Just bumping this, a very good post and good work by Flay.

I still say gamers won't pay any monthly fees. Only a couple of the "monthly fee" online games will make money, and the successes won't be spectacular.

Everquest, the most successful game ever to use this model, has a whopping 125,000 users. By comparison, Warcraft 3, with free online play has sold a million copies in less than three weeks. Super Smash Bros sold more than 2.5 million copies. The only question I have about pay-per-play is who is going to buy Square after they smash themselves to pieces on FFXI.

Now that companies are charging fees on top of Xbox Live, I don't see any advantages to that. Basically, you wind up paying for the online kit, and paying monthly for some of the games on top of that, which sounds like Sony, except after a year, the online kit wants more money.

With Sony's plan, it looks like you'll play free on any game where a player's PS2 can be the server. You connect to their server for matchmaking, and it sends you off to a game that is hosted on a player's console, just like Warcraft or Quake.

The MMOG games, which are hosted on game servers, require a lot more money to run, and charge monthly fees. The market for these is probably pretty small.

Unless Sony gets greedy, I think they've got the edge if companies follow Sega's lead and charge on top of Xbox live.

I think Sega is only charging for PSO online, no?
Won't all of other SEga's games (Nfl2k3, etc) be free to play online throug Xbox live?

And Sony's games I don't expect to be free for long.. they lure people in by making it free, and then charge later, similar to Dreamcast's SEGA.NET... Sega won't charge for 2k3 on PS2, most likely, by 2k4 will definately have a fee.

I imagine *most* games will have no fee over and above the Xbox Live fee, and i imagine any games running off of PS2 consoles as the server, will be slow as hell.

-Jim

Sony doesn't own the PS2 online network. Game developers are free to design their games so that they log on to their own network. It's exactly like the PC gaming model that's in place now. Some games that have high server/bandwidth costs have to charge a monthly fee to be profitable. Others which really only require matchmaking and scorekeeping services on the part of the publisher, have much lower costs and thus can be offered pretty much for free. If you're unhappy with a game's monthly fees or the way the game publisher runs their network, you can simply choose another game. i.e. buy EA Madden instead of Sega NFL 2Kx.

MS, however, is requiring all XBox Live games to go through their network. After the first year, a monthly fee will likely be charged to play any XBox Live game and that's aside from any fees that the publisher may decide to charge. More importantly, though, gamers and game publishers are both locked into the XBox Live network for online play. So if MS decides to start doing annoying things with the network, there will be no alternative.

You mention some of the bad things ("annoying things"), but you didn't mention any of the good.

Most gamers, I think, would choose the Xbox LIve centralized approach if cost wasn't a factor. Most likely all.

The only way PS2's approach could possibly gain any support is when prices come into play.

Xbox Live is $50 for the first year, so you get Revolt and the communicator, so fees are basically negligable. After that, $9.95 a month I believe, which isn't bad to not have to pay per company to play the games. All of Microsofts games and Microsoft published games will be playable thru live without extra cost, as well as most other games.. Very FEW games will have extra costs to play online through Xbox Live, such as PSO.. I imagine it will be a rarity for this to happen.

Most games only online charges will come if you want to download new updates, such as in Toe Jam and Earl 3 where you will pay to download new levels down the line.

I don't see what "annoying" things Micrsoft could do, besides make it easier for the end user as well as allow it to be all centralized.. use one name for every game, same buddy list for all games, contact friends across games... annoying things to be sure.

EASporst will DEFINATELY charge to play their games online down the line, as Sega Sports intends to also. PS2's method of games being free to play online is temporary, trust me on this.

-Jim

I'm still unsure about online gaming, but if I can download roster updates, new levels or add ons, and game saves from the Xbox online network I will pay the $50 for it. That revolt game is going in the trash however.

Warcraft uses individual PCs as game servers, and it's not slow as hell.

As far as fee based networks, I expect the laissex faire attitude of Sony will push away from fee-based software, because games that offer free online play will have an edge in the market over those that do not. With so many choices in sports games, there are a lot of sales at stake if one product offers free online, and another does not.

They won't give you much. They still want to sell you a new game every year.

Well, game companies may see this as being a new way to suck money out of consumers' wallets, but gamers will not bite.

Online has been free on the PC for years. The only pay-to-play model that has ever worked is the massively multiplayer model, and several of those have failed, and many more are destined too. There is a very limited number of gamers who are willing to pay monthly fees for MMOGs, and, since MMOGs are very time consuming, that audience is unlikely to be able to commit to more than one or two games.

There are a bunch of new MMOGs coming out for PC over the next year or so, and most of them will lose money, because they're competing in a market that is only large enough to accomodate a few games.

The most successful MMOG has been everquest, with about 125,000 users. Warcraft 3 with free online, sold a million copies in 3 weeks.

Some analysts may speculate there is a limited audience for MMOGs. I suspect that the audience for a game like Everquest would be at least as big as the audience for a game like Diablo if Everquest was free. I think the real limitation is the number of players who are willing to put their credit card numbers out there, and be charged a monthly fee for gaming. I would expect that the number of people in the younger, more casual console crowd would be smaller, percentagewise, than the numbers of PC gamers willing to pay by the month.

My expectation is that online will become a free extra like 4 player multiplay, once a few companies learn (the hard way) that there is no money to be made in pay-for-play.

I don't think the pay-for-play model will take off either. I just don't think people are willing to pay just to play a game online.

MS has a better idea by just having a flat fee, but it's yet to be seen if people will pay $9.95 a month (or whatever) after the $50 year is up.

I don't even think people will go for the flat year if they have to enter a credit card number up front.

The Xbox strategy was to target the gamers first, and they'll be a tough sell for Xbox Live because they've been playing online free for years.

Further, online gaming is a cheap way to add a lot of value to a game. It can be given away, and has been given away, for years, to PC gamers.

The console market is too competitive, and too many companies are looking for an edge. Somebody will give it away free, and the people who try to extort money from consumers will find their products collecting dust on store shelves. Sony's loose-reins attitude allows developers to figure this out on their own, though Sony is making a strong suggestion by providing free online for its titles.

It's true, a bunch of developers will be clamoring for your monthly fees on PS2 at first, but when they discover a complete lack of willingness to pay by the month, they'll go back to competing for sales by giving online away.

Microsoft is adhering to the "iron grip" school. The Xbox hardware should allow gamers to plug into a wall, and be online. Developers aren't allowed to make games that are independent of Xbox Live, though, whether they ask a fee, or provide online play gratis. This is Microsoft's ploy to control online gaming, and sell it like cable TV or cell phone service. It won't work, though, because Xbox is tanking.

The XBox is tanking? It seems to be selling just fine. At least 3.15 million sold accross the world through June and Microsoft has no intention of calling it quits.

I find a couple faults in comparing XBox Live to past PC pay-to-play networks that have really only been for 1 type of game, MMOGs.

1. Nobody has done anything like XBox Live before on the PC. There is no pay-to-play network on the pc that's broadband and voice communicator only. There is no PtP network on the pc that will let you play any game against the same group of friends. For example, there is no PtP network that will connect all the players of Warcraft 3 with all the players of Star Wars Galaxies.

The features are vastly different than any network I've been on over the PC. They are designed, not only for Joe Gamer, but also for Joe Sixpack.

2. PC pay-to-play games have never received the attention that Xbox Live will be getting. Microsoft will be advertising XBox Live like it was God's gift to gamers. Every useful medium will be covered with daily ads for XBox Live. Advertising is one of the main reasons the Xbox has done so well in the U.S.



Name just 1 company that is charging extra. Where is any official announcement that states just that? Yes, companies have the right to, but I have yet to see any exercise that right besides Sega of Japan for 1 game.

Sega has never said they are going to charge for any U.S. game on top of the XBox Live Fee. So far, the only game they are charging an extra monthly fee for is the Japanese version of PSO, which happens to be a pack-in game with the purchase of XBox Live in Japan.

Revolt on DC was actually a very good game, and the prospect of playing it online is even more appealing.

For the sake of all of our wallets, I hope that Scandal is right. I for one, will not pay for online gaming. I will play Sony titles that offer free online gaming, but I won't pay another cent above that for anything else. If I pay $40 for a game, I expect to get my money's worth. Tack on another $10/month for Xbox Live, or $5/month for individual games through PS2 - they're all crazy. Give away the games for free, then consider charging a monthly fee to play online. Otherwise, a big no-sell for me.

It's quite clear in this thread who wasn't a online Dreamcast player... those who are analyzing the costs and benefits of each, but who only seem to think of the fees involved.

The overview of the three is simple:

If you have 56k, Sony's plan is superior, by default. If you have broadband, Microsoft is superior.

MS is offering a system that should greatly reduce lag, enables voice communication on every game, and sets up an easy-to-use friends list.

Those of you who experienced the brilliance of Phantasy Star Online's Guild Card system know that last item, itself, justifies MS' plan. Here's what happened with the other Sega games... enter the lobby, see list of anonymous players, try to randomly pick someone who didn't cheat or play cheaply and who wasn't juvenile or racist or way too excessive a trashtalker or a quitter {or insert your most hated annoying quality}. In the rare event that you did hook up with someone worthwhile, there's little chance of easily finding them again.

Most people in the sports leagues I was in just gave up playing random people. It was just not worth it.

Microsoft seems to handle this issue with a plan that only costs $4 per month for the first year. If I had broadband, I'd jump all over this incredible bargain.

Plus, Xbox is the only one with NHL 2k3 online. In a perfect world, that right there would be all the overview you need.

It supply and demand Josh. If alot of people sign-up for the flat fee and then demand wanes for the higher fee. Lower demand AND or competition will force them to lower the monthly fee. Just like the console war.

I am not as high on this as I was before I heard about 3rd parties charging extra fees. I am still going to sign-up, but if Sega charges for the "NFL2k3 network" I will buy NFL Fever instead. That simple.

Heh, heh... that's a good one. As much as you may wish it to be true, it's just not the case.


Xbox Hits Major Sales Milestones


Tuesday, July 23, 2002, 14:18 GMT
Two independent research groups confirmed today that the Xbox video game system is on a roll.


The NPD Group Inc. reported that Xbox posted a stunning sales increase of approximately 131 percent in the United States in the first two months following a $100 price cut in May. In addition, “Project Gotham Racing™” from Microsoft® Games Studios and “Dead or Alive 3™” from Tecmo each have sold more than a million units worldwide. According to the International Development Group, this makes Xbox the first video game system ever to have three million-unit-selling launch titles after just eight months on the market. The numbers put the system on track for another blockbuster holiday season, when gamers will be able to choose from more than 200 Xbox games.

Since the launch of the console in November 2001, the award-winning lineup of software for Xbox has reached a number of key sales milestones. According to independent data from the NPD Group, the definitive source of sales and market data on the video game industry, Xbox has sold more than 10 million units of software in the first eight months the console has been on the market in the United States. That’s the most software ever sold for a new video game system in the United States in the same period of time. Last week, Microsoft Corp. reported that 20 million units of Xbox games were sold worldwide in its past fiscal year.

Although all three major game console manufacturers announced price cuts in May, Xbox has had the largest percentage gains with sales having spiked approximately 131 percent in the United States in the two months since the price cut, according to NPD.

On the software side, two exclusive Xbox launch titles — “Project Gotham Racing” from Microsoft Game Studios and “Dead or Alive 3” from Tecmo — have topped the 1 million mark in worldwide sales. Earlier this year, another blockbuster Xbox launch title, “Halo: Combat Evolved,” also from Microsoft Game Studios, became the first million-unit seller for Xbox. According to the International Development Group, an independent market research firm that tracks worldwide video game sales, this would make Xbox the first console to ever achieve worldwide sales of more than 1 million units on three different launch titles in less than eight months on the market.

“More and more consumers are getting the message that games look and play better on Xbox,” said John O’Rourke, director of worldwide Xbox marketing at Microsoft. “We’re now gearing up for the holiday season, when gamers will have more than 200 titles to choose from on Xbox, with a total of 300 titles currently in development. Gamers can also look forward to the launch this fall of Xbox Live, the first online console gaming service fully dedicated to fast-action, always-connected broadband gaming experiences.”

This is on topic, but not really on thread, as this thread has waned away from the topic. In the next 2 weeks, X-box will release 2 online games, Fever 2003 and 2k3. What peripherals and hookups will I need if I decide to purchase an XBox? I currently have a cable modem, so I'd assume I may need a connection cable and maybe a router? Could I possibly do it without a router as well? And how about XBox live? That's not coming for a couple months...........

Did you read Flays Original Post in this thread?

I could be wrong, but I remember reading that you could just stop by your local retailer that sells Xboxes and pay cash for the first year of Xbox Live. Anyone else hear that?

Have you ever said anything good about the Xbox?

Yes completely. In fact, I wouldn't have known any of the facts I stated in the post I made without his. My whole point is that his post revolves around XBox live and that doesn't get released for a while. What are we gonna use until then?

You're right. First year of XBox is 50 bucks, comes with a free game and voice communicator.

I was merely referring to the fact that your questions were answered in his post. There will an XBOX live kit that has everything you need. It doesnt matter that 2 online games are being released in the next 2 weeks, b/c XBOX live doesnt go live til november.

If you were referring to something else I apologize.

Um, this is a Microsoft press release.

Based on independent NPD Group sales numbers.