After spending some time yesterday doing my usual on the internet, I came across several posts indicating why the Playstation 3 will trump the Xbox 360 in terms of its online experience in the near future (Sony Home).  By no means is this suppose to be a flaming thread between fanboy’s (it will clearly turn into one) but to state some facts as to what unique qualities the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 bring to the table for now and in the future.

Now before I even begin let’s be clear about one thing, both consoles are amazing pieces of technology in their own right.  I have both, I play both, I like specific things about each, and I hate specific things about each.  This thread is going to be based on online functionality and nothing else, so if you’re going to be ranting about Blu Ray or RROD etc please go somewhere else.   

Being the most recent company to break into the console gaming market it is fairly obvious to see what niche they felt they could bring to the table.  MS didn’t have the games, didn’t have the development resources, and didn’t have the brand that both Sony and Nintendo had when they entered the market; but what they did have is an online infrastructure far exceeding both of their counterparts combined.  (http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2007/07/27/ - the last paragraph)

This was the dawn of Xbox Live and as it stands today, is the pinnacle of online gaming for console users.  Fast forward about 5 years and over $1 billion dollars of investment and you get to where Xbox Live is today. 

It’s fairly easy to see what makes the Xbox Live service superior to the PSN service as of today.  Integration, achievements, content etc, all signify MS’s dominance in the world of online gaming for consoles.  Regardless of these facts let’s focus on the future for a second.  What is Microsoft planning to do to further grow its online product? 

The best way to view the future is to look at what MS is investing in the past:

·         Microsoft invests undisclosed amount in for technologies that allow people to not just play video games against each other online, but to join the game as a spectator from anywhere in the world.  http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/mar06/03-065000PatentPR.mspx

·          Purchased $5 billion in AT&T securities "to accelerate the deployment of next-generation broadband and Internet services to millions of American homes." Under the agreement, AT&T plans to use Microsoft's TV software platform in advanced set-top devices.

·         Microsoft acquired this provider of services for digital television. This includes the Microsoft TV platform. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2000/0327softbrowse.html

·         Microsoft invests $240 million in facebookhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/technology/24cnd-facebook.html?ei=5088&en=c27e6c86844c7723&ex=1350964800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1205513787-cv1HuQT4/luFqQ5oV6/4xQ   

·         Microsoft is developing a new app to allow hobbyists to build their very own playable titles for Xbox Live. The program, called XNA Game Studio Express, will cost $99 a year, and will be available for Windows XP and Vista. http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/14/microsoft-planning-youtube-for-games/

·         Microsoft's pickup of Multimap and Big Fish games' purchase of Thinglefin -- account for $50 million, while the remaining $375 million was investments in the 13 other companies on the list.  Microsoft plans to use UK-based Multimap online mapping service to develop an online environment. http://www.worldsinmotion.biz/2008/01/virtual_worlds_companies_score.php

·         MS invests in BT Vision technologies to combine Xbox Live with watching TV http://blog.itvt.com/2008/01/21/bt-vision-iptv-service-integrated-with-microsoft-xbox-360/

So what does all of this mean?

It’s very clear to me what each console manufacturer brings to the table.  Sony offers a solid base of proven IP’s and Blu Ray, Nintendo offers innovate game play and Microsoft offers state-of-the-art online play. 

Just as it is unlikely that MS will ever boast the as many solid franchises as Sony, it is unlikely that Sony will ever provide as good as an online service as Microsoft.  I will agree that Sony has made some huge strides with Home and with the continuous updates to the PSN network.  However, there is no way that I can believe that they will ever be on the same level as Microsoft.  This is what MS does, and has been doing since they were founded in 1975. 

Home is definitely needed for Sony but I think gamers are expecting too much from it.  It will not bring Sony online rep to the level of MS but will provide a base for them to build off of just as Xbox Live had to do last gen.   

When I view console gaming and its direction it is clear that it is online.  Moving forward I expect to see some big things from MS as they further define online console gaming.  Without a doubt they have been the driver for console online gaming and I don’t see this changing any time soon.

 I look forward to your comments.        

Well the biggest problem Microsoft faces as far an an Online community goes, is that in the PC realm, they have a direct competitor offering what's generally accepted as a much superior service. Enter Steam. I know it's on a different platform and doesn't really pertain to the XBL vs. PSN, but could you imagine if Sony and Valve struck a deal?

With Sony's recent merger of SOE and SCE, this could be a MASSIVE jump for Sony if they play their cards right. And considering Sony's ties to multi-media via Sony Music, pictures, broadcasting, it could make for a VERY robust online service. Sony's biggest problem right now is resource management, they have far more tools at they're disposal than many people realize, and if they figure out how to utilize these within the company, the Playstation brand name could be more powerful and significant than ever before.

MS online sucks, if it was free it would be great buy paying for that HELL NO.

MS online rep, what paying for something that does not work for a month... is Sony going after that rep ?

Fair enough, they did have that problem didnt they.  However, I think you miss the point of my post entirely.  In terms of paying for it, I have no problem paying 5 or so bucks a month for the best online avaliable.  If Home turns out to be amazing then you have a point.

@ChronotriggerJM:
Given Gabe Newell's outspoken views on the PS3, can you really see Valve doing this?

@Mistershine. Gabe. Hates. Everything. xD He's a massive fan of pc development and that's probably how he'll always be. But as some have stated, multi-thread coding is picking up major steam and he'll eventually adjust. However, could you imagine if the PS3 userbase hits 50+ million people? Do you honestly think valve or EA for that matter wouldn't want the traffic and use? And like I mentioned with Sony's entertainment connections, it could be a MASSIVE step towards improving upon Steam's already amazing service. It could be beneficial to both party's.

Just saying that it's quite the longshot, but what if? Do you honestly think at that point PSN would have any remote worry about xbox lives service? I think not personally.

You mean the best out of what 2, big deal.

Iam not paying 50 a year for a service just to play one or two games on it. An extra $250/300 on top of console cost over its life NO thanks, the $ add up over time. Do you pay to play your PC games online ?

MS future is kinda screwd they are to greedy to make live free while when the new PSn hit and Home it will be incredably hard for them to some how justify a fee for live.

Just like their early launch advantage, i see them squandering their online advantage.

Well for 1, MS does have the best online for consoles as of now.  The reason I can justify paying $50 a year is simple.  Does PS have achievements, integration, all the content etc... no they do not.  If PSN had this then you would have a point but do they....no. 

If Home comes out and does what XboxLive does then like I said previously you have a point, do I think it will? No I dont.

Well... World of Warcraft says hi. -.-

Hah, I know what you mean, though. I don't pay to play Quake 3 online. 

The problem though Fanatical is that those features, like the many the PS3 came with, are not always needed and or appreciated. It's RARE that I like to take a game online, in fact, the ONLY game I play online with the PS3 is Warhawk. XBL gives me peer to peer gameplay (which is not the greatest :/ ), a smaller number of players compared to the PSN, and I have to pay for it. It's got it's advantages, and I'd certainly say it's the most robust console online experience as of yet, but "best" is questionable.

The fact that I don't have to pay to play online already makes it more of a gameplay feature and less of a service. Microsoft may need to make live free at some point if PSN and Steam continue to grow. Games for windows is already not doing so well and if it's console competition gets any better it will put them in a tight spot.