• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Xbox Live Vs PlayStation 2 Network play - Feature

F

Folder

Unconfirmed Member
Hi GAF.
I'm writing a feature for UK trade magazine MCV which will aim to compare Xbox Live and Sony’s online PlayStation 2 push. I wouldn’t mind dropping in a few user quotes if anyone can spare the time. Just why you think one system outshines the other, key failings and strengths etc.

Something more than “Live >>> PS2” would help! :)

Thanks in advance everyone.
 
F

Folder

Unconfirmed Member
Joe said:
this has bad news written all over it.

I understand that Live is far superior. It's understanding what PlayStation 2 offers and why there is such a gulf in functionality that I need to bottom. :)
 
F

Folder

Unconfirmed Member
Society said:
heh, I was just reading that Warpipe thread. It was not meant to be no online, it was no line.
Um, right...
 

boutrosinit

Street Fighter IV World Champion
Apparently the PS2 online is far simpler to use. You plug the network adapter in and that's it. That's all I heard. Dunno how true this is.
 
F

Folder

Unconfirmed Member
Society said:
Sorry to derail your thread. I will let you get back to your SPOnG feature *ahem* I mean MCV.
The piece is for MCV. There's a piece in there this week from me (Stefan Walters) and there was one last week too. And this one os for next week. Exciting huh? Read the mag if you get it. Rather than attacking me, do you have any thoughts on the topic? Just a thought...
Dan?
 

Rorschach

Member
Folder said:
I understand that Live is far superior. It's understanding what PlayStation 2 offers and why there is such a gulf in functionality that I need to bottom. :)
If you've already made up your mind that Live! is superior, then you know why ps2 isn't. I'm sure you can figure it out on your own.
 
F

Folder

Unconfirmed Member
Rorschach said:
If you've already made up your mind that Live! is superior, then you know why ps2 isn't. I'm sure you can figure it out on your own.
Look, I was simply offering you the opportunity to drop a quote into a magazine, with a credit to the forum, talking in what will be an interesting feature. I foolishly imagined this might appeal to the users here. But then I remembered the proliferation of pious, disenfranchised bitter whothefuckareyouandwhathaveyoueverdones and realised my error.

snob.gif
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
I wouldnt assume Live is the superior service, because when you are looking at service you have to take price into consideration, i think if most people actually weighed up what they get that PS2 users dont for their $50 a year they'd be pretty discusted, but once you factor in the games things become clearer. MSs real success has been in prodding developers into the online arena with support, lisenced code (Moto GPs netcode) and general assistance. The stat tracking, the online leagues, the single friends list is all just bells and whistles, what really makes live better is the games.
 

boutrosinit

Street Fighter IV World Champion
My god.

I can't believe how retarded this thread has become. Stef, you'd be better off inviting users on Spong to email in, or post your question on Popbitch. At least the useless posts will be funnier.
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
/me opens mouth in angry fashion

/me looks at time of post

/me slowly backs away, muttering something about kicking ass
 
F

Folder

Unconfirmed Member
Ghost said:
I wouldnt assume Live is the superior service, because when you are looking at service you have to take price into consideration, i think if most people actually weighed up what they get that PS2 users dont for their $50 a year they'd be pretty discusted, but once you factor in the games things become clearer. MSs real success has been in prodding developers into the online arena with support, lisenced code (Moto GPs netcode) and general assistance. The stat tracking, the online leagues, the single friends list is all just bells and whistles, what really makes live better is the games.
Thanks :)
 
The fairly obvious...

XBOX

Pros:
Streamlined, easy to use interface and a large variety of games that are online. More standardized feature sets...for instance, every game uses voice chat and every game uses a standardized Friends List. Any XBL user can get downloadable content without having to buy an optional HDD. Most DLC is free...and there's a lot of it out there. More games offer online support than the competition.

Cons:
$50 a year. There needs to be more dedicated servers for games that would benefit most from their presence. All games need better netcode that is able to shift hosting duties to another player when the original host leaves in peer-hosted games. Does not support narrowband usage at all.

PS2

Pros:
Free...unless you don't have an online adaptor built-in or packaged with your system. A generally more varied library of online games to choose from. Games are able to be played against other platforms (PC). Many games allow both narrowband and broadband usage.

Cons:
Logins are individual for each game. Lack of standardization of features. Those that looked forward to using the narrowband side of the 'service' are seeing a fast-dwindling support for them in future releases. Lack of support for DLC...with future support looking non-existent.

My opinion...

An XBL-like standardized service is the way to go for consoles and PCs, IMO. The fact is...I play more XBL games online because the interface is familar and easy... Playing the PS2 online is a bit more irritating than playing on a PC because of the extra bits of steps necessary to logging in and playing. There's no universal Friends List and the lack of more standardized features across games, such as voice chat, is off-putting to me. Sure, it costs $50 bucks for a year of service versus being free...but the experience is just better, more consistent, and more console-like (simple) with XBL.
 

boutrosinit

Street Fighter IV World Champion
Ghost said:
I wouldnt assume Live is the superior service, because when you are looking at service you have to take price into consideration, i think if most people actually weighed up what they get that PS2 users dont for their $50 a year they'd be pretty discusted, but once you factor in the games things become clearer. MSs real success has been in prodding developers into the online arena with support, lisenced code (Moto GPs netcode) and general assistance. The stat tracking, the online leagues, the single friends list is all just bells and whistles, what really makes live better is the games.


Ah. A silver lining. And an essex girl too.*

*I went out with a few. They're great :)
 

boutrosinit

Street Fighter IV World Champion
Lag's still a problem the hinders the actual quailty of game - at least for beat em-ups being played from England (CVS2). There's that that slight half-second delay which means last minute dragon punch counters/supers and so on just can't happen. It's like playing the same game, but after coming in from the cold with really cold, stiff hands.

Otherwise, I like online games. Xbox Live is quite easy to use, though the way it resets Ninja Gaiden everytime you leave the online bit is rubbish.
 
CvsS2 was laggy for me, as well...and I'm in Arizona. I blame Crapcom's netcode...which is apparently fine for a geographically smaller, more well-connected area, like Japan. Not so good otherwise. GGXX is better, but you're still prone to feeling like you're fighting in the underwater Dural bonus stage from VF2. Hopefully, DOAU and MK5 are better about that.
 

boutrosinit

Street Fighter IV World Champion
MightyHedgehog said:
CvsS2 was laggy for me, as well...and I'm in Arizona. I blame Crapcom's netcode...which is apparently fine for a geographically smaller, more well-connected area, like Japan. Not so good otherwise. GGXX is better, but you're still prone to feeling like you're fighting in the underwater Dural bonus stage from VF2. Hopefully, DOAU and MK5 are better about that.


I'll have to check those out. Thanks for that :)
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
I feel i should probably mention every few months that im not a girl though i am from essex and freeburn is a petty petty man. :D
 

Kiriku

SWEDISH PERFECTION
MightyHedgehog said:
The fairly obvious...

XBOX

Pros:
Streamlined, easy to use interface and a large variety of games that are online. More standardized feature sets...for instance, every game uses voice chat and every game uses a standardized Friends List. Any XBL user can get downloadable content without having to buy an optional HDD. Most DLC is free...and there's a lot of it out there. More games offer online support than the competition.

Cons:
$50 a year. There needs to be more dedicated servers for games that would benefit most from their presence. All games need better netcode that is able to shift hosting duties to another player when the original host leaves in peer-hosted games.

PS2

Pros:
Free...unless you don't have an online adaptor built-in or packaged with your system. A generally more varied library of online games to choose from. Games are able to be played against other platforms (PC). Many games allow both narrowband and broadband usage.

Cons:
Logins are individual for each game. Lack of standardization of features. Those that looked forward to using the narrowband side of the 'service' are seeing a fast-dwindling support for them in future releases. Lack of support for DLC...with future support looking non-existent.

My opinion...

An XBL-like standardized service is the way to go for consoles and PCs, IMO. The fact is...I play more XBL games online because the interface is familar and easy... Playing the PS2 online is a bit more irritating than playing on a PC because of the extra bits of steps necessary to logging in and playing. There's no universal Friends List and the lack of more standardized features across games, such as voice chat, is off-putting to me. Sure, it costs $50 bucks for a year of service versus being free...but the experience is just better, more consistent, and more console-like (simple) with XBL.

One thing I don't get with your comparison is this one con for PS2. You say that PS2 support for narrowband is decreasing, but in that case...shouldn't the total lack of narrowband support be an even bigger con for Xbox?
 

Mavy

Member
Its pretty much Xbox live has the better games and play experience.

Its so simple to use.

EA has done a great job of porting the PS2 Online experience over to Xbox though..........
 
F

Folder

Unconfirmed Member
MightyHedgehog said:
The fairly obvious...

XBOX

Pros:
Streamlined, easy to use interface and a large variety of games that are online. More standardized feature sets...for instance, every game uses voice chat and every game uses a standardized Friends List. Any XBL user can get downloadable content without having to buy an optional HDD. Most DLC is free...and there's a lot of it out there. More games offer online support than the competition.

Cons:
$50 a year. There needs to be more dedicated servers for games that would benefit most from their presence. All games need better netcode that is able to shift hosting duties to another player when the original host leaves in peer-hosted games. Does not support narrowband usage at all.

PS2

Pros:
Free...unless you don't have an online adaptor built-in or packaged with your system. A generally more varied library of online games to choose from. Games are able to be played against other platforms (PC). Many games allow both narrowband and broadband usage.

Cons:
Logins are individual for each game. Lack of standardization of features. Those that looked forward to using the narrowband side of the 'service' are seeing a fast-dwindling support for them in future releases. Lack of support for DLC...with future support looking non-existent.

My opinion...

An XBL-like standardized service is the way to go for consoles and PCs, IMO. The fact is...I play more XBL games online because the interface is familar and easy... Playing the PS2 online is a bit more irritating than playing on a PC because of the extra bits of steps necessary to logging in and playing. There's no universal Friends List and the lack of more standardized features across games, such as voice chat, is off-putting to me. Sure, it costs $50 bucks for a year of service versus being free...but the experience is just better, more consistent, and more console-like (simple) with XBL.

Awesome. Thanks chap! :)
 

DSN2K

Member
Microsoft are way ahead of Sony for one reason...

they have people paying for the service, Sony will be where Microsoft were at the beginning of xbl when PS3 hits and thats not a good thing. They really need to test the water soon unless they intend to continue offering free online support.
 

gmoran

Member
I've just signed up for the PS2 on-line, which was pretty straightforward. Burnout 3 forced my hand, and I'm looking forward to R&C3:UYA. You have to register for a service called Central Station, which I believe is the PS2 equivalent of Live, and is trying to create a more cohesive live like experience. I'm hoping my Central Station Tag will become universal in the majority of future on-line games (presumably EA excepted).

I understand XB Live is superior, but as my Xbox is upstairs (I can't fit it in the AV rack - can't leave it out, kids'll kill it) I 'll have to wait till I get my wireless network sorted.
 

Musashi Wins!

FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
I like both. Xbox has a wider selection and a friends list which makes it better, though. For awhile at least, SOCOM was my favorite online game even in the midst of having LIVE. PS2 unfortunately, only has one or two games at a time that are ever really worth having online service for. Still, it's ok for being free.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
segasonic said:
Your sarcasm detector needs maintenance...

That wasn't sarcasm there are quite a few folks who are NOT happy with EA's implementation of online gaming in BO3.. so wtf's your point?
 

pilonv1

Member
You've missed it twice now. Burnout 3's online mode is PS2 online emulated on Xbox with a friends list and voice chat.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
pilonv1 said:
You've missed it twice now. Burnout 3's online mode is PS2 online emulated on Xbox with a friends list and voice chat.

Did the PS2 version suffer from the same types of connection issues that the XBL version did? If it did, then they really did recreate the PSOnline experience quite well on XBL. ;)
 

Razoric

Banned
XBL
+ Everything is standard on XBL. Only one login, only one buddy list, everyone has voice chat, and everyone has broadband which should reduce lag barring the netcode on the game isn't crap.
+ Download Content. One of my favorite things about Xbox and Xbox live is the fact you can download new things for pre-existing games. When done right (Ninja Gaiden) it adds tremendous replay value to a game that would otherwise be collecting dust.
- $50 might put some people off as well as the lack of narrowband support. Also some more dedicated servers would be really nice.

PS2
+ A free service that almost anyone with a PS2 and network adaptor can enjoy. After the initial setup for the game you are plugging and playing just like XBL.
- No standard for the games. Every company throws their little online quirks into the mix (ala Capcom with RE:Outbreak, no voice support or any type of chat for that matter).
- Cheaters. If someone cheats on XBL, they can be banned from the entire service if need be. If someone cheats on a PS2 game, they can get another name and just keep hopping from game to game with little worries. It's a free service and you get what you pay for. :\

Overall: XBL is, I hope, a taste of what the future of online console gaming is like. Standard features, univeral buddy lists, one screen name that can be held accountable for cheating, download content, etc. I fully expect Sony to copy this service in the next year or two.
 

pilonv1

Member
Yes it did. It also had a stupid text messaging system and a chat room that you typed into. Two stupid features that are useless when you have voice chat, especially now with Live 3.0. And you couldn't tell who was talking when you were playing. The list goes on. What is acceptable for EA and PS2 online is below the standard set by other companies on Xbox Live.

It's a free service and you get what you pay for. :\

Best quote in the thread. If you want the ease of having a central friends list and a minimum level of features for your online gaming, then Xbox Live is unbeatable. However if you dont care about voice and other standardised features or having a single login/password/friends list, then PS2 online is fine.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
<EA defense measures engage!>

pilonv1 said:
Yes it did. It also had a stupid text messaging system and a chat room that you typed into. Two stupid features that are useless when you have voice chat, especially now with Live 3.0. And you couldn't tell who was talking when you were playing. The list goes on.

No I'm not talking about that I'm referring to the connection/disconnection issues that were happening during actual games on XBL. Besides the messaging crap people were having issues just connecting.. be it to rooms, staying connected during actual games, etc... I don't recall the PS2 version having those issues.... so that part was not handled well.

What is acceptable for EA and PS2 online is below the standard set by other companies on Xbox Live.
So these same problems were experienced with EA's online XBL sports titles? Or are you talking feature set? In feature set I agree, EA did not support the latest available features of XBL.. in terms of connection issues I don't know that EA sports titles have any more problem staying connected to XBL for games than other titles... feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
F

Folder

Unconfirmed Member
Thanks to all those who offered thoughts, it will help a great deal. :)
 

Prine

Banned
Credit goes to Microsoft. XBL being broadband only was the absolute right decision to make, i remember the naysayers blasting Microsoft for taking that route.

And real time chat has now become a necessity for me and many others, I don’t think I can go back to playing games without chat functionality.

Microsoft continue to upgrade live every year, I believe Halo 2 will be taking advantage of XBL 3.0 features, clan support, voice messaging, personal space to upload images and ofcourse MSN alert.
 

Tabris

Member
One plus PS2 online has over XBox Live! is it's the only console with an MMORPG (PSO is an online RPG, not a MMORPG).
 

User 406

Banned
Back when I used to play netrek in college, there were a lot of people who had multiple accounts on various servers. In particular, they used certain accounts only for serious matches and league play, while others were just for throwaway fun in pick-up games where they didn't want to worry about their stats. I'm surprised that nobody here seems to find the idea of a single unchangeable account name to be restrictive in that respect.
 

gmoran

Member
Razoric said:
XBL
It's a free service and you get what you pay for. :\

I don't think this is the big differentiator. I think its that MS Host and have full control.

I thought MS insisted on complete control in building the online infrastructure, and with the exception of EA - host all games. In taking this approach they were able to implement a completely common interface, that developers just plug and play to. Because of that all of the community features that MS have built in was much more straightforward; netherless credo for MS for realising in advance that these were valuable commodoities for gamers, and working hard to provide them.

Sony are playing catchup here, but I'd be surprised if most future PS2 games aren't reasonably close to the current live service; the technology is certainly there regardless of who plays host. I don't see Sony charging just for the online service either for PS2 or PS3.
 
DarienA said:
No I'm not talking about that I'm referring to the connection/disconnection issues that were happening during actual games on XBL. Besides the messaging crap people were having issues just connecting.. be it to rooms, staying connected during actual games, etc... I don't recall the PS2 version having those issues.... so that part was not handled well.

For what it's worth I've only tried one race online in BO3 since getting it a month ago because I was getting connection issues with the PS2 version. I would pick a lobby then after about a minute or so I'd get a message saying 'could not connect with lobby' or something along those lines and get booted out.

Haven't tried since then, partly because FFXI has been devouring my time and also trying to get in before my brother does his nightly 5 hour SocomII sessions is tricky.
 

DCharlie

And even i am moderately surprised
I know no one cares, but Ps2 online gaming is much more expensive in Japan than playing Xbox Live games.
 

Scott

Member
It seems like a lot of things have been covered already, but I meant to reply last night (just didn't end up having time..), so I might as well now:

XBox Live
+ Streamlined login/setup. Buy a kit, input your information, and you're good to go. You won't have to tweak settings for certain games, or input your credit card information more than once... It's just a no hassle, user-friendly set-up.
+ Everything is standardized. Buddy list, broadband only, voice chat, and so on. When you buy a Live! title, you know it's going to support these features (99.9% of the time).
+ Downloadable content. A big plus for the service, and adds longevity to both online & offline titles (ie: KotOR, Ninja Gaiden). Plus, with the built-in harddrive, there are no outside expenses to worry about.
+ Microsoft handles all of the servers (exception being EA's). Another big plus in my eyes, as it encourages developers to include online play. With no on-going costs to worry about, what do they have to lose? If anything, it brings more recognition to their titles, and frees up cash for them to put towards downloadable content down the line.
+ Live! Aware & MSN buddy list integration. May seem like trivial features, but anything that allows you to get in touch with your buddies via multiple means is a definite plus.
+ Free trial cards. These give customers the chance to try out their new game(s) online for a few months, and see what Live! is all about. One of the best moves MS has done with the service, in my opinion.

- Price. While the hardware to get online is built into the system, you still have to fork out the cash for a Starter Kit. And on top of that, this only lasts you a year (or 3 months, depending on the version you get). Monthly fees, yearly fees, starter kits... Definitely not a cheap service in the long-run. Though, as a mini-plus, you do get a headset & often a free game included with the starter kits, which makes it a bit more appealing.
- Multiple fees. While this only deals with PSO, it's still worth mentioning. You're paying to access the online portions of Live! games in the first place (through a starter kit, or the 5.95$ monthly rate), and then PSO comes along, asking you to shell out for another monthly fee that's even more than the Live! rate itself. Isn't that a bit much? To make matters worse, I can definitely see more products going this route in the future, especially the upcoming MMORPGs.
Who knows, maybe they'll even go one step further: "What?! A multiple fee, fee?!" -- Drew Carey
- Pay downloads. While I think downloadable content is a big plus, I think the fees some of the developers are slapping on such content is a bit much. I'm sure some will argue that "They're not working for free!", but I'd like to point out that they're saving cash as it is by not running the servers themselves... Can't they take some of this money to cover the content costs?
- Broadband only. While most will argue that this is a plus, and in quite a few cases I'll agree, it still cuts out a very, very sizable portion of the internet userbase (mainly in the US). While I can definitely see the reasoning behind going this way with the service, it's also leaving a lot of gamers out in the cold.

"PS2 Online"
+ Free online play. Pretty self-explanitory. :p Only exceptions are the system's MMORPGs.
+ Hardware included. One of the biggest drawbacks to the "PS2 Online" option was the cost of the Network Adaptor, but with the "Online Pack" and the upcoming "PStwo," this is no longer an issue.
+ Narrowband compatibility. While this will naturally get less important as time goes on, it's still currently a key feature for the system's "online plan." It's allowing a very large portion of games to play titles online, instead of excluding them, and even allows those using AOL to play. And despite what most people would like to think, playing games online with dial-up can be fun! ;)
+ Decreased licensing costs. I remember reading about Sony offering decreased licensing costs for developers/publishers that put online options into their games. As far as I know, they went through it, but I'm not sure if it still holds true today. Regardless, it's still a very good move by Sony, and a great way to entice developers into putting their games online... Sure, it's no "Hey, we'll handle all the servers for you!" offer, but not much is. :p
+ Open network. I'm sure somebody is going "How is that a plus?!", but you only need to look at PlayOnline to see why. It's basically a Square Enix centric XBox Live! service, though unlike Live!, the open-ended nature of Sony's "online plan" gives Square Enix the option to take their service one step forward. They offer email, instant messaging, chat rooms, and the big one, cross-platform play. None of this would have been possible through a closed service like Live!, which is why I think in some cases, the "Leave it up to the developers." mindset can be a huge plus.

- Streamlined setup. How is this a negative point? Well, it's half-assed. The original plan was to have you setup your information with the Network Adaptor disc, and then all games from there-on would just boot up your settings automatically... The problem with this is, however, that most developers don't utilize this. Instead, you end up inputting usernames, passwords, credit card info, etc for damn near every title. User-friendly this is not.
- Nothing is standardized. Voice chat, keyboard compatibility, buddy lists, seperate logins, rankings, narrowband compatibility... Support for any of this is all left in the developers' court, which is resulting in a lot of titles supporting only basic keyboard chat and nothing else.
- Cost of peripheals. While the Network Adaptor is being included now, there are still a lot of users out there who will (or did) have to buy one on the side. Add in the HDD (see below), and you get a lot of off-putting costs associated with going online.
- The HDD. Everyone knows how this went wrong, but I'll elaborate anyway. First off, it's freaking expensive, which is enough to turn even 'hardcore' gamers off. Secondly, it has next to no support in the US, and with the PStwo not supporting it, future support is likely going to die off completely. What was once a peripheal with a lot of potential, is now only a FFXI gateway or HDLoader accessory. What a waste.

I think I covered the most important facets of both, and hopefully didn't ramble too much doing so. ;)
 

Brofist

Member
PS2 online is fine for what I need. I do most of my serious online gaming on the PC, I like playing the odd game free online on the PS2.
 
Top Bottom