Definitely. That would be awesome.

Good idea! Somebody forward this to Microsoft.

Scandal - I couldn't agree with you more.

Well if what my friends and co-workers have done is any look into the future of who wins the online gaming wars, then the Xbox will be on top of online gaming.

In the last 3 weeks 8 out of 10 of my friends and coworkers have purchased Xbox's for the online gaming since all but 1 has broadband. 1 of the 2 is gonna buy his Xbox next week and the other is waiting till DSL is available before he commits.

2 months ago myself and another coworker were the only ones that have Xbox's. I'm proud of my friends for not being PS2 and GCN narrowminded or narrowbanded like some people here.

While you PS2 and GCN pessimists are trying to figure out how your systems are gonna work online or if their gonna even work at all, we Xbox owners will be having some great fun!!

We invite you to join in the fun later this year. It's ok, there is no shame.

I, too, believe xbox will be the future of online gaming. I will admit that ps2 has had a head start and there are very good games, but i'm interested in the online aspect almost exclusively.

I think a lot of you who are supporting XBox Live are overlooking a lot of things. First though, I do want to say I like a lot of what XBox Live is doing, but I just don't think the market is ready for that type of service.

First off, while broadband is nice, we have to face reality that a lot of people don't have it and are still on dial-up. Even those that do, not all of them are probably up to the task, let alone willing to put out the money to buy and set up a router. Broadband is still too young at this point to make it the only way to get on because you simply exclude too many people.

Even with broadband, that doesn't guarentee that you will play a lag free game. That still is dependent on the server and your ping to the server. Even a centralized system like XBox Live doesn't get rid of lag. We've heard it with Sega, and now we're hearing it with Microsoft. It didn't work then and I don't buy that it's going to work now. It's hype. Regardless of central server, you still have to rely on different people's ISPs and how they're routed to Microsoft's network.

I also find it amusing that Microsoft who has been boosting since day one that they're the only one who has it built into the box, and that when the service goes online, people will be able to pop in their game, plug their system online and go. Yet now it turns out it costs more than going online with the PS2, and you can't just pop in the game because you have to go out and buy a kit.

Then there is the software support. Sony has the big names and guns behind them. They have the recognizable line up of software that will attract and push online gaming with free online play at this point. I'm still looking for a few killer apps for XBox Live. Their sports won't do it for me, and so far most of the games don't. On top of that I don't like the closed network. Microsoft gives the developer no choice in the matter which is why EA isn't on board and most likely why Square isn't on board. When you make an online game for the XBox you HAVE to go through XBox Live. This means developers who want to make a cross platform networked game are out of luck. They can't make a version on the XBox that doesn't go through XBox Live and XBox Live doesn't let them go cross platform.

Right now online gaming is in the foundation stage. I've said a number of times that it won't make a difference this generation and that they are only building it up right now and getting people familiar with it. I can see something like XBox Live being pretty good down the line, but not now and not soon. You first have to get people to just go online and try it to see if they like it. You have to make it accessible to them. You have to make it cheap to almost no cost to them. Having a service just hinders the process. Then you need software that will get people to go online. You need all of these factors just to build the foundation of online gaming and XBox Live doesn't have it. It has a lot of benefits but benefits we don't need right now. There is no need to figure out how to get online with the PS2. You buy the adaptor and you go for free. I've already played THPS3 online. It was that simple.

I think what Microsoft meant is that you wouldn't have to dial-up because broadband is always on. Going out and buying a kit is a one-time thing, while dialing-up with the PS2 or GC happens whenever you want to play online.

Shawn: No they meant and it was clear that you wouldn't have to go out and buy an adaptor because the port was built in. But in the end you still have to go out and buy something before you can get online. This had nothing to do with dial-up or broadband. This was always Microsoft bragging about built in networking and poking fun at the competition cuz they didn't have it.

Darknight, so you will be going online with PS2 but not with your Xbox? I'd give it a try if you have the money, you might be surprised.

Hey,.. we can talk about how the general public isnt ready for Xbox Live.. but who gives a shite...

We are! We sit on DVDTAlk and talk about videogames all the time, that means you are ready for it.. Anyone on this message board is ready for Xbox live.. I don't care about Joe Gamer not being ready (though I think he is)... I care about myself, and Xbox live is going to be awesome..

Having to sign up for multiple accounts for every game I want to play on PS2, and then decide which ones I want ot pay for, and also buy an adaptor and hard drive, doesn't sound like fun.. Do you think Joe Gamer wants to do this? Every game setup an account and password and figure out who to play?

I think the people pushing PS2's method of online play havent played with Dreamcast online.. while it was nice.. the centralized way will be much nicer.

-Jim

Gallant: No I will be going on with both, but I think the PS2 plan right now is the more viable one in the given market. I should be getting a free XBox Live account anyways so it's not a cost issue for me =) I've already experienced a little of XBox Live at E3 so I'm well aware of what it's about and what the benefits are.

Yuji: What good is online gaming if you limit the number of people who are playing? I can go online with both systems now but god the selection of gamers are limited. It's hard even to get into a good game at the moment. I care about the number of people online because I want there to actually be people to play when I log on. You don't know if you have to sign up for how many accounts on the PS2. Heck look at PC gaming, how many accounts do you really sign up for? I know for just about every FPS, I sign up for a big fat 0 accounts. I just take my nick and log into servers. At least with the PS2 you have the potential of playing not just PS2 players but other systems as well. What I wonder is how stuff like Star Wars Galaxies is going to work when you are limited to XBox Live. At least with the PS2 version you can play with PC players. Same with games like Final Fantasy XI. Heck we may even be able to play Madden 2003 PC players against PS2.

For the record I've played online gaming on SNES, Genesis, Saturn, DC, PC, PS2, GC, and XBox, so I'm quite aware the advantages and disadvantages of each one. Even with the DC experience I don't see the advantage of a centralized server as far as lag is concerned. Why? Because it still happened. You still had to look out for people with a green status in their ping. I also know all too well how in some games it was hard to find people because the userbase was so small. The selection of online gamers was limited.

Okay, Snes and Genesis was x-band. Dreamcast, pc, ps2 (thps 3), and xbox(halo) are given. I've heard they're was something you could use for saturn, but don't know the name. What game(s) have you played online with the gamecube?

I think online gaming is something a lot of people want. I do not think online gaming is something that a lot of people are willing to pay by the month for.

I don't yet know how Xbox live will function. But if it requires people to put up a credit card up front, even if the card isn't charged for a year, then they will lose a big part of the market.

Look at the PC market. This demographic is older, and more "hardcore." Now look at the most successful subscription model, Everquest.

Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament, which stepped all over each other, and split a market, each have several times as many sales as Everquest. In less than a month, Warcraft sold ten times as many copies as Everquest has sold in the more than three years it's been out.

Further, if more intensive games like MMOGs are not included in the Xbox live fee, and Sega is setting this example, then the incentive for Xbox Live goes.

On Sony's free market approach, developers will probably try to charge at first, but the market won't bite. What developers will see is that providing free online will significantly increase interest in their titles.

I think we should all just agree to disagree, and see what happens a year from now.

And in the meantime, we can all prepare to enjoy our online games in whatever way we see fit.

I personally wouldn't bother going online if it wasnt for Xbox Live. You guys wouldnt go online if you had to use Xbox Live.

Done.

What a weird sensation of deja vu... it seems like I've read Scandal's same analysis 50 times before on this forum. I'm sure it must be just me.

The only part I wanted to ask about is the part I've quoted above. Why do you keep including this credit card argument? Are you saying that they'll lose out on kids without credit cards or what? I still have no idea what significance this credit card issue is in your thinking.

one that kids usually do not have credit cards.

two that many parents will be hesitant to give their kids the credit card to play games online. especially if this allows the kids to charge more than a one time fee to the cards. for example if that opens an account that is accessable to allow charges to that account if a kid decides to play a third party game that charges additional fees.

three that some adults do not like to use credit cards online to this day

I guess you get the idea. anything that forces you to give more information loses some people each time additional information is required. till the amount of people gets too small.

will this really have any effect on the online networks proposed- who knows. since online play for money is such a small business with a small amount of users doing it right now. the jury is out on that.

Maybe millions of people want to pay to play online.

I really think it is closer to thousands only.

for free i do think the numbers are in the millions however.

If you own the PS2 you *must* pay to play Online. You have to buy the modem. There is no *free* Online system out there.

Gallant: There still is a difference here. With the PS2, you're making a one time investment at the moment. You pay for the hardware, and then you play your games. No service strings attached for the current crop of games. Now no matter what happens, it is most likely a year from now, two years from now, etc, those same games will be available to play for free. That's not the case with XBox Live in which you're paying for a service.

I view the purchase of a modem/broadband adaptor as choosing to buy another game. If I want to take advantage of any online gaming, I'll buy the "game". The PS2 option allows me to buy this addition and play all of their first party titles for free online. Xbox live has that "game" feeling to me also, but this only lasts for 1 year. Any play beyond that will require a monthly payment to continue, and I'm not down with that.

yes there is.

it is called pc online gaming.

I can play my warcraft 3 for free and i also get to play it on my computer also.


The free system has been around for along time in the pc world..

I never said the PS2 was free although it is far cheaper than the XBox system especially when you get to the second year.

PC!? Why does everyone bring that up... I am sure there is some overlap, but people don't play PC gaming because its expensive (computer system costs well more than videogame system) and complex!!

I dont play PC, nor play PC games online.

I have an XBox to do that in the future. I also used to do it with Sega Dreamcast.

I want a fun online experience, not one where people constantly drop out when they are losing, or its hard to find people I like to play. It was like this on Sega.net, and it will be like this on PS2. And you guys says it will be easier for kids to get online with PS2, fun! They will be bundles of fun to play when they drop out of game after game.. At least with XBox LIve, you get punished for this and it tallys it next to your name, so you knowo what you are getting into if you play someone that has alot of dropped games.

-Jim

I would say it's a bit premature to say which is cheaper. Nobody knows for sure which third parties will be charging for PS2 or Xbox Live. For that matter, no one knows if Sony will be charging to play first party games by then. Much like the Xbox Live starter kit, the free play for Sony's first party titles is designed to get people hooked so they can charge a fee down the line. Considering how different the two plans are, depending on the situation, you could make a good case for either system being cheaper than the other. It all depends on what games you choose to play on each system.

Definitely, nobody knows what Sony's real intentions are down the road.

Sony's real intentions are to charge down the road..

Remember, they wanted PS2 to be an all-in-one settop for the living room, with downloadable content and a new way to gain revenue from their box..

unfortunately, they didnt build the hardware to make these goals come true..

Microsoft basically picked up where they left off..

I am really excited for PS3/Xbox2.. as I think then we might actually see more features that will make it an actually useful set-top box that we'd all want... If Xbox 2 combines the Tivo function with it, then that will be a serious reason I'd want to own one..

-Jim