GFW Mag lambastes Microsoft about Live

ouch. That magazine has proved once and for all that they have complete editorial independence. Let's hope they stay afloat. Check out this quote:

GFW: Is this the first announcement in Microsoft history that hasn't included a single third-party publisher?

Peter Moore: Well, I think we've probably made some other announcements that don't involve third-parties...as we've told all of the other third-parties, and I've been instrumental in this with third-party publishers, the complexity of what we're proposing to do with Games for Windows Live is something that my studios and Microsoft Game Studios are focused on first, learning some of the challenges, learning some of the obstacles to successful deployment of the service. We do have third-parties that are ready, standing by, but it's very much a first-party initiative first, and then third-parties will follow.

GFW: So you're saying that some third-party support is lined up?

PM: Not that I can announce.

So GFW Live! launches with Halo 2 and Shadowrun, and nothing else. What PC gamer in their right mind would buy into that? This means that both those games effectively cost $100, if you want to play online, and I don't see the point in purchasing either game if you don't.

Awful lot of tap dancing going on in that interview. Shawn brought a tear to my eye when he mentioned Live Certification. I like Microsoft's stance of "We adding choices." Yes, you can pay for voice comms and online play, or you can get it for free.

Live!, for Windows and even the 360, is looking like a rip-off more and more each day.

Yeah, but wait. Live for Windows as it was announced offers PC to PC multiplayer for free, right? It's just the cross-platform play and matchmaking that you have to pay extra for, right?

I'm an achievement whore, I have a Live Gold account and therefore Games for Windows has a, how shall I put it, "certain appeal" to me. I also have no added expense.

I think Microsoft is just trying to get Xbox players to game on the PC. There's no reason a seasoned PC gamer is going to go for this, but it might get some Gold Live folks to think about picking up a PC game or two.

Live!, for Windows and even the 360, is looking like a rip-off more and more each day.

Eh...for the 360 I got a 13 month card for $39. $3.25 per month seems like not a bad price to pay for the services they give me access to on Xbox Live. And, as with Hemi, I'd have access to Windows Live if I were at all interested in Vista.

Podunk wrote:

Yeah, but wait. Live for Windows as it was announced offers PC to PC multiplayer for free, right? It's just the cross-platform play and matchmaking that you have to pay extra for, right?

This is the way I understand it.

Then there's that whole thing where if you've already got a gold subscription for your 360 then you're set for the PC either way.

According to the article you linked, you can play both Halo 2 and Shadowrun online for free, if you don't want to play with Xbox owners All the Gold version adds is:
# Multiplayer matchmaking with friends
# Skill-based matchmaking
# Multiplayer achievements
# Cross-platform gameplay

souldaddy wrote:

Live!, for Windows and even the 360, is looking like a rip-off more and more each day.

Nonsense. Without paying a dime, you get the holy Live friends list (something we've been wanting on our PCs since Live launched!), voice chat that doesn't involve herding people onto a server ahead of time, and the single Gamertag username.

You only pay for the ability to get "advanced" matchmaking options ("Quick Game" instead of server browsing, uhm, woo?), multiplayer achievements, and cross-platform play. Other than multiplayer achievements, was anyone really expecting to have these when Live came to PCs?

Isn't Live Silver basically EXACTLY what we've been expecting Live to be on PC? If I didn't have a Gold account already, I would not be compelled to get one, as the ONLY feature I would feel like I was missing was multiplayer achievements.

So I honestly don't get why people keep going on about Live Gold on PC when Silver is 99% of what we wanted.

Now, it sucks that there is so little support for the "platform" at this launch, only two retail titles. But the part about coughing up money is pretty much a non-issue for PC gamers.

I'm still waiting to see what Live for Windows is going to mean to third-party mods and server browsers. If this is like any other Microsoft technologies, I'm sure it will lock out third-party server browsing tools and I'd be very surprised if Live enabled games would allow mods access to their system. If that's the case, I'll never be buying a Live for Windows title. I've always liked Shawn Elliot and kudos to him for showing some teeth with Peter Moore. He usually turns most reporters to jelly. But as usual, the Microsoft reps dodged around the questions and never directly and simply addressed the most difficult ones.

Wow, what a bunch of ass-monkeys.

GFW: One question I put to Peter involved restricting choices. Imagine a Battlefield 3. It's on Games for Windows Live, it has voice-over IP, stat-tracking, and a promotion system. Now, is it true that, at that point, EA or whomever could not provide workarounds for people who purchased the software but not Live subscriptions?
JJR: Short answer to your question is, no, if I heard it correctly. Let me walk through the specifics. Just like we're giving consumers choices, game developers are always going to have choices as well. They can create multiplayer play for Silver users. If they want matchmaking, if they want to take advantage of our zones and achievements, they can add Gold. They're not restricted to one or the other.

GFW: Say they offer Silver and Gold through Live, as you say, but then they also want to provide stat-tracking, matchmaking, medals, and VOIP to people who do not subscribe to Live, period. Can they?
JJR: Game developers are in complete control over what stats they have in game. People who are not Gold, who are just Silver and are not paying anything, are able to access and earn every single-player achievement. With multiplayer achievements, that's where we got into it and asked, how do we make...these worth something? On the console side and also when we were going out and seeing what PC gamers wanted -- they wanted something that was almost auditable or accredited, free from all the hacking and the cheating that's customary in PC games. What's a rank matter if you think everybody above you is hacking? So you want your rank to...I don't have a good word for it....

This one is lovely is as well.

GFW: The reason I keep at this -- and I apologize if it seems like a minor point -- is that concerned developers argue that it comes down to saying, "If we go with GFW Live on this, and if you want to talk to all of your teammates in our game, you'll now need to subscribe to Gold to do so. Once we've agreed to work with Live, they won't let us offer workarounds."
JJR: That's what I'm trying to make clear, we're not removing any choices. We're adding a choice that we think is a premium choice.

Surely, making people pay for something other games offer for free surely is "premium". Seriously, I would have liked to see them doing a solid service, it's something I would pay money for granted it does a lot more than current approaches. But forcing developers down their route and absolutely keeping them from offering alternatives should they like to offer Live support is a typical Microsoft stunt. I hope that third-parties will use the "choice" they have and don't cave in. Sure, you people who already have a Gold account won't care, but from the perspective of a person mostly playing PC games that sounds utterly unappealing.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

I'm still waiting to see what Live for Windows is going to mean to third-party mods and server browsers. If this is like any other Microsoft technologies, I'm sure it will lock out third-party server browsing tools and I'd be very surprised if Live enabled games would allow mods access to their system.

Mods and user created content is something MS is trying to figure out how to leverage even in the console space, not something they want to eradicate. Of course, the concern to work through is that of quality control and, most importantly, preventing any cheating measures. How many online PC games have been outright ruined by aimbots? That alone is worth both my money and living with a more restrictive online gaming service.

I look forward to seeing how MS integrates mods in Live both on consoles and PCs. I'm excited about what's going on with Forza 2, and hopefully success there will lead to much broader integration of user created content, right up to full-blown "mods".

Spunior wrote:

Wow, what a bunch of ass-monkeys.
Surely, making people pay for something other games offer for free surely is "premium". Seriously, I would have liked to see them doing a solid service, it's something I would pay money for granted it does a lot more than current approaches. But forcing developers down their route and absolutely keeping them from offering alternatives should they like to offer Live support is a typical Microsoft stunt. I hope that third-parties will use the "choice" they have and don't cave in. Sure, you people who already have a Gold account won't care, but from the perspective of a person mostly playing PC games that sounds utterly unappealing.

How exactly is anyone being forced? Everything in your quote says you can expect the same exact game options you already have plus the benefits of Live if you pay for it.

Podunk wrote:

Live for Windows as it was announced offers PC to PC multiplayer for free, right? It's just the cross-platform play and matchmaking that you have to pay extra for, right?

I already get PC to PC multiplayer for free with most PC games and have voicechat using TS or vent. The only thing I'm seeing that's of value to me individually in this service is the potential for cross-platform play so I don't have to buy an X-box to play an X-box game. Am I missing something? I'm not being rhetorical- I don't have an X-box so the advantages of the existing X-box Live system are unknown to me.

Live for windows just seems to open up a whole new world of game hack possibilities for the cheaters out there. (Cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater!)

Even saying that. I have to admit that even with the XBOX Live versions of Halo 2, I noticed there was a whole book about how to hack it on Amazon.

Halo2 Hacks: Tips and Tricks for finishing the fight

How exactly is anyone being forced?

Read again. When you decide you make your game Live-compliant, you cannot offer integrated VOIP chat or stats in any other way. You implement either that way or do not support Live. We're talking about functions here other titles already offer at this point. They can make MP Achievements Gold-exclusive for all I care, but features like stats tracking are already done by games nowdays without requiring you to pay for it. In previous interviews they said that they would take into account that PC gaming doesn't work the same way such as a closed network like their own does.

Spunior wrote:
How exactly is anyone being forced?

Read again. When you decide you make your game Live-compliant, you cannot offer integrated VOIP chat or stats in any other way. You implement either that way or do not support Live. We're talking about functions here other titles already offer at this point. They can make MP Achievements Gold-exclusive for all I care, but features like stats tracking are already done by games nowdays without requiring you to pay for it. In previous interviews they said that they would take into account that PC gaming doesn't work the same way such as a closed network like their own does.

so what? If LIVE on Windows brings the same ease of voice integration to the console side I'm all for it.. I think the PC gaming world could use some standards.

Live!, for Windows and even the 360, is looking like a rip-off more and more each day.

How is Live on the 360 a ripoff? Its the best Online service for consoles today.. in fact probably the best online service period. If your finding the $70 a year (less in some cases) a ripoff for Live then your either super frugal or your expectations for what an online service should be are really high. Lets wait and see if Sony matches and surpasses Microsoft in their Online offerings at a $0 price point before declaring Live a ripoff.

On the Windows side I think we have to execute some patience.. Microsoft didnt build up Live on the Xbox side overnight and I'm willing to allow them the same amount of time to see what they bring to the PC side.

As long as there is consumer choice for Live on the PC side I cant see how it can "hurt" PC gaming in any way.

Spunior wrote:
How exactly is anyone being forced?

Read again. When you decide you make your game Live-compliant, you cannot offer integrated VOIP chat or stats in any other way.

Well, unless I'm reading things wrong, that stuff will all be available with a free silver account. The ONLY thing that is restricted to paying gold accounts is multiplayer achievements (which are an ENTIRELY separate concept from stat tracking, promotion, and content unlock systems), Xbox Live "matchmaking" (which is an entirely separate concept from server browsers), and cross platform play.

I've read the details pretty carefully, and I really don't see that using GFW Live will force developers to make their customers pay for anything they already are getting for free. It may force them to set up a free silver account, and maybe that concept is objectionable to some players, but personally I like the idea that if I decide to play a PC game sometime in the future it will offer the same consistency of online experience that I enjoy on the Xbox.

It's obvious that 3rd parties are not chomping at the bit to join the program, which tells me they are going to make Microsoft bend over backwards to prove that they're not trying to take the keys to the car away.

I understand the fears, but given how many different entities need to buy in before it becomes a prevalent platform, I have to believe that's enough of a check and balance to know if a viable system for PC gaming. It could just end up being a compliment to Xbox Live users, or it could completely change the way we play games on the PC. It's up to us and the publishers, all Microsoft can do is build the platform and hope for the best.

For the record: I'm all for anyone replacing Gamespy as the defacto matchmaking system on PC gaming.

I'm not if Live as shown on the 360 is what it switches to. It's not nearly as flexible or customizable and the friends list is far too restrictive. GameSpy isn't perfect but in comparison to how Live does things, it's far better. I want to be able to see a list of available server with their parameters detailed and be able to join the one I click on. I don't want to have to go through cumbersome menus, specifying the options I want in advance and then cycle through single choices endlessly to try to find a game. If Live doesn't allow server browsing in a list-based format, it's inferior to GameSpy.

I want to be able to see a list of available server with their parameters detailed and be able to join the one I click on.

No one ever said server lists were going away. Lazy developers might choose to not use them, but that is quite unlikely, seeing as silver members will need a way to find multiplayer games.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

If Live doesn't allow server browsing in a list-based format, it's inferior to GameSpy.

It will, according to the MS press release.

Well, unless I'm reading things wrong, that stuff will all be available with a free silver account.

Let's say, if that was the case he should have clarified that immediatly in the hypothetical question regarding Battlefield 3. And in the follow-up question he starts babbling about how developers are free to use whatever stats they want, just to talk about how they need to make MP achievements worth something.

If LIVE on Windows brings the same ease of voice integration to the console side I'm all for it.

I'm not against standards, I, however, do not really appreciate the "You're either with us or against us" stance. For instance, when you're using Gamespy you're still free to implement other types of connectivity in addition to that. Were developers given the freedom to do that in the case of Live, it might actually be more embraced. Most of the games will not be plattform exclusive, most of the games also will also be developed for PS3, which means developers will also work on a non-Live build to begin with.

Hats off to GFW and Shawn Elliot, they're asking the right questions.

If Live for Windows is as functional and full-featured as Microsoft claims it will be, I don't think the market will balk at purchasing Gold subscriptions. I understand the principle of the thing, and why it has developers so concerned, but it's ultimately a minor expense for a service that could offer a lot of functionality to PC gamers.

Standardization of the PC landscape obviously comes with its share of drawbacks. I worry a bit about the homogenization of online PC gaming, by Microsoft or anyone else. By the same token I love what Live offers on the 360 (I was skeptical about it at first, as well). Microsoft's sticking their own neck out on this with Halo 2 and Shadowrun, so I guess we'll see how well the service is received. If consumers don't bite, I'm sure developers won't either. I'm betting they'll bite, though, eventually.

Spunior wrote:

Read again. When you decide you make your game Live-compliant, you cannot offer integrated VOIP chat or stats in any other way.

Stats I can understand maybe wanting to roll your own solution.

But I sure as hell WANT developers forced to use Live's voice chat instead of cobbling together their own crap. Having two voice chats splitting the user base would be absolutely moronic.

Having two voice chats splitting the user base would be absolutely moronic.

Well, what if Microsoft is the one to split the user base? Because it's really tricky to parse the answers.

GFW: Yes. And voice-over IP?
JJR: Silver supports private chat via text and voice; you can pull up any person on your friends list and chat with them. Developers are going to have a choice about how they're going to implement these things. The one thing that we're trying to emphasize is that this added choice that we're bringing is better than what's currently out there, and better means [getting] away from the griefing and cheating and hacking that you expect on PC. That's what the people on Xbox appreciate.

This sounds like private chat in the Live interface is possible, but team chat in games isn't.

GFW: The reason I keep at this -- and I apologize if it seems like a minor point -- is that concerned developers argue that it comes down to saying, "If we go with GFW Live on this, and if you want to talk to all of your teammates in our game, you'll now need to subscribe to Gold to do so. Once we've agreed to work with Live, they won't let us offer workarounds."
JJR: That's what I'm trying to make clear, we're not removing any choices. We're adding a choice that we think is a premium choice.

Which, if this was the case, could boil down to Silver and Gold members having to use a non-Live solution to communicate when playing together.

MS absolutely deserves to be lambasted over Live For Windows. The services, games, and pricing are an absolutely joke.

Morrolan wrote:

MS absolutely deserves to be lambasted over Live For Windows. The services, games, and pricing are an absolutely joke.

Gotta lot of time with Shadowrun huh? How about we wait until its actually released.

I don't think I said anything about the quality of Shadowrun. When I said games, I meant the number of them.

I dont' think Live on Windows will take off. I think developers are scared of MS control and I think gamers are scared they'll have to pay for things they didn't have to before. Also for many online pcgaming is superior to Live.

There's a catch-22 here too, in that developers aren't going to be too excited about using Live until a userbase shows up and a userbase won't show up until there's lots of games on it. ON the 360 MS is holding a gun to your head. Pay or don't play. That's not the case on the pc.

Morrolan wrote:

I don't think I said anything about the quality of Shadowrun. When I said games, I meant the number of them.

ok next time I'll do a better job of mind reading.

TheGameguru wrote:
Morrolan wrote:

I don't think I said anything about the quality of Shadowrun. When I said games, I meant the number of them.

ok next time I'll do a better job of mind reading.

See that you do.