Slashdot Mirror
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!")
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
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.
Dan
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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).
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.