Valve, Blizzard Want Single Online Platform for Consoles

[Chased]

Steam and Battle net are as walled off as Xbox Live.

I can agree with battle net but how is steam? Sure it got it´s limitations but nowhere the ones of xbox live.

I think he/she is referring to how Blizzard and Valve want all games to be on the same online network, that is instead of separate entities, yet, Battle.net and Steam are separate themselves since they are both sporting certain games and services that the other doesn't offer.

I can't imagine this actually working, even if the majority of online games got onboard some developer is bound to say no.

 

[Hamish Durie]

ahh and 10 year from now the cross platform console will be born
It can play any game NES to 720

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Gabe Newell, who creates Steam which nearly every PC game runs through nowadays, wants consoles to run off one OS?

Was his favourite childhood game Monopoly by any chance?

Bugger off Gabe, not everyone likes you trying to dictate their social habits to them.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Sounds good to me. It seems though that Blizzard getting involved seems to suggest a desire to try and move World of Warcraft to the consoles which i absolutely object to. MMOs have done massive damage to the PC game market and it would be a shame to do the same to console markets aswell.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

This will be the last gen of dedicated mobile gaming devices, the next gen will be the last gen of dedicated gaming appliances/consoles.

New TVs are coming integrated with OnLive and other services, and there will be no need to have another plastic box in the house just to play games.

The computers people carry in their pockets and purses are getting better and better. Soon people will consider it an unnecessary expense and inconvenience to have a device that JUST plays games. Consoles have the market now but Nintendo was prescient as usual. Their competition is Apple, not MS or Sony.

 

[WabbitTwacks]

Fuck Blizzard.

It's more reason for XBL and PSN to exist as this keeps the tyrants at bay.

Yes, poor little Microsoft and Sony.

 

[Wieke]

I think all these big partially social based services should be connected through an open API [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface]. Have services like steam friends cross boundaries across platforms (not just consoles/computers but also to other pc based gaming services like impulse, origin, battle.net & onlive). Allow steam users to chat with their friends on XBLA or origin, have them join each others games (only if the game allows it in the console/pc cases of course), etc. Social networking sites should do the same. I realise that this might infringe upon their "all my friends have it" based monopoly, but it would be a massive boost to customer service (and reduce the risk of people leaving because their friends left). It would make obtaining a monopoly harder, but it would also make it harder for a potential monopoly to steal your customer base. Also being able to chat with my steam friend using my phone & google talk would be sweeet.

So by all means, blizard & valve, let's start a new age of social networking/service transparency.

 

[BlackWidower]

Yeah, and let me guess Gabe, you want it to be Steam. I'm not against it, I just don't think he's the best person to spearhead it.

Also, Microsoft being against an open, cross-platform gaming environment!? Thought I'd never see the day.

 

[Venats]

Their competition is Apple, not MS or Sony.

Apple you say? Oh ho, I haven't had a jolly good laugh in quite some time. Mobile devices can get as good as they want, but until they sport a 20+ inch screen, I don't see too many people playing Triple A games on them. Its cool to have your games on the go (that what a DS is/was for) but it strains your eyes and there only so much you can put in a 2"x4" screen.

So long as TVs are bigger than mobile devices, with better image and sound, the gaming system (be it PC, console, or future space hamburger) will exist because no one wants to play an epic game on something the size of a bar of soup.

OT: I would prefer if everything didn't merge, that's called a monopoly and last I checked that stifles everything but profits.

 

[Something Amyss]

Fuck Blizzard.

It's more reason for XBL and PSN to exist as this keeps the tyrants at bay.

But surely a monopoly is a GOOD thing. Just ask Valve. Steam is mother. Steam is father.

 

[paketep]

Steam?. Good.

But I'll add myself to the Fuck Blizzard sentiment.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

So 2 (primarily) PC developers want the consoles to open up to cross platform play?.... Nope, can't see any vested interest there.

Maybe it's the cynic in me but I'm not seeing anything more than:

PC dev business plan:

1)open up a cross-platform multiplayer
2)wait for people to realise that PCs get an unfair advantage due to upgradable components as opposed to factory standard consoles
3)increased pc sales
4)vastly increased sales for, among others, the two named devs as new pc owners buy back catalogues to see what they missed now they have the hardware to run it.

 

[Plinglebob]

Seeing this is coming from a company who seems bent on walling off PC content and a company that hasn't gone near consoles in over a decade, I'm just going to ignore it. Should this issue be raised again by company who develops for consoles, I'll pay attention.

 

[mogamer]

Steam and Battle net are as walled off as Xbox Live.

Those services are actually worse. Steam and battle.net games can never be owned by another person. Talk about the "pot calling the kettle black", sheesh.

 

[Ashoten]

I'm all for the "Fuck Blizzard" crowd here. With a monopoly like that just imagine micro sur-charges every minuet you played multiplayer with your friends, and an additional charge every time you wanted to trade an item. Then it can be like the good old days of 1-800-numbers.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Actually, I'd like this. Being able to play with PS3 and 360 owners would be cool. Too bad it'll never happen. At least, not anytime, soon. It's kinda like the idea that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would collaborate on a single "console to rule them all". In some ways, it would be awesome (in others it would probably suck), but I don't see it happening.

What would be even better is if they would license out the console making to competent manufacturers. I wouldn?t buy a 360 because of the hardware issues but I would buy a Phillips or Samsung machine that played 360 games.

What?s amazing is that there are still publishers left who seem to actually want to make the gaming experience better for the consumers rather than thinking of a bigger and better way of ripping gamers off.

At least we know that there?s one company out there who wont be asking used game buyers to pay an extra $10 and asking new buyers to buy dlc at launch.

 

[The_Emperor]

it's not a terrible idea but it would never work with a profit incentive being the primary motive to make games and consoles.

tbh putting steam on ps3's is just expanding the user base of steam, netting sony a little profit too, microsoft are trying to keep a captive audience.


I could seriously live without steam on my xbox, it's good as a digital retailer, cheap prices that is all, otherwise it brings little functionality to the ps3 that isn't already there. I don't think it could bring anything to Xbox either. Ps3 might as well allow apps and team speak and .exe and call itself a PC.