Slashdot Mirror


Which Console Is Leading The Online Race?

Thanks to GameSpy for their 'Sole Food' editorial discussing which console has the lead in the online marketplace. The author says: "If you asked me a year ago which console would be the online leader, I would have said Microsoft Xbox - no doubt." But, twelve months later, he's rapidly drawing other conclusions: "I forgot the most important lesson in publishing: Content is king. And most of the killer online content is not on the Xbox, but rather the Sony PlayStation 2." And, after citing specific examples of great titles on both PS2 and Xbox, he concludes: "There's just more games for the PS2, ergo there are more online games. It doesn't matter how good and how uniform the online user interface is if the content isn't there."

90 comments

  1. Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by MBraynard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There are about 20 mil PS2s in the US. There are maybe 7 Xbox's. Additionally, the PS2 online experience is opened up to dialup users.

    As of right now, the Xbox has PS2 beat or dead even in pretty much ever catagory of game interest (Rainbow Six 3 vrs Socom2? No competition). But Xbox just doesn't have the install base to get the same numbers.

    eh. Anyway, the real winner is the consumer; more than one online colsoe competitor makes gaming better not matter your preferred console.

    1. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by funkhauser · · Score: 1

      That is a wild, inaccurate overstatement. While the XBox is certainly well behind the PS2 in terms of sheer numbers, there is a significant XBox user base. Hell, there are 7 XBox's in the wing I live on in my dorm, and that's only like 50 people total. I totally agree, though, that it's the consumer that ends up ahead. Online console gaming is a fantastic thing.

    2. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 0, Troll
      Oh, so you can provide nationwide statistics based on numbers you derive from counting done in your dorm? That's great. Although...

      if we had used your method back when I was a wee undergraduate and I got placed in an all-male dorm for my freshman year (what a sausage party!), we could have safely concluded that everyone in teh United States was male.

      You see how sampling the people around you is not an accurate means to measure how many XBoxes have been sold in the U.S.?

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    3. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by grahamwest · · Score: 1

      This is the heart of it. Adding online play to a game takes a lot of engineering effort and testing time and therefore adds to the development cost of the game. This is only worthwhile if it increases sales more than the other potential uses of that development effort. If your expected sell-through is relatively small anyhow because of a smaller hardware base the problem is compounded.

      Xbox Live, while certainly a great thing for users, only increases this problem for developers and publishers because it's basically an all-or-nothing service. Worse, it doesn't support some features that publishers want. For example, EA only lets the most recent iteration of each franchise play online - my understanding is that's actually the deal-breaker with Microsoft. There's also no real ability to run leagues or tournaments via Xbox Live.

      --
      Graham
    4. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by cassidyc · · Score: 1

      erm wrong, the new line of XSN games allow leagues etc. If not yet then it is certainly the direction MS wants to head in with it.

      Also what is to stop a group of gamers setting up their own leagues, much like the PC world.

      CJC

    5. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by aitsuda · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest that the reason there are so many people on your dorm with XBoxes is that teen to students are the XBox's core market, and isn't necessarily a reflection of overall coverage.

    6. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by funkhauser · · Score: 1

      Please... I wasn't suggesting my dorm was a good statistical sample of the whole population. It does suggest that the XBox has a larger install base than 7 though.

    7. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by funkhauser · · Score: 1

      True, but it may suggest something about the XBox's popularity within the core video game market, even if it isn't at all an accurate statistical sample on a large scale.

    8. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 0

      Also what is to stop a group of gamers setting up their own leagues, much like the PC world.

      The main problem with the Xbox Live world is that there's no real 'personal' interface... on the PC world you can make webpages for leagues etc... Xboxes you can keep a client running and write the scores etc down on a web page, but the integration is obviously nil........ we just have to wait for developers and M$ to embrace the technology more. I've yet to see someone set up their own gaming server for Xbox live, and it's a shame that this isn't easier.... just look at what 'anyone, anywhere' server setting up allowances did to help Counterstrike/HL and Quake PC get HUGE audiences...

    9. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1

      The number was obviously 7 million - which is correct - the poster left off the "million" but I think anyone who reads Slashdot games regularly knows this number, kid.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    10. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The PS2 online for games like SOCOM and SOCOM 2 are not open to modem users.

    11. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by drewmca · · Score: 1

      Well, you'll never see someone set up a server on xbox live except MS. You can set up your xbox as a dedicated box, a mini-server, to increase performance. But the servers themselves are all housed by MS and will remain that way because it is a closed system by design. You log into that closed system, and there's no way they will let anyone throw a PC server up there and have it integrate with Live. There are reasons for the closed system, by the way, such as single-signon and no cheating. Just look what 'anyone, anywhere' server setting up allowances did for Counterstrike when it comes to cheating.

    12. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      I disagree with your take on XBL. If the install base is smaller, it is less economical for a developer to deploy it's own internet infrastructure and is easier to just let MS handle it.

      Since my initial post was written before I really read the article, I would add that now I have read the article, I can conclude that it is total masturbation opinion. His argument isn't based on online player statistics, but on whose games he thinks are best - and he doesn't even back it up. If you look at the reviews on Amazon or EB, you will see that the overwhelming number of people commenting on Rainbow6 3 say it is far better than Socom 2. And the library of online games for Xbox is much larger than for PS2 - and more diverse. Plus there are even non-online Xbox games that allow for extra level downloads.

      The article attemps to compare them on a quanititative method - and does so in a very shallow way.

    13. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by grahamwest · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about infrastructure? The expense in doing an Xbox Live game isn't related to technology or backend, it's the ~100 user interface screens you have to lay out, code and test. None of it's hard to do but it's time-consuming and therefore costly since human resources are the dominant cost of making a game these days.

      --
      Graham
    14. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by grahamwest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      XSN's only for first party titles to my knowledge. For reference, I'm the lead programmer on our Xbox SKU and I did the analysis of what it would take to add Xbox Live support to the game.

      We could implement our own league system on Xbox Live but it would be really expensive and time-consuming (such servers have to live inside Microsoft's data center so the testing is pretty exhaustive). On PS2 we get all that stuff basically for free because we use Gamespy for our frontend (ie. lobbies, chat, matchmaking).

      Of course gamers can do whatever they want informally but that doesn't compare to something integrated and supported by the developer. We can run online tournaments on PS2 and even give away prizes but currently we can't do that on Xbox Live.

      --
      Graham
    15. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      Agree or disagree: it is cheaper to do for XBL than PS2?

      Also, I am pretty confident that the bulk of the back end in all XBL games is done with a common API that MS wrote, not the game developer.

    16. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by grahamwest · · Score: 1

      It's more expensive to add Xbox Live support to a game than to add PS2 online support - more expensive by a large margin, in fact.

      --
      Graham
    17. Re:Content? It's just a matter of raw numbers! by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      Prove it.

      And it goes beyond just 'adding' the support in the game, but supporting it outside the game - IE - infrastructure.

  2. As much as I hate to admit it.... by ryg0r · · Score: 1
    But the PS2 kicks some serious ass!!

    Seriously though, I think that platforms that are easy/easier to mod/pirate would be the more popular. But thats another issue for another time...

    --
    Karma whoring .sigs don't work
  3. Article quote by calebtucker · · Score: 3, Funny

    "... ergo there are more online games."

    Who wants to bet he wouldn't have said "ergo" if it wasn't for the whole Architect conversation in Maxtrix: Reloaded? :-)

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
    1. Re:Article quote by bugbread · · Score: 1


      Or his years as a countercultural icon in 1960's San Francisco?

      Oh, wait, that's "ergot".

    2. Re:Article quote by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      "... ergo there are more online games."

      Who wants to bet he wouldn't have said "ergo" if it wasn't for the whole Architect conversation in Maxtrix: Reloaded? :-)


      This is obviously correct, because as we all know, professional writers learn most of their vocabulary from movies. Their writing skills and their profession are a complete coincidence, just like strong people doing construction work or people that know what the word "antibiotic" means having the legal license to prescribe them.

    3. Re:Article quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is obviously correct, because as we all know, professional writers learn most of their vocabulary from movies.

      Well, in case you hadn't noticed, the guy isn't all that great a writer.

    4. Re:Article quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is obviously correct, because as we all know, professional writers learn most of their vocabulary from movies.

      Well, in case you hadn't noticed, the guy isn't all that great a writer.


      Concordantly, this proves his point, vis-a-vis sarcasm. Ergo, while you may or may not realize it, your statement is simultaneously +1 Insightful and -1 Offtopic.

      Signed,
      The Architect

    5. Re:Article quote by Zeromous · · Score: 0

      Now THAT's causality...

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
  4. but PC still beats both by incubusnb · · Score: 2, Insightful
    PS2 - 20 Million users
    X-Box - 7 Million
    PC - you do the counting, its simply too high

    i love my PS2 and i love my X-Box, but lets face it, neither of them are even close competitors to the online gaming giant that is the PC, every Genre is covered in many different ways and has many millions of users and all times of the day or night

    AND, with a CP, games that are meant for single player, can be modded for Multiplayer (ie. GTA3 & GTA: VC)

    --
    /. is overrun by bed-wetting elitist nerds
    let it be known, for anything other than servers, a *nix OS sucks
    1. Re:but PC still beats both by funkhauser · · Score: 1

      While just about everyone and their grandma has a PC, not many of those are actually up to snuff as gaming machines. Furthermore, PC online play seems really stagnant. You have the great FPSs, the MMORPGs, and the RTSs... but that's all. There's a lot more variety on consoles, really: online sports, Tony Hawk with a decent controller, etc.

    2. Re:but PC still beats both by incubusnb · · Score: 1
      first - i don't see why my post is flamebait, its pure numbers, there are roughly 200 Million PCs worldwide and if even a 3rd of them are being used for any online gaming whatsoever, then what i'm saying is true, heck, i think Counterstrike players are numerous enough that they beat PS2s numbers by themselves

      second, i do play my PS2 and X-Box online, and i do enjoy it, but that doesn't mean that PS2 is number 1, it just means its the best of the consoles. but playing a console online is a completely different experience than playing a PC online.

      --
      /. is overrun by bed-wetting elitist nerds
      let it be known, for anything other than servers, a *nix OS sucks
    3. Re:but PC still beats both by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      there are roughly 200 Million PCs worldwide and if even a 3rd of them are being used for any online gaming whatsoever, then what i'm saying is true,

      They're not. Simple as that. Even if you don't consider the crossover between games, you'd be extremely lucky to come up with a number near 65-70 million.

      heck, i think Counterstrike players are numerous enough that they beat PS2s numbers by themselves

      It depends on what numbers you're talking about. At the height of CS' popularity it had about 3 times as many players as what Sony is now claiming for the maximum simultaneous players found online for SOCOM 2. CS did so well that it outdid even the combination of every other online FPS at the time. It also happens to be a mod for the only FPS in the top 20 best-selling games of all time.

      On the other hand, the number of CS players at that time was approximately 1/800th the number of PS2s that have been sold, and less than 1% of the number of copies of Half-Life (which, at the time, was required to play CS) that were sold.

      Furthermore, the best-selling PS2 game (GTA:VC) outsold Half-Life by a half-million units (not including the PC port of GTA:VC, or the upcoming XBox port). The only games that sold better than GTA:VC were The Sims and a slew of Nintendo games, namely Tetris and 6 Mario games. Super Mario Bros. 1 sold 5 times as many units as Half-Life, and 4 times as many units as the Sims. There are a total of 3 PC games in the top 20, the above mentioned Sims(7) and Half-Life(15), and Myst(18). The combined sales of those 3 games does not equal the number of PS2s sold, yet the #1 game alone comes close and the #1 and 2 games combined almost double it.

      The difference comes down to one of pure potential. If online games on the PS2 reached 1/3rd of CS' online audience within the first 2 years of mainstream online console gaming, what does that mean down the line? CS came out nearly 5 years after mainstream online PC gaming hit, and online PC gaming was possible (and done by some) for quite a while before that (and online console gaming has also been possible for quite a while). The numbers of games like EQ, Diablo 2, and StarCraft put CS to shame, but the sales of the games don't even rank (at the same time, I question this for Blizzard's games, as I've often heard numbers that would easily rank them close to, if not above, Half-Life).

      Anyway, the whole point is that console games sell more copies than PC games, and in a very short time are getting the same numbers of players online. It's only a matter of time, at the current rate, before online console gaming becomes a very large percentage of all online console gaming, if not the predominant form. That being said, I do agree that it's a different experience, as is console gaming in general, but I think you'll find that this only leads to different types of titles becoming popular in the long run. People keep saying FPS games and PCs just go together, yet the FPS barely existed on the PC before it went online, at which point the genre exploded (though, frankly, Doom was probably bigger because it was an FPS and easily pirated rather than because it had online play). Online gaming almost completely changed the landscape of PC gaming, and I won't be surprised if it does nearly the same (though hopefully in different ways) to console gaming.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:but PC still beats both by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      neither of them are even close competitors to the online gaming giant that is the PC, every Genre is covered in many different ways

      Quick, name a recent fighting game from the arcades that you can play on the PC that has a built in ranking system like X-Box Capcom vs SNK EO. While I agree that the PC is a much better platform for multiplayer games (for now) than the consoles, the PC hasn't covered every genre.

      I stated this in a post before, but the way for the consoles to really be sucessful is to offer online games that can't be found on the PC, and that traditionally play better on the consoles.

  5. Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by Recoil_42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to me, this really comes down to quality vs quantity.

    i sure ps2 online is great, and EA has really driven it home; however XBOX live is absolutely fantastically, exponentially better than ps2 online. freinds list, effortless patches, easy login, downloadable content, voice for *every single game*, rankings, rosters, tournaments, clans, leagues, game invites... it is practically flawless, undoubtedly the best microsoft produect i have ever encountered..

    in contrast, SOCOM is plagued by cheats, (and let's face it -- no one is going to develop a game that requires a 200$ hard drive just to prevent cheats) each game requires its own accoutn and password, EA is threatening to charge 10 bucks a month per game (someting MS won't allow, which is why EA has refused to develop games for xbox live, by the way)....

    also, while i dont want to scream out "BIAS!" too loud, raymond (the article's author) has always been a huge ps2 fan..

    lemme just end with a huge penny-arcade quote as i always like to do.. :)

    ----------

    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.

    ---------------

    --


    Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
    1. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1, Troll
      I think the PA quote is overstating the situation quite a bit. Yeah, you get on Live by pushing A. That's super. To log in to play Madden, I simply select Play Online and then my user name and password are loaded from my memory card. I push X a few times and I'm online. Boy, that's tough. I mean, if the folks at Penny Arcade are dismayed by having to log in to online games using a PS2, I can only imagine the trouble they've had with using a PC to play games online.

      I also don't understand this sentence: "There is an ethernet port. That's not so you can put a jelly bean in there in case you need it..." What does that have to do with comparing XBox Live to PS2 online gaming? I honestly don't get it.

      Here's something I am wondering - what happens if I am living in a house with multiple people who play on XBox Live? Can we have multiple accounts without having too pay two times the online price? I don't have an XBox and am curious how this works. (I'm not really an XBox hater, I just haven't been convinced to buy one based on the selection available.) I do like the idea of having a friend's list but, and this may be just be, normally if I want to play someone online with my PS2 and I already know them, I contact them through some internet messaging service using my computer. I don't see how useful it would be for me to have a friend's list with my PS2. I wouldn't turn my PS2 on, connect to a server, just to see if anyone I know was around. Now, the XBox Live friend's list is accessible via the web but again, how useful is this? If I'm already at my computer, I can just check my PS2 Online Friends category in my instant messaging buddy list. To me, this seems like unneccescary overhead.

      But besides Madden and THPS 4, I don't play online games with my PS2. My PC will always be my first and foremost online game playing machine. (please feel free to reply and enlighten me about XBox Live - I'm sure I've got some things wrong since I don't have an XBox. Maybe you can convince me to buy one - although...Zelda Gamecube bundle is calling to me quite loudly these days)

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    2. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by GeneralCern · · Score: 0

      If you have mulitple people in your house and they each have their own X-Box you would need multiple X-Box live accounts. If you only have on X-Box you could share an account. (Only one instance of a gamertag could be online at a given time). While it is true you could IM a friend and set up an online PS2 game, it isn't that simple if your friend is already playing and not near a computer. In that case you would need to call the person and hope he/she answered the phone. With X-Box live you could invite him to an online match even if he is already playing a game. It is a pretty slick feature.

      Like you my PC was my main gaming rig prior to the X-Box live. Since X-Box live I haven't touched it. (except for Age of Mythology, I couldn't imagine playing an RTS of that scale with a game pad). I just finished playing about 2 hours of Rainbow Six on Live and it is quite simply the most fun I have ever had gaming online with a shooter. Full clear voice, no lag, and a nice easy interface for setting up a game. It keeps player stats using an "ELO", which I am told is a complex scoring method used for chess. Don't know if it is true or not, but having the ability to look up the guy shooting at you and seeing if he really is that good right in the game is a nice feature. Also the benefits of playing online from the comfort of a plush sofa should not be underestimated.

      The Zelda bundle called me quite loudly last March too, and I answered that call. With prices being what they are, I say answer any calls you recieve. Rainbow Six, Crimson Skies, and I'm sure CounterStrike all include 2 months of X-box Live free. Maybe it would be worth checking it out. Having multiple platforms at an affordable price is never a bad idea. You could get hit by a bus tommorrow, have some pointless fun today.

    3. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by grahamwest · · Score: 1

      You'd have to pay extra. Each Live subscription gets you only a single gamertag (your online identity). Everything is done through the gamertag - friends, feedback, stats and so on.

      The advantage of the friends list is that it integrates with the rest of the system. If you're online and I log in for some Crimson Skies I can invite you to come play with me no matter what game you're currently playing. You'll get a popup showing the invite and if you accept your system will prompt you for your Crimson Skies disc and reboot and take you to my session. On a more mundane level, you can see how you rank in a game relative to your friends list. If you're creating a game session you can reserve slots for friends (if your friends don't want to fill those slots you can invite whoever else to come play). When you play an open game and meet someone cool you can just add them to the friends list, no need to figure out which IM service (if any) they use, go to the PC, add them, etc.

      --
      Graham
    4. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by bugbread · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fair comment.

      I think they're just pointing out that, while online works on both, XBox's iteration has that much more polish. Logging on in Madden is a simple process, but logging on to XBox Live...uh, well, you don't have to. Instead of selecting "1 Player" or "Multiplayer", you select "Play Online". For the most part, there is no login.

      They jellybean comment just refers to the fact that the XBox has online capability from the get-go, not as an expansion pack. I don't find it a very useful statement either, though.

      As for multiple folks: you can have guests on XBox online. I forget how it works (not having done it myself), but while person A is playing, people plugged into ports 2, 3, and 4 play as guests 2, 3, and 4. Obviously, if people living in the same house want their own accounts/friends lists/etc., they'd need to pay for it.

      As for the friend's list: with XBox Live, you don't need to connect to a server to do anything. It's an always-on connection. You just turn on the XBox (heck, mine is on 24-7 anyway, so that's even one less step), go to the Live control panel, and you can see the online status of all of your friends, what games they're playing, and invite them directly to play. Sure, you could do the same on computer, but it just doubles the amount of equipment and work you need to do. Plus, the obvious: if they're currently playing, they aren't going to be on the computer to answer your request to play! Yeah, all of this could be done without the XBox, hell, you could call up your friend on the phone, but with the friends list it's all in one place.

      I'm not going to try to convince you to buy one. It's just that your comments remind me of my dad talking about how computers are unnecessary overhead, and that if he wants to tell someone something, he doesn't need newfangled email or instant messaging, he can just call the person on the phone. Yeah, he's right, but the convenience factor is not something to be easily overlooked.

    5. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The entire problem with the horrible monstrosity, the Xbox, is summed up in a sentence in your post.

      "...effortless patches..."

      "Effortless patching" will make the console game market the same cesspool of unfinished, buggy software that PC gaming currently is. Why bother to put another month of dev work into the game to polish it and fix those last few bugs, when you can just patch it after it's released?

      The fact that console games were NOT patchable has meant that console game developers put a lot more effort into getting the game *right* before they release it. Release a premature console game that crashes or has other gamebreaking bugs, let that come out in a review, and your game will not sell.

      "Effortless patching" is the *last* thing the console game market needs.

    6. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by PeeweeJD · · Score: 1

      I agree about buggy software sucking.

      I also think it is nice that the people at Ubisoft could patch Ghost Recon so an unforseen networking issue did not make it near impossible to find a game to play in. Or when MS patched mechassault to add more features to the lobby.

    7. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by PeeweeJD · · Score: 1
      I do like the idea of having a friend's list but, and this may be just be, normally if I want to play someone online with my PS2 and I already know them, I contact them through some internet messaging service using my computer. I don't see how useful it would be for me to have a friend's list with my PS2. I wouldn't turn my PS2 on, connect to a server, just to see if anyone I know was around. Now, the XBox Live friend's list is accessible via the web but again, how useful is this? If I'm already at my computer, I can just check my PS2 Online Friends category in my instant messaging buddy list. To me, this seems like unneccescary overhead.

      One thing noone else mentioned is the fact that you can have public and private games. If you host a private game, only people on your friends list can join your game. You can't do that through IM.

      Another cool feature about friends lists is that you can join your friend. Whe I jump online with Rainbow6, I can check my buddy list and hop into a pre-existing game that one of my buddies is playing.

      And regarding IM stuff. Not everyone has a computer next to their xbox. Mine is upstairs in a game-dedicated room, while my computer is downstaris. Also, people don't need to have the same IM service (or use an all in one, or use IM at all). You can play with some random guy and if you like hims, just send him a friend request. You don't have to write down some IM name or e-mail address.

      another cool firneds list feature is the statistics... rather than see how you rank amongst the 43,000 people on the scoreboard, you can filter the stats page to just show people on your buddy list. That is cool.

      The only thing I don't like about live is that is is a P2P hosting system. I wish they would set up more dedicated xbox serviers for the action games. I don't mind paying $50 per year (as long as that is all I am paying).

    8. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by 13Echo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      EA can charge as much as they please, just as SEGA charges for PSO. That's not the issue. The problem (for Microsoft) is that EA wishes to completely bypass the XBox Live service in favor of their own. We all know what happens when Microsoft doesn't get complete and utter control of such a thing. This is the issue. Microsoft is banking on total control of online content with this platform, hence the reason for its excellent network capabilities out of the box. XBox Live is a great service, however I don't blame EA for wanting to deny Microsoft control of their own (EA's) content. This is probably why many publishers are opting to stay away from the XBox Live service. It takes control (and general income) out of their hands. I can't tell you how many times I've heard XBox PSO owners complain about having to pay *two* fees. This is the reason that the PS2 is begining to eclipse the XBox live in online games, aside from the fact that more people own PS2 consoles.

      Still, a recent GameFAQs poll shows that most gamers (almost 75%) really don't care too much about online gaming with their consoles.

      http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.asp?poll=1434

      Hmm... Maybe Nintendo had the right idea after all, with such a low-priority online initiative.

    9. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by Snowmit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Effortless patching" will make the console game market the same cesspool of unfinished, buggy software that PC gaming currently is. The fact that console games were NOT patchable has meant that console game developers put a lot more effort into getting the game *right* before they release it.

      You're a crazy person.

      There are plenty of console games that crash and generally have all kinds of bugs. Enter the Matrix leaps to mind but it isn't alone. Pick up a copy of GamePro magazine and check their monthly feature on bugs that appear in recent console games and how you can work around them. These are games that are selling well.

      There are a lot of reasons that PC gamers have to deal with more bugs than console players. The biggest is that each of the consoles has standard hardware. PC programming, on the other hand, requires you to take into acount a wide variety of different hardward, driver, OS and software configurations. More unknowns means that more can go wrong.

      On top of all that, effortless patching doesn't just mean "fixing bugs" it also means "adding new content". As in "here Mech Warrior player, here are some new maps for you to play". That's pretty cool and it's something that neither Nintendo nor Sony can do yet, though Sony is well on the way with their new Final Fantasy with HDD package.

      --
      I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
    10. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Effortless patching" will make the console game market the same cesspool of unfinished, buggy software

      You are COMPLETELY WRONG.

      All console games (for the Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube) are tested quite rigorously before they go on the shelves. The fixed platform helps greatly compared to a PC, and all titles must be tested and approved by Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo before they're allowed to be released. In general this is 7 days of continuous testing by a QA team, and not a single crash or major gameplay bug is allowed or the title will fail and have to be fixed before it is allowed on the shelves. In general you will not find bugs in console titles - and if you do, they will be rare. The brands are too tightly controlled, very strict quality control is at work here.

      "Effortless patching" is the *last* thing the console game market needs.

      Yes, gameplay bugs *can* be fixed, but the patching is really all about downloadable content. New maps, new characters, new items, new quests. "Value-added" I believe is the term that applies. Some games (eg: Splinter Cell) even have support for downloadable content through Live even though they're not multiplayer titles.

      So far the only online executable patching that I've seen (and I have quite a few Live-enabled games) was to patch Xbox Live itself - adding new features like being able to see and talk to your buddies from the Xbox start screen without even loading a game.

      There's even a rumour that downloadable game demos will be coming to Xbox Live soon - how can you still think this is a *bad* thing?

      The entire problem with the horrible monstrosity, the Xbox

      And now you're just sounding like a mindless anti-Microsoft zealot. You really can't comment on Xbox (especially the Live service) if you've not tried it. You might even like it.

    11. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by Allanon01 · · Score: 1

      Games go through strict console quality assurance tests but lets face it some bugs get missed. Having the ability to fix those bugs is great for the consumer and developer. The consumer doesn't need to wait for a sequel to get the game play promised and the developer might get more customers because they were able to fix the game.

    12. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by unclethursday · · Score: 1
      EA is threatening to charge 10 bucks a month per game (someting MS won't allow, which is why EA has refused to develop games for xbox live, by the way)....

      BZZZZZZT!

      Oh, I'm sorry, but that answer is incorrect.

      The truth is that Microsoft DOES allow third party publishers to charge money ON TOP OF the Xbox Live fee, if they so wish. Sega already does for PSO Ep I&II, at $8.95/month, which is ON TOP OF the $50/year Xbox Live subscription cost. Expect games like True Fantasy Live Online to charge extra to play online (made by Microsoft, but a MMORPG).

      Most games should remain free, but certain games, especially MMORPGs or other games with persistent worlds and 24 hour servers, will charge extra on top of the Xbox Live fee.

      The most likely reason that EA and Microsoft butt heads over Xbox Live is the fact that Microsoft will have complete access to EA's customer database if their games were Live enabled (Microsoft will know which customers bought EA's titles and when they are playing them online). Companies, especially when they make competing products (MS does have their own Xbox sports titles), do not like to share customer information and/or knowledge.

      But, you do get our consolation prize: a post on /.!

    13. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by unclethursday · · Score: 1
      In general this is 7 days of continuous testing by a QA team, and not a single crash or major gameplay bug is allowed or the title will fail and have to be fixed before it is allowed on the shelves. In general you will not find bugs in console titles - and if you do, they will be rare. The brands are too tightly controlled, very strict quality control is at work here.

      However, the online components are not tested as thoroughly as the single player components. Nor can they be, since there will not be enough QA people to simulate large game loads and other things that can only be found AFTER a game has been released and is used online. An example is the original Ghost Recon for Xbox Live: the lobbies had a bug wherin, in many cases, people would see very few to no games being played/available to be joined, even if there were hundreds of games going on (to my knoweldge, this bug was never fixed through a patch for the original Ghost Recon, but may have been fixed with the Island Thunder upgrade disk). This sort of bug might not appear in a limited QA test, but does in the wild.

      Yes, gameplay bugs *can* be fixed, but the patching is really all about downloadable content. New maps, new characters, new items, new quests. "Value-added" I believe is the term that applies. Some games (eg: Splinter Cell) even have support for downloadable content through Live even though they're not multiplayer titles.

      Of course, there are also reports that Microsoft is using such 'content download enabled' games to spy on their customers, as the games supposedly contact XBL without the users' knowledge or permission. But I cannot verify this as fact, myself, since all my Live games are games to be played online.

      However, the newest upgrade of XBL DOES automatically connect to XBL when you start the Xbox up, so long as you have it connected to be able to go online. If you start the Xbox up with no game in it, or the tray open, you will be on the Xbox Live screen automatically if you are hooked into the Net on your Xbox.

      So long as your Xbox is hooked into the Net, Microsoft knows when it is on, it seems.

      So far the only online executable patching that I've seen (and I have quite a few Live-enabled games) was to patch Xbox Live itself - adding new features like being able to see and talk to your buddies from the Xbox start screen without even loading a game.

      You must not have Unreal Championship or Capcom Vs. SNK EO 2 for the Xbox, then. Both games have had actual patches to fix actual bugs in the games. Bugs that, again, apparently did not appear in the limited QA time period. The CvSEO2 patch fixes a sound bug in the game, and the UC patch helps fix rank cheating abilities as well as the ability to get outside of levels in the game. Supposedly, some games also patch without letting you think they are patching, by telling you "There is an Xbox Live update available, this update is necessary before you will be allowed to connect to Xbox Live." Remember, Microsoft promised no real patches, but only content downloading. It is possible they now hide the patches since the Capcom Vs. SNK 2 EO and Unreal Championship patches were well known (and a slight PR belemish, as well as fodder to be used against XBL by PS2 and GameCube fanbois).

      You really can't comment on Xbox (especially the Live service) if you've not tried it. You might even like it.

      I do have Live, and I do enjoy it...but only in short spurts, it seems. No game has really held my attnention online for very long on the service (in fact, no Xbox game can hold my attention for long, either, as I have gone as long as 3 months without even having it plugged in). I can only play so many FPS games, don't play racing games, etc. However, Crimson Skies has me pretty addicited right now; but it remains to be seen if it keeps me hooked on playing online for a while, or if this too will pass in but a few weeks.

      But, MS had better release a patch to fix the "slots reserved for friends

    14. Re:Quality VS Quantity? (and a PA quote) by anthony_philipp · · Score: 0

      you can have guest account which are free, but you dont get ranked this way. is basically what i have heard.

  6. the moral of the story by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't matter how good and how uniform the online user interface is if the content isn't there.

    One can't help but suspect that the uniform user interface created the lack of content. Even in the general population, freedom creates more opportunities and productivity, but the game creator demographic leans more libertarian than average.

    1. Re:the moral of the story by bugbread · · Score: 1

      Much in the same way that the uniform user interface of keyboard and mouse created a lack of computer games? Or that the uniform laws of physics created a lack of ball games?

      The uniform interface that was mentioned refers to the ability to go on-line with any game without entering a user name or password. It refers to having friends lists that you can use to invite friends to play with you, or that you can use for voice chat. It refers to basic functions working predictably across the board so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you want to play a game over the net.

      How you can conclude that ease-of-use improvements and accessibility create a lack of content is beyond me.

    2. Re:the moral of the story by GeneralCern · · Score: 0

      Ever since I caught the dreaded (-1 Flamebait) mod I have been trying to be more openminded, but I am having trouble with this statement... Microsoft: "Dudes, how about you release GTA3 on the X-Box with FULL MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT!" Rockstar: "Cool, Bill G-man. We got some wicked ideas for the interface, we are going to do it all with 3D vegetables and #$$%^ that rotate and spin and rap like Jay Z. And to logon to the internet and #%%$, the players don't press any buttons, but they have to stand on the controller and %$#@ man!" Microsoft: "Um, no. You guys need to use the standard interface." Rockstar: "THEN $$%$%#@# that MAN! We are gonna take our #$%%# to Sony!" (Rockstar takes GTA3 to Sony, and due to feelings of rejection doesn't even bring up the mulitplater component of GTA3) Bring on the -5 mods...

    3. Re:the moral of the story by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 1

      How you can conclude that ease-of-use improvements and accessibility create a lack of content is beyond me.

      Because a lot of people would feel like Cern's hypothetical developers. I wouldn't want to develop under someone else's idea of how I should code the interface. I presume other people would have the same desire for individual expression too, especially in a community well-known for rampant individualism. :-)

      (And Cern, if you're reading this, I sympathize. I've been wrongly Flamebaited, too. I hope you get lots of +1, Funny and +1, Insightful.)

    4. Re:the moral of the story by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      Ever since I caught the dreaded (-1 Flamebait) mod I have been trying to be more openminded, but I am having trouble with this statement... Microsoft: "Dudes, how about you release GTA3 on the X-Box with FULL MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT!" Rockstar: "Cool, Bill G-man. We got some wicked ideas for the interface, we are going to do it all with 3D vegetables and #$$%^ that rotate and spin and rap like Jay Z. And to logon to the internet and #%%$, the players don't press any buttons, but they have to stand on the controller and %$#@ man!" Microsoft: "Um, no. You guys need to use the standard interface." Rockstar: "THEN $$%$%#@# that MAN! We are gonna take our #$%%# to Sony!" (Rockstar takes GTA3 to Sony, and due to feelings of rejection doesn't even bring up the mulitplater component of GTA3) Bring on the -5 mods...

      This sarcastic analogy would make sense if it weren't for the fact that it's already happened. EA told Microsoft that they wanted to make their own system for Xbox online games and not join up with Xbox Live. When Microsoft told EA that they wouldn't allow any online games on the Xbox that didn't use Live, EA just stripped the online capability out of all of their Xbox titles, including the multiplatform ones, and now all of the comparisons of EA's multiplatform games read, "Reasons to buy the Xbox version: Better graphics, better sound; Reasons to buy the PS2 version: Online play".

    5. Re:the moral of the story by bugbread · · Score: 1

      I suppose I understand where you're coming from, but I do get the feeling that you haven't actually played with XBox Live. The structure that Microsoft has implemented is based, for the most part, on transparency. I suppose if you're coding a game about hacking, you might want the online interface to be very non-standard and elusive, but, for the most part, I assume game makers focus on the game aspects more than if you should press "X" instead of "A" to access XBox Online. The consistency being fostered by XBox Live is closer to the ideas, that, for example, "Ctrl-C" is for copy on a Windows app, and "Ctrl-V" is for paste. Just as I doubt that there are software developers who avoid Windows just because of "Ctrl-C", I doubt that there are content developers who avoid XBox Live because they think that logins should be strenuous, or that people shouldn't be allowed access to Friends lists.

      I understand where you're coming from, but it just doesn't seem like it applies in this case, as the parts being specified are NOT parts that affect interesting aspects of the game. At best they're the equivalent of basic HTML standards or the fact that the "N" key on a keyboard, when pressed, should result in the letter "N", not "D".

    6. Re:the moral of the story by bugbread · · Score: 1

      And, to reiterate, the different functionality EA wanted was primarily that they didn't want Online available for older games. That is, once SSX 3 came out, online functionality for SSX Tricky would have to be halted. Although in principle developer power sounds great, in the XBox Live case it seems that the XBox Live specifications provide developers with the tools to do what they want to do, except for hosing their users, and that is precisely what EA was being stymied at.

      And don't be fooled into thinking that it is because XBox Live prevents developers from taking a cut of the profits. Phantasy Star Online charges an additional users fee that goes to the publisher.

    7. Re:the moral of the story by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 1

      I suppose I understand where you're coming from, but I do get the feeling that you haven't actually played with XBox Live.

      That's true, but believe me, my inner caveman is nagging me night and day to get an XBox and DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball. I'm just afraid I'd start skipping work to tweak the "jiggliness" settings. Don't tell anyone. ;-)

      The consistency being fostered by XBox Live is closer to the ideas, that, for example, "Ctrl-C" is for copy on a Windows app, and "Ctrl-V" is for paste.

      Okay, but for me, ESC-W is copy and Ctrl-Y is paste. I don't want consistency or transparency in the interface, I want it in the back-end protocols. I want the interface to be absolutely configurable to my tastes.

      I've been using Microsoft products since 1985, and to my mind, MS wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want everybody to use MS products and they want a standard MS interface. The implication of both of those statements is that MS wants everybody to do things their way. They've never shown a fundamental commitment to making the product serve the end user the way the end-user wants.

      ... the "N" key on a keyboard, when pressed, should result in the letter "N", not "D".

      Artistic design is a profoundly intimate process. Sometimes N needs to result in D just because. It's irrational, but essential to some kinds of creation. Creativity seems to be linked to eccentricty in a lot of cases. In an office suite, sure, keep it simple and straightforward. But in games? I kind of expect games to be weird and crazy.

      And as interfaces go, I think we've just started to scratch the surface. Where does that MTV drum simulator you see at arcades fit in? Maybe there could be a theremin hooked up to the GIMP that would make some radical new form of art. How about DDR? How would you think differently, feel differently, create differently, if you entered all your code on a giant Dance Dance Revolution keyboard 20 feet long?

      I'm not saying I don't have frustrations over this sort of thing -- converting from Photoshop to the GIMP is crazymaking, and I still want to try and make fvwm give me the damn arrow keys in nethack -- but my experience says that you get more from life with many different ways to do the same thing. I can't shake the feeling that interface standardization is more about selling games than making new and different and interesting games.

    8. Re:the moral of the story by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you're all arguing over an almost completely different kind of consistency than what exists with XBox Live.

      The consistency has to do with the features supported and the idea that you don't have to sign into different services to play different games.

      The player can use their friends list to invite people to play, regardless of what game they are playing at the moment. The service can handle the exiting from one game and loading (and connecting to a game) of the next when the user decides to accept that invitation. The user doesn't have to enter a log-in and password when 95+% of the users don't have keyboards (yes, my password to bypass the parental rating on my PS2 is XXXXXXXX or however many times I have to hit that damned button). Voice communication works the same way in every game. You find games the same way.

      On the other hand, if developers want people to jump through hoops and not have voice communication or be able to invite each other to play their game (or other games), yeah, this might be a problem. If I want people to perform a KI 99-hit combo to get online in my game, maybe I should be allowed to do that. If I want to sell my customers' data to keep my struggling online business afloat, maybe I should be allowed to do that.

      Do it somewhere else. EA's problem has everything to do with the last sentence in the previous paragraph and nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph. Anyone else has their own reasons, though very few seem to have been all that reluctant to support Live if they support multiplayer at all on consoles.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    9. Re:the moral of the story by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And, to reiterate, the different functionality EA wanted was primarily that they didn't want Online available for older games. That is, once SSX 3 came out, online functionality for SSX Tricky would have to be halted. Although in principle developer power sounds great, in the XBox Live case it seems that the XBox Live specifications provide developers with the tools to do what they want to do, except for hosing their users, and that is precisely what EA was being stymied at.

      Unfortunately, they also haven't done online play on the Cube, despite most of their multiplatform titles being available there and the Cube's online strategy having few differences from Sony's (except, of course, that Sony's now pushing the online angle).

      And don't be fooled into thinking that it is because XBox Live prevents developers from taking a cut of the profits. Phantasy Star Online charges an additional users fee that goes to the publisher.

      The one thing EA wanted in this realm, though, was customer data, as stated here:
      http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/14/technology/ techinv estor/hellweg/
      EA gets to use the infrastructure in which it invested so heavily and collect the revenue and marketing data [by making online play available on the PS2]. Microsoft, on the other hand, built out its own infrastructure (and service, called Xbox Live) and handles the billing and customer relationships.

      There's another quote which I remember also seeing in US articles (but I can't find those articles at the moment) here:
      http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0, 7204,73 43540%5e15321%5e%5enbv%5e15306,00.html
      EA declined to join with Microsoft because it felt it would lose "ownership" of the customer, EA spokesman Jamie McKinlay said.

      "The player would buy our product and then pay Microsoft to play it online. Microsoft would retain all that player information on a database and we wouldn't have access to it."


      It's truly an interesting thing when Microsoft, of all people, is keeping information about your use habits from someone (especially since EA has a deal with AOL that means customer data for people playing EA games online is sold to AOL, if you'd like proof of that, read EA's privacy policy).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    10. Re:the moral of the story by bugbread · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      I'm in no way chiding anyone for saying their opinions without using XBox Live first, but in this case the you'd really have to understand the functionality to understand where us XBox users are coming from. The standardization is not complete front end standardization. A developer can make a Friends list front end where everyone is represented by a hamster and the friends jump around the screen. What the standards (to my knowledge) dictate is: the universal Friend's list must be accessible. Voice chat support must be accessible. Stuff like that. I suppose a developer could have a reason to make online games that don't offer those features, but playing a game like that is about as enticing to me as buying a car where the blinker stick turns on the windshield wipers or "1st gear" is for going fast, while "5th gear" is for going slowly. I'd personally like the back-end to work reliably so I can concentrate more on the front end, ie. the game.

      I understand where you're coming from, Geno, but I certainly disagree with your initial contention, that back-end standardization has hampered content design. I think a few games using XBox Live would give you an idea of both the usefulness of the feature-set and the lack of relation to content production.

    11. Re:the moral of the story by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see companies like EA do more the with the Gamecube's online capabilities. Broadband adapters and modems aren't too tough to come by anymore... It's just that nobody is doing anything with them.

      Rumor has it though that since the upcoming Nintendo racing games will have LAN capability, Nintendo will provide some "Gamespy" branded software that will support packet forwarding that works along the lines of the Warp-Pipe project's software. I wish that more companies would just start making Internet playable games for the Gamecube in general though.

  7. How do you wanna look at it? by MMaestro · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    In terms of finance : Xbox is killing the PS2. With its right hand tied behind its back and blindfolded. With a pay-to-play system and everything else already provided (no need to buy a network adaptor and for the FFXI people a hard drive as well) even if the PS2 was to suddenly get another 50 million PS2s sold and put online, in the long run the Xbox WILL win. The only way they would lose this battle is if Bill Gates decided to spill a couple gallons of coffee on the servers, "accidently" pull the plug on the servers for a couple hours without telling people before plugging it back in, and tell all the subscribers that he's "gonna make them his bitches."

    In terms of "look how many people I got" : The PS2 looks nicer than the graphics of Doom 3 or Half-Life 2. Nuff said.

    In terms of the consumer : The Xbox owner is winning. Kinda. See the Xbox owner already knows what hes getting. He knows what hes paying for. And he knows that Microsoft isn't going to do something stupid and anger gamers. The PS2 owner on the other hand WILL -eventually- have to pay fees. I don't know exactly how many people play online with their PS2s but the cost for servers, paying for a dedicated line, and paying for support people is certainly hurting Sony. In the long run, the PS2 owner will get bitten by Sony and he may not be prepared for it.

    Who's winning right now : The PS2 owner. He doesn't pay fees. He can connect using dial-up. He has the huge PS1/PS2 offline library to play if he doesn't want to get owned by cheaters in SOCOM. He has the support of the majority and the majority get the number one games.

    Who's most likely gonna win in the future : The Xbox owner, most likely. The Xbox Live system and Xbox hardware are probably the biggest steps toward console online gaming since the Dreamcast made gaming history with Seganet. Voice chat is very nice, even if the kid/guy on the other side sounds like hes a 7 year old. The broadband online helps keep laggers away, course its not perfect but PC gaming hasn't done it perfect yet either.

    Who's left out in the middle of all this : Gamecube owners. (I pity those who were foolish enough to buy a Gamecube for online play)

    1. Re:How do you wanna look at it? by imperator_mundi · · Score: 1

      It's a open vs. close system issue... historycally open system always won... but I don't see why in the future should it have just an online console, today the market is large enough to allow more systems to attain the critical mass.

      Moreover there's no need to be number one to survive and even flourish; afaik Burger King and Pepsi are all but about to go out of businness, and their chances to become #1 are just marginally higher than zero.

    2. Re:How do you wanna look at it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pity anyone foolish enough to buy a console for online play, because you're missing out on all of the fun of owning a console.

      Online play will never, ever be as much fun as sitting on the couch with a friend and some beers and playing soul calibur 2. Typing "ju are teh sux!" when you frag someone online is nowhere near equal to the experience of screaming "in your face!" at your friend and watching his face twist with anger after you humiliate him.

      Console games, unlike PC games, have always had social interaction as a huge component of their experience. The first of your friends gets the newest generation of console X, you all go over to his place, throw some burgers on the grill, chill, and check out the new games. You sit on the couch, in the living room, and even the single player console games are made to be entertaining for other people to watch.

      Online gaming is a very empty experience compared to sitting down with my son and daughter and playing some Super Smash Brothers, playing Mortal Kombat with my wife, or having my friend who owns a ps2 over for the evening to play Grand Turismo and Ridge Racer.

      I've watched a friend of mine play Crimson Skies on Xbox live, and I don't think shooting down random 13 year olds who continously talk over the headset about trying to get laid and trying to score weed will ever compete with playing games with actual friends.

      Nintendo is *right* that online console gaming is not what console gaming is about... but they made a very, very bad business decision by not including online play in their games. It's bad marketing to see you can play a game online on your two competitor's platforms, and not your own.

    3. Re:How do you wanna look at it? by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your "pity" for my "foolishness," but you must realize that Gamecube gamers are generally well-aware of the network situation before they buy the machine... And really, we don't care. In fact, you'll find that from my GameFAQs link in an above post, most gamers don't care about online gaming in a console right now.

      I've got PSO on my Gamecube, and overall it costs me less to play it than an XBox Live owner, evern if I have to buy an adapter to play it online. Is that so foolish? You get to pay two fees for the same service (as well as the price for a Live kit). Granted, there are extra games, but I can always play those same games on the PC *for free*, and use a headset with Teamspeak or Roger Wilco if I choose to do so. Frankly, neither the XBox nor PS2 have any other titles that appeal to me for online play... But to each his own. I'll go sit in a corner by myself; a foolish image of a man, along with his Gamecube - wallowing in self-pity over the state of online gaming... *SOB*

  8. Gamespy down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Gamespy down, or is it just me? I've been trying to log on to play Halo all day, but no dice, and now I can't access the article.

  9. What about Orange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Xbox has some killer games for it and it is definately in the lead.

  10. Consoles by tiny69 · · Score: 2, Funny
    I have a Digital VT510 serial console sitting in front of me. I really like it since I can connect to two differnt computers via serial connections at the same time. Finding MMJ cables and DB25 --> MMJ adapters is a pain though. I also have a Digital VT420 serial console floating around here somewhere. It's possible to get NICs for them so that they can get their own IP and connect online.

    Oh..., you're talking about game consoles...

    --
    Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
  11. Re:Xbox? by oskillator · · Score: 1
    More like Gaybox if you ask me.

    Hm? I think you must mean Cock Box.

  12. Re:Xbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like Gaybox if you ask me.

    Nobody did ask you.

    It's a damn console, a box of electronics that you plug into your TV. Nothing more. Get a life.

  13. Re:Xbox? by shadowcabbit · · Score: 1

    What about the ButtseXBox?

    --
    "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
  14. the guy is clearly drunk by nunofgs · · Score: 1

    There's just more games for the PS2, ergo there are more online games.

    how does one imply the other?

    1. Re:the guy is clearly drunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's just more games for the PS2, ergo there are more online games.

      how does one imply the other?


      Because the percentage of online games : non-online games is the same for every console! duh!

  15. My comment by jonathan_the_ninja · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that any system that has a game that is worth playing is worth getting. When it comes to gaming, I just want to play the fun games.

    --
    I love NetHack.
  16. Mod Parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is NOT flamebait. Expressing an unbiased opinion is not "flaming".

  17. A question for the online gamers out there.. by JavaLord · · Score: 1

    Is there somewhere you can get a list of what games are available on x-box live and PS2 online?

    1. Re:A question for the online gamers out there.. by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    2. Re:A question for the online gamers out there.. by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1

      Actually, I can tell the PS2 games list at EB is not complete...this is a more complete list. Hmm, probably EB doesn't have a complete listing of XBox Live games either...XBox Live Games. Sorry for posting those half-right links before.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  18. Best Microsoft product I've encountered by PD · · Score: 2, Funny

    They make a damn fine Joystick (not the best, but better than most, and the best one that I've owned).

    Keyboards and mice are superb too.

    I also really enjoy Slashdot, which while technically not a Microsoft product, this place really gets a lot of mileage from that company.

  19. A different case in Europe by Mattb90 · · Score: 1

    If you cross the Atlantic to here in Europe you will notice that the assumption that the Xbox will be ahead of the PS2 is actually true, and indeed the structure of the PS2's online system in Europe (the fact that is complicated and disjointed) does play a part in putting people off, but it is still not the main issue. Ironcially, the main issue is also about content, but over here, the Xbox is winning on this front. After all, previously the only PS2 game that's going to make you go online with it is SOCOM, whereas on the Xbox they have Ghost Recon (and Island Thunder), Unreal Championship, Midtown Madness 3, Return to Castle Wolfeinstein and MotoGP2. Its not the greatest range in the world, but its certianly more admirable than just SOCOM :P Things are a bit different this month, with the EA Sports/BIG titles ramping up PS2 Online support, but the crap network infrastructure on FIFA 2004 and SSX3 is already putting people off. Word gets round quick with such high-profile titles, and with Xbox Live growing far more quickly worldwide than PS2's Europe-only online system, I don't see a change in fortunes in the long term either.

    --
    Mattb90
    Editor, allaboutgames.co.uk
  20. you misunderstood his statement by mapmaker · · Score: 1

    He left out the second "million". He meant 20 million ps2, 7 million xbox; which is about right according to the numbers I found through Google.

    1. Re:you misunderstood his statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he misunderstood it because funkhauser is fucking stupid.

  21. console with most online users ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dreamcast?

    1. Re:console with most online users ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU, sir, are correct.

      MOD PARENT UP.

  22. Online="Hardcore"=Most Avid Buyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still, a recent GameFAQs poll shows that most gamers (almost 75%) really don't care too much about online gaming with their consoles.

    Fair point. Nevertheless, I just recently quit at an EB after 3 years, and the people who were online (usually Xbox players) bought more games than anyone else. So for the ~50K that answered that survey (assuming it was one vote per person), we could say that roughly 25% of that play games online and use online features to help make a game purchase. My bet would be that if you could poll those exact 50K people again, the people buying one game a week are the ones online.

    1. Re:Online="Hardcore"=Most Avid Buyers by hords · · Score: 1

      I guess I am one of the 75% that doesn't really care about online gaming on my console. I won't say you are incorrect about MOST online players buying more games since I never worked at EB. I will say you are wrong about me and everyone I know. I've bought enough console games to average around 2 games a week since the PS2 came out. Yes, that is more than 300 games. I own 1 XBox game and 0 (that I know of) console games with online features. My point is that you don't have to play online games to be a "Hardcore" gamer. Keeping on the topic, if I were to play online games I would likely choose the XBox because of the hard drive and network card being built in.

  23. hardcore vs casual by *weasel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    hardcore gamers make up the majority of the xbox numbers. naturally you'd expect to find more of them in a college setting.

    ps2 sales have predominately been to casual gamers. why else could the ps2 have 4x the installed base and yet there's still an actual competition on the game sales chart each month?
    one would expect even a halfway decent title for the ps2 to have 2x the numbers as a good xbox game, and yet that doesn't happen.

    because xbox gamers buy more games. because they have more hardcore gamers - and hardcore gamers buy more games.

    hell, alot of the ps2 installed base was solely due to the dvd playback functionality. that and 'playstation' was the name on the tongues of parents come the holiday season. 'xbox' is relatively new, and parents are always buying last generation's winnner. (note strong n64 console sales despite ps1 overall dominance)

    but frankly, i could care less whether there are 'more' people on one service or not. pc gaming taught me that you're better off -not- playing than playing against HPBs. it just isn't fun to try to shoot someone with a 400ms ping. xbl does its damndest to minimize lag, and for that i applaud it. (though they'd do better to have more highbandwidth dedicated servers like unreal has)

    microsoft had the foresight to realize that a consistant, quality experience was the way to bring console gamers online to stay.

    Sony's just trying to keep up, and as the original poster pointed out - is leading due to their raw numbers. keep in mind, their lead isn't that significant, and their product is -free-. microsoft can not only charge for their better product - but they can charge -and- compete with free.

    that's an achievement.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  24. You expect me to beleive... by Dolemite_the_Wiz · · Score: 1

    ...or even listen to an author that lists 'Britney's Dance Beat' as his top 5 online game.

    What a tard.

    Did you also notice that the games they list are also available on other gaming platforms?

    What a tard.

    Gotta stick with Tech TV's X-Play for somewhat acurate game reviews.

    Dolemite
    ___________________

    --
    Save the World! Use a Quote!
  25. This why I hate Console wars articles.- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter who you state winner is, you will always sound like a sugar crazed fan boy defending its toy of choice, just read the comments 80% of them make no sense at all (the gaybox?). And this is supossed to be the slashdotters opinion?

    Please dont ever, ever post another article like this again.

    And to the guys with the comments:

    "At no point of your incoherent rambling you were even close to what could be considered a rational thought and now each and everyone of us is know a bit dumber for reading them.
    I award you no points, and may god have mercy of your soul."
    Billy Madison