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.""
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.
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.
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.
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 don't know. I would build model boats because it's interesting. It's the same reason I play guitar, because it's easy to pick up and fun. And I do it after I have done my 18 hours of work that day, so it's not procrastination or putting off of responsibility. I enjoy it. Just like I enjoy gaming. Not because of some psychobabble "I am hiding from life by having a hobby". Not that you are saying that, but this article is.
The prisoner of hope is sustained and encouraged by his hope, even as he is confined by it.
I see your point regarding procrastination, but I disagree with playing online not being real social interaction. There would have to be some set definition of what real social interaction is, for this to be true. Does real social interaction require physical presence in the same area? If so, then talking to your friend on the phone isn't social interaction, and that's just untrue.
---- keep it simple.
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.
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
Doom 3 still takes time to get into. You cannot really have a quick, fun 10 minute game of Doom in your coffee break. Hell it takes more than 10 minutes to get to a point where you can shoot stuff at the start of the game. Most games today take a time investment that most people aren't willing to make.
You assume that nothing is gained from a hobby. Imagine if all you ever did was work day in and day out. Most jobs cannot fulfill a person mentally, physically, and socially in a way that will make you into a better person. So you need to supplement it.
Playing is just another word for training. We are wired to train when we don't have pressing concerns. The only thing is that in this day and age we've replaced a ball and stick with a controller and a mouse in some cases.
This is just the way I think about it.
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.
Consoles and PCs are entirely different media setups, and generally encourage different types of gaming.
:) ). The single keyboard and mouse set are the primary input devices, used by a single user at a time, no extras. The games they encourage revolve around longer play sessions, with more private communication.
In my experience, the vast majority of consoles in family homes are hooked up to the biggest TV set in the household, be it in the living room or family room/den. These are generally shared, communal spaces, with competition for screen time an issue (whether it be for watching cable TV, a Tivo'ed program, or console playing). The joysticks are the input devices that games are built around, which allow for local one-on-one play alongside networked play.
The PC, on the other hand, is often in a bedroom or office, tucked away in a more private location. The monitor is far smaller, lending itself to more intimate experiences (no, not pr0n...well, not all the time
In short, Microsoft's attempts to bring the intimacy of the PC setting, and the monthly fees intimate games can bring (MMOs and gambling games, for example) to the console setting is a prima facie failure. You simply cannot reliably get enough eyes to sit in front of the (shared) TV to play an online game and make it worthwhile.
RW
I'll have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that gaming is about social interaction. I have a college degree, a job, a wife, and two small children. I don't get much gaming time but the time I do get is most definitely an escape. Don't get me wrong, I like my job and I love my family. But for an hour or so a night (usually after the kids bedtime) I get to escape.
Sometimes (okay, a lot of the time) my escape is Burnout and I get to drive like a maniac while slamming into other cars. Other times my escape is Mercenaries and I get to run around in a tank and blow shit up. Other times my escape is an RPG where I save the world from (insert bad guy here). I do online game occasionally but that is a rare occurance. My hour is mine and a single player game is the best escape there is.
I get my "social gaming" in once or twice a month when some friends from work get together and hook up the game systems to a wall projector. And that's fun because we can sit around, chat, and drink beer. We tried the "gathering" online once and it flopped.
I'd be very, very surprised if I'm alone in this view. I believe you'll find that you are the minority and the XBox live numbers (or lack thereof) back that up.
Life happens. Getting married, having kids, or just having an actual full-time job substract from the hours the young'uns used to spend playing.
I used to clock at least 15 hours a week in videogames a few years back. Now that I'm married, college done and I have a full time job, I rarely put more than 5. And even though I can navigate my way through most of the hardcore stuff of today, I'm beginning to appreciate more games where the learning curve is well integrated in them and don't take forever to finish.
Proof by contradiction:
1. Anything people enjoy is actually an escape from responsibility.
2. Responsibilities are things people do to live.
3. People live to enjoy life. (Beloved people, beloved works, beloved ideals, sensual & mentally sensual pleasures.)
4. So the purpose of responsibility is to help you enjoy life.
5. But there are no joys in life, merely a series of escapes from responsibility.
Thus responsibility can never fulfill it's purpose.
What's bogus here is line 1.
There is joy outside of "escape."
People actually, really, bona fida, enjoy the things that they're doing. It's not made entirely of "negative value."
If your problem is with line 3, then I mean to tell you: You live a very sad life.
Joy isn't a "0 sum" thing. Look at any kid; They just enjoy doing what they're doing, even though they don't really have to do anything.
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
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!).
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
Well, I think most of us here are a couple of steps above the ant on the evolutionary scale. I'm not entirely sure why ants are here...
But, as for me? I live for nothing else but satisfying my pleasures. I DO live for the sake of joy. I only work because it enables me to have money to buy things and go places I enjoy. If I didn't have to work, I can ensure you that I would not....I'd spend my hours doing nothing but stuff that was fun for me.
I have responsibilities only because I have to work to earn money to sustain or increase my ability to create joy for myself. If I didn't have to work, I would have no responsibilities really...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
This is the intent and the beauty of Xbox Live. The idea is to build a friends list of people you enjoy playing with. I can power up and see how many "friends" I have online at any given time. Buildning that list can be painful for the first month but once its built online gaming becomes a social experience.
i'm sorry, but you're not interacting with 100's or 1000's, you're interacting with 1's at most maybe 20 people. When you go walking down the street or in a mall do you interact with everybody there? no. just a select few, and most of them will be selling you something. Social interaction on the internet isn't very feasable as you're too anonymous