http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2007/03/14/542900.aspx
http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/live/aboutLive.aspx

I'll sum it up for you:
- Games for Windows Live is like Xbox Live, for Windows. (duh) The name is just drawn out to use both of MS' trademarks.
- Games for Windows Live and Xbox Live (and all future Live services, I expect) are one and the same, just appropriately named for each platform. This means:
-- Being a member in one means you're automatically a member of all the others with no extra costs.
-- The profile, achievements, friends lists, gamerpoints and all that, are one and the same for both platforms.
- This also means cross-platform support. You'll get achievements on both Win/Xbox games, talk to people from one platform to the other, etc. All seamlessly.
- However, you have to be a Gold (paid) member to be able to play cross-platform. If you're a Silver (free) member, you can still play Win<->Win like always.
- So if you're a Windows user with no Xbox, improved multiplayer is all you're getting with a Gold membership. This includes multiplayer achievements.

So, there you go. Even though Games for Windows Live doesn't seem like much now, I like how Windows users will finally get all that gamerscore and achievements love that Xbox users keep going inane about.
Well, that and finally having an unified online service so I don't have to keep re-registering and re-friending and re-distributing my username everytime I get a new game.

Oh, and current production line of Games for Windows Live: Halo 2 for Vista, Shadowrun, Uno. Sad, I know. And the whole shebang launches May 8th with Halo 2 for Vista.

...I do hope this doesn't take off. There's no reason Microsoft should be in charge of online gaming on PCs and there's no reason we should pay them for it.

I don't really think there's much of a problem with it. There's no way they can force this on outside-published games, so any thoughts of some monolithic online gaming monopoly (both pros and cons) can be ruled out.

Plus, I don't see anything wrong with Microsoft having a unified online system for their published games. Being a Gold member is not forced, and not being one doesn't cause you to lose any features that you would normally have. I'm all for it.



Hell, what am I saying... It's the addiction to achievments, I tell you! :rolleyes:

...I do hope this doesn't take off. There's no reason Microsoft should be in charge of online gaming on PCs and there's no reason we should pay them for it.

You only pay if you want to play against Xbox 360 people. Most will be satisfied with PC - PC play. I'm fairly certain I'll just stick with silver membership, unless there are enough games that I'm interested in that are multiplatform playable.

So far it's just Shadowrun and Uno (not Halo 2). I'm interested in neither.

At least this means companies can put their XBLA games on the PC. I mean, I heard Codemasters was planning to put its version of Sensible World of Soccer 96/97 on both the 360 and the PC.

There's no way they can force this on outside-published games
you mean like they forced pretty much everything else?

Well, you don't have to pay if you're already paying on Xbox Live...

I don't really think there's much of a problem with it. There's no way they can force this on outside-published games, so any thoughts of some monolithic online gaming monopoly (both pros and cons) can be ruled out.

Really? They couldn't force DirectX on games either. I don't remember the last time I saw a new PC game that didn't run on DirectX.

Oh, crap!
This will definitely ruin some future games that are trimmed to be playable on the console.

Really? They couldn't force DirectX on games either. I don't remember the last time I saw a new PC game that didn't run on DirectX.And how is that bad?

And how is that bad?

Well, it's not.

But if Microsoft can get all games using DX then "any thoughts of some monolithic online gaming monopoly (both pros and cons)" can certainly not be ruled out.

And how is that bad?
where do i even start? directx code cannot be ported to other os as easily. controlling directx standards lets ms control graphics hardware standards. directx is not famous for stability or efficiency. and worst of all, ms uses its influence in dx by forcing c# and xna on people, both of which are going to amplify the problems outlined above 10-fold, and spread them to parts of the game that have nothing to do with graphics.

I'm pretty sure the Doom 3 Engine is OpenGL, so that means Prey, and whenever-it-comes-out Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.Unless that's wrong or innacurate or something - I confess, I know little about such things. And... looking into it a bit more, it looks like I am. I, uh, think...


While I still think there's little to object to over a free singular network, I don't think it will assume some sort of monolithic position. I think there's far too many people who object to things for the sake of it to ever let it happen. Microsoft can't bloody well force developers to use it, and many games will require their own unique systems that either Games for Windows Live can't or won't oblige to. My prime example is recently-released Supreme Commander. Smashing little network thing it's got. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't need the Live treatment.

However, compare that to the 'glory' days of Counterstrike server browsers, the horror of which still continues in many games today, and you can see why for many it is a help to the system. Especially in cost-heavy development of games, I can see a number of reasons why developers simply don't need the hassle of having to host their own servers, design their own code, etcetera.

And while I haven't read the articles top-to-bottom, I feel that if they can do for Windows what they did for the Xbox 360, and that includes Live Arcade, I envisage nothing but simple yayness. And there's far more they can do in Windows than the constricted 360.

The only real complaint I can find with it is, again both pro and con, of having a singular identity on the 'net. I don't really like the idea of, having teamed up with someone in a random game through chance and circumstance, them then proceeding to somehow be able to associate with me in another, completely different game, one in which I might not value their company. Especially if they're annoying.

At worst - or best for some, I suppose - I think we might see cases where things meld. Similar to playing online servers with all the naff levelling features they can throw at you, one is not associated with the other. Unlocking an achievement in Spore while recieving other player's content with the Spore online features. Having the choice between playing on the more universally-friendly (which is to say, definitive rules, structure, and so on) Live or the developer's own Net Code, with it's own unique features that Live simply can't offer them.

I'm pretty sure the Doom 3 Engine is OpenGL
it is. id software is one of the few devs that still do things the right way.

Microsoft can't bloody well force developers to use it

No, they can't force anything, but Microsoft have a history of being extremely persuasive.

The complaint is nothing to do with "having a singular identity". The complaint is that Microsoft already control graphics code and OSes for more-or-less every PC on the planet. They also, by sheer force and by business practices that verge on being evil, control (what most people think of as) HTML standards, because they ship MSIE with Windows and then make it just different enough from proper browsers and just ubiquitous enough that websites are forced to conform to it rather than vice versa, meaning that competing browsers have to adapt -- but Microsoft use proprietary standards, so they can't.

I, for one, do not think they should be allowed to control a majority of PC-based online gaming systems, because I don't think they can be trusted with that kind of power. They have a long history of using that kind of control to make money in ways that look and feel an awful lot like extortion. In this case, I fear that Microsoft will use their DirectX and OS monopolies to push Games For Windows Live, and then I fear that they will use their newly acquired online gaming monopoly to link to Xbox Live and push the Xbox 360 because it will be the only console that can play against PC gamers. XNA and Games For Windows Live are pushing for the Xbox360 and Windows to become inextricably linked, which will make it ten times harder to compete with Microsoft in the console market, because nobody else will be allowed to do the same thing. And then they'll use their newly acquired monopoly on games consoles to make obscene amounts of money from the software market. And that will be bad for competition, bad for games, bad for consumers, and bad for the economy, at least, those of Europe and Japan.

That's why I hope Games For Windows Live doesn't take off. I don't care if it improves the games. This has nothing to do with games.

where do i even start? directx code cannot be ported to other os as easily. controlling directx standards lets ms control graphics hardware standards. directx is not famous for stability or efficiency. and worst of all, ms uses its influence in dx by forcing c# and xna on people, both of which are going to amplify the problems outlined above 10-fold, and spread them to parts of the game that have nothing to do with graphics.You know, I'm just sick of this. Sick of always hearing people always whining about higher-level-languages and porting and what not.

Languages are what you make of them, and at this point I've seen plenty of good games made out of XNA, OpenGL, DirectX, Java, whatever.

Developers have a choice. There's still OpenGL and plenty of engines for it and plenty of games (http://www.mobygames.com/attribute/sheet/attributeId,13/offset,0/so,1d/) running on it. Nobody's gonna stop them or give them a prize for what they pick. If they pick DirectX, clearly they have a motive.

I don't care if the game has the cleanest nicest code in history. I don't care if it's got the best flawless engine in the world. I care that it's a good game. That it works. That it plays. That it's fun. And I seriously doubt that if a game turns out like s*** that it's because of DirectX or OpenGL or whatever. It's the developer's fault for deciding on using it and doing an awful job at it. If the developers can't use the tools properly, then they clearly shouldn't have used those tools. If there's no other tools, then they've gotta figure them out or pick another platform with tools they can use. And that's that.

In any case, when was the last time you saw a commercial Windows game actually get ported to other OS? If the publishers actually plan porting, then of course you should develop with porting in mind. Otherwise what's the bloody point of wasting time making your code the most portable thing ever when you might as well take advantage of all the platform-specific shenanigans?

As for C# and XNA, that's Xbox 360 stuff and thus don't know how to discuss it. (yes I know XNA can be used on Windows, but then it's not forced in any way whatsoever and not any popular yet)

Following up on your referal to the IE situation, AT, I do have to observe one trend throughout Microsoft which reflects even into this Games for Windows Live.

PR overuse or not, Windows is peddled as a system that is for ease of use, if anything. Sure, sometimes they miss the mark, or it ends up making it patronising and constricting for more technologically-apt users, but still. IE is useful because, if for nothing else, it is certainly easy to use and is available out of the box. Of course, that ends up being a problem, as it's flaws result in affecting how websites are designed everywhere.

However, the amount of people who use alternate browsers like Firefox and Opera is steadily rising. As more people become more knowledgable about computers, the out-of-the-box usefulness is negated by a desire for something that works.

I think this trend is similar in other Microsoft-controlled products. XNA is not the attempt at global development domination that many people object to. It is an entry level kit which allows people to learn a code language which can simplify the small-time development process through a unified structure that they can be sure works. They even admit that XNA is targetted towards "students, hobbyists, and independent game developers". I've heard of customer loyalty, but I don't think they'll help Microsoft take the world into a new world order.

How does this relate to Live? In fairness, it probably doesn't. Microsoft will probably want all developers to conform to it. Truly, they will instigate a world-wide monopoly, requiring every retailer in the world to supply a PC with a 360, and the only way to gain font control in Word is by having the 360 to unlock it. Truly, we will enter a dark day. However, there will always be those who oppose. Those who refuse to give up their domination to the monolithic Microsoft. They are...

http://www.crashlander.com/images/strips/E174.jpg

Of course, eventually they'll fall. A new age of inextricably-linked hardware that will encourage not closing font tags, and ampersans will run riot. The walls of society will fall down, as on one day, the marketting employee wonders if their usually silent Messenger buddy asks them if it really is them in the suspicious linked picture.

However, at least it'll be easy to use.

XNA is not the attempt at global development domination that many people object to. It is an entry level kit which allows people to learn a code language which can simplify the small-time development process through a unified structure that they can be sure works. They even admit that XNA is targetted towards "students, hobbyists, and independent game developers". I've heard of customer loyalty, but I don't think they'll help Microsoft take the world into a new world order.

You know, I've not used XNA, principally because my graphics card doesn't support it (or more accurately, it doesn't support my incredibly popular graphics card -- another problem with giving one company's closed and proprietary system prevelance -- they can pick and chose who is allowed to make successful hardware, though I don't think they do that), but I have, and regularly do, use C#. With the rise of Mono, it's not exactly bolstering Microsoft's monopolies, and it really is a damn good product. And they're not marketing it agressively; they're giving it away for free and people are using it because it's good. That's fine by me. That should be encouraged.

IE is useful because, if for nothing else, it is certainly easy to use and is available out of the box.
That's useful from a granny's point of view. From a wider point of view that's alarming. I think it's wrong to allow IE to distort HTML standards for the sake of saving a few computer illiterate people a few minutes installing Firefox.

The problem with microsoft is that they don't want to try and specialise in anything. If they had just stuck to making a good, stable, reliable operating system things might have been different.

But instead they expanded into making loads of slightly unstable, sometimes annoying programs to go with the operating system and then started trying to expand into the gaming industry. Sure, they're company might actually be big enough to handle all that. But what other reason is there for Microsoft to be doing badly at pretty much everything they do? They don't need to be.

I'm going to start arguing wth myself here, but for good reason: perhaps microsoft are so much in the limelight nowadays that consumers and critics are feeling edgy about their presense. Maybe they start nitpicking at every detail. Now that dosn't mean that Microsoft are actually doing well, it just means that they are under alot more pressure to do better than any other company because they are, if you would excuse the phrase, mainstream.

However, there is a nasty little fact that is so much more simpler than anything I just said. Microsoft don't really need anymore money. I'm sure all the top players in the company are millionares by now. I expect everyone who directly works for microsoft are pretty well off and getting better. Xbox/windows live membership costs roughly £25.75 for a year. Now thats ok, I could pay that and I'm still a student without any real job. But they don't actually need to charge us, do they? The insentive to play xbox players with a PC is enough for most people to just buy Halo 2, which works with windows live. They would get enough money from that single action alone. They are a nasty greedy company. And then again, they are your typical large company.

That's useful from a granny's point of view. From a wider point of view that's alarming. I think it's wrong to allow IE to distort HTML standards for the sake of saving a few computer illiterate people a few minutes installing Firefox.

Ah, but that's my point. While you might argue that a granny isn't likely to play a vast majority of games, it can be confusing for someone only acquainted with unified console online services for them to try and use PC online game services. Matchmaking vs 'pick an IP address/name and that's all the help you're getting'.

That's the angle I feel Microsoft are gunning for with Live. While I don't have Vista, they've already increased the support they offer for games, past the pitiful online spec thing they have for XP. And of course it fits in with their global-dominatory Live/Passport brand.

Ah, but that's my point.

But your point is irrelevant.

If Microsoft made IE standards compliant -- or at least as near as they could as to my knowledge there's no 100% compliant browser -- then I wouldn't have a problem with it. What I object to is not that it's bundled with Windows, but that it's bundled with Windows and wrong.

And all the little dearies could still work it.

Fair point - IE should be compliant, or at least as much as it's competitors.

However, I seriously doubt that through Games for Windows Live Microsoft are going to initiate some sort of misinformation campaign, causing the online gaming scene to collapse in on itself as incorrect server hosting runs rampant. Therefore, my point stands, as the premise is to create a simplified, unified system that anyone and their dog can work. And a singular online identity, but that's irrelevant.

I do feel, though, that it would take a long time to go past Microsoft publishing, and possibly a few publishers with the game on both the 360 and PC - and even then I think it'll focus more on achievements than the online structure. Similarly, I honestly think Microsoft's focus will be more XNA than IE - tying GfWL into the XNA structure will bolster the indie development scene, and offer Microsoft an interesting amount of small-time development contracts. I think it's highly possible this is just a new Microsoft method of gaining development assets, as opposed to their current method of throwing money at developers and hoping it sticks.

I think the main problem many people have with GfWL is the lack of focus it appears to have, perhaps lending itself to the idea that it's another attempt at global domination. It, quite frankly, looks feeble compared to Xbox Live - then again, so did XL when it first appeared. There's no mention of downloadable content or an Arcade, the things which make Xbox Live so appealing. I doubt that many people on Xbox Live give a real toss about a singular online identity or a global friendslist - on my own account, I have 2 people on my friendslist, one of whom I haven't got a bloody clue who he is.

So far, this just looks like another feeble Steam clone, another EA Downloader, except with the constant "OMG M$ TAKE OVER TEH WORLD!" droning. People said the same damn thing with Steam, like it was going to destroy the world of brick and mortar games shops with it's revolutionary evil mandatory internet connection requirement. Except those same arguments are reiterated again with this, except because it's Microsoft, it is inherently evil and any benefits arising a merely a ruse in which to consolidate their power. People complain about it because of identity, rather than afinity.

However, if they throw in a free headset with the Gold package, and release the bloody wireless dongle for the controller over here, I'll start to take notice. Until then, I'll just look at this as another nifty little feature in Vista which has a lot of promise.

I think the main problem many people have with GfWL is the lack of focus it appears to have, perhaps lending itself to the idea that it's another attempt at global domination. It, quite frankly, looks feeble compared to Xbox Live - then again, so did XL when it first appeared. There's no mention of downloadable content or an Arcade, the things which make Xbox Live so appealing. I doubt that many people on Xbox Live give a real toss about a singular online identity or a global friendslist - on my own account, I have 2 people on my friendslist, one of whom I haven't got a bloody clue who he is.

So far, this just looks like another feeble Steam clone, another EA Downloader, except with the constant "OMG M$ TAKE OVER TEH WORLD!" droning. People said the same damn thing with Steam, like it was going to destroy the world of brick and mortar games shops with it's revolutionary evil mandatory internet connection requirement. Except those same arguments are reiterated again with this, except because it's Microsoft, it is inherently evil and any benefits arising a merely a ruse in which to consolidate their power. People complain about it because of identity, rather than afinity.Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong, but PCs have had "downloadable content" and "an Arcade" ever since they become internet-enabled. It was so appealing in Xbox Live because it's a console, and therefore something never done before on consoles. If Microsoft did take the "downloadable content" and "Arcade", then they would be monopolizing and forcing us to pay for stuff that we've always had handed to us for free for years, and that's probably why they haven't done it.

I don't see what it has to do with Steam or EA Downloader at all. Unless you're talking about Xbox Live. Microsoft hasn't mentioned anywhere that Games for Windows Live will become like Xbox Live. That it'll have downloadable content, forced internet connection, etc. That's wild speculation.



Now, I'll put my opinion why I'm actually looking forward to this: without wildly speculating and just taking in what Microsoft has told us, Games for Windows Live just seems like another multiplayer backbone for Windows games, much like Battle.net, GPGNet, Gamespy, etc.

I'm sure it can turn out like crap, the servers being slow, the service being s***ty and unstable. But, if they do pull it off right, it'll be yet another helping hand for developers of multiplayer games. There's a lot of in-house multiplayer support in games that turns out awful and frustrating, and that puts off a lot of players. Using Gamespy servers have also suffered from poor stability with some games.

If Games for Windows Live does actually turn out to be any good, then games using it for multiplayer support for any good. It'll reduce a lot of work and annoyances for developers if they have a reliable multiplayer backbone and don't have to put much worry into it, which is best put into the rest of the game.

I can understand that the monthly payments are a nuisance, that it's just more money into Microsoft's deep pockets. But so far, all the content you've come to expect as free in Windows games, is still free. So they can charge extra for whatever they want because lots of people probably won't need it and pay for it and still be happy.

In any case, there may be an upside to the yearly payment. Most massive-online-Windows-games involve lots of monthly payments for each game's dedicated servers. The more games you get, the more you pay. Now, if all those games ran on Games for Windows Live servers, you'd have one single payment for all those games. I'll admit this is wild speculation and probably very unlikely, but still a thought.

As for the Xbox 360 <-> Windows thing, I still don't see any abundant wild features that'll come from it that'll push Windows users into buying Xbox 360s, and vice-versa. Yes, ok, I might be wrong and it might be all one big marketing plot, but I'm looking at the upside of things until I'm proven wrong.

So far, all I see is that it'll expand a game's community. Yes ok, it'll cost you. But hear me out. It might incentivate developers of Xbox 360 games to also develop them for Windows, and vice-versa. As a Windows-only user, I'm extremely frustrated when developers only make their games for the Xbox 360 (say, Gears of War), it turns out to be great, but us Windows users will have none of that. And Windows games has its niche market of tons of multiplayer FPS, RTS and MMORPGs that also don't get developed for anything else.

If Windows starts getting games you'd expect for the Xbox 360, it'll expand its market and variety. Yes ok, they're both Microsoft platforms and in the end it just means more money in their deep deep pockets and lots of mad monopolizing. Fair point, but quit looking at that for a moment. It also means developers will make much more money out of their games. A lot more gamers will be brought in if they can play with more than double the community they had before.

A lot of people also mention that games getting developed for both platforms means Windows games will get downgraded to Xbox 360 standards, or vice-versa. But wait. What if the opposite happens? Huh? Huh? Ok I'm done being optimistic, rip me to shreds.

supsuper, on your post on directx, read what andrew wrote right above it. he's much more articulate than i am, and he explains some of the problems with directx far batter than i managed.

and on the technical side, sure, the important part is if the code runs. however, time and time again we see that people who write clean, efficient code are the same people who write stable code. most games out there are currently written by people who should not be allowed to touch the keyboard. and various programmer's training wheels, like the tools provided by directx, xna, .net, and c# are a part of the problem, because programmers keep using them. what would you say if you saw a bicycle race where most competitors had training wheels on their bikes? wouldn't you demand your money back?

most of today's programmers don't even know assembly. sure, you almost never use it, unless you are coding an operating system, but that's not even the point. learning assembly used to be a right of passage. it ensured that people who don't understand how a program works don't program. these days, people just throw together a bunch of libraries, "tape" them together with a few calls they don't understand, and hope it works. sometimes it does, more or less. think about that next time your game crashes.

supsuper, on your post on directx, read what andrew wrote right above it. he's much more articulate than i am, and he explains some of the problems with directx far batter than i managed.

and on the technical side, sure, the important part is if the code runs. however, time and time again we see that people who write clean, efficient code are the same people who write stable code. most games out there are currently written by people who should not be allowed to touch the keyboard. and various programmer's training wheels, like the tools provided by directx, xna, .net, and c# are a part of the problem, because programmers keep using them. what would you say if you saw a bicycle race where most competitors had training wheels on their bikes? wouldn't you demand your money back?

most of today's programmers don't even know assembly. sure, you almost never use it, unless you are coding an operating system, but that's not even the point. learning assembly used to be a right of passage. it ensured that people who don't understand how a program works don't program. these days, people just throw together a bunch of libraries, "tape" them together with a few calls they don't understand, and hope it works. sometimes it does, more or less. think about that next time your game crashes.You and K^2 should meet up, I'm sure you'd have a wonderful time.