Valve: Xbox Live policy is 'such a train wreck'
- Thread starter Guy Legend
- Start date
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
No. They didn't even do the PS3 port of the game.Philthy said:
StealthGoblin
Banned
Philthy said:
Valve didn't handle the PS3 port of TF2. They also didn't have steamworks access to PSN then either.
I don't see why that counters what I said, Valve changed not Microsoft. If they assumed at that point MS would change in the future, and that was never going to happen, it's Valve that changed their mind as it appears they no longer assume that.George Claw M.D. said:
The same with the PS3, I can't say for sure what the first game was that had in-game PSN-like functions, such as updating and purchasing, but I know MGS4 did, which shipped months before L4D1 and obviously a year on top of that for L4D2.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Valve hasn't even hinted at a PS3 TF2 port done by them, it's pure fantasy atm. I know I would grab it for 20$ if they had proper MKB support so I could fuck with the people who played with their pads.Philthy said:
charlequin
Banned
Dreams-Visions said:
So, I mean... do you really want to stake your position here on the idea that (from a business perspective) companies should take the opportunity of minor success to rest on their laurels, regardless of the effect on development partners or (from a consumer perspective) companies should take advantage of minor sales advantages to take any available opportunity to squeeze out a few bucks, regardless of the effect on what's available to customers as a result?
Throughout the short history of this industry, console-makers trying to coast on reputational capital they earned five years ago wind up providing a poorer experience to their customers and shorting out their own future potential. After all the heat that's been given to (say) Nintendo for their attitude towards developers I don't know why anyone would consider this sort of policy acceptable when it's demonstrably been causing developers to reconsider the level of support they provide the system.
Rad- said:
It bombed hard because Valve didn't do the port, so it was pretty shitty (in load times and effects) compared to the 360 verison.
I'm sure if Valve went back or ported just TF2 and Portal 1 and put them on the Portal 2 disc (surely the bluray has space?) they'd have a huge boom in player count for it.
The idea that the 360 Orange Box is vastly superior is such a myth, it's nothing compared to something like the FFXIII gulf or Bayonetta or something. The PS3 version actually has AA where as the 360 version doesn't. The game has significant performance issues at two points in EP1, but other than that, it's completely playable.TheSeks said:
He is showing a lack of foresight, and as the head of the best game development studio in the world, it's something I think is concerning. It's true though, he hasn't contradicted himself, he hasn't said the PS3 architecture isn't a mess, and he hasn't said Live was ever open.FLEABttn said:
Ninja-Matic
Banned
Zenith said:
MS also charges devs for extra DVDs for games which forces devs to a 9gig cap vs using multiple disks. Despite R* saying in 2000 (5 years before 360) that they "hope its not DVD again".
Restrictions hurt devs - but they wind up hurting the gamer, too. But we all know now that MS thinks we are "a bunch of sweaty 30-year-olds in Metallica T-Shirts" so they obviously don't give a shit about who pays their salaries.
Way to go MS. Way to go.
They do not charge for extra DVDs that was a bit of misinformation by Carmack to push a point which he later corrected. Obviously, the publisher does have to pick up the extra cost of said media however. Would be interesting to see what the cost of 2 DVDs versus 1 Blu Ray is at this point.
StuBurns said:
At launch it was certainly no myth that the PS3 Orange Box was the inferior version. The gulf as you put it was pretty big and there where a lot more issues with the port than the two you describe. The two biggest being the problems people had playing TF2 online and the awful frame rate dips in episode 2.
Not sure how much the patch fixed.
Metalmurphy
Member
Jtyettis said:
Where did you hear this?
Metalmurphy said:
Here on GAF with said qoute from Carmack. Thread on subject late last year maybe? Been awhile.
Willits corrected;
http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1001
As someone who is pretty much exclusively a 360 gamer at the moment, I agreed with his criticisms of the PS3, and I agree with his current criticisms of XBL.
I think his change of heart about the PS3 is indicative of just how much things have changed over the past year or two. Sony is pretty much doing everything they can towards taking over 360's carved out spot as the gamer's choice console, and MS is basically just letting them do that. Despite things being exactly the opposite during the first half of the generation.
Miss you, Peter Moore.
I think his change of heart about the PS3 is indicative of just how much things have changed over the past year or two. Sony is pretty much doing everything they can towards taking over 360's carved out spot as the gamer's choice console, and MS is basically just letting them do that. Despite things being exactly the opposite during the first half of the generation.
Miss you, Peter Moore.
It's in my nature to be condescending toward ridiculous posts that care more about megacorporations than gamers.Dreams-Visions said:
1) Gabe makes off-handed comment expressing frustration with the platform
2) Those frustrations are frustrations that gamers should care about, because it's due to reasons that negatively affect the gamer's experience, making them unable to get free content
3) Gamer responds, seeming to care more about "lol shut up valve microsoft doesn't care", siding with corporation, instead of "hey that dude's right, maybe some changes to policy would be a good thing"
4) Gamer also makes off-handed comment expressing ridiculous notion that 360 games somehow out-sell PS3 games 5:1, which is hyperbolically exaggerated
Sorry, but when gamers attack game developers for ridiculous reasons, I'm perfectly happy to be condescending toward them. When those ridiculous reasons happen to be about a developer who is annoyed that he can't give his customers free content, then I think a bit more than condescension is in order.
outunderthestars
Banned
I think I may be coming to the end of my time as a console gamer. I loved TF2 on the 360, but the game was ruined by a lack of updates and patches.
$60 a year and yet there is still BS like this.....
$60 a year and yet there is still BS like this.....
makingmusic476
Member
The inclusion of Steamworks in the ps3 version is already a clear sign that this will not be the case. Actually, the ability for Valve to keep the ps3 version updated alongside the PC version via Steamworks is why they're working on cross platform play between the two, which means the ps3 version should not only be better supported, but should also have content the 360 version cannot have as a result.Dreams-Visions said:
Even if the 360 versions outsell the PS3 ten to one it won't stop the PS3 version getting better support. I can't even imagine how much better Valve's games have sold on the PC version of Steam as appose to the Mac version. I bet HL2 isn't far off a hundred to one. Now they have Steam, they are treated as complete equals in terms of updates I believe.
What makes you think steamworks on PS3 is something he had to 'trick' Sony into? Sony have allowed games to have in-game updates and stores in the past, Steamworks integration is nothing special for Sony. And what makes you think Sony paid for Portal 2?shintoki said:
Thinking MS would change their policy when they didn't.HK-47 said:
Kitschkraft
Member
Hope that MSFT changes it's tune when the PS3 version of Portal 2 starts to get updates and leaves the 360 version in the dust.
It's a fucking shame that TF2 is the way it is on the consoles.
Shit like this has really ruined this gen to me. So much emphasis on the nickle and diming because companies couldn't fucking come up with a solid business model.
It's a fucking shame that TF2 is the way it is on the consoles.
Shit like this has really ruined this gen to me. So much emphasis on the nickle and diming because companies couldn't fucking come up with a solid business model.
Beer Monkey
Member
Liara T'Soni said:
I own this little forum where most people play 360. I posted this:
Now, most of my friends game on 360 (and these are real-life friends, so don't tell me to get new friends) so this means that I'm not likely to have nearly as many co-op partners if I don't get Portal 2 on 360. But I'm not getting it. And already a couple of my other friends are talking about not getting Portal 2 on 360. Some will probably get it on PC, some on PS3. I'll probably rent it on 360 but then buy it on PC at the first Steam sale.
Now, guys like me and my friends are Microsoft's best customers. When you are making decisions that drive guys like us away, you are making a big fucking mistake.
I'm not sure who you're pissed off at, Valve for not paying to update your potential game, MS for not allowing them to integrate Steamworks, Sony for being less strict, your friends for not being as happy to buy the game as they would be.Beer Monkey said:
Microsoft don't want anyone but them controlling their online service, it's costing them FF14, they are very serious about this.
Beer Monkey
Member
StuBurns said:
I'm not pissed off at anybody. I just think Microsoft is making a mistake.
Apple controls their online service but they do allow developers to give away content.
Valve builds a rabid fanbase by providing tons of free support for their products and Microsoft should make room for models like this.
I'm starting to think this may hurt sales of Portal 360 more than some expect, especially if word is widespread that the 360 version is nerfed. Hell, Arkham Asylum sold better on PS3 just because of the playable Joker exclusivity in the challenge maps.
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. I can see reasons why both first party policies make a lot of sense.Beer Monkey said:
It's true this could affect sales negatively for MSs platform, but I doubt they'd care all that much.
But I wouldn't say the 360 version is 'nerfed', at least no worse than the Orange Box or the L4Ds are on there.
Kitschkraft
Member
StuBurns said:
But those are nerfed. Team Fortress 2 is terrible in comparison to what the PC has.
I mean, maybe at launch it wasn't, but given the fact that we could have had some cool stuff that we didn't get because of a policy, nerfed/gimped/TF2-Light seem like appropriate terms to me.
(I haven't kept up with the L4D franchise, for what it's worth).
Gold users have to be subsidizing these bandwidth cost. At least allowing this free content for people who pay 50 extra bucks a year would be appropriate.
I just can't stand seeing everyone BUT MSFT lose here. These systems are closed as hell, you can't even do simple things like put up your own wallpaper, this just seems so petty to me.
Liara T'Soni said:
But, I mean look at the responses in the thread, it's basically the consumers fault cause we will take it (or specifically enough of us will gladly be taken advantage of making it worth it for the corporation, lol).
It's why I thank god for multiconsole generations so that way there are at least some checks and balances because unfortunately it seems left to our own devices we as the gaming community pretty much suck when it comes to sticking to our guns (except for metacritic scores, lol)
True, but my point was the game isn't any more or less nerfed, so anyone who was happy to buy the last games without steam support shouldn't really be affected by the fact Sony's users will be getting it this time around. You're either happy with MS controlling updates or you're not, I don't see what has changed.Liara T'Soni said:
Personally, I think TF2 with a gamepad is fucked anyway, it's not even worth supporting. The game isn't exactly perfectly balanced on PC, but it's a 'train wreck' with a pad. The Scout might as well not exist.
Saying that, if and when CS2 makes it out, and comes to consoles, it will be worth supporting very tightly. Something like that I could see having a substantial advantage on PS3 over 360 if Valve don't get their way on the 360, but Portal 2 I really can't see it making that much difference. I'll be picking it up on PS3 so it's not like I'm trying to downplay it for any console war shit, I really think any 360 owner will be getting a perfectly fine product with Portal 2, if and when CS2 hits, that could be a very different situation though.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
The Orange Box sold over 700k on the 360 in NA alone. That's more than double the PS3 version. It's in the top 50 for sales on the 360 and outsold all but about 20 PS3 games. The PS3 version isn't even in the top 50 for that platform.Rad- said:
The quality of the port and the bad word of mouth associated with it certainly affected sales on the PS3 version. That and being on the PS3, lol.
There are probably a number of other influences in the 360 version selling better, HL2 was on Xbox, it wasn't on PS2, so maybe there were a higher percentage of HL2 players wanting to play the sequels, or knowing the quality of Valve games. Maybe the Xbox 360 user base has a higher percentage of PC and former PC gamers who would possibly also be more inclined to buy a Valve product. Certainly the things you mentioned affected sales, but I don't think it's so clear cut as the quality of the SKUs.Segata Sanshiro said:
brain_stew
Member
StuBurns said:
So it is "nerfed" then? Because those games sure as hell were "nerfed" compared to their PC releases The difference this time is that there'll be a console release available that offers pretty much the full package while the 360 version will be the same gimped, red headed step child yet again. This will make its shortcomings even more apparent and impossible to avoid since a lot of gamers and the media like to pretend PC gaming doesn't exist, they're going to find it hard to ignore another console version.
bloodydrake
Cool Smoke Luke
ya i'm in the same boat. this was my first console since sega genesis and it might be my last.sillymonkey321 said:
i'm sick of the nickel and dime approach of MS.I'm slowly getting soured to the whole experience.
I've always said MS makes a great underdog and and absolutely Horrible Leader. Tho they're second to Nitendo they still feel they're the Leader in HD gaming. Theirs nothing pro consumer in anything they do anymore.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
I never said (and never would say) they were the only factors, but I don't think you can discount the quality of the port (and more importantly the word of mouth about the port) as an actual discernible difference between the two versions that could explain the massive difference in sales. Your ideas are good too, but unfortunately would require more research to prove as reliable factors. For example, we don't really know if Xbox 1 owners necessarily made that jump to the 360 and not the PS3, and that if Half-Life being on the system prior primed that userbase, the PS2 had Half-Life, so that should have raised awareness for playing the sequel.StuBurns said:
Just shooting from the hip, I'd explain the difference in sales by these factors, in order of importance:
1) It was a PS3 game. At the time, PS3 versions sold embarrassingly worse than their 360 counterparts.
2) There was a lot of bad word of mouth about the port. Even Valve publicly treated it like a red-headed stepchild.
3) The pump for first person shooters had been primed a bit better on the 360 than the PS3 at that point.
4) It actually was not a good port.
5) Other stuff.
makingmusic476
Member
The ps3 version also released two months after the 360 version (October 9th vs December 14th).Segata Sanshiro said:
charlequin
Banned
StuBurns said:
C'mon, that's nonsense and you know it. Nobody at Microsoft has put together a compelling business case demonstrating that the made-up, fictional "losses" from letting people give away free content outweigh the sales benefits of enhancing the platform. This isn't like charging for Live where as odious as it is Microsoft really would be leaving money on the table if they didn't do it.
So completely and totally nerfed to an incredible degree.
Yeah sounds about right. Makes me wonder actually, how much of the Xbox users moved on to 360, I would assume a fairly large percentage, I imagine the best indication would be how many Live users moved their accounts over, but even that would really tell us anything but that itself.Segata Sanshiro said:
charlequin said:
I don't know how much it costs MS to test patches and things, I can imagine it's not cheap, but yes, I agree it shouldn't be charged as long as you're paying for live at least, but that's their policies, and I can understand them not wanting to foot the bill despite thinking it's a poor way to treat their users.
And yeah, they're nerfed compared to their PC versions, but my point was Portal 2 is no more nerfed and if it didn't bother someone then, I don't see why it would now.