GFW Live now free

[Viper86]

This is too little too late but I guess they finally realized that they can't charge PC gamers. Yeah certain elements were always free but now everything is included in a free package. I doubt this will attract more developers or even help the service compete with Steam. I'm sure we'll see a lot of 360 users complaining about this though.

At the Gamefest 2008 event on Tuesday, Microsoft announced that all Games for Windows Live multiplayer features are now free. These features -- including multiplayer achievements, matchmaking, cross-platform play with the Xbox 360, GFW voice chat, and more -- previously required a GFW Live Gold account. The change is effective immediately and across all GFW titles, both past and future.

In addition to making Games for Windows Live free, Microsoft will also be creating a brand new GFW marketplace this fall to rival the marketplace found on the Xbox 360. As with the Xbox Live Marketplace, GFW's will offer demos, videos, downloadable content, and more. The GFW interface will also receive some tech-friendly changes, lowering requirements for developers looking to make their games GFW compatible.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3168931

[DeaconBlade]

yep just got word here

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

[DeaconBlade]

and people who say "PC online is free so console gamers online should be free" make me sick. :bird:

i'm sick of the Xbox Live should be free crap really just because they see a failed attempt at online being free with Sony/Nintendo. wtf are people on really?

[Viper86]

Well Live should be free but it won't happen. I think it's getting to a point where they'll need to at least reduce the price of Live. This move is going to make many 360 owners question why they are paying $50. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why so many people are against having Live free. The quality of the service could easily be maintained.

[DeaconBlade]

why should LIVE be free?

[Viper86]

I'll bring up the argument that you hate, Live vs everything else. PC gaming has always been free for most games. MS is a multi-billion dollar company and yet they've been whooped by a development company like Valve when it comes to PC gaming support. Steam is an awesome, free service and GFWL is a crappy service that wasn't entirely free until today. Valve has even given out tools for Steam for free.

Steam even stacks up to pretty nicely to Xbox Live. It has a friends list that allows you to see what game your friends are playing. It gives you the ability to send messages in game, join a friends game, invite a friend, etc. It allows you to voice chat in game or just start a casual chat. It has a marketplace with demos, game videos, arcade games, mods, etc. Heck, Valve is even implementing achievements into their games. Every now and then Valve lets you download a full game and try it out for free for at least 3 days. You'll never see that on Live.

Many console games also have smaller number of player support. I was reading that Operation Flashpoint 2 would support 32 players on the PC and only 8 on consoles. Matchmaking gives you less options, another annoyance I've seen with console games. So you're paying for less player support and even less options with some games.

Live has an edge is some categories compared to PSN but $50 worth? In my opinion, no. The advantage I give to Live is with cross game invites and the more voice chat options. However, online play its self is pretty similar. Most multi-platform games are getting more and more equal between PSN and Live. With PSN, you see a few developers trying to push the boundaries of console online play. Insomniac has done it with Resistance's 40 player battles and they're doing it with Resistance 2's 60 player battles. Zipper is going for broke with 256 player battles. You really don't see any developers attempting that with Live.

I could go on but I've been through this argument dozens of times. I started PC games online several years ago, so that's why charging for Live has never really made much sense to me. I only pay for it because there are certain games I've wanted to play online. I'm not sure if I'll renew my Live subscription because Bad Company is really the only game I play online now.

[DeaconBlade]

does Steam do this for console gamers?

there is no reason to compare the two. that's why the two are not in the same market. if you make that comparision then why not complain that console games should cost as much as PC games do?

Xbox LIVE is a different platform. it isn't PC online. PC online is PC online and i'm glad GFW LIVE is free because it should be free.

however, that has nothing to do with what Xbox LIVE is to console gaming.

[Viper86]

It's not all that different really. They are both similar services that provided similar features. It shouldn't matter if one is on a console and the other is on the PC. Console gaming and PC gaming are becoming more and more a like.

Say GFWL gets more popular and we start seeing more and more cross-platform play. Why should console gamers have to pay to play against PC gamers, while PC gamers have to pay nothing? That's not all that fair to console players now is it?

Just because Live is biggest on consoles doesn't mean it has to cost $50 a year. Yes Live has done a lot for console online play but Valve & Steam have also done a lot for PC gaming over the last several years.

As for console games not costing the same as PC games, that's something I have complained about in the past. These $20-$30 prices differences you see between some PC and consoles games is baffling and ridiculous.

[DeaconBlade]

i agree..prices suck...but i've accepted it as being just one of those things that won't change :(

which is why i want a better PC. so i can find a good balance.