Xbox online details

[JJaX]

Read while you can

http://www.xboxevolved.com/news/archives/xonline.html

Ive attached it too incase the link dies. (they gave warning)

What do you guys think???

[silvertrace]

Basically they are making you the server so they can save money. They turn a machine that you bought w/ your money into a server that you have to pay to use!


last time i checked Willy Gates was the richest man in the world, and i succumbed to his little bundle theory at launch......


*puts KY jelly on his index finger awaiting the day MS goes online....."



100 posts...

[silvertrace]

that bold statement was from the site.......thnx for the info jjax......sorry i didn't quote, i'm a copy and paste whore

[baggachipz]

Hmmm...
I'd like to know how those guys got their hands on this help document. Xboxevolved.com states that the article isn't theirs, and that they believe things will change before launch of "XOnline" (or XboxLive, as we have thought).

It also seems that the authors are jumping to overcritical conclusions regarding how this alleged plan by MS affects game speeds, price, etc. If they somehow included more proof that this document is indeed kosher, I'd be more inclined to believe...

[shererboat]

good read.......

personally though, i think the whole xbox online thing is gonna be a "just have to wait and see" type of deals...........we wont "really" know till its actually out.........

[JJaX]

Yea it seems theres a lot of assuming going on in the article. But i hope what there saying isnt true...

[Spaztic]

Very interesting but It really dosn't look like a official statement from M$. I guess we will wait to see!

[baggachipz]

Originally posted by JJaX
Yea it seems theres a lot of assuming going on in the article. But i hope what there saying isnt true...

I personally doubt it. The autors allege that this setup will cause poor performance of "XOnline". But, realize that MS is a business (and a d@mn good one at that). If their service sucks then noone will subscribe. It's that simple. I'm willing to bet that it'll be bumpy out of the gates, but once ironed out I'm sure things will work fine.

Another prediction: They'll start with a high initial price and lower it over time. Why? Because the hardcore gamers will be the first to sign up, and they'll pay more. It's always the aficianados that pay more in the beginning before it gets to the mainstream. Just my prediction...

[JJaX]

i agree, I think if anyone is capable of doing it right, Its MS. Success seems to be there thing....

[StudioAlex]

Hmm. It smells like BS. I guess we've no choice but to wait and see if these predictions are true. But c'mon, this is kind of taking the microsoft bashing to extremes. I have no doubt that MS is truly most infatuated with seperating me from my cash, as are Sony and Nintendo, but to say they will derive some kind of evil and sadistic pleasure by giving us poor online gameplay experiences is just silly.

Also, wouldn't other newsites have picked up on this if it had much merit? Something tells me this was written as an April Fool's joke.

[sinizuh]

hahahaha... those guys are idiots...

everyone knows it's going to be called Xbox Live not XOnline.

[mahalan]

Even if the document is legitimate, the people reviewing it did little but display their lack of knowledge regarding the business of online games.

The communications specifications upstream and downstream bandwidths and packet reliability refer to minimum standards that a game must be able to function reliably with. Packets are often delayed or lost over the Internet. If a game can't tolerate this, it won't work in the real world. This specification just forces developers of online games to make something that will actually work.

As far as the per game download fees go, the specification just says that this is a standard and that everyone will have to utilize that format. It does not specify the amount of the fee, a minimum fee, or any MS based service charges. According to this standard, a publisher could set a fee of $0.00.

Now, on to the peer-to-peer vs. client-server portion of the system. Hosting massively multiplayer games costs a substantial amount of money. Doing it for a huge number of titles would cost an astronomical sum. Going with a peer-to-peer model limits the number of concurrent players within a game instance but bypasses the large hardware expenses otherwise needed. Are we willing to pay $20/month per game to have 150 people in a game instead of eight? I don't think so.

Once again, all of my comments assume the document is final and legitimate. Odds are it's not. A lot of the details sound like they're grounded in reality but we have no idea if it's really a final document.

[Kraft]

I posted something like this on the front page a while back, but it didn't get much response. I'm hoping people just didn't have a chance to read it. It's killing me to hear Microsoft say they can't set up dedicated gameservers (see "faster online gaming" for us) due to the cost. Now before I alluded to Blizzard, a company that produces nothing but entertainment software. Blizzard, using just software revenue, has set up battle.net; a totally free online server-side gaming network.

I understand that MS has been taking hits for every console they sell, but I'm guessing they're making oodles back in software revenue and perephrials. I just think that this online connectivity could make or break the XBox in its future years. I know one of the big reasons I bought the box was due to connectivity. As of now I live in a dorm with ethernet so I can already enjoy the benefits of it. But when I move out and switch to DSL, I hope to have a network that a. I can afford and b. doesn't suck. MS has the money and the potential. If this Xonline or whatever succeeds, I think microsoft will sell a bundle of new systems and software. But if it fails... I love my box and I'd hate to see it lose support...

[LynxFX]

Originally posted by sinizuh
hahahaha... those guys are idiots...

everyone knows it's going to be called Xbox Live not XOnline.

Wasn't that just a rumor as well? Microsoft has never commited to a name publicly. I believe they even denied the question as to if the online network was called Xbox Live.

[Crazy Joe]

Originally posted by Lynxfx


Wasn't that just a rumor as well? Microsoft has never commited to a name publicly. I believe they even denied the question as to if the online network was called Xbox Live.

ya, some exec from Nintendo said that is what it is called. I don't put any merit in it.

[Hugh_Jass]

Well, MS DOES own XBOXLIVE.com, org, and net. That is a fact that anyone can verify with whois.

[robnyack]

you know what bothers me about this whole xbox online business, is the fact that here we are aprox. 3 months away from the the time frame they give as as the launch date, and yet details are amazingly sketchy for something so close to launch.

Personally, I think the launch will be delayed until late fall.

[l Maximus l]

Originally posted by robnyack
Personally, I think the launch will be delayed until late fall.

Well, last I heard is that Microsoft is right on time in their schedule for the on-line launch. That was a few days ago...I heard this from someone that I know that works for Microsoft. I live close to the Redmond, WA, where Microsoft is based. I thought I would drop you the news

[JJaX]

Originally posted by Maximus


I thought I would drop you the news

Speaking of dropping the NEWS.

**JJaX Squats and Rips a mean one **