Xbox Live!

[Anonymous]

I saw on Planetxbox that the Xbox Live! service was scheduled to happen on 11/15. It involves a headset thingee that must be purchased and is only for broadband users.

What do you guys think about this news, being closer to the subject than me?

[Joe O'Malley]

Sorry, that was posted by me, not an anonymouse. I had some difficulty logging on.

[Mark Asher]

I think the service looks promising, but traditionally add-on peripherals haven't sold well on consoles. Some of the publishers aren't excited about Microsoft controlling the online revenue -- if you're EA, why should you be excited about Madden Football being used on Xbox Live if the subscription money is going to Microsoft and not you? I guess the idea is that making your game Xbox Live-compatible will boost sales, but the big titles probably don't need it. EA's got EA.com too, so they may be reluctant to boost a competing network. I think initially Microsoft has to provide the bulk of the content.

The other thing is that it's all chat-driven. Knowing how people are online, I'm a bit concerned about my youngest kids getting cursed at by idiots or my daughter having to deal with online perverts. I'd like to know how Microsoft plans on policing that.

[Aleck]

Have they said anything about pricing beyond the $50/yr for the Xbox Live service? If they manage to provide online access to a whole lot of games for $50/yr, including possibly MMORPGs, it sounds like a hell of a deal to me -- and the kind of deal that might actually attract a large number of subscribers, allowing them to hit critical mass for various games rather quickly. If, on the other hand, they're going to charge add'l fees on top, well, I don't see consumers crying out for it.

I agree with you, Mark, that consumers haven't traditionally clamored for peripherals -- but I think the Xbox might surprise people, since the market for the Xbox is older, more sophisticated (witness DOA Volleyball), and a little more flush with cash than the traditional console audience.

Err... Well, at least two out of three. :oops:

[Joe O'Malley]

Honestly, I'm not the person they are marketing this for. The only thing I really care about is getting extra content for my existing games. I want patches or upgrades, not to chat with what I expect will be the usual pack of trolls that inhabit online gaming areas.

I find I like games. I also like gamers, so long as I can see them. But once they are out of sight, lordy, what a bunch of bungholes they turn into.

[Mark Asher]

I don't know of any MMOGs for Xbox Live, though apparently SWG is coming for it. I think you can expect a separate fee for something like that.

The $50 is an introductory price. My guess is Microsoft will move that to a monthly $10-15 fee after the initial year is up.

One hurdle it might face is just getting it hooked up. I already have broadband. How do I use both my computer and Xbox Live at the same time? How do I have them both hooked up? My ISP hooked up my DSL for me for free. Who's going to hook up my Xbox? It's in the kids' room and my PC is downstairs. Will I have route a line upstairs? Do I have to buy a splitter or something? I have no idea.

[Joe O'Malley]

I was curious about the whole braodband setup myself. Mine is cablemodem. Since the Xbox is attached to the TV, no problem with a nearby line. But I already have a PC on a different floor that is connected. Will my cable company charge me extra for this? Will I need another cable modem?

I'm wishing there was a spot that you could just go for upgrades and user community. I guess I'm just spoiled on the Internet for that. But a headset and a player-matching service, neither of which I'm likely to use, doesn't warrant me blowing $50, much less $10/month. It's not to say I won't do it; I really am itchy for an update for my Xbox Morrowind game.

[Anonymous]

I hate to say it Mark, but you've mentioned the biggest obstacle I face for getting Xbox online. I have no idea how to get that hooked up. A splitter for the TV cable? Or for the cable modem? Ugh, I hate that sh*t.

[Xaroc]

One hurdle it might face is just getting it hooked up. I already have broadband. How do I use both my computer and Xbox Live at the same time? How do I have them both hooked up? My ISP hooked up my DSL for me for free. Who's going to hook up my Xbox? It's in the kids' room and my PC is downstairs. Will I have route a line upstairs? Do I have to buy a splitter or something? I have no idea.

It is called a router and I am sure they will have comprehensive instructions included in the kit. There will have to be a wire run somewhere unless you go wireless. I will probably be picking up an Xbox within a month and will definitely check out Xbox Live, chances are it will be hooked up in my office to the same TV as the PS2 and right near a hub for easy internet access. Of course your typical joe doesn't have a 5 computer lan in their house but I know casual non-gaming people who have lans in their houses especially wireless lans. Wireless would be a great solution for the Xbox since it only does about 1-2mbit and I am guessing your DSL is 1.5mbit or less.

Will this be a big success, who knows, I know that I will try it though.

-- Xaroc

[Dave Long]

So you guys now agree with me about the setup issues? I've been saying for months I don't see how people are going to figure out how to get their Xbox onto their existing cable modem. Now I see three posts saying exactly the same thing. Where were you guys months ago when I was getting roasted for even mentioning it?!

--Dave

[Joe O'Malley]

Where were you guys months ago when I was getting roasted for even mentioning it?!
First rule of previews. Until you see the hardware, it's a rumor, not a feature :P

[Anonymous]

Dear Chicken Little,

I stopped listening to after the fifth time you swore that Bill Gates would be collecting cans in 2 years due to the XBox's demise.

[Anonymous]

Connecting is a hell of a problem. If you don't have a cable modem, you need to get one, which raises the monthly cost to around $50. Not many people are going to do that just for Xbox.

If you do have a cable modem, and a PC, you need a home network. These are pretty easy to set up, but you need $50-$200 worth of additional equipment (you spend more basically to get a manufacturer that has better tech support). It requires messing around with the PC you have (best case, you just have to install Internet Connection Sharing), and might well require breaking your agreement with the cable company.

If you have a home network already, you need to have a hub somewhere near where your Xbox is going to be. Even that is a problem, since people get the Xbox to play games in their living rooms, away from their desks. I used to have a home network that worked with a one-way modem--dial up out, broadband back. I had to use a Linux machine to act as a firewall/router, since Internet Connection Sharing doesn't support such setups. Would such a system support the Xbox. How would the Xbox know if it was in such a configuration?

If you have a home network that gets the internet through a dial-up connection, you'll probably try hooking up the Xbox to that. If this works, it breaks the assumption that everyone has broadband. If it doesn't work, the people who try it will be surprised and disappointed.

I don't see how Microsoft is going to work it out, unless they shell out a lot of money to do a cross-promotional thing with the cable companies where the cable companies will help with the install. (And if that is the case, they need to have started training the installers about 6 months ago, since in my experience the cable modem installers are not the sharpest tools in the shed :) ) They also are going to need to drop a lot of money on tech support.

Maybe they are hoping that XBox Live! is something they can use to market the XBox, but that no one will actually buy.

[Dave Long]

Another anonymous moron comes out of the wordwork to make accusations that aren't true. I never said Gates would be collecting cans in two years. I DID say that Xbox will likely fail. So far it hasn't done much to prove that part wrong.

I'm just genuinely curious why the folks on this board will ignore anything that doesn't jive with their game world view and then later turn around and start saying the same thing like they just came up with it and no one ever said it before. It doesn't just happen to me.

--Dave

[Jason Becker]

"How do I use both my computer and Xbox Live at the same time? "


Geez people you make it sound like its rocket science. If you have a cable modem here's what you need. A huge expensive massive complicated....$20 hub and a patch cable. You plug the computer and Xbox in the hub and the hub into the Cable or DSL. A drawback is that some comapanies charge extra for more than 1 IP. So you could be limited to the box or the PC unless you spend for an extra(our service adds $10 a month).


Please people, you make it sound like torture to do this.

[Xaroc]

Besides most routers do NAT by default so you don't even need multiple ips. Home networks are one of the easiest things to setup. And if you go wireless you don't even have to worry about the cable. Granted this is a lot of additional expense just for an Xbox but like I said there are a number of people who are not hardcore computer junkies I know that have lans of some sort in their houses. People used to have to mount TV antennaes on their roofs to watch TV somehow they managed to pull it off although I seriously doubt I would be able to do something like that. People will get the computer savvy friend to set this up in their house much like I would call a handy man or knowledgeable friend to mount an antennae on my roof.

-- Xaroc

[Tyjenks]

It is called a router and I am sure they will have comprehensive instructions included in the kit. There will have to be a wire run somewhere unless you go wireless. -- Xaroc

The average console gamer is not going to want to screw with all that. Yeah, the majority of folks on this board could rout it w/o a problem, but if they average gamers actually read the words "comprehensive instructions included" the heads will start to shake. "Damn, comp-reee-hensive, that sounds comp-leee-cated. I can't even get the clock on my VCR set, so there ain't no way I could get this thing to work."

Aren't they aiming at the non-online audience? Just seems like it is going to have to be reeeeeeeeeealllly easy to plug 'n play.

[Chris Nahr]

I'm just genuinely curious why the folks on this board will ignore anything that doesn't jive with their game world view and then later turn around and start saying the same thing like they just came up with it and no one ever said it before. It doesn't just happen to me.

During the speculation phase, before any confirmed data is available, any discussion is dominated by trolls and propaganda bots. That's the same on every forum. Intelligent speculation (such as yours if I may say so) is a rare thing. Most people don't want to speculate at all, they'll only pipe up when they see the actual announcement or the available product.

Besides, remember that this is a forum populated by PC gamers and the Xbox is the console for people who hate consoles. Folks who see every other console as a threat to their hobby tend to favour the Xbox, for a variety of real and imagined reasons.

[Aleck]

"How do I use both my computer and Xbox Live at the same time? "


Geez people you make it sound like its rocket science. If you have a cable modem here's what you need. A huge expensive massive complicated....$20 hub and a patch cable. You plug the computer and Xbox in the hub and the hub into the Cable or DSL. A drawback is that some comapanies charge extra for more than 1 IP. So you could be limited to the box or the PC unless you spend for an extra(our service adds $10 a month).

Jason, some people just don't groove on the home networking thing. It's a personal preference, not the end of the world. I personally have some innate aversion to working on the electronics in my car, which is why I still don't have a freakin' MP3 player in there. It's not that it's so complicated, it's just fear of the unknown and having better things to do with your time.

For me, personally, I would say that the optimal setup will depend on what you have near your Xbox in terms of possible network media. Your main options are:

1) Network cable
2) Phone line
3) Wireless (802.11b/wifi)
4) Powerline

Depending on which of these you have, you'd need to buy a router that supports the medium of choice and a bridge to put next to your Xbox. The connection into your house would go like this:

Cable Modem or DSL connects to router

Router connects to PC (via Ethernet) and to alternative networking medium (powerline, phoneline, wireless)

Alternative Medium connects to Bridge (near Xbox)

Xbox connects to Bridge.

All this translates to up to an additional $250 for networking your Xbox -- hardly a small expense for most folks. Inexpensive equipment is available from Linksys or Netgear or D-link, among others.

If, on the other hand, you're going to use the same technology to network your entire home, it's actually reasonable to pay $250 to share a connection across several PCs.

I enjoy the home networking thing -- I've got wireless, phoneline, and Cat-5 networked at various points in my little 2 bedroom condo -- but that's because it's something I enjoy playing with and fiddling with. Most consumers aren't that way and just want the damn thing to work.

Another consideration -- while we've been through all this already re: Tivo and how it's killing the TV networks, most of the newer personal video recorders are broadband-enabled, meaning that if you network for your xbox, you can extend that network to your PVR (and a PC if you happen to have one near your TV).

For more info on this stuff, I'd recommend TimHiggins.com (http://www.timhiggins.com) -- he's got a lot of useful info. If you honestly have questions about making this work, drop me a personal message and I'd be happy to help you out.

ASJunk

[xahlt]

You can say that setting up a router is easy (and for a lot of people it is), but that completely depends upon who the audience is. There's a certain amount of technical savvy involved, whereas a direct set-up from your cable or dsl modem to your computer or xbox is ridiculously simple. But there are all sorts of problems that can and do happen when you assume a basic networking knowledge out of people who just want to play Madden over the internet . Not to mention the additional cost of a firewall/router box added on to the Live kit.

[xahlt]

I should also mention that the large majority of cable/dsl providers do not provide support for using routers off a single IP (here I'm referring to technical support, not saying that they prevent you from using it). Of course that doesn't deter anyone, but what it means is that you've got a gray area where the consumer is on his own support-wise and gets told "sorry, you deal with it" by the service provider.

Again, not a problem for the savvy, but...

[Xaroc]

The average console gamer is not going to want to screw with all that. Yeah, the majority of folks on this board could rout it w/o a problem, but if they average gamers actually read the words "comprehensive instructions included" the heads will start to shake. "Damn, comp-reee-hensive, that sounds comp-leee-cated. I can't even get the clock on my VCR set, so there ain't no way I could get this thing to work."

Aren't they aiming at the non-online audience? Just seems like it is going to have to be reeeeeeeeeealllly easy to plug 'n play.

I don't know how it will go but I figure there will be enough avid gamers on the system to get it up and running then they will convert their less technical friends to the system. It is a hard sell to get your buddy to upgrade his pentium 200 to a new $1000 computer system but if you show him something cool and show it might cost $3-400 bucks to get setup it would be an easier sell.

-- Xaroc

[Wholly Schmidt]

I figured Xbox Live! was targeted more towards people who already have broadband and the gamble was whether or not that was enough people to support it, not whether or not people without broadband would buy into it just for their Xbox. I could be wrong, that's just the way I was looking at things.

As for those of us with broadband, it doesn't seem too uncommon that a house with broadband will have more than one computer hooked up already. In my house, that started with two computers on a hub. Then our cable provider got wise and began charging for extra IP's, so we got a router. I have only my limited perspective of my family and the friends I happen to know with broadband, but it doesn't seem horribly complicated. The expense can't be debated, but again, my thoughts were that Xbox Live! would be for the people who came to terms with the networking and financial issues already in their use of broadband.

So anyway, my big question will be whether or not Xbox Live! will work on campus when I go back to school. There's been some talk of changing some stuff on the school network and most of it goes over my head, I just hope none of it will conflict with anything my Xbox wants to do. I remember being crushed my freshman year to get the message "Your network does not allow UDP packets" or something when trying to play Diablo online at school.

[runesword forger]

I'll be very interesting to see how this goes for MS. I do think a higher percentage of Xbox users have BB.

But the setup and griefers are two big hurdles. Adding a router is no big deal at all to me, but running cable to my TV set in the living room would be a pain in the arse. But wireless is kind of expensive. I'll bet that this is pretty intimidating for most console users. Wonder if MS will sell a wireless router under the Xbox logo?

As slow as Nintendo is going online, I guess I don't have to worry about this any time soon.

Suppose that Xboxlive is stable, fast, and MS comes up with some way of fencing off rude/inappropriate chat. Would that really move a lot more Xboxes off store shelves?

[xahlt]

I'll be very interesting to see how this goes for MS. I do think a higher percentage of Xbox users have BB.

But the setup and griefers are two big hurdles. Adding a router is no big deal at all to me, but running cable to my TV set in the living room would be a pain in the arse. But wireless is kind of expensive. I'll bet that this is pretty intimidating for most console users. Wonder if MS will sell a wireless router under the Xbox logo?


I'm not sure how a wireless solution would be supposed to work out. My assumption here (and I don't own an Xbox) is that it's got a built in RJ-45 lan jack on it, right? I think the problem is that typically with a wireless system, for the end point you buy a wireless lan adapter which encompasses both the wireless signal conversion and the interface to the system. That is, you buy a wireless pcmcia, or a wireless pc lan card, not a wireless converter that plugs in to an existing lan jack.

For a system like that, I think you would need the added cost of a wireless workgroup switch or hub on the end point that you could then wire with tradition cat-5 to your Xbox. Maybe there are jack adapters but I have not seen them (granted I've never looked for them).

[Dave Long]

...that makes me think of another point...what if you own all three consoles and want to use all three online. Oy!

--Dave

[Tyjenks]

The expense can't be debated, but again, my thoughts were that Xbox Live! would be for the people who came to terms with the networking and financial issues already in their use of broadband.

Can the same folks that have digital cable, but no broadband modem also be targetted? My BB and cable are from the same company. If I had only digital cable, could that same service be used for the X-box Live access? This may have been a completely ignorant question, but there it is.

[Dave Long]

Nope, that won't work. You need the cable modem/IP address to become a "computer" on the network.

--Dave

[Jason Becker]

"Jason, some people just don't groove on the home networking thing. It's a personal preference, not the end of the world."

There are tens of millions that have delt with the "hassles" of home PC's fine. How about the home entertainment systems. TV, VCR, cable box, maybe a DVD player, satellite, etc with a bazillion wires. People hear switch or router and they cringe. They are many home networking kits and home designed switch/router/hubs that don't require a MCSE or A+ certifacation to use. Like a previous poster said I know several people with home networking setups(and some have broadband) and none of them work in the computer industry or are techheads. Is it as easy as changing a lightbulb? No but its not the 'nightmare' most on this board like to say either.


Its still a hell of allot better setup than the PS2. Sony's design has a hell of allot more potential for confusion to end users.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Yes, in answer to whoever asked, it's just an RJ-45 jack in the back of the Xbox. Wireless isn't an option unless there were another adapter involved.

Xbox Live! has no specific ties to cable modem connections, that's just the first example I think of when I think broadband. It could work with DSL as well. In theory, you could even use dialup if you had the connection shared across an ethernet network. I imagine that would be hell to try to actually play with though.

[Mark Asher]

I understand that it's doable and perhaps simple to hook up an Xbox to your broadband, but it's definitely a hurdle for the consumer to overcome, especially those who play consoles because they don't like the hassles of PC gaming.

[Wholly Schmidt]

I'd be surprised to find people who actually turned to consoles because of their simplicity relative to PC's. It comes in up every PCvsConsole fanboy debate, but I'd never put much stock in the idea of people actually saying to themselves "You know, this PC gaming is a hassle! I'm switching to consoles."

The two tend to have different styles of games overall and I just figured that saying "Well my console is much easier to set up and use than your PC" was a sort of after the fact arguement to defend a choice you made based on the more important factors of what kind of games you wanted to play (or possibly cost).

[Kevin Grey]

I'd be surprised to find people who actually turned to consoles because of their simplicity relative to PC's. It comes in up every PCvsConsole fanboy debate, but I'd never put much stock in the idea of people actually saying to themselves "You know, this PC gaming is a hassle! I'm switching to consoles."


I don't think its surprising. With a console I never have to tweak the game to get a better framerate, download new drivers to run it, disable programs running in the background, etc. When I buy I new console game I put it in and turn it on. On a PC I have to go through installation and game setup. Consoles are definitely easier to use.

[Aleck]

Yes, in answer to whoever asked, it's just an RJ-45 jack in the back of the Xbox. Wireless isn't an option unless there were another adapter involved.

They've actually just started releasing such devices; they're called wireless bridges. Linksys' entre product is the WET11 (http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=22&prid=432).

If you have a wireless router, this allows you to connect a regular ethernet port to that wireless router. This brings the total home networking cost for wireless to approx. $200 ($110 for wireless router, $90 for wireless bridge).

EDIT: URL fixed

[Aleck]

I understand that it's doable and perhaps simple to hook up an Xbox to your broadband, but it's definitely a hurdle for the consumer to overcome, especially those who play consoles because they don't like the hassles of PC gaming.

Absolutely. And one of the great things about consoles (and I say this as a PC Fan Boy) is how easy they are to set up and use. It'll be interesting to see if this holds for those who are using broadband and consoles -- none of the broadband products are "plug and play" in any meaningful sense.

Of course, the flip side for consoles' ease of use is that they're less flexible and not terribly upgradable.

[Mark Asher]

I dunno -- doesn't it irk you to constantly check to see if your drivers are updated, make sure you have the latest patch, etc.? I prefer PC games, but I admire the ease of play of consoles.

[Xaroc]

...that makes me think of another point...what if you own all three consoles and want to use all three online. Oy!

--Dave

If you can get one online, then putting two more online is cake especially if you go with that wireless bridge setup. Then it is just another cat-5 cable for each console assuming ps2 and the cube both support lan.

-- Xaroc

[Lee Johnson]

"If we had some cheese, we could have a ham and cheese sandwich, if we had some ham."

[Supertanker]

The friends and relatives I have that don't have or want broadband are all the ones that know nothing about their hardware. The ones with broadband are the ones with the home networks. I have more confidence in those with broadband to successfully network in their Xbox (assuming they have one), but it still will be a pain unless they have Cat-5 near the TV (though I can think of a few off the bat that do).

Are there many like me with their TV & PC right next to each other? I'm sort of the mirror image of the Xbox problem in that I have co-ax & the cable modem here, but no phone jack. That was one thing that prevented me from trying the online stuff with the DC that is hooked to the TV, but having to use dial-up was the main deterrent. If I ever decide to get an Xbox instead of PC components, I would actually have to put the Xbox next to the hub & router.

[sellthekids]

i think you guys are taking this too seriously for what MS and the Xbox is intended for. the online gaming experience with the XBox has pretty much one competitor - Sony & the PS2. now the PS2 doesn't have the adapter built-in, nor does it have a HDD. so we are already at the ubiquitous "5% of console owners buy add-ons" for each console (the Xbox needing the add-on headset and hook-up pack.)

so we already know that MOST console gamers won't be going online, but for those who plan to do so, the work of getting online is not that difficult. linksys offers routers for under $60 that my wife could hook up to a PC; these give you several ports to which to hook consoles, PC, etc. running the ethernet cable? companies here in houston charge $50 per drop to run a ethernet cable. or, do it yourself. it's not that hard and again, we are talking about the 5% of users who want to game online - they will run a home network b/c they (a)know how or (b)really, really want it. joey-joe-joe shabbado isn't the market they are after here guys, but MS won't cry if they get them too.

lastly, as for the "well, now you need broadband and that's like another $50/month" argument: most people in this 5% user group will have it or will get it for this launch. i have read that from anywhere in the neighborhood of 20-40% of homes in the U.S. have broadband. btw - both cable and DSL hook up to these cheap routers. again, this is not NASA-level rocket science. it's like a 5 minute deal.

i think MS's goal in this is to see what the adoption rate is. this is a first-mover test. i think MS is really planning this whole home network, console/broadband thing for the Xbox II.

so will i be gaming on the Xbox? yeah - i am so hoping to see Counter-Strike returned from the hell that is currently Cheater-Strike. would also be cool to finally play a nice round of Dungeon Seige (or the likes) without some dolt of a narrowband user joining in and ping-helling the game to bits.

oh yeah, here is how a non-techie gamer is going to feel about online gaming: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020814.html

enjoy!

[Supertanker]

oh yeah, here is how a non-techie gamer is going to feel about online gaming:

I thought the most interesting part of that article is how it underlines the narrow gaming focus of the casual gamer. There's little danger of me meeting up with this guy in Day of Defeat or Mech Assault.

[Jason Cross]

I'd be surprised to find people who actually turned to consoles because of their simplicity relative to PC's. It comes in up every PCvsConsole fanboy debate, but I'd never put much stock in the idea of people actually saying to themselves "You know, this PC gaming is a hassle! I'm switching to consoles."

I basically agree: people who play PC games regularly probably don't "switch" to consoles for this reason. At best, they play consoles in addition for those games they can't get on their PC.

But the simplicity of consoles is what makes people who DON'T regularly play PC games stay that way. If you play games on consoles and not really much on your PC, and there are a lot of those people out there, it's just too much effort to get PC games working, tweak the settings, tweak the controls, etc.

The ease of a console's use is definitely one of its strong suits and a prime reason for their popularity (along with price), but not necessarily a reason that people actually defect from playing PC games.

[Brad Grenz]

Its still a hell of allot better setup than the PS2. Sony's design has a hell of allot more potential for confusion to end users.

How do you figure? The network adapter is $10 cheaper than the Live starter kit and just snaps into the back of the system. At that point the connection barrier is about the same for broadband as the xbox. But the PS2 gives you a narrowband option too. But we're really not the people who should be talking about this. What the hell is the mother who buys little billy an Xbox live kit at the mall going to do when she gets it home. We're all PC guys and even if we don't know anything about home networking, how hard was it to get a walkthrough right here in this thread? But what does Billy's mom know about cat 5 or routers, she probably doesn't even know who to ask about this stuff.

The built in ethernet is kinda a problem in that for wireless, or some exotic networking tech you'll need a bridge. There are bound to be third party network devices for the PS2, ones that plug into the back, or at the very least USB.

I'm just kinda curious to see if there will be anyone to play against on Xbox Live once it launches. You're talking about a very small fraction of the 4 million installed base. Of the people who have Xboxes, who have access to broadband in their home, could set up the neccisary network and spent $50 on a Live kit, who is actually going to be online, playing the game you're playing with a good enough ping rate? The PS2 has a much larger population to pull from, and doesn't exclude people who are narrowband only. From that perspective online PS2 is likely to be more successful.

[Desslock]

Admittedly, I'm also a PC fanboy, primarily because the types of games that get released on console don't interest me (although I'd like to play Halo, so I guess Xbox wins). But is it true to say console set-up is so easy?

I plug my PC in -- ready to go. For a console, I have to figure out how to set it up with my TV, my VCR, my DVD player, my surround sound system, etc.

[Jason Becker]

"How do you figure? The network adapter is $10 cheaper than the Live starter kit and just snaps into the back of the system"


"What the hell is the mother who buys little billy an Xbox live kit at the mall going to do when she gets it home. "


Hmm lets start with the Xbox kit gives the 1 year of service to all the games with one account and one logon(extra for MM type games I'd suspect but still only paying to one company. You could easily have several with the PS2(Sony, EA, Activison, Edios etc)

What happens when Billy finds out that his PS2 games needs broadband too(SOCCOM one of the big online PS2 games is that way). Or how about yea it can work on 56K BUT it needs the HDD. ooops fork over some more money to get the HD, or maybe it needs broadband and the HDD. The possibilities for confusion and frustration are there. IMO much more than the Xbox which you know needs broadband but at least it has the HDD and adapter.

In terms of getting online its not a piece of cake and their is a hurdle with the boadband fo the Xbox, but the system that MS is setting up is at least a serious attempt and doing a usable system. One service, one access to all the games etc. Sony is saying here's the adapter...and maybe the HDD if you need it(both extra cash)... and now everyone for themselves. Some games free but some may require money and to diffrent companies. From the "ease of use" factor of consoles that is always talked about Xbox is a far better setup.


Wether it works we'll see but IMO MS is doing a very good job with the Live! service in its setup and the way it works. If was going to own one of these consoles and wanted online play the Xbox would be the no brainer IMO.

[Mark Asher]

I think the Xbox advantage with built-in ethernet is negated by having to spend $50 for the headset and subscription. You spend $10 less with the PS2 to get online. Either way, you have to go to the store to buy something, which traditionally has meant that it will be a niche product. And now you guys are telling me that's not the last of what I need? I need a router and other stuff? Nah, that isn't going to be embraced in big numbers.

[Brad Grenz]

Hmm lets start with the Xbox kit gives the 1 year of service to all the games with one account and one logon(extra for MM type games I'd suspect but still only paying to one company. You could easily have several with the PS2(Sony, EA, Activison, Edios etc)

I'd be surprised if you ever have to pay monthly fees for any non-MMORPG online PS2 games. I haven't heard a word uttered about anyone charging for anything this fall. Access to servers is going to be free for Madden, NFL 2K3, SOCOM, Twisted Metal Black, etc. Starts to get stupid if you have to kick in more for MMORPGs on the Xbox anyway.

As for it being unified under one service, that's overrated. You still have to put in the disc for the game you want to play and access the online portion through the game's menus. What's the difference if it says MS all over the place as opposed to it saying EA or Activision? The standardized interface might be easy to understand, but if PS2 developers know what they're doing their online interface isn't going to be impenetrable. Is it really that hard for PC gamers to adjust to the difference between the Half-Life in game server browser and the America's Army in game browser and the Soldiers of Fortune 2 in game browser?

So what does Xbox Live actually accomplish? Other than guranteeing voip chat and broadband connections all around, it just puts more money in Microsoft's pocket and gives them absolute control over the games. Some small developers may be happy to pass off the server burden, but some like EA are telling MS to go to hell.

[Mike Cathcart]

i think you guys are taking this too seriously for what MS and the Xbox is intended for. the online gaming experience with the XBox has pretty much one competitor - Sony & the PS2. now the PS2 doesn't have the adapter built-in, nor does it have a HDD. so we are already at the ubiquitous "5% of console owners buy add-ons" for each console (the Xbox needing the add-on headset and hook-up pack.)

Yeah, but in the past, "add-on" could be anything from a poorly-supported CD adapter to a robot that moves discs around. The broadband and dial-up adapters are in a different class. I think there's a good chance they'll beat that jinx. Granted, the DC had a BBA, but it was impossible to find (and in great demand). I just don't think it's fair to lump these things in with regular add-ons, because they offer much more.

Maybe they won't sell like crazy this Christmas, but consoles stick around for 4 or 5 years. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a steady increase in online console gaming over that time, and that's what MS is really betting on. By the time XB2 comes out, they've established themselves and they can go right into the online thing from the start with (maybe) a good reputation.

Still, just out of spite, I hope nobody uses it ;)

[Wholly Schmidt]

Heh, I've got the DC BBA, you want mine?

[Mark Asher]

Add-ons were also things like light guns, joysticks, mice, etc. None of them ever sold in significant numbers percentage-wise compared to the installed base.

It's not like Xbox Live or the PS2 need huge percentages of users to get a nice installed base. If the Xbox has 5 million users by November, all they need is 2% of those owners to get Xbox Live to have 100,000 users.

[Mike Cathcart]

Heh, I've got the DC BBA, you want mine?

I'm tempted to say yes just to have the thing, but as it is I'm going to be poor within a month. And I just recovered from last year's gaming apocalypse...

[Wholly Schmidt]

I got in on the second wave of pre-orders from sega's website, but I never really got to use it. I sort of half-way connected with Quake 3 on the Dreamcast once, but I could never get it to work reliably or at all with Phantasy Star Online (which was my main motivation).

[Reeko]

New comparison chart:

Warning: This is official propaganda!

http://www.xbox.com/system/onlinespecsheet.htm?det=1

[Jason Becker]

"What's the difference if it says MS all over the place as opposed to it saying EA or Activision?"


I don't think so. Ask if you cant one place to pay or maybe several. Its called ease of use. And there's nothing to say its all going to be standardized. I've also herd were comapanies said "We don't plan on charging.....initially". The one stop 'shopping' for Xbox is far better than the PS2's from a console gamers view. This logic if from years of online PC gaming. We've gotten used to having a dozen diffrent ways of logging.



"As for it being unified under one service, that's overrated."


See above


"You spend $10 less with the PS2 to get online"


Unitll you find a game that needs a HDD. And the $50 gets a year of service. Again no specifics have come out on the others. You have mulitple companies in it for the PS2. Who's to say what they end up doing?



"So what does Xbox Live actually accomplish?"


A single service with one interface, one account, one place to play, not having to re-logon. Don't have to buy a adapter or a HDD. The PS2 is everybody for themselves.


There's no comparison bewtween the setups.

[xahlt]

Yeah, that's some fairly convincing propaganda as far as it goes. Certainly reiterates the widely accepted view that Xbox is the only console with a coherently thought-out online gaming strategy.
Me, I'm worried about the headsets. Broadband is no guarantee of enough bandwidth for discernible voice chatting. And I sure hope they've worked out a good way to mute all the annoying people. To my mind they could have included a keyboard and mouse in the Live kit and probably given out a better gaming experience, but I know that doesn't have sex appeal.

[Mike Cathcart]

"What's the difference if it says MS all over the place as opposed to it saying EA or Activision?"


I don't think so. Ask if you cant one place to pay or maybe several. Its called ease of use. And there's nothing to say its all going to be standardized. I've also herd were comapanies said "We don't plan on charging.....initially".

OK, that first sentence makes no sense in reply to the line you quoted, and the second may not even be English :P Anyway, I think the whole "You'll be paying 800 people a month to play online" thing is a bit ridiculous. Who am I paying now to play CS, WarcraftIII, America's Army, Magic Online...wait, don't answer that. All of the DCs online games were free (after your connection, and you could use the one you had), except PSO.

Sure, you might have to pay for FFXI, or PSO, but how many of those games are you going to be playing at once? I suppose it might be more expensive in the end for someone who plays a lot of MMORPGs, but it seems to me that most people who play any of them usually pick one (maybe 2), as they eat up so much of your time anyway. The real draw is probably going to be sports games, as they are the biggest sellers. And since the PC EA games are free to play online and SEGA.net is free for that kind of stuff, most people will probably be able to play free online with the PS2 or GC. On the XBox, even if you just want to play NFL2K3 online, it's 50 bucks a year + my connection. Whatever.

[Mark Asher]

Once you buy the adapter to connect the PS2, you can play Madden online for free. EA's even going to keep stats, etc. I expect other online PS2 games to be free too -- not all, but some.

If you think about it, EA giving away online play for Madden on the PS2 makes sense. It's a bigger installed base so it's likely to drive more sales of Madden, and by keeping it on the PS2 they keep traffic (and revenue) away from a competing game publisher, Microsoft.

[Brad Grenz]

Gotta love glaring errors in MS produced PR comparisons. Here's hoping a bunch of publications don't reproduce the thing verbatim without checking to see if any of it is true. Off the top of my head the PS2 has 2 USB and therefore potential voice com inputs. SOCOM isn't the only game ever that will use voice chat. And the Launch titles is misleading because the PS2 launches 2 months earlier. By the time Live is out Sony will have basketball games too, not to mention whatever else might come out by then. And TBD for pricing? Call it "No announced sevice fees for any game so far".

[Jason Cross]

Broadband is no guarantee of enough bandwidth for discernible voice chatting. And I sure hope they've worked out a good way to mute all the annoying people. To my mind they could have included a keyboard and mouse in the Live kit and probably given out a better gaming experience, but I know that doesn't have sex appeal.

Keyboard and Mouse bad. I don't ever want to stop playing to type a message to someone. We're used to it on the PC, but when I play games with my friends using my Game Voice, I absolutely hate going back to typing. Voice good.

I won't say anything about the voice quality on Xbox Live. I hear it's reasonable with default voice, but with voice masking it becomes hard to understand people.

As for muting: that's part of the beauty of the "one service" thing. If Haxor69 is a total dickhead, you can easily mute him (all games must allow this). But you can mute him just for that session, or you can mute that player in ALL games, FOREVER. Can't do that without a unified service, because Haxor69 will just have a different name on other services.

I also really like the idea of having a buddy list that's actually useful. I mean, I can add my buddy Leo to my buddy list, and since it's all one service, there's no Xbox Live game he can play (even one I don't have) where I can't see what he's playing. On any other console, if he's playing a different game on a different publisher's service, I'll never know. Not to mention that he'll probably be forced to take a different nickname on all of them because SOMEONE is sure to use his usual name by the time he signs up for each game.

There's no question at all that Xbox Live is a better "service," in that it's simpler, more full-featured, and puts everything under one roof. Whether it performs better or is more successful is obviously a big question mark.

[Mark Asher]

snip

As for muting: that's part of the beauty of the "one service" thing. If Haxor69 is a total dickhead, you can easily mute him (all games must allow this). But you can mute him just for that session, or you can mute that player in ALL games, FOREVER. Can't do that without a unified service, because Haxor69 will just have a different name on other services..

The muting is good, but is MS going to police the service at all? It's a console service, and consoles are skewed at kids. Is MS doing anything besides allowing the users to self-police it via muting?


There's no question at all that Xbox Live is a better "service," in that it's simpler, more full-featured, and puts everything under one roof. Whether it performs better or is more successful is obviously a big question mark.

Better, perhaps, but you should factor pricing in too. At least some of the games on the PS2 will be free to play, while Xbox Live is is fee-based. That initial fee is a bit disguised since it's bundled with the purchase of the headphones. When users have to re-up they might be surprised if the cost is $10/month, which I suspect it will be. Never underestimate the persuasive power of free vs. fee. For me, free is almost always "better".

[Gibreal]

I think that comparing the XBox Live kit to a peripherial is not quite an acurate analogy. Because you must sign up for the XBox Live service to begin with, getting the head-set is really just a throw-in for signing up. In otherwords, before you play, you need to pay and you get a nice sign-on bonus.

I wouldn't consider this kind of transaction in the same sense as past console peripherial purchases such as SEGA CD, 32X, TurboGrafix CD, etc. People who want to play on the XBox Live service need to sign up, they do, get the headset for free and their XBox is already compatible for play. To do PS2 online, you need to purchase the BBA, then buy the game (which may be more than an average game, i.e. SOCOM, because it itself requires an extra peripherial) all in order to get online with your PS2. With XBox, you purchase the Live kit which gets you access to the network, you go home and plugin your 'Box into your lan and you're golden.

As far as networking the XBox to your broadband network...it's really not that hard. If you can setup a cable router for your home lan then adding the XBox is as easy as plugging it into an open port on your router (or hub). It's as easy and seemingly as intimidating as upgrading your PC is to the average household out there.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw my two-cents in there. I think if you just step back and look at the whole consoles going online thing, Microsoft easily has the most solid plan and one that is most beneficial to the consumers. And there really is no extra peripherial needed to play.

[Kool Moe Dee]

The muting is good, but is MS going to police the service at all? It's a console service, and consoles are skewed at kids. Is MS doing anything besides allowing the users to self-police it via muting?


My guess is that there will be some kind of ratings lock associated with it, since it already has hardware support for that. i.e. only at T rating and above can you chat/listen to others.


Better, perhaps, but you should factor pricing in too. At least some of the games on the PS2 will be free to play, while Xbox Live is is fee-based. That initial fee is a bit disguised since it's bundled with the purchase of the headphones. When users have to re-up they might be surprised if the cost is $10/month, which I suspect it will be. Never underestimate the persuasive power of free vs. fee. For me, free is almost always "better".

Eh...I actually think that Xbox Live may be viewed as a "worthwhile" cost once people actually start using it. From personal experience, I hate playing WITHOUT voice comms now, and I really like WC3's matchmaking. A big hurdle to playing online is just getting into a damn game -- do I need Gamespy, is there an in-game server browser, am I up-to-date with the current version of the game, what is this 'ping' crap, am I going to join a clan server and get smoked, etc. etc. etc. If Microsoft can make starting an online game and communicating with others easy, they're 9/10ths of the way to the bank.

[Brad Grenz]

People who want to play on the XBox Live service need to sign up, they do, get the headset for free and their XBox is already compatible for play. To do PS2 online, you need to purchase the BBA, then buy the game (which may be more than an average game, i.e. SOCOM, because it itself requires an extra peripherial) all in order to get online with your PS2. With XBox, you purchase the Live kit which gets you access to the network, you go home and plugin your 'Box into your lan and you're golden.

What, you don't need a game for Xbox Live? Do you stay up all night playing Gamespy? You're manufacturing a barrier. The Xbox Live kit is an add-on, simple as that. You pay for a product and get increased functionality in return. Same as buying the adapter for the PS2. Only difference is after a year the Xbox Live add-on stops working unless you pony up more cash. Calling one a peripheral and one a sevice is just semantics.

[Mark Asher]

I'm not saying it's not worthwhile, just that you have to figure in cost when comparing services. The free one is compelling when asked to choose between two services.

I would think PS2 gaming online would be simple too. If I want to play Madden online, the first step is to put the CD in, just like I'd have to do for an Xbox game. At some point (maybe not this year's version, I dunno) one of the start menu options for Madden should simply be "Play Online". I click that and it should connect me. I probably need a username and password, but that can be stored on the memory card. All the matchmaking and "find friends" stuff can be done server-side.

[Jason Becker]

"For me, free is almost always "better"."

Why do you keep saying its "free" when its not. You have to buy the adapter. Maybe a HDD. Not every game will be free of a possible fee, and there's no guarantee whats free on the PS2 now stays that way.

At lteast MS is being upfront about its service. Its gonna need broadband, its gonna have a fee. Sony is just going to add confusion when games start coming out that may need braodband or may not. May "work" on a modem but the performance may not be what people expect as adequate. Or when say FFXI comes out and players find out they have to fork over more money for a HDD too.

Everybody on this board knows nothing is really free. There are either hidden costs(which the PS2 will have), or its only free for a time(The .com bubble and bust as an example). If you want a quality service or product you pay for it just like anything else.

[Mark Asher]

By free, I mean there's no fee to play Madden online on the PS2. For Xbox Live you have to pay a fee to access the service. Yes, the first year is included in the price of the headset, but when that year is up they will shift you to a monthly fee plan. I read an article some time back that indicated Microsoft would probably go with $10 a month.

As to confusion, it's also likely that MMOGs that run on Xbox Live will have their own separate fee. If SWG really does come to the Xbox, you can bet that you will pay an additional fee for it.

There's no confusion about the PS2 if you look into what you want to play. If a game needs a hard drive, I'm sure it will indicate as much on the package. Same with broadband. Voice. Etc. To me, this is the easy part. The hard part would be figuring out how to get broadband upstairs when right now it's downstairs. Running cables, buying additional hardware like a router, etc., is confusing to me.

[Jason Becker]

"The hard part would be figuring out how to get broadband upstairs when right now it's downstairs. Running cables, buying additional hardware like a router, etc., is confusing to me."

And there will be PS2 games(one of its initial big games SOCCOM) that will need broadband too. You convienently leave that fact out.


"There's no confusion about the PS2 if you look into what you want to play. If a game needs a hard drive, I'm sure it will indicate as much on the package."


LOL you say this won't lead to problems. Games possibly requiring diffrent hardware(it uses the adapter but may need broadband or may not), or maybe a HDD. It might be free then again the company might charge. Having to deal with multiple accounts etc etc...


Its a cludgy mess.

[Mike Cathcart]

By free, I mean there's no fee to play Madden online on the PS2. For Xbox Live you have to pay a fee to access the service.

I'm sure you just meant it as an example, but I thought I'd nitpick and point out that for XBox Live you're actually screwed as EA isn't supporting it. I wonder why...

[Dave Long]

Current word is that there will be no HDD for the PS2 in the US. Sony is very reluctant to talk about it and they haven't been pushing its use. I'm guessing they'll drop it entirely and rely on the memory cards for saving info.

I think it's a good move. Dreamcast didn't need a HDD to offer compelling online play. Phantasy Star Online has a very reasonable save footprint. If I were a developer, I wouldn't develop for it anyway. The adoption rate on it will probably be quite low. Supporting online in this generation is more of a learning experience anyway. These things won't become popular enough to create any real revenue until the next generation. Online isn't going to make a game sell any more copies this time around...in fact, it will probably limit sales substantially if it's used as a focus.

PSO on Gamecube seems like the right compromise. Four players on one Cube or four via online play. I can buy the game knowing I can play it multiplayer but not have to go online to do it.

--Dave

[Mark Asher]

"The hard part would be figuring out how to get broadband upstairs when right now it's downstairs. Running cables, buying additional hardware like a router, etc., is confusing to me."

And there will be PS2 games(one of its initial big games SOCCOM) that will need broadband too. You convienently leave that fact out.


I was probably unclear. I was including the PS2 as well. The hardest thing is going to be getting them hooked up if you already have broadband and your computer and console are in different rooms. I realize it's not that hard, but it's certainly a deterrent. I will not string cable upstairs just to hook up a console to the Internet. I don't want to buy a router. Etc.

[Mark Asher]

By free, I mean there's no fee to play Madden online on the PS2. For Xbox Live you have to pay a fee to access the service.

I'm sure you just meant it as an example, but I thought I'd nitpick and point out that for XBox Live you're actually screwed as EA isn't supporting it. I wonder why...

Yeah, I know. Don't expect to see any EA games on Xbox Live. I don't think Activision is supporting it either. Microsoft may need to come up with some financial incentives that include Xbox Live revenue sharing if they expect the big publishers to jump on board.

Is there a list of the Xbox Live games anywhere? Are there many other publishers supporting it?

[Jason Becker]

Another point about the "free" or "less expensive" talk of the PS2. All you need is your phone line for the modem part. How about when the parents get tired of their kid keeping calls from going in or out cause they want to level in EQ. You tie up the phone line. Of course you can get a second phone line but there goes the "It doesn't cost to play online" talk.



"Is there a list of the Xbox Live games anywhere? Are there many other publishers supporting it?"

A Xbox live FAQ from IGN.

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/361/361526p1.html

[Brad Grenz]

Don't expect to see any EA games on Xbox Live. I don't think Activision is supporting it either. Microsoft may need to come up with some financial incentives that include Xbox Live revenue sharing if they expect the big publishers to jump on board.

This may sound crazy, but I think at least some publishers don't want their customers to have to pay extra to play online.

[Mark Asher]

This may sound crazy, but I think at least some publishers don't want their customers to have to pay extra to play online.

Yeah, especially if the money's going to someone else.

[xahlt]

Does MS have any type of incentive plan for developers to add Live capability -- besides the "it'll help sell your game" push. I know they don't share the profit, but what sort of argument are they using on devs?

[Jessica]

i think you guys are taking this too seriously for what MS and the Xbox is intended for. the online gaming experience with the XBox has pretty much one competitor - Sony & the PS2. now the PS2 doesn't have the adapter built-in, nor does it have a HDD. so we are already at the ubiquitous "5% of console owners buy add-ons" for each console (the Xbox needing the add-on headset and hook-up pack.)

so we already know that MOST console gamers won't be going online, but for those who plan to do so, the work of getting online is not that difficult. linksys offers routers for under $60 that my wife could hook up to a PC; these give you several ports to which to hook consoles, PC, etc. running the ethernet cable? companies here in houston charge $50 per drop to run a ethernet cable. or, do it yourself. it's not that hard and again, we are talking about the 5% of users who want to game online - they will run a home network b/c they (a)know how or (b)really, really want it. joey-joe-joe shabbado isn't the market they are after here guys, but MS won't cry if they get them too.

lastly, as for the "well, now you need broadband and that's like another $50/month" argument: most people in this 5% user group will have it or will get it for this launch. i have read that from anywhere in the neighborhood of 20-40% of homes in the U.S. have broadband. btw - both cable and DSL hook up to these cheap routers. again, this is not NASA-level rocket science. it's like a 5 minute deal.

i think MS's goal in this is to see what the adoption rate is. this is a first-mover test. i think MS is really planning this whole home network, console/broadband thing for the Xbox II.

so will i be gaming on the Xbox? yeah - i am so hoping to see Counter-Strike returned from the hell that is currently Cheater-Strike. would also be cool to finally play a nice round of Dungeon Seige (or the likes) without some dolt of a narrowband user joining in and ping-helling the game to bits.

oh yeah, here is how a non-techie gamer is going to feel about online gaming: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020814.html

enjoy!

I'd have to agree with this. One reason Sony and Nintendo are taking the slow road are some of the problems mentioned here, especially the hook-up problems and vocal griefing and it's companion; how to keep predators away from the kids. This was an issue I discussed in The Themis Report; it is going to be a key one for MS.

Some things to remember:

1. MS has over $42 bill in the bank and is looking to make Xbox the one set-top box for all purposes. They can use the box as a loss leader for years to ensure they remain out front of the wave.

2. Sony is making a huge mistake in not setting usability and human interface standards for online PS2 development and developing software and a department to help institute those standards. It is all fine and well to let developers do whatever they want, but online users have already voted, over the past 17 years, for some standardization to ease the adoption process. AOL didn't win just because of their marketing; of all the services, it was the easiest to install and use.

By instituting these standards and continually looking them over and improving them, XBL is going to be easier and easier to use, and that info will be passed on to the developers. PS2 gamers, however, are going to have to take whatever each of the several developers offer them. And developers in this niche have been notoriously bad at creating usable online interfaces. No cohesion = less users overall.

3. The real battle will be 5 years from now, when the PS3 is out and has built some level of a user base in conjunction with the Sony/AOL online partnership. The PS3 will likely have integrated broadband; it will then be capable of competing effectively with the Xbox and the use of AOL as a carrier will enforce some minimal level of human interface guidelines.

That's why MS is willing to spend cash now; they want loyal users before that happens, especially among the early adopter class of players, who are willing to spend money to play games online. Early adopters and the hard core gamer will still be a - and maybe the - major revenue source for online play in 5 years.

Console online gaming is where PC online gaming was 8 years ago. The difference is that it looks like MS has learned some lessons, and understands that it will take time, money and, most of all, some standards to make it all work in the end. That doesn't mean they are guaranteed success, but I give them more of a chance to come out on top than I do Sony or Nintendo.

The joker in the pack, as always, is EA. If Sony gets smart and makes EA.com the trhe official vendor of PS3 games online, they could more effectively compete with MS in the arena.

[Jason Becker]

Point #2 is something several people on this board seem to just want to plain ignore.

[Jason Becker]

"The joker in the pack, as always, is EA."

Outside of EA's current popularity in sports games Sega is just as big of player that MS and Sony would love to have in their court more if they could.

[Dave Long]

Point #2 is something several people on this board seem to just want to plain ignore.

But you're talking about the games industry. This is one industry where standardization is always the exception, not the rule. Developers don't like being told what to do because they often believe they can do it better themselves. It's one thing I love about gaming. There's always someone out there who believes they can do it better and often, that guy is some independent entity that shows the big corporations the "right" way to do things. I much prefer the market to sort out the interface and usability through competition than having Microsoft control the show like they've done with the OS for the last fifteen years.

That's really what's at the root of this. Microsoft wants to control not only the interface but all the revenue. I'm glad EA told them where to go and went to PS2 to do it themselves. A recent Sega interview showed they're not all that happy with the Microsoft approach either. I think Sega has too much money coming from Redmond to make noise though.

--Dave

[Jason Cross]

I understand the thought that Xbox Live is a peripheral, but I disagree.

At first, sure, they'll be selling a $50 thing at stores which includes a headset and service. But the only PHYSICAL thing important there is the headset, and that's not actually required for any game. It's supported, sure, but not required.

So consider this: MechAssault or MidTown Madness 3 ships, and they put all the necessary Xbox Live software right on that disc. It's something you can pick from the main menu - "Xbox Live" appears if the software isn't on your hard drive yet. Then when you sign up for service, you can play immediately, and Microsoft mails you your free Communicator since they have your billing address.

And you've gotta think that eventually Microsoft will do this. At first, they want to grow the network relatively slowly with just the serious gamers: hence the "preview program" thing with a year service. But six months after that, when they want to open the floodgates and get millions signed up, you have to think they'll just put it on the disc with every XBL compatible game. At that point it's most certainly NOT a peripheral.

[Mark Asher]

"At first, sure, they'll be selling a $50 thing at stores which includes a headset and service. But the only PHYSICAL thing important there is the headset, and that's not actually required for any game. It's supported, sure, but not required."

Xbox Live games are required to support voice. Whether players use voice is another matter. If communicating is important, players will have to use it -- there's no other way to communicate.

As to Jessica's point about developing a cohesive interface, sure, that's nice, but it hasn't been compelling enough in the past to help MPlayer and TEN succeed, and Gamespy hasn't really been tested by the market because they are a free service. I'm sure their user base would drop dramatically if they started charging $10 a month.

"And you've gotta think that eventually Microsoft will do this. At first, they want to grow the network relatively slowly with just the serious gamers: hence the "preview program" thing with a year service. But six months after that, when they want to open the floodgates and get millions signed up, you have to think they'll just put it on the disc with every XBL compatible game. At that point it's most certainly NOT a peripheral."

But you need the voice thing to play, according to MS. Whether you order it online or buy it from the store, you need it and it's a peripheral. How can you argue otherwise? And how the heck do you get the Xbox online before you have it? How do you get online with Mechassault if you haven't purchased the Xbox Live service? I think your reasoning's flawed.

Maybe it's more complicated than I envision, but I don't see why Madden 2003 can't just have a "Play Online" button that connects you to EA's service where you then find an opponent. How is that going to be vastly inferior to Xbox Live? I think Microsoft is taking the right approach in most things with Xbox Live, but I think the idea that EA and others can't come up with easy-to-use solutions is silly.

[Jason Becker]

Developers don't like being told what to do because they often believe they can do it better themselves. It's one thing I love about gaming. There's always someone out there who believes they can do it better and often, that guy is some independent entity that shows the big corporations the "right" way to do things.


Thats not what cnsoles are about. Thats PC gaming. MS isn't the only one that controls their system. Nintendo and Sony do the same thing with how they design the system hardware wise, or who publishes what on it, or how they releate and choose to support 3rd partys(like Nintendo). Consoles have ALWAYS been preset, sealed, and controlled enviornments. Your talking about PC gaming which is this way becasue no single company controls the system like in consoles.




That's really what's at the root of this. Microsoft wants to control not only the interface but all the revenue.



Ohh please they ALL want to. MS is spending 2 billion on the service. There paying for all the hardware, software, tech support and maintinance of it. That costs money.


Console users want ease, and simplicity. Buy and play it. MS is trying to extend that to the online world as much as possible given todays technology. Sony doesn't believe in online gaming at this point anymore than Nintendo really does. If they did they would have designed their hardware and their service diffrently. Even the Dreamcast came with at least a modem and that was over a year before the PS2. Show me anything thats says Sony really believes in online gaming with this generation of systems.

[Dave Long]

Thats not what cnsoles are about. Thats PC gaming. MS isn't the only one that controls their system. Nintendo and Sony do the same thing with how they design the system hardware wise, or who publishes what on it, or how they releate and choose to support 3rd partys(like Nintendo). Consoles have ALWAYS been preset, sealed, and controlled enviornments. Your talking about PC gaming which is this way becasue no single company controls the system like in consoles.

You're confusing the design of the console with the software that runs on it. Developers on consoles love to be able to push the envelope and do things no one ever thought of before. The fixed platform doesn't prohibit this kind of work. Gran Turismo for example on PSOne was written almost entirely in machine code to allow it to look and play as great as it does.

Dreamcast already has allowed developers to use online in any way they wanted to. There were all sorts of different approaches to the set up and implementation. It was completely free and open for whatever the developers wished to do. There was no "service" to get in the way. It led to most games having at the very least a homepage with some updated scores and downloadable extras for each game...even those with no online play. Why would a company want Microsoft to now get all the credit for that?


Ohh please they ALL want to. MS is spending 2 billion on the service. There paying for all the hardware, software, tech support and maintinance of it. That costs money.

Console users want ease, and simplicity. Buy and play it. MS is trying to extend that to the online world as much as possible given todays technology. Sony doesn't believe in online gaming at this point anymore than Nintendo really does. If they did they would have designed their hardware and their service diffrently. Even the Dreamcast came with at least a modem and that was over a year before the PS2. Show me anything thats says Sony really believes in online gaming with this generation of systems.

No...if they all wanted to, they'd be doing it already. Sony backed way off their initial online plans of two years ago. They know the market isn't ready for it. Nintendo has publically, through Miyamoto, expressed concern over the money side of online gaming and how they can possibly reward the game makers while retaining some kind of value themselves. Microsoft is doing what they always do, they're bullying and forcing their idea on the development community and saying "that's it, it's our way or the highway". Like I said before, developers (especially Japanese ones) aren't going to go along with that, especially from an upstart American console entry.

Sony and Nintendo rightfully don't believe in online gaming in this generation. It's a waste of time and a huge investment of money with little forseeable return. Even the IDSA said at E3 that broadband acceptance isn't happening and we're a lot further from where we thought everything would be in 2002. It's going to be another generation of console or even two before it's a generally accepted practice. Even then, I've been hearing a lot of gamer rumblings that indicate they still find playing on the sofa with friends far more satisfying than playing an online game with the anonymous masses.

Dreamcast proved one very important thing about online gaming. It's not a selling point. It doesn't drive people to buy. If it did, we'd all be playing DC Madden 2003 right now and wondering why Sony didn't put a modem in the PS2.

--Dave

[Xaroc]

Ohh please they ALL want to. MS is spending 2 billion on the service. There paying for all the hardware, software, tech support and maintinance of it. That costs money.

I agree. If you look at systems like Battle.net and how much it costs them for the upkeep of a similar system I wonder why the companies aren't thrilled to have MS cover all the costs. Their options are give multiplayer away for free minus their costs to setup their own service or put it in and let MS make a little bit off of it but they lose no money in the deal and have a more marketable product in the process.

-- Xaroc

[Mark Asher]

One of the reasons companies aren't thrilled to give it away to Microsoft is that the revenue they get out of it (increased sales) is dubious and it essentially cedes the online revenue market to Microsoft. What exactly is the benefit of giving it away? Are console fans clamoring for online play and making buying decisions based on that?

For all that Sony may be doing wrong, they have Everquest, Final Fantasy XI, Madden Football, and possibly a rumored GTA game for their online play. Not bad.

[wumpus]

Even then, I've been hearing a lot of gamer rumblings that indicate they still find playing on the sofa with friends far more satisfying than playing an online game with the anonymous masses.
Who are these people that have nothing better to do than drive over to a friend's house at the drop of a hat to play a console game "on the sofa"? Do they perhaps invite over all the neighborhood kids? Or is this audience limited to bored college students?

I mean, damn. I'm working during the day. I don't have a lot of friends right next door willing to play games any time I'm in the mood. It does happen-- with the proper arrangements-- but it's hardly the spontaneous jamboree o' fun that it evidently is for Dave Long et al.

Hence, internet play. It's 10:30pm and I want to get my NFL 2k3 on. Do I get on the phone and start calling my friends, asking them to drive over to my house? Once you get out of college, this isn't a viable gaming model for the average joe with a life and a job.

[Brad Grenz]

So consider this: MechAssault or MidTown Madness 3 ships, and they put all the necessary Xbox Live software right on that disc. It's something you can pick from the main menu - "Xbox Live" appears if the software isn't on your hard drive yet. Then when you sign up for service, you can play immediately, and Microsoft mails you your free Communicator since they have your billing address.

So you bought your periferal online instead of at a B&M establishment. What does that prove? You still have to cough up $50 or else you don't get to play online.

Besides, even if you were right and this was a "service" and not an add-on, that doesn't prove anything either. There is not historical evidence on how well a console "service" will do as opposed to an "add-on".

[Jason Becker]

"Sony and Nintendo rightfully don't believe in online gaming in this generation."

Which is why MS setup is far better. One of the main points of this whole thread.

"It's a waste of time and a huge investment of money with little forseeable return."

A waste of time, no forseeable return? Sure. I wonder how many 'pundits' didn't even sniff at a game like Everquest 3 years ago. Now it has 400K plus after 3 years...and going on its 4th expansion pack. This from an unkown dev? The game requires hardware acceleration? Have to pay every month? NEVER...guess what pundits are a dime a dozen. Like Jessica said MS is doing this with 5 years down the road in mind not just around the corner.


"One of the reasons companies aren't thrilled to give it away to Microsoft is that the revenue they get out of it (increased sales) is dubious and it essentially cedes the online revenue market to Microsoft."


No the big loud mouthed companies like EA are saying it. Since their are 50 games in devlopment for XBox Live I'd say not everyone agrees.

[Mark Asher]

"No the big loud mouthed companies like EA are saying it. Since their are 50 games in devlopment for XBox Live I'd say not everyone agrees."

EA has their own online plans. I'm not saying they're not interested. They're just not interested at this time in letting Microsoft control online gaming on the console.

You used Everquest as an example of a success. Note that in your example, the money goes to the company that made the game. With Xbox Live, the money goes to Microsoft, unless there's a tacked on fee, in which case Xbox Live is (probably) $10 per month + $$$ per persistent world game. I bet that if you had to pay $10 a month just to access SOE's network and then pay $13 a month to play EQ, EQ wouldn't have 400,000 subscribers.

[Jason Cross]

But you need the voice thing to play, according to MS. Whether you order it online or buy it from the store, you need it and it's a peripheral. How can you argue otherwise? And how the heck do you get the Xbox online before you have it? How do you get online with Mechassault if you haven't purchased the Xbox Live service? I think your reasoning's flawed.


You only need the headset thing to chat. The games will function without chat, just as you said: developers have to SUPPORT chat, but you don't need to chat to play. I'm pretty sure you can jump into a MechAssault game and have as much fun not chatting as I've had all weekend playing Battlefield 1942 without typing to my teammates.

You buy a game, sign up for Xbox Live (whose software is on the game disc), and you can then play it online, just not chat while doing so. You can chat in 4-6 weeks when you get your free Communcator in the mail. I don't see what the big deal is. I play multiplayer games all the time without voice or even text chat: I just play. In fact, playing online without the voice chat will be just like playing most PS2 or Gamecube games online for the vast majority of players (ie - those that don't buy a keyboard for their PS2/Gamecube).

My point is: with the GC or PS2 you actually have to go purchase some seperate piece of hardware at the store to play online. With the Xbox, that's not necessarily the case. You can, in theory, just buy a game and be playing online that very night if you want. It's not starting off that way, but you bet your ass that Halo 2 will have Xbox Live software on the disc and come with a free month of service when you sign up, and a free Xbox Communicator in the mail.

[Brad Grenz]

My point is: with the GC or PS2 you actually have to go purchase some seperate piece of hardware at the store to play online. With the Xbox, that's not necessarily the case. You can, in theory, just buy a game and be playing online that very night if you want.

But you have to go to the store in either case. With your Xbox Live scenario the Xbox Live starter will just appear as a seperate tranaction on your credit card bill. Rather than being consolidated under a single $90 charge from EB as might be the case with the PS2, it'll be a $50 charge from EB that morning and a $50 charge from Microsoft that night. You're talking in circles. The adoption of add-ons is largely defined by the price barrier to entry. Xbox Live in no way circumvents this. It would be different if MS hadn't dreamed up the starter kit you have to buy to get the hardware you already own to work as designed. If Xbox Live could be pay as you go, or annual subscription. Fact is MS wants money up front and they want you to have a headset for voice chat. This strategy effectively negates the advantage the Xbox had by shipping network tech in the box.

[Mark Asher]

"You buy a game, sign up for Xbox Live (whose software is on the game disc), and you can then play it online...."

Ok, but why will your Xbox be hooked up online BEFORE you have Xbox Live? That's my point. There's nothing you can do with it until you have Xbox Live unless you want to go nuts and do what those Halo fans did to connect to the Internet. Those kinds of gamers don't factor into the equation they're such a niche audience. You're thinking from a PC point of view where we're already connected so signing up for an online service is trivial.

Even though you might see Microsoft advertising Xbox Live on games, people will still go to the store to buy the voice thingy and one year's subscription before they venture online. There's just not going to be a realistic "click and sign up" option.

[Mark Asher]

"Fact is MS wants money up front and they want you to have a headset for voice chat. This strategy effectively negates the advantage the Xbox had by shipping network tech in the box."

I agree. I've said this all along. I was quite surprised when Microsoft announced how Xbox owners would get online. Considering how much they're losing already on the Xbox at $199, why didn't Microsoft just throw in a headset and instructions for connecting to the Internet and offer a free month of service? That would be the way to grow the service.

If you want to use the AOL example that Jessica brought up, look at their strategy: You could pick up a free CD just about everywhere, and I'm sure many of us got them in mail too. And each CD came with some free time to try the service. It didn't cost us a dime to try AOL. It costs $50 to try Xbox Live. Big difference.

[Jason Becker]

"I bet that if you had to pay $10 a month just to access SOE's network "

That $10 gives you acces to many games in itself. A unified interface. Easy access to extra content etc etc.

My EQ example was also as much to show that online gaming is a reality, and is very feasible. UO would be another. Nintendo seems to be going farther and farther into their own shell the more I hear them talk, and Sony's whole online setup is just lip service to make it seem like their into it like Microsoft.

[wumpus]

Giving away the first month free is a great idea, Mark. Assuming you don't want/need the headset, this should be an option from within the game menus. "Xbox Live Trial" or whatever. Sign up with a credit card, and there is no charge if you cancel within the first 30 days. Otherwise at the end of the 30 days, you get a headset in the mail and you're charged $50 as a pre-pay for the next 11 months.

[Xaroc]

There's nothing you can do with it until you have Xbox Live unless you want to go nuts and do what those Halo fans did to connect to the Internet. Those kinds of gamers don't factor into the equation they're such a niche audience.

I am sure they are but I managed to get my Xbox online in about 5-10 minutes. Granted I keep my consoles in with my computer but it was a piece of cake to get up and running even with the jury rigged system that exists now. You don't have to go nuts, as you put it, you install a small gamespy program on your PC, plug your Xbox into your LAN with a spare cable, and hit the GameSpyArcade area for the Xbox, then when you get into a game you go to the multiplayer halo menu and there is the game to join. It is not perfect but it very cool to even be able to do it. The instructions on gamespy are pretty clear about how it all works in case you want to "go nuts":

http://www.gamespyarcade.com/support/tunnel_xbox.shtml

-- Xaroc

[Mark Asher]

"You don't have to go nuts, as you put it, you install a small gamespy program on your PC, plug your Xbox into your LAN with a spare cable...."

My LAN?

[Mark Asher]

"My EQ example was also as much to show that online gaming is a reality, and is very feasible. UO would be another. Nintendo seems to be going farther and farther into their own shell the more I hear them talk, and Sony's whole online setup is just lip service to make it seem like their into it like Microsoft."

Lip service? Square has set up an online network. Everquest is coming to the PS2. So is Madden. They may not be tossing as much money at it as Microsoft, but online play with the PS2 is already happening in Japan and it's launching here before Xbox Live.

[Jason Becker]

"but online play with the PS2 is already happening in Japan "

FFXI hasn't been a smash in Japan so far from what I've read.


"it's launching here before Xbox Live."

Their releasing the adapter. Again after that its everybody for themselves. Like I said before if Sony was truely serious with a complete online service for the PS2 they could have at least stuck a 56K modem in it. Sega did with the DC that launched at only $199. So yes Sony's whole approach to this is basically amounts to we will do the absolute minimum to make it availible so MS arn't the only ones.

[Brad Grenz]

FFXI hasn't been a smash in Japan so far from what I've read.

Neither has Xbox Live yet. What's your point? Mark's point was the PS2 got there first, and it did. We were talking about commitment to online, not about success online. That's a question mark all around, Xbox has no advantage in that area.

[Jason Cross]

Well Microsoft isn't going to plug in your network cable for you, but other than that, you can *IN THEORY, IN THE FUTURE* get online with any game you buy that supports Xbox Live WITHOUT having to go back to the store and buy anything.

I think maybe there's some confusion because I'm not talking about what MS is doing *right now*, I'm talking about what they have the *capability* of doing.

The year of service and headset for $50 is just a "preview program" thing. It's meant for early adopters, and is *NOT* going to be the main way Microsoft pushes Xbox Live. It's how they're selling the program to those hardcore gamers to get the first 100,000 people or whatever. They have not yet revealed what the "standard" Xbox Live offer will be. The year of service thing is going to be a temporary sale, probably only available for a few months. After that, the standard deal kicks in. Nobody is sure what that will be. It will probably be like $10 a month, first month free, sign up and MS mails you the Xbox Communicator for free. They were telling groups of journalists this at E3 in 30-minute demo/meetings (I was in one).

This could be included on every disc for an Xbox Live compatible game (Midtown Madness 3, for instance). And you could buy Midtown Madness 3, play it a bit for a few days, and then say "hey gee what's this Xbox Live thing on the start menu?" Then the software would install on your Xbox hard drive, and instructions would tell you how to plug in your cable modem/DSL and walk you through signup. 20 minutes later you'd be playing online, and your communicator will be in the mail.

By contrast, if I bring home Tony Hawk 4 for my PS2 or Gamecube, and I play around with it for a week, and then I want to see what that "play online" option on the menu is all about, I gotta go back to the store and pick up a network adapter.

(speaking of TH4, it's one of those titles that's a question mark for Xbox Live. Activision won't confirm or deny support, which says to me they're still negotiating)

In the first few months, yes, you need to buy the Xbox Live kit thing for $50 to play online. But eventually, you will be able to get online with no additional doodad to buy, just the game. That's all I'm saying.

[Mark Asher]

"But eventually, you will be able to get online with no additional doodad to buy, just the game. That's all I'm saying."

Maybe. How do I get my Xbox online now? I have DSL. Don't I need to buy some "doodad" to connect my Xbox? A router or something?

Sega probably had the easiest setup. Here's a phone line. Plug one end into the Dreamcast modem port and the other into your telephone jack. That's even easier than the Xbox scenario you described, isn't it?

[Jason Becker]

"Neither has Xbox Live yet. What's your point? "

Ummm lets see because Mark made the statment sound like Sony was up and running, and I was saying that thats a stretch considering whats happened so far. I though tthat was pretyy clear.

" Mark's point was the PS2 got there first, and it did."


Big deal, they got the adapter out. Wow thats a real commitment.


"We were talking about commitment to online, not about success online."


Huh? I thought that was pretty clear myself. MS includes a HDD and adapter in the machine. Sony doesn't even stick a lousy modem in theirs. The other points have already been listed many times. Sorry but the fact is their is no comparision between the services. There is no comparision between the commitments. I asked before and no one ansered. Show one single point that shows Sony really is serious about online gaming with the PS2.


"That's a question mark all around, Xbox has no advantage in that area."


They have the advantage in every single area except for Sony's name recognition. They are the only serious one in this as of this time.

[Xaroc]

"You don't have to go nuts, as you put it, you install a small gamespy program on your PC, plug your Xbox into your LAN with a spare cable...."

My LAN?

I was really talking int he general case but even if it wasn't interpreted that way it still only takes 10-20 minutes to setup a LAN if you don't have one setup already. In any event it isn't rocket science to get the Xbox online even with the really odd setup. Which was my point. I didn't have to go nuts to do it. I did it on a whim in 5 minutes and it isn't a supported feature.

-- Xaroc

[Jason Becker]

"Here's a phone line. Plug one end into the Dreamcast modem port and the other into your telephone jack. That's even easier than the Xbox scenario you described, isn't it?"

Yea it also ties up the phone line, and it doesn't offer near the bandwidth so compramises have to be made. Anybody who has experienced modem and DSL knows there isn't any comparison. Hence MS position.

[Xaroc]

"But eventually, you will be able to get online with no additional doodad to buy, just the game. That's all I'm saying."

Maybe. How do I get my Xbox online now? I have DSL. Don't I need to buy some "doodad" to connect my Xbox? A router or something?


Get yourself a broadband router (LinkSys or SMC would be my advice) and 2 ethernet cables. Follow the instructions on the router (typically means copying your connect info and entering it into the router via a web interface). Then you configure your machine for DHCP (option in your networking config, all explained in the router setup). Plug the DSL into the router, run the 2 cables to your PC and Xbox, download Gamespy Arcade and the Tunnel Program and install both. Then you read that page I linked to for how to use the tunnel service.

Warning though, from what I have seen in the short time playing Halo online almost everyone wants you to have at least 2 people on your end so that is something to take into consideration. I am guessing native Xbox Live games will not require that people make these limitations.

-- Xaroc

[Brad Grenz]

Ummm lets see because Mark made the statement sound like Sony was up and running, and I was saying that thats a stretch considering whats happened so far. I though tthat was pretyy clear.

Mark related a fact that the PS2's online capabilities are already active as opposed to the Xbox Live service which won't launch for months. Then you brought up the unrelated issue of success.


Huh? I thought that was pretty clear myself. MS includes a HDD and adapter in the machine. Sony doesn't even stick a lousy modem in theirs. The other points have already been listed many times. Sorry but the fact is their is no comparison between the services. There is no comparison between the commitments. I asked before and no one answered. Show one single point that shows Sony really is serious about online gaming with the PS2.

Yeah, MS put hardware in the box that is useless without an additional purchase. Big win there. I don't know what kind of evidence it will take to prove Sony is "serious" about online. The fact that they've developed a hardware add-on, developed numerous strategic partnerships, produced a number of games and put the PS2 online well before Microsoft will do the same with a system that could technically have been online since launch. Sony can't be serious unless they charge a monthly fee? Give the hardware away for free? Go to Mark's house and set up a LAN for him? What is this "serious" you keep talking about. Fact is not even Microsoft expects online to be very big this generation. It's a niche market for the near future. Sony has big plans for the future, we've all heard them talk about it, but they kind of require fiber to everyone's curb. Xbox has the luxury of being niche and hardcore in the first place. The PS2 is mainstream, it would be stupid for Sony to think 30 million people will go out and buy the network adapter. They're treating online like the niche segment it is. If people want it they can get it. It will be there and it won't be the clusterfuck you describe. How do you know what guidance Sony gives developers with regard to their online plans?


They have the advantage in every single area except for Sony's name recognition. They are the only serious one in this as of this time.

I said the Xbox had no advantage in sales success for their online plans. They can't possibly. They have sold 0, ZERO Xbox Live kits. Sony, on the other hand, has sold a number of network adapters and online games in Japan at the very least. Today that puts Sony ahead no matter how you count. You can't knock Sony's low sales when the Xbox has no records with which to compare. Here you've simply deflected the issue once more. Am I wrong? Has MS secretly sold half a million Xbox Live kits?

[Mark Asher]

So you have a family that's purchased a Compaq or HP computer from Best Buy or CompUSA, and they also have an Xbox they want to get online and you tell them this:

"Get yourself a broadband router (LinkSys or SMC would be my advice) and 2 ethernet cables. Follow the instructions on the router (typically means copying your connect info and entering it into the router via a web interface). Then you configure your machine for DHCP (option in your networking config, all explained in the router setup). Plug the DSL into the router, run the 2 cables to your PC and Xbox, download Gamespy Arcade and the Tunnel Program and install both. Then you read that page I linked to for how to use the tunnel service."

Doesn't that seem like a huge barrier to entry? Even if you drop all the Gamespy stuff, doesn't it still seem complicated? To me, hooking a console up to broadband you already have installed seems much more complex than just installing a modem in a PC and going online. I have to buy a router? cables? know where to find my DSL connection info? copy that info to the router? run cable? I don't think either Sony or Microsoft is going to capture the casual gamer with this kind of setup.

[Jason Becker]

"The fact that they've developed a hardware add-on,"

Hardware addons outside of memmorry cards and controlers don't sell worth shit...they never have. Hence Sege putting a modem in the DC, and MS putting the adapter and HDD in the Xbox.


"put the PS2 online well before Microsoft"

LOL buy like what maybe 1 1/2 months?


"MS put hardware in the box that is useless without an additional purchase."


Thats the initial launch. Try and read some posts. It can easily offered through games themselves at a later date.



"Here you've simply deflected the issue once more."


You keep ignoring all the previous points and facts. This is a long thread. There are many points already made you obviously havn't seen. Your coming in and saying the same old thing. Its been refuted already.


Compare MS hardware + software + service to Sony's. Its pretty simple actually. They are the only serious one in it for now. You can make a point about wether online gaming is ready yet but MS online designs/setup blows Sony's away.




"Am I wrong?"

Yes

[Jason Becker]

"Doesn't that seem like a huge barrier to entry?"


Thats to for Gamespy's setup...


There are many diffrent home designed cable/DSL routers for sale in retail outlets. Its no harder to put the Xbox online than a PC(probably easier since you don't have to deal with windows). There are millions of DSL/Cable users out there. Many have done so with home kits(no tech came to install it). I know two diffrent homes/family's myself who have done it. None are techs. I don't know why you seem to look on this like the plague or something.

[Joe O'Malley]

Doesn't that seem like a huge barrier to entry? Even if you drop all the Gamespy stuff, doesn't it still seem complicated? To me, hooking a console up to broadband you already have installed seems much more complex than just installing a modem in a PC and going online. I have to buy a router? cables? know where to find my DSL connection info? copy that info to the router? run cable? I don't think either Sony or Microsoft is going to capture the casual gamer with this kind of setup.

I have to agree. I got cablemodem about a month and a half ago. When the guy installed it he changed the settings on my computer and my LAN hasn't worked since. I only use it to back up files to an old computer, but still I want it. I spent about 2 hours on the phone with their technical support only to find that I can only use 1 IP at a time with my cablemodem connection, and it's dynamically assigned. My LAN STILL doesn't work, so I can't back up my machine.

If getting things connected to broadband is this complicated with just one computer trying to use it, what's going to happen when I try to get my Xbox online? I'm a not-quite-casual user, and I'm dreading the next encounter with cablemodem support.

[Mark Asher]

I dunno -- I just think that when an Xbox or PS2 owner hears that he or she has to go buy a router to get the console online and set it up themselves, that's going to cause a lot of them to drop the whole idea. I suspect only a tiny percentage of the console owners will play online games.

[Bub, Andrew]

I dunno -- I just think that when an Xbox or PS2 owner hears that he or she has to go buy a router to get the console online and set it up themselves, that's going to cause a lot of them to drop the whole idea. I suspect only a tiny percentage of the console owners will play online games.

I think you're right. I also think that would be the case if Microsoft made it easy. Most people really don't seem to want to play online with strangers, even on the PC. I think they're only expecting a small crowd of people with this generation of gaming and it would come as a genuine surprise if your Compaq family joined up. I mean, the DC made it easy, yes, but they didn't get a whole lot of gamers using their DCs online.

Microsoft's plan seems more about pioneering the technology, getting they're name synonymous with quality online console play, than it is about converting every Xbox owner to Xbox Live customers.

[Xaroc]

So you have a family that's purchased a Compaq or HP computer from Best Buy or CompUSA, and they also have an Xbox they want to get online and you tell them this:

"Get yourself a broadband router (LinkSys or SMC would be my advice) and 2 ethernet cables. Follow the instructions on the router (typically means copying your connect info and entering it into the router via a web interface). Then you configure your machine for DHCP (option in your networking config, all explained in the router setup). Plug the DSL into the router, run the 2 cables to your PC and Xbox, download Gamespy Arcade and the Tunnel Program and install both. Then you read that page I linked to for how to use the tunnel service."

Doesn't that seem like a huge barrier to entry? Even if you drop all the Gamespy stuff, doesn't it still seem complicated? To me, hooking a console up to broadband you already have installed seems much more complex than just installing a modem in a PC and going online. I have to buy a router? cables? know where to find my DSL connection info? copy that info to the router? run cable? I don't think either Sony or Microsoft is going to capture the casual gamer with this kind of setup.

Mark, I am attempting to give you practical advice on how to actually setup your Xbox online using the kludgy gamespy method. As people have said MS wants to get the hardcore and not so hardcore people who already have LANs setup and can just plug the Xbox in. I am not saying it isn't a barrier to entry just debating that it isn't nearly as big a deal as you are making it out to be even using the goofy hacked method. With real Xbox Live it should be even easier. Plug Xbox into LAN (assuming you have one), install software on Xbox, and run game you want to play. And don't tell me a router/LAN is hard to setup, if you can read you can do it in 10-20 minutes they lay it all out for you (someone back me up on this). I think they will get enough hardcore and semi-hardcore people onboard to get the service up and running and establish an online presence and I tend to think MS will do better with their centralized service approach than Sony will with their spray and pray approach.

-- Xaroc

[Mark Asher]

"And don't tell me a router/LAN is hard to setup, if you can read you can do it in 10-20 minutes they lay it all out for you (someone back me up on this)."

Maybe not, but neither is it hard putting in a video card, yet places like Best Buy and CompUSA make money installing 'em.

I'm not saying that console gaming won't work online, just that having to buy a router and set it up and then do whatever you have to do to connect your Xbox/PS2 is a significant barrier to entry for a lot of people.

As to who's approach is better, I like Microsoft's in just about every way except the fee they'll charge and the lack of incentive for third parties to make games for Xbox Live. I wouldn't pay $10 a month for Gamespy to play online and I enjoy multiplayer PC games. I'll only pay for a persistent world game. Console gamers may be different in this regard, however. And Microsoft needs to come up with a compelling argument for EA and Activision to make games that run on Xbox Live. Maybe Microsoft doesn't need EA and Activision, though.

[xahlt]

Well, I would say anyone who has installed a video card or such would have no problem with a router setup, but then again, I think installing a video card shows a certain commitment. You're opening up your case, voiding that little warranty sticker that seals it, fooling around with electronic parts and drivers and possible conflicts and such.

Some people would freak out at that. Granted, you're not opening up anything - and it is entirely possible that your router installation is as easy as plugging in a Linksys or Netgear to your modem and then to your ethernet jack. But there's a good possibility that the non technical will have some difficulty. Like you bought an cat-5 cable over 25' because your xbox is in the living room and your computer is in the den and it never synchs or works sporadically. Or you have PPOE DSL with username/password authentication that keeps auto disconnecting every 5 minutes and you need to figure out what you're supposed to put in there without technical support from your DSL provider. Or suddenly your son complains that his file sharing apps on the PC don't work right anymore and you barely know what a firewall is, much less port forwarding.

All I'm saying is, to an average consumer thinking "well, I pay 50 bucks a month for broadband, and I'm damn well going to use it for the Xbox without having to unplug it from my pc every time", they're probably imagining they get a little adapter that splits the signal in two like a cable television splitter. That's what a router looks like, 1 line goes in, 2 or more come out, just an adapter. It's not.

[Aleck]

Doesn't that seem like a huge barrier to entry? Even if you drop all the Gamespy stuff, doesn't it still seem complicated? To me, hooking a console up to broadband you already have installed seems much more complex than just installing a modem in a PC and going online. I have to buy a router? cables? know where to find my DSL connection info? copy that info to the router? run cable? I don't think either Sony or Microsoft is going to capture the casual gamer with this kind of setup.

I have to agree. I got cablemodem about a month and a half ago. When the guy installed it he changed the settings on my computer and my LAN hasn't worked since. I only use it to back up files to an old computer, but still I want it. I spent about 2 hours on the phone with their technical support only to find that I can only use 1 IP at a time with my cablemodem connection, and it's dynamically assigned. My LAN STILL doesn't work, so I can't back up my machine.

If getting things connected to broadband is this complicated with just one computer trying to use it, what's going to happen when I try to get my Xbox online? I'm a not-quite-casual user, and I'm dreading the next encounter with cablemodem support.

Joe,

I'll bet ya the most likely reason is that they're using MAC address authentication to identify your computer. If you hook a different computer up tot he cable modem, that probably won't work either... Give it a shot.

To fix this, you need to connect to the router from the computer that's currently connected to the cable modem. Find a "clone MAC" address option, then connect the router to the cable modem and the computer to the router and go from there.

PM or e-mail or IM me and I'll work with ya on it if you want.

ASJunk

[Jessica]

As to Jessica's point about developing a cohesive interface, sure, that's nice, but it hasn't been compelling enough in the past to help MPlayer and TEN succeed, and Gamespy hasn't really been tested by the market because they are a free service. I'm sure their user base would drop dramatically if they started charging $10 a month.

MPlayer and Ten didn't have usability and human interface standards for the developers; all they provided was an API to launch the games. The developers still made the game interface anything they wanted. The Mplayer and TEN web interfaces royally sucked, though they tried hard. Tie that in with the huge mistakes they made in the arenas of customer service and misjudging what the consumer would pay for, and you end up with the implosion that happened.

This is not to say the Xbox Live won't implode, as well. However, they ARE doing some things right. I'd rate their chances at 50%, at least. Much depends on their tolerance for spending money on the game service to grow the subscriber base, and how well they learn from their failures.

[Jason Becker]

You could called the getting a PC into a home a big problem with the quirks of Win9x and PC hardware. Yet their are tens of millions in homes now. Look at the VHS/DVD/stereo/cable TV/satilite combinations people have. With a gazzilion wires and 5 diffrent remotes. Yet home entertainment is doing very well.

Its not that hard.

Most middle class people are more capable than some are suggesting. Technology isn't new to many people. They arn't scared by it.

[wumpus]

Most middle class people are more capable than some are suggesting. Technology isn't new to many people. They arn't scared by it.
Mark Asher is. When he thinks of online console gaming, he curls into the fetal position and starts crying uncontrollably.

[wumpus]

To fix this, you need to connect to the router from the computer that's currently connected to the cable modem. Find a "clone MAC" address option, then connect the router to the cable modem and the computer to the router and go from there.
It's even easier than that. Cable modems "learn" the first MAC address that tries to connect to them. To get them to "forget" the old MAC address, simply disconnect the power to the cable modem, connect the device you want it to "learn", and turn the power back on.

Now Mark Asher's shaking all over and on the verge of tears, so I hope you're all happy.

[Brad Grenz]

"Am I wrong?"

Yes

So MS did sell half a million Xbox Live kits secretly and is currently winning with the most successful online console. I must not have checked Gamespot the day that information slipped out.

As for the meat of your argument, lets get to it (you'll notice I won't take your words out of contex to make cute little quips without actually addressing the point):


"The fact that they've developed a hardware add-on,"

Hardware addons outside of memmorry cards and controlers don't sell worth shit...they never have. Hence Sege putting a modem in the DC, and MS putting the adapter and HDD in the Xbox.

It remains to be seen how well the network adapter will be recieved. But we weren't talking about sales, we were talking about Sony's commitment to online. My point was the resources they've expended on an adapter, on software and on partnerships with AOL, etc, suggests Sony at least cares a little about online. I would say that makes them "serious", but you still haven't told me what your deffinition of that word is. Your anecdotal evidence about the failures of things like the 32X does nothing to disprove my point.



"put the PS2 online well before Microsoft"

LOL buy like what maybe 1 1/2 months?

Longer, when did FFXI ship in Japan? We're talking 7, 8 months. What about Sony shipping first proves Sony isn't serious about online?



"MS put hardware in the box that is useless without an additional purchase."


Thats the initial launch. Try and read some posts. It can easily offered through games themselves at a later date.

I read your posts, though I'm beggining to think you don't read mine. Yes, offered through the games at a later date, AS AN ADDITIONAL PURCHASE.


"Here you've simply deflected the issue once more."


You keep ignoring all the previous points and facts. This is a long thread. There are many points already made you obviously havn't seen. Your coming in and saying the same old thing. Its been refuted already.

I've read the whole thing. Every time I have you on point, you change the subject. And what I can only assume are the "facts" and "refutations" to which you refer, tend to be speculation, supposition and opinion. I keep repeating myself, but so do you. I'm just about done here.

[dwinn]

Most middle class people are more capable than some are suggesting. Technology isn't new to many people. They arn't scared by it.

I don't completely buy this explanation. Working at a help desk exposes me to the refrain of "I'm completely computer-illiterate" several times an hour. My experience has been that the reality of the situation is either:

a) They're scared of farking something up
b) They're lazy and don't have any kids who will do it
c) They're scared *and* lazy
d) They're middle-class Amish

There's not a lot of fear in figuring out a VCR or DVD player -- either you watch the movie/record the program or you don't, with no long-term effects. With computer equipment, you can either screw up something that previously had worked, actually zots or break something pricey, or both. So I think there is a valid fear of computers. YMMV, of course.

[Jason Becker]

"I don't completely buy this explanation."

The home PC has still been enormously succesful and is becoming as common as TV's and VCR's in homes. This a device that hasn't always been considered user friendly(many would still say that today). Yea allot of people call tech support but they are still buying the machines and the software. So I don't buy that all people are going to be "frightened off" just because the Xbox or PS2 will need some extra "work" to get them online.

[Jason Becker]

"I've read the whole thing. Every time I have you on point, you change the subject."


Bullshit


"And what I can only assume are the "facts" and "refutations" to which you refer, tend to be speculation, supposition and opinion."

Both of are posts and everybody elses is part 'facts' and speculation/opinion on this whole subject.

[Mark Asher]

"You could called the getting a PC into a home a big problem with the quirks of Win9x and PC hardware. Yet their are tens of millions in homes now. Look at the VHS/DVD/stereo/cable TV/satilite combinations people have. With a gazzilion wires and 5 diffrent remotes. Yet home entertainment is doing very well."

Sure, but most PCs come ready to run out of the box. Lots of people who get home entertainment systems pay to have them installed. The cable company installs cable. I and many others had our DSL installed for us. I'm sure most people have satellite dishes installed.

I've never said it's impossible or even said it's hard. But it's silly to think that telling someone they will need to purchase a router and cable and install and configure it all to work with an Xbox/PS2 isn't a bit of a dampener. And I'm not talking about the consumer who's eager to play console titles online. That person will make it work. I'm thinking more of the person why finds the idea interesting. I think many of the latter will lose interest if they have to buy additional hardware and install it.

[Mark Asher]

"So I don't buy that all people are going to be "frightened off" just because the Xbox or PS2 will need some extra "work" to get them online."

Of course not everyone is going to be "frightened". All I said is that having to go out and buy hardware and install it to get online is a disincentive for both PS2 and Xbox owners. I honestly don't see how this can even be argued the other way.

[Jessica]

"So I don't buy that all people are going to be "frightened off" just because the Xbox or PS2 will need some extra "work" to get them online."

Of course not everyone is going to be "frightened". All I said is that having to go out and buy hardware and install it to get online is a disincentive for both PS2 and Xbox owners. I honestly don't see how this can even be argued the other way.

All you have to do is look at hardware peripheral buying patterns for consoles to see that this is true. There hasn't ever been a major add-on peripheral that sold to even 15% of console owners, and the more comlex the peripheral, the fewer the sales. NPD stats make that very clear.

[runesword forger]

On the difficulty posing a barrier to enty, I think Mark has a point. In this forum, it's rather like a bunch of biologists wondering why so many people don't support evolution. We're a seriously skewed sample of tech aptitude.

"Just plug it into your home LAN" is kinda funny.

But the more interesting thing to me is how you define success for Xbox live. I mean, if 10% of the users jack in to a vibrant, worthy gaming experience, is that the brass ring? Or does on-line need to drive Xbox sales next year? If PS2 gets 5% of their base online, but it's still many more than Xbox live has, has PS2 beaten it?

I'm also kinda wondering what the data is for future game purchases by online gaming addicts. It's not like the designers of DAoC need to care if System Shock 3 appears, but doesn't MS? Could online dampen game sales among the users who used to buy the most games? Or is that a non-issue because their buying patterns don't change?

[Xaroc]

Asher, before you read this I am not saying setting up a LAN/router will not be a barrier to people adopting Xbox Live! or the PS2 onlne stuff. This is a pure my experience and mechanics discussion. Skip it if you are not interested.



"Just plug it into your home LAN" is kinda funny.


I don't know why. I setup my first LAN with absolutely no networking experience. I think it was using Windows 95 and the whole process was pretty painless. I did a websearch and read a few pages on how to do it, went out bought a couple of cards and some coax cable and setup a peer to peer network between my soon to be wife's and my computers. It was not difficult. It involved installing a network card into each machine and setting up the network settings according to the instructions I had read. I think it was IPX and Win95 and most of the windows OSs aside from NT are pretty forgiving and straight forward with networking.

Now it is TCP/IP and ethernet and hubs/switches but still not too difficult especially if you do a little research. It is even easier if you buy a broadband router because the freaking instructions are laid out so a 5 year old can follow them. It will hold your hand as you follow each step. Again this is not rocket science.

-- Xaroc

[Dave Long]

The barrier is that most people don't want to find out how to do it. They don't know how to search the net for the RIGHT pages to tell you how to do it. They don't have the inclination to bother doing it in the first place. It's a pain in the neck to have to configure stuff to make it work. With a console, you put in the disc and you play. That's why they sell FAR more games for consoles than PCs. It's easier than setting the clock on your VCR.

No matter how many times you explain it. No matter how often you claim it's simple, it won't change the fact that it's NOT simple and it's NOT something the vast, vast majority of the people in the world want to spend time doing. People don't want to know how everything in the tech world works. They just want it to work. They want to see pretty pictures and hear some nice (or not so nice) sounds. The barrier to this is still huge. Most homes don't have broadband. Most people don't want to pay $50 for it even if they can get it. It's still a niche. Then you combine that with Xbox owners who are a niche. Now you've got a niche of a niche. It's crazy to think it's going to just take off and be big. It's going to be a media darling but it's really a non-event. Sega already did online gaming and very few came. Once again it was a niche of a niche. It just doesn't have the simplicity you guys hope it will have by saying it over and over again.

Even an analyst could probably tell you that. :-)

--Dave

[Bub, Andrew]

I agree with Long here.
Which is why I think MS is doing it the way their doing it. The "niche of the niche" is going to be able to get online, will be interested in the headset microphones, and will be passionate enough to convert some of the borderline "niche of a niche". Then, as the technology grows simpler and more user friendly, as console owners begin to say "Man, that's cool, how can I do that?" the niche will grow. MS is going to lose money on this but their going for branding, I think, and that's a long term goal.

By mandating broadband they're making certain of one thing. Xbox Live! will be known as a *quality* and highspeed way to game online. All for a single fee. People don't want micropayments for their online console gaming... which is where I think Sony has it wrong.
It's a gamble but one MS can afford. Sony's method is cheaper, but runs into more problems. Nintendo is probably smart to sit this one out, for now.

Remember, when AOL first launched most future AOL users had no idea they even wanted to go online in the first place. Console companies face that problem now. Most console users aren't interested in online gaming (just as most PC users aren't interested now), MS's plan, I think, will at least appeal most to the people who really do want to play online.

[Jason Becker]

"Nintendo is probably smart to sit this one out, for now."

It could be argued that Nintendo is not doing it because they don't have the resources to compete with Sony and MS. Nintendo is a successful company but they are still small compared to the others. Nintendo could face the same problems in 4-5 years that MS face with consoles today. Breaking into a market that already has established players. MS is doing Live now as much or more for 5 years from now as today. This is a calculated long term strategy.


The whole most PC gamers and online gamers don't want to go online anyway is far from fact. Has the console world had a real access to games? Sorry but the DC never had a large base and was already starting to die when they went online. Using this as an example is flawed. PC gaming has been successful considering how fractured it is and not always a user friendly experience. Many game segments haven't been attempted like the players of The Sims type games. There's a large potential market for many people who simply never thought of online gaming.

[Xaroc]

The barrier is that most people don't want to find out how to do it. They don't know how to search the net for the RIGHT pages to tell you how to do it. They don't have the inclination to bother doing it in the first place. It's a pain in the neck to have to configure stuff to make it work. With a console, you put in the disc and you play. That's why they sell FAR more games for consoles than PCs. It's easier than setting the clock on your VCR.

No matter how many times you explain it. No matter how often you claim it's simple, it won't change the fact that it's NOT simple and it's NOT something the vast, vast majority of the people in the world want to spend time doing. People don't want to know how everything in the tech world works. They just want it to work. They want to see pretty pictures and hear some nice (or not so nice) sounds. The barrier to this is still huge. Most homes don't have broadband. Most people don't want to pay $50 for it even if they can get it. It's still a niche. Then you combine that with Xbox owners who are a niche. Now you've got a niche of a niche. It's crazy to think it's going to just take off and be big. It's going to be a media darling but it's really a non-event. Sega already did online gaming and very few came. Once again it was a niche of a niche. It just doesn't have the simplicity you guys hope it will have by saying it over and over again.

Even an analyst could probably tell you that. :-)

--Dave

Did reading comprehension take a nosedive? What part of this did you not understand:


Asher, before you read this I am not saying setting up a LAN/router will not be a barrier to people adopting Xbox Live! or the PS2 onlne stuff. This is a pure my experience and mechanics discussion. Skip it if you are not interested.

I realize you aren't Asher but didn't I make it crystal clear I wasn't talking about this in relation to consoles? And it is not hard unless you are an idiot. It may appear difficult but it is not actually difficult in practice. Whether people want to do it or whatever is irrelevant to the point I was making.

-- Xaroc

[Dave Long]

And it is not hard unless you are an idiot. It may appear difficult but it is not actually difficult in practice.

But this is the thing you keep saying that is NOT true. It IS hard for most people. You can go on believing that most people are idiots. That might be true. It is definitely not a plug and play operation. Whether you're doing it for your PC or your console, it takes some modicum of technical skill to set up a LAN. Hell, it takes some knowledge of PCs to even know what a LAN is! That's why ""Just plug it into your home LAN" is kinda funny."


It could be argued that Nintendo is not doing it because they don't have the resources to compete with Sony and MS. Nintendo is a successful company but they are still small compared to the others. Nintendo could face the same problems in 4-5 years that MS face with consoles today. Breaking into a market that already has established players. MS is doing Live now as much or more for 5 years from now as today. This is a calculated long term strategy.

Oh please. This is one of the most ridiculous things you've said in the entire thread. You can most certainly believe that if Nintendo saw any way to make money or add to the quality of their games by going online, they'd do it. Miyamoto has said time and again that online is often a buzzword for "better" in not so many words. That's how many in the industry want to perceive it. He's entirely right to believe that's the wrong way to approach it.


The whole most PC gamers and online gamers don't want to go online anyway is far from fact. Has the console world had a real access to games? Sorry but the DC never had a large base and was already starting to die when they went online. Using this as an example is flawed. PC gaming has been successful considering how fractured it is and not always a user friendly experience. Many game segments haven't been attempted like the players of The Sims type games. There's a large potential market for many people who simply never thought of online gaming.

Uh...you know that the Xbox doesn't have a large base right? You also know that if it doesn't do well this holiday season it's very possible it will be "starting to die" as it goes online too? C'mon...your examples are far more flawed. When the Xbox has the 7 million installed base of the DC, then maybe you can start comparing. It's like Dreamcast all over again IMO except they don't have nearly the amount of quality games the DC had within one year of its launch.

Your talk of Sims games and people who never thought of online gaming is irrelevant too. Microsoft's lineup reads like a PCs. MechAssault, football games, Unreal... jeez... They're not attempting to find a new market. They might end up looking like they know what they're doing, but that may not make a bit of difference if the console remains an also-ran. The next generation of consoles they'll still look like an also-ran. Just cause you have online play doesn't make you a winner for the next round of consoles.

I tried to stay out of this thread. Really I did... but you guys are so far out there now that I couldn't help it. Brad's right. Every time he brings up good points, you deflect the conversation.

--Dave

[Mark Asher]

"But the more interesting thing to me is how you define success for Xbox live. I mean, if 10% of the users jack in to a vibrant, worthy gaming experience, is that the brass ring? Or does on-line need to drive Xbox sales next year? If PS2 gets 5% of their base online, but it's still many more than Xbox live has, has PS2 beaten it?"

That's a good question. If you compare raw numbers, if MS gets 10% of the by then extimated 5 million Xbox users online that will probably be about 500,000, which would surpass Everquest.

If Sony gets just 5% of the by then estimated 30 million PS2 users, that's a whopping 1.5 million.

My guess is Sony will probably grab more users but Xbox Live will be a better gaming experience and may help the Xbox more than online gaming helps the PS2.

There's one other issue that Jessica brought up before in relation to MMOGs. How long are you going to get your brains beat in before you abandon an online game? Most of the online games for the consoles are going to be competitive. If I play Madden online and lose 8 of my first 10 games to the uber dewds, how many times am I going to come back for more punishment? This could be a limiting factor also for online gaming for the casual gamer, especially if a monthly fee is part of equation.

[Ben Sones]

Oh please. This is one of the most ridiculous things you've said in the entire thread. You can most certainly believe that if Nintendo saw any way to make money or add to the quality of their games by going online, they'd do it.

On the other hand, Nintendo has a history of staying behind the curve, and this wouldn't be the first time it bit them in the ass. They were slow to abandon cartridges, too, and that was a mistake on their part. I'm not saying that they are right or wrong with regard to online gaming. But I will say that I'm not so quick to take Miyamoto's word that the maret is going to go in X direction.

[Xaroc]

And it is not hard unless you are an idiot. It may appear difficult but it is not actually difficult in practice.

But this is the thing you keep saying that is NOT true. It IS hard for most people. You can go on believing that most people are idiots. That might be true. It is definitely not a plug and play operation. Whether you're doing it for your PC or your console, it takes some modicum of technical skill to set up a LAN. Hell, it takes some knowledge of PCs to even know what a LAN is! That's why ""Just plug it into your home LAN" is kinda funny."


We will have to agree to disagree. I still contend it is the thought of doing something unfamiliar and not the actual process involved that is stopping people. And that is all I am going to say.

-- Xaroc

[Jason Becker]

"Uh...you know that the Xbox doesn't have a large base right? You also know that if it doesn't do well this holiday season it's very possible it will be "starting to die" as it goes online too?"


You tell me I'm saying something ridiculous and then you say this?

"Your talk of Sims games and people who never thought of online gaming is irrelevant too."

Whatever. The market has barely been tapped. Barely.


"I tried to stay out of this thread. Really I did... but you guys are so far out there now that I couldn't help it. Brad's right. Every time he brings up good points, you deflect the conversation. "


Yawn... time to get off your high and mighty horse there Dave...

[Jason Becker]

"On the other hand, Nintendo has a history of staying behind the curve, and this wouldn't be the first time it bit them in the ass. "

Exactly.

[Dave Long]

My high and mighty horse eh? Take a look in the mirror pal. You're sitting up so high you might need oxygen.

I guess since you dismissed my post with pithy comments you're not going to dispute its validity. I can't believe anyone thought I was a broken record with Xaroc and yourself saying the same thing again and again and again...

--Dave

[sellthekids]

d) They're middle-class Amish


you guys frighten me. this thread has become hotly contentious and no one, nary a single person posted "LOL" or "ROFL" to this post.

my god, i nearly snorted my beer through my nose as i pictured Weird Al Yankovich as an Amish Xboxer.

dwinn, i say, good show!

[xahlt]

That's right, some gratuitous smilies will lighten the mood. Let's see here:

:lol: means I've insulted you but only in the way drinking buddies do

:P means I've found your past comments inane, but I don't like outright confrontation

:wink: means You and I disagree but I'm gonna go sleep with my girlfriend so that makes it even

[Kool Moe Dee]

There's one other issue that Jessica brought up before in relation to MMOGs. How long are you going to get your brains beat in before you abandon an online game? Most of the online games for the consoles are going to be competitive. If I play Madden online and lose 8 of my first 10 games to the uber dewds, how many times am I going to come back for more punishment? This could be a limiting factor also for online gaming for the casual gamer, especially if a monthly fee is part of equation.

That's what all that "optimatch" stuff is. Kind of like WC3 matchmaking, which is incredibly convenient and, despite everyone's grumblings, has worked pretty good for me (in that I never felt overmatched by the person I was set up to play against). The convenience factor of being able to get into a game in 30 seconds is amazing.

Also, you can build up a buddy list of people you like playing with, and just page them/invite them to play when you're on. I realize I'm sounding like a broken record here but I have a feeling this will be a key feature...I use ICQ all the time for this purpose, and the thought of having it in-game is very appealing to me. Being able to get messages/invites in-game is one of those things that will be impossible with Sony's strategy...

[Mark Asher]

It will only be impossible for Sony to have it work across games. You can be in a game lobby and get invites, I'd guess. Does Gamespy support something like this? I'm sure you can message anyone who's waiting in a lobby in Gamespy, but do they have a buddies list?

I do think that's a nice feature for Xbox Live, though. Considering how fast you're supposed to get in a game, I wonder if messages stay in queue and wait until you're done with a game? And how do you send messages with voice? Maybe they just have canned text messages you select?

[Kool Moe Dee]

It will only be impossible for Sony to have it work across games.

To me, that is as good as "not at all." It's fairly likely that my buddies will be playing a different game when I come online, or that they'd start playing Game X if they didn't know I was online playing Game Y already. If I can be notified in-game that they're around (even not in the same game), that's super.

[Mike Cathcart]

It will only be impossible for Sony to have it work across games.

To me, that is as good as "not at all." It's fairly likely that my buddies will be playing a different game when I come online, or that they'd start playing Game X if they didn't know I was online playing Game Y already. If I can be notified in-game that they're around (even not in the same game), that's super.

Yeah, since the PS2 has such a big library of games worth playing it might be hard to track someone down. Of course, if they're on the XBox, they're probably only playing Halo 2 or a football game, so it really doesn't do you much good :twisted:

[Joe O'Malley]

That's a good question. If you compare raw numbers, if MS gets 10% of the by then extimated 5 million Xbox users online that will probably be about 500,000, which would surpass Everquest.

If Sony gets just 5% of the by then estimated 30 million PS2 users, that's a whopping 1.5 million.


They'll just do it by market share, not by percentage of users. What percentage of the 1 million logged-in people are using your console vs. Sony, etc.

I hear a lot of talk about football games and such, but what are the odds of other games getting sucked in? What about EverQuest and Asheron's Call? Is Freelancer going to be MMP? Will it be available on XBox if it is?

[Mark Asher]

Everquest and Final Fantasy XI are coming to the PS2. I think SWG is coming to the Xbox. I haven't heard anything about Asheron's Call 2. One of the eventual issues with MMOGs on Xbox Live is that they will probably require an additional fee beyond the $10/month. That's going to make them look pricey, though perhaps MS will come up with an MMOG that's included in the Xbox Live fee, much as Dark Sun Online was included in the TEN fee.

Oh, and there's a rumor of a Grand Theft Auto online game for the PS2. Needless to say, that could be big and drive a lot of players online.

[graller]

And in this geek corner...........

Just kidding but you all need to step back for a second. How many PC Gamers invest significant time playing online? I can speak for myself and a few of my friends. I never play online mulitplayer. Between the dewds and the hacking and the hassling and the idiots its just not THAT much fun. You all argue tech, cost etc. Stop for a second. There is a subset of the PC game industry that lives for online games....if you add up all the folks playing MMOG's and FPS online you might have 1 million people...remember most people playing EverCrack also play Camelot and Counterstrike and ..... fill in the blank.....Based on the Sims sales how many millions of PC players don't bother with online....The same will be true on the console front. It won't determine who wins the next gen wars and it won't give anyone ownership of the home entertainment market.

And the people here have posted a lot of the reasons IN ADDITION why it won't - Tech is hard <we don't qualify to judge this>, Broadband is expensive and all the companies are STILL losing money at it. All the Live initiatives involve additional fees.

[Jessica]

And in this geek corner...........

Just kidding but you all need to step back for a second. How many PC Gamers invest significant time playing online? I can speak for myself and a few of my friends. I never play online mulitplayer. Between the dewds and the hacking and the hassling and the idiots its just not THAT much fun. You all argue tech, cost etc. Stop for a second. There is a subset of the PC game industry that lives for online games....if you add up all the folks playing MMOG's and FPS online you might have 1 million people...remember most people playing EverCrack also play Camelot and Counterstrike and ..... fill in the blank.....Based on the Sims sales how many millions of PC players don't bother with online....The same will be true on the console front. It won't determine who wins the next gen wars and it won't give anyone ownership of the home entertainment market.

And the people here have posted a lot of the reasons IN ADDITION why it won't - Tech is hard <we don't qualify to judge this>, Broadband is expensive and all the companies are STILL losing money at it. All the Live initiatives involve additional fees.

Actually, MMOG subscriptions worldwide are over 4.5 million right now and are expected to exceed 6 million by the end of calendar 2003. Interestingly, most of those subscriptions are in Asia...

[Jason Becker]

"if you add up all the folks playing MMOG's and FPS online you might have 1 million people...remember most people playing EverCrack also play Camelot and Counterstrike and ..... fill in the blank"

That I don't see at all. Every EQ, UO or online shooter player I've meet in game or in person and talked to about what they play(dozens) seem to stick to the game their playing. A EQ player may play some online shooters but they arn't playing EQ for 30hrs a week and Camalot 30 hrs and then UO too. I see people saying all the online gaming is this single subset of a few hundred thousands and they play all of them.

[graller]

Let me clarify - Its the same set of folks trying each game and they each end up settling on one....They all may play only one now but they all at one time or another tried UO or AOC or AC etc. And yes you are right - I am forgetting the Lineage crowd in Korea. Not the XBOX Live target audience I suspect.

[Supertanker]

How many PC Gamers invest significant time playing online? I can speak for myself and a few of my friends. I never play online mulitplayer. Between the dewds and the hacking and the hassling and the idiots its just not THAT much fun. ... remember most people playing EverCrack also play Camelot and Counterstrike and .....

I don't know how typical I am (probably not very), but about 90% of my gaming time is online these days, which is all the more amazing considering I don't play any MMORPGs. The crowd I play with is pretty much the same way, but that's why we play together. Even the single player gaming I am doing is to prepare for playing online (Sub Command in particular).

The dewds and hackers are a problem though. I'm an admin on my usual Day of Defeat server, and I probably ban someone every ten or fifteen minutes. There is an unending supply of assholes, all of whom think they are unique. Banning people is its own fun, though. :twisted: Those efforts are necessary to keep the games fun and focused. I won't play on unmoderated public servers anymore. I am interested to see how MS deals with this in Xbox Live.

Same as Jason Becker, I see very little game crossover among online players. People in my clan tend to be devoted to not just a genre, but a particular game in the genre. Using myself as an example, I play DoD, but not CS or MoH:AA. We have other people that only play DAoC, or IL-2. Rarely do we have people spending significant time on more than one game over a particular period.

[Brad Grenz]

They'll just do it by market share, not by percentage of users. What percentage of the 1 million logged-in people are using your console vs. Sony, etc.

Which is practically the same as a raw count.


Everquest and Final Fantasy XI are coming to the PS2. I think SWG is coming to the Xbox.

SWG is coming to the PS2 too.

[sellthekids]

so i just got the following email from MS:


Thanks for wanting to participate in the Xbox™ Live beta. Here's a quick update on our progress...

We selected our initial beta testers this week and will be adding many more over the weeks to come. If you have not yet been contacted, we will be contacting you on or before September 20th regarding your status to potentially be included in our beta test program.

We want to thank you for your willingness to participate in the program, but want to let you know that we have many more applicants than we have openings. However, remember that this is just the beta, and we're working feverishly to bring to you the actual Live service on November 15th, 2002. This is when we will have made the necessary tweaks to create the ultimate online gaming arena for you and your friends.

In the meantime, check out http://www.xbox.com/live/ for the latest news and updates.

Thanks again for your desire to participate in the Xbox Live beta.

-Xbox Live Beta Team

so although i don't think i am completely out, it appears i am not one of the initial groups of chosen people.

anyone in this forum make the cut?

thanks!

[James Gutierrez]

Yeah, I'm in. Supposed to be getting the starter kit in early Oct.

[sellthekids]

let's see how long this lasts on eBay....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1375974465

[Aleck]

let's see how long this lasts on eBay....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1375974465

Not long. Someone paid $500 for it.

Keep in mind that would buy you a new Xbox and 6 games. Or 2 new Xboxes (Xboxen?) and a game for each. Or an Xbox and a new (relatively small) TV.

I find this mindboggling. I can't imagine how desperate someone would have to be in order to pay $500 to participate in a BETA...

ASJunk

[Anonymous]

"Keep in mind that would buy you a new Xbox and 6 games. Or 2 new Xboxes (Xboxen?) and a game for each. Or an Xbox and a new (relatively small) TV. "

Or an Xbox, 6 games, and a piece of your mamma's ass.

[Brad Grenz]

Did you see the winner's handle? 81birthday? Probably still using mommy's credit card. At least I hope. The idea of someone that young with that much disposable income is too much for me to handle.

[sellthekids]

how about what sickens me most is the fact that this guy sold one for $500 but also is selling:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1376041254

wtf? just like MS. good thing they got all those betas in the hands of people who wanted to test them.

btw - i applied and i can tell you the survey questions were down right asine. this beta test is essentially a contest, where the testers (winners?)are no more than lucky. how sad, and yet for MS, very very predictable.

well, i guess i'll be waiting till official launch date, b/c i am certainly not spending $500 to beta a product.