Games for Windows Live! Poll

Will you use it?

Taken from wikipedia

Games for Windows - Live (officially spelt LIVE) is an online gaming service for Games for Windows-branded PC titles. It enables Windows VistaPCs to connect to the Live service, which will eventually include other devices including Windows Mobile and Zune. Users, each with a unique Gamertag that carries over from Xbox Live, will be able to play online, keep track of their friends' status, send and receive messages, gain and keep track of Achievements, voice chat across platforms, and more. Some games will allow for cross-platform play, such as Shadowrun, which allows PC players to compete against Xbox 360 players.

Games for Windows - Live is currently only available for the Windows Vistaoperating system. Its features will initially be limited, but will grow just as the features of Xbox Live have over the years. The service was shown in near-final form at CES2007 during Bill Gates' keynote speech.

The service will be open to 3rd-party developers, but they must be able to meet certain requirements, which could include game ratings, total number of achievement points, and the ability to properly connect to Live.

--

I've made it pretty clear where I stand in other posts, but would like to see how other PCgamers view the live! service coming over to our platform.

Will you use it?

Taken from wikipedia

Games for Windows - Live (officially spelt LIVE) is an online gaming service for Games for Windows-branded PC titles. It enables Windows VistaPCs to connect to the Live service, which will eventually include other devices including Windows Mobile and Zune. Users, each with a unique Gamertag that carries over from Xbox Live, will be able to play online, keep track of their friends' status, send and receive messages, gain and keep track of Achievements, voice chat across platforms, and more. Some games will allow for cross-platform play, such as Shadowrun, which allows PC players to compete against Xbox 360 players.

Games for Windows - Live is currently only available for the Windows Vistaoperating system. Its features will initially be limited, but will grow just as the features of Xbox Live have over the years. The service was shown in near-final form at CES2007 during Bill Gates' keynote speech.

The service will be open to 3rd-party developers, but they must be able to meet certain requirements, which could include game ratings, total number of achievement points, and the ability to properly connect to Live.

--

I've made it pretty clear where I stand in other posts, but would like to see how other PCgamers view the live! service coming over to our platform.

delirin

i dont like wat M$ is doing.....ther ruining the PC as we noe it.....

and this is another reason to not install vista

Its not a big deal to me because I have a Xbox 360 and live with it so I do not have to pay extra for the PC service.smokeydabear076

I should have encluded an option on the poll for users like yourself that already have a subscription as an xbox user.

In making the poll, I wanted to stay objective as possible so didn't post my view in the beginning of thread. I do, however, feel that it's making a mockery of PC gaming, taking away one of the major draws to the platform in the first place. The biggest kick for me is that the service uses your own computer to host games, they (MS) don't even have to support servers. In using live, you are paying a fee to be your own server... which I just can't wrap my head around.

I'm all for anything that discourages piracy, as that could ultimatley destroy the PC as a gaming platform. But there are other ways to prevent software piracy, take STEAM for example.

I am completley aware that many of the servers in free multiplayer games are hosted by players and their 'clans'. There are also some supported by the game developers, and they are honestly usually pretty cheap to host. Some games don't use dedicated servers, and will just use the client to host (ie diablo, dawn of war, and as far as I know any gamespy hosted game).

Regardless of how multiplayer is done, it's been free for 15+ years on the PC. Unless of course, you count most MMO's with constant dedicated servers, massive amounts of simultanious playersand usually frequently updated content to go with their subscription fees.

(funny, the post that this was in response to has completley dissapeared....)

first off i dont know anyone who even cares about there xbox live stats (although ill admit there are only 3 people that i know that have it, and one of them is not going to renew it since they never use it anyways.) and you dont need live for keeping track of stats or accomplishment, most mp games have that built in ie the battlefield games. and the piracy thing is just getting really old and tired.not to mentionthatmicrosoft can try as much as they want but xbox users and pc users simply will not play online with eachother. why woutl anyone want to play with a "console kiddy" with aim assist. i mean come on.

one of the reasons i gave up on mmorpgs was because of juvenile preteens.

games still sell despite piracy, in less than one minute anyone can find a cracked version of just about any game online. theoretically alot of people download those first and if they like then they buy the game. i dont blame them since ive blown 50 bucks on crappy games plenty of times in my life. oblivion was released with no copy protection and yet it still sold a bagillion copies.

on a side note steam sucks ass and i mean sloppy drippy stinky ass. i purchase call of duty 2 and it didnt work i ended up having to download the spanish version and then change the language to english which meant more downloading. and if you read forums about steam youll see what a mess it is.

M$ is being ridiculous by trying to make pc multiplayer not free.

But I don't care, soon people will find a way to crack this ridiculous service.

I Will NEVER EVER EVER in a million years pay for a multiplayer game. That includes any PC (MMOs even) or console game, I only play online on my PS2, because other than a small $20 network adapter you can play for free, and that original $20 is no different than paying $20 for a network card on my PC. But I will never pay for GFW Live, or Xbox Live or any other multiplayer service.whgresiak

While I understand your position, I don't have the hangups you have about mmo's. MMO's have active support, updated content and host servers for massive ammounts of players. What MS is doing is charging us to use our own computer as a host server for multiplayer games.... oh, and giving us gamerscore points o.O.

You left out an option for not having a problem with the service for free. I'd just be happy using the free Silver, honestly, since nothing Gold offers right now really appeals to me.Makari

Yeah, I probably should have. However, have you tried the free servers? In shadowrun they are buggy, frequently down, often impossible to connect to... and therefore all but barren.

[QUOTE="whgresiak"]I Will NEVER EVER EVER in a million years pay for a multiplayer game. That includes any PC (MMOs even) or console game, I only play online on my PS2, because other than a small $20 network adapter you can play for free, and that original $20 is no different than paying $20 for a network card on my PC. But I will never pay for GFW Live, or Xbox Live or any other multiplayer service.delirin

While I understand your position, I don't have the hangups you have about mmo's. MMO's have active support, updated content and host servers for massive ammounts of players. What MS is doing is charging us to use our own computer as a host server for multiplayer games.... oh, and giving us gamerscore points o.O.

I think online gaming on PC should stay free, just get the free silver edition it has most of the features that gold has except cross-platform gaming.

LIVE is coming soon to XP when GoW ships

Right now there is no reason to get a Live gold account with only 2 games that even support it. In a few years though I wouldn't mind paying for 4$ a month to get into games quickly and have solid servers for a slew of good games.

For a third of the price of an MMO which is one game mind you, I'd pay for those features.

I'm not all about the moral oppostion "well its been free for so long, I'm not paying for something that should be free". How poor are you that you cant afford 4$ a month.. even less if you buy 13months on ebay for 20$.

PC to PC multiplayer is free on Games for Windows LIVE. The only thing you would have to pay for (you dont have to) is cross-platform gameplay. I think the service has alot of potential Microsoft just needs to push it some more and offer a little more. I dont see what the problem is though as it is, if you want to play online PC to PC multiplayer like you always have you dont need a $50/ mo. Gold Account you can just use the free Silver Account that still provides a great online experience. As soon as more games become involved I can see the service growing.

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/Live/Pages/AboutLive.aspx

Right now there is no reason to get a Live gold account with only 2 games that even support it. In a few years though I wouldn't mind paying for 4$ a month to get into games quickly and have solid servers for a slew of good games.

For a third of the price of an MMO which is one game mind you, I'd pay for those features.

I'm not all about the moral oppostion "well its been free for so long, I'm not paying for something that should be free". How poor are you that you cant afford 4$ a month.. even less if you buy 13months on ebay for 20$.

captalchol

FYI the moral opposition isn't about being "so poor you can't afford $4 a month...."(btw, if you go monthly, it's 8 ). It's about not paying in general for something that not only has been free, but should be free. You say you wouldn't mind paying for quick access and solid servers... right now you get neither. What you get is substandard automatching, that uses the PLAYER with the best connection as a host server for the game. The host player leaves, the game ends and resets.

I throw entirely too much money at my computer, both in software and hardware, I subscribe to MMO's on a whim... and frequently never play them. I have no problem spending money, but not on gamerscore points and a service that uses my own computer as a host for a multiplayer game. The idea is just ridiculus to me.

If this trend picks up, and people pay for it... we could possibly see it in STEAM, EA Games,Gamespy and other publishers (why keep it exsclusive to microsoft titles). That $50 a year doesn't seem so small to play your FPS games when it's spread across 4+ publishers... to the point where I have to choose which FPS games I want the ability to play. Personally I bounce around a lot with FPS games, and just want to pick up and go... as I have for 15+ years.

@mismajor

I've only played Shadowrun on Silver, and I can tell you the support for silver is aweful thus far. Servers are frequently down, often impossible to connect to and empty a good portion of the time. Part of this I'm sure is due to lackluster sales of Shadowrun.

As to cross platform play. I'm not particularly fond of it, unless I'm generous with the mute button, some of the younger xbox live players tend to give out a huge dose of annoying. I was into the concept when I purchased shadowrun, and enjoy the game itself, but would prefer a more solid shooter usually.

actually the multiplayer pc vs pc in games for windows is free. the $50 is only for pc vs 360 play, which there aren't going to be that many games for anyway. it's a waste. and if you have live gold for the 360 you even get the pc vs 360 play for free, the $50 fee cover all of live, the 360 and the pc for 1 price. people really should read more and assume less. multiplayer as it is today remains free even in vista live, only the pc vs console, something you dont get today, is charged for.rdo

I've covered this in other posts, but apparently you didn't read any of them. Shadowrun uses the gold/silver services. The silver version servers are frequently down, often unable to connect and as a result... nearly always empty. It's been this way for 2 months. Effectivley, gold is the only way to play shadowrun.

It's not just for cross platform, future games without cross platform play will have tiered services.

i have very mixed reactions on this issue

i feel its a good idea to combine the multiplayer between console and pc and that its microsofts right to make u pay for a gold subscription HOWEVER if u have to get the subscription to play any multiplayer at all it would be communism.

Microsoft doesnt always see the big picture...vista sucks and will for a few more years so if they really want profit from Live they have to bring it to the XP Power-users who would actually know what they are doing.

the perfect senario for Live would be thatall games that share platforms could play eachother at the expense of a gold member ship to play anything, anywhere andanytime

Considering I already have an XBox 360 with a live gold account this really doesn't affect me any. I got my live gold account free for a year for doing playtesting for Microsoft Games anyway.

I dont know if you blind haters against Windows Live! know this, but you only need to pay the XBL Gold Fee if you want cross platform play and acheivement points in games. Multiplayer is STILL FREE for Windows Live!... I cant belive people are ignorant enough to not know this :|KorJax

How about reading the 3 other times this has come up before calling people who disagree with you ignorant. Maybe respond to a previous post, I don't know, with an intelligent counter-argument?

I just did a quick check, and for the second time today there were 0 players on any of the 8 dedicated servers for the silver version of live! for Shadowrun. If that alone isn't an issue, I don't know what is. I still stand by that you need gold to play the game.

Halo 2 on silver may be different, I'll give you that, I've never played it. Regardless of playability, you are still paying for a service that uses your own computer to host a game. Personally, that alone halts any hint of an idea that I will rationalize paying for the service myself.

[QUOTE="delirin"]

I just did a quick check, and for the second time today there were 0 players on any of the 8 dedicated servers for the silver version of live! for Shadowrun. If that alone isn't an issue, I don't know what is. I still stand by that you need gold to play the game.

Halo 2 on silver may be different, I'll give you that, I've never played it. Regardless of playability, you are still paying for a service that uses your own computer to host a game. Personally, that alone halts any hint of an idea that I will rationalize paying for the service myself.

Deihmos

If no one is playing on the dedicated servers whose fault is that? Maybe no one bought the game or most people got Gold so they use the matching thing. There is a rumor about the game becoming compatible with Xp when Live is released. If it is true there should be a lot more silver players. I don't know where you got the idea that youare usingyour PC to host. There are tons of dedicated servers and unlike Shadowrun you can always find a game.

Your computer is used as a host for gold, any ammount of digging or even playing a few games will tell you that. This isn't even disputed. If you pay for gold you are paying to be your own server, period.

If all or most users are on gold... isn't that alone effectivleymaking a silver membership worthless? Personally I feel the stability and reliability of the servers played a large part here, but regardless.... shadowrun is a coaster for me.