Slashdot Mirror
Why The X-Box Network Will Fail
angkor wrote to us an article from The Register that looks at what Microsoft is planning for the X-Box Network. The factual information is educating on it's own - and the analysis of why they think it will fail is interesting as well.
We just want the X-box to fail soooo bad, don't we?
yay slashdot
They want you to get on the service and pay a fee per month. This way you are subscribed and you don't own the product. You are only "licensed to use it."
The thing is that this is a proven profitable model. Look at Ultima online. It's pulling in a cool US$million every month with no signs of stopping. And Everquest is delivering on similar dreams of avarice.
It seems to me like MSFT is trying to cash in in the same manner with using a proven business model.
Seriously, why are we so fascinated with failure. It's like some gossip rag that's so excited by some movie star getting busted for drugs.
The factual information is educating on it's own.
Sheesh. Would you dorks learn the difference between the contraction it's and the possessive its? "The factual information is educating on it is own" ? Thppft.
There are just 3 factors that will decide whether the XBOX Live Network will fail or not:
1) The amount of playable games.
2) The quality of the service (reliability, speed, etc).
3) The price.
XBOX does indeed have a very good amount of games coming, theres no denial for that. Unreal Championship is one, MechWarrior is another and more and more are being announced. However, the 2nd factor is what I think will decide the fate of this Network. If it's avaible to a lot of people, is relatively fast and is reliable, then you can count on a lot of people shelling out quite a lot for it.
Yet somehow, I wouldn't count on the service actually being as reliable as they claim it to be.
The only way M$ will dominate the market is by a pyric victory, they will have to spend so much money it just isnt worth it in the end.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Bech said the company was planning a service that he compared to Disneyland for its safe, wholesome environment - in contrast to the 'Coney Island' he said that the open Internet can sometimes become. 'Compare Coney Island to Disneyland,' he said. 'When you're at Disneyland, there's no trash, no violence and you never see security. That's what we have in mind.
Come on... this is a gaming network, not a theme park.
Kind of like a Microsoft OS, you never see security...
There's no "I" in Linux.. err..
Fewer scruples? Than Microsoft? <Bill_And_Ted>Whoa</Bill_And_Ted>
Best Slashdot Co
Wow, really? Because as we all know, The Register has never been anything but impartial and fair when dealing with Microsoft in the past...
What is the MS business plan for XBox Live?
50 Bucks per user per year. 50 bucks per year isn't enough to cover basic infrastructure much less anything else. They are sinking money in data centers and support. Then they have to give a cut to the game makers.
Lets say 10% (an overly hopeful figure) of XBox owners sign up. If we come up with another hopeful figure of 6 million total XBox owners in 3 months time.
600,000 x $50 = 30,000,000 million revenue.
Heh, that isn't even enough to pay for the yearly bandwidth costs. This is nothing but another giant earnings hole for MS. MS is going to put 2 Billion into developing this?
Microsoft compares XBox Live to Disneyland? Microsoft is touting games such as counter-strike and halo and in the same breath comparing that bloody fragmire to Disneyland? The real counter-strike players of the world already have their playgrounds. Even though those playgrounds are frequently home to cheating, the advantages of open and player controlled servers far outweigh whatever disneyland-effect that MS is hoping for. That market is taken. And don't even get started on the hopelessness of playing FPS shooter with a console gamepad.
Could MS have anymore disregard for the concerns of their stockholders? This is a pure financed by the desktop monopoloy blackop against Sony and Nintendo in a last ditch effort to save the XBox (2.5 million sold) which at this point has been outsold by the GameCube (4.2 million sold) nearly 2 to 1.
Just in case The Register [register.co.uk] gets slashdotted, there's an american version of the site called The USA Register [theregus.com] with the story here [slashdot.org]
Or maybe you meant here
This looks to me more like an end-run around the internet itself. It will essentially run in a tunnel through the existing infrastructure, but at some point in the future, there's no reason that they couldn't migrate on to something else, say a wireless network that had its own protocols, address scheme, etc. Bill Gates has been kicking himself in the ass for the last 10 years because he didn't discover the internet soon enough to dominate it, and he's got to be salivating at the idea of an essentially private user space that he controls lock stock and barrel. If he pursued this for all it was worth, he could do it with his other $39 billion... I wonder what kind of return on his investment he would eventually get?
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Except not everyone ones some all-in-one privacy intruding box from MS.
I have a computer for email and web browsing.
I have a Gamecub for games.
I have a TiVo for PVR.
Each of these devices does a particular task very well. Why do I need to combine these into one box that doesn't do any of the 3 tasks particularly well?
It might fail, or it might not...
Food for thought:
1) Which is the strongest driving force for Console/Console-Accessories/Console-Games:
a) Whinning kids.
b) Grownups buying presents.
This whole MS approach to selling a "clean" network for kids to play in will appeal to parents but not necessarily to the kids.
2) Can/Will Microsoft buy legislation forcing ISPs/GameNetworks/etc... to "protect" children?
If they get there first and then they buy the legislation, they will be first to market with a product designed to fit that legislation (actually it will be the legislation designed to fit the products, but in practice it's the same).
What are the most popular on line games?
First person shooters and RPGs.
Why would anyone want a forum for first person shooters and RPGs to be known as Disney-esque in any way? These games are mainly about killing stuff and in many cases have extreme graphic violence. I think someone got their focus group polls crossed up.
If the core of on-line gaming was 12 year olds they might have something, but if the core was 12 year olds then Nintendo would be the king of all gaming anyway.
I'm fairly sure they will be dropping this comparison in the future, or at least trying to explain how it was not taken the way it was intended.
The problem with the piece is that John Lettice approaches the subject from an axe grinding position that blinds him to judging anything on its own merits. Microsoft? Ooh, it's just gotta be bad. The Xbox Live approach is thus far the only fully formed end-to-end solution for adding online to the console world in a way that delivers a consistent consumer service, minimizes the infrastructure requirements to developers, and insures a revenue stream to make this a worthwhile thing to do for both the platform company (Microsoft) and small developers who don't want to run a back end operation and the related hassles for billing and customer support. If it doesn't grow the market in a big way online is simply betterleft to the PC realm which is better suited to small but profitable niche markets. The companies like EA that claim MS want to control everything are blowing smoke up the public's collective hinder. What they're really saying is "WE want to control everything and most importantly not share so much as a penny of the revenue with anyone else." Considering that EA has managed to dump over $100 million down their online sinkhole I'm more than a little interested in seeing someone else take on the task. THe Xbox setup doesn't prevent a developer from going their own way on online activity. It would just be very stupid on their part to waste resources duplicating the work and facilities already built by someone who can afford to shoulder the long term risk in pursuit of developing a new market. At the other end of the spectrum it's easy to see why Nintendo is taking the approach of, "Here's the modem and Ethernet if you want to try something but don't expect any deeper involvement from us." Nintendo has been beating their head against the wall of online ventures for consoles since the mid-80's. Although I'm sure their management appreciates that it is an extremely different environment for such things today, especially the broadband aspect, it will be up to others to prove this is a worthwhile business. Even if they have to scramble to catch up later giving it a pass is a better thing to do right now while they have no shortage of opportunities to make massive sales intheir proven markets.
Right, but what the Reg is trying to say is that Microsoft is failing in those attempts. And as for bad mouthing, even Nixon had the Washington Post
Step 1 - X Box - is costing the company more money than they were willing to spend, and just isn't making the inroads against Sony that the hoped, and Nintendo is managing to hold its own.
Step 2 - Live - I think the Reg did a good job detailing this. It looks like it'll cost the company even *more* money just to make people pick it up. It seems Microsofts hopes are pinned on a constant, viable, source of revenue. However, in the past these networks have failed, remeber MPlayer?
Step 3 - Try launching an all in one home media station with two heavy weights in the PVR business, two heavy weights in the game business, and two heavy weights trying to cut off any useful service you want to provide (the MPAA and RIAA). Mix that with a strategy thats already hemoraghing money, and you've got a situation that just doesn't look that great for success.
they don't want to believe?
Sure, on technical merits, gameplay, any "quality" issue, I'll grant you that it's probably a flop. But no one seems to understand, maybe they're blinded by love for the gamecube or ps2.
Microsoft is doing more than just trying to leverage into another hot market... this plan is so much bolder than that. They're out to chop the knees out from under Dell, HPaq, and Gateway.
Xbox2, most likely, but possibly xbox3 will be the "home computer". It will be marketed as such, a computer that is "so much simpler to use" and never has compatibility problems caused by all sorts of 3rd party drivers. It will be cheaper too, loaded with software and still well under then $700 price mark that consumer pc's are shooting for. This too, will look like a failure
But it will just be beginning. Next version will be the Xbox Corporrate edition, loaded with the new version of Office XP, cheaper, with no annoying expansion possibilities. Relatively nicer licensing... cheaper, easier for your bonhead MCSE's to administrate, and having the latest office software 6 months before it's released on the PC.
And linux won't run on it, ever. They'll find some way, even if it means adding chips with no purpose other than to thwart it. And no matter how good at reverse engineering you are, what happens when you recieve the DMCA cease and desist?
At this point, the Xbox family will be making serious inroads into the desktop PC market, without annoying competitor operating systems. Maybe 40% - 50%, which in an industry with razor thin profit margins, will kill Gateway. Hpaq will hold on, and Dell will license it... the Dellbox will debut. No, I'm not kidding.
Also, at this point, the price starts to rise on bare mobo's even more, as the taiwanese manufacturers see the advantages of high volume manufacturing evaporate. These are the same people that make mobo's for Dell, and if they aren't making those, the cost slightly rises on *ALL* their products. And as someone that builds your own box, you are further marginalized... people laugh at you for spending that much more on a system that can't run Halo 5.
Now, M$ starts to really drag ass with the PC versions of Office. Salesmen that arrange licensing with the Fortune 500 starrt pushing the Xbox 5: Professional Edition as the only real choice with a future, Microsoft may not be able to continue the cost of developing M$ Office PC edition, and you don't want to be stuck with 10,000 machines that won't be able to run the latest software.
Market, better than 70% at this point. All the industry rags coo and blush, telling how M$ cleaned things up when customer service was in the toilet. The PR campaign is heavy duty now. Prices continue to rise, and HPaq gets out of the consumer PC market, content to sell servers and laserjets. Dell is licensing Xbox, but still retaining the PC line... but prices rise due to no serious competition.
The DOJ initiates an investigation into further illegal monopoly practices, but this will take years, and M$ buys the right politicians. Whenever anyone important and unsilencable bitches, they hold up Dell like ventriloquists hold up the dummy and insist he really is real, and talking.
The market share of Xbox hits 80%, with %5 for mac zealots (no offense, I have 12 macs myself guys) that only leaves 15% for the do-it-your-selfers and linux zealots (no offense guys, I have 5 linux machines, including Amiga Linux, on a 2k). At this point, Dell does a press release how there really isn't enough market to support selling general purpose PC's. There are lots of little 2nd and 3rd tier vendors... but none that make any inroads into the corporate or even medium sized privately owned businesses. Plus, the cost for general purpose components is now through the roof, and taiwan is bleeding hardware manufacturers left and right.
I'm thinking Intel will be compelled to go along with it, knowing that they'll have exclusive for the Xbox cpu, and still retaining their server market. Places that need mid-range to high end rackmount servers, if they use x86, have always shrugged off paying $600 for a motherboard, $200 for a nic. They won't notice.
At about this point, M$ will quit supporting mac, which may be the only viable alternative.
And you thought it was just an ugly games machine.
While El Reg does love to bash Microsoft (one of the reasons I read it!) they also have a point here about the various companies different strategies for online gaming.
MS is building a theme park, and will charge a toll for players and (probably) for game companies too. Sony is staying out of the expensive business of physically connecting game players to game servers, and instead letting the game developers provide the servers. If the history of the Internet so far is any guide, Sony's approach is more likely to succeed.
--
E_NOSIG
Except not everyone ones some all-in-one privacy intruding box from MS.
I'll go you one further: hardly anyone wants these type of boxes.
Remember, Sony had the same vision for the PS2, which has been pushed back for the PS3. Plus, when it comes to a smart cable boxs you have do deal with cable companies, not the end users.
How many people use thier Xbox as their only DVD player, CD player, MP3 player, etc? I'd wager not many (and those that do are cheap ass college students.. I know I would).
Fewer scruples then MS? And this is coming from the Register? Those guys really know how to insult Sony.
They don't realize that gaming isn't the only thing MS has planned for the XBox. MS, and many other companies, have always wanted an integrated home media box that does everything from check your email, to help you plan a grocery list, to play video games.
The XBox is just the first part of the plan. Live is the second. Next, media boxes with interactive television.
Then Microsoft will learn what many domestic electronics manufacturers learned years ago. That Joe Public does not want domestic electronics products that combine a number of different functions. That's why you don't find many combined TV/DVDs or TV/music systems or whatever. You can bet that, for instance, Sony doesn't think that the fact that the Playstation 2 can play DVDs is much of a threat to its DVD players - most people who want to watch DVDs will buy a player.
I expect that Sony will have the good sense to concentrate on keeping the Playstation III a great games machine, and watch Microsoft experiment and screw up trying to add lots of other types of functionality to the Xbox II.
I'm just off to make a cup of tea and some toast with my combined kettle-toaster...
It seems to me that the Register has a habit of badmouthing everyone more or less equally. Also, looking over from my side of the world, it seems that (with the execption of the UK government) people in Europe seem much more wary of Microsoft than people in the U.S. do. I don't think the Reg goes out of their way to bash Microsoft like we do here on /., but sometimes it just happens.
They don't realize that gaming isn't the only thing MS has planned for the XBox. MS, and many other companies, have always wanted an integrated home media box that does everything from check your email, to help you plan a grocery list, to play video games.
On the contrary, if you actually read the article you'd know that they have more planned, even if the Reg doesn't spell out what those plans might be -- they have more server capacity planned for Xbox Live than they currently do for microsoft.com, after all. Quotes from MS Execs indicate that Microsoft wants to serve the PG, sanitized, "Disneyland" version of Media on its network. The Reg's claim is that it's doomed to failure, because in order to do this with any effectiveness, you're going to have to build your own separate, parallel network, and populate it with your own sanitized content, which you then have to police for violations of your sanitization policies. When the inevitable violations occur, and occur frequently, people lose confidence in your sanitized network, and your main differentiating feature is now gone.
The only people who come close to pulling off a separate network is AOL, who built their "gated community" before the Internet caught on, and permits access to the Internet-at-large, so it isn't really a separate network. AOL can police its own content, but not the Internet-at-large.
You could debate with the Reg's claim, but it seems legitimate to me.
What is to hinder anyone to provide their own network? Note that MS doesn't just want to provide the network to drive sales of games, they're looking for a source of income too (if we accept that MS is actually loosing money on the consoles, and has a hard time making up for it in sold games, let alone making some actual profit).
But if online networks are profitable, then the software publishers will want their share in that and won't leave it all to microsoft. Microsoft has not yet the leverage to dictate software publishers too rigid conditions, especially if they want said publishers to produce interesting online games for the Xbox, even more so as the puplishers could as well partner with Sony if they don't like MSs conditions.
So since Microsoft has no leverage to press their contracts on publishers like EA, what is to hinder them to draw up their own gaming network and compete with Microsoft? This could become even funnier if MS then got to be at the recieving end of the "being screwed by badly documented and slightly changed protocols" tactics: it's the publishers and programmers of the game that control its interfaces, and they could just do the very same thing to microsoft, that microsoft did to others with the "standard" for "Word".
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Factul information? Where? Interesting? About as interesting as your commentary Hemos. You should get out more if you thought that article was enlightneing and factual.
Yes, it's true.
Just because they developed a kinda unfriendly OS there is no reason to hate the whole company and predict failings and spread bad mood.
The gaming sector of Microsoft has nothing in common with the part of the company that produces the OS, except the name.
Take a look at Microsoft hardware, the controllers, the joysticks, the mice. They deliver rock steady quality for a fair price.
And I think it's the same thing with gaming here. The guys responsible for that DO have the balls and the money to pull this thing off.
Why do we always have to bitch about EVERYTHING that MS does? Why can't we just be grateful that they give us more freedom in choosing our online/gaming console?
More drivers just improve the quality of the race.
So, let's see how they do, and hey, if it's cool don't be ashamed to use it.
The XBox is just the first part of the plan. Live is the second. Next, media boxes with interactive television.
:(
Interactive TV? Many US people do not know Microsoft has partner with a Hong Kong telco and lanched iTV years ago.
Facts:
1) Microsoft built the whole infrastructure
2) they've already spent the amount of money they expected to profit in next ten years (~US$0.2 billions)
3) they lose money for every new client, because they give out ATM+Cabling in low price(just like XBox)
4) they are still losing money
Personally I think Register is being too surjective in judging XBox Live, but I won't have much confidence in Microsoft when it comes to interactive TV. I installed it before but it's too slow(although ATM), UI too clumsy and above all - it crashed too often!
As far as kids tehy have their own credit cards these days and will be able to set up their own online accounts. So parents may be out of the picture in some households.
I'm amazed that I have yet to read a single article that draws together the most obvious strands of Microsoft's Xbox strategy.
1. It has nothing to do with the old razors/blades chestnut, whereby companies exclusively focused on gaming subsidized the hardware in order to make money on the software. Most commentators are so dazzled at their own brilliance in understanding that rather simple business strategy that they've failed to notice that the market has moved on, increased it's complexity and now has substantially expanded ambitions.
2. MS might be saying that their only focus is gaming but you'd have to be retarded to believe it. Their major international investments in cable companies make it obvious that some sort of Personal Video Recorder and possibly also basic decoder capability will work it's way into the next Xbox.
3. The current iteration of the Xbox is all about establishing it's credibility as a consumer device. They will achieve this because they have to and that sort of acceptance absolutely CAN be bought. I'm not saying that MS would madly throw money at this regardless of eventual profit but you have to realize that the eventual market they're aiming for is FAR larger than gaming.
4. Apart from PVR, Gaming, DVD and cable TV decoding, there's also the fact that the Xbox will be the hardware incarnation of MSN Messenger and THAT'S the biggest game in town. An often overlooked part of their upcoming online gaming package is the headset communicator that they're bundling with it. Stated purpose of this device: to allow gamers to lambast eachother while playing. Actual purpose: to allow millions of people to chat. THAT's why they're building data-centres with such massive capability. Think about it, they become the world's defacto IM service with no Yahoo or AOL to compete with them.
Let me just make this clear: the Xbox is going to be the world's telephone/watercooler/flirtation device. Your sister will buy one.
The proof: MS aren't going to reduce the Xbox's retail price any further but, by Xmas, they WILL add the headset communicator and a years subscription to the bundle. Seriously, this will happen.
Next, expect to see the introduction of a non-gaming based chat service by next summer.
5. MS don't have to keep lowering the Xbox price. In fact, a major sales channel that Sony and Nintendo don't have is the cable companies. Expect to see the Xbox offered as a rental item, for about $15 per month along with Xbox Live subscription and stripped-down broadband Internet Connectivity (i.e. Xbox only).
I'm not for or against MS, I'm just calling it as I see it. Personally, I might buy a GameCube when Pikmin is released. I might also buy an Xbox when it's functionality stretches, as I've predicted, beyond just gaming.
If they end up competing with AOL/TW (or another broadband provider) - whose to say they don't fiddle with their broadband service to make MS online gaming "a hassle"?
1- XBox Live online with the communicator will cost $50 for the first year and $10/month afterward, for all the online games.
2- PS2's strategy is to allow publishers like EA to create there own online network and charge a monthly fee per game. Has anyone tried EA's online service yet? We all know how awfull it is.
Here's a video preview of what XBox Live is all about.
I'd like to know how my post is a troll, fucking dumbass moderator. I'm speaking directly to the issue at hand, offering an avenue of discussion that hasn't been opened yet. The fact remains, M$ has a gaming network in place already, why are they not exploiting it? I would hazard a guess that the left hand is completely losing touch with the right hand. In my opinion, M$ is setting themselves up to fail in a huge, spectacular way trying to start up a private network for the consoles.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
Right, and thats when they TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! MUHAHAHA!!!!
Sorry man, but I have to take a more positive "it could happen" approach. How 'bout this:
As soon as their network goes live the Xbox is hacked and is running apache on their OWN datacenters faster and more efficient then IIS. The MSFT lawers realizes the court battle is hopeless and quit and the court smacks down big daddy M$. It is ruled that proprietary protocols are a threat to national security and MSFT is outlawed from public sector use in the US. The PR is so bad for MSFT that there is a social stigma for even using it. The Tonight Show and others are constantly tossing out MSFT jokes (more then they do now) and Apple suddenly gains a significant market share. MSFT decides to totaly drop Apple. No more mac IE or mac Office. That is the final straw for the courts, and MSFT is de-regulated. They are split into a million pieces and FORCED to honor government regulated price caps, and to open up all their API's, document formats, and network protocols. Many of these become international standards, and Linux and Mac are now AMAZINGLY compatable. Meanwhile the Apple XServe has been gaining in popularity. Sun and Apple own the server market and practically drive intel out of business. Apple now totaly owns the market, and for fear of being a monopoly they decide to licence aqua for x86 and give intel and MSFT a subsity to keep them in business. *NIX is hands down the most common operating system in the world and the open source software community receives government funding in the interest of national security.
The future is what you make of it. I'm not going to give up yet!
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
They are sinking money in data centers and support. Then they have to give a cut to the game makers.
This is why EA aren't going to be releasing any XBox live games this year. With the PS2 and PC games they can charge the gameplayer a subscription for the months that the player wants to play that particular game. With Xbox live they would only a get a fraction of the cash the player pays, with their own games that get all the cash.
Lets say 10% (an overly hopeful figure) of XBox owners sign up. If we come up with another hopeful figure of 6 million total XBox owners in 3 months time.
I'd say that the 10% signup ratio is probably a slightly low estimate for North America. However it's probably too high for Europe where broadband internet access is not very common (i think maybe 10% of homes have it installed).
Also the sales of XBoxes would have to rise to about ten times current sales to reach 6 million within 6 months, and I don't see any killer games coming this summer for Xbox, whereas the GameCube has a great lineup.
As for the stockholders, you've got to ask when they're going to rise up and demand that Microsoft gets its act together and start actually innovating and introducing good products rather than bullying there way through business.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Return to Castle Wolfenstein plays better, with less lag and with a typically 20-25% lower ping online in Mandrake 8.1 than Win 2000 Pro on my computer. Same with Quake and UT. Get some experience before making these claims.
Check the difference between the number of units sold for a high profile console title against a comparable high profile title for the PC. The number of units that a console game will sell is almost always better then what a PC game will sell. I will admit to being wrong if you can name a single PC game that has outperformed a Final Fantasy title.
When you want to play a console game, you insert the game, and turn on the console. When you want to play a PC game, you have to make sure that your machine can run the game. Then you spend about a half hour installing it. Then you can play it, but you will probably want to update your patches / drivers first. Such problems are unheard of with Consoles.
The reason that Microsoft is creating a network for a market where they are not dominant is precisely because they are not dominant there. They are hoping that the kinds of games that they will be able to offer will put them ahead of their competition. And while it is likely that they could create a dominant gaming network platform for the PC, the profits involved will be much greater if they can succeed in the Console market.
END COMMUNICATION
You know what? I don't want anyone to win the console war. I'm happy the way it is, with the price drops, the competition and the innovations. I have an XBox, yet I'm waiting for Gamecube to drop its price so I can buy one to. It's great to have so much choices.
Yes, as I said it's a fixed monthly fee to play all online games available on the XBox. With the PS2 its another story, you have to buy an adapter and you have to pay a monthly fee per game.
The XBox is just the first part of the plan. Live is the second. Next, media boxes with interactive television.
Interactive television. Another thing folks have been trying, touting, and dumping millions into for nearly 30 years now.
No one wants it.
No one has ever wanted it.
Until there are some seriously fresh ideas going around, no one ever will want it, either.
Here is a hint: people don't want to interact with NBC or CBS, people don't want to play peanut gallery to the x-files, people don't want to play patty cake with the idiot box. They want to be entertained when they watch TV. Not entertain themselves, *be entertained*. In essence, they want to sit back and get a blowjob, not engage in fabulous, athletic intercourse.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Gaming bandwidth demands, even with voice interaction, are quite modest since most games are designed to be 56k compatible. MS will probably insure that even new games that appear on its network do not demand too much bandwidth, so that it can maintain a high level of service.
And its the games that lost it, Sony just locked up GTA till 2004, and EA decided that its online components for its games will only work on PS2 (they had some problems with xbox live), and the FF series is only on ps2 (or pc for 11). Stick a fork in it, its done.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
Yeah, yeah, yeah, this article is taking the Microsoft Domination angle. Sony is going to take the domination route too, of course. Console makers want tight control over everything (Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can reject games because they don't like the concept), and naturally that includes networks. But this is ignoring the bigger issue.
Console gamers have gotten used to lightning fast games with no slowdown. PC users halfway expect bugs and long load times and frame rate stutter--or even frighteningly bad frame rates--from PC games. And so when they deal with the inherent unreliability of playing networked games, with all the joy of lag and dropped connections, they're used to it. But this isn't going to fly well with console gamers. There's no 100% bulletproof way to make a 60fps game play over the internet. No matter what you do, you're either going to get frame rate stutter (because the clients are in-step with the server) or phantom hits and misses (because the client is extrapolating to make things *seem* smoother). And this is goimg to be a mess. As it is, most PC gamers don't have a clue about what lag really is, and they seem to think that it's the fault of the developer. Heck, now the term "lag" is applied to non-networked situations: "Black & White lags on my Pentium II."
Developers would best steer clear of the whole mess, unless they're going to write low-latency games like The Sims. But that's not what the console market wants or is expecting.
Your comment would make sense if computers were free. Most people today don't have computers as powerful as the XBox. To buy a computer powerful enough to play games similar to those available on the XBox would cost at least 3 times as much as the XBox (twice as much if you build it yourself, which is not an option for most people).
Somehow, a slashdot post criticizing someone for bashing MS seems like the NRA trying to accuse Texans of being obsessed with guns. Talk about the pot and the kettle...
do not read this line twice.
Geeks may do this, but the average person who only plays games, emails and chats won't. $300 for a game machine, DVD player, PVR, chatting and telephone device is worth it. And they may capture some AOL users at the same time. Why pay AOL when xbox will do it all. People will buy it for games/PVR capability and get all the aol features for free.
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with Microsoft running my game server code for me; as others have mentioned, they probably won't do that good a job. And who will the customers blame? Me.
Microsoft's strategy is much higher risk than Sony's. Sony says "Let's put this out and see what people do with it." Microsoft says "Let's build an enormous system that hopefully people will use.
According to an excellent Salon.com article, the Xbox has little in the way of compelling games to differentiate itself from Sony or Nintendo.
The Register is right about one thing: Salex of the Xbox have been dropping. That makes me give their opinions the benefit of the doubt. Just because they're biased doesn't make them wrong.
D
To buy a computer powerful enough to play games similar to those available on the XBox would cost at least 3 times as much as the XBox
That won't be true in 6 months. The only thing keeping it true right now is the video hardware. You also don't need a machine with Xbox style power to chat.
It specifically says that $50 is just a "starter" package, which includes a 1 year subscription. After that, it switches to a monthly fee of $9.95/month, which I think is a reasonable fee if it really covers every single game on the Xbox platform. Right now many people pay that just for one game in the PC gaming world.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
I think you've hit on most of the major points. I'm not quite sure I'd go quite so far as to claim MS plans on re-incarnating the telephone with a new X-Box that everyone will buy just to chat with their friends/relatives.
More likely, they realize X-Box gaming will be one step ahead of everyone else's gaming offerings if the players can yell at each other through a headset and/or type to each other. By merely offering this capability, a 3rd. party will surely come along and say "Hey, I can make this thing work as a voice over IP free telephone device too!" and add that functionality. (Following usual MS trends, they'll wait and see how well it works, and if it's promising - buy it out from whoever developed it.)
In the end, you'll have just one more tool for communication - but nothing earth-shattering. At the end of the day, the X-Box is really just one more attempt to sell an inexpensive computer to people who might not own one otherwise. Those who already do own computers won't find the X-Box much more attractive than, say, owning another spare computer.
Now we have Microsoft... I *DON'T* want them in my living room, EVER!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The Voice over IP (if it really works) will be the killer app for the XBox. You'll see people paying $19.95 a month to log in to Everquest or whatever Microsoft's equivalent will be to talk to mom in Bangalore or their online Japanese girlfriend. Expect the voice scrambling to go quickly.
They are quite capable of losing millions of dollars, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars a year for the next five or ten years, or more. All it would be for them is a tax-loss write off. I do not doubt that they would be willing to LOSE as much as Sony has ever made on the Playstation, if it meant that there was a "TV in every house, all running Microsoft Software" in 20 years time.
Give the devil their due, the Information Superhighway is littered with the corpses of companies and products that were technically superior but underestimated Gates and Co. Who *EVER* thought that Word stood a chance against WordPerfect? How many of us laughed at Runtime Windows 1.0, or 2.0? And of course Novell had a much better product and was earlier to market to boot.
I'm no real fan of Microsoft, but IMHO nearly everyone is seriously underestimating the amount of money and effort they will put into this; I also bet that they are currently 'playing nice' due to being under a lot of legal scrutiny; once the various attorney generals' attention is elsewhere, the gloves will come off and people who do NOT release for Xbox first, or exclusively will find their "air supply choked off".
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
I don't have anything against XBox, but you do know that it is, in fact, a PC running Windows on commodity hardware with a custom BIOS, right?
I dissagree, computer games have always been better than console games. Graphics and playability. Every major jenre out was started on computers. real time stratagy, first person shooter. rpg. Test drive on my old amstrad kicked outruns butt. What computer games lacked are 1.) good two player action. one guy joystic one keyboard. 2.) big screen. My computer is in my study, I have a 19" screen. I woudl much rather relax in my living room and play on a 32 inch screen with my friends. what i believe console companies need to not do is charge for provider service. why not just intigrate a tcp/ip protocal and let the game programer handle the rest. This way pc and console games coudl join together. and creat a much bigger user base.
is that a healthy percentage of us hate Microsoft and their products. We especially hate the coercive element - the thought that we are "forced" to use them because all of society does.
Because of this, any effort made by Microsoft to monopolize yet another market makes us feel nauseous. Thus, our desire to see Microsoft fail.
D
...granted, I agree that M$ would happily lose $100 million next year to monopolize the market (they probably paid at least that to own the Justice Dept after all...oops).
But it's not for a tax break: they certainly don't need it. YOU probably paid more in taxes than they did last year.
"a Microsoft spokeswoman would not say whether that firm did or not [pay any taxes]. But its annual report for fiscal 2000, which ended June 30, shows stock option income tax benefits of $5.5 billion, exceeding its $4.85 billion provision for income taxes. (Its actual federal and state tax liability for 2000 was $4.74 billion.)"
-Styopa
You know what? I don't want anyone to win the console war.
Microsoft has a track record of two options when they get involved in something.
(1) They decide they don't like it, and abandon it. In this scenario everyone who bought XBox gets screwed.
(2) They decide they like the market so much they want it all. They do everything in their power (legal or not) to kill off competitors. They want to end the console war. In this scenario all gamers get screwed.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Hrm apparently I'm a geek cliche.
27 years old, getting married June 7th, and its costing more than I'd like to admit.
I wonder if they're called consoles because they exist to comfort you as you hand out thosands of dollars to strangers that you'll only see for about 6 hours of your life.
-- Button up, your ignorance is showing
Keep in mind, Microsoft may make a few dumb moves occasionally, but they make a lot fewer than most companies. Also, when they settle on a goal they typically acheive it (though maybe a year or two later than originally planned).
Gates is an entrepreneur -- you've got to respect him for that.
Amazing magic tricks
You can sign up to become a Beta tester for the Xbox Live here
What I really wanted to say was Sony has decided to release the PS2 Linux kit in Europe. Sign up Linux Play
Looks like Sony is covering all their based. Look at the deal they just made with IBM about Setbox technology that I am sure will find its way into PS3 related stuff.
Help fight continental drift.
"Now, you'll need to download patches onto the XBox hard drive in order to play games, a concept that was familiar only to PCs in the past and something that, IMHO, console gamers never wanted to deal with."
This assumes two things. First, that patches will be required. Second, that the patches can't be handled in a seamless way which doesn't affect people.
You're wrong on both counts. I doubt the console will require patches, as it's mostly hard-wired. The ROM stores the base kernel, etc. Second, any potential updates to things like network components will probably be handled the way AOL does it: "updating ART...." and no need to find any files or run or reboot. It's ludicrous to think otherwise.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
"How many people use thier Xbox as their only DVD player, CD player, MP3 player, etc? I'd wager not many (and those that do are cheap ass college students.. I know I would)."
I do. Why? It's easier to have one box in the front room that does that. I have 6 consoles plus VCR hooked up to my receiver. I used to use a PC in the frontroom for DVD/etc. I still use it for etc (in terms of music from my main raid server, and videos that are entirely digital), but it's handy to have the Xbox do DVD with its nice remote. It's also handy to pop a CD in and rip it to the HD of the Xbox because it's much faster to turn on and go than any PC. Plus I don't have to worry about Windows (since I had to use Windows on the PC to get things like the vivo features on my video card working), which has caused trouble on more than a few occasions.
So, given that the Xbox is reliable, fast to turn on and off, has great games (Jet Set Radio Future!), can rip music for play whenever (which is also a feature some games, like Amped, can use in place of the stock BGM), and can do everything else I want with full 5.1 support, why should I use several things which are less suited to the purpose or more problematic because of maintenance and costs?
I'd figure you've never actually sat down with an Xbox in your house and used one. Because that's the only way you'd be so dead-set against its handy features.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Representative Hollings would like to help you do you.
What complete and utter nonsense. May I ask you what YOU are on?
Windows was the upgrade from DOS, remember? It came from the same company and more importantly, it was COMPATIBLE with DOS. And being bundled with new computers also didn't hurt.
So if one had DOS programs and was was upgrading their computer, Windows was the logical upgrade path. (Yes, they screwed it up anyway. But this shows only the incompetence of Microsoft, not their geniality.)
XBox can't be the upgrade from PS(2), because it's not compatible.
I don't know why so many people here want us to give the XBox "another chance", do you own MSFT stock or something? What is your interest in desperatly denying the undeniable?
XBox had it's chance, they screwed it up, it is outsold by both PS2 and Gamecube by wide margins, it's dead. Why should Microsoft get a second chance while any other company doesn't?
Try not to think of it as an earnings hole. Think of it as a tax writeoff. Last I heard, Microsoft was still profitable. If they can spend part of a tax rebate they wouldn't otherwise have had, they can afford to expand their monopoly, even if it cost $1 million per customer.
I never thought slashdot would become so low.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt used to be what slashdot preached against. Infact the attack of "FUD" as we call it was a major part of slashdots credit in helping get linux to the masses.
Now it comes up with headlines of how the Xboxlive will fail.
I'm sorry, but it won't.
1. Affordable. Seganet costed more, was slower and offered alot less
2. Feature rich - Gaming is about community and NO ONE or NOTHING can produce the community microsoft announced. Hell, slashdot even asks for money
3. Interactive - Leagues, Championships, Stats, Scores, player trading, character trading, virtual worlds. Not to mention the voice communicator by default.
4. Immersive - Add up all of the above and add some great games. NFL, NBA, Baseball games will all be interactive, manage teams, manage players, trade skills. RPG's will have characters that reflect your personality. Worlds where every player is on par and no one is an LPB
5. Games - I'm sorry, but i don't care for ANOTHER GTA3 or ANOTHER FFX or ANOTHER rehash. I like the new stuff coming out for the xbox for the very same reason i liked Sega and the dreamcast. GAMES, GAMES, GAMES. I mean quality games, beautifull games, and UNIQUE games. This is the same reason i'm not a nintendo fan..i'm marrio'd out. I can't take any more metroid. No matter how purty or how neat i had fun playing those games 10 years ago. not now.
So please, don't spread fud. This place has gotten rather immature if i must say so. PS2 is nice, linux is nice, but so is the xbox and you or some other website won't change that!
You own the game, you can sell it to a friend and do with it you wish, as with any PS2, Gamecube or any console game.
The online strategy is mainly a focal point for gamers to have a centralized community. No product activation, no special codes downloaded to your xbox. Just a place where i can login and kick some unreal championship ass and guess what, everyone will be logged in. No more logging into 50 servers to find a good game as all the servers will be listed centrally. Your friends will be on your buddy list, hack even your enemies.
Microsof IS creating a virtual world and for this 5 to 10 bucks a is pocket change.
(NOR IS XBOXLIVE REQUIRED TO PLAY THESE GAMES, THEY DO HAVE GREAT SINGLE PLAYER FUNCTIONALITY)
ahem, last time i checked (last night) my xbox didn't do web browsing or emailing, it doesn't do PVR and record my tv shows and it has some kick ass games.
When connected to the xboxlive network, you will have access to network options such as email, web browsing but that even goes for the GameCube and teh PS/2 when they go online.
Oh yeah, you guys have to buy an after market modem, an aftermarket network card and possibly an aftermarket storage device as well as pay each 3rd party individually for network services/online game play.
Lesse, who got screwed now?
The PVR functionality is the "4d" aspect of the Xbox. The ability of games to offer time as the 4th dimmension. This isn't to record tv shows or movies.
The internet functionality is needed for any online game community, as i said earlier even your beloved gamecube that only does one thing will have to buy accessories to do another and the xbox just has it built in and the xboxlive network will do gaming but only better because THAT IS THE ONE THING XBOXLIVE is DESIGNED TO DO.
peace
switch to decimal mode.
Those numbers are real, but there is a huge math error. $30,000,000 buys a lot of bandwidth. Like a whole lot. And a whole lot of hardware. And plenty of developers and admins and tech support.
With that kind of money you could get:
60 employees @ $50,000 apiece
60 fancy datacenter servers @ $50,000 apiece
60 DS3s (2.7 GB) @ $50,000/year ($4200/month -- overpriced) apiece
and still have $21 million left over for advertising and Windows Datacenter Server Licenses.
1) Microsoft stockholders dont' care about profits: no dividends
2) Even if they did, they'd rise up just about the time Microsoft's strategy failed to increase their wealth, which it hasn't yet. Innovation is expensive and risky.
You mean the same developers who are used to being able to release patches every coupla months to keep the bugs out?