Tendo City

Now that would be a really stupid decision...

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157724

I already hate this game, so this has no effect on me.

All the previews of the game that I have seen are good, though, you know...

And I don't care.

It makes sense. It's going to be played over the Xbox Live service on Windows and 360.

It looks like the pay-to-play might be just for X360-PC connections, not PC-to-PC... that would be really weird, because it would pretty much make the whole "make it even between PC and X360 players" thing irrelevant because almost no PC players would pay...

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/772/772649p1.html

Quote:Microsoft Corp. today announced the extension of the Xbox LIVE games and entertainment network to the Windows platform, bringing together the most popular online console game service with the most popular games platform in the world. Debuting on May 8, 2007, with the launch of the Windows Vista™ version of the Xbox blockbuster "Halo 2," Games for Windows — LIVE will connect Windows gamers to over six million gamers already in the Xbox LIVE community. Then, launching in June, "Shadowrun" will for the first time connect Windows gamers with Xbox 360 players in cross-platform matches using a single service. "UNO," releasing later in 2007, will also support cross-platform play between Windows and Xbox 360.

The launch of Games for Windows — LIVE marks a major expansion of the Xbox LIVE service across multiple platforms, uniting gamers with a single identity, a single gamertag, a single friends list and a single list of achievements attainable on the Xbox 360 and a Windows-based PC. Games for Windows — LIVE gamers will be able to easily find and play supported titles online with their friends across a Windows computer or an Xbox 360. As a unified service with Xbox LIVE, Games for Windows — LIVE will be available in every country and region supported today by Xbox LIVE.

"Five years ago, we began building a service that now defines the bar for online gameplay," said Peter Moore, corporate vice president of the Interactive Entertainment Business in the Entertainment and Devices Division at Microsoft. "The benefits of expanding Xbox LIVE to Games for Windows titles is twofold: We're bringing together two communities that share a passion for playing online games, and we're enhancing the online experience for PC gamers who have long desired seamless game and voice connectivity — it's a win for everyone."

Members of Xbox LIVE automatically receive the functionality of Games for Windows — LIVE, using the same gamertag and friends list at no additional cost. For a single, unified service, the pricing of the LIVE services across both Xbox and Games for Windows is identical. In addition, Games for Windows — LIVE introduces the best of Xbox LIVE functionality to please PC gamers, such as in-game voice chat, integrated achievements and dedicated servers. The offering of both Silver and Gold memberships will remain in place for gamers on the Xbox 360 and Windows PC. There is no cost associated with signing up for a Silver membership. Gold memberships will deliver the premium online network experience for $49.95 (U.S.) per year. Current Xbox LIVE Gold members will automatically have access to Gold features on Games for Windows — LIVE titles.

Silver Membership Features
* 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 Membership Features
* All Silver membership features
* Multiplayer matchmaking with friends
* TrueSkill™ matchmaking
* Multiplayer achievements
* Cross-platform gameplay

These features of the LIVE services will enable gamers to communicate online and play supported games across both of Microsoft's gaming platforms, bringing more players and their friends together to connect in new and exciting ways.

Microsoft is evil...

Who, exactly, is going to pay $50 a year just to play against someone who's playing on an Xbox360?

According to that article, Gold is for playing online matches period, not just against Xbox users (though that is an added benefit).

I guess it's to be expected. Now, the question is how many 3rd parties will go with Microsoft's option vs going another (free) way with it.

Quote:Who, exactly, is going to pay $50 a year just to play against someone who's playing on an Xbox360?

But wait, you get three other benefits too! ... whatever TrueSkill matchmaking is, that is... and what do they mean by '* Multiplayer matchmaking with friends'? Ah, can't you play with people you know without paying $50? Yes, I'm sure that there's a way that you can do that...

... but you get multiplayer achievements, so people who want more GamerScore will pay, I guess...

Quote:According to that article, Gold is for playing online matches period, not just against Xbox users (though that is an added benefit).

No, PC-to-PC multiplayer is free (Silver).

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158490

Microsoft has gone too far with this, and I'm really, REALLY hoping that they fail and are forced to admit defeat... or, at least, that only Microsoft's games support it...

You can charge console gamers for a online service because console's in general have never had anyting remotely like Xbox Live. On the other hand, PC gamers have been playing online games for free for years, there's absolutely no way they're going to sell them on a pay service that doesn't involve an MMORPG.

A few points/quotes...


- No Non-Microsoft support yet ("third party" is the wrong phrase. Microsoft may make Windows, but they have no preferential treatment as far as publishing PC games goes, so there are no "first parties" really...)

Quote:GFW: Is this the first announcement in Microsoft history that hasn't included a single third-party publisher?
Peter Moore: Well, I think we've probably made some other announcements that don't involve third-parties...as we've told all of the other third-parties, and I've been instrumental in this with third-party publishers, the complexity of what we're proposing to do with Games for Windows Live is something that my studios and Microsoft Game Studios are focused on first, learning some of the challenges, learning some of the obstacles to successful deployment of the service. We do have third-parties that are ready, standing by, but it's very much a first-party initiative first, and then third-parties will follow.

GFW: So you're saying that some third-party support is lined up?
PM: Not that I can announce. These are not things that you just turn on overnight and suddenly there'll be a game there. We have been very aggressive in laying out our entire program, initiative, and three-to-five-year strategy for this to all third party publishers. I've been involved in most of those meetings on the road. And while nobody is in a position to make an announcement yet, there's a lot of activity.

GFW: Let's linger on that. If the third-party support is there, wouldn't it make more sense to wait until those partnerships are secured, then announce the whole program all at once?
PM: I want to drag you back up to 30,000 feet and the overall strategy behind this, which is building a broader community around gamers regardless of the device that they're playing on; the ability to access Xbox Live whether they're at work, whether they're on the road, in their hotel room on their laptop, whether they're at home in front of their TV. We think that's as important as cross-platform play. So while having content that is both rich and deep is going to be important, and while cross-platform play is going to be very important, access to the community shouldn't be overlooked. When I talk to gamers, what they're excited about is being able to [access Live] 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whether they're at their office or whether they're in their hotel room or whether they're online in an airport waiting room.

- They're trying hard to come up with excuses for why they think PC gamers will pay for something free

Quote:GFW: As someone who subscribes to Xbox Live, getting Gold perks on PC is great. From the diehard PC player's perspective, it's different. On Xbox 360, you don't have other options; if you want to play Gears of War online, you get Live. PC players, however, have other options, so I'm wondering, what is it about this particular option that makes it a must-have?
PM: Well, don't underestimate achievements. You're right, though. If you're a hardcore PC gamer [...] you have to hang back and have a look. But we are giving you a choice, and we're opening up a world where you get access to the console community. A lot of existing Gold members are going to get better value out of their Gold membership, and I like to think that we'll also grow both Silver and Gold memberships because of the breadth of the device-agnostic gaming experience that we're now providing.

-They never really answer the following point... it's brought up a bunch more times, but they dodge the question left, right, and center... and for good reason, considering how huge it would be if it were true.

Quote:GFW: One developer says that, if he signs his game up for Games for Windows Live support, Microsoft's agreement blocks him from offering many Gold-tier features to nonsubscribers. So say, for example, that there's a Battlefield 3, and that it works with Live; that Gold users get voice-over-IP and can collect medals and all these other things that are already in Battlefield 2. Now we'd have to pay the premium for Gold accounts to access these features. The developer could no longer offer its own versions of voice-over-IP and stat tracking.
PM: I'll throw that back to somebody else to give you an answer. We'll get back to you on that.

Quote:GFW: He sees it as a hostile move. The words he used were "hijacking" and "hostage-taking." [Moore laughs] Yeah, yeah...hyperbole, but if that is the case, it would be a matter of suddenly having to subscribe to get what some people feel entitled to, to get what they're used to getting for free. I guess it's a matter of how much else you're offering....
PM: That's it, and the consumer will make that choice, the gamer will make that choice, and they'll see the value and subscribe, or not. Nobody is forcing anybody to do this. As the company that built the 360 and the company that's...reinvigorating the Games for Windows platform, we think that bringing the two platforms together as a very viable and powerful community, as well as offering some unique cross-platform play, is an opportunity that gamers want. Nobody under any circumstances is saying you must do this. You can still continue playing in the PC game environment that you like, and if the free environment's important to you, then have at it, great, we love people who play games on the PC. Because we're Microsoft, we'll continue to support that conditioning. Now, the concept that we debuted at [the Electronic Entertainment Expo] last year was, "Wouldn't it be great if we could somehow bring it all together?" We've deployed a tremendous amount of work, a tremendous amount of effort, and a tremendous amount of financial resources to make that happen, and we'll continue to invest in making that happen. I'm hoping that gamers will see the value when they look at what they get for their 50 bucks a year. But they may not, Shawn. You may be right, and they'll choose to continue to play using the services that are free, and God bless 'em. As long as it continues to be on a Windows PC, I don't think we have too many issues with that. A good example is what we do on the 360 with HD-DVD. Under no circumstances did we force high-def movie playback into the console. Rather, we gave you the opportunity to buy an HD-DVD player separately should you be fortunate enough to own an entertainment center at home that can take advantage of high definition.

No, I'd say that "hijacking" and "hostage-taking" aren't really hyperbole at all...


This quote illustrates the point even more clearly. The question is put up several times, but he never actually addresses the point... which, I am afraid, means that it might well be true... he says "no", but then only talks about Live online -- he doesn't say a word I can recognize about NON-Live online networks for games and what is allowed there if you've got a Live-enabled game, and that is an incredibly important question...

Quote:GFW: One question I put to Peter involved restricting choices. Imagine a Battlefield 3. It's on Games for Windows Live, it has voice-over IP, stat-tracking, and a promotion system. Now, is it true that, at that point, EA or whomever could not provide workarounds for people who purchased the software but not Live subscriptions?
JJR: Short answer to your question is, no, if I heard it correctly. Let me walk through the specifics. Just like we're giving consumers choices, game developers are always going to have choices as well. They can create multiplayer play for Silver users. If they want matchmaking, if they want to take advantage of our zones and achievements, they can add Gold. They're not restricted to one or the other.

GFW: Say they offer Silver and Gold through Live, as you say, but then they also want to provide stat-tracking, matchmaking, medals, and VOIP to people who do not subscribe to Live, period. Can they? JJR: Game developers are in complete control over what stats they have in game. People who are not Gold, who are just Silver and are not paying anything, are able to access and earn every single-player achievement. With multiplayer achievements, that's where we got into it and asked, how do we make...these worth something? On the console side and also when we were going out and seeing what PC gamers wanted -- they wanted something that was almost auditable or accredited, free from all the hacking and the cheating that's customary in PC games. What's a rank matter if you think everybody above you is hacking? So you want your rank to...I don't have a good word for it....

GFW: ...be based on merit, and not exploitation?
JJR: You want confidence that it's against a common scale. So for some classes of achievement, we had to figure out a way to create a common scale, and that's where Gold multiplayer achievements come in. You have to be in the ranked matchmaking system to know that you're playing by the rules. So yes, a game could have ranking, and that's why I said your short answer is no, but they wouldn't throw in Gold-ranked match achievements because they're not within that system. Does that make sense?

And then there's this...

Quote:GFW: Another question that Peter wasn't able to answer at the time had to do with certification and how it pertains to patches and additional content. Let's say your MMO works with Games for Windows Live. You need to patch it, pronto, or perhaps you want to add content. Would you need certification?
JJR: I remember reading your magazine in the last couple of months, and you loved a high-profile game but dinged its rating because it shipped with some bugs. If you want to talk about this, that's probably a good example. The point of us working on stuff is to stop that from happening. Which way do you want it? Do you not want us there, so you have the bugs, or do you want us there, so you don't have the bugs?

GFW: So that's an indirect yes, right? That you'd need to certify patches and other content?
JJR: If you're taking advantage of the Games for Windows Live network, then, yeah, because we're not gonna have a game go up that breaks the matchmaking service, or violates the way our security measures work. Go back to achievements, for example. The first thing we ask is, did they give 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 gamer points? Somebody needs to check and confirm that, yes, they gave 1,000 like they were supposed to. Not too many, not too few. We make sure that multiplayer matchmaking and achievements and everything else works, and that's to avoid the problems you guys cited.

GFW: Yeah, that makes sense. What about requiring third-party developers to charge for content that they might prefer to offer free of charge?
JJR: Developers are still in control, on the console as well as on PC. They choose what to do.

GFW: Epic is another story with Gears of War, but if they said, "We don't want to charge for whatever content we're doing," would that be their decision to make?
JJR: I think developers determine what to make and how to make it. If they wanted to use PayPal in Live Marketplace, we're going to say, guys, we're using Microsoft points.

GFW: I'm talking entirely free. No points, no payments.
JJR: We're certainly not forcing anybody to do anything.

You aren't? But what about all that about Epic not being allowed to offer free content for Gears of War, then? Are there different rules for Windows Live than Xbox Live on that issue?

MS has the potential to still make a lot of money through the online service through the purchase of extra goodies for games, and also the movies and TV stuff (which I think will be all the sweeter a deal for people if they have the freedom of using it on a PC instead of a game console). Aside from potentially being forced to allow the multiplayer for all the games to be free, they could also be forced to drop the ridiculous tokens for cash system. I'm sick of staring at my 40 credits in live knowing that's basically me having been ripped off by their "no refunds!" deal and no way to pay the EXACT price of those extra levels for PD0. As a result I get VERY stingy buying anything in Live, or Nintendo's thing. Sony, surprisingly, is the only one to get it right by charging actual monies. I hate Disney Dollars. (Actually here's another pet peeve. Why do ALL stores insist on the lie of posting the price SANS the sales tax? That's hardly honest. Do they really think I care which part of my cash is going to the store vs which is going to government? Nope, I just care about how much is no longer going to be in my coffers! And another thing, I just love it when a price that was set by the company, like a console system's price, is advertised as a "savings deal" by the store, like they are the only ones selling it at that price, like they are fooling ANYBODY.)

Anyway, as I've said before, depending on how good Nintendo and Sony's free online services become (and Sony is ahead of Nintendo in that regard), MS may be forced to provide free online play in the silver account on the 360 too.

http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/00...9295FE.htm

$50 a year, just like Xbox Live, though if you have an Xbox Live account it covers this too. How "nice".

Quote:Anyway, as I've said before, depending on how good Nintendo and Sony's free online services become (and Sony is ahead of Nintendo in that regard), MS may be forced to provide free online play in the silver account on the 360 too.

The problem is, right now Nintendo is continuing on with their "functional online gaming is evil, we won't make an online network that Western audiences actually want to use" stance that might bring them Japanese success but will eventually cause greater and greater problems here until they change things, and Sony has a service no one thinks is anywhere near as good as Xbox Live, and doesn't look like it's going to recover anytime soon... we'll see if Home can do anything, but who knows when that will be out.

Quote:Why do ALL stores insist on the lie of posting the price SANS the sales tax? That's hardly honest. Do they really think I care which part of my cash is going to the store vs which is going to government? Nope, I just care about how much is no longer going to be in my coffers!

You'd need a law to force companies to do that. The prices without taxes use smaller numbers, so they will go up; post the tax and the price on the box is higher, perhaps dissuading some customers from buying the product even though it fact the price is the same.

In Europe, by the way, labelled prices do include tax. They have laws about that...

Oh yeah... also, there's a preview of Shadowrun in the May 2007 issue of PC Gamer. They liked it. Five PCG editors played on PCs versus two OXM editors, two Gamesradar editors, and a dev. In three matches, PCG won two (team deathmatch), 6-4 each time, and lost one (capture the flag), 6-2. PC is better. :)

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0%2C...4%2C00.asp

Pretty much everything this guy says is right. Great article...

And what do we have here... complete confirmation of how stupid this move was.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...-free.html

MS has given up on trying to get people to pay for Windows Live... and not only that, they announced that there will be rebates for anyone who was stupid enough to actually pay them. :)

They're redesigning the service to be more PC-like, too. Great moves. Oh, and DirectX 11 will indeed run on DX10 hardware... so you won't need a new videocard, like those 10.1 rumors said. :)

The last thing I need to hear is that Windows Live (what they SHOULD rename it, Games for Windows Live is extremely awkward) has an interface seperate from the individual games, like Steam or the 360 itself.

I'm waiting to find out when MS will finally re-implement Direct Sound into the DX set. The software only Vista sound stack is close but doesn't really allow any hardware acceleration. I mean it's like MS decided Creative just isn't needed any more (sound card = Creative).

Thanks to OpenAL that's not a problem for newer games (OpenAL still has hardware sound acceleration), and for older ones, they did do ALchemy to allow some major titles to have hardware sound acceleration support through the emulator... I wouldn't expect DirectSound 3D to come back, MS clearly has decided that it's gone for good.

As for "Games for Windows Live", yeah, it is an awkward name, but they want to have "games" in it somewhere to say what the service is for, and Windows to say the platform, and "Live" to refer to the internet-centric nature of it... so the name does make sense, even if you are right that something shorter would be nice.