Valve, Blizzard Want Single Online Platform for Consoles

[shiaramoon]

When it comes to cross-platform gaming, why not let the users choose? When setting up a match, offer an option that allows you to enable cross-platform multiplayer or disable it. Because if only some games have and other don't, then you on the one hand you people gripping that the playing field is unfair, and on the other you have people gripping that they can't play with their friends. So just give them the option and let the players choose.

 

[OMGIllithan]

I don't understand where all the Blizzard hate in this thread is coming from... the guy only said it would be nice to have an neutral platform for playing all console games, which would probably be great for both players and companies alike.

 

[Space Jawa]

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.

Even the physical copies?

 

[vxicepickxv]

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.

Even the physical copies?

Even the physical copies. Of course, the fact that you can carry them from one computer to another should something happen to one isn't all bad. Eventually it would be nice if you could bundle up a game and gift it to someone after you have so many hours of playtime.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Fuck Blizzard.

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

I don't understand, what does tyranny have to do with this?

Certain people have a knee jerk reaction when certain things are mentioned. Like with this fellow and blizzard, he hates them and thus will appose whatever they do no matter what it is.

 

[Section Crow]

okay is it just me or does the "Single platform that everyone can use" line give you futuristic images?

anyway, it seems good as in my microsoft points could buy a bigger multitude of things but companies being on the same uber network just puts me off of it...

 

[Atmos Duality]

Two points I'm torn between:

1) Xbox Live Gold has been a money-hustle for quite some time now. It's a useless service when you consider that it's the PUBLISHER who ultimately pays for the hosting costs for their games. Games For Windows Live showed how fucking worthless/needless such a system was. I hated it.
In short: These systems are pens; pens for market control.

Microsoft and Sony (and Nintendo, to a more inept extent) treat their customers like sheep. It's for security purposes, yes, but it's only to secure THEIR MARKET. Someone who is playing on Xbox CANNOT be playing with PS3 or PC at the same time. It's an economic definition of a "network good". It's the same reason why Facebook reigns over Myspace.

So yeah, I would wish for such systems to become more open and interconnected since these consoles are essentially watered-down/specialized (you choose: dysphemism/euphemism) gaming PCs.
But you can bet that none of the Big Three would ever agree to it. They would lose considerable market influence to the Publishers; a similar (and related) reason they're terrified of PC gaming returning to the top in mainstream entertainment.

However...there is some military-grade bullshit here.

2)You mean to tell me *BLIZZARD* of all fucking companies is pushing for open access?
The same Blizzard who turned created Battlenet 2.0? The system that rips all rights (and several assumed protections) from the consumer and places it into Blizzard's hands?

Biblical. Hypocrisy. Words cannot describe how hypocritical that stance is.
Show of hands kids: Which one do you want watching over you? Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, or Blizzard here?

Seriously: Just shut your fucking mouth Blizzard. You are in no position to preach about the evils of market control here.
It was bad enough when you LIED about Diablo 3, but now you have the gall to take the moral high ground for "a more free market"? If you had a physical persona, I'd beat you so badly you'd think it was a career.

All I see is a hunter who wants a more open range for his poaching operation.

Which leaves Valve..

Well, this does sound like a Gabe Newell topic by default. Won't lie.
It's not like Valve doesn't see the potential to profit here too (Gabe Newell's success is no accident; he's sharp), but at least their argumentation is more neutral than Blizzard's; they don't own ANY of the titles they sell. Said titles could get pulled if the Publisher chose not to distribute through them (unlike Blizzard).

They could go either way, in terms of benefiting/screwing the customer over. Blizzard would only get access to more suckers; after seeing the direction they want to push the whole market towareds, I can't see them as anything but bad news for the average consumer (who has sadly been buying into their latest brand of bullshit).

 

[Aprilgold]

I thought it would be about Xbox Live and PSN having a love, sexy baby and that would be a united console online player, with compatibility for grand dad PC's online play to be allowed on as well.

The only issue is that Microsoft wouldn't do it, because that would involved sharing.

Other than pricing structures i see no advantage of Steam over XBL. At least XBL games are consistent. Im playing Terraria on steam and i still have to type in IP addresses for fucks sake.

Its a indie game, any indie game with online play, your USUALLY going to have to do that. Most of Arcade's games have a budget behind them, varying. The indie titles on Arcade require Xbox Live.

Seriously, your comparing a indie [indies have some of the lowest budgets for games OUT there, or none.] To a place where the games are funded by actual companies.

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.

How are they "worse"? If you haven't noticed, even physical copies of games are, in a nutshell, the game that you are only ALLOWED to play because the publisher would sick lawyers on you if you did something to it your not supposed to. Steam is not very walled in, because the whole community is playing with PS3ers and with themselves. While battlenet is a evil piece-o-shit that I don't care much for.

 

[viranimus]

Well of course Valve would want this. They tasted in essence a monopoly for the last 5+ years or so (estimated, just guessing when steam was started) So they resent anything likened to competition.

TL;DR

Basically they are ok with 1 platform.. so long as it is THEIR PLATFORM

 

[Aprilgold]

I thought it would be about Xbox Live and PSN having a love, sexy baby and that would be a united console online player, with compatibility for grand dad PC's online play to be allowed on as well.

The only issue is that Microsoft wouldn't do it, because that would involved sharing.

Other than pricing structures i see no advantage of Steam over XBL. At least XBL games are consistent. Im playing Terraria on steam and i still have to type in IP addresses for fucks sake.

Its a indie game, any indie game with online play, your USUALLY going to have to do that. Most of Arcade's games have a budget behind them, varying. The indie titles on Arcade require Xbox Live.

Seriously, your comparing a indie [indies have some of the lowest budgets for games OUT there, or none.] To a place where the games are funded by actual companies.

Then it shouldn't be on sale on steam. Its up to Valve to enforce a base level of online functionality.

Valve = Distributor.
Terraria = Game. The developers choose how their online component works.
Functionality isn't the problem, the game works fine online. Valve is, to a extent, the server running on the game works fine. *Also, theres a single player, so you have no way of covering your ass. The whole game is not multiplayer, its mainly singleplayer.*
Putting a game for sale is Valve's choice, not the developers, game sales happen to PARTICULAR titles that are either sleeper hits or popular titles that should be bought.
Valve is NOT responsible for whatever online service a game uses for its online component. Your whole argument is that its not functional, it works, its just not user friendly.
Minecraft's online component can be pulled into the same band wagon, less of it doesn't work, and more of its just not user friendly.

Xbox Live market place has more money behind them, Valve isn't publishing Terraria in this example, so they can't do everything the 'best' way due to a limit on money.
On Microsofts Marketplace, the developers usually have a publisher of some sorts. And on their Indie Market place, they usually DO NOT. Terraria is in the same boat as example number 2. Theres no publisher power behind them, and steam is only distributing.

 

[deanzig]

I like the idea. Xbox Live is incompetent and/or neglectful. Just a few weeks ago I cancelled my gold membership. To do so I had to ring up some dude and chat for a few minutes, no big deal, even while I'm sitting their looking at their broken link saying I cannot be performed the same task the dude on the phone is (funny how one can give them $ online but one is unable to cancel the same deal online).

Anyway, about a week later I notice the day that I canned my gold membership, Microsoft had also charged me for a further 3 months of gold - whether this is a cancelation fee or something I do not know, for I can see not anywhere on their site the relevant information. I was not notifyed, emailed or billed officially for this transaction. I checked with my Microsoft billing history and there is no record there either. The only evidence of the transaction is my personal bank account. So I email customer support.

4 days later customer service contacts me and says "With issues relating to account, we find that the easiest way to resolve these is by telephone. Please call us and one of our agents will be happy to help."

I contact them back and say "I don't have a phone. Why don't you just give me the rundown over email?"

I am still awaiting reply.

My bottom line is, I am disappointed by Microsoft's services but I won't stop playing because xBox is currently where all my friends are set up. But if consoles had cross-platform capabilities, then in a perfect world I would say "Thanks for all the fish, Microsoft. See you when you wake up to your customers."

 

[Frostbyte666]

If this were true

'Blizzard's Frank Pearce said that he could see a lot of games becoming platform agnostic in the future, as players increasingly wanted to play games on their own terms'

Then they would provide offline play for diablo 3

 

[drosalion]

This reminds me of an article I read many years ago, which proposed a future where all console games are compatible with all consoles. The only difference would be the specs of said consoles and certain features, but the games themselves would run without problems switching from a PS or Xbox. Just like you don't need a Sony DVD player to watch Disney movies.

Yeh it does seem kind of weird when you think about all other digital entertainment media and how it operates - DVD's, blurays, movie's, music, pc gaming, etc. They can all be operated on any device, only with console gaming is something restricted to a specific device.

 

[Teeth Kicker]

Gee. Games WHEREVER I WANTED. And with WHOEVER I wanted. That sounds like a GREAT idea Blizzard. Maybe you should implement it in DIABLO FUCKING THREE.

 

[ZephrC]

Honestly? I think Valve and Blizzard are right here.

All these stupid bits of hardware and software and none of them are compatible with any of the others and they don't usually bother with backwards compatibility and they're all vying for exclusives and if any of them go out of business then I just lose access to all the games I bought from them. This system is shit. Absolute shit.

It's like video games are in a world where Betamax didn't lose to VHS, they both got so many exclusive movies that everyone just had to buy both of them. And then DVDs came along, so we got Betamax 2 and VHS 1.awesome. Then VHS went out of business when BluRay came along, DVD got upgraded to HDDVD and we got a Betamax 3. And computers have never used any of these, they've just been off in their own little land. Meanwhile not only is Netflix download only, but every single fucking movie studio ever is trying to make their own download service so they don't have to let Netflix take part of their potential profit.

It's a goddamned nightmare. At this point I wish some evil fucking soulless corporation would just take the whole mess over so the rest of the video game industry could finally focus on making games instead of spending half their effort trying to navigate this quagmire.

 

[Mechanix]

Everything here is about money.

Valve and Blizzard want this because they know they would make big money off of it.

Microsoft doesn't want this because it will take away from their XBL profits.

Yay business!