Microsoft's Big Bet on Online Gaming 351
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "The Wall Street Journal Online analyzes the prospects of the Xbox's online-gaming component. Analysts say Microsoft has spent hundreds of millions on Xbox Live, with little guarantees of returns. 'It is not clear that companies like Microsoft and Sony will be able to lure large numbers of players -- each has attracted a small fraction of users to online play with their previous consoles,' WSJ Online writes. 'The companies also must be careful about new business models for distributing games -- such as games-on-demand -- so as not to alienate game publishers, who still rely heavily on in-store sales. And games designed for multiple players have a mixed record of attracting customers.' Says analyst Michael Pachter, 'At the end of the day, we don't play games for social interaction ... We play games to escape.' Microsoft's strategy is 'absolutely flawed,' he added.""
This guy missed the point of online gaming . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Online gaming is about gaming getting back to it's roots - "me vs. you". Playing against a console is essentially a souped-up version of solitaire. Fun, distracting, but nothing like the rush of defeating an opponent with the same chance of victory as defeat.
We don't play games for social interaction ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell this to Blizzard (Score:4, Insightful)
Gaming is often a social act (Score:5, Insightful)
Online games risky? (Score:2, Insightful)
Right. No money to be made in the online gaming market.
I play games for social interaction. (Score:5, Insightful)
If people don't play games for social interaction, why is the chat screen constantly rolling on most multiplayer games? Why do people join clans/guilds/etc? How do you organize a 40 person raid on an imaginary dungeon? I can't get 40 people together in real life, but I can in a game. And that's not about social interaction?
Re:This guy missed the point of online gaming . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft Wallet (Score:3, Insightful)
I've said before, I'm concerned about Microsoft's huge push into "online" with the new 360 console. Its way too soon, and they seem to be trying to tie everything about Xbox into the "Live" service. If it isn't already obvious, this is Microsoft's attempted way of extracting monthly revenue out of their customers. You can see it in the way they are now re-attempting to push web services like Office Live and .NET.
Microsoft wants that monthly charge, from everybody. But they are pushing way too hard with this generation of console, especially since they never garnered more than 10% or so of original Xbox players. We should rename Live to MS Wallet, or more specifically MS Hand In Your Wallet.
Social gaming... (Score:5, Insightful)
When not on live, they also browse MySpace and usually are chatting with IM clients. Yes, they get outside plenty. When you live up north (northern hemisphere) and it gets dark less than an hour after school gets out, going outside to play isn't an attractive option.
Instead of having to have multiple phone lines, or even cell phones for the kids, they all chat with friends -- local and long distance -- via XBox Live & IM.
Microsoft is spot on and when looking at new consoles next year, the question will be does the PS3 and Revolution have a good online community and voice chat? If not, XBox 360 it will be.
-Charles
Some of us don't care for online gaming (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess that's just me. I like to escape from the Real World (TM) when I play a game and get immersed in it. I don't have much time to play games anyways, so my "skillz" aren't that great and I don't care to spend hours playing against high school kids to improve them.
Analyst on drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, this "analyst" just shredded his credibility with that whopper. He is obviously extrapolating HIS gaming experience to EVERYONE. Blanket generalizations are almost always wrong. He should probably buy a copy of WOW, Battlefield etc, install a copy of vent and come to grips with the fact that millions of people are playing games precisely FOR THE SOCIAL INTERACTION.
Its a simple fact of life that AI's in games are still generally weak and playing against a computer quickly gets old. There is way more satisfaction of beating other human beings than in beating a mediocre AI.
The sweet deal about games like WOW are they are a constant revenue stream of people paying monthly subscriptions versus the boom or bust cycle of sell a box in the store, get a bunch of revenue and then go dry for years while you develop the next one. This is the dream revenue model for companies like Microsoft because it pleases Wall Street to have consistent revenue streams... if your game doesn't suck.
Re:Um (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I play games for social interaction. (Score:2, Insightful)
If people don't play games for social interaction, why is the chat screen constantly rolling on most multiplayer games?
People like to talk trash, clearleh.
How do you organize a 40 person raid on an imaginary dungeon? I can't get 40 people together in real life, but I can in a game. And that's not about social interaction?
It's all about the phat lewtz!
Re:Um (Score:3, Insightful)
They make money on the need to compete (Score:2, Insightful)
Social Interaction vs Gaming (Score:2, Insightful)
Second, the terrifying success of WoW, Everquest, CoH, etc. would suggest that games with some basis in social interaction are actually mind bogglingly popular.
Also, as a vapid generalisation, you tend to see women playing games with some degree of focus on social interaction. (I was going to use the Sims as an example here, but a moment's thought reminded me that the Sims is actually just an extension of the doll principle, having nothing whatsoever to do with social interaction.)
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gaming is often a social act (Score:3, Insightful)
Playing single player versions of games are fun and a good way to learn the game and storyline. However, it can only take you so far once you complete the game. Not to mention after playing the game for a period of time you will learn different things to outsmart the AI of your enemies making the game easier and less fun. It is at this point where online gaming increases the longevity of the game. People who enjoy the game will want more of a challenge and can only get that playing against other people. You have new strategies against real people, can work together to attack a base or defeat a boss - it adds a completely new dimension to the game. Thus, online gaming is a huge part of a successful business model.
Sure very good single player games will make money in the market, but if you think back on your best gaming experiences or moments - chances are they were against your friends or against other people. Online capibility can make certain types of games even better.
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
Playing is just another word for training. We are wired to train when we don't have pressing concerns. The only thing is that in this day and age we've replaced a ball and stick with a controller and a mouse in some cases.
This is just the way I think about it.
Quite true (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, for many people social interaction is not an insignificant part of online gaming. I left a guild in World of Warcraft because it became in essence a big support group. Not what I was after, but there were plenty of people who liked it that way.
All I have to say to this idiot author is "Blizzard, bitch." Five million people paying them about $15 per month, for the privledge of playing just one game online (on top of their ISP fees). Know what? I'm going to say that there's something to the whole online gameing thing, to the tune of a billion dollars a year in Blizzard's case.
Re:PC vs. Console (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience, the vast majority of consoles in family homes are hooked up to the biggest TV set in the household, be it in the living room or family room/den. These are generally shared, communal spaces, with competition for screen time an issue (whether it be for watching cable TV, a Tivo'ed program, or console playing). The joysticks are the input devices that games are built around, which allow for local one-on-one play alongside networked play.
The PC, on the other hand, is often in a bedroom or office, tucked away in a more private location. The monitor is far smaller, lending itself to more intimate experiences (no, not pr0n...well, not all the time
In short, Microsoft's attempts to bring the intimacy of the PC setting, and the monthly fees intimate games can bring (MMOs and gambling games, for example) to the console setting is a prima facie failure. You simply cannot reliably get enough eyes to sit in front of the (shared) TV to play an online game and make it worthwhile.
Re:Um (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that gaming is about social interaction. I have a college degree, a job, a wife, and two small children. I don't get much gaming time but the time I do get is most definitely an escape. Don't get me wrong, I like my job and I love my family. But for an hour or so a night (usually after the kids bedtime) I get to escape.
Sometimes (okay, a lot of the time) my escape is Burnout and I get to drive like a maniac while slamming into other cars. Other times my escape is Mercenaries and I get to run around in a tank and blow shit up. Other times my escape is an RPG where I save the world from (insert bad guy here). I do online game occasionally but that is a rare occurance. My hour is mine and a single player game is the best escape there is.
I get my "social gaming" in once or twice a month when some friends from work get together and hook up the game systems to a wall projector. And that's fun because we can sit around, chat, and drink beer. We tried the "gathering" online once and it flopped.
I'd be very, very surprised if I'm alone in this view. I believe you'll find that you are the minority and the XBox live numbers (or lack thereof) back that up.
Re:Gaming is often a social act (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at it this way:
Single player gaming is like reading a book. The experience is entirely your own and no one else messes with it; if you want to be the 'death dealing priest' no one yells at you "heal me you nub!" because it is your world (and your rules).
Local Multiplayer is like watching TV (in particular a sporting event) with a group of close friends; you share the experiance with people you enjoy being around.
Online Multiplayer is like going to a movie or to a sporting event; except for a select few people, you're in no control of who you deal with. This is an environment which can offer massive benefits because you can take up a group mentality (for example laughing at unfunny jokes in a movie, cheering like crazy for your team), but comes with problems (like the moron who is drunk and swearing like crazy).
What it comes down to is that some people would rather read a book, others are happy watching TV with friends and family and some people like going to Movies/sporting events; most people like all 3 depending on the situation.
Re:Time (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to clock at least 15 hours a week in videogames a few years back. Now that I'm married, college done and I have a full time job, I rarely put more than 5. And even though I can navigate my way through most of the hardcore stuff of today, I'm beginning to appreciate more games where the learning curve is well integrated in them and don't take forever to finish.
Re:Um (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Anything people enjoy is actually an escape from responsibility.
2. Responsibilities are things people do to live.
3. People live to enjoy life. (Beloved people, beloved works, beloved ideals, sensual & mentally sensual pleasures.)
4. So the purpose of responsibility is to help you enjoy life.
5. But there are no joys in life, merely a series of escapes from responsibility.
Thus responsibility can never fulfill it's purpose.
What's bogus here is line 1.
There is joy outside of "escape."
People actually, really, bona fida, enjoy the things that they're doing. It's not made entirely of "negative value."
If your problem is with line 3, then I mean to tell you: You live a very sad life.
Joy isn't a "0 sum" thing. Look at any kid; They just enjoy doing what they're doing, even though they don't really have to do anything.
Very shortsighted (Score:3, Insightful)
If you had told me when I was a kid that I should be chatting with friends through VOIP while playing Space Quest, I don't think I would have given you the time of day. In fact, I'd probably try to urinate on you or something. It just wasn't part of my world.
Now, though, kids spent a *lot* of time getting together online - through IM, myspace, games, and other technologies. It's a fact of life for them, and it's only going to grow for the coming generations.
To say that the strategy is "Absolutely flawed" is to look at one segment of the gaming population without considering where *everything* is trending, and that's toward online activity.
I've seen a lot of arguments here of the "Well, I don't like the idea, so it must suck dog balls" variety, but you have to remember that there is a universe outside your own - there are plenty of people who *do* live huge chunks of their social lives through online interactions.
Microsoft's real gamble (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the percentage of users on XBox Live is much smaller (the numbers I hear are 10-20%). Microsoft took a big loss on the XBox. And now they are doing it again, but this time they are trying to make Live much more appealing- with the Arcade and demos and trailers, they want people to be willing to get Live even if they don't want to play any games online. If they can get the majority of XBox users to pay for Live, they can keep selling more powerful systems for losses to keep ahead on the competition.
Also unfortunately, it seems the competition have other ideas. Sony is gambling that by putting a Blu-ray player in every home, they'll make a fortune off of Blu-ray, so they're willing to sell the PS3 for an even higher loss than Microsoft ever did methinks- even if they take an overall loss on their games division, they'll take the loss and gain total control over the movie market. And Nintendo has the right idea- they said, "You know what, it's stupid to throw away money and sell for a massive loss and lose profitableness for bragging points on who has the most powerful system. We're out of this race- we'll sell a lower priced system with free online play, hundreds of downloadable classic games and a controller that gives you new ways of play. Having slightly better graphics than your competitor isn't so important anymore."
And to the above poster:
There was an interesting interview in this month's Maxim with the head game designer at Nintendo (I think that is his title, he is the guy that invented Mario Bros etc.)
He said the big challenge is that games have become so complex, that there are no casual gamers. That the world has been divided into two types of people: those who play games, and those who don't play games.
I see his point- I haven't played a video game in years, aside from ones that can be learned in 5 minutes. I just don't have the time to spend hours every day attaining levels and learning complex controls and commands.
That would be Shigeru Miyamoto. Yeah. He also said in the interview that Nintendo wanted to change all that with the Revolution controller being so intuitive and easy.
I've noticed that tendency. Games are becoming staggeringly complicated; on some Adventure games and RPG's I'll get halfway through the game before I realize what some of the items I have can be used for. There aren't many games that can be learned in five minutes, except maybe Burnout 3 (that button is accelerate, that one is brake, that on is boost, try to run into other cars, game learned!).
Re:Social gaming... (Score:3, Insightful)
No one really knows how many people were on xbox live with the original console. And anything as far as information gathered on it was little more than speculation, as Microsoft (like many others) did not release subscription numbers as far as I can remember.
Secondly, the "big push" is indeed toward online gaming. Xbox Live (at least on the 360) is one of the best facilitations for online console gaming than has ever been created. I have never used something that was so easy to hook up with friends and play games online. I wish I had the percentage in front of me, but Gamespot had done an article a while back that was basically explaining how the entire gaming market is going online, and most people ARE playing games for more social interaction than real life usually allows. Do people play them to escape as well? Absolutely.
But I do think the video gaming world is going to be in for quite a shock in the next few months. Sony scrapped plans for an online service with the PS3. With Xbox Live, unless you're playing some kind of MMO, you have one flat subscription fee for ALL your online games. PS3 left it up to developers to make their own multiplayer servers and components... This is going to lead (like it did on PS2) to seperate subscriptions for seperate games, a marketing tactic that rarely works outside of the PC world.
Is Microsoft on the right track pushing console gaming into such ease of online access? Absolutely. While it is at times satisfying knowing you got a record "hi score" in a game and can share it with some of your friends, being able to share achievments with the rest of the online gaming world is another animal all entirely.
This is the way of the video-gaming future... you can put stock in that
Re:This guy missed the point of online gaming . . (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem lies in the skill level of "me" and "you". Battlefield2 not only had a steep learning curve for the game itself, but I got on a couple of months after launch and I was faced with guys that were very difficult to beat. I got creamed left and right.
Now I love a challenge, so I kept playing, but I know a lot of people who would've given up after they got killed a couple of dozen times without killing hardly any of the enemy in return. You'd never consider pitting little leaguers against an MLB team, or even a minor league team, but it happens all the time on BF2 servers. In order for online gaming to take off, there's going to have to be the equivilent of different leagues or divisions where newbies can start off playing other newbies then advance to moderate play and then on to expert. Until this happens, many people will be too embarrased, afraid, or bored (respawn again!?!?!) to play online.
In addition to pitting the propper players against each other, you also need to let them get to know each other. Here again, BF2 falls short. When waiting between maps in Counter Strike, it was easy to keep up a conversation about the good, bad and ugly of the last round. In BF2, all communication ceases. Isn't online play supposed to be a social activity?
And here's the most important reason why online play is superior to single-player play (at least for me): I love playing against other people. People do increadibly smart and increadibly stupid things. People will laugh with you when you do something funny and laugh at you when you do something stupid. If you come around a corner alone only to face 7 guys on the other team, everyone is gonna laugh their ass off while they blow you away. You'll laugh too. In a single player game, you're just going to load the last save. No one cares if you blast 500 bad guys in five minutes in Serious Sam, but if you shoot your best friend in the back while he's ever so slowly trying to sneak up on his girlfriend, well, you might just get a kiss on the cheek and a sock on the shoulder the next time you see them. That's far more what life is all about.
TW
Re:Um (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I think most of us here are a couple of steps above the ant on the evolutionary scale. I'm not entirely sure why ants are here...
But, as for me? I live for nothing else but satisfying my pleasures. I DO live for the sake of joy. I only work because it enables me to have money to buy things and go places I enjoy. If I didn't have to work, I can ensure you that I would not....I'd spend my hours doing nothing but stuff that was fun for me.
I have responsibilities only because I have to work to earn money to sustain or increase my ability to create joy for myself. If I didn't have to work, I would have no responsibilities really...
Here's a great example.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To everyone bashing this guy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)