Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox Gaming Platform To Span Web, Console, Mobile

Posted by Soulskill on from the triple-threat dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "According to a job posting from August 10, 2009, Microsoft is looking for a LIVE Community Director in the Entertainment & Devices Division. The job posting seems to suggest that Microsoft is looking to bring the Xbox Live, Windows Mobile, and other similar properties closer together. More specifically, there's talk of a 'casual and social gaming platform' that would be available via more than just one device: 'The LIVE Engagement Team is looking for a LIVE Community Director to manage its LIVE community strategy and execution across a range of properties, from Xbox LIVE to Windows Mobile. This senior position will play a vital role in the community space as the LIVE Engagement team builds and program's Microsoft's next-generation, LIVE-enabled casual and social gaming platform across the Web, the console, mobile and beyond.' The first key responsibility listed in the job posting is to '[d]evelop a community strategy that leverages all parts of the LIVE Services team to deliver scenarios and engagement across three screens.'"

33 comments

  1. Platform? by WiiVault · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How could things as different as mobile, web, and console gaming ever be part of the same platform? Unless by platform they mean made by MS.

    1. Re:Platform? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      by platform they are referring to "Live" as the platform, platform does not have to mean OS. So having Xbox live available on everything.

    2. Re:Platform? by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Well, I think they have in mind more the PSP + PSIII or mac + iPhone type of thing in mind, but with windows with some directX with a ÂmobileÂversion, very much like the .net framework separates the stuff not supported on mobile os's and clearly mark them for you.

      Its not perfect and Im not sure the mass for winCE/WinMob is really there to make it as big as their competitors. I do think that XBox got the colaborative gaming idea very well in the first place and that this is going to be interesting to see.

      --
      NO SIG
    3. Re:Platform? by Locutus · · Score: 1

      yes and finding a reason for Windows Mobile to exist since it is really starting to lose share and they really can't dump more $$$ into paying vendors to use it. It sounds like what they would like to have is a Facebook kind of social network phenomenon but with a gaming tie-in. Think mining for gold in common areas of the game and while you are typing, you're not only mining but also conversing with other miners.

      It's and interesting concept but can Windows Mobile hold up to the resource demands of such interactive and connected resource usage?

      I see this as Microsoft starting to figure out how to get enough money coming in from its many money losing products to pull them off of the Windows teat. IMO

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    4. Re:Platform? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Windows Mobile is a perfectly capable operating system for small devices. Where it falls down is in stability, which makes it marginally acceptable on a PDA (although long boot times are unbearable IMO - Ubuntu netbook remix boots faster than WinCE on many modern devices!) But it's not acceptable on a phone. And if it's not good for phones, then it doesn't have the scope to be worth supporting.

      Windows Mobile is a clear winner in terms of what you're able to do with currently-released phones. Other than that it has no reason to exist. If Android takes off it will "fucking kill" Windows Mobile.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Platform? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean LIVE, since it appears every usage of the word LIVE must be in capital letLIVEters...

    6. Re:Platform? by tepples · · Score: 1

      And if it's not good for phones, then it doesn't have the scope to be worth supporting.

      Yet the operating systems on Sony's PSP and Nintendo DSi don't have GSM/UMTS telephony. I read the summary and the first thing I thought of was "Xboy".

      If Android takes off it will "fucking kill" Windows Mobile.

      As far as I know, Windows Mobile still has more professionally made apps than Android.

    7. Re:Platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      patience young grasshopper, after all windows mobile has had wayyyy more time on the market to improve itself. Time will tell if Android can pick up sales and more apps.

    8. Re:Platform? by tepples · · Score: 1

      patience young grasshopper, after all windows mobile has had wayyyy more time on the market to improve itself. Time will tell if Android can pick up sales and more apps.

      Likewise: "patience young grasshopper, after all desktop windows has had wayyyy more time on the market to improve itself. Time will tell if desktop Linux can pick up sales and more apps." Well, over the past decade, desktop Linux hasn't picked up enough sales in Slashdot's home market of the United States to challenge Mac OS X, let alone Windows. So I wouldn't necessarily bet the farm on Android.

    9. Re:Platform? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yet the operating systems on Sony's PSP and Nintendo DSi don't have GSM/UMTS telephony. I read the summary and the first thing I thought of was "Xboy".

      3D support on Windows Mobile is essentially a joke. It has never had to be serious and it never will have to be since Microsoft has an NT-based 'embedded' product. The operating system in the Xbox 360 is heavily based on Windows NT, just as that in the Xbox is based on Windows 95 (though Microsoft representatives have denied both of these things repeatedly, prior to the release of each system other reps were crowing about leveraging Windows for game consoles) and it would be a far more logical choice going forward to use NT Embedded, and abandon the aging Windows CE code base entirely.

      As far as I know, Windows Mobile still has more professionally made apps than Android.

      At one time there were more professionally made applications for CP/M than for DOS. We know how that turned out...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Marketing rant by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can we please stop using BiCapitalization, using ALL CAPS for a name, and prefacing everything with either e, i, or x?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Marketing rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      XcusE mE iDon't know what you mEan.

    2. Re:Marketing rant by girlintraining · · Score: 0

      XcusE mE iDon't know what you mEan.

      iDie.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. dasterbin by dasterbin · · Score: 1

    What the difference between Xbox Live, Windows Mobile, and other similar properties? Dazzle White Pro

  4. I thought this was already in the process... by Rhoon · · Score: 2, Informative

    With Microsoft's XNA programming wrappers for the DirectX SDK, I thought this was already in the process of happening. XNA games already run on the XBox 360, Windows and Zune. The next logical step is to take it into the mobile community much like iPod apps work on the iPhone. In reality this shouldn't be that big of a surprise to anyone.

    --
    "If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door." - Paul Beatty
    1. Re:I thought this was already in the process... by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you have misinterpreted their goal. They are trying to create one platform that all "MS" Devices can access, not one code base that can run on all devices which as you correctly summized already exists to some extent. The intent is shared content, friends, contacts, movies, games etc all accessible from your live "platform" regardless of what device you happy to be using at the time.

  5. Who knows, maybe they will get a LIVE person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knows, maybe they will get a LIVE person...

  6. Already in place for PC games by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Burnout Paradise (The Ultimate Box), and Warhammer 40k Dawn of War II for the PC require a Windows LIVE account to play online. In fact, Warhammer is especially annoying in that *requires* both Steam and Windows LIVE just so I can play a local campaign by myself.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Already in place for PC games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and other games too, but Microsoft clearly doesn't care about Games for Windows Live as can be seen by the glaring omission of Party Chat and viewing Friends of Friends in the client (despite these having been in the 360 version for some time now).

      Basically, Microsoft is only updating GFWL to allow for new DLC for Fallout 3. Now that they're done, I don't expect any updates at all for a long time.

    2. Re:Already in place for PC games by Turiko · · Score: 1

      yes, and because of the windows live bullshit, i never buy any game that has it, except a few rare exceptions. One before i knew what it was and the other, gears of war, being too good a game. Basically, my money has been going to any corporation that know how to decently make a game (like gaspowered games, blizzard,...) that hasn't given in to MS' "sponsoring".

  7. First step... by s0litaire · · Score: 1
    ...Oddly enough Microsoft announced a deal with Nokia to produce a mobile version of Office for the Symbian OS

    Might this deal be a dipping of the toe for MS and Nokia?

    Will they collaborate to produce a Symbian based phone for Windows xBox mobile gaming?

    Might MS tie into Nokia's NGage platform...

    Might an unholy alliance between MS and Nokia topple the Jesus phone?

    --
    Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    1. Re:First step... by CodeInspired · · Score: 1
      My guess is that Silverlight Mobile might be the key. (http://silverlight.net/learn/mobile.aspx) They actually mention the Nokia S60 right on their FAQ.

      Q: Will Silverlight for mobile plug-in on Windows Mobile be any different from the one on Nokia S60?
      A: Silverlight provides a consistent experience across the Web and mobile devices. The same Silverlight applications should work on both Windows Mobile and Nokia S60 devices.

  8. Correction by supernes · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, I know for certain that Burnout doesn't. It requires an EA online account and is not a GFWL game, at least in Europe. The worst offender by far is GTA IV, which requires a useless Rockstar Social Club account, a Xbox Live account, and then there's the process of linking those together.

    1. Re:Correction by Fumus · · Score: 1

      And if you were unfortunate enough to buy GTA IV via Steam then you need that as well.

  9. They've tried this and failed already by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    the Games for Windows BS was all about bring live to the PC and there were talks about bringing it to Win Mobile devices too. As far as I know, no Win mobile device is live capable and Games for Windows failed and I don't expect that to change.

    1. Re:They've tried this and failed already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Games for Windows failed and I don't expect that to change."

      The Games for Windows Live project has barely even gotten started, they've only just implemented the online activation stuff and proper marketplace support that most publishers want from that kind of services. Despite that it's had successes with some pretty major titles like Dawn of War II and Stormrise. Their mobile platform for live is the Zune HD, which isn't even out yet.

      HTF can they have failed when they haven't even really started yet? The Xbox is the only real live platform that's been pushed mainstream and it's been a massive success in that it's the biggest online gaming community in the world. That, coupled with the fact it's trivial for 360 developers to port to the PC and keep the Windows Live features gives them a massive footing for their goal.

      When a company announces they're going to do something that doesn't mean it has to be an instant success that minute or it's a failure, it does take time for them to actually, you know, go ahead and implement and roll out their ideas you know.

    2. Re:They've tried this and failed already by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      the Games for Windows BS was all about bring live to the PC and there were talks about bringing it to Win Mobile devices too. As far as I know, no Win mobile device is live capable and Games for Windows failed and I don't expect that to change.

      Originally, the intent of LIVE was to bring together a way for people to get together for multiplayer games. Sure you have the solution that people used until then (one of the million "server browsers" and OOB communications to arrange a server/time to meet up), but LIVE is used so you add your friends, and can spontaneously play a game if you happen to be online together without worrying about server or other crap. Invite them to your game, and go play.

      Games for Windows is different. Games for Windows is a certification mark, like "Designed for Windows", "PlaysForSure", and the like. As a certification, it carries certain requirements, notably the game must support the Xbox360 controller as a valid input mechanism. Games for Windows LIVE is a step up, which means that it uses the LIVE service for multiplayer gaming/stat tracking/multiple player play (the latter meaning you and your sibling/spouse/friend/coworker/etc can play the same game, but on a different "profile" so your save games don't collide, when they lose it doesn't affect your stats, etc).

      Aa for Steam and LIVE requirements - it means the game was probably published with LIVE service in mind (it's just a few libraries you add to your build). Then the publisher decided it would be best if they not only sold their own retail box version, but also offered it up in Steam. Valve offers what's effectively an executable wrapper that will take an existing product and make it compatible with Steam without integrating Steam into the source. End result is you need your Steam account (to ensure you "own" a copy of the game), but then the game requires LIVE because it was originally coded that way. The retail boxed version probably doesn't have the Steam requirement. (I'm guessing the workflow is the developer releases the product to the publisher, who then adds the CD/DVD DRM and presses the discs for the retail build. For Steam, the publisher takes the product and then adds the Steam DRM and publishes it to the Steam service).

      The other LIVE thing where you have to have an account is somewhat strange, since proper sites (like Bungie) use the LIVE login mechanism (part of the "one ID to rule them all" passport goal, and they can automatically link your LIVE account with their services to use your LIVE/passport/hotmail/etc. login.

      And Games for Windows LIVE games should allow you to create a local profile that doesn't require any account creation. You just can't play multiplayer with it (probably the biggest downside since moving save games from a local LIVE profile to the networked LIVE profile requires moving files around...). Microsoft updates the LIVE clients often, so your game may be using an old one...

  10. Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who read "Xbox Gaming Platform To SPAM Web, Console, Mobile"?

  11. The reality is...... by wernox1987 · · Score: 1

    I have an Xbox and I'm going to pay my $50/yr to use live. It would be nice if that experience, games like the online version of 1vs100, the facebook integration that's coming, and just the general messaging services of Live itself, could be extended more thouroughly to my PC and mobile device. The trick is, I won't pay any extra, or for seperate access to all three platforms. I also won't pay $5 for a lightsaber for my avatar.

  12. It's all about the $$ by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Microsoft is trying to monetize all multi-player gaming (and eliminate piracy) by creating an extremely large pay-to-access community for multi-player gaming software -- which also acts as a central authentication hub.

    They began with a captive console audience and forced them to pay for multi-player gaming on their Xbox consoles, because PC users wouldn't pay. They now wish to expand on this user-base with people on other platforms. The idea is that once their user-base reaches a certain critical mass, game developers will be practically forced/obligated to build LIVE-ONLY multi-player into their products, including the PC versions.

    This job offering is simply the beginning of the next stage in that plan.

  13. Achievement Points and Gamerscore by Crock23A · · Score: 1

    If I could boost my gamerscore by playing some bejewelled knockoff on my windows mobile phone, I'll be a happy camper. Those achievements are like a crack addiction and all video game companies know it.

  14. Rad by Phoenixlol · · Score: 0

    After hearing about and seeing all the possiblilities of apps on the iPhone I believe this is a very logical step for Microsoft. If they can (effectively, intelligently, and competently) integrate those kinds of apps and games with xBox Live we could see some cool shit for WM soon.