Ben-DutkaEveryone knows the PlayStation Network had to play catch-up in the online services battle with Microsoft's Xbox Live, and Sony has admitted they were a little late to the party.
If you check out the latest issue of Edge magazine , you will find an interview with Sony Computer Entertainment's president of worldwide studios, Shuhei Yoshida. It's where he says the company was "late to offer platform-level support, to make the online functionality work at that level." Perhaps the primary difference between the PSN and Live is that Microsoft attacked the concept right from the start, essentially pushing it hard in every aspect of their machine. The Network sorta started with more of a whimper than a bang and really needed the PS3 to make the necessary strides (which have occurred). Said Yoshida:
"We made the prior decision that you do not introduce the common centralised network names into every experience, so publishers made their own. That was fine at the start, but as more and more games have online functionality you need a unified approach. So Microsoft took that approach in the last generation, and maybe that's where people see the difference when they compare Xbox Live and PSN."
The debate over which online service is better at this point rages, but that's a good sign…several years ago, there was no debate. Now, with arguably better exclusives, thousands of movies and TV shows, solid stability, and the fact that it's FREE, the PSN has finally made its move. Yoshida went on to talk about incorporating other social networking aspects like Facebook: "Something like 300 million people already have accounts on Facebook. Why should we ignore that?" Sony is really into bringing the PS3 into as many homes as possible – hardcore and casual gamers alike – so who knows what you might see in the near future…
No No No to any facebook or other social networking site integration, that is what the browser is for.
Agreed but if they can do it in an interesting enough way and it brings them more business then I say why not. Those social networking sites aren't for me but he's right. He can't ignore the fact that millions love it.
Last edited by Jawknee on 9/3/2009 10:59:46 AM
Especially as the shine has gone off the Facebook apple. From the reports I've been reading, Facebook's bubble finally burst.
Next up, Twitter titter as tweeting twits totter into the twilight….Twitter is a live micro blogging service and I've yet to see a reason for it. If you follow it closely, you have to REALLY FOLLOW it, if not, you really fall behind it. So why bother?
Facebook is/was a fad, and it's beginning to fade, Twitter will be next, just as MySpace and others before have fallen away, the same will happen again and again. The Net is so transient.
At least services like PSN/Home and XBL are based on something – online multi-player gaming and e-commerce retailing of games/music/movies/TV.
You know, I do think Sony is missing an opportunity with Home, and it's a big one. Massive revenue potential, and would make a seriously positive change to Home and people's reasons for going there.
I'll reveal my thoughts in another post – perhaps.
These social networking sites have a lifespan and Sony would be constantly updating to keep such a feature relevant and functional, while ticking off users that choose to be with other networking websites.
Highlander is right, Sony should just concentrate on Home, and further develop PSN.
Let the browser handle the rest.
Sony missing an opportunity with Home?
Years ago I visited a large tech company's R&D facility in the UK. They had an ecommerce solution that operated like a virtual store. You could pickup a product and look at it from all angles in a virtual shopping environment.
Today's online retailing is more or less a universal implementation of that. However, there is a difference. The system I saw was like a virtual shop. Not simply an interactive catalog and ordering system such as we have today.
I'm wondering how long it will take for someone like Amazon to put up a store front in PlayStation Home and give us a more interactive online retailing experience. Let's say the Diesel decided to sell real clothing through their Home store. You purchase the item, get the Home version, and a few days later then actual shirt arrives via FedEx or whatever other delivery service.
In other words, marry up the Home mall with real retail. You buy a Movie from Amazon in Home, and it's available for you to watch via download, and your BD is delivered a few days later. You buy a new outfit, and you get the version in Home to try out, and again days later, the real outfit arrives at your door. The same could be done with many different products. Of course it's not going to work for everything, but for games, movies, music, clothes, furniture, art, etc… it's certainly possible.
Linking real retailers with Home would make online shopping a real 'virtual experience'.
I don't know, perhaps I'm on a caffeine high, but this seems like it would work, and be very popular. Of course, it may already be in the works.
the browser can't handle Myspace or Facebook
@ lord Alucard
It's pretty much safe to say that the ps3 browser can't handle anything.
@highlander – right on with the home/retail mix. that is an excellent idea. i could envision some real cool applications for thiat.
You know, facebook used to be exclusive to people who had a college email address. Ever since it opened up to everyone, it has got really lame. I believe that social networking sites need to stay more exclusive in order for people to stay.
The PS3 browser handles Hulu shows just fine.
OK you guys keep saying "let the browser handle it." But the problem is, the browser can't handle it. have you ever tried facebook on your PS3 web browser? you can get into it but you cant do anything, you can't send messages cause you cant click on the send button, the samething goes with your comments. They have alot of work to do on the PS3 web browser before people start sayin "let the web browser handle it" cause it just can't Period. And shit, they could have went with less flashy this update and upgraded the browser that would have been nice but no, all they did was add a little loading clock over top of the loading bubble.
iunno bout you guys… but when im on facebook on my ps3, i cant post replies on anything, and cant update my status… so an integration or complete browser overhaul would be ok.
It would be better for Sony to work with facebook to create a interface that works with the PS3 browser, less scripts etc to limit the amount of memory needed.
I would rather Sony just concentrate on the PS3 than trying to integrate the current fad at the time into the system.
Can't you already access FaceBook and Twitter via the included browser?
Yup
Yup…. but it sucks ass
Once again, Sony drops the ball by NOT stating the obvious!!!
Yea they were. when I got my 60gb In jan of 2007 the PSN was horrible. Ugly and lacked content. But that's ok because now it's awesome. I didn't really start playing online until CoD4. So I can't say how the performance was prior to that games release, but all is forgiven. PSN is great. I don't go to blockbuster anymore. Sorry blockbuster.
I still go to blockbuster…cuz i live in canada. Just wondering, do you need to download a movie when you rent it, and if so how long does it take?
Well, I think that when Yoshida-san says;
"We made the prior decision that you do not introduce the common centralised network names into every experience, so publishers made their own. "
He's referring to the PS2 network implementation. Remember that the PS2 was in fact Sony's first foray into networking/online gaming. PSN was also very basic when it arrived – as you say. But PSN provided the platform support that publishers needed.
To some extent the same is true of PSN today sine there are no central came servers for PSN except those for Sony in-house games and Home. However that is both an advantage and disadvantage. Publishers have to setup game servers specific to a given game for PSN, but they are not forced to share space with other games on common servers. The game servers are entirely under the developer/publisher's control. So the developer can make changes to the server side of the game without Sony's involvement.
This approach is more costly for a developer, yes. But, the flexibility is much greater, and the fact that you aren't sharing servers with other games means that you don't have to worry about being swamped by major game launches such as MW2 when it arrives.
I think Sony has the balance right now. They provide a solid platform for online gaming, and at the same time leave some flexibility open to the game developer.
It's a different approach compared to XBL, but I think that in the end the two are now very close functionally, and of course PSN is free. I'm not sure that cross game chat is worth $50 a year…I'll stick to PSN.
Kevin, yes you still have to download even If you rent. The time depends on the size. HD movies obviously take longer. For me it seems to download in realtime. So for example, a 2 hour long HD movie will take about 120minutes give or take. SD movies anywhere between 20 to 40 minutes. Good thing is you can watch as they download. When I want to watch it right away I wait till the download is about 10% done for SD and about 20% done for HD. the movie plays without interuption at that point. I love it. At least twice a month I'll download a few movies. I'll start the download before I go to bed and they're done before I wake up. Maybe Sony could offer a Netflix type system. I don't see any benefit to Netflix unless you rent movies every week.
I would never ever ever use a torrent to watch a movie, ever.
Who are you trying to convince Vertigo?
yeah, you have to download. I usually start the download then play a game or watch a video which usually take more than 2 hours on some games. As long as you arent playing online it just keeps downloading.
Like I never use torrents to listen to music.
A reminder to you all.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3skf8_antipiracy-ad-from-the-it-crowd_fun
It depends on your connections involving your downloading speeds and the the size of the file has a lot to do with it, I'm no tech person so pardon my non specific details.
I never had any complaints about the PSN, I mean it's free and they have gone about and beyond the, well you know. If it's only going to get better count me in! I don't believe playing catch up is necessary just keep up the great work Sony!
F**K FACEBOOK :@
Poor guy has no friends.
I was on facebook for a year back in 2005, I'm glad I quit it.
I made a facebook page, as far as i know its still there, but then I realized no one gave a flying eff what I was up to.
@world: it kindda seems like the problem is more on your friends side of facebook than the "service" itself. when i go on facebook, i usually get in touch with my friends from other places. kindda moved around a bit so i want to keep in touch with old friends.
Nope, plenty of people, but who cares about the daily goings on of people? I mean could people be more selfish and egotistical? Nobody cares what your mood is or how many pictures of you snorting coke off your girlfriends ass you have.
That is exactly it. No gives a hoot. And I do have friends, many of them trying to get me on it, but it's so awful, I wouldn't want to
Yeah well, they were late to the party but they came bearing gifts. Last time I checked the PSN is free, for everyone and no one is deprived of content or features. I keep paying for Live because silver sucks so bad, you have to wait two weeks for demos, and gamer pics/themes, freaking pictures and themes people!Its madness, even more crazy is if you dont pay the 49.99 up front for 12 months your other options are 29.99 for 3 months (29.99 3 months X 4 times a year 119.96) or 7.99 per month which if left to auto renew at that rate would come to 95.88. So 50 to 100 dollars a year to be called racial/sexual slurs and be subjected to people taking pictures of their genitals to use as their gamer picture, its happend to me, and trust me there are some things you can't un see.
Last edited by Bandit King on 9/3/2009 12:13:57 PM
MS had the online edge because it is a software company. I don't begrudge Sony for taking a while to get the online operations going. I like what they are doing and would rather have a more robust service than an undeveloped system with no direction.
Since when is MS a software company? I thought they were a marketing conglomerate.
MS does not know what the hell it is, hence why it fails at almost everything and has to resort to buying or eradicating the competition.
Only thing it does know is that the shareholders are hungry and want feeding.
I have and idea about this browser problem which will resolve it. Sony just need to make a contract with the other browser companies like FireFox, Opera etc. to port those browsers to PS with all they abilities. Ofcourse PSN user must have choice which browser he prefers and download it via link which will be available through Network section in XMB. I hope just they have someone who have the same idea. Cause it will be awesome and very good commercial for those free browser companies. If I am wrong then I wait some comments and with good facts which will proof I am wrong.
P.S Do not forget if it will happen xbox360 network thing will die, because MS cant afford those contracts becasue their networks is not free and because they ARE MS which is hated by those compnaies because of IE(internet explorer).
The browser is just one part of the issue really, it is a combination of the browser, the PS3 memory limitations and badly written, non compliant scripts and other website content.
Sony has a task to make the browser functional while protecting your PS3 against any malicious attacks that the web may throw at it. Any body needing a real browser experience on the PS3 and has a fat PS3 should just put Linux on it.
Last edited by Imagi on 9/4/2009 10:33:06 AM
facebook to me has gotten boring, alot of my friend and family are big into twitter, haven't really used it myself but I barely use facebook as well. But if Sony wants to use facebook and twitter and myspace to bring more to the sony family good for them I know a few people that don't have a PC and would love a PS3 instead and that would just add to the reason to have a PS3 but I also point out to my friends that it's more than just a gaming machine ect… so hoping more of my friends switch from the Wii and 360 to the PS3 🙂
The only thing I want is private chat. Outside of that, Live has nothing to get me to purchase a 360 again. Plus, games are no longer at the 360 edge, so you can throw that out the window now.
Each of my family members has PSN account (my wife, 2 kids, and myself) and if we were to do that on the 360, it would cost us 200 dollars a year! Can any 360 backer rightfully defend that? Please, I am begging you!!
I'll stick with my PS3 and my PSN, thank you very much!!
Last edited by maxpontiac on 9/3/2009 1:43:42 PM
yeah, that is messed up. but if they tie memberships to the system then they'll lose money on subscriptions, plus the red ring problem. they should just tie the membership to a master account and let you create sub accounts with limited features like just playing online and downloading add ons. And when they want to upgrade the sub account to a master account then they could charge for that too.
While I'm not into online gaming or Home I do purchase alot of Rock Band DLC and the small games off the PSN Store and I must say, at least for my own experience, the PSN has made HUGE improvements over the last year. It used to be the slowest thing on earth when downloading for me (Flower literally took almost 12 hours to download) and suddenly (i.e. no changes in my router/firewall config) things just got better. Downloads are consistently fast now and the few times I've jumped in an online Burnout game it's been very smooth. I was happy to find the PSN actually usable now as it used to suck enough I'd say i'd gladly pay for it if that meant i could complain about it.
Never be a fan of Myspace,Facebook and the other social sites.
perhaps I would care if I was searching for a gf but I already have one so…just put BC and cross chat we gamers really don't need those social add features.
Last edited by Oxvial on 9/3/2009 2:01:32 PM
Why is there an argument? Free=better.
Charging folks for an ad-supported service=Booo
because some people are brain washed or are comparing it to other things that are completely baseless. Like you can buy a new car and its great but you can buy a more expensive car so it should be better. That kind of reasoning. Kindda made sense for ps3 vs 360 because you paid more for ps3 and its a lot better than 360 hardware wise. when people hear free, they immediately think whats the catch since it usually does.
Hey, better late than never, they say ;).
i only have one complaint about the video service on psn
the fact that you can't own the HD stuff, just rent it
i want to own it!! like xam'd for instance….. 1080p rental is like $4.99!!! if you want all 26 episodes, then you're gonna end up shelling out over $100!!!!
if i'm gonna spend that much, then it better be mine forever… not for just a few watches