|
 |
|
Online Games: The Future Is When?
|
|
Online Games: The Future Is When?
Analysts are still busy gazing into their crystal ball and predicting yearly on-line gaming revenues of 1.5 billion, with 114 million people worldwide predicted to play by 2006. It doesn't particularly take a crystal ball to see where this is going, with total gaming profits (including console hardware and "off-line" games) raking in 9.4 billion dollars last year alone. Wired News takes a closer look.
Online games, the latest craze for the rapidly expanding video-game industry, still face a series of growing pains.
Despite a growing base of players, a host of questions have given companies pause when it comes to on-line games, ranging from bandwidth issues to the high cost of developing games to determining how much gamers are willing to pay.
Such a big prize has made on-line games a hot topic. With 114 million people worldwide predicted to play by 2006, according to DFC Intelligence, the time may soon come when on-line games consistently become profitable.
The success of on-line games hinges on the continued increase in players. So far, as growth continues, a small handful of hit on-line games -- Ultima On-line, EverQuest, Lineage and Dark Age of Camelot -- continue to move toward the $100 million revenue goal, which comes from monthly subscriptions and retail sales of the game itself.
That kind of revenue has Microsoft, late into the home gaming craze with its XBox, ready to pump $2 billion into the development of its proprietary on-line service, X Live. The goal: Create a one-stop store where players, for a single monthly fee, can play as many games as they want.
There are 8 million American homes with broadband connections, according to the Federal Communications Commission. While that figure continues to climb, it means that, for now, less than 5 percent of the 174 million Americans on-line last year gained access to the Internet through DSL or cable modems. People still prefer their modems, and the slow connections limit the types of games that can be played.
Source: Wired News |
 Article Tools
|
|
|
Search on Newegg.Com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's an industry in its infancy. The next 5 years or so are going to be where it is shaped into what it will become. Let's hope it has some good parenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad that companies such as Microsoft and Sega (with the Dreamcast) have to guts to support online gaming right now. Nintendo is very reluctant. When online gaming becomes big, Nintendo will not have the experience.
|
|
|
By
SKYHN
on
06-15-2002, 10:27 PM
|
|
Online console gaming is gonna lack player support until broadband is available everywhere and at the right price. Especially seeing how most PS2 Online games will require it and every Xbox Live game will require broadband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with SKYHN big on this point. This is a big problem with logistics. Sure, there will always be data transmission limitations, but people are going to want to be able to plug it in and play without the hassle.
Until broadband is as readily available as dial up is, to a large majority of potential consumers in this market, it's not going to have the player support that it really needs; or would like.
This is a major issue, I think, and one which will pave the way for the future of online gaming. Perhaps the naysayers are correct in thinking that companies like Microsoft are just trying to line their pockets with gold, but the fact remains that in the process of doing so, they are pouring 2 billion dollars into a (for all intents and purposes) a startup industry. This support is greatly needed, regardless of the intentions behind the support.
More on this later. I've got the juices flowing, but I'm really tired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more accessible online gaming becomes, the more it will suck. The only time online gaming was truly fun was early on when all the retards couldn't afford it or didn't know about it. Now that every two-bit ham and egger can get on it, it's garbage.
It won't be long before pop up ads and real gambling games start appearing for consoles. There's a ton of room for exploitation. Just like the net became littered with trash, expect the same to happen here.
Personally I think online gaming for consoles will flop. There may be somewhat of a loyal following with it, but ISP's already complain of bandwidth shortage and lack of revenue. And I think the cost of broadband will sway a lot of console gamers away from it. Especially when most the people they play with are other console gamers who live around them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massively multiplayer is a fad that will dry up and disappear altogether. The system is inherently flawed, because it is a very small percentage of players who play the game the way it was meant to be played. The other large percentile ruin the game for themselves and others.
The only way massively multiplayer will take off is if it is a very simple, very straightforward game, with no preconceived requirements on the part of the player. Even then, never underestimate the ability for large amounts of idiots to ruin it.
Multiplayer itself however, is here to stay. XBox Live and such will just reinforce this fact. Multiplayer *is* fun. It's fun when you play with a few friends, or people you know. It's fun to play multiplayer, with friends, the same way it is fun to do anything with friends. However, anything where you deal with public players will be, for the most part, a pointless waste of time, unless you have nothing to lose, and the other people can't ruin the game for you.
Again, this comes down to very simple games. Say, online football for example. Very hard for your opponent to ruin the game for you... both are trying to win, and anything you try and do is fully within the scope of the game. Same with fighting games, and other sports titles.
However, any time players aren't competing directly, one on one, there is an absurdly large potential of morons to ruin the experience. I stand by this fact too. Give me any idea of any multiplayer game that isn't one on one versus mode, and I'll give you a way to ruin the experience for the other player.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
Again, this comes down to very simple games. Say, online football for example. Very hard for your opponent to ruin the game for you... both are trying to win, and anything you try and do is fully within the scope of the game. Same with fighting games, and other sports titles.
|
Although I agree with you for the most part, while I was playing NFL 2K1 some people I played online would have their friends over too and while we were playing he would make his other friends go on my team and make me drop the ball, run the other way, etc. Most of the time we would end up on the controller screen and they would switch to my team and I would switch them back. I was new to that game and I don't know if there was a way to prevent that. I just quit when that happens because I don't want to play people ruin the game like that. |
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Massively multiplayer is a fad that will dry up and disappear altogether. The system is inherently flawed, because it is a very small percentage of players who play the game the way it was meant to be played. The other large percentile ruin the game for themselves and others.
|
Heard of NWN? When the PW isn't making any money, the server admins aren't going to let annoying people on the server 
Sure, there are no 10000 player worlds planned (yet), but there is a few multi-thousand player worlds. And the best thing is, they aint makin' money, so they aint takin' crap!
A MMORPG would be great, if it was full of fair dinkum role-players, and I'd pay for it, unfortunately, UO, EQ and the others have set a bad precedent. |
|
|
|
|
|
NFested, if you read my post, I clarified one vs one multiplayer. So your scenario doesn't fit what I said would be difficult to break.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Althaz-Tempest
Heard of NWN? When the PW isn't making any money, the server admins aren't going to let annoying people on the server
Sure, there are no 10000 player worlds planned (yet), but there is a few multi-thousand player worlds. And the best thing is, they aint makin' money, so they aint takin' crap!
A MMORPG would be great, if it was full of fair dinkum role-players, and I'd pay for it, unfortunately, UO, EQ and the others have set a bad precedent.
|
I've been playing NWN. And it's not all that.
Persistant worlds? Hah. Massively? Not a chance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
