What I don't understand is why online gaming is huge for the one American console maker, but lags so far behind with the two Japanese manufacturers when for years and years we are told how wired Asia is. The Wii is too casual and Sony just doesn't get it? Seems odd. Meanwhile, Microsoft is making $1 billion / year on their Live service.
A technical failure, like this outage is not the same as not understanding something's importance.
I can and do. And I take issue with the suggestion that the PSN is up there with XBox Live. In users? Probably. In architecture, usability, desirability and integration? Not remotely.
The alternative to Sony suffering from 'not getting it' is that they do get it and are short of money, ability or the desire to make more money. All of which seem a bit more unlikely than a possible culture gap.
The PSN was created and launched looking like GameSpy from the 90s. They could have cribbed proper friends, matching, communication and content network integration from Steam or XBox Live. Both were up and functional and accepted improvements over the old systems for years before PSN debuted. But Sony didn't do that.
And from their stumbled start, they continued to drag their feet on core PSN functionality, while simultaneously throwing a lot of cash, effort and press into Home. I don't know how you can reconcile that with a thesis that Sony does get it.
Their ultimate answer to fixing the PSN seems to be waiting for third parties to take the reins. That is, they seem to be relying on Steam, Activision and EA's own systems that layer... more or less to the side of the PSN.
It's a shift in network consistency, focus and usability that has happened to howls of complaint on the XBL side,but is being met with open arms on the PSN side.
edit: pulled out a couple footnote refs i never actually drafted.
If Steam crashes, SteamWork doesn't work (Cloudsync, Matchmaking, etc.), but thats like any other master server crash. Also, SteamWork syncing is true syncing, so you have all your game data on your device and accessible. Its not like Game for Windows Live where you have to be logged in to even access the save games on your computer.
Say anything about Steam, but they are pretty far ahead in the 'user-friendliness' department.
Otherwise, I've got nothing but good things to say about Steam (despite the fact that I still hold a special place in my heart where I HATE Steam for replacing WON)
Source: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...
a) steam startup is the biggest contributor to starting up any game I got on steam.
b) attempting to sell a steam account results in a ban. Well actually why the hell can't one sell their steam account in the first place.
Benefits:
No CDs. Yay.
Instant buying.
Sales.
Cloud Sync so I can uninstall games to conserve space until I want to play them again.
Does not inject rootkits for DRM. (EA games still do, but thats ok I pirate those)
I still play an hl mod that has been around for years and 90% of the times a user is dropped is because of steam.
The problem with impulse is that steam has the nice steam APIs for matchmaking and such that require steam. Can't use it if you sell on another store. Its the vendor-lock-in. I bought a game only later to realize I can't play with anyone I know (steam vs impulse online) and thus... well... can't win vs that.