"We have certain rights and freedoms here in the USA, and we're proud of it."
You kid yourself if you think most of those rights still exist in force. We have those rights on one piece of paper, but they are limited time and time again on other pieces of paper.
The right to bear arms? Forget it. I can't legally buy any weapon with ammo that can pierce the armor of an M1A2 tank. How else am I supposed to fight an oppressive government? Isn't that what the right to bear arms is all about?
Freedom of speech? If they are listening without my knowledge, that will cause me to not say what I want to say, sometimes. That's an abridgement of the right to free speech. The right to assemble peacefully? Sure, as long as you don't say anything bad, and you don't assemble where it might be inconvenient to government, peaceful or not.
The right of security against unreasonable search and seizure? This has been eroding quickly in the poast two decades. You have $10k cash in your bag when you cross a state border? Sorry, it's been seized. You have to sue and prove it's not illegally-gained cash to get it back.
How about the right to not be deprived of liberty without due process? Gitmo, anyone?
Maybe we should clean our own house before we try to fix someone else's.
"Any corporation organized in the U.S. has a moral responsibility to act ethically as any other good U.S. citizen"
s/b: ""Any corporation organized in the U.S. has a moral responsibility to maximize profits."
That is the only moral responsibility a corporation has -- to maximize profits for its shareholders. Sure, some corps have policies/mission statements that include some other form of moral code, but at the fundamental level, corporations are not citizens and have no non-fiscal moral obligations.
"Don't make the mistake of confusing capitalism with human rights. I personally find this abhorrent. However, there's no hope of a for-profit company actually taking the risk of upsetting a large source of future income."
Government action that results in private companies restricting speech is the same as government restriction of free speech. It doesn't matter that the private companies are only looking to maximize their profits.
Read the writings of Justices Hand and Holmes. I suggest "In Perilous Times" by Geoffrey R. Stone. It treats the history of free speech in the US, but gives great insight into the theory behind it as well. According to US political theory, anyway, government acts that would cause people to censor themselves are acts of government censorship.
It doesn't matter of MSN is pulling the blog voluntarily (in order to avoid negative repercussions with the Chinese government), or if the Chinese government orders them to do so. Either way, it's a government-caused limit to free speech.
Google's product is not a search engine. Google's main product is ad delivery. The search engine was just the first way that they used to deliver their product.
By your logic, television networks are broadcast towers, period. Magazine publishing companies are article publishers, period.
"Google will not be around in 10 years in any identifiable form comparable to today. They'll go hardware, they'll be bought up by a larger company, the little search engine that was will be laughed at."
Hah. That's pretty funny. Do you know how Google gets its revenue? All 1.6 bn of it in 3rd quarter 2005? Can you explain why that revenue model won't be just as applicable in ten years?
...involves living in Mom's basement with a limitless bag of chips and a few dozen liters of Mountain Dew / Bawls / sugary caffeinated alcohol-free beverage (SCAB).
It's not a perfect algorithm, but the results have been consistently replicated by thousands.
Second, Google is not primarily a search engine (except to the end user), any more than Walmart is a producer of engine oil.
Google is an advertising placement agency, a marketing company, and an information broker. The search engine is just a delivery mechanism for their primary product, which is advertising and marketing for their clients.
"You made a statement, backed up by no evidence, that this was the case. So I'm just supposed to accept this without doubting you?"
No, it's common knowledge that online game platforms can be profitable. If you doubt the common knowledge, go ahead and do the research yourself.
"You stated (and I agree) that businesses try to maximize profit. Offering an online service may not maximize Sony's profit. This means that your point does not stand."
My point is that it will increase Sony's profit, or perhaps decrease their losses. Unless Sony can't figure out how other companies have made it profitable to them (which I doubt, since they've demonstrated that they can do it themselves), it will be a profitable venture.
"And you also have no evidence that it was in response to what you claim"
Do a quick Google, particularly for articles in 2003. It's repeated enough in the professional literature that I have no problem accepting it as being true. Also, look at the timing of the XBoxLive update and Sony's 989 platform.
Please, if you're going to read every sentence so critically, do some research yourself -- after all, I'm assuming that you must have some knowledge on the subject, or you wouldn't be disputing my perspective, right? I'm not going to compose an essay for you, I expect that you would bother doing a little research on your own if you disagree that much.
Not really bothersome to me. It's quite acceptable in microeconomic terms (and business jargon) to refer to what you produce as product, irrespective of quantity. The form 'products' as a plural is probably technically, etymologically, correct only for product from multiple producers.
The 'product' of company A refers to all that company A produces.
The 'products' of companies A and B refers to all that they together produce.
"Besides if you chose completely by using rational thinking and it turned out to be a flop you probably should have said to yourself I should have went with X"
Yes, but I tell myself that I was using the best information available to me at the time. I only regret my decisions when I didn't use due diligence in making the choice.
"When you justify the purchases with the execs. It is different because they all may have different gut feeling and with 4 People with a Gut Feeling of 55% of being right. There is a 9% chance that all your gut feelings with be the same and correct. Because of all the people involved you need to justify your actions better because Gut feelings reduce with more people."
Well, they all claim to make rational decisions and not be motivated by gut feelings. It's just a matter of making my choice seem the best according to their logic... and typically, I've done my research and can make my case. If I think it's a crap shoot, I'll tell them... and then they can use their prodigious guts.
"Franzen said he chose Apple hardware based on a "gut" feeling that its technology would be good, and so far, he has not been disappointed."
Bad, bad Franzen. Must be nice to have money to burn, but "gut feeling" is a very, very poor way to select hardware... although this is a good example of brand awareness and marketing in action.
OTOH, it must be nice to have a job where you can make purchasing decisions based on a gut feeling, I normally have to justify every purchase three times in three different ways to three different execs... just like they send out procedural memos.
I agree with the gist of your post, but a couple things strike me --
3) Lobby their publishers to reduce the retail price so that more people will be willing to pay full retail.
I think think you mean wholesale price, which would help preserve the margins of the retailers for new games. If they lower the MSRP on new games, all you'll see is the used games being sold for $5 less than the new MSRP. This would hurt retailers in the long run, beacuse their margins on both the new and used games would be less.
"4) Stop working with publishers who keep amping up prices while forcing absurd schedules making quality slip."
Not so easy. Prices have been fairly steady, and the scheduling is usually forced due to market constraints. Videogame sales are partly dependent on timing of the release, and devlopers being behind schedule may be due to either unrealistic expectations, developer errors, developer/designer miscommunication, or inadequate allocation of dev resources. Not working with a publisher can kill a dev house, the business is pretty competitive and most dev companies know what they're getting into when they sign a contract.
Off the top of my head, some definitions of these (mostly) (relatively) common words:
Acacias -- pl., Acacia. N. A family of shrubs (trees?). Acacia gum is a pretty common ingredient in foodstuffs.
Carnies -- pl., Carny. N. A non-temporary worker at a carnival. Carnies have their own culture, some of which is not considered "healthy" by modern us moral standards.
Fireboats -- pl., Fireboat. N. A type of ship used extensively in the Colonial/Victorian era, often a converted civil vessel, used in ship-to-ship combat in close quarters. Modern, a boat used to fight fires.
Lanners -- pl., Lanner. N. A bird of prey, used in falconry. I think it's Mediterranean.
Samisens -- pl., Samisen. N. A musical instrument of Eastern origin -- India?
Tawer -- N. A leatherworker... I think this is like a tanner.
I mean, really, these words are not all that odd. Some of them are not in common usage outside their fields, but I some across the first three words fairly often. Not so much lanner and tawer, but as a Medieval and Renaissance buff (like many a good Slashdot nerd), I've heard them before. And samisen is common enough to those with an interest in culturally diverse or historical music.
"What a nonesevently cromulent enumeration"
Whereas, 'nonesevently' and 'cromulent' are not words (though 'cromulent' appeared on the Simpsons as a joke). Enumeration is perfectly valid, and you've used it correctly in this context;).
On the other hand, there are plenty of words on the list that are way, way too obscure for one person in a thousand to know.
"This means that there is a reason for sony not to offer this service, and you gave the reason yourself!"
And yet I pointed out that online services have been demonstrated to be profitable when done properly. Missing out on this opportunity would be a big mistake for Sony, seeing as their pockets are very deep and can absorb the cost of starting up such a service.
You can twist my words all you like, but my point still stands -- Sony will be instituting some form of online service (which has been obvious to analysts for months now), and will likely in time convert the service to at least a pay-optional tiered system. While Sony has consistently stated that they will be using an 'open' online format, meaning game developers will retain the costs associated with and the revenues derived from hosting online play, Sony has always hedged it statements with "currently" or "as of now." They state that they believe pay-to-play online gaming presents too much of a barrier for most gamers, they also recognize the income potential -- SOE has done pretty well with offerings (until very recently).
Note also that Sony created a unified platform for 989 sports games in 2003, so they have some experience with running a unified platform. This was in response to MS gaining a pretty big lead in online sports gaming in 2002 and 2003, and to compete with the revamp of XBoxLive.
I don't think Sony will commit the same mistake again, allowing MS to establish a firm lead in onlinwe gaming. A distributed platform for online gaming may do just that, since Sony will not be able to control the quiality of online offerings for PS3.
The only reason that Sony wouldn't establish their own unified platform is because some developers (EA, for example) don't want to play by those rules -- but with MS already doing it, Sony would be the only other major option for EA -- who've stated in the past that they don't like MS's business practices and prefer not to develop for their consoles.
All in all, as the online gaming market develops, I'm 99% certain that console makers will need to establish a unified platform, that they charge for, in order to stay competitive. It's quite possible they'd also offer a distributed platform for online gaming, a la PS2, but Sony would be foolish to allow themselves to lag behind in online gaming, which is the fastest growing segment of the gaming market (in dollars, not in percentages -- I'm still a little unsure of the 'casual gaming' figures bandied about on the net.)
"The only difference is, you think it matters in 2008. Why is this? Is 2008 the magical cutoff date after which no one is allowed to change their mind about whether they want to play online anymore?"
I was pointing out that for someone like Sony to plan its business based upon today's market would be imbecilic. The game market is changing, and choosing to ignore online gaming would be beyond foolish.
"If subscription sales are more profitable than box sales, this doesn't mean that every console manufacturer has to copy Microsoft. My arguments here are practically identical to the ones above for box sales, save they are flipped around."
You're ignoring the fact that the goal is not to 'make some profit', but to 'maximize profits.' This means box sales + online sales.
There's also the issue of being seen as a tech laggard -- if you don't have good online capability, you WILL lose market share to competitors that do.
"Look at FPS games, or even Guild Wars. They don't have subscription fees, and they're still going."
You're looking at individual games, not at consoles. Different product, not comparable. There is no reason for Sony NOT to offer a subscription service, in addition to a free service (which would cost them money to operate, BTW -- so box and console sales would have to subsidize this). Why would they pass up a chance at more revenue, when they will be faced with extra costs?
I'd like to see end-of-year figures, but I'd bet that WoW will also be the number one netting game as well in 2006.
"A bigger problem with online subscribtion methods for consoles is that they unfairly leverage their costs against people who only play a few hours a week, while those that play multiple games online reap the greatest benefit. If you played all of your games online, then I can see how XBOX Live would be pretty cool. What if you only play one game online like me? It's just not worth the cost."
They don't have to only offer unlimited play. Pay for 10 hours a month, or 20, or unlimited, or pay by the hour (prepaid cards, etc).
I believe in the free online method. If a game wants to have online components, let the company making the game cover the costs. I personally could care less what my stats are across all games compared to other players. The cross game friend feature is pretty cool, but not a deal breaker.
Tiered is the way I think they'll go with most games. Extra content for subscribers, but available free as well.
You're right, that the tyranny of the minority can be problematic... see all the hooplah about cloture of filibusters here in the US.
But, that 'tyranny of the minority' can often serve as a ameliator of bad policies that the majority wants to enact. It forces compromise, and cautious action, which is generally A Good Thing, IMO.
"World of Warcraft is a great example though. It's a great example of why it doesn't matter if you have a Live style integrated offering or not."
It's still a growing market. If your game is 'teh hotness' people will pay for online service, whether it's single-console (or handheld) specific or not. Or how about tiered systems? F2P for all, P2P content for some?
It is relevant to the article, and particularly to the OP, since the amount of revenue that MMORPGs have the potential to bring in is HUGE. Or the fact that many other games besides MMORPGS can have huge secondary revenue streams by only offering content upgrades to people to pay for an online subscrition. Why give it away when people will pay?
" MMO games are bad to bring into conversations like these because they are a beast of their own."
The point holds, though, that they are reason enough for a company to include online service with their handheld. They are products with a large market and potential for very high-revenue low-cost streams.
The article? Read it. It said almost nothing. Was referring to the summary.
FTA:"There's little argument even amongst developers that Microsoft has a superior online service, but In-Stat analysts believe that Sony deciding on a pay-to-play service or free gaming is crucial to the expansion of online gaming. "Microsoft is the only console maker so far to launch a paid subscription service," says In-Stat analyst Brian O'Rourke."
How does this say that Sony may have free online gaming to compete with MS's pay service?
The article says nothing like what you say it does.
Also, it doesn't matter if most players don't want to play online -- what matters is
(1) whether most players two years from now will want to play online; and
(2) where the most cash comes from, games sales or online subscriptions/fees.
So, please, get a clue yourself and bother to read the article, go back and read my post, and understand why it's such an obvious move by Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
"We have certain rights and freedoms here in the USA, and we're proud of it."
You kid yourself if you think most of those rights still exist in force. We have those rights on one piece of paper, but they are limited time and time again on other pieces of paper.
The right to bear arms? Forget it. I can't legally buy any weapon with ammo that can pierce the armor of an M1A2 tank. How else am I supposed to fight an oppressive government? Isn't that what the right to bear arms is all about?
Freedom of speech? If they are listening without my knowledge, that will cause me to not say what I want to say, sometimes. That's an abridgement of the right to free speech. The right to assemble peacefully? Sure, as long as you don't say anything bad, and you don't assemble where it might be inconvenient to government, peaceful or not.
The right of security against unreasonable search and seizure? This has been eroding quickly in the poast two decades. You have $10k cash in your bag when you cross a state border? Sorry, it's been seized. You have to sue and prove it's not illegally-gained cash to get it back.
How about the right to not be deprived of liberty without due process? Gitmo, anyone?
Maybe we should clean our own house before we try to fix someone else's.
"Any corporation organized in the U.S. has a moral responsibility to act ethically as any other good U.S. citizen"
s/b: ""Any corporation organized in the U.S. has a moral responsibility to maximize profits."
That is the only moral responsibility a corporation has -- to maximize profits for its shareholders. Sure, some corps have policies/mission statements that include some other form of moral code, but at the fundamental level, corporations are not citizens and have no non-fiscal moral obligations.
"Don't make the mistake of confusing capitalism with human rights. I personally find this abhorrent. However, there's no hope of a for-profit company actually taking the risk of upsetting a large source of future income."
Government action that results in private companies restricting speech is the same as government restriction of free speech. It doesn't matter that the private companies are only looking to maximize their profits.
Read the writings of Justices Hand and Holmes. I suggest "In Perilous Times" by Geoffrey R. Stone. It treats the history of free speech in the US, but gives great insight into the theory behind it as well. According to US political theory, anyway, government acts that would cause people to censor themselves are acts of government censorship.
It doesn't matter of MSN is pulling the blog voluntarily (in order to avoid negative repercussions with the Chinese government), or if the Chinese government orders them to do so. Either way, it's a government-caused limit to free speech.
Google's product is not a search engine. Google's main product is ad delivery. The search engine was just the first way that they used to deliver their product.
By your logic, television networks are broadcast towers, period. Magazine publishing companies are article publishers, period.
"Google will not be around in 10 years in any identifiable form comparable to today. They'll go hardware, they'll be bought up by a larger company, the little search engine that was will be laughed at."
Hah. That's pretty funny. Do you know how Google gets its revenue? All 1.6 bn of it in 3rd quarter 2005? Can you explain why that revenue model won't be just as applicable in ten years?
...involves living in Mom's basement with a limitless bag of chips and a few dozen liters of Mountain Dew / Bawls / sugary caffeinated alcohol-free beverage (SCAB).
It's not a perfect algorithm, but the results have been consistently replicated by thousands.
What? First off, an IPO is an event, not a thing.
Second, Google is not primarily a search engine (except to the end user), any more than Walmart is a producer of engine oil.
Google is an advertising placement agency, a marketing company, and an information broker. The search engine is just a delivery mechanism for their primary product, which is advertising and marketing for their clients.
"You made a statement, backed up by no evidence, that this was the case. So I'm just supposed to accept this without doubting you?"
No, it's common knowledge that online game platforms can be profitable. If you doubt the common knowledge, go ahead and do the research yourself.
"You stated (and I agree) that businesses try to maximize profit. Offering an online service may not maximize Sony's profit. This means that your point does not stand."
My point is that it will increase Sony's profit, or perhaps decrease their losses. Unless Sony can't figure out how other companies have made it profitable to them (which I doubt, since they've demonstrated that they can do it themselves), it will be a profitable venture.
"And you also have no evidence that it was in response to what you claim"
Do a quick Google, particularly for articles in 2003. It's repeated enough in the professional literature that I have no problem accepting it as being true. Also, look at the timing of the XBoxLive update and Sony's 989 platform.
Please, if you're going to read every sentence so critically, do some research yourself -- after all, I'm assuming that you must have some knowledge on the subject, or you wouldn't be disputing my perspective, right? I'm not going to compose an essay for you, I expect that you would bother doing a little research on your own if you disagree that much.
Grow up.
They also probably get a nice marketing kickback from Apple... or at least their network gets some discount for cross-promotion.
I know my employer gets discounts from companies that advertise with us (print media)... a lot of the time, we get freebies, too (iPods, for example).
Not really bothersome to me. It's quite acceptable in microeconomic terms (and business jargon) to refer to what you produce as product, irrespective of quantity. The form 'products' as a plural is probably technically, etymologically, correct only for product from multiple producers.
The 'product' of company A refers to all that company A produces.
The 'products' of companies A and B refers to all that they together produce.
"Besides if you chose completely by using rational thinking and it turned out to be a flop you probably should have said to yourself I should have went with X"
Yes, but I tell myself that I was using the best information available to me at the time. I only regret my decisions when I didn't use due diligence in making the choice.
"When you justify the purchases with the execs. It is different because they all may have different gut feeling and with 4 People with a Gut Feeling of 55% of being right. There is a 9% chance that all your gut feelings with be the same and correct. Because of all the people involved you need to justify your actions better because Gut feelings reduce with more people."
Well, they all claim to make rational decisions and not be motivated by gut feelings. It's just a matter of making my choice seem the best according to their logic... and typically, I've done my research and can make my case. If I think it's a crap shoot, I'll tell them... and then they can use their prodigious guts.
"What's next? Books: Telephone Directory?"
Be careful what you ask for. That's all I'm saying.
Although, here's a yellow pages review that would be at home on Slashdot. Maybe.
You may think his sig sucks, but your comment sucks.
Besides the fact that you're a troll, paid subscribers can go to cinnamon colbert's user page and see all of his/her comments...
Just because you can't see that comment doesn't mean that others can't.
"Franzen said he chose Apple hardware based on a "gut" feeling that its technology would be good, and so far, he has not been disappointed."
Bad, bad Franzen. Must be nice to have money to burn, but "gut feeling" is a very, very poor way to select hardware... although this is a good example of brand awareness and marketing in action.
OTOH, it must be nice to have a job where you can make purchasing decisions based on a gut feeling, I normally have to justify every purchase three times in three different ways to three different execs... just like they send out procedural memos.
I agree with the gist of your post, but a couple things strike me --
3) Lobby their publishers to reduce the retail price so that more people will be willing to pay full retail.
I think think you mean wholesale price, which would help preserve the margins of the retailers for new games. If they lower the MSRP on new games, all you'll see is the used games being sold for $5 less than the new MSRP. This would hurt retailers in the long run, beacuse their margins on both the new and used games would be less.
"4) Stop working with publishers who keep amping up prices while forcing absurd schedules making quality slip."
Not so easy. Prices have been fairly steady, and the scheduling is usually forced due to market constraints. Videogame sales are partly dependent on timing of the release, and devlopers being behind schedule may be due to either unrealistic expectations, developer errors, developer/designer miscommunication, or inadequate allocation of dev resources. Not working with a publisher can kill a dev house, the business is pretty competitive and most dev companies know what they're getting into when they sign a contract.
Here's a site with some amusing chemical structures:
A lot of lore that was passed down from thousands of chemistry teachers and chemists, conveniently indexed and illustrated for your convenience.
Off the top of my head, some definitions of these (mostly) (relatively) common words:
;) .
Acacias -- pl., Acacia. N. A family of shrubs (trees?). Acacia gum is a pretty common ingredient in foodstuffs.
Carnies -- pl., Carny. N. A non-temporary worker at a carnival. Carnies have their own culture, some of which is not considered "healthy" by modern us moral standards.
Fireboats -- pl., Fireboat. N. A type of ship used extensively in the Colonial/Victorian era, often a converted civil vessel, used in ship-to-ship combat in close quarters. Modern, a boat used to fight fires.
Lanners -- pl., Lanner. N. A bird of prey, used in falconry. I think it's Mediterranean.
Samisens -- pl., Samisen. N. A musical instrument of Eastern origin -- India?
Tawer -- N. A leatherworker... I think this is like a tanner.
I mean, really, these words are not all that odd. Some of them are not in common usage outside their fields, but I some across the first three words fairly often. Not so much lanner and tawer, but as a Medieval and Renaissance buff (like many a good Slashdot nerd), I've heard them before. And samisen is common enough to those with an interest in culturally diverse or historical music.
"What a nonesevently cromulent enumeration"
Whereas, 'nonesevently' and 'cromulent' are not words (though 'cromulent' appeared on the Simpsons as a joke). Enumeration is perfectly valid, and you've used it correctly in this context
On the other hand, there are plenty of words on the list that are way, way too obscure for one person in a thousand to know.
"This means that there is a reason for sony not to offer this service, and you gave the reason yourself!"
And yet I pointed out that online services have been demonstrated to be profitable when done properly. Missing out on this opportunity would be a big mistake for Sony, seeing as their pockets are very deep and can absorb the cost of starting up such a service.
You can twist my words all you like, but my point still stands -- Sony will be instituting some form of online service (which has been obvious to analysts for months now), and will likely in time convert the service to at least a pay-optional tiered system. While Sony has consistently stated that they will be using an 'open' online format, meaning game developers will retain the costs associated with and the revenues derived from hosting online play, Sony has always hedged it statements with "currently" or "as of now." They state that they believe pay-to-play online gaming presents too much of a barrier for most gamers, they also recognize the income potential -- SOE has done pretty well with offerings (until very recently).
Note also that Sony created a unified platform for 989 sports games in 2003, so they have some experience with running a unified platform. This was in response to MS gaining a pretty big lead in online sports gaming in 2002 and 2003, and to compete with the revamp of XBoxLive.
I don't think Sony will commit the same mistake again, allowing MS to establish a firm lead in onlinwe gaming. A distributed platform for online gaming may do just that, since Sony will not be able to control the quiality of online offerings for PS3.
The only reason that Sony wouldn't establish their own unified platform is because some developers (EA, for example) don't want to play by those rules -- but with MS already doing it, Sony would be the only other major option for EA -- who've stated in the past that they don't like MS's business practices and prefer not to develop for their consoles.
All in all, as the online gaming market develops, I'm 99% certain that console makers will need to establish a unified platform, that they charge for, in order to stay competitive. It's quite possible they'd also offer a distributed platform for online gaming, a la PS2, but Sony would be foolish to allow themselves to lag behind in online gaming, which is the fastest growing segment of the gaming market (in dollars, not in percentages -- I'm still a little unsure of the 'casual gaming' figures bandied about on the net.)
"The only difference is, you think it matters in 2008. Why is this? Is 2008 the magical cutoff date after which no one is allowed to change their mind about whether they want to play online anymore?"
I was pointing out that for someone like Sony to plan its business based upon today's market would be imbecilic. The game market is changing, and choosing to ignore online gaming would be beyond foolish.
"If subscription sales are more profitable than box sales, this doesn't mean that every console manufacturer has to copy Microsoft. My arguments here are practically identical to the ones above for box sales, save they are flipped around."
You're ignoring the fact that the goal is not to 'make some profit', but to 'maximize profits.' This means box sales + online sales.
There's also the issue of being seen as a tech laggard -- if you don't have good online capability, you WILL lose market share to competitors that do.
"Look at FPS games, or even Guild Wars. They don't have subscription fees, and they're still going."
You're looking at individual games, not at consoles. Different product, not comparable. There is no reason for Sony NOT to offer a subscription service, in addition to a free service (which would cost them money to operate, BTW -- so box and console sales would have to subsidize this). Why would they pass up a chance at more revenue, when they will be faced with extra costs?
I'd like to see end-of-year figures, but I'd bet that WoW will also be the number one netting game as well in 2006.
"A bigger problem with online subscribtion methods for consoles is that they unfairly leverage their costs against people who only play a few hours a week, while those that play multiple games online reap the greatest benefit. If you played all of your games online, then I can see how XBOX Live would be pretty cool. What if you only play one game online like me? It's just not worth the cost."
They don't have to only offer unlimited play. Pay for 10 hours a month, or 20, or unlimited, or pay by the hour (prepaid cards, etc).
I believe in the free online method. If a game wants to have online components, let the company making the game cover the costs. I personally could care less what my stats are across all games compared to other players. The cross game friend feature is pretty cool, but not a deal breaker.
Tiered is the way I think they'll go with most games. Extra content for subscribers, but available free as well.
You're right, that the tyranny of the minority can be problematic... see all the hooplah about cloture of filibusters here in the US.
But, that 'tyranny of the minority' can often serve as a ameliator of bad policies that the majority wants to enact. It forces compromise, and cautious action, which is generally A Good Thing, IMO.
"World of Warcraft is a great example though. It's a great example of why it doesn't matter if you have a Live style integrated offering or not."
It's still a growing market. If your game is 'teh hotness' people will pay for online service, whether it's single-console (or handheld) specific or not. Or how about tiered systems? F2P for all, P2P content for some?
It is relevant to the article, and particularly to the OP, since the amount of revenue that MMORPGs have the potential to bring in is HUGE. Or the fact that many other games besides MMORPGS can have huge secondary revenue streams by only offering content upgrades to people to pay for an online subscrition. Why give it away when people will pay?
" MMO games are bad to bring into conversations like these because they are a beast of their own."
The point holds, though, that they are reason enough for a company to include online service with their handheld. They are products with a large market and potential for very high-revenue low-cost streams.
The article? Read it. It said almost nothing. Was referring to the summary.
FTA:"There's little argument even amongst developers that Microsoft has a superior online service, but In-Stat analysts believe that Sony deciding on a pay-to-play service or free gaming is crucial to the expansion of online gaming. "Microsoft is the only console maker so far to launch a paid subscription service," says In-Stat analyst Brian O'Rourke."
How does this say that Sony may have free online gaming to compete with MS's pay service?
The article says nothing like what you say it does.
Also, it doesn't matter if most players don't want to play online -- what matters is
(1) whether most players two years from now will want to play online; and
(2) where the most cash comes from, games sales or online subscriptions/fees.
So, please, get a clue yourself and bother to read the article, go back and read my post, and understand why it's such an obvious move by Sony.