Xbox Live: Microsoft's bet
by Jennie Lees 
{ Dec 30th 2005 at 8:00AM }
Today's Wall Street Journal has delved into the ins and outs of Microsoft's gamble to expand online gaming to
every gamer with the Xbox 360. Aiming to entice at least 50% of customers online--a figure previously unheard of with
Xbox Live, although Nintendo's wifi venture has approached it--Microsoft have spent an
estimated $1 billion on the Live service. That's a lot of money to spend in order to get customers signed up and spending their own money in return--the question is whether the gamble will pay off. The WSJ have also put together a flashy comparison of the three next-gen offerings from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, for anyone who's been living under a rock for the last year. One of the key online differences is the lack of a planned centralised online service in Sony and Nintendo's lineup, but that's offset by the lack of service fees, so may see more absolute signups. It's going to be a tough battle, and online gaming will be the only clear winner.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Lite @ Dec 30th 2005 9:18AM
I think Microsoft might be onto something here.
The PS2 online totally sucks, and looks and functions like an afterthought.
If Xbox live can keep up the momentum and still make inroads into the living room/hom entertainment arena, no reason to not keep being successful.
It's not the hardware thats going to make them the money, it's the peripherals.
Wiliam @ Dec 30th 2005 9:24AM
It's kind of funny that their big online push features a monthly charge to play peer-hosted games, as well as the fact that you have to actually buy the Wifi adapter for the 360 in the first place.
I agree that Sony needs gamertags and friends, but I really don't like that path that Microsoft has taken.
This is coming from a mostly PC gamer, I own Call of Duty 2 PC, it plays great online with 32 players and I don't have to pay for it. (Compare with 360 version which supports 8 players, and is a mess. See the IGN piece on CoD2 360).
Wiliam @ Dec 30th 2005 9:27AM
Just to clarify, it's the online portion of CoD2 360 that's almost unplayable, not the single-player.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/677/677174p1.html
Chris @ Dec 30th 2005 9:51AM
#2 no you do not have the have the wifi adapter. Xbox live vs. sony online is not even a comparison. Yes it may be $50 a year but it's well worth it
zero2dash @ Dec 30th 2005 10:04AM
I've been an Xbox Live subscriber for roughly 4 years, and overall I've been really pleased with it. The only problem I have now is, I don't get a chance to use it all that much and most likely, will be canceling it within a day or so before I'm billed for another year's worth of [now unused] service.
With the few days that I've played Mario Kart DS over WiFi, I can honestly say that while centralized servers would be nice - if Nintendo's plan involves anything close to being as good as DS games online, and it's free, but *not* centralized, then I won't give a crap. A lot of people will complain that there's no Friends lists and there's no easy way to add friends (at least with Mario Kart DS) but the truth of the matter is, the friends that I know who have the game have given me their WiFi ID#, and the other people I play are just random matchups which are fine by me.
As for Sony - I haven't played a Ps2 online since way back in the day when Tony Hawk 3 could be played using USB adapters, but I've heard for a long time that the Ps2 wasn't a good online experience (for the most part). I can't say much about it either way, I'm just mentioning it for the sake of mentioning it.
Centralized servers - again, not necessary to me at this point. I don't have that much time that I can play online all that much anyway, and if a company (no matter who it is) can offer me free online play for the times when I do want to play, then I'd easily prefer them over the company wanting to charge for access but that does have the central server/buddy list setup.
Just my .02.
Wiliam @ Dec 30th 2005 10:12AM
@ #4:
Yes, you do indeed have to buy the Wifi adapater to play wireless. Compare this to native wifi support in such devices as... DS, PSP, PS3.
JP @ Dec 30th 2005 10:15AM
Yeah, the $50 a year is why only 10% of XBox users are on live. Hopefully they can get this up a bit, but honestly it sucks because unless you're playing Halo2 or some other bigname game, there is NOBODY online. I paid for one year's LIVE, but I don't think I'd do it again.
DStovall @ Dec 30th 2005 10:39AM
I think that Nintendo's strategy with the DS is the way to go for online services in a console. Xbox live is very robust, with lots of great features. But it really is bloated for an online service for the casual gamer. I think that is one reason why only 10% of Xbox owners have a live subscription. With a stripped down, streamlined online service that the DS users, it is really easy for the casual gamer to enjoy online gaming without feeling like they are investing too much into it. I hope that Nintedo doesn't change a thing for the Revolution's online service. Keep it simple stupid. The DS has shown that you can attract casual gamers to an online service in large numbers if you design it right for them.
silverback @ Dec 30th 2005 10:39AM
You forget that there are plenty of free features with the silver membership in Xbox live, game achievments, game demo downloads, movie trailer downloads, patches & other game enhancement down loads, all these the xbox live experience very rich. Additionally you can pay for great Xbox Live Arcade games.
Please don't use COD2 online issues to prove that Xbox Live sucks. The problems in this area are developer issues and not problems with Xbl. Xbl has the capacity if developers support it to provide the best quality live experience anywhere. This is not debatable but a fact.
There are really only two developents in this next generation of gaming that are going to really add depth to game play. These developments are the revolution controller and Xbox Live. The PS3 offers nothing but a new optical drive. I think in the long run MS's Xbox live service prove to be the best gamble in the console gaming community.
Chris @ Dec 30th 2005 10:43AM
Yes you do have to buy the adapter if you want to play wireless but it is not required. 2nd $50 is again not a lot of money for a year of service about $4.16 a month if you can't afford that well then go cry in your trailor.
Hamson @ Dec 30th 2005 11:21AM
So Microsoft still isn't saying anything about the terrible voice quality for the 360? Dang.
Johan @ Dec 30th 2005 11:24AM
@ #10:
Yes, and your post clearly demonstrates why 90% of XBox users decided NOT to pay monthly fees to hear the likes of you endlessly talking trash on the headsets.
Maximoisgood @ Dec 30th 2005 11:38AM
I think that this battle already has a clear winner, well as far as NintedoDS and XboxLive. Who has the way higher percentage of subscribers?
SuicideNinja @ Dec 30th 2005 11:54AM
First of all, who cares about wireless for a console? If you want the best performance, you should be wired. It's simply more reliable and stable (not to mention that 90%+ wireless users don't know how to secure a wireless setup so their neighbors can leech). Just try playing next gen games with janky wireless connections (especially FPS's). Good luck. Leave the wireless to the portables, or for connecting portables to consoles.
Sony sucks at everything online. I think they took lessons from AOL or something. And they'll do it again. Their online service offers squat, and a non-controlled environment makes it worse.
Xbox live is awesome, and for free, Nintendo's WiFi service is pretty good. I don't mind paying the small fee for Xbox Live. It's better than say some magazine that never gets read. It's definitely worth it for the 360, although I don't know if I can agree for the original Xbox unless you play Halo 2.
Spartacus @ Dec 30th 2005 11:56AM
XBL is a great deal. One of the most popular online games of all time (WoW) costs 15 bucks a month to play ($180 a year) compared to XBL which allows online play of HUNDREDS of games. With the 360, the added marketplace, free downloads of demos, trailers and themes, this service is only strengthened. I must admit that on the XBOX, about the only game that I played on LIVE was Halo 2, but it looks like the 360 will push developers more into supporting it and supporting it right. PGR3 already takes full advantage of LIVE as a launch game with success, I can't wait to see what later games will do...
There was an article on a Playstation website that interviewed J Allard and one of the PS3 guys (honestly can't remember if it was Ken or someone else). Allard said it best when he compared LIVE to cable TV. Yes, there is a fee. Yes, most people who have used it would agree that it is well worth it and much better than free TV signals picked up with your trusty bunny ears. I think this comparison is even more valid with digital cable capabilities such as TV guides, DVR's, Pay-per-View etc. Anyone who has used cable TV with those capabilities would NOT want to go back to the antenna. It's just going to take a while for LIVE to really catch on. I think MS has a quality service that is worth every penny, however you're more than welcome to disagree. Have fun with your bunny ears ;)
[Jesse] @ Dec 30th 2005 1:00PM
I just signed up for Xbox live this Monday, and I can honestly say it is well worth the money! I've played the PS2 online, and it sucked. First of all, if this was a new game that you wanted to play online, you had to take 5-10 minutes entering in a (new) name, password, address, phone number, state, zip code, country, email address, would you like to recieve spam from our partners? (y/n), are you sure? it's really cool! (y/n), do you aggree to our terms and conditions? (y/n) and then you'd get to go look for a game to play.
Another great feature is the quickmatch across all games, just hit that, and you've got a game going! Not only that, but pretty much everyone has a headset, so you get to chat about what's going on in the game, strategy, and trash talking (some more than others...) And finaly, the friends list! Have a really great time playin with someone on the ps2? Too bad that you'll never see them again. Have a really great time playin with someone on Xbox live? Yay! You've made a friend! Now whenever you start up your xbox, you can see what your friends are doing, decide to join their game, and have fun with someone you know!
I think that the Mario Kart DS online experience is pretty great, too. I just don't think the same of Animal Crossing. I'd like to meet random people (no matter how unsafe it is) but I guess I'll just need to hope more of my neighbors don't move away... (Wolfgang!!! Where are you?! Why did you leave us?!)
Xbox live: going out to an Applebee's
Playstation: making your own meal at home
Nintendo: Just add water
If your willing to take some effort and work, you could save some $$$ but it still might not be as good as the resturant's meal. If your willing to spend the money, you could get a better meal without needing to cook it (and you may even meet a few friends while you're there!) Sorry, I couldn't think of anything better :-)
kilo 113 @ Dec 30th 2005 1:24PM
yeah^ true. there are a lot of annoyances with xblive, but it really is a great online service. $50/yr signup will stop a lot of people from joining in, but at least they'll be able to download demostrailerslive arcade games with the silver account.
although not perfect, right now it's the best for online among the consoles. and if sony doesn't change the old ps2Online for ps3, then xblive might be the only online service worth using.
Sergio @ Dec 30th 2005 1:41PM
I think it comes down to how much value each individual can get out of each respective service.
Xbox LIVE! I've only used for Halo 2, since it is the only Xbox game I felt like playing online. For me, my interest will pick up when co-op play for Gears of War comes out. So if there is only one game out there for you, then the Xbox LIVE! Gold package may not be for you.
Also, if there are a few publishers who want to collect subscriber fees, I think we'd probably see them released for PC or PS3, and not the Xbox 360. Or are the LIVE! fans willing to pay game-specific subscription fees on top of their LIVE! fee?
A non-centralized game experience has existed on PCs long before Xbox LIVE!, so it isn't as important to a lot of gamers, as much as Microsoft and LIVE! fans would like to believe. You do not need a centralized service to make friends online and continue playing that game with your new friend. Xbox LIVE! only makes it easier to carry these new friends over to other games. But then again, if you really made a new friend, you can easily exchange other game info through chat.
Anyway, I can make a better meal at home than Applebee's, but nice try at an analogy. :)
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Dec 30th 2005 2:07PM
There's a funny quote from a financial analyst, who appears to quite an expert on online video gaming:
----------
Added Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Morgan Securities: "At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction … We play games to escape." Microsoft's strategy is "absolutely flawed," he said.
----------
Obviously this fellow has never played online multiplayer games. As a member of SeasonedGamers.com, there is NOTHING more fun than playing games with a great bunch of other gamers. Mr. Pachter is completely missing the point of online multiplayer gaming. Escapism and social interaction aren't mutually exclusive, in fact when done right - World of Warcraft, Halo 2, Game of Empire (http://www.wolfpackempire.com/) - social interaction in video games enhances the escape from reality.
Note to self, don't buy stocks based on Mr. Pachter's recommendations.
m3mnoch @ Dec 30th 2005 3:53PM
lots of good xbox live benefits mentioned already, so i'll try not to rehash them. really, tho, the "why pay for cable when you can get 5 stations free?" argument really says it all. heh. what's the cable subscription penetration? something approaching 90% i believe. not sure, tho.
did anyone talk achievements? the gamerscore thing rocks. comparing yours to your friends' (or other players') achievements rules. being able to prove you beat halo 3 on legendary? priceless.
anyway.
first some history: i've been online since the late 80's. been on the web since mosaic in '93. (actually co-founded a very successful web development company in '96.) i was a huge, huge pc gamer. played doom online. quake online. (a host of other games too) quake 2 was my pinnacle -- 6-8 hours a day, 7 days a week. (that was back before the wife and kid. heh.) i remember when gamespy wasn't a media company, but a couple of kids putting together a common interface for pc gamers to hook up and play popular games. i've been on xbox live since the beta. i have the cool live beta memory unit, package and t-shirt that came with it. hell -- i attend e3 every year.
i mention all of that to point out that i have been around the block with this whole multiplayer scene. in fact, the online world and games have been paying my mortgage for a long time now.
i feel like i am qualified to say: xbox live kicks ass.
we all know that the sony service is terrible. even the hardcore sony fans admit it. so, i'm not really gonna talk about that. and, since the ds and the psp are portables, they really aren't what i'm talking about either. it's the mindset of "i can play online pc games for free" that i'm going to tackle. (and, wow doesn't count. tho, it's economics are surprisingly similar to xbox live.)
since becoming a live junkie, i now hate pc gaming online.
i actually missed the counterstrike boat. i peaked too early to really get on board with it. so i feel a bit late to the party when i play it these days. some of my buddies (hardcore pc gamers) play it all the time and invited me to play the week before christmas. since being absent from the online pc gaming world for a while, i had assumed things were better and smoother these days. nope. a few things stuck out.
1) only one other of my friends had a headset.
2) typing while playing sucks.
3) "hit the tilde", "type connect", "oh, and here's the ip address to connect to the server" all sounded retarded and like too much work.
4) i was chained to and hunched over my computer desk.
now, none of those are really impediments to me playing the game. just a short list of annoyances. (tho, it really was nice to get back to a keyboard and mouse for an fps. *sigh*) playing online pc games for me isn't hard. it's just irritating when i know it could be easier.
i guess i'm one of those people who will gladly pay $4 a month to not be annoyed and not have to work to hook up with my friends for a game.
now, contrast that with my xbox live experience i (http://live.xbox.com/en-US/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=m3mnoch) had with my friend jon (http://live.xbox.com/en-US/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=trizity) a few days ago. (notice how i can't post links to any of my pc friends i was playing with?) in fact, you can see it in our game history. we played joust and pgr3 that night.
here's how it went:
i was watching a movie (the new charlie and the chocolate factory -- a terrible 2 hours of my life i'll never have back... but that's another story.) when an alert popped up on my xbox 360 that jon was online. i picked up the controller from the coffee table (where it sits with my other remotes), hit the guide button and sent him a voice message saying "what's up?" he sent me back a chat request and i accepted. so, we started talking. we were talking about how cool it was that the older games like joust and whatnot were on xbox arcade now. so, we decided to play some joust. (my movie is still in the xbox) talking the whole time, we both opened up joust and started a new game. (he is actually a helluva lot better than i am at it....)
after a bit of that, talking the whole time, we decided to put in pgr3. so, i got up walked over and swapped out the movie for pgr3 -- still talking the whole time the game fired up. he created a game and invited me to it. talk, talk, talk. (you know, family, christmas, etc.) we raced for a while, checking out the new cars and all. comparing them. (and, dammit. he is a little better at pgr than i am too. i'll have to work on that.) somewhere in there, i got up, walked to the kitchen and got a snack. still connected. still online. still talking.
no typing. no tilde key. no ip addresses. you don't have to start all over with a different game. it just works.
for me, xbox live isn't really so much about matchmaking for any single game. it's more about connecting my living room, regardless of the activity, with jon's. or matt's. or ben's. or brodie's. or any of the other sixty-some-odd folks on my friends list. with xbox live, no matter what you are doing in your living room (music, movies, games) you are connected to your friends.
personally, i think that's pretty damn compelling.
m3mnoch.
Gimbal @ Dec 30th 2005 4:10PM
Those that use the service more often to play online games, keep in contact/make friends, download content and all the other things it offers will most likely find that Xbox Live is a great service.
Those that don't play online that often or do much else besides play the game that they buy as-is will probably balk at spending money on a service they would rarely ever use.
Makes perfect sense to me.
But now you can do everthing except multiplayer online games for free. How in the world do people manage to find a problem with something that?
So the only thing one could really complain about it paying $50 a year (about $4 a month) in order to play multiplayer online games.
That is about what I pay a month for the convenience of TiVo.
Sure, I could sit there and manually hit the record button whever a show I want comes on. Or maybe set the timer on my VCR and tell it what channel and at what time to start and stop. TiVo does all that for me, and then some. Tivo's functionality and convenience are what make it such a worthwhile service.
But no matter how functional and convenient it is, I would never recommend it to someone who doesn't really watch TV.
I dig Xbox Live in the same way I dig my TiVo.
Of course all this, the playing games, downloading content, friends lists, recording and managing TV shows etc, all this can be done on a PC. And if you find that route to be a more worthwhile endevear of your time and money, more power to you. All I can say is that I've enjoyed Tivo and Xbox Live more than I have getting similar services running on my PC. Why?
Because I could wash all the dishes by hand, but I'm the kind of lazy-ass who uses a dishwasher. To each his own.
Have a safe and happy New Year everybody!
zero2dash @ Dec 30th 2005 5:55PM
#13. First of all, who cares about wireless for a console? If you want the best performance, you should be wired. It's simply more reliable and stable (not to mention that 90%+ wireless users don't know how to secure a wireless setup so their neighbors can leech). Just try playing next gen games with janky wireless connections (especially FPS's). Good luck. Leave the wireless to the portables, or for connecting portables to consoles.
***
Unless you're too far away from the router/gateway, then wireless is no different than wired. 802.11b has a throughput of 11mb/s, standard 10/100 is (obviously) 10minimum, 100 maximum. MOST broadband lines are 6mb/s or under. Both WiFi and wired networks have larger pipelines than 99% of the broadband connection's rated line speed.
Unless you have serious interference with appliances, WiFi is no different than wired. That's my experience at least. We just recently bought new phones and went for 5.8ghz to alleviate for the interference problem with 2.4ghz phones (the wireless spectrum that 802.11b/g run on). Therefore unless your tv and game console is 1ft from your microwave, you shouldn't have any problems.
-just my experience at least-
All my future online console play will be over WiFi. I had a wired cat5 going through a wall to my entertainment center (from my pc/router room), but everything will be WiFi from now on.
Soon Hiu Vchai @ Dec 30th 2005 6:39PM
The WSJ got it wrong. Unusual, but true in this case.
XBL is a great service and people do play games for social interaction. Human intelligence usually beats AI and beating a real person is infinitely more satisfying.
I have played at least 3 of my 20 or so games online and had a ball. I look at the online multiplayer tag on the box before buying. If its a single player with no online play (like most RPGs), I put it back on the shelf. I would rather pay more and play an MMORPG.
I cant wait for XBL MMORPGs. Can you imagine GTA multiplayer. Oh, it would absolutely riok! But even quickmatch games are fantastic. Rallysport Challenge 2 which is a grandfather of PRG3 its so old still always has quickmatches available. So does Crimson Skies. And Halo 2 of course.
Andrew @ Dec 30th 2005 7:13PM
Let's talk telecommunications here,
Firstly, people don't want to pay for online when they're really isn't any apparent benefit over other services that are free.
The only thing that's trapped people into paying is purchasing the Xbox and with online play becoming more and more mandatory paying for an additional 60$ / year isn't really appealing atop of a 40$/month broadband bill.
What many people don't know is that MS had an online service that predated Live, called XB Connect which was essentially a system link hack that was actually released by MS. Which is pretty much the same as XB Live with the exception that it doesn't have headsets.
XB Live is a glorified P2P service, most of these servers are client hosted (i.e.: on your Xbox, which is why you get the BSOD whenever someone shuts off theirs)
There's also several hardware and software glitches on both consoles. The wired controllers are defective if you wrap them up traditionally, which isn't warned against in the manual.
Well shit, online play has been around since ... ARPAnet.
It isn't anything new, no one should have to pay for something they've already pay for : The Internet.
Imagine if I had to pay an extra 60$ a year to browse the Internet on my computer. Jesus christ, that's outrageous.
As long as customers have to subscribe to something, it will always be in some sorta minority or niche, never really mainstream.
MMOs are understandable, since they've actual server costs.
m3mnoch @ Dec 30th 2005 10:25PM
wow. i don't even know where to start with these....
zero2dash:
10/100 is not minimum and maximum. embarassingly for you, that's a dual functioning nic/router/switch/hub that supports both 10base-t and 100base-t speeds. sort of like when wireless routers support 802.11a/b and g. and, the further away you get with wired, you actually have basically the same speed. up to a run of about 500 ft, i think. i don't really remember. it's been about 6 years since i wired an office myself.
Andrew:
"let's talk telecommunications?" okay. when? you aren't talking telecommunications. you're bitching about paying extra for a matchmaking service. that's a pretty obtuse statement to make just to try for a "dramatic" opening.
online play has been around since arpanet? um. i think i'll give you that one, tho, i don't think it's technically correct. arpanet was a dod initiative, so you can bet there were no games on it. tho, i think moria came out before parts of arpanet turned into the internet (basically even fancier packet switching) we all love today. i get your point tho, and agree with you. it's been around for a long, long time.
and, it's been free. and, probably always will be. just like over-the-air television.
you see, you can watch leno or letterman for free but, it'll cost you to watch the daily show with john stewart. and, it'll cost you extra to tivo it too.
the outrage! they are charging us for content!?!? they are charging us for extra services?!?! they killed kenny too?!?! (yeah - southpark's not on "free" tv either.) those bastards!
by your logic, that's basically a crime against humanity. you're not paying for the basic ability to play against other people, you tool. you're paying for a better service where part of it is more easily hooking you up with people you want to play with.
how about not being matched with dilholes? matchmaking based on feedback? matchmaking based on zone? yeah. all of that works with a unified service like live. not with free piecemeal crap. believe me. as soon as someone can offer live features (with the same ease of use, scale and quality, of course) for free, i'll dump xbox live like a bad habit. everyone will.
i'll take my fancy, high-quality, cost of a single cup of coffee a month service, please -- with a smile.
m3mnoch.
p.s. the funniest part about your comments? i bet you are a cable subscriber....
Sergio @ Dec 30th 2005 11:10PM
I have TiVo. I don't pay extra for it though. Must be just me. :)
Shane @ Dec 31st 2005 11:10AM
I paid for a year of Live, I used it sometimes but it's annoying that the cost is there. I do more PC gaming now, and it's nice to be able to crack out any game and play it without paying.
Certainly if you're 'hard core' and do clan matches and all that, then the $60 a year (in Canada) is not a big deal. But for a casual gamer like myself I find it annoying. Hence Ill be passing the 360; I can already play the best game for it (CoD2) on my PC, lol. And I don't have to pay annual fees to do so. And it supports more than 8 (!!) players.
Jan @ Dec 31st 2005 11:14AM
Bingo.
m3mnoch @ Dec 31st 2005 12:09PM
read carefully:
you're not paying for the basic ability to play against other people.
you're paying for a better (advanced matchmaking, plug and play, unified across games and services, etc.) service where PART of it is hooking you up with people you want to play with.
if you're happy with basic channels for free, stick with it. not everyone wants to pay for cable or tivo or cell phones or sms or even broadband. all of that is pay extra for extra features kind of stuff.
m3mnoch.
p.s. i don't pay for my dvr either. tho, it's not tivo. i run a much, much cooler mythtv box. more features AND it's free.
ikkaruss @ Dec 31st 2005 12:49PM
Microsoft, do you want the xbox live to blow up? GIVE US SOME GOOD CONTENT TO DOWNLOAD. SCREW SHITTY TRAILERS AND DEMOS, GIVE US FULL VERSIONS OF YOUR FLASH GAMES AND AS MUCH GOOD CONTENT AS POSSIBLE.
Wun @ Dec 31st 2005 6:25PM
I dont get why people luv talkn shizz bout the PS3 when da effin thing's not even out yet....dat fool wots his name from ATI dissed it so much sounded like a cry baby lol, J. Allard laughed at it because all he knows (in his mind) is that PS3 cant be beta but nothing has proved it ....n then online service...for all you know sony just comes out with a free service dats jus nyce and effective in every game...pretty sure yall would go on it dun be lying to yourself .... by the way i think live is ok but just ok ..to me go on PC if yu need to play online so much easier