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.
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.
Fewer scruples? Than Microsoft? <Bill_And_Ted>Whoa</Bill_And_Ted>
Best Slashdot Co
The reason we want it so fail is because we fear it. We fear it is because if it becomes the dominant consol you KNOW Microsoft is going to use it as a lever to force themselves more and more into the home, that's why MS cancelled WebTV, this is a stronger candidate for getting MS into the living room. Also consider that so far Sony and Nintendo have played relatively nicely in the consol market (from a consumer rights point of view), just look at MS's track record and decide wether you want that company controlling the consol industry too.
I stole this Sig
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?
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
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...
There are just 3 factors that will decide whether the XBOX Live Network will fail or not:
I disagree, I think there's at least a fourth. The thing about game consoles is, they're immediate. With the old Nintendo you put your cartridge in, hit the power switch and you were playing Mario Bros. in under 5 seconds.
When the playstation came out, it had that stupid splash screen and took so long to load that you could run and get a beer, hit the bathroom and still make it back in time for the opening credits.
If people want to play online computers games, they'll play them on the computer. Yes, yes, you'll have a certain percentage of the population that thinks computer games are stupid and only for the geeks. You'll also have the segment that really want to see how Halo does as a multiplayer game. It's kinda like the Star Wars phenomenon...even if every critic said the movie was a waste of time, you'd still have 100 people lined up opening night dressed as Jedis and Stormtroopers because they WANT to.
Another item to consider is how updateable a game is. With computers, you download an upgrade, install it, you're done. But that's never been the idea behind game consoles. Games on game consoles were practically treated as hardware. They were physical objects that you could manipulate with your hands, making them much easier for non-abstract thinkers to handle. They were also standalone. Your copy of Duck Hunt was the same as his, and hers, and theirs. 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.
Just my thoughts, but I kinda liked the idea of consoles games remaining consoles, disconnected form the world and FAST...Playstation made up for the speed with breakthrough graphics, but XBox is going to have to do one better, methinks.
--trb
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.
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.
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.