🚀 go-pugleaf

Bent Leads wrote:
> 
> Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3CAF884A...@mindspring.com>...
> > The ideas presented by STEAM are not new.  Subscription game downloads were
> > done by SEGA as Sega TV many years ago, and as you can see, the idea didn't
> > last.  Online console gaming has been tried as well, with the X-Band
> > matching service (SNES and Genesis, failed), the Saturn Netlink (failed)
> > and most recently the Dreamcast with Seganet (pretty much dead).
> 
> Interesting.  I agree on a few of your points, disagree on others.
> For example, I don't think the whole "spontenaity" argument holds.
> I'm guessing you've played online Dreamcast and there is no big
> waiting period with the popular games.  AFO is pretty much click to
> connect then play.

That works for the popular games, but I've had very little luck finding
opponents on The Next Tetris online.  You can almost hear the chirping
of cyber-crickets in the lobby.

Part of the reason I pointed out the "spontaneity" of console games
is from my experiences online with titles such as NFL2K2, NBA2K2 and
Bomberman Online.  The majority of those games tend to be very short,
almost arcade short.  I've never seen anyone actually set up a full
length hour-long game and play that way (not to say it doesn't happen,
but it's not usual).  The longer a game is, the greater the chance
that an opponent will drop out for one reason or another.  AFO and
several RPG-style games work around this by using a sort of "drop and
insert" format in which anyone can leave or join at any time.

Console games aren't especially well suited to games which allow
that, as FPS's are weak on consoles, RPG's which allow it tend to
be a strength of PC's as well (PSO has been called a Diablo clone
more than a few times) and so consoles aren't offering anything
(yet) which can't be done better on a PC.  Now, if someone could
pull off a fighter (like DOA2's tournaments) online, that would
be something, but the latency will kill it.

> I don't really see the whole "tying up the TV" argument, either.
> Anyone that plays videogames ties up the TV whether they are playing
> online or not.

Right, but they can stop instantly once Grandma wants to watch
"Matlock" or some such thing.  If the kid starts crying about one
more level or another half hour, that'll be the end of the online
gaming in that house.

> I do agree with you about the fee argument to some extent.  NOBODY
> likes to pay to play.  That goes for PC's or consoles.  Could you
> imagine if someone tried to charge for an online FPS deathmatch on
> PC's?  They wouldn't get any players, either.  I'm not sure why but
> the only "pay to play" scheme that has had any success has been for
> RPG's, both for PC's and consoles.

I think it's got a lot to do with the different style of play.
An RPG player is used to the idea that he's going to be spending some
hours on the game in one sitting.  Most other types of games aren't
like that.

> The only reason PSO has been dying
> off has been poor customer service (ie, no resolution for all the
> cheating), otherwise it was quite popular.  Anyways, maybe it has
> something to do with the amount of time you have to invest in online
> RPG's is why people are more willing to pay for them.  FPS's and other
> online console gaming is so brief in comparison that I suppose no one
> thinks it's worth paying a fee.

I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
typically kiddie fare twitch games.  RPG's tend to be much slower
and more thoughtful in comparison.

> Finally, I think it's worth noting that no one big has ever tried
> console gaming.  Sega and Catapult were small potatoes.  Sony and
> Nintendo have never gotten behind any of it.  As far as they are
> concerned (I think), it's not worth getting into because they can't
> make any direct profits from it.  Sega always did it as a "draw", an
> attempt to get people to buy their console, which is something Sony
> and Nintendo obviously don't need as badly as Sega did.

Well, if the audience isn't willing to pay, the show won't go on.

Sony's supposedly going to try with an add-on modem/broadband adapter
but if it costs much more than $35 or so, I think it's doomed.  It's
the old catch-22.  Nobody will make games for something nobody is
buying, and nobody will buy something nobody is making games for.


-- 
ense petite placidum sub libertate quietem;
With the sword she seeks calm repose under
liberty: By the sword we seek peace, but
peace only under liberty.
(motto of Massachusetts)