Not Enough Online Console Games?

Thanks to GameSpot for their 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing the relative lack of certain online console games. The author focuses on "the fighting genre [as] the most blatant example" of this dearth, with only Capcom Vs. Snk 2 EO for Xbox currently playable online. He also mentions the PS2 as lacking depth of online titles, claiming "A steady flow of online PS2 games would have been nice. But the last one released was... wait for it... Chessmaster." Were you also expecting to be "seeing almost every game coming out with some kind of online support" by now, or are current online titles enough for you?

Comments

And how do you have a fighting game online?

[Radix37]

Fighting games require fast reflexes to win against good players. If you'd have lag more than 25-50 milliseconds the game would not play right at all. That means the game would be limited to LAN play pretty much.

Racing games could probably deal with more lag, but after 150 ms probably not since when you get cars close together you need the fast reflexes again.

Strangely, chessmaster may just be the best console game you can have online for now :-\ Oh and rpgs and mmorpgs too.

Re:And how do you have a fighting game online?

[wynterwynd]

Friends of mine who have Capcom vs SNK 2 EO have complained of some lag problems at times, but from what they say it's not as bad as you would think. There's a relatively small amount of information being passed by a 2D fighting game so unless you hit a hard lag spike or just have a really bad connection to your opponent, the game plays smoothly.

Re:And how do you have a fighting game online?

[cyranose]

I realize it may be heretical to say this, but lag isn't the heart of the problem IMO -- it's a convenient whipping boy, but for most games, lag can generally be overcome with predictability of motion, rollback, and good spatial reasoning to keep the circuits optimized.

The thing with twitch games is that there's almost no predictability for when a player will trigger a move, but there's full predictability of motion once the moves are triggered. A well-designed animation system should be able to take advantage of that to make up for late triggers. For example, a non-networked game may be designed to know the outcome of any given pair of player moves as soon as the button is pressed. Design it instead to resolve the move-pair based on late input and you're halfway there. The main artifact of latency, then, is that moves may seem to start late (as late as the late-ncy), but their ends and their results are still synchronized and well-behaved.

Just some thoughts.

Re:And how do you have a fighting game online?

[Babbster]

If high pings (greater than 50 ms) are so crippling, then how does anyone playing a first-person shooter ever hit anyone else since they're often require reflexes just as twitchy as a fighting game? You are aware, aren't you, that a millisecond is one-thousandth of a second? That means that in order for lag to really be noticeable, the ping has to [at LEAST] go pretty darn high (probably quite a bit higher than 200 ms).

I think you're overestimating gamer reflexes just a bit. If you're reacting to things displayed on screen in less than 50 ms then you're probably a computer yourself. Don't forget, too, that with broadband connections pings of less than 100 ms between two computers are not at all uncommon. Not to mention the fact that in a fighting game, the two consoles are ONLY communicating with each other - unlike an FPS where a lot more connections may have to be maintained.

In short, I'm afraid you're just plain mistaken. Smart programming and broadband internet connections can easily make online fighting games not only playable but fun.

This isn't the Generation for Online Games

[Cap-America]

Truthfully I could care less about Online games on a console. And I feel Nintendo is taking the right stand with Online games with this gen of Consoles.

Only 9% of Internet traffic is due to Online gaming, that includes Console and Computers and out of that 9% only 8% is Console games the other 92% is Computer.
So You only have a really small group of people who want online games that make allot of noise about it.
MS Loses 100s of Millions of dollars on Xbox Line each quarter. Online gaming makes 0 money back. And out of all the Xbox owners out there only 10% actually have Xbox Live. Kind of sad when you think about it, especially when this is suppose to be your selling feature.

Online games just isn't a money makeing factor in this generation, maybe next gen when more users have Cable or better.

oh and just another tidbit to toss in less the 24% of people online actually have cable or better. So 76% has AOL, Earthlink, NetZero, MSN or any other 56K phone-line provider.

Do we *need* online games?

[EvilOpie]

Now honestly, I do like online games for the fact that there is almost always someone willing to play you at any hour of the day, and they don't have to be in your living room to do it. But I swear that some games just weren't meant to be played online. After all, get some friends together and play console games. They're a lot of fun when you can yell at the person who's in the same room as you. :-)

And there are other reasons too that consoles are better without being online. Granted this comic talks about arcade games, but the concept is the same with console games too. If your opponent is being an ass, you can always hit them since they're most likely right next to you. A lot of the k1dd13z online are just a pain to deal with, and they do nothing but ruin the fun.