Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox Live Needs MMOG Overhaul

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the console-fear dept.

GamesIndustry.biz has a discussion with Arena.net cofounder Jeff Strain. During the course of the interview, Strain states that he considers Xbox Live imperfect for MMOG titles. From the article: "Their whole goal is to encourage people to go and buy games on the shelf, then there's an online component for it ... But for us, when you buy it on the shelf, that's just the beginning of our relationship with you - and we want a direct connection with our customer so that we're always giving you new content, always supporting you directly. Xbox Live just wasn't really built, from a business standpoint, to support that." Relatedly, Guild Wars' World Championships were recently held. eToyChest has a few words on the Korean dominance of the event.

48 comments

  1. AKA by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    AKA You want more money per month ON TOP OF what Xbox Live players are already paying, and the business model is not currently set up.

    1. Re:AKA by Saige · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Xbox Live does not require people to pay to use the service - only if they want to play multiplayer games through the service.

      This does NOT apply to MMOGs. You do not have to pay for a Gold-level account to play such games when they become available.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    2. Re:AKA by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      Considering you're constantly being accussed of being a pro-Xbox troll / advocate / whatever, I'm surpised you didn't go for the more obvious route, that you don't actually have to be subscribed to Xbox Live Gold for MMORPGs on the Xbox 360, you can subscribe to them using the Silver account. So for MMOs, it's no different to a PC really.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    3. Re:AKA by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Guild Wars charges no monthly fee. Therefore, you just pay for the game and that's it. Currently, the game is $40 and it's expansion is $50. But since you aren't chunking $15 a month, you should theorectically have that money if you so desire.

    4. Re:AKA by XenoRyet · · Score: 1

      Guild Wars isn't really a propper MMO, since all the gaming occures in limited player instances. To really be an MMO all the players have to be in the same worlds, at least most of the time.

      --
      If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
    5. Re:AKA by nickyj · · Score: 1

      The parent is correct. Though the other posters are correct also. You pay for Gold to play multiplayer games online. Well why should you have to pay more for MMORPGs if you have the Gold account? You are already paying to play multiplayer, but now you are classing MMORPGs in a different category from MMOs. For Silver pass you are correct though.

      The problem is Gold pass cost X dollars, and the MMO costs Y, on a monthly basis. Consumers don't want to pay X + Y. Microsoft doesn't want to pay Y to the game co from the X you pay them, but let's suppose they did: If a consumer plays only the MMO mostly and can do without the Gold pass, then they will if X > Y, and Microsoft won't like that cause they lost X-Y.

      The other business choice is require a Gold Pass to play the game. Well if Microsoft and game co can't agree on what % of the fees of players who have played the game to pay to the company, then that's out the window. Microsoft and the game co don't want to lose money on the deal.

      The biggest problem is we are only talking about one game here... now imagine having to make this deal with every new MMORPG that comes out.

      So in the end it's the consumer who gets screwed.

      --
      Causing Chaos Everywhere,
      Nik J.
      The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
    6. Re:AKA by nickyj · · Score: 1

      Correction to my post:

      "You are already paying to play multiplayer, but now you are classing MMORPGs in a different category from other multiplayer games."

      --
      Causing Chaos Everywhere,
      Nik J.
      The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
    7. Re:AKA by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      Well the issue is that MMOs cost money to run. The way I understand the Live architecture is that for all games that are on Live proper, Microsoft hosts everything needed on their servers. MMOs are hosted seperately by the MMO developer for obvious reasons, and only access the Live servers for authentication. In this way, they are almost entirely independent from Live and thus use their own pricing structure.

      Taking the fees out of the gold pass costs doesn't work, because it would eventually lead to a situation where MS isn't getting any money out of the deal if a player had a lot of MMOs.

      I think the best way to have it make sense is to look at Live like you'd look at your broadband connection. It's a flat rate you pay to play games. On top of that, you can pay a bit more to play certain games, only in this case you don't need to be paying the first charge if you only want to play the extra cost games.

      What I would like to see is a no-initial-investment MMO. If I'm going to be paying $X a month, why the hell should I pay $50-60 up front as well? Why can't I just download the game client, give them my credit card info, and go?

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    8. Re:AKA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want more money per month ON TOP OF what Xbox Live players are already paying

      Moron. Try reading the article. GW has no subscription, they don't want more money.

      But the Xbox Live service provides a piss-poor feature set for games that already have a strong MM infrastructure, so they prolly want Microsoft to take LESS cash since they are contributing pretty much nothing.

    9. Re:AKA by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      You pay for Gold to play multiplayer games online. Well why should you have to pay more for MMORPGs if you have the Gold account?

      Because MMORPG's require a LOT more bandwidth, server muscle, and ongoing development costs than standard multiplayer fare.

      As it stands with most multiplayer games on Live, the MS system basically just sets the game up and then hands it off to the players (with one high-bandwidth player functioning serving the game). With MMORPG's, the game company's servers are serving the game (since it's a massive persistent world) and that means serious $$ on their end for server banks and massive bandwidth (not to mention upkeep, anti-cheat/anti-gold-farmer measures, etc.).

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. I notice they don't mention MMORPG.... by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1

    MMORPG (which is the very large bulk of MMOG out there) isn't mentioned in the summary or the article (by what I skimmed). I wonder if this is to deter comments about "howabout an RPG in the first place?".

    --
    In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    1. Re:I notice they don't mention MMORPG.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bring it, shy guy

      <blink>shy guy</blink>

  3. Yet another reason to wait for PS3 or NR by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0, Troll

    Which apparently they are developing for.

    I for one, welcome our MMORPG masters.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Yet another reason to wait for PS3 or NR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i loved you in good will hunting. which one were you again? no seriously. cool nic.

    2. Re:Yet another reason to wait for PS3 or NR by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      sorry, second cousin. check out Gil Luna for a closer relative of mine who's in SAG and AFTRA, he's got a film coming out soon.

      I know it's an uncommon name, but it's more common than you might think.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Yet another reason to wait for PS3 or NR by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Sony? build MMO support into the PS3?

      YA THINK?

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    4. Re:Yet another reason to wait for PS3 or NR by apoc06 · · Score: 1

      yeah, they botched the push with the ps2 harddrive. sony obviously would want to push everquest on their new box if only to keep people from leaving the service like they are doing on pc.

  4. Game world events? by keldog42 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm assuming that he is reffering to things like hosted in-game events??? Eposodic content and downloads are already built in, but maybe not realtime interaction from an administrator level. I'm sure it is possible since FFIX is on the 360, but maybe more difficult than it has to be.

    I wish he was a little more specific in his comments...

    1. Re:Game world events? by keldog42 · · Score: 1

      Of course maybe he wants more contol to sell some in-game ads and M$ is reluctant since they may not make any additional money from the ads, but I would have figured that they have been planning on profitting from ad sales since the concept was concieved.

      Yeah, that will really benifit the gamers.

  5. Re:Yeah, PlayOnline sucks, and - wait, what? by MHQ13 · · Score: 1

    I believe that what he's complaining about is that unless you (the developer) implement your own infrastructure like PayOnline, err PlayOnline, then you can't implement MMOGs on the XBox 360 due to (perceived) limitations of XBox Live.

    Personally I don't really care. I'm not a big MMO(RPG) fan. Give me my offline, single player Oblivion and I'll be happy. Much better IMO since I don't have to deal with thousands upon thousands of griefers and idiots, plus I get to play, and stop playing, when I want to without feeling that I'm letting them down.

    MMOs tend to make you play more, because of the multiplayer aspect, like you start to feel some sort of obligation to the other players in your party and that if you log out to go do real life stuff you've just screwed your buddies.

  6. Correct me if I'm wrong but... by jshackles · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I thought this was why Microsoft allows people to play MMOGs with just a "Silver" level subscription to Live on the XBox 360. Well, that, and they want you to pay for the MMOG on top of your normal "Gold" level subscription.

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I have yet to come across a game that allows a player to play online with silver (granted my experience is limited...). At least PDZ and PGR3 explicitly say on the back of the game's box that a paid suscription (gold) is needed to play online.

      As for silver, as far as I can tell it only allows you to keep a friends list, talk to people, send messages, and access the marketplace.

    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and silver is also designed for MMORPGs. look it up.

  7. Couldn't Resist by krgallagher · · Score: 1
    From the summary:

    "the Korean dominance of the event"

    In Korea only old people play MMOGs.

    --

    Insert Generic Sig Here:

    1. Re:Couldn't Resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Slashdot, only dumbass people keep posting the same repetitive messages.

    2. Re:Couldn't Resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Russia MMORPG plays YOU!

  8. Re:Yeah, PlayOnline sucks, and - wait, what? by gabebear · · Score: 1

    I believe what the article was "bitching about" is that Microsoft interferes with online play to extort money. XBox Live Silver is really cool and useful.. while Gold is just a relic of the original flawed Live System. If MS did away with Gold and allowed games to offer free online play or pay to play then everyone would be better off.

    Most games should be free to play online, but Live makes them pay-to-play, while a few games(MMOGs) should be pay-to-play at much higher levels than can be justified at a flat fee. Why bother with a flat fee system in the frst place?

  9. You, sir, are a banana by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    and we want a direct connection with our customer so that we're always giving you new content, always supporting you directly.

    Until the service is no longer profitable, in which case our "connection" with you gets upgraded to level "fuck you."

  10. Conflict of business model by Paran · · Score: 1

    Xbox live charges a fee. Arena.net does not, and focuses on providing new content to generate income. Xbox is also designed to play a game on a disc, Arena.net's Guild Wars has contantly updated content, ie. the new content from Factions is already located on most people who play GW's hard drive. It just needs to be unlocked by purchasing a key when it's released. The store bought disc model is rapidly fading in the MMOG world. Xbox thrives on this "old" model, and is designed with it in mind.

    1. Re:Conflict of business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what effect does the success of World of Warcraft have on your argument?

  11. Microsoft's cost model screws MMOG subscribers. by Kaldaien · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has had a nasty habit in the original XBOX Live service of charging its customers no less than $5.00 for the most trivial of content updates. Though to be honest, I don't know why an MMORPG would want to use the XBOX Live infrastructure when they already have their own proprietary infrastructure. Short of letting others know a GamerTag has their 360 turned on and logged into XBOX 360, the rest of the XBOX Live crap is just a nusiance to developers and subscribers. I'd be really frustrated if everytime I started Generic MMORPG X on my 360 I had to login to XBOX Live, select an in-game menu "check for updates," which like all other XBOX Live titles boots you out of the game into the XBOX Live Marketplace, where you have to restart the game countless more times before you can actually play it.

    1. Re:Microsoft's cost model screws MMOG subscribers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you even played a LIVE game? Yes, some of the updates cost $5.00 and up - but the vast majority of updates on the original XBox were free.

      Most games prompt you to automatically download updates, you don't need to check for them manually.

      Yes, you typically have to restart the game (which is a bit annoying) but I've yet to find a game that required more than one restart.

      And on my Xbox 360, my gammer tag gets logged in as the game is starting up, I don't have to do anything. I just select Multiplayer from the main menu, and away it goes.

      The "rest of the crap" that you're saying is a nusiance is mostly pretty cool, and the only companies that ever complain about it are the ones that want to use their old in-house systems for collecting $$ from their gamers.

      I understand why it'd be frustrating trying to agree terms over the financials with M$ for a bigger gaming company (like the EA deal which took quite a while) - but most of what you said in your post is simply inaccurate.

    2. Re:Microsoft's cost model screws MMOG subscribers. by Kaldaien · · Score: 1

      The features you describe are part of the XBOX 360 dashboard, the other crap I was refering to has to do with the XBOX Live server infrastructure. Rankings, leaderboards, matchmaking, etc... none of it is relevant for a cross-platform MMOG. And if the XBOX Live Marketplace is used for updates, a player will have to download each update individually, kind of like the stupid WOW updater that makes you download 5 separate updates to go from version X.3 to X.8. The XBOX Live infrastructure is great for games that do not have dedicated servers (XBOX Live matches dynamically create server instances) and do not have frequent content updates and patches, but it clearly was not designed with MMOGs in mind - which was the point of this article.

    3. Re:Microsoft's cost model screws MMOG subscribers. by Saige · · Score: 1

      Umm... what are you even talking about? There is NO option "Check for Upgrades" on any 360 game at all. The single dashboard update and the COD2 patch both informed the player when they connected that the update was available. You didn't have to look for it.

      It's also not like you have to manually log in to Xbox Live - unless you deliberately set it that way. The console automatically does it. And even if you have it set to manual, it's all of selecting an account and pressing the button. No entering usernames or passwords or any of that crap.

      In other words, all that stuff you call annoying crap has absolutely no relation to how things work on the 360.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    4. Re:Microsoft's cost model screws MMOG subscribers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just flat-out wrong. The Live infrastructure works fine for games with dedicated servers and patches/new content downloadable through said servers. I should know; I work in a game company that has developed an Xbox 360 game with both of those aspects for our online component. It may be more work, for sure, but the possibility of reaching many more customers in a managed machine-spec environment should not be ignored. Of course there are some downsides, but Xbox Live is pretty easy to use on the coding side and one should not blindly assume certain "facts" held by many of these articles to be true.

  12. They Weren't Singling Out Xbox 360... by Skankme · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you follow the link to the full interview, he just used LIVE as an example , his comments were about "consoles" in general.

    So, there need to be some changes in the business model, and we're keeping an eye on the technology - but we love console games, and I'd love to see Guild Wars on an Xbox [360] or a PlayStation 3.

    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid= 14931

  13. Xbox live sucks ass now by WickedClean · · Score: 1

    It only recognized Xbox 360 games if you want to set up a gamer profile on xbox.com. I wanted to track my BattleFront kills and such. The whole Live Arcade thing is dumb, too. Most of those games or something like them can be played at Shockwave.com.

    --
    ...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
  14. Ask Albert... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Albert says...

  15. I know what he's talking about by Mr_eX9 · · Score: 1

    As an avid Guild Wars player and fan of ArenaNet and its roots, I know what Strain is getting at.

    Implementing an MMO on Xbox Live requires a break in continuity from the generic and limited "live-enabled" template, which has only been updated to add "no duh" features they had left out like voice chat from the Dashboard and voice messages. At its core, the current iteration of Live is basically indistinguishable than what you got in terms of online play from MechAssault or Crimson Skies.

    Three companies have been able to break away from the template:
    1. Electronic Arts: This was mainly so MS could attract more software sales to its console, but EA's developers could do some interesting things with it. For example, in TimeSplitters: Future Perfect you were able to upload and trade your maps from the mapmaker over EA's central server. Sometimes you could actually find servers that played the most popular mapmaker maps.
    2. Square-Enix: I don't know a lot about PlayOnline, but Square-Enix wouldn't have pushed for it if they didn't need it, or at least make things easier for them.
    3. Microsoft itself (see Bungie): Halo 2 completely disregards the Xbox Live template in favor of matchmaking. Also, stuff like Conquest mode in MechAssault 2 broke the mold, although Conquest was very poorly integrated into XBL and it was impossible to find any matches.

    Follow the money trail. Microsoft let EA use its network because the Xbox needs the sales of EA's online games, let Square-Enix use PlayOnline just to get FFXI on their console (and maybe develop a relationship for future FF releases?) Of course, Microsoft has broken its own template because as the developer and publisher they're the only ones who profit if the break is successful (see Halo 2.) Even with what Microsoft stood to gain from the deal with EA, the two still fought tooth and nail for years before Microsoft finally gave in.

    This leaves smaller developers and publishers who actually need freedom from a template best-suited to action games between a rock and a hard place. The download-as-you-play updating technology in Guild Wars allows ArenaNet to add to or change anything in the world with a snap of their fingers without the need for a patch. For the record, they've used this ability heavily--they've added a whole new area with dozens of unique items to farm, changed the theme of many the major cities to celebrate the Halloween and Christmas seasons including special items and quests, and added the ability to view replays of the top guilds' PvP matches. Also noteworthy is that they've given players all of this content with the irresistable subscription plan of $0 per month. Also, as far as I know, matchmade ladder competition isn't possible on Xbox Live unless you're playing Halo 2, which would make events like the Guild Wars World Championship impossible to seed over Live. Thus, over Xbox Live, Strain's "close relationship with the customer" goes out the window from creative, technical, and commercial standpoints.

    Overall, I'd say the Xbox Live is a good service for what it is, but the fact that some developers and publishers need to fight to supplement/circumvent Xbox Live indicates that Live does have limitations. Microsoft's absolutist attitide towards running their online service stifles creativity, and it's keeping many developers away.

    1. Re:I know what he's talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know a lot about PlayOnline, but Square-Enix wouldn't have pushed for it if they didn't need it

      I don't believe they really needed it for a second. They just used it because the PC and PS2 versions of the game use it.

      If you've ever played their PC ports of their PlayStation games, including FFXI, you'll know that they're incredibly half-assed, taking absolutely no advantage of the PC platform or doing anything to make the user interface work on a PC.

      On the PC, PlayOnline has an unchangable resolution of 640x480. On a PC, this - as you can guess - looks like utter crap. The FFXI client is designed to run at 640x480 as well - if you increase the resolution, the UI elements became absolutely miniscule. (WoW, by comparison, allows you to scale the entire UI and is set up to work in a 1024x768 environment by default.)

      To emulate the PS2, you have three choices of resolution for the "world" layer. (There's a UI layer, and a separate "world" layer.) They're 256x256, 512x512, and 1024x1024. They all look insanely crappy on a PC. There are third-party utilities (that are almost certainly against the TOS) that will force the world layer to standard PC resolutions, but the default system won't do it.

      I can't imagine the XBox360 port isn't exactly the same. Instead of doing something to take advantage of XBox Live, they just reused PlayOnline because it was easier than having to learn how to use XBox Live.

    2. Re:I know what he's talking about by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      can't imagine the XBox360 port isn't exactly the same.

      Word is that it is just a crappy 480i port and doesn't even support voice chat. What a waste of disc space.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  16. GW is a hell of a lot better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To really be an MMO all the players have to be in the same worlds, at least most of the time.

    Rubbish. That was the root of the whole problem in traditional MMOs like EverQuest, and thank goodness it's on its way out.

    You'd set out to play with your own team, and instead you'd get KS'd by others, stopped from playing because your chosen area was camped, and constantly killed by having mobs trained on you by morons. It wasn't pleasant.

    GW keeps the "Massively" where only it's needed, in other words in the towns where you recruit people and socialize and form teams. Everywhere else all those extra people are just a pain in the bum, make everything laggy, and just ruin the game.

    And what's more, GW is more "Massively" than any other MMO, because everyone lives in the same world instead of being split off onto different games servers.

    So your whole comment is arse about face.

  17. Umm what? by xtieburn · · Score: 1

    I dont understand what hes asking for.

    Live allows additional content. It allows for support. Nothing hes saying cant be done in the present system. Add to that the fact that he neither has a game on Live nor is planning one for live and I have to wonder what exactly is the point of this at all?

    Not only are his comments vague they are also counter to the fact that square is already accomplishing what he wants and Final Fantasy XI is already working on live ready for full release.

    Maybe hes talking with the other consoles in mind but its very unlikely they would have any problems either. I can only assume that some site picked up on some musings he was making and threw it up online.

    1. Re:Umm what? by sparkMonkey · · Score: 1

      Live definitely has the ability to update each user's xbox, which sounds like their main beef. However, it is very slow (at least with the old xbox). The other issue I see is how the games are hosted. I don't know if this is true for all games, but Halo 2 isn't hosted by a central server, and I think the same is true of Forza. Each game is hosted by a random member of the group in any given game. To run MMOGs, you can't rely on a random person's xbox to run the whole game for everyone. A central server is required. I don't see why this couldn't be implemented for a future game with better equipment at Live, but perhaps the issue is that it just hasn't been done before.

  18. Not Arena.net by Blaaguuu · · Score: 1

    Actualy Arena.net's only game to date, Guild Wars, requires only taht you buy the initial game, then you can play it online forever, with no aditional costs. They continue to support the game with very frequent patches, and there has been a little bit of new content, i believe. They are going to be releasing numerous optional "mission packs", with massive ammounts of new content, to continue getting money from consumers.

    --
    My hand touched her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob! Algebra is awesome!
  19. Re:Yeah, PlayOnline sucks, and - wait, what? by fondue · · Score: 1

    They're complaining that Microsoft impose unworkable technical and contractual limitations on third party developers who want to bring MMOGs to the Xbox/Xbox360. Which is absolutely correct.

    How does FFXI running on PlayOnline 'prove' that you can run an MMORPG through Xbox Live, exactly?

    --

    Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck

  20. Re:Yeah, PlayOnline sucks, and - wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, because FFXI is an MMOG (a shitty one, but an MMOG none-the-less), and it runs on Live just fine. Basically it goes through Live and then through the useless PlayOnline layer (essentially a very complicated patcher instead of using built-in Live features) and then onto FFXI.

    So - there you have it. A working example of an MMOG on Live.