for it since we're really just paying for a friends list in my eyes. Its not like we get many freebies outside of demos and the occasional theme or two,e verything else requires money (or MS points) to purchase so its not like they're doing us a favor or anything.
Granted i know MS needs to make money on live since they sunk a ton into it, but hopefully if Sony can get its service up and running comparably to MS, it might just get MS to abolish the price. so we're not paying anywhere from 50-96 dollars a year for live (depending on which plan you go with mind you). and while yes, its not a LOT of money over the course of a year, its still money none the less.
JJ @ Jan 18th 2007 6:35PM
Matter while we could argue the whole OS thing (i'm not an apple fanboy but i really dont like windows either but since i'm a PC gamer... kinda stuck with it... thankfully i never pay for windows upgrades).
While MS is known for their software i would exactly say they're the best at it, most of the innovations i've seen in software come from much smaller companies than MS. Personally as far as contacting people and waht not, i give AOL more credit than MS for their contributions (MSN and what not).
But thats a whole 'nother matter. As for working on a new XBL, you better believe it, the thing about companies like MS and Sony and Ninty is that they always have to think ahead. You HAVE to know they already have their next consoles in the pipeline. Heck MS already has their big upgrade to Vista just about finalized and its not even in consumers hands yet.
But they're all always forward thinking... if they weren't... they wouldnt be in business.
Mr. Khan @ Jan 18th 2007 7:37PM
Aye, but Elebits relies on WiiConnect24
While Battle Revolution relies on WiFi Connect (check out pics of the box cover, WiFi logo clearly displayed)
As WiiConnect24 is more of an e-mail service, and has no real capability for PvP (WC24 would be waaaayy to slow for that), so that, as long as Nintendo considers them 2 seperate services, all Wii games will most likely have seperate; 12-digit friend codes
The only glimmer of light in that system is that, by using Wii Connect 24, you can keep your Wii Friends updated as to the friend codes of all your Wii titles, and, by using Opera, you can actually get in contact with random people on Forums to make online friends, so you can integrate the system yourself
Sean @ Jan 18th 2007 6:38PM
JJ there are plenty of jerks online.. but MS has banned over 10,000 users permanently. So just imagine what live would look like with those 10,000+ people back on. We're talking people putting goatse on their cams in Uno.
Intentless @ Jan 18th 2007 6:40PM
I'm sorry I havn't played any PC games that have an integrated friends list that lets me know when my friends are online and what they are playing at that time without bothering them... not to mention it doesn't matter which game they are playing... So as a PC gamer I am confused by the leet PC gamers that claim PCs have this system....
hef @ Jan 18th 2007 6:40PM
There are a lot of wankers on Xlive. If you don't know what a wank is you probably have still had one. Try Wikipedia!
pete @ Jan 18th 2007 6:42PM
@5 you dont even need a credit card, joe blow just needs a best buy, gamestop, and get buy a card for a year of service, or six months, they even got 30 card for those that want to try it but dont want to commit to twelve months.
Andre @ Jan 18th 2007 6:43PM
well, if u think about it, the PS3 doesn't have ,uch to offer with online, Xbox dominates th online game play, but then again, its all shooting games, for that i rather play online on my PC. the Wii has its online store which kicks ass of Xbox's store and PS3 together. what arcade can they both make? they didn't even exist at the time. wheras nintendo has thei original games that was back then much better than PC games. plus the wii games with online play like SSBB and MP3 and PKN battle revolution plus some 3rd parties will make that for sure, u have more consistent games with more fun, like when they make Mario Kart on the Wii, its gonna kick ass like Mario Kart DS did. and hardcore gamers will get it for sure. don't get me wrong cause i know the Quality of XBL but their online games are all the same and the store is crap. PS3 is not mentioned cause they're just nothing when it comes to online game play...
Shady @ Jan 18th 2007 6:48PM
"As you can expect, Xbox Live is highly acclaimed in the comparison though both Sony's and Nintendo's offering are given handicaps for their being new to the party."
I disagree. Both Sony and Nintendo have dabbled in online before. Neither did particularly well. While Sony seems to have learned some from its PS2 online experience and have copied a bunch of useful features from Xbox Live, they are still miles behind. I would also say that they will never quite catch up because the implementation is left open to each devloper. The reason why Xbox Live is so successful is primarily because of the great tools and standards provided by MS.
Francois @ Jan 18th 2007 6:49PM
I was under the impression that previous Nintendo documents stated that Wii would work through the same Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection than the Nintendo DS currently does for online play. WiiConnect24 would be the 24-hour connection system and not the multiplayer system; and that's why Elebits uses the Wii Number instead of Friend Codes, because it uses WiiConnect24 to share levels and not Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection for online multiplayer.
Corey @ Jan 18th 2007 6:52PM
@#7
Battle.Net has always been just a matchmaking service only, the games are hosted on someones PC. Do you really think it could be free if they hosted the sheer amount of servers to host all those games? I'm surprised that after all this time that this is still a big mis conception with B.Net.
daddycool @ Jan 18th 2007 6:57PM
Sony will obviously make much effort to catch up I just don't think the gaming will be first priority. The music and movie downloads is what they will focus on. Wait about 9 months and you'll see HD movie downloads. Music downloads that you can transfer to your Walkman ohone via bluetooth. A flicker-like upload service for cybershots. Music videos and the like. They won't be competing with Live so much as they will compete with itunes music store. As for price, i-tunes is free right?
One question, can you play Madden on-line on PS3?
Beans @ Jan 18th 2007 6:59PM
I believe the correct term for the Wii would be Nintendo Wi-Fi connection rather than Wiiconnect24. Yeah, that's all I got. Unless you'd like me to recall how I think we should wait a little while longer before we start such comparisons. Or at least not include the 360 into the mix...
Matters @ Jan 18th 2007 7:08PM
JJ I'm not saying they're the best or anything. They just know the software world a lot better than most. I doubt programming for the 360 is much different than writing any Windows application (They already have a huge advantage in that respect. Their dev. environments are second to none). I do think there are some other companies out there that could do a better job than XBL given the chance but I just don't think those companies are Sony or Nintendo. I'm more of a Nintendo fanboy and I think there service will always be decent but I don't ever see it becoming anything like Live. I see them doing their own thing. I have no idea what Sony will do with their service so I won't even try to guess. I don't expect anything great from them though. They do have a few years of catching up to do.
BTW I can't stand Windows personally. I have several computers and a laptop and they all run Fedora or some other Dist. of Linux. I only have one development box here at work that runs Windows and I almost never use it.
(I don't have the money or time for PC gaming anymore.. Sucks)
tack @ Jan 18th 2007 7:06PM
$4.17 a month is a bad deal for xbox live.
I think people underestimate the importance of online. Especially nintendo. Playing online isnt a gimmic, its a proven innovation.
W/o online: You pay $60 for a game. You play it for 20 hours and you are pretty much done with it.
W/ Online: You pay $60 for a game. You play it for 20 hours single player and another 20 hours multiplayer. New maps and levels are released you pay from 0 - $15 more for this content and play another 20 hours.
What's the better value? Just because sony says so or because paris hilton is smart enough to play your console, doesnt mean you're a smart consumer.
joe smith @ Jan 18th 2007 7:15PM
re: a free Live conparable service, I'll just say this: you get what you pay for and NOTHING is free. Sony is not in business as a charity and they will need to cover any costs somehow.
SuicideNinja @ Jan 18th 2007 7:17PM
I've been getting online with my PS3 this week, and the experience doesn't feel remotely like Xbox Live.
While the PS3's looks and interface may seem slick, they end up being dreary and it feels like I'm removed from my own gaming experience. Sure, I have a login, but it doesn't seem like it matters at all. There's no personalization. I join up in a disturbingly quiet game of Resistance...and I just yearn to go back the 360.
Nintendo's DS setup is functional, but the friend codes are annoying. I have a feeling they won't improve it much.
Xbox Live has continually been worth the wallet-breaking $5 because it provides a good time with lots of media and options. While similar things are coming way of the PS3, I really don't think I'll care in the end, because my online identity is with XBL and not Sony's dreary PSN.
PS3: Suicide-Ninja
Matters @ Jan 18th 2007 7:19PM
Corey I didn't know that it always seemed to me that battle.net hosted the games. They were always buying servers and stuff for it. Yeah I think they could make money because they have some of the most popular selling PC games of all freaking time. Didn't seem like it would be that big of a deal to me considering that at the time I played on battle.net a lot of us (and a lot of companies) had huge quake servers running 24/7 for free. Games like WOW take up a lot more resources so I can see why they would need to charge for that.
Also don't forget that battle.net had ads running back then too (if I remember correctly, and I'm pretty sure I do). That's a source of money right there.
Cal @ Jan 18th 2007 7:29PM
I have my doubts about sony being able to match xbox live. They've got such pride and hubris at management level that I don't think they can bring themselves to just wholesale copy the features that everyone enjoys about xbox live.
marvin sefton @ Jan 18th 2007 7:40PM
If sony does catch up in the coming years, it will be too late for me. After a year and a bit of making friends specific to games, I have a great time every time I log into Live. People know me. We have fun. I love the fact that I can see what my friends are playing, even during load screens. Sony, I hope you do well, but you have a long raod ahead of you.
thebiggameover @ Jan 18th 2007 8:09PM
I totaly agree with Sean. if you have to pay for the online, you are less likey to act like and ass and have your account banned and lose the money you paid for it....
Cody @ Jan 18th 2007 8:14PM
Hmm. Anyone for a DNS-like service for the Wii's Wiitarded friend codes?
Draco @ Jan 18th 2007 8:13PM
@ Matters
Battle net is only a lobby, the person who creates the game becomes the host, once the game started every computer then became the host, if you played often enough you would have seen the message pop up "you have been disconnected from battle.net" yet the game kept playing even after the host was killed off.
I think B.Net only started putting in non blizzard ads in like 2000, I used to play a ton of Starcraft and I always remembered seeing the blizzard ads, like the starcraft figurines, but I logged on recently in a nostagia trip and saw some AOL ads.
running a lobby eats up alot of servers too (each server can only handle so many active connections regardless of how much usage they take), they have 4 domains for Starcraft, and more for WarcraftIII, WarcraftII is on battle.net too. not sure how Diablo ran.
Mez Jr @ Jan 18th 2007 8:32PM
"Game Informer believes the company (sony) has the resources to deliver an 'Xbox Live--at no extra charge,'"
To me this statement is a bit silly. Comparing things then qualifying that it'll probably be better in the future? Hold them to task for what they lack.
In terms of JUST playing online vs people etc PS3 and Xbox360 are similar, but the 360 has so much more added in... I dont know about the PS3 but on the 360 if I load up gears I can check out which of my friends are online and if any are online playing gears MP I can join them right away. No need for them to invite me etc, I just pop in. That kind of feature works wonders when you don't want to host a room but still want to play with friends.
Even though its somewhat Chic to bash on the PS3 (a tad unfair) I'm pretty tired of hearing "The PS3 will be better at X than company Y in the future, even though company Y is way better at it now".
I pay for things NOW and judge weather or not to buy something based on what it can do NOW. Right now PS3 and Wii online is pretty rudimentary.
jaysins @ Jan 18th 2007 8:59PM
As of right now it's 1. xbox 360 2. PS3 3. Wii. That's probably how it will stay for a while. I'm really hoping Sony can put some pressure on MS if for nothing else come out with some more cool features. MS is integrating Live with windows which I don't think Sony will be able to match for some time, but we shall see. Got to love competition. I've played online with the DS, but not wii. DS is meh imo. I am surprised Nintendo let themselves fall so far behind, especially since the wii is all about party games and whenever it shows their commercials it is always a bunch of people playing together. I just hope they rectify everything with their new online service so I can whip some ass in SSB :). Bring it on.
Ironhammer @ Jan 18th 2007 9:09PM
I'm extremely satisfied with XBL. It's less than $5 a month to play ALL your games online. PC games, especially MMO's, are 2-3 times as expensive and it's just for one silly game. What other service out there gives you all the versatility and power of XBL for 15 cents per day?
Ry_Trapp0 @ Jan 25th 2007 8:24PM
you guys can argue "well, PC does it for free" all you want, but look at the top online PC games, such as world of warcraft($15 a month). atleast xbox live lets you play any game you want for a flat fee. not only that but, 15x12=$180 compared to what, $50 for live? plus all the numerous features that live has that simply couldnt be integrated into every online game for PC(gamerscore, reputation rating, etc., etc.). im not saying that xbox live is better than online on PC, but its certainly worth the cost, in my opinion.
Joost Schuur @ Jan 18th 2007 9:14PM
Cody: I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic here.
Whether a game can handle 16, 32 or even 40 players has nothing to do with the quality of it's account management and matchmaking experience as provided by Xbox Live or Sony's equivalent. It's primarily driven by the server hosting ability of the game, which is independent of any matchmaking leading up to it. For an FPS with 40 players, you're guaranteed to need dedicated servers hosted on a central backend and being paid by the publisher, as your typical broadband user doesn't have anywhere near the upstream bandwidth at home to handle a game that large.
I couldn't name a single (non MMO) Xbox title that uses centrally hosted game servers, but there's a couple on the PS2, notably the Delta Force games from Novalogic and Battlefield 2: Modern Combat that use this approach.
You won't see Xbox Live games with more than 16 players unless someone is covering he costs for dedicated game serves, they charge to play on them, or they're financed through ads.
Cody @ Jan 18th 2007 9:40PM
Joost: Just want to clarify, I'm the first Cody who posted. The second is another person. I own a Wii, and I'm quite happy with it.
haloplayer9672 @ Jan 20th 2007 12:43PM
@38, you can have more than 16 players with no dedicated servers. You remember PD0? No lag, and up to 32 players.
mesocool @ Jan 18th 2007 11:21PM
Let me see basic math. Sony claims they ship (and want us to think sold) 2 million systems. Only 500k have signed up to the 'free' service! That is a 25% rate! Dang! xboxlive has a 50% plus rate! for paying customers. obviously the live service is better if it has a 50% ratio and the competitors free service has only 25% (either that or Sony is telling a LIE about there numbers!) hmmmmmmm I wonder which one it is? Fan boys to dumb to sign on for free or Fony lying?
Joost Schuru @ Jan 18th 2007 11:08PM
#39: My comments of course were a reply to #35.
I wouldn't call myself a fanboy of any platform in particular. I want them all to succeed in different ways and for different audiences. I own all 3 systems, but I spend 95% of the time on the XBox 360 right now.
And kids, always spell check your postings before you submit :(
Rubang B @ Jan 19th 2007 12:24AM
@6, "When you make no money off it, you aren't going to put much money into it to make it better."
Blizzard still updates Starcraft for free to this day. The game's 9 years old.
@13, "I'm sorry I havn't played any PC games that have an integrated friends list that lets me know when my friends are online and what they are playing at that time without bothering them... not to mention it doesn't matter which game they are playing... So as a PC gamer I am confused by the leet PC gamers that claim PCs have this system...."
With Blizzard's Battle.net you get an integrated friends list that you can check in-game or in the lobby. It lets you know which friends are on and whether they're playing WarCraft 2, WarCraft 3, StarCraft (with or without Brood War), Diablo, or Diablo 2. This doesn't bother them, and you can send messages back and forth while playing different games. This is free, and still gets updated. Granted this is only available for 5 games, but that's a free integrated online friends list and messaging service.
Blizzard really knows what they're doing. It's why when they made the first WarCraft, it raised the bar for all RTS games, and they dominated the genre all the way through StarCraft and WarCraft 3. It's why they completely conquered the MMORPG market on their first try with WoW.
My wet dream would involve Nintendo hiring Blizzard to make their online service later this year, and then put Diablo on the DS. ::drools::
And here's a question to all you XBL guys: What does X-Box Live do that Battle.Net doesn't, and is it worth the money? Variety of games doesn't count. I know B-Net is only for Blizzard's own 5 games. Anything else at all?
Pointing_and_Laughing @ Jan 19th 2007 12:43AM
"35. You're all abunch of Wiitards and Xboobs. That article is right, the PS3's network WILL catch up and surpass 360's.
40 PLAYERS ONLINE. Can Haslow 3 do that? Didn't think so.
40 PLAYERS ONLINE. Can DeadSteel do that? Oh, wait, there's no online because Ninty is still stuck in the 1800's.
Read the article. Sony wins.
Posted at 8:40PM on Jan 18th 2007 by Cody 0 stars"
Yup, gotta love a system with POTENTIAL. Have a seat retard.
will @ Jan 19th 2007 4:27AM
Wii is the up-and-comer, X360 begrudgingly wins, PS3 would win if they had a clue, beacuse they're free. You guys are missing the point.
The gameinformer article said there was three online games for the GC- WTF what? When was this? I never heard of this, and I've been a stupidly loyal GC owner all this time. What games?
Rob Holiday @ Jan 19th 2007 6:53AM
I am most curious about how EA will handle this since they use their own servers. When a game is released for both the 360 and PS3, like Battlefield: Bad company which uses EA's online servers, will the 360 have to pay, but the PS3 gets to play for free?
GoonieGooGoo @ Jan 19th 2007 10:39AM
If you can't afford to spend 50$ Annually for an excellent service like XBL.......you have bigger problems.
Why is this even an argument anymore??
You get what you pay for....
XBL even when it launched wasn't as bad the sorry state that the Playstation Network is....Crimson Skies and MechAssault played flawlessly (at least for me) with full voice support) and you could see what other people were playing.
matthew @ Jan 19th 2007 10:59AM
Nothing is free, and running a service like Live is expensive. If Sony doesn't charge directly for online service, they'll get it back from other places (from consumers and developers).
I like MS's system better. It's really not that expensive, but it gives Live its own revenue stream that it can use to improve and upgrade the service.
Live is grossing probably around $100 to $200 million a year. Maybe MS is just pocketing that money, but I suspect they put a lot back into Live. No way with Sony's financial condition are they going to be able to operate a comparible service that offers no additional revenue.
Seighton @ Jan 19th 2007 12:01PM
I found that Xbox Live was completely worth the subscription cost when I owned an Xbox. I have a Wii now, and their online component is a joke. This friend-code/game-code bullspitz it ridiculous. The console is fun, but if they aren't going to copy from XBL, they shouldn't bother offering online functionality. It's a pain in the arse.