Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

On The Failure Of Online Console Gaming

simoniker posted about 11 years ago | from the just-not-good-enough dept.

GameCube (Games) 89

Thanks to GamesAreFun for their editorial discussing why online console gaming isn't ready for the masses. The author pinpoints his set of reasons for this alleged "niche" appeal, including not enough broadband penetration ("the fact remains that gaming on dial-up is excruciatingly slow"), lack of online titles with mass-market appeal (citing "a pattern that precludes the more casual gamer from caring about online console gaming"), and limited modding abilities for console titles ("players will become bored... playing the same maps over and over and over again.")

cancel ×

89 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

simple.. (4, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about 11 years ago | (#7259390)

console online games generally need you to own a pc(who buys a broadband connection just for the console?) and when you have a pc you're more probable to play the online games on the pc. not to mention that you have to be a bit geeky to arrange to get the console to hooked up(which goes against the basic premise of that you just "hook up the console and play"). not to mention pay extra for the (unnamed) console maker just to play online.

Re:simple.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7260706)

Expanding the "get the console hooked up part." Most people are going to have their consoles hooked up in the family room or rec room which is going to be far away from any phone jacks or router ports.

Re:simple.. (1)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7281069)

That problem is solved easily- wireless.

Works fine- I already had the wireless router, but I did have to pay an additional $70 for the adapter on my Xbox.

Re:simple.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7260752)

"(who buys a broadband connection just for the console?)"

Who buys any type of internet connection just for a console?

While I am against consoles turning into multimedia home theater hybrids, allowing internet access on consoles would be a good thing. Something similar to the web tv's should help promote the sale of the console and get people in general more interested in online activities. Plus you would be getting your money's worth from that monthly ISP bill you pay.

Plus it would be interesting to see Nintendo and Sony come out with a unique browser. And just out of curiosity. What did the dreamcast use for browsing on the net?

Re:simple.. (1)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | about 11 years ago | (#7261376)

And just out of curiosity. What did the dreamcast use for browsing on the net?

The DreamCast had a custom web-browser (I believe it was IE, but don't remember) that you could boot into from a CD that came with the console. I'm not sure why Sony or Microsoft haven't tried to do this yet, except maybe that it didn't really work out for Sega .

As for getting the systems in the living room connected to the router or whatever connection, I'm still looking at the possibility of simply putting a 4-port wireless router in my living room and then using the wireless portion to connect to the cable router in my computer room. Then I won't need individual wireless adapters for the consoles, just one to connect the wireless router to the wired router and 4 short cat5 patch cords to connect the consoles to the wireless router.

Re:simple.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7262794)

The Dreamcast actually has a few different web browsers, and IE is not one of them. In Japan, the web browser was Sega's Dream Passport, a very capable browser that could take advantage of the Broadband adapter. In the U.S., we had the PlanetWeb browser, which was free until version 2.62, but was sold for around $25-$30 at version 3.0 to recoup development costs (this wasn't a Sega product). Version 3.0 also happened to be the only American browser that could use the BBA as well as the modem.

Europe had Sega's DreamKey browser, about which I don't know much. It is not the same as Dream Passport.

As for your network, it sounds to me like you might have the wrong idea. Leave your computers, cable modem, and router where they are. Stick an AP off one of the ports of your router. Buy a cheapo 5-port switch and another AP. Plug your 4 systems into the switch and stick the AP in the 5th or uplink port. Configure the APs to work with each other, and you're done.

The only good reason I can see why you'd buy a 5-port wireless router instead is if you can find one for less money than a 5-port switch and a dedicated AP. And I really don't know why you'd be running a cable from your wireless router to your main router. If that's what you wanted to do, you could just buy a switch and be done with it, but it wouldn't be wireless.

Re:simple.. (1)

EvilSporkMan (648878) | about 11 years ago | (#7265668)

Buy a cheapo 5-port switch and another AP. Plug your 4 systems into the switch and stick the AP in the 5th or uplink port. Configure the APs to work with each other, and you're done.
Are you sure that will work? Last time I checked, you'd have to get a bridge + hub/switch (or just forget the switch) instead of the second AP.

Re:simple.. (1)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | more than 10 years ago | (#7269821)

The only good reason I can see why you'd buy a 5-port wireless router instead is if you can find one for less money than a 5-port switch and a dedicated AP. And I really don't know why you'd be running a cable from your wireless router to your main router. If that's what you wanted to do, you could just buy a switch and be done with it, but it wouldn't be wireless.

I wouldn't be running a cable from the wireless router to the main router, the whole point of the wireless router is to get from the living room to the other room without a cable.

As for finding 2 wireless APs and a switch for less than the cost of a wireless router and an AP, well, it'd probably be close, especially given the deals you can find on bundles that come with the wireless routers and a couple of access points. If I had access to good hardware stores in the area I could probably find a decent switch + APs for less, but I haven't found any really good places for these types of things without going online since I moved from the west coast to the east (the problem with going online being the hassles with returns and shipping costs).

Plus, the idea is primarily about expandability. I plan to move within the next year and will probably have the cable modem in the living room and the wireless router connected to it directly with APs on any computers in the apartment, especially since I'm looking towards the long term, with things like PDAs and notebook/tablet PCs among my planned purchases in the next ~3-5 years.

Re:simple.. (1)

rhuntley12 (621658) | more than 10 years ago | (#7267826)

I just bought a cheap wireless access point to connect to my wireless router. Works on my xbox fine for online gaming.

Re:simple.. (1)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | more than 10 years ago | (#7270029)

Right, except that I have 4 consoles, 3 of which I'd like to have online (finding a DC network adapter would be like winning the lottery, not to mention that most of the games are shut down now), and I'd much rather just wire them up to a wireless router which I'll use to route them onto the rest of the network rather than buying individual access points or trying to put something together to get it to work wirelessly without the wireless router.

Re:simple.. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 11 years ago | (#7262729)

dreamcast had a browser(on cd, and some games had their own browsers) and a modem(that came with it, the broadband adapter is quite rare i'm afraid :\ i'd like one though.).

Re:simple.. (1)

superultra (670002) | more than 10 years ago | (#7299854)

I have a PC (have had since the old XT days), and quite frankly I'd much rather play online games through my Xbox than my PC. Why? Universal voice communication is a big one. But the major one is that there is just far less cheating on XBL than any game on the PC. There still is some, in terms of team killing and the like, but they frequency and mere annoyance level is much lower than anything on the PC.

I used to work at an EB (I've been saying that a lot here) and I think you'd be surprised at how many people did in fact buy a broadband connection just for their consoles. Now, there were the hardcore-own-all-3-consoles-finish-a-game-in-a-wee k people, but it would surprise you how many people just have the connection to play Xbox Live with.

As an interesting sidenote, whereas Comcast (which was the local broadband provider) would gladly setup a new broadband connection on a PC, and would configure everything in terms of wiring and software setup, they refused to do so with the Xbox and PS2. In fact, one customer of mine told me that Comcast kept telling her that their service would not work with Xbox Live - all the while having a little Xbox Live logo on their pamphlets. I don't think it's necessarily customers who aren't ready for a console only broadband connection, it's the broadband industry itself. If they were willing to set up consoles like they do PCs with free installations (and I see no reason why they wouldn't), then the customer wouldn't have to do anything anyway.

I'll say this much. It's harder to set up a PC on broadband than it is a console.

Patches? (1)

BigDork1001 (683341) | about 11 years ago | (#7259412)

Now I'm not the most familiar with online console gaming but I know with online computer games many of these need to be patched. And it's possible to do this with a computer. But with a console game it's not possible to patch it. I suppose the gaming companies could fix the problems and release an updated game but it'd just piss off those who already have the game.

I'll use Civ3 Play the World for example. It was terrible out of the box. Multiplayer didn't even really work. But several patches later and while not perfect is much, much better than it was on release. If PtW had been released for play online with a console Firaxis would have had plenty of pissed off people.

Re:Patches? (2, Insightful)

Aliencow (653119) | about 11 years ago | (#7259468)

Xbox live games are patched...it has a hard drive.

Re:Patches? (1)

edwdig (47888) | about 11 years ago | (#7262240)

Phantasy Star Online for Dreamcast, GameCube, and Xbox all download code updates from the server when you connect.

Of course, each version has gotten hacked rather easily, and that's how people run arbitrary code on the GameCube.

Do you really need to be online? (3, Insightful)

neglige (641101) | about 11 years ago | (#7259416)

Since I don't have a console, I'll throw in an assumption - feel free to prove me wrong.

As I see it, consoles are already multiplayer-enabled. Plug in a second controller (or more), and you're ready to go. Any time I see a console, I see two or three kids sitting in front of it. Local multiplay. Why do you need to go online? Just so your friends don't have to come over to your house, exchanging a 5 minute walk for a couple of bucks on the phone bill (and removing the social factor)?

The way I see it, there is no real need to go online for a multiplayer experience. Yes, it's a nice thing to have, granted, but it's not really required. Try to plug in a second controller into a PC. Completely different story (yes, it's possible...).

Re:Do you really need to be online? (3, Insightful)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | about 11 years ago | (#7259432)

As I see it, consoles are already multiplayer-enabled. Plug in a second controller (or more), and you're ready to go. Any time I see a console, I see two or three kids sitting in front of it. Local multiplay. Why do you need to go online? Just so your friends don't have to come over to your house, exchanging a 5 minute walk for a couple of bucks on the phone bill (and removing the social factor)?

Some of us have friends and family outside of a 5 minute walk (try a 3-days drive for most of my friends and family). Some of us already have broadband for various reasons (ie have a PC). There's also the additional problem that most of the people I know are fairly casual players, and therefore have mostly decided not to play against me in any game, regardless of whether or not I've ever played it before, even if I've been drinking heavily for several hours.

Obviously you're not older than 20. (2, Insightful)

Inoshiro (71693) | about 11 years ago | (#7260328)

When you're older than 20 and working 40 hours a week, you sometimes don't have the time to drive over to a friend's house and back. Meeting up on Xbox Live! via one of the games is a lot better, especially since you don't have to share screen real estate.

Re:Obviously you're not older than 20. (1)

PeeweeJD (623974) | about 11 years ago | (#7261724)

screen real estate is big for me. I play a lot of FPS games on xbox. Split screen FPS gaming sucks compared to LAN / internet. As a matter of fact, before live came out, I networked my xbox with 2 of my nephews xboxes at the house next door to play Halo.

Lately I have been playing ESPN football and ESPN hockey with my nephew (both are excellent games IMHO). Football is better over live because I can push a button and see the play before the snap (something I don't do when he is sitting next to me). Playing hockey split screen is fine. There is nothing to hide in a hockey game.

I also play ghost recon a lot with friends/family across town/state.

gamertag PeeweeJD in case anyone cares

Re:Do you really need to be online? (1)

darkmayo (251580) | about 11 years ago | (#7260403)

For some games having your friends playing multiplayer at the house is great. Sports games fit this the best.. but lets same you want to play a FPS with your friends.. and you have the 4 person split screen.... hmmmmm or an RTS with a split screen(well here comes the zerg rush!)

alot of the allure of online gaming is lost.. You don't know what the other person is doing.

Re:Do you really need to be online? (1)

milkman_matt (593465) | about 11 years ago | (#7261340)

Why do you need to go online? Just so your friends don't have to come over to your house, exchanging a 5 minute walk for a couple of bucks on the phone bill

This, as I see it, is a major problem with online console gaming, but not the biggest -- This is how I see it.. With Madden 2004 for PS2 (I love the game, but didn't buy this one this year, but I did read this on the box) it touts as a major feature the fact that you can use the online connection to download updated stats and stuff from the internet.. The problem I have with this is that it allows game companies for console gaming to be lazy and release half-assed games and follow them up with patches.. we've seen the steady decline of PC games through this tactic, granted, there's still badass games out there but you know what i'm talking about.. I liked the fact that when I buy a console game, that's what I get, it's never going to change, it's never going to get better, but it's going to work, and it's going to work well, it's not going to be buggy, it'll be thoroughly tested, and it'll just plain work... if it's going to need to be upgraded and patched as much as my PC, then I just don't want any part of it on my console. Even if it is a feature, even if my football stats will be up to date and accurate, I want to know that my game is going to be identical to my friend down the street's game, y'know?

-matt

Is *any* gaming ready for the masses? (3, Insightful)

Viqsi (534904) | about 11 years ago | (#7259459)

The way I see it, computer gaming isn't ready for the masses either. Since aftermarket patches are possible, intial releases are frequently of just-barely-playable quality. Drivers for your computer have to be carefully controlled and balanced, or everything will explode. And the system upgrade cycle is much more frequent, and vastly more expensive.

I'll stick to consoles, thank you.

Re:Is *any* gaming ready for the masses? (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | about 11 years ago | (#7259839)

The way I see it, computer gaming isn't ready for the masses either.

True. It tends to be palatable more to the smarter, geekier types.

Since aftermarket patches are possible, intial releases are frequently of just-barely-playable quality. Drivers for your computer have to be carefully controlled and balanced, or everything will explode. And the system upgrade cycle is much more frequent, and vastly more expensive.

Both of the last two complaints are only present if you buy the bleeding edge. You're under no constraint to do so -- I certainly don't.

Shameless XBL plug... (1)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | about 11 years ago | (#7259485)

"players will become bored... playing the same maps over and over and over again."

This is where the Xbox has the advantage over the PS2. Games like Mechassault and Return to Castle Wolfenstein have DLC, and it's helped extend the longevity of the games tremendously. (Mechassault's multiplayer game has almost more than doubled in size just because of DLC) Perhaps the PS2 Hard Drive will change this. Perhaps...

But really, how is this any different than gaming online on the PC? Example: Counter-Strike. Almost everyone plays the maps that are built into CS, reguardless of how many custom maps out there are made. Sure, the server can allow downloading of new maps, but it's really slow. (Unless the file size is really small, a la iceworld2k) This changes as soon as maps are included in new updates, but then, this isn't any different than DLC, is it?

Counterstrike (1)

cgenman (325138) | about 11 years ago | (#7259775)

The difference between XBox Live and Counterstrike is that Counterstrike was a player-made mod, and didn't "go pro" until it was already a smashing success. People may play mostly stock Counter-Strike maps, but those maps are the cream of the crop of Counter Strike maps that were created over the years and added to the distribution. If the players themselves didn't have access to modifying the game, people would still be playing Half-Life.

On the other hand, for Mechassault and Return to Castle Wolfenstein, the publishing company has to create and approve the content. There may be a lot of maps that ID can create, but they can't compete with the thousands of maps, skins, and mods available for Quake 3 made by gamers for gamers.

Player-generated content really separates a fun game with a normal life from a fun game which manages to grab hold of you and not let go for years.

Re:Counterstrike (1)

rhuntley12 (621658) | more than 10 years ago | (#7267845)

I'm waiting for a game to allow players to make maps as a contest or something for Xblive. That would kick ass...Unfortunately, I don't see it happening soon. When a company actually does it, I think it will be HUGE.

Smarts? (0, Redundant)

rixstep (611236) | about 11 years ago | (#7259519)

Maybe people are smarter than all that?

Why does it need to appeal to the masses? (1)

mhesseltine (541806) | about 11 years ago | (#7259695)

I know that without content, sites and magazines don't get readers, to whom they can sell advertising. But, the point here is, do the masses really need game consoles? Is this such an important thing that we should subsidize consoles for those who can't afford them?

Why do businesses think that they need to dominate the entire population with their product to be successful? What's wrong with being one of three or four players in a niche market, and having a strong share of revenue from that market? Isn't the gaming industry worth about $4 billion / year? If everything is equal, that's $1.33 billion / year each for Sony, Nintendo, and MS. I don't think you'll find a business out there that would turn down $1 billion a year in revenue.

Bottom line, not everyone needs or wants a gaming console. End of story. Move on. Get over it.

Tandy 1000? I call BS! (1)

Otis2222222 (581406) | about 11 years ago | (#7259759)

I can remember playing online games almost as early as the original Doom's first multiplayer patches. We're talking on my Tandy 1000

I call BS. I had a Tandy 1000 back in the mid 80's. It was an 8088 4.77 Mhz processor and could be expanded to a max of 640k RAM (IIRC).

Doom required at least a 386SX to run, in fact I think it was the first major game ever to require a 32-bit processor. There is no way you could even get Doom running on a Tandy 1000, even poorly!

Know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7259861)

I'm with you 99%.

Re:Tandy 1000? I call BS! (1)

dogbowl (75870) | about 11 years ago | (#7260424)

Its total BS. They guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

IIRC, DWANGO required at least a 14,400 modem to play online. (and no, there weren't any Tandys running Doom then)

Re:Tandy 1000? I call BS! (1)

pocopoco (624442) | about 11 years ago | (#7260586)

He doesn't say it was Doom he was playing, he says "as early as". Almost everyone into gaming knows Doom and knows it's about 9 years old or so or at least has a general idea - so it's a good thing to use to indicate where gaming was back then.

Personally I used to play muds using my 1200 baud modem (I had a 300 baud earlier, but I only ever used that for bbs stuff) which was way before Doom. The first graphical online games I played were around the age of Doom (actually a bit earlier IRC) and I was using a 2400 by that point. The big one that sticks in my mind is Neverwinter Nights, which was early 90's and you basically played an AD&D gold box game online with other people able to be characters (limit was 250 players in the world at once or something like that). AOL got hundreds of dollars off me playing that game since there was no unlimited plan back then.

So it's entirely possible he meant MUDs and even if not there were graphical online games back then as well. I admit oNWN is IBM PC, but it did run on pathetic hardware.

Fed up with getting slaughtered? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7259801)

One of the key failures is that many of these online games are ports of existing PC titles. The vast majority of online games are RPGs of FPSs, both genres that work better on a PC. I imagine running around XBox Unreal getting you're arsed kicked by pimply kids on their PCs, just because they have a far better method of control would get old real quick (round about the 10th time you got shot in the back whilst try to turn with a thumb stick)

Griefers and Masters (4, Insightful)

2Flower (216318) | about 11 years ago | (#7259827)

Biggest problem I have with online gaming? Other people. Everybody I bump into on X-Box Live tends to fall under two categories.

One: People who really get off on acting like complete jerks, ruining your gameplay experience with abusive behavior and cheating. These are the punks who 'pull' on Capcom vs. SNK 2 (quitting the game at the last possible second, thus giving you BOTH a loss in the rankings) and trash-talk endlessly. I have a factor I call the 'Zero to Cocksucker' factor for an online game, which is exactly how long after connecting for the first time it takes for someone to call me a 'fag'. Record is currently 45 seconds for the bundled motorcycle racer on the XBL demo disk.

Two: People who are absolute masters at the game you've selected to play. You die five seconds after respawning, you're beaten down with endless combos you have no hope of countering, you generally get utterly annihilated with no hope whatsoever of getting a single frag/hit/point in, much less winning. Yes, the answer to this is "Get skillz" but it's hard to get skills when you can't find anybody on your level to practice with beyond the useless computer AI.

So in the end, I'm either so annoyed or so frustrated that I go play a single player game or I find something else to do with my time.

Solution? Better matching services to ensure reasonable skill level mixes (and attracting a stream of newbies to keep the population as a whole from being too advanced), making the player feedback actually mean something so you can tell ahead of time if sixty thousand people have branded someone a jerk, etc. There are means to reducing these problems, even if they can't be eliminated. Most games just aren't designed with that in mind yet.

Re:Griefers and Masters (1)

h0mer (181006) | about 11 years ago | (#7260049)

Thanks for making some good points that I was thinking about posting about.

Unfortunately, I doubt MS will do much about that, due to the fact that everyone on XBL is a paying subscriber. I believe this was discussed previously, as Blizzard will ban battle.net jerks but that doesn't happen on EQ or other MMOs.

There's not much you can do about it except to find people on web forums or IRC to play against. I wish Microsoft would release a keyboard for Xbox, I have no desire to voice chat with random gamers. I doubt I'll be renewing my subscription.

Re:Griefers and Masters (1)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | about 11 years ago | (#7260468)

I wish Microsoft would release a keyboard for Xbox, I have no desire to voice chat with random gamers. I doubt I'll be renewing my subscription.

http://www.xbox.com/en-us/pso2/keyboardadapter.h tm

Use just about any keyboard you'd like. Much better, IMO, than something like the PS2 keyboard, which sticks you with something that may not be very comfortable to use (ie I can't use a standard keyboard for more than 20 minutes without having carpal tunnel problems).

Easy solution (1)

Flunitrazepam (664690) | about 11 years ago | (#7262115)

When you get destroyed by a 'master', call him a fag and pull

Re:Griefers and Masters (1)

JavaLord (680960) | about 11 years ago | (#7262501)

One: People who really get off on acting like complete jerks, ruining your gameplay experience with abusive behavior and cheating. These are the punks who 'pull' on Capcom vs. SNK 2 (quitting the game at the last possible second, thus giving you BOTH a loss in the rankings) and trash-talk endlessly

The 'pulling' problem was something microsoft should have taken care of. CvS2 on x-box was botched with the EO mode, and the way they handled pulls and rankings. I played with my mic on for the first day or two, but found no one ever had anything good to say so I would just turn it off.

As for the matchmaking problem, you are right it would be a lot better if online games had some type of matchmaking system, or at least told you how many hours the other guy has played. It wasn't too bad in CvS2, but there are plenty of games that have little to no ranking system whatsoever.

Re:Griefers and Masters (1)

rhuntley12 (621658) | more than 10 years ago | (#7267860)

You play Wolfenstein on Xbl? Even not very decent players can get good scores(Me alot) by playing the different classes. Anyway if anyone cares my names Jalan and I'm usually playing Wolf at odd hours.;)

Re:Griefers and Masters (1)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7281149)

I had the problem on Mechassault, where the 'masters' were spanking my ass every game.

Then I finally went through and played the entire single player campaign. That improved my playability to where I could actually compete. Also, there is the grinder, which will give you tons of practice on different mechs.

Console Vs. Computer Schism (2, Interesting)

Thedalek (473015) | about 11 years ago | (#7259854)

Consider that, without LANs and online gaming, computers are pretty much inherantly one-player animals, whereas consoles have almost universally had 2-4 player possibilities since the 1970s.

Console gamers are used to being able to play multiplayer games without all that messy setting up a network or getting your console online. I'm not saying these things are complex, just that Joe Average is going to percieve them as being so.

I personally hate online multiplayer gaming in just about every form, for pretty much the same reason I hated group assignments in school. That, and I object to the idea of continuing to pay for a game I've already bought.

Yes, yes. I've heard the comparison of buying fuel for your car, or paying for electricity, but those don't hold up as comparisons: All cars require fuel, and all electronics require electricity, but not all video games require continuous subscriptions.

Re:Console Vs. Computer Schism (1)

Lightwarrior (73124) | about 11 years ago | (#7260246)

"I personally hate online multiplayer gaming in just about every form..."
That's okay - you don't need to enjoy it. Just don't try to stop those of us who do.

"...I object to the idea of continuing to pay for a game I've already bought."
There are no games that require you to pay for them after you've purchased them - period. The only types of games that have a service charge are MMOGs, and that service charge is the cost of server upkeep, bandwidth, and all the other services that you're taking a part of by playing their game.

It's not like buying fuel for your car; it's like paying for telephone service, or electricity, or water, or trash pickup, or cable tv - you're purchasing a portion of someone else's time, usually in the form of upkeep for something you're using.

Those games that don't provide additional services don't have the additional cost associated with them. Saying that since some games don't require subscriptions, none should, is like saying you shouldn't have to continue to pay for trash service, or that curbside pick-up should come free with the purchase of a trash can.

The best part about it is that you don't have to buy the game, or pay for the service, if you don't want to. But again, don't belittle the people who enjoy renting time on persistant/dedicated servers.

-lw

Re:Console Vs. Computer Schism (1)

Thedalek (473015) | about 11 years ago | (#7261487)

I don't recall taking any actions to stop or slow anyone from persuing whatever enjoyment they get from MMOGs, nor did I belittle or insult anyone who does. All I said was that I didn't.

Re:Console Vs. Computer Schism (2, Funny)

kabocox (199019) | about 11 years ago | (#7260755)

All cars require fuel, and all electronics require electricity, but not all video games require continuous subscriptions.

Be quiet, you don't want to give the video game publishers ideas do you?

Re:Console Vs. Computer Schism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7262239)

Not all electronics require electricity. Some cars don't need refueling, either.

Re:Console Vs. Computer Schism (1)

Rimbo (139781) | about 11 years ago | (#7262727)

Your basic point, that the culture of playing PC games vs. console games is different, is the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this.

I have a PC, two consoles, and a GameBoy Advance. I play games on all of them, but I play different games at different times for different reasons.

A PC is generally relegated to a spare bedroom, a closet, or a corner where work is done. An internet connection is a necessity. When you use it, you face away from the rest of the room, towards the monitor. It is generally a solo activity; two's a crowd.

The console is basically social. It sits in the living room, and controller cables have a long reach. It's compact and easily portable -- I can quickly disconnect it and take it to someone else's place to play games together. And even a single-player game is something I can watch while a friend plays.

The handheld goes with me where I go. When I need a break at work, I can go outside. When I'm on a long flight, I can play games there.

From the different styles, you can see what sort of games people are going to play. For example, Doom II is a great game, but on the GBA you have to complete an entire level to save your place, which can take 20-30 minutes. People don't necessarily have 20-30 minutes to play on their GBA, so Doom II doesn't work very well.

It's the same thing with the console. The console mentality -- something you just pick up to take over to your friend's, something that you play in the living room with other people -- doesn't fit the online mentality. It makes more sense to do it when you already have an internet connection, when you're locked up in a room and are looking for some kind of social interaction that isn't immediately available.

Re:Console Vs. Computer Schism (1)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | about 11 years ago | (#7262912)

From the different styles, you can see what sort of games people are going to play. For example, Doom II is a great game, but on the GBA you have to complete an entire level to save your place, which can take 20-30 minutes. People don't necessarily have 20-30 minutes to play on their GBA, so Doom II doesn't work very well.

The sad fact is that this is a limitation of the GBA version of the game, and is not inherent in the game itself (Doom 2 has fully-functional save-anywhere/-anytime gameplay on the PC), so a feature that would've been better suited to the medium was changed because the medium itself wouldn't support it (and another note: save-anywhere/-anytime was created on the PC because it was possible with the hard drive and/or floppy disk, where much more room is/was available than on a game cartridge or memory card). The lack of these types of features being added to ports of consoles games to the PC has often been derided by PC gamers, even though, as you say, you may sit down and play a PC game much longer than you would a GBA game. Console games have always sucked you into long times between saves, but the GameBoy and it's descendants have had to balance the minimal space for saved games with the need for players to play a quick game and be done with it (so you get shorter missions in many games). PC game developers rarely had a major concern about space (except with floppies, and even then if your entire game state has to fit in 1MB of RAM, how hard is it to make the save fit on a floppy?), and therefore the question of how to handle saves was usually a gameplay and design issue rather than a concern about the platform's capabilities and limitations.

I think what a lot of people miss when they talk about why internet play on consoles isn't taking off very quickly is the change that occured in PC gaming when internet play took off, and the time it took for that to occur. Internet play didn't take traditional PC genres online immediately. New genres formed and introduced online gaming, and then the rest of the genres were dragged kicking and screaming, with a handful (many of which are genres performed best by consoles now) being left behind completely. Before internet games took off on the PC, adventure, puzzle, RPG, and platform games were the big genres. Now, we have RTS and FPS primarily, and these were among the genres that introduced online gaming.

In short, although we'll be bringing along the genres that consoles are most used for, I think we'll see some new genres (for consoles anyway) bringing internet gaming to the forefront. Perhaps we won't see them coming, but when they do, things will change a great deal, and people will be willing to pay an ISP just to put their console online.

Re:Console Vs. Computer Schism (1)

Rimbo (139781) | about 11 years ago | (#7263550)

You've got some great points. I'd played DOOM on the PC originally so I knew about the savegames; DOOM/DOOM II save the entire state of a level, every monster and treasure item, so it's understandable that they had a limitation to deal with. They would have had to redesign the levels to make a port you could play in short hiccups.

Your history lesson is the best point I've seen on this topic. I remember how difficult it was to get an online Duke Nukem 3D game going, along with most of the games of its generation, including Quake and QuakeWorld. Gamespy was a godsend in that day. Now we have decent meta-servers provided by the game companies themselves, but it took a few generations.

I agree with you that having online console games mature is a necessity. I think wireless adapters for consoles and the spread of wireless access points in the home will also prove very valuable, because I think mobility is still one of a console's strongest selling points. Also, the services need to be free. The only money I pay to play any game online that isn't an MMORPG is to my ISP; I am unwilling to pay an additional fee for games I may or may not want to play on a console.

At least with MMORPG's, the monthly fee makes sense for people like some friends of mine who were buying 3 games a month; they actually get more for their video game buck with an EQ subscription. But with a general service I might not even use every month, that uses an ISP connection I've already paid for, I'm not going to be as interested.

Aside: Why is it the quality of discussions on games.slashdot.org seem to be at such a higher level than not just the rest of Slashdot, but even than other game discussion boards?

Oh boy (0, Offtopic)

Kethinov (636034) | about 11 years ago | (#7259935)

This article reads oh so similar to my rant [halo43.com] on the same topic. But the last time I quoted my main points from my rant (which are nearly identical to this article) I got modded as flamebait! So my belief that console gaming is inferior to PC gaming goes from Slashdot flamebait to Slashdot article? How ironic. [/end_irony]

It's the titles available. (1)

JavaLord (680960) | about 11 years ago | (#7259961)

There aren't any killer broadband titles for the consoles which appeal to console gamers, which is why online gaming hasn't taken off yet on the consoles.

Traditionally, the PC has been good in certain genres of games that translate well to multiplayer action. RPG's, FPS, RTS, and Simulation games are usually better on the PC than on the console.

Consoles are usually have better sports games, adventure/platform games, and fighting games.

So you would think that the consoles would take the games they are good at, and try to put them online. With the exception of sports games, the other two genres haven't been well represented. When they were done (ie, Capcom vs SNK EO) they were done poorly.

When you look at what the consoles have focused on, they have taken online games that are better on the PC (ie, FPS games) and tried to make them work on consoles. I saw no reason to play halo, even though I have x-box live because I'd rather play a FPS on the PC with a mouse and keyboard. Plus I knew I could just wait for the PC version while I played UT2003, UT, CS, etc. If the consoles want to get people to play online, they need to focus on what they are good at. Getting GTA online would have been big for sony playstation, as was discussed here [slashdot.org]

I would venture to say, most people that have x-box live or a ps2 online adapter are also PC gamers, or have the ability to play PC games online if they want to. The consoles have to stop trying to beat the PC at what the PC does well and offer console players an experence they can't find on the PC or anywhere else.

Re:It's the titles available. (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | about 11 years ago | (#7260355)

http://www.easportsonline.com [easportsonline.com]

The author of the article and you appear to both be ignorant of the widespread appeal of EA's Madden 2004, NCAA Football 2004, and the expected appeal of the rest of their sports line - exclusively playable online using a PS2.

Re:It's the titles available. (1)

JavaLord (680960) | about 11 years ago | (#7260395)

The author of the article and you appear to both be ignorant of the widespread appeal of EA's Madden 2004, NCAA Football 2004, and the expected appeal of the rest of their sports line - exclusively playable online using a PS2.

Try re-reading my post, I said OTHER than sports games the consoles haven't released anything that is exclusive to the genres the consoles traditionally do well with. Also, Madden 2004 isn't "exclusively playable online with PS2" you can go online and play with the PC version as well.

The silly "ignorant" name calling isn't needed either, especially if you aren't going to read someones post before pressing reply.

Re:It's the titles available. (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | about 11 years ago | (#7260577)

What name did I call you?

Re:It's the titles available. (0, Flamebait)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | about 11 years ago | (#7260635)

Posted prematurely.

I did not use ignorant as a noun but instead used it as an adjective therefore it is not a name.

Calling you ignorant isn't really an insult to you. Ignorance just means you lack some bit of information. When you make statements like, "The consoles have to stop trying to beat the PC at what the PC does well and offer console players an experence they can't find on the PC or anywhere else." it shows that you are ignorant of the fact that online sports games are doing so well.

And when I said exclusively playable online, I was of course referring to the consoles.

Also, as you can see here [tripod.com] , it takes a bit of work to play Halo online so I don't know why you brought that up. The ignorant "silly" name calling isn't needed either, especially if you aren't even going to post correct information.

Re:It's the titles available. (-1, Offtopic)

JavaLord (680960) | about 11 years ago | (#7260751)

Calling you ignorant isn't really an insult to you. Ignorance just means you lack some bit of information.

Like you did when replying to me?

When you make statements like, "The consoles have to stop trying to beat the PC at what the PC does well and offer console players an experence they can't find on the PC or anywhere else." it shows that you are ignorant of the fact that online sports games are doing so well.

Re-read the sentence. I said, an experence that can't be found on the PC. Like I said before you can play madden 2004 on the PC. You keep ignoring that fact like it doesn't exist. I also clearly said OTHER than sports titles the consoles haven't done well online. Go back and re-read my first post. Have you read the whole thing yet? Are you still working on it?

And when I said exclusively playable online, I was of course referring to the consoles. exclusively -[adv] without any others being included or involved.

If it's available on the PC, it's not exclusive to the consoles, which is what I was talking about it my first post. It's obvious from your posting history that you are a borderline troll, and not even a very good one. Do everyone a favor, stop posting on slashdot and take an english course.

Re:It's the titles available. (0, Offtopic)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | about 11 years ago | (#7260904)

Wow - you are very rude!

"Like when you did when replying to me?"; you've still failed to address the fact that spotting your ignorance is not "name-calling", as was the original complaint you lodged. And as everyone who plays video game forms of football knows, the console versions have always been superior to the PC versions. This is no different.

" If it's available on the PC, it's not exclusive to the consoles, which is what I was talking about it my first post. It's obvious from your posting history that you are a borderline troll, and not even a very good one. Do everyone a favor, stop posting on slashdot and take an english course." Again, you didn't understand what I said - Madden 2004 was released on 3 consoles and the PC. Check the advertisements for it - you'll see that EA even says that it is exclusively playable online with the PS2. Why would someone say this? Because there are two categories for home video game playing - consoles and PC. The difference in price means they go in different categories. I'm very surprised that you can't understand this. Madden 2004, of the console versions, is exclusively playable online with only the PS2. That is all I meant. I don't understand why you can't get this. Of course, since this article is specifically about ONLINE F-CKING GAMING, one would think that you could get this. Here,

Of Madden 2004 on the XBox, PS2 and Gamecube, only Madden 2004 on the PS2 is playable online. Got it now buddy?

As for calling me a troll, go ahead. You've certainly gotten hostile about this rather quickly.

All I was trying to point out is that sports games are doing very well in online play. The author of the article fails to notice this. I may have misread some of what you posted. For this, I apologize. But your consistent attacks on me are not needed. The worst I did was call you ignorant (which is not an insult) whereas you have token a rude tone with me from the being and also called me a troll and insulted my English. I have marked you as a foe for this ill behavior and will not be reading any posts from you again. You are welcome to do the same to me as I will continue to post to Slashdot, regardless of your "suggestion".

Re:It's the titles available. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7262317)

Wow - you are very rude!

Nah, just like every other human being I react to the world around me. Maybe you should ask yourself WHY I was being rude.

"Like when you did when replying to me?"; you've still failed to address the fact that spotting your ignorance is not "name-calling", as was the original complaint you lodged.

Sure it was, and on top of that, I specifically mentioned sports games as being the only genre that HAD done well online. Of course, you replied without reading my whole post (A pretty ignorant move...) so you didn't know that.

And as everyone who plays video game forms of football knows, the console versions have always been superior to the PC versions. This is no different.

I said that in my first post as well, or haven't you read that yet? Didn't I mention that sports games as being one of the genres that do well on consoles?

" If it's available on the PC, it's not exclusive to the consoles, which is what I was talking about it my first post. It's obvious from your posting history that you are a borderline troll, and not even a very good one. Do everyone a favor, stop posting on slashdot and take an english course." Again, you didn't understand what I said - Madden 2004 was released on 3 consoles and the PC.

I'm well aware of that.

Check the advertisements for it - you'll see that EA even says that it is exclusively playable online with the PS2.

I don't care much for EA's marketing hype, what they say had nothing to do with the point of my first post, which you would...err might have understood had you read it.

Why would someone say this? Because there are two categories for home video game playing - consoles and PC. The difference in price means they go in different categories.

Please explain to me the difference in price argument. Madden 2004 was $50 for the PC when it came out, and it was about the same for PS2. You are grasping for straws, and not making sense.

I'm very surprised that you can't understand this. Madden 2004, of the console versions, is exclusively playable online with only the PS2. That is all I meant. I don't understand why you can't get this.

I don't understand why you don't understand what the word EXCLUSIVE means. I don't care if EA understands it or not. Go back to my first post, and re-read it and maybe you will get the point. If Madden 2004 WAS EXCLUSIVE to the PS2 online and you couldn't buy it for the PC, don't you think many of the people who play the PC version would go out and buy a PS2 if they don't have one, and get madden? Or more likely, that they have both and they would buy it for PS2? That was the whole point of my post, the consoles have to do something different that is exclusively for the consoles. Not what you and EA think exclusively means either, but what it really means.

Of course, since this article is specifically about ONLINE F-CKING GAMING, one would think that you could get this.

Are you saying that releasing a game on the PC as well as on a console doesn't split the market for online gamers? I can't believe you don't understand such a simple concept. If people are playing online, they have an ISP and odds are they have a computer. So they can buy the PC version as well as the console version so they cut into the console versions sales.

Of Madden 2004 on the XBox, PS2 and Gamecube, only Madden 2004 on the PS2 is playable online. Got it now buddy?

I never said it wasn't.

All I was trying to point out is that sports games are doing very well in online play.

Which I mentioned in my first post, which if you read you wouldn't have had to reply to, calling me ignorant.

The author of the article fails to notice this. I may have misread some of what you posted. For this, I apologize.

accepted, but misread != didn't read

But your consistent attacks on me are not needed.

No, but they are fun.

The worst I did was call you ignorant (which is not an insult)

Sure it is, you were trying to come off as the elite fanboy. Seems to be a theme in your history of posts. Try reading the post before you reply.

whereas you have token a rude tone with me

I haven't token anything!

from the being and also called me a troll

From which being? Did I miss some aliens that have posted in this thread? I said borderline troll, it looks true from your history. Anyway...

and insulted my English.

Saying you have poor english skills isn't name calling, just a statement of fact. Sorry if this offended you. Sack up and deal with it man.

I have marked you as a foe for this ill behavior and will not be reading any posts from you again.

I'm quite heartbroken.

You are welcome to do the same to me as I will continue to post to Slashdot, regardless of your "suggestion".

Ignorance is bliss, and you are on your way to heaven.

Re:It's the titles available. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7263037)

"Please explain to me the difference in price argument. Madden 2004 was $50 for the PC when it came out, and it was about the same for PS2. You are grasping for straws, and not making sense."

Idiot, the difference in price is between a computer and a console. Wow are you stupid. As for the rest of that drivel, it's a good thing you posted anonymously so you can save your precious karma.

Re:It's the titles available. (1)

JavaLord (680960) | about 11 years ago | (#7263315)

Idiot, the difference in price is between a computer and a console. Wow are you stupid. As for the rest of that drivel, it's a good thing you posted anonymously so you can save your precious karma.

As usual, you show your stupidity. I didn't post it under my username so you would see it. I don't worry about my karma much, sorry. Also, if you weren't a moron you would realize most people who would play a console online have an ISP already, along with a PC so the price difference isn't a factor.

Why don't you go back to trolling the liberals like you do in your journal. You might be a bit better suited for that, because obviously you don't know what you are talking about here. Actually, your arguments in your journal are pretty weak also and your logic is flawed. I'm betting you are really a liberal who uses this account for trolling. No one can really be as stupid as you come across from your posts.

Re:It's the titles available. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7263348)

As for the rest of that drivel

don't have any logical replies so you have to resort to name calling again? I love when you present someone with the facts and they just ignore them because they have no counter-argument.

Re:It's the titles available. (1)

Gen. Rasputin X (716134) | more than 10 years ago | (#7267044)

I have to disagree with part of this. FPS, RTS and Simulation games are better on the PC, but RPGs must be divided into two categories before your statement rings true. Open-ended freeform RPGs are better on a PC. Daggerfall, and Morrowind are two good examples of this. Plot-driven RPGs are better on the console, or at least more popular. The Final Fantasy series, and a variety of others, who lead you along the plot, are more popular on the console.

Re:It's the titles available. (1)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 10 years ago | (#7269763)

RPGs must be divided into two categories before your statement rings true. Open-ended freeform RPGs are better on a PC. Daggerfall, and Morrowind are two good examples of this. Plot-driven RPGs are better on the console, or at least more popular. The Final Fantasy series, and a variety of others, who lead you along the plot, are more popular on the console.

I would say that the Final Fantasy series is an exception to the rule in recent years (ie FF7 and on). PC RPG's have evolved to the point where they are mostly open-ended with different storylines to follow, but when the PC was following the "Plot-Driven" RPG type it was dominating RPG games at that type of RPG also. (The Ultima series for example).

I'm not saying that there aren't good RPG games on the consoles (I've enjoyed many of them), or that there can't be. I just think if the consoles want to get into online gaming and try for mainstream appeal, they need to do what they do best. Making another MMORPG isn't a compelling reason to use a console to play online. A MMO GTA might be. They should go after a game genre that hasn't been put online yet, or hasn't been done well online yet.

3 words (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 11 years ago | (#7260106)


Final Fantasy Online

Then we'll talk.

Re:3 words (1)

Dr. Wu (309239) | about 11 years ago | (#7260194)

Monthly Service Fee

Sorry, I love my Xbox Live. But aside from my regular annual fee, I don't feel the need to shell out $10+ bucks per game to occasionally play them online.

With all the games I have, I can't devote multiple-hours to a fee-based RPG. I like the current setup, where I can just login, play a game or two, and then move onto something else.

But that's why I don't play computer MMORPG's either.

But in all honesty, the main reason I don't do Xbox Live as much as I would play PC Online games, is ease of use. Yes, I can just pop in a disk and play, but seeing how my TV/Game System is 100+ feet away from the cable modem/router, I have to end up setting up internet sharing on my laptop and connect wirelessly.

It works, but it's not the most elegant solution.

Dr. Wu
"Yes, There's Gas In The Car"

Re:3 words (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 11 years ago | (#7260401)

Sorry, I love my Xbox Live. But aside from my regular annual fee, I don't feel the need to shell out $10+ bucks per game to occasionally play them online.


I have a PS2, there's no PS2 fee, just the game fee. Oh, and FFonline will come preinstalled on the HD of the adaptor combo...

But I know what you mean, the whole "pay pay and pay" thing IS a problem.

Re:3 words (1)

Dr. Wu (309239) | about 11 years ago | (#7261730)

But I know what you mean, the whole "pay pay and pay" thing IS a problem.

I think that's my major problem with the entire model. I like the fact with the Xbox, I can just grab standard games and play them out of the box with my current subscription. Which is nice with rentals.

But maybe things have changed, I haven't looked at the specs for PS2 Online lately.

I do admit that the Sony package deal also had me intrigued, but I would need Planetside also brought over to the PS2, rather than just Everquest.

And as a diehard FF fan, I would sincerely like to play online. But maybe it's a good thing I won't, seeing how much time those games have already sucked out of my life :D

Dr. Wu
"Yes, There's Gas In The Car"

Re:3 words (1)

Aggrazel (13616) | about 11 years ago | (#7260524)

Yes, FFXI is coming with the often ridiculed "monthly service fee". But it also comes with continually updated content, constant customer support, and a persistant world hosted on a central server, such as all games who call themselves "MMORPG" do.

I understand that a lot of people will find this to be rediculous. However, in FFXI's case, you have a huge fan base (Fan being in the fanatical sense) that has matured over many many years (FF1 came out in the US I believe in 1989?) many of whom have fawned over anything Squaresoft even breathes on.

Plus, the persistant online world that people will be in in the playstation version is the exact same persistant online world that the PC version people are getting. We all know how successful some PC based MMORPGs are becoming.

Thus, I say, FFXI will be the worlds first widely successful console based MMORPG. Its already VERY popular in Japan.

MMORPGs aren't for everyone. It takes a special kind of personality (disorder?) to enjoy them. However, for those people who could get into a MMORPG and don't really want to use a full blown PC to play, FFXI will be the breakout game for them.

"The holodeck will be the last invention of Mankind, ever." - Scott Adams

Re:3 words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7262448)

However, in FFXI's case, you have a huge fan base that has matured over many many years many of whom have fawned over anything Squaresoft even breathes on.

Is that why FFXI subscriptions haven't reached expectations in Japan? A land where fans are more fanatical about Square than anywhere else.

Re:3 words (1)

Kamalot (674654) | more than 10 years ago | (#7273512)

Why won't people just play it on their PCs? I'd much prefer a higher resolution and, since it isn't a social event, why bother dragging an Ethernet cable into the living room?

Re:3 words (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 10 years ago | (#7277086)

Why won't people just play it on their PCs?

The constant nedd to buy bigger and better graphic cards/ram/etc...
Some people just buy a console every 5 years instead.

This is ridiculous (1)

JFMulder (59706) | about 11 years ago | (#7260289)

players will become bored... playing the same maps over and over and over again

This is bullshit. Some poeple have been playing Starcraft, Quake3, Half-Life in SINGLE PLAYER for years, on the SAME MAPS! Why should multiplayer be any different?

Re:This is ridiculous (1)

GreatTeacherMusashi (717399) | about 11 years ago | (#7260330)

agreed, when my friends and I do a LAN we ALWAYS end up doing at least a few games of UT on Face and Hall of Giants (or whatever), and hell yes we enjoy it, variety is certainly nice, but if you could play a game to death by simply repeating maps and skins, then nobody'd be playing, console or otherwise...mods are fun, not required...

Re:This is ridiculous (1)

MMaestro (585010) | about 11 years ago | (#7262583)

The same maps for single player for years? Just look at Doom 1! People have been playing the same single player maps for multiplayer! No one cares about the 92084231 different "box" arenas Jackass Jimmy floods the net with! They want kick ass maps and they'll play it for 99% of the time if its good enough.

Counter-Strike has de_dust and de_dust2, Starcraft Big Game Hunters (which has spawned hundreds of clones), and even both versions of Halo (PC and Xbox) continue to champion Blood Gulch as the most popular map for multiplayer.

He has a few good points, but... (1)

DaveCBio (659840) | about 11 years ago | (#7260359)

It's mostly uneducated opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Hell, if we are going that route I will toss in my $0.02 and add that all the people that I know on Live use it fairly often and love it. It was easy to set up and easy to use. The latest features make it even more appealing. I will be renewing my Live in November for sure.

Am I supposed to take this editorial seriously? (1)

Inoshiro (71693) | about 11 years ago | (#7260455)

This person has obviously not had his article peer reviewed by someone familiar with Microsoft's online offerings. If he'd bothered to go te the Xbox Live! calendar [xbox.com] he'd see that there's more Mech Assalt content listed as coming, contrary to the claim: "In fact, just about all the games with downloadable content on Xbox Live released to date, have released their last known downloads, with no known plans to release any more. This includes Microsoft with MechAssault."

I find it odd that this person mentions Counter Strike as the best online game recently, yet doesn't mention that it's coming to Xbox in November -- Live! enabled. They also decry the best features of the live service, persistant stats and friends lists, as "not worth the money." Later on in the same article, the author states, "While the anonymity factor can be fun, sometimes, it's always more fun when you get a groove on with people you know. Team based games are more fun when you know your teammate(s). Even one-on-one games against each other are more fun when you know your opponent."

So which is it? Is it worth it to have an online identity that follows you, or is it not? If it wasn't worth the money, why would you say that having persistant friends and less anonymity was great?

The most obvious typo is "Midnight Run II" in the list of sports/racing games. I'm assuming they meant Midnight Club II, but this is just another example of some poor fact checking and peer reviewing going on with the article. Yes, it's good to have fresh content on your website, but you should resist the urge to post it before the content is actually fact-checked and complete.

The entire piece comes off as more on a reason why the author things PC online gaming should be the only way to go, yet it does not address the much higher rate of cheating with PC online games (and other PC online gaming cons), while contradicting itself in several places.

Re:Am I supposed to take this editorial seriously? (1)

johnwroach (624103) | about 11 years ago | (#7261038)

The entire piece comes off as more on a reason why the author things PC online gaming...

You should resist the urge to post before the content is actually spell checked.

I'm just kidding. Couldn't resist. I'm an ass.

Re:Am I supposed to take this editorial seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7262485)

I find it odd that this person mentions Counter Strike as the best online game recently, yet doesn't mention that it's coming to Xbox in November -- Live! enabled.

Which no one will buy because CS has been available for ages and doesn't require super hardware to run.

They also decry the best features of the live service, persistant stats and friends lists, as "not worth the money."

It's true though. You would be a fool to pay for something that is free anywhere else.

Later on in the same article, the author states, "While the anonymity factor can be fun, sometimes, it's always more fun when you get a groove on with people you know. Team based games are more fun when you know your teammate(s). Even one-on-one games against each other are more fun when you know your opponent."

He means personally know your opponent, you dolt.

Re:Am I supposed to take this editorial seriously? (1)

rhuntley12 (621658) | more than 10 years ago | (#7267887)

While paying for online services was a no no in my book, I do pay for live. Voice chat is cool most of the time. The rankings are really good if you have friends, lots of competition. Anyway, it's not alot of money, cheaper then everquest. Not cheating is the big thing I play Unreal and Wolf on Xbox instead of PC. Although Wolf has some cheaters with action replay, while annoying, it's very few and far between. I only tend to see about one a week and they are gone quick. Cheating on FPS online ruins a game badly.

It's been failing for 20 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7260968)

Oh how many times have I seen or heard about attempts to make online console gaming successful.

Online Gaming for the 2600 (Circa 1983) [theboxlot.com]

Xbox Live Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7261015)

Yeah i don't understand why those who enjy pc gaming are so ignorant too the Xbox. Not only is there downloadable content, it's on the OXM disc when you buy the magazine. I have barely found anyone rude or who cheats. if i do, i on't play with them. i have tons of online Xbox live friends in my list. when i play with them we get great speeds. there is built in chat in every Xbox live game. no seperate program too configure.... no games too have too install, configure, download new patches. update drivers etc. abd the graphics, although not as good as a high end new pc, are really nice. games like Rainbow Six 3 are looking nice. when it comes out later this month I m getting it. A xbox live game. chat, teamplay. over 80 voice commands too help control the computer ai.... there are tons of cool reasons too play online console games. and like the other guy said, counterstrike is coming out for Xbox as well

Modding (1)

Kelz (611260) | about 11 years ago | (#7261655)

Also it is very hard to mod any console game. Why? You need either the source code, a thing that you will get from devs when you pry it from their cold, dead fingers, or a level editor, which most devs don't release. Also, to make a kick-ass mod like counterstrike, you need to use a code editor, and they are only on PCs. Why would anyone want to mod a console game? Its like wanting to run Linux on an X-box.

Other Online Uses (Downloads) (1)

PeeweeJD (623974) | about 11 years ago | (#7261799)

I have Xbox (and Xbox Live). Sorry if this sounds like a commercial, but there is a point at the end.

One of the upcoming games I am most excited about is Project Gotham Racing 2 [xbox.com] . This is a street racing game that is going to make full use of xbox live.

PGR2 is going to be always on the internet. While you are playing in offline singleplayer mode, your lap times/scores will be uploaded to a server. When you play a track you can see the worldwide best times. You can also race against other users.

The coolest thing is you can download other racer's ghosts (ie: a replay of their race) and race against them.

I think it is those kinds of feaures that introduce gamers to online gaming. I wish MS would have allowed a modem though. Modem connections would be fine for uploading and dowlonading in the background. The only place a modem would suck would be on FPS type games.

HALO 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7262928)

nuff said.

Bored playing the same maps over and over? (1)

Nathan Ramella (629875) | about 11 years ago | (#7263513)

Counterstrike is a great example of that not being the case.. There's a handful of frequently played maps that have stook the test of time. (5 years?) -n

Console vs. PC aka. the Party vs. Alone (1)

DS-1107 (680578) | about 11 years ago | (#7263765)

I have had a lots of consoles through the years, and also a bunch of PCs - so here goes my take of the problem. I don't play games that are fun to watch on the PC, I don't play quick fun games on the PC - I simply play games I enjoy playing alone (that is in my room alone) on the PC. Big games, 50+ hours games, you know the deal, and I never play PC games when friends are over, ever.

Console game on the otherhand are for me aimed at the opposite, even the SP games are games I can play with friends around, and it gets even better when we play a MP game and the party really starts. On the otherhand I don't play console games when I'm alone (besides a few gems) - and I would never play them online.

This is not only because of the games, or the machine directly, but how I play them - in my comfy alone corner for the PC or in the big sofa for the consoles. So I have no intention to sit in my corner when friends are over, but I'll be there when they ain't, and the opposite for the consoles.

so to sum it up, the culture around the systems benifits the PC for the online games, while the consoles suffer in this department - now I'm more or less never alone, wich makes the PC games suffer even more, but thats beyond online gaming.

Maybe if they weren't aiming for broadband... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 11 years ago | (#7264808)

"the fact remains that gaming on dial-up is excruciatingly slow"

This is a software problem, not a hardware one. I'm sure many of us can remember a time when 14.4 kbps was more than fast enough to play games on to your heart's content. So long as game writers are letting their code bloat to the point of requiring broadband, they'll still be screwing themselves out of the vast majority of the people on-line.

Re:Maybe if they weren't aiming for broadband... (1)

Kamalot (674654) | more than 10 years ago | (#7273636)

I think you make a great point. Many gamesz, even designed for broadband play, are still choppy and slow. I think many developers have gotten sloppy. Just like it takes time to polish the mechanics and graphics of a great game, it takes time to write tight net code.

This GAY-O goes out to Omar and Rami of DALnet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7267458)

GAY-O
By The WIPO Avenger [slashdot.org] , 2003-10-18 18:30
(To the tune of Day-O by Harry Belafonte)

Gay-o, gay-ay-ay-o!
Hemos cum when they suck his bone!
Gay, me say gay, me say gay, me say gay, me say gay, me say gay-ay-ay-o!
Michael cum when they suck his bone!

Suck all night on CowboiKneel's bum! (Hemos cum when they suck his bone!)
Suck Cliff's cock 'til the morning come! (Hemos cum when they suck his bone!)
Cum, Mr. Taco Man, taco-snot all over! (Taco cum when they suck his bone!)
Cum, Mr. Taco Man, taco-snot all over! (Taco cum when they suck his bone!)
It's six foot, seven foot, eight foot COCK! (Jamie cum when they suck his bone!)
Six foot, seven foot, eight foot COCK! (Jamie cum when they suck his bone!)

Gay, me say gay-ay-ay-o! (Hemos cum when they suck his bone!)
Gay, me say gay, me say gay, me say gay... (Hemos cum when they suck his bone!)

A beautiful bunch o' balls on Pater! (Taco cum when they suck his bone!)
He likes to play the game "Hide the Hamster"! (Taco cum when they suck his bone!)
It's six foot, seven foot, eight foot COCK! (Jamie cum when they suck his bone!)
Six foot, seven foot, eight foot COCK! (Jamie cum when they suck his bone!)

Gay, me say gay-ay-ay-o! (Michael cum when they suck his bone!)
Gay, me say gay, me say gay, me say gay... (Michael cum when they suck his bone!)

Cum, Mr. Taco Man, taco-snot all over! (Taco cum when they suck his bone!)
Cum, Mr. Taco Man, taco-snot all over! (Taco cum when they suck his bone!)

GAY-O! Gay-ay-ay-o! (Taco cum when they suck his bone!)
Gay, me say gay, me say gay, me say gay, me say gay, me say gay-ay-ay-o! (Taco cum when they suck his bone!)

-- The WIPO Avenger [slashdot.org]

SLOW?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7276548)

I would disagree that online CONSOLE (PS2, XBox) gaming is excruciatingly slow. In fact, the only lag I've ever had is a tiny skip in PS2's THPS4, and that's on a 44kbps connection.

Now, to convey my point, here's a little story:

I have a computer hooked up to the Internet as well, and when I play most PC games (with a lot less detail than PS2 games), I have to wait 5 seconds to see if I hit someone in CS or WC3. I hear the hard drive groaning in my computer whenever I move a large army into an enemy base or throw a grenade. I get dropped constantly.

And that's with every non-essential thing (read: everything except Explorer and, in some cases, my Keyboard control system if the sound gets too loud.) turned off.

Now, on the PS2, I've only had momentary glitches or skips, even with more detailed graphics than CS/WC3. Why?

Simple. The PS2 is dedicated to gaming, and gaming alone! It doesn't have Windows applications/background processes. to worry about. It only has the game to process and display. Not being that much of a tech-junkie (yet), that's about as indepth as I can explain it.

So, it boils down to (before all of the other valid statements about patching/etc): PCs have more to do in the background than consoles, so if you're lagging on a console on a dial-up connection, I'd consider telling your ISP to get off their asses and into the 21st century and 56k.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?