Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 13 Sep 2010.
And Valve have the 'train wreck' restriction of having to have a permanent/available/broadband requirements for all games that have the miss fortune of being published by steam.
Looks like both companies have problems
Last year, it was the PS3 that was taking stick from Valve. Never had an Xbox, but if XBL is the same as GFWL, I can see how bad it must be!
I have two words for you and they are "Offline Mode."
Offline is ok once the game has been registered.
On topic, Valve were highly against PS3's last year. But GFWL is not one of my favourite programs to say the least. I guess XBL is pretty much the same.
I have words for Gabe: "QQ more..."
I get his point, I also see why MS does the patching restrictions (I assume that "1 free update per game" refers to free for the developer, not for the gamer... I am sure some of my games have been updated more than once).
Cries like this make Gabe seem like a giant Knob.
When the hell are people going to stop using this age old, and false, criticism?
Steam beats Xbox live nuff said
he is correct though, What happens when the updates are released free on ps3 and pc and charged for on 360 then the QQ will begin. Portal 2 will be updated alot on pc and id expect ps3 also. So is the 360 version gonna be so outta date its unplayable, makes you wonder
Some people just don't want to hear the truth... Offline mode is fantastic. Though it is a pain if your PC IS connected to the internet 24/7 as it likes to pester you constantly to turn it off. In the end though Steam IS the most acceptable form of DRM to me any way.
*points and laughs at 360 owners while admiring pc and ps3*
You have that backwards dude.
The "1 free update" means that publishers are only allowed to give a single free update per game, after that they must charge the customer (there are some exceptions such as bug/exploit fixing patches etc). This is particularly unsuitable for a game like TF2 which receives frequent, small updates - with each one on their own not being of great value.
I'm not 100% privy to Microsoft's reasoning but I believe their restriction is so no single publisher can 'spoil' their customers with free updates. Their theory is if a customer receives too much for free, they start expecting all DLC to be free. Essentially, there are only a handful of viable business models in the gaming industry, and Microsoft believes that Valve's way of doing things ruins one of them.
However, if you ask Microsoft, they'll tell you it's to discourage the "PC" style of releasing unfinished/buggy games then patching them over and over post-release.
My real only and self-awesome(ing) remark to this is...
stop being console tarts and play on a PC
LET THE FLAME WAR COMMENCE! +dances on ashes of the world+
Seriously: Surely people would pay something silly (40p) for specific downloads anyway? Isn't that how Xbox live and all that jazz work anyway?
The benefit of not allowing games to be patched on consoles is that the devs 'should' get it right first time. i.e. no bugs, exploits, crashes due to bad design/coding. And if they do release a game on console that has a problem it is hugely embarrassing and damaging to them so they make extra-sure that it doesn't happen.
If you allow patching on consoles, will this result in sloppier developing?
I stand corrected.
Either way, Forza (2 and 3) have released a few updates, add-ons, patches that were free. As have the Guitar hero games. Not all, but some of them were free.
My question is how they got that right (besides adding to the game)
The dicouraging publishers from releasing POS code argument is legit though... It's happened (on the PC) that games were literally unplayable out of the box (Ultima IX, more recently Titan Quest), and needed patches.
While it is largely a money-grabbing move, there are legitimate quality control concerns behind all of that.
^ This. Console users have had years of almost totally bugless games, and that's the way it needs to stay. Allowing people to force things out the door half finished and then half-heartedly patch it post-sale - GSC Game World - is a downside of the PC that comes part and parcel of our DLC system. It's not something consoles should allow themselves to fall victim to. I reckon MS isn't really thinking about that (but instead about the tax it can levy on the DLC) but it's a valid point nonetheless.
So Gabe and Valve have got a new bad guy after they decided to embrace the PS3 after crapping on it for ages.
As to the one free update, thats clearly rubbish. Burnout Paradise on xbox had several free updates giving significant new content for free. Their updates were also around 1gb so there goes Valves excuse of we cant do it in the limits.
Dont get me wrong I love Valve games and Steam, I just dislike the way they try to present themselves as ever altruistic when they do stuff like Left 4 Dead 2, little more than a patch for 1, released as a full price game a year after the first.
Really? Try searching for 'Red Dead Redemption bugs' on youtube
I purchased a 360 recently and each game i ran from disc installed an update before i played it.
Not sure of the reasoning behind Microsoft's decision, but one of the main benefits of steam is the ability to auto-update games.
Err there is STILL new content coming out for L4D1. I didn't think anyone was still crying about that.
How how dare they release a sequel! :O
I do understand what you mean but this argument is kinda FUBAR in general. If you look at things this way almost any sequel is just "little more than a patch for x".
If developers really have to pay to release updates I do understand their point.
Separate names with a comma.