It's amazing isn't it. You try to tell these corporations but, will they listen? hell no!

So Microsoft, now that you've heard it from your intended audience, your development partners and now the gaming press. Will you get your ears cleaned out and finally listen. We PC gamers will not pay for a service we already have and we could give a flying fig about playing against console owners so why are you trying to make us?

Right on, man, right on.

Epic get +2 respect. Good work.

Arrrgh, stupid non editable comment system system.

Epic gets +2 respect.

^HA! Considering your second attempt, an editing system may need to be implemented just for you.

And yeah, props to Epic for sticking it to the man.

-Kye

Thanks for doing a story about this. I wondered why this was news no one was covering as it's an issue that should be very important to gamers. I really have to wonder how MS could possible try to spin this into something thats good for anyone other them them. Bad for gamers, bad for games. The problem is that XBL already proved that there's enough people willing to pay to make charging viable, so I'm afriad there isn't much we can do if good devs agree to MS's conditions. Thank you Epic for putting gamers first.

I find it fantastic that game companies are fighting to develop and release their games their way. That any plan to the contrary's being presented seems assinine to me.

@dnzperson: system system.

Oh, fuck.

So, real people and Epic think alike.

I like this.

If Epic thought the way real people thought, then they'd have finished UT3 for the PC by now instead of wasting time developing it for consoles.

*bitch, whine, moan, wants UT3 already goddamnit!*

I'm sorry, I love epic, but its fucking annoying when Epic and 3/4 of the damn public are completly blind. MS are NOT CHARGING FOR ANYTHING THAT PC GAMERS GOT FREE BEFORE. You can play PC 2 PC for free still (you just need an account, just like with gamespy, and every other damn matchmaking service on the face of existence) all they are charging for is the privilege of playing X360 gamers (who, by the way, are already charged for a flawless service). How is this hard to understand, we have all screamed this for the past few months now...

Wait, MS want to charge $ for access to their GFW Live service ???

Will this Live service be the only way to play multiplayer across the PC platform from GFW publishers, or is the cost purely a cross-platform access cost ?

Hows that work ?

This all seems to me like a big tug of war. Consoles are trying to be PC's and PC's are trying to be consoles-- at least for what MS is trying to push here, which evidently won't be so successful. Consoles are consoles because of the pre-set standards set upon them, and PCs are PCs because of their vast expanse of freedom.

Besides, if you want a service similar to XBL without the cross-compatibility BS, there's always XFire.

If this integration into Vista helps stop software piracy, which it probably can, MS won't be able to sign up developers quick enough.

@Scazza:

You're half right. Since there is no real differentiation between PC vs PC multiplayer and PC vs console multiplayer then yes they are charging for something we get for free.

I also don't like having to register with another system of getting matches. I hope i can put my future GFW games purchases in All Seeing Eye and not be bothered by having to have another password and another programme on my PC...

@Duoae: There is a difference. That difference is that XBL is already a paid service that I know NO ONE who has it will say its not worth the 4 bucks a month for dedicated access. So why would it make sense to allow PC gamers to access that service for free, while 360 players have to pay? No sense there at all.

As for the register thing. I can name about 30 different passwords I have for different games (EA, gamespy, Ubisoft, and many more), so one more, that controls ALL games for windows live, is a tiny thing to ask for.

Plus I got to ask, Epic are complaining, and I quote "We'll wholeheartedly jump onto Games for Windows [Live] if it evolved into the sort of system that's compatible with gamers' expectations on the PC platform." Yet they plan on charging for MAPS that 99.99999% are FREE on PC games, so its fine to ream 360 players, but PC are some sort of god like people who can get free things. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!

I think the big gripe though is the way that content will be handled on the PC. I might've been mistaken, but if I recall, they said something about the same content that the console got, the PC would also get... but not the other way around. So there could be exclusive content that went out on XBL, and the only way you could get that as a PC user would be to buy into this service. And then pay for those exclusive maps that the consoles get, regardless if you want to play it with them. PCs would be less likely to get unique content, because they would not be able to nickel and dime you for it as readily without a distribution network. And if Microsoft wants to strongarm it, they would essentially push them to make most (Or a majority of..) that content for the XBL/GWL, meaning you, as a PC gamer, would be stuck getting the scraps or user-generated content. And Epic wants to be able to regulate where their efforts and content goes.

I could be mistaken in all this and be wildly speculating on something I misheard, but it sounds like something that would be quite possible (unfortunately) with this setup.

I'm perfectly happy with it.

There's no charge for PC-PC gameplay, so there's no change there. You only have to pay if you want to play with 360 players

@Scazza:

But that's 4 bucks a month for a console user who's locked into that service. PC users get those services for free because there are many providers. All's MS is doing is trying to lock GFW gamers into their service - at a cost to the user. It makes sense to give them the service of matchmaking over PC to PC and PC to console for free. I didn't mention anything else as there is nothing else that PC users would really want except for paid content - which will always require payment.

Yes, but it's the same argument as Steam and other steam clones. When you have all your games locked into a system that system can be taken away - disabling all your games. That's why i want the ability to be able to play them through whatever portal i want to. The password thing was a minor issue but you picked up on it like it was my main point.

First off. Epic does not want to charge for the maps. MS is making them so it's only MS who are treating console users different to PC users - though they're trying to rectify this through GFW. Epic aren't applying double standards. Read through the article again.
I also agree with the quote you gave. There just isn't enough incentive to bring PC players onto the GFW platform because there is NO VALUE.

Can someone please tell me what exactly is being charged for in GFW in comparison to the free service of the current system?

I just want to understand this without jumping to conclusions.

@ Joncoffee here you are:

Silver: Free
• Single gamertag
• Common gamer profile
• Common gamerscore
• Single player achievements
• Private chat via text and voice
• Common friends list and online presence
• PC only multiplayer including browsing a list of active PC games

Gold: $50 a year
• Multiplayer matchmaking with friends
• TrueSkill™ matchmaking
• Multiplayer achievements
• Cross-platform gameplay

Really, take out the achievements and you've not gained anything.

maybe im wrong but from what ive read Windows Live will not be mandatory on games for windows. Basically most games are now being marked games for windows. I know theres some that are already out. So you dont even have to get the windows live to play them so why are people bitching? Dont like windows live dont buy it. Thats not that hard to figure out.

I'm more concerned that PC games will get dumbed down to console levels just so the stupid 360 owners won't bitch about getting the shit owned out of them when they play vs the few morons that actually got gold accounts.

Like with Shadowrun... >_>

@Scazza: + raison:

I totallly agree with you, people dont have any reason at all to complain, all it is is an extra feature that we didnt have before. If you dont want the extra feature, fine dont pay it, stick to playing the way you normally did, there wont be any difference, i for one will at least give it a try, since i already have an Xbox Live Gold account anyway so it wont make a difference to me.

I'm glad at least someone is speaking out. I suppose it just takes a developer with enough clout to do it. If they piss off Microsoft too badly, I'm sure the Unreal engine runs fine on the PS3, and its not like they were living in poverty publishing for the PC anyway.

It's great to see companies sticking up for themselves and not bowing to Microsoft antics. Microsoft is very well known for being quite mischievous. I seriously doubt, if this catches on, that it will take much time before "premium" services for PC gamers pop up and the "standard" free multiplayer is made to be undesirable in some way.

It reminds me of the whole "software as a service" Microsoft plan, because getting people to shell out outrageous sums of money to replace products that already work isn't enough... they should have to continue paying just to use it at all!

It's about time Microsoft is brought to learn that it cannot do whatever the heck it wants anymore. Much kudos for the EU for standing up to the company, and of course much kudos to anyone else that does, such as Epic.

Games For Windows is an initiative. For the most part, it's a good one, but things like this (use GFW and you *must* use Live for online play) kinda suck.

Some of the *good* parts about GFW are mandatory support for a specific centralized location for game saves and profiles that can be backed up and restored independently of the game, dynamic (and mandatory) support for the 360 controller (game context switches to it immediately when plugged in, switches back to normal when it's unplugged, immediately pauses in both cases), standardization in game menus with regards to button behavior (Start and A always have the same Confirm action in menus, Back and B always have the same Cancel action in menus), support for the Vista gaming "channel", and a bunch of other "unification" things. A lot of it is stuff that has been needed in PC games for a while, but again, there's some other stuff that is being all but forced down the throats of participating developers.

@Scazza:

+2 respect for Scazza

I really wish people would get over this "criticize Microsoft for everything" phase they are in right now and actually read up on the things they are bitching about. As you said, PCs ar enot losing functionality, LIVE is gaining functionality.

Now frankly i don't see the real need for GFWL. The PC has been a dying platform for awhile now, and I doubt anyone can save it.

@Marasai: Shhh, you should NEVER mention that PC gaming is dying.

In all seriousness, ask ANYONE, PC gaming is in a slump right now, the past 15 months has seen the fewest AAA titles in the history of PC gaming. Now thats not going to continue, we have some fantastic DX10 games coming real soon. Also on the flip, PC gaming is now more popular then ever.

Seriously MS should be completely hailed for trying to bring a service to PC gaming, make a standard (and why not, thousands of games use DX, why not also have a say in possible online solution).... but what people don't get is just like XNA, this is just another tool for developers, its NOT FORCED ON ANY DEVELOPER. Only reason a developer should be at all pissed is if they want to make a PC and 360 game, now MS is kinda "pushing" to make them crossplatform online (but again, NOT FORCED).

Again, this is all common sense stuff, and I think the only vocal people are the ones who are either misinformed, or just have natural hate towards MS (looking at you mac/linux elitists).

Also, how the hell do PC games need to be dumbed down? This whole PC players have better control then console thing is laughable... playing UT on DC prooved that to be untrue, and nowadays people are much more skilled at FPS (thanks to the hundreds already on 360)

"There's no charge for PC-PC gameplay, so there's no change there. You only have to pay if you want to play with 360 players."

Or if you want decent matchmaking, which is kind of important in a multiplayer game. And Rein pointed out that Microsoft are telling developers that if they want to be on Live they can't provide those features for free. I see no reason why any halfway competent developer/publisher would choose to go on this platform right now unless they were desperate for Xbox/PC crossover. Similarly I can't see why anyone would pay to use it, unless they were forced to by something equivalent to Counterstrike/Halo.

I think the Games for Windows initiative as a whole is fantastic. Live Anywhere, on the other hand, is a bad joke.

So im beta testing for nothing? T-T

@Scazza:
You're wrong.

Listen to the interview.

Rein and Sweeney indicate they are not allowed to implement friend lists or voice chat on the PC in their game at all if they are a GFW Live game. So that means that MS is trying to take voice chat and friend lists away and sell them back to you.

They do seem to understand that MS can do what they want on 360 (in terms of charging for maps), I'm not sure why they think this is okay, perhaps they are just being realistic about it.

@Cutriss:
Rein and Sweeney say they don't have a problem with GFW. They agree it is generally good stuff that makes things more consistent and usable on the PC. It is GFW Live they have a problem with.

I swear I posted this elsewhere on here, but I cannot comprehend why Rein and Sweeney are still considering GFW Live. They have complaints in several areas. One is these online features MS is taking away and trying to sell back. Another is that MS has to approve all your patches before you send them out, and this takes 3 weeks.

The third is that the Live (GFW and not) networking code feature set is not a fully fleshed out as it might be. This is why they couldn't do good matchmaking and group joining (as Resistance has!) in Gears. It isn't in the Live codebase and server capability yet. MS seems to have a timeline for adding it, which is just in time for Halo 3. I personally would be angry to be beholden to someone for my network code when they can't get something done in time for me to put the feature in my product, but instead only can get it in time to add it to their own.

The fourth area of complaint they have is that Live doesn't support things other than PCs and 360s. Their games have supported Mac clients before and Linux dedicated servers. In the future they said they'd like to support PS3 and Wii. None of these are possible with Live. To me, this seems like a deal killer. MS is never going to yield on this. And as Rein and Sweeney mention, EA isn't going to adopt GFW LIve either because they don't want MS controlling what they do on the Wii and PS3.

I think Rein and Sweeney hit the nail on the head with the last one, and I can't see why MS would yield on this last bit. If Rein and Sweeney give in on this, I'll lose a lot of respect for them. They seem to know what is good for their customers, and if they decide to throw it away because MS will throw them some marking dough, I'll be very disappointed.

In general, I think Rein and Sweeney make some great points, MS truly does think somehow they can take away the features of online play developed on PCs over the last few years and then rent them back to you. This is the height of hubris, and I hope sincerely that it fails. Cause otherwise it will embolden MS (and others) to find something new to take away and rent back. Companies love continuous revenue streams.

I get so wound up about some people. As has been said a million times before, MS are NOT charging for anything that was free before. Everything else is free. The only thing that is being charged for is playing 360 owners which means you connect into the closed LIVE network. Microsoft covers the cost of the bandwidth and upkeep of that network which 360 owners pay towards, why should PC users get on for free? They're just offering PC users the ability to use the stable and useable LIVE network for a fee. What's wrong with that? I'm sure PC to PC gaming though the GFW system will just use the same connection methods as currently used by other systems. They're offering a pile of extra stuff for FREE if you don't want to play 360 gamers. If you don't want to play on the LIVE network with 360 gamers, then don't pay for it and enjoy a stable matchmaking system with added extras for FREE! Geez, it makes me wonder why some companies bother to make anything better. Frankly, I'd have been happier if LIVE stayed 360 only and all the whiney assed PC gamers went elsewhere...

"I get so wound up about some people. As has been said a million times before, MS are NOT charging for anything that was free before."

...

"Rein and Sweeney indicate they are not allowed to implement friend lists or voice chat on the PC in their game at all if they are a GFW Live game. So that means that MS is trying to take voice chat and friend lists away and sell them back to you."

Aye?

"Also, how the hell do PC games need to be dumbed down?"

Gameplay, complexity, length. Not just controls. Also, multiplatform games suck compared to exclusives, they always have and always will.

@shufflemoomin:
You're wrong also. Listen to the interview.

It's not helpful to have people discussing this who don't even know what we're discussing.

Rein and Sweeney are explicit in that MS are prohibiting them from doing voice chat or friends lists on their own, they must use the system built into GFW Live, and this system is only available to GFW Live paying (Gold) customers.

Well, I could care less one way or another. My 360's gold account automatically gives me a PC gold account, so either way, I have all the features for anything.

Ok, at first I was going to scream bloody murder thinking that I'd have to start paying to play FPS's online ...considering we've been doing it for FREE for decades.

But I think I got the jist of what this GFW is: it's only worth getting if you WANT to play against X360 people, correct me if I'm wrong please.

Because really, how would that affect the in-game server browsers that come with FPS's games? and how would they connect this with the GFW thingy?

Personally, I don't think that we (PC gamers) should have to play games online with X360 players, considering that FF11 is already playable between PS2 and PC people (not sure if 360 people are included there). And ALSO that PC AND PS2 players can play Phantasy Star Online together (the only charge being to play online-same price for both).

I can understand that the XBL is a complex server system and all, and I'm guessing they want us PC players to pay for it as it were XBL for the PC world, because they have to do some magic technical shit to merge us both to play together.
(WTF did I just say? lol)

Either way, I don't think I'll be buying GFW, when I can just play the dozens of FPS (and other game types) online for free----as has been since the beginning of time. Hell, you can still play Diablo on Bnet for free if you wanted to!!
:D

I'd like to see them port Diablo2 to the 360 and then try and charge everyone for playing it online together....OMG, that would be hysterical.
:D

Quote:
"Rein and Sweeney indicate they are not allowed to implement friend lists or voice chat on the PC in their game at all if they are a GFW Live game. So that means that MS is trying to take voice chat and friend lists away and sell them back to you."

wait a minute...you're trying to tell me that the voice chat that came with UT2k4 and the buddy list found in BF2142 to CHARGE ME FOR USING SOMETHING THAT'S BUILT INTO THEIR GAME???????

FUCK NO!

Epic---don't let me (us) down!! Resistance is not futile! Don't get assimilated! Do not comply!

BF2/2124's huge popularity of the FPS scene will affect PC gaming in general:

PC gamers in clans use either TeamSpeak or Ventrillo. Really, noone uses in-game voice-chat.

You need to have a GameSpy account if you want to play. Your GameSpy account needs to be synced with an EA account in order to use those purchased Booster Packs.

EA has pretty much made it acceptable to buy maps and vehicles that were normally free with updates on the PC (Battlefield 2/2142 Booster Packs). BF2/2142 has made "achievements" acceptable on the PC by providing players an incentive to keep playing in order to unlock weapons and medals.

@br549: Thanks for clearing this up for everyone. It really helps when someone who knows what they are talking about sets things straight.

People need to realise that you are getting charged for things you used to get for free

-Matchmaking
-Voice Chat

Those 2 thing are pretty big in online games, and PC users have been getting them for free - but not anymore with GFW Live.

And again, people please read br549's post :

"The fourth area of complaint they have is that Live doesn't support things other than PCs and 360s. Their games have supported Mac clients before and Linux dedicated servers. In the future they said they'd like to support PS3 and Wii. None of these are possible with Live. To me, this seems like a deal killer. MS is never going to yield on this. And as Rein and Sweeney mention, EA isn't going to adopt GFW LIve either because they don't want MS controlling what they do on the Wii and PS3."

I would just like to thank whatever 12 year old called into my department asking to speak to XBOX 360 to tell them exactly what they did wrong with the game GoW. Thus proving why 12 year olds should not be playing the game.

Posted in this thread because..well, it's Epic's fault little guy, not Microsoft. (Unlike the issue actually discussed in this thread.)

Now if only the makers of Marvel Ultimate Alliance would take this stance for their PC game.