Was just a feeling...I understand WHY MS did what they did, no need to repeat it

As a broadband user myself, I like Microsoft's method the best. If only it wasn't Microsoft running the show. MSN is my ISP, and they can't even get Usenet to work right. And Xbox Live is far far more ambitious than trying to run a newsgroup server.

There are several problems with your argument. First of all, you are not spending $50 extra per month for broadband. You are spending $20-25 more per month than you already pay for narrowband (unless you plan to keep your narrowband connection as well). Secondly, at your estimated usage of 20 hours per month, that works out to about $1 per hour of gaming. Last I checked, movies cost about $7 for 2 hours of entertainment. That's $3.50 per hour. Based on that, I guess I can assume you don't attend movies due to their poor value. My point is that the cost is not unreasonable if you enjoy online games. If you don't, that's great but there are plenty of others who do.

Well I think everyone "wants" broadband, because the service is better but they are not getting it for either or a combination of these two:

1) They can't afford it or they aren't online enough to justify the cost.

2) Its not availabe in thier area.

Well thats 3 problems actually . Not being available was my problem, we just got it last year. There's really nothing I could do about this problem. I kindly asked my cable company numerous times when they'd get broadband and just got replies like "it's not availabe in this area but coming soon so be ready!!" for about a year. The other reason is that it is more expensive depending on your service provider. I almost got DSL before I got cable but the DSL line was $49.99 a month, but I couldn't afford that much per month so I opted to wait. My cable modem is cheaper but still sorta expensive. Who knows if broadband only gaming will work though, i doubt online gaming will ever be hack free but this is a start. I'm hoping that microsoft's push for broadband also pushes more ISP's to extend their broadband coverage to people who want it and (lower the cost for me!!)

Not to mention being able to disconnect the second phone line. So knock another $10 off that $20-25.

LucasArts confirmed Star Wars: Galaxies, their MMORPG, for the PS2 and XBox today. No pricing for the PS2 version has been announced.

I added it to both lists along with Lamborghini, an amazing looking online racer for the XBox. You will be able to bet your car and money in the game!

Alright, I've been away for the weekend, so let me get back into this.

1) Your numbers state that by going broadband, I'd pay an additional $20-25/month. All major carriers that I've seen charge around $20 a month, with many offering much cheaper connections. (In the $10 range) Bellsouth, At&t, and Juno among others all provide plans for less that $10. For an Aol user, broadband would be $30 more per month. A Bellsouth user would be nearly $40 a month. That would be quite overwhelming.

2) Your point is valid for the cost of gaming vs attending movies. The per-hour cost indeed would be less. I do find problems though considering the way people view these costs. Paying a "monthly bill" regardless how minute, hangs as a cloud over ones pocketbook. People will spend oodles of money on recreational activities, movies, adventure parks, you get the picture. But when the cost is seen in a monthly form, the way it is viewed changes. This cost isn't not broken down into an hourly or even daily rate, but seen as this additional monthly charge. Mixed in with all other bills, it would be the most expendable.

3) The additional phone line argument is questionable. I don't have any real numbers, so I won't speculate. I only have 1 line, as do most of my friends. If we're on the comp, try reaching us later. If the presence of a second line was there, this indeed would make broadband more attractive, but I question the number of people who fall into this scenario.

As I've stated before, I am a fan of online gaming. I haven't done it with consoles, but my computer experiences have all been great. I question the strategic planning of the big 3, specifically Microsoft's decision to go strictly broadband. Broadband is better, and it will be the future. My problem is that most people who own the Xbox, or are considering owning the Xbox, will not take advantage of this capability. Both Nintendo and Sony offer cheap online alternatives that appeal to the mass online market, and if software developers realize this parity, and neglect the pure broadband because of it, it may leave the Xbox out in no man's land. People are buying the system, and some of these plan to use the broadband capabilities. But what about the sheep attracted to the Xbox by whats under the hood, what percentage of users are they? The Xbox will not prosper if the 2-3% of true hard core broadband gamers out of the entire video game owning population enjoy this broadband perk. Broadband will be too expensive for the other 97%, games will not sell, games will not be made, Xbox will be done.

Flay....mmorpg?

Any details on Lamborghini?

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game

Like Everquest or Ultima Online. Star Wars: Galaxies is coming from the same folks who brought us Everquest.

First of all, I have to disagree with your cost for narrowband. Although there are a few cheaper alternatives, as you mention, the major providers all cost about $20 (most people use one of the major providers which is why they are called the 'major providers'). Time Warner/AT&T Broadband costs around $45 varying slightly by market. That works out to a $25 difference which is what I stated in my earlier post. It's definitely not $50 which is the number you used.

In regards to Microsoft's online strategy I believe you are also mistaken. You seem to have the perception that Microsoft expects their online games to be their core business. This is not true at all. In a press release today, Microsoft clearly stated that they only expect to have an online user base of 50,000 people by year end. Considering they expect to have 6.5 million Xbox consoles in homes by then, it's obvous that they don't even expect 1% of Xbox owners to go online initially. By Christmas 2003 Microsoft expects 250,000 users online. Still less than 10% of all Xbox owners. The moral of this story? Microsoft's core business is and will continue to be offline games for at least the next several years. Online is just one of many selling points for Xbox. Not the end-all-be-all.

I have to take issue with this statement. Sony's plan cannot be considered cheap. After first paying for the modem, you still have your narrowband (or if you want to play most of the good games like 'SOCOM: Navy Seals' Broadband access) fees. Then, you will also have a monthly fee that must be payed to each of the third party publishers for the games that you wish to play. If you want to play 'Resident Evil: Online' you will have to pay Capcom a monthly fee. If you want to play 'Final Fantasy XI' you will have to pay Square a monthly fee (and also buy a harddrive). Those fees will add up. In no way can Sony's plan be considered "cheap". Now compare this to Microsoft's plan where you pay a flat fee of $9.95 per month which allows you to play all games for that price. There won't be any additional fees going to each third party publisher whose game you wish to play.

I saw this announcement too, and I admit to being rather surprised by it. After all, Star Wars Galaxies is being developed by Sony Online Interactive - now a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony (formerly called Verant Interactive). Is Sony going multi-platform?

I'm guessing that while LucasArts obviously has the license, the X-Box version will probably be developed by another company (maybe Microsoft themselves), and not Sony Online. After all, Microsoft's "closed network" online plan ensures that the X-Box owners will not be able to play with anyone on the PC or the PS2.

If you want to be picky, here's the link to the Bellsouth website. http://www.fastaccess.com/consumer/blsc_pricing.jsp The standard monthly rate is $49.95.
I disagree with your view on Sony not being cheap. As Flay details, Sony is going decentralized, with all their first party games being free online. Considering the quality of their games, how much better can it get. Games like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy are both niche games, certain people like them. I myself don't. Having the ability to play a game like Gran Turismo does it all for me. Throw in the fact that it'd be free, how can I go wrong? People may want to play one of the games that you mentioned online, but I don't see gamers playing all of these games online. This allows the user to pick and choose what games, if any, they want to pay for, without having to go all or nothing with Microsoft.
And I still don't believe that going online is Microsoft's core business strategy. When I look at the Xbox, I see Halo and Gotham Racing, along with a plethora of multiplatform games. Most of these games are available on other systems, and these other systems offer quite a number of quality games that the Xbox doesn't. As a consumer, would I choose the system that gives me the ability to use existing narrowband for a minimal out of pocket cost(PS2 and Gamecube) with option of broadband, or a console that charges me $55+ (give or take whatever number you use, in this case $45 ) per month to do anything online whatsoever? The answer is clear to me at this point. It may not be their focus, but I'm sure that it will sway many a potential buyer if they are in fact interested in online gaming. For someone interested in the games, probably not. But if I wanted to use these games online, it surely would. And your also right about no third party pricing too. But what about EA? They don't want to give in to Microsoft's online idea, will others follow suit? Something to think about.

Ok, Sony's plan is cheap if you only wish to play the few first-party Sony games that are playable on narrowband. In this case, it will only cost you $40 for the internet adapter plus your monthly narrowband fee. However, you will not be able to play any third-party games (that means no 'Metal Gear Solid', no 'GTA3 online', no 'Final Fantasy XI', no 'Resident Evil online' etc...). Oddly enough, those game franchises are some of the biggest sellers on PS2. I wouldn't really call them 'niche games' as you do. If anybody wants to play any future versions of those games online, they will have to pay a fee to each company. You may not wish to play them but I can guarantee you are in the minority on that count. So, where does this leave us? If you only want to play a couple Sony first-party games online then, yes, it may be slightly cheaper than Microsoft's plan. However, if you wish to play even one third-party game online with PS2, you will already be paying the same or more than you would under Microsoft's plan. And if you wish to play more third-party games, the price will only go up. I rest my case...

Go here:

http://www.xbox365.com/news/zcomment...AplEkpqoaXAupw

Great Video!

I can't wait to trash talk durring some B-ball! Were any of those games that were displayed in the movie real?

Holy Crapola!

The price for XBox Online has been released at Xbox.com:

"At launch, U.S. consumers can purchase a starter kit for $49.95. For the estimated retail price of a single game, the consumer receives a year's subscription to Xbox Live, an Xbox Communicator that plugs into the Xbox controller and facilitates all voice communication with other players, and "ReVolt," a fun, online racing game from Acclaim Entertainment."

That's a little over $4 a month! I was expecting it to start much higher than that.

Awesome!

Very affordable...Microsoft is doing this in the best way possible. If they fail, then it's only because it's not the time for online console gaming.

Added more confirmed 3rd party XBox Live games.

Also added the vast resource of info just released on Xbox Live.

Added the network adaptor package info for the Ps2.

Updated the launch dates for XBox and PS2.

Reports from E3:

Sega will be charging $9.99 a month to play their 2K3 sports package on the Ps2.
EA will have a similar package, but no price has been released.

Sierra's Tribes on the Ps2 will have free online play.

Disturbing Xbox Live news coming out of Japan. It looks like we were wrong about paying only one fee to MS to use Xbox Live. Sega plans to charge their own fee, on top of the Xbox Live fee, for playing PSO on Xbox Live.

We'll have to wait and see what Sega plans for North America, but this does confirm that third parties can add their own fees to their Xbox Live games.

source:Gamespot

just thought I would add that currently the PS2 online is working out very well, we tested several connections, 28.8, 56.6 and cable line. They all worked very well, the 28.8 was the only one that had moments of... ugh this is too slow. The 56.6 actually ran just like a normal game in a 4 player twisted metal deathmatch.

Well, this makes sense to me. They're (most likley) going to continue to support the game after it's release, and they probably don't see any reason why they should do that for free. It's part of the reason Nintendo doesn't really have an online plan. They know there's not much profit to be made in online console games yet. Unless you charge for the game, charge for servers, and charge for continued support for the game. Nintendo also knows the casual gamer (their main market) will not pay all that just to play online. Like it was stated earlier, xbox owners are generally more "hardcore" gamers and are willing to pay more to play online. Although I don't see why any xbox developer would continue to support the game without charging additional fees. I don't know how they afford to do this with PC games, but I think console developers are much more.. determined to make a lot of profit.