ameratsu said:
makingmusic476 said:
MonstaMack said:
Um... you can play FF11 Online with just a silver membership. Not seeing with the issue is here unless MS all of a sudden wants gold membership to play the new FF online. Either way could care less since It's a MMORPG, and right now the new KOTOR MMORPG is the only game that has a chance against WOW.
|
Microsoft also imposes limitations on the number and size of patches and other free content, something that affects MMOs moreso than most other genres. The effect of this policy has been thus far been most apparent in Valve's titles. The 360 version of Team Fortress 2 hasn't been updated since near release, despite the PC version having recieved patchs and updates on a near monthly basis, and the "Still Alive" and "The Passing" downloadable contents for Portal and Left 4 Dead 2 were released for free on Steam while Valve were forced to charge for them on XBL.
In contrast, Sony is allowing Valve to integrate Steamworks into the ps3 version of Portal 2, allowing it to be updated day and date with the PC version, keeping the two on par with each other at all times. This will allow for cross platform play between the two versions, while the 360 version will be excluded. The 360 version of Portal 2 will like recieve as few updates as the 360 version of Team Fortress 2.
Microsoft's strict policies for Live sometimes seem to go out of their way to keep content away from gamers if it doesn't make Microsoft a buck. This is in stark contrast to the environment on PC/PSN.
|
This is partially true. The reason portal/l4d1/l4d2 DLC were paid addons is because they added achievements, and Microsoft won't allow anyone to add DLC featuring new achievements for free. You mention the lack of support that Valve games have received on the 360. While what you say is true about TF2 support, this may be a userbase issue, or a problem with how frequently Microsoft allows updates/patches to, as you mentioned. I would guess it is some combination of Valve being committed first and foremost to their platform and games and Microsoft's general reluctance in accepting free DLC. My understanding is Microsoft's QA process is slow and cumbersome which likely doesn't work well with Valve's model of changing/fixing things all the time.
While Valve will obviously continue to put their games on 360 because it's relatively easy and worthwhile, they didn't support Sony at all until Steamworks integration occured. Basically, while they are supporting Sony because the userbase has grown, I would guess they are doing so primarily because Sony okayed integration of Valve's platform into the PS3.
With respect to the Live platform in general, it is clear that they want to make people pay as much as possible. This is the company who introduced a wait time to download demos for non-Gold users to make XBL Gold seem better. Based on the evidence you provided, it seems pretty clear that their current approach to MMOs doesn't seem to be working. Another thing related to your point about restrictive patching is that most MMOs are patched very frequently. I wonder if the normal QA process would be sufficient in games where people are paying ~$15 a month and certain exploits/bugs can seriously ruin the game experience. While successful as a content marketplace, I suspect they are lacking in ways that would make it more friendly to MMO games.
|
The bolded is probably correct, and was essentially my point in my last two paragraphs, though I suppose it wasn't very clear. Sony is far more liberal when it comes to how third parties work with the PlayStation Network, and it is why they're having such success in attracting both Valve's titles and MMOs like FFXIV to their platform.
Of course, this open structure can have its disadvantages, like when Konami decided to go postal and require a Konami ID for MGO. Few developers make such silly decisions in regards to PSN, however, as it only hurts your potential playerbase and, ultimately, your sales.
