---

Quote:

He's got a good point, though perhaps he's not looking very far into the future.

---

>The bottom line is, it will probably be at least 3 years before internet gaming on a console is "mainstream," and by that point, there'll be another Nintendo console on the way.

Well, without starting up the "how fast is online/broadband taking off" thing again... there are 55 million homes with internet access in the US, 9.4M of those with DSL or cable modem. That's out of 100 million homes. The DSL/Cable base doubled in the last 6 months. That's not future speculation, that's the Today Facts. Future rate of adoption is anybody's guess, but I'd much rather see developers bank on online being big, and in a hurry. It's not going to happen if killer software isn't there--it's a chicken and egg thing, and I'd like to see one side just be ballsy and go for it.

Sega is betting on online with Gamecube--they're porting Phantasy Star Online to it. And the system doesn't even come with a modem, unlike Dreamcast. But there are 260,000 ONLINE PSO players on a "dead system," so that's pretty good.

And heaven help Nintendo if they release another game system in 3 years. It doesn't launch for another half year (a little earlier in Japan), and game systems typically have a 4-5 year life span. The Nintendo 64 launched on June 23rd, 1996 (and in the US that November). Almost exactly five years.

Playstation was launched in Dec 1994 in Japan, Sept 1995 in the US. Just a touch over five years there.

If online is big in 3 years, it'll be right in the last two years of this generation's life--the most profitable time.

I don't know if online play will be "mainstream" by then (depends on your definition), but it'll certainly be a big part of console games. There will be enough people to make online-only profitable, and online components to games will be as standard as split-screen is now.

Wow. I didn't realize that the N64 had been out that long...Apparently I was wrong. Just the same, that doesn't seem like a battle that has to be fought now. Perhaps a year from now, maybe just a tad more. I'm just not sure that not having a modem shipped with the system at launch is going to be shooting themselves in the foot as much as Mark sounded like he thought it would be. Making the system cheaper at launch will get it into more homes, and then the modem can be purchased later. It seems smarter to me that way.

Online gaming right now, at least on the PC, is too complicated, frustrating, and annoying for any but the hardcore, generally. I mean, even something as easy to get into and use as Diablo II is only acceptable to serious gamers who have a long history of putting up with problems in their games. Now, the console online game scene is probably better--I imagine Phantasy Star Online is pretty seamless?--but the point holds--for online gaming to be come mass-market like the console folks want, it will have to be much more accessible and easy to use, and less frustrating.

That's rather independent of any figures on connectivity--many folks who are connected to the 'Net don't even play offline games.

The biggest irritant for me with online gaming is the wait for the game to start. For example, it took 45 minutes for the people in Leadfoot last night to "aggregate their feces" and start the race. Even with a quick game, it ususally takes longer to get the match going than to actually play the thing. Then, if somebody gets dropped... start all over again from square one.

Programs like the original Kali, which has evolved into services like Gamespy Arcade, do their part to improve upon "seamless joining" of a session, but you're still at the mercy of the human factor. "Who's host? Click start already! Dammit, who's hosting this, hit the damn button for cryin out... Oh... It made me host five minutes ago? oops... sorry.*click*"

Now, as for console gaming getting "big online", I think it's far less valueable to come strongly into an established market. However, if you *establish* that market - or are at least wrongly credited with it - then you become the signature name of such. EQ is a known factor, with Sony's name on it... thus people are more inclined to trust Sony as a console MMORPG than some other console popping out a game. PSO made it by virtue of being first, which is why Nintendo wants that property on their Cube instead of MMOMario. :-)

When somebody wants a can of cola, how often do they ask for "a coke" and mean a soda in general? At some point, the product name becomes synonymous with the base item. Shadowbane is to Everquest as RC is to Coke.

>I imagine Phantasy Star Online is pretty seamless?

Once you get online, it's about as painless as Dialbo 2. But you have to set up your dialup stuff first, which is a pain for Ordinary People. And you still have to wait for it to dail out, connect, etc.

I worry that Sony isn't thinking about the entire "make it as easy as the rest of the console" thing with the PS2 online plans. Their modem doohickey has both a 56k modem and a broadband jack. To me, that's a bad idea. Users have to futz with dialup hassles if they don't have broadband. If I'm a game developer, I basically HAVE to make my game for the 56k modem, because if I require broadband I'm getting a fragment of a fragment of a market (those that bought the upgrade, and those that are using it via broadband). Plus, you've gotta do the text chat thing. What console gamer wants to set up a keyboard and put down the controller to type? I do it out of necessity in PSO, but god, is it annoying. And I'm a PC gamer that's used to it (at least on the PC I'm already using the keyboard as a controller, and my hands aren't full with something else).

For online to take off on a console, you basically have to plug the jack in, and multiplayer works. Give it your user name and/or password and billing info ONCE, and then it just works in every game. Like, just pick "multiplayer" and go. MS has the right idea--your memory card can store all your user data and act as your user name and password for EVERY online game. It's your "key." Take it to your friend's house and play there if you want, and the game knows it's you. Buy a new pay for play game, and you don't have to enter billing data. It just all comes on one bill, with the same billing info. Plug in your memory card and go.

They're the only ones I've heard talk about making online on consoles easier than it is on the PC. I think that's a shame, actually. Because of the control console manufacturers have over how licensees make games, they have a real opportunity to enforce standards that make it easier for everyone.

Speaking of Becoming a Computer, check this out:
http://ps2.ign.com/news/35237.html

>EQ is a known factor, with Sony's name on it

But Sony doesn't push their brand on EQ. How many general console gamers think of Sony and EQ together? Nearly everyone I know of who knows EQ thinks of Verant as the "brand" there.

But your overall point is well taken. All tissue paper is Kleenex. All petroleum jeely is Vasoline. All liquid antacid is Pepto Bismol.

I wonder, with the variety of game genres and the relative small scale of the first MMO games, if this branding phenomenon is in effect? For awhile there, "playing nintendo" MEANT "playing video games." Not so anymore. I would suspect the opportunity to be "the name" is past.