Pros and cons of the different online strategies *Spawned from UE3 thread

[Acert93]

[modhat]This thread is for the discussion that appeared in the UE3 thread about the challenges to Live! being offered by PSN. I think the origin of this tangent came about because UE3 on PS3 supports all the PC mods, so represents a large improvement in user-content on consoles versus last gen. IS this unique to PS3? Why are devs extolling PSN's virtues (Epic interview says 'thank you Sony'. NCSoft choose to be Sony exclusive because of their service.) and is it something MS can counteract? Do they even need to? These questions and more will be answered in this thread...by you guys!

Shifty[/modhat]

Finally, together with Burnout 5, Warhawk and Resistance, it will, to put it conservatively, put pressure on Microsoft's Live service, as each of these games are doing things that are currently 'problematic' to implement on Live.

Warhawk and Resistance have dedicated servers--the 360 supports dedicated servers and as mentioned in my Frontlines thread ded servers are coming to the 360 version with 32+ players. MS and Epic are also talking about mods...

And while PSN being free puts some pressure on MS, Live is a pretty broad and adopted service and with many working features PSN hasn't adopted yet. You could do a "check list" of things Live does, and PSN doesn't, but that doesn't mean much.

Games, and the experience you get online, is what matters for an online service. Personally, having worked in the web industry, I cannot shake the feeling that the video exchange services and video editing tools in Halo 3 and PGR4 are [edit: correction/typo!] going to be a big deal. Youtube is an absolute culteral phenom and MS is there to capitolize on it.

As far as games go, I think the biggest game release in 2007 having MP, Coop, and something as unique as Forge is going to set some sort of new "standard". I think Halo online tools -- movies, map sharing, and online play in SP and MP -- is going to put pressure on everyone due to the gravity of the title.

A number of console games have dabbled in concepts (e.g. TS2 and FCI with map making), but it is when the "big dogs" of the software world do something that people take note. Look at all the trends and pressure Nintendo puts on people. Not every idea is unique, only uniquely positioned.

As much as I wished PSN being free was putting pressure on MS to make Live free it just doesn't seem to happen. What is happening, though, is PSN gives developers leverage to demand MS expand Live features. I don't think any feature PSN has offered has put any consumer sales pressure on MS at this point.

Based on news reports, by the time UT3 on the PS3 has a "killer mod" I think MS will have opened up that door. Until then they will be flooding Youtube with Halo 3 videos of Forge wonkiness.

 

[Tap In]

agree that Halo3 and PGR4 look to be adding LIVE features unparalleled in online console gaming by anyone yet.

also, ALL of EA's online X360 games are on servers AFAIK

 

[patsu]

agree that Halo3 and PGR4 look to be adding LIVE features unparalleled in online console gaming by anyone yet.

We will get to see Phil's Web 2.0 showcases later this year, like LittleBigPlanet and Home. They have a different audience though.

Where UT3 is concerned, I am still on the fence. I'm more curious about the mods (To what extent can they change the games ? What is the memory limitation ?).
If they can offer direct mod downloads using the built-in web browser or even the Home community, we may see more interesting integration. Too bad all these are still up in the air from our perspectives.

 

[Tap In]

We will get to see Phil's Web 2.0 showcases later this year, like LittleBigPlanet and Home. They have a different audience though.

true... more to see there for sure but integration into the gaming experience is where the two titles I noted make their mark.

As far as building a community of users (which I believe is under appreciated this generation when looking at the market factors), LBP and HOME may do that very well for PS3 but as you said with a different audience. Many systems and games are sold (in my experience) to people whose friends are in a circle of online gamers that want to participate with communication tools and gaming clans etc. It's like joining a club.

UT3 type Mods on PS3 are one of those tools that may make a difference.

 

[patsu]

true... more to see there for sure but integration into the gaming experience is where the two titles I noted make their mark.

LBP feature co-op and competiitve game play, collaborative map building and sharing, personalization and in-game phototaking. Not sure what else is there. The community aspect (e.g., voting) is another layer on top.

In the mid- long-term, Home will support user scripting (said to be Java-based).
EDIT: BTW, the chess game in Home are persistent. Player A can leave a game halfway while another jumps in to continue. I thought that's pretty interesting too.

These are all concepts similar to UT3's modding at various technical level.

 

[Tap In]

Funny the biggest game halo, wont have dediated servers
just saying

But they could if they wanted/needed which just goes to show how unnecessary they are for what they are trying to accomplish with the game online.

LBP feature co-op and competiitve game play, collaborative map building and sharing, personalization and in-game phototaking. Not sure what else is there. The community aspect (e.g., voting) is another layer on top.

In the mid- long-term, Home will support user scripting (said to be Java-based).
EDIT: BTW, the chess game in Home are persistent. Player A can leave a game halfway while another jumps in to continue. I thought that's pretty interesting too.

These are all concepts similar to UT3's modding at various technical level.

yes nice features, I like that chess idea...

the one factor of online gaming that also seems to be hitting home on XBL and is a big part of that "Community" aspect is Co-op play. More Sony titles really need to start implementing that IMO. It is sooo much easier (and less embarrassing for an old guy like me ) to find a friend to play through online than to find one in Real life to sit in my living room.... plus no split screen!

 

[Acert93]

Since my post wasn't a real OP, I think I will expand slightly on my impression.

Sometimes being a "trend setter" is the most meaningful impact. Not the first, but the first to "do it with fanfare and consumer adoption". Apple is really good at this.

I don't think offering "mod support" is a big deal. The first game that supports a *great mod* (think Red Orchestra, Desert Combat, CounterStrike, Team Fortess, Day of Defeat, etc) will be the most relevant.

So I don't personally put much weight into supporting mods. How well they are supported, and what limitations, will be big factors. Until we know those it is more of a, "Cool concept, but lets see the fruit".

I would love to see an update featurelist of LIVE and PSN. Mainly because I want to see how much better PSN has gotten. LIVE's actual improvement in games has been slow (but had a broader foundation as well) so I think, relatively, PSN is catching up. But where it counts I think Live still has the "special sauce" (working features that benefit the platform/sales/adoption, like achievements) as well as mindshare.

Moving toward this fall I think MS may have stole some Sony thunder. (Shifty, run away!) I thought LBP was doing something novel, and it is. But the nature of LBP has some hurdles.

* Cute, but with a strong online element (kids online... still a touch and go demographic)
* New IP
* A new concept with a design that may not appeal in the multi-millions with the current install base

So how did MS steal some LBP thunder? Well, my impression of LBP is this:

* Free form gameplay: Build things, goof off and do what you want, customization -- appeal to the free thinker and artistic mind in a "fun" framework
* Cooperative and Competitive online play

LBP is a giant sandbox that offers a lot of freedom and versatility. And while not a direct parallel, I think MS is attacking those very same themes...

With Halo 3.

Halo has become pop culture. It is an amazing IP that is going to sell many, many copies. It competes with LBP's general concept in that it has Cooperative and Competitive online play, and does so to a much large demographic.

The free form elements are addressed in Forge. Gamers can take the elements of the Halo world and change them, even change the game dynamics. They get to goof off in a popular and compelling "sci fi world". People can goof around in Forge and screw around with the Halo world, and then get serious and create a new game type to play MP with.

I know LPB and Halo 3 are in totally different dimensions in terms of style and who the game will appeal to. But I tend to look at it as the Halo series is madly popular, and this is a first LBP. Forge, by being part of Halo 3, is going to be a) out first and b) be exposed to more gamers. LBP may be more free form, and even better than Forge, but those first two points I think have some serious weight in terms of the impact on consumers. Halo 3 Forge will have a broader reach, and therefor impact IMO.

And feeding this is the new movie sharing stuff in Halo 3. Record your play time, edit it, and share it not only on the 360 but send it online... over Youtube. I know a lot of people, myself included, who like watching some Machinima as well as crazy things people do in stuff like Gary's Mod.

The fact the biggest game on the market this year is going to have a "free form sandbox" in said universe and then give users, EVERY user, movie making capabilities...

We can count check boxes and what pressure they may apply. But I think in terms of execution and market awareness and impact, I think Halo 3 is going to do more impact in the next 12 months than mods in UT3, dedicated servers (which I am a huge fan of), or other free form sandbox games combined.

That is an aweful big prediction which some will disagree with. I am fine with that. We will find out within the next month.

 

[nintenho]

also, ALL of EA's online X360 games are on servers AFAIK

they have servers but that doesn't necessarily mean the online games aren't p2p. the reason for their own servers is apparently to spam your email or something. I do like what they're doing with games like skate though where you can show anybody either on a console or on computer your videos.

 

[liolio]

My humble opinion.
At some point the fact that the live is not free will backslash MS to point that they will have to react.
As casual gamers I don't need a live gold subscription all the time, but if (I had a 360) I find a real AAA title and if the only to enjoy the most of it id to subsribe to gold, I could be quiet hungry.
I (or any casual gamer) could be in a situation where I have to pay quiet some money on top of already expensive games.
If I took Halo III as example (could be RPG or anything as I'm not fond of fps) to enjoy the game I will have to pay 4$/month for some month to truely enjoy the game, and if some time ago (say six monthes) I want to replay ==> pay again.
As I'm not attract by that many online games, one (or few) game could prove to be quiet expensive
On the other hand we don't know if Sony will manage to keep the acces to all games free, but so far is speculation PSN is free.
More I find somewhat confusing that Epic has to fight MS to be able to bring Mod on live.
MS has to show more "openess" here.
So far a lot of 360 owners are hard core to quiet big players, so live subscription doesn't hurt that much, but for a casual who is likely to buy cheap platinium games, and who will not play that many games online, it could be a non trivial amount of money to put out to enjoy the most of very few games, making these games really expensive. Hardcore gamers on the side won't be angry to pay 1game/year to have access to live witch seems a really good service.

When MS will start to reach the real mainstream market these limitations will show off.

 

[ninzel]

I think MS's service is clearly the best at this point in terms of execution.
I like the idea of the PSN much more because of it's openness,but so far it just hasn't delivered the content and IMO that's what it's all about. MS has delivered the content big time.
Strategy wise I'm supporting the PSN as long as they can finally deliver the goods. Movies,shows,music,consistent game content and lag free servers etc.
Edit: Just want to clarify the "MS has delivered the content big time" statement.Theres two parts to that,"delivered" and "content". Not ony has there been much more content available onXBL,but the delivery of that content is much smoother and faster. Sony needs to work on it's download speeds and have the content automatically install if it can.

 

[liolio]

I think MS's service is clearly the best at this point in terms of execution.
I like the idea of the PSN much more because of it's openness, but so far it just hasn't delivered the content and IMO that's what it's all about. MS has delivered the content big time.
Strategy wise I'm supporting the PSN as long as they can finally deliver the goods. Movies, shows, music, consistent game content and lag free servers etc.

I don't think that MS have to go the completely free route.
But 4$ per month can prove dissuasive depending on how many gmaes you intended to play online.
Why not grant acces per game, like paying some more for a game + a serial that grant you acces to online for only this game? Ms would have to allow players change their mind to suscribe to a specific game later.
this would'nt be exclusive for the system as it' stands as people who play a lot online way have a better deal with the 4$/monthes subscription.

As a casual gamer myself (so IMHO) I would prefer to pay more (4/5/6$) for have a copy of a specific game that allows me to play online, where I would be really relunctant to pay 4$ per month mostly for the said game for x monthes (and add $ again 6 monthes/1 year later if the game has huge replay value).

MS should bring some more handtune offers for the hardcore/big/casual players when it comes to live.
And it can do without asking money to editors.

EDIT I agree with most of your post just adding my opinion

 

[Acert93]

$5 extra at checkout is a unique idea.

I think spreading out Live costs could disarm the fee as well. Instead of $50 up front, why not $4.95 per month? After CC fees and logistics, it would end up being the same amount in MS coffers. Maybe more... I can justify $5/mo more than a whopping $50! $50 is the price of a game, $5 the price of coffee.

 

[liolio]

I want to add that MS could lost some money as even a gamers buying many games a year would easily pay less by buying "online enable" of a game.
But MS can't want live to be dissuasive for casual gamers.
Maybe MS could add even more value to the gold live subscription in term on content extra, etc.
And drop slightly the price.
Live is a great money maker,more live prevent from piracy in someway as live add value (this value may change) to lot of games.
How many gamers MS have out of 9.000.000 users (world wide) that are likely to pay the live gold subscription? A lot, but out of 20 millions and more of less a hard core audience?
MS has to really consider the "mass effect" (lol) with cheaper revenues per gamers against a system who could prove dissuasive to a lot of gamers while pulling away for them one of the strengh of the system, and more raise a barrier (limit? hard with my english to find the proper word) on how much they and the editors can make through the live plateform (mainly by having satured the market willing to ~4$/month).
Even if one gamer pay the fee for only one game it could spend money for extra for the very same game.

MS will have to balance things out, IMHO.

 

[liolio]

Assuming of course, you only buy one cup of coffee per month.

You have three different options available to you while you are sitting on your couch at home, Monthly Gold, Three Month Gold, and Twelve Month Gold. $7.99, $19.99, and $49.99, respectively. The $50 "upfront" is by far the best of the options and neither requires you leave the house, unless you don't have a debit/credit card.

Yes but it's dissuasive for a casual gamer, the value of the gold subscription varies related on how many games (you own to begin with) you intend to play on line.
And it kill replay value of some games as Xmonth further you will have to pay for these games no matter if no other games attract you to live.

 

[Acert93]

$7.99 is a pizza though.

Pizza > Live > Coffee

 

[ninzel]

I don't think that MS have to go the completely free route.
But 4$ per month can prove dissuasive depending on how many gmaes you intended to play online.
Why not grant acces per game, like paying some more for a game + a serial that grant you acces to online for only this game? Ms would have to allow players change their mind to suscribe to a specific game later.
this would'nt be exclusive for the system as it' stands as people who play a lot online way have a better deal with the 4$/monthes subscription.

As a casual gamer myself (so IMHO) I would prefer to pay more (4/5/6$) for have a copy of a specific game that allows me to play online, where I would be really relunctant to pay 4$ per month mostly for the said game for x monthes (and add $ again 6 monthes/1 year later if the game has huge replay value).

MS should bring some more handtune offers for the hardcore/big/casual players when it comes to live.
And it can do without asking money to editors.

EDIT I agree with most of your post just adding my opinion

That's a great idea and how I could get behind paying to play online. I don't play enough games online to justify the regular yearly costs.

 

[patsu]

Since my post wasn't a real OP, I think I will expand slightly on my impression.

Sometimes being a "trend setter" is the most meaningful impact. Not the first, but the first to "do it with fanfare and consumer adoption". Apple is really good at this.

Agreed. But the first thing is: The segment has to be right. i.e., Creative came up with Mp3 but positioned it as a gadget. Apple simplied the total experience and marketed it as a layman's tool. Otherwise, the impact would be limited.

I don't think offering "mod support" is a big deal. The first game that supports a *great mod* (think Red Orchestra, Desert Combat, CounterStrike, Team Fortess, Day of Defeat, etc) will be the most relevant.

So I don't personally put much weight into supporting mods. How well they are supported, and what limitations, will be big factors. Until we know those it is more of a, "Cool concept, but lets see the fruit".

Agreed. That's why I am still sitting on the fence with UT3. I need to know more about the mods first. e.g., What sort of mods are possible ? I am guessing there will be limitations. We may need something design specifically for console environment.

In parallel, I am also curious at user scripting and generated content for Home, LBP, Echochrome, ... To be successful, Sony has to position the concept carefully, simplify the experiences, come up with a platform (not just a point solution), and shout at the top of their voices. Something like Home 2.0 is a start, but PSN + 3rd party middleware providers should offer the bottom layer specifications and solutions too.

I would love to see an update featurelist of LIVE and PSN. Mainly because I want to see how much better PSN has gotten. LIVE's actual improvement in games has been slow (but had a broader foundation as well) so I think, relatively, PSN is catching up. But where it counts I think Live still has the "special sauce" (working features that benefit the platform/sales/adoption, like achievements) as well as mindshare.

Moving toward this fall I think MS may have stole some Sony thunder. (Shifty, run away!) I thought LBP was doing something novel, and it is. But the nature of LBP has some hurdles.

* Cute, but with a strong online element (kids online... still a touch and go demographic)
* New IP
* A new concept with a design that may not appeal in the multi-millions with the current install base

So how did MS steal some LBP thunder? Well, my impression of LBP is this:

* Free form gameplay: Build things, goof off and do what you want, customization -- appeal to the free thinker and artistic mind in a "fun" framework
* Cooperative and Competitive online play

LBP is a giant sandbox that offers a lot of freedom and versatility. And while not a direct parallel, I think MS is attacking those very same themes...

With Halo 3.

Halo has become pop culture. It is an amazing IP that is going to sell many, many copies. It competes with LBP's general concept in that it has Cooperative and Competitive online play, and does so to a much large demographic.

The free form elements are addressed in Forge. Gamers can take the elements of the Halo world and change them, even change the game dynamics. They get to goof off in a popular and compelling "sci fi world". People can goof around in Forge and screw around with the Halo world, and then get serious and create a new game type to play MP with.

I know LPB and Halo 3 are in totally different dimensions in terms of style and who the game will appeal to. But I tend to look at it as the Halo series is madly popular, and this is a first LBP. Forge, by being part of Halo 3, is going to be a) out first and b) be exposed to more gamers. LBP may be more free form, and even better than Forge, but those first two points I think have some serious weight in terms of the impact on consumers. Halo 3 Forge will have a broader reach, and therefor impact IMO.

And feeding this is the new movie sharing stuff in Halo 3. Record your play time, edit it, and share it not only on the 360 but send it online... over Youtube. I know a lot of people, myself included, who like watching some Machinima as well as crazy things people do in stuff like Gary's Mod.

The fact the biggest game on the market this year is going to have a "free form sandbox" in said universe and then give users, EVERY user, movie making capabilities...

We can count check boxes and what pressure they may apply. But I think in terms of execution and market awareness and impact, I think Halo 3 is going to do more impact in the next 12 months than mods in UT3, dedicated servers (which I am a huge fan of), or other free form sandbox games combined.

That is an aweful big prediction which some will disagree with. I am fine with that. We will find out within the next month.

Yap ! But I don't think there will be one direction stealing Home is already expanding into the web and mobile worlds.
They will both improve over time.

LBP is more than just co-op and competitive gameplay. The simple builder for visual and behaviour creation is the foundation (Did you see the trailer where they created punching boxers within minutes ?). It is also aimed at the general consumer at large (It is a mistake to characterize LBP as a kids venture).

Halo will have its challenges in reaching out to non-gaming consumers too.

At the end of the day, they will all maximize their strength. They will have similarities but they will also be unique in their own ways.

 

[Paul_G]

Perhaps another good way to approach the problem Liolio mentioned is to have a sort of pay per play system using the marketplace points, so instead of paying $4 for a month, you could pay 20 points per day or something and then if you don't go online, you don't get charged, this could all be automated, so long as you have points, you just go online and you lose those points.

to expand on that, perhaps instead of a months free live gold when you make a new account like you currently get, perhaps some points would be better, then if online doesn't appeal, you could use it on something else.

 

[Rainbow Man]

And while PSN being free puts some pressure on MS, Live is a pretty broad and adopted service and with many working features PSN hasn't adopted yet.

Like..what, really?

It's not so much as a matter of features as simply contnet. MS has MORE stuff available. More commercial demos more downloadable full games etc.

But features? I assume you're not thinking of achievements here?

Games, and the experience you get online, is what matters for an online service.

Price too.

And MS knows this. That's why they're spending big to try and corner the console market, because with market control comes price control.

MS hates anything free. Like any big greedy corporation really.

MS only offers free stuff when it KNOWS it can't charge for it. They had 2MB hotmail accounts not that long ago. They had been 2MB since pretty much forever. You had to pay for more - and 2MB was very easy to fill since MS kind of exaggerated the size of every email you stored by 50% or so. So they tried to b lackmail people into splurging for web-based email.

Then along came GMail and shot that business model to pieces - thankfully.


..But there's no Google XBox Internet Access riding to the rescue now, and MS knows this. They're the sole providers of that. So they can charge almost whatever they want and people will have to pay it if they want to play Halo online.

Of course they have to watch out a bit as long as there are competitors. But Wii isn't a strong online contender. Probably never will be - the internets is a dangerous place Nintendo thinks and by function whatever Nintendo thinks that's what their customers have to think too.

PS3 is ailing right now. Unless it makes a remarkable recovery things could easily mean MS has a dominating position next generation - at least in the high end (discounting the Nintendo casual crowdh ere).

So what will become of the extensive service of a silver live account? Well.. One small guess would be it won't be as extensive anymore. Because a service offered free isn't worth as much as one offered for money..or at least not to the one doing the offering.

Peace.

 

[RobertR1]

I'm a huge fan of Live. Why? mainly because it's seamless. When I turn on my 360, I'm auto logged in and know exactly how many friends are online and what games they're playing with one click of a button. Then I can always expect a tons of demo's and game videos from just one location vs. following threads on forums to know what's coming. If I feel like playing some old school games, marketplace takes care of that also. From that same tab, I can get movies/TV.

If the kids on an online game are being annoying, I can simply goto private chat with my friends and be done with it.

Would I like it to be free? sure, why not. But I also understand that the paying membership is responsible for bringing the entire feature set to the rest of the community. At $4 a month, I not concerned. Hell, a starbucks drink can amount to about that much!

Live would be a valued service on ANY console.