Not sure this is really news.. I called that the moment the timed exclusive was announced. Microsoft needs to open things up a bit -- but they're Microsoft.

If they sell mods on the marketplace.. well.. that will be hilarious. And there best be profit sharing for the mod community if this ever happens.

Riiight.. I guess Epic is just lying, and MS is all about supporting user created content and free community support! The funny thing is, that these issues effect Halo 3 as well. I wonder why Forge isn't a real level editor?

Well. (I'm really going against popular opinion today, I hope people will still be friends with me in the morning)

Sony is a bit like the uncle who lets you do anything and buys you candy even though it isn't saturday. The whole "use mouse and keyboard if you want!" and letting user created content loose could be viewed as liberal thinking, but I think more importantly it's because Sony doesn't really have any real responsibility invested in its online environment.

Sony doesn't have working plans in place for supplying premium DLC on a regular basis, nor does it have anything invested in a consistent matchmaking/leaderboard system with gamerscores and skill ranks. It doesn't seem to have any real commitments to other third party publishers at all, and since you don't pay for the online service they couldn't care less how individual games actually work. Or if they do at all. They're completely hands off for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing for Sony, or the PS3. I'm even gonna say it's a very, very cool thing. But I'll also say that when I look at Live and the controlled environment they have going and I think about the fact that I'm paying money to keep it clean, I'm not sure I like the idea of being denied server access time and again because I don't have some map some guy has created. In fact, for every p2p connection you might have to get a new map, new textures, new sounds. And how do you apply official MS leaderboards to a mod? You.. sort of don't.

I mean your mum and dad might be anal about you going to bed before 10 and keeping your room clean and that might be a bummer, but that way you know what to expect.

Then again, because I have a PS3 and a 360 I can just pick and choose the environment I feel like playing in, but I really do get why MS want to be in ultimate control of what goes on on Live, and I see the advantages of that.

(ps: I'm not 7 years old anymore so my analogy is just an analogy in case anyone was wondering :P)

I really need a new girlfriend, because you could just as well have typed something else entirely. :(

Well, to be fair.. the PS3 version of the game will still be slowed down and assaulted with loads of aim assists for the gamepad users.. so I'm not sure it really represents a real viable alternative for a PC gamer. Support for PC servers (not this live anywhere bullshit) and a perfect port would have had me interested.. as is I can only really applaud the support of a keyboard and mouse and user created content.

Still PC for me, all the way.

And I'm not sure what leaderboards have to do with anything Simon. Why would they even have to consider such a thing for a mod? There are PC games with elaborate ranking systems that still support total conversions -- TC's just aren't included in the process. No big deal.

And there are FILTERS in server browsers so you can avoid connecting to servers with new content if that's your thing.. again.. no big deal.

There's really only one issue here. From the Microsoft perspective it's a bit like Apple making iTunes music free. User content on this level devalues premium content (which has no real value to begin with, but they have to keep us from figuring that out). It's the same reason it will take forever to see user access to public XNA software -- and why Forge won't let users create new levels in Halo 3 -- and why Epic wasn't allowed to create free content for Gears of War..

I don't see one positive thing here, from the perspective of the gamer/consumer. For Microsoft, sure.. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out their motive.

Because we're running out of reasons for paying for Live if they're aren't in the games we play. I often see the online implementation for Forza 2 and the statistics in Halo 3 cited as reasons why Xbox Live is so great and worth paying for. If we end up playing a mod more than anything else, you don't think the lack of rankings, statistics and achievements will bother some people?

Even if it doesn't bother people they're still on p2p connection without any of Live's trademark features, paying for the service every year.

So.. paying less for extended value for your games somehow makes live less valuable to the customer? How does that make any sense at all? It doesn't take anything away from the feature set of existing software to support user created content -- it just increases the value of that software for the users -- free of charge. That doesn't devalue the service at all for the consumer, in fact, it would make it more valuable. As it is, we're paying out the ass for premium content in addition to the price of P2P gaming on Xbox Live.

How on earth could the consumer reason that this is somehow better? I honestly don't get it. And lets not fool ourselves here. We're not paying for Bungie's stat tracking, we're paying for peer 2 peer gaming and that's it. If these features were standard across all releases, this still wouldn't be a good point.. but at least it would make more sense.

A small handful of games that support advanced community features somehow devalue free add-on content for the consumer? No.. just.. no. If anything, the pricing of premium content on Xbox Live devalues the service in the end, from the perspective of the consumer. Segregating the community even further devalues the service -- charging for content that developer want to give us for free devalues the service.

Not to Microsoft, granted, but to the consumer. Leaderboards and Stat-tracking? There is no such thing in some of Xbox Live's most popular titles.

If you get mods on there it's a matter of time before someone creates the Counterstrike for the 360. As long as one doesn't exist, the features that are there are good and well, but once they venture out into that area and people catch on to the idea that they're having a better time with something that is completely separate from what they're paying for, I think we'll see faces of dismay.

It's sort of like the multiplayer modes in Metroid Prime 2 and The Darkness. Riddick and Metroid Prime were both praised to bits (though Riddick less than Prime for obvious reasons) and once their respective sequel came out (spiritual successor and otherwise) and featured tacked on multiplayer modes they got all sorts of flak for their *weak multiplayer components*. Added value? Maybe, but it knocked off points!

You know me well enough to know that I'm increasingly sceptical towards the Live fee as is, mainly as a result of seeing how stellar Sony's equivalent manages to be, but I think if you have an entrance fee at your door and people spend all their time playing in your backyard without the indoor perks like, um, food and beverages, they'll soon catch on to the idea that they're paying for nothing.

I don't regard that in itself as a problem though. My problem was what I explained earlier in my previous post about the maps and such. I know filters are supposed to make everything okay, but only a person interested in the more hassle-ridden side of that filter would actually say that.

Because that is always the case. You *CAN* buy a Core if you just wanna play games. You *CAN* avoid paying for the new maps in Halo and the new cars in PGR. Truth is though that the general consensus will be that.. you're pretty much supposed to get the maps and the cars and a premium 360.

When you go with map making the normal maps won't be what "people play", and you'll passively be expected to play the custom stuff because that's what the general community will be doing. I've played PC games for about 10 years, and I've been into the *scene* of games. I loved it, but I loved it because I was into it. I was keeping a close eye on updates all the time. That same sort of devoted community is going to miss the statistics and the rankings and the plethora of features that Xbox Live implements when you're playing by MS' rules.

Refering back to my earlier point about The Darkness and Riddick, it's once it's there people will take notice and complain about its shortcomings. If you feel like that community won't be bothered by the lack of said features and merrily play their mods and maps anyway then okay, I admit defeat. As it is right now, people basically refuse to play unranked games with custom rule sets in Halo 2 and PALE at the mere mention that if you wanna be able to play with friends of yours you need to play Player matches in Gears. It's not that I support that decision on Epic's part, I'm just saying. People aren't enthusiastic about unranked stuff.

But again, I have both consoles, and since I have the choice I guess I'm more prone to feeling like Microsoft can do it one way and Sony another. You prolly shouldn't listen to me.

Also, we won't ever agree on this, so I don't expect you to agree, but this is how I feel about it. :)

edit: argh, word avalanche, look out beloooow!

Ha ha. That is an issue (MS's stance on mods), but lets not forget

a) Epic knows that releasing a shooter in the same timeframe as Halo 3... and CoD4 (CoD2 sold great on the 360)... and Bioshock... just wasn't wise fiscally. And the glut of 2007 fall titles is stupid with GTAIV, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Madden, etc. The game needed to be a summer/spring title, especially because the style of gameplay hasn't been the biggest draw on consoles. But a 2008 doesn't hurt Epic as much as other delays because UT3 looks awesome and will still look awesome in 2008. Not all games can say that. UT3 will sell better in 2008 on the 360 than in 2007.

b) Epic is still mad about Gears of War DLC.

Sure, the mod issue is in there, but I doubt Epic couldn't get MS's attention. Epic has been cranky lately, and I am sure MS being the publisher of TH doesn't help.

That said, MS is really dropping the ball. Their ENTIRE E3 2005 presentation was about playing games your way, customization, etc. They specifically noted creating content on the PC and bringing it over to the Xbox 360.

CLEARLY Sony has beat MS here. Hear that MS? Sony's online network has some features and perks that Live doesn't.

Of course their entire "game your way" speech falls flat when you see all the racing wheels, fighting sticks, flight sticks, game buzzer controllers, and so forth for the 360 yet the most popular FPS format in the world is blocked out intentionally.

Wait -- Simon. You're not disagreeing with me, at least, not where your logic actually makes sense. Microsoft is avoiding this sort of situation because, as I've stated in this very thread, user created content devalues services they offer.. you're just targeting the wrong service. It damages the perception of value for premium DLC, not the Xbox Live network itself..

And you're ignoring the fact that a very small portion of the live enabled library supports these features that are supposedly selling the service to people. Gears of War has no real advanced features.. it lacks match making and many people avoid the stat-tracked ranked system all together because it makes them play with total strangers. So I just don't get how stat tracking and community features being absent from mods could possibly have any impact on the community.

In fact, if you still needed to pay for the online gaming portion of the network, but had additional free content to kick around -- I think that would only benefit the service in how it's perceived by the end user. And regardless of how good or popular a mod gets, people will still appreciate bungie.net's advanced features.

Now premium DLC on the other hand, that's a whole different issue. And here I think we're actually agreeing with each other. It effects the perception (the false perception) that this content has actual value, which is why Forge won't let you make new maps, and why Epic can't give us content for free.. I think that's pretty obvious personally.

In my opinion, premium content has devalued the Xbox Live service itself -- not the other way around. I don't play Gears of War online anymore, not because I don't like the game, but because they've split the community and I refuse to pay for maps that should have been free in the first place. I haven't touched Xbox Live since the Halo 3 beta ended...and user created content.

..and the fact that they've locked out certain vendors from supplying us with better peripherals. No competing force feedback wheel from Logitech, I wonder why? Game your way -- so long as it's our way!

..and cross platform play? Vista only baby, XBOX LIVE ONLY! Remember when UT had cross platform play on Dreamcast? Well I'm pretty sure they prefer you didn't.

This is one way DICE borked BF2. I haven't played since they did the crap booster packs. I love BF2, but I won't even put up a fight for greedy tactics that kill communities. They would be better off charging $1/mo "service" charge and give booster packs away for free.

I agree to a point. But what effect the boosters really had was simply killing off what should have been the second real expansion pack. I take up no issue with expansions, and I actually think Special Forces is pretty great.. but they intentionally kept the boosters from adding any real value to the core game (like SF does, at least potentially, with new unlocks).

And at least they have given us SOME new free content.. and there's a mod community there as well. They've actually just released a new map, so far the third free map we've received.. granted.. this one has in game adverts for the Core 2 processor line!

It's EA's fault. But DICE totally sold out. Also -- I think the booster packs totally flopped. Tons of people still play BF2 and Special Forces.. boosters? Not so much.

Game your way -- so long as it's our way!

Yep. More than one dishonest PR team in the market!

@ Grift

Thing is though, we're paying extra for DLC like you say (and like you say, it does beg the question where the money from the annual fee goes), so the money that we do pay "has to go somewhere". After playing Resistance and Motorstorm on the PS3, the myth that Xbox Live somehow *holds up* better is absolutely and utterly destroyed.

Left are these fabled advanced features that we've yet to see crop up in games apart from Halo 2, Forza and some of the XSN games on the original Xbox.

When the remote promise that soon, games will all have these things by default dies, is when I think MS will have a problem justifying paying to play online.

As long as they can have people believe that it will eventually, they're fine. If a Counterstrike comes out, lacking all of the most fundamental features of Xbox Live's online environment, I think they just teleported themselves forward to a time where that remote promise is irrelevant, as none of that will ever be applied in a mod.

So yeah, I'm surprised to say we.. actually do agree after all.

Unless it's applied by the mod community themselves, much like it's being applied by the developers themselves already.. which.. just stands to add to the confusion.

Glad we got that all cleared up.

There is a propensity here to paint MS as the big bad devil and I won't deny there is an element of that being true but I don't believe it's as simple as that.

Firstly, Halo 3 absolutely has an impact on Epic's decision not to ship UE3 at the same time. It's not the reason but you can bet your bottom dollar it's one of them.

Secondly, there is supposed to be some XNA announcements at Gamefest ( a developers conference later in the year. They've talked repeatedly about the "Youtube for games" and it's what they're working towards. They get it. Show me what the competition is doing in this area. Wii Ware? The cost of entry is more than for XBLA or PSN. The scope of the XNA initiative is far more encompassing and the barriers are orders of magnitudes lower.

Microsoft have a clear strategy for Live and that is in a unified and closed network. I will accept that they haven't pushed the envelope as far as they should, that Live anywhere isn't very good, that "You are the colony" hasn't happened or that much of the PDLC stuff isn't desirable or good for consumers. Hell, I'll even look at the Live subscription with a more critical eye these days.

However,

Once you embark on this path, you can not just open it up to everybody without thinking about it.

Look at what happened to Halo 2 once people worked out to hack the maps. It was horrible and it became riddled with cheaters. It turned me away from a game I played solidly for 8-9 months. Whatever measures you might adopt to combat such bad behaviour, opening up Halo 3 in such a way would be a disaster on Live.

As for user-generated content, that in itself is a challenge. A couple of months ago, somebody made a Nazi-sympathising car in Forza 2. In Germany, that's even illegal. What do you do about such things? When Halo 3 on Live is broken because of the griefing or someone sees something objectionable on Live that somebody else made, who gets the Flak? The creator, or Microsoft?

Ultimately these are questions for which answers need to be found because it is the future. In a perfect world we could all play with our mods happily and those who didn't don't have to and nothing bad happens whilst everyone peacefully co-exists. The problem is, the world isn't perfect. You can be assured that MS are actively trying to get such things happening on Live, they just want the world they built to be a little more perfect than the Wild West that exists else where. Streetwise kids like ourselves know how to look after ourselves but not everyone is so switched on.

Just another perspective. It's a combination of a lot of things. Mods will be coming to UE3 on the 360 in some shape or form. If they were really uber control freaks they would have just canned the idea from the get go.

Lets see it happen first. Rein isn't even convinced they won't try to make them charge for user created content. Which is absolutely over the top. Opening up the network to user created content doesn't open it up to hackers -- hackers will find a way in anyway. Don't think they won't.

Forge, for example, could have been much more than it is.. and it would benefit the community, and the game greatly. You can't convince me that the reason for their "map editor" being so gimped has nothing to do with the perception of value for downloadable content.

I also don't believe it would be as hard as you're suggesting to make these things happen on live. Microsoft is, essentially, a control freak. Just look at the peripheral market.. hell.. just look at computing in general. I'll also believe their intentions for XNA when I see it. Will we ever see a freeware/shareware model on the Xbox 360? Open Source XNA development? Somehow, I doubt it.

One thing though.. I'm not trying to somehow vilify Microsoft here. I have a lot of respect for Bill Gates specifically, and I appreciate their position in the PC industry a lot more than many people who have been following this industry for as long as I have. I know they're a business, and I have no problem with them acting like one.. but I have to look at things from the perspective of the end user, and in cases like these, I can't get on board with their decisions.

Premium DLC, by in large, is damaging the value of gaming overall for the consumer, and the guarding of the perceived value of such a thing is preventing more advanced features from becoming a reality on the platform.