Xbox Live Cracks 6 Million, Windows Cost Revealed

Kotaku offers up a Microsoft press release on the unexpectedly early arrival of 6,000,000 players to the Xbox Live service. Along with some rather odd statistics to pass on (over 2,300,000,000 hours in-game time spent on the network already), there are some very interesting numerical tidbits passed on. An astonishing 70% of Live users have purchased a title from the Xbox Live arcade. Nearly half of all users hit the Marketplace at least once a session. This all has to add up to good news, financially, for Microsoft; but are they overreaching? GameInformer reports on pricing for Live on Windows Vista. Gold-level service is exactly the same as on the Xbox ($19.99 for three months), while Silver is free. Encouragingly, if you're already a Gold member on the 360 the same will be true on your PC. Just the same, the company is now charging for services normally taken for granted as a freebie on the PC platform.

Comments

Charging for what was free

[Froster]

I can't say that I'm too bothered by this. I have had all kinds of headaches with online play over the years, and if Live on Vista works as well as it does on XBOX, then its a welcome change. I think that too often game developers take the online portion of their games for granted because it doesn't generate revenue. Hopefully this is a step forward, not back.

Re:Charging for what was free

[Xest]

The problem I have with it is that it's not even charging for what was free, it's charging for less than what was free - you don't get dedicated servers, game servers are hosted entirely by peers.

When extra content from the marketplace has costs of it's own and games are hosted by the clients I have to ask what I actually get for my subscription other than access to the service? If access is all then £40 a year is an extortionate cost.

Re:Charging for what was free

[bigman2003]

The analogy that always come to my mind is this:

Free online gaming is like swimming at the public park. Playing on Xbox Live is like swimming at the gym you pay for.

There's a lot more riff-raff pissing in the pool at the park. The gym pool may not be perfect; but it's a whole lot better, simply because you are forced to pay to use it.

For that reason alone I am willing to pay for Live, and the pool at the gym.

Re:Charging for what was free

[twistedsymphony]

I think you missed the point... On Xbox Live if someone is being rude or obnoxious I can block them, they're not only blocked in that game but every other game I might ever play on the service, they'll be excluded from games I host and the automatic match making will avoid putting us in the same room.

If they're causing more serious problems and I report them, and 9 other people report them as well, then they'll get their account reviewed and banned. They've lost all of their achievements, they've lost their friends list, and all of their other account details but most importantly they'll have to pay another $50 to sign back up. How much do you think the "riff-raff" would be willing to lose before they just go bother people on some free service where they can create new accounts to their hearts content?

I loathed online gaming for the longest time, it was a pain to find quality servers, it was a pain to find people who were my skill level, it was a pain to keep in touch with other gamers, and it was damn near impossible to get all three of those at once. I barely got any enjoyment out of online gaming in comparison to the work involved. I stuck mostly to LAN parties or split screen console games. When Dead or Alive Ultimate came out on the Xbox 1 I wanted to play online against some college friends so I signed up for Xbox Live... after about an hour I couldn't believe how streamlined and simple the whole service was. I've had an Xbox live account for 3 years now and I couldn't be happier with it. I could care less if the server us just one of the peers, I rarely have problems with lag or slowdown (probably because the game is built to handle the load of acting as a server) which is a lot more then I can say for the majority of the "proper" servers I find through the various free methods.

I used to spout off all sorts of crap about how stupid paying for Xbox Live is... bullet listed items with sound arguments and sources... While most of that is still true; and they really aren't doing much, the resultant ease of use the system creates makes playing online with a quality connection, skill matched opponents and plenty of options as easy as just loading the game and picking up the controller. For me, that's worth every last damn penny they charge.

Re:Charging for what was free

[Saige]

It's actually NOT charging for what was free.

The PC, until now, doesn't have the Xbox Live model. There is no persistent identity from game to game, no gamer profile that sticks with people that allows you to look at someone else and see what games they play. The idea of a "friends list" is either per game, or you're talking about IM. If you're in the middle of one PC game, and your friends want you to come play with them in another, is there a simple way for them to send you a game invite that you can accept that will end the current game, start the new one, and go right into the game they're in? What about playing cross platform between the PC and the Xbox?

There are quite a few things that Xbox Live does that just aren't really there in any coherent form on the PC. Whether or not it catches on with the PC is to be seen.

Re:Gears of War made me skew the figures up...

[Xest]

Whilst you're right in that temporary accounts make the total user base figure look less impressive, the original post also states:

"An astonishing 70% of Live users have purchased a title from the Xbox Live arcade."

Which is a figure that to be fair on MS, gets more impressive when dummy accounts are taken into consideration.

Re:I hope Live on PC doesn't stick...

[Sobrique]

For MMOs I can understand a subscription model. I pay for website hosting on a monthly basis, so I don't see a real issue with paying for 'EVE Online hosting'. Either would be meaningless without the 'online' part of the service.

However I also object to paying just to be able to use games online. I mean, the 'service' of finding matches with another player, and have your local bandwidth/computer systems take up the load, I consider a mandatory part of a game with 'online content' and one that should be bundled in the initial purchase price.

If I'm paying £40 for a game, I expect it to be either mostly standalone, at which point the online service is a minor thing, and therefore should be a small fraction of that cost, and built in, or the online part to be the major component, and therefore also included in the initial cost, since it's otherwise 'not fit for purpose'.

I'll make an exception for MMOs, as they literally don't work offline, however I still consider it unreasonable to charge for both content _and_ time spent playing. Free game + sub seems reasonable. Expensive game + no sub also seems reasonable. The exact model I'd say depends a lot on the replayability of the game in question.

PC Online is very different than Console Online

[cdneng2]

Microsoft is doing what they've always been trying to do. Just because it's had success in one area, it tries to push it's product in a totally unrelated area expecting the same success.

I have to say that Xbox live is really well done. However, it's successful because it's the only game in town on the Xbox and 360.

On the PC, there's a plethora of games out there that allow you to play online for free after you purchase it. I can see if my friends are online to play against via IM, Yahoo Messenger, Googletalk, ICQ. I can email them and chat with them. I can VOIP with them. I can download game demos from many sites. I can download videos from many sites.

What can Xbox live offer me that I can't get for free online? Gamerpoints? I can play with UNO with people on Live?

Honestly, if I have Halo 2 for the PC, who is still playing Halo 2 on the Xbox? Halo 3 will be on the 360 by that time, so all those Halo 2 PC gamers will just be playing against someone else who has Halo2 on the PC.

Re:PC Online is very different than Console Online

[screamingdreaming]

let's not kid ourselves. no one i know bought the xbox to play dashboard games or to frak around with the other "content" or bells and whistles it offers. i've never seen anyone play the dashboard games other than secondary users like girlfriends and non-gamer types who are passing the time while the gamer is doing something else. the *only* reason i bought a Live account is to be able to play Gears online and maybe Halo2 sometimes. i'm not interested in anything else MS has to offer and all the logging in, profiling, clicking around trying to find this or that, etc, just takes away from length of my gaming time (which is inversely proportional to my age, it seems). also, i think the Live interface is clunky, counter-intuitive and needlessly bloated, just like most MS products. it's an added insult that we have to pay to simply connect up a few clients over internet to play. Tribes and Tribes2 were both games so much ahead of their times in this respect...the interface told you what you needed to know, had friend management and real-time server/ping updates and was frakking FREE (and i'm not talking about the Tribes2 browser feature nobody used, just the server/game listing). so, in a nutshell, MS has done what corporations are good at doing: inserted a needless layer of crap into an experience that would otherwise still work without it, just so they could charge for it (i say this about gaming and corporate operations, ever notice how big companies insert layers of middle management everywhere to "streamline" things?).

Re:I hope Live on PC doesn't stick...

[anduz]

I agree with what you're saying, but the sad truth is that some games just don't deliver a working online part. I remember countless times where a couple of friends and I were heading for an online gaming session in whatever, that turned out to be a load of frustrations because the online service just didn't work.

If that is the alternative, then I sure hope live catches on on windows aswell. More so because I own an xbox, and it'd be nice to play from that with friends of mine who can actually afford hardware that is useful under vista. :p

Does this figure represent XBL Gold accounts?

[fr0dicus]

Or by online gamers do they include Silver members downloading something?

A PC is not a gilded cage

[DrXym]

Microsoft can get away with that kind of shit on the XBox 360 because it is a closed system. Everything that runs on it must be approved by MS and meet their platform specifications. MS control what runs, how you buy it and how you play it. Want to chat online with your friends? Screw you pay MS. Want to set up a game? Screw you pay MS. Want to "exclusive content"? Screw you pay MS.

The same is not true on PC (much though MS would wish otherwise). There are countless online systems available, and countless ways that games use those systems or integrate with their own. I really don't see many companies being interested in this unless MS waves a big fat paycheck under their nose. The Valves, Blizzards and NCSofts of this world aren't suddenly going to dump their products just because MS is trying to muscle in. And I don't see the likes of Gamespy or XFire disappearing either unless MS engage in some extremely anticompetitive behaviour to kill them off.

In fact I see next to no reason for users to be interested either. Unless you own a 360 already and therefore get Windows Live Gold for free, where is the incentive. What is so compelling about the MS service to justify forking out $50 to use it when the same can be had for free elsewhere?

Re:A PC is not a gilded cage

[p0tat03]

What is so compelling about the MS service to justify forking out $50 to use it when the same can be had for free elsewhere?

The same reason it's always been to fork over $50 for Xbox Live - quality of service.

You've listed only one pro for PC multiplayer, and that is the free-ness (as in beer) of it all. Personally I can think of a couple more:

- Support for user mods.
- Text chatting... but that's more a hardware difference than a service one.

Allow me to explain why I believe Xbox Live is worth every penny:

- Global friends lists and enemies lists: Every single game I play on the service is tied to the same friend and foe lists. If I meet a very annoying player, I can blacklist him, making sure I do not get paired up with him *ever again* in *any game that I play*.
- Tighter profanity control: When I get on CS I am hit with a wall of prepubescent vulgarity. On Xbox Live users that swear excessively get bad reviews, are less likely to get paired up with you. At the extreme end there is an active system that will ban such players. With free PC multiplayer everything is at the server level. For every vulgar n00b that gets banned off a particular server there's a million more just waiting to log in.
- Skill based rankings: Ever notice in online shooters that the scoreboard always has a few top players that duke it out, while everyone is just cannon fodder? On Live the TrueSkill system will attempt to place you with others of similar skill, ensuring that as you improve your game so do your opponents. Gunning down hapless newbies isn't fun for too long, nor is getting your ass handed to you every time you spawn.
- Guaranteed availability: This one is not intrinsically unique to Live, but I've yet to see a PC game do this well. On PC I'd surf huge lists of servers to pick the game I wanted. This I find annoying but necessary - there are a ridiculous number of laggy servers out there, if I don't manually pick one odds are it's going to suck. On XBL I can trust the "Quick Match" feature to put me in a good game. Many on PC have tried, all that I have seen have failed.
- Instant join for friends and games: I turn on my Xbox. My buddy John is playing Gears of War. He sees me come online through a quick message on his screen. He pauses his game, hits his menu, and bam, he's invited me to play. Networks like Steam have this feature also, but... how many games does Steam have again (especially just counting the ones that people care about)? XBL enables this feature across the board for *every game you play*.
- Play type preference: On XBL there are 3 "zones" of play: Rec, Pro, and Underground. These zones have slightly different rules, and are designed to segregate casual gamers from competitive ones. Some people play some games religiously and demands squad tactics from all their fellow players. Others are just there to unwind and shoot aliens. On a PC I've run into this problem repeatedly. The only solution is to bookmark servers that you know fits your play "style"... Both time consuming and annoying. Of course popular servers tend to fill up, so you're right back to "refresh server list, find good server... attempt to join".

I can't think of much else off of my tired, groggy head. But there are plenty of reasons to go from free online play to paid services. As long as you're getting your money's worth.

Re:A PC is not a gilded cage

[RexRhino]

In fact I see next to no reason for users to be interested either. Unless you own a 360 already and therefore get Windows Live Gold for free, where is the incentive. What is so compelling about the MS service to justify forking out $50 to use it when the same can be had for free elsewhere? What Xbox Live offers is not available for free anywhere else. It is not available for money anywhere else!

If I play a game with someone that I like, I can instantly get a list of the games they play online cross references with the games that I play online, tag them as a friend - I can be notified in-game when they log on and log off, And with in 3 seconds invite them to the game I am hosting while I am still playing. Or, when I log in, I can go to my list of friends, see what they are playing right now, and instantly join their game sessions if they have open slots. All of this functionality is integrated with the game itself.

If I don't like a person I am playing with, I can tag them as someone I don't like, and when I search for game sessions, the games that they are playing in won't show up in my list (nor will they be able to join the games I am hosting). And if they are being assholes, yelling racist slurs or whatever (which is super common in online play on the PC), I can report them - and a microsoft employee will investigate, listen to audio to see if the person was actually saying stuff that violates the TOS, and ban the player (and that account is tied to their credit card and xbox serial number, so it is no small thing to create another account).

And, voice chat is a standardized part of online play. Everyone on xbox live is expected to have voice chat hardware, and the functionality is integrated with the game and the system. Everyone playing is able to communicate via voice, the voice settings are part of the game session settings (I can set if I want dead players to be allowed to speak with live players in the same menu where I set respawns, for example... in some games you can set if opposing teams are allowed to communicate or if all communications are in-team).

I gave up online gaming on the PC for online gaming with xbox live, because there is nothing like xbox live on the PC. If I had to go back to online gaming PC style, I would just give up online gaming. I would pay $100 a year for xbox live, never mind $50 a year.

Re:For what do we have to pay?

[Blakey Rat]

Nobody. Those are free over Live Silver, and Silver accounts are free.

Good attempt to flame Microsoft for no reason, though! Don't let those silly things like "facts" get in the way!

The requirements as they stand on MSDN now

[LordJezo]

From the MSDN site on Games for Windows:
Games for Windows: Technical Requirements

* 1.1 Games Explorer Integration
* 1.2 Support Parental Controls
* 1.3 Support Rich Saved Games
* 1.4 Support the Xbox 360 Common Controller for Windows
* 1.5 Support Multiple Aspect Ratios and Resolutions
* 1.6 Support Launch from Windows Media Center
* 1.7 Direct3D Support

It's only a matter of time before we get a 1.8 Windows Live Gold support

Re:Lets See How Long This Lasts

[drinkypoo]

I'm not sure the many thousands of people playing online right now would be keen to pay for traditionally free multiplayer components just so people can settle the whole "keyboard/mouse vs gamepad" debate. I like the idea of Windows Live Anywhere overall, but Microsoft are shooting themselves in the foot (for massive damage) by making the unwashed masses pay.

Are you kidding? I wouldn't do it for long, but I'd pay for Xbox live just to enjoy the satisfaction of joining a game with a bunch of joypadders and vaporizing them all with der maus und keyboard. But frankly if they have any clue they won't merge PC and Console FPS play.