Games for Windows - Live, eh? Why, when we've been happily playing online PC games for years, do we need Microsoft to come along with a standardising service like this, some of which you have to pay for? Hell, I'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot barge pole, it's a complete pile of dog turd. Or is it?
Now that the dust has settled following Microsoft's announcement on Games for Windows - Live and it's all had a chance to sink in, you know what? On the whole, it's no bad thing.
Ultimately, where the big plus points are scored is in choice. Microsoft hasn't been stupid enough to attempt to charge PC gamers to play PC-to-PC online through Games for Windows - LIVE. In fact, two-thirds of the features that'll launch with GfW- Live in May come under the Silver level of service, meaning they're free (as long as you own Windows Vista, ahem).
Under Silver, PC-to-PC multiplayer is accompanied by the likes of integrated voice and text chat, single-player achievements and common user details across Games for Windows - Live and Xbox Live.
Microsoft is aiming to have Games for Windows - Live and Xbox Live eventually share the same feature set. "...our goal is to... get to a place where Games for Windows - LIVE is exactly the same experience that you get on Xbox 360 Live", Rich Wickham, director for Games for Windows, told me in a recent interview.
"So downloads - free and probably paid as well - other kinds of transactions, the movies... All the things we offer today ultimately are things we're trying to offer on Games for Windows - Live as well."
Unsurprisingly, the main talking point of Games for Windows - Live's Gold level of service, which costs 40 quid a year, has been the cross-platform multiplayer gaming aspect that lets PC gamers battle Xbox 360 gamer online. Cross-platform is accompanied by other Gold-unique features that include matchmaking - good for noobs - multiplayer achievements and "Gameplay on reserved Gold servers".
Thank goodness, then, for the free features of the Silver level, because I just wouldn't pay for what Gold offers. Not currently, anyway.
I'm just not convinced of the value of Gold as it'll stand on launch (are you?) in May. Sorry Microsoft, but there it is. In addition, firstly Shadowrun and UNO are the only two announced games so far to support cross-platform, and secondly I think Microsoft is going to have a hard time persuading PC gamers to embrace PC-Xbox 360 multiplayer.
Personally, until I see that killer PC and Xbox 360 game that I SIMPLY MUST play cross-platform, I'll be saving my money. A subscription to Gold isn't essential, after all.
Delivering an online service for console has worked brilliantly for Microsoft with the Xbox brand, but it'll prove a far more difficult task bringing Live to the PC platform and breaking into an online scene that's existed for many, many years.
However, in terms of the free level of service at least, ultimately I don't see there being any real reason to shun Games for Windows - Live. But whether as a standard it'll actually do anything to truly advance PC online gaming, we'll have to wait and see.
Comments
15 comments so far...
bowmonster on 25 Mar '07 said:
All of this sounds great but i have one question:
If i have a gold membership on my XBOX360 can it be used on my Vista PC a no extra cost?
If so then this would add more to the vision of cross platform gaming as people would only be charged once.
allyjweir on 25 Mar '07 said:
yes if you already have xbox live gold then you have it on the pc
gothchild on 25 Mar '07 said:
theres no way i'd pay for this myself..
Mogs on 25 Mar '07 said:
I am very suspicious of Microsoft's intentions. They're not charging for PC to PC gaming NOW because they know they'd never get away with it. I'm pretty certain that's their end goal, however. Let's see if they're still not charging in 2 or 3 years once they've got a bunch of developers/publishers in their pockets.
ez_dude on 25 Mar '07 said:
Everyone immediately looks at the cost, but you fail to see how this can improve the quality of PC games.
To be branded "Games for Windows" the game has to include a certain list of features such as Vista support and Widescreen. In time, and as technology progresses, this list will incorporate additional features that the game must incorporate. This is only a good thing as it's a second level of Quality insurance so that when you see the brand, you know that it's going to be up to scratch (don't confuse that with being a GOOD game ofc!
)
If silver is free, and you can play other PC gamers with that, then i don't see what all the fuss is about. And anyway, I'm sure any 360 owner will tell you that for as little as 35quid a year for a Gold Sub (play.com), XBOX LIVE is extremely worth it!
humorguy on 25 Mar '07 said:
This is purely marketing for the 360 against the PS3, to promote Vista, and to a lesser extent, to bring more PC gamers into 360 ownership/gaming. It has very little to do with supporting PC gaming.
Between Windows for Gaming - Live and the demand that Games for Windows work with the 360 joypad, this is just a long-term plan to have gaming on 360 before PC gaming disappears in 1-2 years.
My only belief in PC gaming being around in 2+ years is if the independent market is allowed to thrive, and to be fair, PC Zone is playing it's part in that where others aren't.
Monkeymanboy on 25 Mar '07 said:
You should welcome it, its annoying to have to wait for homebrew mods to make games widescreen or compatible with certain controllers. I can't count the number of pc games I've played where those simple requirements aren't met properly. I don't get how a garuntee like that could be sinister in any way.
And as for matchmaking being a good thing for noobs, its hard to enjoy playing a game of counter strike anymore when you seem to get shot in the head as soon as the round starts. After playing halo 2 it just seems slightly ...unfair.
desmasic on 25 Mar '07 said:
Pay to play online on PC? Hahahaha..
Let's face it. Only console gamers are that stupid. Only people with too much money will pay for it to play against Xbox players (why?). There's no game out there nor will there ever be that will make me pay to play online.
Also, Games For Windows is a good thing, but good luck finding Indie games with that logo since MS will make sure Indie developers stay out of Vista (they have supported ew crappy Indie titles to show their 'love').
Jez7 on 25 Mar '07 said:
In all honesty, if they charged £40 a year for on LIVE account that you could use on PC and on XBOX, the I'd continue my subscription, but I just don't see myself paying £80 to play against PC people who probably have better control set-ups and have the ability to change options therefore lever an advantage in terms of graphics, frame-rate (low graphics quality and you can see me hiding in a bush with a sniper - they could turn the quality down and effectively cheat?)
But yeah, two for one, and i'm happy to pay. But if I do play on PC, it would rarely be against XBOX 360 opposition if at all, initially. Maybe for HALO 3?
lmimmfn on 26 Mar '07 said:
I agree with Mogs, its their intentions which are suspisious, for me they seem to be trying to gain control of PC online gaming, fair enough its providing a gaming platform with integrated VoIP( which most PC games do not include and teamspeak or ventrillo has to be used ) which is a good thing as is widescreen capibilities.
However, Live works for the xbox 360 and original xbox because if you have one of those consoles and want to play online its your only choice and M$ completely control those consoles, but charging for a gold service to
1. Play XBox<->PC online
2. Have useless bells and whistles
Is not going to make a PC gamer part with his money.
Lets just hope M$ doesnt have the idea of getting most games up on Live, having most of us use the now 'free' silver service then start charging.
pieman on 26 Mar '07 said:
its good on the xbox360 but then thay only have one way to play online unlike the pc
goo5ey on 26 Mar '07 said:
as jez7 mentions, the cross platform idea is off putting since the playing field on PC is already uneven - add to that the difficulty of pitting mouse and keyboard versus joypad (especially in an fps or strategy game) then it's out of the question as far as i can see. I'll be interested to see their solution if it's more than just handicapping the PC player somehow.
"I don't get how a garuntee like that could be sinister in any way." says someone (i'm lazy and i forgot who)
Realistically, games are made to a budget and with tight time constraints (lately it seems, for PC games especially tight) If a PC developer decides to prioritise that last bug squash, gameplay tweak or code optimisation before the release deadline then i don't mind going without some non essential features - on the other hand if they're working towards some unrelenting checklist of superfluous features rather than concentrating on polishing the game then that might not be so good.
On the other hand if a game is finished and polished - then gets added development time before it receives it's Windows Live label along with bells and whistles then wheres the extra budget coming from?
I'm naturally pessimistic about this idea but I'll wait to see how it pans out. Steam's already got the electronic distribution ball rolling but maybe a little competition won't hurt...
morgadp on 29 Mar '07 said:
Damn. And there was me thinking you had finally left these forums. Humorguy, pc gaming is going nowhere. Take your cycnical bulls**t facts elsewhere. No-one listens to a word you say anymore. Even the mods ridicule you when they can get away with it.
pablouk on 4 Apr '07 said:
This will work as a novelty and will last a couple of weeks only.
X360 users will soon get fed up getting murdered by PC gamers.
Stop trying to control the world Microsoft; it’s not going to work
funkyjack on 10 Apr '07 said:
nice idea in many ways...I wont judge till I see it all in practice though