Comment who knows, it might work (Score 3, Interesting) 236
I think it's a worthy experiment what Microsoft is doing with online XBox.
Anybody who has played Counterstrike in the last year knows how bad it can get in a laissez faire environment. Cheating started with Half-life within weeks of it being on the market - it's only gotten worse since. There's a lot to be said for having all the simulation run on the server and the server run by the company the makes the game.
Hell, Blizzard realized their mistake with the first Diablo, which was largely peer to peer and hugely hacked. The next couple games were server based with the servers all owned and operated by Blizzard. The resultant experience was a lot better.
On the other hand, Microsoft is going to miss the whole dynamic of having the games supported and enhanced by the community. It's tremendously empowering to let the users run their own servers, make their own mods, etc. Trying to chaperone online play doesn't work well with hard-core gamers.
Here's the thing though: up to now there have been two successful online game markets. Successful defined as popular.
1. The paid MMP market such as Everquest. One game, well made, well maintained, for a price.
2. The loss leader. Quake, Half-life, etc make their money by selling box copies. The online play is a offered as a free value-add, but with no guarantee of quality. The game maker invests some amount of money and resources into supporting online play, but on the assumption that it supports sku sales.
(3. There's also the online casual game market (e.g. card games and bejeweled), but that's a different creature.)
There have also been a bunch of companies that tried to make a business of online play in other ways. Companies like TEN and mPlayer tried to make money with a for-a-fee walled garden and non-exclusive games. Didn't work. Companies such as Gamespy and WON.net try/tried to make money by providing (relatively) inexpensive ancillary services to support non-exclusive games, with the revenue coming from editorial on their web sites. This almost worked, in the respect that Gamespy at least seems to be able to survive, but it doesn't make anybody rich.
Given that up to now no one has made a success of online gaming (aside from MMP), Microsoft rationally decided to try a new model. They've got exclusive access to a couple great games (e.g. Halo), they make a walled garden to maintain the quality, they add a cool feature like voice chat, and they ask for $10 a month. It's a long shot to really succeed, but it's a commendable attempt.
Anybody who has played Counterstrike in the last year knows how bad it can get in a laissez faire environment. Cheating started with Half-life within weeks of it being on the market - it's only gotten worse since. There's a lot to be said for having all the simulation run on the server and the server run by the company the makes the game.
Hell, Blizzard realized their mistake with the first Diablo, which was largely peer to peer and hugely hacked. The next couple games were server based with the servers all owned and operated by Blizzard. The resultant experience was a lot better.
On the other hand, Microsoft is going to miss the whole dynamic of having the games supported and enhanced by the community. It's tremendously empowering to let the users run their own servers, make their own mods, etc. Trying to chaperone online play doesn't work well with hard-core gamers.
Here's the thing though: up to now there have been two successful online game markets. Successful defined as popular.
1. The paid MMP market such as Everquest. One game, well made, well maintained, for a price.
2. The loss leader. Quake, Half-life, etc make their money by selling box copies. The online play is a offered as a free value-add, but with no guarantee of quality. The game maker invests some amount of money and resources into supporting online play, but on the assumption that it supports sku sales.
(3. There's also the online casual game market (e.g. card games and bejeweled), but that's a different creature.)
There have also been a bunch of companies that tried to make a business of online play in other ways. Companies like TEN and mPlayer tried to make money with a for-a-fee walled garden and non-exclusive games. Didn't work. Companies such as Gamespy and WON.net try/tried to make money by providing (relatively) inexpensive ancillary services to support non-exclusive games, with the revenue coming from editorial on their web sites. This almost worked, in the respect that Gamespy at least seems to be able to survive, but it doesn't make anybody rich.
Given that up to now no one has made a success of online gaming (aside from MMP), Microsoft rationally decided to try a new model. They've got exclusive access to a couple great games (e.g. Halo), they make a walled garden to maintain the quality, they add a cool feature like voice chat, and they ask for $10 a month. It's a long shot to really succeed, but it's a commendable attempt.
