DirtyDMan
06-25-2010, 08:32 PM
Xbox Live is for sure a quite amazing service, and while some might argue (and I might agree, at least partially) that it is a bit overpriced, it's full suit of features makes shelling fifty dollars/euros a year a quite a bit less painful.
The full suit of services and the pay to play business model come, though, with an hidden burden that many don't immediately spot but that seems to be surfacing lately, mostly between developers.
Microsoft maintains complete control over the contents displayed and provided on Xbox live, and no external services may appear on it unless Microsoft approves them, creates a dedicated interface, and ultimately administers them at least in part.
This "total control" policy might be one of the worst flaws of the Xbox Live system and might become more and more prominent in the future.
One of the most shocking events of E3 has been Valve's very own Gabe Newell appearing on the Sony Conference stage to praise the PS3 and to explicitly say that the version of Portal 2 on Sony's console will be the best in the home console market. That's something shocking in itself, and almost unprecedented, as a developer openly telling the press and the public that a game will be better on a console than on it's competitor basically equals to spitting in the face of said competitor, risking to cause serious diplomatic problems.
While Newell has always been very outspoken (mostly against the PS3) it's hard not to see that such an explicit speech might hide serious problems with Microsoft's policies.
For further confirmation, let's read between the lines of what he said: "As an industry, we’re going through a transition from entertainment as a product to entertainment as a service, and because of that, the needs of game players and game developers are evolving. More specifically, it’s not just about chips for rendering pixels, or calculating nav meshes. It’s about giving gamers a complete, social, connected experience. By adopting an open approach to these challenges, the PlayStation 3 is going to excel in this area."
What Newell previously criticized of the PS3 had mainly to do with the complex architecture, that made developing for it (according to him) more difficult. In his E3 speech he didn't really praise the hardware of Sony's console. Quite the contrary, he made it clear that the issue wasn't there.
What he said is basically "Sony is allowing us to bring Steam on the PS3, while Microsoft is not, so Sony is now good, while Microsoft is bad". His issue is not with the hardware or the capabilities of the 360, but with the "total control" policy I described above.
As a further elaboration on this topic yesterday Eurogamer reported that Hiromichi Tanaka (director of Final Fantasy XIV) openly said that what blocked his game from appearing on the Xbox 360 is that "Microsoft (...) wants to have a closed environment for Xbox Live", preventing any form of cross-platform communication and play.
Yoichi Wada (Square Enix' CEO) as well expressed his desire for an industry that allowed developers to "freely design their business models", something that definitely clashes with the closed and controlled business model of Xbox Live.
It's quite evident that the previous experiment between Square-Enix and Microsoft with Final Fantasy XI (that did feature cross platform play and SE's own business model and interface in the form of PlayOnline) didn't go too well and one or both parties aren't willing to repeat it.
While the problem may seem marginal now, it might become more and more important in the future, especially since more parties expressed interest in building their own online services for their major franchises (Activision did for Call of Duty, for instance) and cross-platform gameplay, communication and features may become more important (this is something I always hoped for, myself), resulting in a lower degree of support for Microsoft's console and it's closed online model.
Electronic Arts' recently increased support for the PS3 and explicit serenade to Sony during the E3 conference might be at least partly linked with this issue as well.
Microsoft, on the other hand, might be facing a serious dilemma: keeping their "total control" stance might cause them to lose an increasing portion of their third party developer support. This would be a quite crippling blow, given that Microsoft is, between the three first parties, the one that relies on third parties the most.
On the other hand, if they relent with just some of the most influential third parties, this might easily put them on a slippery slope, causing more and more developers to ask for concessions and resulting on a gradual but ultimately unstoppable loss of their "total control" over the Xbox live platform (not to mention a sizable loss of revenue, as more and more games would become available for online gameplay without the need of a gold membership, making it less desirable). It does seem like a lose/lose situation for them.
They might mitigate the problems by buying more developers and increasing their first party support, but it seems pretty much clear that they have an hot potato in their hands at the moment.
Personally, on the side, I still hope to see them relenting, at least for Final Fantasy XIV. As I said several times, a true cross platform approach to the game, available on all major platforms would definitely benefit both the game and the players, regardless of their console/computer of choice. It's definitely time for the segregation of gamers to their platform of choice to come to an end with the creation of a truly globalized online gaming environment.
The ball (or the hot potato) is definitely on Microsoft's field at the moment. We'll have to wait and see what solution they will come up with.
Classy Gamer: The worst limitation of Xbox Live is starting to surface (http://classygamer.blogspot.com/2010/06/worst-limitation-of-xbox-live-is.html)
Just found this to be interesting thats all..
The full suit of services and the pay to play business model come, though, with an hidden burden that many don't immediately spot but that seems to be surfacing lately, mostly between developers.
Microsoft maintains complete control over the contents displayed and provided on Xbox live, and no external services may appear on it unless Microsoft approves them, creates a dedicated interface, and ultimately administers them at least in part.
This "total control" policy might be one of the worst flaws of the Xbox Live system and might become more and more prominent in the future.
One of the most shocking events of E3 has been Valve's very own Gabe Newell appearing on the Sony Conference stage to praise the PS3 and to explicitly say that the version of Portal 2 on Sony's console will be the best in the home console market. That's something shocking in itself, and almost unprecedented, as a developer openly telling the press and the public that a game will be better on a console than on it's competitor basically equals to spitting in the face of said competitor, risking to cause serious diplomatic problems.
While Newell has always been very outspoken (mostly against the PS3) it's hard not to see that such an explicit speech might hide serious problems with Microsoft's policies.
For further confirmation, let's read between the lines of what he said: "As an industry, we’re going through a transition from entertainment as a product to entertainment as a service, and because of that, the needs of game players and game developers are evolving. More specifically, it’s not just about chips for rendering pixels, or calculating nav meshes. It’s about giving gamers a complete, social, connected experience. By adopting an open approach to these challenges, the PlayStation 3 is going to excel in this area."
What Newell previously criticized of the PS3 had mainly to do with the complex architecture, that made developing for it (according to him) more difficult. In his E3 speech he didn't really praise the hardware of Sony's console. Quite the contrary, he made it clear that the issue wasn't there.
What he said is basically "Sony is allowing us to bring Steam on the PS3, while Microsoft is not, so Sony is now good, while Microsoft is bad". His issue is not with the hardware or the capabilities of the 360, but with the "total control" policy I described above.
As a further elaboration on this topic yesterday Eurogamer reported that Hiromichi Tanaka (director of Final Fantasy XIV) openly said that what blocked his game from appearing on the Xbox 360 is that "Microsoft (...) wants to have a closed environment for Xbox Live", preventing any form of cross-platform communication and play.
Yoichi Wada (Square Enix' CEO) as well expressed his desire for an industry that allowed developers to "freely design their business models", something that definitely clashes with the closed and controlled business model of Xbox Live.
It's quite evident that the previous experiment between Square-Enix and Microsoft with Final Fantasy XI (that did feature cross platform play and SE's own business model and interface in the form of PlayOnline) didn't go too well and one or both parties aren't willing to repeat it.
While the problem may seem marginal now, it might become more and more important in the future, especially since more parties expressed interest in building their own online services for their major franchises (Activision did for Call of Duty, for instance) and cross-platform gameplay, communication and features may become more important (this is something I always hoped for, myself), resulting in a lower degree of support for Microsoft's console and it's closed online model.
Electronic Arts' recently increased support for the PS3 and explicit serenade to Sony during the E3 conference might be at least partly linked with this issue as well.
Microsoft, on the other hand, might be facing a serious dilemma: keeping their "total control" stance might cause them to lose an increasing portion of their third party developer support. This would be a quite crippling blow, given that Microsoft is, between the three first parties, the one that relies on third parties the most.
On the other hand, if they relent with just some of the most influential third parties, this might easily put them on a slippery slope, causing more and more developers to ask for concessions and resulting on a gradual but ultimately unstoppable loss of their "total control" over the Xbox live platform (not to mention a sizable loss of revenue, as more and more games would become available for online gameplay without the need of a gold membership, making it less desirable). It does seem like a lose/lose situation for them.
They might mitigate the problems by buying more developers and increasing their first party support, but it seems pretty much clear that they have an hot potato in their hands at the moment.
Personally, on the side, I still hope to see them relenting, at least for Final Fantasy XIV. As I said several times, a true cross platform approach to the game, available on all major platforms would definitely benefit both the game and the players, regardless of their console/computer of choice. It's definitely time for the segregation of gamers to their platform of choice to come to an end with the creation of a truly globalized online gaming environment.
The ball (or the hot potato) is definitely on Microsoft's field at the moment. We'll have to wait and see what solution they will come up with.
Classy Gamer: The worst limitation of Xbox Live is starting to surface (http://classygamer.blogspot.com/2010/06/worst-limitation-of-xbox-live-is.html)
Just found this to be interesting thats all..