Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games) PlayStation (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Not Enough Online Console Games? 97

Posted by simoniker from the we-want-one-for-every-day-of-the-year dept.
Thanks to GameSpot for their 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing the relative lack of certain online console games. The author focuses on "the fighting genre [as] the most blatant example" of this dearth, with only Capcom Vs. Snk 2 EO for Xbox currently playable online. He also mentions the PS2 as lacking depth of online titles, claiming "A steady flow of online PS2 games would have been nice. But the last one released was... wait for it... Chessmaster." Were you also expecting to be "seeing almost every game coming out with some kind of online support" by now, or are current online titles enough for you?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Not Enough Online Console Games? More

Not Enough Online Console Games?

Comments Filter:

  • And how do you have a fighting game online? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Radix37 ( 670836 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @02:17PM (#6871722) Homepage
    Fighting games require fast reflexes to win against good players. If you'd have lag more than 25-50 milliseconds the game would not play right at all. That means the game would be limited to LAN play pretty much.

    Racing games could probably deal with more lag, but after 150 ms probably not since when you get cars close together you need the fast reflexes again.

    Strangely, chessmaster may just be the best console game you can have online for now :-\ Oh and rpgs and mmorpgs too.

    • Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? (Score:4, Informative)

      by wynterwynd ( 265580 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @02:37PM (#6871970)
      Friends of mine who have Capcom vs SNK 2 EO have complained of some lag problems at times, but from what they say it's not as bad as you would think. There's a relatively small amount of information being passed by a 2D fighting game so unless you hit a hard lag spike or just have a really bad connection to your opponent, the game plays smoothly.

    • Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cyranose ( 522976 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @02:46PM (#6872079) Homepage
      I realize it may be heretical to say this, but lag isn't the heart of the problem IMO -- it's a convenient whipping boy, but for most games, lag can generally be overcome with predictability of motion, rollback, and good spatial reasoning to keep the circuits optimized.

      The thing with twitch games is that there's almost no predictability for when a player will trigger a move, but there's full predictability of motion once the moves are triggered. A well-designed animation system should be able to take advantage of that to make up for late triggers. For example, a non-networked game may be designed to know the outcome of any given pair of player moves as soon as the button is pressed. Design it instead to resolve the move-pair based on late input and you're halfway there. The main artifact of latency, then, is that moves may seem to start late (as late as the late-ncy), but their ends and their results are still synchronized and well-behaved.

      Just some thoughts.

      • I'm no expert... hope to become one someday... but I've worked on a console fighting game (Celebrity Deathmatch which should be available in two weeks... it's always two weeks away ;P ) && I am a fighting-game afficionado.

        I disagree with you. Animation systems are not the heart of the problem when developing online twitch games. It may seem like a good answer to cut animation duration in the name of synchronization but this is infuriating to experience. You grow accustomed to precisely how lon

        • I wouldn't wait on the internet to reconfigure itself to solve latency. Yes, there are proxy solutions, even at the ISP level that address latency, but as you correctly say: it's a design issue and many games just tack MP on at the end.

          The biggest problem with the animation-time-sync approach is when the other player gets the jump on you halfway into a quick motion before you can react. From your point of view, your animation would play normally. So it's an issue, but not the one you're apparently concerne

    • Re:And how do you have a fighting game online? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Thursday September 04, 2003 @03:17PM (#6872488) Homepage
      If high pings (greater than 50 ms) are so crippling, then how does anyone playing a first-person shooter ever hit anyone else since they're often require reflexes just as twitchy as a fighting game? You are aware, aren't you, that a millisecond is one-thousandth of a second? That means that in order for lag to really be noticeable, the ping has to [at LEAST] go pretty darn high (probably quite a bit higher than 200 ms).

      I think you're overestimating gamer reflexes just a bit. If you're reacting to things displayed on screen in less than 50 ms then you're probably a computer yourself. Don't forget, too, that with broadband connections pings of less than 100 ms between two computers are not at all uncommon. Not to mention the fact that in a fighting game, the two consoles are ONLY communicating with each other - unlike an FPS where a lot more connections may have to be maintained.

      In short, I'm afraid you're just plain mistaken. Smart programming and broadband internet connections can easily make online fighting games not only playable but fun.

      • I can tell you right now from my game programming experience that 100ms is a very significant amount of time.

        About 6 years ago or so I was writing a Pacman game that was based off a timer going off 10 times per second. I checked the keyboard status every time the timer went off. I found out that that approach would miss about 50% of all keystrokes. I had to modify the code to track keypresses via interrupts, and keep track of keys that were pressed and released between frames.

        FPS's can get away with it be
        • There's a huge difference between reaction time and the interval you poll for input. Since the player can submit the input at any time, if you're only polling at set intervals you'll of course miss inputs. This says nothing about the effect of lag on reaction time.
    • Fighting games require fast reflexes to win against good players. If you'd have lag more than 25-50 milliseconds the game would not play right at all. That means the game would be limited to LAN play pretty much.

      Having played just about every fighting game online that has been available, I can tell you that the lag isn't always an issue. I played MK2 and SF2 on XBand for the SNES (which was a 28.8 modem IIRC) and the lag wasn't too bad. Capcom vs SNK2 on Xbox does feel like it has lag problems at

    • Radix37 said:

      Fighting games require fast reflexes to win against good players. If you'd have lag more than 25-50 milliseconds the game would not play right at all. That means the game would be limited to LAN play pretty much.

      Do this:

      1. Find a stopwatch with top-mounted buttons that resemble a controller.

      2. Press the start/stop button twice as fast as you can. Most game players' very fastest mechanical ability is 4/100 (40ms) with a mean of about 7/100. (I conducted an experiment for the science fair

  • Yeah.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ziggles ( 246540 ) * on Thursday September 04, 2003 @02:20PM (#6871772) Homepage
    I was hoping more online games had come out. Not because I want to play more online games. I just want this "ONLINE IS THE FUTURE OF GAMING!!!" thing to die.. which it will once the console gamers realize online gaming really isn't all that exciting.

    Fun, important part of gaming? Yes. The future of gaming? No.

    • Re:Yeah.. (Score:2, Funny)

      by Cap-America ( 689943 )
      The people saying "ONLINE IS THE FUTURE OF GAMING!!!" are like the people in the 80's saying "VIDEO IS THE FUTURE OF THE PHONE!!!"

      It maybe some day, we just not ready as of now.

      • I hate to say it, but online is in fact the future of gaming, take a look at south korea gaming habits those numbers are not made up.
        The thing is internet connections to this very day (to use a non technical term) "suck" but expect this situation to change dramatically in the near future

        Gaming alone is not as fun as playing with someone else, no matter what the genere is, social interaction in a game (for good or bad) adds an element that AI simply just cant.
        with new technology (for PC and console
        • I'm not saying its never going to happen and that its not the future I'm saying that their jumping the gun and saying the future is now when Online console gaming isn't really going to start being big until at least the next console or as soon as faster internet connections are more common. I'm actually a big PC online gamer, but as it is I've only played 2 games online with my console.

  • This isn't the Generation for Online Games (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cap-America ( 689943 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @02:25PM (#6871834) Homepage
    Truthfully I could care less about Online games on a console. And I feel Nintendo is taking the right stand with Online games with this gen of Consoles.

    Only 9% of Internet traffic is due to Online gaming, that includes Console and Computers and out of that 9% only 8% is Console games the other 92% is Computer.
    So You only have a really small group of people who want online games that make allot of noise about it.
    MS Loses 100s of Millions of dollars on Xbox Line each quarter. Online gaming makes 0 money back. And out of all the Xbox owners out there only 10% actually have Xbox Live. Kind of sad when you think about it, especially when this is suppose to be your selling feature.

    Online games just isn't a money makeing factor in this generation, maybe next gen when more users have Cable or better.

    oh and just another tidbit to toss in less the 24% of people online actually have cable or better. So 76% has AOL, Earthlink, NetZero, MSN or any other 56K phone-line provider.

    • Xbox Live's going to have a peak of short-term subscribers when Halo 2 comes out though.
      • Why Play strait Halo 2 on Xbox Live when you can be playing Halo w/ mods and custom levels on your PC with no Xbox Live fee?

        But you are right you'll probly get users who will take advantage of the 2 months free just to play Halo 2 and then drop it once they start charging you.

        the problem with Online gaming is people want in but they don't want to pay for it.

    • Phantasy Star Online seems to have done alright on three different consoles, lasting longer than any other Dreamcast title. But the issue is to make it run correctly takes bandwith. That is why South Korea is so wired, they want their games to not lag, whether it be War Porch or Ragnarock. When the developers work with the next generation of consoles and design PS3 and Hypercube and Y Box games based on broadband and the tech of the machine, then we will have games that will be great and be online. PSO, I l

    • Re:This isn't the Generation for Online Games (Score:4, Informative)

      by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Thursday September 04, 2003 @03:27PM (#6872625) Homepage
      1. Where do you get your data that Microsoft is losing "100s of Millions of dollars" on Xbox "Line" (I assume you meant "Live") every quarter? That has the smell of hyperbole.

      2. Online gaming makes "0 back" for Sierra/Valve/Id (before Steam, anyway) too. Should they have dropped online support?

      3. You ARE aware that Sony has online console gaming, too, right (and are, in fact, stepping up their online plans)? Or is this just another opportunity to bash Microsoft and the Xbox for being stupid?

      As for your overall point, that "This isn't the Generation for Online Games," I would only say this: I play online console games and I enjoy them quite a bit. Many others do, too. I say if Microsoft and Sony are going to provide the option, why not take advantage of it? I couldn't really care less what kind of profit is in online play for the console manufacturers and software developers. If it's that horrible for them, they won't provide the capability. While they do provide it, however, I'll just keep on using it.

    • Also,

      At least 56% of Slashdotters pull arbitrary statistics out of their asses in order to make a point.

      Only 30% of Slashdotters are emotionally involved enough in the argument to actually check someone else's figures.

      15% of the time I realize that you were right [instat.com] halfway through my argument, and I feel stupid.

      100% of the time I admit it when I'm being a stupid monkey.

      85% of Slashdotters will at some point or another read Slashdot while not wearing pants.
    • my statistics came from: eWeek InfoWorld Just a Internet Minute Newsletter GameInformer Yahoo and Nintendo Maybe you should go check out the stats first before assuming someone is pulling the info out of their ass. It makes no scenes to make up info if someone can prove you wrong and make you look like a dumb ass. If my info was incorrect I have the sources I can blame for being mislead. The reason I didn't attack PS2 or GameCube is because I don't come across much info using them as examples its always M
      • Stats don't always mean what people think they mean, though.

        9% of internet traffic is due to online gaming:
        ok, is this because the average game uses 5-10kb/sec UDP data without a constant stream? Windows Update runs at 500KB/sec on a good day on my computer, and can keep a pretty constant stream for 20 minutes or so if I just reinstalled the OS. If I watch the latest video trailer I'm going to get a stream at (hopefully) a pretty high data rate, too. If I'm downloading a patch for my online game I'm going
    • The stats you are throwing around are meaningless. Show me some solid data for the numbers you are presenting.

  • fps&rts (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dreadlord ( 671979 )
    checking gamespy stats shows that the most popular online games are FPS and RTS games, and both genres can't be played very well with consoles, due to the nature of console gamers and the console controls.
    I guess these are some reasons why online console gaming isn't that popular.
    just my $0.02
    • checking gamespy stats shows that the most popular online games are FPS and RTS games, and both genres can't be played very well with consoles, due to the nature of console gamers and the console controls.
      I guess these are some reasons why online console gaming isn't that popular.

      Those games are the most popular online games because they are the type of games that play well on PC's. Fighting and sports games don't control well with keyboard and mouse, so you won't find many of them on PC (yes, some exist,
    • both genres can't be played very well with consoles, due to the nature of console gamers and the console controls.

      Have you ever heard of a little game called Halo? One of the best FPS ever and on a console. Plus, Halo online rocks even though it was never meant to be played online and has no hit prediction or anything.
      • Where would FPS games be on consoles if not for Goldeneye on the N64? Show a little love now.

        And Chessmaster? What about Navy Seals: SOCOM, or Tony Hawk? That's not even talking about sports games. It's either Madden or EA's NCAA game that my little brother plays nonstop.
        Not that it would ever stop ME from whoopin' his ass.

        And I may be alone here, but I really don't think that controls are much of a problem for most games. Maybe if you're talking that Tom Clancy games where you need two keyboards and
    • Actually, the most popular Xbox Live game is Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Unreal Championship and Ghost Recon are also popular.

  • Chessmaster? (Score:2, Informative)

    by paulychamp ( 131799 )
    I hardly believe Chessmaster was the last online game to come out. In fact, yesterday, I picked up ESPN Football [gametab.com] and it is chock full of online features (downloadable rosters, online leagues, etc). I'd say every major (EA, Sega, Microsoft) sports game that comes out for 2004 will have online features.
    • Actually EA decided not to include Online features on Xbox titles.. So at least one section of EA's sports games won't be online. Which IMO is a very bad move on EA's part.. I for one will be picking up NFL Fever 2004 or ESPN Football (sega's latest) instead of Madden, simply because of Online play.
      • I think this is because of MS' policy that all online games have to go through XBox Live. EA probably wants to eventually establish its own pay-for-play online system (currently Madden is free). If they go through MS, then they can't do this.

        Also, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually EA wants to allow play between different consoles (GC and PS2) online.
        • They do. They have even said so, though I'm not sure where I read it now...

          Personally, I think it will be a failed venture. One thing I've seen on the internet (actually in life) is why pay, when you can get it for free? So, unless it blows the shit outta the other titles, I don't see it being used much except for the die hard fans, and I still wonder...

          Plus if the gamespy tunnel thing can be made for halo, how hard would it be to do that for a sports game? Oh boy, more lawsuits!!
      • Actually EA decided not to include Online features on Xbox titles.. So at least one section of EA's sports games won't be online. Which IMO is a very bad move on EA's part.. I for one will be picking up NFL Fever 2004 or ESPN Football (sega's latest) instead of Madden, simply because of Online play.

        I'd say good on the Sega Sports ESPN....but FEVER? Please don't tell me you also picked up Microsoft's shitty first party baseball game just because it had online play as well (and it's the only feature in th

  • I played sf2 turbo/surbo turbo whatever i didn pay they can't cutr me out cause i didn't pay i did pay snf i vsn dyill hold my own o [sof ;i piad i padi i paid the day they cam oute :) long time ago

  • Maybe not everyone *wants* online games? (Score:3, Funny)

    by shish ( 588640 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @02:53PM (#6872157) Homepage
    From Mr Biffo's column in edge ( http://www.edge-online.com/ )

    Ahh... online gaming, how I've tried to love ye. Really tried. But you're just not doing it for me. It's not like I don't want to, I mean, those bigger boys said you would, you know, show me a good time. The sorry fact is, on the occasions when I have taken the plunge, and invited you to woo me, I've come away disappointed and flacid. No matter how hard I pump my enthusiasm gland, the most I can muster is a tiny dribble of interest from my curiosity duct. Meanwhile, my apathy anus is working overtime, pumping out a stream of rancid fumes, accompanied by an undulating, organic hiss.

    Amen.

  • I love online games (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @02:54PM (#6872173) Journal
    I play MechAssault, RTCW, Midnight Club 2, Midtown Madness and soon I'll be playing ESPN's NHL online. I have yet to buy the PS2 online adapter though because I'm still waiting for them to come out with a good online game and the fact that the PS2 online games don't have voice chat is disappointing.

    Apparently Mario Kart will be online enabled and if it gets good reviews then maybe I'll buy a GC just for it. Playing Mario Kart online will be great.
    • I didn't think that Mario Kart for the GC was going to be online.. Only LAN play. But, I guess that opens the possibility of people writing packet wrappers like the one's that came out for the xbox so people could play Halo online.
    • I can only think of one PS2 game that was both online-capable and had some voice chat capabilities. That was SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals. The big boxed set actually comes with a Logitech USB headset, rebranded for the SOCOM package.

      (Incidentally, the headset as it comes out of the box will plug and play nicely with your computer too, as I found out one night by experimenting.)

      One big problem with VOIP console games is that they absolutely require broadband to play. It says so on the box, too. A player's voic

    • NCAA 2004 (and I imagine Madden 2004) and ESPN Football all have in-game voice chat for the PS2.
  • The old X-Band modem gaming system (XBand Review [gamefaqs.com]) used to let you make any two- or multi-player game into an internet game by synching and accepting player input thru its modem port. That means that communications-wise, it's actually something the hardware manufacturers could have done out of the gate instead of making every single game program it's own multi-player handling. Therefore, where are all the games? is even more of a question than most players realize.

    Unfortunately, X-Band didn't get enough c
  • What good's a fighting game across a network if you can't actually kill the person you're playing? ;)

    Now *that* would be some real "Running Man"-level entertainment! ;)

  • Do we *need* online games? (Score:4, Informative)

    by EvilOpie ( 534946 ) * on Thursday September 04, 2003 @03:20PM (#6872537) Homepage
    Now honestly, I do like online games for the fact that there is almost always someone willing to play you at any hour of the day, and they don't have to be in your living room to do it. But I swear that some games just weren't meant to be played online. After all, get some friends together and play console games. They're a lot of fun when you can yell at the person who's in the same room as you. :-)

    And there are other reasons too that consoles are better without being online. Granted this comic [keenspace.com] talks about arcade games, but the concept is the same with console games too. If your opponent is being an ass, you can always hit them since they're most likely right next to you. A lot of the k1dd13z online are just a pain to deal with, and they do nothing but ruin the fun.

  • How to make fighting games work online. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @03:55PM (#6872991) Journal
    Being a huge fan of fighting games, and having played in (and won) quite a few tournaments I am always trying out new fighting games when they come online. I've played everything from X-Band Mortal Kombat to net fighter(ugg) to Capcom vs SNK EO. Each game, or system had it's own unique problems that kept it from really catching on. Still, there is a huge market of people who would play fighting games online if they worked and were promoted correctly.

    Take an old game like Mortal Kombat 2,add a few characters to it, some new moves and fatalities and re-release it as an online game. Since it's older it should have less data you have to push over the network in order to play, plus people know how to play already and will want to play again for the new features and to play other people.

    On top of that, announce an online tournament with $10,000 in prizes to be held 1 year after the release of the game. You will probably hook everyone who played the game before plus some new players.

    This would work even better for capcom. I would bet if capcom re-released their old games in online form they would get more sales than they did from capcom vs SNK EO. For capcom, they could release a collection of fighting games on one disk. "Capcom Olympics" or something like that. Put Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo (for the really old school players), Street Fighter Alpha (the most popular tournament SF game), Marvel Super Heros (The most well balanced capcom fighting game), X-Men vs Streetfighter (for the scrubs) on there. Hell, even throw in puzzle fighter (for the chicks). Hold a tournament for each game, and keep track of the overall score of the players.

    tried and true gameplay + online features = money
    • Hell, even throw in puzzle fighter (for the chicks).

      Or, don't condescend them, and watch as they kick your ass.

    • Why do you think an older game like MK2 would have less data to send than a newer fighter? Character position, action - oversimplified but that's about it. The graphics of the game don't have to be send over the pipe, as I think you're alluding to. Just because MK2 has less graphical data, does not mean it would send less data to an online competitor. Think about it.
      • The graphics of the game don't have to be send over the pipe, as I think you're alluding to. Just because MK2 has less graphical data, does not mean it would send less data to an online competitor.

        Not the graphical data, but you still have to keep track of certain things to make sure the clients are in sync and not cheating.
        • Yes but your statement was that MK2 would require less data to be sent than a newer fighter. In any fighting game you're still going to have to send the same "certain things" to make sure the clients are in sync.

          Let's just say we want to compare Soul Caliber II to MK2. The same type of data must be sent - character position, client actions and received - damage. If I move Johnny Cage forward 2 units and I move Link forward 2 units, the data sent is going to be the same. (Vastly oversimplifying things here b

          • Let's just say we want to compare Soul Caliber II to MK2. The same type of data must be sent - character position, client actions and received - damage. If I move Johnny Cage forward 2 units and I move Link forward 2 units, the data sent is going to be the same. (Vastly oversimplifying things here but you get my point, right?)

            I see your point. I can't use Soul Caliber II as an example because I haven't played it much (I don't like the SC games). Take MK5 and MK2. You have to send send a lot more t
            • Do you realize how much bandwidth those transmissions would take?

              Health: A percentage. 0-100 can be stored in 7 bits.
              Combo Meter: A number less than 100, 7 bits.
              Positions of Weapons: X,Y,Z coordinates assuming a 1000 x 1000 x 1000 plane, 30 bits. So we've got a very low number of bits. Basically the reason for lag in an online fighting game isn't the amount of data being sent but the overall speed of the pipe.

    • Take an old game like Mortal Kombat 2,add a few characters to it, some new moves and fatalities and re-release it as an online game. Since it's older it should have less data you have to push over the network in order to play...

      Unfortunately, this isn't really true. The fact is that, if placed online, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (new) and Mortal Kombat 2 (old) could be tuned to send almost exactly the same data over an internet connection. Even the addition of 3D to the former doesn't change the band

      • Unfortunately, this isn't really true. The fact is that, if placed online, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (new) and Mortal Kombat 2 (old) could be tuned to send almost exactly the same data over an internet connection. Even the addition of 3D to the former doesn't change the bandwidth requirements since you're still sending eight-way stick/pad inputs over the connection - the difference is simply what those inputs mean. The additional buttons aren't a big concern either since even combo presses would be
        • Yes, they have to communicate more than control pad inputs but my point stands. Both games would have to keep track of health. Objects extraneous to the fighters would indeed take up a bit more bandwidth as well. The fundamental point, however, is that, done properly, the bandwidth requirements of a fighting game should remain stable through generations, just as any other game genre. Look at massively multiplayer RPGs for another example. Everquest has to communicate a great deal more information betwe
          • bandwidth requirements of a fighting game should remain stable through generations, just as any other game genre. Look at massively multiplayer RPGs for another example. Everquest has to communicate a great deal more information between the server and the client than a fighting game ever would, and EQ is quite playable on a POTS modem.

            Yes but lag isn't as noticable in EQ as it is in a fighting game. If you lag for a split second in EQ you might not notice, while every second in a fast twitch figh
    • Marvel Super Heros (The most well balanced capcom fighting game)

      Don't you think War Machine is a little bit broken...?
      • Don't you think War Machine is a little bit broken...?

        War Machine wasn't in Marvel Super Heros. You are thinking of one of the later VS. games. The closest thing to war machine is Iron Man. Iron Man's projectile trap is tough but it's beatable. His Super moves and move of his specials have long recovery times. I wouldn't say he is the best character in the game, or head and shoulders above everyone else.
  • Just wait untill halo 2 comes out then you will see the big jump to xbox live. I play halo now as it is with gamespy but just think how much better it would be if you could just join in and out of halo2 like the quake line of games.
    • I'm honestly surprised that Bungie/Microsoft didn't write an on-line 'upgrade' for Halo. I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to add a few features, update the menu and basically integrate what GameSpy offers (except make it a shit-ton better).

      X-Box live would constantly be out of stock, and it probably woulda helped sell most X-Boxes. I know a few people who are waiting for Halo2 to get a Box, just so they can play the online part.

      Ahh well.
      • Thats because the netcode for Halo 1 on the XBox is designed solely for network play on a LAN. Try playing Halo on a 3rd party net system like Gamespy arcade and the slowdown will make you feel like you're on a 36.6k modem. In you read dev diaries about Halo PC, they talk about having to rewrite the net code since it was designed for LANs originally.
  • Back in this story [slashdot.org] Nintendo is saying they aren't focusing on online support for the GC2. People aren't using it an da lot of games aren't being made for it. Online gaming is still in its infancy and has a long way to go before it is mainstream.

  • Bah, who needs online gaming? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Man In Black ( 11263 ) <ze-ro@s[ ].ca ['haw' in gap]> on Thursday September 04, 2003 @05:14PM (#6873863) Homepage
    Back in my days, we'd get our friends to simply come over to our house if we wanted to play a game with more than one player. We were content with only a quarter of the screen for Mario Kart 64, and dammit, we liked it that way!

    I've never really been very impressed with online gaming. Unless you can actually interact with the person you're playing against, they might as well just be a computer controller opponent. And stupid add-ons like the Dreamcast microphone for Alien Front Online doesn't cut it (trust me, I have it, and it was never any good). I'm certainly not going to pay $10 a month to play against against some nerd who plays the game 25 hours a day.

    The only way any console is going to succeed with online support is if the system comes with the hardware you need. PC's generally come with what they need (or you got it anyways because you wanted the internet), and online gaming seems pretty successful for computer. The Dreamcast came with a modem, and there were quite a few games that supported it (although some of the support was a little odd, like downloading ghost cars in racing games, or downloading "fighting data" in Street Fighter Alpha 3). If Sony and Microsoft want their new hardware to have big online followings, they have to include this stuff with the system, because 80% of the owners are casual and probably won't bother to buy any goofy accessories.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Why do you think the Xbox is the first system ever with viable system link?

      Because Microsoft includes everything you need -- out of the box -- to get online and do cool things. The only part they leave off is the actual service you pay for called Xbox Live!

      Your post is about as well informed as this entire story (where the originator apparently has never heard of the DOA Online that's coming out).
  • The numbers you are mentioning mean nothing, there are about 50 pc online games for each console online game. Xbox live is 1 year old. PCs online gaming is at least 10 years old. Not everybody has a broadband connection, how could anyone in their right mind, expect for the numbers to be even similar? console gaming IS growing, people subscribing to live is increasing , SOCOM for ps2 is a top selling game, expect the numbers for FF XI to go through the roof in a year or maybe even less (specially considering

    • AzraelKans wrote:

      Not everybody has a broadband connection,

      how could anyone in their right mind, expect for the numbers to be even similar?

      That's a good point. Another point along those lines -- most of us who game with PCs can rationalize that we want broadband so we can have always-on e-mail, reliable file transfers, and speedy access to Windows security updates.

      I think it would be pretty hard for most casual gamers to rationalize paying for broadband JUST for online console gaming at this point.

    • people subscribing to live is increasing

      Really? Microsoft's been proudly proclaiming ~500k subscribers since, hrm, March or so. It's September, and the number hasn't substantially grown since they first announced ~500k subscribers worldwide.

      So, where is this growth you speak of? The facts don't seem to show it.

      Thursdae

    • What you think about nintendo not participating online gaming is irrelevant, what matters is that they're doing that for a reason. They're innovators. Putting the games mentioned online will not be doing anything new. They're waiting until the costs can be lowered, and the execution of the online games is doing something innovative. They're not bandwagonists, and they're going to wait until it can be done correctly, and cheaply.

  • Midway (Score:2, Interesting)

    by butane_bob2003 ( 632007 )
    We were working on online gaming at Midway before my team was laid off. After killing off Wavenet (networked arcade games, I came on just as it died), the business heads put us to work on MTN (Midway Tournament Network). After they killed that too, we started working on XBOX and PS2 network stuff, but by then most of us had been laid off. Midway had decided that networking would not be a big thing in the game market for another 5-7 years. (this was in 2001) Maybe they were right? Lag is my biggest problem w
  • For online console gaming there isn't much of a debate as to who has the better system.
  • The first internet game I played was at CMU in '89: Nettrek. Oh, the homework I didn't do shooting down those Berkley Federation scum...

    But I digress. Because the internet is already hear for consoles to use they will get more online quicker, but a developer has to choose between peer-to-peer games and a central server. Nowadays, it's almost mandatory to have a central stats/meeting place server, which requires a whole design of it's own. This involves development, deployment, and maintenance. As mo
  • ... that nobody has brought up the topic of Sega pulling the network plug on the DreamCast.

    IIRC, they had quite a few fighting games, and due to poor availability of the Broadband Adapter, most people were on 56k, at least for a while. I never really had the chance to play them, but how did they do?

    There was also a little game called "Phantasy Star Online" (which I also can't believe hasn't been mentioned yet.) In Japan, it was the top online game in 2001, even compared to PC games such as Diablo 2 an

  • Is there even a way to beat an online game? No! I thought people played games so they could beat them! Except for Mario Brothers 1 for NES, you know, they say that game's an infinite loop...

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close