Slashdot Mirror
Games For Windows Live Update Coming Soon
CVG is reporting that Microsoft will soon be rolling out an update to the Games for Windows Live service, their PC gaming equivalent of Xbox Live. Service improvements include offline achievement tracking, a 'joinable' notation near online friends, and some UI enhancements. "Nothing Earth shattering, but its nice to see Microsoft committed to something in the PC department anyway. The last patch (that's 1.1) in case you forgot about it, added DirectX 10 and Windows XP support for future titles along with a plethora of error reporting features. According to Microsoft, it's just the beginning: 'We've come a long way since announcing the vision of Live across multiple Microsoft platforms last year,' reads its pristine press release, 'and are committed to continually refining and bringing future functionality to Games for Windows - Live.'"
As someone who until about a year ago was a long-time primarily PC gamer, I can see why many fellow PC gamers can't fathom why you would pay £40 a year (works out cheaper in the USA) just to play games online, since as you said PC gamers have been getting that for free for decades now. To be honest, I can't put my finger on it. I got a 360 in January and dutifully made my Live account and played a little bit of Gears online during my first free month, and then didn't bother resubscribing. Over the next few months I got the Gamertags of other friends who had 360s and quietly played my games on my own with the occasional voicechat with a friend.
I think the game that did it was Worms, I decided that since it was apparently really good fun I would get a year of Live as well, and I planned to play my 360 a lot more in the summer so figured I'd get good use out of it. Sadly, my home connection got really bad around that time but in the last couple of months I've been on Live almost every day. Halo 3 obviously means a lot more friends are online than usual, but I've also been experimenting with games I wouldn't normally try (like Burnout) and discovering the online play is fantastic.
What sets it above Sony and Nintendo's services? Well Nintendo's is almost non-existent due to a lack of online games and a lack of infrastructure (friends codes? Please...) - I have a Wii btw and really like the few AAA titles available in the UK - and from what I've heard (from customers we get in work, I have no friends who own a PS3) Sony's service only seems really good to people who haven't experienced Live.
My advice, if you want to give it another go, is to collect Gamertags of friends and arrange to play a game you really like one night. Then find a 48 hour trial code (in loads of 360 games, or get one from a friend), and have a decent session of at least a couple of hours play. Your mileage may vary depending on whether the game has a decent multiplayer mode, but when Live is good it's really good.
Despite the fact that most of the games I play on 360 are singleplayer (Oblivion - Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect shortly), having a gold membership there is really worthwhile to me for when I play online even just once a week and the cost works out at less than the price of admission to a movie once a month - and there doesn't seem to be anything good on at the movies these days! Would I like the Live service to be free as long as the quality of service stayed the same? Damn straight. Do I weep when I look at how badly Nintendo have got their online service wrong and wish I could pay £40 a year to make it as good as Live? Definitely.
/apologies for length, and sounding a bit like a fanboy (which I'm not, or if I am I'm a fanboy of almost every platform).