Slashdot Mirror
How Online Services Will Shape the Console War
Next Generation has a piece looking at the role online services will play in this round in the console Wars. With Microsoft's Xbox Live already in the field and both Nintendo and Sony working on plans for their own online environments, there would seem to be quite a bit to talk about. Despite that, the article offers up a pessimistic view of the competition. From the article: "The short glib answer is that online games will probably be a more important feature for console systems over the next several years, but once again the traditional retail model is likely to be the dominant driving factor when it comes to how the new game systems build an installed base."
More important than what? Previous online games? Non-online games?
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
The article talks a bit about what motivates a consumer. I just wanted to comment that XBox live has motivated me. I'm a Microsoft hater, yet here I am an Xbox 360 owner due to my curiosity in Xbox Live. I'm pretty pleased with the service. I wish there was a little more, a news browser or something maybe. Sometimes you get done playing a game and still want to use the XBOx but not want to play a game, or download a game trailer, or whatever. But really it's slick. Being able to download a demo or trailer for nearly every game is pretty brilliant, and I think the achivements system for each game - and how it keeps track for each player is pretty innovative.
I really hope the PS2 and Nintendo systems can compete. Xbox live marketplace has a lot of overpriced junk on there. Hopefully Sony / Nintendo can offer better products for less money. Should be an interesting couple of years.
This is a plea to all the developers out there. I understand that online play is the next big thing. I understand that more and more (if not all) games will incorporate it.
But please don't underestimate the value single player games offer. I can't imagine how games like Resident Evil 4, Zelda: Ocarina of Time or King's Quest could be made better by offering an online component. These games often set a mood, and adding some uncontrolled element (such as a 13 year old kid yelling "I 0wnz j00 petite Biatch!") will just take away from it.
of the article.
While there are games where the online play is the whole reason to buy the game (Halo 2), for the vast majority of games sold, it's just a "cool feature", as in:
"Wow, lookit this! GweenZow 5 has split-screen support!"
"Yeah, and online multiplayer co-op!"
"And I can use my driving wheel and pedals with it!"
It might sell a few more copies of the game, and in some genres it's simply expected to be there, but I'd argue it doesn't make a huge difference to your average gamer with your average game.
I think console-based MMORPGs will probably be the wedge that drives larger-scale online play for consoles, much as first-person shooters (Doom, Quake, TeamFortress, CounterStrike, etc.) drove larger-scale online play for PCs.
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot with the Marketplace "microtransaction" model. It's making it too easy for companies to hold back features from their games, then sell them to you through Xbox Live. They just released an add-on for Oblivion, a game that has been out no more than 2 weeks. It puts armor on your horse, and they want $2.50 for it. If marketplace wasn't there, how much do you want to bet that it would have been included on the ($60) game disc? Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter has the same problem - they only shipped it with 10 multiplayer maps (previous generations of Ghost Recon came with more than twice that). I'll bet they start selling the rest online soon enough.
If it becomes commonplace that Xbox 360 games come with fewer features or options than previous generation games and you have to pay to unlock the rest, you can bet Sony will take full advantage.
(Emphasis mine.)
I think we're getting a very good glimpse of what Nintendo's going to be offering. I play on the DS wifi network every day. It's amazingly simple, fast to connect, and no lag to speak of. I think it's a pretty darn good preview.
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
Nintendo isn't exactly new in this field either. Their extremely popular DS and DS Lite has passed one million unique gamers. Though the DS / DS Lite handhelds aren't stationary consoles, the principles are the same. Handheld consoles has more or less the same problems and the same gaming possibilities, and it does appear to be a huge success.
So now the new x-box has live and all of a sudden it is gonna make a huge difference? Why?
Frankly it is only in the intrest of the console makers and game makers that a single console wins.
For the consumers if one company would really win it would mean the end of choice. Do we really want Sony OR MS OR Nintendo to achieve the same kind of absolute control over console gaming that MS has over PC gaming?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So I never play online because I never play alone. Apparantly this really IS for people with no friends. But my wife plays video games with me, and damnit, it would be nice if we could both go online.
I also didn't like having to purchase three copies of Quake3, so that us-and-a-guest could go online and play. We're one family, one set of income(s), having to pay thrice did not sit well with me.
However, at least it is possible for us to join a Q3 server on both of our computers. What are we supposed to do for the consoles, however? Buy another Xbox? Buy another PS2s? (Both of mine are modded so the 2nd ones would need to be too, probably... Even more money, but I do enjoy playing Atari 2600 games on my Xbox! But I digress...)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Much like everyone else in 1998-2000 I saw Online Gaming as "The Future" of videogames, as time goes on I have to say that Online gaming is simply one way that some people enjoy playing videogames; the fact is that there is only such a push for Online gaming because the most "Hard-Core" 10% of gamers want it (I would say that a full half of gamers aviod online games). There are two main problems that occur in Online game that prevent people from playing; online games are almost all strictly competative and lots of people play games for non-competative reasons (some people like decorating in "The Sims" or "Animal Crossing", some people like the story in "Final Fantasy", and some people like exploring in "The Legend of Zelda" or "Metroid); and online games include the frustrations of everyday life that people aviod (endless work grind in "World of Warcraft" or Foul-Mouthed teenagers in "Halo 2").
Now with that said, I do think that this generation will provide interesting online games; Microsoft and Sony will continue with the standard online game model but will probably end up delivering some good MMO games that were designed to be played on a console (and deliver a great game); I expect Nintendo will end up delivering some memorable "different" online games, potentially more co-operative (or explorative) gaming experiances.
For most of the people who read this site, yeh, the online component is going to be important. But for myself (I'm very much a gamer, but...), and for a lot of moderate to casual gamers, online stuff isn't all that important. Personally, I see myself maybe buying a few SNES games for the Revolution online, maybe playing some Smash bros or Mario Kart, but only occasionally. I can't think of ANY PS2 games I would care greatly to play online. Maybe have arcade shooters (think Ikaruga) post high scores online. That's about it. Nothing that's going to make or break the entire generation. What's going to make or break it this time is if game developers can learn to make new, fun, interesting game concepts, instead of delivering yet another version of Shoot All The Pedestrians 14 - Extreme Edition!
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't own an xbox but a couple of my friends do and we routinely go on Live with up to 4 people on the same xbox. Depends on the game to support it though, e.g. Halo 2 you can have 4 people but PGR can only have 2. All with one live account and 1 xbox.
Free Online Woodworking Resources Directory
I guess the answer is: Halo on an X-box. :)
That still doesn't let us play online in DDR, Amplitude, or a slew of other games, however.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Along with the downloadable library of past titles, the DS service sure seems to indicate that Nintendo "gets" online play now. Whether they really add anything new or just try to compete on X-Box Live's terms remains to be seen.
Personally I'm not that wowed by what's been done with sports titles. Franchise modes always suffer, and that's what the serious fan wants. Give me a real NBA draft against 20-some other players, so I'm picking players against thinking opposition, please.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Ah I see the point about modded xboxes, and to be completly honest all my friends have ps2's as well but none of them take that online :p In general though, the xbox live thing seems to have set some standards as far as online gameplay with regards to the xbox in particular, e.g. every xbox game we've taken on live (even stuff like DOA) has let us play with the same number of people we could normally play in multiplayer but against other people online. Unfortunately for us though, most people on live apparently play a lot more than we do, and consequently we get rocked pretty bad.... which leaves us just playing system-linked games instead :p
Free Online Woodworking Resources Directory
Still, it would be nice if I could just do what I want, when I want. Anyone know of a small country I could take over?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It seems to me that Nintendo's offerings of old NES, SNES & N64 games online is going to be a good selling point for the system. At least, that's one reason I'm buying it. I've never subscribed to XBox Live or the Live for the 360, mainly because I prefer to play games by myself, but I certainly am going to sign up for Nintendo's online service.
GodDAMN Voltron is looking tough as hell standing here in my office! I wish my manager would walk by and see this shit!
I know that it's traditional fare to bash TFA, but for a company that's "spent a great deal of time researching the online game market", they seem to have a fantastically narrow view of it. ...
TFA only refers to playing games online, which from my view of XBox Live is only part of the deal. TFA also fails to discuss the differing potential markets for next-gen consoles and how these market dynamics affect the online strategies for the companies. Here's my two cents
Sony vs Microsoft
I'm not going to include Nintendo here, because IMO the Nintendo Revolution will not achieve mass-market success (if it does) using the same tactics as either Microsoft or Sony. Nintendo will have to do it through word of mouth and delivering quality (and they may well do it, although my head says that the economics are stacked against them). Microsoft and Sony have the momentum from the current generation to win market share initially through intertia supported by aggressive marketing.
So this becomes a straight fight between the two big boys. First question, what are the likely target markets?
Hardcore vs the world
The "hardcore gamer" description isn't fantastically helpful, emotive as it is. So I'll try to avoid it, but my simple view is that Microsoft is still in the "it's all about the games" mode. The XBox360 experience feels very much to me like a games-centric experience. The Sony Playstation experience much less so. I may be wrong, but I think that one of the major factors in the PS2's total dominance was the inclusion of a DVD drive that could be used without accessories. The PS2 was/is (I think - facts not checked) the biggest selling DVD player (NB it's probably a statistically anomoly, because other brands have so many models, whereas there was only really one (and maybe a half if you include the slimline version) PS2.
My conclusion is that Sony targets a different consumer market to Microsoft by marketing different capabilities of the machine. To blinkered gamers, it may be about the horsepower. However, to the "Average Joe" mentioned in the article is a deciding question really going to be about "free to play" online games or will the fact that the PS3 has a hi-definition DVD player (albeit blu-ray)built in be more important? I know what I would push if I were a salesman! The article almost seems to get this point, but then suddenly casts it aside and ignores it again. But it's fundamental to the relevance of the article! Whoops.
It's not just about playing games against people
I have a little experience of playing on a 360. One of the greatest features of the experience is the community angle. Online leaderboards are great for gamers. It's just like old-skool gaming again. For games that don't lend themselves well to leaderboards, ahievements and gamer points go some way to fitting the bill. A friend and I spent a whole evening playing a level on Marble Blast just to try to top the charts for that level. Genius. Not a second of trash-talking Halo2 in sight.
Friends lists, friend invites, seeing who's on-line and what they're playing etc etc are all brilliant games-centric community ideas. I feel that for gamers who experience this, they will find that pull just as strong as the ability to shoot their pals in Halo2.
What about me?
Well, personally, I'll buy all three consoles anyway, so it's irrelevant. But I'm more excited about the community angle of XBox Live than anything else. However, I favour Nintendo because if they get it right, the games could be awesome. As for the PS3, well if they introduce online leaderboards and videos of Singstar performances, then count me in!
I like how the nintendo portion of the article consists of one or two sentences. Nintendo has revealed that they are planning on basing their online off of the iTunes store. They've also said that they're going to include all of their systems plus some of their former competitors. That's a lot more then just including PS1 & 2 games.
Hold on there! While I can't imagine how to make an MMO in Hyrule work, I think Resident Evil 4 multiplayer would kick ass! It'd make for some awesome deathmatch fun.
...I hope! While I do look forward to play online games on my (soon to come to Europe) DS Lite and Revolution, I would most certainly also enjoy Brain Age, Zelda, Super Mario etc.
;-)
I hope that Nintendo will succeed in their quest to reinvent console gaming, and not fall into the pit where Sony and Microsoft are fighting: Competing to be the best non PC PC multimedia entertainment home media center.
As I see it, online is just another game enabling tool, like the new controller, the touch screen, 3D accelleration.
At least I hope so...!
what a great idea: If a game has a flaw, the producer could make an online patch, that everyone could download FOR FREE. Just like Office Tools and PC operating systems! (This of course also means, that games needs not to be finished, before they are sent to market... Just like...)
;-)
Nah - probably not a good idea. I'll just stick with Zelda and Mario on one of the last off-line consoles on the market!
Well, jokes aside: Dear game producers. Please keep up the good work on the consoles, and make some games that never crashes. It's bad enough to waste hours at work, because of a software glitch, but it is even worse when you're supposed to have fun.