Pwning Noobs: How to Fix PSN and LIVE

Yes, I think they're both broken. Just in very different ways. I'm not going to address Nintendo's online system for the Wii because it is so far beyond broken I don't have the time or the energy to describe all the issues, much less how to fix them. So, let's get on to my issues with the applicable services, shall we?

First, LIVE and PSN are very different beasts and take very different approaches to online console gaming. LIVE is Microsoft's house. They hold the reins, they call the shots, every company that wants their game on LIVE has to report to the big M and dance however they are told. This has a lot of benefits for the gamers. Performance has a universal standard it must live up to and all games have to support a certain feature set. This kind of uniformity makes navigating all of LIVE and using it's features from a games familiar and intuitive regardless of the game you're playing.

PSN, on the other hand, is a free-for-all. With the exception of certain quality standards, game developers are free to make their online setup work however they see fit. Trophy support wasn't even required for generous span of time after it was first implemented. This "anything goes" type of system does mean freedom for developers to make things work however they want, but it also means a lot less stability for gamers when compared to LIVE. But then, being an open platform is also the reason that PS3 is the only system on which you will be able to access Steamworks and play Portal 2 Co-op alongside PC players. (Side question for Gabe Newell: How's that crow tasting?)

However, both of these systems have serious errors. The PSN issues mostly come down to performance such as instability, slow download speeds as well as lacking some of the popular features of LIVE like the oft-mentioned cross-game voice chat and game-agnostic parties (not needing to be playing the same game to be in a party with someone). While the main issue with LIVE is that you are charged for the basic functionality of being able to play your games online. This is much more insulting when one considers the fact that games on 360 and PS3 cost the same, but on 360 you can only play the single player half of the game unless you hand over another $60 a year to Microsoft. This looks especially bad when PS3, PC and even the Wii offer players the ability to play online without any charge whatsoever. The features advantage that LIVE holds are relatively minimal and certainly don't equate to a $60 price tag. Even worse, this was recently increased from $50 without the addition of any new features in an attempt to justify the increase.

That seems to be the way of things with Microsoft's products though. Whether it's the PC world with the absurdly inflated price of a Windows OS or Office bundle or the cost of a new hard drive for your 360. Let's look at that hard drive example a little closer, to really drive the point home. A 250GB HD for the Xbox 360 costs $130, I kid you not. For that money, I could buy a 1 TERABYTE drive (that's 4x as big) for my PS3 and still have enough left over to buy a game. Microsoft customers are far too willing to simply smile and say "Thank you sir, may I have another?" so there's no reason for the big M to stop screwing consumers on the price.

What Microsoft should be doing, in a world where Microsoft is fair to its customers, is have the ability to play games online included in the free LIVE membership, but save all the other perks for paid, Gold members. Keep all the exclusive demos, and parties and cross-game voice chat, and even premium download bandwidth for Gold members, but don't rob your customers of some of the basic functionality included in a game that they already paid full price for. Especially when the online component comprises such a large part of some of your biggest titles. Where would Halo, Call of Duty or Gears of War be without their online multiplayer? Charging customers $60 for a game and then telling them they can only play half of it until they fork over another $60 is the type of fine print switcharoo that normally gets companies in trouble. So why do gamers keep letting LIVE not only get away with it, but convince themselves that it is a superior service for doing so?

PSN, in a somewhat similar fashion, needs to change up how their paid vs. free services are structured. While the paid service, PSN+, is still more or less in its infancy and as such has some excuse, why not get things going in the right direction early on? As it stands, unless you buy a lot of downloadable titles or the free game offered that month (if there is one) is something you really want to play, there's just not enough to the service to warrant paying for it. Sony is starting in the right direction with the background updates, where your PS3 will check for software updates, download and install them all by itself, and the upcoming cloud game saves, allowing you to save your game to a server instead of your system so that you never have to worry about losing them and can access them from any PlayStation 3 you sign in on. There needs to be more though, and that means addressing the issues PSN has had from the beginning. Download speeds for everything from PlayStation Store games and movies to title updates are horrendous. A file that may take a few minutes on my PC can take more than half an hour on my PS3. That's pretty damn unacceptable. There's also the features people have been asking for since launch. Mainly features that have been available to LIVE users since their service launched. Features like cross-game voice chat, so you can talk to your friend and ask him if he wants to play something without have to A) be in the same game already or B) be willing to type out your message for 20 minutes using the onscreen keyboard and being able to create and join a party with friends that might be playing a different game. Personally, I've only run into a handful of occasions when I thought those features would be useful, but I'm only one man and the masses see them as a necessity. And again, like LIVE, PSN+ should allocate some extra bandwidth to it's customers so that those paying for the service don't spend the same 30 minutes waiting for Uncharted 2 to update that the free members do. In the same way that a LIVE Gold membership doesn't have enough features to justify charging for what PSN (mostly) does for free, PSN+ doesn't have enough features to warrant paying for little "extras."

PSN certainly has a laundry list of issues to work out, but its customers put up with them because they can still play games online for free. And while being able to play your games online is certainly a justifiable purchase to most gamers (why else do you think we pay for internet?) there's something to be said about the fact that LIVE is the only platform anywhere to charge an additional fee for access to features in a game that was already bought and paid for once. I enjoyed playing Halo: Reach online during the free trial offered on LIVE this past weekend, but with only a handful of exclusive titles on 360 there's not enough reason to purchase a LIVE membership when that money could buy me Dead Space 2 or Killzone 3 on my PS3, where I can play the multiplayer for free. And while I'm playing it over PSN, I'm still going to complain about the various issues and lacking features that everyone else has been complaining about for nearly 4 years now.

With an online component essentially being mandatory in modern games and replacing splitscreen play, both of these companies need to work on perfecting their online platform because they both need it in equal amounts. As for Nintendo...well they still don't think people want to play games online. And with the Wii and various DS iterations continuing to print money, there's really no reason for them to stop living in that fantasy world.

Xbox has the DVD blu's or: Lost (content) Planet 2.

Since the start of this console generation, Sony fans have touted the merits of Playstation 3's Blu-ray format while those loyal to Microsoft have insisted the extra storage capacity of Blu-ray is insubstantial. If this article from CVG is any indication, however, that argument may very well be lost for 360 fans everywhere.

Full Story (360)

Dark Void, Murky Combat.

click to biggerize

So the Dark Void demo is finally out and I have to say: I think they could have picked a better section of the game to show off.

Full Story (PS3)
Full Story (360)

Check out the Super new combatants of Street Fighter IV.

Anxious to see the fighting styles of the three new pugilistic superstars of the forthcoming Super Street Fighter IV? Well GameTrailers.com has you covered.

Full Story (PS3)
Full Story (360)

For just pennies a day, you too can adopt poor CliffyB

Apparently the Gears of War franchise is broken and needs to be fixed FAST before the series is abandoned by gamers everywhere, according to IGN anyway. Anyone who has ever witnessed a Playstation vs Xbox fanboy squabble (or been involved in one, for shame) might find this hard to believe, but apparently IGN writer, Ryan Geddes -- in his second appearance on the blog today and somewhat in keeping with the same theme -- disagrees.
Mr. Geddes writes up an in-depth article on what's wrong with the Gears franchise and how to fix it. Whether or not you agree with the article it's still an interesting read and makes several valid points. You can check out the full article at the IGN link above.

Supreme Commander 2 details.

Fans of science fiction RTS rejoice! No, StarCraft II hasnt' been released early, sorry. Didn't mean to get your hopes up. However, IGN has details on Supreme Commander II and that's almost as good...kinda.

Full Story (PC)
Full Story (360)

Why, that's a fanboy of a different color!

For those of you out there who are firmly of the belief that IGN has a Microsoft bias, you may want to give this editorial a look. In it, writer Ryan Geddes, goes into his decision to "change teams" to Sony, while also revealing he still owns his 360. A curious article to say the least (why does IGN keep posting these types of articles as of late?) that seems to be the gaming news giant's way of insisting it has no bias. Or perhaps their PS3 section is just taking the Mac route of turning market minority into snooty superiority. Mysteries of the Universe...
Regardless of IGN's actions, this brings me to the main point of this article: The Myth of Website Fanboyism. It's true that some gaming news sites have some type of console/company bias, but these are few and as far between as they are from the same status of respect as the major news sites. This is because a company is not a sentient thing, and therefore cannot have a bias; only people can have a bias. Yes, the writer's for major sites may have a bias, but that's why they work in the news section that corresponds to their console of preference.
So no, IGN isn't an Xbot, Joystiq doesn't hold the PS3 on a pedestal and 1up.com isn't all about the Wii, you get the idea. Maybe if you think they have a bias it's because you're spending time reading articles about your "opposing" console and are mad at yourself for being so curious about the system you're supposed to hate. But that will take us down a route of transference and other such Freudian blah blah blah so we'll lave that alone. Just rest assured that your fanboy brethren will not actually beat you to death if they discover you have an interest in another system, in fact they probably suffer the same affliction.
All that said, does this site, Higher Technology, have a bias? Abso-forking-lutely. It's only got one writer and (terrible) cartoonist. And as much as I'd love to "catch 'em all" I simply can't afford to add a Wii to my collection, much less a 360 instead/as well. I try to keep my PC capable of playing current gen games so I can keep up with some of Microsoft's console exclusives: Halo 1 and 2, Fable, Gears of War, Mass Effect, as well as "timed" exclusives like BioShock and Braid. What I'm saying is; I try. With only the PC and PS3 to work from I do my best to keep a balanced news load for all consoles. But when it comes to thorough reviews of games or even editorials about specific games, PS3 is going to win out every time. I love gaming as a whole, I want to play it all so I play as much as I can.
Which brings us to the point of why I made the decision to go with Playstation in the first place. At the dawn of the modern age of consoles is simply made the most sense. Given the track record I could assume that I would eventually be able to play some of the Xbox's biggest games on my PC, but the same could not be said for the likes of Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted (and honestly, I'd probably follow Naughty Dog to whichever console they're on, Crash ftw!), Resistance, Killzone 2, Gran Turismo or Lair at the time when my decision was being made. Blu-ray movies playback was just a bonus and added excuse to buy a fancy new HDTV, so my decision was made. Now, if I wasn't good at tinkering with my PC or interested in playing PC games would my decision have been different? Probably not, but that's just because of my taste in games. To someone else, even someone who doesn't have a feverish loyalty to a particular company, the choice could have been totally different.
It's all about what you like to play. And if you love gaming enough to actually mean those comments you leave on boards all across the Internet, maybe you shouldn't be so afraid to look at what the other guys have to offer because nothing is as valuable in pursuing a career as knowledge of the industry you wish to enter.