Can't imagine this being true. Especially when the last PSU survey was about online gaming, and every feature they talked about required a unified network. I call bullshit - especially when that issue isn't even out yet.

My prediction is that Sony will have a gaming portal. You will sign up with Sony and give them all your connection data - username, password, etc. and then when you select the game you want to play online, it will connect you to that company's server. That's gaming company's server will then contact Sony for your username, password, etc. The company will also transmit data back to Sony for game stats and grading purposes. This allows Sony to give you features such as messaging and searching across all games, but also provides them without the need to own the game servers.

For example. You want to play Madden online. So you login to the portal using your username and password. The portal tells you have a new message, two of your buddies are playing Madden.... all the good stuff that a service like Live provides. Then you click to play Madden online, and it takes you to EA's servers. When it connects, it pulls your login info from Sony and you are ready to play. When the game is over, EA sends back info to Sony regarding on if you won or not, and how the opponent ranked you, etc. The stats are compiled in your profile.

Of course, if Sony does neglect the online scene again - which I doubt - I'll be picking up a 360.

I would agree with you joshd2012. Almost all of the PSU surveys have been about online content and what you would want in it. Unless they got a lot of negative feedback about a central online service I can't see them not having one for the PS3.

Your prediction IS a unified online service.

That scenario would require Sony having a backend unified network and at that point it would essentially be Live. Since reports are saying that there is no unified service I don't see your idea working.

MS didn't run any dedicated servers for games on Xbox with the exception of EA's servers which connected through the same means that you suggest for PS3.

Although since we have no official announcement, it's all conjecture at this point.


I really hope they do have some kind of unified network though.

I disagree. I believe Microsoft owns all the hardware Live is running on, meaning that every game that has Live, is being run on servers owned by Microsoft. This was the big deal with EA and why they intially stayed away from Live. Their agreement with Microsoft allows them to use Live as a portal to their servers. That would, potentially, be the way that all games would run on Sony's service. Sony would own none of the servers, and leave that to the game developer to work out.

The only servers MS owns are the backend stuff for stat tracking, authentication, etc. After that it's all peer to peer connections.

Halo 2, the most popular game on Xbox Live uses peer to peer. This means someone in each game played is hosting. The fact that players were hosting the servers caused some initial cheating because the host could disconnect a lan cable and move around freely while other players got a "please stand by" message.

Only EAs games and Phantasy Star Online (MS ran the servers for Sega, hence the monthly fee) use dedicated servers. I don't want to get into the reasons why EA waited so long for live in this thread, but I'll leave it as they wanted to get customer information directly and to justify the cost of the massive EA network they built.


While running the backend system might not sound expensive, it was very expensive for MS. They built 3-4 datacenters around the world running the same "portals" you refer to, although they connect users directly instead of to another company's servers. The backend does require alot of servers and in multiple locations to maintain a solid connection for everyone. I believe the quote from MS was that Live was a $2 billion investment.

The only reason I see Sony not going with a similar network is the massive cost involved and I can't blame them as that's alot of money.

I must say I'm really looking forward to this system. I had the original PS preordered but never bought a PS2 as it just never excited me. I'm fully jumping on the PS3 bandwagon though, mostly thanks to Blu-Ray.

Current speculation is that Sony will drop regional coding for games, much like they have for the PSP:

http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000140067095/

It is said they can do this because all HDTVs use the same standard.

I apologize if this was already posted.



I also heard that Blockbuster will not be renting PS3 games, could this be why? Can you imagine borrowing a buddy's game at not have it work on your PS3?

That's pretty scummy of them, but after this latest Music CD fiasco it doesn't surprise me.

They wouldn't get away with that. Your PS3 breaks down, you lose your entire game collection?

I can't see this happening. If it did, I could see some major outcry against it. Sony would not be #1 next gen if they did this.

Wow, way to punish the innocent. Piracy is bad, I won't deny it, but come on, the *perfectly legal and legitimate* practice of buying/selling used games is probably 100 times more prevalent than piracy.
I have a PS1, still hooked up.
I have a PS2, played every day.
If that goes through, I will not be buying a PS3.

I have a feeling they won't use it. It just seems way too impossible they would because it'd piss so people off. There's also too many discrepensies, like if you wanted to take your game to your friends house to play or something, it just seems like closing the door.

I think you'd have to be mentally deficient to believe there's even a remote chance that these rumors are true.

MS probably has more DRM patents than Sony and I'd guess that Nintendo has a few of their own. The timing and nature of these rumors seem suspect to me.

This is possible. Blu-Ray does have that ability, but I doubt Sony would implement anything like that. If anything, they may charge a fee to play a used game - like $5. This would force those who sell used games to drop their prices by $5 to compensate, and they would inturn drop the money they give you by $5.

Sony makes no game royalties on used games, and that would ensure at least some. Since most of their profits come from game royalties, and not hardware sales, they would not lose that much income as compared to the amount they would get from additional sales of new games. They would lose those people who exclusively buy used games, but they aren't making any money from them anyway.

I don't see this happening in any fashion - but as a possible option for game companies. If they want to lock down their game to new purchases only, then they can do so and suffer or reap the consequences. But I don't see Sony making this manditory.

I wonder what makes video games so different, that 'preowned' is a bad thing.
My car is preowned, my house is preowned, I buy preowned clothes for my boy, many DVDs are preowned, half my library is preowned, and when I still bought CDs, I bought preowned without a care. CDs at least, and DVDs to an extent, can be copied, much easier than video games. Why is it apparently so wrong to buy preowned games? Every couple months we hear 'industry insiders' complaining about it, but even for all the alleged negatives of preowned, new video games still pull in hundreds of millions of dollars. Just like in every industry, there are those consumers who will pay a premium to buy new, and those who will wait.
The only places I have seen 'no resales' in the c&vg industry, is on MMORPGS, and even that is technically possibly, it's just not theoretically 'allowed' by the publisher.

Cars require new parts from the manufacturer - they still make money off the used car sales.

Homes are realestate - completely different market from anything else sold.

CD sales only create income for the record company - the artists makes their money touring. If you buy there album used and like them, you'll likely see them live. If you see them live and don't own the album, you're more likely to purchase it.

DVD sales are icing on the cake for movie studios. They expect to make their money back in the theaters, the DVD sales are just added revenue for them (though they can make money for a film that bombed in the box office).

Videogames only revenue is from new sales. They aren't going to sell you add-ons (ok, rarely they do). They aren't going to bring you to pay for a live event. The only time these gaming companies make money is when you buy their game new. There is no second place of revenue like everything else you mentioned (besides clothing). They complain because they are feeling the burn and have no way to stop the fire.

It wasn't too long ago that record companies tried to stop 'preowned' Cds from being sold.

Hmm...you actually did bring up some good points that I didn't really think of. However, despite their reasons there would still be a huge backlash if they ever implemented this.

I for one would be PO'ed as would a large number of other people. I don't think it would work either. I think the creative "pirates" would find a work around while it just punishes those law abiding people who wouldn't know how to work around it.

too funny. PS3 is dead in the water if they go through with that. There are too many reasons NOT to employ such a function, a few of which they mentioned. Hell, that would completely eliminate rentals for one, which I would assume account for multiple millions of sales of games to the rental chains. What about those that buy a newer slimmer PS3 on down the line to replace their first PS3?

It has always been said that for MS or Nintendo to topple Sony, Sony would have to make a giant mistake like Nintendo did with the N64 (not going CD route) to lose their foothold. This would be their mistake, paving the way for a MS-Nintendo dominated market.

I for one would like to see them try it, just to see the results in their sales figures.

19th on the list at ebgames and was told i have to wait for 2nd shipment,

I think you meant to post in the Xbox 360 thread, although even with no release date, no clear list of launch titles, no firm pricing, no idea how many consoles they'll be getting in, etc., I'm sure EB Games or Gamestop will be more than happy to take $50 from you for a PS3 pre-order. That's how it worked with the Xbox 360, right?

One thing I don't get is why Sony is being so quiet and letting XBOX 360 (still think that's a stupid ass name) hog all the limelight right now? I fully expected them to drop a bombshell announcement to derail the 360's launch a little. How about PS2 for $100? PSP for $200? PS3 for $300? Something!?

Damn Franchise, you beat me to the punch by a few seconds.

I was going to say, that since the 360 is due to launch on the 22nd, I'd expect Sony to make a huge announcement - most likely on Online play - next week sometime to derail the launch a little.

They have been unusually quiet. If we don't hear something next week, I'd be shocked.

1. Yes, Xbox 360 is a crappy name.

2. I don't think there will be a price drop before Christmas. We would have heard about it already because it would need to be in the Black Friday ads.