Microsoft's Bach sees no competition for Xbox Live
Surely, being an online service offering downloads and multiplayer puts it in the same league? "Sony has done some things online, but nothing that can be called a service. We have a big advantage and we're going to keep pressing that advantage." Bach is right in stressing the Xbox 360's cohesive and consistent online integration as a strength, but to outright dismiss the folks that have one highly alluring advantage (hint: free) smacks of overconfident ship captains sailing through arctic waters. The PSN is currently beleaguered with PS3 interface issues and flaky developer support, but none of these are impossible to resolve. After all, Microsoft should know more than anyone that the right content (and the right game) can be just the thing to kick-start online en masse.
Read -- GamesIndustry.biz
Read -- LA Times (registration required)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Nov 19th 2007 4:09PM
And the pissing match between companies begin yet again!!!
gonk @ Nov 19th 2007 4:52PM
it's always going on, everyone's gonna say their company is better
Will @ Nov 19th 2007 4:12PM
Man. This guy hasn't heard of the Internet, has he?
WiNG @ Nov 19th 2007 4:13PM
Steam Community is catching up real fast IMO.
Wii60 @ Nov 19th 2007 4:14PM
I really wish this wasn't true, but it is. The Wii is literally selling ROMs in an effort to compete. While I haven't spend much time with PSN, it seems that Warhawk is the best it has to offer.
In the meantime, Xbox live offers up stuff like Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4 online. With good original content on XBLA. The problem is you get ridiculous stuff in Micro-transactions. Bungie has it right in making you pay the premium to play the stuff early. Unless Nintendo or Sony steps up, we won't be seeing an end to the tyranny. The best bet is Sony, but you can't do anything better with only 6 million consoles out there.
Silver R. Wolfe @ Nov 19th 2007 4:31PM
Umm, CoD4 isn't just on XBL.
Wii60 @ Nov 19th 2007 4:36PM
Right, let me clarify,
Larger userbase and better system means CoD4 is better online than on the PS3.
Valid point though.
GRANTED @ Nov 19th 2007 4:41PM
Yeah I pretty much stopped playing Warhawk once I got CoD4. Same experience, no subscription fee. XBL is way ahead of PSN, content-wise. Especially when it comes to smaller, downloadable titles.
GRANTED @ Nov 19th 2007 4:56PM
Whether a game has a 200,000 player base or 2 million players doesn't make a whole lot of difference in terms of online playability. Maybe it will a year or two from now, but none of this will be relevant at that point.
Penguin Warlord @ Nov 19th 2007 5:16PM
How will it not matter a year from now? What about those people who want to play COD4 online a year from now. I can guarantee you that you will still have plenty of Xbox Live people to play with but it will be harder to find a PSN group to play with.
baby sea tuna @ Nov 19th 2007 4:16PM
My one real wish is that XBLM would put up more decent movies instead of all those straight-to-video horror and "urban-niche" turds. Other than that, yeah, it kicks the shit out of PSN, $50 a year or not.
Silent Xenocide @ Nov 19th 2007 4:41PM
My one real wish is that this content was available outside of the US. Actually, who am I kidding. I wouldn't pay for it.
Leobebes @ Nov 19th 2007 4:57PM
I so agree with you. I think I saw some straight to video hip hop horror flick up there. I don't know why? Is there a market for that stuff out there? Every week I see some generic snuff film being distributed on xbox live. If licensing fees are an issue, I know some well made critically acclaimed indie films out there that would love to have Xbox live as a distributor. Pretty sad, but nonetheless XBOX Live is where its at if you want a unified online gaming format. STEAM is nice but my rig cannot run most of the stuff they have on there.
Bloo @ Nov 19th 2007 4:16PM
Well as far as PS3 vs 360 - yeah - the PSN pales in comparison to XBL (yes I own both). Bottom line: thank god for Ratchet & Clank!
gonk @ Nov 19th 2007 4:58PM
nice avatar :)
Cyro @ Nov 19th 2007 4:18PM
I believe the PSN will catch up in about 3 years. When microsoft will start to anounce their next console and God knows how many more xbox live users.
Zeus the God @ Nov 19th 2007 11:47PM
I vote for the Xbox KICKASS.
please @ Nov 19th 2007 4:22PM
At least PSN will soon have its HOME game for the pedophile community
Silent Xenocide @ Nov 19th 2007 4:39PM
I know, I can't wait!
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 19th 2007 4:43PM
They would, if children under 12 actually owned PS3 en masse. But they don't. So it'll be mostly pedophiles wishing there were kids to prey on.
This was all an elaborate attempt to say that PS3 is to expensive for kids.
toLkKi @ Nov 19th 2007 5:21PM
Good detective work there cronolock holmes.
mirage @ Nov 19th 2007 6:28PM
What is a pedophile?? Someone that really likes walking? Home sounds boring if you ask me!
B1gC72 @ Nov 20th 2007 2:06AM
well thats one of the things i like about the PSN actually. you dont get alot of angry, ignorant 12 year olds cursing at you at the top of their lungs since PSN has more of an older, niche, sophisticated user base right now.
now ive honestly only used Xbox Live a couple times at friends houses but i dont really see the big difference. the things i like about Live are the vast amounts of arcade games (original and retro), the constant updates, and the achievements which seem to add a whole heck of alot of replay value to games. i dont like so much the screaming kids, misleading pricing, and the subscription fee.
i like the PSN because it's free (most of all), the pricing is very straight forward, and it does have some ok games (though nothing to write home about except Everyday Shooter in my book). but the PSN is still young and Home should add alot of the Live functionality. you have to realize that even though Xbox 1 was a failure, Xbox Live was a very respectable service and Microsoft made a good move by making that a focal point of the Xbox brand. so im basically going to take the same "just wait and see" type attitude that Sony has now on the PSN because it's only going to get stronger.
oh yea, and for the record. i hate Xbox. (sorry, obligatory fanboy comment)
-B1gC72: The Fanboy with 20/20
Brian @ Nov 19th 2007 4:25PM
Yeah, obviously XBL is much much better, but it's dangerous to be so dismissive, even towards weak competitors. You tend to stop innovating, and you sour people towards your brand.
Sam406 @ Nov 19th 2007 4:31PM
I agree completly, it's true that xbox live is hands down the best online service to date BUT Microsoft will get a nasty surprise form the PSN if they get too dismissive
arrrgh @ Nov 19th 2007 6:57PM
when did microsoft ever innovate though? when they stole windows? live is all theyve got :(
good thing it's great :)
Spartacus @ Nov 19th 2007 7:56PM
arrrgh:
Sure, MS stole the idea of an OS from Xerox, but then again, so did Apple. To act like all MS does is recycle old ideas and mass market them is a bit ridiculous. The company ventures out in many markets and while usually not developing revolutionary technology or software, they have definitely innovated over the years. Examples:
Xbox Platform:
-HDD in a console
-LAN support on a console
-OS on a console
-XBOX LIVE
-Downloadable content to a console
Xbox 360 Platform:
-Home button
-Persistent OS
-Expanded LIVE network and functionality
-Gamerscore
-Unified Shader GPU
PC Platform:
-Passport network and MS netoworking integration
-Office 2007
-Windows (sometimes revolutionary, sometimes evolutionary)
Other Platforms:
-Zune (had some functions/abilities that other MP3 players didn't)
-Portable OS (Windows mobile)
---
Keep in mind that "innovation" doesn't require being first to the punch. Most people credit Nintendo for innovation regarding the waggle controls on the Wii despite the fact that motion sensing controllers (including those by MS no less) were out years, even decades, ago.
Silver R. Wolfe @ Nov 19th 2007 8:02PM
Spartacus, the PSP beat the Xbox 360 to having a Home button and a persistent OS.
Synner @ Nov 19th 2007 4:29PM
Too bad Gabe Newell appearently hates sony, they would be pretty well served to dish out however much Valve would ask to port steam over to PS3, then that would also give them a foothold delivering content on PC, and beat MS to the punch of releasing XBLA type games to the PC community.
Sam @ Nov 19th 2007 4:42PM
thats because gabe is ex-MS so I'm assuming there buddy-buddy.
ExMcloud @ Nov 19th 2007 4:35PM
You know I don't think that this is a cocky statement since they were the first of the console makers to even push online play as a necessity. PSN has a long way to go and since HOME isn't free or should I say should NOT be free (because it will be a disaster) good luck tryin to get the PSN users to pay for it. The PS3 is a great system but online play should not be a novelty. they really need to get their online game together as does Nintendo.
ill trooper @ Nov 19th 2007 4:35PM
Well, that gets a big 'no duh,' and I mean that in a good way. MS has really put in their work and it shows. I'm starting to get tired of the $50 a year though, and I think that will be changed next year sometime. I don't mind paying the $50; I mind paying that amount and seeing so much advertising and annoying promotions. I think the cost of LIVE can be covered by the amount of items they sell now, so the fee is starting to seem like when AOL was charging for e-mail while yahoo, hotmail, et al. was available for free.
Sony can offer a totally acceptable alternative by doing a few things:
• In-game access to dashboard, friends list and invites/messages
• Integration with the web like LIVE has, in terms of seeing who's online or sending messages from the web.
• Achievements. Sounds dumb but I love achievements, like many others do too.
This is the sort of functionality Sony can add that would force MS to make a move on reducing what they charge us.
As the downloading and online aspects of gaming become more and more important, Sony has some small advantages in offering a 'free' online system and standard (as well as larger) hard-drives in their systems.
LIVE is still king though. For a while.
DBX00 @ Nov 19th 2007 4:52PM
All three of those are in HOME and therefore will be incorporated outside of HOME within the XMB.
The PSN is fine if all you want to do is play a game online and communicate with your friends. I have no desire to hear 12 year olds sing during matches or a bunch of conversations going on. Anyway, games like COD4, Warhawk, and Resistance have plenty of players online.
One thing that is important to point out is that if 1 out of 5 players have a Live account and 40% to 50% of PS3 users have a PSN network account, the attach rate for the PS3 is significantly higher. This will have more of an impact that the user base grows and you have more online players for the PS3 (b/c its free) with a smaller total user base.
Silent Xenocide @ Nov 19th 2007 5:04PM
Ok, but the numbers are higher than 1 in 5 for 360 users. And besides, people just making free online accounts for the PSN doesn't mean they're going to play it as much as the people willing to pay for the XBL service.
jomi294 @ Nov 19th 2007 6:13PM
@ Silent Xenocide
The numbers are not higher than 1 to 5. No matter how much you would like to think that, they aren't. I'll leave you some numbers (which I would've thought you already knew but...) so you can do the math yourself. The Xbox has sold around 24-25 million consoles. Xbox 360 has around 13 millions. Xbox Live has just reached 7.1 million users. Registered users. And that doesn't even mean those 7.1 own a 360, and indeed play. So please, next time you want to make a comment like that, do the math.
Silent Xenocide @ Nov 19th 2007 6:30PM
Uhh I did do the math. The majority of those users are on the 360. I think you are forgetting about the free silver accounts which MS counts as being part of those 7.1 million.
ill trooper @ Nov 19th 2007 7:52PM
"All three of those are in HOME and therefore will be incorporated outside of HOME within the XMB." DBX
Yes, but I'll have to take the "I'll believe it when I see it" stance here... HOME was supposed to be out by now and there were high hopes that the 2.0 firmware would add XMB-within-game functionality. Neither has happened yet. I like my PS3 but it's only spared from being the "worst contender for online implementation" title by the fact that the Wii is surprisingly even worse.
Digi Smalls @ Nov 20th 2007 10:59AM
two whole years later (and $200 more when i bought my PS3), and i'm still waiting for XBL's most basic online features.
i'm also still looking for clearly superior versions of 3rd party games, hell i'm still waiting (to pay) for rumble, a basic feature of PS2.
who's really the most arrogant gaming brand here? who's the one thats really dismissed their competition?
.
E.J. @ Nov 19th 2007 4:37PM
It just seems like Xbox Live will continue to lead in the console online services while others play catch-up.
Nintendo and Sony seems lacking or are inferior in these two factors that keep Xbox Live in the lead:
1. Dedicated online team
2. Endless queue of content for XBLM and XBLA
The problem with Xbox Live is that there are some really dumb items that pass MS certification and get posted (2k Reel Maker and DDR unlock patches, anyone?). At least PSN and WiiConnect24 has quality over quantity.
ExMcloud @ Nov 19th 2007 4:40PM
And those two reasons you said are why I think HOME will be a disaster unless they charge for it...Seriously...lol
Mr Khan @ Nov 19th 2007 4:48PM
Nintendo should, and i am not kidding, buy out whatever remains of SegaNet from Sega Sammy
SegaNet, albiet overpriced compared to LIVE (although they could probably run it at LIVE rates, or free, in this day and age), would certainly get them back in the running (or on the radar at all)
Or Nintendo should just put Nintendo of America in charge of the online plans, as you can tell its the Kyoto-based divisions that really have this phobia of an open online network
alu @ Nov 19th 2007 4:41PM
like it or not, there's some truth to his statements.
Hickeroar @ Nov 19th 2007 4:53PM
of course there is. He's also talking about a service of users pulling in tens of millions per month in subscription fees. They can afford to make it the best system out there.
joeyg @ Nov 19th 2007 4:48PM
thank you MS for charging me $50 for a p2p network....i'm so glad i have to pay money to play games that are hosted by players, not dedicated servers. Please, find more ways to charge me more money for something that should be free...
ps. I don't care how good XBL is compared to PSN, I can't get on it with my RROD'd console. THANKS!
Game Artist @ Nov 19th 2007 5:22PM
That is my biggest gripe with XBL. I pay money and in the end, its the players hosting the game. For the kind of cash that XBL is charging, they should have dedicated servers, or at least the option to purchase dedicated servers (once clan support is in)
GRANTED @ Nov 19th 2007 4:48PM
Home sounds horrible and pathetic and I will never use that interface. Perfectly happy with my real life; I don't need a fake me to walk around in a fake apartment to make me feel better about myself.
BUT, I just want to add, I am on XBL (I dabble in teh haloz) I hear a lot of squeaky-voiced pre-pubes all trying to out-compete each other for title of the most racist and annoying person that I want to kick in the face. I generally hear more mature gamers on PSN, and many more adults (or at least college and above). Makes it a more pleasant experience. But YMMV, and obviously you can mute everyone regardless of system and game. I just feel more at home on PSN.
V1L3 @ Nov 19th 2007 5:48PM
"Home sounds horrible and pathetic and I will never use that interface. Perfectly happy with my real life; I don't need a fake me to walk around in a fake apartment to make me feel better about myself."
If you can give me your rationale for it being somehow LESS pathetic to use a low-res photoshopped Mario jpeg instead of a 3D polygon model as an avatar for chatting to other people online, I'd love to hear it.
GRANTED @ Nov 20th 2007 12:44PM
difference = time invested.
Hickeroar @ Nov 19th 2007 4:49PM
Well, it really comes down to this: Do you want to pay to be able to play games online. If you don't, You have Wii and PS3 providing free online play services. If you do, you owe MS $8/MO or $50/YR for that privilege. Were the price equal, MS would win hands-down. However, the price is far from equal.
Mr Khan @ Nov 19th 2007 4:54PM
You would think that would be the case, but in our age of "spend now, worry later," such a negligible price is no stumbling block at all (considering some of the exorbitant monthly payments people have to make, ~$4 a month is nothing)