MS _finally_ hosting games? Halo 2?

[Evil_Cloud]

Do you think MS covers its XBL costs with its current pricing?

Or is the current pricing kept relatively low because MS needs to keep XBL churn down and grow the subscriber base? Especially in the face of a rival with a bigger market share which is not charging for online games?

Because really, it would be technically possible to make online games for the Xbox while bypassing XBL entirely, wouldn't it?

If you think Microsoft makes a profit out of Xbox Live you're terribly, terribly wrong... They are taking heavy losses for years, which are now nearing almost 3 billion dollar. Only a juggernaut like Microsoft can keep this up.

If maintaining XBL servers and taking subscriptions had caused such a huge loss, all MMORPG would go out of business.

If someone distributes an XBL emulator just like some Blizzard server project which was sued IIRC, the XBL profit diminishes anyway, but a profit is still a profit though it may be smaller. Then the net loss grows bigger.

Just to be clear: Xbox Live is a part of that 3 billion dollar loss.

 

[Brimstone]

That was my point.

I didn't think $50 a year covered it.

Even though they don't have dedicated servers to host games.

Like I said, if Sony wasn't free, they might have been more likely to try to raise their prices a bit.

But I don't know how much they could raise it before a lot of gamers decide they're asking too much.

The mistake Microsoft is making is not rewarding the people that do run dedicated servers. For example, in Rainbow 6 you can set up your X-Box to run as a dedicated server and go thru a map cycle. A person that does that gets no reward for letting everyone use that persons bandwidth for hosting games.

Either UBI should reward him or Microsoft. Give him dicount coupons for future games or a discount on his LIVE subsribtion. People that run servers on a P2P should get something in return from the companies making money off of all the players.

 

[one]

Just to be clear: Xbox Live is a part of that 3 billion dollar loss.

Um... source?

 

[AzBat]

A few other questions: are all X-Box games LAN capable or are they LIVE-only games? What will happen in the future with those games? How long will MS support those X-Box (1) LIVE-only games? Will they die some day, never to be played online again?

Is this what you want?
http://www.xbconnect.com/

Not all live games come with lan. Lan play is an option developers can provide outside of xbox live. It's not a part of the service however.

Most games, if not all, that have Xbox Live support also support System Link. However, all those games that have System Link doesn't necessarily support Xbox Live. However, that's usually only true of the older games before Live was available. Halo is an example.

BTW, from what I can see, Microsoft doesn't have to "support" Xbox(1) Live games in the way your thinking. You connect your Live game online and if there are others playing that game then it will connect you. If nobody is playing it anymore, then sorry, you'll have to send a game request to a friend. I can see the day where some games will no longer be playable online, but only because the game sucks and nobody plays it anymore. Microsoft doesn't have do anything on their end and in fact, I wouldn't want them to. I also dont' see Xbox2 changing Microsoft's Xbox1 Live Support either. The whole service will encompass both machines. Whether or not you can take your GamerTag and subscription with you to the Xbox2 I'm not sure, but I would be surprised if you couldn't.

Tommy McClain

 

[cthellis42]

In fact I wouldn't be suprised if xbox live didn't cost as much as everquest to keep it running.

It certainly shouldn't, as EQ has to sort all data running through it constantly, while once Live matches the players together, its bandwidth requirements are minimalized. When EQ was still $10 the devs made a comment about how at least 1/4 of their income had to pay for bandwidth charges. As a ballpark estimate, then, they're talking about $30/year, so even at that rate Live would still make a profit. (Of course I don't know how bandwidth costs have changed in the past few years, but I don't think it'd be too far off. It's probably cheaper now, in fact.)

The other question to ask, though, is "has Live pulled a profit yet?" They've invested a lot in the service to bring it up, and are investing more in its future, so it may well not bring in overall profit for a while yet--but the cost from a monthly/player perspective should be pulling in the positive.

 

[ChryZ]

<snipped>informative post</snipped>

Tommy McClain

Thanks! It would be a shame, if the network gaming of certain games would be unusable some day. I like to keep my old consoles and get them out from time to time and it would be great, if "everything" is still working in a few years down the road

 

[AzBat]

<snipped>informative post</snipped>

Tommy McClain

Thanks! It would be a shame, if the network gaming of certain games would be unusable some day. I like to keep my old consoles and get them out from time to time and it would be great, if "everything" is still working in a few years down the road

No problem.

I did think of one thing. With EA now on the Live service, it's possible they may decide to "phase out" online support. I think part of their deal with Microsoft allows them to run their own Live servers. So it might be possible they may require you to upgrade to the newer game to continue the service. Evidently they don't like the idea of people continuing playing the older games after the newer games are out. Especially considering they're not getting online revenue directly from the consumer. I guess we won't know till next year what they decide to do.

Tommy McClain

 

[Randell]

I did think of one thing. With EA now on the Live service, it's possible they may decide to "phase out" online support. I think part of their deal with Microsoft allows them to run their own Live servers. So it might be possible they may require you to upgrade to the newer game to continue the service. Evidently they don't like the idea of people continuing playing the older games after the newer games are out. Especially considering they're not getting online revenue directly from the consumer. I guess we won't know till next year what they decide to do.

Tommy McClain

That's my understanding of why EA insisted on hosting their own servers, not to make it better for 'us' but to enable them to turn it off when they want to 'encourage' you to buy Sims 326

 

[BigGamer X]

Halo 2 is a great example of p2p working out well.

What needs to happen is more upload speed from DSL and Cable providers. The 128k standard needs to be tripled to 384k.


I really like LIVE. It's a great service well worth the money. Microsoft hit a homerun with LIVE.

Yep.....right now I have 320 UP but my new modem is coming and they only offer 256! This 320 UP is all my current modem can do, but my new one should do at least 640(Alcatel Speedtouch)....why not give us the option? At least they'll get rid of this terrible interleave then....