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.
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.'
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
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!
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.
Anarchists never rule
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 $10 a month. It's a long shot to really succeed, but it's a commendable attempt.
Its an interesting quote. And it points to a few issues:
Just for anyone confused by the cute little troll, Michael was reffering to EA not wanting to develop online games for Xbox, due to M$ wanting to control the servers, EA Cites MS Bullying, Says No Xbox Online Games.
Why is this a big deal for EA ? Because if M$ contol the servers then they control all the revenue that comes, in through online games. EA hate this as at the moment they are free to pick and choose which games they develop for which consoles.
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.
This is one of the main reasons why most game companies are reasonably happy with Sony and Nintdendo dominating the games industry. Yes, they can be selfish and hard to work with, but they at least let other games companies exist and don't try to bully them into handing over all their future profits on online games.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne