On Xbox Live's Past, Present, Future

Thanks to TeamXbox for its interview with Andre Vrignaud from Microsoft's Xbox Live Platform Strategy Team, in which he discusses topics including user numbers (they're "on track" for 1 million subscribers by now, and "on average people are playing three hours a day (which is up from the 2.5 hours we saw a year ago), and the average number of people on Friends lists continues to climb - it's a little over 13 right now."), as well as the Xbox Live alerts through MSN Messenger ("In fact, you can look at these as being the first pieces of Xbox Live on Windows. If anything, people are pushing us to release more of Live on Windows as quickly as possible - and we're working on it!")

Comments

Here's a good idea

[Toxygen]

They should make live a battle.net type system so those of us with a copy of pandora tomorrow on our computer can play people who bought the xbox version. There's a ton of multiplayer games that are on both the xbox and pc, would it really be that hard to set up the games to play between platforms? They all connect to this same intarweb thing here and it's the same people making both games, so did someone just not mention "double the user base" to the xbox live team?

Re:Here's a good idea

[nicksthings]

This is one of these things in the works with XNA. Hold on to your pants!

Re:Here's a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's such a good idea. You have huge differences of HCI (Human Computer Interface) between consoles and PC, which will definitely lead to conflict for people cross-platform gameplay.

Ask Sega Dreamcast users to see if they enjoyed playing Quake3 against their PC counterpart with that ridiculous joypad configuration of theirs. That is, unless the DC players also used the keyboard and mouse, which could be acquired for an extra fee.

The only way to make such play good is if the interface differences are kept minimal. I hope that the developers will keep this in mind.

Re:Here's a good idea

[figleaf]

God! I can't believe this.
Some people hate Microsoft so much that they start blowing comments out of their ass.

Re:Here's a good idea

[MBraynard]

You are a nutcase.

XBL makes it much easier for developers to make their games online enabled and to make money online with their games beyond the purchase (see DDR's for sale content.)

If it is such a failure, why have developers for PS2, with a much larger market considering the consoles sold and the potential to use broadband, only made 80 online games for the PS2 whearas the Xbox has just as many?

And only one in ten Xboxes have live? Any stats on PS2? And are you sure it's 1 in 10 for markets that live is available? I don't think they sold more than 10 million xboxes in the States, so it's probably a ratio higher than that.

Re:Here's a good idea

[tc]

Nonsense, as easily shown by readily observable facts. On every other platform (most notably the PC), there is no nanny-state platform vendor-controlled online gaming infrastructure. And yet there are thousands of perfectly successful and functional online games.

Except that Xbox Live titles offer a more consistent level of functionality. Unified sign-in and a friends list that you can share from title-to-title makes sense. The ability to invite friends to play games cross-title (i.e. I can invite you to play a game with me, even if you're currently playing a different one). Ubiquitous voice support, built-in. All of this is functionality provided by Xbox Live that allows for a consistent and high quality user-experience.

"Hey! Why not add loads of time and expense to your project tearing down your own network code and sellotaping in ours, and in return, we (Microsoft) will get extra revenue from XBL subscribers! Wait, where are you going?"

Except that it's not like that at all. Xbox Live is used for matchmaking, and most of the work is in front-end UI, which you're probably rebuilding for the console anyway. In fact the Xbox SDK makes it quite easy to include this stuff (much easier than building from scratch). It means that game developers can focus on the game (where the network code is exactly the same), and not worry about launching and friends lists, and invitations, and voice, and so forth.

I believe that Microsoft has done exactly the right thing in enforcing a high bar, and making sure that features like cross-game invitations and friends list work across all Live titles. The result is a much better experience for end-users.

See above. Every Xbox is technically capable of connecting to the internet out of the box. XBL prevents this. The real question is why aren't 90% of Xboxes being used for online play?

I would hazard that it's because most people don't have an Internet connection in their living room because that's not where their PC is. So that means running cable from another room, or setting up wireless. Both of which require effort, money, and a moderate amount of expertise. I would argue that the requirement to do that, and not any problem with Live, is the real blocking factor.

Re:Here's a good idea

[M3wThr33]

Don't forget it's the only way to get the Ninja Gaiden and KoToR updates and other patches for other games. They're trying to turn XBL into WindowsUpdate. Not necessarily with the bug fixes, per se, but making it the only means of getting new content for your games. I doubt they'll ever do more bonus stuff in the OXM magazine when they can try to pimp out XBL a bit more.

Re:Here's a good idea

[fr0dicus]

Err... nice vitriol there. I much prefer Live to PC online gaming. Flogged my PC because of it too.

Re:Here's a good idea

[tc]

The problem is, the developer is given the choice of agreeing to use Live (along with the limitations, delays and expense- and, ok, to be fair, as well as non-essential perks like buddy lists and unified ID's, etc- that entails) or not including an online component in their game at all. I can understand why MS would want to maintain a stranglehold on this market, but success in the console market has to involve making third parties' lives easier. You didn't see Sony contractually barring developers from exploiting any of the functionality of the Playstation.

What "limitations, delays and expense"? I don't really see what Xbox Live bars you from doing, it just sets a minimum standard, and you are allowed to add more stuff if you choose. Expense, when compared to the entire cost of a project, is pretty minimal, and you get good bang-for-the-buck out of leveraging the Xbox SDK to do most of the grunt work.

Then you have to remember that for any developer who is a console developer, rather than a PC developer, online is all new to them. They don't have any existing code to leverage. At least with Xbox there is a well-defined service with a fully-supported API to make it easy to get all the basics up and running. With Sony, they are completely on their own. For those developers, Xbox Live probably makes things cheaper.

Sony went with a different model, but I would note that it hasn't really proved any more successful for them. They have sold roughly 1.5M network adapters, compared with Xbox Live's figure of just under 1M, but when you compare the relative install bases of the parent platforms it seems to me that if Sony's approach were really superior they should be putting up much bigger numbers than that.

Where are the MMO games? The online games in more experimental genres?

The lack of MMO games is indeed a little bit embarrasing for Microsoft, but I doubt that has anything to do with Live per se. I think it has to do with the economics of MMO games being pretty dicey (look at all the PC MMOs that have been cancelled recently), and Xbox not having a large enough installed base for the business case to look good enough.

Re:Here's a good idea

[unclethursday]

If it is such a failure, why have developers for PS2, with a much larger market considering the consoles sold and the potential to use broadband, only made 80 online games for the PS2 whearas the Xbox has just as many?

The bigger question is: why does the Xbox, with Xbox Live being so easy, only have as many games online as the PS2; which has no set standard and operating rules for online games?

One big factor, as has recently been seen, is Microsoft's draconian approach to XBL. IE, until recently MICROSOFT controlled ALL the game 'servers' and the game creators/owners did not. And I put servers in the little quotes because even though MS touted dedicated servers as a benefit of Live, there aren't any besides PSO's LOBBIES (the actual game runs P2P after the lobbies are exited). Not a single dedicated server on the entirety of XBL, otherwise.

Yet, there ARE dedicated servers on the PS2's front. SOCOM and SOCOM II use them; as do EverQuest Online Adventures and Final Fantasy XI, for example.

But, it took EA not biting on the Live hook to get MS to finally realize "hey, maybe if we lessened that restriction, more companies will use it." That concession of allowing companies to control their own servers, and conceeding to not release any XSN Sports titles this year, seemed to have finally won EA over.

Maybe now Activision and Neversoft will put the next THPS online on the Xbox, since the last 3 versions for the PS2 have been online there. Yet, none have been on XBL, because Neversoft wanted control of how the matchmaking worked, and Microsoft was being all "our way or the highway" when Neversoft had already worked out matchmaking abilities through GameSpy. Guess which version of the past few THPS games sold more, PS2 or Xbox? Online abilities are why I chose the PS2 version over the Xbox ones since THPS3, and I can assume it was a decision for a few others as well, even though the Xbox versions looked way better.

And only one in ten Xboxes have live? Any stats on PS2?

Actually, it's closer to 1:13-1:15 for XBL, not even 1:10, worldwide. Europe is sitting at around 100k subscribers, Japan less than that, so the rest of the subscribers are in North America, where the ratio will be better than 1:10... but worldwide, if MS has hit the 1 million mark, it is ony 6.66%-7.69% going online depending on how many Xboxes have been sold. If they haven't hit that 1 million subscriber mark, then the percentage is even less.

The PS2 has supposedly sold 3 million network adapters, but even if that were true, and every single one of them was used (which they aren't by Sony's own admission, only around 1 million have been used), when we consider there are potentially over 70 million PS2s in the wild, the ratio for PS2 online players to non online players is staggeringly low at a woeful 4.28% of all PS2's going online (if we assume all 3 million adapters have gone online). That's not even 1:20 PS2's online. The actual percentage is a mere 1.42% going online on the PS2, which isn't even 1:50 (it's still below 2:100).

Re:Here's a good idea

[MBraynard]

"Readily observable facts" don't make any sense to me. BXL makes online more accessible to developers.

As a developer, do you really want to get locked in to the long time costs of handling all of the internet traffic, server costs and support, etc etc after you release your game or would you rather let MS do it? If the developers/publishers had to deal with that headache, a lot less would bother with online.

XBL makes it easy for them to get extra online revenue while using a uniform system of payment and content delivery. This way they can focus on making great games and not worry about something that isn't part of their core competency.

Re:Here's a good idea

[fondue]

Sigh. Why continue to regurgitate hopelessly skewed logic from XBL press releases? Did you not read the rest of the posts?

If XBL makes things easier for developers (which it doesn't, in any conceivable way, unless we're assuming that the developers have never written a line of code before*), why aren't they climbing over each other to support it?

Not that 'ease of use' is the crux of the issue anyway- the sticking point is that developers have a choice of 'use Xbox Live' or 'don't include an online component at all'. The result of such a self-serving strategy is inevitable: a paucity of online games on the Xbox.

MS allow their hopelessly flawed, cynical and myopic view of online gaming as an enabler to sell 'premium content' to prevent them from stealing a march on the rival platform holders. Online play *could* have been the differentiating factor that would cause Sony to have to compete on MS's terms, but thanks to Live they completely squandered it.

*If coding (or more likely, buying in) a server browser / voice chat tools / etc. is outside of their 'core competency', what are they doing developing online games in the first place?

Re:Here's a good idea

[MBraynard]

You are good at making long sentences with big words and sounding like a Lyndon Laruche (sp?)supporter.

"The major party candidates allow their hopelessly flawed, cynical and myopic view of politics as an enabler to sell a floating currency standard to prevent them from stealing a march on a reformed Bretton Woods treaty."

What some simple evidence that what I said is true? Look at games that have come out for Xbox and PS2 other than EA, and support online only from Xbox? DDR, Dead Man's Hand, MX Super Fly, Run Like Hell, Burnout 3, etc.

And EA is no longer PS2 online only. I think that proves you wrong, Mr. LaRusche.

MSN Messenger support?

[u-238]

It's already been done - at least somewhat.

Programs like XBConnect give you a friends list as well as chatrooms where likeminded people can meet and organize a game.

It takes advantage of the xbox LAN connectivity (all xbox's have ethernet adapters included by default, and can be connected via hub/switch for large multiplayer battles) and emulates the packet structure, fooling the xbox into thinking traffic that is sent through the internet is legitimate and is taking place on a LAN. Most games that support LAN play work with it already; there is no need for an xbox live subscription at all.

Take a look for yourself

Re:MSN Messenger support?

[Osty]

Programs like XBConnect give you a friends list as well as chatrooms where likeminded people can meet and organize a game.

Which is absolutely nothing like the MSN Messenger support. What the messenger integration gives you is alerts based on the various XBox Live events -- a friends is playing a game, someone sent you a friend request, someone sent you a game invite, etc. This is completely different from chatrooms where you can organize games.

Most games that support LAN play work with it already; there is no need for an xbox live subscription at all.

Assuming, of course, that you don't want voice chat (the LAN code of most (all?) games doesn't support the Live headset, because there's really no reason when everyone is in close proximity), a centralized friends list, a single tag across games, the ability to invite people into your game from across games, etc. I can understand how less than $5/mo can be expensive for some people, but comparing a tunneling app like XBConnect to a full-blown, supported online service is a little silly. Live is more than worth the subscription fee.

Not really a good idea...

[djohnsto]

This is done on purpose. Even when XNA is launched, I doubt you'll see many games that support online games working cross-platform. The main reason is the control interface. People on the PC using keyboard + mouse would completely own anyone playing on an Xbox in any type of FPS game (including Pandora Tomorrow). A secondary reason is cheats. Until it can be completely proven that a PC online game can't be hacked, I don't want any PC's connected to Xbox Live.

After MS releases Live for Windows, that's probably what you'll have: Xbox Live and Windows Live. There may be some crossover functionality (sharing friends lists, common accounts, etc.), but having the same game work online for both console and PC users wouldn't work out too well. The one thing that may change this sooner is if MS starts selling Xbox controllers for PC users. Games that work online between Xbox and PC would have to require using the Xbox controller on the PC.

Re:Not really a good idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not every game is a first person shooter, although it may seem that way on the xbox lately.

Re:Not really a good idea...

[Dr Tall]

Games that work online between Xbox and PC would have to require using the Xbox controller on the PC.

Wouldn't it be easy to make a keyboard/program that sends its input as a controller does? IE: make the game think you're using a controller while you get the benefit of mouse sensitivity, key bindings, etc.

Re:Not really a good idea...

[drinkypoo]

Microsoft has already announced that the second generation Xbox would have PC Compatible controllers. Guess you'll have to wait until then. I personally don't want any non-DRM-protected (hey! a good use for DRM!) games on Live! at all, period, but since home PCs are going to be fully DRM-equipped soon enough, that seems like a reasonable restriction.

XBL Still Needs an Ass Filter

[superultra]

An increase of 2.5 hours to 3 is only because the number of dimwits has increased and it takes that much longer to find decent people to play with. Most people swear too much more than is either funny, meaningful, or than they would in conversations in the "real world." Very few demonstrate any kind of patience with newbies even though everyone starts out that way. They drop out when they start losing and are poor losers.

I've found that Live is much more fun during the summer afternoons when the 8-5 30 year old assholes are at work and the only people playing are kids, who are usually much nicer, polite, and patient.

Live's most necessary feature is not so much Windows integration, it's some fair means of warning me when I'm getting into a game with someone who demonstrates poor sportsmanship. the primary question for MS-Xbox shouldn't be, "How can windows users know when people are online?" it should be, "How can people fairly rate the sportsmanship of other players?"

Re:XBL Still Needs an Ass Filter

[Xenothaulus]

HAHAHAHAHAHA Have you ever played an online game, anywhere? It's not just Xbox Live. There will be asshats no matter where you go. You just learn to filter them out, find better servers, go outside, whatever.

Re:XBL Still Needs an Ass Filter

[Anonymous Coward]

He *IS* right about something- there are alot of 30ish f*cktards with bad attitudes on XBL.

Does something happen to you when you get to that age that makes you not only no fun to play with, but obstinately trying to showcase that quaility at every opportunity?

Re:XBL Still Needs an Ass Filter

[Hettch]

That is the main complaint I have heard over and over concerning XBox Live. I'm sure it can't be much worse than your run of the mill counter-strike server, but understandbly it would become annoying for EVERY GAME to be like that.

America's Army has a good (imho) system that gives a player a rank, and then subtracts honor points for tk'ing or ta'ing, and grants honor points based on the kills or objectives completed. It works very well and there are honor-only servers for more serious players. It would not be that hard for XBL to host something like this with in-game support to raise / lower the ranking based on how they play. As for the retarded swearing, just sit back and realize how stupid these people sound, cause that's all you can do.

Live for Windows?

[satoshi1]

Live for Windows won't (if released) do very well, at least I don't think it will. There's a ton of online games that don't require one to pay to use the online functions. There are three (or four) main situations that may happen: 1) Live is released, developers don't make games that support Live because they don't want to lose money from people not buying the game (users won't buy the game if they have to pay to play online most likely). 2) Live is released, developers DO make games that support Live AND still allow the user to go online for free and all is well (sorta). 3) Live is released, devs make games that support Live, but they don't sell well because people don't want to play online (affirmation of option 1). Or 4) Live isn't released for Windows, all is well. I want the computer online gaming scene to stay as free as possible (not counting the cost to buy the game, of course), Live for Windows may (or may not) hurt that. I also don't want the next version of Windows (or the one after Longhorn) to have Live built in. Then again, XP may be my last Windows OS.

Re:Live for Windows?

[zonker]

i think the more likely situation will be that they still allow you to set up your own servers etc. but if say you want to play halo 2 on pc with folks on xbox, then you will have to go through the live network for that bridge (though folks are building free bridges all the time for this kind of stuff)...

Re:Live for Windows?

[satoshi1]

Yea, but as said before, the PC users would have a huge advantage with a keyboard and a mouse. Plus if you're using a higher resolution (on a PC) than an Xbox owner can achive, you can seem them quite well before they see you. Then again, the insanely high system requirements of Halo 2 may bring it down to a fairer level for the Xbox owners...

Re:Best online strategy is a free one

[fr0dicus]

I don't think you've quite understood the point. People pay for Gamespy, you might not but many do. Imagine if Gamespy was properly integrated into the software so that all your records and skill levels could be matched up so that you always get online quickly, into a reasonably matched game. It enhances the quality of your online experience.

The fee is more like $3 a month too. It just comes down to how much you think your time is worth. Personally I'll pay the tiny fee in order to save the time it takes to find a decent server. YMMV.