Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Big Bet on Online Gaming
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "The Wall Street Journal Online analyzes the prospects of the Xbox's online-gaming component. Analysts say Microsoft has spent hundreds of millions on Xbox Live, with little guarantees of returns. 'It is not clear that companies like Microsoft and Sony will be able to lure large numbers of players -- each has attracted a small fraction of users to online play with their previous consoles,' WSJ Online writes. 'The companies also must be careful about new business models for distributing games -- such as games-on-demand -- so as not to alienate game publishers, who still rely heavily on in-store sales. And games designed for multiple players have a mixed record of attracting customers.' Says analyst Michael Pachter, 'At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction ... We play games to escape.' Microsoft's strategy is 'absolutely flawed,' he added.""
I don't play games to escape anything. It's like saying "You build model boats to escape from society". That's utter bullshit. Hell, I'll go to a local computer gaming place to kick the crap out of all the people there in Counter Strike as a social interaction.
Next time someone wants to tell me why I'm playing video games, tell it to my face.
The prisoner of hope is sustained and encouraged by his hope, even as he is confined by it.
Online gaming is about gaming getting back to it's roots - "me vs. you". Playing against a console is essentially a souped-up version of solitaire. Fun, distracting, but nothing like the rush of defeating an opponent with the same chance of victory as defeat.
Yea, people play games to avoid other people and "escape." That's why so many people enjoy playing games with their friends, online or sitting at home with their console. The article's conclusion is "absolutely flawed."
What a load. I guess he never played Battlefield 2. The social interaction against real humans vs bots is crystal clear to me. This seems just another MS slam article where something obviously not true becomes true becuase it is associated with MS. Yet another proud achievement of the Slashdot editorial stance.
3.5 million customers x $15/month is nothing to sneeze at.
Live is the most important aspect for the xbox 360 ... look at battle.net for example, it's practically destroyed most korean youth. If it's as easy as fun as that service then MS will kill everything even is ps3 looks twice as nice.
The company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on its online service, Xbox Live, analysts say.
I'm not sure how they spent such a large budget, considering what they have built. Skype and Flickr for example were each built for a small fraction of that.
why have a good story and specific game objectives when you can just ditch all your AI and let the users figure it out for themselves
what is the obsession with "online gaming" ? it seems to be a trend for bad games, as if sticking it online will make it any better
anyway the less my equipment talks to microsoft and their spyware data collection servers the better
I would have to completely disagree with the idea that people play games to escape. Gaming, especially for younger people, is a hugely social thing. Walk around a college campus in the dorms and you'd be hard pressed to not find a multiplayer Halo game going on. While some may use games to escape, I think the trend is towards social gaming.
Though I don't see XBox being the centre of that phenomena, nor will it lead the pack. If anything, the future will only encourage users into purchasing a PC for use in gaming -- not an XBox. Granted, the XBox is an impressive piece of hardware, but when you start playing World of Warcraft and realize why the keyboard and mouse are great -- then you will realize the flawed idea of a controller and a virtual world that will bring you only so far, but not all the way with regard to the online gaming experience.
And in a sense, the comment made about escaping reality is true. However, my escape from reality includes kicking the shit out of people online which in real life, I would only hope to do. So unfortunately his theory of playing games to escape holds little water. If I want to escape and be alone... I'll masturbate.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
And how many people play World of Warcraft, again?
Right. No money to be made in the online gaming market.
Shinma
The only game I play that isn't about playing with other people is Civilization IV. Otherwise, every game I enjoy has some element of either a) competition, b) cooperation, or c) both. Counter-strike, WoW, etc, would be the most prominent examples for me.
If people don't play games for social interaction, why is the chat screen constantly rolling on most multiplayer games? Why do people join clans/guilds/etc? How do you organize a 40 person raid on an imaginary dungeon? I can't get 40 people together in real life, but I can in a game. And that's not about social interaction?
---- keep it simple.
I agree. After I kicked my Everquest habit a few years back, playing single-player games seems to be lacking something. Even playing solo, an online game adds an extra dimension with the random encounters with other players and the background chatter. A single-player game now seems to me to be very quiet and isolated. Sometimes that's a good thing, but being online with other players can add more depth to a player's experience.
I've said before, I'm concerned about Microsoft's huge push into "online" with the new 360 console. Its way too soon, and they seem to be trying to tie everything about Xbox into the "Live" service. If it isn't already obvious, this is Microsoft's attempted way of extracting monthly revenue out of their customers. You can see it in the way they are now re-attempting to push web services like Office Live and .NET.
Microsoft wants that monthly charge, from everybody. But they are pushing way too hard with this generation of console, especially since they never garnered more than 10% or so of original Xbox players. We should rename Live to MS Wallet, or more specifically MS Hand In Your Wallet.
{ - Generic Guy - }
I've got three teenage kids who will sit for hours, if I let them, on XBox Live and chat with friends while playing Halo 2, America's Army and other "team" games.
When not on live, they also browse MySpace and usually are chatting with IM clients. Yes, they get outside plenty. When you live up north (northern hemisphere) and it gets dark less than an hour after school gets out, going outside to play isn't an attractive option.
Instead of having to have multiple phone lines, or even cell phones for the kids, they all chat with friends -- local and long distance -- via XBox Live & IM.
Microsoft is spot on and when looking at new consoles next year, the question will be does the PS3 and Revolution have a good online community and voice chat? If not, XBox 360 it will be.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I never understood the popularity of online gaming. MMORPG, which cost $XX/game + $YY/month, isn't worth it to me. The only times I've played online was against my friend in an RTS. Halo was a lot of fun playing multiplayer, but we all played on the same console. It was a lot more fun sitting next to your friend as you blast him and talk smack instead of sitting alone in your room playing against strangers.
I guess that's just me. I like to escape from the Real World (TM) when I play a game and get immersed in it. I don't have much time to play games anyways, so my "skillz" aren't that great and I don't care to spend hours playing against high school kids to improve them.
"Says analyst Michael Pachter, 'At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction ... We play games to escape.' Microsoft's strategy is 'absolutely flawed,' he added.""
Wow, this "analyst" just shredded his credibility with that whopper. He is obviously extrapolating HIS gaming experience to EVERYONE. Blanket generalizations are almost always wrong. He should probably buy a copy of WOW, Battlefield etc, install a copy of vent and come to grips with the fact that millions of people are playing games precisely FOR THE SOCIAL INTERACTION.
Its a simple fact of life that AI's in games are still generally weak and playing against a computer quickly gets old. There is way more satisfaction of beating other human beings than in beating a mediocre AI.
The sweet deal about games like WOW are they are a constant revenue stream of people paying monthly subscriptions versus the boom or bust cycle of sell a box in the store, get a bunch of revenue and then go dry for years while you develop the next one. This is the dream revenue model for companies like Microsoft because it pleases Wall Street to have consistent revenue streams... if your game doesn't suck.
@de_machina
I think I see what he is saying by the last sentence in the summary. I, too, have noticed a focus on "social interaction" stuff lately. Chat, messages, etc. While these are valuable for strategerizing and chatting with friends in the game, I don't go online to dink around and "chat" with strangers. Not to say that I don't talk to strangers -- I do. But I don't look to make new friends or anything and it seems like a lot of these services are aimed at linking people in a social way. As in -- meeting new people and making new friends.
The difference is subtle but there. When I game, the chatting, etc is pertinent only for the game. If I want to meet new ppl or find a date, I go elsewhere. Taking my online gaming and trying to make it a "social interaction" *IS* the wrong approach.
And I think that is what he is talking about here.
This is the exact system that Microsoft wants to use for it's other applications. They want you to buy Word monthly, or yearly. They want you to pay for a service rather than "own" the program. Briliantly they are testing the idea in their lackluster gaming system before moving it over to their applications.
Next you're going to see an application "Office 360" that replaces your computer desktop and only allows you to do your desktop job... one ap at a time.
Brilliant.
This article really sheds light on a fundamental dichotomy : hardcore gamers versus the rest of the public. As I'm sure most slashdotters will post here in a second, online gaming CAN be and generally is far more engrossing and much, much harder than any single player game. Online is also much more technically complex which is the real reason why it's only recently come to consoles : you need a voice chat or keyboard, and to get the kind of smooth gameplay console players are used to you need broadband. So to hardcore gamers like us, there's not even a second's thought : the vast majority of the games in the xbox lineup will be more fun online, if the game is written well enough technically to support it. (for instance, games like Gears of War will probably be a lot of fun Co-op if that game supports it smoothly)
Further, WoW/other MMORPGs and the Battlefield series I think offer some of THE most intense gaming available in any form, anywhere. No console solo or online game or PC game can really touch the intensity and complexity of these games. (and the difficulty level, especially in Battlefield. Even n00bs shoot me down and gun me down every 5-10 kills I get, which is a far harder game that most solo ones)
But the regular public, the joes on the streets who buy game consoles by the millions and make up the "average", fat, T.V. watching, braindead gameplay game playing, Geography ignorant, stereotyping and racially biased, Americans? Who the hell knows what sort of trash they'll really buy. Unfortunatly for us, they make up the real market that Microsoft needs to make money from, and it seems that Microsoft, composed mostly of top C.S. graduates, thinks more like we do.
Yeah, plus it's just not satisfying saying "HAHA PWNED!!!!11``oneone" to your Xbox.
I agree. Part of the attraction of gaming is the social aspect. It can be an escape - from the real world, but the fact that your playing against someone else makes it more real in your gaming world, thus more intense. I'll rarely shell out $50 for a game anymore if it isn't online compatible. Although I like a good RPG when I've got time to devote to it, there's nothing like sitting down for an hour for a few rounds of Halo 2 or PGR with other human opponents on Live. I picked the Xbox over the PS2 for 2 reasons; the Halo franchise and the Live integration. I disagree that MS has missed the mark. The online integration may not hit big in this generation of consoles, but it's coming. Think of Live integration in Xbox 1 as a kind of beta test. It worked. The updates on 360's Live bring more promise to the business model, including as the author pokes at, on-demand gaming. A recent interview with J. Allard pointed out things to come just like this. I think MS's business model is right on track and I hope Sony rolls out something similar to Live for the PS3 in order to create a more competitive market for us consumers to choose from.
"'At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction ..."
I personally play ONLY games against/with real people like Counter-Strike multiplayer,
single-player is not for me, playing against "bots" is a dead-end play, I never play single player games.
Online gamming is the next logical step. Microsoft is on the right track.
That's exactly what I was going to say. The WSJ is completely wrong to think that just because online games on consoles haven't been big in the past, they won't be big in the future.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
You have two very different types of gamer demographics: MMO players and console gamers. MMO players tend to dedicate massive amounts of time to their game (tend to... there are a few exceptions). Console gamers... while some do play a lot many are casual or play in bursts. Consoles let you do that. You can save your game, turn off the console and walk away. Also bear in mind until just recently consoles did not allow for networked play, much less internet play.
I think microsoft will be successful but they do realize they are hitting up a different demographic then the typical PC gamer.
Very true. I'd be an instant convert to online gaming if:
A) There were no monthly costs, just the purchase fee
B) You could still play the game in single-player mode (with the same character) if the company pulls the plug.
In the old days we would compete in sports, in activities outside involving endurance and training. Microsoft realizes just because people don't get out as much, they still have the desire to compete. They are providing an arena to bring people together to challenge each other and see who is better. Yes it is a social situation, but do you really ever know somebody named PIMPN8EZ? The more exciting you make it, the more games they sell. We are all addicted to anything that makes the heart go faster. How the games are distributed is not as important as that they continue to come out with as many titles as possible that are well made and exciting.
I don't know about you, but I don't consider a "fun gaming experience" to play against a lot of spoiled 10 year olds who want to do nothing but cheat. Every time I've tried to play *any* game online, I've been sorely disappointed. I'm perfectly happy to play against the computer, where I have at least a *chance* of winning, and I don't have to deal with lots of spoiled little ADD shits.
I don't respond to AC's.
Few things here - first off, men generally don't game with the intent of social interaction - they do however tend to play online because human opponents offer a different challenge to bots and scripted encounters.
Second, the terrifying success of WoW, Everquest, CoH, etc. would suggest that games with some basis in social interaction are actually mind bogglingly popular.
Also, as a vapid generalisation, you tend to see women playing games with some degree of focus on social interaction. (I was going to use the Sims as an example here, but a moment's thought reminded me that the Sims is actually just an extension of the doll principle, having nothing whatsoever to do with social interaction.)
fortune -o
I play Everquest... at $100 a year (bulk subscription rate) it is cheaper than buying 3 new console games a year (they go for what, like, $50 a pop new?), not to mention the console. I work 40 hours a week and am trucking through grad school but I try and play a few hours a week, its a good way to get rid of stress, and a lot of fun. A lot of people whine about the monthly subscription rate but again, I'm pretty sure if you are buying relatively new console games, I am paying less for my gaming experiance than you are...
-everphilski-
The sole purpose of a game is competition... whether it's from the computer or other player. This article belongs to a crappy site like theregister.
The sort of interaction that happens in MMORPGs is the future of entertainment IMHO. MS have plenty of cash and taking a punt on this sounds pretty smart
This forum has a fairly skewed opinion since we are all mostly tech geeks. We like to play multiplayer games. Unfortunately the "VAST" majority of gamers do not. only about 10% of Xbox owners ever redeem their free live subscription. The other 90% either can't or don't care for playing online. the pattern is similiar for the number of warcraft III players online ect... People just don't want to play other people that often.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
or perhaps stand up your own gaming server, and ban cheats! It's already been done.
Second, the terrifying success of WoW, Everquest, CoH, etc. would suggest that games with some basis in social interaction are actually mind bogglingly popular.
Not Necessarily. Especially when you take into consideration the PvP focus of WoW (and EQ, if you are playing on the PVP servers). Havent played CoH so I can't comment on it. I'm a highly antisocial gamer, I play all my MMO's prettymuch solo save for any real-life friends that I know are playing. MMO's are about dominance especially now with WoW and their PvP rank system. Get powerful, get your skill set, and dominate. Most of the "social interactions" I have result in someone respawning at their bind point...
-everphilski-
"'At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction ... We play games to escape.'"
at last, a validation of my dislike for online gaming. i'm inherently antisocial, and absolutely game to escape.
From the article "At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction ... We play games to escape." Microsoft's strategy is "absolutely flawed," he said
Tell that to Parker Brothers or any kid whos ever played a sandlot pickup ball game.
Ok so I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant to say video games. It still does not hold water. Games are at their most fundamental level. A conflict between agents making decisions and taking actions to defeat one another. True many will choose an artificial agent to play against. But for many only when there are no other options available. One could argue and I will that games at their roots are social. They are a way to explore conflict in a safe way. Without the risks associated with real world conflict.
Many people have found Guild Wars to be the answer to your A ... As for B...Probably not likely (but a neat idea).
I feel that XBox Live is for very young children and just-made-it-to-teenager's. Every time they use the talk function they sound prepubescent or 5 years old. My roommate plays a lot of Halo 2 on Live, but he's nowhere near as good as those 5 year olds. I think it's awesome that preteens have a safe place to go to kill eachother for a modest monthly fee. WTG MS!
Why would you trust a testimonial when choosing hosting?
Michael Pachter is absolutely flawed. I don't even buy single player games anymore. I've done nothing but multiplayer gaming since 1997. (QW: Team Fortress)
Sure console players are a little behind the curve, but they always are. Now that Xbox live has given them a taste of the good life, single-player console games will start to rapidly lose their draw.
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
If you are into RPGs Guild Wars is a game that you might like. It costs $50 but there are no monthly fees (atleast yet, hopefully never). I don't think there is a single player version, but you can play with friends, PvP, or even group up with NPCs to complete your quests. It has some of the similarities of games such as EverQuest or WoW, while not having some of the annoyances. Of course Guild Wars has its own drawbacks, but what game doesn't?
I just don't have the time to spend hours every day attaining levels and learning complex controls and commands.
Didn't you used to do that?
What has changed with your priorities that now you "don't have time"?
Yeah, if you focus on online play you'll only end up with an itty-bitty niche market. An online game might have to struggle with a measely 5 million players. Truly online gaming is doomed.
One can make many reasonable arguments against Microsofts investment. I do agree that single player games will continue to be a major force. But online play can create new an interesting ideas. While I don't like playing online with random people because there are too many asshats, I'm looking forward to more cooperative games.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Online gamming is almost infinately more fun and intense than fighting against those ever tiresome bots. There is never such a great satisfaction as capping the shit out ten guys with a shotgun. Counter-strike, Day of Defeat, Battlefield, WoW.. They all have interaction. You cannot go online with theese games and not have at least some basic form of interaction. Granted it may not be a large driving force on WHY we play, but it is certainly an important part. Everyone knows that without team communication your squad is gunna die. Sometimes i'll talk to folks i've been playing with for years, or clan/guild mates.. but Social interaction is not WHY I play. It does seem to be a growing trend for kids/teens to use IM/VoiceChat to hang out and shoot the shit, bur for most of us it's the thrill of strugle between players.
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
All skill level concerns aside, there's just something more fun about knowing you beat another human being. Often the humans I play online are inferior in skill to the bots in the game but I still have more fun at it.
Also, for many people social interaction is not an insignificant part of online gaming. I left a guild in World of Warcraft because it became in essence a big support group. Not what I was after, but there were plenty of people who liked it that way.
All I have to say to this idiot author is "Blizzard, bitch." Five million people paying them about $15 per month, for the privledge of playing just one game online (on top of their ISP fees). Know what? I'm going to say that there's something to the whole online gameing thing, to the tune of a billion dollars a year in Blizzard's case.
>>> We play games to escape.' Microsoft's strategy is 'absolutely flawed,' he added.""
This is absolutely, positively, 100% off the mark. Seems insightful, but ultimately isn't.
Microsoft can drop hundreds of millions of dollars into the live component, and they don't care for the XBox 360 if there is a return on investment. For Microsoft, the return on investment comes about when there is no PS4. They are buying future market share, plain and simple.
How hugely successful was Animal Crossing? How about the Tekken and Soul Caliber fighters? What about the craploads of racing, sports, etc., multi-player games that are not online games?
Gaming is very much social. I, for one, can barely stand playing single player games. And I don't play online at all unless it's free. I WILL NOT pay $$/month just to play video games. There are lots of multi-player experiences to be had without subscriptions to online games.
And a lot of people play them.
This was nearly the same thought that occurred to me when I read the OP. There is very little that I find alluring, at all, about online gaming primarily *because* of the people who play online games. I realize that I am generalizing, to some extent, but to say that online gaming is a level playing field where all participants have the same chance of victory is just wishful thinking. Cheats, cheats, cheats and sore losers who drop connection before end-game.
Haven't people been yelling at Microsoft to become more service oriented? Maybe everybody will be happy when Microsoft decides to do and sell everything for free. Everyone except the stockholders. Will the Microsoft haters of /. please decide what they, reasonably, expect from Microsoft, because I am really getting tired of the automatic bashing.
Why is it that when I read this article, I think of Microsoft trying to go up against the freak parade that is GoldenPalace.com, or any of the multitude of sports books or online poker sites scattered all over the internet?
Why do mainstream publications keep going to Michael Pachter for information. I don't think the guy has ever been right in his industry predictions. He is one of the many completely clueless analysts that just don't understand the industry and the people that make and play games.
Offline gaming is to online gaming as CDROM is to Web. How many of us are still using that dusty old Encarta install to look up info on the Soviet Union? I don't know anyone still using CDROMs for information. Everyone goes online to the web to do research.
I don't know how long it will take, but the same thing will happen with gaming. Online gaming will annihilate offline console gaming.
Humans are social creatures, we are wired to enjoy interaction with other people. Playing with or *around* other people is more exciting. Playing FPS games like Battlefield and Halo feel offline feels like running around a ghost town compared to playing online.
And all interaction doesn't have to be intense, fast paced competition. There are plenty of non-competitive online casual games that let players just hang out together. Pogo.com is a good example of that type. You can chat with other players, see their status and you see alerts when they win big jackpots.
It remains to be seen if they can provide a rich enough experience, but Microsoft is on the right track with online gaming. Offline consoles are a dead end.
IFI
1. People who like multiplayer games play for social interaction.
2. People who like single player games play for escape.
It's not much more complicated than that, is it?
VOTE!
The people who currently play online games don't need convincing to play online games, are relatively few in number (compared with computer users who don't play online games) and the market is crowed. What MS and everyone else wants is to snare the people who don't currently play online games, and it's a fairly good bet that continuing to offer the same sort of games that have failed to interest them so far is not going to suddenly start to interest them in the near future. Increased social interaction is one obvious way to go, and is pretty likely to work IMO. I mean, enough people spend hours chatting whilst playing minesweeper or Yahoo Billiards, how hard can it be to improve on that game-playing experience while maintaining the social component?
Also, social interaction is cheaper than scripted content, because the users provide it for you (although of course you need to keep some kind of control on exactly what content they provide...)
Virtually serving coffee
Blanket generalizations are almost always wrong
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
My father and stepmother are complete and utter technophobes. Their computer is spyware ridden, I wipe it every 6 months, you know the drill. BUT they have an xbox, they play xbox live, and chat on the headset with players they compete against. To me, this is vastly unnatural (parents playing xbox, including xbox live, and set it all up by themselves). Their PC is still F'ed, but they were able to get "right to the gaming" with XBOX. I applaud MS for this. They are doing something right. And my grandma will frag the crap out of your grandma.
Horns are really just a broken halo.
I've heard of Tekken and Soul Calibur (and briefly played the latter), but WTF is/was Animal Crossing?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
So, how much do you pay yearly to use your tinfoil hat? Honestly, I've been a member of Xbox Live since it's beta days, when I was unemployed and that's all I had. The cross-game friends list is awesome, being able to send cross-game messages is even more awesome. Then the latest Live flavor came along with the 360. Even more cool. Voice chat? Check. HD trailers? Check. Free game demos? Check. Being able to sign onto Live without playing a game? Check. You know what's great? I pay $50/yr to use these features. All very much worth it. I buy the games once. Then I play them all I want to. It's intriguing that you know so much about Microsoft and it's plans. Got a link for proof?
This seems like a great point, until you note that all this service appears to do is match players together. If you have a Quake server (and Quake is the game you want to play), you don't need them.
I don't have any examples available because I'm not actually a gamer (it's the social interaction aspects of this story that interest me), but aren't there a lot of free web sites that promise to bring gamers together? Why pay $50 a year for this?
D
I get so tired of MS bias tainting stories. Exactly how is MS's bet on online gaming flawed? Simply because it MS and not Google?
Blizzard has 5 million customers paying $15 per month for a very minimal development cost.
SOE had 500K to 1 million players paying $12 for EQ for a very minimal investment. SOE also had 6-7 expansions during that period at $20-40 per.
Project Entropia is merging online and real world economies into a solid revenue stream of in-game virtual product for real dollars.
IGN and many other "gold sellers" are making millions selling in game virtual currency for real dollars. The Game companies will sure follow with the ability to buy loot from in game vendors and simply charge it to your credit card.
Online persistent gaming is the only medium that will replace passive viewing of content because players driven content is easier and cheaper to deploy than centrally developed content.
Yeah this comment cracks me up:
... We play games to escape.'
At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction
Ummmm, no, actually, at the end of the day, I play the game I play because of the social interaction. There's a group of friends I play with and that's how I socialize with them and frankly, the only reason I stick with this game and keep paying a monthly fee is because it's how I hang out with these friends.
They don't know a damn thing about video games.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
All that has to be done is to look at the success of games like World of Warcraft. There's online gaming at its best. Or even something as vile and addicting as Counter Strike. If that game cost money...
you obvioulsy havn't played world of warcraft
Can you Say Unreal Tournament 2k4?
Single player was o.k. but bots started to become "predictable" Then, then it got easy. All it takes is time. Soon your thinking your a god, start playing Onslaught, and get WASTED by 1000 people calling you some form of New guy or somethin....
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Depth? You mean power-levellers, spoilers, ragers, OOC people, haxx0rs? Yeah, that's a layer of depth.
I play on-line shooters like ET and BF2 because real people do indeed add tactical depth (plus the smack-talk is more satisfying), but for RPGS, I'm solo only because 1) no monthly fees, 2) "emergent" online play is used as an excuse by the developers to avoid having story and content, 3) online RPGs have all converged to the same thing, and 4) I play when I feel like it, I don't want to wait around for a party or try to schedule playing times. Hmm, some of these also apply to sex...ahem, I mean, uh, I'm having lunch with the GF shortly, GTG.
"Briliantly they are testing the idea in their lackluster gaming system before moving it over to their applications."
If you had any idea what you were talking about, you might have a different attitude.
Spend some time on Xbox Live before you slam it. Users have access to a lot of resources for *free* that are pretty nifty. Like being able to download 720p movie trailers, new content for games, game demos, and more.
I *work* for the company, and I was a skeptic before the 360, but the new system made me a convert. I didn't see the value in Xbox Live for the original console, but it's a very different, much more integrated system now, and I don't *have* to pay to take advantage of it.
That said, I did wind up paying so that I could have the privilege of losing online races to children who are ten million times better at gaming than I am, but payment isn't a requirement, and this isn't a "test" for online services. The Xbox team has about as much to do with the Office team as Google does with Yahoo - they aren't sitting around, coordinating their strategies, or their wardrobes, or whatever. Much of the industry is moving toward services in one way or another, and this is the Xbox team's approach.
And there's nothing wrong with it. The Xbox team, through Live, is providing a service that otherwise wouldn't be available (being able to download updates to the Xbox emulator, for example, is something that would be a pain in the ass without Live).
What's great is that people *do* have a choice. You can rail all you want against Microsoft, but remember that it's *customers* who *want* these services who are paying for them - nobody is being forced.
- Rory [Microsoft Employee] | Free dirt: neopoleon.com
I may be quite wrong about that, of course; still, it seems a logical assumption.
http://www.prairiegames.com/games.html
An indie mmorpg, where people can host their own servers and create their own content. Im not affiliated with pararie games, just a fan!
"Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
What many people seem to be forgetting is that current generations of kids are interacting in a way that's totally different from what many of us experienced growing up.
If you had told me when I was a kid that I should be chatting with friends through VOIP while playing Space Quest, I don't think I would have given you the time of day. In fact, I'd probably try to urinate on you or something. It just wasn't part of my world.
Now, though, kids spent a *lot* of time getting together online - through IM, myspace, games, and other technologies. It's a fact of life for them, and it's only going to grow for the coming generations.
To say that the strategy is "Absolutely flawed" is to look at one segment of the gaming population without considering where *everything* is trending, and that's toward online activity.
I've seen a lot of arguments here of the "Well, I don't like the idea, so it must suck dog balls" variety, but you have to remember that there is a universe outside your own - there are plenty of people who *do* live huge chunks of their social lives through online interactions.
- Rory [Microsoft Employee] | Free dirt: neopoleon.com
TY especially if you are posting from within a MSIE browser!
A business exists to provide a service at a value so as to also make money for it's shareholders.
OSS is not a business, but a movement. MS can't be and shouldn't be Open. I don't especially enjoy some of the things Micro$oft has done. But I love the fact that they are pushing software into the right direction. WinXP is robust. WinXP serves it's purpose. M$ office is also robust. If you don't like a feature, you can use VBA to create a new one. Granted they do need to screen their code better, but hey, who here produces flawless documents on a budget, and a deadline? Who here solves every helpdesk ticket w/in 60 minutes? (really small companies exclueded.)
How many M$ bashers have taken a basic ECON class?
You as a consumer "CAN'T*" make a purchase that is extremely un-economical
A business "CAN'T*" profit from selling something that sucks if there is a viable cheap and better alternative.
Speaking of alternatives. OSS can't Scale with the necessary support without standardization.
I am Pro OSS
I am Pro M$
Think Yin & Yang OSS wouldn't even be a big deal these days if it weren't for M$.
* "CAN'T" doesn't mean that one individule can't if they wanted to, it means that as a whole, the trend will never ever go that way
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
I play online games to meet chicks. I hooked up in town with someone I met while playing Enemy Territory last nite. We had mad wild kinky animal like sex all nite long and shared a cigarette and a laugh as the sun rose through my bedroom window. I found out later she was a he, but that's besides the point...
Something that isn't even mentioned in the article is this. We know that Microsoft sells the XBox for a big loss- I recall hearing that the number was around $75 per system, initially at launch. I have come to believe that the original plan was to make that money back on XBox Live subscriptions. Think about this- if every XBox user bought Live and paid for four years, Microsoft makes $200 per user just off Live. Heck, if less than half of XBox users paid for a Live subscription and kept it for four years it would pay off the losses incurred from the system. At the same time they could sell a more powerful system for the same price as some of the competition (PS2 and XBox are the same price to this day- interestingly, the GameCube is at a lower price yet is more powerful than the PS2 and sold at a profit).
Unfortunately, the percentage of users on XBox Live is much smaller (the numbers I hear are 10-20%). Microsoft took a big loss on the XBox. And now they are doing it again, but this time they are trying to make Live much more appealing- with the Arcade and demos and trailers, they want people to be willing to get Live even if they don't want to play any games online. If they can get the majority of XBox users to pay for Live, they can keep selling more powerful systems for losses to keep ahead on the competition.
Also unfortunately, it seems the competition have other ideas. Sony is gambling that by putting a Blu-ray player in every home, they'll make a fortune off of Blu-ray, so they're willing to sell the PS3 for an even higher loss than Microsoft ever did methinks- even if they take an overall loss on their games division, they'll take the loss and gain total control over the movie market. And Nintendo has the right idea- they said, "You know what, it's stupid to throw away money and sell for a massive loss and lose profitableness for bragging points on who has the most powerful system. We're out of this race- we'll sell a lower priced system with free online play, hundreds of downloadable classic games and a controller that gives you new ways of play. Having slightly better graphics than your competitor isn't so important anymore."
And to the above poster:
There was an interesting interview in this month's Maxim with the head game designer at Nintendo (I think that is his title, he is the guy that invented Mario Bros etc.)
He said the big challenge is that games have become so complex, that there are no casual gamers. That the world has been divided into two types of people: those who play games, and those who don't play games.
I see his point- I haven't played a video game in years, aside from ones that can be learned in 5 minutes. I just don't have the time to spend hours every day attaining levels and learning complex controls and commands.
That would be Shigeru Miyamoto. Yeah. He also said in the interview that Nintendo wanted to change all that with the Revolution controller being so intuitive and easy.
I've noticed that tendency. Games are becoming staggeringly complicated; on some Adventure games and RPG's I'll get halfway through the game before I realize what some of the items I have can be used for. There aren't many games that can be learned in five minutes, except maybe Burnout 3 (that button is accelerate, that one is brake, that on is boost, try to run into other cars, game learned!).
Microsoft has never really been a company to take risks. They pump the totality into a market into they win. I guess you could say the Xbox & Xbox live was a risk if:
A) The gaming market had not been established for almost 30 years beforehand.
B) Microsoft wasn't 2nd in the market right now.
To me the question isn't "who will win the gaming console battle" or "will Xbox live succeed". To me the question is really "whose vision will prevail in the home-computer-electronics-content merger" -- the players there being Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and the cable companies. Each having an upper hand in one area, but trying actively to get into the others.
It costs A HECK OF A LOT to run online gaming datacenter. Things get even worse if you run it on Windows (this is ex-Microsoftie speaking :-). Even if they get, say, 2-3 million users there (remember, churn is significant when you put cheapskates on a monthly fee) it will be barely enough to cover the costs. Their belief, you see, is that online gaming is crucial and neither Sony nor Nintendo can offer. The problem with this reasoning is that neither Sony nor Nintendo _want_ to step into this pile of shit, for profitability and just pure common sense reasons. Myself, I'm just NOT going to pay hundreds of dollars every year for a dubious privilege of connecting to Microsoft servers. Especially considering that there's technically NOTHING preventing multiplayer games from being P2P.
Or you could set up an online web games server and bump the cheats. Again, more than you want to do.
I suspect with the game consoles, you'll have little choice but to pay a fee (as I doubt that the console/game manufacturers will tell you their proprietary protocols). At that point, you'll only be able to vote with your wallet, hoping to find an internet portal that bans cheats.
Personally, it's not worth it to me either. That's why I play cribbage using real cards in meatspace. Ditto for pool (except with balls, not cards). Likewise for darts (substitute game appropriate equipment here). The list goes on - I'm actually quite a gamester, truth to tell.
Having a good friends list on Xbox Live goes a LONG way toward taking care of this problem. I can spend a couple hours playing Perfct Dark Zero with a group of friends, enjoy the joking around and such that comes from talking to friends, all without having to deal with obnoxious little brats and cheaters. If I hadn't been able to put together a good friends list rather quickly, I suspect I would have let my 2 month Live trial expire and stopped playing on live. Instead, I've made a bunch of friends and can't imagine not gaming with them.
And games that do it right - like Halo 2 - let you take a group of your friends into a game so you can take other groups of people. Even the annoying little brats aren't as bad when you're playing against them with a team full of friends - and beating the snot out of them.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Imagine the picture.
A pack of critics barking at company X "It SUCKS, it'll FAIL, it's WRONG, it's ABSURD", while said company sells in the millions and the huge majority enjoys their products just fine.
And this again until the next product line-up. Well at least makes for an interesting newspaper filler material.
I agree Nintendo has a good going there with casual gaming, but damn, this is 2005 (2006?) and it's not as if there's only 4 geeks in the world capable of playing the mightily complex Half Life 2 for starters.
Xbox Live does a LOT more than just match players together.
It maintains a friends list, one that lets you see which friends of yours are online, and what they're doing at the time.
You can voice chat with any friend at any time - even when in different games, or when one of you is watching a movie.
It - if implemented in the game - tracks stats for your play across games. It also keeps a ranking for you in the game, a ranking that is used to match you up with players of similar skill levels to make the game as fun and interesting as possible. Oh, and there are leaderboards for all games too, so you can see how you rate against other people.
Xbox Live isn't just a service to match up players. I've played a number of online games on the PC over the years, and I can say that Live does more, and does it more seamlessly, then any PC game. Heck, Halo 2's matchmaking/ranking/playlist system is significantly better than any other online setup I've seen for any game on any system. They essentially made the idea of "browsing" for a server to be an obsolete concept.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
This analyst sounds a bit like early Beatles critics saying that this new-fangled thing is no good.
Will code a sig generator for food
That type of entertainment is primarily for the feeble minded, the angery loner, and the unemployable. If you have spent more than a few hours playing these type of games, you probably fit into one of those three groups.
Mike
1337-haxor21 - Wow
ITninja21 - Everquest
IronGiant - FF Online
IronMale - CoH (lvl 17)
DrDoome - CoV (lvl 8)
Swordy-McCutalot - Maplestory
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
The problem lies in the skill level of "me" and "you". Battlefield2 not only had a steep learning curve for the game itself, but I got on a couple of months after launch and I was faced with guys that were very difficult to beat. I got creamed left and right.
Now I love a challenge, so I kept playing, but I know a lot of people who would've given up after they got killed a couple of dozen times without killing hardly any of the enemy in return. You'd never consider pitting little leaguers against an MLB team, or even a minor league team, but it happens all the time on BF2 servers. In order for online gaming to take off, there's going to have to be the equivilent of different leagues or divisions where newbies can start off playing other newbies then advance to moderate play and then on to expert. Until this happens, many people will be too embarrased, afraid, or bored (respawn again!?!?!) to play online.
In addition to pitting the propper players against each other, you also need to let them get to know each other. Here again, BF2 falls short. When waiting between maps in Counter Strike, it was easy to keep up a conversation about the good, bad and ugly of the last round. In BF2, all communication ceases. Isn't online play supposed to be a social activity?
And here's the most important reason why online play is superior to single-player play (at least for me): I love playing against other people. People do increadibly smart and increadibly stupid things. People will laugh with you when you do something funny and laugh at you when you do something stupid. If you come around a corner alone only to face 7 guys on the other team, everyone is gonna laugh their ass off while they blow you away. You'll laugh too. In a single player game, you're just going to load the last save. No one cares if you blast 500 bad guys in five minutes in Serious Sam, but if you shoot your best friend in the back while he's ever so slowly trying to sneak up on his girlfriend, well, you might just get a kiss on the cheek and a sock on the shoulder the next time you see them. That's far more what life is all about.
TW
> At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction ... We play games to escape.
I think Pachter is right that Microsoft's strategy is flawed, but for the wrong reasons. It's not
that online multiplayer gaming is a limited market, it's that consoles are a terrible platform
(as compared to desktop computers equipped with keyboards) for online multiplayer gaming.
I typically use my console sitting on the floor with a game controller in both hands. This is a
terrible interface for chatting with other players, and chat is an essential component of most
multiplayer games.
You need a keyboard, and your computer already has a good one.
The companies also must be careful about new business models for distributing games -- such as games-on-demand -- so as not to alienate game publishers, who still rely heavily on in-store sales
Hrm, I always thought it was the publisher's duty to distribute the game. Not only that but uh, isn't Microsoft a major game publisher? If other publishing companies want to stick with in-store sales, then let them. I don't see why they wouldn't get added revenue from online distribution. Maybe I'm missing something.
But I think online distribution will be great for developers. They don't have to sell out to a major publisher for their game to hit store shelves, now they can distribute their game over the net(don't have to pay for a box or shipping either).
I don't get this games-on-demand thing either. This isn't cable tv. I personally like how Valve will be getting a constant revenue. They're simply going to release a part in a series of games over Steam, for about 20 bucks. Then in a month or so you buy the next part in the series. I think the first game they're going to be doing is Sin, if any of you remember that game.
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
'At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction ... We play games to escape.'
? f=4/ - click on "Roleplaying Realms Rule" is common thread). I guess you could debate which catergory cybersex actually falls under - to me it's a combination of both social interaction and escapism. With massive populations like those found in WoW, it's about impossible to not have some moments of interaction with other players.
Apparently this is somebody who's never logged in to or heard of the tales that come from the roleplaying realm of servers where cybersex is common (http://www.discordguild.org/forums/viewforum.php
If big boobed women work at Hooters do one legged women work at IHOP?
Also, one size doesn't fit all.
Try playing in meatspace - also not perfect, but it does address most of your complaints pretty well.
After paying $60 for a game I don't see why I need to even pay this much. And $50 is BAD for Microsoft. This pretty much means they're not even breaking even with all this shit. They've already burned BILLIONS on XBox and yet the execs continue approving ridiculous bullshit like that. Unbelievable.
Anyone who played Everquest knows the complexity of some of the fights. They all became easy as people became experienced in the encounter, but many of them required specific people doing specific things at specific times. And the experience in EQ of walking through Qeynos and it's Aquaducts to the first time you came to Kelethin to sneaking around the plane of Hate made the player truely feel that they were in another world to a depth otherwise impossible. And as MMoRPGs grow with encounters such as those in World of Warcraft, the depth of strategy improves.
The problem of course is that the encounters, however complex, don't change. I think to get out of the 'do' loop of developing new encounters, new content, and new rewards at the high end, MMoRPG designers are going to have to program their encounters to 'learn' from the strategies used against them and develop counter strategies so that all encounters are continuiously changing.
I do security
I'm not just picking on EA -- I worked there the entire time EA.com (the game service, remember, ca. late 1999 - late 2000) was being built, and saw firsthand what a festering pile of crap it was turning into. The plan was good (the plan was a product of my previous employer, Kesmai Corporation, who were bought by EA so EA could get their hands on our plan for The Mother of All Online Gaming Destinations), but various bad decisions and compromises were made -- like outsourcing the support website implementation to Accenture, who decided to give us the dumbest database consultants I ever heard someone explain databases to, who further decided to use a brand-new product called Octane 2000 that, it turned out, they had never touched before.
Oh, guess what the main EA.com revenue source was going to be? Banner ads. Yeah.
When the service finally "launched" after an interminable open beta period, it was posting something like 10% of usage projections. It was a debacle of such magnitude that EA finally bought Pogo.com and (as far as I know) dropped EA.com in the corporate dustbin. Now www.ea.com is back to being the plain old EA corporate website. (They have an annoying Flash intro now with no Skip option, which to me sums up the EA corporate mentality toward online gaming very well.)
What most companies fundamentally don't get is, online games are not box games. If you're an online game developer, I want you to repeat that out loud. ONLINE GAMES ARE NOT BOX GAMES. EA tried to think of EA.com in terms of moving box game units, and I'm sure if that's what EA.com had been for it would have done well. But selling someone an online gaming account is not the same as selling them a CD (Kesmai's game service, GameStorm, didn't even require a CD install to download the games, though it was recommended to save time downloading a hundred megs of Air Warrior at 28.8K; the only thing the user ever had to go to the trouble of installing manually was the GS downloader, and the web interface did the rest).
The other massive obstacle besides shifting your paradigm is integration. Navigating around a game portal should not feel like browsing some kind of crappy online-games webring -- the forums, support, chat, games, and all the rest of it have to be integrated into a SINGLE SEAMLESS SITE. In the ideal case I can read a forum post, IM the poster by clicking on his name, and start a game right from the IM interface so we can mix it up online in whatever game we're both fans of. EA.com never achieved nearly that, and I don't know offhand what modern services might come close.
The interesting thing is that one of EA's goals for EA.com was to capture the "casual gamer" market. I see the casual gamer remains as difficult as ever to get money from...
-- Old Man Kensey
Don't people learn from history? IBM tried to lock people into their computers. Now Microsoft is there with windows and trying the same shzt again with gaming?
Hello! Wake up people! Open is good. Closed and proprietary is bad.
In my case I don't want a lock-in solution that requires me to buy a proprietary gaming box with a proprietary online gaming solution behind it. I want it open. I want it to run on my Mac or on Linux, and I want choices in my online gaming solution provider.
And I sure as shzt won't buy any solution from Microsoft because of their business ethics, and it sure disappoints me that so many folks don't seem to care about that.
Wait! This is the same country that voted Dubya in for a second term. I see. Ethics does not matter. Got it!
Linux Rules, Macintosh Rocks, what's Wintel?
I'd have to say I do play games for the social interaction. Games like DDR and Gran Turismo and even Soul Calibur are all better with a friend!! I mean HELLO.. MMORPG's are HUGE! I spend like every free moment in Final Fantasy XI! I even take my lunch breaks and log in JUST to talk to people!
Another thing to remember is the female component. What I know of the females that play is they crave the social interaction afforded them by games. Considering the article I saw here, (or another news agregator, I forget which), the other day that females outnumber males online, I think there is high insentive to facilitate and reward robust social networks. (How many girls do you know that use slashdot compared to the number that use myspace.)
I do security
It was sometime in the early 80's when I played two games regularly - Ultima III and Quest for Sorcery. Ultima III is easy enough to understand / look up. Quest for Sorcery was a multi-player text adventure ran on Major BBS systems (the system I played on had 8 lines). Quest had no stats - your ability to interact within the world (and even combat other players) was entirely based on your knowledge of how to use various objects and utter the right commands. Combat was not common but there was a competition to solve all the puzzles in the game.
One day, after playing Quest for a good part of the week, I loaded up Ultima... and it was... flat. It had lost its magic. It just wasn't fun any more. And I suddenly realized why. The night before, I had been playing Quest and was working on one of the puzzles when the following text appeard on my screen:
A strong gust of wind whips through the room.
Simple. But the implications were very important. Someone in the game had just figured out how to do something new. And that was the catch - a world where other people affected your environment was somehow much more... interesting than the static world of single-player games.
A side note to all this... I met Richard Garriot at a science fair that year. I noted to him how Ultima just wasn't as fun despite all its content and graphics. That a (relatively) simple text game had trumped it due to one very important aspect - muti-player environment. And, by the way, wouldn't it be cool if Ultima could be like that? Richard seemed to like the idea and invited me to call him at a later time... but I never did manage to get ahold of him again. Years later, and more likely due to natural progression rather than anything I said, Ultima Online made its debut.
I couldn't care less if XBox Live type gaming is the future, as long as developers don't forget about those of us who don't care to interact with the leet kiddies that plague online gaming currently.
I enjoy "social" games don't get me wrong. I play quake 3 and FFXI every day on my PC, but everything that is unique about console gaming is set to be lost. It will be very sad if that happens. Especially for those of us who grew up in the NES, SNES, Sega Genesis eras, and can still appreciate those types of games.
How well did Doom 3 do this year compared to Half-life 2/Counterstrike Source? Doom 3 did not fair very well. Sure, everyone was excited about Doom 3 and it's singe player mode was fun, but once you beat it - the game was quite boring. The multiplayer aspect was well below par. Quake 4 was supposed to change that, but it doesn't seem to have taken off either. Multiplayer > Single player. period.
I don't get the analysts point... Didn't I just read somewhere that WOW now has 5 million players?
Anyone else read that as
Microsoft's Big Bet on Online Gambling
??
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
That said, it sure seems to me that there's room for both camps. Isn't that why we're drawn to video games in the first place, because it's customizable entertainment?
i play ONLY to escape, nothing else. If i want competition, i'll save my energy for the workplace where my efforts will acquire me something tangible. this doesn't make sense to kids yet, which is probably why they love the live crap. they think their competitions achieve something, and they do, higher profits for 'the man'.
sigs suck
Honestly, there's just no way to make a machine as complex as a console anymore without being able to issue updates. Heck, even the launch GAMES are buggy as crap (PGR3 awarded me -250,000CR for winning a series just last night). So you're going to have to have online capability for the consoles. And you're going to have to be able to send out code over it.
The stuff they did is just an extension of that. Once you can download code and content, why not put some stuff up for free publicity? Once you already sell "track packs" (see PGR2 on Xbox), why not sell entire micro games?
You're gonna want to update the "BIOS" on the machine to thwart modchips anyway...
All this came more by necessity than anything else, and so I fully expect you'll see similar stuff from Sony, who isn't otherwise known for being keen on online. Heck, they'll have to send out patches to fix their BluRay video player ability, since it's going to be just about the first one of its kind and complex as heck (it uses Java!).
We also expect Nintendo is going to do this too, since they said the "Revolution will be infinitely backwards-compatible". They meant that it will play NES, SNES and N64 games. Well, it doesn't have 3 cartridge slots on it, so where will the game ROM images come from? Answer, they'll sell them to you again over the internet.
It's just business in today's world. MS isn't really striking out much or taking much of a gamble.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
What makes me angry about my current xbox is that there has been such a push for online games that companies are ignoring offline multiplayer. I don't like Xbox live because I usually run into too many 13 year olds that are desperately trying to explore new ways of using the word gay. I also only have one xbox so when I want to play a game with my girlfriend we can't connect to live. Why is it that so many companies won't put decent multiplayer options offline. It is much more fun to compete against friends in the same room (trash talking is better when you know you won't come off as a jackass to someone). Online can be fun but I would rather have a 10 person Saturn Bomberman battle, than spend most of my time turning the ignore onto people on xbox live.
I'm TOTALLY with this guy on the fact that gaming is escapism. I play games to get AWAY from having to interact with people all the time. I think there are two very very different cultures of gamers: one of group gamers, and one of solitary gamers. For me, gaming is almost wholely a solitary enterprise. Sure, I do get together and Smash with friends from time to time, but I end up getting suckered into it.
For one thing, I'm beginning to see a pretty disturbing trend in some people today that do so much social gaming that, pretty much, their entire social life revolves around playing games. Now, I'm great friends with a lot of solitary gamers, and we'll get together and talk about RPGs we're playing, analyze systems and discuss the philosophy behind different entertainment media (a few of my friends and I took a college class on this, revolving around film, and we spent hours sitting around applying it to gaming); but in all of this, we weren't actually gaming, we were enjoying the conversation, which just happened to be about gaming, sort of like a group of avid book readers sitting around and discussing their latest novel. But, unfortunately, I see a lot of guys who don't want to talk or really interact with eachother, they become either bored or anxious without a mutual activity. I have one longtime, close friend, for instance, that the first thing he asks when we get together, is, "So, what'chya wanna do?"
Anyway, I like my escapism, and I feel more and more, these days, that unless you play games socially, you're some kind of pittiful, wierdo, sissy boy. I really like becoming extremely emmersed in the atmosphere created by a game, and I can't really do that easilly if I'm having to interact with anyone. I don't read books or listen to music as a form of social interaction, hell, TV/Movies are only about 50/50, why should gaming?
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
I greatly enjoy the teamwork aspect.
I can get social interaction easily enough outside the game, but many of my friends don't share my interest in WoW so I managed to slip into a guild that is full of skilled players and we progress together through the more difficult challenges.
This is even more exciting in the PVP aspect of the game as you really have to rely on your teammates to win.
You might play games for social interaction instead of to escape, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't do anything to disprove Pachter's thesis for the vast majority of gamers. For most people, escapism is definitely the largest part of what makes a game fun. People play GTA because they disallow themselves from committing crimes and behaving amorally in real life. People play Knights of the Old Republic because they can't be Jedi and hang around with Wookiees in real life. And so on. Do you guys seriously think that most people would want to screw this up by going online and dealing with the same teamkilling fucktards that they have to deal with at work? Sorry, guys, you're in the minority.
As for those of you who cite playing games like Halo and Super Smash Bros. with friends, I would say that that has very little to do with social interaction in and of itself. You're still escaping from real life; it's just that you're doing it with your friends, who are probably not teamkilling fucktards. Most people who really want to interact socially with their friends do it in reality, at a bar or some other place designed for that sort of thing. Or they play poker or some other game where they actually interact directly with each other, instead of doing it through the medium of a game console.
Lastly, to those who note the fact that online games don't necessarily involve social interaction... well, you're absolutely right. That's the fundamental point that Pachter is missing. Most people don't play online games to interact with strangers, but to beat the living hell out of another human being. Metaphorically, of course. I still think most people only want online gaming as a bonus, and won't pay for it exclusively, but there is definitely a market there, especially if you can dupe people into paying monthly for it.
Rob
"'At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction ... We play games to escape.' Microsoft's strategy is 'absolutely flawed,' he added."" "
Err??? 2M Live users... 5M WoW players.... nuff said.
A virtual casio would be pretty cool...
Yeah, you could play all sorts of crappy synth music, and then there's that demo song... ^-^
And watch the spectacle of the Slashdot audience actually admitting that Microsoft got something totally and utterly right.
.. Microsoft always get it right in the entertainment division [1] because they can lock down the delivery and sell only the sizzle.
.. loss of profits blah blah blah ... but lets face it ... no other gaming platform makes multiplayer gaming so easy over the net as XBox live.
A single and unified multiplayer gaming environment ensured to work with all mutliplayer titles with one fee and easy access no matter what your gaming level.
lets face it ladies and gentleman. Ive said it before and I will say it again
[1] okay your going to flame me on costs of xboxen
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
A lot of people who play socially-based games play them to escape a world in which they, perhaps, have difficulty socializing. They can be a radically different "person" in the virtual world, and can interact in ways that might not be comfortable for them in real life.
Is Microsoft making the right bet by investing in on line games? I think so, especially when you realize that you can completely discount the social aspect of gaming and *still* have a solid business model via electronic distribution, player rankings, and other interactive elements.
Will Microsoft make the right choices to capitalize on this on line opportunity? I think they will lose a ton of money, but eventually find the right combination of features to grab a significant share of the market and achieve some profit. But really, time will tell.
One thing I can say for sure: any financial analyst focussing on the computer and console game market who thinks online gaming is pointless and misguided is incredibly ignorant.
There will be no comercials, we don't want your money, keep it!
oh, but we don't want to sell anything either, so no more:
Potatoe chips
chevron gas
ice cold mountain dew (that one hurts eh?)
Budwiser (O.k. so one positive.....)
Dodge Ram Pickups
Toyota Prius
Levi Jeans
Downy softener
Pepsi/Taco-Bell/Pizza-Hut/Fried Chicken/
etc..
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
In http://www.freeciv.org/'s multiplayer mode, players move simultaneously.
This makes the game more fast-paced, but is a bit troublesome when results depend on who moves first, or when you get a double move in because turn ends. The game still takes longer than for example a game of Age of Empires would, about 4 times longer.
There have been lots of adjustments for multiplayer playing, since one point of recreating an old game is to be able to add "new" features like multiplayer.
Battle Isle 1 had an interesting turn-based two-player mode: On player would move, the other fire.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
gaming *is* escapism.
Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Metroid, Super Mario, Doom, Castlevania, The Legend of Zelda, Resident Evil... great single-player gaming experiences for those who enjoy going on a quest for self-fulfillment...
gaming *is* social interaction.
Tekken, Quake, Daytona Racing, Super Mario Kart, Ultima Online, World of Warcraft... great multiplayer games where the fun is competing against other people in a straightforward game with a few simple rules...
I don't feel like it...
It means, BUY BUY BUY.
It's kind of like how Real Estate agents describe shitty houses: Clean Home, Great Schools!
There's ton's of codewords out there folks. The fun thing, is outing them!
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
That reminds me of a conversation I had with Thomas Jefferson. Tom, I said, wouldn't it be cool if there was a country where people elected their leaders and had basic rights like no unreasonable search and seizure, right to face their accusors, right to own guns, etc?
Some years later I had an interesting conversation with Henry Ford. Henry, I said, it takes too long to build cars, maybe someone should build them the way meat is slaughtered, little bits cut off by each person in the line. Wouldn't that be an improvement?
Maybe later I'll tell you about conversations I had with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
I play Halo 2 for social interaction all the time. Somebody asks me to be their team mate on MSN and I'll come online to play them. Somebody talks shit to me online and they have Halo 2, I go and beat them.
People use online games for social interaction *and* to escape. Let's not forget how much more infinitely fun or rewarding it is to beat an opponent who think's he's clever by hiding somewhere waiting for you. Case in point:
Kawahee: I'll brb
Zeeman: No problem, you're not going to find me because I am the ultimate hider
* 2 seconds *
Zeeman beat down by Kawahee
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
I'd say they spent a lot on verifying that it works, if it doesn't they'd receive more bad press than other companies.
Then they will want to provide interfaces and documentation to allow others to work with it, it is not just for a single of their own games.
Then of course they will have plentiful programmers and architects who will invent more features, which ill become requirements soon.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
There are plenty of free alternatives to paying for xbox live. They're legal and the single biggest threat to microsoft making piles of cash by selling online gaming.
That articles regarding games and such get almost exclusively posts that are modded Interresting or Insightful, whereas breakthroughs in physics articles and such gets nothing but +5, Funny posts?
!rotinom siht ni kcuts mI
Except - my conversation actually happened. Yours are obviously figments of your jaded imagionation. FYI - Garriot was a big suporter of the Houston Science Fair and was there as a judge (with quite a compliment of games as a prize for one of the winners).
Cute dig, though.
HD Trailers
I remember as far back as playing Warcraft against my friends and people I didn't know. The learning curve was astronomical compared to the techniques you'd learn against the computer. Most of these people were just too good to learn to beat. Beyond that, a lot of them used hacks or cheats. 5 minutes into the game you wouldn't know what hit you and then it would be over. I don't need to get beat in real life and then come home and get beat way worse in a game!
Online gaming is about gaming getting back to it's roots - "me vs. you". Playing against a console is essentially a souped-up version of solitaire. Fun, distracting, but nothing like the rush of defeating an opponent with the same chance of victory as defeat.
Well, that depends if you define "same chance of victory as defeat" with me being a casual gamer and they being a teenage brat spending all night on the game. Most MMORPGs are no fun because the addicts have all the best items. RTS is no fun playing against someone that has finetuned their strategy and will pound you for trying to find a good one on your own. Even in FPS people who know all the maps, spawns and so on will frag your ass because they come at you fully armed and armored while you're still stnading around with the peashooter.
My favorite for the time being is Guild Wars. Cooperation is what makes it fun, it's not very item-intensive and your party have their own private game world, no dealing with various assholes (well except people who quit your party right before the big battle, curse on them). Items are assigned and there's no fighting for the spoils, you get your share.
Then again, if I had decent broadband when I was 15 I'd probably be on WoW. I seem to remember playing a lot of lamer games than that...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes you get Silver Free - for a month. Then you fork over the dough.
What really got me though was that you have to pay 800 "points" (forget the tem they used) to change your screen name! I think it was something like $15 to buy around that many points.
I think what Microsoft is doing with Live is kind of cool, and I really liked the small games they had to download. But I have to say I'm not sure the analyst is totaly wrong and that the number of people who really want to game online is above some kind of (as yet undetermined) ceiling. Playing with other humans can be cool, but (especially with voice chat) is can be also most UNcool as well, which I think is what imposes more of a ceiling than there might be otherwise. And I personally am trying to eliminate all recurring fees (obviously not internet cause, hey, but yes that includes cable) so even Microsoft's very reasonable Live fee leaves me a bit cold on the idea.
As far as multiplayer goes, I think Sony may actually have a better strategy with eight controller and dual monitor support. Local LAN with people you know and like and can throw napkins at? Now THAT is multiplayer!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A) There were no monthly costs, just the purchase fee
The problem with that is that it attracts a playerbase of whining kids. Most of them don't have credit cards so a subscription fee means they can't play.
Now I love a challenge, so I kept playing, but I know a lot of people who would've given up after they got killed a couple of dozen times without killing hardly any of the enemy in return.
That's the attitude of a loser.
You'd never consider pitting little leaguers against an MLB team, or even a minor league team
Ever heard of the FA Cup?
Online gaming is about gaming getting back to it's roots - "me vs. you".
What about single player games? Running obstacle courses, solving puzzles, living out an experience from start to finish, completing the narrative, polishing your reflexes so you can shave seconds off or get a higher score, or simply just mastering the gameplay of a certain style game. These are the roots of gaming.
If you want to talk about the roots of multiplayer games on the other hand, isn't it about sitting on the couch with your friends in front of the TV trash talking each other and giving each other punches on the arm, sharing a pizza and soda or beer? Online is far from that...
Sorry, guys - I think Nintendo got it right in this aspect.
www.linuxpenguin.net
I've been an online gamer since the early 90's, originally playing MUD's such as Medievia, TorilMud or Duris. Saying that I played those games as an escape would be only partially true, but to say that I have played online games as a form of social interaction is absolutely true. I have made friends around the world that to this day I still call on, game related and otherwise. In my home I have 5 high-end computers and a massive library of games that my friends come over to enjoy. We don't play escape, and about 90% of the time we are all playing the same games, together. Battlefield 2, World of Warcraft, Counter Strike:Source, Unreal Tournament 2004, Civilization 4...We have a blast playing these games, and when we don't play with each other, we are playing with friends we have made online.
To say that social interaction is not a primary function of online gaming shows a seriously skewed perspective from the point of the 'analyst' quoted in the article. Perhaps he does play for the sake of escapism, but to assume that his personal experience accurately reflects the entire gaming demographic is just silly. Online gaming has evolved into a subculture of our generation, and one that is not a private obsession. 15 years ago, I might have kept my gemstone addiction to myself, but I've got no problems talking with clients and if it comes up, admitting candidly that on occasion, I too will join the other 5 million people in the world who play WoW.
It is a little bit silly to me that people still think gaming online is a social stigmata. X-box live is something that almost every user in the collegiate town I live in makes use of. We enjoy looking for friends, hopping into a ranked game of Halo 2, and talking trash to similar groups of young adults, children, and older gamers around the world. The online gaming world is evolving and changing, and I believe that microsoft will ultimately prevail by gambling on connecting their console to cyberia. The main thing I'm waiting on is more games that make use of this platform. (side note: please make the next elder scrolls game online, lol!)It would appear Mr. Pachter has made some erroneous comments about technology before. Look here to see that he had some colorful things to say about Netflix's business model:
Netflix is a worthless piece of crap with really nice people running it. I don't mean that they're doing anything wrong. They have a wonderful idea, but it's not a sustainable business. I wish they would make it -- they deserve to make it. But in the Internet, all the success stories tend to be multiple channels, [offer] multiple products, or have a brick-and-mortar component. At the end of the day, there's only one line of business going on at Netflix.
They totally could use USB cartridge readers. I already have one for the Gamecube that reads GBA games.
But really, I think you have to look at the profit motive here. They'd rather sell you (again) 5 old games at $5 each with very little actual cost to them than sell you a card reader for $25.
I was just thinking, there's no HD in Revolution. So they either store games in flash or have to use card readers. I wonder which they'll do.
I can't wait to get a Revolution, at the very least because it'll take up a lot less space than Gamecube.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I would think a potential problem is that people will play Counterstrike or Battlefield 2 for hundreds of hours, while many single player games are around 25 hours. I've found since I stopped online gaming a while back, I game for the same amount of total time, it's just with more games.
Microsoft knows that online gaming can make them recurring revenue and it is a way to keep the user always updated with the latest software and the easiest way to upsell them new stuff, granted that not everyone wants to play online but that is why Microsoft are pushing it so hard, if they can get enough people to do it, it will be very profitable.
Business Voyeur
The arcade section is LOTS of fun. I'm a Zuma addict! And more are being added all the time. They games are priced at $5-10 and post your score on the leaderboards.
m =8247683126
===========
Great Giggles - check out this auction:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ite
I'll also point out that BF2 has another important innovation, integrated VOIP, which greatly helps facilitate the interaction you cited in your post. I hope more games incorporate this feature.