Unless you've been hiding behind the couch for the last few months you'll be well aware of Microsoft's grand plan to boost the PC as a gaming platform. In addition to introducing 'Games for Windows' branding and a huge marketing push at retail, Microsoft is also soon to launch Games for Windows - Live (Windows' version of Xbox Live), details on which were officially announced last week.
Literally a few days later Microsoft jetted into London for a Games for Windows event where Rich Wickham, director for Games for Windows, took to the floor to deliver a presentation in which he extolled the virtues of Windows Vista as a gaming platform. Once he was done, he was ours.
Rich Wickham: No, absolutely not. What I was keen to point was that there are free features that are different from Xbox Live Gold so there's no confusion between the different services.
There was a lot of concern in the PC gaming market that we were just going to take the Xbox Live Gold model and stamp it on the PC. But that's not what we've done.
I still believe that Gold is a substantial value over Silver offering from a couple of perspectives. I think some of the Trueskill Matching we offer on Xbox Live that we'll offer in Games for Windows - Live Gold is really useful. Secondly, I think multiplayer achievements something people are going to be very keen to earn and you can only earn those when you're playing in Games for Windows - Live Gold.
And thirdly I think the cross-platform play, which is one of the real values of connecting the two platforms, is something people are going to look for as well.
Those three things plus some of the other features that are in Gold only still make that investment of 40 pounds - which is not a lot of money when you think about it, for year; you know, less than four pounds a month - is really useful and really valuable.
Yes, but PC gamers have been playing for free for years. Do you see an uphill struggle to persuade PC players of the value of Gold?
Rich Wickham: Well, you know, we're trying, right? And the second thing I'd say is that I think that if PC gamers are completely honest with themselves, they will say that the free experience they get today is not great.
It's not great, it could be a lot better than it is. I think you'll find, with Games for Windows - Live, it will be better than it is today. And frankly anything that gets over and above that base line service in the PC space today does cost money.
There are a number of folks out there charging for a better online experience, and they're charging about the same that we're charging. So this is not out of line with that. I think if anything we're delivering a much better set of features and service than you get, for free and for 40 quid.
Will the only way to get updates for Games for Windows titles be through Games for Windows - Live?
Comments
9 comments so far...
Shadow_Fury on 20 Mar '07 said:
personally i feel the online gaming experiences i get are wonderful. ok so there are odd niggles, but nothing id pay £40 quid to sort out!
ut2004, free online service, i play this regularly online, the lack of a good and useful voice system doesnt bother me, i prefer tot ype, its fast,e asy and fun.
would i pay yearly for this on top of my internet subscription, NO WAY IN HELL!
dark messiah of might and magic online multiplayer, would i pay on top of my net subscription for this? not in a million years.
mmo's are pay-per0month because thats the way they get their income to continue producing new content, which they do rapidly, and with what i would call reasonable monthly fee's.
if this games for windows-live thing means i wont be able to play the games i want to play online without paying, then i simply wont play, ill spend that £40 on drinks, food, going out, or (inevitably) another game.
one of the reasons i dont want an xbox/360 is because to play your games online you need to pay-per year. you've baught a console. you've baught a game that can be played online. i dont think yo should have to pay seperately to play that game online.
hopefully the ps3 and wii will not do the pay yearly (or daily, or monthly, or biannually, or per century).
Capt_Frantic on 20 Mar '07 said:
Re: Everything Rich Wickham said ...
ATISHOO! ... I'm sorry, I'm allergic to bulls**t.
Might as well have entitled this article "How to sell stuff that no-one wants or needs - 101".
Machetazo on 20 Mar '07 said:
/hopes strongly that Hellgate: London is indeed heading for console/cross-platform land.
(has a PC ready just in case, though! 
)
UT3 had better have mod/creation support, cross-platform= icing on a scrumptious cake, though.
It's time to make decisive moves forward into gaming's future.
Anonymous on 21 Mar '07 said:
I sure as hell paying nothing for online play....gimme a break. Sure, the service aint great, but at least its free.
Dajmin on 21 Mar '07 said:
It starts now - Microsoft are about to kill online gaming.
Bear in mind that reports earlier this year said Vista would be the last non-subscription Windows they made, meaning if you want it you have to pay them a monthly fee.
Add to that internet fees and any game subs you might have, and you reach wallet breaking point.
I enjoy playing online for free in Battlefield 2, CS:S, and whatever else I happen to be playing right now, and there's no way I'd pay someone for the pleasure. And obviously the view so far is that others feel the same way.
If there's no other choice, people are going to end up abandoning Windows altogether, and that'd be a disaster for them.
AlexRat on 21 Mar '07 said:
*sigh* How many times do they have to say it?
Online play will be on the Silver package. Which is entirely free.
Asaron on 22 Mar '07 said:
Why did CVG feature that comment? "I wouldn't pay £40 pounds for that service!!"
So? Nobody is asking you to, or even giving you the opportunity to.
Shadow_Fury on 22 Mar '07 said:
i know im not being asked too but its the same for xbox live if you want the full service out of your console you have to pay extra per year.
and they will give the opportunity at a later date (although there is a limited free version)