The limitations of Live

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

It has become apparent to me that Live, as an online system, has a lot
of limitations that continue to hamper development of original games.

The real disadvantage of Live is that it's a closed network that *has*
to be run on MS's servers. This gives it a good deal of uniformity and
ease of use, but it also stifles development of truly original games.
For example, the decentralization of the PS2's online services allows
developers to develop MMORPG's (even allowing players to play with PC
users) on their own servers with monthly fees and independent control
of content. With the Live system this is impossible (which is why we
haven't seen an true MMORPG yet for Live and probably never will).

So what we end up with on Live is relatively cheap and easy to use, but
it's also terminally unoriginal. I mean, just how many times can you
play the same shooter or sports game with different graphics?

Hopefully, this will change with the Xbox-360, but I somehow doubt it.
MS's desire for monopolistic control of Live will probably not change
anytime soon. And the possibility of seeing an MMORPG, massive online
strategy game, or any game that allows users to play other PC or PS2/3
users is slim. Likely, what the 360 will mean is just more of the
same--with improved graphics.

Can Live survive with such a limited environment? Just how many times
can you play "capture the flag" before becoming bored, anyway? Will
there ever be anything like "World of Warcraft" for the Xbox?

-Eric

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Eric:

The PS2 has MMORPGs? I do not own a PS2, so I don't know, but that
surprises me. I thought MMORPGs are a PC thing, but I'd be curious do
know what games you are refering to.

elro...@pop.uky.edu wrote:
> The real disadvantage of Live is that it's a closed network that
*has*
> to be run on MS's servers. This gives it a good deal of uniformity
and
> ease of use, but it also stifles development of truly original games.
> For example, the decentralization of the PS2's online services allows
> developers to develop MMORPG's (even allowing players to play with PC
> users) on their own servers with monthly fees and independent control
> of content. With the Live system this is impossible (which is why we
> haven't seen an true MMORPG yet for Live and probably never will).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

You can plau FF XI offline though, right? To me a Massive Online RPG is
one that is strictly built for online play only. Also, isn't impossible
for PS2 North America users to play against, say Japanese, users? Maybe
that was just for EA's games.

Thanks for clearing this up!

Christian


Ted wrote:
> Christian Winter wrote:
> >
> > Eric:
> >
> > The PS2 has MMORPGs? I do not own a PS2, so I don't know, but that
> > surprises me. I thought MMORPGs are a PC thing, but I'd be curious
do
> > know what games you are refering to.
>
> Final Fantasy XI. It has Everquest too, but I'm not sure if that
allows
> you to play with the PC users...

 

[ted]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Christian Winter wrote:
>
> Eric:
>
> The PS2 has MMORPGs? I do not own a PS2, so I don't know, but that
> surprises me. I thought MMORPGs are a PC thing, but I'd be curious do
> know what games you are refering to.

Final Fantasy XI. It has Everquest too, but I'm not sure if that allows
you to play with the PC users...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Christian Winter" <cwinter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115216312.920839.60790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You can plau FF XI offline though, right? To me a Massive Online RPG is
> one that is strictly built for online play only. Also, isn't impossible
> for PS2 North America users to play against, say Japanese, users? Maybe
> that was just for EA's games.
>
> Thanks for clearing this up!
>
> Christian
>
>
> Ted wrote:
>> Christian Winter wrote:
>> >
>> > Eric:
>> >
>> > The PS2 has MMORPGs? I do not own a PS2, so I don't know, but that
>> > surprises me. I thought MMORPGs are a PC thing, but I'd be curious
> do
>> > know what games you are refering to.
>>
>> Final Fantasy XI. It has Everquest too, but I'm not sure if that
> allows
>> you to play with the PC users...
>
FFXI can't be played offline. It is a MMORPG that can be played on the PS2
or computer. They also share the same servers so you can play on a computer
with someone who has a PS2 & vice versa.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

<elrous0@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:1115212201.233867.320270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It has become apparent to me that Live, as an online system, has a lot
> of limitations that continue to hamper development of original games.
>
> The real disadvantage of Live is that it's a closed network that *has*
> to be run on MS's servers. This gives it a good deal of uniformity and
> ease of use, but it also stifles development of truly original games.
> For example, the decentralization of the PS2's online services allows
> developers to develop MMORPG's (even allowing players to play with PC
> users) on their own servers with monthly fees and independent control
> of content. With the Live system this is impossible (which is why we
> haven't seen an true MMORPG yet for Live and probably never will).
>
> So what we end up with on Live is relatively cheap and easy to use, but
> it's also terminally unoriginal. I mean, just how many times can you
> play the same shooter or sports game with different graphics?
>
> Hopefully, this will change with the Xbox-360, but I somehow doubt it.
> MS's desire for monopolistic control of Live will probably not change
> anytime soon. And the possibility of seeing an MMORPG, massive online
> strategy game, or any game that allows users to play other PC or PS2/3
> users is slim. Likely, what the 360 will mean is just more of the
> same--with improved graphics.
>
> Can Live survive with such a limited environment? Just how many times
> can you play "capture the flag" before becoming bored, anyway? Will
> there ever be anything like "World of Warcraft" for the Xbox?
>
> -Eric
>


XNA will allow xbox 360 users to game with their PC brethren...True Fantasy
was an xbox MMORPG, it just never took off...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

In article <1115216312.920839.60790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Christian Winter <cwinter@gmail.com> wrote:
>You can plau FF XI offline though, right? To me a Massive Online RPG is
>one that is strictly built for online play only. Also, isn't impossible
>for PS2 North America users to play against, say Japanese, users? Maybe
>that was just for EA's games.

For FFXI, PS2 players from anywhere around the world can play with PC
players from anywhere around the world. There seems to be some sort
of simple translator built into the game for communicating.

Hope that helps,

Vin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5bkea$ls6$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> <elrous0@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
> news:1115212201.233867.320270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>
> XNA will allow xbox 360 users to game with their PC brethren...True
> Fantasy was an xbox MMORPG, it just never took off...
>

It would have taken off, they would have only needed to release it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

<elrous0@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:1115212201.233867.320270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> So what we end up with on Live is relatively cheap and easy to use, but
> it's also terminally unoriginal. I mean, just how many times can you
> play the same shooter or sports game with different graphics?
>


Personally, I have never bought or played a massively multiplayer online
game. I've even turned my nose up at the free 2-week trial discs that came
with magazines like PC Gamer. However, I do give some such games credit for
offering the short trial period for free since it seems silly to me to make
people pay full retail price for a game and then also expect them to pay a
monthly fee to play it as well!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

<elrous0@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:1115212201.233867.320270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It has become apparent to me that Live, as an online system, has a lot
> of limitations that continue to hamper development of original games.
>
> The real disadvantage of Live is that it's a closed network that *has*
> to be run on MS's servers. This gives it a good deal of uniformity and
> ease of use, but it also stifles development of truly original games.
> For example, the decentralization of the PS2's online services allows
> developers to develop MMORPG's (even allowing players to play with PC
> users) on their own servers with monthly fees and independent control
> of content. With the Live system this is impossible (which is why we
> haven't seen an true MMORPG yet for Live and probably never will).
>
> So what we end up with on Live is relatively cheap and easy to use, but
> it's also terminally unoriginal. I mean, just how many times can you
> play the same shooter or sports game with different graphics?
>
> Hopefully, this will change with the Xbox-360, but I somehow doubt it.
> MS's desire for monopolistic control of Live will probably not change
> anytime soon. And the possibility of seeing an MMORPG, massive online
> strategy game, or any game that allows users to play other PC or PS2/3
> users is slim. Likely, what the 360 will mean is just more of the
> same--with improved graphics.
>
> Can Live survive with such a limited environment? Just how many times
> can you play "capture the flag" before becoming bored, anyway? Will
> there ever be anything like "World of Warcraft" for the Xbox?
>
> -Eric
>

Apparantly there is a game in development for the next generation that will
be MMORPG. I will try and find details and re-post.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

<elrous0@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:1115212201.233867.320270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It has become apparent to me that Live, as an online system, has a lot
> of limitations that continue to hamper development of original games.
>
> The real disadvantage of Live is that it's a closed network that *has*
> to be run on MS's servers. This gives it a good deal of uniformity and
> ease of use, but it also stifles development of truly original games.
> For example, the decentralization of the PS2's online services allows
> developers to develop MMORPG's (even allowing players to play with PC
> users) on their own servers with monthly fees and independent control
> of content. With the Live system this is impossible (which is why we
> haven't seen an true MMORPG yet for Live and probably never will).

This is not true...EA is the example. When you sign onto live, it actually
just acts as a conduit to EA's servers (hence the original argument between
EA and Microsoft). Therefore, it should be possible to use the same scheme
to run an MMORPG.

Also, there is one MMORPG on the Xbox...Phantasy Star online.

 

[ted]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Arnaldo Horta wrote:
>
> <elrous0@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
> news:1115212201.233867.320270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > It has become apparent to me that Live, as an online system, has a lot
> > of limitations that continue to hamper development of original games.
> >
> > The real disadvantage of Live is that it's a closed network that *has*
> > to be run on MS's servers. This gives it a good deal of uniformity and
> > ease of use, but it also stifles development of truly original games.
> > For example, the decentralization of the PS2's online services allows
> > developers to develop MMORPG's (even allowing players to play with PC
> > users) on their own servers with monthly fees and independent control
> > of content. With the Live system this is impossible (which is why we
> > haven't seen an true MMORPG yet for Live and probably never will).
>
> This is not true...EA is the example. When you sign onto live, it actually
> just acts as a conduit to EA's servers (hence the original argument between
> EA and Microsoft). Therefore, it should be possible to use the same scheme
> to run an MMORPG.
>
> Also, there is one MMORPG on the Xbox...Phantasy Star online.

You have one extrra M in that acronym. There is nothing massively
multiplayer about PSO, no matter how much Sega says it is, because it
maxes out at four players in a game.
(And if an MMORPG has to be online only, which I'm not sure it does,
then PSO certainly isn't an MMORPG.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Ted wrote:
> Arnaldo Horta wrote:
> >
> > <elrous0@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1115212201.233867.320270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > It has become apparent to me that Live, as an online system, has
a lot
> > > of limitations that continue to hamper development of original
games.
> > >
> > > The real disadvantage of Live is that it's a closed network that
*has*
> > > to be run on MS's servers. This gives it a good deal of
uniformity and
> > > ease of use, but it also stifles development of truly original
games.
> > > For example, the decentralization of the PS2's online services
allows
> > > developers to develop MMORPG's (even allowing players to play
with PC
> > > users) on their own servers with monthly fees and independent
control
> > > of content. With the Live system this is impossible (which is why
we
> > > haven't seen an true MMORPG yet for Live and probably never
will).
> >
> > This is not true...EA is the example. When you sign onto live, it
actually
> > just acts as a conduit to EA's servers (hence the original argument
between
> > EA and Microsoft). Therefore, it should be possible to use the same
scheme
> > to run an MMORPG.
> >
> > Also, there is one MMORPG on the Xbox...Phantasy Star online.
>
> You have one extrra M in that acronym. There is nothing massively
> multiplayer about PSO, no matter how much Sega says it is, because it
> maxes out at four players in a game.
> (And if an MMORPG has to be online only, which I'm not sure it does,
> then PSO certainly isn't an MMORPG.)

Deja vu? I could've sworn I've said those exactly same words not long
before. Did you cut and paste from my previous post or something Ted?
In any case, this thread has been argued pretty thoroughly, so no need
for me to say anything.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Arnaldo Horta wrote:
> <elrous0@pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
> news:1115212201.233867.320270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > It has become apparent to me that Live, as an online system, has a
lot
> > of limitations that continue to hamper development of original
games.
> >
> > The real disadvantage of Live is that it's a closed network that
*has*
> > to be run on MS's servers. This gives it a good deal of uniformity
and
> > ease of use, but it also stifles development of truly original
games.
> > For example, the decentralization of the PS2's online services
allows
> > developers to develop MMORPG's (even allowing players to play with
PC
> > users) on their own servers with monthly fees and independent
control
> > of content. With the Live system this is impossible (which is why
we
> > haven't seen an true MMORPG yet for Live and probably never will).
>
> This is not true...EA is the example. When you sign onto live, it
actually
> just acts as a conduit to EA's servers (hence the original argument
between
> EA and Microsoft). Therefore, it should be possible to use the same
scheme
> to run an MMORPG.

This didn't open the network, this just effectively made a satellite
closed network that is linked to the main closed network. The
limitation remains that a LIVE EA game can't be played online with
someone playing the PC or PS2 version of the same game whereas the
latter two versions could with each other.

> Also, there is one MMORPG on the Xbox...Phantasy Star online.

Ted already addressed this (using words I could've sworn I've uttered
myself at some time in the past), so I won't

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Christian Winter wrote:
> Eric:
>
> The PS2 has MMORPGs? I do not own a PS2, so I don't know, but that
> surprises me. I thought MMORPGs are a PC thing, but I'd be curious do
> know what games you are refering to.

There are actually 3 that I'm aware of. FFXI, Everquest, and in Japan
Nobunaga Online. I don't know if the new Front Missions Online is an
MMO or not.

 

[ted]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Eiji Hayashi wrote:
snip
> > You have one extrra M in that acronym. There is nothing massively
> > multiplayer about PSO, no matter how much Sega says it is, because it
> > maxes out at four players in a game.
> > (And if an MMORPG has to be online only, which I'm not sure it does,
> > then PSO certainly isn't an MMORPG.)
>
> Deja vu? I could've sworn I've said those exactly same words not long
> before. Did you cut and paste from my previous post or something Ted?
snip

Nope. A Google Groups search for (eiji phantasy/pso acronym) shows no hits.
I am paraphrasing part of myself from this thread, tho:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.games.video.xbox/browse_thread/thread/d05d6088956a2798/45ce583049bc9a50?q=nospamforted+PSO+MMORPG&rnum=2#45ce583049bc9a50
I'm sure you've made the point too, but anyone who has read Sega's press
releases calling it an MMORPG should be gibbering along with us on this point.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Ted wrote:
> Eiji Hayashi wrote:
> snip
> > > You have one extrra M in that acronym. There is nothing massively
> > > multiplayer about PSO, no matter how much Sega says it is,
because it
> > > maxes out at four players in a game.
> > > (And if an MMORPG has to be online only, which I'm not sure it
does,
> > > then PSO certainly isn't an MMORPG.)
> >
> > Deja vu? I could've sworn I've said those exactly same words not
long
> > before. Did you cut and paste from my previous post or something
Ted?
> snip
>
> Nope. A Google Groups search for (eiji phantasy/pso acronym) shows no
hits.
> I am paraphrasing part of myself from this thread, tho:
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.games.video.xbox/browse_thread/thread/d05d6088956a2798/45ce583049bc9a50?q=nospamforted+PSO+MMORPG&rnum=2#45ce583049bc9a50
> I'm sure you've made the point too, but anyone who has read Sega's
press
> releases calling it an MMORPG should be gibbering along with us on
this point.


hrm.. weird. Cause the first part of your post word for word I could've
thought I've said at one time. It wasn't the content that's the same,
there's nothing strange about that, but it was word for word. It
must've been on a game board then instead of usenet. I find that I'm
participating in usenet less and less and boards more and more since
there seems to be more action.