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
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."
Yep, definitely a Microsoft product...
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
I'd REALLY like to see a distributed effort to host games like every other good title in the PC world... In addition to a subscription... which yes has its merits... I want something like Tribes III on XBox where the XBoxer's can join in on servers maintained by the gaming faithful... I think this is practical to sell games and is already being done... by these folks. They have a little gateway program based on Linux. What's your dream for XBox Connectivity? what PC games would you like to see in a networked console?
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
A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
The article seems to indicate that while Xbox is placing great emphasis on networking, Playstation is not.
I have to believe the Times errs here. Sony after all owns Everquest.
Or... is it because Sony owns Everquest that they think they have network games covered?
As addictive as EQ is, it isn't a substitute for robust game network that allows for the development of many different kinds of games... or is it? Will VR worlds be the be-all-and-end-all of network gaming, even well into the future?
I think that's a risky gamble. Sony should put more resources into providing better support for more generic network games, if only because Microsoft is doing it with Xbox.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
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.
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.
http://www.xboxgw.com/
Any one else seen that yet? Linux + Box == GOOD LOVE!
> "You're looking at a service that will become a new phone network overnight," ...and I thought I was looking at someone that left his brains in a plastic bag. These lines seems like a relic from 1998.
> said Richard Doherty, president of Envisioneering, a research
> and consulting firm in Seaford, N.Y. "By Christmas, Microsoft could become the nation's fourth-largest phone company."
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
.
"Blah"
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!
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
Looks like they won't have that same chance next year. EA doesn't take kindly to Microsoft's bully tactics and won't be releasing Madden 2003 with network support.
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!
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
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
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.
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.
INT. IVORY TOWER - NIGHT
.NET Changing the way you do business
ADVERTISING GUY (V.O.)
When you're sitting alone in your ivory tower
and you suddenly desire to jack up the price to
the subscription-based online service for the
the console you manufacture what do you do?
Montage of disappointed faces of XBOX users as their subscription price
jumps up on their television screens
ADVERTISING GUY (V.O. Cont.)
Now with Microsoft's new ".NET" business
solution you can jack up those prices with the
push of a button.
:)
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).
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.
I am more than certain that someone has considered and probably even started such a project. I wonder, though, what the holds would be.
Reverse engineering like SaMBa is still a legal and viable option. Packet-sniffing as part of the process.
Hrm... of course it would make the Microsoft lawyer drones begin their march in the developer's direction... but what grounds would they have? Patents?
...over customers. Basically, as somewhere else in a slashdot thread has been stated, "major media companies don't want users to own a pc". This will lead towards a more fine-grained control on what an end-user can do.
...well they are not probably allowed to use it (export restrictions from the Great Software Coalition and such..)
;)
Right now PCs are too powerful. With small effort they can copy, rip, encode, spread and download (all that uncontrolled) forms of copyrighted media. And this is leading media companies to loose profit (but still to GAIN profit, which they don't want us to know. But I digress).
Anyway, this move will obviously be the first of a serie, which will end with customers being so used to do what they are allowed to do, that PCs and hacking will be confined to geeks and similar creatures.
What will be next? Who knows? We can only speculate about
- a world where hardware hacking and unauthorized software coding is finally declared illegal (this because the 'geek' component of the society will be expendable)
- a world where PCs are used only in few geeks bunkers and in a lot of software companies, which by EULA will be forced to use only authorized software under certain restrictions
- a world where third word countries will end up being forced to use and develop their free software, either because they don't want to pay for the proprietary and authorized one, and because
or this may just be pure, absurd, senseless speculation. It's up to you, but I'm making backup copies of the knowledge base required to develop useful code, just in case I might decide to retire in Tibet and become a Perl Monk Zen
cheers
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
Its an interesting quote. And it points to a few issues:
You don't have to be a *nix advocate to hate microsoft.
A *nix advocate doesn't hate Microsoft, no need to. It's the Microsoft users that hate Microsoft.
How hard is it to post a story with a tacked on insult or blessing??
Not all that difficult, I'd imagine. Its what starts the commentary that follows, which is what we readers and commenters are really after.
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
Consoles today don't target kids as much. They go after young adults with more disposable income. Look at the games out now... definately aimed at the 18 - 24 market. Almost all the guys I know in that age group at my office have an XBox and/or a PS2.
Well... there was a plan in the works at SEGA.
You could use that microphone (Seaman) and on some online games there was voice chat.
All one would need to do is write some software and put it on a disc...
Get your Unix fortune now!