Xbox Live not Microsoft's killer app?

by Blake Snow { Dec 22nd 2006 at 8:10AM }

Reuters suggest that Xbox Live may not be the killer app for the 360 as Microsoft both hopes and promotes as such. Popular analyst David Cole believes the Xbox platform so far has only appealed to "a solid base of hardcore gamers who are drawn to its first person shooters." He calls the Live user segment "small" noting that of the 6 million gamers that purchased Halo 2, only a third of those ventured online.

But that was two years ago, and Microsoft openly admits to a mere 10% Live adoption rate for the original Xbox. Furthermore, the company states that "more than 50 percent of all Xbox 360s are taken online," implying that online play is becoming a gaming necessity not just for the hardcore, but the casual as well.

Still, Cole remains unconvinced. He says, "Games that do not depend on Web play -- such as some roll-playing [sic] games -- are most important ... The key to the 360's overall success is what they'll offer consumers who don't go online."

Tags: Xbox Live, XboxLive

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

John @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:17AM

Or it could imply that the 360's install base is comprised mainly of 'hardcore' gamers.

silkylove @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:19AM

Console games will never be driven by online play IMO. There are tons of people who just prefer to play games solo or splitscreen with their friends over. Those types will never go online to game. I personally go online for computer gaming much more than for console gaming. Xbox live can be really annoying sometimes with all the kids screaming in your ear.

007craft @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:25AM

The only reason Im with xbox is because of their superb online play. I bought an xbox 1 for halo 2 and loved playing online so much, I became addicted. I finally abandoned nintendo after my many faithful years with them as my offline gamecube was getting me nowhere and the wiis online system is non-existent to crap (friends codes).

Sorry but im older now. All my friends have full time jobs and/or still in university and live some distance away. We get together like once a month if even and usualy its for a time period of like 2-3 hours. This makes the good ol days of split screen party games over for us. Thankfully, Xbox live exists and we are able to play during the week with each other over live (we all bought 360s with live). I dont know what I would do without xbox live.

So erm yeah, I disagree with whoever we are talking about here who claims non-live games are more important. I dont even look at non-live games now (unless its some crazy long RPG or something.... Those "beat em in 20 hours or less" 1 player games dont get my dollar.)

Steven @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:24AM

silklylove, I'm not sure you understand how things evolve on Earth. Saying that "console games will never be driven by online play" is like saying that cars won't fly one day or we won't be able to control robots with our minds (http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/15/u-of-w-researchers-show-off-brain-controlled-humanoid-bot/).
It's just how things are. It may not happen now (although I think it will), but it "will" happen at some point.

Paper Tiger @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:48AM

He seems to miss the point. What makes Xbox live great is that it's not just about competitive multiplayer gaming. It's about having a unique identity within a gaming community that records your achievements and the games you played. It's about having the infrastructure to create services such as www.360voice.com. It's about being able to take a break from Gears of War and without getting up from your seat, playing a quick game of Uno. I've been a subscriber since the first day and I play online only rarely.

Serious Kriss @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:33AM

"more than 50 percent of all Xbox 360s are taken online" isn't the same as "more than 50% of all Xbox 360 users play online with Xbox Live". Does anyone really know the adoption rate of Xbox Live Gold aside from Microsoft?

modeps @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:33AM

I hate the buzzword "killer app"

Gott @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:37AM

Same here.

If I'm looking at a game, not matter how fun the single player aspect may be, if it doesn't have a solid online portion I will not buy it. I got caught up in Oblivion hype...but that won't happen again.

Maybe I was spoiled by Halo2, which I played for almost a year(which is a pretty amazing amount of time since most games get old after a month or two) but i look for games that offer me many hours after the single player is beaten.

Sure it takes some time for your average non-gamer type to get used to Live. I remember for me I was a little nervous going on and talking to people online...but it is so much better than playing the computer every single time you play. Haven't you had enough of that the last 15 yrs? Get a 360, drop your inhibitions, get online and have fun. It is really an amazing and almost seamless system Microsoft has in place with Xbox Live.

Icupnimpn2 @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:38AM

"such as some roll-playing games"
----
Like what, Forza? PGR?

baby sea tuna @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:39AM

Every single 360 owner I know (with 1 exception) is on LIVE. At this point, I personally can't imagine not having it.

If analysts are poo-poohing this online service, I can't even imagine what they've got to say about the other two...

silkylove @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:39AM

Steven,

I stand by my post in spite of the condescending nature of yours. Just because online play is available doesn't mean that most gamers will want to play online. The single player experience will not go away. The multiplayer experience will not go away either. Some people have no interest in playing with people from around the world when they sit down on their couch to play games. For example I give you monopoly. There have been many online versions of monopoly for years, but most people still would prefer to dust off the board and play with their friends rather than go online to play.

For another example I give you sporting events. High definition TVs, superior microphones and high definition broadcasts mean that you will probably see much more of a sporting event on TV then you would ever see if you were at the arena, but most fans would rather be at the arena anyway.

Just because getting online is easier than ever now and will only get easier in the future does not mean that in the future most people will want to play videogames online.

Ricardo Cuesta @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:41AM

I think the online play especially CO-OP is very important and a great selling point. Do you think gears of war would have done as well without the CO-OP feature? It is something that set it apart as it wasn't just a copy of the person like halo though that is perfectly fine as any CO-OP kicks butt. As someone else mentioned as we get older we can no longer go to our friends house on a regular basis if it all due to RL stuff so is nice you can get together here and there for a few hours and play a game together. I think analyst think multiplayer means deathmatches like halo when it is alot more than that. Basically I am very thankful there is online playing as I love to play with people and services like xbox live make my love of video game playing with my family and friends continue.

Buckshot @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:50AM

#9 baby sea tuna "Every single 360 owner I know (with 1 exception) is on LIVE. At this point, I personally can't imagine not having it."
Couldn't have said it better myself. And the "silver" memberships have not even been mentioned yet. Even my wife has one of those:)

Spence @ Dec 22nd 2006 11:49AM

I agree with that the 360s Live isn't that big a deal. The fact that Microsoft charges for it, when Sony and anyone who uses a PC can get the online content free, is beyond me.

Austin @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:07AM

This is a pitch story to sell research. Someone at a PR firm is getting a nice bonus this year.

Pixelantes Anonymous @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:54AM

I also am an online multiplayer junkie, especially sports games. One day, I hope, some developer (not 2K or EA, apparently) will develop a hockey game with 5 on 5 coop play. When that day comes I will be fired from my job for not showing up to work for weeks.

Anyway, I've learnt not to listen to these "analysts". This one doesn't even get his freakin' terminology right. "web play"? WTF is that? Him saying that shows exactly how much he knows about the online multiplayer gaming and XBL. Keep on playing Chess against your little brother on Yahoo games, buddy.

As bad as Pachter is, at least he knows the business. He just makes all the wrong conclusions.

The Intangible Fact @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:55AM

8. "such as some roll-playing games"
----
Like what, Forza? PGR?

Posted at 8:37AM on Dec 22nd 2006 by Icupnimpn2 0 stars

The 360 is the most well rounded system when it comes to power, games and online service. Do some research.

Plus the majority of RPG's that are released for the 360 are geared to a more mature audience.

I dont want play some eastern RPG that has little kids with Dragon ball Z hair styles and big eyes fighting Pokemon on steriods. Not everyones into that anime shit.

Scooby Doo @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:56AM

For me, the 360 would never be web-enabled in my house because they did not include Wi-Fi out of the box. My partner gave me a rule a long time ago that I can put in whatever electronics I want, but I have to go wireless. I expect to get all 3 consoles eventually, but only the PS3 and the Wii will get 24/7 network access. At least my 360 shouldn't get bricked by an update.

As for on-line gaming itself, I find I'm in the 'not for me' camp. Whether it's Mario Kart DS, City of Heroes or Neverwinter Nights, I just never really got into it, and doubt I ever will.

BklynKid @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:09AM

Wait, after yesterdays post why are we still discussing what some analyst has to say?

Spence @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:58AM

But everyone wants teh gamerpoints!!!

cubbiechris @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:00AM

For Scooby Doo:

You do know you can buy a wireless card for the 360 don't you? Not having 360 hooked up live is a huge waste of money. That's what makes the system so much fun.

cubbiechris @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:02AM

For me the true "Killer App" is the damn Achivement points! That was a brilliant move by MS. I can't imagine playing a game without them now.

Scooby Doo @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:09AM

Cubbiechris,

Why would I pay more for the feature when the Premium PS3 and Wii come with it for free? Last I checked, the official one was $99 bucks and I wouldn't buy a generic so that's a high point-of-entry just for Wi-Fi capability. Given the fact that I have no strong urge to play games online, it kind of seems like a waste of money for what: A gamer score and the ability to download XBLA games?

Ehh...I guess I'm exactly like the people Mr. Cole's trying to point out. I spend thousands of dollars on systems and games each year, but I'm more concerned with what the Single-Player offerings are.

Jason @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:15AM

if XBL doesn't appeal to you and you want stale, uninteresting titles, then by all means please go buy a PS3. For the best titles and the best gaming experience, you're going to need a 360 in your house.

(putting fanboy box in storage for the holidays now)

Pip @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:15AM

"games that depend on Web play" ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

WHAT

Davinche @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:24AM

"more than 50 percent of all Xbox 360s are taken online," implying that online play is becoming a gaming necessity not just for the hardcore, but the casual as well.

Here is the thing Joystiq, as stated by one poster already, this doesnt mean that everyone who hooks up to live is playing online and therfore using a gold subscription. This is a very importanat factor to take in, as its the way that microsofts online business model works and a reason why this artcile has 'some validity'. If ms is not converting silver memebers to gold memebers, then it means that the majority of thier userbase do not need online play or dont want it yet. This is while they have around 7.5 million units sold which consists mainly of hardcore gamers.

You see ms was 'boasting' about thier online success, but what they did not say, is who is actually paying (Gold) and who is not (Silver members). Thier *may* (I have no idea truthfully) not even be half of the users online who are gold memebers, therefore half the users arent helping Microsofts way of running live. You see most of the xbox online games are only using the servers to organise the matchmaking and who plays who, and after that its your 360/xbox1 thats doing the hosting. Thats why kai online was free (ms has now disabled it from working with 360 games). Therefore these servers are a pittence to run (except for mmo games which do uses servers for gaming)

What DOES use the servers (and costs ms the most money) is hosting content on servers which contain numerous of files from videos too demos many over 1gb (eg pgr3). With many users downloading from them ( 4 million potential people) you can imagine the costs. If their aren’t enough Xbox live gold users subsidizing and covering the costs for the silver members so they can have access to the servers for free it means that ms has too foot the bill themselves. It may now need to get more people to switch too gold, who therefore are actually the ones paying for all of the services, even the ones they may not use; whereas silver members are getting the advantages however without the ability to play games online.

If Ms is finding that people are not paying for Gold service, then xbox live is not doing as well as they are leading people to belive. Converting silver memebers to gold memebers is a real task because in essence it means turning casual gamers into semi-hardcore ones, who are willing to pay for online play. This validates Nintendo's claims and decisions not to focus on online play, as casual gamers and non gamers appear to at this point, not be using their to consoles PLAY online. They may use it for other stuff (downloading videos and arcade games, using weather channel etc)

Vidikron @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:12AM

@ Scooby

You could buy a wireless bridge for like $40. Anyway, I take the opposite online choice... all my systems will be wired because wireless is just too flaky. My PC and router are upstairs, so I ran ethernet through the wall and put an outlet in the wall behind my entertainment center. Then I have a switch in my entertainment center providing a connection to my Xbox and Xbox 360. My Wii is still wireless, but only because the LAN adapter is available and I don't know for sure if a non-Wii branded USB->Ethernet adapter will work.

Fred T @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:32AM

The problem is they havent figured out a way to make online play appealing for anything other than FPSs and racing games.

cubbiechris @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:39AM

Fred T:

That is a valid point, and I agree. MS needs a killer RPG like World of Warcraft.

Surur @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:49AM

RTFriedlyA.
"Xbox Live allows free game downloads, video chat sessions and more, but its main success is allowing gamers to play competitively against others online, often in violent games. Some 4 million subscribers pay $50 per year for the service."

So of the millions who can potentially use it, at least 4 million are already paying $50/year. You cant run a hosting service for $200 million per year? I understand Youtube's hosting is about $1 million per month, and I'm sure no-one uses as much bandwidth as they do.

Just based on those figures I can say that MS is making a handsome profit on Live, even if its 'only' $100 million per year.

Or look at it this way:
From the article.
'Cole says that even though 6 million copies of the hit alien-killing game Halo 2 were sold, only 2 million of those users took the game online, despite online being heralded as its most important feature.'

Of the $60 which the game costs, $15 goes back to MS as the publisher. Revenue to MS = 15x6 million= $90 million. Halo 2 cost $20-30 million to make, so $60-70 million profit. Revenue from a third party tittle is less than 10% of that.

So, only 2 million of these had Gold subscriptions and played online. Thats $100 million in revenue already,MORE THAN THE REVENUE FROM THE GAME. Most of that will be profit, as the costs are pretty low.

Expect MS to continue to push Live, its a goose laying a pretty golden egg. Its much more profitable than the licensing costs of the games itself. If they ever get 20 million signed up (say out of 40 million 360 owners) thats a $ 1 billion in revenue right there. Sony and Nintendo are losing out big time.

cubs bears bulls rule 4life @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:49AM

@26
What other system besides computer games have good fps and racing games online before the xbox and xbox 360?
None,no other system has good online play for anything thing other than fps,racing and sports games other only computers do a good job at stuff like world of warcraft(people who play that have no live to me). People by for name name like sony ps2 sold more than xbox cuz its been around longer and xbox live has a stronger name then the free sony online thing they have so people will pay for xbox live for the name and the experience

Vidikron @ Dec 22nd 2006 9:53AM

@ Davinche

"You see ms was 'boasting' about thier online success, but what they did not say, is who is actually paying (Gold) and who is not (Silver members). There *may* (I have no idea truthfully) not even be half of the users online who are gold members, therefore half the users arent helping Microsofts way of running live. "

I wouldn't say that is entirely accurate. Silver members still have access to Live Arcade games, Movies, TV Shows, and other marketplace content, so may indeed be contributing to the paying for the service. Also, while delivering content like game demos, game videos, and movie previews does cost bandwidth it can also be considered a form of advertising. So, again, it may not actually be the "loss" it appears at first glance.

warlock7 @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:00AM

I think that most of the 360's that are taken online are doing it for updates and patches and very little else. It'd be nice if MS actually released numbers that tell you what the article implies they do. The fact is they aren't telling anybody how many people are actually playing games online.

Is Microsoft including those 360 owners that have the free silver memberships that don't play games online? What do you want to bet they are?

kittynboi @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:22AM

I'll never see the appeal of online games. I've been playing video games since the days of Atari, and I've never enjoyed any kind of two player mode in games, nor have I enjoyed multiplayer over the internet when that became viable in the 90s.

I see gaming as a solitary experience, something to let me unwind, and something to do when I don't want to deal with other people.

Ed @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:16AM

All I can say is that this analyst isn't very bright, and probably doesn't play many games. Perhaps he's a recluse who is afraid to go online. Personally, the choice in next gen, I guess that's current gen now, is between one console that has embraced online gaming and taken it seriously (360), versus another console (PS3) that considers online gaming to be a "throw in" or extra. Many gamers who waited patiently for the PS3 have been incredibly disappointed with SONY's online showing. My feeling is that those folks are only a whisker away from adopting a 360 instead.

Finally, I don't know where this guy gets his info, but of the numerous 360 console owners I know, they ALL play online, at least occasionally, if not frequently. I can't think of one of them who I have never seen online playing something. In my eyes, the only 360 owners who don't play online are the technically incompetent, or those who don't have broadband options available to them...and yes, there are still plenty of folks in that boat. It's a BIG country.

There's no doubt in my mind that LIVE will make the difference in this gen. That's the thing which SONY is just perhaps now realizing with their "free" network. Why does SONY's showing suck so bad? Inexperience. MS has the experience of running a network of this size and type, and SONY is trying to make it up as it goes along. In the years it will take SONY to catch up, I'd expect the shiny white box from MS to do quite well. Probably well enough that the PS3 falls into the same ash heap which contains the 3DO, NEO GEO, and Jaguar.

Vidikron @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:15AM

@ warlock7

I'm pretty sure they are including silver members in their figures for the total number of systems taken online, but I doubt that most are just using it for patches.

It takes a little bit of effort to take the 360 online. I'd wager that most people's internet connections aren't conveniently located next to their entertainment centers. That would mostly just apply to gamers living with their parents who have their PCs and consoles in the same room. Since the 360 doesn't have wireless built in most people are going to have to buy a wireless adapter or run some ethernet cable.

I'm sure a few may have simply removed their consoles from their entertainment centers and plugged them in by the comupters to get an update, but I bet that number is fairly small. If they don't care about the online service they aren't likely to care about any patches unless they were waiting for a specific backwards compatibility update.

DeShaun @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:31AM

Acheivements are nice. In fact, I'd like that on other platforms. Won't happen, though.

I hate that I can have a really close race with someone in Mario Kart DS, and I can never play them again, because I can't add them as a friend. It's too disconnected. Community based online play is a brilliant move. I stand by my Wii purchase, but I give credit where it's due.

The ability to find and maintain contact with players you enjoy playing with, or are of similar skill..that's great. A virtual trophy case full of achievements is great.

What isn't great, is that games haven't exactly GROWN because of online play. Face it, most online features of games are stripped down versions of their 1player counterparts. No new genres have been thrown into the arena that weren't already there. You've got your FPS, your sports games, and your racers. Those excel, but then again, they always have. To a lesser extent, you have fighters, and well, those always blow. Ah well, a minor quip.

I don't even think they've bothered to consider the XBL arcade...Lumines live? come on.

joemama @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:36AM

*****************************************************

Woo-hoo, Blakey-boy gives MS another free pass, saving all his venom for the PS3!

"Furthermore, the company states that "more than 50 percent of all Xbox 360s are taken online," implying that online play is becoming a gaming necessity not just for the hardcore, but the casual as well."

No, Blake. Even you, the hardiest of the 360 fanboys, can't overlook the obvious. If 50% of all 360s are taken online, it's because of the limited FREE level of service, that wasn't available on the first Xbox.

Anyone with half a brain realizes that MS have NEVER let slip just how many of these 360 owners online are PAYING customers. I'd say it's a safe bet that it's LESS than the 10% of the original Xbox. Hell, if the limited service is free to all, then why haven't they been able to get FAR BETTER than 50% penetration?

**************************************************

Dave Mendez @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:35AM

I disagree; Xbox Live is a KILLER app. It will KILL your xbox 360 once you run an update!

You risk your console getting bricked like mine did if you do an online update when prompted. I have only owned my 360 for 4 months (August); the system was manufactured in April of 06. Microsoft will charge your 140.00 plus 30 dollars for shipping. If you don't believe it; just go to the xbox live forums, there are tens of thousands of posts from this happening to people and people feeling taken advantage of because of Microsoft not repairing/replacing units that were bricked because of their update and poorly manufactured console.

I went online once in a while to browse the XBLA which really is stale. Street Fighter was absolutley a waste of money. The Xbox 360 controls for that game are not responsive and cannot even match that of the Super Nintendo Entertainment system (SNES) which is almost 20 years old.

Microsoft isn't doing anything new as far as online play. It's been done for years on the pc and most of the people that play online are those who dig the FPS games. Games like Saints row are an example of Microsoft exploiting and overdoing online play. A game like saints row does not need to be online.

Once again; beware! The Xbox 360 might be cheaper than your Playstation 3 but they'll get you with an extra 170.00 to ship and repair your system. That's 570.00 for an xbox 360 over a 499.00 PS3 with the same capabilities!

Firegirl @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:39AM

In my household, we are actually planning on buying ANOTHER 360 so we can play online. I hate that split-screen crap....

Jim @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:46AM

So so, a roll-playing game? *snickering*

Personally I absolutely don't believe that online gaming will be as important as MS (and a bunch of others) want us to believe. Personally I invite my friends over when I want to play DoA or Wii Sports with up to four people.

Yet, what I really think will push the online services is digital distribution of demos, trailers, movies etc.etc. Although I almost never play online games I regularily download demos and trailers - which is just great.

Vincent @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:43AM

I blogged a reply to the Reuters article and this post at my blog, http://metoopointo.blogspot.com/2006/12/myths-about-casual-gamers.html -hope you like :)

Casual Gamers Don't Exist!

Ptaaty @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:45AM

things have changed since Halo2.

Out of the 10 people or so I know who had an xbox, and now have an x360...all 10 have paid LIVE gold now, none paid before (a couple went on with a free promo for a month).

That is an absolute huge change. I was one of those without LIVE with xbox1 as my main console, now it is it's biggest draw.

Demos, LIVE arcade, the unfied tags and system, easy messages, headsets with every premium, more co-op over live games....well stuff has CHANGED. Big time.

I do think more "hardcore" gamers own x360 than casual, it makes sense...the price needs to drop for many of the casuals to pick one up.

Vidikron @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:45AM

@joemama

"Anyone with half a brain realizes that MS have NEVER let slip just how many of these 360 owners online are PAYING customers. I'd say it's a safe bet that it's LESS than the 10% of the original Xbox. Hell, if the limited service is free to all, then why haven't they been able to get FAR BETTER than 50% penetration?"

Probably because most people aren't interested in going online or don't have the broadband connection to do so. I doubt any other console manufacturer will be able to claim a higher percentage for the same reason. At the end of the day Live is still better than any other console's online service.

Jim @ Dec 22nd 2006 10:53AM

and (sorry for double posting) CO-OP (2 players) could be the key for online gameplay that I'm interested in. Gears of War, Army of Two...

portorikan @ Dec 22nd 2006 11:25AM

For me, I'm in the same situation as 007craft. Actually, I moved away from Florida to Texas for a year (thank GOD I'm back, Texas sucks), but I was able to keep in touch and "hang out" with my best friend because of Live.

If a game doesn't have an online multiplayer component, then I couldn't care less about it. I'm a social gamer. Always have been from my youth NES days, until a few years ago when I got into gaming again, and xbox live was a big factor in that happening.

I play video games to play and communicate with humans. I like the challenge better anyway.

That's not to say that I don't play single player games though, but they take a huge backseat to any games online multiplayer component.

gamertag = portorikan

filterpunk @ Dec 22nd 2006 11:22AM

For once, an analyst is somewhat accurate. Maybe it's just misanthropy on my part, but putting up with people online while i'm playing a game has never held any appeal for me. Paying a subscription fee of some kind makes me even less inclined.

That said, I don't think companies should focus solely on one type of gaming over another. People like me prefer single-player games, but there are obviously a lot of people who like to play online.

Pixelantes Anonymous @ Dec 22nd 2006 11:40AM

Online gaming is hit and miss. Some games absolutely stink online either due to crappy implementation or overwhelming griefing or both.

The games that shine online, though, are just incredible. There's nothing like it. Friends only tournanemts/leagues in NHL/NFL/NBA games, PGR3, Halo 2/Call of Duty 2 are some of the most satisfying gaming moments I've had ever.

I actually find single-player gaming to be a bit boring in the long run. Most games are so predictable or dumb in single-player there's no real sense of achievement beating/trying to beat them (Call of Duty 2 on Veteran difficulty is one notable exception). You can't talk smack to an CPU opponent either, or laugh with it when funny shit happens. There's no emotion involved.

I've always been a "social" gamer, even when games didn't support online multiplayer, or multiplayer at all. When I was a kid, we used to write our high scores on notes over the weekend and then compare them with our friends' high scores at school Monday morning. Or we used to gather all at one of the friends house and take turns to compete.

XBL makes it possible to extend your circle of gaming friends outside your normal circle of people. I don't know about everyone else, but once you get to be older the idea of a gaming night with your buddies in the basement kinda loses its appeal or is a nightmare to arrange logistically (also the wife would kill me), so the only real way to play games with other people is true services like XBL. XBL is the best of the bunch, nothing else compares to the services on XBL, and the way it makes "social play" work.

To me XBL most definitely is the killer app.

dave @ Dec 22nd 2006 12:00PM

online gaming is growing and is a becoming a big part for even the casual gamer. One of the main reasons being broadband is widely available and competitively priced.

I'm a casual gamer but prefer to play with ppl rather than A.I anyday...

when it comes to the subscription fee.. what is £40 for a years service... hardly anything...