Epic: Can we give gamers free updates? Microsoft: No

[Xisiqomelir]

Story:

Epic Games has made a Gears of War update with 11 new maps, new multiplayer modes, and some bugfixes. Their intent was to release this on Live Marketplace for free.

M$ has forbidden them to do this, as they wish to charge for the update.

Confirmation from Epic president Tim Sweeney at minute 51 of the newest 1UP Yours podcast, available here as an mp3

[Stark]

Whoa, I was looking forward to this. Isn't Epic independent? There have already been free GoW updates... so... the one that actually makes multiplayer decent can't be free?

[Erik von Nein]

Well, that blows. Though, with the attention this most likely will get Microsoft may relent.

Personally, I'm not surprised Microsoft would charge for this. Sure, they didn't develope the updates, but they need to make as much money off any 360-related products as possible.

EDIT:

Whoa, I was looking forward to this. Isn't Epic independent?

Yeah. But what can they realistically do if Microsoft says "no"? It's not like they can really release this elsewhere and get the word out to most of the people who bought Gears of War. They're kind of stuck. I'm sure they'll keep appealing it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Xisiqomelir]

Isn't Epic independent?

Epic is an independent studio, and owns the Gears of War IP.

Their contract with M$ gives M$ first publishing option on the next Gears sequel. i.e. only Gears of War 2.

[Ace Pace]

However, it also gives MS(ENOUGH WITH THE MOTHERFUCKING M$, it does NOT make you cool) control over the content for GoW.

[Ace Pace]

Doesn't Epic have some say in Microsoft given the sales and popularity of GoW? If Epic said they weren't going to make GoW 2 or any other game for the 360 because Microsoft is being childish, couldn't that actually hurt their gaming division?

Ah, but acording to Xissy here, they are contracted for atleast one more game based on this IP. Meaning if they do not do it, they are legally fucked.

However, asumming the media noise is high enough, MS might relent.

And Xis, why the FUCK do you insist on using M$? Are you trying to be even more childish?

[Xisiqomelir]

And Xis, why the FUCK do you insist on using M$? Are you trying to be even more childish?

Well Ace Pace, that would be because Epic isn't the only developer trying to release free 360 content but being frustrated by the greed of the platform holder. You can add Garage Games (Marble Blast Ultra), Team 17 (Worms HD) and Bizarre Creations (Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved) to that list.

[Hotfoot]

Wow, people want cash monies for games?

Maybe like $ony, with their $600-$900 console, or that one Gran Turi$mo game that would have cost a few hunded dollars to get the entire game if you downloaded everything?

Or maybe NinYENdo, where ROMs for older games are laughably overpriced for shit you can download for free online. LOL I CAN DO STUPID NAMES TOO, XISSY!

Epic's desire to hand out free updates to its customers is amazing, and pretty much unparalleled in the gaming community. However, that doesn't really flow well with the Marketplace, where if there are any free additions to a game, it's to give people a taste of other things they could get, and I really don't know very many console games that do "TOTALLY FREE CONTENT ZOMG". This is a case of the console and PC markets clashing. When you make games for the PC, you don't have to sign a contract with Microsoft (or at least you didn't, the whole "Games for Windows" thing might spell the end of that) saying what you could or could not release for free. Even then though, there are tons of PC games that released content in expansion packs that should have been patches, and sequels that should have been expansion packs. Fuck, I remember one game that charged ten bucks for a patch that added cursing to the game.

But thank you for only singling out Microsoft for this when both Sony and Nintendo do the exact same fucking thing.

[Xisiqomelir]

But thank you for only singling out Microsoft for this when both Sony and Nintendo do the exact same fucking thing.

I eagerly anticipate your evidence that any Nintendo or Sony developer has sought to release free content to their customers but was forbidden to by either of those platform holders.

Don't keep me waiting, please.

[Ace Pace]

Games for windows does NOT specify a contract with MS.

Games for Windows is a certification program started by Microsoft in their whole "Windows" branding/marketing campaign. It is similar to Certified to work with Vista, and Certified For Vista branding campaigns.

The MS rational for this is:

The Windows Vista Games Explorer (GE) is similar in concept to the Windows XP folders "My Documents" or "My Pictures." The idea behind all three of these is to centralize similar content in one place and allow for easier organization and context-sensitive activities. The GE extends the My Documents or My Pictures concept by allowing richer organization and control over games. The GE allows gamers to view, organize, modify and interact with all the games installed on their system. It also offers the opportunity to game publishers to communicate important game information more effectively. The system is completely data-driven, so it is very easy for a game publisher to update game information over time. In this way, the Games Explorer enables gamers to keep up to date with game communities, tips & tricks, etc.

It contains several good steps that will bring the PC closer to the console in terms of ease of gaming.
Quoting from Wikipedia:

An "Easy Install" option that installs the title on your PC in the fewest possible steps and mouse clicks
Compatibility with the Windows Vista Games Explorer (see below)
Compatibility with the Xbox 360 controller (where applicable)
Installs and runs properly on x64 versions of Windows Vista and is compatible with 64-bit processors (though the game itself can be 32-bit)
Supports normal and widescreen resolutions, such as 4:3 aspect ratio (800 x 600), 16:9 aspect ratio (1280 x 720), and 16:10 aspect ratio (1152 x 720)
Launching from Media Center (Windows Vista Home Premium and Windows Vista Ultimate have Media Center)

The Vista Game Explorer is an issue, covered by several developer blogs. In a nutshell, it forces them in how to display certain things, like ESRB information and settings, not inherently bad, just limiting.

The other possible issue is covered by Rahul Sood(VoodooPC CEO, good blogger) here.

Microsoft is working to create a community experience similar to Xbox Live called Windows Live, where people can chat, set up games, and play. In the future, PC and Xbox 360 gamers will even be able to play with and against each other, a cross-platform experience that sounds really cool to me. My concern is that Microsoft will charge a membership fee to those who want to be part of this. So long the fee is $50 per year or less, it’ll probably be a good deal for users, but game developers that support the GFW cause may have to give up their recurring revenues to Microsoft.

More detail, skip this if you got bored.

Regarding throwing shortcuts and files all over the place:

The game must be visible within the Games Explorer on Windows Vista.

The game must not create shortcuts on the desktop, in the Start menu, or in any other location to launch the game. Instead, this functionality should be exposed through the Games Explorer through the game’s icon and associated tasks list.

Tasks and shortcuts for uninstall must not be created. Users should be able to remove the game using the Programs control panel (known as Add/Remove Programs on Windows XP and previous versions).

ESRB controls, not that anyone cares. With a tidbit regarding gamers being forced to use admin mode.

All games must execute within the context of a Standard User in order to allow Windows Vista Parental Controls-enabled accounts to play the game. Installation, patching, and removal may require elevated rights, subject to the requirements in section

This also forces intergration with Xbox360 controller, which can only be a good thing, and Live, which again, is not bad.

Quite abit of information regarding 64-bit and security, summed up in:

Every executable file (.EXE extension) must have an embedded manifest that defines its execution level.


To maintain compatibility with x64 versions of Windows:

Titles and title installers must not contain any 16-bit code or rely on any 16-bit component.

If the game is dependent on kernel-mode drivers for operation, x64 versions of these drivers must be available. The game setup must detect and install the proper drivers and components for the 64-bit Windows OS.



All executable code files (e.g., .EXE and .DLL extensions) must be signed with an Authenticode certificate.

Ease of installation:

Games with a traditional installation must provide a simplified path in their setup user interface:

Display a maximum of one EULA

Provide default and custom installation options. The default option must bypass all selections for the install (such as installation folder, component selections, etc.), assume the default selections and then run the game or launcher upon successful install without addition prompts.

Install any required OS components (such as the DirectX and Visual C runtimes) silently without prompting or guarded by component version checks using the correct Microsoft redistribution package(s).

Provide removal only via the Programs control panel for both the game application as well as user-generated game files. This must ensure all installed files are removed and all settings (firewall, registry, etc.) are cleared. Redistributed OS components must not be removed.

Generally however, it can only be a good thing, if it makes releases stabler, enforces proper interaction standards with the OS, etc. etc.

I can post more information if anyone is not sick of the MS Developer Language overload.

[Hotfoot]

Way to single out one line of my response and ignore everything else, Xissy. Glad to know that you are just as fantastic a debater as ever.

The Wii virtual console doesn't even support third party games (save Sega, IIRC), so you dodge a bullet there by nitpicking, hooray. Meanwhile, tell me, what does Sony have for free on its Network?

The point I made was that in the world of gaming, Epic is very much alone in having a huge desire to produce free content (only Bethesda seemed to have a similar desire). Virtually every other company in existance loves money more than you love putting the dollar sign in Microsoft's initials. If Epic makes a game JUST for the PS3 (hah, yeah right), you may well see the same problem, but tell me I'm wrong that PS3's network has micropayments for stupid game addons. Go right ahead motherfucker.

Both Sony and Nintendo are using fucking overpriced micropayments for shit that might otherwise be a free download on a PC. Prove otherwise or shut the fuck up you little shit.

[Hotfoot]

By the way, if it turns out that Microsoft folds to pressure on this, then what? Microsoft would have big content available for free, and neither Sony or Nintendo would have anything to compare.

[Ace Pace]

Way to single out one line of my response and ignore everything else, Xissy. Glad to know that you are just as fantastic a debater as ever.

The Wii virtual console doesn't even support third party games (save Sega, IIRC), so you dodge a bullet there by nitpicking, hooray. Meanwhile, tell me, what does Sony have for free on its Network?

The point I made was that in the world of gaming, Epic is very much alone in having a huge desire to produce free content (only Bethesda seemed to have a similar desire). Virtually every other company in existance loves money more than you love putting the dollar sign in Microsoft's initials. If Epic makes a game JUST for the PS3 (hah, yeah right), you may well see the same problem, but tell me I'm wrong that PS3's network has micropayments for stupid game addons. Go right ahead motherfucker.

Both Sony and Nintendo are using fucking overpriced micropayments for shit that might otherwise be a free download on a PC. Prove otherwise or shut the fuck up you little shit.

Epic is not only alone in releasing free content(Editors Edition being a free DL anyone? Mod support? Make Something Unreal Contest?), they are also one of the very few companies which let users have such low level acess to their games. I've yet to see any company, bar Epic, Valve and id, release such low level APIs to their games.
The fact that such a release, of content, nevermind mod tools(on a console? hah) is not accepted on a console is not suprising.

Consoles are closed platforms, where it is still very much the norm not to release after-release gifts to players. Xbox Live started changing things, but again, MS is trying to make money off it. Sony is no differant, with GT HD, and other games on the way like WarHawk.

[Xon]

Microsoft follows a fairly simple stratagy for Live. Bugfixes are free, but new content sure as hell isnt going to be free untill the initial rush to download it is well and truely over.

All the patches & content is hosted by Microsoft's Live servers and they need to pay for the bandwidth somehow.

[Xisiqomelir]

Way to single out one line of my response and ignore everything else, Xissy. Glad to know that you are just as fantastic a debater as ever.

Yes, god forbid we actually discuss the topic at hand without introducing as many red herrings as possible so Microsoft can save face. You'd better get on to "Wii hardware is overpriced" and "No one wants Blu-Ray".

I'm still waiting for an example, by the way.

[Hotfoot]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the topic was "Epic wants to release free content to console". I wasn't aware my posts were off topic. Maybe you could SHOW, point for point, WHY they aren't on topic, instead of flat out declaring that they are.

Do it. Now. Don't fucking dismiss my points without a reason again you slimy little fuck.

[Ace Pace]

Way to single out one line of my response and ignore everything else, Xissy. Glad to know that you are just as fantastic a debater as ever.

Yes, god forbid we actually discuss the topic at hand without introducing as many red herrings as possible so Microsoft can save face. You'd better get on to "Wii hardware is overpriced" and "No one wants Blu-Ray".

I'm still waiting for an example, by the way.

Of course theres not an example for the Wii, because it makes the Xbox360 look like an open platform in comparison. And Sony hasn't had a similar situation yet because the platform is still quite new and no one has yet TIME to turn out extra content!

[Xisiqomelir]

I eagerly anticipate your evidence that any Nintendo or Sony developer has sought to release free content to their customers but was forbidden to by either of those platform holders.

Should I just keep throwing this up? Specific points your counter-example will need:

-The developer will have gone on record stating their intent to release content for free.
-The platform holder will have denied a free release and charged for it.

So, all microtransactions never intended to have been a free release are irrelevant (Bethesda, GTHD, Warhawk). Try again.

[Hotfoot]

Xisiqomelir.

I have honestly had enough of you. You are strawmanning my points by only taking a few lines out of context and filling in your own agenda. I clarified what I was saying, and you flat out ignored it.

I am asking you one final time to respond to my posts IN FULL. In addition, you will show how they are "off topic" and contain "red herrings", as you have claimed.

[Xisiqomelir]

Of course theres not an example for the Wii, because it makes the Xbox360 look like an open platform in comparison. And Sony hasn't had a similar situation yet because the platform is still quite new and no one has yet TIME to turn out extra content!

Well, naturally. And if either Nintendo or Sony do stymie their developers from intended free releases in the future, that would be equally as distasteful. I'm just trying to stop Hotfoot from doing his usual misinformation and Microsoft corporate apologist routine.

[Ace Pace]

I eagerly anticipate your evidence that any Nintendo or Sony developer has sought to release free content to their customers but was forbidden to by either of those platform holders.

Should I just keep throwing this up? Specific points your counter-example will need:

-The developer will have gone on record stating their intent to release content for free.
-The platform holder will have denied a free release and charged for it.

So, all microtransactions never intended to have been a free release are irrelevant (Bethesda, GTHD, Warhawk). Try again.

This situation has not occured on the Wii, nor the PS3, NOT because Sony and Nintendo are magically nice and suger loving corporations, but because these are new platforms, and neither are as open as the Xbox360.

Again, the Playstation 3 is a very young platform and as far as I know, it's 'big hits' so far, have not released new content, therfor we have no idea what they will charge, etc. If and when Resistence, or any other game, releases free content, then you can talk.

Absence of Evidence is not evidence of genorosity.

[Xisiqomelir]

I am asking you one final time to respond to my posts IN FULL. In addition, you will show how they are "off topic" and contain "red herrings", as you have claimed.

sigh. Here goes 5 minutes of my life.

Wow, people want cash monies for games?

Maybe like $ony, with their $600-$900 console, or that one Gran Turi$mo game that would have cost a few hunded dollars to get the entire game if you downloaded everything?

Or maybe NinYENdo, where ROMs for older games are laughably overpriced for shit you can download for free online. LOL I CAN DO STUPID NAMES TOO, XISSY! Rolling Eyes

Epic's desire to hand out free updates to its customers is amazing, and pretty much unparalleled in the gaming community. However, that doesn't really flow well with the Marketplace, where if there are any free additions to a game, it's to give people a taste of other things they could get, and I really don't know very many console games that do "TOTALLY FREE CONTENT ZOMG". This is a case of the console and PC markets clashing. When you make games for the PC, you don't have to sign a contract with Microsoft (or at least you didn't, the whole "Games for Windows" thing might spell the end of that) saying what you could or could not release for free. Even then though, there are tons of PC games that released content in expansion packs that should have been patches, and sequels that should have been expansion packs. Fuck, I remember one game that charged ten bucks for a patch that added cursing to the game.

But thank you for only singling out Microsoft for this when both Sony and Nintendo do the exact same fucking thing.

Nonsense:

-"Epic is alone in this". At least 3 other developers have exactly the same problem.
-"Sony and Nintendo do the same thing" No developer for either platform has made this complaint.

Red herrings:
-Cost of PS3
-Cost of GTHD
-Cost of Wii VC games
-Cost of patches for PC games

Way to single out one line of my response and ignore everything else, Xissy. Glad to know that you are just as fantastic a debater as ever.

The Wii virtual console doesn't even support third party games (save Sega, IIRC), so you dodge a bullet there by nitpicking, hooray. Meanwhile, tell me, what does Sony have for free on its Network?

The point I made was that in the world of gaming, Epic is very much alone in having a huge desire to produce free content (only Bethesda seemed to have a similar desire). Virtually every other company in existance loves money more than you love putting the dollar sign in Microsoft's initials. If Epic makes a game JUST for the PS3 (hah, yeah right), you may well see the same problem, but tell me I'm wrong that PS3's network has micropayments for stupid game addons. Go right ahead motherfucker.

Both Sony and Nintendo are using fucking overpriced micropayments for shit that might otherwise be a free download on a PC. Prove otherwise or shut the fuck up you little shit.

Nonsense:
-Epic is alone (as above)
-Other companies are as greedy/more greedy

Red herrings:
-VC content comparison
-PSN content comparison
-PSN micropayment pricing

By the way, if it turns out that Microsoft folds to pressure on this, then what? Microsoft would have big content available for free, and neither Sony or Nintendo would have anything to compare.

Speculation, no bearing on current facts.

[Hotfoot]

sigh. Here goes 5 minutes of my life.

Oh god, you might have to seriously respond to something instead of blowing it off! God forbid you should actually put any thought into your posts!

Nonsense:

-"Epic is alone in this". At least 3 other developers have exactly the same problem.

First mistake: You are quoting something I never fucking said, you dishonest shit. I said, and I quote:
"Epic's desire to hand out free updates to its customers is amazing, and pretty much unparalleled in the gaming community."

So you've distorted my point for your own benefit. That's called a strawman, you fuck.

I KNOW Epic isn't alone, hell, I went out of my way to mention Bethesda, who originally wanted to release free plugins for Oblivion. Not that THAT matters, right? Any lie to make a point for you.

-"Sony and Nintendo do the same thing" No developer for either platform has made this complaint.

As I clarified, I was referring to micropayments for content that, had it been released on a PC, might otherwise be free. You latched on to this DESPITE MY CLARIFICATION and it is the primary point of your recent posts. In other words, you've been ignoring what I've written. This will come back to fucking haunt you.

Red herrings:
-Cost of PS3
-Cost of GTHD
-Cost of Wii VC games

All of that was to lampoon the idiocy of your using a dollar sign for MS. You know, just in case you couldn't tell because you're a moron. It's clear you have a vendetta against Microsoft and a blind spot for Nintendo and Sony, so I was pointing out their obvious lust for money that fucked over the consumer.

-Cost of patches for PC games

Actually, this isn't a red herring at all, but that's because you're stupid. It shows that the trend for charging more than you should for new content/patches has existed since the dawn of gaming, and illustrates just how much Epic stands out for its free content. But hey, what do you know about making a point?

Nonsense:
-Epic is alone (as above)

Lies dispelled, as above

-Other companies are as greedy/more greedy

Wait, so because most companies charge money for this stuff, that doesn't mean anything? WHAT? You're not even providing reasons anymore, but this is fantastic insight to your cognitive processes.

Red herrings:
-VC content comparison
-PSN content comparison
-PSN micropayment pricing

Wait...so...while you're attacking the Microsoft Live Marketplace for overpricing, comparison to other console content pricing...isn't valid? What? I mean, you ARE attacking Microsoft for wanting to charge more than something is worth, right? It's somehow not valid to point out that its competitors are doing the same?

Speculation, no bearing on current facts.

Translation, you don't want to think of the possibility that Microsoft might do something before Sony or Nintendo get a chance to, but hey.

[Ace Pace]

Wait...so...while you're attacking the Microsoft Live Marketplace for overpricing, comparison to other console content pricing...isn't valid? What? I mean, you ARE attacking Microsoft for wanting to charge more than something is worth, right? It's somehow not valid to point out that its competitors are doing the same?

Lets elaborate to prevent Xissy from being a whore.

Microsoft is not alone in charging insane amounts of money. Nintendo is doing far worse by charging insane amounts for VC games. Sony's implementation of an online marketplace is ludicrous, annoying and no cheaper.

[Hotfoot]

What's even better about Xissy's counter is that he didn't even bother explaining WHY anything was nonsense or a red herring (other than a single line for the first two points, which are just utterly wrong), just that it WAS. Fantastic debating skills sir, I salute you.

Seriously, why do you even bother getting in arguments if this shit is all you can come up with?