×

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!

Live For Windows Coming in May

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the matchmaking-for-all-and-for-all-a-good-night dept.

PC Games (Games) 104

Several outlets are carrying the news that Live for Windows is coming in May to a PC near you. The announcement carried confirmation of a similar pricetag for Xbox Live, as well as details on some new titles. Halo 2 will be releasing right around the launch of the service (slated to go up May 8th), and Shadowrun will follow quickly sometime in June. Gamasutra has an interview with Xbox Live general manager JJ Richards on the subject, and 1up offers a bit of commentary with the news. Though when asked about it last week Microsoft reps seemed extremely confident, it still remains to be seen whether PC gamers will pay for what they've always gotten for free.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

104 comments

Aww :( (3, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18348853)

I thought this said "Live without windows for a day"

I got all excited. Maybe it was some kind of contest...

Re:Aww :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18349153)

I thought this said "Live without you for a day" and I was so excited. And then you posted your retarded comment. Oh well, one can dream.

Re:Aww :( (1, Interesting)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349167)

No, it's not a contest. It's lining up to get your Borg implant. The catch is you need a valid credit card and your first born if you want the premium package.

of Red Hats and Yellow Pants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353197)

And thus the the MS's tail lights get even more distant from all non-Windows OS's.

Remember back in the day, when people could actually delude themselves into thinking OpenGL was superior to DirectX?

And who could remember all those top-rate, cutting... NO!!!... BLEEDING edge FOSS games? Not me, that's for sure.

First Vista lands with the one-two punch knockout combo of Vista and IE7. Now Microsoft is just kicking Lunix in the head while they're down... it's like Rhino vs. Baby. It's not even a contest. Bad form, Microsoft, bad form.

Don't they understand they need to charge $150 for every point-release improvement to the OS, like Apple does? How do they expect Lunix and the Apple monopoly to catch up when they just keep improving their product like this... and FOR FREE?

Oh wait. Ehem... "Windows is only a monopoly because they force everyone to use it". Ok, now I fit in.

Re:of Red Hats and Yellow Pants (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361517)

How do they expect Lunix and the Apple monopoly to catch up when they just keep improving their product like this... and FOR FREE?

The whole point of Live is that you pay a monthly fee to use it.

The Controller (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18348867)

If you're interested in this, you may also be interested in a controller [techgage.com] to keep your play styling the same as if you were on a console.

Croos-platform matchmaking? (3, Funny)

sugarman (33437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18348929)

Could be cool if they allow PC v. Windows matchmaking. Watching how the console owners fare compare to their PC brethern would be quite interesting.

Re:Croos-platform matchmaking? (2, Interesting)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349109)

Final Fantasy XI has had console and PC players together for years. I don't play it myself, but from what I've heard the experience is pretty much the same so long as you get a USB keyboard for your console.

Re:Croos-platform matchmaking? (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349303)

FFXI is not an FPS.

Re:Croos-platform matchmaking? (1)

krakelohm (830589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349779)

Why does that matter? I did not see anything where it states that LIVE will be just for First Person Shooters.

Re:Croos-platform matchmaking? (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354561)

Control of an FPS with mouse and keyboard is generally a bit easier and exact than using a console controller. The fear is that the PC players will have an advantage because of better controls. In FFXI, this is not an issue.

Re:Cross-platform matchmaking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18349483)

Yeah, the experience is pretty much the same playing the PC version as the console version: crappy. Both have elements that work better on the other, but overall, it's designed to the least common denominator, so it runs poorly on all systems.

So on the consoles you find yourself needing to get an add-on keyboard to be able to effectively communicate with anyone, while still needing to use the controller to play the game, as the game's designed to be played from just the controller. On the PC, then, you're minus a controller, and really need to buy one to easily control the game, since despite the fact that it's an MMORPG, the controls are still designed around using a controller.

(For example, the menu is opened by pressing '-' on the numeric keypad. This makes the game unplayable on most laptops, since most laptops don't have a numeric keypad. Apparently you can change this binding through the menu, which you access by pressing '-' on the numeric keypad...)

In the case of FFXI, the experience is made even worse on the PC by the fact that the game is designed to run at 640x480, which apparently is either the PS2's native resolution or close to it. You can't change this on the PC - while you can set the UI to run at any resolution, it simply scales the world to match, so all you get by running the PC version at 1280x1024 is teeny-tiny unreadable text combined with a giant stretched, blurry world. As an added bonus, since consoles don't have to worry about other apps grabbing focus away from them, FFXI actually crashes when it loses focus. However, display problems shouldn't apply to future console/PC titles, as high-def consoles are now the norm, and run at resolutions comparable to PCs. But different displays play a role in making the PC experience different from the console experience.

The biggest problem remains the controller. PCs don't have a standard controller, other than the keyboard. Even the mouse comes with many different capabilities. (You can usually rely on a scroll wheel and two buttons - unless, of course, you want to support Macs.)

So while a console game will have controls designed from the console it's released from, PC games are almost always designed around a keyboard and mouse, with lousy gamepad support. Ultimately, a game will either run better on either consoles or PCs, or it will run really poorly on both (the route FFXI takes).

Re:Cross-platform matchmaking? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349901)

So on the consoles you find yourself needing to get an add-on keyboard to be able to effectively communicate with anyone, while still needing to use the controller to play the game, as the game's designed to be played from just the controller.
I don't know which FF XI you tried, but I never use the Xbox 360 gamepad. The only time I power-up the gamepad is to be able to sign on Xbox Live since the console is too stupid to accept a press of the keyboard key [A] if it doesn't see a gamepad. But once the gamepad is detected/powered, it accepts the keyboard [A] key just fine.

So, FF XI doesn't need a gamepad. In fact I have no idea how people can continuously switch between keyboard and gamepad while playing.

Re:Cross-platform matchmaking? (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352011)

Wait, what? I played at 1600x1200 and the game looked gorgeous, very crisp.

Also, I actually REALLY liked using a PS2ish controller to play it, and was disappointed when I got into WoW and found that I couldn't use one.

Re:Croos-platform matchmaking? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351019)

Logitech actually made a "netplay" controller specifically for final fantasy somethingorother on the PS2. It's got a PS2 controller with a detachable mini-size USB keyboard in the middle. I got one for $10 at Halted Specialties Corp, and I don't use the controller but the keyboard is way sexy. You could use one of those with a PS2 to Xbox controller adapter...

Re:Croos-platform matchmaking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18350027)

I remember playing quake 3 on my Dreamcast vs people on PC.

I also remember getting my ass kicked every single time.

I'm not much of a game but I play Halo 2 sometimes. I suck against other console players, but if I have to play against PC users also I'll never get past level 1.

Sigh, guess I'll cancel my xbox live account.

EA is interested in this as well (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351035)

I'll assume that you meant PC vs. console. :) There are several games where friends and relatives of mine have a mixture of PC and console versions and would love to hook up together.

I know that EA is at least considering the idea. I subscribe to several, on-line surveys. Last year I got one that was specific to EA asking me a bunch of questions regarding my feelings about connectivity between consoles and PCs -- what kinds of games would I play in such an environment, how often would I play, the obligatory question on whether I'd pay more to go on-line against console users as well as PC users, and so forth. All of the questions were specific to on-line connectivity between various architectures.

But even before that, some friends of mine and I were wondering why PC/console connectivity hasn't really become an option yet. As long as the maps and gameplay are the same and both the PC and console use the same "language" to talk to each other, there's no reason why it couldn't happen.

Re:EA is interested in this as well (1)

OvermindDL1 (948771) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351771)

That is because in any fast action game the pc players tend to utterly decimate the console players, refer to the Quake3 debacle between PC and the Dreamcast; mildly skilled Q3 PC players near never lost to highly skilled Q3 DC players.

Until a mouse of some form becomes standard on Consoles, this will always remain the case, and as such the console players get frustrated and may cancel accounts or some other annoyance to the companies...

Re:EA is interested in this as well (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352009)

I thought that Xbox 360 could use a USB keyboard and mouse. Yes? No? Maybe? (No, I don't own one. Can you tell?)

Re:EA is interested in this as well (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354223)

You are correct, it can. So long as it's USB, you're away. I don't recall, but I believe the PS2 can as well.

Re:EA is interested in this as well (1)

auntfloyd (18527) | more than 7 years ago | (#18357067)

Until a mouse of some form becomes standard on Consoles, this will always remain the case, and as such the console players get frustrated and may cancel accounts or some other annoyance to the companies...

The Dreamcast had a standard keyboard and mouse, and Quake 3 supported it fully, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Re:Croos-platform matchmaking? (1)

MeanMF (631837) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351519)

They are definitely doing cross-platform matchmaking. FASA and Microsoft announced a while back that Shadowrun [xbox.com] will have this feature.

Re:Croos-platform matchmaking? (1)

dabraun (626287) | more than 7 years ago | (#18358919)

I'll assume for a second you meant "console vs. windows" or "pc vs. console" - and yes, in fact, that feature was specifically demonstrated for ShadowRun at CES in January.

$50! (0)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18348943)

Gold accounts will cost US$ 49.95 per year, and will add to the above the facility to invite friends into your multiplayer games, unlock multiplayer achievements, find gamers of equivalent skill using Microsoft's "TrueSkill" technology, and play against people on either platform in supported games.

So $50 a year to invite my friends to a game I'm playing, receive e-peen achievements, and play an FPS game against someone holding a controller? Sounds like a great deal...

Re:$50! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349011)

Sounds like it would be way to easy to beat someone playing an FPS with a gamepad if you had a mouse and keyboard. There's just no comparison. I don't know why they don't have games on Consoles you can actually play with a keyboard at mouse (or trackball). It would give them a lot of extra sales I think.

Re:$50! (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349103)

I don't know why they don't have games on Consoles you can actually play with a keyboard at mouse (or trackball).
Especially with the new consoles having USB ports on them. That's one reason I don't play FPS games on consoles.

Except on the Wii. With the wiimote and nunchuck, it feels more natural than a keyboard and mouse.

Re:$50! (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349115)

If it's a game designed with the pacing and "aim adjustment" that console FPS's have, the guy with the controller is at no disadvantage. IGN found this out by using the 360 USB controller in Halo 1 and promptly owning the mouse-and-keyboard users (of comparable skill level, of course).

UT and other mouse-and-keyboard-oriented games are designed differently because of the interface they support. If a game was meant to support both, then neither should be at any real disadvantage. Halo games I reckon would actually give the guy with the controller an advantage if they are straight ports in terms of how they're controlled and how their pacing is.

Re:$50! (1)

Prophet of Nixon (842081) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349385)

I'm fairly certain that Quake 3 and UT on the Dreamcast were playable with a mouse and keyboard.

On that note, I find the mouse/keyboard combo very uncomfortable but nonetheless better for games that requires large directional changes and 360 degree response (like Quake 3), but I much prefer a gamepad for precision shooting (ghost recon, rainbow 6 types of games). If I precise shoot for a while with a mouse, my whole arm cramps up, similar to what happens if I'm doing pixel-editing/tweaking in photoshop for too long. The gamepad makes precise targeting feel a lot more natural, but I usually over-adjust if I try to make an accurate large turn or large vertical move with one.

Since consoles have been getting more and more competitive with the PC lately, I've almost quit playing PC games simply because I don't like my arms cramped (though I hate gamepad rumble, fortunately its easy to turn off).

Re:$50! (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352993)

It wouldn't be as easy as you think. Practically all FPSs on consoles "help" the player aim in one way or another to make up for the fact that the accuracy, precision, and even the consistency from controller to controller are ridiculously low. If the mouse and keyboard version of the game don't have the same aids, you may actually be at a disadvantage even though the controller is provably less precise.

The really hilarious thing is cross platform play (4, Insightful)

2008 (900939) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349091)

Windows Live lets you play against Xbox 360 Live subscribers.
However, Windows Live is Windows Vista only, so you can't play against people using Windows XP. Well done, what an impressive cross platform system!

I know 10 or so people who I've occasionally played online with on Windows using XP/2k, and don't know a single Live subscriber. I don't have much incentive to get Windows Live, do I? YMMV, of course.

Re:The really hilarious thing is cross platform pl (1)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355765)

I know 10 or so people who I've occasionally played online with on Windows using XP/2k, and don't know a single Live subscriber. I don't have much incentive to get Windows Live, do I? YMMV, of course.

This may be due to the fact that you play on Windows, and that Live, as in TFA, not being released until May. YMMV, of course.

Re:The really hilarious thing is cross platform pl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360493)

Yep - I meant Xbox Live for 360, of course, since that's the other platform I could potentially be playing against.
This is all anecdotal evidence anyway, so lets move on...

-2008

Re:The really hilarious thing is cross platform pl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360735)

Ah, but some games may be Live-only, and you won't be able to play against your buddies running Vista unless you get on Live as well for some games, I'm sure (i.e. When you install on XP, it won't use Live, but if you install on Vista it will force you to use Live as it's available and warns you about being more "secure" or some shit)... MS will leverage whatever it can to get you to buy Vista.

Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18349569)

I sure hope you can choose to NOT play with PC users. The WHOLE reason I don't play on-line with my PC anymore is half the people used super bots and/or tricked out keyboard/mice. Consoles level the playing field and make it about skill again. Just my 2 cents.

Re:Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18349695)

They probably just play the game a lot more than you do and therefore are much much better at it.

Re:Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18350063)

I dunno if you were into Halo 2, but the online experience quickly degraded into modem glitchers and snipers using a hacked mouse keyboard. Or people shutting off their madden games jsut before a loss so it wont affect their rank. On a "good day" you have a 12 year old calling you a faggot. Fuck online gaming.

Re:Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351121)

Or people shutting off their madden games jsut before a loss so it wont affect their rank.

The fact that the game doesn't penalize them for this is a failure of the game, not just the gamer. Why do people keep paying for this shit?

Re:Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351775)

What? The problem is the fault of the gamer being an asshole. Now, the game might be edited to compensate for that, by making drops losses- but that won't stop the gamer being an asshole.

People are assholes... you can try to work around it, but the problem is that the universe keeps coming up with a better asshole.

Re:Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (1)

BeoFebenna (916590) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353115)

On this list of lamest 360 Achievements http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/674028/The_1 7_Lamest_360_Achievements.html [g4tv.com], they list one -- worth 0 points -- that a gamer acquires for quitting 10 online games. Every game should have something like this, so a serial quitter's assmunchery is on his gamercard for all to see. I'm lame to middling in practically all online games, but I'll stick it out to every humiliating end.

Re:Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354711)

It's a "benefit of the doubt" thing. Did they pull the cord specifically to avoid a loss, or did they genuinely have a network problem or power outage causing them to lose the connection? Most games, assuming the player is honest, treat the disconnect as the latter.

It's pretty hard to create a software solution to "people are jerks" though. I prefer games giving the benefit of the doubt, but it's a huge pain for honest players sometimes.

Re:Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354935)

It's a "benefit of the doubt" thing. Did they pull the cord specifically to avoid a loss, or did they genuinely have a network problem or power outage causing them to lose the connection? Most games, assuming the player is honest, treat the disconnect as the latter.

But the problem is that the system is fair only to the disconnected player. What about the undisconnected player? Even if you agree that there should be no punishment for dropping near the end of a game, a concept with which I don't necessarily disagree, there should at the least be a benefit if you have been kicking someone's ass and they disco on you.

Of course, a well-constructed game would allow you to continue your game when the other player drops! The process should be that you get put back into a meeting room to wait for that player for a short period of time. If they don't come back, then you get a win and they get a loss. If they do, you can continue your game. There's no reason whatsoever that this functionality could not be implemented, and it would solve this problem nicely. Oh sure, there would be some people who lose connectivity and don't get it back in time, but they would be a distinct minority (especially as compared with the dicks who are dropping to avoid stat reductions now.) There would be kids whose moms disconnect them because it's time to come to dinner; they have a responsibility to make sure they have sufficient time to play with you, or suffer the consequences.

Re:Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353053)

That's why my "multiplayer gaming" consists of playing a single-player game, and then talking about it with friends later... this even involves REAL HUMAN CONTACT!

Re:Cheating is why I use Consoles On-Line (1)

autocrawler (1004066) | more than 7 years ago | (#18358599)

I seriously don't know what the hell are you talking about here: personally, I haven't seen a single person who uses hacks/bots/or whatever in the last, maybe, 4 years?
Noone wants to risk getting a VAC ban, a CD-key ban, or a statwipe nowadays for a couple of extra frags, believe me.

pay full price + $50 a year to fully play m$ games (1, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349735)

so now we have to pay m$ $50 a year unlock all things in there new games. To get stuff that in the past you just need to buy the game to get.
M$ better not do the same thing to a MMORPG game I don't thing that people will want to pay for vista + $60 for the game + $15 a month + $50 a year + pay for points to get some in game content.

Re:pay full price + $50 a year to fully play m$ ga (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18350171)

I highly doubt games like WoW, EQ2 and Vanguard will be effected by this at all. As their online services are run by Blizzard and SOE.

So, if we get ripped off with Vista then (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349849)

we are supposed to pay even more for Live?

Nuh uh.

Too much fluff, not enough there.

Re:So, if we get ripped off with Vista then (2, Interesting)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18349903)

I was wondering whether an XBox Live Account was the same as a Windows Live Account (that is buying one gives you access to the other) ...

Personally, I think it would be cool to be able to have 1 identity on an Console and PC but I have no desire to spend $100+ to have 2 seperate identities.

Re:So, if we get ripped off with Vista then (3, Insightful)

VertigoAce (257771) | more than 7 years ago | (#18350303)

It's one account for both services (just like you can use an Xbox Live account/identity for the Zune Marketplace). I imagine relatively few people would consider paying for the Gold account on Windows, compared to Xbox 360 users who will use their existing account on Windows.

I thought it was called "Steam" (1)

popo (107611) | more than 7 years ago | (#18350273)


And I thought Valve launched it two years ago.

Re:I thought it was called "Steam" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18354595)



And I thought Valve launched it two years ago.


Steam is a content delivery system. Live is a matchmaking system. Are you retarded?



Re:I thought it was called "Steam" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18357033)

"Steam is a content delivery, digital rights management, multiplayer and communications service and platform developed by Valve Corporation for digital entertainment."

Excuse for Vista (2, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18350515)

Microsoft is coming out with all kinds of excuses for force people to buy Vista. They are trying to make anything new they create artificially incompatible with XP. Xbox Live, DirectX 10, HDCP... There is no technical reason why these things can't work on XP, they just don't. It is very frustrating. Frankly, it is what makes the Mac look attractive. Apple goes out of their way to ensure compatibility. Microsoft goes out of their way to ensure INcompatibility. I wonder how long before somebody makes a hack that lets these things run on XP?

Re:Excuse for Vista (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351087)

Apple goes out of their way to ensure compatibility. Microsoft goes out of their way to ensure INcompatibility.

What?

Apple locks their OS to their hardware. That is the antithesis of ensuring compatibility.

I'm not trying to defend Microsoft's actions regarding Vista. Vista is crap and forcing people to go to Vista is crappier. But to hold up Apple as a paragon of compatibility is simply wrong.

Re:Excuse for Vista (1, Informative)

keytoe (91531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353139)

You're being disingenuous with your objection. The GP poster was talking about backwards compatibility with respect to the OS, not with hardware. The point stands that it is still possible to this day to run software written in 1984 for Mac OS 6.x on a 68k processor. That's two processor architectures and a complete OS rewrite. I'd call that pretty good backwards compatibility. The only times an application requires a certain version of the OS is when it is actually using a feature that wasn't present in a previous release - not due to some artificially created 'requirement' by Apple.

Additionally, it's possible to run their current OS on some amazingly old or completely unsupported hardware. I'm not sure how Apple's decision to standardize on a single hardware platform relates to backwards compatibility at all, actually.

That isn't backwords compatibility... (1)

trdrstv (986999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354891)

You're being disingenuous with your objection. The GP poster was talking about backwards compatibility with respect to the OS, not with hardware. The point stands that it is still possible to this day to run software written in 1984 for Mac OS 6.x on a 68k processor. That's two processor architectures and a complete OS rewrite. I'd call that pretty good backwards compatibility. The only times an application requires a certain version of the OS is when it is actually using a feature that wasn't present in a previous release - not due to some artificially created 'requirement' by Apple.

Wait a second. You want their new software with new enhancements to run on an older system that didn't have any of them? That isn't backwords compatibility, that would be forwards capacity for XP. MS can run programs that were written as far back as the DOS age. That's backwords compatability.

Can programs written for MAC OSX be run from a computer running Mac 9? That's what we're talking about.

Re:That isn't backwords compatibility... (1)

keytoe (91531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355283)

Wait a second. You want their new software with new enhancements to run on an older system that didn't have any of them? That isn't backwords compatibility, that would be forwards capacity for XP. MS can run programs that were written as far back as the DOS age. That's backwords compatability.

Can programs written for MAC OSX be run from a computer running Mac 9? That's what we're talking about.

See, this is why I don't ever post on Slashdot any more. My intent was to post a relatively off topic rebuttal (and have even been modded as such already) to a red herring thrown into this discussion. God only knows why you felt the need to reply to my comment by effectively saying the same thing I did but about DOS instead of Mac OS 6.

In the meantime, the guy who posted FUD about hardware lock-in and backwards compatibility is currently at +3 informative and climbing. I'm not sure why I come here any more, let alone post...

Re:That isn't backwords compatibility... (1)

trdrstv (986999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355401)

God only knows why you felt the need to reply to my comment by effectively saying the same thing I did but about DOS instead of Mac OS 6.

That was just re-iterating what backwords compatibility was in reference to the conversation. People are mixing incompatibility with backworks compatibility when they complain that software written for vista won't work on XP, yet they would certainly understand why say a PS2 disk won't work in a PS1...

Why I posted effectively boils down I'm waiting for something to finish at work so I can go home and am bored in the mean time.

Cheers.

---S.

Re:Excuse for Vista (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355241)

Apple locks their OS to their hardware. That is the antithesis of ensuring compatibility.
What?

Tying the OS to the hardware has nothing to do with backward compatibility. Apple's current software runs on G4 macs, G5 macs, and Intel Macs. I know of know Apple software that has a line of code that says:

if OS < 10.4 then MessageBox("You must have OS 10.4 or higher, even though there are no features of OS 10.4 that this application needs")

which is exactly what Microsoft is doing with Vista.

Re:Excuse for Vista (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355389)

Tying the OS to the hardware has nothing to do with backward compatibility. Apple's current software runs on G4 macs, G5 macs, and Intel Macs. I know of know Apple software that has a line of code that says:

What about Xcode? Newer versions of Xcode don't just support features of newer versions of OSX, they provide compiler upgrades and bugfixes. Yet you can't run the latest Xcode on 10.3. The same is true of just about every piece of software that Apple gives away; the latest versions only run on the latest OSX, whether the new functionality is only useful for the latest OS or not.

Re:Excuse for Vista (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355451)

I can't speak for xcode. I don't know. Maybe Apple has done the same thing in that case.

That still has nothing to do with hardware compatibility, which is a completely different topic.

Re:Excuse for Vista (1)

Shippy (123643) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351877)

There is no technical reason why these things can't work on XP, they just don't.

Prove it, then. How do you know it doesn't need APIs that are only available in Vista?

Apple goes out of their way to ensure compatibility.

I don't think I'd go that far. Try to run MacOS on non-apple hardware or take your iTunes-purchased music elsewhere.

Re:Excuse for Vista (2, Informative)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354389)

It does need APIs only available in Vista. DirectX 10. DirectX 10 is virtually a rewrite of DirectX according to the material I've read. DirectPlay is replaced with Live, DirectSound is replaced with XACT (I think that's it), and so on. And DirectX requires the new Vista driver model, which is so insanely different from WDDM that virtually no drivers work on it at this time.

Re:Excuse for Vista (2, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352093)

Apple goes out of their way to ensure compatibility my a** look at how then dropped class form lintel systems and they don not want to help Sheep Shaver run os 9.2.2 as it only works up to 9.04 and that is only way to Classic on Intel Macs.
http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/en/projects/sheepsh aver [beauchesne.info]
http://sheepshaver.cebix.net/ [cebix.net]

Re:Excuse for Vista (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355289)

That is completely different and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Apple's inability to support a 3rd-party product on a new operating system is totally different from Microsoft releasing a first-party product and crippling it to not work on XP.

Re:Excuse for Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18352369)

Apple goes out of their way to ensure compatibility.

hahahahahahahaha!

aaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!

Funniest statement I've heard all week.

Re:Excuse for Vista (3, Insightful)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352687)

Microsoft is coming out with all kinds of excuses for force people to buy Vista. They are trying to make anything new they create artificially incompatible with XP.


Is that why Office 2007, PowerShell, Orcas, .NET 3.0, etc all work on XP?

The double-standards around here are tiring. Apple could've release Spotlight for OSX 10.3. There's "no technical reason" preventing that. Yet they didn't, and Spotlight was heralded as *the* reason to pay to upgrade to 10.4. Yet I heard no talk of Apple "forcing" upgrades by releasing features for 10.4 that could've been made available for 10.3.

On the other hand, Microsoft is bashed regardless of what they do. They make DirectX 10 specific to Vista, and are bashed for not backporting it to XP. They backport .NET 3.0 to XP and are bashed/mocked for reducing incentive to upgrade to Vista (I recall the many slashdot posts mocking Microsoft for backporting .NET 3.0 to XP, "HAHA, Yet another reason not to upgrade to Vista!! MS sucks!!".

Re:Excuse for Vista (2, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355393)

Is that why Office 2007, PowerShell, Orcas, .NET 3.0, etc all work on XP?
Because those are examples of applications that either came out before Vista, or appliccations that were not crippled. Which is why they have nothing to do with my point.

My point is that now that Vista has come-out, Microsoft is intentionally crippling things so that they don't work on XP. This is not a double-standard. Name one example of Apple selling a product where they made it artificially not work on a previous version of the system to force people to upgrade. Splotlight is not an example of that - it is an OS 10.4 feature. It isn't a program you can buy and install that pretends that it requires OS 10.4 and refuses to work.

And you are confused on .NET 3.0: It was never "backported" to XP. It was designed for XP, and pre-bundled with Vista. That's the entire point I'm making: Microsoft has convinced people that they must "backport" applications for "compatibility" with XP when it is the opposite - they are specifically disabling them from working on XP to pretend that Vista is required.

Re:Excuse for Vista (1)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355843)

They make DirectX 10 specific to Vista, and are bashed for not backporting it to XP.

Which in itself is ridiculous. DirectX 10 relies on a variety of new features in Vistas new driver model, such as GPU context switching.

It would be a massive pain in the arse to backport it to XP. I'm not saying its technically impossible - but it's definitely not an economic decision. Its on par with making everything else in Vista free...

Vista has some new things under the hood that won't be backported. They're the upgrade, and thats what you choose or not choose to pay for. Theres also some other tech coming out (.net 3 / cardspace / workflow / wpf) that will be backported, generally because they can, and these are core developer technologies that they want devs to target.

Ignore the Microsoft shill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18355983)

This guy's just a shill for Microsoft. Ignore him. And ding the people who mod him up.

Re:Excuse for Vista (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#18354605)

I would hardly call offering more features for certain video games "forcing" people into doing anything.

In fact, if it involves video games, there's no "forcing" involved. People choose to play video games. It's not like you need Vista to (say) order life-saving medicines or something.

Apple and compatibility - LOL!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18356813)

Guess what, even though Vista is shit I still managed to run a 10 year old Windows app on it. Try running an OS 9 app on your new Macbook Pro and you quickly realize what an idiot you are. Apple fanbois are dipshits.

I'd really like to think.. (1, Interesting)

Gorkamecha (948294) | more than 7 years ago | (#18350701)

...that pc gamers around the world will ban together and tell Microsoft that no, we will not pay for what we used to get for free. But I have huge doubts this will happen, as a high enough precentage of MS's audience isn't even spending their own money, but spending their parent's money...Even if they only have 25% of the market pick up the service, then it will have paid for itself and set a business model for others. *sigh*

Xbox Live has features you don't get for free now (3, Informative)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#18350795)

For instance, voice across the entire system (not just in-game chat) without having to worry whether the person is using TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, or Skype.

A single username across the entire system, meaning you can be sure the "HappyGodzilla" you play in Halo 3 is the same "HappyGodzilla" you got teamed up with in Shadowrun. This also greatly assists with getting rid of griefers and jerks.

I'm not necessarily saying it's worth $50, but to say that Xbox Live offers nothing is disingenuous if not outright wrong.

Re:Xbox Live has features you don't get for free n (0)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18350883)

Wow! So teens can curse me out even more - and I get to pay for it?

Just think, I'm subsidizing more trash talk in games ... because you know they'll jack their parents account names.

Re:Xbox Live has features you don't get for free n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18356307)

You say that like it's a bad thing ....

Re:Xbox Live has features you don't get for free n (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18356587)

Well, I'm not really keen on trash-talking by other players, or spam selling on the trade channels, no.

I can see how it's nice to have voice chat, but having seen what passes for chat in most games, I think I'll pass. I get sick and tired of using Ignore, quite frankly.

Don't see why I should have to pay extra for that.

Re:Xbox Live has features you don't get for free n (2, Insightful)

miscz (888242) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351243)

For instance, voice across the entire system (not just in-game chat) without having to worry whether the person is using TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, or Skype.
Would be more like:

For instance, voice across the entire system (not just in-game chat) without having to worry whether the person is using TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, Skype or Live.

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly like on their console. They may be offering something slightly better but with such a price and already developed and estabilished alternative solutions they'll have a hard time getting marketshare.

Re:Xbox Live has features you don't get for free n (1)

fozzmeister (160968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351359)

For instance, voice across the entire system (not just in-game chat) without having to worry whether the person is using TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, or Skype.

Nope, but for $50 we can worry about if they are using TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, Skype or Live.

Exactly, would you worry about that if it is free? (1)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352263)

I can pay $50 a year and get this "no worry" situation you talk about, OR, I can download two free programs for games that don't have voice chat built in.
 
And who cares if the username is consistent across games? The only way it matters is if you're trying to keep your friends together and in that case you'll know their "new" username anyway.
 
While Live is novel for consoles (feature previously only heard of in PC games), WE ALREADY HAVE IT ON THE PC. The fact of the matter is that the ONLY thing that MIGHT be worth looking at it for is the skill matching, and that's not worth $50 a year. If they want wide adoptation on the PC, they're going to have to lower the price by about half.

Re:Xbox Live has features you don't get for free n (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353063)

having to worry whether the person is using TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, or Skype.


That's actually a feature in my book.... Well not the "worrying" part. I don't worry about it.

I just don't talk to anybody through voice chat unless we're logged into the same private server. I don't want to talk to any random squeaker who doesn't know what 'noob' means, but uses the term ever 20 seconds because they're fairly sure it's derogatory.

Re:Xbox Live has features you don't get for free n (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18354011)

Xfire is free. It automatically downloads updates/patches for your games. It automatically tells you when your friends are online, what server they're on, what teamspeak server they're on. It lets you automatically join your friend's gameserver. It lets you automatically join your friend's teamspeak server. It lets you voice chat or text chat with your friends.
I'm just saying. I will not be spending $50 to get what I already get for free. BTW, some games (Battlefield2, etc) have very good voice chat built in. For those that don't, I love teamspeak (Speex codec sounds great at 12kbps)

Live tax (0, Redundant)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18351029)

Several outlets are carrying the news that Live for Windows is coming in May to a PC near you. The announcement carried confirmation of a similar pricetag for Xbox Live
Coming soon to Windows near you. Pay a tax to play on your own servers, Internet connection etc. with your friends.

Re:Live tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18351933)

Parent may be redundant, but it's a point worth mentioning for sure. The downside of PC game cheaters and such, for me, has been easily outweighed by the beauty of needing just a copy of the game and an internet connection.

Not to mention if this thing is anywhere near the nightmare abortion of implementation that was Xbox Media Center Extension (Microsoft's previous attempt to get PCs and Xboxen to work together) users will be in for a nice long public beta.

Server crash during the one Saturday I can get more than 2 of my buddies to play together? I think I'll pass.

Not as bad as it sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18351873)

A few things failed to be mentioned so far, one is that if you have Xbox Live Gold, you have Windows Live Gold also, without paying anymore. There are also free Windows Live silver accounts that do not have match making and achievements, but still let you play your PC games online. The idea of cross-platform play between my Xbox360 and my PC is pretty sweet in my opinion. Although this is definitely a sales play for Vista, its a smart move on Microsoft's part.

Keboard & Mouse vs. Joyblob (1)

shoolz (752000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353161)

I have been waiting for this day for many, many years. Now I can shove a virtual rocket down the throats of everyone who's ever claimed that in an FPS game, they could beat a keyboard & mouse player with a joystick. That might be worth the price of admission right there.

affect on linux clients? (1)

crabbz (986605) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353355)

So if a game is available for both Windows and Linux and the Windows version support Windows Live would linux and windows folks still be able to play together? I don't mean Windows Live support for Linux but will they just be able to play on the same servers together?

On another note, I wish different consoles could play together when the same game is released for them.

Re:affect on linux clients? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18357227)

I wouldn't get my hopes up that there will be too many "Linux Games" in the future as ID Software, basically the last big company that officially supports other operating systems than Microsoft's (I disregard Epic here because none of their newer titles are announced for non-MS platforms on the PC), is moving to the XBOX360 as their main platform and I'd assume that will impact their cross-platform strategy in the future (negatively). :-/

The only thing I see this as useful for... (1)

Lordfly (590616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353847)

...is to finally put to rest the raging "is a keyboard and mouse better than a gamepad" FPS flame wars.

If Halo2 PC is compatible with the Xbox/Xbox360 version, you're going to see a lot of very pissed off Xbox/360 players getting pounded into the ground by a 15 year old with a mouse. :)

Re:The only thing I see this as useful for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18354131)

That has already been put to rest. The answer is "whatever platform the game was designed for". The Shadowrun team was designing for 360, when they brought it over to the PC for the cross-platform multiplayer the console players were wiping the floor with them. They had to tweak the controls to even things out.

Oh I'll line up for this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18354141)

Sweet so I can pay 50 bucks for a crappy port of Halo 2 that is coming out 3 years after the game came out on the OLD xbox (Halo 1 PC still burns me). Then I can pay 50 bucks so I can have some colored star next to my name and play online? And to do all that I have to upgrade my PC to Vista? Yeah, right... 300 bucks to play a 3 year old game.

Seriously, is everyone at MS on drugs these days? I do run Windows exclusively, I do run the newest hardware, hell I make a living writing MS code. Will I be running Vista? No. Will I feel special when you release a 3 year old game and charge me extra to play in ranked games online? No. Whoever is pushing this platform strategy is a frickin idiot.

In fact the more of this crap they pull, the more likely I am to never install another MS product again. If they try to make online WinPC gaming live exclusive, I'll stop playing PC games. Not like there are many that are worth my time anyway...

Oh Slashdot... (0, Offtopic)

Sinnix (898301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355119)

"...it still remains to be seen whether PC gamers will pay for what they've always gotten for free."

See, it's comments like this that keep slashdot from being taken as serious as other bigger news sites. The posts are biased and that one quoted line shows the submitter didn't even read what he was talking about. Live Silver accounts are free and give more than what PC gamers have ever experienced before. If you don't want to pay for Gold, fine. Super. You're not missing anything you haven't done before. Microsoft is not charging PC gamers for what they've always gotten free. BIAS!

Re:Oh Slashdot... (0, Offtopic)

DJ_Duffy (915271) | more than 7 years ago | (#18355719)

The reasons these comments get made is because Slashdot unfortunately does not moderate who can gain membership and post to the threads. Most "serious" news sites have serious restrictions on that sort of thing...or they actually have actual gamers who post instead of just hardware and software lovers. Also, while I'm at it, another tip to be more serious in the gaming department..you need to be quicker with gaming news. Other major sites have these stories day before Slashdot posts them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...