Exactly, which was through Square Enix. Sony created the addon hard drive specifically for that game. The online network adapter on PS2 was primarily used for that game and SoCom. There was no monthly fee's for online play through Sony at that point as PSN didn't even exist then. 

Indeed the PS3 online experience was far below The Paid Microsoft's one.

I'm gonna ask you question, it's really easy answer.

Who made Windows PC?

Is he a businessman? Absolutely. Does that mean he lies or exaggerates at times? Of course. Does he have the best business model Xbox has had in ages? Definitely.

I said it before and I’ll say it again.
“People glorify him for his tweets because they need a PR champion after this horrendous hardware gen but in reality he's just a used car salesman in a suit, saying all the right things to get you to buy into his schtick. Rinse and repeat....new tweet....rinse and repeat.”

Hes turning xbox brand around so honestly I dont think he or xbox fans care. I certainly dont

I like Phil, like Nintendo who really abandoned the Home Console war with the Switch ( and has found success with it), I feel the Xbox executives feel that they also lost the conventional home console war to Sony.

It doesn't mean that they stopped trying to outdo them, the clearly crafted the most powerful next gen console, and have acquired plenty of studios ( though they haven't planned out yet). Their focus, however, is on Gamepass and xCloud, these services have/will make them money. These are services that they have done better than the competition and thus, like Nintendo in the portable space, Microsoft has something here in which it can win at, even if the conventional console war is lost.

I know Wii's online wasn't very good, and Switch's isn't good either. That's why I carefully worded my post to point out that only Sony's online was on par with Xbox 360's. 

As the Youtuber Dunkey has said "PS3 had Resistance 2 and 3 with 60+ players all on a single map seamlessly. For Free."

Question to the Xbox fans here: Sony tends to put moneyhats, on 3rd party games to make sure they are timed exclusives on Sony consoles. Or in other words they put temporary moneyhats on 3rd party games. That's wrong right? But isn't MS outright buying 3rd party studios, and then not publishing those games on Sony systems, a sort of permanent moneyhat? Isn't that worse? Shouldn't Wasteland 3, and Psychonaughts 2, and all those other formerly 3rd party studios' games get the same treatment as Outer Worlds? 

Right you are. I've no doubt that if MS wouldn't have stuck to paid online in the 360 era, there'd be no paid online for consoles today. At least not the kind that locks you out of playing online. 

At any rate though, it's still pretty hypocritical of Xbox to attempt to call Sony out for lack of Crossplay functionality on some games, when just a generation ago they were locking their online behind a paywall, on all games, when the competition wasn't. 

If MS was on the up and up, on "exclusives are evil", and "lack of crossplay is evil", they would publish their games on PS4/PS5, and discontinue their online paywall. Or at the very least they would try to get their games published on PS4. Sony might stop them, on some weird principle, or their might be technical issues with porting Xbox games to Sony consoles. 

What are you talking about, Xbox Live is far superior then PSN, everyone will tell that, even Sony diehard funs