Valve: Xbox Live 'such a train wreck'

[QUOTE="deleterguy"]Sony sure pumped some money over to valve.nhh18

Agreed, especially considering people pay for XBL Gold. It's not much of a reward for your money when Microsoft makes it so hard for companies to give updates and other services to you.

Of course, Valve likes money (like any company) but thanks to Steam they're already rolling in it and can (and do) basically do what they want.

They're pissed off about MS not allowing them to update TF2 on the 360 for free.shane_orija

I don't think that Xbox live is a "train-wreck" as a whole but they do have a pretty valid point Microsoft's almost Draconian policies and restrictions.

Orange Box 2 for PS3 confirmed, I guess.

I can already see a Left 4 Dead combo pack with all DLC included...

^^ Unlikely I know, but I can still dream :P

I don't think that Xbox live is a "train-wreck" as a whole but they do have a pretty valid point Microsoft's almost Draconian policies and restrictions.

FallenAngel-

It's understandable.

They simply want to update their games

Microsoft has a notoriously closed approach to its online service compared to PSN, with developers allowed as little as one free title update (though there are exceptions) and limitations on the amount of free game content they can release.

In fact, in its recent paid-for Red Dead Redemption add-on Rockstar included all the free-of-charge content from its previous Free Roam pack, "due to the platform network's restrictions on numbers of free packs we can give away."

So not only MS charge you a yearly fee which no one else does,they also force developer to not give free content even if the want to.? lol I wonder who would dare to defend this act,in other words if a developer want to give you free content for a game as long as they wan't MS will say no,because is limited to 1 other than in very eclusive situations.

And some how this if the future of gaming.?

You know why this is done right.? Because from every sales on xbox live MS get a share of the money,so if developer get to release content as they like free MS made nothing.this is sad no wonder MS make 1.2 billions on live last year alone,they are abusing their user base to the extreme,so next time some one pay for DLC for a game on live remember that you could have get it free if MS wasn't forcing developer to charge for it.

What he is trying to get at is the Team Fortress2 situation for the 360..

Valve wanteed to release all the new mods, weapons, levels,etc... for 360 but M$ said they HAD to charge money for it. Valve said they dont want to charge money for updates to TF2 but MS said they had to.

THey have ruels if the download if MORE then a certain amount of downloads space that you HAVE to charge for it on xboxlive.

Valve does not like this fact, they have said it before many times on there blog in the past when talking about 360 updates for TF2 like we get for free on PC.

XBOXLIVE is great but they do have some stupid problems imo. If a company wants to give away from DLC that is 2 GB in download then LET THEM!

[QUOTE="FallenAngel-"]

I don't think that Xbox live is a "train-wreck" as a whole but they do have a pretty valid point Microsoft's almost Draconian policies and restrictions.

CuteCakes

What so you preffer to pay for content that other wise would have been given free by developers because MS want you to,than install 400MB of data.? Wow i see that people will just defend MS on anything they do no matter how bad it is,one thing is to defend live because you think you see some value on it,but deffending MS on something like forcing developer to charge me for content even if they want it to give it to me free is horrible i just can't believe any one would defend this in any way wow just wow.

We've been paying for DLC since the Dreamcast. Get over it.CuteCakes

yeah, a 3 Billion dollar a year train wreck.

have fun trying to make a third of the money over on PSN that you did over at XBOX live.

Gabe will eat his words in about.......5...4...3...2......

We've been paying for DLC since the Dreamcast. Get over it.CuteCakes

Is not about paying for it,i also pay for it on PS3 and if i feel the need to pay it on 360 i would to,the problem here is that if a developer want to give me the content free why should MS block them.? Many of those PC developer are use to give free content on PC is a great way to maintain their communities alive,hell UT3 on PS3 support PC mods on 360 it doesn't say all you want but the 360 version is gimped.

Is not about paying for something,is about paying for some thing that some one want to give you free and the middle man doesn't want to,in fact this is kind of a double dip into 360 fans pockets there is no excuse for that.

[QUOTE="CuteCakes"]We've been paying for DLC since the Dreamcast. Get over it.loco145

[QUOTE="CuteCakes"]We've been paying for DLC since the Dreamcast. Get over it.loco145

I agree.

yeah, a 3 Billion dollar a year train wreck.

have fun trying to make a third of the money over on PSN that you did over at XBOX live.

Gabe will eat his words in about.......5...4...3...2......

bryn8150

No it was 1.2 billions and a huge part of that include money you pay for the yearly fee,not just for games and downloads is for anything live,also in what it would even begin to hurt valve by that since they don't win anything by releasing it on PC either and on PC online play is free as well as on PSN,this developer do care for games,that is one of the things great about PC gaming,you can be sure that for a long time games will continue to get content and get played.

Again i don't even know how any one can defend this i just can't believe it,people will just love to be charge by MS no matter what.

micro$oft needs to get out of the videogame business and stick with pc's we don't need those money grabbing leeches trying to ruin gaming.

before we have lemmings excusing it by saying "it's a business" sure it is, but there's a difference between a business and a business thattakes advantage of it's costumers.

If I work at Burger King and you buy a number 1 which comes witha soda, would it not be ridicolous if I started charging 10 cents for every sip of soda you take ?

we would all be better off with only sony and nintendo

[QUOTE="CuteCakes"][QUOTE="FallenAngel-"]

I don't think that Xbox live is a "train-wreck" as a whole but they do have a pretty valid point Microsoft's almost Draconian policies and restrictions.

Eltormo

What so you preffer to pay for content that other wise would have been given free by developers because MS want you to,than install 400MB of data.? Wow i see that people will just defend MS on anything they do no matter how bad it is,one thing is to defend live because you think you see some value on it,but deffending MS on something like forcing developer to charge me for content even if they want it to give it to me free is horrible i just can't believe any one would defend this in any way wow just wow.

[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="CuteCakes"]We've been paying for DLC since the Dreamcast. Get over it.CuteCakes

So, you don't care on what you spend your money? Valve wants to give free (unlimited) updates, but MS wont let them. Are you actually defending that? Demo knights are awesome and made the best PvP FPS ever even better, along with many more updates. And i got them for free.

While, in the XBL side, not only the updates aren't free, and you have to pay monthly fee (that recently went up) to play it. they are also so far behind the PC scene that the games are not comparable. No matter how much you pay, TF2 360 is going to be inferior to the one time pay-free-updates-for-life-PC-version. And now, with Steamworks integration into PSN, Portal 2 Ps3 will get somewhat similat support. That's Gabe problem with XBL and i agree with him since it benefits me.

To make it short, MS policies makes XBL a more expensive and inferior product. But you don't care since you have disposable income? Riiiighhttt. Keep paying more for less.

They way Valve does bussiness gets my support because I get a better product for cheaper. What do people here get for supporting MS XBLA policies? Are you a share holder' In that case, you should be fed up with the whole Xbox venture, since it has been overall a huge money hole for the company.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="CuteCakes"] I'd prefer to have restrictions rather than the 400MB I had to download and install before I could play Uncharted 2.Diviniuz

What so you preffer to pay for content that other wise would have been given free by developers because MS want you to,than install 400MB of data.? Wow i see that people will just defend MS on anything they do no matter how bad it is,one thing is to defend live because you think you see some value on it,but deffending MS on something like forcing developer to charge me for content even if they want it to give it to me free is horrible i just can't believe any one would defend this in any way wow just wow.

micro$oft needs to get out of the videogame business and stick with pc's we don't need those money grabbing leeches trying to ruin gaming.

before we have lemmings excusing it by saying "it's a business" sure it is, but there's a difference between a business and a business thattakes advantage of it's costumers.

If I work at Burger King and you buy a number 1 which comes witha soda, would it not be ridicolous if I started charging 10 cents for every sip of soda you take ?

we would all be better off with only sony and nintendo

static197

I know every one is to get money on the market,sony,nintendo,MS developer publishers every one,but man when Nintendo use to charge $70 per game it was horrible,but the cardtrige was also more expensive medium by that time,they also use to charge huge royalties to 3rd parties,when sony got in with the PS1,the first thing i was glad for was paying $49.99 for games,instead of what i pay for MK2 on Snes $79.99.

No only that by the next year the PS1 was $100 cheaper than the intruduction price,even that they were already the leaders of the maket since the Saturn was never really competition and sony pretty much forced Nintendo to release the N64 for $199 instead of the $250 they would charge for it,another great thing was greatest hits,something that wasn't on the console market until sony drop it,which mean you could buy popular games for much less,on Snes i games would cost the same pretty much the entire generation.

If sony would charge for online play i woudl be the first to flame them,MS bring the original xbox with some good values on hardware even that they were the first to charge for online play,the xbox was also DVD even that you have to pay for it appar,build in ethernet port HDD.

On 360 they are trying to get back every cent they loss on the original xbox and much more,from $60 dollars games,to hardware that pretty much has stay flat on price drops,to rise the price of live and now it comes to light that they force developer to charge for content iven if the want to give it free.

If i was Valve i would say OK you want to charge for content lets do it,i give all the content free for the PS3 version and charge for those on 360.

I can understand both sides of the argument. MS's myriad XBL rules and restrictions have to be a huge pain-in-the-ass for developers/publishers (especially those who want to do frequent updates like Valve) and no doubt have a chilling effect on the platform. Devs/pubs are obviously less likely to release free DLC or perform regular updates, and as some XBLA titles have shown all the hoop-jumping required to get on the platform may not be worth it.

On the other hand -- somewhat similar to what Apple has done with their iOS devices -- those restrictions have surely been a large factor in making XBL the success it is. The restrictions on updates may be a pain for developers, but it means waiting mere seconds for an update to download and install (whereas a bit of poor timing on the PS3 can result in 20+ minute waits while the system and game update) and very little 'release now and patch later' (not on the same level as some PC titles, at any rate), which was a very real concern when XBL first launched. The restrictions on DLC/XBLA titles have no doubt forced devs' hands, but those restrictions have by-and-large lead to a high standard of quality (particularly with XBLA).

It's easy to look at PSN and XBL now and point out XBL's shortcomings, but remember that XBL launched without any real competition and popularized console online, largely setting the precedent for what we expect from a console's online service. This may shock some users, but there are some publishers/developers out there who are more concerned with making you as profitable a consumer as possible than they are fostering a positive, long-term relationship with their consumer base. Without MS's strict controls over XBL, it's not hard to imagine the EAs, Ubisofts and Activisions of the world doing everything in their power to screw you out of as much money as possible (even moreso than they already have).

So it's a complex issue (especially with Valve not exactly being an impartial observer these days). Hopefully MS does open up XBL in the future because they clearly are limiting developers and harming their user base (especially when said userbase is already dropping $60 a year to use the service), but at the same time you do need some degree of control over a closed system (just imagine how much different things could have been if PSN 1.0 was the service that set the precedent for console online).

What a surprise, they don't like a competitor to their online service. :roll:

What he is trying to get at is the Team Fortress2 situation for the 360..

Valve wanteed to release all the new mods, weapons, levels,etc... for 360 but M$ said they HAD to charge money for it. Valve said they dont want to charge money for updates to TF2 but MS said they had to.

THey have ruels if the download if MORE then a certain amount of downloads space that you HAVE to charge for it on xboxlive.

Valve does not like this fact, they have said it before many times on there blog in the past when talking about 360 updates for TF2 like we get for free on PC.

XBOXLIVE is great but they do have some stupid problems imo. If a company wants to give away from DLC that is 2 GB in download then LET THEM!

kozzy1234

My understanding is you're partially right: MS will let you release free content to your heart's content (like the Burnout Paradise updates), but because of the costs related with releasing DLC (namely bandwidth and MS's certification process) you're on the hook for any and all costs (since MS can't recoup their losses otherwise). Not exactly an unfair position on MS's part, although you get the sense MS grossly overcharges for said services as a deterrent.

i have a feeling that one day sony showed up at vavles office with a big check and this is why they changed their minds.

I can understand both sides of the argument. MS's myriad XBL rules and restrictions have to be a huge pain-in-the-ass for developers/publishers (especially those who want to do frequent updates like Valve) and no doubt have a chilling effect on the platform. Devs/pubs are obviously less likely to release free DLC or perform regular updates, and as some XBLA titles have shown all the hoop-jumping required to get on the platform may not be worth it.

On the other hand -- somewhat similar to what Apple has done with their iOS devices -- those restrictions have surely been a large factor in making XBL the success it is. The restrictions on updates may be a pain for developers, but it means waiting mere seconds for an update to download and install (whereas a bit of poor timing on the PS3 can result in 20+ minute waits while the system and game update) and very little 'release now and patch later' (not on the same level as some PC titles, at any rate), which was a very real concern when XBL first launched. The restrictions on DLC/XBLA titles have no doubt forced devs' hands, but those restrictions have by-and-large lead to a high standard of quality (particularly with XBLA).

It's easy to look at PSN and XBL now and point out XBL's shortcomings, but remember that XBL launched without any real competition and popularized console online, largely setting the precedent for what we expect from a console's online service. This may shock some users, but there are some publishers/developers out there who are more concerned with making you as profitable a consumer as possible than they are fostering a positive, long-term relationship with their consumer base. Without MS's strict controls over XBL, it's not hard to imagine the EAs, Ubisofts and Activisions of the world doing everything in their power to screw you out of as much money as possible (even moreso than they already have).

So it's a complex issue (especially with Valve not exactly being an impartial observer these days). Hopefully MS does open up XBL in the future because they clearly are limiting developers and harming their user base (especially when said userbase is already dropping $60 a year to use the service), but at the same time you do need some degree of control over a closed system (just imagine how much different things could have been if PSN 1.0 was the service that set the precedent for console online).

PBSnipes

No they did not the PS2 had more usser online that MS did with the original xbox,don't give credict to MS for something they did not do,in fact Socom 2 before Halo 2 was even release logged more played hours than all of live games combined world wide,not to mention that the first of the 2 to have voice chat was also sony with Socom 1 before xbox live was even release.

Live barely hit 2 million users on the xbox,on PS2 network adapters alone sony sold like 5 million,without counting that after 2004 every PS2 was online ready out of the box.

It wasn't until Halo 2 that MS actually had a game that beat Socom 2,and was pretty much the only game that did it,but unlike Halo 2 Socom did not sold 8 million copies.

As mentioned, he's not talking about Live itself but their situation WITH Live. Of course, I'm sure that wouldn't have made an acceptable thread title for you...

i have a feeling that one day sony showed up at vavles office with a big check and this is why they changed their minds.

dontshackzmii

No dude this developer that do most of their stuff on PC had always give free content to their userbase,they care much more for gamers and their games that consoles developer do,pretty much since ever,that is why there are tons of mods for pretty much all games,and content release free,what he say has nothing to do with sony paying them and more with MS been to greedy,the same happen with UT3 that was gimped on 360 because the PS3 version even support PC mods free.

As mentioned, he's not talking about Live itself but their situation WITH Live. Of course, I'm sure that wouldn't have made an acceptable thread title for you...

Verge_6

No they did not the PS2 had more usser online that MS did with the original xbox,don't give credict to MS for something they did not do,in fact Socom 2 before Halo 2 was even release logged more played hours than all of live games combined world wide,not to mention that the first of the 2 to have voice chat was also sony with Socom 1 before xbox live was even release.

Live barely hit 2 million users on the xbox,on PS2 network adapters alone sony sold like 5 million,without counting that after 2004 every PS2 was online ready out of the box.

It wasn't until Halo 2 that MS actually had a game that beat Socom 2,and was pretty much the only game that did it,but unlike Halo 2 Socom did not sold 8 million copies.

Eltormo

You're missing the point. Regardless of who had more users or who had what feature first, Sony's more piecemeal online platform was not truly in competition with the more unified XBL service, and XBL popularized the unified online service model on consoles.

As mentioned, he's not talking about Live itself but their situation WITH Live. Of course, I'm sure that wouldn't have made an acceptable thread title for you...

Valve is a great company. It makes sense that their stance has changed so dramatically. The ps3 started off terrible, but it is the exact opposite now.

Translation: We valve are incapable of figureing out that when we pay for pc stuff being free to users, or ps3 users that its the same money as if we made it free for 360 users. so we blame something else.

any one notice how they don't give specifics as though it wouldn't help us to understand? Most of the information is known so whatever they aren't saying is not protected by a non disclosure agreement. yet they don't give specifics except a blurb about updates and how they work on xbox live.

As mentioned, he's not talking about Live itself but their situation WITH Live. Of course, I'm sure that wouldn't have made an acceptable thread title for you...

Valve, please just shut up. I love you and you've already embarrassed yourselves once this gen. :(Ninja-Hippo

How? All the criticisms have been 100% valid.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Valve, please just shut up. I love you and you've already embarrassed yourselves once this gen. :(Espada12

How? All the criticisms have been 100% valid.

First they bashed the ps3 and loved the 360, now they bash the 360 and love the ps3. Never trust in Valve loyalty. Miroku32

First they bashed the ps3 and loved the 360, now they bash the 360 and love the ps3. Never trust in Valve loyalty. Miroku32

Valve are bashing themselves in that interview...... not to mention they aren't really bashing XBL or the 360, just the regulations MS has. They thought it would be changed in the future but here we are 4 years later and they are the same!

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] not the situation, the rules of live and thats the title of the article why would i change it? lol you cant win if i change it im a fanboy if i dont i am TintedEyes

Noun Phrase or "Implied Noun" in English Language

Its usage in the article......

"Valve boss Gabe Newell has called his company's assumptions over Xbox Live "such a train wreck".

Speaking to our colleagues at PC Gamer in its recently-published interview, Newell said one of Valve's failures over the years was to assume that Microsoft would improve Xbox Live so it could update its games regularly for free. When asked if its mistake on Xbox Live was to assume Microsoft would let Valve update its games more often, Newell said:

"We thought that there would be something that would emerge, because we figured it was a sort of untenable... Oh yeah, we understand that these are the rules now, but it's such a train wreck that something will have to change.

"That's why we're really happy with the current situation with the PS3," he said. "We're solving it now in a way that is going to work for our customers, rather than assuming something is going to emerge later that will allow us to fix this."

I will forgive you this time because you probably didnt know, and probably just jumped at yet another chance to bash MS, but this one is just grasping for straws, as you have even admitted that you know they are talkin about the rules...............yet you still havent changed the title. But you have been on SW a while, so we know why. ;)