Gaming Xbox Live: Can it save the Xbox?

[Charles]

As any knowledgeable Xbox gamer knows, Microsoft has shed some light on it's online plans.

Cool features, such as being able to search for one's friends online, regardless of the game they're playing. Furthermore, switching games won't require resetting the console. Rather, one can just eject the disc and put in the new game.

For your information, Microsoft will be releasing the Xbox Live Starter Kit for $49.95. Judging from what I read in Game Informer, the service is based on a yearly subscription model, and is hosted on the company's servers. This should free developers from having to do it themselves.

Anyway, the kit will include a voice communicator that even lets one mask their identity. That's cool to say the least. Stat tracking will also be included, which is good. People that bail out when they're losing deserve swift electric shocks.

Now, onto the point of the thread. Do you feel that if Microsoft pulls off what it promises, that the Xbox can be salvaged and become a worthy competitor on the market?

J Allard claims that 60 companies have committed to Xbox Live and that there will be 50 online titles by the end of next year.

I don't know if I can believe that though. The year is half over and barely anything worth noting has been released for the console. I'm wondering if online gaming would truly spark this much interest in the system.

[Guest Matt]

[color=red][b]Well, I think it will save the X-Box. There is a version of Counter-Strike: Condition Zero that will be released for X-Box. I think that may have multi-player capacity. And if it does, everyone who plays CS on the computer will have a X-Box.[/b][/color]

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Son Goten [/i]
[B][color=red][b]Well, I think it will save the X-Box. There is a version of Counter-Strike: Condition Zero that will be released for X-Box. I think that may have multi-player capacity. And if it does, everyone who plays CS on the computer will have a X-Box.[/b][/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, there's a problem with that. Why would someone who owns Counter-Strike for the PC, want to buy an X-Box for the game? Maybe there'll be a wealth of improvements.

I mainly hope that Microsoft doesn't shoot itself in the foot by allowing too many sub par PC conversions.

[Guest Matt]

[color=red][b]The absense of cheaters the X-Box might pull people in.[/b][/color]

[Nerdo]

Personally, I don't think X-box live, can/should/will save the X-box. I want it to die a quick but PAINFULL death. :) Sorry, X-box just isn't the system for me. Sony and Nintendo all the way!!

[size=1][color=crimson]Guess What?

[b]We Dont Care[/b]

Have A nice Day ^^ - DK[/color][/size]

[Semjaza]

Xbox Live sounded promising back when it seemed like every game was going to be included in MS's fee. However, in Japan Sega is going to be charging on top of Xbox Live for people to play PSO online. So, that's the 50 bucks MS makes you pay for the first year (there is still no news on what the payment plan is after that), plus whatever Sega feels like charging. If everyone starts doing this, the prices are going to get ridiculous.

If this happens for every RPG, or any other game MS doesn't make, I'm going to be extremely pissed. If that's the case, I might as well stick with PS2 and GC's plan which don't have any main fee. I'm expecting a lot of games (such as FPS's) to be free on that. If not, it seems Gamespy is at least stepping up to create some sort of system for GC, which should lead to some sort of uniform fee for most games (assuming it would work like Gamespy Arcade on the PC). Too bad GC only has one online game anyone knows about :laugh: .

[Charles]

Yes, well the Playstation 2 and GameCube will likely be the more pocket-friendly machines in regard to online gaming. On the other side of the coin however, Madden NFL 2K3's one-on-one online match-ups don't look too enticing. Especially when the Sega Dreamcast allowed eight people to compete in it's football franchises.

Microsoft's focal point, is that broadband will totally replace 56k modem gaming in the next five years. Although Sony will require broadband for numerous titles, I'm not sure what Nintendo's stance is yet. In the end, it might come down to a battle between bells and whistles and wallets.

Some of the more intruiging features, such as match-making are positive signs that Microsoft is on the right track, as far as features go, but their staunch refusal to support a keyboard and mouse might turn off first person shooter fans.

As far as the online gaming war is concerned, I'm sure that GameCube's online plans will effect Microsoft's success. Sony's incredibly large user base will ensure immediate success, regardless of connectivity (especially with titles like Final Fantasy XI). Microsoft will most likely need to strike quickly, before Nintendo can get out of the gates.

You do bring up really good points, SemjazaAzazel. If the smaller user base doesn't hurt Microsoft's online plans, then the prices most likely will.

[Guest Morph]

Well actually, I would think it would HELP Xbox's life span. I mean, it can't save it. Sure it will feel a bunch. GCN will only have one game online in the near future that game is Phatasy Star Online. PS2 will have a nice little group of games. But the cost of "Live" is 50 dollars, while PS2 online is only like 37 dollars. But that doesn't include the fee for cable and/or DSL. I would go further into it but I'm leaving for a trip soon.

[RicoTranzrig]

It might be able to lengthen it's life a tad bit...but online multiplayer isn't really the key to a console's success...espeically with a hefty price tag. The Dreamcast did a superb job on it's online features with a 56K or broadband modem and the ability to connect to your own ISP without any extra fees. If I have to pay any extra fees just to play an x-box game...it'll probably turn up on the computer sooner or later where you can play for free.

[Guest Matt]

[color=red][b]Well, I will never pay fees to play a online games. That's why I stay away from crap like EverQuest.

I was talking to my friend online, and showed him this topic. Here is what he had to say [quote] consoles have and allways will suck[/quote][/b][/color]

[RicoTranzrig]

Well, I guess everyone's entitled to their own opinion...those fees are for keeping the servers in good working order...because they're just starting out and they need some hefty tune-ups to be stable. A lot of dot-com companies are starting to charge people for what they usually presented for free (IE: Gamespot)...

[Guest Jabroni3:16]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i]
[B]Microsoft's focal point, is that broadband will totally replace 56k modem gaming in the next five years. Although Sony will require broadband for numerous titles, I'm not sure what Nintendo's stance is yet. In the end, it might come down to a battle between bells and whistles and wallets.[/B][/QUOTE]
My money is on Nintendo going with Dial Up, the N64 displays Nintendo's past, in the end console-ruining, decisions.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i]
[B]Some of the more intruiging features, such as match-making are positive signs that Microsoft is on the right track, as far as features go, but their staunch refusal to support a keyboard and mouse might turn off first person shooter fans.[/B][/QUOTE]
I believe their decision not to support a Keyboard and Mouse feature is a good one. Those who can't afford more hardware and/or accesories, or just don't want a keyboard and mouse, would be a significant handicap.

Someone mentioned PSO and how SEGA is charging and that it might lead others to follow. Well if no one supports PSO because of that, or they just get minimal figures, SEGA; and others, would back down from that approach. They're next attempt would be to charge extra for the game itself, prolly charge $100+ for a game with life time online capibilities, along with new downloadable levels that you would otherwise have to pay for. This decision will ultimately be a bad one. Well that's my thoughts on the subject...

[Charles]

Well, I suppose that Microsoft doesn't plan on abandoning the Xbox..

Recent figures indicate that the industry is up twelve percent, thanks to the console wars. Theoretically, I gather that Microsoft can hold a profitable third place if they iron out their online plans and garner stronger third party support.

Interestingly enough, I hear that Microsoft plans on releasing the Xbox 2 sometime in 2006.

A news bit of equal value, indicates that Microsoft has formed a deal with THQ to bring Xbox exclusives to the GameBoy Advance. The first two titles are Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee and a Monster Truck title.

I suppose there's a future for Microsoft's Box yet. That is, if online plans don't inflate software prices, like you mentioned Jabroni 3:16.

[Guest Jabroni3:16]

Kinda like Sony is releasing the PS3 in '05? I don't think there's any truth to be found in an X-Box2 rumor just hopefuls who are somehow dissappointed with X-Box. To tell you the truth, i am completely satisfied with my purchase, except for the ocasionaly DD Error i have had a great time with it. When i first saw the topic i was going to respond with a message like "Save X-Box from what?" There's many games on the horizon for X-Box that has my jaw dropped, Blinx not one of em, beh. I must admit Nintendo easily won the battle of "best future games" but that doesn't mean there's still some great games for x-box on the up and coming.

As for Online plans, i personally don't care for online play, mainly cause when i did Halo though GameSpy i got my *** kicked 9 times out of 10 (i would kick butt in racing games though... so maybe i do care? who knows) I and the weekend gamers (as i like to call em) wouldn't pay more than 10-20 bucks for an online capaible platform. Microsoft can see this, 50 bucks for what i remember to be: a headset comunicator one year subscription to the net, and an EA game, after the year i here it'll be 10 bucks a month. Not much eh? Think again 120 for a year and 240 for two, that's 120 less than i had year X. From what i understand of the Sony plans they are just supplying the Modem and HDD and having the producers themselves come up with a Server upon which gaming would be held. Good and Bad in this plan, good for those gamers who only have on game they want to play, bad if you're the loner in the curtained off room playing all the games one could think of... Also bad is the fact that when one game becomes outdated (by this i am meaning by like 2-3 years), the server for that game will mostlikely be freed up for a different game. Since no one can really talk about Nintendo's plans, Microsoft has taken the cake in my opinion... I have Broadband so i have the choices. :) Last time i displayed the pro X-Box opinion here i was insulted by... someone who will remane nameless, i hope it won't happen again so far he hasn't responded to this topic good sign.

Well if that M$-THQ thing is indeed gonna happen (all thoughts indicate yes) it'll be a win-win situation for M$ and Nintendo, moreso Nintendo, if M$ plans to help out a competeter that's there thing... Who knows maybe they'll try their own Hand-Held ::shudders at thought::

I seriously doubt prices will raise, SEGA is just trying to ring PSO for all it's worth, if they are sharging extra it'll be at the most 10 bucks, and it'll hopefully be a game MSRP add on not a monthly cost. Doesn't mean jack to me either way, not into the MMORPG genre.

::Rant that had somehow come over me... odd, You won't get anything out of reading this, i just had to get it out of my system::
Looking back on what i said in June-August at my other board at Amazon you'd see i was one of the biggest Nintendo fanboys there, i dunno what made me give this Box a chance but i did and i am happy i did. (let me say this right now, this is not targeted at anyone, as far as i know y'all already have)Some of you who still may be in a Nintendo rules all mind frame, i really suggest you broaden your horizons and see what X-Box has to offer, stay away from that PS2 though... j/k I have no clue why i don't like PS2. IT BOOGLES THE MIND! Seriously though, when you actually broaden the horizons you'll enjoy gaming alot more
::odd rant finished::

Sorry for the really long post and that rant, thanks for letting me releas some of meh knowledge, it's been cooped up in brain for about 4 months now...

[James]

[quote][b]Last time i displayed the pro X-Box opinion here i was insulted by... someone who will remane nameless, i hope it won't happen again so far he hasn't responded to this topic good sign.
[/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]You weren't insulted, you were just engaged in a reasonable debate. :)

I actually contested what you said simply because you were trying to pass off an opinion as a fact. And as we know, an opinion is always subjective.

Anyway, your most recent post demonstrates that you are a little more sensible now. And other posts of yours that I have seen seem to indicate the same thing...so that's a good sign. ;)

As far as Xbox Live is concerned, it's very tough to predict how this will bode for Microsoft.

In the short term, there is both a lack of demand as well as a lack of profitability. Microsoft will lose billions with the implementation of both Xbox and Xbox Live. And during the life of Xbox itself, Microsoft will not be profitable in this venture.

Having said that, I think many people miss the fact that Xbox Live is not a service designed for the short term. The reason it has taken so long (and has several internal hiccups), is that Microsoft are preparing for the long haul.

Xbox isn't even Microsoft's focus right now. The Xbox 2 (or "HomeStation") is really the product that Microsoft is waiting for. Xbox could be considered a platform for the HomeStation to bounce off -- giving it both the market penetration and available infrastructure to succeed.

Think about it -- in four/five year's time, Xbox Live will be significantly established. If it manages to become well established worldwide, Microsoft can introduce a new computer entertainment system with all of the infrastructure already in place. And thus, this would make the introduction of a new hardware platform much easier.

Nintendo and Sony are both somewhat traditional, in the sense that they are taking a more conservative stance.

Sony definitely lacks Microsoft's technological advantage, in the sense that if you want to get online with a PS2, you need both the HDD AND the BB Adapter. Whereas with Xbox, both are included with the base console.

Having said that, the PS2 has been so successful thusfar, that it could be argued that even [i]with[/i] the extra cost of these peripherals, Sony can still get a strong online userbase. It's very hard to predict at the current time.

And clearly, out of both Sony and Microsoft, Sony has the better game lineup in terms of online gaming. Sony will want to utilize its very broad franchise base to push its online focus -- Microsoft will use a combination of game franchises and online network services (including integrated community services and other online features [movies, music etc]) to push its network.

And then there's Nintendo.

Nintendo is behind both Sony and Microsoft in terms of building infrastructure. But by the same token, Nintendo are fundamentally aware of the inherent dangers of the online game business (afterall, Nintendo have been experimenting with networking since the late 1980's).

At the moment, Nintendo's strategy is mixed. The first online game for GameCube is Phantasy Star Online: Episode 1 & 2. This game will be available worldwide within the course of 2002 -- meaning that GameCube will be the first machine out of the gates in terms of having a major online game.

The difference in the approach is two fold: Nintendo are not focusing on building a centralized network infrastructure. They see it as too costly and too inefficient. Rather, Nintendo are saying to third party publishers "We'll provide the hardware if you provide the required infrastructure for your own software".

Different developers have different requirements.

On the one hand, a company like SEGA is happy to utilize its own network -- that way, they can completely control their online operations without interference from Nintendo. On the other hand, a lot of smaller publishers will find this method too difficult, because it will require them to build their own infrastructure (something which few small publishers can afford).

So in that case, smaller publishers would be attracted to Xbox Live, because they can use an existing service without the need to build their own.

The bigger publishers (and some select publishers) will be turned off by Xbox Live because it potentially removes their ability to control their own infrastructure...and it also opens up the entire network to more problems that could affect more companies, because of the centralized nature of the technology.

In reality, Microsoft has the most streamlined, "easy access" solution in regard to both game developers and gamers themselves.

Nintendo will probably continue to focus on an "open" online system whereby individual publishers make their own arrangements for network services, whilst Nintendo provides low cost hardware.

As for Sony...I don't know how well they will do. Sony clearly want to do something similar to Microsoft, in the sense that they want a "PlayStation network" which not only provides an arena for online gaming, but also for a broad range of online entertainment.

In fact, Sony has stated several times that with PlayStation 3, it wants to totally do away with physical software -- and have people actually download games and pay for them without buying them in a gaming store. It sounds weird (and would be very difficult to achieve, if online gaming doesn't take off as well as Sony hopes), but from a business standpoint, it could dramatically cut costs.

All in all, each company has their own idea of how online gaming should operate. Both Microsoft and Sony are really going to be focusing on online gaming as their primary focus, whilst Nintendo has expressed a desire to make online gaming a part of its lineup...while also making its focus the pursuit of new gaming experiences that [i]don't[/i] require an online connection to play.

Either way, it will be interesting to see how each approach eventuates in the future. :)[/color]

[Guest Jabroni3:16]

::cough:: go back and look at my posts and you'll notice they are the same, i have not changed at all... and i knew you were going to say i did... 'tis all i will say to you for now on, due to the fact that if i say more what i say will be called ill-thought up or what have you... i've learned my lesson in the past discussing with you, i don't need to do it again.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jabroni3:16 [/i]
[B]::cough:: go back and look at my posts and you'll notice they are the same, i have not changed at all... and i knew you were going to say i did... 'tis all i will say to you for now on, due to the fact that if i say more what i say will be called ill-thought up or what have you... i've learned my lesson in the past discussing with you, i don't need to do it again. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]Don't be so silly. ;)

I recall you unfairly bashing Zelda for being celshaded and then claiming that the Xbox controller was the best controller on earth and if anyone else disagreed, they were flat-out wrong. I'm just trying to let everyone have their say, it's not really fair to call someone's opinion wrong if it's an opinion.

In any case, there is no need to be silly about it...if you have something well-thought-out to say, then both myself and everyone else is willing to hear it. I'm not going to jump down your throat for your opinions -- but like any other reasonable person, I'm going to reserve the right to comment and make discussion. I don't see anything wrong with that, afterall, that's what a message board is about.

I think that if you post with an open attitude, as far as letting others make free comment...then there is no problem. I certainly don't bear any silly grudges toward people just because they disagree with me. And I certainly don't refuse to talk to people just because they've disagreed with me in the past. :)[/color]

[Guest Jabroni3:16]

Anyway... All in all, i am having M$'s thinking right now. I think... no i know, Broadband is the future if the net... Dunno why it wouldn't be. It's only natural to move on to the next fastest mode of browing the net. And once DSL and Cable access costs lower (and they will trust me)more and more people will agree. But as of this moment right now online Broad band gaming is just to expensive for the average gamer, which has been said countless times already. I think out of all the online plans M$ has the best.

[James]

[color=royalblue]I agree.

It's definitely true that broadband is the best way to enjoy gaming -- it offers the least lag.

The two main problems are definitely cost and infrastructure.

As I mentioned, Microsoft is attempting to build that infrastructure support for third party developers and publishers.

Nintendo is also supporting broadband (they are supporting both broadband [i]and[/i] narrowband), but as I mentioned, they are allowing third parties to determine their own solutions when it comes to infrastructure.

And as I mentioned, different companies have different requirements.

Sony's plan is much the same as Microsoft's -- the only reason I think Microsoft is further ahead is the fact that their technology is all integrated into Xbox, rather than requiring the peripherals.

So it depends how you look at it. GameCube will be the "easiest" to get online with...meaning that the lay user can just "plug in and play".

Xbox will be both easy to get online with as well as easy to use -- since it will be totally centralized.

Sony will be the most costly to get online with...and so far, it looks like Sony is option for both a centralized network and a third party-based system. So if they follow that approach in the west, I think it will be a little confusing for consumers.[/color]

[Guest Blackhawk]

You know Jab I agree with 100% MS online gaming is the best. Look at the past for start extra pherpherials have always boomed. MS put it in right smart thinking. They also have the Live server to help them out. They have it in the DEV kit which saves every game devolper time and money. They just basically have to point and click and the set up is there. What's to loose? You have the power of MS and their money to keep the server working! As for sony the programers have to put in their own code and hope it works on development. MS also has better games coming out for online play in the long. I mean with Sony the only thing I'm looking forward to is SOCOM and I'm kinda sceptical about that.

[QUOTE]So it depends how you look at it. GameCube will be the "easiest" to get online with...meaning that the lay user can just "plug in and play". [/QUOTE]

How do you figure? You have to buy the modem and configure it also. They will all be the same as far getting online expect MS you'll have to subscribe to only ONE server. With PS2 you'll have multiple server to subscribe, GC will probably be the same way.

[QUOTE]Sony will be the most costly to get online with...and so far, it looks like Sony is option for both a centralized network and a third party-based system. So if they follow that approach in the west, I think it will be a little confusing for consumers.[/QUOTE]

Sorce please! Last I checked Sony is totally 3rd party based. Unless of course you count first and second party exclusives considering those are sony's own games you'd think they'd support them

[QUOTE]Xbox isn't even Microsoft's focus right now. The Xbox 2 (or "HomeStation") is really the product that Microsoft is waiting for. Xbox could be considered a platform for the HomeStation to bounce off -- giving it both the market penetration and available infrastructure to succeed[/QUOTE]

How do you figure? They are popping a good 2 billion into the x-box. That a hellva lot of money to be focusing only on the xbox 2 don't ya think? Ofcourse they have plans for the xbox 2 hell sony's had plans for the PS3 since the start of the ps2



[QUOTE] Microsoft will lose billions with the implementation of both Xbox and Xbox Live.[/QUOTE]

Uhm show me a source and finicial predicitions to prove this. It's a stupid and uneducated comment. Servers are cheap now days and Bandwidth is also really cheap. Are they loosing money now? Ofcourse, with the expecption of the GC all Game system loose money at the start. They will lnot oose money on Xbox live also Billions on the other hand is a bit much. There will be enough people for MS to ATLEAST get it's lost down to millions hell go to GameSpy and see how many people are playing Halo. There is always atleast 400 people in there, atleast I've never seen less than that and I've been on pretty damn late. You get these people playing halo online and the game is lagged to **** this way. You honestly think when it comes to people get online they will loose money through xbox live? as I said before servers and bandwidth are cheap nowadays.

[Charles]

Although I'm not in this discussion, lol, I'll say that Microsoft is focusing on the present to ensure the future.

Statisically speaking, about 23 percent of U.S. homes are expected to have broadband access by the end of this year, with the percentage increasing to the low-40s by 2006--just around the time a new generation of game consoles will arrive. Gaming companies are obviously trying to win over these consumers as broadband technology becomes the norm.

I've come to understand that the real challenge will be to make money off casual players who account for the bulk of the online game audience through simple advertising-supported games.

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will initially lose money because there will be more investment by all three companies in software developers, and some of the publishers are going to be angling for better deals as far as developing games for specific platforms.

But, as I have said, the casual gamers will be the target in the war. Casual players will likely look for the most steamlined deal, and obviously Microsoft's centralized network offers that.

[James]

[quote][b]Sorce please! Last I checked Sony is totally 3rd party based. Unless of course you count first and second party exclusives considering those are sony's own games you'd think they'd support them [/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]The word is spelled "source". ;)

Sony has actually stated in the past that it plans to introduce a singular network whereby it can offer not only gaming services, but also online entertainment (remember the whole "order a pizza while you're playing a game" scenario?).

However, Square has recently gone forward with PlayOnline which is a serviced based purely around its own franchises.

The question is, how will this arrangement work in the United States and other countries? Sony has [i]continually[/i] expressed the desire for a central network, but clearly, some companies are not interested in a centralized system (as they effectively lose control of their own online operations by following this route).

If you follow gaming media at all, then you will be well aware of Sony's repeated backpedalling on the issue.[/color]

[quote][b]How do you figure? They are popping a good 2 billion into the x-box. That a hellva lot of money to be focusing only on the xbox 2 don't ya think? Ofcourse they have plans for the xbox 2 hell sony's had plans for the PS3 since the start of the ps2 [/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]How do I figure? Okay, let me run through it with you.[/color]

[i]Quote: The Wall Street Journal, by Rebecca Buckman, Khanh T.L. Tran and Robert A. Guth[/i]

[quote][i]ITS CODE NAME is "Freon," reflecting the notion that it is the coolest secret project at Microsoft Corp. these days, at least in the eyes of the Xbox video-game division.

What Freon stands for is a [b]souped-up successor to the Xbox console[/b] -- capable of [b]playing games but also offering television capabilities[/b], such as pausing live TV and recording shows onto a computer hard drive, say people familiar with the effort. Though it is unclear whether such a product will ever be built, its core concept appears to have the backing of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, who wrote in an internal memorandum in January that he was a "big fan" of a machine that would combine video services with gaming.

Such a device, which could cost around $500, would have another big advantage: It could beat video-game market leader Sony Corp. to the punch.

[b]Microsoft officials are mulling releasing some kind of new game machine sometime next year or in 2004[/b], say people familiar with the matter. That timing could shake up the $20 billion global video-game market, breaking a long-established pattern of developing and releasing new systems in roughly five-year cycles. Sony, the undisputed leader in a three-way race with Microsoft and Nintendo Co., isn't expected to release its next PlayStation system until 2005.

"The utmost goal is to ship something before Sony," says a person familiar with Microsoft's plans. Changing development cycles could be particularly threatening to Sony, which relies more than Microsoft on specialized computer chips that take years to design. "My biggest concern is if Microsoft or Nintendo try to change the rules of the market," says Shinichi Okamoto, chief technology officer at Sony's game unit, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. "I can imagine several [ways]. The first one is very simple-launching an annual new model: Xbox 2002, Xbox 2003."

Microsoft officials won't comment on Freon. [b]But the software titan has been playing catch-up to Sony since it introduced the Xbox last year.[/b] Though Microsoft hoped the introduction of a hard disk and other features would inspire developers to write more exciting games than for the PlayStation 2, Sony's hardware has retained an edge among consumers and programmers.

"It's amazing how far we have come, and yet we still have to get people to see Xbox as even more of a breakthrough than they do today," wrote Mr. Gates in the internal e-mail sent to top Xbox executives in January.

Officially, Microsoft says the current Xbox has been an early success. The company's focus right now is on selling more Xbox consoles this coming Christmas season, says John O'Rourke, director of Xbox sales and marketing. At the same time, "we have to be thinking about the future," Mr. O'Rourke says.

[b]Microsoft officials are also mum about the release date for the Xbox console's next version, known as "Xbox Next," expected about 2005 or 2006. [/b]Still, the various Xbox projects inside Microsoft -- as well as Mr. Gates's musings in his memo -- [b]show Microsoft is serious about overhauling Xbox, if necessary, to strengthen its challenge to Sony.[/b]

A key pressure is economics: [b]The Xbox console isn't profitable for the Redmond, Wash., company and its costs are believed to be higher than Sony's, partly because of the hard drive and a version of its powerful Windows operating system included with each machine. [/b]While "the Xbox is a full-feature BMW, the PS2 is a Toyota," says Bruno Bonnell, chairman and chief executive of French game maker Infogrames Entertainment SA.

But many gamers prefer the more practical Toyota. Sony has shipped about 32 million PlayStation 2 machines world-wide, while Microsoft was expected to ship only 3.5 million to four million Xboxes by yesterday, the end of its fiscal year. Microsoft, which lowered sales expectations earlier this year, insists its more-powerful machine eventually will win over customers.

Mr. O'Rourke says the machine's hard drive helps deliver features like the voice commentary on Microsoft's "NFL Fever" football game. Microsoft also recently showcased a new Xbox game called "Blinx: The Time Sweeper," which allows players to record moves they have made in the game and replay them at different speeds in the future.

"That is something you can only do with a hard disk," Mr. O'Rourke says.

Still, Mr. Gates doesn't seem convinced. In his memo, sent after one of his periodic "think weeks" away from the office, he mused about whether a hard drive would be necessary for Xbox's online-gaming service, expected to be launched later this year. [b]"Do we really know that you have to have a disk to do online?" Mr. Gates wrote. "I think it's probably right, but say Sony tries to do online without it -- how bad will it really be?"[/b]

Mr. Gates also tossed out a thought he described as "heretical," wondering whether Microsoft will have to "back down" from its plan to offer online gaming only over high-speed Internet connections. That plan has been criticized because so few U.S. computer users have high-speed connections.

Mr. Gates received a briefing about the Freon product last week, a person familiar with the matter said, and also presided over a pep rally of sorts for a larger Xbox group. When asked about Freon at the meeting, Xbox chief Robbie Bach said there were no definite plans for deployment, this person said.

Mr. Gates has long been fascinated with extending Microsoft's Windows software into the living room, though Microsoft stumbled with most of its previous TV efforts. And many in the video-game industry wonder if consumers would pay $500 -- compared with the $199 Xbox -- for a complicated home-entertainment machine.

[b]"I worry about what I call feature creep-layering too many things into a product so the original intent of the product gets lost," [/b]says Schelley Olhava, an analyst with International Data Corp.[/quote][/i]

[color=royalblue]This is one of many articles relating to the Freon, or "HomeStation" as it was originally labelled. Microsoft even provided a visual design of HomeStation a year or more ago.

Furthermore, being involved in the industry myself, I am friends with the ex-President of Epix Interactive, a company who was originally producing the very first fully online RPG for Xbox entitled "Fate" (try looking it up at IGNxbox, you're sure to find it).

Even before Xbox was released, Microsoft were thinking about HomeStation. Xbox is not the focus -- Microsoft's goal is not shorterm. The longterm goal is to establish Freon/HomeStation by way of using Xbox as a launch pad. Microsoft couldn't care less whether Xbox is a success or not -- Xbox is the gateway for its next generation set-top-box styled machines.

So, I actually know quite a bit about Microsoft's plans (hell, when I started in gaming journalism, I was writing [i]almost exclusively[/i] for Xbox-based websites).[/color]

[quote][b]Uhm show me a source and finicial predicitions to prove this. It's a stupid and uneducated comment. [/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]No, [i]that[/i] is a stupid and uneducated comment.

Read the WSJ article above. Of [i]course[/i] Xbox is losing money right now. And of [i]course[/i] Xbox Live will lose money initially.

Microsoft itself has projected that Xbox Live will not make a profit until at [i]least[/i] 2005 or so.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- not if you look at MS's plans in the long term. In the long term, it's an extremely wise move.

Don't try to frame me as an anti-Xbox fanboy just to further your own foolish agenda.[/color]

[quote][b]Servers are cheap now days and Bandwidth is also really cheap.[/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]Incorrect.

For Microsoft to set up a worldwide network (and even a USA-based network), the company is going to have to ensure that the infrastructure is there. That alone is going to cost millions.

You also have to factor in the concept that Microsoft will need to pay full time staff to operate its network -- the revenue incurred from online gaming is going to have to be such that Microsoft can make Xbox Live a self-sufficient service. And as Microsoft itself has said, the service won't be fully self sufficient for several years; as any educated person can attest.[/color]

[quote][b]There will be enough people for MS to ATLEAST get it's lost down to millions hell go to GameSpy and see how many people are playing Halo. There is always atleast 400 people in there, atleast I've never seen less than that and I've been on pretty damn late.[/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]Where are your "sorces"?! Heh, it's funny that you ask me for sources, yet you yourself are unwilling to list things -- you are pulling facts out of your butt, my friend.

We are talking about an entirely new venture -- one where the demand is still not great. Surveys of gamers taken during 2001 indicated that [i]less than half[/i] of the gamers out there are interested in paying a monthly fee to play games on their console. This is something companies around the world will need to deal with -- and hopefully a stable online technology/infrastructure combined with excellent games will help to do that.

But nobody can say for certain right now. [/color]

[quote][b]You honestly think when it comes to people get online they will loose money through xbox live? as I said before servers and bandwidth are cheap nowadays.[/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]Of course I do. I understand the business model behind it whilst you clearly do not.

Servers and bandwidth being cheap have very little to do with the overall picture. It's easy to dismissively say something like that without being in posession of any factual data, which you aren't.

I suggest that you take some time to read "sources" and consider exactly what you are saying.

Until then, don't try to preach on a subject that clearly, you don't know a great deal about. :)[/color]

[Guest Jabroni3:16]

I am betting once consoles go online, the demand for broadband will increase. M$'s plan is a profitable one, Surely they will lose money with the "50 bucks for ____ and a year of access" but when that year expires those people will be more then willing to fork over the extra 10 bucks a month to play against that friend in the Netherlands. M$ has their $hit in order.

[James]

[color=royalblue]Definitely, the demand will no doubt increase.

And that is why I am pointing to MS's plan as being a longterm plan.

I just get annoyed when I'm asked to quote sources, while the original member who posted it clearly isn't interested in extending the very same courtesy to me.

Anyway, regardless of any opinions on the matter, time will definitely tell. Hopefully Microsoft and other companies can turn the indifference in the market around. I sure hope so -- I'd absolutely love to play Halo online with a few friends. :)[/color]

[Semjaza]

I'm not going to list sources for anything I say, as I go to so many places that I won't be able to.

Anyway... So far MS has posted like $700 million in losses, and this is because of the Xbox. MS IS losing money on this system. They know it, analysts know it and I figure most people who keep up with it know it too. MS isn't really "wasting" this money, but they are using it to set themselves up as a big name in gaming. They need to pump all this money into it, and the way I see it...it should all cost them less as time goes on. MS isn't even forcasted to break even on Xbox until 2004, and that's assuming it meets ALL of it's sales projections. Something it simply hasn't done yet. I'm sure the price cut won't help matters either.

As for the whole plug and play issue that was brought up... All three companies are making you buy something to go online. PS2 is forcing you to buy a modem (you can use a plain old PC USB one from what I understand though... otherwise $34 for a combo broadband/dial-up modem --- you don't necessarily NEED the HD), so is GC ($34 each for dial-up or broadband). To even access Xbox Live you need to buy the headset, which is 50 dollars. But it does include a year of access, and I assume more normal fees after that year is up.

Then we have the recent news of Sega charging OVER Xbox Live for PSO. Something, that according to most people, wasn't going to happen. I pretty much thought it was expected, as online RPGs cost a LOT to maintain. Not only must the sever be kept up, but there are usually people and mods watching out for cheaters. PSO isn't even a huge online RPG, there are only 4 people in each actual game at a time. MMORPGs are gonna need even more upkeep, and considering their size compared to PSO are also going to cost you to play over Xbox Live.

From what I am understanding Xbox Live won't let you play these games at all online unless you subscribe. Currently, playing over XB Connect or Gamespy is the only other option, but it isn't true online play. It's linking systems over a distance. And even that requires more work than the average person is willing to do. So basically what this means is that NO Xbox games are going to feature free online play, unless you consider a game being included in Xbox Live "free". To me this is what makes GC and PS2's plans just as good.

Sure, Xbox theoretically gets an all-in-one service. But Sega's move makes me worry how true that claim actually was in the first place. With Sony and Nintendo's plans (yes I know there are no free online games for GC coming yet, but Nintendo has said they won't charge for first party games last I heard), it's basically up to whatever 3rd party wants to do it. But at least the option for some sort of Gamespy, or free ad sponsored servers is available. I'm sure most bigger RPGs are going to charge you to play (which apparently will be JUST like on Xbox, so no loss either way), but the average game, such as an FPS, Fighter or Puzzle game most likely won't. Really how is Sony or Nintendo's plan is [I]bad[/I]? They are doing exactly what PC companies have been doing for years, and I've yet to see many complaints about that format.

I'm not saying Xbox Live is bad, as I think it is a step in the right direction. I just wonder how much better it actually is than the other companies' plans. Despite Nintendo's lack of online games so far.

Anyway, I went on a tangent... but my main point is that I wonder what this is all going to turn into. If MS somehow thinks 50 bucks from each person is going to cover bandwidth (especially on broadband), they are insane. Bandwidth and servers are NOT cheap, despite what was said here. Anyone who says that knows little about the internet economy. Very few sites pull a profit, many lose money. Most of the sites that do make anything offer some sort of pay for service, or advertise porn. Porn is sadly the easiest and least risky way to make money online anymore if you are a webmaster. If bandwidth was cheap, why would every fansite ask for donations? Why would bigger game sites want money to get most of their stuff? Why would Gamespy Arcade and Mplayer be overran with ads? That simply isn't true. You also have to remember that nearly every server on Gamespy is a volunteer effort. Some people are willing to go this far when companies are not.

My last thing is broadband. I remember reading that a very large percentage of online gamers use broadband. However, how many broadband users are gamers? I'm willing to bet that number isn't so large. Broadband is the future, but it isn't likely to take over homes like MS is hoping for Xbox Live, at least this generation. Even Gates himself has admitted that. However, you need to take into account that PC's internet connections are used for a lot of other things besides games. Xbox doesn't have any of these features. It's only games. To think that broadband usage is going to increase dramatically because of consoles seems crazy to me. Would the average person be willing to pay 50+ a month to play console games online? I think not. Xbox Live is mainly appealing to the people who have broadband in the first place, not the general masses.