E3 2010: Pre-Conference Discussion & Predictions

[dragonelite]

Had hope to hear something about the next evolution of console multiplayer user controlled dedicated servers. If the arcade 360 version drops to $100 wouldn't that be a good way to give people a option to make that arcade version a dedicated server i believe War hawk already does that.

Or something like what section 8 did let the player convert their pc to a dedicated server. It's something i would love to have.

Section 8 system worked some thing like this i heard.
You get software from the devs install it on pc configure it.
Make a silver live account connect that to your dedicated server so people can find it on live. Shame that game bombed.

 

[aaronspink]

Think like this, most people pay 50-100 a month for cable, why not $10 a month for your "gaming network"? A lot of people probably spend way more time gaming than watching TV. Make it a "networK" with free games, chat, all that stuff.

Doesn't like cable and stuff require like um actual infrastructure and stuff? You are already paying for your gaming network: the money you send to your DSL/Cable provider each month.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Doesn't like cable and stuff require like um actual infrastructure and stuff? You are already paying for your gaming network: the money you send to your DSL/Cable provider each month.

Sure for basic cable, or basic internet or basic phone service

Then you have the optional stuff below...

Premium channels, Pay per View, subscription sites, subscription games, Caller ID, ring back, etc...

And on consoles Xbox Live and soon to be PSN Premium.

Doesn't seem too different to me.

Regards,
SB

 

[patsu]

It's up to the vendors' business model and individual's value judgement. On top of basic Internet, we also get free Internet search, free e-mail, free social tools, free voice chat, ... and free online gaming (Some MMOs, PC online games).

Unfortunately, PC games set the expectation for many that online gaming facilities can be free.

 

[Alkohallick]

It's up to the vendors' business model and individual's value judgement. On top of basic Internet, we also get free Internet search, free e-mail, free social tools, free voice chat, ... and free online gaming (Some MMOs, PC online games).

Unfortunately, PC games set the expectation for many that online gaming facilities can be free.

As they should IMO. Unless the console makers are going to provide dedicated severs why SHOULD we have to pay to simply play online.

 

[Nesh]

Unfortunately, PC games set the expectation for many that online gaming facilities can be free.

But why should we pay to play with friends and others? We have already payed for the game which includes the multiplayer option and we already pay our internet provider. Why should we pay extra to be allowed to use the multiplayer option and the online gaming capability that our ISP provides anyways?

 

[patsu]

There is on-going cost for some servers. They also need to cater for people who buy one game and then play online "forever".

As a consumer, I do hope online gaming stays free (I think it will, at least on PSN).

However, they need to appeal to the user base to help support the on-going costs one way or another. I think if they communicate their conundrum well (explain what exactly we are paying for), they stand a better chance.

 

[Nesh]

There is on-going cost for some servers. They also need to cater for people who buy one game and then play online "forever".

As a consumer, I do hope online gaming stays free (I think it will, at least on PSN).

However, they need to appeal to the user base to help support the on-going costs one way or another. I think if they communicate their conundrum well (explain what exactly we are paying for), they stand a better chance.

I dont understand why you said "unfortunately" though. Its obvious that it is possible for online gaming to be be offered for free, and also lets not forget that the primary reason companies were created in societies were to improve the standard of living and serve the consumer, not to make profit on his back when it is actually not needed. Not all games have dedicated servers, and they are already making money on additional content and map packs. In addition to those they can develop other online services to charge for while leaving online gaming unaffected.

This is not unfortunate, It will be unfortunate when they start charging us to even use the basic online gaming component

 

[patsu]

... because I don't think it's a universal statement. There can be ways to differentiate from the same old PC online gaming services, and charge for the perceived differences. If the vendor offers the same (or similar enough) experience from free PC online gaming services, then consumers are less likely to pay. e.g., I am not sure if Apple will charge for the iPhone Game Center alone. I think it'd be strange to do so.

But there is a hole in the "we already paid for the game" argument. You can buy one game and use up their server resources "indefinitely". That cost is not accounted for -- unless you buy games regularly. With the costs covered, the vendor can improve the service.

OTOH, if the vendor charge for the basic online gaming service, then few casual gamers will be willing to jump in.

Would be interesting to see what Sony pack in to justify for the premium fees, and yet allow casual/non-gamers to join the fun.

 

[wco81]

EA Sports is going to try to charge for online gaming. Well sort of, you will need a code to play online and if you buy the game used and the code was used by a previous owner, then you have to purchase a new code for $10 to play online.

This is for games coming out starting this July/August. Before we've seen the results of this gambit, other publishers are said to be exploring the same mechanism.

Out of the millions of units they sell, the proportion who game online must be small. They might find that they have to sell a code just to activate the game maybe.

This should drive used game prices down and hopefully that drags down new game prices as well.

So someone buys Madden 11 used and has an XBL Gold account. Then they have to pay $10 to play it online. Maybe there will be some complaints which will make MS lobby on behalf of gamers. Who am I kidding, MS gets a cut of all microtransactions so they probably will love this scheme.

 

[obonicus]

Is Madden played on servers or is it P2P?

 

[aaronspink]

But there is a hole in the "we already paid for the game" argument. You can buy one game and use up their server resources "indefinitely". That cost is not accounted for -- unless you buy games regularly. With the costs covered, the vendor can improve the service.

What server resources? You mean the users resources because the game isn't using a dedicated server. You mean the match making server that would have to be there regardless of what game I'm playing and costs almost nothing to run? Neither live nor psn have any more significant costs than something like steam.

 

[patsu]

It depends.

If it's free, then we are stuck with P2P for the most part. If it's not free, then it may be easier/more common to have large scale dedicated server setup.

There may also be opportunities for value added services. e.g., PSN has a User Data service that allows the game to find out what exactly other players are doing in-game. The Demon's Souls developer uses it to implement the "ghosts" in the game. Depending on what services get implemented (e.g., spectating ?), more servers may be needed.

Bringing up Steam and other run-of-the-mill gaming networks does not mean we cannot have better service if people pay. The thing is people don't want to pay for run-of-the-mill (P2P) online gaming setup. This part is clear.

 

[wco81]

Is Madden played on servers or is it P2P?

Pretty sure P2P. Back in the day, the PC version let you just enter IP addresses of the person you wanted to play.

Sure there are rankings and some stat keeping but I think they just match you together and once the game starts, it's just the two consoles.

But one feature they may have this year is multiplayer online games, where you might have 4 or more humans in an online game. That will still be hosted on one machine probably. I think that's how they do FIFA and NHL, which already support more than 4 human players.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

What server resources? You mean the users resources because the game isn't using a dedicated server. You mean the match making server that would have to be there regardless of what game I'm playing and costs almost nothing to run? Neither live nor psn have any more significant costs than something like steam.

The server resources that the publishers pay for on PSN and the consumer pays for on Xbox Live for starters.

I'm guessing part of the push for PSN Premium is not only Sony wanting to stop having a black hole draining funds (I wonder how much of their network losses is due to the "free" content and services provided on PSN considering it lost quite a bit this past year) but publishers and independant's pushing for an end to bandwidth fees (for each demo and patch downloaded).

And Steam's server costs are certainly not insignificant and it grows with each value added service they add.

Regards,
SB

 

[Squilliam]

And Steam's server costs are certainly not insignificant and it grows with each value added service they add.

Regards,
SB

In the case of Steam wouldn't the fact that they already have such a significant number of people downloading off the service and buying content that the server costs would not keep pace with revenue as the two essentially grow in parallel? Essentially economies of scale really.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Aye, if I understand what you're saying. I believe the first year or two of Steam was an overall loss for Valve but it's picked up a lot of steam (ugh, no way to avoid the pun ) since, especially once day and date releases hit.

They are also in a better position to negotiate more favorable terms for titles sold, although I "think" they just have standard rates set. But each additional layer of services does incrementally increase the cost of the service, although (as you say) not nearly to the same extent as revenues increase. They have to keep the service in the forefront with competition, but also have to do it in such a way as to not jeopardize the health of the service itself.

You see similar evolutions of Xbox Live and PSN, with MS using Xbox Live Gold membership to fund improvements to the service and infrastructure, while Sony has virtually no choice but to eat the cost (although they do pass on some of it to the Publishers).

Regards,
SB

 

[Acert93]

Unfortunately, PC games set the expectation for many that online gaming facilities can be free.

Unfortunately? Are you a consumer or ... ?

I am currently (stupidly, because I only wanted one or two months) paying 7 euro a month for Xbox Live. not long ago that translated to 10$. You can buy per month, per three months, or per year. Obviously paying for a year is comparatively cheap - over here a year costs 60 euro. That's a fair bit below the 84 euro it costs to pay that monthly.

Inflating the cost of Live (which can be routinely purchased for $30-$35USD) to $10/mo through personal hang ups to purchase the most expensive method of online really doesn't say much about the true cost of the service.

Xbox Live is realistically $4/mo for most consumers using the service.

I think it would be a bit early to cry foul.

Personally, if the only real benefit of PSN+ would be cross game chat, then no thanks - PSN is perfectly serviceable for me.

Anyway, good that this topic came up because I definitely should either drop Live Gold again or get that 39 euro deal.

Cross game chat and parties is a killer feature. Not something I think you should need to pay for (!!) I am not sure where PSN is compared to Live these days but outside of the lack of too few *Publishers* offering Dedicated Servers Xbox Live is by far the best online service platform I have used. If online gaming was free but they wanted to charge $3/mo for vid chat, cross game chat, parties, messaging, certain DLC accessibility, etc I would probably do it.

The gaming component, basic friend's list, and in-game chat should always be free. The PC showed for many years this can be done at minimal cost to developers and I hope Sony keeps the pressure on MS.

 

[Arwin]

Josh, you're reading/quoting me out of context. I was replying to the rumored $10/month price for PSN+ pointing out that would be similar to Live's official monthly fee, not 'slagging off' Live.

 

[patsu]

Unfortunately? Are you a consumer or ... ?

Huh ? Paying is not anti-consumer. Over-paying is.

Online gaming facilities can be free. But it does not mean all online gaming facilities must be free. e.g., I'd consider paying for dedicated servers, but not for P2P.