Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is Screwing Up Live on Vista
Joe The Dragon wrote with a link to an ExtremeTech article lambasting Microsoft for its confusing rollout of the Live service on the PC. While the vision of achievements, a gamerscore, a consistent friends list, and one sprawling multiplayer network is tantalizing, the reality falls somewhat short of that goal. "The biggest mistake Microsoft is making with Live on the PC is the way they're treating the PC as if it's a console platform they can control. They're trying to lock out the rest of the world and to charge for features that PC gamers have had for free for ages. It's a shortsighted, greedy scheme that could only come from a product manager or VP who simply doesn't "get" PC gaming. The free Silver level of Xbox Live lets you log in on the PC and earn Achievements just like you do on the 360--but only single-player Achievements. Multiplayer Achievements are only for those $50-a-year Gold members. Player matchmaking is for Gold members only. Voice in games is for Gold members only. Cross-platform play between 360 and PC is for Gold members only. In fact, the only thing silver members can really do is view a server list and hop onto a specific server." Article author Jason Cross warns Microsoft at the end of the piece that it is 'not too late' to turn things around. Vista is still a young platform, and once driver issues are ironed out and Vista becomes the standard there are still opportunities for success.
What, right now? Which channel is it on?
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
When I first saw this, I thought it was a videocast: "Watch MS screw up LIVE!!"
u-bend
A bit OT, I know, but every time I see a Vista story on Slashdot, I think of the line from Bill Cosby's act, "Let the beatings begin!"
And I smile...
Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
microsoft thinking they own and can control the PC platform like it's a console? Is anyone really surprised by this? It's probably the number one reason to not support microsoft (even by running pirated copies) in any way. This is the same kind of crap they do in every business they try to force their way into and all it does is degrade the user experience AND cost more.
Maybe I'll start up an XBL-like service for Linux that actually works and is open. So I'll finally be able to tell if my friends are playing Tux Racer or Tux Kart!
The Farewell Tour II
As a PC gamer, I sincerely hope it fails. Battle.net was the first example of free online play, but other games are following suit. Microsoft is pulling this shit right as it's become standard for RTS's (at least) to include a free online service. In addition to that, it'll create more lock-in for gamers. The upside is that it'll standardize things like in-game voice chat and online play, but it isn't enough.
A while back, there was info on TF2 that stated PC gamers would get cross-platform battles with the 360 users. I do not know how the online works for the 360, so if this Live is something separatly implemented selectivly in Online support, I would not know. But from my understanding, it would seem that only the gold Xbox 360 users would get to face PC users in TF2. More over, does this mean that we PC users will only have access to 360 users via this Live on PC (and thus through Vista?) Anyone with a better understanding of Live and the cross-platform agreement, that could enlighten me? What a pity if it is true; I was looking foreward to pounding the consolers.
Demented But Determined.
and other free things that pc games have had for a long time. That want to lock things down to there way and as it is that will be very bad for pc gaming. EA games likes to nickel and dime you on there xbox 360 games.
It would suck to have a MMORPG type game where you would have to pay The full cost of game, live gold, the games Monthly Fee, and live points for content updates.
M$ need back down on pushing game to be dumbed down to support xbox controllers, be more open to cheaper ESRB stile ratings organizations, support the use of user made mods and user made maps online with out any kind of lock down, Let developers have games that can be Cross-platform with pc - xbox 360 - mac os x - ps3, and so on.
Some of the Platform standards for a games of windows are good but they should add a common update system that is easy for games and other apps to use and is free for developers to use to make easy to keep all of your games up to date.
that Live is dying?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
If it is just matchmaking and a score-board, yeah $50 is a bit much. But if Microsoft is hosting the games on their servers and checking to make sure nobody is cheating (as much as you can for PC games), then it might be worth the $4.25 a month they want.
I do agree however, that they *need* the Live interface to be part of Vista and not just something that you run from inside games. Being able to see if my friends are playing a certain game while I'm downloading porn...um, checking my email would be nice.
My bet is that Live Vista will suck for the first couple of months. In a year, it will be acceptable. And in 2 to 3 years it will become the standard. Being able to see that your friend is playing Shadowrun while you are playing WoW will be the killer app.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Who is Live anyway?
No sig for now.
MS probably got the idea when they saw that PC gamers will happily pay $2 for horse armor! >:(
I wish idiots like these people will get over themselves and get their facts straight.
Lets look at his claim:
". They're trying to lock out the rest of the world and to charge for features that PC gamers have had for free for ages."
Lets check his facts:
"Multiplayer Achievements are only for those $50-a-year Gold members."
Name a game, any game, on PC, that has achievments BEFORE live came out.
"Player matchmaking is for Gold members only."
Very few, if any, on PC, have "TrueSkill"-esque matchmaking. Infact, most PC games offer a server list, and make it up to you to find your own fun...
"Voice in games is for Gold members only."
Again, very minute crop of games have built in voice chat. 99.99% of PC multiplayer games use a keyboard for talking...
"Cross-platform play between 360 and PC is for Gold members only."
Which PC games before had this? None? Oh thats right... idiot.
"In fact, the only thing silver members can really do is view a server list and hop onto a specific server."
How is this different from the millions of other online shooters et al.?
Seriously, this is just once again, complete morons who hear "MS is charging for online on PC" and jump the shark and spew shit. They don't even know wtf they are talking about.
How is this a problem? If the free Silver account allows you to freely view and join servers, just the same as most PC games do now, how are you losing anything? Are you bitching that adding extras like matchmaking and voice chat, not to mention a mechanism to ban known cheaters, will cost you less than 5 bucks a month?
The vast majority of current PC games supporting free multiplayer seem to provide the same thing that the free Silver account will. Also keep in mind that the Account is the same for your Xbox 360 and original XBox. Personally, having one consistant identity, with the same reputation and buddy list, across 3 different platforms is pretty much worth the money to me already.
The arguement in the article seems to be "Some PC games provide some of this functionality for free, therefore any system bringing it all together should be free too!"
Get xFire. Free, does the same thing, and it can patch your games for you. Who needs a scoreboard when companies like EA do it for free and make the info publicly available.
Microsoft have decided to put a "Windows Live" icon on the Mac version of MSN Messenger. It doesn't do anything, it's not clickable or selectable in any way as far as I can tell.
It was added in one of the annoyingly regular 'you must upgrade NOW or you'll never be allowed on MSN again' updates that Microsoft like to do for no clear reason (as opposed to the spurious 'upgrade to the latest version' messages that you get when someone tries to send you an animated gif that tries to get you to install the PC version).
Does anyone know why it's there?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
While most of your points make sense, it's hard to take seriously someone who blasts others for not having their facts straight and then uses the phrase "jump the shark" in a way wholly incompatible with its meaning. Check Wikipedia and UrbanDictionary.
I thought Windows Live Gold was free to anyone who already had XBox Live Gold? Isn't that sort of the whole point? You already have an XBox, but maybe you want the PC version of Oblivion versus the Console version? While I understand that there are people out there who don't own an XBox and might just want to be able to play Halo 3 with their buddies, most of the people that I know that want this already have an XBox and XBox Live...so I guess I just don't see the big deal on the price.
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
"Name a game, any game, on PC, that has achievments BEFORE live came out."
Battlefield 2
"Very few, if any, on PC, have "TrueSkill"-esque matchmaking. Infact, most PC games offer a server list, and make it up to you to find your own fun..."
There are pc games with skill based match making. Microsoft's very own Rise Of Nations for example.
"Again, very minute crop of games have built in voice chat. 99.99% of PC multiplayer games use a keyboard for talking..."
Bit of an exaggeration. Many games have voice chat in addition to keyboard. Of course 99.9% of console games are unable to use the keyboard for talking.
"Which PC games before had this? None? Oh thats right... idiot."
I'm pretty sure there are one or two games that have done this before.
"I wish idiots like me would get over themselves and get their facts straight."
Can't disagree with that one.
Apparently MS hasn't heard of T.E.N. -- Total Entertainment Network.
For a brief year or so, before network games were fully Internet-enabled, they provided a service to allow LAN-only games to piggyback over the Internet protocols, and use their servers for games and meetings for games. Things like Duke Nukem 3D were a standard there. So was Quake (although it was Internet-enabled, T.E.N. was a big enough meeting place that the service adopted it.)
Anyhoo, they charged $10/month, but went out of business after a year and a half or two because new games were coming out, all Internet-enabled from the start, with their own server find utilities. Nobody needed it anymore. Good day, sir!
The PC world is not the same captive audience as console games, so the only draw for the PC crowd would be to hook up with the masses of console players.
I do wonder, though, if any FPS games between PC and console players will once and for all establish the dominance of the "mouser".
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Except online PS2/PS3 games, the majority of which do support keyboard chat.
I hope Live dies; it's a ridiculous idea to pay money for something that you already get for free with every damn game with multiplayer. Achievement points? Who gives a fuck? If that's what amuses the X-Box monkey then good for them, but I certainly don't care. I just want to play my games on multiplayer for free, and that's what I'm already getting.
Day and Age -- I've noticed a trend with online gaming-it's a way to make steady revenue for providers, and in turn developers alike. People seem to be more than willing to pay for it. I'm a bit of a pirate, have been for a long, long, long time. Sure I buy games, but I play about a 50/50 mix of games bought (many used) vs games downloaded/emulated. When I was a kid and playing games on the TRS, Apple IIe, C64, hell even the 286/386 we weren't always buying games, we'd copy them once someone bought them and then install them. Even when I played Atari 2600 as a child, or later NES and SNES - friends and myself would trade games instead of everyone having to have all the same games. Gaming companies have been losing revenue due to thrifty consumers like myself for decades. Now with a service like Live or the MMORPG these age-old, tried and true frugal game-playing methods don't apply so much and they can make a lot of money with LIVE or a WOW type game beyond initial sales. Get used to it people, Microsoft is just one of many that have found a way to make more money in this day and age, they're not the exception and these trends will continues. When it's become as easy for 8 year old Jimmy on Mom's Packard bell to avoid buying every title or get a ROMdevice or modchip etc etc, as a guy like myself that's been stretching his dollar since Space Invaders, then it's high time game developers and providers find other ways to make a living. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.
Gaming for over 25 years
This is for folks like me, who don't touch their PC's for gaming. The only multi-experience I have is on Xbox Live. If Microsoft can extend the subscription that I already have onto a home PC or my laptop at work, I might be tempted to do more PC gaming... especially when I have to travel with work. Rather than a "greedy" move, it seems pretty smart to me. I get more out of my current subscription and maybe use my home PC for more than a hyped-up Internet browser.
Just to be able to play cross platform games. I have a number of friends that are console gamers. Well, I'm not, and not likely to become one. However Id' love to play online with them. If Live lets me do that, I'll sign up and a monthly fee is just fine. Also, it isn't like it fucks over existing PC games. Those that want to do their own networking (ie any non-cross platform game) will still do so.
I'd be pissed if MS was saying all games had to use it, but they aren't. IT is jsut being made available so that the great many cross PC-Xbox games can play together.
Somehow i don't see SOE and Blizzard are going to even need live as MMO's run on servers that microsoft has no authority/control over. So MMO games like Everquest 2 and World of Warcraft will very likely not be affected by this at all. Even for games like Quake Wars and Crysis, the developers can still choose to implement an in-game server browser/hosting, and that will be free to us, also anyone can host their own dedicated Linux server and anyone can connect to. As for Valve's Steam platform, well thats separate too, how is that gonna work with Live!? its not, its Steam, Valve own steam, not Microsoft, and currently all of Valves games run through Steam (and future releases will as well due to its success), Live! will just be another service similar to GameSpy or some crap, you wont NEED it to play, just it will be a perk for certain games that don't already have their own system such as Steam or SOE's Station/Launchpad.
They're trying to lock out the rest of the world and to charge for features that PC gamers have had for free for ages.
Wow, who could have seen that coming?
I love how this article neglected to mention the fact that IF YOU HAVE AN XBOX LIVE GOLD ACCOUNT YOU DON'T NEED TO COUGH UP MORE CASH!
although he pretty much just hit the nail on the head if I buy Halo 2 or Shadowrun I'll just keep using Ventrilo and Xfire
Oh, yes, no PC game has ever charged for an add on pack with additional maps and other content.
Unfortunately you spend most of your time talking to yourself.
M$ wants to get rid of the free add ons and make you user there point system to buy them.
Just install Vista on your PC!
(Charges may apply.)
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Actually, creative and many other larger companies seem to follow the idealogy that it's better to get a product out the door, and then drop proper support for it as soon as the next one hits the shelves. Is it really that time-consuming or difficult to port a driver for "card X" when they've already figured out how to work the Vista security model for "card Y?" No, but it's not worth Creative's time when they could be selling newer stuff to customers.
Creative, and many others, have never been good at re-porting old stuff. Smaller companies often seem to do better at this, perhaps because they have less products overally and less new, superduperubercard releases (so they support the older ones a little better). Of course, the issue with many of these companies possibly being semi-nonexistent nowadays does arise.
This only affects MS games, not everyone else. Name one massive hit that MS games has put out. Sure MS Flight Sim is huge in its niche but people that play this game are already hyped to shell out more money to improve their experience. Where is MS's killer FPS? (ok Halo II but that is a port that should have been done 2 years ago they sand bagged it for Vista) MMO that did not fail? I am in the Industry on the PC side and really this is nothing. This whole Live thing on the PC is just a way to make it look like PC gameing is still viable. Look at dollars spent PC gaming is not dieing, just shelf space, as EB/Gamestop reduces PC shelf space because their profit model does not work with PC's just consoles. They want people to buy, return for minimal credit, then resell at a slight discount from the New version. This just does not work with PC software.
The future of PC games is online distribution. Why make a gamer that is already on the internet go to a store, they read the game news and reviews online, they can buy from an online retailer or direct download from Steam or Direct to Drive like services.
Microsoft is just feeding the feeling of PC games going downhill to pimp out this live service that no-one really cares about. How many gamers are on Vista with the game compatiblity problems, and performance hit that appears on Vista vs XP....
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
"the only thing silver members can really do is view a server list and hop onto a specific server"
you lucky, lucky bastard! try being a silver member on xbox live. you can't even do that.
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
Microsoft wants to maximize profitiability (they are a business, what do you expect?)
To do so they ship a variety of updates for games, some of which are free and some of which are not. Bug fixes are free (you see xbox games update for bug fixes and game balance improvements all the time), some features are free or provided via promotion (effectively ad supported but the only ad is that the description says who sponsored it.) The first new gears maps were provided this way (free, sponsored by some other company, I don't remember who.)
The approach for the latest round of new maps for gears was to charge for them for a few months, then make them free. Charging makes money directly. Making them free makes money because it adds buzz which results in more sales of the original game. Bungie and Microsoft disagreed over which approach would make the most money, but they both had the same goal (to make the most money.)
Crackdown has a similar situation. A bug fix update (free, and mandatory for continued online play like they all are), a free feature update which adds some new features, and a pay feature update which offers even more content for a price.
It's hard to see what's "wrong" with any of this. The market is definitely changing as content updates are now provided online. When you had to ship a box to a store for an expansion pack it had to be big and you had to charge for it. Now that you can update software far more often and with less expense we are seeing more updates, smaller updates, some free, some not.