Slashdot Mirror
PS2, Xbox Online Titles Show Record Player Numbers
Thanks to the QT3 forums for linking to a Yahoo-hosted press release describing Sony's SOCOM II as a 'major online success', with "more than 22,000 simultaneous players in its first 48 hours", apparently taking the "number one online console game spot." The press release also reveals that "...the original SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs supports 11,000-14,500 simultaneous players and between 50,000 and 60,000 people are playing every day at an average of three hours per session." Meanwhile, Microsoft have announced that Xbox Live enjoyed its busiest weekend ever, as: "On Sunday, November 2, no less than 83,652 players spent a total of 262,268 hours online", and the most popular title, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3, "recorded a total of 24,478 players for the day, and at one point accounted for 6,731 players simultaneously."
Counterstrike regularly boasts more than 100,000 players at peak times. Live stats can be found here.
It would also be interesting to see simultaneous online numbers from these games: Sony's Everquest having more than half a million players; Lineage has over two million players in South Korea.
However, good for Microsoft. Xbox Live has some really good games on it at the moment, most notably Crimson Skies.
Wow! They have record players in their online games! I thought everybody switched to CDs a decade ago.
A hack is just an idiom waiting for wider use.
I just signed on to Battle.net with Warcraft 3 Classic. The greeting message says there are 10,404 users currently playing Warcraft 3 Classic. Exited and check The Frozen Throne. There are 22,541 users playing that. It Also says there are 151948 total users online on Battle.net right now.
Warcraft 3 is almost a year and a half old. Frozen Throne is losing its appeal too - the numbers were much higher over the summer. Yet those games still have numbers not too far off from the hottest online console games.
Also, those numbers were for the US East Battle.net server. Keep in mind that Battle.net is broken into 4 seperate servers for different parts of the world.
Xbox Live's record players is 1/2 of the number of a random sampling at Battle.net's numbers - or rather, of 1/4 of Battle.net. This isn't really a peak time for Battle.net, as the most recently released Battle.net game is decreasing in popularity.
My take: Nintendo is right and the time isn't right yet for online console gaming from a business sense.
its actually EA vs. MS, but since EA is sony's bitch anyways....
:
;) most definetly recommended to any xbox owner. the upgrades are as promised.
quote from PA
it was easy to think of EA's offering and Microsoft's offering as fungible initially. EA was doing theirs for free, and Microsoft had a pay service, and obviously free is... nice. But while I was being desiccated by Las Vegas nights soaked with alcohol, it seemed to me that their service is free because it sucks. It's free because it is so without ambition that it can be offered for nothing, until such time as they want to charge for it. Why else would they reserve the right, why else would they go through all the trouble?
I've spent enough time on Live with recent titles that it's impossible for me to compare the two approaches. You don't sign in to Live, you don't create a password, you push A. Every game supports voice and a universal friends list I can view from the web. I have a hard disk built in for content. There is an ethernet port. That's not so you can put a jelly bean in there in case you need it later, it's so you can put in a cable and access the Internet. You assholes.
That is all to say nothing about game invites. If I'm playing a game by Ubi Soft, I can still receive invites to play games from other developers - each publisher doesn't have it's own little fairy land where I can only play games with other people who have their games. I can be playing Crimson Skies and get an invite to play Ghost Recon. If I say yes, the tray pops out and I put in the other disc. Then, it joins me automatically. When I can do that with games from EA, I'll shut the fuck up. Until then, they need to act like big people and make choices that are of value to consumers.
------
and i wholeheartedly agree.
btw, off-topic, i just got the grand theft auto double pack (xbox version). absolutely fantastically awesome. everything is so shiny, im all ADHD for it.
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
when the load is high, microsoft breaks out the "Xservers"... they did so last weekend.. there's a limited amount of them, but so far they seem to have helped deal with high loads. otherwise, its p2p -- which actually works really well, believe it or not. MS pulled miracles with XBOX live, its fantastic. best ms product yet, well worth the 50 bucks a year. with voice and everything, the lag is actually very manageable. i rarely hit a motoGP game with and lag at all. Ghost Recon is supposedly the worst. i own it, and have had very little problems with it. when there is lag, its generally accepted that the host will disable explosives. team games have more lag than coop games. but again, remember that there is full voice, which is fantastic. it really takes gaming to the next level, as the amount of teamwork going on is spectacular. it really is fantastic. and now back to my shiny new copy of the GTA double pack ! w00t!
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
The reason is that every console has a huge percentage of their installed base of people that just own a small handful of games for their console, throughout the system's lifespan.
Everyone and their mama has a PS2, a couple of GTA games, and a couple of Madden games.
The thing is that the small percentage (which is larger than 1%, at least for the Xbox, and is rapidly inflating for both systems) is largely a subsection of the group of gamers that buys the most games. Ever heard of the 80/20 rule? 80% of gamers buy 20% of the games, while 20% of gamers buy the other 80% of the games. You make money by selling consoles to the 80%, and selling games to the 20%.
I was going to reply to one post, but I see a lot of posts generally saying the same thing: -in dainty Royal British accent - "Ah yes. Good for them. We have five gaziollion times those numbers, and have since 1981. I play nethack. Good day sir!"
My response, to all of you, is this. Before you ride off into your cs_dust sunset your high PC Nightwind horse, keep in mind first and foremost that higher numbers for console online games only means that the competition will increase for online PC games. We're on slashdot. Competition is good around here, right? Secondly, the overall online experience for consoles is significantly more streamlined than that of a PC. Everyone has voice chat. Everyone's on broadband. Cheaters are vastly undernumbered compared to the PC. Heck, I get in game alerts on XBL. Sure, I get IMs while I'm playing BF1942, but at worst everything crashes or chugs, and at best it completely interupts my game.
High numbers of console online players is *good* news, for everyone. Oh, and I can see all the way up your large nostriled PC l33t nose. And, um, your piss is going down your leg, not on everyone else's parade.