Gaming Forums => General Gaming => Topic started by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 14, 2007, 12:39:47 PM
Title: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 14, 2007, 12:39:47 PM
BATTLE STATIONS! BATTLE STATIONS!
Games for Windows - Live 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
Games for Windows - Live Gold Membership Features
* All Silver membership features * Multiplayer matchmaking with friends * TrueSkill matchmaking * Multiplayer achievements * Cross-platform gameplay
Woho! Now we'll have to pay for things like friends lists, quickmatches and pay $10 to change your name!
Seriously, this sucks. I swear this is going to suck camel nuts. As a PC gamer, I'm use to getting all that junk for free. Hell, Ventrillo, Teamspeak, Steam and XFire can do all that stuff, and they're free.
And why on earth would you want to play with console gamers? The X-Box Live community isn't something you like. It's full of loudmouths and stupid 12 year olds singing into the mic. Most of them swear that thumbsticks are better for FPS' then mice. They'll only be useful as cannon fodder.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: that Baby guy on May 14, 2007, 12:44:12 PM
Lol, thumbsticks vs. mice for FPS. The answer is definitely the d-pad. Eight directions? Yeah buddy!
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 14, 2007, 12:50:17 PM
Also, one of the games that will implement a PC verses Console mode (Shadowrun) will actually hinder as PC gamer's aim while giving the XBox gamer autoaim. Total bullshit.
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: darknight06 on May 14, 2007, 01:42:19 PM
Looks like I won't be messing with any "Games For Windows"... oh wait that's gonna be a majority of titles down the road isn't it? Oh hell, is it at least cheaper than X-Box Live?
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 14, 2007, 02:09:18 PM
Quote Originally posted by: darknight06 Looks like I won't be messing with any "Games For Windows"... oh wait that's gonna be a majority of titles down the road isn't it? Oh hell, is it at least cheaper than X-Box Live?
Silver is free, but Gold is linked to X-Box Gold, so $50.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: SixthAngel on May 14, 2007, 03:52:45 PM
This is going to tank so hard. Who besides some super fanatic xbox fan would even consider it. Silver membership gets you nothing. You get a gamertag but can't even use it to play matchmaking with friends making it essentially totally useless. That is the point of the gamertag, sharing friends between games. They might be able to peddle this paying for p2p crap with their closed system but I don't think the pc user is going to buy it.
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 14, 2007, 05:38:53 PM
I just love how the whole idea of the lives works out, Xbox live is like the golden age for Xbox owners; for the PC gamers it is like Games for Windows Live is the biggest flop that was ever incarnated.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 15, 2007, 08:34:34 AM
No PC user will like it, but we may not get a choice. Microsoft has been pushing their "Games for Windows" line really hard, and if they start offering incentives to switch to their system, more and more games may use it.
I shiver at the thought...
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on May 15, 2007, 11:57:59 AM
Well if Microsoft offers a nice centralized server for all parties interested to go to the games for Windows route then that will attract a lot of people especially companies who can't really devote a game server or who don't want to use online middle ware such as Gamespy Arcade.
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Djunknown on May 15, 2007, 05:30:00 PM
Well if you're an Xbox owner and already have Live Gold, you get the PC Live included. Good for them, bad for hardcore PC gamers. They're getting charged for what they've been getting for free (Unless you count Kali.net, good times, good times.) since the internet's existence.
Quote Microsoft has been pushing their "Games for Windows" line really hard, and if they start offering incentives to switch to their system, more and more games may use it.
I've been out of the PC Gaming loop for a while, save for the 'classic' game or 2 from 2002-2004, but isn't Games for Windows just Microsoft published products? They're content with raping charging for 'extra' multiplayer options, what's in it for PC publishers? What can Microsoft do better in PC gaming that others can't?
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: UERD on May 15, 2007, 05:59:28 PM
I really hope 'Games for Windows' doesn't take off. Publishers ranging from Blizzard to EA have been making lots of money and quality titles (yes, there were some good EA PC games) without the need for some innovation-stifling, profit-grubbing standards hegemony that allows Microsoft to dictate arbitrary 'standards' that aren't needed or wanted.
It's like Vista. First product activation, then DRM built into the high-definition interfaces. Once Microsoft perfects remote consciousness-stealing technologies, they'll be able to end their reliance on the souls of dead babies and slowly drain the life-force out of the citizenry of the industrialized world.
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Shift Key on May 15, 2007, 10:40:02 PM
Quote Originally posted by: Djunknown I've been out of the PC Gaming loop for a while, save for the 'classic' game or 2 from 2002-2004, but isn't Games for Windows just Microsoft published products? They're content with raping charging for 'extra' multiplayer options, what's in it for PC publishers? What can Microsoft do better in PC gaming that others can't?
Straight from the site (man, some people need to be lead by the hand these days)
Quote 1) Quality. Games for Windows branded titles undergo extensive testing, and not just by the publisher. Microsoft also invests in quality checking each title to ensure they meet performance and reliability standards.
2) Compatibility. Games for Windows branded titles work on Windows XP and Windows Vista based PCs, including both 32 and 64 bit editions. Games for Windows titles that support controllers are also compatible with the Microsoft XBOX 360 controller for Windows, including the XBOX 360 Wireless Gaming Receiver for Windows. They even support widescreen resolutions and more.
3) Safety features. You can be confident that any title carrying the Games for Windows brand will support the new parental controls and family settings features in Windows Vista.
4) Easy to Play. Games for Windows branded titles are easy to install, find and remove, especially in Windows Vista. Every Games for Windows title appears in the new Windows Vista Games Explorer (no more hunting around the start menu for that game you just installed). And Games for Windows branded titles all offer some form of “easy install”, putting you in the game more quickly.
Why are these important? Because Games for Windows is all about letting you focus on the FUN.
www.gamesforwindows.com
Considering that many of these games are going to be compatible with their Xbox brethren (you could play online against people on a PC or a 360) and that online gaming is a series of isolated games, it is certainly an interesting experiment. With a new OS and new multimedia APIs (Direct X 10 that is) on the way this is just an initiative to make PC development easier.
Personally, I don't care. Subscription gaming has always left a sour taste in my mouth.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: ShyGuy on May 16, 2007, 06:46:57 AM
Games for Windows is a corporate shill magazine, dude.
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 16, 2007, 08:59:56 AM
I'm seriously worried about this. All Microsoft needs to do is add enough incentives for this, and BAM! We'll be stuck paying for this if we want decent online play. The more and more I look at this, Games for Windows is just another way for Microsoft to try and make Windows the only OS for gaming.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: SixthAngel on May 16, 2007, 10:23:40 AM
I see most game companies not wanting to hand over this much control to Microsoft. Having the game be on this service will probably already hurt the sales of their games because it will cost more then the game next to it. Considering that custom games and mods quickly become huge such as with warcraft 3 and Half Life this service becomes more useless because it doesn't really let you use any of the features on mods. A new counterstrike in popularity would be silver only, so why upgrade? What incentive can Microsoft give besides taking over the minimal server responsibilty of p2p gaming?
Those 4 points are also useless. The only one that would be tempting is extra quality control, except live quality control is crap. They still have to update games on their closed system after release to get things like voice chat to work correctly and have most recently screwed up an update to Halo 2 as well as the beta they were supposed to release today, both ms products.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: UERD on May 16, 2007, 12:30:41 PM
Bah. #1 and #2 are things that publishers do anyways- nobody is going to buy your game if it's total crap or buggers every machine it runs on. And for those who think it means that only outstanding games will get this 'certification', look at all the crappy titles for all three consoles that were supposedly vetted by a very similar process.
#3 is something I really couldn't care about less.
#4 is really non-relevant. When was the last time you purchased a PC game that made you do anything more complicated than entering a code and pressing a button labeled 'next' a couple of times?
Granted, the XBox connectivity is a nice touch, but I think it goes far beyond that. Note that the new Civilization 4 expansion boxart (you can see it here: http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=1117&c=24) has the logo on it. When was the last time any Civilization game came out for a console?
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: BranDonk Kong on May 16, 2007, 05:07:55 PM
Half-Life 2 makes you do a lot more than that (#4).
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Smoke39 on May 16, 2007, 06:50:15 PM
You're right. You had to press "next" a few more times than usual. Aren't people over Steam already?
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 17, 2007, 08:43:59 AM
I bough Half-Life 2 online over Steam, so it went smoothly for me, but I've heard horror stories from people who bought it retail.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Smoke39 on May 17, 2007, 09:08:42 AM
I bought it retail and had no problems. That was well after the huge rush to regsiter on the day it came out, though.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 17, 2007, 09:42:00 AM
And yet we have Smash_Brother flapping his mouth about "accessible" online play in the other section.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Ceric on May 17, 2007, 12:04:52 PM
I didn't read anywhere where it said that a Game for Windows had to do the whole Live thing. I wouldn't mind if Microsoft took a crack at testing things for their own product to make sure it doesn't bonk anything. Also, playing Devil Advocates here, if your are an MMORPG nut if they were all on Live you may actually save money...
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: BranDonk Kong on May 17, 2007, 04:48:10 PM
Not true. I believe you have to pay for FFXII online in addition to paying for Live.
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Smoke39 on July 19, 2007, 04:14:20 PM
Interesting that although Unreal Engine 3 will have Game for Windows Live support built in, UT3 won't be using it.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Nephilim on July 19, 2007, 09:07:39 PM
ofcourse, its because gamespy will give them tons of cash to install there bloatware instead
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: KDR_11k on July 19, 2007, 10:25:28 PM
UT is a game about online play, requiring that the player pays money to a third party to access that would be a really bad idea.
Title: RE:X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 20, 2007, 02:54:12 AM
Yeah, UT forcing you to pay to play online would be committing sales suicide.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: Smoke39 on July 20, 2007, 02:28:42 PM
How is UT any different from any other game that might use GFWL, though? Seems to me like GFWL is a bad idea in general.
Title: RE: X-Box Live for Windows
Post by: UERD on July 20, 2007, 02:45:51 PM
It won't make a dent in market share for dedicated PC games, but if MS wants to implement XBox vs. PC functionality in their future games, they could get an audience that way.
Personally, I wish Nintendo had just asked Blizzard to write them netcode.
