nm

If Microsoft is counting on online gaming to get them over the top I'm afraid they are in for a rude awakening.

I honestly don't see online gaming being a factor anytime soon.

Microsoft seems to be going down the same failed road Sega already traveled. They thought online capabilities would save them as well.

I would say MS is looking at this in the long term and thinking about such things as VOD and having a key advantage to online when the Xbox 2 rolls around.

I flat out do not believe most gamers will put their credit card numbers in and subscribe to one of those services.

Even Microsoft is trying to tone down expectations, saying subscribers in the first year may only total "tens of thousands."

They clearly think there's a long term benefit to dominating online gaming, but they don't seem to have much of a chance of actually dominating much of anything, considering the way XBox has been selling.

Sony has made a brand out of Playstation. They were the company that brought games to the mainstream, and most people don't look at the specs when they buy a console. Sony was right when they said the console war is over. It is now impossible for Nintendo or Microsoft to unseat Sony in this generation of systems, and it's unlikely they'll do it in the next.

You're exactly right Scandal. The masses have spoken, mediocrity has won yet again.

Enjoy your online gaming system after you buy a modem and a hard drive. I know I'll enjoy mine. :D

I like the idea of the Xbox Vioce Communicator. That will attract more customers than a silly little keyboard.

BTW What is Sony gonna call this keyboard?

answer: The Mis-Communication Station :D

I don't think it's anything to do with mediocrity. I think Microsoft's hardware could have made it the premier online gaming console, but they got greedy.

They blew the benefit of having built in broadband by requiring an additional purchase to get the thing online, and they drove away a big chunk of the audience by requiring a subscription. The prospect of having to enter one's credit card into the console is an amazing deterrent for a big chunk of potential market.

I know I won't pay a monthly fee to play any game online.

Can I borrow that time machine you are using to get that info? I'd really like to pick up a copy of KOTOR.

Quote:

---

The prospect of having to enter one's credit card into the console is an amazing deterrent for a big chunk of potential market.

---

You may like prospects, but I prefer actual facts.

You won't have to use a credit card at first. You will buy the Starter pack from a retailer for $49.99. Go to Gamestop or EB. You can preorder it now. That means you will be able to lay down the greenbacks at your local gaming store instead of the plastic if you so choose.

Anyway, after the first 365 days are up, I'm sure MS will have an alternate payment plan for people without credit cards.

Quote:

---

I know I won't pay a monthly fee to play any game online.

---

Well, I guess you won't be playing online too much on any console.

Let's look at a potential online Xbox gamer in late 2002/early 2003... the machine itself cost him either $200 or $300. New games have cost him $50 each. He might be one of a decent-sized minority of Xbox owners who own an HDTV and/or 5.1 home theater setup. And since he's considering online, he either has/will soon have broadband service for, what, $40 or $50 per month?

The idea that a $4 per month fee will put him off is ludicrous. And the thought that entering a credit card is a deterrent is only amazingly laughable.

What percentage of Xbox owners would you say are in this category? I'd be amazed if it's not the teeniest little fraction of a percent.

I had in mind that it is "a decent-sized minority" when compared to the adoption rate of either of those two products by the general population. I know HDTVs and home theater are starting to appeal to a wider audience now that DVD has been thoroughly accepted, but I have no idea of the actual numbers. But if I was forced to guess, I'd say perhaps 5% of early-adopted Xboxes could be hooked up to either.

Of course I could be way off, but that's pretty much irrelevant to the point of my previous post.

Visit the HTF. Adults with Xboxes have 480p and DD 5.1 going on like crazy. :)

Maybe there's some sales figures somewhere showing how many Advanced A/V Packs were sold for the Xbox. I bought one. :) Sony on the other hand came with an optical out for audio right on the box. They have yet to put it to use in a game as far as I know (I'm sure I'm wrong, and I expect a flood of people listing off games that use 5.1 surround on the PS2), but nearly all the Xbox games I have are in 5.1 surround goodness.

It's not the money, so much as the notion of having another bill to pay. I think, also, that a lot of XBox owners may be under 18, or may not have credit cards.

What's more, a very large percentage of broadband gamers are dedicated PC gamers. They're already playing online, and they're playing for free. I don't think most gamers will go for a subscription. Further, by not offering free content, Microsoft may be detering potential XBox buyers.

I think Microsoft believes they're creating the market for a future online set-top box with applications beyond gaming. They think XBox live is the replacement for cable TV. They might be right, but now is not the time, and XBox is not the product. They're targeting a market that skews too young and is averse to paying bills.

Maybe you've stumbled onto something Scandal. For some reason I have a feeling the average age of the Xbox owner is higher than the overage age of the PS2 owner. So for that reason, maybe Sony is smart in thinking online free would be better while if an Xbox owner is older and can afford a better system, then their pay system will work just as well.

If not, I'm sure MS will adjust to suit the market. No biggie, eh? ;)

How many units had the PS2 sold by this time last year? I can't help but think that had the PS2 launched the way it did but alongside two other consoles (Xbox and GCN) it would've done poorly.

Well, I am an XBOX owner, lets run down the list!

XBOX- :up:
Broadband (cable) :up:
5.1 :up:
HDTV :up:
Willing to pay a $10/month for online :up:

It might not be the same for every XBOX owner, but there are plenty out there like me, including 2 more in my office who bought the XBOX last week.

Too many ifs. If Sony had put another year of development into the PS2 it would have been a more powerful system, probably identical to the Xbox. That would have ruined any advantage Microsoft had. There would have been better PS2 launch titles with another year to get them ready. Overall I doubt it mattered either way. Playstation has become a very strong brand name and it will be tough for anyone to shake Sony from the top.

Of course it would have. The XBox launch was much stronger than the PS2 launch. So was the Gamecube launch, arguably.

But the PS2 launched against the crippled, dying Dreamcast, and the XBox launched against the very competitive PS2 with Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and Grand Theft Auto, among others.

So in spite of the fact that XBox had stronger launch software than PS2, XBox didn't have as successful a launch, because PS2 had better brand recognition at its launch, and it launched into more favorable market conditions.

I guess that's why 'Everquest' has been such an abysmal failure. Obviously, gamers are unwilling to pay a monthly fee. Heh...

PC games are an entirely different model. Everquest has maybe 200,000 paying customers, and that's the most successful example.

By comparison, Square wants to sell Final Fantasy XI to a million people, and XBox live would certainly need over a million subscribers to cover their $2 billion network. I don't see either of those things happening.

How is charging a monthly fee to play a PC game different than charging a monthly fee to play console games? Sounds like the same idea to me. They're both games and they both require a monthly fee. PC gamers have proven that if you provide a unique experience, gamers are willing to pay a monthly fee for it. Thus, if Xbox Live can provide a valuable gaming experience, gamers will be willing to pay for it.

As for the numbers you're quoting, the $2 billion that Microsoft announced was not just for Xbox Live. That figure also included money set aside for research and development of Xbox 2. So, the Xbox network is not costing Microsoft $2 billion dollars. As for what userbase Microsoft needs to make Xbox Live profitable, I don't believe anyone outside of Microsoft knows that number. Certainly, you have not proven to me that you know that number. I would call your number a guess, at best.

The PC has a much larger user base, and perhaps an older user base more willing to shell out the money.

How does the size of the user base have anything to do with gamers willingness to pay a monthly fee? My point was that with 'Everquest' it's been proven that gamers are willing to pay a monthly fee if a quality experience is provided. There are many PC gamers who own Xbox (as well as other consoles) and many 'Everquest' users who are young.

I don't know about Everquest, I've never played it before. But like most other online PC games, it appeals to a larger user base than a console game would. Someone sitting at home on their PC with an existing 56k dialup would be more likely to pay an additional amount to play an online game like Everquest. Now would a person with a console that requires a more expensive broadband connection that they probably don't already have be willing to shell out the same additional "game fee"? I doubt it. Online console gaming differs from PC gaming, especially in the Xbox's case, because of the initial broadband investment it costs to even consider using a capabilities. I can use my existing phone line for my online gaming, why don't you convice me (the consumer) that paying for both broadband and a monthly gaming subscription are worth it? Tough sell.