Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft is Screwing Up Live on Vista

Posted by Zonk on from the get-with-the-program dept.

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.

10 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Re:standard? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And how, exactly, is that going to happen with people actively turning back to XP in droves?

    Get real, this is only temporary. Once Microsoft has patched Vista enough to make it vaguely palatable, and newer PCs ship with enough extra oomph to run the OS as fast as XP on today's hardware, people will just get used to it. Don't kid yourself, the forced upgrade scheme will be going as planned.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  2. Re:standard? by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Get real, this is only temporary.
    Device drivers for certain types of devices have to be completely rewritten for Vista, or the hardware won't work. Creative is one company that's stated that only the very newest hardware will be supported on Vista... all other hardware that's just a little older will never be supported on Vista... that's not temporary, that's a permanent loss of support for hardware. And if Creative (a larger, more well-off company) won't rewrite most of its recent drivers for Vista, how are smaller companies going to fare?
  3. I hope this fails by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I hope this fails by powerlord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Standardize online play, humm, lets think, what company has already done this?

      Yeah, thats right, Steam and Stardock both have these features (well, ok, not voice chat, but the other things). Both are free, cross-platform, and supported by many, many developers.

      Congrats M$, for entering a market where not only do you have two strong competetors, but you offer a clearly inferior service for vast amounts more money.


      Yeah ... except:

      1) Everyone knows who MS is, and anyone interested in gaming has probably heard about Live! (as well as anyone with even basic familiarity of an XBox 360). While Steam may have the same sort of recognition, Stardock doesn't (even though its a great system).

      2) Vista will probably have the Live! starter pushed down as a required update (like IE7 was for XP), and/or require its inclusion and support for a "Games For Windows" logo. Next thing you know its the de-facto standard, and even Stardock and Steam will probably have to play "catch up", or support Live! in some way.

      Its amazing what having a monopoly will let you do in a marketplace, and MS certainly has a monopoly in the desktop arena. Of course if I was Stardock and Steam, I would be pushing for court orders to require Live! to be optional based on illegal tie-ing. That won't actually STOP MS (unless a court officer decides they need to spin off the games division ... an interesting choice and one that could work), but it MIGHT slow them down a little.
      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  4. M$ Wants to you to pay for mods, maps, addons..... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  5. Is it just matchmaking? by PhoenixOne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Is it just matchmaking? by fistfullast33l · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's an incredibly expensive investment on Microsoft's end. Why host the servers yourself? Even Sony, who's launching Home for free, isn't hosting content on their server, it's P2P. As for detecting cheating, that would require access to source code that I'm sure most 3rd parties won't be willing to give up. I doubt they're doing game hosting and cheat detection.

    2. Re:Is it just matchmaking? by PhoenixOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Detecting cheating doesn't require access to source code.

      --
      Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
  6. Lets get our **** straight before we talk, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Lets get our **** straight before we talk, plea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "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.