Microsoft says Sony doesn't offer any online "service"
by Nick Doerr 
{ Nov 20th 2007 at 6:30PM }
Robbie Bach went on record to not only say that Xbox Live offers superior service (a notion that even many Sony fans attest to, though the PSN being free is a definite plus), but that there is actually no competition in the online service market for consoles. "It's fair to say that Xbox Live is clearly head and shoulders above anything anyone else has tried to do. We don't have competition." He goes on to say what Sony offers shouldn't even be called a service. Those who play Call of Duty 4 and Warhawk online may beg to differ, but that's neither here nor there. What do you guys think? Is what Sony offers to PS3 owners a service and something that Microsoft should take more seriously or not?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dom @ Nov 20th 2007 6:38PM
Disagree to an extent. Although xbox live may offer an xfire-esque service with all the points and whatnot, in my experience, ps3 provides a simpler, slicker GAMING online service. Ironic seeing as microsoft fans often preach about ps3 being jack of all trades (multimedia hub) and xbox being the superior gaming console, where when it comes to the online gaming part of the equation, ps3 offers the smoothest experience when it comes down to the most important part: The Gaming. Xbox offers all the extra's but it's hit and miss when you consider smooth online gaming to be the essential factor in online gaming.
XavierRose3001 @ Nov 20th 2007 6:42PM
old...but what a stupid comment to make. The live service is certainly well ahead of the psn, but even in the first year, the ps3 is delivering quality titles much more original than the xbla offerings...warhawk to flow...everyday shooter to super stardust...to ignore competition at this point is silly...in a years time, psn will be offering the same experience with no initial price tag...and money instead of 'points'...
MesslimZeineddine @ Nov 20th 2007 6:42PM
I have both xbox live and a PSN account. I think that xbox is still #1 when it comes to content like movies and such. But, I on sonys side you dont have to pay for playing your games online which IS A HUGE PLUS. The PSN is really improving every month. I think when Home opens that Sony will be on par ane even will surpass Xbox Live. I see Home as changing the industy, its going to bring free movies and music and SO MUCH MORE.
XavierRose3001 @ Nov 20th 2007 6:46PM
yeah to that point, my xbl experience involves crashing in every other halo match, abuse from kids who don't deserve headsets and the fact microsoft is intent on collecting every detail, address and account from me is very disturbing too. Say what you will about the xbl service...it owns, but playing games is a living hell...psn really is a much nicer place to be. (side note...much more people seem to use headsets on cod4 ps3 than cod4 x360...anyone else notice this?)
RazielDune @ Nov 20th 2007 6:47PM
i competely agree with 2...this whole Console War and Name calling flamebait from all sides has got to stop expeccially nintendo getting their ego back saying ps3 and xbox are in a box.
Ian @ Nov 20th 2007 7:08PM
I agree with Dom, but i think Sony should still step it up. We should be able to get achievements online to show for our gaming and the efforts we put into them.
wonway01 @ Nov 20th 2007 7:01PM
Even though I agree at the moment live is better, it should be, its been around longer. But with Home just around the corner and everything starting to come together it seems these are just words of a man that seems very much worried and/or desporate. Seems he knows what is on the horizon just as well as we do.
Mortimi @ Nov 21st 2007 4:00AM
The LIVE service offers some superior services to the PSN mostly in the community part (HOME coming soon guys!). I got rid of my 360 cos I was fed up playing with stupid little kids, arrogant clans and the lag was driving me crazy! The PSN is simpler and much more about the gaming. It could definately take some lessons from LIVE but I still prefer it because it is free(!), simple and the players are genuinely nicer people to play with!
Kamusa01 @ Nov 20th 2007 10:56PM
Yeah I remember when xbox live came out 5 years ago IT WAS SO GOOD with SO MANY FEATURES (sarcastic), it had NOTHING!! you could only play online and add friends, IT GOT BETTER WITH TIME, the PSN has only been out for 1 year it'll get better (i hope it doesn't take 5 years), but at least it's much better than xbox live when it came out, I'm glad with my PS3, besides at least we don't have to worry about the RRoD
Zombie Huggles @ Nov 20th 2007 7:04PM
If I were allowed to check messages and send messages even while playing a game online or offline, I would be satisfied. That's my only issue really. But it's free and fulfills most my desires.
FrankTheCrank @ Nov 20th 2007 7:12PM
Robbie Bach can go an lick my sack!!!
LOL...it rhymes.
After he licks my sack, he can go lick Ballmer's sack...and before he hits the sack, Bill will be waiting.
_sean_ @ Nov 20th 2007 7:15PM
He has a good point.
No one but Microsoft CHARGES YOU $ for online play.
silver @ Nov 20th 2007 8:30PM
I for one hate Microsoft's Live Service. If you want to be trapped in M$ captive portal then more power to ya. My impression of the PS3's online abilities so far is they are doing it the right way. They are more Web 2.0. I want RSS feeds. I want to browse the web and I don't want to pay for it. Microsoft sure they have more demos but you are paying $50 a year for the privilege of playing online and getting those "free" demos. Plus I hate the way MS is trying to infect normal PC games with Live.
aaron_k7 @ Nov 20th 2007 7:17PM
I think it's an interesting comment to make considering the fact that games like Warhawk, COD4, etc. have online components built in (hefty one's at that). Is it really a "service" if you're taking advantage of a primary feature of the game? I think not. Get with it, MS!
Brian Spence @ Nov 21st 2007 7:21AM
I would never pay to play online. Ever. I have absolutely no interest in gamer points or whatever they're called. I just...want...to...play...online!! FOR FREE!! Just like my PC!!! Thank you Sony!!!
jg274105 @ Nov 20th 2007 7:36PM
XBL is turning (or is?) 5, PSN just turned 1. Theres not a whole lot of things a 1 year old can do better then a 5 year old. XBL is far ahead of PSN, but work on XBL has far exceeded that which has gone into PSN thus far.
As far as I'm concerned XBL isn't so much a service, its a business. PSN and Nintendo offer REAL services.
Waruwaru @ Nov 20th 2007 7:36PM
XBLA & PSN run on totally different strategy/philosophy. MS controls everything, and force developers to agree to some guidelines before allowing them onto XBL. That is why you don't have to agree to 100 EULAs for each of the demo you download. Sony offers more freedom for the devs, so each one of the demo can have a different EULA for example (and not as a smooth process for end-user as a result). MS, by taking control of all content, also feels liable to censor contents (see long discussions on XNA forum - youtube of games). This will evetually limit kinds of content available to the gamers. For that reason, I hope PSN succeed.
Pla1nkiller @ Nov 20th 2007 7:48PM
Free online is one of the main reasons why im getting a ps3 this Christmas and the fact that I already own a wii and 360
Mr Khan @ Nov 20th 2007 7:41PM
It's about 90% of the functionality for 0% of the price
The idiotic comments they make, to keep 2nd place no less...
Nacho @ Nov 20th 2007 8:08PM
He is right about the competition. The is none (if any), but he is comparing apples to oranges. PSN is still growing (Happy Belated Birthday PS3) and XBox Live has been around the corner a couple of times.
I would give Sony about a year to two years for be a major competitor (Home, DivX10 apps, and etc). But right now the truth is Xbox Live has the belt.
blake @ Nov 20th 2007 8:48PM
I have to say that i enjoy the psn and the fact that its free as i would not pay for a network service. The xbox live network is nice and has a lot to offer too. However f*ck Robbie Bach and the horse he rode in on.
moogle @ Nov 20th 2007 8:09PM
xbl doesn't have "home"
and once that starts rolling... well you get the picture -_-
Big Time @ Nov 20th 2007 8:12PM
I’m sitting here trying to figure out if you are all joking or not? You can spend $600 dollars on a gaming machine, but have a problem with paying $4 a month for online service? That alone makes no sense. And how could you say PSN is even close to live, I love playing COD 4 and... OH.... look another one of my friends are on line. I dont need to call some one or back out of a game to chat with someone playing something else. I think you should try the 2 before you put one down. So far my PS3 has played Blue Ray movies and Drakes Uncharted, until they have a better online experience, I will continue to buy my multiplayer games for 360…. ( And this is just my opinion )
RatBoy @ Nov 20th 2007 8:17PM
I actually agree with him... for now. XBox live has nothing to worry about until PS3 starts offering comperable services for free.
But when in game XMB, in game messaging, and a decent way to start joining games are all firmly integrated into PSN (or home) then XBox will have competition.
boxmyth @ Nov 20th 2007 8:22PM
I have both Live and PSN. They both have their strengths, but even Live was weak for the first few years (on Xbox 180), and only recently has it hit its stride in getting new Arcade releases every week. Just give the PSN more time.
PS - Sony, put more PS1 games on the PSN. Japan has like 200*, while the USA only has 10*
*rough estimates
Sinspaw @ Nov 28th 2007 9:44AM
Seriously, it all comes down to stupidity. No competition? You mean PSN is actually free and all but offers no competition? Ok.
Broken Haiku @ Nov 20th 2007 8:40PM
I'm done measuring which is the better at what. Let's everyone just have fun.
Popfrogs @ Nov 20th 2007 8:44PM
@22: I still can't understand why you Xbox owners rationalize paying for online services. It doesn't make sense. The thing WE can't understand is how you guys think you're supposed to pay to play online.
If you paid $600 for a system, you'd slap someone in the face for telling you "now give us $50 per year so you can go online". But, for some reason, a $400 Xbox Pro forces you to do the very same, and all of a sudden you're OK with that.
Not only that but the Xbox has mainly peer-to-peer gaming while 90% of PS3 games are server-backed games. We play without lag. For free. Nyah.
Sure, I'll admit, currently the PSN is "behind". However once Home drops, and we're still using online services for free, then we'll come back and talk again. Avatar to avatar. ;)
The1 @ Nov 20th 2007 8:58PM
Sony will have an ONLINE SERVICE when I can talk to you online while playing any PS3 game. I was playing Uncharted and a friend sent me a chat invite. I could not do it because I was not going to stop my gaming.
Whubbsie @ Nov 20th 2007 9:14PM
Okay maybe in US you could call LIVE a service as you get free content, movie downloads and Tv shows...In Australia we pay $80AUS a year so we can play online and be allowed to buy arcade games that we sometimes get, no fancy movie downloads not Tv shows... no free content... so it's not really much o f a service seeing as Sony offer us the same for free.
The only plus LIVE has is that everyone I usually play online with has a 360 not a PS3
Samir Gartner @ Nov 20th 2007 9:19PM
Sony PLEASE PLEASE!!! PSN VIRTUAL GIFT CARDS, it would be a great adition and also PSN for South America and PLEASE South American (Neutral accent) dubbing for games, i have nathing against Spain but spaniard accent aint that good for us South Americans. It's like british english. Just picture Kratos saying "bloody Olimpus gods"
morganfell @ Nov 20th 2007 9:37PM
Microsoft has plenty of money to build Live. After all with 3 broken 360s they only reimbursed me for 8 of 14 weeks I didn't have a 360 so of course they can afford to up features. Meanwhile PSN has never screwed and I haven't had the lag issues I have all too often on Live.
Andy @ Nov 20th 2007 9:49PM
I compare Xbox Live and PSN to two of my favourite PS3 games. (sorry Xbox folk, your not allowed to relate)
Xbox Live is like Resistance. Getting into games is slick, you can in-game chat and has lots of useful features.
PSN is like Warhawk(before all the bug fixes). Getting into games is a chore, getting out is a bore and messaging is non existant. However once your in a game its much more enjoyable. You not only get to shoot but you can fly, drive, and plant mines.
True Xbox live is under 10 dollars a month. But after 4 years of online gaming it adds up.
SOCOMRAIDER @ Nov 20th 2007 10:05PM
I once had Xbox Live a long time ago. Back during the original Xbox and Halo 2 days. One of my buddies has Xbox Live gold and is on the 360. Here is where we had the most common problem.. most of the time, you could only play people near you. Sure it is a nice thing to play someone who is across the city or state. But that sure does limit who you can play. I know the reason Xbox Live does this, is to cut on lag. And yes you CAN play people in California while you're in New York (or even in another country). It will just lag like crazy. Plus it sucks that it is basically a mandatory practice to force P2P connections. Where there are more games on PSN that have their own servers or are run by the game company themselves.
Though even with that, the Live service itself at the core is better than PSN.
But hey, look how far we have come from PS2 online.
Da @ Nov 20th 2007 10:21PM
PSN is a bigger threat to xbox2 then they realise.
When idiots like Big Time stop trying to tell everyone else why we SHOULD pay to play, and start telling microsoft they WONT pay; hopefully then microsoft will wake up to themselves.
In the end, M$ will treat xbox owners that way until they realise they can't - and no one with an xbox is willing to do anything about it.
Grim_Specter @ Nov 21st 2007 1:14AM
I own both systems, and I play them both everyday. I personally think that the xbox live service is better, but there is no way that PSN is no competition. PSN provides great online gaming and downloadable content just like xbox live, and also by the way...IT'S FREE! Xbox Live does provide extra cool stuff like "gamerscore", which by the way makes look like a loser when you have a very high one, and a friends list that shows exactly how much everybody has been playing. All I have to say is Xbox Live might be better because of the features it provides, but it's slow and full of problems. PSN provides a smoother experience.
naruto007 @ Nov 21st 2007 2:10PM
leave MS alone they are like the bunny of the tail watch out MS the turtle could win you the race if you dont take it serious
MRBlue @ Nov 20th 2007 11:25PM
Again, nothing new I can say here besides the obvious fact that PSN has only been around 1 year and that Sony has no experience in this arena. It would be a shame of XBL wasn't what it is today with MS running the show. This is what they do best.
However, the "no competition" is quite the slap in the face and mark my words, he will be eating crow by this time next year. Once Sony aligns all of their entertainment divisions and get the PSN Store up to snuff (my hopes is that it will be integrated directly into Home thereby "encouraging" users to go into Home to get content) it will be a force to be reckoned with.
Titles like SingStar and LittleBigPlanet are steps in the right direction of taking on XBL. The more immediate concerns are getting the Trophy a.k.a. "entitlements" working and allowing in-game XMB access. If Sony can get that done in the next few months they'll close the gap a bit more.
Again, MS won't be saying this come this time next year. Oh yeah, and us PS3 owners actually play on dedicated servers. We're not paying $50 bucks a year to transform our console into a host server.
kman79 @ Nov 20th 2007 11:38PM
The boys at Microsoft sure are full of themselves aren't they! The Console Wars sure is the most cutthroat competitiveness I've seen in a long time, actually, it's more MS talking the smack than Sony.
I have both and XBL and a PSN account, and while I do agree that XBL is better at this point, I wouldn't go so far, as saying that Sony and the PS3 offers no online service what so ever, I play COD4 on PSN more than I do on my PC and 360. I'm not surprised at all that XBL is better, Microsoft is a software company, and obviously each one excels at what they are best at; Microsoft with it's software capabilities(XBL) and Sony with their hardware. Obviously if MS was to design hardware as good as they designed their software, there wouldn't be such a high failure rate for there systems....Yea, I said it! :D
jonathan @ Nov 21st 2007 1:04AM
"We play without lag."
*You clearly haven't played on Live. I, too, play with no lag on Xbox Live. Sure, xboxes act as servers, but this lag is not an issue like PS3 fanboys make it seem. It's an easy cheap shot, but it's so far from the truth.
*And while Home may be cool, I have no problem paying a few bucks a month to play online. Live has more features - both gaming and media oriented - than PSN. It's more of a community.
*And lastly, PS3 users, too, pay to play online when they buy a headset while we received headsets for free.
lebeau @ Nov 21st 2007 2:07AM
PSN is really bad right now. While I check out xbox live everyday I don't with the playstation network. It is newer and now that Sony is last I hope they update with some really exciting things. I'm not the definition of a fanboy, but having all three I think 360 online service is far superior. With that being said/typed an having all three systems I wait for the day for Sony to catch up - it makes it that much better for all of us.
leiwei @ Nov 21st 2007 2:23AM
XBL. It's great, but I hate how you have to be a gold subscriber to "qualify" for some of the DLC. I also hate how in the beginnings of the 360, you'd have to pay for some of the DLC that was already part of the game (e.g. some of the cars in PGR3). Not to mention, you ALSO have to be a gold subscriber to be able to bid on cars in the Forza 2 auction house. Now WTF is that? Heck if I only want the cars and not challenge other online players on a track, why do I have to subscribe for the cars?
PSN is good, but for now, it's not as great as Live!'s in-game messaging and such... though the online is smoother in my experience.
NAMEK @ Nov 21st 2007 2:27AM
What he dosen't realise is that being able to play online and having a friendlist all for free is better than paying for it. Granted LIVE is more evolved but that all will change in due time!
frenchfried89 @ Nov 21st 2007 3:15AM
Another thing about the ps3's free "service".. There are tons of people making different accounts since its free. Its like cheating in some cases. Im not so sure about this but in theory, you could level up your COD character much faster if you had a dummy account. I hate dummy accounts, they ruin the community. And another thing, the ps3s dont come with headsets... not everyone gets to talk. it kinda ruins some team based games..
jacksealey @ Nov 21st 2007 5:12AM
@37. That's ridiculous, paying a one off price for a headset is hardly pay to play online, the heasdset, like the ps3 setup states is an "accessory".
Ed @ Nov 21st 2007 6:07AM
@37. The Headset is a one-time fee, not a recurring overpriced subscription. It's also optional, which is good for gamers like me who wouldn't even use it. In addition, you have no control over the hardware (you have to use their headset, or buy another in addition to the first.)
SpoBo @ Nov 21st 2007 6:52AM
Xbox Live is not a service. It's a ripoff. What exactly is this 'service' then anyway? Is it a service where they restrict developers to do cool and new stuff ... or perhaps a restriction where they won't allow developers to release content unless it's for money? Or is it perhaps a service where you can connect with one friend and have a live video and audio chat? I bet MS thinks of it as a service purely because they have subscribers who pay.
I'm a HUGE fan of PSN when compared to xbox live. If there is one reason to buy a PS3 over an x360 it's free online play. Imagine the ability to play any game you have anywhere online ... at any time. As long as you insert it in a PS3. How handy is that?!? With xbox live you have to retrieve your profile, make sure it's still gold .. if not transfer some money to microsoft. and then perhaps you might be able to play online.
It's also a complete rip-off how they disable popular downloads for silver subscribers .. i mean wtf? what's that about? they are deliberately slicing in the developer's target market just for their own gain? I'm sorry .. please all cool developers .. start developing for the PS3 and enjoy the advantages for many more years to come.
FR3SH JIV3 @ Nov 21st 2007 8:35AM
I am anxious to try out PSN. Free is always a plus but so far Live has been worth the money.
Just me.. @ Nov 21st 2007 8:47AM
if i had to pay for the PSN service he has a point... but i don't SO WTF? I Hope MS rolls over and dies.
jcslickt @ Nov 21st 2007 11:30PM
@Big Time, your comment is way off. There is no ps3 system that is currently priced at 600$. The built in features of the ps3 (wireless) is a fair advantage over the 99$ wireless network adapter for the xbox 360.
unfortunately, the psn worldwide varies between regions, but if sony was clever enough to pull all that together and add in-game chat...M$ would have some trouble on their hands.