krypt0nian
Banned
burgerdog said:
Don't be surprised.
Valve: Xbox Live policy is 'such a train wreck'
- Thread starter Guy Legend
- Start date
Don't be surprised.
Joel Was Right
Member
I wonder what the bandwidth costs are like on the PSN and how/if its distributed through all the devs
Dead Prince
Banned
Meus Renaissance said:
Wasn't there an article awhile back cost per GB?
The Faceless Master
Member
executable updates take 5 seconds, then you have to go to marketplace and download the content pack if the game requires it, and if you play too many games, you have to download the update again because it gets flushed.practice02 said:
16 cents per GB, it was mentioned in the threadMeus Renaissance said:
The Faceless Master
Member
the only reason i'm not laughing is i remember MGO... then again, that was Konami, not Valve.Jenga said:
Subtervotion
Member
I'm an xbox fanboy and even I agree with Valve. Raising prices on P2P and charging for DLC is ridiculous. MS has done a good job with live, but they get greedy sometimes. I remember when Gears 1 had free DLC and MS got pissed. So backwards on MS' part.
practice02
Banned
What game does that?The Faceless Master said:
IsntChrisL
Member
The Faceless Master said:
Thinking about it, I had to jump through more hoops to play Konami's game online than any other system. It far outdid the Wii as far as being a pain in the ass goes.
DodgyGeezerFella
Member
practice02 said:
Burnout Paradise for one (i think).
You are also talking about the same shitty development team that makes you reinstall each individual chapter.The Faceless Master said:
Valve is not Kojima. Valve is the developer who makes amazing looking games on a 6 year old engine. Who releases normally very polished titles, and continues to support them for years.
Anyways, I believe Gabe mentioned it before. He dislikes XBL. It's basically everything that is anti-steam other than being a universal service hub for multiple titles.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Church RvB said:
Thats' a pretty epic understatement.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
CS:S runs on just about everything nowadays. I'd be willing to bet that a ridiculous percentage of PS3 owners also own a PC capable of playing the game and if they wanted to play it that badly, they would have by now.mave198 said:
Green Biker Dude
Banned
i still find it hard to believe a service so shitty and full of so many gotchas like xbox live got so popular. console gamers these days really don't know better
Green Biker Dude said:
That's just it, it's not "shitty".
It's miles ahead of what the other consoles offer. I've had it for the last 3 years and it's a damn good service. I dislike Microsoft and their business practices but I can't deny the greatness of the Live Gold service. If you're an active gamer, especially when it comes to online gaming, it's the best choice you have.*
*on consoles, of course
charlequin
Banned
FunkyPajamas said:
Applying the same standard, they "pretty clearly" don't care about Square-Enix on their system anymore, in much the same fashion. But I think when games on the level of Valve's output or SE's latest Final Fantasy MMO are the stuff you're rejecting in order to stick to your guns on what was a questionable policy at best to start with, it's time to swallow your pride and revise the policy.
Beer Monkey
Member
burgerdog said:
Doesn't MS have a rule that if the content is free on PSN that you can only release it for free on Xbox Marketplace (or not at all)?
H_Prestige
Banned
Beer Monkey said:
Online multiplayer "content" is free on PSN but $60/year on XBL. I don't think MS believes they have any competition right now.
They may as well be right, given their system is selling more than ever despite crap moves like this.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Church RvB said:
This isn't one of Valve's complaints.
This isn't one of Valve's complaints; MS published Gears of War and thus has every right to decide if given DLC is pay or not. What Valve is saying is pressuring OTHER PUBLISHERS to make their content for-pay (IE applying their publisher mentality to their platform stewardship) is problematic.
Benjamin1981
Member
Beer Monkey said:
I'll remember such a policy as well.
But there are still enough shitty policies in place. I remember an interview with a Crystal Dynamic rep where he was asked about the price for Lara Croft and Guardian of Light and he said he didn't know because MS has not decided on the price yet. How are publishers ok with MS setting prices for the XBLA games?
FunkyPajamas
Member
Oh, yeah, absolutely, but then we come back to the premise: at this point in time third party exclusivity for NEW IPs doesn't really make much sense without a heavy investment (or at least leniency) from the platform holder, so, again, Microsoft can just ride whatever time is left from this generation in cruise control, with their proved franchises, with their new push for casual/motion gaming and come next gen they'll court every developer again like they did at the beginning of this one and it'll be a clean slate for all. So I don't see Microsoft feeling the need to review their policies before the end of this generation (disclaimer: I know I could be proved wrong in a matter of minutes), but I do see them trying to bargain with certain heavyweight developers closer to the end of this generation to get them on the next-gen bandwagon.charlequin said:
To be perfectly clear: as a consumer I agree completely, Microsoft should revise their policies (and they have shown in the past they're willing to do it in order to improve - see: XBLA size limit), but right now, 5 years in, maybe 2 more years to go, I don't see Microsoft doing a widespread policy change. Will they get in specific negotiations with third party providers to get (limited?) exclusivity and in turn Microsoft will (maybe?) offer a revised policy for that specific product? Yeah, they more than likely do it already. I don't know, I just don't see them hurting for content right now so as to want to make such "radical" changes. The moves they've made in the past few years point to that: "letting" Bungie go, closing so many studios, focusing on NXE, avatars, Kinect, etc.
[edit] Oh, and I think it's not a matter of swallowing pride at all, it's more (I believe) that this is a tried-and-true approach/system for them, it has worked; they started having the network infrastructure/services monopoly since last gen, their tools (software) have always been more advanced and properly integrated, they feel the need to charge for that premium, I think. Changing those policies right now for everybody would probably be a pain in the ass from every point of view: legal, accounting, billing, support, etc. So they probably feel the need to be careful with that as well. I don't know, maybe I'm giving them too much credit (even though I'm not defending them), I just think they're in a position right now where [core game] developers like Valve and Square going full multiplatform is not really much of a concern.
practice02
Banned
I'd like to know who approached who in the PS3/Portal/Steam deal.
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
It's funny, so many GAFfers talk about devs being lazy and releasing unfinished, untested broken games.
You'd think MS' policy of one free title update would encourage devs to get it right from the start.
Still seems counter productive to charge devs to update titles though.
You'd think MS' policy of one free title update would encourage devs to get it right from the start.
Still seems counter productive to charge devs to update titles though.
SEGAmaniaco
Member
ps3 scored
zombieshavebrains
I have not used cocaine
OP title and article title are a little misleading. It even says, "Valve boss Gabe Newell has called his company's assumptions over Xbox Live "such a train wreck". He wasn't really attacking MS directly. They thought X would happen and it didn't at all, so they're assumptions were completely off.
FunkyPajamas
Member
Yup, I'm not sure why title hasn't been changed yet, but what you're saying is right: his views of what would happen once they put their products on XBL were not in tune with reality.zombieshavebrains said:
jim-jam bongs
Member
The article and thread titles are completely accurate.
Since there has been talk of Steamworks and patching, please correct me if I am wrong; I thought Sony was dropping the requirement for getting patches certified. The original certification will be for the release and after that, Sony wouldn't require patches to follow the same route.
Could I be confusing this with PS2, or minis or just smoking some really good stuff?
Could I be confusing this with PS2, or minis or just smoking some really good stuff?
Lagspike_exe
Member
tirminyl said:
Sony definitely requires certification for patches.
I'm not bashing Valve, I consider them to be the best developers in the world, but their opinions often surprise me. The PS3 architecture is unfriendly, they're not interested in supporting it. Cool that makes sense, Gabe suggested Sony did produce an obtuse console assuming it would massively outsell the 360 so developers would lead on PS3 and PS3 games would look better, I fully believe that's the case.
Then he talks about how happy he is with Sony's platform's openness, and that's also true, it is considerably more open. Now he's complaining about MS's console being too walled off, this is also true, he's right on all accounts, but what I don't get is nothing has changed. Sony launched with an obtuse system with a more open approach to third party direct support of their software. MS launched with the easier system to work with and with the very tightly closed service.
Everything is basically how it was the day these systems launched. Seems odd to me that Gabe appears to care about different things at different times.
Then he talks about how happy he is with Sony's platform's openness, and that's also true, it is considerably more open. Now he's complaining about MS's console being too walled off, this is also true, he's right on all accounts, but what I don't get is nothing has changed. Sony launched with an obtuse system with a more open approach to third party direct support of their software. MS launched with the easier system to work with and with the very tightly closed service.
Everything is basically how it was the day these systems launched. Seems odd to me that Gabe appears to care about different things at different times.
Maybe Microsoft has been sipping too much of that Bobby Kotick kool-aid.
His motto is that if you're not continuing to pay for a game you've already paid for, he'd rather you run out and buy another game.. and then another.. and then another.
People who buy a game and then play it for a few months without buying any DLC are not the type of customers he wants to sell a game too. He wants you to buy the game, buy the DLC, buy more DLC, buy more DLC, and then buy the sequel, rinse and repeat.
His motto is that if you're not continuing to pay for a game you've already paid for, he'd rather you run out and buy another game.. and then another.. and then another.
People who buy a game and then play it for a few months without buying any DLC are not the type of customers he wants to sell a game too. He wants you to buy the game, buy the DLC, buy more DLC, buy more DLC, and then buy the sequel, rinse and repeat.
Beer Monkey
Member
Benjamin1981 said:
All Crystal D had to do is tell MS that it would be 10 bucks on the PS3 if they wanted it to be 10 bucks, then it would be 10 bucks on 360.
charlequin
Banned
FunkyPajamas said:
This is so fucking lazy though. It's the same hubristic laurel-resting Sony and Nintendo have both been guilty of in the past except Microsoft's laurels didn't even start out that good in the first place.
I think we've seen from what's happened with the PS3 that courting developers isn't necessarily a magic solution. These sorts of stewardship issues actively damage Microsoft's relationships with the publishers and developers who get stuck with the negative results and I'm doubtful that if Microsoft spends two years giving these companies the cold shoulder they'll be nearly as enthusiastic to jump back in.
zombieshavebrains said:
Gabe is quite explicit in using the "train wreck" phrase to refer to XBL policy in the actual quote later in the text, so the article and thread title are right while the article body is wrong.
StuBurns said:
Sure something's changed. Supporting the PS3 is a dramatically better investment for a developer or publisher now than it was three years ago, and as a result Sony's more flexible and open stewardship of their platform is relatively much more appealing while Microsoft's intransigence is increasingly offputting.
jim-jam bongs
Member
StuBurns said:
Things aren't the same for them though. Hardware architecture is a bigger concern early on when you're preparing to get involved in a platform, because it directly affects your engine development decisions and such. Once that investment has been made, it's more about content-delivery and social-gaming, for which online is the single most important factor.
StuBurns said:
Or maybe he didn't care until he started to really look at things on the platform? I can only compare to my personal experience. I had an iPhone and it didn't really bother me that it was a walled garden. Things were good and great but I started to want more. I got an Android phone and I am loving how free flowing and open it is. I may have heard about it before but when planning my transition and subsequently experiencing it gave me a new light on things. Maybe Microsoft is his iPhone and PS3 is his Android. Both great with but different experiences.
May not be the best comparison but it's how I see his recent voice regarding the platforms.
FunkyPajamas
Member
It's also possible that the PS3 SDKs have gotten better with time so now it makes more sense to invest in the platform from a software development point of view.StuBurns said:
And again, we're on the same page, I mean you just said it yourself: it has happened in the past once these companies think they're on top of the world. I think the only difference is that you seem to be certain that Microsoft has to change because their policies are dragging them down (so to speak) and pushing some third parties away, while I believe (and again, I could be wrong) that Microsoft doesn't feel the need to change precisely because the race is now so far along that it just doesn't really matter anymore (even though they're only first if we're counting the "hd" ones).charlequin said:
Well, you see, first off I do believe that actively courting developers and publishers (by providing them with updated SDK and hardware kits, by being lenient with certain policies under special circumstances, etc) pays off in the long run. You're right that it is not a magic solution, of course (Nintendo Wii), but I think that it does contribute a lot. Look at the 360 vs PS3 in terms of ease of development, development tools, hardware information, even middleware: UE3 and 360 go hand in hand this gen.charlequin said:
Now, how many times have we heard or read about third parties complaining about one distribution platform or another (PSN vs XBL)? Honestly I've heard complaints for both systems. Different, yes, but enough for both to make me think that:
a) Neither is perfect (in terms of Policies)
b) Not all developers/publishers are treated equal (Makes sense, something like L4D gives a developer some leverage, I would think)
and
c) In the end the publishers (the large ones at least) still end up distributing their products through whatever means are available to them, regardless of the inherent issues each may have.
I wouldn't say that Microsoft is going to give developers/publishers "the could shoulder" for the rest of the current gen, but to concede a system-wide policy change for everybody without standing to gain something like (say) full exclusivity for a system-selling franchise? It wouldn't make sense, I think.
Game2Death
Banned
I know this is a few pages back, but I wanted to say something. I know EXACTLY what you mean. I am one of the few who don't buy dlc and never have. No one here has self control, if no one would have paid for those dumb $1 add-ons when this generation started we wouldn't have this problem. OR if people didn't pay for LIVE and lived without online for 6 months then maybe a price drop or FREE like Games for Windows LIVE. Or if people would stop buying $15 dollar map packs...REMEMBER CITADEL said:
I buy a game. And I play it until I no longer have fun. I don't go online and complain, but I do read everything people post..and no one is forcing them to play these games, it's becoming less about fun now..
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Mr. Newell,
Now that Duke Nukem Forever has been confirmed for PC, PS3 and 360, can you please just fucking release HL Episode 3? I'll buy it for PS3 if it makes you happy
.
Now that Duke Nukem Forever has been confirmed for PC, PS3 and 360, can you please just fucking release HL Episode 3? I'll buy it for PS3 if it makes you happy
as long as it's locked at a solid 30FPS
DevilWillcry
Member
The dog turns on it's master :lol