Anyone else feel XBL is blowing it? (1 Viewer)

[Dave E H]

I dunno. I think it's a good thing, even if I don't play too often. I think PGR2 will make it worth it, not to mention Halo.

Has MS dropped the ball? No. That's like saying SOny dropped the ball w/ the PS2 after 1 year of release (the first year of games just weren't too hot, remember?) I think it's kind of an appropriate analogy, as both products started kind of slow. So, patience will probably be rewarded.

Can it still yet drop the ball? YES How? Screwing up the renewals. if it's a flat 50 bucks per year, then I'll renew. I won't renew if it's more expensive or a monthly kind of deal (like 9.99 a month). Forget it!

 

[Allen_Appel]

Can it still yet drop the ball? YES How? Screwing up the renewals. if it's a flat 50 bucks per year, then I'll renew. I won't renew if it's more expensive or a monthly kind of deal (like 9.99 a month). Forget it!

I still don't understand how MS could charge a monthly fee that would add up to more than the cost of your first starter kit. Is a gamertag specific to the Xbox you access XBL with? If not, why not just buy a new starter kit each year? Is it worth an extra fee for you to not be, for instance, "Bairdy1", "Drunkom2" or some such?

 

[Dave E H]

I still don't understand how MS could charge a monthly fee that would add up to more than the cost of your first starter kit. Is a gamertag specific to the Xbox you access XBL with? If not, why not just buy a new starter kit each year? Is it worth an extra fee for you to not be, for instance, "Bairdy1", "Drunkom2" or some such?

Well, it's been reported by NUMEROUS sources that they've been contemplating something like 9.99 a month (yes, more than the cost of a NEW kit w/ a year sub included.

I think it's stupid, but that's what everyone in the press has been saying. Note - I don't think they'e decided yet, so I have hope they'll just do a 50 flat fee.

 

[Keith_R]

I'm much more partial to the idea of repaying $50 a year and getting the year free as a subscription fee so I don't have to worry about paying a bill every month. However if $9.95 a month means dedicated servers I'd be willing to possibly pay up the extra cash every month for the dedicated servers especially since $9.95 seems to be the going rate for many online games. I still have 12 more months before I cross this bridge, I'll just decide than.

 

[Chris Flynn]

Since my work schedule has lessened, and I have more free time, I'd be more than willing to host a large game of Ghost Recon, or anything else I own, for us.

When I was playing GR more often (when I was unemployed), I believe I was handling up to 14 players on my cable modem. I get ~5000kbps down, ~1000kbps up, and with a lot of people, I don't remember anyone complaining about lag. Of course it's not just dependent on my connection, but I know I can easily handle 12 people, so maybe 14-16 won't be that bad.

I'd be up for hosting Ghost Recon, Mech Assault or whatever other Xbox Live games I own. And you can bet that when I pick up RtCW this weekend, I'll be hosting on there as well. But only for you guys, since I don't like playing with the regular XBL crowd.

 

[Joel Hurley]

-Frankly I'm unmoved by the arguements in defense of Live thus far. (Halo2 is coming out in 2004, yippee, what about tomorrow, next week, next month, the next 6 months) I have had Live from day 1 and I have grown bored with it. This is completely MS's fault. Sure, I've played NFK2K3 to death and I enjoyed MechAssault, and aside from maybe Ghost Recon is there much more really worth playing? I'd try NHL2K3, but then it drys out. And please, all of that other stuff, IM, mp3 playback, ... wha-hoo, what eva. It's fine, I'm desperate at this point, this dog will take any bone he can get. But really, I bought into Live to have great online games from my couch, it's that simple.
-I hope no one seriously thinks RTCW will appease thier Live appetite. I love RTCW on the computer, and the idea of playing it on Live with the headset would be great, but as stated so earlier, 12 people in a game is a minimal requirment at least, and MS can't stablize that low number, ugh! I'll take my 24, 34, even 64 player BF1942 games on my computer for real online fun. Sure I hate typing to converse, but it beats the whoop-ass out of 8 player RTCW.
-All I know is MS better come out blazing big time at E3 with a huge Live blow outor they can say goodbye to my subscription. NFL2K4 and MP3 play back alone are not going to win me over.

-P.S. Almost forgot to give props to MotoGP, one of the best Live titles.

 

[Dave F]

And as pointed out before, it is free so what's the big problem?

First, it's not free. If the content is indeed free, we should be able to download it with PC's and xfer it to the Xbox (which shouldn't be a problem since MS is enabling pushing audio and video to the box), and/or the content should be available via CD at the same time as the XBL release. Not the huge lag between the Splinter Cell level and the possible release on an OXM disc.

The large expansion packs on PC games are obviously quite different. In most cases it's like a completely new game, just using the same engine.

-Dave

 

[Adam Nixon]

I've got to agree; Wolfenstein will NOT be the savior of X-box Live. If MS believes that ports of older PC games will excite players, they've got another thing coming. We need to get original titles that aren't available elsewhere with free online play.

 

[Damien]

I still don't understand how MS could charge a monthly fee that would add up to more than the cost of your first starter kit. Is a gamertag specific to the Xbox you access XBL with? If not, why not just buy a new starter kit each year? Is it worth an extra fee for you to not be, for instance, "Bairdy1", "Drunkom2" or some such?

I believe MS has your serial number matched with your tag/and or password(and that big activation number), and I also doubt it's possible to get rid of the xbox live section of the dashboard...

 

[Dave Bennett]

Couldn't have said it any better Adam. I'll probably rent RTCW but I can't get excited about buying a game from that I played 2 years ago on the PC.

 

[Ryan Peter]

IMO XBL isn't aimed at someone with a souped up computer and plays it on broadband. They can't compete with the breakneck constant technology upgrades of computers.

It's more for gamers who don't want to spend $300 on a video card every year and a half but still want to play online.

In that case, it's unfair to compare the two, apples and oranges. It's fairer to compare it to PS2's implementation though, and it holds up well in that regard at this point.

Next year by the time all the AAA online titles are out, the computer will have even more amazing online games.

 

[Travis Olson]

Yeah I'm not even going to bother with Wolfenstein because A: I'm not going to buy the same game twice and B: it's just going to be another lag fest like Unreal is now without dedicated servers.

 

[Dave Bennett]

IMO XBL isn't aimed at someone with a souped up computer and plays it on broadband.

Point taken, but XBox Live requires broadband. I'd also wager dollars to donuts(to quote Homer Simpson) that a large majority of people with Broadband have decent PCs that can run Wolfenstein(not all mind you, but a good amount.) I'm the exception because my main computer is an older G4 Macintosh circa late '99. Either way, I'll definately give Wolfenstein a rental but with all the upcoming expenses I'm going to have (new car, apartment, possibly a new DVD changer) I don't think I'll shell out 40 bucks for a game I've already played and felt only so so about.

 

[Dave E H]

IMO XBL isn't aimed at someone with a souped up computer and plays it on broadband. They can't compete with the breakneck constant technology upgrades of computers.

Yes they can. Why? COMMON PLATFORM. As a software developer myself, it's soooo hard dealing with compatibility - different video cards, sound cards, etc. Xbox makes that simple.

Agreed, a P3-733 looks slow now a days but since each developer can assume that the platform is consistent, they will be to make all kinds of design decisions to take best advante of teh platform. Sure, the latest Geforce & Radeon's are better than the Xbox's chipset, but as a software developer, you can't optimize for this 'best case' scenario.

So, if done well, the Xbox should still have at least 2 years of optimization and great looking games to develop without looking as out of date as any N64 game does now.

 

[Adam Nixon]

They're already charging for the service in addition to whatever broadband fee you're paying, so the paying public should be entitled to something completely exclusive to Live.

I read an interview (can't remember where) and MS was asked about the Halo 2 delay affecting Live. Their only response was "Counterstrike will be big" -- for some reason, I highly doubt it.

I sincerely hope that E3 has some surprise announcements.

 

[James St]

I'd be up for hosting Ghost Recon, Mech Assault or whatever other Xbox Live games I own. And you can bet that when I pick up RtCW this weekend, I'll be hosting on there as well.

I think this is one of the main complaints everyone has with XBL. I am very thankful to you and Joey as well as others who are great hosts for providing us the ability to play with a large group. However if I'm paying a monthly subscription for an online service, I shouldn't have to rely on other gamers to provide hosting for a full game without lag. With no monthly fees yet and Live being only six months old I'm willing to deal these growing pains in hopes that they will be corrected. The question is can/will they be corrected and if so how soon.