You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Valve: Xbox Live policy is 'such a train wreck'
- Thread starter Guy Legend
- Start date
Beer Monkey
Member
StuBurns said:But it costs MS when people want to give away free content.
If Valve released free TF2 updates Microsoft makes $0.
When Valve refuses to charge their fans $5 for the Engineer update, $5 for the Scout update, etc. they simply don't release this stuff for 360. Microsoft makes $0.
$0 - $0 = $0 difference.
So your point is it makes no difference? So why should MS care? MS just want to make some money out of it, and as the first party, they have a right to do so I think. Valve could get someone else to pay like Epic did with their sponsored stuff I imagine.Beer Monkey said:If Valve released free TF2 updates Microsoft makes $0.
When Valve refuses to charge their fans $5 for the Engineer update, $5 for the Scout update, etc. they simply don't release this stuff for 360. Microsoft makes $0.
$0 - $0 = $0 difference.
Beer Monkey
Member
StuBurns said:So your point is it makes no difference? So why should MS care? MS just want to make some money out of it, and as the first party, they have a right to do so I think.
Nobody is saying that Microsoft doesn't have a right to do what their service as they please.
Why should MS care about giving Sony a competitive advantage? You aren't really asking that, are you?
Valve could get someone else to pay like Epic did with their sponsored stuff I imagine.
The sponsored stuff hasn't really panned out. Probably too expensive compared to competition like TV advertising.
brain_stew
Member
StuBurns said:So your point is it makes no difference? So why should MS care? MS just want to make some money out of it, and as the first party, they have a right to do so I think. Valve could get someone else to pay like Epic did with their sponsored stuff I imagine.
That was a long time ago, previously free content didn't even need to be sponsored. I doubt Microsoft would allow it these days and the fact we haven't seen any substantial free, sponsored content backs that suspicion up somewhat.
Also, getting a sponsorship deal for the biggest franchise on the console (at the time) is a lot easier than getting one for a multi platform release that may not have broke 1 million units on the platform. Its also a complete pita and terrible band aid solution.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I'm amazed that people are backing MS on this. I mean wow. I see why the increase for gold really won't affect them. So many folks supporting a company charging fir what is free on the PC. SMH.
I think MS charge because they're dicks, I've asked myself and answered myself. But that's not really the point, TFC was played for so long, if people really played TF2 on the consoles that much, and MS had to deal with all those patches for free, I think there is a good reason to ask for something for that service they are providing.Beer Monkey said:Nobody is saying that Microsoft doesn't have a right to do what their service as they please.
Why should MS care about giving Sony a competitive advantage? You aren't really asking that, are you?
The sponsored stuff hasn't really panned out. Probably too expensive compared to competition like TV advertising.
I do think that stuff should be free to the developer/publisher and user, but Valve choose to sign on to their platform and accept their policy. If it's a 'train wreck', they could walk away, they don't.
MS have turned down FF14 because they won't move on a similar issue. I very much doubt they give a fuck about updates to a puzzle game they're still getting on their platform. I'm sure they'll be quite happy to just collect their seven dollars and charge any time Valve want to push thru an update.
I also think now games generally ship in a worse state than they did before the developers had a chance to fix stuff post-release, and I think charging for pushing thru patches might discourage this trend, I could be totally wrong about that, but I like to think it's the case.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
How about free DLC for gold members only. That way developers can support their game and MS can make their money off live subs. Might be a nice compromise, of course still not the ideal situation.
Beer Monkey said:If Valve released free TF2 updates Microsoft makes $0.
When Valve refuses to charge their fans $5 for the Engineer update, $5 for the Scout update, etc. they simply don't release this stuff for 360. Microsoft makes $0.
$0 - $0 = $0 difference.
I'm not saying that I disagree, but if Microsoft allows Valve to release updates to their games for free, then they would be in the red due to bandwidth costs alone.
Beer Monkey
Member
harSon said:I'm not saying that I disagree, but if Microsoft allows Valve to release updates to their games for free, then they would be in the red due to bandwidth costs alone.
Valve is willing to pay bandwidth costs for updates for stuff they sell on PC, I'm sure they would have no problem paying the actual bandwidth costs for console updates.
Remember, we're talking about a company that spends a lot more than bandwidth on the development costs for free updates and even free games.
StuBurns said:I think MS charge because they're dicks, I've asked myself and answered myself. But that's not really the point, TFC was played for so long, if people really played TF2 on the consoles that much, and MS had to deal with all those patches for free, I think there is a good reason to ask for something for that service they are providing.
I do think that stuff should be free to the developer/publisher and user, but Valve choose to sign on to their platform and accept their policy. If it's a 'train wreck', they could walk away, they don't.
MS have turned down FF14 because they won't move on a similar issue. I very much doubt they give a fuck about updates to a puzzle game they're still getting on their platform. I'm sure they'll be quite happy to just collect their seven dollars and charge any time Valve want to push thru an update.
I also think now games generally ship in a worse state than they did before the developers had a chance to fix stuff post-release, and I think charging for pushing thru patches might discourage this trend, I could be totally wrong about that, but I like to think it's the case.
That's the kicker tho, for all these 'We charge for bandwidth' 'You only get one patch for free' have been in place for a minute and things AREN'T getting better. At this point in the game with all the financial penalties games should be less buggy, not more, lol. I don't know how you can see how this is a good thing when it hasn't been working: these aren't new policies.
The thing is also, it's not as if MS deals with those patches for 'free' at a great cost, all they deal with is bandwidth and still that's more their problem with the system they implemented then the developers (going to go on a limb, but im going to assume EA is allowed to use their own servers to push out updates as opposed to going through Microsofts)
MS have to test the patches and check them, it is not simply a case of pushing it to users. As the first party, it is their responsibility everything on their platforms is working and contains what they want it to. That's why first parties have certification. What if Valve broke a game in a post-game patch that was required to play online? On the 360, that should never happen, if it does it's MSs fault for allowing it. Taking the first parties out of the picture and giving developers direct control to the build the users play is almost removing the use of a first party. It can be good, it can be bad, Sony have chosen one way, MS the other.krazen said:That's the kicker tho, for all these 'We charge for bandwidth' 'You only get one patch for free' have been in place for a minute and things AREN'T getting better. At this point in the game with all the financial penalties games should be less buggy, not more, lol. I don't know how you can see how this is a good thing when it hasn't been working: these aren't new policies.
The thing is also, it's not as if MS deals with those patches for 'free' at a great cost, all they deal with is bandwidth and still that's more their problem with the system they implemented then the developers (going to go on a limb, but im going to assume EA is allowed to use their own servers to push out updates as opposed to going through Microsofts)
As for 'seeing this as a good thing', I don't, and I never said I did. I said I can understand why it's happening, and I can't understand why people who happily bought their other 360 content care now. To me it just reads as petty, they don't mind not getting the service just as long as the PS3 owners are getting equally poor treatment, now the PS3 users are going to be treated equal with PC/Mac people, they suddenly care. That's how I see it anyway.
Nothing has changed for 360 owners.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Since MS it doesn't cost MS shit to use your bandwidth to host multiplayer games and they don't even remove the shit ton of ads on the marketplace (more ad revenue for them) even when you are a paid subscriber, why don't they put some of your 60$ a month towards paying to host free DLC?
StuBurns said:MS have to test the patches and check them, it is not simply a case of pushing it to users. As the first party, it is their responsibility everything on their platforms is working and contains what they want it to. That's why first parties have certification. What if Valve broke a game in a post-game patch that was required to play online? On the 360, that should never happen, if it does it's MSs fault for allowing it. Taking the first parties out of the picture and giving developers direct control to the build the users play is almost removing the use of a first party. It can be good, it can be bad, Sony have chosen one way, MS the other.
As for 'seeing this as a good thing', I don't, and I never said I did. I said I can understand why it's happening, and I can't understand why people who happily bought their other 360 content care now. To me it just reads as petty, they don't mind not getting the service just as long as the PS3 owners are getting equally poor treatment, now the PS3 users are going to be treated equal with PC/Mac people, they suddenly care. That's how I see it anyway.
Nothing has changed for 360 owners.
Perhaps the change isn't as stark in the 360 Era, but looking at Xbox Live between the OG xbox and the 360 there has been a big difference in how Microsoft has treated Live like a moneymaking endeavor. We went from free DLC, to sponsored DLC, to DLC free after a three month period, to 'F U, Pay me, lol'
I see the loophole of having developers cert games then allowing them to have patches without certs, you made a point I didn't see. But I assume MS isn't testing the quality(cause I feel like I remember reading about games being worst post patch), just making sure there isn't an extra bug that wipes harddrives, lol.
H_Prestige
Banned
Stallion Free said:Since MS it doesn't cost MS shit to use your bandwidth to host multiplayer games and they don't even remove the shit ton of ads on the marketplace (more ad revenue for them) even when you are a paid subscriber, why don't they put some of your 60$ a month towards paying to host free DLC?
Why?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Because most websites removes ads for paid subscribers and give them more content/content for free. Because the ad revenue from Xbox Live Marketplace could probably cover their entire bandwidth costs.H_Prestige said:Why?
H_Prestige
Banned
Stallion Free said:Because most websites removes ads for paid subscribers and give them more content/content for free. Because the ad revenue from Xbox Live Marketplace could probably cover their entire bandwidth costs.
Why choose one or the other? MS can have both the ad revenue and the DLC/subscription revenue. The consumers are more than willing to take it.
I mean, if I were in charge of MS' gaming division, you'd have a hard time convincing me to drop paid DLC and the multiplayer fee. The job is to maximize profits.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
But this whole point of this thread is that it is now possibly going to bite them in the ass in one way or another when consumers realize that they can get the content for free on other platforms. Have you not been reading the discussion?H_Prestige said:Why choose one or the other? MS can have both the ad revenue and the DLC/subscription revenue. The consumers are more than willing to take it.
I mean, if I were in charge of MS' gaming division, you'd have a hard time convincing me to drop paid DLC and the multiplayer fee. The job is to maximize profits.
Pretty much. What I don't get is how Sony, who is making zero money from online gaming, doesn't charge devs for patch bandwidth and allows for multiple patches at a 500mb ceiling. A game like PAIN has something like eight updates at 200mb+ each that you need to install when you first boot up the game.krazen said:Since MS it doesn't cost MS shit to use your bandwidth to host multiplayer games and they don't even remove the shit ton of ads on the marketplace (more ad revenue for them) even when you are a paid subscriber, why don't they put some of your 60$ a month towards paying to host free DLC?
Sony does charge for bandwidth for larger PS Store items however, which is why some devs get the user to preload DLC via a patch and then store an unlock key on the Store. So that method does have it's downsides as well, but heck, the positives outweigh it quite a bit (which is why some games have lasted so long with more and more patches that add features, like Super Stardust HD, Pain and High Velocity Bowling).
H_Prestige
Banned
Stallion Free said:But this whole point of this thread is that it is now possibly going to bite them in the ass in one way or another when consumers realize that they can get the content for free on other platforms. Have you not been reading the discussion?
I have read the discussion. Consumers are not going realize the content is free on other systems, and if they do, they won't give a damn. This is the sad truth.
And really, the only DLC that will be free on ps3 will be for the few Valve games. Everything else will be charged for just like on 360.
There will be some I would guess, but it raises a point, if MS is charging, and Sony isn't, why isn't DLC notably cheaper on PS3? They must be raping PS3 owners harder.H_Prestige said:I have read the discussion. Consumers are not going realize the content is free on other systems, and if they do, they won't give a damn. This is the sad truth.
And really, the only DLC that will be free on ps3 will be for the few Valve games. Everything else will be charged for just like on 360.
GeneralIroh
Member
lower standards ftldralla said:and yet Portal 2 on the 360 will outsell the PS3 version 5 fold. ultimately console gamers don't care about steamwork type features [or they've never experienced them]
MWS Natural
Member
BradleyUK said:Because the PS3 was supposedly be hard to develop for and Valve got pissed off at Sony not making a machine around developers.
"Supposedly" is probably the worse word you could have used. Since it's launch the PS3 has been deemed difficult to develop for by countless developers.
Shouldn't things like this be covered in the $60 we spend a year for XBL? If not, then exactly why are we paying them?StuBurns said:But it costs MS when people want to give away free content. That's why they like to pass the costs on to users or the publishers/developers. That seems fair enough to me.
Honestly? You're paying because Sony can't get cross game voice chat into the in-game XMB memory limitations, so they can't compete feature for feature with Live.Dan Yo said:Shouldn't things like this be covered in the $60 we spend a year for XBL? If not, then exactly why are we paying them?
Not necessarily. i'm sure Valve games will still look and run better on 360.GeneralIroh said:lower standards ftl
H_Prestige
Banned
StuBurns said:Honestly? You're paying because Sony can't get cross game voice chat into the in-game XMB memory limitations, so they can't compete feature for feature with Live.
Microsoft disagrees. Hence, no sans-cross game chat online multiplayer for Silver users.
You pay the fee because those are the terms MS set and you either accept or decline the offer.
MWS Natural said:"Supposedly" is probably the worse word you could have used. Since it's launch the PS3 has been deemed difficult to develop for by countless developers.
It's difficult for some middleware engines to develop on top of the system architecture sure. The architecture is complicated to begin with but the tools Sony provide these days are fantastic. Also the PhyreEngine is a great solution for smaller studios to use.
With MMOs at least there's a justification for the charges as they have to keep up servers and it would be financially impossible for them to offer the game without the monthly fee. I do not think it's fair to charge a subscription fee under the guise that it is footing the bill for things like free updates when in actuality they are still asking money for things like that and directly harming the user-base in the process.StuBurns said:Honestly? You're paying because Sony can't get cross game voice chat into the in-game XMB memory limitations, so they can't compete feature for feature with Live.
Yes I pay for Live because it leaves the alternatives in the dust, but i also justified paying for online gaming (something that is free everywhere else) because I thought it was actually necessary for things like servers for updates. Little did I know they were taking money for those things anyway and basically having us pay a subscription fee for something that should actually be one time if any at all.
I don't care what they claim is the reason. Sony can't rival their service, so MS can charge for it, Sony can't rival their service because they can't do cross-game voice chat. I do believe if Sony provided an identical technical service, Gold would be free. Or more specifically, Silver would allow for online play and Gold would have different additions. I guess we don't know for sure, and we won't.H_Prestige said:Microsoft disagrees. Hence, no sans-cross game chat online multiplayer for Silver users.
You pay the fee because those are the terms MS set and you either accept or decline the offer.
Gabe's argument was a first party's job is to make the developers life easier, and the PS3 architecture was so obtuse that it negatively affected general programming and they didn't want to deal with that, and they didn't have to, so they didn't.Suzzopher said:It's difficult for some middleware engines to develop on top of the system architecture sure. The architecture is complicated to begin with but the tools Sony provide these days are fantastic. Also the PhyreEngine is a great solution for smaller studios to use.
H_Prestige
Banned
StuBurns said:I don't care what they claim is the reason. Sony can't rival their service, so MS can charge for it, Sony can't rival their service because they can't do cross-game voice chat. I do believe if Sony provided an identical technical service, Gold would be free. Or more specifically, Silver would allow for online play and Gold would have different additions. I guess we don't know for sure, and we won't.
Sony could have a better service and MS would still charge for multiplayer. They would be leaving too much money on the table not to.
I'll say it again, MS will never let Silver users play multiplayer and keep cross game chat as a Gold exclusive. Because Gold subscriptions would plummet. Even they know hardly anyone gives a shit enough about cross game chat to pay a yearly fee to use it.
StuBurns said:Honestly? You're paying because Sony can't get cross game voice chat into the in-game XMB memory limitations, so they can't compete feature for feature with Live.
$60 for cross game chat. Lol~
Unknown One
Member
The only feature I find useful is the Voiced messages.
StuBurns said:I don't care what they claim is the reason. Sony can't rival their service, so MS can charge for it, Sony can't rival their service because they can't do cross-game voice chat. I do believe if Sony provided an identical technical service, Gold would be free. Or more specifically, Silver would allow for online play and Gold would have different additions. I guess we don't know for sure, and we won't.
Gabe's argument was a first party's job is to make the developers life easier, and the PS3 architecture was so obtuse that it negatively affected general programming and they didn't want to deal with that, and they didn't have to, so they didn't.
Indeed. In the beginning things were not great between Sony and 3rd parties in making them aware of the hardware and the way it works. But that has changed in a big way now.
This generation, we'll never know, but I bet next generation playing over live is free, and Sony has party/cross-game chat.H_Prestige said:Sony could have a better service and MS would still charge for multiplayer. They would be leaving too much money on the table not to.
I'll say it again, MS will never let Silver users play multiplayer and keep cross game chat as a Gold exclusive. Because Gold subscriptions would plummet. Even they know hardly anyone gives a shit enough about cross game chat to pay a yearly fee to use it.
Gabe hasn't gone back on his comments at all. I doubt his primary issues have been resolved, they seemed quite fundamental.Suzzopher said:Indeed. In the beginning things were not great between Sony and 3rd parties in making them aware of the hardware and the way it works. But that has changed in a big way now.
StuBurns said:This generation, we'll never know, but I bet next generation playing over live is free, and Sony has party/cross-game chat.
Gabe hasn't gone back on his comments at all. I doubt his primary issues have been resolved, they seemed quite fundamental.
Well to my knowledge they have great documentation on the tools, they even send out an engineer to show people around the architecture. I'm not sure what else a studio would require.
Getting support makes little difference if what they're supporting is still harder to work with.Suzzopher said:Well to my knowledge they have great documentation on the tools, they even send out an engineer to show people around the architecture. I'm not sure what else a studio would require.
StuBurns said:Getting support makes little difference if what they're supporting is still harder to work with.
True, if their engines are not truly suited to the architecture. Which isn't Sony's problem.
It is if Sony wants them to make games for the PS3 :lolSuzzopher said:True, if their engines are not truly suited to the architecture. Which isn't Sony's problem.
If they want to remain third yeah, that's a great way to act as a first party.Suzzopher said:True, if their engines are not truly suited to the architecture. Which isn't Sony's problem.
Unknown One
Member
Well they are now with Portal 2 and with Steamworks.
Draft said:It is if Sony wants them to make games for the PS3 :lol
No it's not, if they want to make games on the PS3 platform and your engine isn't portable enough to make the move then you as the studio need to weigh up the cost of making adjustments to your engine or you don't bother.
It's Sony's problem that they built it like that in the first place aye. But if they can provide both tools and resource to help out studios then they can do more. Unless you think they need to ditch the PS3 and get straight into PS4?
StuBurns said:If they want to remain third yeah, that's a great way to act as a first party.
So what do you suggest they do? Through together some good documentation for the tools? They have. Send resources to help? They do. Or do you think they should scrap what they have done and make a new system?
Like I said the mistake was to launch the machine with the specs they did, but they have done shit loads to support devs since 2007.
Provide better support of course. I know I've heard stories of SCE Cambridge guy's being sent all over the world last generation by Phil, ripping apart people's tech and putting it back together with it singing on the PS2. Something like Bayonetta would never have happened last generation. I've also heard people leading on 360 because MS provide better support, and they make their lives easier, that is the job of a first party.Suzzopher said:So what do you suggest they do? Through together some good documentation for the tools? They have. Send resources to help? They do. Or do you think they should scrap what they have done and make a new system?
Like I said the mistake was to launch the machine with the specs they did, but they have done shit loads to support devs since 2007.
MS were willing to throw a lot of cash around, and a lot of support, and to this day they get the better version of virtually all cross platform titles. One of the reasons Rockstar sight for going exclusive for Agent is to get better support out of Sony, that's Rockstar North, the company who made the games that basically defined the PS2 for millions, including the best selling PS2 game.
Sony went from being first place by a really long way, to last by a little. That is unthinkable stupidity, and Sony's arrogance as a first party did that. If they don't learn by that lesson harshly next time around, they deserve to be crushed. And this is coming from someone who's been a Sony supporter, and continues to be one.
Strange you mention throwing the whole thing out and starting again, because that was Gabe's advice. Although no, personally I don't think that's a reasonable idea.
Wazzim said:MS needs guys from the gaming industry running their gaming divisions, not old Windows Office 2000 PR guys.
Mattrick is from the gaming industry.
Stumpokapow said:<long list>
Hey, Bubble Bobble Revolution DS had a voluntary recall. You even got a copy of Rainbow island for your trouble!
Also, while this has most likely come up, on a tangent after looking though the patch history of TF2, I realized just how bare bones the 360 and PS3 versions are. Only 6 maps, 3 modes, and no additional weapons. Its not even like you can change which mode to play on the maps, they all have there mode's hardcoded in. Not only that, but with the tiny amount of patches there was most likely little balancing.