Slashdot Mirror
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.
And XBox as the subscriber instrument?
X-Box is the one existing console that outdoes Sony Playstation 2 at every turn. This is just another extension of that lead.
I have been pwned because my
ESPN was running a show about video games and sports.
They showed Peyton Manning and Matt Hasselbeck playing Madden 2002 online with VoIP using XBOX. Manning is of course at Indina, while Hasselbeck is at Washington. I must say it was pretty impressive.
geek page at KY speaks
I don't own an XBox, I've gotta say that straight away. My main reason for this is that I'm not spending several hundred dollars on a box to play games on when I have an expensive PC sitting here. On top of that $50 per game is starting to get silly and the prices seem to only be going to one direction. That's comparable to PC games, but many tend to wait until they get discounted. This isn't as common in the console 'hot game' market.
This is because consoles tend to be bought by parents for their kids. A good chunk is bought by the over 18s, but lets be honest, parents buying these for their kids is the largest market. These poor parents get nagged to buy the box, then every few weeks they stump up $50 for the latest game. This isn't nice and it's true for almost everything aimed at kids these days from fast food to barbie dolls at Xmas. But subscription multiplayer gaming/online communities?
Are parents really going to be forced once again to stump up cash for MS accounts and phone bills to keep their kids happy. This even plays havoc with teenage owners living at home. Parents have to deal with credit card subscriptions and tied up phone lines. I'm not so sure this will sell in the numbers MS hopes. I'd be damned before I spent it after the hundreds on the console already. For all that money on the game itself you'd hope they'd build some multiplayer/online services into that cost.
I think it's a worthy experiment what Microsoft is doing with online XBox.
Anybody who has played Counterstrike in the last year knows how bad it can get in a laissez faire environment. Cheating started with Half-life within weeks of it being on the market - it's only gotten worse since. There's a lot to be said for having all the simulation run on the server and the server run by the company the makes the game.
Hell, Blizzard realized their mistake with the first Diablo, which was largely peer to peer and hugely hacked. The next couple games were server based with the servers all owned and operated by Blizzard. The resultant experience was a lot better.
On the other hand, Microsoft is going to miss the whole dynamic of having the games supported and enhanced by the community. It's tremendously empowering to let the users run their own servers, make their own mods, etc. Trying to chaperone online play doesn't work well with hard-core gamers.
Here's the thing though: up to now there have been two successful online game markets. Successful defined as popular.
1. The paid MMP market such as Everquest. One game, well made, well maintained, for a price.
2. The loss leader. Quake, Half-life, etc make their money by selling box copies. The online play is a offered as a free value-add, but with no guarantee of quality. The game maker invests some amount of money and resources into supporting online play, but on the assumption that it supports sku sales.
(3. There's also the online casual game market (e.g. card games and bejeweled), but that's a different creature.)
There have also been a bunch of companies that tried to make a business of online play in other ways. Companies like TEN and mPlayer tried to make money with a for-a-fee walled garden and non-exclusive games. Didn't work. Companies such as Gamespy and WON.net try/tried to make money by providing (relatively) inexpensive ancillary services to support non-exclusive games, with the revenue coming from editorial on their web sites. This almost worked, in the respect that Gamespy at least seems to be able to survive, but it doesn't make anybody rich.
Given that up to now no one has made a success of online gaming (aside from MMP), Microsoft rationally decided to try a new model. They've got exclusive access to a couple great games (e.g. Halo), they make a walled garden to maintain the quality, they add a cool feature like voice chat, and they ask for $10 a month. It's a long shot to really succeed, but it's a commendable attempt.
Dismal failure.
And when was the last time you heard of any problems at Disneyland?
You one of the ignorant mass who believe Disneyland has no problem.
Well, Disneyland and Microsoft are doing exactly the same things - covering their asses with good marketing coverup. You are a happy guy who believe in their publicity.
I may be blind, but unless my eyes are deceiving me i have *NEVER* seen so many middle aged people playing games in my entire life.
Heck, i know more 50+ year olds who can whip my ass in Unreal Tournament then i do know 15 year olds.
I think its just typical for quote "educated" people who work at newspapers to assume that playing games is for geeks and college kids.
Oh well. I'll be having fun playing Xbox live. 9.95 is cheaper then what i paid for seganet and offers broadband playing, and the voice over ip ability will also have ways to digitize your voice and alter the tones so you can sound like a robot or whatever character you choose within a game.
Gives Unreal Championship an entirely new perspective. No longer requiring hot keys to send pre-programmed messages but instantaneous and live speech synthesis to dog your opponets.
Can't wait