Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Entertainment Games

Consoles Push Online Gaming 40

Posted by Zonk from the love-that-connectivity dept.
1up.com has a look at how next-gen consoles will effect the future of gaming online. From the article: "There's little argument even amongst developers that Microsoft has a superior online service, but In-Stat analysts believe that Sony deciding on a pay-to-play service or free gaming is crucial to the expansion of online gaming. 'Microsoft is the only console maker so far to launch a paid subscription service,' says In-Stat analyst Brian O'Rourke."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Consoles Push Online Gaming More

Consoles Push Online Gaming

Comments Filter:

  • News? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 )
    A company (Sony) that has been steadily losing money in its game/console division is looking for alternate revenue streams. Other companies have established that subscription-based gaming is viable. The gaming market is rapidly shifting more towards online play.

    Captain Obvious to the rescue -- Sony plans on having an online gaming service!
    • Yes, please Captain Obvious, show Red Flayer how to read the article. Also, perhaps how to read a business report.

      Here's a hint for you. There is only one console player that is/has been steadily losing money, most gamers don't care to play online, and this article is talking about how Sony may decide on a free service to compete with Microsoft's for pay service.

      Read, think, comment. In that order, please.
      • My high school geometry teacher had a sign on his wall that said "READY, FIRE, AIM". In the bottom corner, in small handwriting, was written "oops".
      • The article? Read it. It said almost nothing. Was referring to the summary.

        FTA:"There's little argument even amongst developers that Microsoft has a superior online service, but In-Stat analysts believe that Sony deciding on a pay-to-play service or free gaming is crucial to the expansion of online gaming. "Microsoft is the only console maker so far to launch a paid subscription service," says In-Stat analyst Brian O'Rourke."

        How does this say that Sony may have free online gaming to compete with MS'
        • Also, it doesn't matter if most players don't want to play online -- what matters is
          (1) whether most players two years from now will want to play online; and
          (2) where the most cash comes from, games sales or online subscriptions/fees.

          My first reaction to this is that yes, it DOES matter if most players don't want to play online. For your argument to be valid, it should hold in all situations where most players don't want to play online. But let's say that only ten people want to play games online. Yo

          • "The only difference is, you think it matters in 2008. Why is this? Is 2008 the magical cutoff date after which no one is allowed to change their mind about whether they want to play online anymore?"

            I was pointing out that for someone like Sony to plan its business based upon today's market would be imbecilic. The game market is changing, and choosing to ignore online gaming would be beyond foolish.

            "If subscription sales are more profitable than box sales, this doesn't mean that every console manufact
            • You're ignoring the fact that the goal is not to 'make some profit', but to 'maximize profits.' This means box sales + online sales.

              I agree that the goal of business is to maximize profit (in general). But it does not follow that this means "box sales + online sales". It might mean that a company decides to go one way or the other, or a combination. It all depends on what would maximize their profits. You're looking at individual games, not at consoles. Different product, not comparable. There is no re

              • "This means that there is a reason for sony not to offer this service, and you gave the reason yourself!"

                And yet I pointed out that online services have been demonstrated to be profitable when done properly. Missing out on this opportunity would be a big mistake for Sony, seeing as their pockets are very deep and can absorb the cost of starting up such a service.

                You can twist my words all you like, but my point still stands -- Sony will be instituting some form of online service (which has been obviou
                • And yet I pointed out that online services have been demonstrated to be profitable when done properly.

                  You made a statement, backed up by no evidence, that this was the case. So I'm just supposed to accept this without doubting you?

                  You can twist my words all you like, but my point still stands -- Sony will be instituting some form of online service (which has been obvious to analysts for months now), and will likely in time convert the service to at least a pay-optional tiered system.

                  I am not twisting

                  • "You made a statement, backed up by no evidence, that this was the case. So I'm just supposed to accept this without doubting you?"

                    No, it's common knowledge that online game platforms can be profitable. If you doubt the common knowledge, go ahead and do the research yourself.

                    "You stated (and I agree) that businesses try to maximize profit. Offering an online service may not maximize Sony's profit. This means that your point does not stand."

                    My point is that it will increase Sony's profit, or perhaps
                    • No, it's common knowledge that online game platforms can be profitable. If you doubt the common knowledge, go ahead and do the research yourself.

                      I agree that it's common knowledge that online game platforms can be profitable. That's not what I'm disputing. What I'm disputing is that an Xbox Live-type service can be profitable. I've already made the argument and linked an article in one of my earlier replies to you that backs up my doubt.

                      My point is that it will increase Sony's profit, or perhaps dec

        • How does this say that Sony may have free online gaming to compete with MS's pay service?

          This part right here:

          [...] In-Stat analysts believe that Sony deciding on a pay-to-play service or free gaming is crucial to [...]

          What they're saying is that game developers won't start moving their cross platform content online in a signifigant way until Sony makes a decision on whether they're going to have a for-fee Live style service, or something free and less cohesive.

          Make sense to you now?
    • Can I get some confirmation that SCE is actually losing money? I've heard that Sony is losing money, mostly because of it's crappy TV sales and what not, but SCE losing money seems a hell of a lot more like an unfounded rumour, considering the PS2 is not sold at a loss...
      • the playstation division is one of the few areas of the sony company thats turning a profit. to them the playstations are proven winners, thats why now they are able to push a lil harder in the research and development of their consoles [PSP, and PS3] than their competitors. whereas, before they relied on heavier marketing than thier competition. the funny thing is the fact that they are using the playstation brand to prop up their other divisions. ps3 selling blu-ray... psp selling umd sony movies... the p

  • Nintendo WiFi (Score:3, Informative)

    by Goalie_Ca ( 584234 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:05PM (#14387069)
    Follow nintendo's, and pretty much every PC game, and offer online play for free. Mariokart DS online is quite fun. In fact something like 40% of people have played online which supposedly trumps the stats for every xbox game combined. And this is just a handheld device!!
    • " Follow nintendo's, and pretty much every PC game"

      Quick, what was the largest grossing videogame in 2005?

      World of Warcraft. Pay to purchase, pay to play. Subscription service and content only available online = $$.

      • Re:Nintendo WiFi (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        MMO games are bad to bring into conversations like these because they are a beast of their own. Basically, it would be like having a conversation about Movie box office results where someone says "Movies are underperforming because the cost to go to a movie is too high and the quality is not there" and then having someone pipe up "Yeah, but look at the Rolling stones; they charge like $100 per ticket are always sell out. Price doesn't matter to anyone."

        For the most part, people (who don't surf slashdot; ie
        • " MMO games are bad to bring into conversations like these because they are a beast of their own."

          The point holds, though, that they are reason enough for a company to include online service with their handheld. They are products with a large market and potential for very high-revenue low-cost streams.
          • The point holds, though, that they are reason enough for a company to include online service with their handheld. They are products with a large market and potential for very high-revenue low-cost streams.

            "The point holds"? Dude, your original post was about how the "largest grossing" game of 2005 was World of Warcraft. "Gross", when used by businesses, means income before expenses. A game can be the "largest grossing ever" but still be unprofitable.

            But more to the point, the logic you use here is just

            • also, he failed to acknowledge the popularity of free MMO games or even free casual web games if we want to REALLY nit-pick. they may not charge direct fees, but they are growing in numbers by leaps and bounds in terms of numbers of players online and revenue.

              the industry has several different models that work well for different types of products. each console doesnt target the exact same markets. the xbox targets the hardcore and pc crossover market. they are generally the market that appreciates things li
      • Quick, name withc console it was available for... Which for-pay integrated online service it works with... How it relates to this article in any way whatsoever...

        Oh, wait.

        World of Warcraft is a great example though. It's a great example of why it doesn't matter if you have a Live style integrated offering or not.
        • "World of Warcraft is a great example though. It's a great example of why it doesn't matter if you have a Live style integrated offering or not."

          It's still a growing market. If your game is 'teh hotness' people will pay for online service, whether it's single-console (or handheld) specific or not. Or how about tiered systems? F2P for all, P2P content for some?

          It is relevant to the article, and particularly to the OP, since the amount of revenue that MMORPGs have the potential to bring in is HUGE. O
          • Why give it away when people will pay?

            We're way off topic now, but what the hell...

            The answer is that the number of games that people are willing to subscribe to at once is limited. World of Warcraft is hugely profitable. You don't think that right now there's somebody thinking that they can make some money by providing a good online game at a lower cost to the player in order to steal away a little bit of that player base?
      • It may have been the number one grossing game, but a more telling statistic would be the number one netting game.

        WoW has to pay for servers, server admins, developers for patches, artist for artwork, paid GMs, rules localization of their many servers (PvP vs. Non-PvP), account processing and maintenance (financial), and a help desk - just to name a few.

        Take another online heavy game like SOCOM 3. They have to maintain servers, but not persistently - that is a much easier task, and one I would say is cheaper
        • I'd like to see end-of-year figures, but I'd bet that WoW will also be the number one netting game as well in 2006.

          "A bigger problem with online subscribtion methods for consoles is that they unfairly leverage their costs against people who only play a few hours a week, while those that play multiple games online reap the greatest benefit. If you played all of your games online, then I can see how XBOX Live would be pretty cool. What if you only play one game online like me? It's just not worth the cost."
  • affect/effect, meh! who really cares?

    in this context:

    effect = make gambling bigger
    affect = make gambling bigger or smaller

    the author probably wanted to use affect.

  • Nintendo's WFC is going to be the most interesting online service. Halo + Live is great but at $6 a month you have to play a lot to make it worthwhile.
    Compare this with (for example) Timesplitters 4 with strong WFC integration and an excellent map editor, along with the excellent Revolution controller. I can definitely see Revolution taking a huge chunk of the online shooter market. If Nintendo could get the Timesplitters team to make a Revolution-exclusive Goldeneye remake, they'd be set for this generatio
    • Nintendo's WFC is going to be the most interesting online service. Halo + Live is great but at $6 a month you have to play a lot to make it worthwhile.

      Compared to other forms of entertainment, you certainly don't have to play a lot to make that $6 worthwhile. You might feel that you deserve free online play, and it might even make economic sense, but at the end of the day, people will find $6 to be a bargain even if they play only a few hours per month.
  • I must say that consoles are doing nothing new.

Slashdot Top Deals

Byte your tongue.

Close