For at least two years now, the console gaming community has been fairly buzzing regarding the potential online gaming has for our little hobby, and what its place in the larger scheme of things may be. The pros and cons of each prospective business model in place have been bandied back and forth time and again, and I think it’s probably a pretty safe bet to assume that there currently is no business model that meets with the universal approval of the gaming community.

I say ‘business model,’ because I think it’s fairly self-evident that online gaming, like so much else in the world at large, is ultimately all about the almighty dollar. Sega was the pioneer in this realm, as they have been in so many other (ultimately ill-fated) ways, with their SegaNet venture. SegaNet, for those who missed out on the Dreamcast and its own online initiative, was sort of a 56k equivalent to Xbox Live, only less so. Gamers could get together to play online titles such as NFL 2k2 with any of a multitude of ISPs, but SegaNet was Sega’s dedicated gaming ISP. SegaNet, they claimed, was faster, less laggy, and would even butter your toast in the morning. Well, maybe it didn’t go quite that far, but it still stands as the first example of a game hardware company attempting to cash in on the potential for recurring revenue streams with online console gaming. It didn’t work nearly as well as Sega might have hoped, and so fell by the wayside.

The sun rises, and the sun also sets. The Earth spins its way through space, and time moves on. The Dreamcast died its premature death, and the PlayStation 2 took its place. Lofty promises were made about PS2 online gaming, but myriad delays accompanied said promises. At one time, the PlayStation 2 had a business deal in the works with AOL that would allow users to not only play their games online, but also to browse the internet and do the e-mail thing, all from the comfort of their PS2. Forgetting, of course, that the Dreamcast’s browser let it do basically the same thing. Time passed, and that venture failed to come to fruition. The PlayStation 2 is online now, of course, courtesy of the network adapter (which, unlike the Dreamcast, supports both 56k and broadband from the same device), but suffice to say that the venture in its current form is far more simplistic than what was originally promised. In Sony’s favor, the cost is still relatively low. You pay for your adapter, and if you want to play EverQuest on your PS2, you pay your monthly fee for that. Otherwise, the monthly cost associated with your ISP of choice is all you currently pay. That may change, of course, but that is neither here, nor there.

Microsoft hit the scene with their Xbox, and announced grand plans for online gaming, touting Xbox Live as perhaps the first completely cohesive online console experience. To a certain extent, a year after Live went, well, live, they’ve been right. Much of what Xbox Live does, PS2 Online has recently tried to ape. The concept of universal buddy lists, for example, or persistent, real-time voice chat. Downloadable content is something that has yet to make much of an impact on the PS2, but may at some point in the future when the much-ballyhooed hard drive is released (yet another PS2 venture, that so far, has proven more smoke than substance).

Nintendo? They’ve had a few abortive tries over the years, but nothing has ever really gotten off the ground. They don’t see a profit potential in the industry yet, which may be dangerous to their long-term bottom line. Essentially, they run the risk of letting Sony and Microsoft build the foundation, and reap the long-term rewards, while they sit on the outside looking in. Maybe they’re content with that, I don’t know. At any rate, for the purposes of this mini-rant, Nintendo is completely irrelevant (and how many times in the last twenty years has THAT been the case? Not often, that’s for sure).

So after all of that background, condensed as it is, that brings us to the real point of today’s article. Those who are currently Xbox Live users are familiar with the $50 yearly fee to play, and, like myself, are probably okay with that. It’s a service being offered, and if we didn’t think it was worth the money, we wouldn’t pay for it. However, recent events in the world of Xbox Live have brought to light another question – that of ‘regular’ content versus ‘premium’ content.

Expansion packs are nothing new to the world of gaming. Ask any fan of Blizzard’s StarCraft and WarCraft titles, any young girl hooked on The Sims, or users of massively multiplayer online games such as EverQuest or Battlefield: 1942. It’s a fact of life in the industry, and the consensus seems to be that if the content is substantial, people won’t mind much paying for it.

The PC market and the console market are different beasts, however. Microsoft has proven that, yes, broadband gamers are willing to pay an extra premium (the aforementioned $50/year subscription fee) in order to enjoy a cohesive, substantial online experience with their Xboxes, but I’m not nearly so convinced that they’ve had the same success – or even WILL have the same success – with their ‘premium’ downloadable content. It’s been a fear long voiced by the Xbox Live holdouts, that the content would slowly migrate from ‘free’ to being just another way to get milked dry, as stuff gets held out in order to be made available as ‘premium content’.

Now, nobody is saying that anything quite that devious is occurring here, but it’s certainly worth noting that MechAssault, after several free content packages, has migrated to a Premium delivery method. Given that the equivalent of three packages are being bundled together for the $4.99 fee, you’d be hard-pressed to argue that it still represents a value for the gamer. Whether or not you’re willing to pay for the content, well, that’s the gamble Microsoft is taking. Perhaps the more concerning example, however, is what’s happening with Links 2004. You may remember my review of a couple weeks ago, and how much I enjoyed the game. To that I hold – when it comes to realistic golf action, there is no better title on the console market than Links 2004.

Yesterday’s news brought the announcement that the first downloadable course for Links is due any day now, likely on Thursday to coincide with the first PGA Tour event of the year at Kapalua. The other edge of the sword, however, was the price - $4.99 for a single course, with the additional caveat that courses would only be made available every 2-3 months, or so. That $4.99 price tag, incidentally, covers both the Kapalua course, and some drawings for golf equipment, and the like. Now, as much as I love Links 2004, and with the assertion that I don’t mind paying for downloadable content, I do have to say that this is a precedent that concerns me. I realize that more work goes into creating a course as detailed as those found in Links than probably goes into making, say, a new map for Rainbow Six 3, if for no other reason than that the attention to detail must be precise, in order to stifle the cries of those who would otherwise harp on a lack of realism. I realize, further, that where real courses are concerned, the license to use such courses in-game is an additional cost.

However, adding Kapalua to the stable of courses will not significantly change the nature of the game. Microsoft’s examples, all along, have been that minor content additions might range anywhere from a quarter on up to a dollar or two, while significant additions – things that change the way the game is played, such as a capture the flag mode in MechAssault, to use a real life example, might be more expensive. In fact, $4.99 was the price point usually quoted for such ‘substantial’ content. Now, we’re being told, $4.99 is the cost for what, essentially, is a new map. I don’t mean to play the role of the alarmist here, but it really does make me wonder what sort of costs the future holds, not just for Xbox Live, but also for online gaming in general.

A yearly fee may well become standard. Microsoft has proven that it’s workable, and it represents recurring revenue in an industry beset by change and upheaval. Premium content costs will almost certainly standardize to a degree, as well, but to what degree? To what level will the market embrace such a business model? It’s worth noting that the ‘free’ content that was touted as such a large part of Xbox Live’s appeal has certainly been slow in coming. Splinter Cell has three missions, currently. Rainbow Six 3 has been one of the better performers, with two new maps almost immediately after release, but then, you also have Unreal Championship, which took several weeks to get new maps on the market.

What I’m trying to say, I guess, is that online gaming is a cyclical beast. People seize upon the latest, greatest thing, play it for a while, and then move on. Content download needs to become a more prevalent part of gaming if game developers hope to build, and maintain, any kind of vibrant, persistent community, but at the same time, such a community is not built overnight. I understand that in a weak economy, any source of income becomes important, but in charging exorbitantly for content downloads, one runs the risk of choking the goose that lays the golden eggs. Yes, fine, charge for some downloads – I suspect there’s no getting around that particular issue. While you’re so doing, however, make sure that you’re also doing two other things – firstly, saturate the community with these downloads. If people have a reason to stay, or at least to keep coming back, they will. Secondly, make sure that there is plenty of free content mixed in with the premium goods, in order to keep both sides of the equation happy.

Sorry to say, this 2-3 months delay in between courses with Links 2004 isn’t gonna cut it. People will tire of what they’ve got well before that three months is up, and then you’ve lost them to another addiction. Will it be Rainbow Six 3, Halo 2, or something yet unannounced? Online gaming has the potential to be profitable for the game companies, certainly. I just hope they don’t make the mistake of trying to sink the hook before they’ve found a suitable worm.