XBox Live Network

The New York Times covers Microsoft's planned XBox Live network, a subscription-based online service for the XBox. Microsoft's "we control everything" approach will probably impact the number of games available, but the article notes that the service will include voice-over-ip, which might be a selling point.

Comments

Microsoft Bashing

[hooded1]

You guys can bash Microsoft as much as you want, but frankly who cares. Microsoft has developed some of the most successful marketing schemes in history. And don't even bother comparing Gate's monopoly to Rockafellar's. Gates doesn't kill people he just puts pressure on other companies

Re:Microsoft Bashing

[malfunct]

When was the last time an MS employee put a gun to your head and made you lay out cash to buy windows?

If anything forces you to buy an MS product its the extreme value of having a single ubiquitous computing solution that is fairly easy for anyone to use. MS has hit the nail on the head in a number of ways. The software does the job, is available everywhere, and you can bet that if you want to get something done an MS tool will do it.

I don't know if this is a good world or a bad one but I am tired of saying that you are "forced" to use an MS product. You could take the plunge if you wanted (and many have) and leave the world of MS. Unfortunately you are going to have more trouble convincing other people to do the same until all of the same benifits of using MS products manifest themselves. The hard one to reach is market saturation but I wish you luck. I frankly don't care who writes "the OS" so long as it does what I want when I want and where I want. And I don't want to have to learn 30 billion different variations, I want one solution that is everywhere. Windows more or less solves that problem for me and every time I look at it, its not really that expensive (hell you buy a computer and they give it to you). When MS products fail to do the job I need done I'll drop them like a hot potato, but until then they work. Its MY choice though, and I'm not forced in any way though I am compelled to use it which is a different story all together.

Re:Microsoft Bashing

[bm_luethke]

I've always hated the "they aren't holding a gun to your head" argument as stupid. One can be forced to do things in many many ways. One is by using thier market dominance to run any potential competitor out of bussiness, not by competing, but by simply using thier market dominance. Microsoft was found guilty of this and is now in the penalty phase. For example.

Back in the win 3.1 and win 95 days there was this small company called stacker. They produced software that compressed a disk and decompressed it on the fly making it appear as if you had a larger drive. They produced a good product. Enter MS - they produced and integrated thier own disk compression technique - great. Did it work better? no. Even though it was bundled, stacker continued to have market dominance within that single field. Enter microsoft abusing thier monopoly. Pay any programmer working for stacker 1 million to never work there again. Change windows constantly in such a way as to not allow stacker to run. Many other things also (including stealing thier code). In the end stacker went broke and MS had the only disk compression software out there. I was very much forced to use thier products (since there was no alternative).

A monopoly such as microsoft has two main ways it can go. One is not illegal - use thier vast resources to produce a kick ass product. Wal-mart has a near monopoly, and barring some examples where they didn't do this, they continue to provide cheap goods, even cheaper because of thier monopoly (there is a term for this type of monopoly but its been 7 years since my econ class :) ). Microsoft has the ability to do great good, in fact they are in a unique position to do so. But instead they try and stiffle competition, not by producing a better product but by using thier market dominance to force the changes they want.

In short - Microsoft seems to have basically met your needs. In many cases they do not meet mine but it is either use thier products or not do it at all. The argument is analogous to telling someone unless they give you 500 dollars (when you know they have 1000) or you will drown them, them not giving you 500, and then you drown them, and your defense is "but they could have given me 500 dollars". Yea, you have a choice - but it's not like you can always take the alternative.

Blah

[cscx]

Microsoft's "we control everything" approach will probably impact the number of games available

Hey, yo, michael. You know, it's pretty disgusting how you use slashdot as a pedastal for your techno-political views. Your job is to post news stories. No one really cares about your bullshit---we get it, you hate Microsoft, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, it's getting old. Can you for once post an unbiased article, or is that beyond your capability as a human^H^H^H^H^H droid?

I'll take the karma hit, but someone had to say it.

Re:Blah

[Slurpee]

Good Call.

Leave the Ranting to the comments, not when posting a story!

I mean...soon we're going to have goatsx or whatever being posted in the actual story....not in the comments where it belongs!

Re:Blah

[malakai]

dackroyd says:

If M$ had the power to 'accidentally' disconnect EAs online games, then EA would not be able to make free decisions about what games are made for the Xbox, and so would be bound into supporting M$ for ever, even if it made more economic sense for them not to.

I think what MS wants to prevent, is in a year from now, people like you going "GOD DAMN, XBox Madden Online is DOG SLOW. F#$%ING MS SUCKS, THEIR NETWORK IS KRAP!" when in fact, it's EA's servers that can't handle the load (look back: Ultima Online History).

A large portion of console owners recognize games as "MS Games, Sony Games, and Ninetendo Games" they rarely known the actual game company that produced the game they play. Nor do they care. So when the game doesn't work the way they expect, especially an on-line game, it's MS|Sony|Nintendo FAULT!.

Also, your threat of 'accidental' server disconnection is like Worldcomm 'accidentally' shutting down competiors that may use UU.Net for hosting. Or say, they 'accidentally' block router traffic going through their networks to competitors sites. Yes it's possible, hell it's easy... but contracts, and agreements make it excessivly costly in penalities/lawsuits.

And besides, if you read the article, EA was bitching about customer privacy. It's a load of crap aimed at using the press to strong arm some part of the negotiation we aren't privy too. Its more likely this has something to do with royalties. EA's no better than your vision of MS. Ask any of the companies the ate.

XBoX needs to be Saved?

[FzBravozF]

Overall, this is a fairly negative article. The xbox doesn't need to be "saved", by xbox live.

Nintendo doesn't have an online strategy. It will have separate adapters for sale and one game, PSO from Sega. That's it. Sony isn't charging for online for their own games, but third parties like Square, EA, etc could very well charge monthly fees. You have to buy the broadband adaptor as a bare minumum, and potentially a hard drive as well, and we all know how well add-ons do in the market place. You have the potential nightmare of registering with and dealing with multiple servers and multiple billings, not to mention dealing with questionable setup and performance issues with companies not properly equipped nor committed to online.

The xbox is set up out of the box for online gaming using a broadband connection. One setup, one fee, ease of use, from a company with considerable internet experience and a serious financial committment to provide a state-of-the-art online gaming experience.

Gee, I wonder which one of the three is really capable of doing online gaming right.

Bravo
.

Online Gaming

[NetGyver]

I love how they assume this:

"Another challenge may arise in household geography. In most homes, the video-game console is located in the living room, where the television set is -- nowhere near the high-speed Internet connection in the den. That assumes, of course that the den has a high-speed connection."

Our cable modem is in my room and piped to the family PC across the house by carefully laid RJ-45. And 802.11 wireless streamed upstairs. True some people who get broadband keep it hooked up to one PC in one room. But for $50-$60 a month, that seems like a big waste. Especially when you got more than one person in your house. Even more so when you have more than one PC, which seems to be a growing trend.

I *like* online gaming. What they should do is merge the PC/Mac online gaming with console online gaming and support them both under one roof. Why build up a whole online infostructure for a particular console or just for PCs?

Probably one of the reasons it isn't happening yet is because it takes some serious cash to put that type of system in place, and to make a good return investment you need alot of members to make the venture worthwhile.

I don't think this will happen with a console spacific or console only infostructure, there needs to be more games released for each platform
(PC, Mac, and consoles), that gives you a more diverse base so your not relying on one particular platform for revenue.

Sadly enough I think Microsoft could very well pull this off. They got the cash and steamroller stamina to make it happen.

It seems like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft each want to do their own thing when it comes to online gaming. Which reinforces competition - a good thing. But on the other hand an online serivce that is platform blind offers more players to compete with and has a better chance of long term survival IMHO.

A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!

Re:How much more can parents take?

[canadian_right]

As a parent I had a very simple solution - I said no.

I explained to the kids that between the ancient super-nintendo, and the PC they already spent too much time at a computer and there was no way I was going to pay for yet another console. Of course, if the kids actually save up enough to pay for a console I'll let them get one.

What is the big deal to saying no? The parent is supposed to be in charge, not the kids. I don't buy sugar-laden cerals, name-brand runners, or 'designer' anything. I don't just say no, I explain why I'm saying no, and I explain why my kids should skeptical about anything being sold to them on TV.

Microsoft and your TV

[Slurpee]

This is not a suprising move at all.

I've worked within iTV for 2 years now, in Oz. Have worked with Liberate, OpenTV and MHP. Have seen roll-outs of iTV in both the USA, and many Southern Hemi-sphere nations. Unfortunatly I have only heard about the success of iTV in the UK.

iTV is slated to be the next "big" thing. Direct response advertising, directed advertising, direct shopping, and adding value to TV shows. Of course, all in a setting where people are comfortable. Most families in the western world are more then comfortable with their TV, and consider it part of their family.

In fact, surveys have shown that while only something like 12% of the general public are comfortable ordering something over the internet, 92% would be comfortable ordering a product from their TV (in response to an Advert). Yes, those in the know can point out that the security problems are the same, but the general public views computers and the internet with fear, and their TVs with a nice warm fuzzy feeling.

why is this important? Microsoft want to be at the base of iTV. And so far they have failed.

At the moment the three big players in iTV are Liberate, OpenTV and MHP. OpenTV is going real well, Liberate is going well (but may be struggling), and MHP (run by Sun and others) are begging for customers (vaporware).

Microsoft attempted to get in on the ground floor with Microsoft TV. After spending multiple-millions investing in AT&T, they were going to roll out Microsoft TV over their network. But failed. Basically, after months and months of delays, AT&T said screw you, and went to Liberate.

In the end, MS closed down their TV department (in truth, the campus is still there in the Valley, but is not being used...just waiting for the right time), and moved their employees over to the X-box team.

So, the next move for Microsoft is setting up some sort of network (X-box live), then deliverying content over this network.

At first it will be games, then applications (ASP), then actual content (such as movies etc).

And thus MS will be on their way to taking over your loungroom. And surplanting your cable company (providing you with TV), internet provider (through their network), Applications (only MS stuff on the X-box...or MS approved stuff), and of course your hardware (only X-boxes).

MS will join with various cable companies to provide cable TV with your X-box (STB).

And if they do it right (and they are in a VERY good position to do it right), the average joe will only see something like a games machine/Set Top Box for Cable being added to their TV. Consumers will be completely happy, without having to spend big-bucks on those scary expensive PCs.

The current market that MS has does not compare to the potential size of the iTV market.

And don't think that MS is the only company wanting this. Liberate, OpenTV and Sun are also trying to do the same. Oh, and yes, Sony (with the PS2) is also doing simular things.

The PS2 is currently undergoing trials WRT replacing your STB to provide you with Cable TV (as well as gaming). Why? Look at the costs. In Australia, Digital STBes (to see Digital TV) cost $800 (AU) each (typically charged to the cable provider and rented to the consumer). A PS2 costs $500 (upfront to the consumer). You can put in an extension with your PS2 to watch DTV. So Sony joins up with a Cable company, and rolls out a PS2 to each home on the network who wants CableTV. Consumer gets a cheaper service, a free (or very cheap) PS2. Cable Company saves bucketloads on the STB. Sony wins the STB/iTV/Game Station race. Many consumers buy more games.

This is *happening* people. Watch the wars between cable companies, telcos, STB makers, middleware and content creators to see who wins the Fight for YOUR Loungeroom!

Re:Slashdot, and their news...

[Wee]

I thought this was "NEWS" that mattered, not "OPINIONS OF LINSUX ZEALOTS THAT HATE MICROSOFT"

It's stuff that matters to the guys that own/run the site. You're more than free to find another place which fits in with your views if you don't like the "bias" here. The news.com forums, any ZDNet site, or fuckedcompany.com would be my suggestions.

And it's news for nerds which is mattering. I'd wager that many people who fit the definition of the word "nerd" around the time when that tagline was coined do actually resent what MS has done, what they represent, etc. Lots of them tolerate MS, too. Lots don't care. It takes all kinds. You are one of them, Michael is another, both of you have a point. The difference is that Michael has a web site he's asked to post stories to in which to voice that opnion. You merely have one (of no doubt many) troll accounts from which to voice yours. He's at the top of the page, you're at the bottom, and life is unfair in the anti-MS Slashdot world. Sorry.

Bottom line: Posting on /. about the biases of the editors is like joining a nudist camp to protest the use of sunscreen: it's self-referentially ludicrous.

-B

Why would they want to "own" everything?

[Glonk]

These are some of the more superficial reasons for why they want to have all online games go through Xbox Live:

* Stats tracking across all games. Uses of this will be bragging rights, and even the ability to challenge someone around your skill level to a certain game.
* Consistent interfaces and features across all online games. ig, mandatory support of the voice headset (players can use it optionally, and if they use it they can use the built in voice morphing software and mute players they don't want to hear.)
* Ability to keep a buddy list of people you enjoy playing with, showing online/offline status and to talk to them.
* Ability to challenge other users to play even a completely different game than you've got in the machine. The Xbox actually supports you challenging people to a different game, at which point you swap the DVD while it keeps you connected and you boot up into the other game and immediately play with those people.
* Ability to pay a flat fee and play unlimited games online for that month/year. Nintendo and Sony opted for a route where developers can charge per game played, or what have you. The real reason EA doesn't want to support Xbox Live, IMHO, is because I think they plan to offer a "play all EA Sports games for $9.95/mo" type deal, which isn't allowed under Xbox Live.

And there's a video from the old CES show that has a "simulation" of Xbox Live (3m53s long): http://www.xboxmaniak.com/?page=video2&nbr=7

It looks pretty impressive, IMHO. I'm hoping they're smart enough not to charge an arm and a leg.

He is only stating a fact

[Baki]

In this case it is just a fact that microsoft has a "we control everything" approach. Stating this fact is not necessarily anti-microsoft, since for some of their customers this is viewed as an advantage: keeps the world simple, you are not confused by too many choices. Even microsoft themselves admit this, they often stated that giving consumers too many choices is dangerous.

Besides, what is wrong with slashdot being openly (i.e. the posted stories alread share this view) anti-Microsoft? There are numerous pro-microsoft propaganda sites on the web. I'm glad there is at least one site that is consistently against microsoft (and rightly so).

Re:ESPN

[f0dder]

Anyone who plays Counter-Strike on public servers knows that voice over IP experience can be equivalent to a sharp stick in the eye.
It's not the technology, it's the morons behind the mic. This is what you can expect..

people who can't configure mic so sound is all garbled

voice spam in dude speak

it's the internet so not everyone speaks english

it's the internet so people who speak english makes no sense

I hope someone at microsoft remembers to code in the mute button.

Bah.

[_Sprocket_]

Its rather amusing. Over the years, as Slashdot has shown up in more mainstream press and gained more and more readers, there has been a steady increase in pro-Microsoft activity.

Sometimes that activity includes rather thoughtfull posts defending a MS position or challenging MS criticism. Which is good. Keeps everyone honest.

But more often it is the usual claims of "MS-bashing" and "Linux zealots". It is the same, tired whining found in other perhapse more mainstream forums. It is not the voice of reason. The claims have no merrit. They are shrill name-calling. Trolling. The refuge of those who's status quo is challenged and have no recourse other than emotional outburst.

Does Michael push a political view? Yes. Slashdot always has. And much of its popularity is based on that; I for one share that view and enjoy the site. You may not agree with those views. And I'd enjoy thoughtfull, genuine discussion on those views when they are topical.

But before you bemoan your karma and take on the veil of the martyr... you might be experiencing negative feedback because you disagree. But then - it could also be because you sound like an uninformed idiot.

Disney, Security, and Infosec

[_Sprocket_]

Robert J. Bach, a Microsoft senior vice president in charge of its games division: "When you're at Disneyland, there's no trash, no violence and you never see security. That's what we have in mind."

Its an interesting quote. And it points to a few issues:

1. Disney proves to be experts at crowd control. Their physical security is a quieter aspect of that. If the rumors can be believed, Disney obviously have trained experts in physical security working to protect the parks. Again - experts trained, knowledgable, and experienced with the challenges physical security present. Within the IT field, infosec knowledge and training is still relatively rare.
   
2. Security directly affects Disney's profit. Part of Disney's product is a safe, fun-oriented experience. Violating physical security threatens that experience, threatens the entire image (thus threatening the emotional responce to Disney products), threatens park attendance, and potentially exposes Disney to liability. Infosec issues rarely have the same effect in the IT industry (Microsoft being a fairly prime example).
   
3. Physical security and information security often have extreemly different environments, concerns, cultures, and methods. The two rarely overlap or otherwise have anything to do with each other. Making comparisons between the two is an exercise for the uninitiated.
   
4. Finally - there is a long-standing tennant within infosec that states there is an inverse relationship between functionality and security. The easier it is to use something, the less likely it is to be secure (and visa-versa). Infosec tech vendors are constantly searching for, and claiming to offer, the holy grail of ease-of-use security. But they are often chock full of caveats or simply fail to live up to scrutiny. Beware of any vendor who claims ease-of-use to a level that security is invisible.