Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GTA IV On PC Goes Exclusive With 'Games For Windows Live'

Soulskill posted about 6 years ago | from the yeah-thanks dept.

PC Games (Games) 132

Erik J writes "Microsoft has announced that the PC version of Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto IV will exclusively use Games for Windows Live for its multiplayer mode when it hits shelves November 18th. Rockstar founder Sam Houser explained the decision: 'As we work toward the release of the PC version, Games for Windows Live affords us the opportunity to seamlessly translate the multiplayer console experience for PC gamers, the service is a natural fit for the platform and we strongly believe it will help in building a strong online community around GTA IV PC.'" Wired is running a story suggesting that this release could save the rather unpopular Microsoft PC gaming platform.

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Motherfuckers. (5, Insightful)

nog_lorp (896553) | about 6 years ago | (#25181931)

Wired is running a story suggesting that this release could save the rather unpopular Microsoft PC gaming platform.

Motherfuckers.

Re:Motherfuckers. (4, Insightful)

Bragador (1036480) | about 6 years ago | (#25182029)

I agree with parent. This just forces games to be even more locked on a platform than before.

This is not about saving or helping the pc market. It's about selling windows.

Tyrone the Linux nigger speaks: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182117)

Uuuuu-BOOON-TOOOO!

OOga-chaka chicken watamelon chitlins Black-n-Milds GNOME!

Re:Motherfuckers. (4, Insightful)

Scott Kevill (1080991) | about 6 years ago | (#25182449)

This is not about saving or helping the pc market. It's about selling windows.

And poorly.

GFWL was originally Vista-only. The multiplayer support also used to have a yearly fee (aside from the gimped Silver plan), while disallowing developers to have any game features they considered competitive to GFWL's (eg. voice communication and achievements).

So they release a multiplayer-only game ported from a console version (Shadowrun) using GFWL Vista-only, pay-to-play multiplayer. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't sell.

They've back-pedalled somewhat now, making GFWL free and supporting XP, but they seriously shot themselves in the foot, and will have a long way to go before they reverse the damage done to the GFWL name in the minds of gamers.

Re:Motherfuckers. (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | about 6 years ago | (#25182571)

Man 2 supportive posts and -1 troll :(

Re:Motherfuckers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25183363)

Games For Windows Live is going to KILL the GTA4 mod community.

Without mods, there's NO reason for me to buy it.

Re:Motherfuckers. (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 6 years ago | (#25183455)

Bingo! I bought the GTA series because after you were done beating the games there was so much more you could do thanks to the mods. You could have your favorite real life cars,new areas to explore,hell there is even a few total conversions that are like getting a new game. By locking it down to Windows Live(Do I LOOK like I want my PC to act like an Xbox?) they have killed the mods and given me a reason not to buy it. Maybe if it sinks like Shadowrun they'll get hit by the clue stick and give us a REAL version. Until then I'll stick with my other 3 GTA games,thanks anyway.

Re:Motherfuckers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25184337)

yeah, because of what happened after the hot coffee mod Rockstar will never put mod support back into the GTA series.

Re:Motherfuckers. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 6 years ago | (#25182707)

Is it completely free now? I was avoiding Universe At War because it has archievements that grant advantages in multiplayer mode so goldmembers could get stat boosts and such which normal players had no access to. If that's no longer pay-only I might pick the game up for a tenner from the bargain bin.

Re:Motherfuckers. (1)

Scott Kevill (1080991) | about 6 years ago | (#25182731)

Yeah, it is free now. Check the forums though, there might not be anyone playing Universe At War online anymore so long after release. (Particularly given the GFWL mess).

Re:Motherfuckers. (2, Insightful)

ozphx (1061292) | about 6 years ago | (#25183821)

Why would I want some shitty in-house voice comm setup / achievements / server browser / login system?

Take a look at how well Steam works when you force people to use the "platform" services.

There is nothing worse than using some crappy server browser designed for a console without being able to do things like "click column headings to sort". Just like every damn EA driving game.

In fact I've always said that the best menu system for a game was a standard damn Windows Forms app with standard bloody common controls. Then fire up all the 3D goodness when I click "Join/Begin/Start Fellating". I don't need some shitty menu designed last minute by a bunch of artists "adding to my game experience".

Played GRID? Thats the kinda shit I'm talking about.

BSOD (0, Troll)

gadget junkie (618542) | about 6 years ago | (#25183171)

Do I have to pay an addiotnal fee for the BSOD?

Re:BSOD (4, Funny)

vacuum_tuber (707626) | about 6 years ago | (#25183297)

No, BSoD is a free, bundled feature of Windows.

Re:BSOD (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 6 years ago | (#25183681)

Apparently you haven't seen the press releases for Windows 7.

It really says: (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25181951)

"Games for Windows Live affords us the opportunity to seamlessly translate the multiplayer console experience for PC gamers" (Microsoft paid us like, a lot of money to do this, if you want to play it without errors get a console.)

The multiplayer console experience (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 years ago | (#25183957)

"Games for Windows Live affords us the opportunity to seamlessly translate the multiplayer console experience for PC gamers"

Exactly how seamlessly? As I understand it, "the multiplayer console experience" involves inviting a couple friends over to my house and playing Smash Bros. together on my 32" Vizio monitor. Does Games for Windows certification guarantee that PC games will let me and a friend play with one PC, one monitor, and two gamepads? Or will players still have to buy a separate PC per person?

Re:The multiplayer console experience (2, Informative)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 6 years ago | (#25184351)

If the game supports xinput and you have two xbox controllers plugged in then it shouldn't be a problem.

Re:The multiplayer console experience (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 years ago | (#25184461)

If the game supports xinput and you have two xbox controllers plugged in then it shouldn't be a problem.

Unless the game supports DirectInput or XInput but refuses to read more than one controller per PC.

Re:It really says: (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 6 years ago | (#25184767)

Actually i'd guess its not money just effort. I dont know much about multiplayer game platforms but id guess microsoft are offering a well designed wasy to use interface to sort out all the multiplayer stuff that will be alot easier than developing thier own for scratch. Unfortunately for those of us not on windows, this is the same trick they used to get directx everywhere and few games will turn their noeses up at an easy to implement multiplayer system for xbox-live AND windows-live. The real kicker is that it removes the need for servers and my 1st introduction to Linux was because a lot of game servers would run Linux even for windows only games.

GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25181959)

We've just had the largest bank collapse in the history of the United States of America, we're about to unilaterally pass a bill that is destined to bankrupt our country, with barely any discussion of alternate solutions. Furthermore both of the two men campaigning be the leader of the Free World are both spineless wienies who refuse to talk about substantive issues such as the genocide in Dafur, Illegal Immigration and the above mentioned financial crisis.

Instead of facing the fact that the economy of the entire world is swirling the drain you fucks are sitting on your fat asses discussing GTA IV?

GET SOME FUCKING PRIORITIES ALREADY!!

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0, Offtopic)

Raistlin77 (754120) | about 6 years ago | (#25182069)

Instead of facing the fact that the economy of the entire world is swirling down the drain you, you fucking hypocrite, are here on Slashdot...

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182119)

GTA IV is more fun. there is a reason Nero fiddled while Rome burned - it was more fun to play music than watch people burn to death. the crisis cant be solved on /. anyway cuz no one will listen to a bunch of smarter than average geeks. we dont do well on TV.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182703)

We aren't Nero. If this story was headed "Penned by G.W. Bush" or "Written by John McCain" or "From the desk of Barack Obama", I might be worried. But we're not these people, are we now?

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (1)

giantweevil (1216540) | about 6 years ago | (#25184869)

Actually, Nero watched people burn while fiddling. He felt it needed an epic soundtrack, just like GTA IV.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0, Offtopic)

dave562 (969951) | about 6 years ago | (#25182125)

How cute, someone is feeling impotent about the problems in the world so they are turning to an internet forum to soothe their ego by berating others for not doing enough to alleviate their discomfort.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0, Offtopic)

Draek (916851) | about 6 years ago | (#25182147)

Who the fuck cares about some tiny country in a tiny planet orbiting a tiny sun in a not-very-significant galaxy? get off your fat ass and start working on the means to reverse entropy, or the universe [wikipedia.org] itself shall cease to exist as we know it.

Douglas Adams said it best, that the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0)

gearloos (816828) | about 6 years ago | (#25182211)

Well, first of all this may have been the largest but not the worst by far. My condolences if you work for WAMU. I didn't know this was $lashdot, Findot, Dollardot, or any other such iteration. This is TECH news, "News for Nerds" ring a bell? If I want to talk Finance I'll go over to M$NBC or Bloomberg. I come here to get away from that crap. Further more, keep your political preferences out of my tech news, unless Mccain released a new FLOSS version of his latest plugin for xxxdb, then kindly STFU. "Instead of facing the fact that the economy of the entire world is swirling the drain you fucks are sitting on your fat asses discussing GTA IV?" Why, facing such absolute devastation, are you reading slashdot and not marching Washington as we speak? GO GO! Get out man, run to Washington, quick as you can, theres no time to lose!

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182437)

The economy of the entire world does not depends on the USA. Wake up and smell the horse shit, since you can't afford coffee anymore.

The only thing the USA is good at is wasting resources, and we're all glad it's finally coming to an end.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0, Troll)

blankinthefill (665181) | about 6 years ago | (#25182705)

Umm, actually, you're a moron. The Great Depression was ample proof that the global market is, in fact, global. We continue to see that in shifts in stocks at various exchanges around the world as the react to each other. If the US economy collapses completely, the world WILL go into a severe depression. This is not a one way street. If a serious and total economic collapse happened in any number of other regions in the world, the US economy would also go down. In other words, we're all going down together. PS. The current standard for international trade is still the dollar. Its pretty obvious that until its no longer the dollar, anything that effects the value of the dollar (the strength US economy, for instance) will affect global trade/markets. Just wanted to throw this out there for you in case the paragraph above wasn't enough.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182905)

Umm, actually, I'm a moron. The Great Depression was ample proof that the global market was, in fact, global.

fixed that for you

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25184417)

Not really. If the US went under then oil would be traded in Euros and banks wouldn't (as they have be doing this is started) lend out debt to the US banks. The world can cope without the US if it tanks and then other countries will replace whatever the US exported.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0, Offtopic)

Toonol (1057698) | about 6 years ago | (#25182675)

In round numbers, it's a trillion dollar bailout. That's about a 50% one year increase in the federal budget. In ten years or so, it'll probably be recompensed, maybe at a loss, maybe at a profit. Let's say it'll be at a 50% loss, so we'll get 500 billion back.

In scale, that's similar to a typical US household, earning $60,000, getting a loan for $30,000, buying a expensive car, then selling it for $15,000 ten years from now.

It's a bitch and a half, but it's not the ruin of the economy. Hell, if we simply instituted a freeze in government growth, we would be running a surplus in about four years, and would probably have made back the trillion dollars within ten years. Don't let the panic on the TV reports spook you. That's what they want.

Also, buying videogames, and other such pastimes, are absolutely necessarily to keep the economy growing.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0, Offtopic)

vux984 (928602) | about 6 years ago | (#25183695)

In round numbers, it's a trillion dollar bailout. That's about a 50% one year increase in the federal budget.

So far...

In ten years or so, it'll probably be recompensed, maybe at a loss, maybe at a profit. Let's say it'll be at a 50% loss, so we'll get 500 billion back.

In scale, that's similar to a typical US household, earning $60,000, getting a loan for $30,000, buying a expensive car, then selling it for $15,000 ten years from now.

A typical US household can't afford to do that. A whole country of them doing it all together doesn't somehow magically make the fact that they can't afford it go away.

It's a bitch and a half, but it's not the ruin of the economy.

Not by itself. But its part of a larger spiral. It devalues the dollar, making imports more expensive in a country that relies HEAVILY on imports. Meanwhile local and foreign investors pull their money out of the USA because they are losing money hand over fist and the risk of losing it all is climbing, which exacerbates the credit crunch by removing capital, raising unemployment, and further devaluing the dollar.

Still, the trillion dollar bailout MAY soften the landing, or let it turn around faster with less acute pain than otherwise. I'm not against public intervention on this scale, but the plan they've got on the table right now is utterly idiotic.

Hell, if we simply instituted a freeze in government growth, we would be running a surplus in about four years, and would probably have made back the trillion dollars within ten years.

If the economy spirals into a depression there will be no 'running a surplus in about four years', assuming they could actually freeze spending (which is pretty unlikely).

Don't let the panic on the TV reports spook you. That's what they want.

Agreed. TV reporters are thoughtless ass hats.

Also, buying videogames, and other such pastimes, are absolutely necessarily to keep the economy growing.

In other words: "Set aside whats good for you and put whats good for the economy, for the country, ahead of your own interests."

I believe that's called "communism", one of the dirtiest words one can say in the U-S-of-A.(*)

Advocating to just hang in there is UTTERLY futile. Its only going to work if everyone does it. However, the people that pull out, convert their money to gold, foreign assets, whatever, etc hedging against US currency devaluation, bank failures, further stock market declines, etc start doing better than their peers who stick with the US economy. And that just motivates more and more people to pull out.

Globally the best course of action is to ride it out together, you are right. But individually the best strategy is to get yours out while you can. In a society founded on capitalism and everyone for himself... well... working for the global otpimum is about as likely as a functioning communist system spontaneously happening.

Its ironic because the people calling out for this sort of 'sacrifice whats best for you for whats best for the economy, and it will work out..." includes the staunch free-market libertarians. Yet 'just keep spending and carrying on as normal' is fundamentally a communist and anti-free-market strategy.

(*) Communism as defined by members of society allocating resources for the greater good rather than for their own personal benefit, in the beleif that by serving the greater good. Specifically communism DOESN'T require a state-run-dictatorship allocating resources centrally. Many small communes, for example, are entirely democratic, and the 'sacrifices' are voluntary instead of coerced. It just doesn't work on a larger scale for a variety of reasons. And it won't work to save the US economy for those same reasons.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25184807)

getting a loan for $30,000, buying a expensive car, then selling it for $15,000 ten years from now.

There is no car, at all, that can be purchased for 30K and sold for 15K when it's 10 years old. You're off by an order of magnitude.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182859)

Furthermore both of the two men campaigning be the leader of the Free World...

ahh, you Americans and your inflated sense of self worth crack me up! leader of the free world? America!?! you have GOT to be kidding

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 years ago | (#25183139)

I remember when Trolls were original. This is better than the cut and paste ones I guess but only slightly.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (1)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#25183653)

"OMG, is the most important and crucial thing ever! Let's stop anything else we do and act like nothing else matters!".

That's why I hate hippies, not because I think Eric Cartman is cool, but because that's all you guys ever do, get obsessed with a few issues, act like it's the most important thing ever and not leave anyone alone until you made them care about it.

Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES ALREADY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25184381)

Well done, sir. I guess these people are too young to remember this classic troll.

Popular, unpopular (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | about 6 years ago | (#25182017)

It's just not a drawcard. I doubt many people think too much about its concept when purchasing the game. They buy the game on the virtues of the actual title.

Re:Popular, unpopular (3, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 6 years ago | (#25182047)

That's the point. It's not Games for Windows Live that sells GTA, it's GTA that sells Games for Windows Live.

On the plus side, I'm glad I didn't wait for GTA IV to be released before buying the rest of the series on Steam.

Re:Popular, unpopular (2, Insightful)

Decado (207907) | about 6 years ago | (#25182091)

Not being available on Steam reduces the chance that I will buy a PC game by about 90% these days. It is just so handy to have all my games in the same location, automatic patching, no need to worry about CD keys etc.

If GTA IV doesn't come on Steam I won't be buying it. That said I would take this announcement with a very large game of salt. Considering GTA IV was announced as being exclusive to pretty much every platform in existance before its release it is more likely that they have some little piddling exclusive for Games for Windows Live players that nobody will really miss.

Re:Popular, unpopular (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25184123)

That's the point. It's not Games for Windows Live that sells GTA, it's GTA that sells Games for Windows Live.

And this is different from "platform exclusive" games on consoles... um... how, exactly? Yet, you will never see Slashdot whinge about platform exclusive games which don't involve Microsoft.

Get over it already.

Won't see 'Games for Linux' anytime soon (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182025)

Because it's a shit platform, and no one bother developing anything for it. I'm sure you'll see some shitty knockoff of GTA IV, which has quarter of a level for proof of concept and graphics from the early 90s, hell it wouldn't surprise me if it was text based so 'Linux Gamers' could use the CLI. Let's be serious, Gaming on Linux is an oxymoron.

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182109)

Because it's a shit platform, and no one bother developing anything for it. I'm sure you'll never even see a shitty knockoff of GTA IV, hell it wouldn't surprise me if 'Mac Gamers' refuse to accept this fact. Let's be serious, Gaming on Mac is an oxymoron.

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | about 6 years ago | (#25182289)

Yes, Mac games are crap. They only have:

World of Warcraft: Biggest MMORPG in the world.
Spore: The most hyped game in many years.
Football Manager: The top selling game in Europe every year.

No recent releases or big games there, no siree...

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (1)

arazor (55656) | about 6 years ago | (#25182615)

To make matters worse Spore for mac isn't exactly native application. It uses some sort of windows environment. I believe the term for this is "ciderized".

So what if it is powered by Cider? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 years ago | (#25184027)

To make matters worse Spore for mac isn't exactly native application. It uses some sort of windows environment. I believe the term for this is "ciderized".

So what? Qt is a toolkit. GTK+ is a toolkit. SDL is a toolkit. Cider is a toolkit too; it just happens to resemble the Windows environment enough to get games to work. The game engine still runs natively on the Mac's Intel Core processor, not in emulation like, say, Virtual Console games from Wii Shop Channel. What feels non-native about a game that uses Cider once it starts running?

Re:So what if it is powered by Cider? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 6 years ago | (#25184811)

What feels non-native about a game that uses Cider once it starts running?

performance, well given that spore was developed for cider it will probably be OK, but despite not being an emulator wine simply cant perform as well as windows (well until it gets a kernel module anyway)

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25183929)

Please let this be sarcasm.

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 6 years ago | (#25182341)

don't blame the platform for dev house laziness/corruption.

Dev houses refuse to develop for anything but MS proprietary Direct X.

Never mind the fact XGL and OpenGL are just as viable, if not more so, than the oh so resource-efficient MS implementations.

There are two possible and equally likely reasons for this:

microsoft bribery
pure unmitigated laziness

Apple in particular outsells PC on many major college campuses. There is no "disparity" between the two platforms among the demographics they are trying to target.

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (5, Informative)

Macthorpe (960048) | about 6 years ago | (#25182547)

Never mind the fact XGL and OpenGL are just as viable, if not more so, than the oh so resource-efficient MS implementations.

I sense sarcasm where there shouldn't be any. Do some research on OpenGL, specifically how it manages resources compared to DirectX, and you'll see why so many developers pick the latter. I'll also quote John Carmack:

"Actually, DX9 is really quite a good API level. Even with the D3D side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step - they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility - and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (1)

FoboldFKY (785255) | about 6 years ago | (#25182559)

Note: this is just my AU$0.02. Opinions stated herein are void where prohibited.

Actually, I think it's a little of both.

OpenGL is really lagging behind DirectX now. I know I was personally looking forward to OpenGL 3 bringing it back up to parity, but Khronos went and neutered that. If you want the best performance with the latest features, you pretty much have to use DirectX.

Also, DirectX provides a lot more than just graphics; it provides audio and input as well. Getting OpenGL, OpenAL and SDL all talking to each other is a pain in the butt by comparison.

There's also the issue of reach; there are way more Windows users than Mac users, period. Boot Camp is kinda shooting the "but some people have Macs" argument, too, since dev houses could just as easily argue that those Mac users can now boot into Windows.

At the end of the day, berating dev houses isn't going to break MS's stranglehold on the market. Making it easier to develop cross-platform would probably be a good start.

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (2, Insightful)

ardor (673957) | about 6 years ago | (#25182657)

OpenGL is really lagging behind DirectX now.

Actually, its not. OpenGL is on par with Direct3D. It the API that sucks, because the core API no longer accurately reflects modern hardware, and everything thats nice is in new 2.1 features + extensions, which are progressing into an object model similar to Longs Peak. Therefore, right now OpenGL is a mixed bag - state machine style initialization for textures, object model style initialization for pixel/vertex/framebuffer objects & shaders.

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 6 years ago | (#25183723)

To the uninitiated (read: you), OpenGL didn't seem to advance much with OpenGL. But what Khronos did was clean up the API and remove the old features that are no longer needed.

So, to the inexperienced (read: you), it may seem that they just "neutered" OpenGL. But in reality, they were "cutting the fat," so to speak.

There is nothing you can do in Direct3d that is not possible, in a similar fashion, from modern OpenGL. They do the same things on the same hardware.

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 6 years ago | (#25183729)

that should have been advanced much with "OpenGL 3"

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25184499)

You're missing the parent's point! It doesn't matter that OpenGL can do everything D3D can do!

It needs to be better and it needs to work. That means when I write code I don't end up in hell trying to debug Nvidia and ATI driver bugs and yes that is why game companies don't use openGL.

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 years ago | (#25183123)

So you develop a game in OpenGL rather than directX, package and distribute a Linux version and sales go up by 0.1%.

And it's not as good because Linux hasn't had a multi million dollar multinational working to improve games performance and working directly with the hardware manufacturers to maximise performance.

Re:Won't see 'Games for Mac' anytime soon (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 6 years ago | (#25183143)

I was speaking about macs

Because of Games for Xbox 360 (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 years ago | (#25184053)

There are two possible and equally likely reasons for this:

  • microsoft bribery
  • pure unmitigated laziness

A third:

  • Xbox 360 > Leopard

As I understand it, Xbox 360's native graphics API is a version of DirectX similar to that included with Windows, not OpenGL. So unless an Xbox 360 licensee is planning to port its product to PS3 (which uses OpenGL ES) or Wii (which uses GX, Nintendo's variant of OpenGL), it can make a business case for targeting only DirectX.

Games for Windows - LIVE is free as it should of b (1, Informative)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 6 years ago | (#25182033)

Games for Windows - LIVE is free as it should of been at first and also run on XP.

If this was payed for LIVE + vista only then that would of KILLED the game.

Re:Games for Windows - LIVE is free as it should o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182503)

Should HAVE* been. Idiot.

Re:Games for Windows - LIVE is free as it should o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25183319)

And, "paid", not "payed".

Still, it's a Joe the Dragon post - what else did you expect?

Nope. Won't buy it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182041)

Fuck that. Sale lost, I don't care how good the game is. Build a server browser into the game and don't require me to install a bunch of MS crap. No doubt it will require the installation of IE 7, Media Player, MS Messenger, and a host of other Microsoft bullshit I simply don't want or need.

Re:Nope. Won't buy it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182219)

Moron. You have to run the game on Windows, so you fail to meet your stringent requirement of 'no Microsoft bullshit' when you install it.

Re:Nope. Won't buy it. (1)

Nossie (753694) | about 6 years ago | (#25183051)

where does it say that?

Re:Nope. Won't buy it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25183665)

I play the other three without windows.
I don't see any reason to throw 20gig away on a windows partition just to play this one.
If it requires all that crap to function it is effectively cripple-ware. There are plenty of other games in the marketplace.

Probably best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182055)

There's not much sense in providing support for multiple online gaming lobbies. This way you'll know which one to use to get the most people to play GTA with. I'm sure 'Games for Windows Live' is just as good as any of the others, all you need it to do is launch the game and set up the connections.

GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (4, Informative)

wc_paladin (989918) | about 6 years ago | (#25182059)

I don't really have a big problem with the Games for Windows label. It helped developers get their acts together for 64-bit windows versions, and games now all save in the same area, so saves are separated among users. What I don't really like, however, is GFW LIVE. It seems really dumbed down from other PC gaming services. Whoever thought that PC gamers would pay a subscription fee for it is also insane. I think they dropped the subscriptions recently, but it still has the stigma of being Xbox LIVE, for Windows.

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | about 6 years ago | (#25182225)

GFW Live is free. Website quote time:

Introducing Games for Windows LIVE, the free gaming service built for Windows that makes great Windows games even better. With Games for Windows LIVE, you get an online identity called a gamertag and a friends list that works across multiple games, the XBOX 360, and even the Zune music service. You can easily find and communicate with your friends online with text and voice chat. Earn achievements and Gamerscore that lets you track and compare your accomplishments.

Play multiplayer games with your friends, or play against new opponents online using our exclusive TrueSkill matchmaking system with other Windows® players or with or against XBOX 360 players (in supported games.)

All of this is possible today and at no charge.

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182283)

For how long?

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (1)

Scott Kevill (1080991) | about 6 years ago | (#25182485)

GFW Live is free. Website quote time:

He already said that at the end of his comment:

I think they dropped the subscriptions recently, but it still has the stigma of being Xbox LIVE, for Windows.

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | about 6 years ago | (#25182573)

Let's pretend that I was confirming it for him.

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (1)

ozphx (1061292) | about 6 years ago | (#25182251)

Please tell me this forces them to use some sort of standard server browser like Steam does. Nothing shits me more than some horrible fucking server browser without the standard gridview control. Yes you EA fucks, I'm looking at you.

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | about 6 years ago | (#25182335)

I LOATHE this "all games save in the same place" stuff. When I set my system up I had a small system partition and a main partition so I could reinstall Windows without wiping everything. Now with this I have to remember to back stuff up. Not only that, developers aren't using common sense. Right now I have games:

That set up their own directory in the Documents and Settings directory.
That save their games in a directory named after the game in the My Documents directory.
That save their games in a directory names after the game in the My Games directory.

It's a mess. Not only that more and more games are eating up my system partition space and in most cases can't be convinced to save elsewhere.

Really, how many people share computers? This is a serious question BTW as we've not shared one here for three years now. I have a desktop and a laptop. Wife has a desktop. Seven year old son has one as well.

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182537)

You must not have looked under options, where you can specify where you want your games installed.
I too have a small C: partition, and a huge D: partition for games and I love Steam.
If the game is not offered on Steam, then I won't be buying it or any other game for that matter that doesn't use the Steam platform.

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (2, Informative)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 6 years ago | (#25182783)

Well, games that are writing to your user folder are doing the "correct" thing, according to Microsoft.

http://ati.amd.com/developer/SwedenTechDay/02_Preparing_Games_for_Windows_Vista.pdf [amd.com]

It's not just about sharing - it's about security practices as well. If you are not running with Administrator privileges (which normal users are *supposed* to be running at), then these user directories are the only legitimate places an application can freely write to. In Vista, writing to the program files directory will be virtualized and shunted to a user-specific location anyhow. Games today still can't ignore running well on XP, but neither can they ignore the requirements of Vista.

Unfortunately, Microsoft has been pretty inconsistent about the recommended location of these types of files in the past - it's a bit of a moving target - as the inconsistency of your game saves shows. And unfortunately, Windows users (your post illustrates this exactly) have been wrongly trained to expect user-specific data to simply be written to a subfolder under the program's install directory or something like that (because this mechanism just hasn't been used or enforced on the Windows platform previously).

I empathize with the "messiness" of it, though. Incidentally, are you aware that you can point your "My Documents" folder anywhere, even a separate partition, or a common folder on your C drive? That might help you to keep things organized a bit better.

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (1)

Zarhan (415465) | about 6 years ago | (#25182925)

Uhm, you are aware that "Documents and settings" corresponds to /home/ on Unix systems? If you are running a two-partition setup where you wish to have a separate "System partition", you are SUPPOSED to set up your home dirs on the other partition. Just configure your system to store profiles on your "D:". Or use symlinks (junctions in NTFS parlance).

How to move My Documents (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 years ago | (#25183995)

That save their games in a directory named after the game in the My Documents directory.

Another thing that the other replies didn't point out: Google lists a bunch of guides on how to move My Documents [google.com] .

Re:GFW - good GFW LIVE - bad (1)

Library Spoff (582122) | about 6 years ago | (#25183303)

look at all the servers letting cracked copies of call of duty4 play
. don't you think this is them just trying to stop that? Ok people will still play copies offline but the online co-op play is what they are pushing.

GAMES FOR WINDOWS LIVE SUCKS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182071)

Bad. It's just so desperate and very locked down as well.

They want the pc to be an xbox extension.

Fuck you rockstar.

woohoo! more challenge than my ps3 (0, Flamebait)

gearloos (816828) | about 6 years ago | (#25182153)

But finally I get to play it in a buggy environment that will guarantee more of a challenge! Imagine having to roll thru Liberty City while avoiding police and Blue Screens as well! Every time you turn left, "A windows exception has occured!" WOW. Now to really spice it up for the ultimate gaming experience, why don't they make it only Vista com patible on top of the live service? That, would be a challenge. Complete it, with saving the game in between crashes.. haha good luck.

Wait, what? (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | about 6 years ago | (#25182201)

Rockstar founder Sam Houser explained the decision: 'They paid us. Cash. A big green pile of the stuff. We had our own code for it, but nobody was paying us to use it. They said we have to spew some bullshit about how great it is without making it sound like it's about the money. Whatever. I can do that.'

There. Fixed that for him.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 6 years ago | (#25182309)

Well, there is precedent. [penny-arcade.com]

Path of least resistance (5, Informative)

Scott Kevill (1080991) | about 6 years ago | (#25182601)

GTA IV already used XBox Live on the 360. Given that the PC port was most likely from the 360 codebase, it would have taken more effort to not use GFWL than to use it. Of course the PR spin won't mention this.

Re:Path of least resistance (1)

JNighthawk (769575) | about 6 years ago | (#25182797)

Yep. Microsoft did a great job with their API on the 360, and it makes using Live for a PC port a no-brainer from the development side. I just wish it was anywhere even near the level of completeness that Steam is now.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182655)

Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken, "when they say it's not about the money, it's about the money".

Should have gone FOSS. (0)

dkarma (985926) | about 6 years ago | (#25182367)

It probably would have been the best move for a video game ever. Let the kiddies develop it for you. I have a feeling M$ needed this. They probably told the rockstar reps that "only M$ could handle the scope" or some bs. Whatever, I'm not buying it.

Re:Should have gone FOSS. (1)

lucas teh geek (714343) | about 6 years ago | (#25182883)

how does shit like this get moderated interesting? yeah, open source the game and see how much money you DONT MAKE on the port developed by the community. that's obviously the best way for a game development company to make money

Re:Should have gone FOSS. (2, Interesting)

JohnFluxx (413620) | about 6 years ago | (#25183221)

They could open source the code but not open source the graphics. That's what Id does. That way you still have to buy the game for the graphics.

Re:Should have gone FOSS. (1)

ozphx (1061292) | about 6 years ago | (#25183841)

Yes I think I saw Id recently open sourcing Hexen 2 or something.

Id does not "open source the code" unless you are stretching "open sourcing the code when its ten bloody years old and throwaway value anyway".

Re:Should have gone FOSS. (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 6 years ago | (#25184411)

While I agree with you post and think the original poster is a bit slow in the head, it's not quite that bad. Q3's source code was release about 5/6 years after its release. Some games had taken longer but I think generally Id does try to get the code out as soon as it can without causing harm to themselves or anyone else involved in the game development.

Re:Should have gone FOSS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182943)

most open source kiddies couldn't write hello world.
grow up.

Re:Should have gone FOSS. (1)

FinestLittleSpace (719663) | about 6 years ago | (#25183333)

They probably had a brain, unlike you.

But will it run (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25182807)

on Ubuntu :D

And they wonder why.. (1)

grendel03 (926696) | about 6 years ago | (#25182989)

PC gaming (is supposedly) going down hill.

I'm rather disappointed with the lack of a steam release. I really like the steam platform. Maybe in a year or so...

I've pre-ordered every GTA for PC since I played GTA2 years ago. I even purchased them again over steam (So much easier then disc hunting) This one will be a wait and see approach. If I consider the hoops unreasonable (I have no interest in running two content management platforms for games thank-you-very-much) I'll just do what I did for spore.

Re:And they wonder why.. (1)

caramelcarrot (778148) | about 6 years ago | (#25183687)

Exactly, I was only planning on buying GTA4 if it came out on Steam. Tough luck Rockstar.

This is my corner, whore. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25183061)

Microsoft: Exclusively beating up hookers to sell Windows since 2008.

What about Steam? (1)

telchine (719345) | about 6 years ago | (#25183971)

Does anyone know if this excludes the possibility of GTA IV being released on Steam? Can we expect a Steam release?

Re:What about Steam? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 6 years ago | (#25184233)

exclusive means no.

I think this is a monumental blunder on Take2's part.
It may have been a sound 'business' decision, but it is the wrong one.

Take2 has already seen a return on Steam. "Games for Windows" is a failing platform. I will certainly not be purchasing any G4W games.

Take2, I was looking forward to a Steam release.

Re:What about Steam? (1)

paudle (781865) | about 6 years ago | (#25184477)

I think the possibility it is on steam still exists. Universe at war and lost planet are games for windows live one and are on steam
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?