Newell calls on Microsoft to open up Xbox Live | Hacker News Reader

Newell calls on Microsoft to open up Xbox Live

next-gen.biz

32 pointsevo_913 comments

> "Hopefully that will help Microsoft see that's a good strategy for making customers happy, that the barbarians won't tear down the walls of Xbox and turn it into some chaotic wasteland."

When Microsoft relaxed the XBox Live rules for Activision and EA, both of those companies wasted no time in adding aggravation for their customers and removing functionality. So while Valve may behave themselves, opening the door altogether would almost certainly be a net negative for gamers.

I'd much rather Microsoft create an XBL standard for microtransactions, cross-platform chat and cloud saves.

I can understand why Microsoft would not want Steamworks integration.

Steamworks is a direct competitor to Xbox Live -- achievements, friends list, chatting with friends, update delivery, etc. By allowing Steamworks on Xbox, it dilutes their own service and would confuse some customers ("Why do I have two friends lists?", "Why do I have two profiles?")

That being said, I really do want Xbox live to open up more. I think it's ridiculous that most Xbox games can't talk openly to the internet -- this prevents me from making an Xbox port of my game.

I had similar thoughts. I figure Sony opened up PSN because they have less leverage. Microsoft is in a position where they can dictate terms, Sony is not.

Why can't they be synchronized? Create an Xbox Live achievement for each Steamworks achievement and award both upon the player completing the achievement.

So Microsoft is being anti-competitive here. The question is, are they using monopoly power (illegal) to do so?

I'm not really terribly concerned - MS's dominance over the gaming field is not nearly entrenched or large enough for them to muscle like this.

Remember, there is one direct equivalent platform for developers and publishers: PS3.

There is another that targets the same demographic, but smaller: PC.

There's also the wide open field of gaming in general, which is being dominated by Sony, Nintendo, casual game producers like PopCap, and increasingly social game makers.

MSFT has done extremely well with the Xbox, particularly Xbox Live, but they're far from the dominant player in this industry, much less a monopolist.

All I know is that I buy a ton of cheap $2-10 games when they're on sale on Steam. I don't buy any games on Xbox Live due to the lack of good sales and their convoluted MS Points system. I don't understand why they don't follow Valve's example.

"Right now, there's a huge amount of updates and free content that we've been able to deliver to people who have The Orange Box that we haven't been able to deliver to the Xbox because of the restrictions that have been placed on us on Xbox Live.

Didn't Valve make a choice not to release that content through Xbox Live? Yes, it would have involved more time and effort to go through another system, but it was still a choice Valve made, no? Or does Microsoft prevent free DLC?

In general Microsoft doesn't allow free DLC. You can ship bug fixes and there's a tiny amount of title update space you can shove content into, but large amounts of content are meant to be deployed through paid DLC. In part, this is because MS pays for the bandwidth, but it's also because many of the vendors who use their platform would get angry since it would destroy the level playing field they've got going right now.

Part of the reason Sony gives you more freedom and control is that they do way less than Microsoft does. They charge you for bandwidth for the services they do offer (like demo downloads from the store), and you have to do a lot more of the work in terms of netcode and servers. Microsoft also runs XBox Live games/services behind a VPN while PSN stuff runs out on the open internet, so a PS3 game can hit a regular HTTP server but a 360 game can't.

I was aware that Xbox Live was pay and PSN is not, and that people are generally more satisfied with Live than with PSN. I didn't realize that Live prevented free DLC.

But, still, there is a middle ground where Microsoft could allow free DLC, but not open it up to other systems like Steam.

> "In general Microsoft doesn't allow free DLC. You can ship bug fixes and there's a tiny amount of title update space you can shove content into, but large amounts of content are meant to be deployed through paid DLC"

That is incorrect - there are free Game Add-Ons (DLC) on Xbox LIVE for a number of games. There are also free Arcade (XBLA) games, by the way.

Here are some examples:

- Some Halo 3 maps/map packs

- Free tracks for Rock Band (several versions)

- Left 4 Dead Survival Pack

- Deadliest Warrior DLC

- Fable 3 free weapons/outfits

.. and a lot more. Disclaimer: I work there.

That is surprising to me, because I've personally heard developers complain that they weren't allowed to release free DLC. I apologize for the misinformation... I guess policies have changed?

Isn't it already opened up? EA games let you login to Origin Online, Ubisoft games let you log into Ubisoft...

I don't think this really does much for customers except make it harder to fully enjoy the game. "Sign into our network for a free exclusive item/map!" - no thanks.

Maybe he's talking about restrictions about releasing free content on Xbox Live (you're supposed to charge for pretty much anything)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com