planetidiot

joncoffee

"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)."

HAHAHAHA! Acceptable? Are you one of the sheep who bought them? It was and remains hardly 'acceptable'. Most people play vanilla because they don't like being juiced.

If you're working on a paper to justify this crap, you better come up with some better anecdotes.

The Commissar

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.

Eville1

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."

dnzperson

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.

Tepoz

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!

playinggames

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

playinggames

Darkest Daze

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.

br549

...

"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.

csonka

shufflemoomin

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.

br549

Des

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.

cdammers

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)

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

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.

Cutriss

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.

Zunnoab

Jay

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.

Cirrus

csonka

csonka

raison

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.

Duoae

I just want to understand this without jumping to conclusions.

joncoffee

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.

Duoae

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

brooza

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.

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

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!

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

Tyrannical

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

funboy69

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 ?

cerberus_oz

Scazza

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

DaveKap

I like this.

NameYourCharacter

Oh, fuck.

dnzperson

Maldron

Boxelder

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

-Kye

Kimosabae

Epic gets +2 respect.

dnzperson

dnzperson

Bicro

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?

penhalion