PS3 Revisited - Online playing, a different way

While both the original Xbox and the PS2 have online playing, they were done a different way.  As you know, Xbox Live costs a monthly fee while the PS2 version is free.  What is the difference you may ask?  The Xbox uses a central server to connect to, where the PS2 relies on each developer to host servers. 

These same ideas for online gaming continue through the Xbox 360 and the PS3.  Sony played with the idea of a central server based system much like Xbox Live, but decided not to.  Nintendo has gone the same way as Microsoft and hosts a central server for their Wii online.  Sony's developers' resources for online gaming does give developers better control over the online features, but it loses many in the process. 

Consider what would happen if EA got to control the servers that all their sport games ran on.  Let's say you have NCAA 07, you love playing online and a year later NCAA 08 comes out.  You still love 07 and don't have $60 for the 08 version.  Now if EA decides it wants to increase their sales some, they could decide to close all their NCAA 07 servers; now there is no more online play. 

One of the key features with the PlayStation consoles is that they are all backwards compatible.  The PS3 was supposed to be able to play every PS2 and PS1 game.  This is no light task for Sony or any other console company.  Sony originally thought about just packing a PS2 into the PS3 too to run the backwards compatibility.  While this clearly would have worked, I doubt it would have helped that hefty price tag. 

The non-EU version of the PS3 contains a chip to help with compatibility.  When the EU version is shipped, it will not contain this chip.  Why? Because of price; the cheaper you can make them, the cheaper you can sell them.  Like the Xbox 360, the EU and probably the next revision of the global PS3 will use software compatibility.  People were outraged when they heard they were pulling this chip out of the EU version.  No one gave a peep about it when Microsoft did this.   I don't think this is a bad thing; it will save money for everyone and still keep backwards compatibility, and offer the ability to update the game list with firmware. 

Another good thing about the backwards compatibility is hardware.  The PS3 doesn't come with HDTV cables, but you can use the same cables you use to connect your PS2 to your computer with the PS3.  You can also keep that PS2 memory card; with an adapter you can use that card, though most will just copy saved games to their hard drives. 

Like Microsoft, Sony decided to make two versions: a premium version with all the bells and whistles, and also one that is toned down for a lesser price.  The premium version has a 60 GB hard drive, built-in Wi Fi, and a built-in memory card reader, while the lesser version has only a 20 GB hard drive and lacks the later two features.  This helps open up a greater market.  Not everyone is willing to spend $600 for a gaming system, and from past experiences, not many people are interested in spending that much.  Many of the consoles at this price range have failed.  The lesser version still retails for $499, which is still $100 more than the Xbox 360 premium.  While the PS3 does offer more features, it's up to consumers to decide whether it is worth its premium price tag.

While the PlayStation 3 is one beefy console, it had some major struggles to overcome and "downgrades" along the way.  Sony took the next generation parts and put them together, but maybe it used too many new parts.  The result of this was delays and in the end a very pricey console. 

It also went through some design changes and feature changes along the way.  Some of them were beneficial, such as the controller; people were hoping the boomerang wouldn't ship with production PS3s, and it didn't.  Sony brought back their tested and true controller.  The back of the PlayStation 3 took a hit which saddened many people.  Sony cut the ports to nearly half of that of the prototypes.  With the timely delays and cutbacks, and with the high price tag, will the PlayStation 3 be as big of a hit as past versions?  Only time will tell, however at press time, Sony hasn't gotten the response it hoped for after the initial rush.   Could we see Sony go the way of Sega?