XBox Live is coming to Windows 8

gizmo

Well, I can see this being a really fun thread...

We are confirming that we will be bringing Xbox LIVE to the PC with Xbox LIVE on Windows. We are very excited about Xbox LIVE coming to Windows 8. Xbox LIVE brings your games, music, movies, and TV shows to your favorite Microsoft and Windows devices. Bringing Xbox LIVE to Windows 8 is part of our vision to bring you all the entertainment you want, shared with the people you care about, made easy. At BUILD we are showing that it is easy for developers to create games for Windows 8 that take advantage of the power of Xbox LIVE. We have much more detail to share about the capabilities of Xbox LIVE on Windows and look forward to the opportunity to do so in the near future.

It's kind of hard to give a solid opinion on this since there's been so little information released so far but it certainly raises a few questions. Is this the beginning of the PC/XBox cross-platform gaming which was hinted at a couple of months ago? Would this mean backwards compatibility between platforms or just online play? Does this mark the end of GFWL as we know it? Will it result in a complete redesign of the old service or is it just a name change? Will developers be under the same limitations when it comes to submitting patches via the service for PC? Will they have control over their own pricing? Will the service itself be free?

And most importantly, how funny is the internet rage going to be?

Link

Gunmonkey

gizmo wrote: »

Well, I can see this being a really fun thread...



It's kind of hard to give a solid opinion on this since there's been so little information released so far but it certainly raises a few questions. Is this the beginning of the PC/XBox cross-platform gaming which was hinted at a couple of months ago? Would this mean backwards compatibility between platforms or just online play? Does this mark the end of GFWL as we know it? Will it result in a complete redesign of the old service or is it just a name change? Will developers be under the same limitations when it comes to submitting patches via the service for PC? Will they have control over their own pricing?

And most importantly, how funny is the internet rage going to be?

Dunno about the rest, but as for the bolded part.........hilarious and facepalm inducing in equal measure, with a bit of Professor Farnsworth "I dont want to live on this Earth anymore" thrown in.

gizmo

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Dunno about the rest, but as for the bolded part.........hilarious and facepalm inducing in equal measure, with a bit of Professor Farnsworth "I dont want to live on this Earth anymore" thrown in.

I'm thinking some Darth Vader "NOOOOOOooooooooooo" thrown in for good measure too.

Overheal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrSTkSqztAA

Retr0gamer

Already have steam so no thanks. And if they want me to pay for it... trololololololol!

Chris_Heilong

yeah we already have the ability to watch movies, listen to our fav music and most important play games online without a service and if they want me to pay for it too the Linux maybe an option.

Fnz

Even Microsoft don't know what to do with their PC gaming service. They want their Windows offering to be good enough to take market share away from the likes of Steam - but not good enough to take anyone away from the console, where MS have total control (gaining revenue from each piece of media sold, peripherals, advertising, and yearly subscription fees).

Compete with Steam, whilst ensuring the best experience can be had on their console. I can't wait to see future advertising campaigns.

gizmo

Fnz wrote: »

Even Microsoft don't know what to do with their PC gaming service. They want their Windows offering to be good enough to take market share away from the likes of Steam - but not good enough to take anyone away from the console, where MS have total control (gaining revenue from each piece of media sold, peripherals, advertising, and yearly subscription fees).

Between the dominance of Steam and the mainstream appeal of consoles, I doubt they're too worried about people switching from consoles back to PCs anymore.

What this move does do though, is remove their previous problem of getting the GFWL client onto people's machines. Now if you've got Windows 8, you'll have Live so that opens the door up considerably in terms of making Live the Games or even Entertainment Hub of the OS. The latter would be more relevant if we had the likes of Netflix over here and access to the Zune Pass for music, but a unified platform would still allow easy sharing of purchased content between machines in the home. In the case of the Games Hub, well that will depend on the cross-platform issue. If games for the next generation of XBox were compatible with Windows 8, as Windows Phone 7 games are rumored to be, then MS could be in a serious position of power with a move like this.

Not only that but they'll be able to show off new features as the system develops via Windows Updates rather than hoping users redownload the client after such an update.

CORaven

When first booting up Win7, it usually prompts you if you want to install IE, Firefox, chrome, etc.... Iirc this was due to laws enforced by the EU so that MS could not have their product pre installed, allowing other browsers to be equal standing in competition. (not 100% sure on the specifics).

Would the same regulations come into play here with XBL on a PC?

AlmightyCushion

CORaven wrote: »

When first booting up Win7, it usually prompts you if you want to install IE, Firefox, chrome, etc.... Iirc this was due to laws enforced by the EU so that MS could not have their product pre installed, allowing other browsers to be equal standing in competition. (not 100% sure on the specifics).

Would the same regulations come into play here with XBL on a PC?

Can't see it happening. If it did it would take a long time to happen I'd imagine. Sure they're bundling security essentials into it as well apparently, which will be more likely to face the EU's wrath. Also, now they have a workaround that has satisfied the EU. When you start the computer for the first time it gives you a list of browsers and you choose which one you want to install.

Robert ninja

Wow what a useless thing to create. I can't see any merit at all in using such a service. I guess the staff at MC had nothing better to do but create this. Gotta look busy n' all.

Fnz

CORaven wrote: »

When first booting up Win7, it usually prompts you if you want to install IE, Firefox, chrome, etc.... Iirc this was due to laws enforced by the EU so that MS could not have their product pre installed, allowing other browsers to be equal standing in competition. (not 100% sure on the specifics).

Would the same regulations come into play here with XBL on a PC?

Microsoft could proceed with caution... if* they cared to avoid possible antitrust charges some time in the far-flung future. The browser choice ruling was based on a situation where, both, Internet Explorer, along with the OS, were in dominant market positions. This had been the case for years before the EU demanded any action be taken.

Who knows when the (PC) Xbox Live service will reach similar market penetration - or at what stage a ruling body may step in.


* Only the EU brought charges against Microsoft in the browser choice case. Engaging in anti-competitive behaviour may still be the best business decision for MS in this instance.

jackoire

This just sounds like Xbox live account add-on for windows. You sign in and you can watch you're movies and TV , access your account etc, on your PC , just like media center except from Xbox live.

If it is going to be intrusive all i see is it being a flop, a large PC community will just avoid at all costs. The console community will use this probably, even if its intrusive for PC gaming but it can be exploited by buying products from another region.

Look at Microsoft games for windows live, you can easily get cheap product keys with no restrictions. If Xbox live will be require for some titles and is like steam a cheap proxy service will continue my cheap Russian games purchases.

Im guessing its just a redesign of windows media center except linked to Xbox live with GFWL thrown in.

These intrusive services can be bypassed, they may make some money but ultimately there will always be a way to benefit from intrusive services.

Adyx

GFWL is already too intrusive and it's already linked to your Xbox Live account if you use the same email address. Thanks, but no thanks.

Kiith

I don't really care as long as they don't try and force me to pay a monthly fee to play my pc games online. If they do, they can **** right off.

Gummy Panda

I can't stand GFWL.

It really pissed me off when DoW2 came out with that. I was hoping it had died off but I guess I was wrong.

ShadowHearth

I see what you did there Microsoft.

Let's look back a bit. Remember games for windows? Everyone hated it: gamers and developers. Awefull system and very bad support with patches. THQ completely droped games for windows interface and went full steam support with dow2 retribution. Best move ever made!

I bet Microsoft want to make us pay for xbox/windows live gold with this move.

Question is: will they make this live thing a must for all games with online mode in near future, or is it just a change of name?

I bet it's just one more try to bite steam.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I see what you did there Microsoft.

Let's look back a bit. Remember games for windows? Everyone hated it: gamers and developers. Awefull system and very bad support with patches. THQ completely droped games for windows interface and went full steam support with dow2 retribution. Best move ever made!

It was primarily hated because the system itself was poorly designed by MS and implemented by developers. The rest of the hate came from those jolly fanboys who didn't that dirty console system on their beautiful machines.

If, and that's a big if, this new system is implemented properly it could be great but there are so many caveats involved, it's hard to be really enthused.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I bet Microsoft want to make us pay for xbox/windows live gold with this move.

They really couldn't force people to pay for any aspect of the service on an open platform like the PC.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

It was primarily hated because the system itself was poorly designed by MS and implemented by developers. The rest of the hate came from those jolly fanboys who didn't that dirty console system on their beautiful machines.

If, and that's a big if, this new system is implemented properly it could be great but there are so many caveats involved, it's hard to be really enthused.


They really couldn't force people to pay for any aspect of the service on an open platform like the PC.

I don't give two ****s about fanboism, but system it self was pain in the w
Hole. It was even worse when you had a steam game working in games for windows platform. It was just really bad.

I didn't heard rants about glorious pc race bitching about console software being on pc, but I really heard bitching about quality of it.

It is really too soon to judge it. I can't see nothing that it can give, what steam is giving already. Steam even has achievements for all those achievement junkies.

As long as there no dual interfaces clashing like it was in dow2, I couldn't give a ****.

I guess on top of steam, blizzard, origin, ubisoft accounts we will have this live thing too... I am running low on passwords lads...

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I don't give two ****s about fanboism, but system it self was pain in the w
Hole. It was even worse when you had a steam game working in games for windows platform. It was just really bad.

I didn't heard rants about glorious pc race bitching about console software being on pc, but I really heard bitching about quality of it.

The best test to do there was ask have they used it.

I only had one experience with it and that was with Bioshock 2. It...did not end well. But then again, I also used Steam from the start so was quite aware of how bad that was to. I guess the difference was that Steam improved dramatically over time whereas GFWL floundered due to MS not improving it. If it's going to be integrated into the OS however, I'd wager it'll get far more attention.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

It is really too soon to judge it. I can't see nothing that it can give, what steam is giving already. Steam even has achievements for all those achievement junkies.

See I love Steam, it works great, has a great UI, great sales and is just simple to use. But I still don't like the idea of one publisher having that much power over a platform. As odd as it sounds, I'd be more comfortable with an OS vendor who is hands off (I can't stress that last point enough) delivering a more integrated solution for all of my games.

super_furry

So the big question is, will it be subscription based? Because either way it's going to cause problems.

Ask any PC gamer to pay you €50 a year for a Gold Subscription to let them play online and they'll laugh in your face. However, let PC gamers have Gold subs for free and they'll piss off their console subscribers.

Overheal

gizmo wrote: »

See I love Steam, it works great, has a great UI, great sales and is just simple to use. But I still don't like the idea of one publisher having that much power over a platform. As odd as it sounds, I'd be more comfortable with an OS vendor who is hands off (I can't stress that last point enough) delivering a more integrated solution for all of my games.

Well, it's not like Steam doesn't have a handful of competitors. But they have just done it right.

Now though, I think you might be talking about Steamworks. That part I can understand, but it is rather nice that there is a unified thing across all games and whatnot. I do agree that I wish that steamworks and other APIs like it were themselves cross-platform - that is, it would be great if you achievements on you XBL ported over to your game on Steam, or you could otherwise basically share the same profile. Thats sort of the holy grail for the gaming industry and it has been for years. Early concepts though basically envisioned it like Reboot though, where your same game character ported into other games. Realistically though the idea that you should be able to have one unified profile (in whatever flavor you like - Origin, Steam, etc) would be nice.

Sarn

My only experience with GFWL is with Bioshock 2. Making it compulsory to save in a game is just wrong. Once it was set up though it was fairly unobtrusive. Mine is integrated with my Xbox live account so I get all the standard Xbox notifications when someone logs on.

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

Well, it's not like Steam doesn't have a handful of competitors. But they have just done it right.

Quite true. Microsoft, however, not only have the resources and talent to equal them in every way, but they also have the ability to integrate directly into the OS and thus across multiple platforms with this service. Of course, that doesn't mean squat if they don't pull it off properly and hey, it wouldn't be the first time they've dropped the ball on something like this.

Overheal wrote: »

Now though, I think you might be talking about Steamworks. That part I can understand, but it is rather nice that there is a unified thing across all games and whatnot. I do agree that I wish that steamworks and other APIs like it were themselves cross-platform - that is, it would be great if you achievements on you XBL ported over to your game on Steam, or you could otherwise basically share the same profile. Thats sort of the holy grail for the gaming industry and it has been for years. Early concepts though basically envisioned it like Reboot though, where your same game character ported into other games. Realistically though the idea that you should be able to have one unified profile (in whatever flavor you like - Origin, Steam, etc) would be nice.

Nope, not Steamworks, I literally mean a Steam-esque service built in at an OS level which includes all the features that Steam has. Look at Windows 8 as it is, it's ready going to have it's own App Store built in, why not extend that to games? While that infrastructure is being implemented, why not add automatic patching into the system? Microsoft recently bought Skype as we're all aware, hello built-in communications tech. Skydrive backend already there? Say hi to cloud saves and configs. See what I mean?

As for the future, well my own personal utopia is simple. Each retailer and/or publisher has their own online store. Game purchases are kept track of on their end, with the files stored locally yet available for redownload later with no restrictions. Patches are pushed out automatically when available.

Sound familiar? Sure, but here's the kicker, all of this functionality is exposed via a publicly available API. This would allow third parties to build a front end, either desktop or browser based, which can access these stores for searching and purchasing, keep track of purchases/store game lists and store saves either locally or connect to your preferred cloud service. Games can be launched locally and friends tracking can be done using whatever app you wish. These services can be switched using a simple plugin system.

The best thing about this? It's completely open, you wouldn't be restricted to using the client with one store and as a result, you'd only ever need one client on your machine. This would force companies to actually be competitive since they'd be directly up against each other within the same distribution channel. it would also encourage companies, not necessarily games developers, to work on well-written, powerful and usable front end applications.

Any chance of something like this happening any time soon? Certainly not, but it's certainly attainable at some point, at least technically. What it would require is the companies to come together to agree on a secure yet usable standard and for each of the major players to realise they can't control the market themselves.

Gunmonkey

They should make a sute of tools for OS integration similar to what DirectX did for graphics (yes, I know it caused problems too but its done far more good than bad). The companies can add functionality to connect between their service (Steam, Origin, Uplay, etc etc) and Windows 8.

Then its not a problem to flag up what is connecting from where "Bill is playing Skyrim via Steam" and such.

But that would be the smart thing for MS to do....can only wait to see how the screw this up.

Fnz

super_furry wrote: »

So the big question is, will it be subscription based? Because either way it's going to cause problems.

Ask any PC gamer to pay you €50 a year for a Gold Subscription to let them play online and they'll laugh in your face. However, let PC gamers have Gold subs for free and they'll piss off their console subscribers.

MS dropped PC multiplayer fees a few years ago. Thankfully they haven't been successful in holding online-multiplayer to ransom in order to gain subscribers.

DjFlin

Robert ninja wrote: »

Wow what a useless thing to create. I can't see any merit at all in using such a service. I guess the staff at MC had nothing better to do but create this. Gotta look busy n' all.

Gunmonkey

Highly doubt theres gonna be a fee for online on PC, possibly on there own published games but they couldnt force you to pay for a seperate service eg Steam, Origin, any game .exe

They do it with the X360 as its the only way to play online through MS's software.