🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote in message news:<ub43ek3...@corp.supernews.com>...
> How would you
> duplicate online the act of selling a used game and the act of renting a game?
> How would you satisfy those mindsets?

With a console online?  Not sure, but I doubt that's what's keeping
console gamers from wanting online games.


> I think Divx was based on DVD, which is primarily offline technology.  I think
> for any media to become popular with consumers, it has to be primarily online or
> offline.  Think of TV and VCR.  Most people have both and use them for "online"
> shows and "offline" rental movies but not for "online-offline" recording shows
> to watch them later.

No, it's not the same thing.  Divx was a type of DVD disc/movie that
was encoded to only allow playback a limited number of times.  If you
wanted to watch it more times after that, you had to "dial-up" and pay
a per-viewing access fee.  So a Divx-version of a movie might cost
half that of a DVD but you would need to pay a fee each time for
subsequent viewings.  Winner, DVD, by public support.

As for your whole idea of "online-offline" recording shows to watch
them later, well, I guess I disagree (if I understand what you mean). 
Of course people use VCR's to record stuff to watch later.  It's this
feature of the VCR that has kept it alive in the face of superior
technology (DVD).  I mean, DVD players are dirt cheap now (as low as
$50 new) as are the discs.  But they can't record.  When a cheap DVD
set-top box is available, it will be the beginning of the end for the
VCR.  But that's a whole different topic, I just was using it to make
my point, as in, people do use VCR's for recording stuff to watch
later.


> > I remember at least 2 arcades that ran PC networks that you could pay to
> > play games like Doom, etc.  I still seem some stores that do it, in
> > fact (ie, Wizards of the Coast, amongst others).
> 
> Really?  I never saw that.  I've only lived in Florida since 1994, where did you
> see it?

Well, I can't remember the names of the arcades.  I saw those many
years ago and they have probably long-since shut down, as have all the
arcades that I used to go to.

I did see the PC network set-up at Wizard's of the Coast with the last
few years (I think it was in 2000 or 2001).  I was visiting the
University of Washington in Seattle and WotC has a big store just off
campus.  They had an arcade, a board-game store, and the PC network
setup downstairs.  I've seen similar setups at videogame stores since 
in different cities (usually setup for Counterstrike) but I can't
remember any specific locations, sorry.

I've also heard about virtual reality flight-sim setups.  Basically, a
flight-sim "arcade" if you will.  Probably something like the
Battletech simulators they had in Chicago a few years ago.

> What if there's no initial purchase?  What if Everquest and PSO cost nothing to
> start, only for the subscription?
> 

I don't see why it wouldn't work.  Probably, though, both game
developers thought the financial risk of giving away the software in
hopes of making it up later were too steep.  Or more likely, they
would have gone with that model but didn't have the financial backing
to take the initial losses.  I mean, technically, Sony could give away
PS2's in hopes of making up the losses eventually with game sales but
the initial losses would be so steep that it would probably break
them.  Plus, they might not ever fully recover the losses.

> How do you feel they should make the next generation of
> hardware/infrastructure/business?

Well, if it were up to me, I would go with the "out of the box" model.
 A system that could play games either by dial-up or broadband with no
additional purchase.  And they would need to have at least a
half-dozen popular genres ready for online play at launch.  The real
clincher would be that it has to be from a big company with lots of
promotional/financial backing.

I think that's the whole reason why PC online is now popular while
console online isn't.  I don't really see how it benefits PC
gamemakers from adding online play other than it's a selling feature. 
If two similar PC games were released but only one included online
play, of course the online version would sell better.  Most PC users
are connected so they will take the game with more features.

Meanwhile, on the console side, none of the current players have
online built-in.  Sony, MS, and Nintendo are basically on an even
field when it comes to online games.  Their console gamers are not
connected currently so there is no big draw/selling feature for online
play.  Instead, it mainly means an added expense for setting up the
network with little in return.

As I've said before, Sega tried to use online play as a selling
feature but their execution was poor.  They already had public-image
problems so they were an easy target for ridicule when they launched a
console that was online ready without any online games.  If their
image was clean coming in and they were ready to go online from
launch, I think it would have been a decent selling feature and I
think the current generation of consoles would be competing online. 
But as it stood, many just stayed away and the current console makers,
not fearing Sega's online draw, only saw it as an added expense.