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: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.

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.