Online Console Gaming Primed for Take Off

DarkNemesis618 writes "What started off as a PC-only concept is now spreading; Online gaming is now starting to bloom for consoles too. With the introduction of the 360 and the next generation consoles, online console gaming is primed for takeoff. The original Xbox and Xbox Live started the transition to online gaming on consoles. Xbox Live has slowly but surely allowed the walls between PC and console online gaming to crumble." From the article: "PC game makers still have the advantage of using the keyboard and mouse as a controller, which allows them to give gamers more control and options in game play. But gamers say few, if any, of the community-oriented online PC games are as consumer-friendly as Xbox Live, which has standardized and automated the process of selecting servers and competitors for the best game playing experience."

Comments

xbox live invented online console gaming?

[Anonymous Coward]

For fuck's sake:

http://www.nesworld.com/nesmodem.htm

Let alone dreamcast, PS2, the SNES modem...

Clueless article for marketroids.

Re:xbox live invented online console gaming?

[joako]

Does the article actually declare that XBL invented online console gaming?

Nope.

The most it says about that is that XBL has "standardized and automated the process of selecting servers and competitors for the best game playing experience."

The /. blurb says XBL "started the transition to online gaming on consoles.", which is a fair statement, since nothing you listed had a significant userbase. (the PS2 network adapter appeared after XBL started, IIRC).

So wait a minute...

[AequitasVeritas]

few if any, of the community-oriented online PC games are as consumer-friendly as Xbox Live, which has standardized and automated the process of selecting servers and competitors for the best game playing experience."

so because we dont need a computer to judge us and pick out who we should play makes the games on PC "less consumer friendly"??

Re:So wait a minute...

[xtieburn]

Pretty much.

When searching for Quake2 servers to play on youd get one of three things.

a) Id totally decimate the other players barely anyone would be on any more than a frag by the time id hit the 100 frag limit.

b) Id get totally decimated by the other players. Id spawn, explode, spawn, explode...

c) Id be in the top 3 or 4 players. We would duke it out and the 10 or so other players would be frag fodder in between our fights.

Option c is typically what id look for but it still wouldnt remove the problem of one of those 3 or 4 good players simply running away from anyone with an iota of skill and killing all the new or terrible players to rack of frags.

There was no way of working out a skill level for particular players so it was a hit or miss process and on more than one occaision I went in to about 5 different servers and just got bored of trying to get a good gaming experience out of it.

The live service doesnt actually restrict your ability to have any of those options happen to you (Im sure some experienced player would love to slap you around for a bit.) it just expands on it so you can have more and far superior options.

(This is ignoring the fact that a lot of the servers were up and down like a yoyo.)

Controllers

[fatius]

I know I'm in the minority, but am I the only one who dislikes using the mouse/keyboard and actually prefers to use console game controllers? I really like the xbox 360 controller, but I like the gamecube and even the playstation controller more than using the mouse/keyboard.

I don't play many RPGs of any kind, so that could be a factor.

Re:Controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually feel the same way. I play mostly FPSs, and used to HATE the idea of using a controller since the first time I played Goldeneye on the 64. But after enough Halo and Call of Duty, I'm actually preferring the controller setup.

Re:Controllers

[Stormwatch]

I don't play many RPGs of any kind, so that could be a factor.

What do you mean? RPGs are much better with a control pad... I just can't imagine playing all the way through Albert Odyssey, Panzer Dragoon Saga, or Skies of Arcadia with a keyboard.

Or do you mean PC-style RPGs, Baldur's Gate, Diablo, or those MMORPGs... eww.

Re:Controllers

[GrumblyStuff]

Well, it really depends on the game type. I CAN play FPS with dual analogue sticks but I'd prefer a mouse and keyboard. Just the same, I CAN play platformer with a keyboard but it's still like trying to run after getting kicked in the nuts.

Call me crazy but I'd like a system that can use either.

Re:Controllers

[KDR_11k]

Japanese Rail Playing Games don't need PC controls, true, but that's because they're engineered for controller use. Many of those games suffer from severe limitations as a result, either resorting to turn-based combat (without even a playing field, you just stand there in a line and the enemy does the same) or giving the player very little control over the AI-controlled party members (as opposed to letting the player control all of them with the mouse).

Take Anachronox, that's like the JRPGs but uses mouse and keyboard. Works pretty well.

Re:Controllers

[bigman2003]

I agree 100%.

A lot of people find the keyboard and mouse combo to be so good...because that is what they are used to. How much time did they spend with a mouse before playing their first game? Lots of practice is what makes it so good.

Play with a controller for a while, get the practice in...and the control is just as good.

when I started on my Xbox 4 years ago, I thought the controller was an abomination for a first person shooter. Now, when I go back to my PC, I can't stand it- I'd rather play with the controller.

Key point

[the computer guy nex]

"But gamers say few, if any, of the community-oriented online PC games are as consumer-friendly as Xbox Live, which has standardized and automated the process of selecting servers and competitors for the best game playing experience"

This is where Xbox Live dominates PC online games. Microsoft is able to place Live servers all over the world to 1) minimalize lag between 360/server and 2) easily find opponent matches that will have little lag. Xbox Live still offers the ability to find matches outside your area also.

The only PC games to do this are MMORPG's. Other online games give you a huge list of servers having you do all the work.

Re:Key point

[Hieremias]

How is choosing a server to join considered "more work"? XBox Live gives the user almost no input by making all the choices for him. Microsoft has eliminated functionality, and then put a pricetag on what PC gamers get for free. And people think this is a step forward? I may eventually be interested in online console games, but I most certainly will not pay for a glorified matchmaking service that is significantly less powerful than what I can do for free on the PC.

Re:Key point

[RevDobbs]

On Valve's Steam engine you can make ping times a server search criteria. No, there is not a way to tell if the players on a given Counter Strike server are way above or below your skill level[1], but this addresses the issue of minimalizing lag.

1: With me, finding good CS:S competitors is easy: everyone is way above my skill level :-)

Re:Key point

[Saige]

Oh, and don't forget how Xbox Live can also determine your skill level relative to other players, and use that to match you up with people close to your ability so as to make the games challenging without being too hard. I can't emphasize just how great of a feature that is - knowing that the odds are good when you play a ranked game on the 360 that you're going to have a fair chance to win the game, but without it being too easy.

You're always pushed just enough that you have to work hard to win, but rarely are you stuck in a game that you can't possibly win.

bleh

[shing0]

It's never going to work for me because they want you to subscribe and pay a monthly fee. So not only are you paying for your internet connection, but now the subscription along with it.

Re:bleh

[The-Bus]

What's funny about Xbox Live is that the features that are standard now on most 360 games (Online leaderboards) are the ones where Microsoft needs to pay to keep information. In some games, like Project Gotham Racing 3, you can actually see videos of the top players getting those records, so you know exactly how they got it. However, these are features you get no matter what version of Xbox Live you have (Silver, which is free, or Gold). Microsoft actually charges more for the things that, ideally, could be done for free - that is, playing other players online.

Honestly, the $50 a year bothered me a hell of a lot when I first heard about it. As an oft PC gamer I thought it was too my right to be able to play a console online without having to pay. I held out for a while. Eventually, I got a 60-day trial and was so hooked on it that I didn't mind paying $50. It's less than $5 a month and I play it enough to make it worth it. This argument is not too different from the arguments against monthly fees for MMORPGs. It's not innately bad or good, it's just a business model. Time and the market will determine which are feasible and which are not.

Re:bleh

[DorkusMasterus]

With most PC online games, you need to pay PER GAME, whereas with the Live service, you pay for the entire console. I don't see how that's cheaper, at all!

Re:bleh

[British]

If there was a choice between a free online game server which is run off of some 19 year old's cable modem for free(which doesn't cut it) compared to a pay server that is fast, relatively closeby and stocked with loads of players, I'll pay.

I remember the overwhelming nightmare it was on Counterstrike waiting for AGES to refresh a server list, and only being able to connect to 2 or 3 of them. You would get every single excuse handed to you to not be able to join/play. Forget that. If I pay, I want to get on, hold the problems.

Re:bleh

[Keeper]

People used to say the same thing about cable ...

Darn...They don't mean NetHack.

[boinger]

"Console" has a different meaning to me, I guess, than Them.

I was actually excited for a second.

Think RTS

[blueZ3]

I really enjoy RTS games (C&C, etc.) and even some turn-based strategy games, and I find a keyboard/mouse much more convenient than a game pad. For one thing, selecting multiple units with drag using a mouse is easy and intuitive. Also, I appreciate the ability to group units and assign them to a key... so for instance I can select all my air units with Ctrl+1 or all my ships with Ctrl+2.

However, for a lot of other games (FPS, puzzle games) that I play on my GameCube, I do appreciate the game controller. I think it's more a matter of what works best for different formats than whether one or the other is "better"

Re:Think RTS

[fatius]

Aah! Very true, I can't imagine playing Starcraft with an xbox controller.

(You can tilt the controller, too)

[Headcase88]

"PC game makers still have the advantage of using the keyboard and mouse as a controller"

Just wait till the Revo comes out... sure to some people it's not the same, but to me, much more natural (roll a mouse around a table vs. point at the screen, and typically a bigger screen at that).

The biggest obstacle would be getting good PC-style games on the Revolution. It's hardly guaranteed to happen, but hardware-wise it can, and if it does, I just might be playing a whole lot more FPS, RTSs, etc.

Hell even if they just ported Half-Life 2 + Source on the Revo that'd be somewhat cool. C'mon Nintendo, get Valve and other PC companies involved. You'll all make a lot of money... maybe.

Re:(You can tilt the controller, too)

[damsa]

They will prob make a touchscreen or maybe even connect your DS so you can play RTS. They are making Age of Empires for DS however but I doubt that a MS based studio will make a Revo compatible AOE or a Halo.

Will Microsoft Be Able To Stay Relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo is the current king for online console gaming with their amazing and free worldwide DS service.

And the Sony stuff looks like it is going to be both free and amazing.

The troubles Microsoft has been having with their online stuff sounds like they are going to have a tough time staying relevant to online console gaming.

The 360 online stuff has been plauged with:

1) Low numbers of max players online compared to pcs

2) Crashing/buggy software - PGR3 being the worst online culprit

3) Laggy game performance

And you are forced to pay for the privilege of using the service. Microsoft had better be scrambling to find a way to remain competitive with what Sony and Nintendo are offering this gen.

Re:Will Microsoft Be Able To Stay Relevant?

[bigman2003]

After playing hundreds of PGR3 games online, I have yet to see the game (not the cars, the game) crash.

Where are you getting this info?

Re:Will Microsoft Be Able To Stay Relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

PGR3 is one of the crashiest 360 games - but that has nothing to do with being online.

The PGR3 problems seem to be non-game related when communicating with other players/people. Not sure if the latest patch fixed or helped the problem.

I only have one TV...

[Wee]

...and it has a maximum resolution of 1920x1080. Assuming a console can do HD, that is. My big flat panel can do 1600x1200 -- while hooked up to a very very fast PC that includes a couple GBs of RAM, 5.1 sound, a nice keyboard/mouse combo (not some funky multi-button controller that vibrates or whatever), and an always-on Net connection. No fees are needed to play online, and the PC lives in my home office where I can play a game without disturbing anyone else in the house. As a bonus, I can use this PC for other tasks as well (though it mostly stays in suspend mode when I'm not playing a game).

I don't see the allure of console gaming. Maybe it's cheaper, but I'm not sure any savings are really worth it.

-B

Re:I only have one TV...

[Manmademan]

All of the next gen consoles, and 2/3 of the LAST gen ones can do High Def, as well as 5.1 surround sound. No online fees are necessary for play on the Ps2, and the Xbox Live online fees boil down to what, $4 a month? Of course you can use the PC for other tasks, because that's what PC's are- general purpose machines designed to do a lot of different things. No PC game will ever be made that will truly take advantage of that ultrafast video card and couple gigs of ram. On the flipside, Consoles are dedicated game machines that do one thing very, very well and some of us prefer that. If you don't see the allure of console gaming, maybe it's just not for you. There are plenty of genres on a console that are totally nonexistent on PC- while the mouse and keyboard are great for FPS and RTS titles, they're woefully inadequate at handling fighters, racers, rhythm games, and other titles the control pad excels at. And as for "maybe" a console is cheaper there is no argument here. I have a Ps2 purchased in 2000 that will play the newest, top of the line Ps2 games released today, tomorrow, and 2 years from now flawlessly, every time, without ever having to upgrade it. This is not something you can say about the PC, and its a big reason why console gaming has an audience. not to turn this into yet another PC vs. Console flamefest, but had to chime in.

Re:I only have one TV...

[Rude Turnip]

For me the choice is simple. I can spend upwards of $1,000 for a tricked out PC that won't be able to play the latest and greatest in a couple years or spend $400 for an Xbox 360. I don't have a lot of time for games, so it's all about the savings.

As for WASD+mouse or controller...I'm proficient with both. Neither is better than the other, it's just a matter of what you're used to.

Re:I only have one TV...

[Babbster]

First, one small note...Only 1/3 current/last-generation consoles can do HD resolutions (and only in a few games): Xbox. The other two can, in theory, output 480p but both require a particular console revision (for Gamecube the oldest units and for PS2 the newest) to do so, and 480p isn't defined as an HDTV resolution.

That said, I think you're absolutely right. PC folks talk a lot about how they've been playing in HD resolution for years but the real truth is that they can do so only a) by having an expensive video card that often costs as much by itself as a whole console and b) in "older" games because the newest games inevitably stress the video cards in such a way that you have to make concessions (turn down detail levels, turn off anti-aliasing, etc.) in order to run them at the highest resolutions.

For a short while in the late 90s I tried to stay on track with the latest and greatest video card technology so that my PC games would rock but I quickly tired of the treadmill. My last upgrade was from a 450-MHz K6-III to my current XP1500 and I'm still using the graphics card (G4MX420 - the worst of the Geforce 4 MX line) that came with it because my game money has gone for three consoles and a ****load of games for those. Had I tried to keep up with even the mid range of graphics technology I would have spent at least $600 since buying this PC and would probably have played fewer than 15 PC games.

I'll probably upgrade by the end of the year, and I might even get a nice graphics card this time around. That doesn't change, however, the fact that within a year the PC games coming out will probably force me to lower my resolution and detail levels while my Xbox 360 (not bought yet - waiting for a better slate of games) and PS3 will still be playing in 720p/1080i with default [console] settings...

Re:I only have one TV...

[Anonymous Coward]

"First, one small note...Only 1/3 current/last-generation consoles can do HD resolutions (and only in a few games): Xbox. The other two can, in theory, output 480p but both require a particular console revision (for Gamecube the oldest units and for PS2 the newest) to do so, and 480p isn't defined as an HDTV resolution."

GameCube has experienced two post-launch revisions, at least in Japan and the U.S. (European models are different in the video output options they support.) The first two versions are 100% interchangeable in functionality. Only #3 doesn't have a component out, but yes, it's the current version. Any owner of this version of GameCube can call Nintendo and have them ship out, at no charge, a component-equipped unit in exchange for their unit. And technically, the GameCube is not hardware-limited to 480p. There is just no software that supports anything higher.

All versions of the PS2 hardware support RGB and component out (switchable between the two via the same output port) and the same ED/HD resolution capabilities as the GameCube and Xbox. There is even at least one 1080i game: Gran Turismo 4.

Support for 480p is more than just theoretical for both the GameCube and the PS2. They each have a library of approximately 200 games that support 480p.

Re:I only have one TV...

[CronoCloud]

First, one small note...Only 1/3 current/last-generation consoles can do HD resolutions (and only in a few games): Xbox. The other two can, in theory, output 480p but both require a particular console revision (for Gamecube the oldest units and for PS2 the newest) to do so, and 480p isn't defined as an HDTV resolution.

I don't know where you got your info but all PS2's can do 1080i.for games, notably Gran Turismo 4. Now if it's progressive scan for DVD playback that's different, 50001 series and later. PS2's can also do VGA. Here's some output from a PS2 LInux kits /etc/X11/XGSConfg

# The GS server
Section "Screen"
        Driver "gsx"
        Device "Graphics Synthesizer"
        DefaultColorDepth 24
# DefaultColorDepth 16
        FrameRate 60
# FrameRate 75
# VideoMode "VESA"
        VideoMode "NTSC" "interlace"
# VideoMode "PAL" "nointerlace"
# VideoMode "DTV"
# interlace-mix 35

        Subsection "Display"
                Depth 16
# Modes "480p" "720p" "1080i"
                Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
# Modes "1024x768" "800x600" "1280x1024""640x480"
        EndSubsection
        Subsection "Display"
                Depth 24
# Modes "480p" "720p"
# Modes "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
                Modes "800x600" "640x480"
        EndSubsection
EndSection

Also as far as I know, all Gamecubes can do 720p

Re:I only have one TV...

[Babbster]

I'll plead "unwillful" ignorance on the PS2. I bought the component adapter but have never seen instructions as to enabling 480p output - any hints sent to my e-mail address would be much appreciated! I paid no attention to GT4 (went with Forza, partially because that was my grandparents' last name) so on the "no HD" score I was just out to lunch.

As for the Gamecube, I've never seen any indications of a 720p mode for any games. I'm well aware that the earlier versions of the Gamecube have a digital output (mine does) that permits 480p but, again, that's not an HD resolution and new Gamecube consoles don't even have that option.

Re:I only have one TV...

[idonthack]

I'm well aware that the earlier versions of the Gamecube have a digital output (mine does) that permits 480p but, again, that's not an HD resolution and new Gamecube consoles don't even have that option.

I noticed that on my GameCubes the other day. I had my broken one out of the box for some reason, and there was an extra port on the back that wasn't on the new one.

I wonder why they took it out.

Re:I only have one TV...

[Babbster]

They took it out because they believed few people cared about 480p, and removing it saved them some money on the units. Me, I never saw component cables at any B&M or Internet retailer - and I looked every time I found myself in a place selling Gamecubes. I couldn't even order them through my local game stores. Nintendo was willing to sell them to me via their online store but by the time I found that I was too irritated to want to give them the whole profit on the product. I can be a bit stiff-necked with businesses sometimes. :)

Right tool for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

In some cases keyboard/mouse setup is better and some console pad is better.

Pick the controller that the game is made to have and you are likely to have the best experience.

i think you are wrong

[llZENll]

"The only PC games to do this are MMORPG's. Other online games give you a huge list of servers having you do all the work."

so by 'all the work' you mean clicking 'sort desc' on the PING column? yah what am i thinking, its time to get xbox live...

BTW I have played many MMORPGs and they work the same way, when you create a new char they give you list of servers and their ping times, and you must manually select a server, just as in an FPS,RTS game.

% of online gamers

[Laserwulf]

David Cole, president of DFC Intelligence, a video game market research firm, estimates that less than 5 percent of console owners now connect for online play on a regular basis. He said that number could hit 10 percent in the next two years as next-generation units debut.
Anyone know the percentage of PC gamers who play online regularly, for reference? Or howabout the age-demographics? I have a Live account, but I never use it anymore. Maybe I just found bad servers, but it seems like the range of ages was lower on Live. Playing Battlefield 2, the only guys I hear using VoIP are coordinating tactics with the commander. Contrast that with the usual trash-talking coming into my Live headset, and one would understand why I simply turn it off. And has anyone else seen the 'chocolatemilk' videoclip of some kid playing Rainbow Six 3 over Live? Hearing that makes me weep for America's future.

Re:% of online gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing Battlefield 2, the only guys I hear using VoIP are coordinating tactics with the commander.
You've apparently never had the drunken commander on a server where mutiny is disabled.

It's not because of the "next generation"

[b1t r0t]

With the introduction of the 360 and the next generation consoles, online console gaming is primed for takeoff.

This has nothing to do with the 360, the PS3, or the Revolution. This has to do with 1) the increasing uptake of "always-on" broadband, and 2) console game developers finally realizing that console gamers want more online gaming.

All the current generation systems have broadband adapters, though the Dreamcast died before its BBA could become readily available. But three years ago, most console gamers would have had to use dialup, which really is a pain in the butt with a console. While those who were PC gamers were more likely to have had broadband, they weren't likely to care about console gaming.

Really, though, I would like it if LAN gaming were better supported on consoles. About the only console LAN gaming I've seen is with Halo. Broadband and LAN gaming are good for different things, and Xbox Live type gaming is no substitute for LAN gaming. I really hate split-screen gaming. Standard NTSC is low enough resolution without cutting it into four pieces.

Re:It's not because of the "next generation"

[CronoCloud]

Lan on consoles? Mostly FPS's and some other stuff. GT4 for example. It's a bit more common now.

PC Gaming

[Deliveranc3]

PC gaming's online systems are pretty rockey right now, for a while with HL1, Q3 etc it was possible to use third party server browsers that were INCREADIBLY powerful, All Seeing Eye is probably the best example, it did complex scripting to find you exactly the right server, it detected and screened for every publicly available aspect of the server down to which country/area the server was likely located in.

Then Gamespy attacked the publishers, I'm sure they talked to the publishers because their product is a big pile o' crap (Arcade at least Gamespy3D was fine) and developers wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole and now most games use in game server browsers that are slow, buggy, and control your search results.

Pretty sad :(

Consoles simply won't be able to replicate the golden age of server browsing computer gaming had with ASE or more recently with XFire (Thresh's IM/Browser/VOIP program).

Too bad for us...

So your TV has higher resolution than your PC...

[Corngood]

Is that what you were trying to say?

Also, PC and console gaming both have a place...

[Corngood]

There's no experience on the PC like getting some friends around and playing pro evo, guitar hero, etc. That's a social experience, and you want to do it on your biggest screen, with the largest speakers, and with lots of room for people to sit comfortably.

There are also experiences you can't replicate on consoles, but I clearly don't need to convince you of that. I'm just saying that you shouldn't write off either.

PS. the way you describe a gamepad makes it sound like it's somehow more strange than driving your character around with a typewriter.

DS wireless online long before xbox!

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't agree more! The Nintendo DS is already an on-line portable console with WiFi and P2P capabilities!

XLink Kai

[Namarrgon]

So play system-link games online with XLink Kai.

It's a completely free alternative to Live, has many of the same features (friends list, voice comms etc) and supports a wider range of games.