The Wall Street Journal has in interesting article concerning Microsoft's big bet on Xbox Live. MS is betting that online, multiplayer games will be the 'killer app' for the 360, and for MS. Analyst Michael Pachter, from Wedbusg Morgan Securities, disagrees, basically saying people play games to escape, and not for social reasons. Therefore, MS' strategy is flawed.

I disagree with this statement because I think people play games for both reasons, and they aren't mutually exclusive. Sometimes its just to get on and play, sometimes its to get on and play with/against your friends. The big reason for the success of BF2, UT2K4, etc is the fact you basically only have multiplayer online play. All the MMORPGs exploit the social interaction as well. Let's not forget that non-computer/console games are basically played for social reasons too.

I think Mr. Pachter may be behind the curve here. As PCs and consoles, with high-speed internet access, become more prevalent, I think gamers are looking beyond the single player games, and do want more interaction with others. That's not to say that single player games will go away, they won't. People will still want to experience good single player games. They'll also want to play against their friends and others. And knowing how much fun it can be to play against a bunch of other people, I think MS is on the right track, especially considering how integrated the Live service is with the 360. Now, $50/yr is a nice chunk of change to put down for the privilige of playing against others on Xbox Live, that's in addition to any other online fees, but I think its a reasonable fee. I'm actually very intrigued by Xbox Live, especially the marketplace function. Now I just need to get a 360...

H/T to Kotaku for the link.

Posted by JP at Saturday December 31, 2005 - 3:08 PM | Category: | © 2005 Gaming Signal

See, I don't think online is the end all of gaming, and while I will agree that there has been some success with respect to MMORPGs and other multiplayer games - the single player games have sold lots more. Furthermore, there is the whole @$$-clown factor to online gaming that makes it somewhat hit or miss. BF2 succeeded for me only when I could play with folks I knew, but broke down with strangers.

Posted by Tim on Sunday January 01, 2006 at 2:16 PM

I have seen the future - and the future is online gaming. Seriously, even if I don't want to play games with others, I do want the ability to get all my games online (rather than having to buy them in a store) and track my progress - even in single player games. I think that is where XBOX Live has it right.

Valve and Bioware have already realized this and have built ways to profit from it with their ownline content systems. All this has money going to the game developer directly rather than the distribution network and that's good too - this should allow them to produce more content and potentially riskier content. We might see more sci-fi content, for example, if the cost to distribute were lower.

Posted by Scott on Monday January 02, 2006 at 10:54 AM

While that all sounds great for distribution - the Valve model ultimately broke down for me when I wanted to play on the road in an area without network support. Sure, I had all the bits on my portable, but without an active network connection I was unable to actually play the game I had paid for. Don't get me wrong, I really think that offering things like XBox arcade might bring back the days of innovative titles, but I also do not like the requirement to have a multiplayer element for a game to be "done".

As to tracking my progress, I love to know how much farther I have to go, but likewise I like the element that the end of the game is a mystery to me. I want the story to draw me to the end and I don't want to feel that I am slugging my way through to just finish. Thats not why I play video games.

And to ensure I keep my title as GamingSignal Curmudgeon, I would point out that online distribution works assuming you can ensure that I can make backups or download the software again without charge, and you need higher speed connections for games of any real size since the current speeds in the US are too slow and too expensive for most folks. And yes we can all talk about microdownloads and the like but there are infrastructure changes required to make it all work correctly.

Posted by Tim on Monday January 02, 2006 at 12:51 PM

I agree that games should not require multiplayer support - I'm always disappointed when the single-player support is ignored in favor of multiplayer (Call of Duty seems like that.) I prefer single player for RTS games and RPG's especially.

But, the future of content distribution is online. Yes, we'll struggle with infrastructure issues that you mention (bandwidth, rights management, etc.) but in the end I believe this is how it will be. Steam isn't perfect, and neither is the BioWare online expansion system. Closer to perfect for me is the Sony experience for its MMO's (as long as I have my account u/p and the downloader, I can get the game.) But there are still issues - we'll work them out. XBOX Live's new support is getting closer. Your laptop example is another issue that will probably get worked out (assuming there are enough people who demand that it does - free market and all.)

The end goal outweighs the issues though - lowering the distribution costs has lots of benefits: lower costs to the consumer, the possibility of alternative business models, and the ability to develop content that "won't work at retail."

Think of the possibilities: imaging a 'pay as you go' model for games where, if you want to play Chapter 2 you pay for it - if you don't, you don't. It would allow Baldur's Gate to keep going, for example - if people liked it and want more modules they'll get created and you can keep the plot progressing. How about a system where you pay real dollars for items in an MMO - like swords or blasters? Look at how PopCap has done and you'll see a great alternative business model - give away addictive puzzle games that only run for a short time - enough time to get you hooked so you'll buy the full game. Imagine a developer taking a risk on a games that today don't seem marketable like the horror genre or westerns?

This genie is out the bottle...

Posted by Scott on Monday January 02, 2006 at 11:33 PM