Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

XBox Live Network 236

Posted by michael from the passports-for-everyone dept.
The New York Times covers Microsoft's planned XBox Live network, a subscription-based online service for the XBox. Microsoft's "we control everything" approach will probably impact the number of games available, but the article notes that the service will include voice-over-ip, which might be a selling point.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XBox Live Network More

XBox Live Network

Comments Filter:

  • Microsoft as a telco? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 )
    And XBox as the subscriber instrument?
    • Well... there was a plan in the works at SEGA.

      You could use that microphone (Seaman) and on some online games there was voice chat.

      All one would need to do is write some software and put it on a disc...
  • X-Box is the one existing console that outdoes Sony Playstation 2 at every turn. This is just another extension of that lead.
    • Actually it doesn't outdo the Playstation at every turn.

      It has nowhere near the game library the ps2 has. Remember the ps2 can play ps1 games easily. It doesn't have as many exclusive, must-buy titles as the ps2 has. The world market share from the Xbox's perspective is puny compared to the ps2. The ps2 has more and better developer support. The ps2 has all the top games (grand theft auto 3, gran turismo 3 just to name two). The ps2 doesn't require a costly addon to allow you to play dvds; it can do this right out of the box.

      I know you're probably a proud Xbox owner that revels in ignoring facts, but do some research before you post something like this.

  • ESPN (Score:5, Interesting)

    by doubtless ( 267357 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @12:29AM (#3548401) Homepage
    ESPN was running a show about video games and sports.

    They showed Peyton Manning and Matt Hasselbeck playing Madden 2002 online with VoIP using XBOX. Manning is of course at Indina, while Hasselbeck is at Washington. I must say it was pretty impressive.

    • Madden 2003 (Score:2, Informative)

      by Hatter ( 3985 )

      Looks like [com.com] they won't have that same chance next year. EA doesn't take kindly [slashdot.org] to Microsoft's bully tactics and won't be releasing Madden 2003 with network support.

      • Networking will take off in a big way when FFXI is released - it'll probably even spur people on to buy the necessary modem. Unless the X-Box gets some high-profile games like this it'll die a slow death in the networked games market.

    • Re:ESPN (Score:2, Insightful)

      by f0dder ( 570496 )
      Anyone who plays Counter-Strike on public servers knows that voice over IP experience can be equivalent to a sharp stick in the eye.
      It's not the technology, it's the morons behind the mic. This is what you can expect..

      people who can't configure mic so sound is all garbled

      voice spam in dude speak

      it's the internet so not everyone speaks english

      it's the internet so people who speak english makes no sense

      I hope someone at microsoft remembers to code in the mute button.

    • Re:ESPN (Score:2, Informative)

      by humpmonkey ( 202226 )
      It wasn't Madden 2002, it was MS's NFL Fever 2003.
      • Ops, I was wrong, thank you for the information.

        I have the habit of watching TV and reading slashdot at the same time.. and my brain doesn't have preemptive multistasking built in.. darn.
  • So how long will it take for the /. readers to find a work-around to the system?
  • So is the another way to field test a subscription service for other programs?
  • One reason people dislike Microsoft is the fact that they have a near monopoly on the OS market, and they still do such a bad job on design. If they manage to do a good job with this network, many people may not object to such a controlling situation.

    When MS inundates the market when the lower the price to $99 of the X-Box, they certainly will have a better opportunity for another monopoly.

  • Security quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by antic ( 29198 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @12:34AM (#3548423)

    Robert J. Bach, a Microsoft senior vice president in charge of its games division: "When you're at Disneyland, there's no trash, no violence and you never see security. That's what we have in mind."

    Yep, definitely a Microsoft product...

    • Re:Security quote (Score:2, Informative)

      by Quigley ( 18976 )
      And when was the last time you heard of any problems at Disneyland?

      I think the MS guy's point is that they're shooting for strong, effective security measures that are unobstrusive. Like at Disneyland, plain clothes cops for instance.

      Of course, I have my doubts (as well as most ppl on here I'm sure) that they'll be able to pull it off, but I still think you missed the point.
      • No, I got the point. I have an Xbox and think it's great. I was just using the line as an excuse for a joke.
      • And when was the last time you heard of any problems at Disneyland?

        Apart from the numerous fatalities [whatever-dude.com] on the monorail and rides? Maybe the gangfights [oitc.com] broken up by plainclothed security. Let's see... first gangfight in 1976 [earthlink.net], first recorded murder in 1981 [dogbutt.com]. Still, the Disneyland Security guys, backed up by hidden cameras [oitc.com] play hardball [angelfire.com] , they're into handcuffing suspects to metal railings, lengthy interrogations etc. Don't try to enter if you have the wrong hair colour [gonzo.org]

        What's amazing is that a place that caters for so many people has so few problems. But problems [aclu.org] it has.

        • Great links, thanks. Still, no recent security problems that I could find, though you expressed what I meant better than I did:

          "What's amazing is that a place that caters for so many people has so few problems."

          Clearly, the security is very effective.

      • Re:Security quote (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jsse ( 254124 )
        And when was the last time you heard of any problems at Disneyland?

        You one of the ignorant mass who believe Disneyland has no problem [whatever-dude.com].

        Well, Disneyland and Microsoft are doing exactly the same things - covering their asses with good marketing coverup. You are a happy guy who believe in their publicity.

        • Re:Security quote (Score:3, Funny)

          by mosch ( 204 )
          according to you, the following are problems that Disneyland created, not merely fine examples that Darwinism still occasionally works:
          • 1964: a fuckwit stands up at the summit of the matterhorn. He was thrown off, died.
          • 1966: a fuckwit sneaks onto disneyland property, and is walking along the monorail track. a guard tries to warn him that the monorail is coming, he runs from the guide, and hides on the track, gets smushed.
          • 1967: a fuckwit attempts to get out of the people mover while it's in the middle of the ride. His cuff gets caught, and he trips, gets squished.
          • 1968: a helicopter service that ran from LAX to disneyland had two crashes. The first semi-legitimate one, though the fact that helicopters can crash isn't particularly shocking.
          • 1973: two fuckwits stay in the park after closing. they then decide to cross a fake river, despite the fact that one of them doesn't know how to swim. one kid manages to survive, the other one drowns. thank you darwin.
          • 1974: a fuckwit, who was actually an employee, was working at an attraction which involves different rooms rotating to face the audiance. clearly, the machinery which moves a 3-story building is fairly strong. the fuckwit got herself caught in a fashion that her leg got squashed by the spinning room.
          • 1980: another fuckwit is walking between the couplings of various PeopleMover cars. fuckwit falls down, gets run over. dies.
          • 1981: a fuckwit pinches some girl's ass. the girl's boyfriend doesn't like this, a fight erupts, it escalates, the fuckwit gets himself stabbed.
          • 1983: drunken fuckwit steals a maintainance raft at night, takes it for a spin around the rivers of america, falls out, drowns.
          • 1984: for reasons not detailed (nothing says if it's equipment failure, or user error), a woman's buckle comes undone on the matterhorn, she gets thrown off, then gets hit by another matterhorn car, dies.
          • 1987: fuckwit gang members get into a fight in the parking lot, and shoot each other.
          • 1998: the first death caused by a Disney employee fuckup. One of the river of america ships is coming to dock. they cast a rope around the mooring cleat, but the ship was moving too fast, ripped the mooring cleat off the dock, and through an unfortunate soul's face, killing her. Disney didn't deny anything, or even fight the lawsuit.
          So, could you explain to me which part of this shows that Disneyland has lots of hidden problems, covered up only by good marketing?

          oh wait, none of it shows that at all, you're a fucking retard.



    • Robert J. Bach, a Microsoft senior vice president in charge of its games division: "When you're at Disneyland, there's no trash, no violence and you never see security. That's what we have in mind."


      Its an interesting quote. And it points to a few issues:
      1. Disney proves to be experts at crowd control. Their physical security is a quieter aspect of that. If the rumors can be believed, Disney obviously have trained experts in physical security working to protect the parks. Again - experts trained, knowledgable, and experienced with the challenges physical security present. Within the IT field, infosec knowledge and training is still relatively rare.
      2. Security directly affects Disney's profit. Part of Disney's product is a safe, fun-oriented experience. Violating physical security threatens that experience, threatens the entire image (thus threatening the emotional responce to Disney products), threatens park attendance, and potentially exposes Disney to liability. Infosec issues rarely have the same effect in the IT industry (Microsoft being a fairly prime example).
      3. Physical security and information security often have extreemly different environments, concerns, cultures, and methods. The two rarely overlap or otherwise have anything to do with each other. Making comparisons between the two is an exercise for the uninitiated.
      4. Finally - there is a long-standing tennant within infosec that states there is an inverse relationship between functionality and security. The easier it is to use something, the less likely it is to be secure (and visa-versa). Infosec tech vendors are constantly searching for, and claiming to offer, the holy grail of ease-of-use security. But they are often chock full of caveats or simply fail to live up to scrutiny. Beware of any vendor who claims ease-of-use to a level that security is invisible.
  • I'd REALLY like to see a distributed effort to host games like every other good title in the PC world... In addition to a subscription... which yes has its merits... I want something like Tribes III on XBox where the XBoxer's can join in on servers maintained by the gaming faithful... I think this is practical to sell games and is already being done... by these folks. [xboxgw.com] They have a little gateway program based on Linux. What's your dream for XBox Connectivity? what PC games would you like to see in a networked console?

  • Microsoft Bashing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hooded1 ( 89250 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @12:38AM (#3548434) Homepage
    You guys can bash Microsoft as much as you want, but frankly who cares. Microsoft has developed some of the most successful marketing schemes in history. And don't even bother comparing Gate's monopoly to Rockafellar's. Gates doesn't kill people he just puts pressure on other companies
    • "Microsoft has developed some of the most successful marketing schemes in history"

      I completely agree.

      A merketing scheme were the customers are FORCED to buy your product is succesful indeed. It is much better than the marketing schemes based on customer satisfaction, many other companies imploy.

      • Re:Microsoft Bashing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by malfunct ( 120790 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @02:03AM (#3548648) Homepage
        When was the last time an MS employee put a gun to your head and made you lay out cash to buy windows?

        If anything forces you to buy an MS product its the extreme value of having a single ubiquitous computing solution that is fairly easy for anyone to use. MS has hit the nail on the head in a number of ways. The software does the job, is available everywhere, and you can bet that if you want to get something done an MS tool will do it.

        I don't know if this is a good world or a bad one but I am tired of saying that you are "forced" to use an MS product. You could take the plunge if you wanted (and many have) and leave the world of MS. Unfortunately you are going to have more trouble convincing other people to do the same until all of the same benifits of using MS products manifest themselves. The hard one to reach is market saturation but I wish you luck. I frankly don't care who writes "the OS" so long as it does what I want when I want and where I want. And I don't want to have to learn 30 billion different variations, I want one solution that is everywhere. Windows more or less solves that problem for me and every time I look at it, its not really that expensive (hell you buy a computer and they give it to you). When MS products fail to do the job I need done I'll drop them like a hot potato, but until then they work. Its MY choice though, and I'm not forced in any way though I am compelled to use it which is a different story all together.

        • So if i go to my local electronics department store, and i ask for a PC that does not have windows on it, and i insist that i dont pay for the cost of windows, what do you think will happen?
          • Easy. You will be told to go elsewhere. Just because you can't find the product that you want at the merchant that you wan to buy from doesn't mean that you are being forced to buy something. There are thousands of independent computer stores that are MORE THAN WILLING to sell you a machine without Windows.

            Consumers have alway had choices. Name one year out of the last 15 where Microsoft had the ONLY desktop operating system. Name one. Just one. You can't.

            And the reason you can't is because there has ALWAYS been choices for consumers. Sure, M$ pushed a few brand-name OEM's around, basterdized a few protocols here and there, and so on... but claiming that ANY consumer was FORCED to buy Windows is absurd.
        • I've always hated the "they aren't holding a gun to your head" argument as stupid. One can be forced to do things in many many ways. One is by using thier market dominance to run any potential competitor out of bussiness, not by competing, but by simply using thier market dominance. Microsoft was found guilty of this and is now in the penalty phase. For example.

          Back in the win 3.1 and win 95 days there was this small company called stacker. They produced software that compressed a disk and decompressed it on the fly making it appear as if you had a larger drive. They produced a good product. Enter MS - they produced and integrated thier own disk compression technique - great. Did it work better? no. Even though it was bundled, stacker continued to have market dominance within that single field. Enter microsoft abusing thier monopoly. Pay any programmer working for stacker 1 million to never work there again. Change windows constantly in such a way as to not allow stacker to run. Many other things also (including stealing thier code). In the end stacker went broke and MS had the only disk compression software out there. I was very much forced to use thier products (since there was no alternative).

          A monopoly such as microsoft has two main ways it can go. One is not illegal - use thier vast resources to produce a kick ass product. Wal-mart has a near monopoly, and barring some examples where they didn't do this, they continue to provide cheap goods, even cheaper because of thier monopoly (there is a term for this type of monopoly but its been 7 years since my econ class :) ). Microsoft has the ability to do great good, in fact they are in a unique position to do so. But instead they try and stiffle competition, not by producing a better product but by using thier market dominance to force the changes they want.

          In short - Microsoft seems to have basically met your needs. In many cases they do not meet mine but it is either use thier products or not do it at all. The argument is analogous to telling someone unless they give you 500 dollars (when you know they have 1000) or you will drown them, them not giving you 500, and then you drown them, and your defense is "but they could have given me 500 dollars". Yea, you have a choice - but it's not like you can always take the alternative.
        • A lot of governments and government agencies (such as schools) provide documents to the public electronically only in .doc format. Perhaps you can read a half assed version scrambled through a non-compliant reader, but to properly read the document you'll need to purchase an MS product (either windows to run the MS-Word Document Viewer, or Microsoft Word to run inside Linux with the codeweavers plugin).

          If participating in your own government, and therefore your own future, isn't forcing you to buy an M$ product, I'd like to know someone with an interest in their own future that puts a gun to their head.

          Just because they don't put a gun to your head doesn't mean they can't force you to buy their product. Take telephone service for example. Where I live, for many, many decades you could only buy a phone line from Bell. Sure, you could use CB radio to chat with friends, but then you can't use government services (some of which were telephone exclusive) or many other private services.

          The same goes for other monopolies, like your gas company, your cable company, your power company and your garbage disposal company.

          So, you see, there's many other ways to be forced into buying a product than you've picked up on. Some of them include the right to participate in a regular life without abnormal impediments to it.

          For me, it includes the purchase of an MS XP "enabled" laptop so I can complete college studies and lead a "normal" life in the world of computer programming. I know of no recognized Universities or Colleges within the reach of my pocketbook that offer MS free courses, and I'm sure if you looked about your city you'd find the same thing.

          Don't we all deserve the right to an education and the right to participate in government without being forced to support a monopoly some of us would rather disappear?
        • Gee, you trolling for Microsoft [slashdot.org] or what?

          Not that it matters, you proved you have no clue what you are talking about when you said: its not really that expensive (hell you buy a computer and they give it to you). Obviously you haven't paid for or deployed Windows in an enterprise environment. As long as you can steal your favorite music, and run all the latest viruses [slashdot.org], what do you care?
  • The article seems to indicate that while Xbox is placing great emphasis on networking, Playstation is not.

    I have to believe the Times errs here. Sony after all owns Everquest.

    Or... is it because Sony owns Everquest that they think they have network games covered?

    As addictive as EQ is, it isn't a substitute for robust game network that allows for the development of many different kinds of games... or is it? Will VR worlds be the be-all-and-end-all of network gaming, even well into the future?

    I think that's a risky gamble. Sony should put more resources into providing better support for more generic network games, if only because Microsoft is doing it with Xbox.
    • Well, with the recently released FFXI in Japan [gameforms.com], I don't think Sony is neglecting the networked gaming market (unlike Nintendo, who is still taking a "wait and see" approach).

      Secondly, with the recent PS3 rumors, it seems clear that Sony sees where Microsoft wants to go with their platform, and is eager to stop them before they see any major success. Sony has the stronger brand, at the moment, so I have my money on them in the long-run.

      I know Nintendo has a strong "its all about the games!" attitude. I know its a strong platform, with great developers; I just hope they aren't caught flat-footed in the console online arena. They should definitely be planning something at the very least as a contingency.

      • Oh, there is no doubt Nintendo have something planned, which would go far beyond a contingency plan should they decide to push into the online console arena.

        The odd thing is that everyone believes that Nintendo are the furthest behind in the online console race. This is rubbish. The NES was online in Japan. The SNES was online in Japan. The N64 (via the 64DD) was online in Japan. The GameBoy was/is online in Japan (via a mobile phone adaptor). Every console Nintendo have released has seen networking in some form. Nintendo have more real, first-hand experience with networking consoles then either Sony or Microsoft could ever dream of.

        Many people believe Nintendo only released the 64DD to 'beta test' online services on a small scale; you had to order the 64DD from Nintendo, and you had to subscribe to get one. Making the GameCube do the same won't exactly be a bold new world for them.

        The GameCube has both a 56k modem and broadband adaptors in the pipeline. Just because Nintendo haven't been loud with vapour doesn't mean nothing is coming. They're just being typical Nintendo - quiet.
    • What exactly do you imagine Sony doing to provide support for more generic network games?

      They already have gotten support from EA (sports games), Sega (sports games), and more than a handful [ign.com] of Japanese game developers. Racing games, fighting games, flight games, RPGs, FPS are all accounted for. I've heard more from Sony recently than Microsoft, but Microsoft is probably holding out for E3 this week.

      Sony has been touting their partnerships with AOL and RealPlayer among others and support from game developers. Microsoft has been boasting about their service and their voice capabilities. Both are probably holding most of their game announcements for E3. In any case, neither is set to launch their services officially until Fall this year unless one of them pulls something out of thin air.

      Personally, I don't understand all the fuss about the online race for this generation of consoles. It will mostly be all beta testing for the next generation, and the games are mostly unproven so far. Laggy fighting games where twitch reflexes are key to winning, racing games where most PC racing games have not fared well, and so forth all seem like a big hassle. Sports games are one of the few exceptions IMO. It's definitely intriguing to look at the games and see where the gaming companies think consoles are going, but right now, it's pretty unknown territory that in of itself is a gamble to even develop an online game for.

  • I don't own an XBox, I've gotta say that straight away. My main reason for this is that I'm not spending several hundred dollars on a box to play games on when I have an expensive PC sitting here. On top of that $50 per game is starting to get silly and the prices seem to only be going to one direction. That's comparable to PC games, but many tend to wait until they get discounted. This isn't as common in the console 'hot game' market.

    This is because consoles tend to be bought by parents for their kids. A good chunk is bought by the over 18s, but lets be honest, parents buying these for their kids is the largest market. These poor parents get nagged to buy the box, then every few weeks they stump up $50 for the latest game. This isn't nice and it's true for almost everything aimed at kids these days from fast food to barbie dolls at Xmas. But subscription multiplayer gaming/online communities?

    Are parents really going to be forced once again to stump up cash for MS accounts and phone bills to keep their kids happy. This even plays havoc with teenage owners living at home. Parents have to deal with credit card subscriptions and tied up phone lines. I'm not so sure this will sell in the numbers MS hopes. I'd be damned before I spent it after the hundreds on the console already. For all that money on the game itself you'd hope they'd build some multiplayer/online services into that cost.
    • As a parent I had a very simple solution - I said no.

      I explained to the kids that between the ancient super-nintendo, and the PC they already spent too much time at a computer and there was no way I was going to pay for yet another console. Of course, if the kids actually save up enough to pay for a console I'll let them get one.

      What is the big deal to saying no? The parent is supposed to be in charge, not the kids. I don't buy sugar-laden cerals, name-brand runners, or 'designer' anything. I don't just say no, I explain why I'm saying no, and I explain why my kids should skeptical about anything being sold to them on TV.

    • That's comparable to PC games, but many tend to wait until they get discounted. This isn't as common in the console 'hot game' market.
      Untrue. Sony regularly relaunches hit titles with low price points, as does Nintendo to a lesser extent. Microsoft has already dropped the price on several of their 1st party launch titles, including Oddworld.

      A good chunk is bought by the over 18s, but lets be honest, parents buying these for their kids is the largest market.
      Are you doing this on purpose, or are you just talking about something you don't understand? While consoles may have been for kids a dozen years ago, the fact of the matter today is that men AND women are buying consoles in the 18-34 age range.

      ... tied up phone lines...
      Have you ever seen an Xbox? Where's the part that ties up the phone lines?

      Shame on you for using a public forum to spout lies and half-truths in order to justify your decision not to purchase a console.

      • You're totally missing my point. Firstly it's my opinion that kids tend to always want the latest greatest NOW and put parents under that pressure. Pokemon is hardly a great game concept, but it is a great marketing concept to kids.

        Secondly I'm not saying over 18s don't buy consoles, but there are so many more bought by parents for their kids. Wander into Target any day of the week and see what age is playing the consoles.

        I have no idea where the phone jack is on an XBox, but unless it's going wireless directly to Redmond I assume you have to plug it in somewhere.

        Shame on you for thinking your opinion is more important than anyone elses in a public forum.
    • Parents already pay a handful of monthly bills in terms of ISP subscriptions, cell phones, and other type of bills (think Disney channel or Everquest) for their kids. Another ~$10 won't be a big deal. Yes, things like Internet service and cell phones are used by adults, but teenagers and younger kids are primary users as well these days.

      On another point, console game prices are headed south if the latest rumors [ign.com] regarding Sony and Nintendo are true. Most brand new titles today debut at $35-$40 for their first week lately in the Sunday ads much like their PC counterparts. Many of Sony's big titles are also going to their Greatest Hits series at a reduced costs for roughly $30 less than a year after they've been out.

      I won't even attempt to convince you that while X-Box may be a PC in a box, in all fairness, it does have some things going for it. I'm a happy PS2-only owner at the moment BTW.

    • Consoles today don't target kids as much. They go after young adults with more disposable income. Look at the games out now... definately aimed at the 18 - 24 market. Almost all the guys I know in that age group at my office have an XBox and/or a PS2.

  • Blah (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cscx ( 541332 )
    Microsoft's "we control everything" approach will probably impact the number of games available

    Hey, yo, michael. You know, it's pretty disgusting how you use slashdot as a pedastal for your techno-political views. Your job is to post news stories. No one really cares about your bullshit---we get it, you hate Microsoft, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, it's getting old. Can you for once post an unbiased article, or is that beyond your capability as a human^H^H^H^H^H droid?

    I'll take the karma hit, but someone had to say it.

    • Re:Blah (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Slurpee ( 4012 )
      Good Call.

      Leave the Ranting to the comments, not when posting a story!

      I mean...soon we're going to have goatsx or whatever being posted in the actual story....not in the comments where it belongs!
    • Here goes the anti-anti-Microsoft rave again which is almost as common as the anti-Microsoft rave. The only problem here is that michael actually has a valid point which simply isn't just his anti-Microsoft view.

      Microsoft do have a "we control everything" approach (open your eyes if you can't see that). Is there anything particaularly wrong with this attitude. Sometimes yes, sometime no, but in this case, michael points out that this approach may impact on the number of games available. Is that an anti-Microsoft rant and rave? I don't think so. Just an analysis on how he feels game makers would react to Microsoft's need for control.

      Next time try turning down the sensativity on your anti-anti-Microsoft warning buzzer.

      Oh and your "I'll take the karma hit ..." is classic Karma whoring, we see right through it. And yes, outing your karma whoring tactics is karma whoring itself, so sue me.
      • So I guess yours is the anti-anti-anti Microsoft rave?
        • Not really since that would imply that I was pro anti-Microsoft where I felt that michael, although he often is, was not anti-Microsoft.

          Mine was just an anti-KneeJerkReaction rave.

    • Michaels statement is very on topic for this story. EA has already said [slashdot.org] they don't like Microsoft's need for control and won't realease [com.com] Madden 2003 with online support for the Xbox.

      MS is going to have to learn how to cooperate in the console area, they don't have the stranglehold they have in other markets.

    • You don't have to be a *nix advocate to hate microsoft.

      There was a new dawning today at my house. My dad asked me "is there any other type of program besides Windows?, why does every person i know run windows for?"

      It hard to explain to someone like this and be totally non-biased. He regularly complains about crashes, why things just stop working...i've become somewhat of a built-in system admin for him.

      As far as the editor's comments on news stories, i agree with you. Slashdot should just post submissions they think are worthwhile to post and be done with it. Tacking their own biased opinions at the bottom really makes the editors of slashdot look unprofessional.

      Not only that, but it turns a good news story into something of a mockary. I will be willing to wager that not everyone on here thinks like everyone else. Not everyone hates microsoft. Not everyone loves linux.

      How hard is it to post a story with a tacked on insult or blessing??

      A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
      • You don't have to be a *nix advocate to hate microsoft.
        A *nix advocate doesn't hate Microsoft, no need to. It's the Microsoft users that hate Microsoft.

        How hard is it to post a story with a tacked on insult or blessing??
        Not all that difficult, I'd imagine. Its what starts the commentary that follows, which is what we readers and commenters are really after.

    • Phaw, last time I said it I was chastized and nearly murdered by the lynch mob. I'm glad you're fairing better with the "Down with MS, up with Linux, Down with MS, Up with Linux" droids.

      I try to come here for news, if you'd like to express your opinion leave it for the comments. You guys are worse than FOX news.

    • He is only stating a fact (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Baki ( 72515 )
      In this case it is just a fact that microsoft has a "we control everything" approach. Stating this fact is not necessarily anti-microsoft, since for some of their customers this is viewed as an advantage: keeps the world simple, you are not confused by too many choices. Even microsoft themselves admit this, they often stated that giving consumers too many choices is dangerous.

      Besides, what is wrong with slashdot being openly (i.e. the posted stories alread share this view) anti-Microsoft? There are numerous pro-microsoft propaganda sites on the web. I'm glad there is at least one site that is consistently against microsoft (and rightly so).
    • man i'm so happy someone finally said SOMETHING. i read slashdot as much as anyone, but michael's completely one sided commentary is absurd. for those that say it only matters what the people who are running the site think, i would unequivocally agree EXCEPT that the other moderators never (or at least much more rarely) use the kind of juvenille jabs at MS that michael does.

      obOnTopic: one line i absolutely agree with in the article is the "pendulum has gone far to the side of single player games". i found this to be spot on. many many millions have been made by watching the standard ebb and flow of marketplaces and betting the platform on the network is probably safer in this case than sticking with the status quo.

    • Bah. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 )
      Its rather amusing. Over the years, as Slashdot has shown up in more mainstream press and gained more and more readers, there has been a steady increase in pro-Microsoft activity.

      Sometimes that activity includes rather thoughtfull posts defending a MS position or challenging MS criticism. Which is good. Keeps everyone honest.

      But more often it is the usual claims of "MS-bashing" and "Linux zealots". It is the same, tired whining found in other perhapse more mainstream forums. It is not the voice of reason. The claims have no merrit. They are shrill name-calling. Trolling. The refuge of those who's status quo is challenged and have no recourse other than emotional outburst.

      Does Michael push a political view? Yes. Slashdot always has. And much of its popularity is based on that; I for one share that view and enjoy the site. You may not agree with those views. And I'd enjoy thoughtfull, genuine discussion on those views when they are topical.

      But before you bemoan your karma and take on the veil of the martyr... you might be experiencing negative feedback because you disagree. But then - it could also be because you sound like an uninformed idiot.

    • Re:Blah (Score:5, Informative)

      by dackroyd ( 468778 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @05:21AM (#3549110) Homepage
      Just for anyone confused by the cute little troll, Michael was reffering to EA not wanting to develop online games for Xbox, due to M$ wanting to control the servers, EA Cites MS Bullying, Says No Xbox Online Games [slashdot.org].

      Why is this a big deal for EA ? Because if M$ contol the servers then they control all the revenue that comes, in through online games. EA hate this as at the moment they are free to pick and choose which games they develop for which consoles.

      If M$ had the power to 'accidentally' disconnect EAs online games, then EA would not be able to make free decisions about what games are made for the Xbox, and so would be bound into supporting M$ for ever, even if it made more economic sense for them not to.

      This is one of the main reasons why most game companies are reasonably happy with Sony and Nintdendo dominating the games industry. Yes, they can be selfish and hard to work with, but they at least let other games companies exist and don't try to bully them into handing over all their future profits on online games.

      • Re:Blah (Score:2, Insightful)

        by malakai ( 136531 )
        dackroyd says:
        If M$ had the power to 'accidentally' disconnect EAs online games, then EA would not be able to make free decisions about what games are made for the Xbox, and so would be bound into supporting M$ for ever, even if it made more economic sense for them not to.


        I think what MS wants to prevent, is in a year from now, people like you going "GOD DAMN, XBox Madden Online is DOG SLOW. F#$%ING MS SUCKS, THEIR NETWORK IS KRAP!" when in fact, it's EA's servers that can't handle the load (look back: Ultima Online History).

        A large portion of console owners recognize games as "MS Games, Sony Games, and Ninetendo Games" they rarely known the actual game company that produced the game they play. Nor do they care. So when the game doesn't work the way they expect, especially an on-line game, it's MS|Sony|Nintendo FAULT!.

        Also, your threat of 'accidental' server disconnection is like Worldcomm 'accidentally' shutting down competiors that may use UU.Net for hosting. Or say, they 'accidentally' block router traffic going through their networks to competitors sites. Yes it's possible, hell it's easy... but contracts, and agreements make it excessivly costly in penalities/lawsuits.

        And besides, if you read the article, EA was bitching about customer privacy. It's a load of crap aimed at using the press to strong arm some part of the negotiation we aren't privy too. Its more likely this has something to do with royalties. EA's no better than your vision of MS. Ask any of the companies the ate.

    • I do not have an opinion either way..
      As a registered /. user you have a choice to mask stories from specific authors and specific topics when you enter /.
      If it bothers you that bad, check out your user info [slashdot.org] page and modify it to block what you don't like.

  • Got a Linux Box? Play X-Box online now! (Score:4, Informative)

    by nsanders ( 208050 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @12:46AM (#3548462) Homepage
    http://www.xboxgw.com/

    Any one else seen that yet? Linux + Box == GOOD LOVE!

  • Loose words (Score:3, Funny)

    by jukal ( 523582 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @12:50AM (#3548473) Journal
    > "You're looking at a service that will become a new phone network overnight,"
    > said Richard Doherty, president of Envisioneering, a research
    > and consulting firm in Seaford, N.Y. "By Christmas, Microsoft could become the nation's fourth-largest phone company." ...and I thought I was looking at someone that left his brains in a plastic bag. These lines seems like a relic from 1998.
    • Jeez, I didn't even think about that. A good VoIP solution here could catch on, big-time. Maybe this is part of M$'s secret plans for the X-box. If it weren't for the fact that they control every aspect of it, I'd be excited about this. But as-is, I'm afraid of it. Fear is why it won't catch on.

  • XBoX needs to be Saved? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FzBravozF ( 514129 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @12:54AM (#3548488)
    Overall, this is a fairly negative article. The xbox doesn't need to be "saved", by xbox live.

    Nintendo doesn't have an online strategy. It will have separate adapters for sale and one game, PSO from Sega. That's it. Sony isn't charging for online for their own games, but third parties like Square, EA, etc could very well charge monthly fees. You have to buy the broadband adaptor as a bare minumum, and potentially a hard drive as well, and we all know how well add-ons do in the market place. You have the potential nightmare of registering with and dealing with multiple servers and multiple billings, not to mention dealing with questionable setup and performance issues with companies not properly equipped nor committed to online.

    The xbox is set up out of the box for online gaming using a broadband connection. One setup, one fee, ease of use, from a company with considerable internet experience and a serious financial committment to provide a state-of-the-art online gaming experience.

    Gee, I wonder which one of the three is really capable of doing online gaming right.

    Bravo
    .
    • As I've ranted elsewhere [slashdot.org], Nintendo have more experence with making consoles network and play with each other then either Microsoft or Sony.

      Nintendo have had online gaming since the NES days.
      • Sega is the company with experience and that is why Microsoft has paid sega handsomly for consulting with the online efforts.

        Sega costed 19.95 a month for dialup access which at one point boasted over 100,000 customers. Microsoft only wants 50,000 more then that and has 2 BILLION dollars to push for that market.

        They don't care about 30 million units sold with only 4-5 game attachment, they care about 10 million units sold with people buying 30-40 games because it is a whole new experience, not just "another version".
    • Everyone likes to bitch out console addons for not doing well, but, that's not always the case. Look at the N64. Ever hear of the Rumble Pak? *Everyone* I know with an N64 had a Rumble Pak, even though it didn't come with the system. Or how about the RAM upgrade? Majora's Mask (2nd N64 Zelda game) required it, and still sold really well.

      And as to Nintendo's online strategy, don't you think it'd be wise to wait until after E3 to pass judgement? The impression I've gotten so far is their big news for E3 would be their online plans. (Other big showings being playable Mario, Zelda, and Metroid)
    • I completely agree. Anebody can see that that new online game network will be every bit as good for the consumer as MSN and that internet TV thingy were. Yes i am being sarcastic.
    • MS is putting $$ into a ship that's already sinking. Let's look at MS's online blunders:

      1) Microsoft needs a killer app to get people to flock to Internet gaming. Nintendo would've never sold as many controllers as it did, for example, if it weren't for Goldeneye 007 - the first truly successful mainstream four-player game ever released. MS had their chance with Halo, but they missed the online boat, and Halo II won't bring the same draw with an additional online portion, much the same way Perfect Dark didn't succeed after Goldeneye, since it only drew the hardcore crowd.
      MS's chances at a killer mainstream online app, such as something from the EA Sports series, are obviously diminished thanks to the info on the linked article from the opening post. MS needs a game that everyone talks about - kids in school, kids at college, buddies at a party - the kind of word-of-mouth that reaches the mass consumer dollar. I like to call this the Wal*Mart dollar, and I use my hick brother as an example - his $$ goes towards games like Gran Turismo, Goldeneye, Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto... these are the games that have so much mass appeal, whether thanks to licensed cars, licensed movie characters, or general shock value, that even magazines like Rolling Stone give them coverage. MS has no games like this in the pipeline, and they would've announced them by now if MS had 'em, because they need the attention very badly at this point.

      2) Ethernet connection inside the box. Seems like a great idea for smooth gameplay, compared to a phone line's lag-a-lot, but you've already limited the potential market. The Wal*Mart dollar, which may be the mightiest out there, is basically gone with this one. The XBox may be cheaper now, which could get the system itself into more houses, but $200 + $50 per game + $50 per month for high-speed net + installation fee + $10 per month is not going to catch on any time soon for the average consumer, particularly parents who already have enough bills to deal with as it is.

      3) Speaking of parents; there is no way in hell that XBox Live will be as much of a "disneyland" as they want it to. AOL, with its thousands of parent controls, still has plenty of indecency available for minors (and if you don't believe me, ask my little cousins). If MS puts voice capabilities in its games, there's no way moderators will be able to listen in to every single game and censor speech. I'm sure groups of parents will moan about that vulnerability pretty soon.

      XBox has already carved its niche pretty deeply thanks to high-speed net limitations and lack of mainstream enthusiasm. The former isn't going to change, no matter how well MS picks up its slack on the latter. Nintendo and Sony know better than to pump $$ into a dying online horse and send it around the track. Console online gaming won't happen until high-speed net becomes as common as cable TV service, it's that simple. And cable TV didn't get into everyone's home until 1) the price went down and 2) channels like MTV and HBO became "must-haves" for the masses.

    • Nintendo doesn't have an online strategy. It will have separate adapters for sale and one game, PSO from Sega.

      It's a sad indcation of Nintendo's overall strategy that the only real innovation coming from the Gamecube, be it online play or Game Boy Advance connectivity, is coming from their old rivals Sega.

      Just goes to show how far-sighted the Dreamcast was. Now if only Sega would quit playing the field and pick one console to develop for so we know which one to put our money behind.

  • As reported here on /. [slashdot.org], MS has over $40 billion on hand. That means they can afford to give away 200 million X-boxes which translates into a free X-box for every man woman in child under the age of 50 in the US (I assume most over that age would be uninterested in a video game console). That's also enough cash to bring two X-boxes to every household. One could go in the kiddies' room and one in the living room to be enjoyed by the whole family.

    If BG had any balls, this is the strategy he'd pursue. Maybe he could write it off under his charity.

    • Not every man, woman, and child under 50 would *want* an Xbox. After all, if they're given away to everyone, you couldn't exactly resell them.

      And of course the M$ haters would find a way to install linux and hook up their CueCats to it.

      Psykechan
      4 bells tolled, 4 torches were lit and the world continued for thousands of years

  • Online Gaming (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NetGyver ( 201322 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @01:04AM (#3548515) Journal
    I love how they assume this:

    "Another challenge may arise in household geography. In most homes, the video-game console is located in the living room, where the television set is -- nowhere near the high-speed Internet connection in the den. That assumes, of course that the den has a high-speed connection."

    Our cable modem is in my room and piped to the family PC across the house by carefully laid RJ-45. And 802.11 wireless streamed upstairs. True some people who get broadband keep it hooked up to one PC in one room. But for $50-$60 a month, that seems like a big waste. Especially when you got more than one person in your house. Even more so when you have more than one PC, which seems to be a growing trend.

    I *like* online gaming. What they should do is merge the PC/Mac online gaming with console online gaming and support them both under one roof. Why build up a whole online infostructure for a particular console or just for PCs?

    Probably one of the reasons it isn't happening yet is because it takes some serious cash to put that type of system in place, and to make a good return investment you need alot of members to make the venture worthwhile.

    I don't think this will happen with a console spacific or console only infostructure, there needs to be more games released for each platform
    (PC, Mac, and consoles), that gives you a more diverse base so your not relying on one particular platform for revenue.

    Sadly enough I think Microsoft could very well pull this off. They got the cash and steamroller stamina to make it happen.

    It seems like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft each want to do their own thing when it comes to online gaming. Which reinforces competition - a good thing. But on the other hand an online serivce that is platform blind offers more players to compete with and has a better chance of long term survival IMHO.

    A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
    • Mmmm...I had a sudden flash of playing Tribes 4 on servers with people on XBox2's, PS3's, and computers.....of course, some problems arise. If you have traditional computer controls, the people using console are going to be completely outclassed, and if you dumb the computer controls down to console levels (try to take away my mouse and I'll cut off your hand), computer users would revolt. Still, it would be cool.
    • Our cable modem is in my room and piped to the family PC across the house by carefully laid RJ-45. And 802.11 wireless streamed upstairs

      And just how many people in the world know what RJ45 is, let alone how to wire up a network in their home? I include you in this statement, because I assume you've actually laid CAT5 with RJ45 connections, and not stuck thousands of RJ45 connectors together to make your network. Although.. perhaps you have..

  • Microsoft and your TV (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Slurpee ( 4012 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @01:23AM (#3548557) Homepage Journal
    This is not a suprising move at all.

    I've worked within iTV for 2 years now, in Oz. Have worked with Liberate, OpenTV and MHP. Have seen roll-outs of iTV in both the USA, and many Southern Hemi-sphere nations. Unfortunatly I have only heard about the success of iTV in the UK.

    iTV is slated to be the next "big" thing. Direct response advertising, directed advertising, direct shopping, and adding value to TV shows. Of course, all in a setting where people are comfortable. Most families in the western world are more then comfortable with their TV, and consider it part of their family.

    In fact, surveys have shown that while only something like 12% of the general public are comfortable ordering something over the internet, 92% would be comfortable ordering a product from their TV (in response to an Advert). Yes, those in the know can point out that the security problems are the same, but the general public views computers and the internet with fear, and their TVs with a nice warm fuzzy feeling.

    why is this important? Microsoft want to be at the base of iTV. And so far they have failed.

    At the moment the three big players in iTV are Liberate, OpenTV and MHP. OpenTV is going real well, Liberate is going well (but may be struggling), and MHP (run by Sun and others) are begging for customers (vaporware).

    Microsoft attempted to get in on the ground floor with Microsoft TV. After spending multiple-millions investing in AT&T, they were going to roll out Microsoft TV over their network. But failed. Basically, after months and months of delays, AT&T said screw you, and went to Liberate.

    In the end, MS closed down their TV department (in truth, the campus is still there in the Valley, but is not being used...just waiting for the right time), and moved their employees over to the X-box team.

    So, the next move for Microsoft is setting up some sort of network (X-box live), then deliverying content over this network.

    At first it will be games, then applications (ASP), then actual content (such as movies etc).

    And thus MS will be on their way to taking over your loungroom. And surplanting your cable company (providing you with TV), internet provider (through their network), Applications (only MS stuff on the X-box...or MS approved stuff), and of course your hardware (only X-boxes).

    MS will join with various cable companies to provide cable TV with your X-box (STB).

    And if they do it right (and they are in a VERY good position to do it right), the average joe will only see something like a games machine/Set Top Box for Cable being added to their TV. Consumers will be completely happy, without having to spend big-bucks on those scary expensive PCs.

    The current market that MS has does not compare to the potential size of the iTV market.

    And don't think that MS is the only company wanting this. Liberate, OpenTV and Sun are also trying to do the same. Oh, and yes, Sony (with the PS2) is also doing simular things.

    The PS2 is currently undergoing trials WRT replacing your STB to provide you with Cable TV (as well as gaming). Why? Look at the costs. In Australia, Digital STBes (to see Digital TV) cost $800 (AU) each (typically charged to the cable provider and rented to the consumer). A PS2 costs $500 (upfront to the consumer). You can put in an extension with your PS2 to watch DTV. So Sony joins up with a Cable company, and rolls out a PS2 to each home on the network who wants CableTV. Consumer gets a cheaper service, a free (or very cheap) PS2. Cable Company saves bucketloads on the STB. Sony wins the STB/iTV/Game Station race. Many consumers buy more games.

    This is *happening* people. Watch the wars between cable companies, telcos, STB makers, middleware and content creators to see who wins the Fight for YOUR Loungeroom!
    • More info on the deal with AT&F see:
      http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/09/25 /inter active.television.idg/index.html

      And it was more than a few millions...try $5 billion!

  • Why would they want to "own" everything? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Glonk ( 103787 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @01:27AM (#3548571) Homepage
    These are some of the more superficial reasons for why they want to have all online games go through Xbox Live:

    * Stats tracking across all games. Uses of this will be bragging rights, and even the ability to challenge someone around your skill level to a certain game.
    * Consistent interfaces and features across all online games. ig, mandatory support of the voice headset (players can use it optionally, and if they use it they can use the built in voice morphing software and mute players they don't want to hear.)
    * Ability to keep a buddy list of people you enjoy playing with, showing online/offline status and to talk to them.
    * Ability to challenge other users to play even a completely different game than you've got in the machine. The Xbox actually supports you challenging people to a different game, at which point you swap the DVD while it keeps you connected and you boot up into the other game and immediately play with those people.
    * Ability to pay a flat fee and play unlimited games online for that month/year. Nintendo and Sony opted for a route where developers can charge per game played, or what have you. The real reason EA doesn't want to support Xbox Live, IMHO, is because I think they plan to offer a "play all EA Sports games for $9.95/mo" type deal, which isn't allowed under Xbox Live.

    And there's a video from the old CES show that has a "simulation" of Xbox Live (3m53s long): http://www.xboxmaniak.com/?page=video2&nbr=7

    It looks pretty impressive, IMHO. I'm hoping they're smart enough not to charge an arm and a leg.

  • who knows, it might work (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stu the dude ( 580383 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @01:35AM (#3548591)
    I think it's a worthy experiment what Microsoft is doing with online XBox.

    Anybody who has played Counterstrike in the last year knows how bad it can get in a laissez faire environment. Cheating started with Half-life within weeks of it being on the market - it's only gotten worse since. There's a lot to be said for having all the simulation run on the server and the server run by the company the makes the game.
    Hell, Blizzard realized their mistake with the first Diablo, which was largely peer to peer and hugely hacked. The next couple games were server based with the servers all owned and operated by Blizzard. The resultant experience was a lot better.

    On the other hand, Microsoft is going to miss the whole dynamic of having the games supported and enhanced by the community. It's tremendously empowering to let the users run their own servers, make their own mods, etc. Trying to chaperone online play doesn't work well with hard-core gamers.

    Here's the thing though: up to now there have been two successful online game markets. Successful defined as popular.
    1. The paid MMP market such as Everquest. One game, well made, well maintained, for a price.
    2. The loss leader. Quake, Half-life, etc make their money by selling box copies. The online play is a offered as a free value-add, but with no guarantee of quality. The game maker invests some amount of money and resources into supporting online play, but on the assumption that it supports sku sales.
    (3. There's also the online casual game market (e.g. card games and bejeweled), but that's a different creature.)

    There have also been a bunch of companies that tried to make a business of online play in other ways. Companies like TEN and mPlayer tried to make money with a for-a-fee walled garden and non-exclusive games. Didn't work. Companies such as Gamespy and WON.net try/tried to make money by providing (relatively) inexpensive ancillary services to support non-exclusive games, with the revenue coming from editorial on their web sites. This almost worked, in the respect that Gamespy at least seems to be able to survive, but it doesn't make anybody rich.

    Given that up to now no one has made a success of online gaming (aside from MMP), Microsoft rationally decided to try a new model. They've got exclusive access to a couple great games (e.g. Halo), they make a walled garden to maintain the quality, they add a cool feature like voice chat, and they ask for $10 a month. It's a long shot to really succeed, but it's a commendable attempt.


    • Anybody who has played Counterstrike in the last year knows how bad it can get in a laissez faire environment. Cheating started with Half-life within weeks of it being on the market - it's only gotten worse since. There's a lot to be said for having all the simulation run on the server and the server run by the company the makes the game.

      Yes. And that something to be said goes along the lines of "...it is no silver bullet. It doesn't matter who runs the server. It is the base code."


      Poke around a bit. The release of Quake I source code, the the blatent cheating of hacked QuakeI/Quakeworld clients, spawned some discussion [tuxedo.org] which even included posts by Carmack on Slashdot and elsewhere. Cheat-resistant networked games involve a series of non-trivial design considerations.


      And before we learn the wrong lesson from the QuakeI lesson, opening source code only contributed to the cheating problem. Cheating existed well before then. And cheating certainly exists with other closed-source games.


      Of course... this also means cheating exists on games who's servers are owned and maintained by the publisher of those games. A quick Google search begins to demonstrate the problem. Let's take a few favorite controlled-server examples:


      DiabloII [google.com]
      Everquest [google.com]
      Ultima Online [google.com]


      One final point...



      Here's the thing though: up to now there have been two successful online game markets. Successful defined as popular.

      1. The paid MMP market such as Everquest. One game, well made, well maintained, for a price.

      2. The loss leader. Quake, Half-life, etc make their money by selling box copies. The online play is a offered as a free value-add, but with no guarantee of quality. The game maker invests some amount of money and resources into supporting online play, but on the assumption that it supports sku sales.

      First off, Quake and Half-life are not a "loss leader". The profit is shown on the sale of the game. No additional investment is made in online servers (unless the company also runs meta-servers). The community supports on-line play by buying, begging, borrowing, or stealing space and bandwidth for their game server. The network game code is a part of the product - indeed, often THE selling point.


      iD figured this out with Quake and abandoned the pretense of a offline single-player mode. Half-life included a truely excellent offline experience... but it is the mods and online play that's continued to sell Half-life boxes well beyond the usual lifespan of a twitch game.


      But the biggest problem here is comparing Everquest to Quake. Apples and oranges.


      Running a Quake server involves finding somewhere to host it, setting up the app, and go. Little additional maintenance, lots of frag time. Frankly, one Quake server is as good as another (assuming PL and community are the same).


      Running an Everquest server would require not only the expense of finding a host, but the additional effort towards maintaining user data and creating new content. The only counter-example is the work done within the MUD communities. Neverwinter Nights might offer the first game that can test how the more "modern" network gaming culture responds to the challenge of creating new content for free.


      In any case... having Microsoft owning and running a game's server infrustructure will not provide a silver bullet to game quality. Quality of the gaming experience will depend on game design - like it always has.


    • >> Anybody who has played Counterstrike in the last year knows how bad it can get in a laissez faire environment.

      There are many people scared away from Counterstrike by the cheating. But you have to take the good with the bad. There are reasons why Counterstrike is the most popular form of online FPS gaming and one of the most popular forms of online gaming period:

      (1) Counterstrike was created and evolves because of the fan base. The creative and sustaining energy of counterstrike isn't possible in the sterialized Microsoft world.

      (2) Quality FPS performance and gaming isn't possible on a console. Without a keyboard and mouse, FPS gaming will never make it on the gaming console. The precision required to excel at counterstrike is only possible with a mouse. The same is also true of online role playing.

      • Quote: The precision required to excel at counterstrike is only possible with a mouse.

        Sure. But that's when you're PLAYING AGAINST SOMEBODY WITH A MOUSE.

        People play games like Halo successfully online RIGHT NOW with a regular Xbox controller. Nobody has the 'advantage' of a mouse/keyboard, so it remains fair and playable.

        And there are keyboards/mice on the way from companies like InterAct anyway! So I wouldn't try trotting this excuse out again.

  • Magic 8-ball says... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Dismal failure.
  • INT. IVORY TOWER - NIGHT

    ADVERTISING GUY (V.O.)
    When you're sitting alone in your ivory tower
    and you suddenly desire to jack up the price to
    the subscription-based online service for the
    the console you manufacture what do you do?

    Montage of disappointed faces of XBOX users as their subscription price
    jumps up on their television screens

    ADVERTISING GUY (V.O. Cont.)
    Now with Microsoft's new ".NET" business
    solution you can jack up those prices with the
    push of a button.

    .NET Changing the way you do business

    :)
  • Lots more MS OS boxes connected to broadband?

    What happens when they find a buffer overflow in the XBox IP stack or a popular game? The XBox normally doesn't ever switch out of ring0, so any buffer overflow is a kernel buffer overflow. You can't really enforce security restrictions between ring 0 code segments.

    Come to think of it, maybe this is the easiest way to get Linux on the XBox... Screw the encrypted BIOS... bootan approved game with a buffer overflow and overflow the buffer with a ramdisk and a Linux kernel, then jump into the kernel... mount /usr from NFS and you're all set. The HD would be unlocked, so you could install on the HD, provided you trust your xfat drivers. It would be really slick to figure out the memory locations of the various MS XBox hardware drivers and be able to hijack them when you hijack the hardware. After all, they're already loaded into RAM when you execute your buffer overflow.

  • I am more than certain that someone has considered and probably even started such a project. I wonder, though, what the holds would be.

    Reverse engineering like SaMBa is still a legal and viable option. Packet-sniffing as part of the process.

    Hrm... of course it would make the Microsoft lawyer drones begin their march in the developer's direction... but what grounds would they have? Patents?
  • ...over customers. Basically, as somewhere else in a slashdot thread has been stated, "major media companies don't want users to own a pc". This will lead towards a more fine-grained control on what an end-user can do.

    Right now PCs are too powerful. With small effort they can copy, rip, encode, spread and download (all that uncontrolled) forms of copyrighted media. And this is leading media companies to loose profit (but still to GAIN profit, which they don't want us to know. But I digress).

    Anyway, this move will obviously be the first of a serie, which will end with customers being so used to do what they are allowed to do, that PCs and hacking will be confined to geeks and similar creatures.

    What will be next? Who knows? We can only speculate about
    - a world where hardware hacking and unauthorized software coding is finally declared illegal (this because the 'geek' component of the society will be expendable)
    - a world where PCs are used only in few geeks bunkers and in a lot of software companies, which by EULA will be forced to use only authorized software under certain restrictions
    - a world where third word countries will end up being forced to use and develop their free software, either because they don't want to pay for the proprietary and authorized one, and because ...well they are not probably allowed to use it (export restrictions from the Great Software Coalition and such..)

    or this may just be pure, absurd, senseless speculation. It's up to you, but I'm making backup copies of the knowledge base required to develop useful code, just in case I might decide to retire in Tibet and become a Perl Monk Zen ;)

    cheers

  • ""Gaming is a very age-specific and demographic-specific device and experience," said Mitchell Kertzmann, the chief executive office of Liberate Technologies, an interactive television equipment supplier based in San Carlos, Calif. "


    I may be blind, but unless my eyes are deceiving me i have *NEVER* seen so many middle aged people playing games in my entire life.


    Heck, i know more 50+ year olds who can whip my ass in Unreal Tournament then i do know 15 year olds.


    I think its just typical for quote "educated" people who work at newspapers to assume that playing games is for geeks and college kids.


    Oh well. I'll be having fun playing Xbox live. 9.95 is cheaper then what i paid for seganet and offers broadband playing, and the voice over ip ability will also have ways to digitize your voice and alter the tones so you can sound like a robot or whatever character you choose within a game.


    Gives Unreal Championship an entirely new perspective. No longer requiring hot keys to send pre-programmed messages but instantaneous and live speech synthesis to dog your opponets.


    Can't wait

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close