Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Tom's Hardware Reviews Xbox Live 317

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stumbling-into-the-future dept.
VividU writes "Tom's Hardware has a review of Xbox Live." Also includes a bit of a summary of the state of networked gaming on the other 2 major consoles (Coleco and Intellivision). A good read if you're looking to see what's going to keep you glued to your couch in 2003.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tom's Hardware Reviews Xbox Live More

Tom's Hardware Reviews Xbox Live

Comments Filter:

  • I knew Coleco and Intellivision were coming back! (Score:4, Funny)

    by vudufixit ( 581911 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @10:51AM (#4976596)
    What's next - Magnavox Odyssey and the Atari 2600?
  • The article mentions nothing about pricing though. How much is this going to cost? Also it would be nice to know if they were planing any MMORPG stuff. This whole idea of paying a monthly fee to play a game is a tad on the ridiculous side but I guess they do have to support it.
    • It's $50 for the first year and whatever they decide after that. There is also going to be premium services that will cost more. I assume MMORPG's are going to fall in the premium category and cost more to play.
      • It's $50 for the first year and whatever they decide after that.


        Whoa. Color me retarded, but I was under the (wrong) assumption that it was $49.99 per month.

        Now that I think about it, this does sound like a good deal.
    • XBox Star Wars Galaxies, for one. I believe Everquest is a PS2 title, however.
    • BINGO!!!!

      I play 5 different ps2 games online (tribes 2 arial assult makes halo look like an utter joke BTW) and it costs me NOTHING, ZERO, FREEEEEE!

      Sony knew a long time ago that pay for play, unless it is providing a major increase in game value or playability (bigger world, etc....) that players WILL NOT PAY FOR IT.

      if you make me pay to play someone else with madden 2003 or Tribes2 or whatever... you instantly lose out on all those game sales and the broadband adapter sales... as people will not buy it.

      A bulk of the games are sold to parents buying for their kids, and no sane parent is going to drop $50.00 on a game and then have to pay $9.95 a month for the online subscription...
      • I plan to get T2: Aerial Assault soon. I like T2 on my computer, but there's too many "Unhandled Exceptions". I did see that Aerial Assault only supports 16 people in multiplayer, and I'm used to playing with 60+, but I guess I could get used to that.

  • It's not as good as the hype (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alen ( 225700 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @10:54AM (#4976612)
    I bought mine on launch day along with mechassault and unreal. I sold both on ebay. Mechassault is pretty mediocre single player and multi player is any better. You walk in a line and shoot stuff as you get to it. No strategy like outflanking your enemies.

    Unreal is the same. You shoot and kill and that's it. I also bought Ghost Recon, but haven't had a chance to play it. Going to try it this week. Otherwise it's a wait for some decent games other than sports.

    As far as the service itself, it's pretty good. On my sdsl connection I don't see any lag.
    • That is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard....seriously, you mean all you do is shoot and kill in UT???? No way?? I mean if you want to strip it back to its most basic elements and forget about everything else thats fine, inaccurate as hell, but fine. Mechassult you just walk in a line and blow stuff up when you get there? Might I suggest you NOT play on the easiest difficulty? Another question for you, have you ever played a mech game you enjoyed or would this be like me picking up the new Zelda when it ocmes out and saying it sucks because all you do is walk around pushing buttons and hacking at stuff?
    • I'm sorry, but even on the PC Unreal Championship requires skills to be the "king".

      It may be that you don't want to take the timet to play the game, learn the ins and outs and find a mech or character that matches your playing style.

      You do know that each mech is suited for specific missions and even in unreal championship you use characters suiteable for the situation. Stealing flags, use a lizard or robot. They run real fast or can jump real high. Need Deathmatch then choose one of those big ass characters that can take a few rockets.

      Play the games
    • "Unreal is the same. You shoot and kill and that's it."

      And what exactly were you expecting? I find it hard to believe you were dumb enough not to download the pc demo and try the game out first before spending $50 on the xbox version.

  • Has the reviewer even heard of Microsoft? (Score:4, Funny)

    by DoctorHibbert ( 610548 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @10:55AM (#4976617)
    Since we were not asked to participate in the beta test, we can't tell you much about the beta; but things must have gone fairly smoothly, because on November 15th, Microsoft rolled out Xbox Live to the masses.

    Poor testing and pervasive bugs have never stopped MS from releasing anything. Looks like wishful thinking on the reviewers part.
    • Poor testing and pervasive bugs have never stopped MS from releasing anything

      You obviously weren't a beta tester, nor had any experience of how well the beta test went.

      The XBox team has their shit together at MS. It's one of the few parts of MS that I think is doing a fine job.
      • I would have to agree with this. I had a chance to try this out with the mech game.

        Things were very smooth. Using the console online is very easy. Overall the gaming experience was decent. The voice option is downright funny. Here you are listening to a bunch of kids arguing about how to get the game moving.

        "Push the green one"

        "The green one?"

        "Yeah"

        "No!, Not twice just one more time"

        "Push it again"

        "Don't listen to him, you have already pressed it!"

        "Keep pressing it until you see the check next to your name"

        "But don't hold it down"

        "Which one is me?"

        "The one with no check, no wait yours is checked, now it's not, now it is"

        "Oh I see it, Now I'm ready!"

        "Lets go ok?"

        "Push it again"

        "Is dave on this one --is he playing this time?"

        "Ok I'm ready"

        "Wait! How do I know which mech I have? I wanna play with the big mech --you know Atlas!"

        "Press the yellow one"

        After a little of this, I chose to just wait on the voice until the game actually started...

    • note: apologies in advance for all the quotes in this post

      The "Beta" program was hillarious as a beta program, but genius as a marketing tool. Near the end, *EVERYONE* who had applied was "selected" as a Beta tester. (At my company of ~fifty people, five people applied for the beta, and five people were accepted, three about a month before it launched.) Of course, they had to pay $50 to become a beta tester. In short, it was a fantastic "soft rollout" that earned Microsoft a ton of goodwill among the hardcore community, engendered tons of envy and desire for the product among hardcore gamers (like me) who hadn't bothered to sign up for the "beta," helped ensure a nearly flaw-free product release, and created great word of mouth.

      Supposedly the initial sign-up numbers (~150K) are like double what Microsoft was expecting. My experience with the system so far has been great, except for bugs in MechAssault that cause people to drop out on game launch if people are talking into the headset. Also, the whole front end for MechAssault online sucks my ass. But the mindless shooting is super fun, so that makes up for it somewhat...

  • My buddy got his for christmas. Setup was simple, and it works great. What I like the best is being able to play games with people other than the two guys I normally beat ;-). Ok, so it's probably the other way around... In any case, it rocks.
    I wish MS would allow XBox Live users to hook up to UT games being played by nin-xbox users, though. That would be money.
    • I believe the reason why MS wouldn't want non-xbox users playing with xbox users is because they want to keep cheating out of xbox live. By allowing an untrusted client, such as a PC, to play, they would risk ruining the "experience" of an XBox live user, who is paying for a cheat-free online service. That is also their (stated) reason for not allowing modded XBoxes onto their network. If people want to play online vs non-xbox users, or with modded xboxes, they could use something like Gamespy Arcade, I believe.

      I'm not saying that there is NO way to cheat on XBox live, nor am I saying there will NEVER be a way to cheat on XBox live, but I don't think that cheating a problem at the moment, and they are trying to keep it that way.

  • GameTags - AOL User ID's all over again! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Boss, Pointy Haired ( 537010 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @11:03AM (#4976651)
    So it's only just out of Beta and all the decent GameTag's have gone!

    So it looks like you're gonna be in a deathmatch up against the invincible Bob8347737.
  • becasue the Playstation is not going to sell a service that lets you play al your games, you have to subscribe to each individual on-line game.
    • I haven't had to pay a dime for the few online games I've played on PS2. Madden 2003, free (but service not guaranteed after the release of the next one). I think Tony Hawk 4 and the Japanese Marvel vs. Capcom 2 is free for now (but don't quote me on that). The Twisted Metal online game is free (both for the game (with network adapter purchase) and for service).

      If they keep up the 'free service for a certain time span' deals, I'll be ecstatic. These sort of games are usually getting old by the end of that span anyways, and I doubt I'll be playing any MMORPGs on it anytime soon.
    • I've seen the Xbox Live! service, and it's not bad. (The games are not to my liking, by and large, but enough of my friends dig Mech Assault, so whatever.)

      Sony is launching an integrated service next year to compete with Xbox Live!'s approach (buggered if I can find the link, sorry). It supposedly will allow for disparate games to connect players to each other. Sony has obviously just watched Xbox Live! and are now copying them in some respects.

      (Incidentally - someone tell me why the Xbox's built-in Ethernet is such a big 'advantage'. I don't get that. You have to buy the Live Kit to use it anyways, right? Why couldn't they have put the adapter with that and saved some buyers - or themselves - a few dollars?)

      Anyways - I like Sony's decentralized approach better than Microsoft's Way, even putting aside the fact that it is MS for a second.

      The Internet doesn't 'help me' find other players either, I can do that fine by myself, as usually the game has a browser of sorts built-in. This will become a bigger bone of contention with the likes of EA, who spend a ton of money maintaining their own server farms.

      Really, there are two kinds of online game that are evolving on both the console and the computer, and I see Sony's approach as better for both:

      1. Regular Multiplayer Games. Sometimes you can play multiplayer on one site/system (console), otherwise it's just the usual find-a-room-and-start-shooting exercise. These games are not developing as a monthly pay service; the multiplayer online aspect is just another feature of the game. They are sold as traditional games, one-time fee. You won't get charged for using these, much like you're not charged for Quake or Warcraft. For these games, Sony's approach is more advantageous, as it truly can remain 'free'.

      2. Massively Multiplayer Games, which are a different animal altogether. Users of these games do tend to exclude other games in favour of whatever their fix is. These games will get away with monthly charging as the entirety of the game exists only in an online form (The Sims, and lets not forget Sony has bagged Everquest as well).

      So Xbox Live is better for the kinds of games (#1) that people don't want to pay a monthly fee for, and yet that's what they are doing. In the case of MMORPGs, users are likely spending almost all their time with that, and don't need a lot of cross-game referencing.

      Now, with Sony's Live! clone, I bet they toss in a bunch of trojan services to keep you hooked. Any bets on downloadable movies/music? The PS2 is exactly the kind of 'computer' you want for real DRM...

      • (Incidentally - someone tell me why the Xbox's built-in Ethernet is such a big 'advantage'. I don't get that. You have to buy the Live Kit to use it anyways, right? Why couldn't they have put the adapter with that and saved some buyers - or themselves - a few dollars?)

        Well, even if you don't have Live, then you can use a standard network setup to play system link games, no special cables required. Previously, to play on PS2, you either only played 1 vs. 1 with the link cable, or you picked up a firewire hub and a number of 4-to-6 pin firewire cables for additional players. Now that the PS2 network adaptor is out has the functionality of system linking changed on it at all? I haven't picked one up for mine yet.

    • you have to subscribe to each individual on-line game.

      If you play online games in dial-up-friendly genres (i.e. anything other than Quake III clones), the PlayStation subscription scheme may actually be less expensive than Xbox Live. Here's how: Assume that the user is currently with EarthLink ($20/mo dial-up). Assume that the user is perfectly happy with the speed of web surfing and e-mail offered by v.90 dial-up Internet access. Then:

      PS2 subscriptions: If each game is $5/mo, then you can subscribe to four games for $20/mo. In addition, some publishers will probably offer free online play for some of their games.

      Xbox Live: The upgrade from $20/mo dial-up to $40/mo MSN Broadband is $20/mo, and Xbox Live (which sits on top of MSN Broadband or any other standard broadband connection) is currently $4/mo, for a total of $24/mo. Some publishers will charge an extra fee on top of the basic Xbox Live fee, but it appears that a larger percentage of Xbox games' online function will be included in the Live price than PS2 games' online function will be included in the retail price.

      • v.90 speeds might be tolerable for web and e-mail, but if you've ever tried to play a reaction game (Quake3 and the like) with a 400ms ping... wow. You'd be better off sending your packets via Fedex same day as it might be quicker.

        XBL forces the high-ping whiners (I was once one of them, too) off the network so you don't see games where 1/2 the people have 100ms pings and the rest jump and dance around the screen as the client's prediction breaks down under severe lag.

        Long story short: Don't blame XBL for requiring broadband. If you want a good (platform independent) gaming experience, one that's not fraught with frustration, then you'd get broadband no matter what.
        • "You'd be better off sending your packets via Fedex same day as it might be quicker."

          Hahahaha. That was hillarious.
        • Ever played Tribes 2? I've played it online both on a LAN connected to a T1 and a 56k modem, and I can't tell a difference between the two. I'd say there's a good chance T2: Aerial Assault for the PS2 will be similar.
          • I have played T2, but only on a cable modem. I'm not sure if you're saying that T2's network code was so horrible that a T1 and a 56k felt the same, or not. Ping time in that game, and other games that had long range sniping and precision shooting, can make a huge difference. It's hard to snipe *anything* if they're warping their way up and down hills. I definitely noticed the diff between a 50ms and a 300ms (depending on the server I played on) ping. When I could only connect to 300ms games I relied more on splash damage weapons than anything else.

    • misinfo (Score:4, Insightful)

      by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @02:14PM (#4977617)
      Been playing PS2 SOCOM U.S. Navy Seals online for a week with no subscription required. Took just minutes to set up and join an ongoing session (and there was a long list of games in progress and locales to choose from). No problems and right into play. The game was $60.00 and included a headset. Seals is DVD/ProLogic Surround, and with the PS2 connected to a home theater, the sound and interactivy is impressive, not to mention the game play itself. Being able to talk to other players via the headset adds to the realism.

      Please stop spreading misinformation/FUD. You're just repeating something you heard elsewhere.

      Everyone knows MS is looking to profit from subscription based services. That doesn't mean there aren't other business models and options out there, and it doesn't mean that fee based gaming is the only way to play. There are many, many choices...not all require monthly fees, and fees never guarantee you'll be happy with the experience.

    • Re:Xbox seems to have the upper hand in this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Juggle ( 9908 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @03:55PM (#4978023) Homepage
      Gee, I Must be confused. I had a friends PS2 on loan for a few weeks and could swear I was playing on-line games free.

      THPS3 and 4 both support on-line play without the sonly network adaptor (they support most USB ethernet connectors including the one I had laying around) and don't require any kind of subscription since individual players run their own servers much like PC based multi-player gaming. The game included Gamespy based code to find on-line games and it worked flawlessly.

      In fact one other thing the PS2 supports that apparantly Xbox dosen't (since it was a complaint in this review) is the use of a USB keyboard. I grabbed my own keyboard ( a MS natural no less) tossed on the PS/2->USB adapter it came with, plugged it into the PS2 and was able to enter my game info that way instead of using the controller - saved a lot of time and made chatting in-game possible without a headset.

      I also have to agree with the other posters who want to know why the built-in ethernet is such a benefit when you still have to pay to use it on-line and then keep paying (an unspecified ammount no less) on a regular basis to keep using it. I like the pay once for the hardware model of the PS2 way more in that regard. But then again I always prefered buying my own cable or satellie box instead of paying a monthly "rental" fee as well.

    • Re:Xbox seems to have the upper hand in this (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @04:14PM (#4978089) Homepage
      becasue the Playstation is not going to sell a service that lets you play al your games, you have to subscribe to each individual on-line game.

      Funny... I have yet to subscribe to ANY game. and I have played 5 different offerings... including Tribe 2 Arial assult.

      from everything I have heard... almost NO playstation game will be a pay for play online, except for the MMORPG or other online "community" or server resource heavy games.

      sony is way AHEAD of ms this way.. just like my Pc games.. I dont have to pay anything to play them.

  • ps2 network adaptor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asvNO@SPAMivoss.com> on Sunday December 29, 2002 @11:13AM (#4976698) Homepage Journal
    Personally, I prefer the way Sony is handling online play with the PS2 network adaptor. There is no centralized service for all games, and at least right now there are no subscription fees for most if not all of the current games.
  • I do own an X-Box... a good gaming console.

    But the showstopper for me is two-fold: The lack of a dial-up option (not everyone has a cable modem accessibility yet!), and the fact that, by license, it appropriate for use with "kids under 13".

    Both of those are show-stoppers for my household.

    So, it looks like the Nintendo would have been a better choice for my household in the long-term: 56k dialup option, and more games for everyone (a better mix of "mature" and "everyone" titles).

    Oh well, maybe MS will fix these issues before things really get rolling!
    • I would think being a slashdot surfer you would know how to setup internet connection sharing or a linux box to do routing for your network and use dialup as the connection.

      It wouldn't be lag free, but you can still download the content.

      XBOX live from the getgo was understoon as a broadband service only.

      Microsoft will have a 3 year lead in broadband services over the PS3 when it supposedly launches in 2005/2006. That is a HUGE leap in i nfrastructure, technology and know-how.

      Broadband is coming. Maybe your local cell phone company will have carrier grade 3G wireless available (1.54mbit) or Wireless lans will pop up or your cable company/phone company will wise up to the challenge and offer services.

      keep your options open and search out www.dslreports.com to see whats in your zipcode or coming to your zipcode!
      • I would think being a slashdot surfer you would know how to setup internet connection sharing or a linux box to do routing for your network and use dialup as the connection.

        You're right! I do know how to do that!

        But clearly the issue is bandwidth, not hardware: "XBOX Live" is clearly dependent on a high bandwidth, low latency network. Even a slashdot surfer can't overcome a limitation given a 56k dialup requirement.

        Currently, my only choice is dialup or satellite (yuk). Satellite is expensive and high latency. DSL isn't offered in my area. And the cable TV company says "3 to 5 years".

        A couple neighbors would like to start some kind of internet co-op using 802.11, but that takes a bunch of time, money and effort.
      • Yes! Broadband is coming. I'll line my house up. Although my cable company signed a 10 year deal with the local gov't and they don't even know about the internet. My phone company is Verizon. They seem to hate broadband. Satelite? Ping times are atrocious. Wireless? I contacted a wireless company about prices a year ago, I have yet to hear back from them.

        It's not like I live waaaay out in the boonies. I'm 10 minutes from people who DO have DSL and Cable Internet.
    • I think the "kids under 13" rule is in order to comply with the COPPA [cdt.org] which forbids collecting information online from children under 13. But then again, this is slashdot so you can safely assume I'm talking out of my ass.

    • Re:Not appropriate for my household. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kaosrain ( 543532 ) <root@kaosr a i n .com> on Sunday December 29, 2002 @11:44PM (#4979817) Homepage
      But the showstopper for me is two-fold: The lack of a dial-up option (not everyone has a cable modem accessibility yet!), and the fact that, by license, it appropriate for use with "kids under 13".

      A lot of the times, these things do not go hand in hand. If you were to allow your young children to go online to play, they would most likely be left with an impression of swear words and sexual references.

      I understand that maybe you'd like to have at least one of these (I would love to have dialup access for the Xbox as well), but either one is possible. If you're unfortunant like me (can't get broadband even if you wanted to), then there really is no way currently to play over the internet. However, you can still get little kid's games. There's multiple copies of MAME for the xbox, and you can buy a multiple cd set of all the MAME roms for around $7 from tombestones.

      Hope it works out :)

  • Online Console Gaming = Big flop. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Viewsonic ( 584922 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @11:16AM (#4976714)
    Of the three XBox owners I know, none of them liked XBox Live at all. They all decided the same thing: Playing games online is best played on the PC.

    And for those who want to jump out and say "But who wants to buy an expensive PC to play games online, when it only costs $200 to buy an XBox." ..

    Well, consindering you NEED broadband to play XBox Live, this basically translates that the person has some fat cash to pay a $50+ monthly fee for internet access. Do these types of people typically have really crap computers? No. MicroSoft has walked into a virtual minefield without looking at marketing demographics first. The people that will keep this afloat are people without broadband and decent computers, which are NOT the people who can actually use it.

    And after your first free year, targeted monthly rate for this service will be $10-15/Month. It's not set in stone, but if it is any lower than $10, they will lose money on every single player.

    You can see why Sony and Nintendo are taking their time. Leave it to Microsoft to boldly blunder into a market area it is entirely unfamiliar with and die, then work out a program that actually *works*.

    SEGA has released a dev kit for all games to get online who uses its SDK which is cross platform compatable with PS2 and Gamecube.. So people who want to play Football on both systems can play each other seamless. They plan on putting up a "Blizzard" type of service where it will be free, etc etc.. Who knows if this will take off. I predict: No. At least not unless the PC dies a horrible death.

    • Re:Online Console Gaming = Big flop. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rew190 ( 138940 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @11:49AM (#4976892)
      Of the three XBox owners I know, none of them liked XBox Live at all. They all decided the same thing: Playing games online is best played on the PC.

      Really? See I've had the exact opposite experience. All of my buddies are PC gamers (so am I), but we all love XBox Live so far.

      Well, consindering you NEED broadband to play XBox Live, this basically translates that the person has some fat cash to pay a $50+ monthly fee for internet access. Do these types of people typically have really crap computers? No. MicroSoft has walked into a virtual minefield without looking at marketing demographics first. The people that will keep this afloat are people without broadband and decent computers, which are NOT the people who can actually use it.

      I understand what you're saying here, but MS' Live sales simply don't seem to back this up. It's selling like hotcakes, and games that use it are selling like hotcakes. If anything, I would think that folks with PCs and broadband were techies who would love to pick up a console as well.

      And after your first free year, targeted monthly rate for this service will be $10-15/Month. It's not set in stone, but if it is any lower than $10, they will lose money on every single player.

      I've been keeping track of this, and all of the rumors so far have said that it's looking like it'll be another flat fee (probably another 50). MS isn't stupid, and I'm sure they realize that they'll lose lots of customers because they don't want to have to worry about paying a bill every month. I really wouldn't worry about this.

      You can see why Sony and Nintendo are taking their time. Leave it to Microsoft to boldly blunder into a market area it is entirely unfamiliar with and die, then work out a program that actually *works*.

      Sony will probably never take off with online gaming since it has no centralized system. You'll have to pay a seperate bill for every single online PS2 game you want to play. Who's going to want to do that? I can understand if they come out with a killer online app, but that's only one game. Nintendo isn't taking their time, they're simply not placing emphasis on online gaming as an important part of GC. All that's coming out is Phantasy Star Online. Period. As far as MS blundering, trust me, it hasn't. I'm very happy with the service, as are most people I've talked to. Most reviews are also positive. I must ask, how can you justify that the biggest software company in the world has no experience in online gaming? Did I miss something?

      PC Gaming is here to stay, that's for sure. But XBox Live has impressed me very much. PC Gaming does not let you bring 3 of your buddies over and play football in the same room against 4 other guys from the other side of the country. PC gaming is a bitch to set up. XBL couldn't be easier. I've seen very few lag issues so far. PC gaming is more exposed to cheating at this point than XBL.

      I would definitely reccomend that anyone with broadband and an XBox pick this kit up and get themselves a copy of MechAssault (which I feel is the best XBL game right now). Try it for yourselves.

      • 1) Xbox's centralized service will mean less profits for the big fish (EA) who want to get more profits from servers they already have. Sony's decentralized plan helps EA get all the revenues from its game.

        2) The PS2 doesn't require a fee for every single online game you play. Many (infact, most) are free.

        3) Rumors are not overriding the set-in-stone-by-MS-themselves $10 monthly fee MS is planning on charging.

        Go read a few gaming sites before speaking on things you don't know much about.

    • Playing games online is best played on the PC.

      In some cases i agree with this sentiment, when it comes to a FPS it's hard to beat the good old mouse/keyboard of course. but for racing, sports, and RPG's console controllers are quite nice.

      And don't forget the fact that sitting in a semi-comfortable computer chair and playing on a 17" monitor will never even come close to sitting in a Lazy-Boy playing on a 48" widescreen with dolby 5:1 surround sound

      PS: the headset does a heck of a job replacing the keyboard for communicating with other players as well ;)

  • In the first week of X-Box live (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @11:26AM (#4976760) Homepage

    150,000 people gave Microsoft their credit card number and agreed to be billed a to-be-decided amount indefinitely, until they figure out how to cancel it (which might not be a piece of cake, considering that MS do not seem to understand that with consoles, unlike software or one-off hardware sales, you have to keep the customer happy).

    Does this worry anybody else? It worries me, because it confirms Microsoft's long held belief that the retail market is ready for software-as-a-service, and that people really are dumb enough to pay upfront for the device, and pay ongoing amounts for the functionality.

    You know those friends you have who tease you because you spend $X a month on computer bits that you don't really need? Well, they're about to enter your world, only they don't even get to build a collection of little anti-static bags as a bonus.

    • and that people really are dumb enough to pay upfront for the device, and pay ongoing amounts for the functionality

      You must not have heard of this little game called Everquest [sony.com].
    • (which might not be a piece of cake, considering that MS do not seem to understand that with consoles, unlike software or one-off hardware sales, you have to keep the customer happy).

      XBL has proved to work well. Most of the reviews on it are positive, and everyone I know who has it (personally and through forums) is loving it so far, and XBL has become a selling point when purchasing a game for most of us. I highly doubt that many folks are cancelling it already, but feel free to prove me wrong and provide a link.

      that people really are dumb enough to pay upfront for the device, and pay ongoing amounts for the functionality.

      Do you have a basic understanding of the XBL service? Do you understand why a subscription fee is required? Do you understand that all you have to do is pay this fee and you can play any XBL enabled game without extra cost? If not, then I suggest you RTFA. That's like complaining that you bought your cable modem, why should you have to pay ongoing fees to get online?

      It should be noted that apparently the basis for this entire parent post is that you have to give a credit card to Microsoft.

    • Re:In the first week of X-Box live (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @12:23PM (#4977084)
      150,000 people gave Microsoft their credit card number and agreed to be billed a to-be-decided amount indefinitely, until they figure out how to cancel it [snip]

      Does this worry anybody else?

      It would me. I remember the conversation I had with my credit card company when I couldn't get through to AOL to cancel my account. They told me that even if I switched card numbers AOL would automatically be transferred with it and continue to bill me. If I cancelled the card, I'd still be liable for ongoing charges due to my 'agreement' with AOL. I finally had to wait on hold for 45 minutes to get through to AOL in person. It's like having the mafia after you. One guess whether MSFT will follow the same model.

      • It would me. I remember the conversation I had with my credit card company when I couldn't get through to AOL to cancel my account. They told me that even if I switched card numbers AOL would automatically be transferred with it and continue to bill me. If I cancelled the card, I'd still be liable for ongoing charges due to my 'agreement' with AOL. I finally had to wait on hold for 45 minutes to get through to AOL in person. It's like having the mafia after you. One guess whether MSFT will follow the same model.

        You know, sometimes I read these wonderful stories on slashdot and just have to ask WHY DO YOU MAKE UP SUCH LIES???

        Credit card companies WANT you to initiate chargebacks. They make a LOT more money charging the merchant a fee than they will on your interest payments. They are not in business of enforcing ANY agreements besides the credit card receipt you sign.

        Of course, you admit you are an AOL user, so perhaps you aren't the brightest star in the sky. But gimme a break. I request chargebacks all the the time, especially for monthly billers which fuck me all the time. ISP's, gyms, banks, none of them ever cancel your service when you request it. They do this intentionally to rape you. So deal with it. If you honestly have such a terrible bank they are going to shaft you like that, don't pay. Settle it in small claims court if the disputed amount is less than say $2000, a nice average for all states. Trust me, the judge will not force you to pay that shit.

  • Summary of Review (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @11:30AM (#4976785) Homepage Journal
    Cripes, that is a needlessly long rewiew... Did the man have a quota of pages to fill? Here's the summary from another person who has been with Live since Beta-

    If you have any sort of hardware knowledge at all (ie; are a regular reader of Slashdot), connecting Live will be cake, unless you have a real exotic network configuration, since the process is pretty well automated. A keyboard is seriously need to fill out the registration info, but doing so can still be done in under 10 minutes without one.

    Live itself works well, but is still rough around the edges. The interface for some options is not the same as others from game to game. It's even non-existant in some cases. Live is in serious need of standardization in all honesty. Other than that, it's pretty smooth playing in most cases, though the occasional laggy player will dampen your gaming experience.

    Live titles are kinda slim pickins right about now, the majority of them being sports related. Ghost Recon, Unreal Championship and Mech Assault are strong contenders, though each has it's own interface issue. Be that as it may, I suspect MS is working on the problem and I've heard up to 80 Live enabled games to be availible around next Christmas. Likewise, the downloadable content isn't in any sort of quantity yet, though some is there. I'd be surprised if it didn't increase as Live matures.

    Verdict: If things stay the way they are now, I can't justify another year ofLive, especially after having grown up in a PC gaming environment. But I don't think they will stay the same. They've been getting plenty of feedback from the boards and it's still in it's infancy. Aside from playing select games from a limited collection, I think the biggest draw right now is reserving you Game Tag. Waiting at this point certainly won't hurt, that fact aside.

    Wow... And that was less than a page too... :p
    • All THG reviews are the same. 1-2 small paragraphs per page spread across 15-20 pages. They're optimized for pageviews so the advertisers are happy. Too bad I'm done reading the text by the time the last ad loads and I'm onto the next page. Large hardware sites are worse than most magazines with the extremely low content-per-page ratio.
  • Anyone else that read the article think it was written by a 13 year old? Lots of little chopped up sentences, vocab of about 100 words...
  • "If an Xbox game (which requires T&L or shaders) is well-programmed, then it practically doesn't even need the Pentium III."

    Uh?...what the hell? So, in the best case scenario, the processor of the XBox is an accessory? What an idiot the thg reviewer...

    • I agree that the review was a bit enthusiastic, but in some cases he's right.

      You could say that the processor on any console is an accessory; it's just there to pump data at the graphics processor.

      To have enough CPU spare to do some proper maths (e.g. for MotoGP to be able to simulate 20 bikes) is a luxury compared to other consoles.

      • Free hint from a (fresh, but still) professional: there is more in games than graphics. Yes, really.
      • Yeah, in theory (and contrived demos) this is all true. However, as a professional Xbox game developer, I can tell you that most performance problems I've seen to date have been code that is CPU bound. A lot of this has to do with some shortcomings of the NVidia GPU (lack of command-stream return stack or real index buffers, for example), which means the CPU spends quite a bit of time copying blocks of memory around for not a lot of good reason. (Yes, there are some ways to alleviate this, but they're not always viable.)

        Overall, the Xbox is still a damn fine piece of kit to work with, and certainly an order of magnitude less of a pain-in-the-arse than the PS2, but it's not quite the performance monster in every situation that some people make it out to be.

  • XBconnect (Score:3, Informative)

    by jhujoe ( 579368 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @01:27PM (#4977408)
    I am surprised that no one has mentioned XBConnect [xbconnect.com], which touts itself as the "Internet Tunnel for the XBox".

    Basically, XBconnect is a piece of software that will run on a Windows PC on your local network. Put the Xbox on the local network, and the Xbox will see the XBconnect client as another Xbox. Thus you can use the "System Link" feature that is built into many games, used for playing multiplayer games with 2 or more Xboxen (I believe up to 16)

    The great thing is that the XBconnect client interfaces through the Internet to find other players, but makes it appear to your Xbox that they are on your local network.

    It is a way to play multiplayer games on the Xbox for free!

    I've used it for Halo, and Unreal Championship, and had good results. The lag is usually minimal, and although sometimes not perfect, I'm sure the true Xbox Live suffers the same fate.

    It's worth a look, especially if you already own a Windows PC, and a router. All you have to do is hook up your Xbox via ethernet.

  • I see so many comments lauding the Live subscription service because it's only one bill for all your games (excluding your broadband bill of course). At first glance this seems reasonable, but when you actually look at the situation, it just doesn't hold up. While it's actually concievable that you might recieve multiple bills for your multiple online PS2 games, it isn't the case, because the online thing is FREE for all of them (at least every one that I've seen thus far, which is, oh, four or so.) So it seems to me that it's more of a question of "monthly subscription" vs. "free" than one of "subscription" vs. "individual bills."

    Of course *if* more Sony titles begin requiring a subscription fee, then all of this could change, but right now that's a big IF to make a solid conlusion about the "Value added" of a product.

  • "A good read if you're looking to see what's going to keep you glued to your couch in 2003."

    The entire thing smells "ADVERTISEMENT" from one end to the other.

    C'mon Taco, did you actually read it? It doesnt discuss performance, ease, game play (not the vague candy coated statements in the not-reviews at the end), interaction with others or antyhing else that would have been a review of xBoX Live. This is so unlike you to oversensationalize an advertisment as "a good read". (You all can decide for yourself whether that is sarcasm or not).

    This article discusses:

    • "Buy the hype and go xbox!"
    • "Subscription Services and Policies"
    • "How to install, just in case your box didnt come with instructions"
    • "how to go wireless"
    • "How to hook up your cables, just in case you didnt get a manual in the box"
    • "Unpacking the xbox for idiots: never opened and emptied a box before? We'll help!" (including a nice picture of the manuals that would alleviate the need for the previous article sections)
    • "Assembling, for those who dont have the manuals we've shown you in our neat little picture in the previous section"
    • "How to sign up, since we know none of you have manuals - or are familiar with how difficult it is to type text with a game pad - since we've all been doing that for years"
    • "xbox live and systemlink titles arent compatible"
    • "The titles! Time for some advertising that is more blatant - including SPECULATION about 60 promised titles - that MS already promised for christmas (more actuallY) but never materialized - but vague promises and speculation are not allowed about the other platforms - read the first couple sections to see that"
    • "System Configurations - just in case your box was missing that panel, AND you were missing the manual as well"
    • "Gee, like nearly every other game system or addon, you get a bundled game!"
    • followed by "I'll review a few more games in lame, dont say anything real reviews"
    • finished up with "And that's why xbox live is the best bang for your buck! Because in case you dont have your manual, you can just read this article and that will make owning xbox live great!!!"

    Some other things to note?

    • Does it matter how many people jump on a service when it first rolls out? Where are the REAL numbers like how many people played in weeks 2-12?
    • MS has how many more online titles? A whole lot/slight edge/none/bunches commited? But Nintendo "rumors" arent permitted.
    • "Since we were not asked to participate in the beta test, we can't tell you much about the beta; but things must have gone fairly smoothly, because on November 15th, Microsoft rolled out Xbox Live to the masses." Of course they did... I didnt beta test WinME, but since they released it, the testing must have went smoothly MY ASS! This is again pure rubbish and pure advertising.
    • "Gee (paraphrased), it's so terrible to have a bill for each game instead of paying MS one fee!" Gee, since they all require credit cards, that is so much more difficult how? I find it BETTER since I know what each penny spent is for, instead of trying to have to track down $12 for this game, $5 for this, $9 for this... hey, my bill is $32 - what's the other $6?

    Is it just me, or did the article really stink and was the /. post over sensationalized?

    - Rob

  • Jesus Christ!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hnbc79 ( 637275 )
    you all sound like a bunch of whinney little girls fight over which barbie is superior! Hey..if you haven't noticed...it has been like a month and a half since the 2 major players dropped their products. This is hardly enough time to make any conclussions whatsoever. Just about all of you are making one sided arguments. I personally have both systems. they both have their ups and downs. I like ps2 better myself so far. Paying $50 for use of something that you already own sucks, but so does paying 50 bucks for something period. The games on ps2 are far better right now and i believe that there is no way in hell that each game will have a seperate bill. I think the likely arrangement will be paying a little bit more up front for a game, which i believe almost everyone will agree to. Nobody likes to pay a bill. All i can say is different strokes for different folks. i just happen to have them both. But who knows.... Not me.

  • I like it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stu Charlton ( 1311 ) on Monday December 30, 2002 @02:37AM (#4980236) Homepage
    I was looking to buy a console this Christmas, and was leaning towards the PS2. I'm not a particular fan of Microsoft, though I'll use their products if they're good (for example, Mac Office 2001). Anyhow, I haven't really kept up with the console market, and XBox Live really was the reason I changed my opinion and picked up an XBox -- my first console since an original NES. I've had a great experience with it these past 3 weeks.

    After catching up with the market and playing my new toy, here's a reflection of my rationale for choosing the XBox and XBL:

    - I have a cable modem, and I would refuse to use anything but a broadband solution

    - I don't want to deal with annoying inconsistencies in multiplayer setup between game titles. XBL has a relatively consistent set of terminology between games.

    - I really do appreciate the Microsoft "single source" approach, for now. I don't have a problem paying a nominal monthly fee for a better overall experience (which is what I feel I'm getting thus far).

    - The variety of XBL games available is WONDERFUL. I picked up NHL 2K3, Unreal Championship, and MechAssault. (I also grabbed Splinter Cell, which alas is single player, but still great).

    - The voice communicator is a nifty add-on, and works relatively well.

    As for the quality of games:

    - MechAssault is my fav, best experience since MechWarrior 2. It actually has some elements of strategy involved with assault compared to other shoot-em-up's. The single player missions are fun too. Well worth the buy for me -- but I know some friends that don't think much of it because they just don't like the shoot-em-up genre.

    - Unreal Championship is tons of fun, just what I would expect if I were playing it on a PC or Mac, though the graphics aren't as good as a high end PC, and sometimes lag gets a bit much

    - NHL 2K3 is very rich, graphics aren't as good as EA's but the gameplay is really great. I have a learning curve to get through, unfortuantely.. advanced modes can be tough for newbies to sports games (which I admitedly am)

    - and (non-XBL) Splinter Cell is one of the best adventure games on the market right now, IMHO.

    What don't I like? Well all in all, the price was rather steep after buying 2 extra controllers, an advanced AV kit, 4 games, XBL, and a console (which had 2 games bundled). That put me back around CDN$800 after taxes. Games run around CDN$70/each at Best Buy. How the hell can parents afford to give this to their kids?

    XBox really seems to have been well executed. I have no troubles supporting Microsoft in this product arena, provided they continue to make a great product. It remains to be seen if the market at large will make it a profitable platform, though hopefully it will -- it will keep Sony, Nintendo, et al competitive.

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close