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.

It doesn't. However, it's obvious that if you have a larger user base you'll have a larger number of people willing to pay the fee.

Anyway, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate as I hate online gaming and will never use it whether it's free or has subscription fees.

Exactly. Broadband users are still in the minority of internet users. Broadband isn't even available in many areas, and it's still to costly for many people. The X-box and the PS2s broadband only games like Socom, limit their potential user base to those with broadband, and then some companies want to charge another fee on top of this.

Basically mainly only gamers that already have broadband are going to jump on the bandwagon.

People still using dial up are going to be hesitant to pay $40 a month for broadband and then pay more fees to play certain games (or all games on the X-box).

I think the X-box will have more success than the PS2 though, as I bet a larger percentage of X-box owners have broadband than PS2 owners. The X-box is a tech geeks wet dream. But then again, the PS2 user base is so much larger that a percentage comparison is useless, as 10% of PS2 owners is probably a larger number than 50% of X-box owners.

At any rate I don't see online gaming being much of a success this generation. Broadband just isn't widespread enough. Maybe it will do better next generation, if broadband costs get down to $20-25 a month.

However, I also don't think it will be a flop. I figure the companies will make enough to cover the cost of providing the online gaming services, and maybe even make a small profit. It's just not going to be a huge, profitable success this round IMO.

Spanky: 50% of Xbox owners have broadband Internet.

Everquest proved that if you have the best product on the market, you can get 200,000 people to subscribe. Of course, there are other MMORPGs that have gone offline or are losing tons of money because they weren't successful. I think online could be a selling point for mainstream gamers if it's free, but only the hardcore will pay a monthly fee for it, and the hardcore are few.

The numbers that support Everquest simply don't make for good console sales. If XBox Live only gets 200,000 subscribers, I can't imagine them ever making the thing profitable. I know some people believe Microsoft is willing to lose money forever because they have "deep pockets," but it seems unlikely to me.

I think Microsoft just made this number up. I can't imagine they have any idea whether XBox owners have broadband.

Certainly, 50% of XBox owners in Europe and Japan don't have broadband; very few people have broadband in their homes in Europe, and the internet never really caught on in Japan.

They may have done some sort of scientific poll to get this data, but it sounds made-up to me.

I agree. It's not going to be a huge success in this generation. It will probably be profitable but not a massive success. I don't think Microsoft expects online to be a huge success in this generation and they've said as much in numerous interviews with analysts. They only project a user base of 50,000 in the first year of Xbox Live and considering 50% of current Xbox users already have broadband access, I'd say that's a reasonable goal. I don't think anybody is saying it will be mainstream in the near future.

Your mistake is that you believe Microsoft expects to get the mainstream to sign up for Xbox Live. This is not true at all. Long-term (like 4-5 years) they may hope to attract some casual gamers to Xbox Live but for the first few years, they are definitely targeting the hardcore market. They've been quoted to that effect any number of times when talking about their online plan. As mentioned before, they expect only 50,000 users in the first year. That's a fraction of the total Xbox user base. Quite a conservative estimate and probably quite attainable.

Have you ever registered a product before? That's one of many ways companies get this information and it is quite scientific.

Do people actually register their stuff? I can't think of a single person including myself that actually does it. I never registered my Xbox.

As far as 1/2 of Xbox owners having broadband, that number has to be greatly inflated. Broadband is gaining in popularity, but there is no way it has near that many users yet. I know three people out of about 50 with internet access that have broadband. There was a fourth, but he dropped it when Time Warner raised the price a few months ago.

No. I don't think I'm alone here either.

That is a prime example of 'anecdotal' evidence. It just so happens that every one of my friends does have broadband. Does that prove anything? No. Hardcore gamers (which is the group which currently makes up most of the Xbox install base) are early adopters of technology. I does not surprise me in the least that 50 % of current Xbox owners have broadband. Do most casual gamers or the general public have broadband? No but they don't constitute much of the current Xbox install base.

Your right. You're not alone. However, companies do not need everyone to register in order to get an accurate picture of their user base. How do you think that the broadcast networks are able to declare a winner in the presidential election long before all the votes are counted? There is a proven formula used by companies conducting polls which allows them to derive a reasonably accurate number based on a small sampling of people.

I don't buy that. I don't know what type of person registers their products but those people are NOT a good representation of the population.

... not exactly the example I would have chosen... -smile-

Exit polls are completely different from compiling data from product registrations. Most people probably don't register products, and to base data on that doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the entire market.

What's more, broadband is very uncommon outside of the US right now. Some businesses use it in Europe, but it doesn't get to a lot of homes.

What's more, gamers with broadband are already playing online games free on their PCs. Why would they pay to play online on their XBox consoles?

I think online will end up being like 4 player multiplay; it will be an extra selling point for games, but it won't be an additional moneymaker.

It's not all that common inside the US either. I know for a fact that there's no decent broadband service in the Lehigh Valley area and I couldn't get broadband in northern NJ (a highly populated and affluent area) until a few months ago.

For the Xbox 2 I think a company that makes all their own hardware should make them - like IBM or even have MS pump a little money into nVidia so they can create the mainboard and the graphics chip and maybe expand into the hard drive market - that way maybe Microsoft can make money on each console rather than giving them away... that's been a key point of success for Sony and Nintendo in the past. Microsoft maybe spread themselves too thin by having 3rd parties assemble their consoles. I'm sure they've got inmates assembling them and are only paying them 30 cents a day. That's how they used to have their software packaged iirc.

So Microsoft's 'anecdotal' evidence is better than mine huh? I would love to see some real evidence from Microsoft to prove their 50% claim. The national average is still under 20%.

The Hardcore gamer thing is weak as well. I might believe it with PC gamers. You spend two or three thousand on a PC and the extra $50 a month for broadband seems less a problem. However, we are talking about a $200 console. I don't see how being a hardcore console gamer makes you automatically have broadband. Also keep in mind that the Hardcore group is not going to make up 50% of the Xbox owners. Most (as with all consoles) will be casual gamers and I doubt online gaming is going to be that much of an issue to many of them.

I will wait and see once Xbox Live is rolled out. I would bet money that the 1 million user goal is going to be a tough one to reach though. My opinion is still that Microsoft is heavily overestimating what their online service will do, but time will tell.

I for one will be among those that have broadband, but will still not play games online. That goes for PS2 and Game Cube as well.

Well put. Here's another analogy.

It will basically be like extra features on a DVD. They are a bonus for people who were already planning on buying the movie, but not many people buy the movie because of the extra features.

Online gaming will be the same. It will be a plus for those who buy the game, but not many people are going to buy the game specifically for the online play.

Obviously that doesn't include online only games like Everquest or FFXI, but only games with an offline and online mode like NFL2K3 or an FPS.

Well, if I buy Smash Bros or Twisted Metal, multiplay is a big part of that. Likewise, when I buy Warcraft 3 for my PC, multiplay will be more than just the extras.

If Smash Bros. was single player only, I wouldn't buy it. The multiplay sells that game. Online will probably be the same thing. I probably wouldn't buy a shooter for the PC with no online features, and, in the future, people probably won't buy console shooters without online support either.

DVD extra features are more an excuse to ratchet up DVD prices. Features are dirt cheap, and buyers justify paying $29.99 instead of $14.99 because you get to listen to the director complaining about how bad the caterer was for two hours.

You think the national average is the same group of people who own Xboxes?

Why all this hostility toward such an excellent plan by MS? I don't get why everyone wants it to fail?

I registered my xbox when I had broadband.

I sold it to someone that doesn't.

The surveys are wrong! All wrong!



Seriously folks. MS is going to need something amazing to make the network worth producing titles for. Oh yes, I nearly forgot, developers will settle for the cash on the spot and not worry about the user base. Nevermind. It's all good.

Ever heard of a field of study called 'Statistics'? I used the election analogy because everyone is familiar with it. Have you ever noticed what percentage of precincts have reported when they declare a winner? It's usually much less than 10%. How do they work this magic with so little data? By using a statistical formula just like every company does when they are compiling data on their user base.

No, my point is that anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.

Actually, until a week ago, it was a $300 console. Who are the early adopters of consoles? Anybody will tell you it's hardcore gamers. When Microsoft claimed that 50% of Xbox owners have broadband, they were talking about their current user base as of last week. At that time, the vast majority of Xbox owners were hardcore gamers. Obviously, in the future, that 50% number will come down as more and more casual gamers buy Xbox. But that's in the future, not now.

$200 or $300, it is still a cheap form of entertainment when compared to the PC gamers. There is no way 50% are hardcore gamers. I've been around video games and the people that play them since the 80's and a good friend of mine has been working at a game store for over 5 years. Believe me the hardcore group does not make up that much of a consoles market. At least two thirds or more of any consoles owners (including the Xbox) are casual gamers. Many have no idea what games are even worth buying. I was in EB today and watched the clerk try to explain to a thirty year old guy that not every game that is released is made for every console. He was apparently an Xbox owner and was frustrated because some PS2 game he wanted was not on Xbox. He claimed it was a conspiracy by the video game companies to make us buy all three consoles. I'm guessing he is not a hardcore Xbox gamer.

Anyway I go with my opinions based on my experience. If I'm wrong we will see when Xbox launches its online network.

His point is having broadband doesn't mean you are a hardcore gamer. I have broadband and never play games online. His point is you are an early adopter. Someone ahead of the rest of the public with regard to the technology curve. So if someone is willing to spend $300 to buy a console there is a 50% chance they will have broadband Internet. Is that so hard to swallow?

Yes, I see no logic in this at all. It makes the assumtion that the 15% of online users that have broadband also bought half of the Xbox systems. I'm sorry but I don't see how that assumtion is made. Anyway we will see once Xbox live starts up.

Note: I'm not hoping the Xbox online service fails. I just don't see a big market for it for any of the three consoles. I will find out if I'm wrong soon enough.

Either way, MS doesn't expect a lot of support for it either. They have said so already. This thread is beating a dead horse.

How many, exactly or approximately, is 15% of Online users anyway? :)