Is MS's X-Box online strategy going to make sense? (1 Viewer)

[BrianB]

quote: but I wouldn't be against what Sony did with Twisted Metal Black, and simply have 2 versions of the game. [/quote]
Do you think Sony would have launched two versions if the online play & network was in place back when TWB came out originally? Not a chance.

PSO2 for $60

Are you in Canada? PSO2 is earmarked for $40 in the US I believe.
------------------
Nothing In Particular
[Edited last by BrianB on August 28, 2001 at 07:46 PM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think Square has the best solution. They have one service where you pay one low charge per month to use any game by them that is online. Since they are making a deal with Capcom and Enix, you might be able to pay $6 a month to play every online game by those 3 companies with unlimited play. Either they should do something like that, or they should just charge a little extra for the game and then make the online stuff free. For Final Fantasy XI, they are making the game around $35 and it has an online pay-to-play aspect, but the game is useless without the online aspect. The thing about Final Fantasy though is that they could make FFXII for $20, not make it online at all, and they could still make a profit (because of its popularity), so this might not be a good example for me to use. Nonetheless, I like their approach.
I think that they should make games that are online and offline in the same package at a normal price ($50) and make those free to play. The only ones that should have a charge on them should be the ones that are made with online in mind (like PSO or EQ). It would be like on the PC: Rainbow Six is online and offline in the same package and the online is free, but Everquest is primarily online and requires that you pay.

 

[Dean Cooper]

Morgan, limitations are something to avoid. There are a number of ways that online gaming can be achieved and none of them are going to be perfect for every situation. What developers are going to try is to make money while still having an attractive game to buy. The more popular the game the more money the developer can push for, but push too hard and your customers reject the deal and your stuck with a bunch of invested time with no customers or money to show for it. Remeber online gaming is the PC gamers turf right now. The console companys have to compete with that to get the players, so you won't see something like a fee for a type of game you can just play online for free on a PC, it just wouldn't succeed. I think the player mods really should be put in another thread so I'm not going to comment on it here anymore.
Dean
[Edited last by Dean Cooper on August 28, 2001 at 08:17 PM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think console companies should start modeling their online networks around pre-established ideas from PC online gaming. They did it with games, hardware, and now they should do it with online gaming. Afterwards (aka, once it works) they should experiment.

 

[Adam Nixon]

The more we talk about this, the less and less I think it will succeed. There's going to be too many pricing plan options, no one has a set a stable network foundation yet (although of the "pay" options Square's sounds best), and the potential for consumer confusion is higher than any other product in the video game console's history.
One other thing we haven't discussed is the inherent problems with MMRPG stability today. Most of these on PC are tweaked and beta tested extensively and a myriad of bugs STILL exist and require LOADS of patches before they're worked out. Patches WILL NOT work with a console. Even with the HD, I've read quotes from X-box guru Seamus Blackley (SP?) that said MS doesn't even accept proposals for games that mention the word "patch." They have no intention of using the HD to fix bugs, as it would inspire cries of "stripped down PC" from the masses.
In this arena, PCs are king. There is more flexibility, more user options, and solutions to tweak stable performance. Console customers are used to stability, whether it be in the economic or software areas of the hardware. Consumers will NOT jump on the online bandwagon if companies start throwing out additional charges for playing games. That's more accepted as a PC practice. As someone already pointed out, online capability didn't work for Sega -- even when they GAVE THE CONSOLE AWAY FREE for Seganet accounts.
I'm thinking FFXI will be a colossal failure for Square. The best part of the Final Fantasy series are the epic storylines -- you lose that, and you lose the novelty of the franchise. What's going to set that apart from other MMRPGs? That is a total redefinition of what made the series what it is today. If they want a game like that, at least drop the Final Fantasy name.

 

[Dean Cooper]

I'm thinking FFXI will be a colossal failure for Square. The best part of the Final Fantasy series are the epic storylines -- you lose that, and you lose the novelty of the franchise. What's going to set that apart from other MMRPGs? That is a total redefinition of what made the series what it is today. If they want a game like that, at least drop the Final Fantasy name.

Well I can't say that I completely agree with you I understand where your coming from and somewhat feel the same way. We'll have to see how this one pans out.
Dean

 

[Adam Nixon]

There's tremendous talent at Square, but none of it has ever worked on a project of FFXI's magnitude. MMRPG's are TOUGH to design, maybe even the most difficult genre right now because so much of it's new. Even Verant has learned many things over the years, and it looks to pay off in Star Wars:Galaxies.
Either way, I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I'm not sure an online Final Fantasy will work. There's been no consistency in characters in the other RPG's, so they really don't have a persistent universe to fall back on -- like Star Wars. I've loved the CGI scenes and the stories over the years, but I'm not sure I'd have any interest in a Final Fantasy game that doesn't have any of that. I certainly wouldn't have interest in PAYING for it, considering that there are other "massively multiplayer" titles for the PC that I'm more interested in, and a limited budget IS a concern for me.
When you start playing the monthly fee game, you add even more competition to an already crowded genre. They'll be competing with Verant and many other developers for that MMRPG market -- I'm not sure gamers will leap for Square in the numbers they're expecting. And how the hell are we supposed to communicate? Do we have to buy a keyboard? There are so many question marks for consoles that I'm just not sure I'll bite for this generation. Maybe things will be smoother in 5-6 years.
As for the consoles, you've got a very good point about identical hardware, which is why I don't think you'll see any type of PC connections whatsoever. It would just throw a brick into the networks, and wreak security havoc.

 

[Dean Cooper]

Another concern for console makers will most likely be players habits when they get into a MMRPG. I don't know about you, but when I got in to Everquest at launch I stopped buying other PC games all together. I just didn't have the time for other games...hell I played EQ way too much as it was. Before EQ I would buy atleast 2 or 3 PC/Console games a month. Now that I've pretty much finished what I wanted to get out of the game I'm starting to get back in to buying more again, but I swear I went for about a year without buying a game straight. Not a very bad thing for me, but how would that look to someone trying to sell games?
Dean
[Edited last by Dean Cooper on August 28, 2001 at 10:21 PM]

 

[Adam Nixon]

Ah, a fellow gaming addict. I didn't get Everquest, but I'm absolutely salivating for Star Wars: Galaxies. It just looks too good to pass up.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Of all the ideas I have heard, I think a combo of MS' (sending just one bill of all the charges added together) and Square's (one charge for all their online games) plans would be the best.

I'm thinking FFXI will be a colossal failure for Square. The best part of the Final Fantasy series are the epic storylines -- you lose that, and you lose the novelty of the franchise. What's going to set that apart from other MMRPGs? That is a total redefinition of what made the series what it is today. If they want a game like that, at least drop the Final Fantasy name.

A lot of people are scared that this game will fail horribly. Even if it does, Square has more games than just FF (I know it doesn't seem that way, but they do) and they could make another 3 or 4 FF games just from the profits from FFX because of how rich they are now. From what I have read, the game will have unlimited stories and you will have to make a party with some friends instead of getting one from the game. Also, the game is non-linear in that you can go do whatever you want, but there is still a story that goes on as you play. From what I have seen, it looks like EverQuest but retains the "classic" FF style. I hope it's a success, because a failure for them would suck. Square is known for making some of the best RPGs (FF, Chrono, Xenogears) and has continued to push gaming to the next level in one way or another (such as the amount of cinematics in FF8 or the groundbreaking gameplay concepts of Chrono Trigger). Making FFXI an online game is probably just a strategic business move. A good thing is that its only $35 and around $6 per month, if not a little more or less.
I think that no matter what, FFXII will be released and Square will just learn from any mistakes it made in XI. XI is the only online FF game that they have so far, but XII is supposed to have the online things that X was going to have (such as getting help from PlayOnline and such, nothing too great and no online play). I know I will buy FFXI no matter what (unless they somehow screw it up before it comes out).

 

[Dean Cooper]

Ah, a fellow gaming addict. I didn't get Everquest, but I'm absolutely salivating for Star Wars: Galaxies. It just looks too good to pass up.

You bet Star Wars: Galaxies is going to be wicked, I'm actually scared to get it...if its half as addictive as EQ was we are both in some serious trouble my friend

I have over a 130 DAYS logged in EQ, that still blows my mind every time I think about it.
Dean

 

[Adam Nixon]

Dean -- they actually LOG how much time you spend online?! I'll develop ulcers for all the pangs of guilt I get from blowing time. They might as well have a greeting that goes, "Good day! You have wasted X hours this week playing" each time I enter the realm.
You know, I'm not sure how they're distributing servers, but some of us here should team up when that sucker is released. I have better things to do than be PK'd by ravenous thirteen-year-olds each time I try to construct a lightsaber.

Morgan -- Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Square have multiple teams working on RPGs simultaneously? That's the reason FFX came out so soon after FF9. My understanding is that FFXII will be a "traditional" RPG that may have some online components. Either way, even if FFXI crashes and burns, the series is too strong to stop -- Square will rebound for sure. Besides, Namco is releasing Xenosaga (a Xenogears sequel) that has been developed by many former Square programmers. There's certainly no shortage of good RPGs on the PS2.
[Edited last by Adam Nixon on August 29, 2001 at 01:42 AM]

 

[Graeme Clark]

I think we can all agree that MMRPGs and games like will probably need to have a charge of some sort. The cost of maintaining their servers is just too great to not have to.
But I do not think that charging for Sports, FPS, Strategy or whatever else will really work too well. For most games I think MS will probably set up an X-Box Zone that will be free. It would be nice it wasn't forced on developers if they want to go another way.
------------------

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Adam-
FFX was supposed to be an offline RPG with some online aspects such as getting help and such from PlayOnline, but not actually playing the game online. So it was offline, but the online stuff was just a bonus to get people into PlayOnline. FFX ended up being totally offline, FFXI is totally online, and FFXII is was FFX was designed to be (offline with online bonuses).
FFX didn't come out that soon after FFIX. In Japan, it was about a year and its about 15 months in America. They do have multiple teams working on multiple FF games at once (they were making FF9-11 at the same time) but each game requires so much time and money to go into them that there is at least a year between each release, in Japan and America.
You're right, FF won't die. FFX cost $35 million to make and sold almost 2 million copies (at around $75 each) in a week. They made enough money to make the next 3 or 4 FF games just from the profits from FFX in Japan alone. FFXI will probably be the least successful FF game since they need at least 300,000 users for PlayOnline to stay up and its a Pay-To-Play system. Not much is known, but the game doesn't come out until next summer in Japan.

 

[JasonK]

Brian,
No I am not in Canada. The $60 PSO2 price was meant as a "what-if" scenario. I just meant that I wouldn't complain if Sega wanted to charge more for their online games if it meant they avoided monthly fees. That's all.
And I agree with you that Sony wouldn't release TMB and TMB: Online at the same time. That was just wishful thinking.
Jason
[Edited last by JasonK on August 29, 2001 at 10:23 PM]

 

[Dean Cooper]

More info has been released, check it out:
Link Removed
Dean
[Edited last by Dean Cooper on August 31, 2001 at 12:12 AM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I wonder if and when there will be multiplatform online games. I know that Final Fantasy XI will be multiplatform (for PC and PS2 so far) but I wonder if any other games have been announced that will also be.

 

[Graeme Clark]

Cool, thanks for the link.
------------------

 

[Romier S]

You know I have tried so hard to try and get into a MMORPG but I just cant, the fact that I need to pay a fee a month to play a game turns me off. I know the money is necessary to maintain those costly servers. Believe me I work for an ISP and am well aware of the costs of these things and I feel they have every right to charge money. My issue lies in the fact that I feel like I HAVE to play just to get my moneys worth. I dont like that feeling.
I am very whimsical when it comes to gaming. I have over 50 PC games and I have beaten about 10 of them. I alternate what games I like to play very frequently and slowly beat games as I go. You can see how the problem arises.
Besides that I dont find many online games engaging. I bought Everquest cause I heard it was the best thing since sliced bread. I installed it,downloaded the patches and hated it. I was bored out of mind. The combat was interesting and fun but there was no point, no kind of story to drive you to that next goals. You had to search high and low for a quest. They should have called in neverquest. Of course this is just MHO and I mean no offense to current Everquest players.
I tried again with this type of game and got Anarchy Online. I sat through the bugs and the crap launch of the game and gave it a shot...and you know what..I loved it. It was everything that Everquest wasnt. It had a continuing storyline. Mission based gameplay and a huge amount of character development. But as much as I liked it I think I played it for a solid week and then played it every 4 or 5 days for an hour or two. Again I dont think that justifies me spending 12.95 a month.
Mind you the reason I am saying all of this is because this is the mentality that allot of people have towards online gaming. I havent even listed Counterstrike, Unreal,Quake 3, Phantasy Star Online (Which I loved and is the only online game that kept me coming back for a really long time!) which are all free but just couldnt hold my attention except for that last one. Even then they are now charging for PSO which I wont be paying for the above listed reasons.
I think there is definetly a place for online gaming but Square and all the console developers are facing an uphill battle to try and break through the PC/Console barrier. I personally think games like Everquest cant hold a candle to exceptional CRPG's like Baldurs Gate 2, Planescape Torment, Chrono Cross, or even an older game like chrono trigger.
The future of online gaming IMHO can be found in games like the upcoming Neverwinter Nights. Give the gamer the choice, include stellar singleplayer gaming and allow the gamer to build there own online world and share it with thier friends at thier own liesure. Instead of logging on to a server with bunch of strangers and having to pay each month and feel guilty when you dont play.
I have heard rumors that Neverwinter will be released for the X-box with its own toolset and the same allowances as the PC version. I think if Microsoft can secure games like this that gives gamers a choice they have a very bright online future ahead of them.
[Edited last by Romier S on August 31, 2001 at 01:35 AM]
[Edited last by Romier S on August 31, 2001 at 01:37 AM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I agree with you on many things. The reason I haven't gotten into MMORPGs for PC (theres only one for any console) is because of the pay-to-play aspects.
SquareSoft is trying to remedy all these problems with FFXI. The fee will be very small (as I have said before, around $6 a month) and the game will only cost around $35. Also, there is supposed to be a storyline that continues to change and evolve as people play. I don't know how this will work, but its supposed to be very neat. I also heard they might have it so that there are multiple stories and you can play through all of them, which takes a lot of time. The PlayOnline service is also supposed to have one fee that you pay to play all of the PlayOnline games. These are all things I have read on various websites (these aren't "wouldn't it be cool if..." things) and I don't know if they are confirmed. The only thing I'm sure of 100% is that FFXI will cost around $35 in Japan to offset the monthly fee.
SquareSoft has been very innovative in RPGs over the last 10 years, so I hope they do the same thing with online RPGs.