Sony can't get the experience right

Rm_headshot
Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Starhawk

If you’ve read my editorials for a while, you might’ve noticed a recurring theme around the topic of experience. Sure, framerates and features make nice bullet points, but seriously, don’t waste my time with that crap. What’s it like when you put it all together in one (hopefully) cohesive whole? How do I feel before, during, and after I play the game?

Yeah, I’m a big believer in the experience. A good experience equals a good game. A bad experience equals a bad game. At least, that’s how things used to play out.

I threw Starhawk into my PlayStation 3 the other night, and it took a good 30-45 minutes of downloading mandatory updates and installing mandatory updates and inputting codes before I could actually play the damn game. At a certain point, I started wondering if this thing could possibly be worth all the hassle.

The really sad part? None if this is actually Starhawk’s fault. It catches the blame for Sony’s blindness to the customer experience...something that’s become fairly standard these days.

 

Starhawk

And I thought herpes was bad....

Think of it in terms of a bunch of morons on their phones at the movie theater, or commercials breaking into your favorite television show every 5-7 minutes. The interruption can sour whatever you’re trying to enjoy. Sony’s now-ubiquitous mandatory installs take this a step further, preventing you from enjoying your new game at the exact moment when anticipation is at its highest point. You sit down to play something for the very first time, and surprise...you get a cold shower instead. Check back in half an hour.

Now Sony might have a lot of good reasons for those mandatory installs. Possibly they speed up in-game load times to a level comparable to the Xbox 360's -- they definitely don't make them notably faster -- because the Blu-ray reader's slow, or because PS3 games supposedly run on huge, uncompressed files. Or both. Or neither. I don't sit around caring about the reasons during a marathon install session. I spend my time glaring at the TV, willing it to burst into flames.
 
And once I've got that hatred in my heart, it doesn't switch off just because the installs finish.

Starhawk
I drink your space milkshake! I drink it up!

I should enjoy a game like Starhawk despite its flaws, but I guarantee all those flaws annoyed me more because of the hoops Starhawk made me jump through just to get in the door. All the on-foot stuff felt plodding. I enjoyed flying a starhawk until I realized you're super-glued to an unforgiving 2D plane, even in outer space, so forget pulling a loop to chase enemy aircraft. The instructions say you've got to simultaneously use the right thumbstick and the X button to pull evasive maneuvers. I wouldn't know, because I don't have enough thumbs to do that without taking my left hand entirely off the controller.

The ability to instantly call in installations to provide equipment, support or vehicles turns the game into a nicely aggressive tower defense game. Starhawk essentially casts everybody as the Engineer from Team Fortress 2 (one of my favorite classes from that game), minus upgrading and babysitting duties. But that interface feels clunky, the learning curve to use that stuff looks like a seismograph on a bad day, the balance is screwy at best, and I wonder if I'd be so nitpicky if the game had started up the second I put the disc in.

Mandatory installs used to be infrequent. Now we've got to put up with it for practically every game. And lest we forget, each install eats up a chunk of your hard drive space.

But let’s not lay the bad customer experience completely at that door. If you buy a downloadable game off the PlayStation Store, or even just want a free demo, it’s a multi-step process. Purchase, download, back out, find, install. Over on the 360, you’re done in one purchase/confirm. You also didn't have to install anything to play Rage, Bioshock, or Batman: Arkham City on the 360. Jump in and start kicking ass while the Sony fans clip their toenails or something.

Starhawk
That's right! Maintain that good posture!

Sure, it's easy to dismiss these as whiny first-world problems, but they're also one reason so many people abandoned PC gaming until services like Steam took the pain away. Steam makes it ridiculously easy to play, organize, and add to your entire catalog without crushing your hard drive. That's a formula Microsoft sure didn’t crack with Games for Windows, an early attempt to streamline the process...and a colossal flop. It didn't fully understand or address what people wanted.

Similarly, that's why PlayStation Home -- which, according to its own logo, is still in beta five years later -- failed to capture the success of its main inspiration, Second Life. Nobody knows what it's for. Not even Sony, apparently. And does my PS3 really have to nag me every time I want to shut it down? Am I sure I want to turn off the system? Yes, I'm sure. I'm always sure.

Don't get me wrong...I'm absolutely not saying PlayStation games are inherently inferior, or that it's impossible to enjoy them, or that the PSN will follow Games for Windows into a richly deserved grave. I am saying that Sony isn't thinking like their own patrons do, and that costs them equity when it comes to customer satisfaction. If a game drops on both consoles, it's just easier to buy on Xbox. Sony pointlessly makes using their system more onerous, in the same way Nintendo friend codes and Microsoft points throw up barriers to entry. But unlike the others, Sony creates pain points around playing the games themselves.

I'm also saying Sony must completely fix this, if not through a major update now, then without fail for their next console. We live in times where easy, intuitive solutions and convenience always win. Dozens of websites sell books and music, but Amazon and iTunes still overwhelmingly dominate their markets. Sony amazingly dug out of a third place hole in this hardware generation; going forward, they must provide a superior, seamless, start-to-finish experience the competition can't match.

No waiting. No unnecessary steps. Just push a button...and go beyond.

 
Problem? Report this post
RUS MCLAUGHLIN'S SPONSOR
Comments (6)
Default_picture
May 15, 2012

I wouldn't claim the Xbox interface is perfect either, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have felt the need to update and completely alter it several times since the console's inception. I don't think its very convenient to have reacclimitize myself to a new interface every 6 months. So I can understand why Sony kept their interface the same. They did what they felt was the right move for consumers to get the most out of their product.

I think the Playstation, for its sometimes minor inconveniences, offers significantly more as a product than the Xbox. Certainly the Xbox can be more simple to navigate and instantly gratifying, but there are always costs to those wonderful conveniences. Not installing a game for example can fry an older Xbox, it also drasitcally increases loadtimes. The Xbox Live service is much more accessible than PSN, but it also costs 60 bucks a year, while PSN is free (not paying a subscription service for an online experience comprable to Live is about as convenient as it gets).  I'm also convinced that "slow blu-ray drive" is responible for some of those PS3 exclusives with visuals I don't even see the 360 having the power to process (Uncharted, MGS4, GoWIII).

I'll agree that those mandatory installs are a pain that Sony overlooked, but I think its also a growing pain. And everyone goes through growing pain, therefore everyone should be entitled the chance to slip-up at least once in that regard. Even in our self-satisfying digital entertainment world, it still holds true that suffering through the inconvient is the only thing that prevents us from perceving everything as worthless.

If everything was convenient, there would be no incovnenience, therefore no struggle, therefore no opportunity to grow, therefore no inherent worth.

Dcswirlonly_bigger
May 15, 2012

I think a big reason for the discrepency between Sony and Microsoft here is simple: Microsoft dragged Sony into a battle it wasn't prepared for.

All of our expectations for the service end of console gaming right now are based on what Microsoft offers with LIVE. This is because they were the first to get out there and innovate with their form of online console gaming, social networking, and software updates. Sony had to follow suit and they just weren't ready.

For one thing, Microsoft is a software company, Sony isn't. Microsoft's experience building Windows undoubtedly gave them the upper hand when building a console's OS and backend. I think this includes aspects of the Xbox 360 itself that give its OS and service an inherent leg up over that of the PS3. I think the reason the PS3 can't have cross-game chat is because Microsoft purposefully set aside resources in the 360 hardware for cross-game chat, and Sony did not. They couldn't because they couldn't predict the need for cross-game chat before Microsoft brought on that innovation. There's probably a similar reason why software updates and such are slower on the PS3. This was all a case of victory of the first mover.

I don't think Sony can get their service up to the same level as Live on their current hardware. The thing is, even if the PS4's version of PSN is up to the same standard as Live, by then Microsoft will have a new console with more innovations built into it that will introduce more advantges that Sony won't be able to catch up to on static hardware. It's a moving taret. The only service that has been able to beat Live in terms of usability is Steam, which is working on an open platform.

You can see the qualities of each company in its products. Microsoft - the software company, has the superior console OS but has had problems with their hardware (red rings and such). Sony is an appliance company, and this generation they decided to make the PS3's advantage its capability as a general home entertainment device. The PS3 is a more reliable machine (especially the slim), and really an excellent video player.

Lemme put it like this: When I play my Xbox 360, I feel like I'm playing a game console. When I play my PS3, I feel like I'm playing games on a home entertainment box.

Default_picture
May 16, 2012

I'm sorry. I can't help but laugh at tihs. What are you, 12? When you're installing a game, you stare at the screen until it's done? Do you sit at your computer until a big download is done, too? Do you sit by the mailbox all day waiting for a letter?

 

And then, to blame your impatience on Sony and follow that up by allowing it to affect your enjoyment of the game... Immaturity is probably the best word to describe this. Ignorance would work, too. 

 

Well, there's also always the chance this was written to garner hits.

Default_picture
May 16, 2012

Jacques, please keep debate civil. We don't allow personal attacks on Bitmob.

Default_picture
May 18, 2012

No problem. Still, it's rather tough to not see such a response as juvenile.

100media_imag0065
May 17, 2012

While I agree with those problems Sony has, you can just as easily turn it around on Microsoft.

With Microsoft, even fairly short games like Max Payne 3 have to come on two disks, which means JUST as I get comfortable and am enjoying the game, I get slapped with a "Insert Disk 2" sign that completely shatters my immersion. And this is because Microsoft refuses to use Bluray disks, which would have not only made the game run at better resolutions, but would eliminate the need to switch disks all the friggin time. It seems like ever single game I play on the 360 forces me to switch disks so many times. If I had a dime for every time Mass Effect 3 made me switch disks I'd have enough to buy it all over again.

That problem doesn't exist on the PS3. Plus, you don't have to pay for the right to play games online, which is a huge barrier to entry on the 360. Why should I have to pay to use the internet that I'm already paying for? Why should I have to pay to use a service that offers me nothing I can't already get on the PS3 for free (minus cross game chat). Just the fact that I have to spend money on the 360, to get services that I can get free literally everywhere else, is a HUGE barrier in my book.

Add on to that the fact that Microsoft fights developers who want to let us have free DLC, or MMO'S, or reasonably priced games. Microsoft prices their Games on Demand games so high that you can buy the same game at a retail store twice, and still pay less. Or what about the fact that you are paying Microsoft for the right to be advertised to? If the 70 bajillion ads that get thrown in your face every time you turn on your 360 doesn't directly affect your experience in a massively negative way, I don't know what will.

When I turn on my PS3, or use the PSN store, 90% of the screen is dedicated to what I want to actually see. Only 10% is dedicated to ads. On Microsoft's console, it is the opposite. You know something has gone horribly wrong when I had to spend 20 minutes trying to find demo's on Microsoft's console because there were so many ads everywhere. The ads are so intrusive that I've actually given up buying games on Xbox Live, and I just buy everything on PSN now.

So, as you can see, they both have their negatives. I may have to wait 20 minutes for updates when playing a PS3 game, but I don't have to deal with any of the problems mentioned above when I buy for the PS3.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.