Digital Sportspage Blog

The console wars over the last 2 generations have been something akin to the “Tortoise and the Hare”, with Microsoft taking the slow, steady approach and Sony using it’s bravado to assure the world that the race is over before it’s begun. The departure from the story, is that no one saw the Frog (Nintendo) coming, he just leaped over everybody with something new and different. Still, for the core gaming audience, the Wii is a ’second’ console; the fight for the console powerhouse among gamers is a two-man race: Sony vs. Microsoft.

Microsoft staked a claim at the birth of the original XBox that online gaming would be MS territory, and has undoubtebly succeeded. When the original XBox shipped, many people questioned Microsoft’s broadband-only stance, and the feasability of a thriving online user base growing beyond a small subset of the total console user population. Microsoft stuck to its vision, and XBox Live has proven that online gaming on consoles is no longer the exception, it’s the norm. Voice chat, cross-game invites, persistent user identity, achievements, cohesive friends list etc. are all hallmarks of the Microsoft influence on consoles; still, no one else seemed to get it…

Sony launched the PS3 without a clear online strategy. Sure there are online games, and a friends list, and the appropriate broadband connections, but that’s about it. Either Sony was holding something back, or they hadn’t yet been convinced that online was important. That conjecture came to a close a few weeks ago with the announcement of “Home”, Sony’s vision for a persistent online universe. While certainly different than anything done before in terms of a method for creating an online community to play “OTHER” games, Home is clearly a mash-up of XBox Live and Second Life. Sony took Microsoft’s idea for an online AVATAR (gamertag) and the accumulation of an online gaming life/identity (Achievements, Gamerscores) and wrapped it in a MMORPG of sorts. On the one hand, I see this as compelling. After all, who wouldn’t want to be able to have a more ‘involving’ presence in their online world? We all live a ’second life’ as gamers, I know I consider Sport73 to have an identity almost as ‘real’ to me as actual name. The idea of building out Sport73, giving him a face, a home, a sense of personality, and letting him roam to meet others in an online cafe is appealing. However, is that because I should be ‘playing’ Second Life, or because I think it will actually enhance my actual GAMING?

I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve had a chance to try it, but I do have concerns over the nature of ‘jumping’ in to a game without a lot of wasted time. I can see the value in Microsoft’s approach; if I want to see my achievements or my gamerscore - there they are; I don’t have to walk to a virtual museum. If I want to download or view a video, there they are; I don’t need to power on my ‘virtual’ Sony TV and watch them. Still, Sony has at least proven that they’re willing to TRY something to expand the value of a gamer’s identity while online.

More importantly, however, are the economic implications of HOME. Sony loves to say that online gaming is FREE on the PS3, unlike those bad guys at Microsoft who force you to pay a subscription in order to play online. I wonder if they’ll still be making that claim after Home launches. Home is ‘FREE’, if you want to call it that, but it was abundantly clear that if you want to get the most out of it you’ll be literally ‘nickled and dimed’ into poverty. What good is a walking/talking online avatar without unique clothing, accessories, music and other schwag? Sony will happily ablidge by letting you buy the T-Shirt that represents you. Want a cool apartment? That’ll cost you too. More Museum space? more money. And when you’re not paying in cash, you’re paying with your eyes, viewing ‘virtual’ ads plastered about the HOME universe. EA Sports will no doubt set up a virtual SportsBar in HOME where players can meet to join EA games while being bombarded with the latest ads/videos and brand messages for EA properties. All this doesn’t even include the HARD COST of online gaming on the PS3 that goes so often unmentioned…The XBox 360 ships (Premium) with a HEADSET so you can chat during games. Want to do the same on the PS3? Go out and get a $60 bluetooth headset. That’ll run you more than a whole year of XBox Live.

Net neutrality is a topic of interest in the internet space of late. For those unfamiliar, it’s the counter-attack to a proposed idea of letting the largest brands and those with the fattest wallets ensure that their data-packets travel at the fastest speeds, while the smaller shops, blogs and porn sites’ packets wait their turn behind the Amazon’s of the world. Net Neutrality is the objection to that, arguing that every voice should have equal value on the web. I agree.

Microsoft’s XBox Live is Net Neutral. No one game has better online performance, features or options than another; they all share equal footing on the XBox Live playground. I somehow doubt the same will be true with Sony. Not only does Sony allow publishers to build out their own backend systems, ensuring that the wealthiest publishers will have good performance and relegating the smaller guys to lag-hell, but Sony will also allow sponsorship within HOME, ensuring that the big publishers get attention and seamless integration into the world while the little guys stand outside.

You want to play online on the PS3? You’re going to pay for it in more ways than one. Remember, HOME is where the cash is…

PS> This isn’t meant to say that HOME isn’t going to be cool, or that I won’t be the first to sign up and use it; I simply mean to point out that the claim of FREE online gaming on the PS3 is only true if you want a generic, chat-free, half-fulfilled vision of Online. To get the real deal, you have to pony up the dollars, your eyes, and your energy.