1) No, you don't get Jet Set Radio Future and Sega GT with an Xbox unless you buy an old package (which, of course, would mean you don't get Clone Wars and Tetris Worlds). Thus, you would get three full games by buying the current holiday package and Xbox Live.
2) Xbox Live is nothing near a prerequisite to make an Xbox "worth it." There are good games available for the Xbox that are just fine for offline play (whether YOU like them or not is another issue entirely).
3) I'm a pretty bright guy and I don't see the problem. It looks like Microsoft is trying to entice people to buy an Xbox and Xbox Live. Where's the problem? As in #2 above, Clone Wars, Tetris Worlds and Mechassault are hardly the be-all, end-all of Xbox games (if they were, I certainly wouldn't own one). In fact, all of the mentioned games are budget-type titles that few people would bother to buy at full price. There are very (very) few people who would consider those three games worth a $250 investment. Thus, they would probably buy other games and make some money back on the hardware for Microsoft. Not to mention the fact that every person who buys an Xbox to play games in this generation is that much more likely to buy the next console when it comes out.
I've gone long, but I'll sum up: I don't "notice a problem" because there isn't one. Microsoft is continuing to be pretty aggressive in giving people reasons to buy the Xbox. I'd call that smart.
If I had the Simpsons video game license you can sure as hell bet that I'd be making some innovative games. Maybe something like an episode maker. Include craploads of animations and sounds and graphics on a CD, or DVD even for the PC, and let people make Simpson's episodes.
I'm certain this already exists...I believe it's what the producers of the TV series have been using for the past two years.
Id, Bioware and Epic (I know nothing about S2games) DEVELOP for Windows platforms. They may maintain some form of Linux compatibility and port their games to Linux (sometimes simultaneously), but their focus is - and will be for the forseeable future - on Windows.
Oddly enough, they DO address the literacy problem of criminals in a serious way. Specifically, a prisoner (at least in the US) can get credit towards his sentence by completing high school and college courses.
McConkey pleaded guilty in August to seven charges including assault with intent to rob, aggravated armed robbery and stealing a car...He was sentenced to a total of six years and eight months in jail.
Is anyone else more concerned that Australia can't give a tougher sentence to people who commit violent crimes (armed robbery)? Admittedly, I don't know much about the Australian justice system. Do they actually put people away for the entirety of their sentence? If so then the sentence isn't TOO bad (seems like it could still be longer), but in America the above sentence would end up being under three years if the prisoner met enough parole conditions...
The likelihood is that prisons with video games have one or two consoles in a rec room serving hundreds of prisoners. Considering how many prisoners can be entertained at a time (watching and playing), a video game console would actually be a relatively economical diversion. Also, unless you're one of those who truly believe that video games make people do things they wouldn't ordinarily do (like stealing cars and beating people), they could also be a good way to bleed off a bit of the aggression that many prisoners will inevitably feel.
Finally, I would note that, at least for me, I'm far more concerned about how much money we spend putting non-violent offenders in prison for using drugs. They could afford nice setups with 10 or more computers/consoles in every prison if we could trim those numbers down. A Playstation 2 or three is hardly a drop in the prison bucket.
you know, prisoners shouldn't lose their human rights
Actually, going to prison means at its base that you DO lose human rights, though not quite all of them. Furthermore, depending on what kind of prison you're in, there are many things that you cannot own and possess inside the place - were owning and possessing property in one's cell a right in prison, I expect there would be a lot of Ginsu products sold there. I suppose it's possible that there are prisons where you can own and possess your television in prison, but it's certainly not a standard and would in most states be subject to the warden/superintendant's decision.
Alter Ego by Activision (Commodore 64). This was my first gaming experience that was all about "real" life. In AE, you were simply born and lived a life until death. The way you lived your life was that you were presented a series of icons representing things like romance, career, school, etc. in each period of life (toddler, kid, adolescent, young adult, middle age, elderly). Each of these icons would present a situation that you had to resolve, and each decision affected your future. For example, as a baby you could select a family interaction wherein you were told that you were hungry. You would then have to choose whether to cry or not. If you chose to cry, that could enhance your social ability, particularly when you stopped crying after being fed; you could also continue crying which would turn out to be an indicator that you weren't progressing in terms of communication and would impact your relationship with your family.
As you continued through your life, you would have the opportunity to go to school/college and affect your performance there; get a job; meet members of the opposite sex and maybe get married. There were even morally questionable things like the possibility of having an affair, where you might end up being forced to decide whether or not to admit your infidelity, and it could end your marriage. The morally ambiguous actions were the most interesting to me because it made Alter Ego a truly adult sort of game - not because it was trying to arouse but because it was attempting to convey a realism that was lacking in virtually every other game available at the time.
I know that this has been off-topic in the sense that it doesn't address directly the story, but, as in my topic title, I feel like this game gets ignored in terms of innovation and genre. Heck, most people I talk to have never even heard of it, and I consider that a shame. If you have the opportunity (through emulation, for example) to play Alter Ego (there are two versions - male and female), I highly recommend it. For me, it was a lesson that a game didn't have to be filled with nonstop action and violence to be compelling - a lesson that was all but ignored for a VERY long time, and one which some developers still need to learn.
The short version is that the "word" is out that it will happen by the end of the month. The long version is that companies don't usually make official price drop announcements until they actually happen so that they don't freeze people who would have made purchases anyway. If you look back over the Xbox and PS2 price cuts, these follow the same pattern in that when the official announcements are made you can go right into a store and see the new prices.
I see this "partnership" as being something brought on by developer dissatisfaction with Nintendo's online strategy thus far. I expect that Nintendo chose AOL as a viable stopgap solution giving them access to already existing middleware that they can give to developers, without having to invest any additional money in R&D to get a solution out themselves.
I would further theorize that Nintendo sees this as a way to shut people up about Gamecube online connectivity which I don't think they're going to support to any large degree in this console generation. I think they've decided that they're not really going to make any money on GC connectivity, so there's no point in developing anything permanent for it.
If Nintendo is actively pursuing any online plans, they are probably slated for the next console. You know, the next console which they've now pledged will not come out later than Sony or Microsoft despite their early assertions that the Gamecube would have a much longer lifespan than the average home console.
My prediction for Nintendo's TRUE entry into the online arena? I'm glad you asked (haha). With their next console, Nintendo will roll out with Internet capability built in. At launch, it will have at least two first-party, online-playable games which will be playable through Nintendo's brand-new online service. Further, that service will cost about the same as Xbox Live (matching any price increases that MS implements over the next two years).
Nintendo has made their position regarding online play quite clear. They aren't going to commit until they figure out a way to make money on it, and I don't think they believe an online capability for the Gamecube is a money-maker.
It's not that other media have better lobbyists (they do), rather it's because they have both age and previous court decisions and laws supporting them as being protected by the 1st amendment. Because video games (specifically, video games with increasingly realistic depictions) are a relatively new popular phenomenon they're an easier target. People who play video games (apart from solitaire and the like) are still a relatively small percentage of the population and the demographic skews very young - and young people are generally still not taken too seriously.
Until video games are established by the Supreme Court as protected speech no less than paintings, sculptures, movies and books, game publishers will continue being very tempting targets for lawsuits of this nature.
But simplifying Wertham, or Thompson, for that matter, as an overzealous bigot looking to make a cheap buck off of popular hysteria is falling into the same trap you're accusing them of.
You're right. It would be much more appropriate to simplify Thompson as yet another example of a reactionary who believes that his beliefs are "right" and is willing to fight for them without convincing evidence pointing in any particular direction.
Demonizing things is bad, mmkay?
Which is exactly the problem with Thompson and his ilk.
Here's a test to see if what you say is the truth or just a cynical "fairytale":
Walk into a Christian church, Islamic mosque or Jewish synagogue and ask if you can sit down in their place of worship and read The Bible, Koran or Torah. Then, walk into a Scientology office and ask if you can sit down in their place of worship and read the history of Xenu and the thetans. I'm willing to bet that any of the first three will be happy to accommodate you while the fourth will not - though the fourth might just offer you a personality test, the chance to watch a video starring L. Ron Hubbard and an introductory talk with an auditor...
It's not because Christianity has lost its power base (though the faith clearly doesn't have the direct power it used to have), rather it's because that religion has grown and changed over time. Evangelism is key to Christianity and said evangelism can't take placed without The Bible.
The key to scientology, however, is in getting as much money out of the mark as possible while revealing as little detail as possible - an odd system for a "religion" which purportedly wishes to maximize human potential and rid the world of all negativity.
Before anyone says it, yes, other religions take money and often "demand" it by making it a part of the religion. However, relatively few make that money the price of knowing the proverbial score. Were I Catholic, for example, I might be expected to tithe a percentage of my income. But, even if I didn't I would be able to not only read The Bible and attend services, my priest would be available to me for confession and other counseling when I needed it, not to mention that my fellow Catholics would be there for me when I need them. In scientology, there are times when you won't even be acknowledged by another scientologist without paying whatever money they are demanding.
There are incredible things in every religion. Every faith has its idiosyncracies. But most major religions are at least a little bit more - and a little bit better - than pyramid schemes with brainwashing thrown in.
One would hope that with the international nature of the Internet, we would be able to set up accounts simply by contacting them and arranging payment. Moving to the land of wooden shoes seems like overkill.:)
Individual biblical works may be copyrighted in the sense that I can't obtain them, photocopy/transcribe them and then distribute the copies...but nobody is going to sue me for either singing a hymn or spreading "The Word" in ANY language. If, on the other hand, I spread the "history" espoused at the top level of Scientology there's probably a better than even chance that I will be sued.
I don't think it hurts the "overall image of GBA support." I think it's more a refreshing acknowledgement of exactly what you said, just in different words. For some games, GBA support is indeed a gimmick. For example, I thought that Zelda: Wind Waker could have dropped GBA support completely and moved Tingle onto the TV screen, but Nintendo want their top-flight franchises to have the GBAGC support. Similarly, the Metroid Prime/Fusion connectivity was entirely a gimmick and the island in Animal Crossing was nothing but a cruel trick played on those few people with a GC but no GBA (if they exist).
There are two GBAGC games that I'm really looking forward to. One is Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, and that's mainly because it sounds like the connectivity not only helps the game but makes multiplayer possible in the first place (by permitting each player to do inventory management on the GBA instead of cluttering the screen). The other, oddly enough, is the next console Sims game. Last I hard, EA was planning on supporting the link-up to the extent that you'll be able to move Sims between the GC and GBA (though you'll need the GBA Sims cartridge to do it) - it could end non-Sims time completely for the real Sims fanatics out there. Assuming that the feature is robust, it could also mark the first multi-platform game that I buy for the Gamecube.
Yes, they have to communicate more than control pad inputs but my point stands. Both games would have to keep track of health. Objects extraneous to the fighters would indeed take up a bit more bandwidth as well. The fundamental point, however, is that, done properly, the bandwidth requirements of a fighting game should remain stable through generations, just as any other game genre. Look at massively multiplayer RPGs for another example. Everquest has to communicate a great deal more information between the server and the client than a fighting game ever would, and EQ is quite playable on a POTS modem.
On Xbox Live, you're correct that Microsoft (so far) doesn't maintain dedicated game servers and instead merely makes a match between people who then play peer-to-peer or server/client depending on how the game's netcode functions (usually the latter, especially with 3+ player games).
It's been said over and over again: A little parenting goes a long way. If parents don't want their kids to play M-rated videogames, they can more than likely stop them. Giving children a strong moral foundation early on could keep them from being interested a little longer, too. That being said, I disagree with the hypothesis that these games are teaching kids how to murder. But, guess what: Even if they WERE it would still be a pretty simple first amendment issue in that the developers have the right to make these products and the right to sell them.
Oh yes, and this I found funny:
Maybe the development of decent games like Myst should be subsidized...
Absolutely. Let's subsidize the making of games that stand atop the sales charts for years and make millions upon millions of dollars for their creators and publisher. We should also subsidize the making of "decent" movies like Sleepless in Seattle.
It's amazing that despite a total lack of proof of a connection between crime and [violent] videogames, people are still willing to bash them as if such proof existed.
Take an old game like Mortal Kombat 2,add a few characters to it, some new moves and fatalities and re-release it as an online game. Since it's older it should have less data you have to push over the network in order to play...
Unfortunately, this isn't really true. The fact is that, if placed online, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (new) and Mortal Kombat 2 (old) could be tuned to send almost exactly the same data over an internet connection. Even the addition of 3D to the former doesn't change the bandwidth requirements since you're still sending eight-way stick/pad inputs over the connection - the difference is simply what those inputs mean. The additional buttons aren't a big concern either since even combo presses would be interpreted as a single button input, albeit with a different machine code result.
This is precisely why the quality of online console gaming (just like PC online gaming, if truth be told) is dependent on a) the stability of the connection, b) the programming of the network code and (of course) c) the quality (skill AND attitude) of who you're playing with. Good gameplay goes without saying since if the game isn't good it probably won't be purchased in the first place.
Hopefully, once every developer has designed at least one online-capable game, we'll start seeing more and more games in the pipeline with online capability built-in. The first obstacle (one that both Microsoft and Sony are trying to help with by providing technical aid) is starting the ball rolling within each company. I truly believe that starting with the next generation, online console capability (for appropriate genres) will be as common - and indeed expected - as it is in PC games.
1. Where do you get your data that Microsoft is losing "100s of Millions of dollars" on Xbox "Line" (I assume you meant "Live") every quarter? That has the smell of hyperbole.
2. Online gaming makes "0 back" for Sierra/Valve/Id (before Steam, anyway) too. Should they have dropped online support?
3. You ARE aware that Sony has online console gaming, too, right (and are, in fact, stepping up their online plans)? Or is this just another opportunity to bash Microsoft and the Xbox for being stupid?
As for your overall point, that "This isn't the Generation for Online Games," I would only say this: I play online console games and I enjoy them quite a bit. Many others do, too. I say if Microsoft and Sony are going to provide the option, why not take advantage of it? I couldn't really care less what kind of profit is in online play for the console manufacturers and software developers. If it's that horrible for them, they won't provide the capability. While they do provide it, however, I'll just keep on using it.
If high pings (greater than 50 ms) are so crippling, then how does anyone playing a first-person shooter ever hit anyone else since they're often require reflexes just as twitchy as a fighting game? You are aware, aren't you, that a millisecond is one-thousandth of a second? That means that in order for lag to really be noticeable, the ping has to [at LEAST] go pretty darn high (probably quite a bit higher than 200 ms).
I think you're overestimating gamer reflexes just a bit. If you're reacting to things displayed on screen in less than 50 ms then you're probably a computer yourself. Don't forget, too, that with broadband connections pings of less than 100 ms between two computers are not at all uncommon. Not to mention the fact that in a fighting game, the two consoles are ONLY communicating with each other - unlike an FPS where a lot more connections may have to be maintained.
In short, I'm afraid you're just plain mistaken. Smart programming and broadband internet connections can easily make online fighting games not only playable but fun.
It might not make sense in terms of "projecting Steam back in time" but the reality is that Valve promised us Team Fortress 2 a long, LONG time ago - even before Half-Life 2 was in development - and still hasn't delivered, instead opting to release multiple expansion packs, some of which were freely available on the Internet. Whatever "general roadmap" Valve provides should be taken with a huge grain of salt by fans given Valve's history so far. That's not to say that Valve is evil or plans to take the subscription fees and give nothing in return, but the idea that they could have significant delays on products isn't at all far-fetched.
Imagine if they told you that "X" Half-Life 2 expansion was coming out within six months and that it would be $30 on its own but would come automatically with a Steam subscription. So, you decide to go with the Steam subscription figuring that you would pay $60 over six months and get both HL2 and this expansion pack instead of paying $50 now (meaning when it comes out) for HL2 and $30 later. Fast-forward six months and you find out that they are having QA problems with the new release so it's still in testing. They're going to release it as soon as they can. Every month of delay is another $10 you would be paying for product(s) that you can't even play. Again, I'm not saying that Valve would plan to do this but sometimes $@#! happens.
I'm not against subscription fees on their face. I've paid $10/month in the past for one game in fact (EQ). But in the case of Half-Life 2, unless they're going to cripple the online experience somehow without the subscription, I'd need to see at least a year of consistently on-time, solid releases from Valve before I'd even consider paying them $10 a month in lieu of $50 up front.
Slashdot Mirror
2) Xbox Live is nothing near a prerequisite to make an Xbox "worth it." There are good games available for the Xbox that are just fine for offline play (whether YOU like them or not is another issue entirely).
3) I'm a pretty bright guy and I don't see the problem. It looks like Microsoft is trying to entice people to buy an Xbox and Xbox Live. Where's the problem? As in #2 above, Clone Wars, Tetris Worlds and Mechassault are hardly the be-all, end-all of Xbox games (if they were, I certainly wouldn't own one). In fact, all of the mentioned games are budget-type titles that few people would bother to buy at full price. There are very (very) few people who would consider those three games worth a $250 investment. Thus, they would probably buy other games and make some money back on the hardware for Microsoft. Not to mention the fact that every person who buys an Xbox to play games in this generation is that much more likely to buy the next console when it comes out.
I've gone long, but I'll sum up: I don't "notice a problem" because there isn't one. Microsoft is continuing to be pretty aggressive in giving people reasons to buy the Xbox. I'd call that smart.
I'm certain this already exists...I believe it's what the producers of the TV series have been using for the past two years.
Id, Bioware and Epic (I know nothing about S2games) DEVELOP for Windows platforms. They may maintain some form of Linux compatibility and port their games to Linux (sometimes simultaneously), but their focus is - and will be for the forseeable future - on Windows.
Oddly enough, they DO address the literacy problem of criminals in a serious way. Specifically, a prisoner (at least in the US) can get credit towards his sentence by completing high school and college courses.
Is anyone else more concerned that Australia can't give a tougher sentence to people who commit violent crimes (armed robbery)? Admittedly, I don't know much about the Australian justice system. Do they actually put people away for the entirety of their sentence? If so then the sentence isn't TOO bad (seems like it could still be longer), but in America the above sentence would end up being under three years if the prisoner met enough parole conditions...
Finally, I would note that, at least for me, I'm far more concerned about how much money we spend putting non-violent offenders in prison for using drugs. They could afford nice setups with 10 or more computers/consoles in every prison if we could trim those numbers down. A Playstation 2 or three is hardly a drop in the prison bucket.
Actually, going to prison means at its base that you DO lose human rights, though not quite all of them. Furthermore, depending on what kind of prison you're in, there are many things that you cannot own and possess inside the place - were owning and possessing property in one's cell a right in prison, I expect there would be a lot of Ginsu products sold there. I suppose it's possible that there are prisons where you can own and possess your television in prison, but it's certainly not a standard and would in most states be subject to the warden/superintendant's decision.
As you continued through your life, you would have the opportunity to go to school/college and affect your performance there; get a job; meet members of the opposite sex and maybe get married. There were even morally questionable things like the possibility of having an affair, where you might end up being forced to decide whether or not to admit your infidelity, and it could end your marriage. The morally ambiguous actions were the most interesting to me because it made Alter Ego a truly adult sort of game - not because it was trying to arouse but because it was attempting to convey a realism that was lacking in virtually every other game available at the time.
I know that this has been off-topic in the sense that it doesn't address directly the story, but, as in my topic title, I feel like this game gets ignored in terms of innovation and genre. Heck, most people I talk to have never even heard of it, and I consider that a shame. If you have the opportunity (through emulation, for example) to play Alter Ego (there are two versions - male and female), I highly recommend it. For me, it was a lesson that a game didn't have to be filled with nonstop action and violence to be compelling - a lesson that was all but ignored for a VERY long time, and one which some developers still need to learn.
The short version is that the "word" is out that it will happen by the end of the month. The long version is that companies don't usually make official price drop announcements until they actually happen so that they don't freeze people who would have made purchases anyway. If you look back over the Xbox and PS2 price cuts, these follow the same pattern in that when the official announcements are made you can go right into a store and see the new prices.
I would further theorize that Nintendo sees this as a way to shut people up about Gamecube online connectivity which I don't think they're going to support to any large degree in this console generation. I think they've decided that they're not really going to make any money on GC connectivity, so there's no point in developing anything permanent for it.
If Nintendo is actively pursuing any online plans, they are probably slated for the next console. You know, the next console which they've now pledged will not come out later than Sony or Microsoft despite their early assertions that the Gamecube would have a much longer lifespan than the average home console.
My prediction for Nintendo's TRUE entry into the online arena? I'm glad you asked (haha). With their next console, Nintendo will roll out with Internet capability built in. At launch, it will have at least two first-party, online-playable games which will be playable through Nintendo's brand-new online service. Further, that service will cost about the same as Xbox Live (matching any price increases that MS implements over the next two years).
Nintendo has made their position regarding online play quite clear. They aren't going to commit until they figure out a way to make money on it, and I don't think they believe an online capability for the Gamecube is a money-maker.
Until video games are established by the Supreme Court as protected speech no less than paintings, sculptures, movies and books, game publishers will continue being very tempting targets for lawsuits of this nature.
You're right. It would be much more appropriate to simplify Thompson as yet another example of a reactionary who believes that his beliefs are "right" and is willing to fight for them without convincing evidence pointing in any particular direction.
Demonizing things is bad, mmkay?
Which is exactly the problem with Thompson and his ilk.
Give parent +1 for being right and parent's parent -2 for being just plain wrong.
No, actually it's "If Sony or Microsoft DOESN'T give us a supertanker filled wtih money, we'll port GTA to the GCN."
Walk into a Christian church, Islamic mosque or Jewish synagogue and ask if you can sit down in their place of worship and read The Bible, Koran or Torah. Then, walk into a Scientology office and ask if you can sit down in their place of worship and read the history of Xenu and the thetans. I'm willing to bet that any of the first three will be happy to accommodate you while the fourth will not - though the fourth might just offer you a personality test, the chance to watch a video starring L. Ron Hubbard and an introductory talk with an auditor...
The key to scientology, however, is in getting as much money out of the mark as possible while revealing as little detail as possible - an odd system for a "religion" which purportedly wishes to maximize human potential and rid the world of all negativity.
Before anyone says it, yes, other religions take money and often "demand" it by making it a part of the religion. However, relatively few make that money the price of knowing the proverbial score. Were I Catholic, for example, I might be expected to tithe a percentage of my income. But, even if I didn't I would be able to not only read The Bible and attend services, my priest would be available to me for confession and other counseling when I needed it, not to mention that my fellow Catholics would be there for me when I need them. In scientology, there are times when you won't even be acknowledged by another scientologist without paying whatever money they are demanding.
There are incredible things in every religion. Every faith has its idiosyncracies. But most major religions are at least a little bit more - and a little bit better - than pyramid schemes with brainwashing thrown in.
One would hope that with the international nature of the Internet, we would be able to set up accounts simply by contacting them and arranging payment. Moving to the land of wooden shoes seems like overkill. :)
Individual biblical works may be copyrighted in the sense that I can't obtain them, photocopy/transcribe them and then distribute the copies...but nobody is going to sue me for either singing a hymn or spreading "The Word" in ANY language. If, on the other hand, I spread the "history" espoused at the top level of Scientology there's probably a better than even chance that I will be sued.
There are two GBAGC games that I'm really looking forward to. One is Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, and that's mainly because it sounds like the connectivity not only helps the game but makes multiplayer possible in the first place (by permitting each player to do inventory management on the GBA instead of cluttering the screen). The other, oddly enough, is the next console Sims game. Last I hard, EA was planning on supporting the link-up to the extent that you'll be able to move Sims between the GC and GBA (though you'll need the GBA Sims cartridge to do it) - it could end non-Sims time completely for the real Sims fanatics out there. Assuming that the feature is robust, it could also mark the first multi-platform game that I buy for the Gamecube.
On Xbox Live, you're correct that Microsoft (so far) doesn't maintain dedicated game servers and instead merely makes a match between people who then play peer-to-peer or server/client depending on how the game's netcode functions (usually the latter, especially with 3+ player games).
Oh yes, and this I found funny:
Maybe the development of decent games like Myst should be subsidized...
Absolutely. Let's subsidize the making of games that stand atop the sales charts for years and make millions upon millions of dollars for their creators and publisher. We should also subsidize the making of "decent" movies like Sleepless in Seattle.
It's amazing that despite a total lack of proof of a connection between crime and [violent] videogames, people are still willing to bash them as if such proof existed.
Unfortunately, this isn't really true. The fact is that, if placed online, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (new) and Mortal Kombat 2 (old) could be tuned to send almost exactly the same data over an internet connection. Even the addition of 3D to the former doesn't change the bandwidth requirements since you're still sending eight-way stick/pad inputs over the connection - the difference is simply what those inputs mean. The additional buttons aren't a big concern either since even combo presses would be interpreted as a single button input, albeit with a different machine code result.
This is precisely why the quality of online console gaming (just like PC online gaming, if truth be told) is dependent on a) the stability of the connection, b) the programming of the network code and (of course) c) the quality (skill AND attitude) of who you're playing with. Good gameplay goes without saying since if the game isn't good it probably won't be purchased in the first place.
Hopefully, once every developer has designed at least one online-capable game, we'll start seeing more and more games in the pipeline with online capability built-in. The first obstacle (one that both Microsoft and Sony are trying to help with by providing technical aid) is starting the ball rolling within each company. I truly believe that starting with the next generation, online console capability (for appropriate genres) will be as common - and indeed expected - as it is in PC games.
2. Online gaming makes "0 back" for Sierra/Valve/Id (before Steam, anyway) too. Should they have dropped online support?
3. You ARE aware that Sony has online console gaming, too, right (and are, in fact, stepping up their online plans)? Or is this just another opportunity to bash Microsoft and the Xbox for being stupid?
As for your overall point, that "This isn't the Generation for Online Games," I would only say this: I play online console games and I enjoy them quite a bit. Many others do, too. I say if Microsoft and Sony are going to provide the option, why not take advantage of it? I couldn't really care less what kind of profit is in online play for the console manufacturers and software developers. If it's that horrible for them, they won't provide the capability. While they do provide it, however, I'll just keep on using it.
I think you're overestimating gamer reflexes just a bit. If you're reacting to things displayed on screen in less than 50 ms then you're probably a computer yourself. Don't forget, too, that with broadband connections pings of less than 100 ms between two computers are not at all uncommon. Not to mention the fact that in a fighting game, the two consoles are ONLY communicating with each other - unlike an FPS where a lot more connections may have to be maintained.
In short, I'm afraid you're just plain mistaken. Smart programming and broadband internet connections can easily make online fighting games not only playable but fun.
Imagine if they told you that "X" Half-Life 2 expansion was coming out within six months and that it would be $30 on its own but would come automatically with a Steam subscription. So, you decide to go with the Steam subscription figuring that you would pay $60 over six months and get both HL2 and this expansion pack instead of paying $50 now (meaning when it comes out) for HL2 and $30 later. Fast-forward six months and you find out that they are having QA problems with the new release so it's still in testing. They're going to release it as soon as they can. Every month of delay is another $10 you would be paying for product(s) that you can't even play. Again, I'm not saying that Valve would plan to do this but sometimes $@#! happens.
I'm not against subscription fees on their face. I've paid $10/month in the past for one game in fact (EQ). But in the case of Half-Life 2, unless they're going to cripple the online experience somehow without the subscription, I'd need to see at least a year of consistently on-time, solid releases from Valve before I'd even consider paying them $10 a month in lieu of $50 up front.