Valve: Xbox Live policy is 'such a train wreck'
- Thread starter Guy Legend
- Start date
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
You have to call.Filldough said:
TouchMyBox
Member
OldJadedGamer said:
Certification isn't about protecting the consumer, certification is about protecting the sanctity of a closed platform. Companies like sony require it so a small developer doesn't accidentally include an exploit that lets users jailbreak their system in a patch.
Affeinvasion
Member
Filldough said:
If you speak Hindi you will get through the process much faster...and maybe even make a friend! (Not that the English of the callcenters I have encountered was bad).
Dead Prince
Banned
:lol. good luck calling xbox support (1-800-469-9269) they'll ask question and try to make you stay. if you have a card tied to the account. make sure you know your information as they'll ask you for it all :lolFilldough said:
if they ask why you're leaving make sure to give them a good story or tell them to check GAF :lol
practice02
Banned
Ah, so you are a Linux user?Affeinvasion said:
You can't run an update in the background on a 360 or a ps3.Chavelo said:
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
Well, Xbox Live 360 was conceived prior to 2005. A new set of rules for a 2012 console might be gentler on the bottom than its current form.Princess Skittles said:
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Nice.water_wendi said:
ZombieSupaStar
Member
eh hes kinda right about this, its not really ZOMG CONSOLE WAR BETARYELZ! guys :lol
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
distrbnce said:
No shit. In the mean time, this is a thread talking about Valve (a developer)'s attitude towards MS and Sony as platform stewards.
There are three issues being discussed in this thread:
A) MS as platform steward versus Sony as platform steward (IE the actual point of the thread)
1) Sony charges for bandwidth, MS does not. This makes MS more appealing for Valve.
2) Sony has not pressured developers to make DLC cost money, MS has. This makes Sony more appealing for Valve.
3) Both MS and Sony charge for patches; MS gives you the first patch free, Sony's system hasn't really been made public but let's assume it's around the same. This makes both platforms equally unappealing for Valve.
4) Sony has allowed Valve to port Steamworks. This removes issue number 3 because Valve doesn't need to go through Sony for patching.
B) 360 hardware versus PS3 hardware (IE Gabe's past comments on the PS3)
- Valve had initially criticized the PS3's hardware for being tough to develop for. They haven't took this back so much as they're now at the point where cross-platform development has become easier, Sony has become more willing to help, and Valve stands to gain more because the PS3 userbase is getting there. This has nothing to do with this thread but the article for some reason drags it up so I can see why it ends up being discussed.
C) MS and Sony as they relate to consumers
- This has nothing to do with Valve's comments, Valve's past comments, or anything else that people could conceivably talk about in this thread except for one-line driveby "fuck M$ / fuck $ony / PC RULES CONSOLES DRULES!!!" garbage that has no place here.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Pachter #1?spats said:
Interfectum
Member
duk said:
Because they state their grievances in an interview?
I initially had XBL auto renew turned on like an idiot but I recently cancelled it. The option is pretty hidden though.water_wendi said:
-Login to Xbox.com
-Click on the drop down next to your gamer pic and choose "My Account"
-On left, click Membership Level
-Youll see the words "Auto Renew: On"
-This is where is kinda hidden. The word "On" is actually a link. Click on that.
-Itll take you to an ad screen schowing you all the cool stuff coming on, scroll to the bottom and click "Next". Repeat this step 3 or 4 more times.
-Confirm your cancellation of auto renew.
Its almost as good as cancelling since they cant charge you (or at least I hope not). I think you have to wait until your current subscription ends before removing your card though since its still tied to an active XBL account.
practice02
Banned
trust me charging for DLC is a policy well liked by sony microsoft and publishers.Stumpokapow said:
no one is charging for patches
Patcher just tells it like it is. wether you want to hear or not and the fact of the matter hes right fairly often.Dreams-Visions said:
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
practice02 said:
Okay, but in the context of this thread, we're talking about publishers (Take 2 and Valve) complaining that they want to release free DLC but are being prevented from doing so by Microsoft.
This doesn't mean they want to never release pay DLC. It means they want to release free DLC as well.
Erm, yes, they are, this is the entire point of this thread.
... I don't mean users paying for patches, I mean that publishers need to pay MS or Sony to get their patches certified and deployed. That's the problem. That's the point of this thread. Did you read the thread at all?
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Zeliard said:
Consoles this generation are great. Games this generation are great. Gamers this generation, on the other hand...
I really hate how the "core" gaming community is developing, it's becoming really spoilt. From stupid-ass system wars (which, admittedly, existed way before this generation), over the rise of hundreds of worthless gaming blogs which only make their young readership dumber and less tolerant, to endless unreasonable demands and whining, always caring only about their own personal needs and wants. Who gives a fuck about developers, let alone publishers (evil rich bastards, every one of them), they only exist to provide US with games, preferably at $5 or $10 a pop.
charlequin
Banned
practice02 said:
What we're talking about is enforcing mandatory platform standards that forbid publishers from releasing some DLC for free (which only Microsoft does and which a number of publishers and developers are definitely not happy about), not whether they are happy that paid DLC exists at all (which I think it is fair to suggest Sony, Microsoft, and 100% of all major publishers are.)
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
charlequin
Banned
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
This particular rant would be pretty awful even in a remotely related context, but here it's really quite stunningly unrelated to the topic at hand.
practice02
Banned
There are a lot of instances where free DLC is being released.Stumpokapow said:
Sorry thought you were saying the end user was being charged for patches.
I assume that the charge is their as a penalty for not releasing a functioning product or atleast it should be. the casual dismissle of patches this gen bothers me.
charlequin
Banned
practice02 said:
I really think you should finish reading the whole thread. We've already gone over the difference between Microsoft and Sony's policies on free DLC, then talked about how the cost to the publisher for patching is intended to discourage the release of buggy or unfinished games but it's not clear that it's having the intended effect and/or that it isn't having negative effects in addition.
Metalmurphy
Member
Stumpokapow said:
Actually... I think it removes issues 1 2 and 3. Since it uses SteamWorks it'll most likely just go through Valve content servers directly.
Developers hate live because they can't properly support their games.
Publishers hate live because it costs an arm and a leg to patch content.
Gamers hate live because it costs $60 a year when every competing online service is free.
How in the hell is live still the industry standard online gaming system? Boggles the mind. Sony's online plan is so disasterous. They should be scooping up content that would normally go on Live with two big, cupped hands, but instead, nothing.
Publishers hate live because it costs an arm and a leg to patch content.
Gamers hate live because it costs $60 a year when every competing online service is free.
How in the hell is live still the industry standard online gaming system? Boggles the mind. Sony's online plan is so disasterous. They should be scooping up content that would normally go on Live with two big, cupped hands, but instead, nothing.
Joseph Merrick
Member
consolecrapRSTEIN said:
Metalmurphy
Member
Draft said:
Fixed.
Mr. B Natural
Member
Draft said:
developers like live cause it makes them lots of money
publishers...ditto
gamres like live cause they find the games they want and they actually buy them.
When reality is a mystery to you, maybe...i dunno, you need to reevaluate your own perceptions.
This multi-patch tax issue valve has is a micro-issue that valve is trying to make into a mountain. That's what competitors do. I don't blame them but take it with a grain of salt.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Metalmurphy said:
That's possible, yeah, but I would say that any DLC is going to be offered through the PSN store as well, just from a visibility point of view that seems wise. I suspect Steamworks will just be used for patches.
Still, you could be right.
Draft said:
Because there are millions of people who own XBOX 360s and (if NPD is correct), under 10% of people who own one system own the other (I think that was the statistic used), so for any change to happen to the pricing structure of XBL, people would have to leave XBL so MS would get the clue, but that can't happen since the cost to do so is more expensive (in the interim) until they end up 'saving' money by not paying for XBL anymore.
Case:
If Gamer X stopped buying XBL for it's MSRP and decided to save money by playing online on the PS3 (that he doesn't own), it'd take him 5 or 6 years (depending on when he gets his live) to make up for the cost of the system.
Most people are in too deep with XBL, and with most of their friends on there they have no problem being stuck-up for money. I mean, look at how many 360 owners didn't give a shit about the price being raised in the XBL price raise thread because they don't buy them at full price anyway. They don't care to be gouged, so MS doesn't care to gouge.
Edit:
And with the consumers not leaving XBL, that gives pubs no choice but to grin and bear it.
Stumpokapow said:
Wait a moment, I think I've missed something: Are you saying that this means that Valve doesn't need to have their patches verified by Sony? So if there's a big ol' buffer overflow in there, you could run unsigned code on the system?
Is it not that they don't need to go through Sony for patch *distribution*, but still need to have the patches validated?
practice02
Banned
If they aren't doing it with steam it seems like it defeats part of the purpose.Stumpokapow said:
FunkyPajamas
Member
Weren't the MGO expansions (SCENE, MEME and GENE) available through Konami's online store as well as the game's own virtual store? I guess this would be the same, an application (steamworks) that would run as part of the game (included in the disc with the game) with a propietary UI which connects directly to the servers and maybe users the Playstation store SDK/APIs (if there is such a thing) to withdraw money from the virtual wallet and use it towards Steamworks purchases (where applicable).Stumpokapow said:
Of course, it's hardly ideal as you suggested, but it's not entirely out of the question.