The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Consoles going online, it’s something that has been talked about for a good couple of years now. I thought it sounded like a fantastic idea when I first heard about it. It seemed like a good concept, playing games alongside people from all over the world without having to fork out thousands for a PC. But now as the eve of the online console gaming approaches, I can see that this could possibly be a big threat to the games industry, but more so, a danger that looms over dedicated gamers such as myself. As we all know, there are three major players currently battling it out in the games industry. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, all going online.
One of the most obvious problems with this new era of online consoles is the introduction of Broadband. Consoles have to use a Broadband connection because a dial-up system just isn’t powerful enough, or fast enough to cope with the expected amount of online gamers. But in order for Broadband to be installed in your area, BT requires 400 signatures from people in your district. This is going to cause serious problems for people living in small towns where quite possibly the entire population of the town is less than 400. For those towns that do have enough people in the area though, not everyone in the area is going to be interested in Broadband, so many gamers won’t be able to play online anyway, even if they wanted to. So the main point being, all consoles will only be able to allow online gaming through a Broadband connection.
A lot of people won’t be interested in online gaming and probably think that this doesn’t affect them. But online gaming does affect everyone. If we look at a few games currently planned for release you will see what I mean. Let’s look at four games from very popular series’. Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, Destruction Derby and Resident Evil. The next instalments of these games are rumoured to be online only titles. This doesn’t bode well for the majority of gamers out there.
Imagine this for a second; you’ve just went into a shop and bought Final Fantasy XI for £40 and yes, you also have to pay subscription charges for certain games, which quite frankly is exploitation to me. So that’s around another £5 per month on a subscription charge, that’s for each game. On top of all that you also have to pay upwards of £30 per month just to keep your Broadband connection. There you go, around £75 per month just to play one game, and trust me, it won’t be long until other developers get the same idea, so in order to play online it will cost a fortune and if you don’t play online, then you simply don’t play at all. That’s about half the gaming population wiped out already. This is just ridiculous and I can’t see anyone being insane enough to accept these conditions.
I know what you’re all thinking. Yes, the X-Box has been online in America for quite a while now, known as X-Box live. It seems to have been relatively successful, but again this can be traced back to Broadband. The towns in America are much larger than those in Britain, resulting in people having no problem gaining access to a Broadband connection because obviously, they don’t use BT, so Broadband is as common as muck over there. Also, the cost of games in America is cheaper, so it all boils down to cost and accessibility.
With all these expenses you might think that Sony and co will actually benefit from the move to online, after all it puts more money in their pockets doesn’t it? Well, in the long run I would have to say no. If playing a game does indeed amount to the costs stated earlier then I seriously doubt that there will be much demand for games, this would put a huge dent in the wallets of developers. As the sales from games just simply won’t cover the development costs resulting in a loss of profit. So why should they develop games at a loss? The simple answer is that they wont. I doubt Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will get very far without developers assistance. Evidence of this can be seen by the demise of the SEGA Dreamcast. It was the first games console to go online, but there simply wasn’t enough demand due to price, why should you pay to play a game you’ve already forked out £40 pounds for, sound familiar? So, developers abandoned the console and it simply died off. This is why I think consoles going online could potentially have devastating consequences to the games industry as a whole. By ‘whole’ I mean not only developers, gamers or even Sony and crew themselves, think about the potential damage that could occur to retailers such as GAME, or even SR. If no one wants to play games anymore, don’t you think that this could cause some real financial difficulties to companies such as these? The games industry is massive; there is no denying that, so in a worst-case scenario, think about the economical affect this could have.
Maybe I’m just being paranoid, because I have been playing games for just over 13 years and I do prefer games just the way they are, it’s a lot simpler and cheaper. I do know however, that I am not the only one that thinks online consoles is a bad move, I have asked people that I know, and also people on MSN. For the most part, they didn’t agree with online consoles.
The Future Of Gaming? Certainly doesn’t look too good from my perspective.
I’m glad I’ve gotten that lot off my chest; it’s been annoying me for a while now. I would be interested in the views and opinions of the people from this site, as you all seem to be pretty dedicated gamers. Do you think we should go down the online route or simply keep things as they are?
Thanks for reading.
Lou Role.
One of the most obvious problems with this new era of online consoles is the introduction of Broadband. Consoles have to use a Broadband connection because a dial-up system just isn’t powerful enough, or fast enough to cope with the expected amount of online gamers. But in order for Broadband to be installed in your area, BT requires 400 signatures from people in your district. This is going to cause serious problems for people living in small towns where quite possibly the entire population of the town is less than 400. For those towns that do have enough people in the area though, not everyone in the area is going to be interested in Broadband, so many gamers won’t be able to play online anyway, even if they wanted to. So the main point being, all consoles will only be able to allow online gaming through a Broadband connection.
A lot of people won’t be interested in online gaming and probably think that this doesn’t affect them. But online gaming does affect everyone. If we look at a few games currently planned for release you will see what I mean. Let’s look at four games from very popular series’. Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, Destruction Derby and Resident Evil. The next instalments of these games are rumoured to be online only titles. This doesn’t bode well for the majority of gamers out there.
Imagine this for a second; you’ve just went into a shop and bought Final Fantasy XI for £40 and yes, you also have to pay subscription charges for certain games, which quite frankly is exploitation to me. So that’s around another £5 per month on a subscription charge, that’s for each game. On top of all that you also have to pay upwards of £30 per month just to keep your Broadband connection. There you go, around £75 per month just to play one game, and trust me, it won’t be long until other developers get the same idea, so in order to play online it will cost a fortune and if you don’t play online, then you simply don’t play at all. That’s about half the gaming population wiped out already. This is just ridiculous and I can’t see anyone being insane enough to accept these conditions.
I know what you’re all thinking. Yes, the X-Box has been online in America for quite a while now, known as X-Box live. It seems to have been relatively successful, but again this can be traced back to Broadband. The towns in America are much larger than those in Britain, resulting in people having no problem gaining access to a Broadband connection because obviously, they don’t use BT, so Broadband is as common as muck over there. Also, the cost of games in America is cheaper, so it all boils down to cost and accessibility.
With all these expenses you might think that Sony and co will actually benefit from the move to online, after all it puts more money in their pockets doesn’t it? Well, in the long run I would have to say no. If playing a game does indeed amount to the costs stated earlier then I seriously doubt that there will be much demand for games, this would put a huge dent in the wallets of developers. As the sales from games just simply won’t cover the development costs resulting in a loss of profit. So why should they develop games at a loss? The simple answer is that they wont. I doubt Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will get very far without developers assistance. Evidence of this can be seen by the demise of the SEGA Dreamcast. It was the first games console to go online, but there simply wasn’t enough demand due to price, why should you pay to play a game you’ve already forked out £40 pounds for, sound familiar? So, developers abandoned the console and it simply died off. This is why I think consoles going online could potentially have devastating consequences to the games industry as a whole. By ‘whole’ I mean not only developers, gamers or even Sony and crew themselves, think about the potential damage that could occur to retailers such as GAME, or even SR. If no one wants to play games anymore, don’t you think that this could cause some real financial difficulties to companies such as these? The games industry is massive; there is no denying that, so in a worst-case scenario, think about the economical affect this could have.
Maybe I’m just being paranoid, because I have been playing games for just over 13 years and I do prefer games just the way they are, it’s a lot simpler and cheaper. I do know however, that I am not the only one that thinks online consoles is a bad move, I have asked people that I know, and also people on MSN. For the most part, they didn’t agree with online consoles.
The Future Of Gaming? Certainly doesn’t look too good from my perspective.
I’m glad I’ve gotten that lot off my chest; it’s been annoying me for a while now. I would be interested in the views and opinions of the people from this site, as you all seem to be pretty dedicated gamers. Do you think we should go down the online route or simply keep things as they are?
Thanks for reading.
Lou Role.
Page:
Right, a number of things:
i) you can game on-line with a 56k connection just fine, I've been doing it for years. The reason MS/Sony don't want to let you is that it would cost more as a reasonable deployment of servers across the world would be needed to support this. Speed of the connection is less important than latency, or "lag" - two things that are not directly proportional as most people wrongly assume. It's a quality versus quantity thing.
ii) the Dreamcast was neither the first on-line console nor did it fail because it offered on-line gaming. The NES and SNES had modems (though only one was an official Nintendo product... can't remember which), as well as the 64DD which received a retail lauch, but again, only in Japan. Sega couldn't market their machine or get the support of sufficient 3rd parties, that's why it failed. I also played many games on-line with my US and UK Dreamcasts for free and over both 56k and 33k modems. NFL2k2 was amazing... those were the days!
iii) it is ludicrous to include the cost of renting the broadband connection in your estimation of how much on-line gaming costs. Do you not use an internet connection anyway? Then what extra cost will having broadband cause you to incur? A broadband connection provides far more value than simply being able to play games on-line. If you currently have a second line installed in the house for internet use, ditch that. The rental on that line is close to the cost of a broadband account for the same period and you won't need the second line anymore anyway.
iv) it is prefectly reasonable for you to be charged to play an on-line game. Look at it this way, they develop a game and release it just like any normal game that costs £35. However, after this they have to supply private servers for you to enjoy the game with decient levels of lag. You'll also enjoy sotfware updates adding new content to the game, technical assistance and maybe even have some of the company's empolyees in the game world helping you to get aquainted. This costs money and has been explained further in another thread.
v) if you think on-line gaming is too expensive, don't play. Also, don't whine that it costs too much. I'd prefer to be driving a Bentley instead of my Golf, but I don't complain that Bently make their cars too expensive and must make them cheaper so I can buy one. Maybe I should try that...
vi) there is a demand for on-line gaming. Look at the success of FFXI in Japan, look at how many X-Box Live kits have been shipped and look at the number of posts on these forums about on-line gaming. There is an excitement, and people will (and are) paying for this service.
i) you can game on-line with a 56k connection just fine, I've been doing it for years. The reason MS/Sony don't want to let you is that it would cost more as a reasonable deployment of servers across the world would be needed to support this. Speed of the connection is less important than latency, or "lag" - two things that are not directly proportional as most people wrongly assume. It's a quality versus quantity thing.
ii) the Dreamcast was neither the first on-line console nor did it fail because it offered on-line gaming. The NES and SNES had modems (though only one was an official Nintendo product... can't remember which), as well as the 64DD which received a retail lauch, but again, only in Japan. Sega couldn't market their machine or get the support of sufficient 3rd parties, that's why it failed. I also played many games on-line with my US and UK Dreamcasts for free and over both 56k and 33k modems. NFL2k2 was amazing... those were the days!
iii) it is ludicrous to include the cost of renting the broadband connection in your estimation of how much on-line gaming costs. Do you not use an internet connection anyway? Then what extra cost will having broadband cause you to incur? A broadband connection provides far more value than simply being able to play games on-line. If you currently have a second line installed in the house for internet use, ditch that. The rental on that line is close to the cost of a broadband account for the same period and you won't need the second line anymore anyway.
iv) it is prefectly reasonable for you to be charged to play an on-line game. Look at it this way, they develop a game and release it just like any normal game that costs £35. However, after this they have to supply private servers for you to enjoy the game with decient levels of lag. You'll also enjoy sotfware updates adding new content to the game, technical assistance and maybe even have some of the company's empolyees in the game world helping you to get aquainted. This costs money and has been explained further in another thread.
v) if you think on-line gaming is too expensive, don't play. Also, don't whine that it costs too much. I'd prefer to be driving a Bentley instead of my Golf, but I don't complain that Bently make their cars too expensive and must make them cheaper so I can buy one. Maybe I should try that...
vi) there is a demand for on-line gaming. Look at the success of FFXI in Japan, look at how many X-Box Live kits have been shipped and look at the number of posts on these forums about on-line gaming. There is an excitement, and people will (and are) paying for this service.
Good post, but I was saying the same things months ago. I think Sony, MS, and Nintendo all think the UK has lots of BB like the States. This is simply not true. You can get Broadband via some Cable networks and also via a phone line (ADSL). Problem is that there is not enough Cable in the UK, and in order to get a BB signal down a phone line requires BT to upgrade all the exchanges - which they are reluctant to do due to cost. Weird, a week before XBox Live goes on sale in the UK, my area get's put on the ADSL upgrade list. Should be just a few months now. But while this is good news for us, there are still very large area's of the UK which can not get Broadband and will struggle to convince BT (or anyone else) to install it.
But even if you can get it, how many people can/are prepared to spend that sort of money? I will need to pay an installation charge, then pay every month (BB subscription), then pay for any game related equipment, sign up's, or game charges.
We dont yet know for sure if GT4 on PS2 will be online (BB) only or if it will just be an option.
So will it be a success? I can't see how (in the UK) they will get enough users on the systems to make it pay. Not enough people can pick up a BB signal, and of those who can, not enough can/want to pay the costs involved.
But even if you can get it, how many people can/are prepared to spend that sort of money? I will need to pay an installation charge, then pay every month (BB subscription), then pay for any game related equipment, sign up's, or game charges.
We dont yet know for sure if GT4 on PS2 will be online (BB) only or if it will just be an option.
So will it be a success? I can't see how (in the UK) they will get enough users on the systems to make it pay. Not enough people can pick up a BB signal, and of those who can, not enough can/want to pay the costs involved.
I don't think MS or Sony have made any mistake - they just don't care that the UK has a pathetic broadband coverage. We're just not that big a market, the US provides more than enough broadband users to make it worthwhile.
It'll get better - there are at lesat three major schemes at various stages of testing now that would allow broadband to be far more widely available, plus the cost of upgrading exchanges will reduce as BT have to carry out the maintanance factored into the costs at some point anyway.
It'll get better - there are at lesat three major schemes at various stages of testing now that would allow broadband to be far more widely available, plus the cost of upgrading exchanges will reduce as BT have to carry out the maintanance factored into the costs at some point anyway.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> i) you can game on-line with a 56k connection just fine, I've been
> doing it for years.
I dont mind online gaming on a PC, it's just the fact that consoles are going online that worries me. It's obviously going to be very expensive and it doesn't look as if we will have much of an option if this online only gaming catches on. In other words, I am actually more worried if this is all a success, becuase for people like me that enjoy playing games, but certainly can't afford those kind of prices for Broadband and subscriptions etc. This could mean the end of our gaming experience. :(
> ii) the Dreamcast was neither the first on-line console nor did it
> fail because it offered on-line gaming. The NES and SNES had modems
> (though only one was an official Nintendo product... can't remember
> which), as well as the 64DD which received a retail lauch, but again,
> only in Japan. Sega couldn't market their machine or get the support
> of sufficient 3rd parties, that's why it failed.
Well, we learn something everyday. I thought the DC was the first online console, but thanks for that information there. :) About the DC though, what I was saying in the original post was that online gaming wasn't as popular as SEGA would have hoped, also the developers wouldn't have been too pleased either, therefore they weren't willing to develop games for the console. Which resulted in a lack of support for Sega which caused it to fail. Pretty much the same thing as you said.
>
> iii) it is ludicrous to include the cost of renting the broadband
> connection in your estimation of how much on-line gaming costs. Do
> you not use an internet connection anyway?
Yes, but my parents pay for it, and I doubt they will pay extra just for a "silly games machine". :)
> iv) it is prefectly reasonable for you to be charged to play an
> on-line game. Look at it this way, they develop a game and release it
> just like any normal game that costs £35. However, after this
> they have to supply private servers for you to enjoy the game with
> decient levels of lag. You'll also enjoy sotfware updates adding new
> content to the game, technical assistance and maybe even have some of
> the company's empolyees in the game world helping you to get
> aquainted. This costs money and has been explained further in another
> thread.
It's reasonable to be charged to play online if you have chosen to do so. But with these online only games, you dont have much of a choice do you? Ok, so you dont have to play them, but as I have said before, I worry about all games going down the online route, so we will not have a choice. We either pay to play, or we dont play at all. Which does worry me because gaming is to be honest, the only thing I can say I'm good at, so if it was taken away from me due to some greedy bosses at Sony and Co, I would be quite peeved off.
> v) if you think on-line gaming is too expensive, don't play. Also,
> don't whine that it costs too much.
I wont be playing any games online with any of my consoles, but I was just saying about the prices to allow people to get an idea of what it could potentialy cost. If you want to pay that kind of money to play a game, then by all means do so, but I certainly wont be.
>
> vi) there is a demand for on-line gaming. Look at the success of FFXI
> in Japan, look at how many X-Box Live kits have been shipped and look
> at the number of posts on these forums about on-line gaming. There is
> an excitement, and people will (and are) paying for this service.
Final Fantasy would sell well in Japan if they had to walk over burning coals to get to it. :) But seriously though, if you look at the success of FFXI, then dont you think Squaresoft will continue to make their FF games online? Noticing a trend here?
Also a lot of people are worried about online gaming, and from the amount of people I have asked, most didn't want consoles to go online, for basically the same reasons as I.
> i) you can game on-line with a 56k connection just fine, I've been
> doing it for years.
I dont mind online gaming on a PC, it's just the fact that consoles are going online that worries me. It's obviously going to be very expensive and it doesn't look as if we will have much of an option if this online only gaming catches on. In other words, I am actually more worried if this is all a success, becuase for people like me that enjoy playing games, but certainly can't afford those kind of prices for Broadband and subscriptions etc. This could mean the end of our gaming experience. :(
> ii) the Dreamcast was neither the first on-line console nor did it
> fail because it offered on-line gaming. The NES and SNES had modems
> (though only one was an official Nintendo product... can't remember
> which), as well as the 64DD which received a retail lauch, but again,
> only in Japan. Sega couldn't market their machine or get the support
> of sufficient 3rd parties, that's why it failed.
Well, we learn something everyday. I thought the DC was the first online console, but thanks for that information there. :) About the DC though, what I was saying in the original post was that online gaming wasn't as popular as SEGA would have hoped, also the developers wouldn't have been too pleased either, therefore they weren't willing to develop games for the console. Which resulted in a lack of support for Sega which caused it to fail. Pretty much the same thing as you said.
>
> iii) it is ludicrous to include the cost of renting the broadband
> connection in your estimation of how much on-line gaming costs. Do
> you not use an internet connection anyway?
Yes, but my parents pay for it, and I doubt they will pay extra just for a "silly games machine". :)
> iv) it is prefectly reasonable for you to be charged to play an
> on-line game. Look at it this way, they develop a game and release it
> just like any normal game that costs £35. However, after this
> they have to supply private servers for you to enjoy the game with
> decient levels of lag. You'll also enjoy sotfware updates adding new
> content to the game, technical assistance and maybe even have some of
> the company's empolyees in the game world helping you to get
> aquainted. This costs money and has been explained further in another
> thread.
It's reasonable to be charged to play online if you have chosen to do so. But with these online only games, you dont have much of a choice do you? Ok, so you dont have to play them, but as I have said before, I worry about all games going down the online route, so we will not have a choice. We either pay to play, or we dont play at all. Which does worry me because gaming is to be honest, the only thing I can say I'm good at, so if it was taken away from me due to some greedy bosses at Sony and Co, I would be quite peeved off.
> v) if you think on-line gaming is too expensive, don't play. Also,
> don't whine that it costs too much.
I wont be playing any games online with any of my consoles, but I was just saying about the prices to allow people to get an idea of what it could potentialy cost. If you want to pay that kind of money to play a game, then by all means do so, but I certainly wont be.
>
> vi) there is a demand for on-line gaming. Look at the success of FFXI
> in Japan, look at how many X-Box Live kits have been shipped and look
> at the number of posts on these forums about on-line gaming. There is
> an excitement, and people will (and are) paying for this service.
Final Fantasy would sell well in Japan if they had to walk over burning coals to get to it. :) But seriously though, if you look at the success of FFXI, then dont you think Squaresoft will continue to make their FF games online? Noticing a trend here?
Also a lot of people are worried about online gaming, and from the amount of people I have asked, most didn't want consoles to go online, for basically the same reasons as I.
Page: