Valve: Xbox Live 'such a train wreck'

[QUOTE="ShockerD19"]

oh i love it. here is an article about valve wanting to give people on the 360 free content, but microsoft doesnt want valve to do it. and people come and defend microsoft saying they should be charged for it. wait... really? are you people such a fan of your chosen platform that you dont want said content for free like the other platforms? come on now...

static197

it makes me wonder how easy it would be to take advantage of a360 fan it's money for the taking.

oh i love it. here is an article about valve wanting to give people on the 360 free content, but microsoft doesnt want valve to do it. and people come and defend microsoft saying they should be charged for it. wait... really? are you people such a fan of your chosen platform that you dont want said content for free like the other platforms? come on now...

ShockerD19

[QUOTE="static197"]

[QUOTE="ShockerD19"]

oh i love it. here is an article about valve wanting to give people on the 360 free content, but microsoft doesnt want valve to do it. and people come and defend microsoft saying they should be charged for it. wait... really? are you people such a fan of your chosen platform that you dont want said content for free like the other platforms? come on now...

Merex760

it makes me wonder how easy it would be to take advantage of a360 fan it's money for the taking.

[QUOTE="static197"]

[QUOTE="ShockerD19"]

oh i love it. here is an article about valve wanting to give people on the 360 free content, but microsoft doesnt want valve to do it. and people come and defend microsoft saying they should be charged for it. wait... really? are you people such a fan of your chosen platform that you dont want said content for free like the other platforms? come on now...

Merex760

it makes me wonder how easy it would be to take advantage of a360 fan it's money for the taking.

[QUOTE="Merex760"][QUOTE="static197"]

it makes me wonder how easy it would be to take advantage of a360 fan it's money for the taking.

HuusAsking

sure I agree but not microsoft I would prefer sega or even atari all microsoft has done is turned this business into a dirty money grabbing scam to see how much they can get out of you.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Merex760"] Exactly. I just hope Sony and Nintendo don't become like Microsoft. They're the only legitimate game companies out there in the console world. I really hope Sony scores big with their next console and puts Microsoft back where they belong, in last. I miss the days of just Sony and Nintendo battling it out. static197

sure I agree but not microsoft I would prefer sega or even atari all microsoft has done is turned this business into a dirty money grabbing scam to see how much they can get out of you.

They took a full 180 on their stance. Quite a paradox.

RadecSupreme

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Merex760"] Exactly. I just hope Sony and Nintendo don't become like Microsoft. They're the only legitimate game companies out there in the console world. I really hope Sony scores big with their next console and puts Microsoft back where they belong, in last. I miss the days of just Sony and Nintendo battling it out. static197

sure I agree but not microsoft I would prefer sega or even atari all microsoft has done is turned this business into a dirty money grabbing scam to see how much they can get out of you.

[QUOTE="static197"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]You really need three to make a good gaming war. Has been that way since the 4th generation. Microsoft stepped in when Sega stepped out.walkingdream

sure I agree but not microsoft I would prefer sega or even atari all microsoft has done is turned this business into a dirty money grabbing scam to see how much they can get out of you.

Innocent? You know that you are talking about companies not people?

[QUOTE="walkingdream"][QUOTE="static197"]

sure I agree but not microsoft I would prefer sega or even atari all microsoft has done is turned this business into a dirty money grabbing scam to see how much they can get out of you.

rzepak

Innocent? You know that you are talking about companies not people?

[QUOTE="rzepak"]

[QUOTE="walkingdream"] So you you think sony is all innocent and so is nintendo?walkingdream

Innocent? You know that you are talking about companies not people?

If the point is that all companies are "guilty" of being buisnesses, which by defenition are oriented towards profit. Even Valves goal is money and more money they simply do it in a more gamer friendly way becouse they can due to them being a private comapny.

[QUOTE="walkingdream"][QUOTE="rzepak"]

Innocent? You know that you are talking about companies not people?

rzepak

If the point is that all companies are "guilty" of being buisnesses, which by defenition are oriented towards profit. Even Valves goal is money and more money they simply do it in a more gamer friendly way becouse they can due to them being a private comapny.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Inb4 lems spam pics of Gabe Newell working at Burger King.

waltefmoney

I have something much better

Their trolling is a train wreck...

So the options on consoles are tight. He can have hard to use hardware with the PS3 and open online capabilities, or Easy to use hardware with the 360 with very closed online capabilities. In reality, The people at Valve probably don't like either.

hoola

...I've lost all faith with Valve now. Next they'll say that the Wii is the superior platform for gaming and that the Xbox 360, PS3 and PC are inferior. Free_Narcotics

People revise and change their opinions, particularly early opinions which can be based on assumptions or what they've been told (i.e. by MS).

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Inb4 lems spam pics of Gabe Newell working at Burger King.

DethSkematik

I have something much better

unless the game is valve, its up to the devs if they want to charge for DLC, thats why the stupid DLC for killingfloor costs money...even though its like a dollar or 2

Valve feels the need to bash one console at all times. Before it was the PS3, now that they're swimming in Sony cash is the 360.

waltefmoney

I certainly wouldn't describe Live as a train wreck. Sure, you get hackers and annoying little kids, but I imagine that's the case with any online service.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

You do realize the updates have to be hosted on Live servers? 360s will only go through Live servers to get updates, and companies can't host their own patches because Microsoft is unwilling to punch holes in their walled garden for fear of someone sneaking in exploits through the holes.

Eltormo

That is a pathetic excuse you are paying for those servers already remember.? the Yearly fee you play that no one else on the planet on different platforms and PC pay.

I wonder in what server is store thing that you download on PC,i guess they are hosted on a limbo or the twightlight zone maybe,the content given on PC is also store on servers.and they are deliver free,there is no excuse for what they are doing,server is just a lame excuse,even more when EA run it s own servers separate from MS do you remember.?

No dude what MS doesn't want is that developer give free content because from every thing sold on xbox live they get a piece as simple as that it doesn't have to do anything with MS servers which you already pay yearly,and when you buy their games,tons of PS3 games are on servers and i get charge nothing dude.

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

no.

its been established that valve is now sony's "girl", being paid a truckloads of cash to say stuff like these.

Thats cause value which is a master with gaming networks is able to influence sonys PSN. After Gabes "OPEN" comment Im guessing Sony reached out to value for help asking them what they meant and how to be more open.

This is why portal 2 on ps3 with have steamworks and xbl wont. Value could never get Microsoft to allow them access to there network but Im sure they had no problem getting into psn.

Wow... Never knew someone could change so quickly.:P

People here sure have a messed up view on what bussniess do. Its like all SW thinks Business' are all cut throat monsters who will do anything for money. These forums sure are socialist.

First of all people need to learn that companies do care about their user base. Companies know that its much easier to make their consumers happy then it is to get new consumers. Its also easier to lose consumers then get them so companies want you to have reason for not leaving. Believe it or not the companies want you to return to them so they want you to be happy with their products.

Second of all companies want to balance being effective with being efficient.

Until you realize that the PC world has userland servers and Sony is willing to give until it bleeds to tweak Microsoft's nose. Microsoft is unwilling to give because they have to answer to investors, and they won't allow userland servers because they'll compromise the walled garden.HuusAsking

Dude what make you think that the servers use by valve or any other company is hosted is userland,dude server are server and if much smaller companies than MS can run it free,i don't see why MS can't,sony is not bleeding anything in fact the loss of the PS3 came from givng gamers a great value for something that cost more to make than what it was sell for,not servers have you read and article on sony's bleeding money because it has to pay for servers.?

Hell most of the times when you buy a game the earnings from the game pay for the servers,hell is there a single excuse to MW2 not using dedicated servers for gameplay.? the game sold on 360 more than Halo 3 did.? Is actually been greedy and cheap what make Activision make the game been P2P.

Dude saves that excuse my god dud you even believe that.?

So you mean to tell me that MS is not willing to have content free because of the servers cost on maintanance is to high for the like of the investors.? Is that right.?

Let me tell you something if that was even close to be true there would not be a 360 now,how MS would have tell investors that they would make a console last gen that would bleed them 4 billions in losses if they can't even justify a cost of server maintanace which is like a soda can price compare to 4 billions dude.

By the way what make you think sony doesn't have to answer to the same investors.? So sony can run servers free of charging me, but MS one of the richest companies on the world can't.?

Come on be real this is not Sega is MS.

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

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

no.

its been established that valve is now sony's "girl", being paid a truckloads of cash to say stuff like these.

Link.

[QUOTE="HailedJohnDman"]

[QUOTE="nhh18"]No. I think valve has common sense to see that microsoft raising xbl without bringing any features and stopping user created content and updates such as steam shows how ripped off you are getting.

no.

its been established that valve is now sony's "girl", being paid a truckloads of cash to say stuff like these.

Link.

The problem with Gabe Newell's assertions is that other publishers / developers have had no problem implementing what Valve says they can't. The obvious example to me is Burnout Paradise on Xbox 360, and another not-so-obvious example would be Battlefield Bad Company 2. These games exhibit all the features Valve says he seemingly can't have on XBL.

The problem is Valve wants to implement those features by porting Steamworks to Xbox, and MS won't let them do it that way. That's unfortunate, but it isn't surprising. MS already has systems that do everything Steamworks does in place or in development, for use by all publishers, and it does them no good to make a special exception for Valve so it can haveits own private system running on XBL.

Yeah because Steam obviously is and forever will be the apex of all gaming services. Pfft.

The problem with Gabe Newell's assertions is that other publishers / developers have had no problem implementing what Valve says they can't. The obvious example to me is Burnout Paradise on Xbox 360, and another not-so-obvious example would be Battlefield Bad Company 2. These games exhibit all the features Valve says he seemingly can't have on XBL.

The problem is Valve wants to implement those features by porting Steamworks to Xbox, and MS won't let them do it that way. That's unfortunate, but it isn't surprising. MS already has systems that do everything Steamworks does in place or in development, for use by all publishers, and it does them no good to make a special exception for Valve so it can haveits own private system running on XBL.

UnnDunn

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Until you realize that the PC world has userland servers and Sony is willing to give until it bleeds to tweak Microsoft's nose. Microsoft is unwilling to give because they have to answer to investors, and they won't allow userland servers because they'll compromise the walled garden.Eltormo

Dude what make you think that the servers use by valve or any other company is hosted is userland,dude server are server and if much smaller companies than MS can run it free,i don't see why MS can't,sony is not bleeding anything in fact the loss of the PS3 came from givng gamers a great value for something that cost more to make than what it was sell for,not servers have you read and article on sony's bleeding money because it has to pay for servers.?

Hell most of the times when you buy a game the earnings from the game pay for the servers,hell is there a single excuse to MW2 not using dedicated servers for gameplay.? the game sold on 360 more than Halo 3 did.? Is actually been greedy and cheap what make Activision make the game been P2P.

Dude saves that excuse my god dud you even believe that.?

So you mean to tell me that MS is not willing to have content free because of the servers cost on maintanance is to high for the like of the investors.? Is that right.?

Let me tell you something if that was even close to be true there would not be a 360 now,how MS would have tell investors that they would make a console last gen that would bleed them 4 billions in losses if they can't even justify a cost of server maintanace which is like a soda can price compare to 4 billions dude.

By the way what make you think sony doesn't have to answer to the same investors.? So sony can run servers free of charging me, but MS one of the richest companies on the world can't.?

Come on be real this is not Sega is MS.

PS. Remember last year? Sony went in the red, Microsoft didin't. And SCE figured noticeably in said red ink.

Yeah because Steam obviously is and forever will be the apex of all gaming services. Pfft.

MrDziekuje

[QUOTE="MrDziekuje"]

Yeah because Steam obviously is and forever will be the apex of all gaming services. Pfft.

TerrorRizzing

Well... It's not on a console so I wouldn't really doubt that.:P