Now it's really getting sad. I had hoped GRAW II would be the turnaround for in-game Clan support on the 360, but Microsoft goes ahead and drops two multiplayer games without it.

Forza 2 is the sadder case, as the original on the Xbox had Clan support in the form of its Car Clubs. Here's another "next" generation game with features from "last" generation removed.

Shadowrun's most closely resembles the original Xbox's Iron Phoenix, another online-only game (offline bot matches don't a single-player game make). Iron Phoenix however supported clans, clan matches and even multi-clan tournaments.

Before it shuffled off the original Xbox was getting more and more Clan-enabled games. This feature was great in fostering community, adding aditional replay value and encouraging more play online. Now on the 360 only Battlefield 2 and GRAW II have proper Clan support as far as I know out of dozens of online multiplayer games released. Microsoft set a bad example by launching with a clanless Perfect Dark Zero despite it being ripe for Clan-based gameplay. Ubisoft, home of the first Xbox Clan title waited for its fourth Clancy game before adding back a fature that was standard for years.

Where is our Clan support?

It seems one of TeamXbox's editors has decided that Xbox Live Gold is overpriced. While I certainly don't think it is, let's discuss his points from this editorial:

http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1967/AN-INCONVENIENT-TRUTH/p1

1. Server-Based Online Multiplayer

There are good arguments as to why this should be added, but only as an option. Why? The cost of maintaining hosting servers means someday whoever is paying will no longer want to pay. And this can happen fast when a game isn't particularly popular. Online PS2 servers have been dropping like flies despite a 100+ million installed-base. P2P gaming means even those of us who own the first-generation of Xbox Live games can go online with our friends and continue to enjoy multiplayer until the end of days (or Live, whichever comes first).

I went out of my way to purchase a decent upload speed (768K up) to ensure I could host lag-free games. It's not perfect, much of the world is still linked through all kinds of horrible carriers meaning ping times can be atrocious regardless of your connection speed, but it works. While I personally find the 360 a bit more sluggish than the original Xbox (where I could host 16 I'm better off with 12 on the 360), overall the issues of host-advantage and lag are tied to cable-modem users hosting with 256K/384K speeds and everyone trying to host above their capacity. It's a user issue when it comes to P2P and I don't know how to educate the masses.

Back to Server-Based: it should be an option. Microsoft should test a few new titles that include alternate multiplayer interfaces. When choosing to join or host on a few titles a "Company Server" location should be offered so they can test the effect on their bottom-line and how users respond to the option. I don't want only company-based (or Microsoft-based) servers for both the potential of them going away but also for the pain that the Battlefield 2: Modern Combat model offers: the chance you can't play because you're not of the right rank or there are no remaining server slots.

There were far more online games for the Xbox than the PS2 and part of that is surely the fact that once the code is done it's up to the users to handle the servers, managing irritating players and ensuring everyone has fun. If Server-Based multiplayer was the norm I think overall the number of online games would shrink, and while that might not affect you guys who only own a handful of titles, people like me who love to bounce between dozens would be affected in a very negative way.

2. Clan and Party System

First let's deal with the "party system". Only a few bonehead early titles didn't havea traditional lobby on the 360. That seems to have gone away. A party system is not a generic plug-in because games can be very different. How would Dead or Alive's lobby work in a Party System? In fact, most of the party systems on the 360 are horrible, Saints Row being the worst. I want to set up a room, send invites, let anyone join, be able to change options between rounds and so forth. Halo 2 didn't do that, no open parties like nearly every other Xbox Live title. TXB can shove their Party System theory where the sun don't shine.

As for Clans, this is tricky. I can see the advantage of an overarching Clan that would allow messaging and such between what amounts to a secondary Friends list. Past that, however, things get tricky. Loads of Clan features are game specific. What if your "Global" clan didn't have anyone who really wanted to play some Clan-enabled game you loved? You'd have to abandon your Clamates just because one particular game didn't fit in with your leader's desires? And what of odd-Clan games like Tournament Paintball MAX'D that was set up to support simultaneous Clan (or League) membership.

I'm not writing off the benefits of a Clan blade, but it is superfulous in regard to our Live membership. The bigger isue is developers wimping out on Clan support. Toward the end of the original Xbox's days you found Clan support in all sorts of titles. You even could get full leanue-play in a game like Iron Phoenix, yet Microsoft left Perfect Dark Zero out the door without Clan support, and Ubisoft, the first Xbox publisher with Clan-enabled games, took over a year to deliver what they had been doing for years already.

No, lack of Clan Support and Party Support do not make the Xbox Live cost a scam.

3. Dedicated Download Servers

Who knows whether these don't already exist? I guess this is a fine feature, and I agree at times downloads can be slow, but at other times they are just as fast as downloads on my PC. Does this make Xbox Live overpriced? In terms of comparison to the original Xbox, certainly not. As a value-add, it's be nice, but it doesn'taffect my gameplay, and that's what I pay for with Xbox Live, multiplayer gaming.

4. Microsoft Points Program

Sounds like a good idea, but the lack of free rewards doesn't make Xbox Live overpriced. Silver was a gimme, you are still paying for the features from the original Xbox with Gold plus some more, like actual follow-through with additional content, something that on a whole went nowhere in the past. Again, this adds nothing to the multiplayer gaming experience you are paying for with Gold. A nice idea, on Microsoft should consider, but not a deal-breaker for me.

5. No Ads

I wholly support this, but it brings up the problem I have with our membership fee: no new multiplayer features. You can read one of my journal entries for some examples of online multiplayer features we could use. I have a lot more. If such features were implemented they'd have something to stick into those empty spaces the ads currently occupy.

I understand the ads in one sense: not everyone stays on the boards to know about new releases and maybe they don't want to have to drill-down on the Marketplace to find the newest XBLA game or Map Pack. With the Marketplace gaining its own blade they could move all the ads there for all I care.

What I care about are new multiplayer features like game requests and server counters which could fill in the generic ad spaces. Until then, what goes in those spots? The blade background? Gimme a break. Once again this does not impact multiplayer gaming.

---

In conclusion the TXB article deals little with what we pay for, namely online gaming. I get my $50/year worth from the service and their features do nothing to sway my opinion. However, I would like Microsoft to stop with all the media and marketplace updates and give us some online gaming features that would help further distance Xbox Live from the competition.

Since Microsoft's recent updates to Live have not really featured any additions for gamers, maybe they've run out of ideas. 

The Friends List is great, but with the advent of so many XBLA games and the proliferation of online support in a lot of games, there's an Xbox Live feature I think could benefit a lot of people: online availability.

How would it work? Using the "Games" interface where all of your owned/played games are shown, if you press "A" to get to the normal Achievements list, a bar would appear at the top (and be locked when scrolling through the Achievements) showing the number of available hosts for each game mode. The refresh rate would be maybe less than 30 seconds, but even 30 seconds would be useful if there are server scanning issues. This would be very helpful for people looking for open co-op games, one-on-one fighters (I've often seen people complain they never can find someone for Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat) and especially less-played/moe obscure games.

I'm sure most people would prefer a summary and the game level if this type of feature existed, but by putting it at the "one game at a time" level I don't think this would tax the XBL servers as much.

Two complementary features would be nice but are more difficult so while I will describe them I'd be happy with just the above to start.

Game Requests: Choose a game you would like to play and other players, while scanning their game list, would see the ones with requests. If you felt like playing you would accept the request which would then notify the original user. An example: you felt like playing a co-op match of Assault Heroes, and after sitting around waiting for a while you decided you'd rather be playing, you pull up the Dashboard, go to your Games list, select Assault Heroes and choose "Post Game Request". After that maybe you pop in GRAW 2 and continue working on the single-player. Another user, not necessarily knowing what they feel like plying, pulls up their game list and sees an icon next to Assault Heroes and clicks it. From here they click "Show Available Requests" and get a list of GamerTags. The first user's GamerTag is shown and can be clicked on for the normal messaging (such as to ask what game mode the other user wants and whether they plan on being host) or they can click "Accept Request" which then pops up a notification/auto-message on the first player's screen and thetwo can then meet.

Dashboard Game-Themed Lobbies: The original Xbox had a chat feature at the Dashboard which allowed for more than one-on-one chat. It was still Friends-based so the change here would be to auto-create rooms themed to specific games. For example: you're looking to chat about Earth Defense Force, a game with no online component, but you'd like to get opinions about it. Or maybe you're a fan of the game and think other people with similar interests would be fun to hang out with while taking a break. You'd go to your "Games" list and choose Earth Defense Force and select "Join Chat" or "Open Chat" or "View Available Rooms". Each chat room would support a maximum of 16 players. If no room existed yet, a new one would be created automatically. Otherwise you could browse rooms (with the host and number of players listed). From here you'd get a normal lobby, maybe a themed background, and it would be open chat similar to the Halo 2 lobby system. This would be great for getting people together, deciding on what you want to do next and even killing a little time.

Anyway, I'm always looking for new ways to take advantage of the Xbox Live network which I've been using for years, so any feedback or other ideas are always welcome.

Got back from the game store where they are still missing some new releases and added the titles to my collection. Crave's "Trigger Man", which looks like a cheap mess, and THQ's "Tak 2 Staff of Dreams" for the XBOX met my criteria for inclusion in the collection (now at 165 titles). Out of those titles six have yet to be reviewed on GameSpot, and we're not just talking the new releases. One title, "Room Zoom", while not very good, is an XBOX Live! title that might be a fun bargain title for online play. How does this happen? How does a site with nothing to do but report on games and the industry let titles slip through the release cycle? On a similar subject, reviews seem to be coming late, days after release, sometimes weeks? Even with hours of play time, are things so hectic that an organization that gets pre-release finals can't deliver reviews by the street release date of every new game?

Just a quick reminder to everyone, but GameSpot writers in particular: THIS IS AMERICA, BAY-BEE!!! The British expression "spot-on" is annoying and often inappropriate. Here we say "perfect" or "excellent" or one of many other thesaurus-derived synonyms. While other ridiculous slang is peppered in many reviews, this is the most common and entertaining. Let's not see this anymore, and if you need to see why, listen to a video review where it is used. There, sounds ludicrous, don't it? So stop already, or move to England, stick "u" into words and enjoy cold chicken and be "spot-on" there. That'd be perfect.