Really, it's not black-and-white. What about the people who got an X-Box for the online games, then learned about modchips and running Linux? What about the people who got an X-Box to serve as a PVR, and decided that playing online games was also Cool?
This would be a great point IF there hadn't already been discussion - both by the public and by Microsoft - indicating that modded Xboxes could be banned from the Live service. This seems to be a "let the modder beware" situation. They can still use Gamespy Tunnel with their modded Xboxes OR disable the mod chip before going online with Xbox Live for the first time.
It's by no means scientific, but a website which I'm sure a great many people in the "geekier audience" visit from time to time had a poll on this very subject yesterday.
On that poll, about 30% of respondents indicated that they felt the banning was "a bit too harsh" or "unfair and wrong." About 70% didn't care or agreed in some way with the banning.
Again, not scientific but I think it's interesting.
You can break cheaters into three main categories:
1. Those who think that cheating is cool and helps them compensate for not being able to play the game fairly.
2. Those who want to piss off other players out of sheer bloodymindedness.
3. Those who feel like they've already played out a game and want to try something different with it - these mainly stick to single-player and games with friends because they really don't want to be assholes.
In any case, I'm in favor of just about any effort to keep them out of games I'm playing.
Actually, I bought a GBA because of the good games and the price (compared to a full console). It had nothing to do with portability. Since I have already bought a Gamecube, spending $40-50 for a device like this would be great since I'll still have the advantage of playing great games but won't have to stare at a tiny screen in order to do it.
Oh yes, and the fact that GBA games are all in "full" color is going to make a huge difference in the number of these units sold. One of the things that turned me off about the idea of playing Gameboy on the TV was the lack of color married with the very low resolution.
I should note here that the word from Nintendo is that the device will not play all Gameboy games - some early ones are apparently left out in the cold.
You've got me there. I was thinking in terms of single countries. Either way, I'm against region coding as a whole despite my sloppy attempt at justification.:)
Having all three consoles, Halo is about the only game on Xbox whose load times I find oppressive. By the same token, GTA: Vice City is also a quick-loading game (once past the initial load) compared to virtually every other PS2 game.
I think that if I had modded my Xbox and then found out I couldn't play on Xbox Live, I would probably be looking hard for someone who WANTS a modded Xbox (and doesn't want to play on Live) to trade...Maybe this would be a good idea for a website - make a little matching service to hook people up so that modded Xboxen can be traded for unmodded Xboxen?
You should definitely buy a PS2 and a Gamecube. You will then quickly find out that neither of them is any more able to play imported games than the Xbox.
Personally, I think that region coding is stupid, especially in the US - why especially in the US, you might ask? Because we have a significantly larger number of people in this country who speak languages other than the accepted "national" language.
That being said, modchips aren't around to simply allow playing imported games. Their purposes go much further than that, extending into the ability to read burned discs and run unsigned software. That latter ability is the reason I'm happy (as an XBL subscriber) that Microsoft is preventing the use of modded consoles on their network.
It also seems relevant to point out that being banned from the Xbox Live service does NOT mean that you can't continue to use your modded console to run Linux and the rest. You can still do so. Hell, you can even play your games online if you choose (at least games with the system link option) via the Gamespy Tunnel.
My last comment on this subject (I've already replied too much tonight:]) is this: Anyone who modded their console knew a long time ago that there was a possibility their console was not going to work with the Xbox Live service. This would particularly be true amongst those with "legitimate" purposes for modding such as the homebrew folks working on Linux, media players and the like, who have discussed this at length in the past. Therefore, if someone blew $50 on Xbox Live, they were, in my opinion, taking a risk and Microsoft bears no responsibility for any loss incurred doing so when they couldn't get on XBL.
I do hope, however, that the people who were mistakenly banned - assuming they're telling the truth - get taken care of in a timely fashion so that they can get the service they paid for.
Yes indeed. And one of the capabilities that they've added (which is not present on a stock Xbox) is the capability to run unlicensed code. As soon as that capability is added, one of Microsoft's primary blocks against cheating on Xbox Live is removed, thus potentially ruining the service when people inevitably start cheating.
Microsoft would argue that a modded Xbox is indeed no longer the Xbox they sell. The Xbox they sell cannot read burned CDs or DVDs. The Xbox they sell cannot run out-of-region DVDs. The Xbox they sell cannot run Linux. It may still be walking like a duck, but it's quacking like a penguin...
Remember when this same old argument was taken up to try to stop VCR's?
A big difference between the argument against VCRs and the argument against modding an Xbox is this: At the time of the court case, VCRs were the only way to obtain the legal benefit of timeshifting broadcast television. On the other hand, modding an Xbox is pretty clearly not the only way to run Linux. The question becomes whether the significant legal use is compelling enough to override the piracy question. Since IANAL, I won't try to answer that question, but the issues certainly seem light years apart in my eyes.
As a business, I don't think that Microsoft cares one little bit about having a loyal following of modders, particularly modders who didn't bother installing a switch so that they could turn the mod chip off which, by the reports I've read, allows a modded console to access Xbox Live just fine.
On top of that, the idea that Microsoft cares about having a loyal following of people who are trying to make it easier to pirate software is also hard to believe.
The loyal following that Microsoft wants includes people like myself who:
1. Enjoy games on the Xbox.
2. Buy Xbox games.
and 3. Know the difference between a PC and an Xbox and use their Xbox as intended.
Banning modded consoles from Xbox Live does nothing to alienate that following...oh yes, and Mechassault is a downright blast on Live, if anyone is interested.:)
The corollary to this is that there are options other than Office and Windows for businesses at a whole which, presumably, their IT managers (aren't there a good many here at/.?) know about and COULD use but don't.
As a side note, the high costs of operating systems and office productivity suites go back years and years. I've worked in offices since I graduated high school and I can remember a time when EVERYONE used WordPerfect and the word processor alone would cost $200-300 a pop. I can now get Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Access, etc. all included) for $400 retail. I don't see that as unreasonable, at least in terms of trends since the advent of the PC.
The fundamental difference between XBL and the gaming services you mentioned is twofold:
1. You *have* to have the service to play games on your Xbox (not true on a PC).
2. At least two of those services (TEN and Mplayer) I can recall having user IDs on and playing games (I think Warlords III was one of them) for free. All they did was provide matchmaking services, and they were, at least in part, counting on ad revenue to pay for them - which has killed many Internet sites, and not just game sites.
Finally, as regards the comparison with Sony, what it is going to come down to is how people perceive the value-added features of going with Xbox Live. If people don't want to use voice communication (except Socom), don't want userIDs ("Gamertags" in XBL parlance) consistent across all their games and/or don't have broadband, then they aren't going to be interested in XBL. If, however, they perceive these features as desirable (I do, and thus I have Xbox Live - in addition to a PS2 NA because my friends have PS2s) then they will go for it.
Re:Games will have a seperate monthly fee also.
on
Xbox Live Goes Online
·
· Score: 1
You really need to shut your hole talking about what Xbox Live is going to cost after the first free year. THEY HAVE NOT ANNOUNCED IT YET. All this talk about $10 a month, $12.99 a month, $13 a month, etc. is just speculation on the part of people who don't want the service in the first place.
In the spirit of GIVING some information, rather than just sliming the people giving out crap: The fee after the first year will be yearly (not monthly) - it indicates this on the package when you buy the starter kit and was talked about by XBL people during the beta.
My estimation would be that the yearly cost for XBL will be around $40. This is based on the fact that there WILL be extra downloads and games that will cost additional fees (PSO is likely to be $5-7 a month, Star Wars Galaxies is probably going to come in at $10 a month, etc.) AND the fact that Microsoft is still planning on making the bulk of their money off game licenses, which are generally going to sell more units if they come with Xbox Live functionality. Of course, all of this paragraph is speculation, but at least I am telling you that up front.:)
Re:Why PC's are better for this...
on
Xbox Live Goes Online
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It might be worth noting at this point that Counterstrike is slated to come to Xbox Live.
If they are indeed banning users of modchips, I have no problem with it. One of the things that has killed [the enjoyment of] online games in the past is cheating. If you don't have a modchip in your box, you are much (probably a few thousand times) less likely to have the ability to cheat.
Re:Will this work with any fast IP connection?
on
Xbox Live Goes Online
·
· Score: 2
For most people, "re-cable everything" is probably a bit of an overstatement. From what I've read (I've actually got a Linksys switch/router myself:]), people are simply unplugging the DSL router/cable modem from the PC and plugging it into the Xbox. Not TOO big a pain in the butt. Worst-case scenario, you would have to run a 20- to 50-foot cable from the PC area to the Xbox.
Of course, this assumes you can play Live and nobody will want to use the PC to go online at the same time. Then, of course, a router/switch is probably a necessity.
The reason they had to patch NFL 2k3 for it's Live bugs was that there was no Live around to test it on when they released it, and they HAD to release it when they did or just not try to compete with Madden 2003 at all. You'll probably find a lot fewer Live problems as time goes by simply because the fundamental things (Xbox, broadband connection, headset, Live service) aren't going to change that much, allowing each game to utilize the package better as developers have more experience.
Fortunately, with XBL you can mute someone and they won't become unmuted until you say so, even if you both go into another game together (unless they're playing anon, in which case you can mute them during your current game and then re-mute them if you end up in another game with them).
Clearly, previewing and putting a P in brackets is too complex for me today.:(
Here it is in a more palatable format:
There are a few factors to consider when looking at the decision Microsoft made in going broadband only:
1. Service. Requiring broadband gives them the opportunity to offer more service per connection (the voice communication being the prime example) with nobody who HAS the service feeling left out.
2. Customer satisfaction. As has been stated many times by others, broadband users can get very touchy when a game they're in is being "ruined" by a bunch of people coming in on dial-up connections. I hate to admit it, but when I was playing PC FPSs online, I too would tend to quit out of a game if my teammates were all 300+ ping while I was sitting at 65. Like it or not, action games will tend to go to the lowest ping bastard out there, and team games are made tougher by big differences in latency.
3. Ease of development. I think this is the most important factor for the future success of XBL. By requiring broadband, they have given the game developers more space in which to optimize their games and add features that might not be available if they had to stick to narrowband limits. The more headroom a developer has in this area, the more comfortable they are going to be in developing their Live-enabled game and, of course, the fancier they can get with the games. As an example, the first-generation of multiplayer titles allows for 8 players (MechAssault) or 16 players (Unreal Championship) - fairly low. As time goes by, however, those numbers are going to go up (as they figure out how to optimize games for a broadband-only service and, of course, provide dedicated servers) with an attendant increase in map sizes and game options.
4. Increasing penetration. The potential is there to expand the reach of broadband with people getting it for Xbox Live and people wanting - and asking for - it for Xbox Live. Applications are what we need to drive broadband adoption, something most of us want.
Given the above, I'm glad MS chose broadband only for their service. I know that I've had fun with it (beta testing) so far, and I'm looking forward to picking up MechAssault tomorrow and start doing some real damage.
There are a few factors to consider when looking at the decision Microsoft made in going broadband only:
1. Service. Requiring broadband gives them the opportunity to offer more service per connection (the voice communication being the prime example) with nobody who HAS the service feeling left out.
2. Customer satisfaction. As has been stated many times by others, broadband users can get very touchy when a game they're in is being "ruined" by a bunch of people coming in on dial-up connections. I hate to admit it, but when I was playing PC FPSs online, I too would tend to quit out of a game if my teammates were all 300+ ping while I was sitting at 65. Like it or not, action games will tend to go to the lowest ping bastard out there, and team games are made tougher by big differences in latency.
3. Ease of development. I think this is the most important factor for the future success of XBL. By requiring broadband, they have given the game developers more space in which to optimize their games and add features that might not be available if they had to stick to narrowband limits. The more headroom a developer has in this area, the more comfortable they are going to be in developing their Live-enabled game and, of course, the fancier they can get with the games. As an example, the first-generation of multiplayer titles allows for 8 players (MechAssault) or 16 players (Unreal Championship). As time goes by, that number is probably going to go up (as they figure out how to optimize games for a broad-band-only service and, of course, provide dedicated servers) with an attendant increase in map sizes and game options.
4. Increasing penetration. The potential is there to expand the reach of broadband with people getting it for Xbox Live and people wanting - and asking for - it for Xbox Live. Applications are what we need to drive broadband adoption, something most of us want.
Given the above, I'm glad MS chose broadband only for their service. I know that I've had fun with it (beta testing) so far, and I'm looking forward to picking up MechAssault tomorrow and start doing some real damage.
Seriously. If you could post a link to where this has been announced (since being a beta tester apparently didn't expose me to enough information), I would appreciate it. As far as I know, there has been no announcement of a price whatsoever. What they have indicated is that they will charge the fee yearly which militates against the idea that it will be $10/month since that would necessarily be a charge of $120. I can see a lot of parents having a tizzy fit if all of a sudden $120 popped out on their credit card bill. Note that this isn't to say that $10/month ISN'T the price, but simply that nobody knows yet. (It's also not to say that Microsoft would never do anything evil, since I consider them evil myself - along with nearly every other corporation, but still.)
Slashdot Mirror
This would be a great point IF there hadn't already been discussion - both by the public and by Microsoft - indicating that modded Xboxes could be banned from the Live service. This seems to be a "let the modder beware" situation. They can still use Gamespy Tunnel with their modded Xboxes OR disable the mod chip before going online with Xbox Live for the first time.
On that poll, about 30% of respondents indicated that they felt the banning was "a bit too harsh" or "unfair and wrong." About 70% didn't care or agreed in some way with the banning.
Again, not scientific but I think it's interesting.
I'm with you and will likely buy the peripheral myself. I'm just in the more-information-is-good camp. :)
1. Those who think that cheating is cool and helps them compensate for not being able to play the game fairly.
2. Those who want to piss off other players out of sheer bloodymindedness.
3. Those who feel like they've already played out a game and want to try something different with it - these mainly stick to single-player and games with friends because they really don't want to be assholes.
In any case, I'm in favor of just about any effort to keep them out of games I'm playing.
Oh yes, and the fact that GBA games are all in "full" color is going to make a huge difference in the number of these units sold. One of the things that turned me off about the idea of playing Gameboy on the TV was the lack of color married with the very low resolution.
I should note here that the word from Nintendo is that the device will not play all Gameboy games - some early ones are apparently left out in the cold.
You've got me there. I was thinking in terms of single countries. Either way, I'm against region coding as a whole despite my sloppy attempt at justification. :)
I think that if I had modded my Xbox and then found out I couldn't play on Xbox Live, I would probably be looking hard for someone who WANTS a modded Xbox (and doesn't want to play on Live) to trade...Maybe this would be a good idea for a website - make a little matching service to hook people up so that modded Xboxen can be traded for unmodded Xboxen?
Personally, I think that region coding is stupid, especially in the US - why especially in the US, you might ask? Because we have a significantly larger number of people in this country who speak languages other than the accepted "national" language.
That being said, modchips aren't around to simply allow playing imported games. Their purposes go much further than that, extending into the ability to read burned discs and run unsigned software. That latter ability is the reason I'm happy (as an XBL subscriber) that Microsoft is preventing the use of modded consoles on their network.
It also seems relevant to point out that being banned from the Xbox Live service does NOT mean that you can't continue to use your modded console to run Linux and the rest. You can still do so. Hell, you can even play your games online if you choose (at least games with the system link option) via the Gamespy Tunnel.
My last comment on this subject (I've already replied too much tonight :]) is this: Anyone who modded their console knew a long time ago that there was a possibility their console was not going to work with the Xbox Live service. This would particularly be true amongst those with "legitimate" purposes for modding such as the homebrew folks working on Linux, media players and the like, who have discussed this at length in the past. Therefore, if someone blew $50 on Xbox Live, they were, in my opinion, taking a risk and Microsoft bears no responsibility for any loss incurred doing so when they couldn't get on XBL.
I do hope, however, that the people who were mistakenly banned - assuming they're telling the truth - get taken care of in a timely fashion so that they can get the service they paid for.
Yes indeed. And one of the capabilities that they've added (which is not present on a stock Xbox) is the capability to run unlicensed code. As soon as that capability is added, one of Microsoft's primary blocks against cheating on Xbox Live is removed, thus potentially ruining the service when people inevitably start cheating.
Microsoft would argue that a modded Xbox is indeed no longer the Xbox they sell. The Xbox they sell cannot read burned CDs or DVDs. The Xbox they sell cannot run out-of-region DVDs. The Xbox they sell cannot run Linux. It may still be walking like a duck, but it's quacking like a penguin...
A big difference between the argument against VCRs and the argument against modding an Xbox is this: At the time of the court case, VCRs were the only way to obtain the legal benefit of timeshifting broadcast television. On the other hand, modding an Xbox is pretty clearly not the only way to run Linux. The question becomes whether the significant legal use is compelling enough to override the piracy question. Since IANAL, I won't try to answer that question, but the issues certainly seem light years apart in my eyes.
On top of that, the idea that Microsoft cares about having a loyal following of people who are trying to make it easier to pirate software is also hard to believe.
The loyal following that Microsoft wants includes people like myself who:
1. Enjoy games on the Xbox.
2. Buy Xbox games.
and 3. Know the difference between a PC and an Xbox and use their Xbox as intended.
Banning modded consoles from Xbox Live does nothing to alienate that following...oh yes, and Mechassault is a downright blast on Live, if anyone is interested. :)
I was describing retail pricing - MSRP, if you will. Educational and nonprofit pricing has always followed a different set of rules.
As a side note, the high costs of operating systems and office productivity suites go back years and years. I've worked in offices since I graduated high school and I can remember a time when EVERYONE used WordPerfect and the word processor alone would cost $200-300 a pop. I can now get Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Access, etc. all included) for $400 retail. I don't see that as unreasonable, at least in terms of trends since the advent of the PC.
1. You *have* to have the service to play games on your Xbox (not true on a PC).
2. At least two of those services (TEN and Mplayer) I can recall having user IDs on and playing games (I think Warlords III was one of them) for free. All they did was provide matchmaking services, and they were, at least in part, counting on ad revenue to pay for them - which has killed many Internet sites, and not just game sites.
Finally, as regards the comparison with Sony, what it is going to come down to is how people perceive the value-added features of going with Xbox Live. If people don't want to use voice communication (except Socom), don't want userIDs ("Gamertags" in XBL parlance) consistent across all their games and/or don't have broadband, then they aren't going to be interested in XBL. If, however, they perceive these features as desirable (I do, and thus I have Xbox Live - in addition to a PS2 NA because my friends have PS2s) then they will go for it.
In the spirit of GIVING some information, rather than just sliming the people giving out crap: The fee after the first year will be yearly (not monthly) - it indicates this on the package when you buy the starter kit and was talked about by XBL people during the beta.
My estimation would be that the yearly cost for XBL will be around $40. This is based on the fact that there WILL be extra downloads and games that will cost additional fees (PSO is likely to be $5-7 a month, Star Wars Galaxies is probably going to come in at $10 a month, etc.) AND the fact that Microsoft is still planning on making the bulk of their money off game licenses, which are generally going to sell more units if they come with Xbox Live functionality. Of course, all of this paragraph is speculation, but at least I am telling you that up front. :)
It might be worth noting at this point that Counterstrike is slated to come to Xbox Live.
If they are indeed banning users of modchips, I have no problem with it. One of the things that has killed [the enjoyment of] online games in the past is cheating. If you don't have a modchip in your box, you are much (probably a few thousand times) less likely to have the ability to cheat.
Of course, this assumes you can play Live and nobody will want to use the PC to go online at the same time. Then, of course, a router/switch is probably a necessity.
The reason they had to patch NFL 2k3 for it's Live bugs was that there was no Live around to test it on when they released it, and they HAD to release it when they did or just not try to compete with Madden 2003 at all. You'll probably find a lot fewer Live problems as time goes by simply because the fundamental things (Xbox, broadband connection, headset, Live service) aren't going to change that much, allowing each game to utilize the package better as developers have more experience.
Fortunately, with XBL you can mute someone and they won't become unmuted until you say so, even if you both go into another game together (unless they're playing anon, in which case you can mute them during your current game and then re-mute them if you end up in another game with them).
Clearly, previewing and putting a P in brackets is too complex for me today. :(
Here it is in a more palatable format:
There are a few factors to consider when looking at the decision Microsoft made in going broadband only:
1. Service. Requiring broadband gives them the opportunity to offer more service per connection (the voice communication being the prime example) with nobody who HAS the service feeling left out.
2. Customer satisfaction. As has been stated many times by others, broadband users can get very touchy when a game they're in is being "ruined" by a bunch of people coming in on dial-up connections. I hate to admit it, but when I was playing PC FPSs online, I too would tend to quit out of a game if my teammates were all 300+ ping while I was sitting at 65. Like it or not, action games will tend to go to the lowest ping bastard out there, and team games are made tougher by big differences in latency.
3. Ease of development. I think this is the most important factor for the future success of XBL. By requiring broadband, they have given the game developers more space in which to optimize their games and add features that might not be available if they had to stick to narrowband limits. The more headroom a developer has in this area, the more comfortable they are going to be in developing their Live-enabled game and, of course, the fancier they can get with the games. As an example, the first-generation of multiplayer titles allows for 8 players (MechAssault) or 16 players (Unreal Championship) - fairly low. As time goes by, however, those numbers are going to go up (as they figure out how to optimize games for a broadband-only service and, of course, provide dedicated servers) with an attendant increase in map sizes and game options.
4. Increasing penetration. The potential is there to expand the reach of broadband with people getting it for Xbox Live and people wanting - and asking for - it for Xbox Live. Applications are what we need to drive broadband adoption, something most of us want.
Given the above, I'm glad MS chose broadband only for their service. I know that I've had fun with it (beta testing) so far, and I'm looking forward to picking up MechAssault tomorrow and start doing some real damage.
There are a few factors to consider when looking at the decision Microsoft made in going broadband only: 1. Service. Requiring broadband gives them the opportunity to offer more service per connection (the voice communication being the prime example) with nobody who HAS the service feeling left out. 2. Customer satisfaction. As has been stated many times by others, broadband users can get very touchy when a game they're in is being "ruined" by a bunch of people coming in on dial-up connections. I hate to admit it, but when I was playing PC FPSs online, I too would tend to quit out of a game if my teammates were all 300+ ping while I was sitting at 65. Like it or not, action games will tend to go to the lowest ping bastard out there, and team games are made tougher by big differences in latency. 3. Ease of development. I think this is the most important factor for the future success of XBL. By requiring broadband, they have given the game developers more space in which to optimize their games and add features that might not be available if they had to stick to narrowband limits. The more headroom a developer has in this area, the more comfortable they are going to be in developing their Live-enabled game and, of course, the fancier they can get with the games. As an example, the first-generation of multiplayer titles allows for 8 players (MechAssault) or 16 players (Unreal Championship). As time goes by, that number is probably going to go up (as they figure out how to optimize games for a broad-band-only service and, of course, provide dedicated servers) with an attendant increase in map sizes and game options. 4. Increasing penetration. The potential is there to expand the reach of broadband with people getting it for Xbox Live and people wanting - and asking for - it for Xbox Live. Applications are what we need to drive broadband adoption, something most of us want. Given the above, I'm glad MS chose broadband only for their service. I know that I've had fun with it (beta testing) so far, and I'm looking forward to picking up MechAssault tomorrow and start doing some real damage.
Seriously. If you could post a link to where this has been announced (since being a beta tester apparently didn't expose me to enough information), I would appreciate it. As far as I know, there has been no announcement of a price whatsoever. What they have indicated is that they will charge the fee yearly which militates against the idea that it will be $10/month since that would necessarily be a charge of $120. I can see a lot of parents having a tizzy fit if all of a sudden $120 popped out on their credit card bill. Note that this isn't to say that $10/month ISN'T the price, but simply that nobody knows yet. (It's also not to say that Microsoft would never do anything evil, since I consider them evil myself - along with nearly every other corporation, but still.)