How Microsoft Killed Cross-Platform Gaming
Some of you might know that Windows recently released a Technological update to their System that gives Xbox 360 owners the chance to play intellectually superior PC Gamers. Sounds like a great idea, until you realize that there are some glaring inconsistencies with what Microsoft’s Gaming Division wants to accomplish and what is actually going to occur. There are 4 main reasons as deemed by me.
Just Ports
Personally, I thought that the controls for Halo 2 for PC were clunky. They seemed too tailored to 360 players, and not as smooth and suave as I am used to in PC Games. Halo 2 felt like it was directly ported, and this means the degrading of the typical game style that is expected. Yuk.
Lack of Incentive
There is, lets see, approximately 1 Game for Windows Live. And you are required to part with $50 a year for frills that PC users are used to getting for free on gaming services such as Xfire.
The free “service” doesn’t even give you the ability to play with 360 players.
In addition, what you do get for forking over the money is not worth it at all. Sure, you do get a snazzy gamertag, and you can earn the same rewards as the other Xbox 360 lifelings.
Did I mention that the games are a full-price of $50 as well to the yearly fee.
Substandard Games
Halo 2. Are you serious? It was released in November of 2004. The graphics look extremely old-school, in a bad way. The models were barely changed from the original release.
I am sure that you could argue that Halo 2 is more of a plot focused game, however the plot is a straight track, with no deviations from this path possible, that means an absent replay value.
The only other game available as of yet (I am not even sure it is out yet) is Uno. You would pay to play Uno against Xbox 360 players? You could just buy a real Uno deck, and play in real life. It is alot more fun. Trust me.
Microsoft released their product with one game that is full-featured. The only other upcoming game, Shadowrun, doesn’t even come out until after the initial release. Thanks to the marketing “professionals”, who brought you the brilliant Vista slogans such as “Wow!!”, they killed their product. Why didn’t they wait a month, and release all of the titles as a whole? Good Job Noobs.
The Ripoff Point: Xbox 360 Players Get More For Less
Plain and simple: A starting out PC Gamer who wanted the ability to play Xbox 360 players must pay $49.99 for a year subscription. Sounds like a good deal until they tell you that you have to pay full price for the vintage game that is Halo 2, while Xbox 360 players can get the product for as low as 14.95 on Amazon.
A starting out Xbox 360 player who wanted to have the opportunity to play PC Gamers must buy a Gold Xbox Live Subscription. Assuming that they were just starting out, they would want the required ganglia (a complete list of these dongles here).
For this special treatment, they pay $59.99.
However, the Xbox Live pay $10 more for more than $10 worth of rewards. Just one of the Xbox Live addons is worth $20.
BUT, Microsoft didn’t lower the monthly PC price. Ouch.
But…
Microsoft did do a few things right. It was a great idea, and consequently, they just had to go out and assure that it was thoroughly messed up. Halo 2 was fun at times, but the cons out-weighed the pros.
However, since this is a Amerika, or whatever free country you are in, I can’t stop you from buying into this con. I can go on hunger strike to protest the manipulation of consumers, but you can still waste your money.
Kau
May 26th 2007 - 10:08pm
50 a month?? who told you that.
From the link:
Cost = $49.95 U.S. /year unless you’re a current Xbox Live Gold member which gives you automatic access to Gold features on Games for Windows – LIVE titles
Micahville
May 26th 2007 - 10:14pm
Sorry, if you read the post before this, I had accidentally deleted the post the first time that I wrote it. I corrected the mistype.
Jesusaur
May 26th 2007 - 10:19pm
While I certainly agree that paying for a Gold-level membership is a huge con and not even in the least bit worth one’s money at this stage in LIVE Anywhere’s release, the Silver-level membership gives you a huge depth of content and other stuff for free, and at that level alone LIVE Anywhere is a huge success.
Why? It’s quite simple– it makes Microsoft the proud owner of the only truly unified cross-platform gaming service, with live functionality allowing you to centralize your Games for Windows and Xbox 360 gaming experiences under one gamertag and one major online service. This convenience alone would make Live Silver worth a ton of money, but the best part of the silver-level membership is that it’s completely free. Gamers then are getting a huge something for nothing in that even if they don’t get cross-platform multiplayer functionality at the silver level, they do get a cross-platform identity that allows for a more streamlined gaming experience.
Let’s just hope Microsoft doesn’t manage to botch their Live functionality as badly as they’ve botched it’s release. I mean seriously, just one game at release? Any game console worth its salt has had at least 5 titles come out with the system– why can’t PC gamers get the same courtesy extended to them with the release of a brand new online service?
gil
June 3rd 2007 - 10:18pm
hmm, you’ve got a lot of good points. I have one thing to say in response, and it’s a classic saying.
If microsoft makes it, there will be a pricetag
Daniel Oh
June 16th 2007 - 8:43pm
o yes. congrats on digg. remember?