| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Unveils Xbox Live Heralding the Next Frontier in Video Games | |
|
||
| Time: 02:32 EST/07:32 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Press Release | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 175 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:19:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 5/21/2002 9:13:03 AM |
|
And with this announcement is where XBOX really shines. All o fmy friends are pumped about this and the price is right.
Free game AND free game? Works for me! |
| #2 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 5/21/2002 10:44:41 AM |
|
Everyone loves to poo-poo MS, poo-poo the Xbox, say that MS is losing tons of money, or trying to abuse their monopoly power with no real innovation.
This is innovation. No one is doing this, not even the Dreamcast. This is pure innovation and invention. This is only the beginning. In two years, the PS2 will be $99 with no users and the XBox will have everyone. Sony will be bitching because they missed the boat. |
| #3 By 3 (62.255.32.4) at 5/21/2002 3:57:52 PM |
| In two years the PS3 will be scouting around, Xbox Live! is great sounding, but how many people take it up around the world is yet to be seen. |
| #4 By 1896 (66.20.203.205) at 5/21/2002 4:19:18 PM |
| #3 Check the popularity of the online games, thet are the future! It is not something to be seen, it is already there. Btw Sony is already in but MS has, at least so far, a better plan in spite of the fact that Sony already makes a lot of home appliances |
| #5 By 3 (62.255.32.4) at 5/21/2002 4:31:21 PM |
|
I agree online gaming is great - especially in the PC market - but its a new field for consoles, how many people will take it up is anyones guess. Certainly in terms of most console buyers they get consoles simple for single player or sit around one tv in multiplayer games - so its a case of seeing who will bring in the multiplayer online users to a console world....my guess is the Xbox will take longer to do this world-wise than Sony.
My reasoning is that a lot of console buyers will not have broadband right now, yes its getting more avaliable but not everyone has it and not everyone will have it for a few more years. So Sony has a normal modem avaliable, broadband access too if people want to use that...so in my view they may well get more users playing online games this way. Thats not to say that I don't believe that Xbox live is the best way to enter online gaming, it clearly is for those with great connections, i'll be trying it out - but I've personally got a console to play single player games myself, if i want online gaming i'll stick with my PC. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/21/2002 7:03:12 PM |
|
...And don't forget the business model!
Having their own infrastructure will make it easier for developers, but do developers want to conform to MS's demands for deployment? Will developers have to pay to host games? Or will they receive the subscription fees with a precentage going to MS? How much goes to MS and how much to the developers? What about developers like EA who were building out their own online game infrastructure? Will developers fear using an MS network if the bulk of the profits go to MS and online games detract from hard game sales? Do users want to pay yet another subscription fee? Will fees be per game or for the whole shebang? I also liked the whole voice masking feature--is that supposed to make parents feel better or worse? It sounds like it makes it easier for predators to screw with little kiddies. |
| #7 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/21/2002 8:14:44 PM |
|
"...And don't forget the business model!
Having their own infrastructure will make it easier for developers, but do developers want to conform to MS's demands for deployment? Will developers have to pay to host games? Or will they receive the subscription fees with a precentage going to MS? How much goes to MS and how much to the developers? What about developers like EA who were building out their own online game infrastructure? Will developers fear using an MS network if the bulk of the profits go to MS and online games detract from hard game sales? Do users want to pay yet another subscription fee? Will fees be per game or for the whole shebang? " ================ The subscription fee for XBOX LIVE is for the "whole shebang". One fee for all games on the network. I don't know if he has changed his mind or not, but Tim Sweeney has said that Unreal Championship would be playable online for free. Even if it isn't, $50 for a whole year of broadband-only gaming is a highly attractive offer. I suspect that the full subscription amount goes to Microsoft for server upkeep, bandwidth expenses, employee salaries, and other support costs associated with the service. They may offer a cut to developers based upon their support of the service, but if they keep the subscription price low, bandwidth costs and employee salaries alone will probably deplete most (if not all) of the profits. ==================== "I also liked the whole voice masking feature--is that supposed to make parents feel better or worse? It sounds like it makes it easier for predators to screw with little kiddies." ===================== How will you know who the kiddies are when their voices are masked? Sure, you could go on responses and overall behavior, but some 30 year olds act the same way. Besides, there have been a few implementations of voice communication in games/game services on the PC over the past few years, and it's never posed much of a problem for kids, even without masking. Most of the online pedaphiles hang out and/or work for AOL. XBOX.com has more details This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 20:17. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/21/2002 8:40:07 PM |
|
enforcer, I was aware of the answers you mention... They themselves raise questions. By the way, I'm also hearing $50 for the kit and first year; $10 a month thereafter. But, yes, what about those games that want to be free? The online gaming world is a bit different than the console world where you rent and share games--online world you have access to all games but build up the "experience"--so generally online gamers follow fewer games than consolers. So, am I paying a fee for only one game I like or a bunch of games I don't like? Tough question to answer. Besides, MS is saying that they will basically be spending $50 per user to build this out--while they are already losing $100 (at least) per box. That means every user has to buy at least 10 games before they get close to making a profit. Meanwhile, Sony, with a 26 million unit headstart, is manufacturing and shipping as many consoles every two months as MS will be able to the entire first year.
You really think the whole amount should go to MS? So what is the rationale for a developer to develop a game in the first place if they receive no revenue? That sounds like a surefire deadend biz model. You don't get my point about voice masking--I agree that voice hasn't been a problem. Now, they are giving people a way to disguise themselves. Do you think voice is a way of identifying location? No, I don't think so--I do think it's a way to ID someone responsible for a crime though if you never meet in person. Nevermind the pranks and problems that kids-on-kids will create with this thing. Boy, it's going to be a dirty, messy DisneyWorld. |
| #9 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/21/2002 9:11:00 PM |
|
"You really think the whole amount should go to MS? So what is the rationale for a developer to develop a game in the first place if they receive no revenue? That sounds like a surefire deadend biz model. "
MS is providing the framework and the service with the SDK. This makes getting your game online, and providing its content to a wide userbase many times less complicated, less costly, and less time consuming than if you did this yourself. MS is making things easier for developers that want their games to be online. The tools they provide cost money, so they should be able to recoup that cost. Game developers already get profits from the games they sell. If their games do well, they get bigger profits. Either way, they don't have to worry about the extra expense of providing their own online infrastructure. If a game sells poorly, but has an online component, MS incurs the cost of keeping the game online -- not the publisher. "You don't get my point about voice masking--I agree that voice hasn't been a problem. Now, they are giving people a way to disguise themselves. Do you think voice is a way of identifying location? No, I don't think so--I do think it's a way to ID someone responsible for a crime though if you never meet in person. Nevermind the pranks and problems that kids-on-kids will create with this thing. Boy, it's going to be a dirty, messy DisneyWorld." Why do you need someone's voice when you have their IP address and user account. You may not be able to prove that the owner of the account was the one abusing it, but the owner of the account is ultimately responsible for how the account is used. If they are not responsible enough to keep others from abusing their account, they shouldn't have the account and it should be terminated. The other thing I forgot to mention is that XBOX's main demographic is something like 18-34, so small kids will probably be in the minority anyway. Also, the each gamers username is unique, so this provides another way of tracking them. This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 21:13. |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/21/2002 9:25:30 PM |
|
I definately approve of the single charge to access all gaming services. One of the failures of online gaming on the PC is that each game wants $10/month. But if you are like me and like to play various games, you don't want to pay $10/month for each game if you may only play that one particular game 4 hours in that month.
Then what happens is that many games never build up a critical mass of players, or if they do it's only for the first few months the game is available. Quake has been successful because anybody can setup a server anywhere. |
| #11 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 5/21/2002 11:39:30 PM |
|
sodajerk... just let MS worry about how they are going to make a profit. I think they have a little experience in that area.
I am so happy, although somewhat surprised, at how MS is charging for XBox LIVE. They were presented with a great opportunity to flop and charge by the month... but they have really made the right choice with their $50/year model. Kudos to them! I'll be eagerly spending my $50 asap. And I can't wait until the other FIFTY xbox LIVE games come online. I feel like a kid again! All this talk about developers might not want MS to do the heavy lifting... is off base. Game developers aren't huge companies (most of them) and they most definitely DO want someone to do the heavy lifting. Without MS help, they would be run over by the likes of EA, Sega, and a few other large games developers. The innovation has only just begun... |
| #12 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 5/21/2002 11:41:05 PM |
| oh, and Byron_Hinson[AW], do you have a gamecube or something? |
| #13 By 3 (62.255.32.4) at 5/22/2002 12:21:17 AM |
| #13 I have 2 xbox's UK & US, 1 PS2 and a gamecube yeah, i enjoy games. |
| #14 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/22/2002 12:52:42 AM |
| #14 It's not like this is an open platform anyway. With every console there are development guidelines that must be followed in order to keep your license for development. No one is regurgitating propaganda, they are stating what they know about the platform and the obvious benefits to the developers. If you want to know more than that, email Microsoft's XBOX team or submit the question to a gaming site for their next interview with someone on the team. I stated earlier that Tim Sweeney was once quoted as saying that Unreal Championship would be playable online for no charge. Until he or someone else states otherwise, I have no idea if this information has changed. Email Carmack or one of the other id guys and see if they give any info about their online plans for Doom III on XBOX. Email Sweeney. Clearly there are benefits to be gained by working within the system, however. This probably wouldn't have even been brought up if it wasn't a Microsoft service. Someone always has to find the bad in anything and everything MS does. |
| #15 By 3339 (64.175.40.24) at 5/22/2002 1:49:25 AM |
|
anon, that's one of my points too. EA is doing their own data server infrastructure; Sony and Nintendo will not be doing heavy lifting for developers but have an open system. Enforcer's idea that Microsoft is going to get all of this money is bizarre. They make $5-10 per game--if it's a crappy title less, if it's a big developer or title it's less... And you think developers are going to spend the millions of dollars to build expansive, evolving online games for the benefit of advertising the XBox? If I were a developer I would prefer to pay a data center provider (even if it was MS) to provide for my needs as the market evolved, give microsoft 10% of a yearly subscription, and/or keep control of the spectrum of options for biz plans (free to diffrent cost models...) as I saw fit.
But, hey, apparently MS says fifty titles so good for them. I'm just curious about the answers to these questions. Sony estimates by the end of the June quarter they'll have shipped 30 million. Sony is shipping 2-2.5 million new units a month. MS will finish the year at 4 to 4.5 million. Sony and Nintendo at this point probably make a profit on their units. MS was losing anywhere from $40-100 per box... Now they are losing what? $150? And they are spending 2 bill (like the Reg, I doubt this number) on data centers? Say, at least $50 spent per user (that's if they had 40 million users like Sony). So Microsoft is spending $200 per user which means they need to sell 5 microsoft titles or 4 online gaming subscriptions or 40 non-microsoft gam titles. Sounds like dot-com economics to me. |
| #16 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/22/2002 4:04:52 AM |
|
Sodajerk, your logic is off. MS is providing the infrastructure and a guide for developers to use the infrastructure. This saves the developers the cost of having to put all of the components together themselves, can save development time, and gives them an easy, consistent way of getting their customers online. It gives added features like voice communication without the developer worrying how to implement it. It provides a central place for updates and mods. It lets customers have a persistent identity for all the games they play. If MS wasn't providing the location, most developers would probably just build a server component for Windows and *nix, hope enough people donate servers for gameplay, and have the gamer look for servers with a good ping like they do on the PC. Many of the companies that may want to make an online game can't afford the expense of building their own network. Most game developers that charge for the online component of their game lose potential customers because people don't want to pay for each game they want to play online. XBOX Live is different because the announced price is reasonable, and one fee gives you access to all games.
As to the money MS may lose, they aren't in this just for the short term. They have already shown that they can break into the market. Eventually they can be prosperous, but they first want to show their commitment to the marketplace. #18 Sega, Konami, Tecmo, Capcom, Infragrams, Activision, etc. aren't big name publishers? |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/22/2002 12:36:57 PM |
| Enforcer, you seem to forget that it costs millions to develop these games. |
| #18 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 5/22/2002 2:18:39 PM |
|
sodajerk, your ploy is interesting. You can't bad-mouth MS's LIVE effort... so you resort to questioning their economics. LOL. Just let them worry about how to turn a profit... I think they understand the economics better than you ever will. And you have NO idea how much MS is losing per console. You also don't know how much Nintendo is losing per console. You are GUESSING.
MS is bringing a single GUI for online play, which is a HUGE leap forward. Did you read my post? MOST developers NEED the type of assistance that MS is offering. MOST developers NEED someone to do the heavy lifting, otherwise they would be seriously delayed or not able to produce online games capable of competing with the big (EA, Sega, etc) guys. sodajerk, you seem to be saying "HOW IS MICROSOFT ABLE TO DELIVER ALL THESE GREAT ABILITIES SO AFFORDABLY?". Thats quite an endorsement, IMO. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 14:20. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/22/2002 2:38:54 PM |
|
mooresa, sure, I'm guessing-I think I was being pretty damn conservative about MS losing $150 though--it's probably more. As for Nintendo, it's pretty common knowledge that they do in fact make a profit on consoles. If you look at the tech and you look at the fact that they have been doing their own production for many years now, this makes sense.
I read your post--I don't think you are properly envisioning this marketplace. It's an online game--most developers are going to NEED to be the big guys to develop online games with any success. Besides, who says they have to build your own infrastructure--most of the data providers throughout the country are dying for a few customers--I would rather pay for my needs and have a provider handle the load and technology--especially since this market is going to take five years to develop. No I'm not endorsing them--I'm saying they are sinking a sh!tload of money into something that they don't have a well-defined model for, something which they don't know what the demand is from developers or users, and for something that they are way behind on. Think about it--if MS sells 4 games to every 1 Sony game they are still behind. If MS sold 300% more boxes next year they would still have less than a third of the marketshare of Sony (16 million vs. 50 million). That's not an endorsement. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/22/2002 3:50:19 PM |
| btw, PS2 software units sold = 160 million. That's 8 per unit. So MS has to sell 30+ titles per unit to keep pace with Sony (if that's their goal--I sure hope it's not). And that's assuming equal cost to both parties, mooresa, which we both know is DEFINITELY not the the case. |
| #21 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/22/2002 4:11:40 PM |
|
Sodajerk, it costs millions to develop a game, anyway. Not just online titles, but almost any game made by a large publisher. They recoup this cost strictly from game sells. That's not to say all games cost millions to produce. The PC has tons of games (fun games) that were produced by people with few funds. The XBOX has also proven that you don't need to be a big developer like EA to produce a good game. Many good games have come from largely unknown developers -- people that never had a chance with Sony or Nintendo.
The majority of these companies get greater benefits simply by developing their game for a console instead of a PC. By developing for a console, or a mix of console/PC, developers gain a wider potential customer base. Just by producing console content, developers get more sells than they otherwise would. The only thing seperating an online game from a offline game is slight differences in play-mechanics and the addition of networking code. Even though MS is providing a framework for interaction with the XBOX Live service, many implementation and customization details are still left up to the developer. Many are happy with what MS is providing. It lessens the work they must do and provides them with easy access to their target audience. The majority of companies are not interested in paying data providers money to keep their game online. This eats into their profits and requires increased demand for support staff. Many will never charge for online content, because they have no desire to, or they know that it will limit the potential audience for their game, or (as stated above) increase their costs. Look at the PC market for all the proof you need that pay-for-play games generally don't work. The reason is that gamers have consistently stated that they don't want to be in a position where every game offering online play costs them money on top of which they have already paid for the game initially. This is why the Quake model of online play has prevailed. Many gamers regard online play as a value-added feature. A game can get more sells simply by having online play. Modification is also a plus. Developers benefit simply from these additions. id Software's revenue comes almost entirely from this realization. The market isn't going to take five years to develop. It is here, now, and has been for some time. This post was edited by n4cer on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 16:12. |
| #22 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/22/2002 4:33:37 PM |
|
MS' goal isn't to keep pace with Sony's current installed base. It's to take some of that base away from Sony, and eventually (XBOX 2 / 3) gain a sizeable marketshare. They know that this most likely wont happen with XBOX 1.
One of the things they are counting on is for people to eventually see through Sony's hype. Sony may have over 20 million users worldwide, but eventually, people will realize how much hype and how little hardware Sony really is. PC users already know this thanks to 3D acceleration on the PC. Sony has always overhyped the quality, cost, and performance of their hardware starting with the original PSX. People (and developers -- some already have) will soon tire of enduring sub-Voodoo 1 quality graphics with framerates that lower with each sequel. Some defend this shortcoming by claiming that gameplay is more important than graphics, but when you have consistently low and jumpy framerates, you can't have good gameplay. If Sony continues their usual routine of hype over hardware with the PS3's release, greater numbers will see through their charade and not take it anymore. This provides another opening for Microsoft with XBOX/XBOX2. Sony is going to eventually have to switch a lot of people over to PS 3. This is where MS can gain even more customers. |
| #23 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/22/2002 7:00:09 PM |
|
enforcer, post #25--this is just silly speculation. I know the goal isn't to keep pace with Sony, but in many respects--and quite unlike Nintendo--MS has to keep pace or the developers and users will start to abandon them. This is what happened to Sega.
As for #24, you haven't addressed the issue--yes, there are a number of different models and developers will want to pursue many different directions. MS is going to only offer one. But you haven't explained how these developers are supposed to make money off the development costs. Yes, the most successful online games are free (that's my whole point--how do you charge something people don't want to pay for? how do you profit on something expensive that you can't sell?), but some developers want to make money. You are saying they should do it for free, hand it over to MS who WILL make money on it, and screw themselves even if they desired to recoup the cost of development--all for the sake of advertising. That's nuts. If you want a pay model (and this one is even if it's a low cost yearly subscription), the developers will want a piece of it. |
| #24 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 5/22/2002 9:00:57 PM |
|
Sodajerk, I've already explained that the developers make money from game sells. This is where their profit comes from. It is no different than the way things currently work. They already do online for free. Check the majority of PC developers. An IGN write-up of the service mentioned that MS left the option for developers to charge for their games, but I don't believe this is accurate based upon MS' announcement at E3. We shall see. The service will shortly enter a beta period through which more details will be revealed. MS has an XBOX advisory board made up of many game developers, so if there were any major problems with the proposed service, they would have been discussed.
The bottom line is that most developers have already seen the failures of charging to play a game online. With only a few exceptions, gamers have been unwilling to pay on a per-game basis to play online. Mainly, the only options have been to offer the game as a service with no fee or a nominal fee for the initial packaged media, or to charge for the game and not charge for multiplay. Online play has traditionally not been a for-profit feature. It has been a feature that has been added if it fits the game and there is the potential for increased playability from its addition. Traditionally, there have only been charges for premium services offering things like tournaments and ladder competitions for prizes and such. Even these things are offered for free by some. For most games, online is just a feature. Trying to charge for it just because your game supports it is like charging for 2-player support, or 3D instead of 2D. It is a design decision. It is better to charge for updates and episodic content, which has been much more successful. This (apparently) is an option with XBOX Live. Whatever happens, we will know in a few months time. By then, we will have all of the details. But, from what I have seen in interviews with developers, and on various gaming-related forums, many developers don't have a problem with the setup, and many XBOX owners and potential owners don't mind the announced price/package. When things are finalized and no longer beta, we should have a better understanding of how things will work. ========== If any of you guys from ActiveWin are reading this thread. Please consider taking some of the issues discussed here, and see if you can get an interview with J. Allard and the XBOX live guys. Try to specifically include Sodajerks questions about whether developers get a cut of the subscription fee, or are offered any incentives/deals to take their games online w/ XBOX Live. Also ask if developers have the option of charging specifically for their online content, or have the option of using something other than XBOX Live, such as writing their own server software and giving it away (doubtful, for security reasons). This post was edited by n4cer on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 21:01. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 175 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:19:36 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
