Topic: Xbox LIVE will have a bigger impact than the Wii remote

[idolminds]

Says Peter Molyneux.

All I can say is that Microsoft is an incredibly smart company and I never fail to be impressed by just how clever they are. Don't forget this is the company which pioneered LIVE which I believe will ultimately be far more impactful on video games in the long term than something like the Wii controller.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Live isn't really anything new to gaming. Its multiplayer, we've had multiplayer for ages...both splitscreen and online. Including online consoles before Xbox. I'm not really sure how much of an impact the Live service has on all that was already there.

You can make the argument for the other things Live does. Demos? Download...instead of the magazine disc. Buying movies and TV shows? Doesnt have anything to do with gaming. XBLA is pretty cool, bringing "smaller" games out and giving indies a leg up in the console space.

Now the Wii remote. We still have to see how much of an impact it will have. Though if history teaches us anything its Nintendo brings out the controller ideas. Gamepads today are an evolution of the original NES pad. And I think the Wii remote already affected the current gen with Sony throwing the sixaxis out there. We'll know more when the next gen comes out and everything is motion sensitive or not.

I don't know the answer, but I think hes overstating what Live is doing. Its multiplayer, and its nothing new.

[MysterD]

Says Peter Molyneux.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Live isn't really anything new to gaming. Its multiplayer, we've had multiplayer for ages...both splitscreen and online. Including online consoles before Xbox. I'm not really sure how much of an impact the Live service has on all that was already there.

You can make the argument for the other things Live does. Demos? Download...instead of the magazine disc. Buying movies and TV shows? Doesnt have anything to do with gaming.

PC Gaming has had downloading free game-demos for years -- we've been doing this for years! This is nothing new to the PC gaming, but quite new to console gaming.

I remember one of the biggest things for me was downloading the Quake 2 demo, when it first came out on the PC. Oh, hell yes!

XBLA is pretty cool, bringing "smaller" games out and giving indies a leg up in the console space.

One application I can think of, such as STEAM, does that on the PC-side of things....

So, again, Microsoft is trying to take what they saw succeed in the PC gaming world -- and bring it to the console world.

Now the Wii remote. We still have to see how much of an impact it will have. Though if history teaches us anything its Nintendo brings out the controller ideas. Gamepads today are an evolution of the original NES pad. And I think the Wii remote already affected the current gen with Sony throwing the sixaxis out there.

Agreed.

We'll know more when the next gen comes out and everything is motion sensitive or not.

I don't know the answer, but I think hes overstating what Live is doing. Its multiplayer, and its nothing new.

I agree w/ you, Idol.

All Microsoft is doing is w/ Live what the PC did and has done for years -- but instead now, Microsoft is bringing this over to console gaming. What Microsoft is doing is nothing new -- quite recent to console gaming maybe, but not new to PC gaming.

The PC got the leg up b/c we basically dominate the MMO market -- WoW and Everquest, come to mind.
I'm still wondering when the console market to find its own MMO Market hit like WoW, as well. It don't look like that might be happening anytime soon, though....especially given the success of WoW on the PC.

Onto Nintendo, I don't see any new Wiimote-like controllers on the PC.....So, I'm waiting for Logitech or someone to make something like that for the PC, as well...

[idolminds]

One application I can think of, such as STEAM, does that on the PC-side of things....

So, again, Microsoft is trying to take what they saw succeed in the PC gaming world -- and bring it to the console world.

Steam and Live launched at about the same time, so its long like MS was stealing ideas there. But indie games were sold online for download from various sites before then. That was my only point, that XBLA wasn't really "new", it just helped in some way. Before XBLA you didnt really see "indie" games on consoles.

All Microsoft is doing is w/ Live what the PC did and has done for years -- but instead now, Microsoft is bringing this over to console gaming. What Microsoft is doing is nothing new -- quite recent to console gaming maybe, but not new to PC gaming.

Brining online to consoles is great, but I was just saying its probably not that large of an impact. PC already made that move, and we've seen where it leads (just look at the current state of PC online gaming)...the impact has already been made, its just now being done on consoles. Even then consoles have gone online before...hello Quake 3 DC? Its the difference between sitting in a room with your buddy playing split screen and playng them over the internet. Different but very similar.

I mean, impact in gaming is stuff that really changes things. Shit like the Dpad, the analog stick, the home console (as opposed to arcade), the 3D accelerator, and even software like Doom. Those things changed how games were made and played. Live? Really?

Like I said, the Wii remotes impact won't be seen for some time to come. In fact, Peters statement is acctually pretty stupid when you think about it. Its way too early to be making a judgement call here. Forums are of course having fanboy wars over this, esp the 360 board saying "Damn right, waggle is a fad!" But look at the DS situation. For the first year it had nothing too great, lots of minigames and stuff with touchscreen tacked on. We're seeing the same thing happen with the Wii. Its that new control method that takes game devs a bit to get used to, and once they do...look at the DS now. People wrote it off, but it exploded and is more or less THE handheld.

I'm still wondering when the console market to find its own MMO Market hit like WoW, as well. It don't look like that might be happening anytime soon, though....especially given the success of WoW on the PC.

Prediction time! If an MMO is going to take off on consoles, I see it happening on the PS3. Wii...heh, no. Doesn't seem like a good platform, plus its online isn't that advanced. The 360? Possible, but I don't see a lot of people paying for live and then paying for the MMO on top of that. Now the PS3 could be a good place. Sony has several of its own MMOs, so they have experience. It would be something unique in the console space, something they could use. And with no fee for PSN, people might be less gunshy about paying monthly for the MMO.

[Jedi]

I'd read the article but then I hate Peter Molyneux.... Ok hate is a strong word but I certainly don't give a crap what he has to say.
Reading what Idol and D have said I'd agree more with them an the basis that the Wii remote is something that the PC hasn't got where as Live gives consoles what PCs have got already.

[Cobra951]

I think you're underestimating Live.  There's a lot more to it than downloads and multiplayer.  I can't say that the Wiimote even stacks up against this.  It's not trying.  It's a completely different thing, and so will attract people for different reasons.

[idolminds]

Probably since I haven't used Live (thanks for no dialup support, MS).

[K-man]

Microsoft didn't reinvent the wheel per se, they just streamlined, spit shined, and repackaged it into a very effective and reliable centralized online service. 

I agree with Cobra.  Live is much more than downloads and multiplayer.  Sure, it contains that.  But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and with a slick UI to boot. 

Which of course is something that was never accomplished before on the PC or Console end.

[MysterD]

Reading what Idol and D have said I'd agree more with them an the basis that the Wii remote is something that the PC hasn't got where as Live gives consoles what PCs have got already.

The PC has always bleeded w/ new stuff -- especially when it comes to technology and new things; the vid card, multiplayer shooters like UT and Q3, the MMO, etc etc.

A lot of console gaming has taken straight from the PC -- especially in recent years. But, the Wii-mote is something PC gaming doesn't have. Hell, I'll still waiting for Microsoft to invent a Wii-mote type of a controller for the X360! And you know if they do it for the 360, just like the X360 Controller, it'll probably work on the PC!

I think you're underestimating Live.  There's a lot more to it than downloads and multiplayer.  I can't say that the Wiimote even stacks up against this.  It's not trying.  It's a completely different thing, and so will attract people for different reasons.

Explain.

Microsoft didn't reinvent the wheel per se, they just streamlined, spit shined, and repackaged it into a very effective and reliable centralized online service.

And they are going to be trying to do this for Windows Live, as well...where it's all done over M$'s servers.

I agree with Cobra.  Live is much more than downloads and multiplayer.  Sure, it contains that.  But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and with a slick UI to boot.

Which of course is something that was never accomplished before on the PC or Console end.

Whatelse is there to XBLive then???

W/ the way you and Cobra are talking, there just has to be more to it than it being a streamlined online gaming center where there's chat-rooms, MP games being played and the downloading (of demos, add-on packs for games, and patches for games) going on all over M$'s servers...B/c, we've all seen this on the PC before...it's called STEAM.

Y'all both use it, so y'all would know better than me -- so, tell me, whatelse is there that's so great about XBLive??

[Quemaqua]

In my view, not a whole lot.  I mean, it has its good points and all, and I had fun messing with it a couple times, but on the whole I hate the way Live is designed.  I find it completely unintuitive and every time I use it I find myself wanting to *not* use it.  I have no real opinion on the Wiimote yet since I have no Wii, but I will definitely say that I dislike Live.

[K-man]

Whatelse is there to XBLive then???

W/ the way you and Cobra are talking, there just has to be more to it than it being a streamlined online gaming center where there's chat-rooms, MP games being played and the downloading (of demos, add-on packs for games, and patches for games) going on all over M$'s servers...B/c, we've all seen this on the PC before...it's called STEAM."

While Steam is a step in the right direction, it's user interface is pretty horrible, not to mention ugly.  It does the job, but it has a gnarly time doing it.  XBL is much more presentable and easy to navigate.

First off, XBL now has a pretty sizeable video library, with both film and TV shows.  And amazingly, the prices are very comparable to going to the video store or downloading from some place like iTunes.  Not to mention being able to download some films in HD.  Definitely a plus for some people, probably not so much for others.  But it is a feature.

Lets not forget the XBLA either.  There's been some Grade A stuff being released there.  AND you have the added benefit of being able to play it without being logged into the XBL service.

As far as the service itself, being able to interact with other people in a friend list no matter what you're doing on the console is pretty great.  That was a feature that wasn't in the original iteration of XBL.  You couldn't message or otherwise contact players across different titles.  Integrated text and voice chat make linking up tons easier.  I've never had a major hiccup with the service that wasn't software-related.  It's not like the PS2 where you hope you can log in and play.  You flat out expect XBL to work, and it does.

I don't get Que's assessment of the XBL UI, because it is one of the more intuitive services I have ever used.  Everything is conveniently organized into blades, and everything is where you expect it to be.  It's much more convenient than the typical file table organization systems that are used.  I just don't see how you couldn't find your way around with ease.

As i stated before, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  It's a very well organized and feature-laden online service that is stable and reliable.  I've been supplying my 49.99 for 3 years now and I have to say its worth every penny to me.   

[idolminds]

But what about its impact on gaming as a whole? XBLA is nice to get indie devs some exposure, so thats good. I mean it might be a great service and have all these features that are nice, but will ti really impact games?

Well...actually, now that I think about it it has. DLC and microtransactions...though its in the air whether thats a good thing or not.

[Quemaqua]

I'm somewhat biased given that I think multiplayer should be free and 90% of the other stuff Live offers I think is a bunch of useless garbage (who the fuck pays to rent a TV show?), but I stick by my assessment of the UI.  I hate it.

XBLA is pretty cool for a console, though.  That's definitely Live's bright spot, IMO.  It means very little to me as most of what's on it I either already played years ago on my PC or can get on my PC now with greater ease since I don't have a router/constant connection for my 360, but it's still pretty cool, and there's some great stuff on it (and it seems like more great stuff is being released every day).  So I definitely give the nod to Microsoft for a job well done there.  I think it's paid dividends for a lot of smaller developers, too.

I do have the cautious attitude that idol does, though.  I'd really not like to see microtransactions become the norm.

[K-man]

I'm somewhat biased given that I think multiplayer should be free and 90% of the other stuff Live offers I think is a bunch of useless garbage (who the fuck pays to rent a TV show?), but I stick by my assessment of the UI.  I hate it.

XBLA is pretty cool for a console, though.  That's definitely Live's bright spot, IMO.  It means very little to me as most of what's on it I either already played years ago on my PC or can get on my PC now with greater ease since I don't have a router/constant connection for my 360, but it's still pretty cool, and there's some great stuff on it (and it seems like more great stuff is being released every day).  So I definitely give the nod to Microsoft for a job well done there.  I think it's paid dividends for a lot of smaller developers, too.

I do have the cautious attitude that idol does, though.  I'd really not like to see microtransactions become the norm.

If I remember correctly, you actually buy the TV episodes.  The movies are just rentals.

As for microtransactions, I think we've seen them used for both good and evil.  I have no problem purchasing small expansions (like the oblivion quests, no not the horse armor).  But when someone like EA starts charging for stuff that should have been in the game to begin with, that's when they start getting out of hand.

I agree that multiplayer should be free.  I'm speaking purely of ps2-level online capacity since I haven't had a chance to play around with the PS3 much, but if I had the choice between Sony's free connection and XBL, I'd pick XBL because it works.  Very rarely did I get a good connection with the PS2.  And if I have to pay 50 bucks a year for that stability so be it.

[K-man]

But what about its impact on gaming as a whole? XBLA is nice to get indie devs some exposure, so thats good. I mean it might be a great service and have all these features that are nice, but will ti really impact games?

It already has impacted games.  Look at the shift in focus toward multiplayer in console games in the past four years.  That certainly wasn't due to Sony's subpar solution with the PS2.  No, it's because XBL finally gave developers (and gamers) a valid platform to work with.

[Quemaqua]

I'd sort of agree and disagree with that.  I mean yes, XBL has obvious had an impact, but it was merely an evolutionary step.  I think the PS2's online capabilities did, in fact, have much greater overall impact in terms of what people came to expect from a console.  Which doesn't quite say what I'm trying to say.  What I mean is that I think the shift in focus toward multiplayer is not due to the 360.  It certainly contributes to the fervor we've got going now, and this is all just sort of arguing pointless semantics in the end anyway, I just think a lot of what people expect came before the 360.

[idolminds]

This would have been a good podcast discussion.

[Quemaqua]

Shit, we need to do a BioShock cast soon.

[Cobra951]

But what about its impact on gaming as a whole? XBLA is nice to get indie devs some exposure, so thats good. I mean it might be a great service and have all these features that are nice, but will ti really impact games?

Well...actually, now that I think about it it has. DLC and microtransactions...though its in the air whether thats a good thing or not.

One thing K-Man didn't cover is Gamertags with achievement scores racking up and persisting online.  I consider this another plus.  It has taken root in a lot of people's minds.  They're wholly into it, meaning they're playing more games more completely.  That bodes well for everyone involved, no?

[idolminds]

I suppose you guys are right, and Live did more than I gave it credit for. Though I'm still going to have a chuckle when someone mentions Gamerscore and Achievements as innovative and then turns around and calls the Wii a gimmick (yes, I've seen it).

The Achievement system might have changed how some people play games, but theres positives and negatives. There was a good forum thread on IGDA where a bunch of game devs discuss the topic.

[gpw11]

I'm not going to say I agree or disagree with his statement; I will, however, say that it is a stupid argument to have.  Which one has more of an impact?  How the fuck do you even measure that without going 20 years in the future?  There's no point even really discussing it if you're going to be a jackass and take a side.

That said, I do find it somewhat interesting because the importance of LIVE is often down played, while the importance of the Wii remote is often overexagerated.  I think about buying a Wii a lot.  Usually this ends when I walk into a store and see the games available for it.  Sure, that doesn't say much about the hardware itself, but it gets me thinking that while the controller can really add to games, the types of games that benefit from the control style are pretty limited. 

I had a Wii at my house for like 6 months.  Wii Sports is a lot of fun with three other people.  Not so much fun by yourself.  Apart from that I don't think we had another game in the machine for more than about 15 min.  Tiger Woods and Madden were fun, but in the case of the later, you got kind of sick of the control scheme after a certain point.  And that's the thing - it gets tedious with most of the games out there, not because they're designed poorly or because it's physically tiring, but because after a while you realise that randomly shaking or flicking the remote to control action on screen is the exact same fucking thing as just pushing a button, but just less efficient.  And that's the problem - a ton of game types out there don't lend themselves to being actively controlled by motions you make.  The wii remote by design almost limits itself.  As much as the PS3 controller is bashed, I think it's more versatile and more usuable for most games. The addons for the wii remote do help though. 

As for Live, yeah, it's done a lot because it realistically has pioneered new ground.  At the time it came out there wasn't really a similair service at all on PCs, and certainly not on consoles.  Sure, PCs could do all the things that live could do, but that's not the point - it showed that there is a market for online and that it could be built around to offer new gameplay expieriences, new markets, and new revenue streams resulting from new services for just about anyone.  Sure, console online existed before live, but the most developed by far was the Dreamcast, and compairing that to LIVE is like compairing the old Logitech motion sensing gamepad to the wii remote...the latest offerings are just so much more evolved they're essentially different products. 

[K-man]

The wii remote would garner a much larger "wow" factor if we had more examples of good control using it.  Thus far the control schemes have been mostly miss and not hit.  Hopefully that'll change once developers gather more experience and get a little more creative with it.

But thus far I can only think of a handful of titles where the control scheme actually improves the game rather than hinders it.

[K-man]

But I will say this comparison is apples to oranges.  They're both technologies that benefit us.  Who should care what is deemed more important?  Molyneux really should spend less time talking and more time making Fable 2.

[MysterD]

Molyneux really should spend less time talking and more time making Fable 2.

So true.

Fable 2 will hopefully not take 7 or so years to make, this time around...

[Quemaqua]

But I will say this comparison is apples to oranges.  They're both technologies that benefit us.  Who should care what is deemed more important?  Molyneux really should spend less time talking and more time making Fable 2.

I would agree with that entirely.  Whether or not a controller or service are of more benefit is sort of a pointless argument as they're two entirely different things.  They'll both push us forward, or at least explore new ground, but what's the point in comparing the two?  Motorcycles and cellphones are both cool*, but they serve entirely different purposes that don't have any necessity of competition, even if you have companies that make both.

* Please note that cell phones are not cool and should all be destroyed.

[Cobra951]

And that's the thing - it gets tedious with most of the games out there, not because they're designed poorly or because it's physically tiring, but because after a while you realise that randomly shaking or flicking the remote to control action on screen is the exact same fucking thing as just pushing a button, but just less efficient.

There, that's it.  That's a better articulation of my fear about Wii control as anything I've come up with.  It ultimately gets in the way of playing something for a long period of time (and I do think excessive fatigue will enter the picture over enough time).

I think most of us already said that the comparison itself is not really valid.  "Which one will have more impact?" is too broad a question here.  The impact itself is so different in each case.