2 Million Xbox Live Users And Counting

Gamasutra is reporting that Xbox Live has reached the milestone of 2 Million subscribers, essentially a doubling of the service's membership in the last year. From the article: "Microsoft took the opportunity to re-iterate that Xbox Live is a universal service between both the original Xbox and the forthcoming Xbox 360, due to debut this November. Thus, gamers can move their Xbox Live memberships seamlessly from Xbox to Xbox 360, giving Microsoft an initial subscriber advantage if either Sony or Nintendo plan a more complete online service for their next-generation consoles. "

Comments

Legacy?

[Shadow Wrought]

If the 360 isn't fully compatible with the XBox, won't this lead to some disconnect in XBox Live down the road? How long will they support folks play Halo 2 on XBox when Halo 3 is out for the 360?

I'm guessing that part of the reason why the XBox Live user base has increased is beacuse the consoles have gone down in price. I wonder how many of those 2 mil users are planning on upgrading to a 360 right away?

Re:Legacy?

[xXBondsXx]

If anything, the seamless xbox live transition between xbox and the 360 will encourage customers to switch over. Also, looking at what other people are doing will probably pressure customers into switching over. When you pop up your friends list (i have xbox live) and see everyone is "playing halo 3 on xbox 360" and it takes 30 minutes to find a matchmaking game, you're definitely want to switch over to the 360 more. If you DON'T have xbox live, you can continue to live in your little past-technology bubble and continue to play the same game over and over again (think the people who still play the NES). I think the peer pressure of xbox live will be a factor in pushing people to the xbox 360.

Re:Legacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Halo 2 has already been confirmed as a working backwards compatible game. Check out the kid who leaked pictures of the 360, he plays Halo 2 on it (as there are no 360 games out to play on it...)

Regardless Of Your View Of Microsoft

[Real World Stuff]

This is a tremendous number of subscribers. Once the Live servers are in place the costs decrease pretty quick.

I think the Xbox strategy is like a cable company. Small fee for the box to connect, but they make it up in service and content

Re:Regardless Of Your View Of Microsoft

[fondue]

1. Considering the system has been running for over 2 and a half years, it's a pretty pathetic total.
2. It's not clear whether it includes trial subscriptions.
3. It represents less than one tenth of the Xbox user base, hardly the lynchpin of the system that MS hyped it to be.
4. More people worldwide play online games on PS2, even though you have to buy additional peripherals and there are only a scant number of online games available.

In the coming console generation, ALL the competing formats (including the PSP and DS) offer online gaming without subscription fees. Yet the Xbox 360 clings to this broken model.

It's time for MS to re-evaluate whether they want Xbox to offer a worthwhile, competitive platform for consumers and developers, or just keep blindly pursuing this 'content delivery' pipedream while Sony keep kicking their arses.

Re:Regardless Of Your View Of Microsoft

[alvinrod]

Personally I think that Microsoft still uses their current business model because it gives them control which is always something they've coveted. Do they adopt standarts that they haven't hard a part in creating? Usually not. If they do, in the case of RSS (which was posted on /. a while back) they usually piss in the broth themselves a little just to make the flavor to their liking a little more.

Microsoft expects to dictate to you, the user, how you will use their hardware, and they expect you to pay for it as well. They want to have control over how the content is distributed and how it is accessed by users. Other companies, like Sony, are a little more open and carefree. "Do it however the hell you want, we don't really care," is what they've been saying.

I don't know whether or not your claim that more people play online with the PS2 is accurate or not. Given that the PS2 has an install base four or more times greater than the Xbox and that a majority of PS2 games are free to play online, it wouldn't surprise me if this were true. But you also have the remember that Microsoft is making money off of these subsciptions whereas Sony isn't making anything from the people who play online (unless you want to count people who buy a PS2 for free online play).

Re:Regardless Of Your View Of Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on your definition of making money. If you consider the $2 billion that Microsoft plunked down to set up the Live network as a sunk cost they aren't getting back, sure they are making money. If you consider the possibility that Microsoft is using their subscription fees to pay for the Live network, I doubt they've worked their way out of that hole yet.

Re:Regardless Of Your View Of Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

10% of users taking advantage of a feature that they have to pay extra for is a huge number.

I too am confused about wether this contains trial subscriptions. However, my gut instinct says no considering that they gave away a free trial with Halo 2 and that moved more than 6 million copies. You would think these free subsciptions would inflate the number more if they were included

Re:Regardless Of Your View Of Microsoft

[Saige]

Yeah, more people play PS2 online. But in an environment where each company sets up their own servers, and each is set up differently, and you need accounts for each game server, and the whole thing is very fractured and ad-hoc.

Xbox Live gives a complete, integrated system. I can play one game, see who on my friends list is playing in other games, and send game invites to them. The Xbox 360 is going to add a HELL of a lot more to the experience, also.

Yes, there are plenty of games that offer free online. But think about it - $50 a YEAR? How much is that, really? Cable in most places costs more, and that's the price of one game. Besides, with the libraries the 360 is putting together, EVERY game will be Live-enabled at almost no cost to the developers. So even if the game has no online content, you'll still be connected and accessible to your friends, can pause to get messages or have voice chat - and there's all sorts of new stuff coming.

Compared to all the other online games I've played, I'm much more impressed with what Xbox Live offers.

Re:Regardless Of Your View Of Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

XBox live is like GameSpy in a lot of ways; it created an 'centeralized online community' where gamers could play (pretty much) every online game together. GameSpy (for the most part) never caught on with the average gamer because most games had decent methods to find a server; and individuals could set-up their own servers with their own rulesets.

I always thought that the console manufacturers could benefit greatly if they allowed online endabled games to have a windows or linux 'server disc' included in the game so that people could run their own servers. Certainly, not everyone would, but enough owners would to limit the need for as many centeralized servers.

Re:Regardless Of Your View Of Microsoft

[fondue]

" $50 a YEAR? How much is that, really? "

$50 more than on any other platform. Which instantly makes the system uncompetitive for MMO games, as MS have discovered.

The larger issue is that there is no alternative route to playing online games on Xbox/360. Many third parties already have servers and infrastructure in place, and baulk at being forced to kludge their games into Microsoft's system. None of the system-level convenience features (chat, gamertags, etc) justify a subscription fee.

Re:Regardless Of Your View Of Microsoft

[Saige]

I definitely have to disagree there.

I have one EA game - Burnout 3. It goes through Live to get onto the EA servers. And gawd, is that obnoxious. First of all, because their severs are meant only for online play, it means the rest of the game is completely Live-unaware. I can't see my friends list when I'm playing single player, and I can't get game invites. Besides, that, the setup they use for getting into games is more obnoxious and more amateur, and after playing other games on Live, I just have no interest fighting their crap to play online.

You may see it as Microsoft locking people into working with their infrastructure. I see it as Microsoft trying to provide a consistent experience to all Live subscribers. And I'd rather play a game that uses the Live system properly, instead of doing it all through their own servers.

Where are the numbers from?

[Qzukk]

Is it immoral Blizzard campers making money selling the Chinese subscribers they're farming? Let's talk about how all this camping and farming is affecting our economy. Clearly, duped subscribers are being used to inflate the importance of this third-rate console. What'll happen when the admins discover this and issue a rollback or worse, start just cancelling Microsoft and Blizzard accounts for participating in this hack?

great, but...

[almeitus]

that number would be significantly reduced if they banned all the cheaters and a-holes you seem to run into on a regular basis....

No major MMORPG!

[EastCoastLA]

This has to be the biggest problem. They have great infastructure, but no MMORPG. No Warcraft, no FF.., no Evercrack. This is a major slap in the face. Don't get me wrong Halo 2 ROCKS, but come on Microsoft. Wake up!

Oh, by the way, Virtual ON on Xbox live would also Rock! enough Said!

Re:No major MMORPG!

[OK PC]

I doubt the majority of XBox gamers really care about MMORPGs in their current state. The monthly subscription on top of the Live subscription plus the actual cost of the game makes them largely inaccessable to casual gamers.

Re:No major MMORPG!

[AzraelKans]

Well.. I agree I actually posted more or less the same in another thread. but MMORPGs are coming to live until the x360 ships starting with FF11 and the Marvel based one.

Lets face it the xbox as we know it is basically dead, one more year of life and thats it. No one is crazy enough to release a mmorpg for it considering that. sad but true.

Re:No major MMORPG!

[Pxtl]

I disagree. MMORPGs create a server load that dwarfs that of XBox Live. Plus, they involve much higher maintenance in terms of new content and administration. Very few MMOs can get by without a subscription model, and Live kinda precludes a subscription, since you're already paying for Live.

If anything, MS could make one big, beefy MMO for Live and just accept that the admin costs of it will make it a net loss, but use it as a vehicle to get people onto Live.

As much as I adore VOOT, V-On wouldn't be so hot, just 'cause it's only really designed for 2 players. Maybe you could do team games, but I doubt it. Online games are much better with more people - I'd want Armored Core (but the stats would have to be tweaked - you have too much health in AC to be good for Deathmatch).

Re:No major MMORPG!

[Khuffie]

To tell you the truth, I think most people who play on Live dont really think of the subscription cost as a big deal. Sure you're paying for it, but playing on Live (with a well designed game, like Halo 2), the experience far beats anything you have on a PC. I wish more PC games take a hint from Halo 2's matchmaking service.

Also, nothing stops MS from releasing an MMORPG that has a subscription rate, ala a reduced one. For example, instead of the regular $10-$15, you can charge $5 a month for people with a full live membership, and $10 for people with a basic free one (that comes with all xbox 360 accounts).

Re:No major MMORPG!

[Saige]

My opinion is that the server browser became obsolete with the release of Halo 2. The matchmaking and party system done there is just so advanced, compared to the server browser, which was state-of-the-art when Quake came out - that long ago.

I could see server browsers being added deeper in menus, something accessible for those people who really care for playing only on a specific server. However, there needs to be a means for someone to get into games a lot more quickly and without having to pick through a list of servers where half are already full, others are configured in a way you don't watn to play, others just suck. Halo 2's rankings and matchmaking enable me to play against people online in less than a minute, and make it likely that the people I'm playing against are comparible in skill level.

There isn't one PC game out there that I'm aware of that's anything NEAR as user-friendly and quick to get you into a game.

Halo 2's matchmaking should be treated as the STARTING POINT for all online games from now on. Server brosers are now just as modern tech as having to select the IRQ your soundcard is on, and creating boot disks to make certain you have enough Extended Memory available.

Re:No major MMORPG!

[DeadScreenSky]

Oh, by the way, Virtual ON on Xbox live would also Rock! enough Said!
Oh, it so would. But only old Virtual On, like the Oratorio Tangram era. Hitmaker/AM3 hasn't made a good Virtual On game since then.

A bit overplayed?

[alvinrod]

According to sales figures the Xbox has sold roughly 20 million units world wide. If there are 2 million subscribers online with Xbox live simple arithmatic yields 10% of Xbox customers use their consoles online.

While this doesn't seem like a lot, the figure is/has been growing slowly. I believe a lot of it has to do with the unvailability of high speed internet access for a good deal of customers as well as people being unwilling to pay the subscription ($50 I think) costs.

However, 10% really isn't all that big of a number. I'm guessing that it's slightly under since there have more than likely been more than 20 million Xbox consoles sold. When Microsoft can get that number up to 30%, maybe they might have a cause for celebration.

This just proves that Nintendo and Sony were both right for shying away from the online market during the current generation. 10% doesn't seem enough to justify the associated costs and difficulties with setting up an infrastructure that will work. Microsoft does have the advantage in that they already have one set up and it will be easy for them to apply it to their next generation console. Nintendo and Sony will almost be starting from scratch.

I don't know how much more successful the online gaming business will be for the different companies. Each have or seem to be taking different approaches. Nintendo is offering downloadable games for their next generation consoles and is working on getting the DS online. Microsoft has a subsciption model where they handle all online gaming. Sony has generally let each company decide for themselves how to run the online portion of their games.

I'm willing to bet that online gaming will continue to grow and probably peak at around 60% in some cases where it's free and easy to use and as low as 20% in instances where fees are associated. Given that Microsoft is offering both a silver (free) and gold (fee) subsciption to Xbox Live, it will become more difficult to project actual figures. My guess is that they will lump both together to claim a higher percentage of consumers are using Xbox Live so they can use the figure to sell more consoles. Nintendo will have trouble tracking theirs since Revolutions can probably communicate wirelessly without going through any gaming servers. Sony will just keep talking about how many Tflops the PS3 can push.

Online gaming can be great, but let's keep plenty of good non-online games on the market as well.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This just proves that Nintendo and Sony were both right for shying away from the online market during the current generation. 10% doesn't seem enough to justify the associated costs and difficulties with setting up an infrastructure that will work. Microsoft does have the advantage in that they already have one set up and it will be easy for them to apply it to their next generation console. Nintendo and Sony will almost be starting from scratch."

Actually, Microsoft (to a certain extent) didn't have to start from scratch for THIS generation either. From what I've heard, the entire XBox live server and network infrastructure was built on top of a MISERABLE failure of a project, I can't remember what it was called. They deployed servers all over the country and they didn't get used at all. So, in a way, Microsoft had already blown all their money on the infrastructure. All they had to do was modify the software to work on the XBox, and start to build the base of some REALLY cool features like buddy lists and so on.

So in a lot of ways I think it will be that much harder for Nintendo and Sony to break in; they don't have a distributed computing network just lying about. Although I think Nintendo is working on that, I believe the plan is to build the Revolution's network from the foundation of the DS network that is currently being deployed.

I have yet to hear any rumblings or even murmurs of any kind of Sony network actually being set up.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the Revolution (and Nintendo DS) are both having GameSpy produce their service for them; and in spite of GameSpy being pretty crappy, they already have the infastructure and can (probably) add most of the features available in XBox live in a very short period of time. As long as the service doesn't have too many comercials I suspect that a free service, even with less features, will probably be far more popular than a pay-to-play service.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[badasscat]

However, 10% really isn't all that big of a number.

I agree. I'd also like to know how many of that 10% are active Live users. I remember another number MS trumpeted when Halo 2 was fairly new that, if you also did the arithmetic, suggested only 9% of Halo 2 owners had ever taken the game online, and only a tiny percentage were online at any given time.

Myself, I let my XBL subscription lapse last year. I just got annoyed with all the teen and pre-teen idiots floating around, and found that the level of competition was generally actually significantly below what the computer AI could give me. For example, there was one course in PGR2 where all my human opponents would crash into the wall on the same turn every single time around the track. When everybody was running in a pack and this happened simultaneously, it was pretty funny. But it was not very good competition, or very much fun if you really wanted to race. All XBL has proven to me is how dumb humans are, both in their gameplay and in their witty banter during gameplay.

I'm willing to bet that online gaming will continue to grow and probably peak at around 60% in some cases where it's free and easy to use and as low as 20% in instances where fees are associated.

That's probably about right, though the 60% number for free access seems a little high. Other than online-only games, I can't think of even many PC games that get that kind of online participation, or that ever would.

I think the reality that a lot of companies don't want to acknowledge at the moment is that there are a lot of people - in fact probably a large majority of people - who want to play games but just do not want to play online. They know about online games (hell, if you own an Xbox, you know about Xbox Live), they have the money to pay for it if need be, but they just do not want to play that way. It's just not as great of an experience as it was promised to be. This isn't true of every developer or publisher, but it is true of those who have really leveraged their entire future on online business models, and who are pushing the marketing dollars heavily in that direction.

There's a lot of hype in online gaming right now, but the reality just doesn't match that hype, either in the user experience or in the number of players. I don't think online is going away, and I also think it will grow slowly over time, but it will reach a saturation point that I think is much lower than companies like Microsoft think it is. Then we'll have a period of adjustment, and eventually an equillibrium where both online and offline games co-exist, but with traditional offline gaming regaining some of the cachet that it's lost.

The way MS and others hype online gaming, you'd think everybody played that way... but by MS's own numbers, at least 90% of their own customers do not subscribe to their online service, and in fact the growth of the console installed base itself is outstripping the growth of the base of XBL users. (In other words, the percentage of wired Xboxes is actually dropping over time, even as the total number of XBL users slowly rises.)

Re:A bit overplayed?

[alvinrod]

I think that Nintendo's wireless strategy and a game like Animal Crossing for the Revolution could push up to 60% of users "online"

Of course this leaves a little bit up to interpretation. 60% of users won't be connecting to some type of server that Nintendo sets up, but 60% of users may communicate wirelessly with another Revolution console within range of whatever WiFi network is set up.

This doesn't constitute what many people would normally consider going online with a game, but it still accomplishes some type of online functionality. I know a lot of people who play Halo 2 on a LAN at college but don't subscribe to Xbox Live. People are still playing the game online, but they're just not doing it in any way that Microsoft can track. Programs like XBConnect also lead to this.

I'd guess that there are a lot of people who have played Halo 2 "online" without subcribing to Xbox Live. (On a personal note if you bought the game for single player mode you're not very smart) It might not even be unreasonable to say that 60 of the people who purchased Halo 2 have played "online" in some capacity.

I might be wrong, but probably not by much. Just chalk it up to people not wanting to pay what they feel is an unreasonable price for something when a free alternative exists.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[Saige]

I think the bigger advantage for Microsoft in this case is the fact they have a generation's worth of head start. They already HAVE an online system, they've already discovered some unanticipated issues to resolve in the next version of Live, and they've got a whole team of people working on Live who also play regularly (I know, cause I've played with them a lot), so have firsthand experience with what can be improved and what works.

Sony and Nintendo don't have that experience, so they'll need to make some of the same mistakes with their first gen online service.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[brkello]

Nicely worded, but you don't make any sense.

Nintendo and Sony were right: Well, if MS was wrong, then they still wouldn't be doing the online thing. Clearly, Live showed that there is a market for online consoles and now they are following suit. Listen, 10% is a pretty significant number for something that has never been online before. But your actual percentage can be skewed by people who have more than one x-box, or one that broke and got a new one, or people just bought them to hack linux on them (ok, that number won't be too big). But in any case, percentage is meaningless. The overall percentage of Nintendo's marketshare is less than Sony and MS (note overall). But Nintendo still rakes in more profit. If there were 12 users of Xbox live, the thing is a success as long as MS is turning a profit.

Nintendo will have trouble tracking theirs since Revolutions can probably communicate wirelessly without going through any gaming servers.

Way to show you have no idea what you are talking about. Because Nintendo is wireless, it can now magically bypass servers....ooooh[/sarcasm]. Just because there isn't a cord connected to the router doesn't mean you don't have servers you have to connect to to download/play games.

Single player games will not go away. If that were the case, you wouldn't see them on PCs anymore which have a huge number online.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[r00td43m0n]

Xbox Live! was built on a newer version of Sega Channel that was meant for the Dreamcast. Sega Channel may not have been mainstream but as a former customer it delivered a great experience.

It had seperate categories for games (New Release, Puzzle, RPG, Action, etc). Not only would it allow you to play games but you could save your progress and it would be kept on their server for a month until the games changed. It also had trailers and playable demos for new games (I remember a demo for Vectorman offered on Sega Channel before anywhere else) and you could even be apart of tournaments (my friend and I were in one for Primal Rage).

It might have been a financial failure but it delivered a great service in a way that was un-thinkable for its time.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Clearly, Live showed that there is a market for online consoles and now they are following suit."

Bzzzt!!!

Logic. You fail it.

Next.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[SetupWeasel]

Listen, 10% is a pretty significant number for something that has never been online before.

Dreamcast.

The overall percentage of Nintendo's marketshare is less than Sony and MS (note overall).

Nintendo is barely behind MS in the worldwide home console numbers. Include all current generation platforms, and Nintendo is #1.

If there were 12 users of Xbox live, the thing is a success as long as MS is turning a profit.

XBOX? Profit? That's funny!

Re:A bit overplayed?

[MMaestro]

Sony has generally let each company decide for themselves how to run the online portion of their games.

Actually, thats because they knew it was going to fail. Mostly because it was their fault.

When the PS2 launched the network adaptor, the hardware was already horribly outdated, there was no centralized servers (bad lag), and no fancy addition that PC users didn't have/already had (not including the mouse+keyboard argument). Fast forward to the hard drive. HORRIBLY outdated hardware, games are not allowed to put any major data on the hard drive (with the special exception of FFXI) and at this point the Xbox is making the PS2 look like a 7 year old rig for PC gaming. Fast forward again and we have the Slim-PS2 announced/launched. Simply put, Sony kicked the online market in the groin. No network adaptors, no hard drive, no more online gaming.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it a rest fanboy.

Sony has more people playing just one of their online games than all of the teenage dorks playing grabass on MS's online system combined.

MS's online system is nothing more than a place for older men to be introduced to little boys...

Re:A bit overplayed?

[Vr6dub]

Actually, quite a few games on XBOX live don't use a "centralized" server. Take Halo 2 for example, it picks a random host before each game. As far as I know the only dedicated server you're going to get is an XBOX that someone as hooked up to live acting as a server, but you can't play on that same XBOX. With that being said I think MS's online model is WAY better than what Sony offered simply becuase you can view friends across ALL XBOX live games. And to all those people who claim online is not the new thing, I've had a lot friends starting to play video games again once they experienced an online game. You can't tell me that an FPS or racing game is better playing some silly AI. Granted some humans (kids) will make you think otherwise, if you create a good friends list with good players than you rarely have an issue of playing with inexperienced players. I for one will never buy another single player game, rent maybe.

Re:A bit overplayed?

[radish]

This just proves that Nintendo and Sony were both right for shying away from the online market during the current generation. 10% doesn't seem enough to justify the associated costs and difficulties with setting up an infrastructure that will work

Assuming that all those 2 million players subscribe for just one year at $50, that's $100 million. The "assocaiated costs" would be, maybe, $5 million. You're telling me that Sony and Nintendo were right for not even trying to get a part of that $95 million pot?

Re:A bit overplayed?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Assuming that all those 2 million players..."

Right...

MS really has two million paying online customers that are paying non-stop for entire years...

Inflated Number

[MBraynard]

The number should not be confused with "Concurrent paying subscribers as of right now."

MS has been giving away free 2 month trials away with games like candy. I originally had a subscription, canceled it a while back, and now have a free two month trial that I will replace with another free two month trial.

Re:Inflated Number

[JFitzsimmons]

Liar! You can't do that, unless you have several addresses and credit cards... Either that or you didn't bother reading the terms and you're in for a big surprise.

Re:Inflated Number

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the parent be redundant? No one else suggested the numbers were inflated.

Re:Inflated Number

[MBraynard]

Hello Sphincter Breath,

It's a pretty simple process and I've done it reapeatedly. Get a 2 month free trail. Cancel it before the 2 months are up. Get another - use the same credit card and address - just gotta use a new Live ID.

Pretty simple - even for a retard from Canada such as yourself.

Re:Inflated Number

[Anonymous Coward]

Play nice, children!

Re:Inflated Number

[Trillan]

Xboxes have been sold as an Xbox/Xbox Live combo for a while, too. I'd like to hear how those are counted.

Re:Inflated Number

[MBraynard]

I don't think so - the time for maturity is over.

Well...

[Valarauk]

I have a yearlong subscription to xbox live which I haven't used in almost three months. Why don't I feel bad about this? It came free with my copy of Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow (or whatever the name was, haven't played that in three months either :p).

Yeah, it's easy to say that VO would own.

[Anonymous Coward]

But say it to my face. Sure, I can play everyone, even the ones wearing dresses, or the ones that should. But my Apharmed B would make you a disillusioned quiter.

The only one who could beat me was a dude-looking-lady at the Seattle Gameworks. I never got my rematch.

Yawn. More Bogus MS PR Numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

MS's PR folk don't seem to even bother trying to keep their BS remotely believable.

The 125 million poly/sec lie about the xbox
The lie about "Toy Story" like graphics on the xbox
The endless number of times they have tried to pass off 'ship' numbers as 'sell through'
The endless number of times they have tried to pass of their North America sales as indicative of their world wide marketshare

With the disasterously weak Dreamcast 360 they really seem to be trying to top their past lies with an reckless abandon that only PR people working on doomed project have the balls to try to pass off as legit.