Top
1130°

Microsoft's Chris Satchell Wants to Pay For Your Games

1up's earlier story covered the details of the plan to allow community developers to charge for their creations made with the XNA Game Studios toolset. Chris Satchell, the new chief technology officer of Microsoft's Interactive Entertainment Business Group, announced Xbox Live Community Games during his keynote at the company's Gamefest developer conference.

The story is too old to be commented.
Stryfeno13771d ago

As much as I wont to disagree, but the man has a point.

Shadow Flare3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

If i were Microsoft, i'd shut up because at the core of it all (the online gaming itself) they charge people to use a peer-2-peer networking system. They actually charge for that. PSN says hello with dedicated servers for every 1st party title, 32 player lagless battles, 60 player and 8 player co-op games, and MAG waves its hand too.

harrisk9543771d ago

MS is beginning to sound like that Iraqi press spokesman during the War who kept saying "the Iraqi army is destroying the Americans" as the U.S. was obliterating Iraq and entering Baghdad. It is just so disingenous. Just shut up and do your thing and at the end of the day, we'll see who is the victor. MS should just be happy that they are having a successful time with the 360 in spite of the high failure rate (RRoD) the first 2 years of the cycle.

StephanieBBB3771d ago

Well PSN AT THE MOMENT may be less of an appeal than Live, but as we all know PSN and most of it's content is free, Live is far from it.

ericnellie3771d ago

Anytime some brings up the success of XBOX Live - Fanboys always bring up RROD or the fact that you've to pay for Live! Live is an awesome service with more content and options soon to follow and it's only $50 per year (less than $5 a month). If you want to complain about that small out of money, you might want to sit this generation out;)

Shadow Flare3771d ago

Please explain to me the logic in this:

$50

- Peer2Peer Networking
- Maxes at 16 players
- Lag
- Host advantage
- Lag
- "Host has ended game"
- Lag
- Plenty of verbal abuse to listen to
- Lag

PSN Free-

- Dedicated servers
- (So far) up to 256 player online games
- Lagless games
- Alot of first party games push through the 16 player limit

Also consider in 2 years PSN has many of the major features Xbox Live has. For FREE

Also consider we will be getting Home, which is an amazing product, for FREE

And Xbox fanboys originally thought psn was going to turn out like ps2 online. PSN is only going to get better and better. I see no logic in paying $50 for a crapper PEER-2-PEER networking system, why are you guys PAYING for such a rubbish way of networking

ChampIDC3771d ago

Well, not all games have dedicated servers. Also, you are getting Home...eventually, haha. But yeah, the Playstation Network may have a few less offerings than Live, but hell, it's free, so who can complain really. Not only is it free, but it works. Honestly, the only thing I like about Live over the PS Network is the cross-game voice chat. Other than that, they'd both be the same for me. I don't even use half the crap that Live offers.

Bucky Sligo3771d ago

Host advantage is due to ENGINE CODING, not XBL iteself *sigh

Also, have you forgot about BF Bad Company? How many players are there in a game?

Also, peer2peer is OPTIONAL for the developers. EA games like BF Bad Company uses dedicated servers, even through XBL.

You need to get your facts straight.

"Plenty of verbal abuse to listen to"
Lol! Lets give the same amount of PSN users mics and we'll see ;)

"Host has ended game"
??? WTF are you talking about.

I'm afraid you get what you pay for. PSN is free for a reason. You can kick and scream all you want, when it comes down to quality the XBL experience is on top. Just look at the mess MGO is.

Shadow Flare3771d ago

MGO doesn't use PSN servers at all. It doesn't use PSN servers, it doesn't use PSN ID's...partly what i think is down to keeping MGS4 exclusive to PS3. Konami probably made Sony a compramise to allow MGO to be fully on Konami servers, so Konami get 100% profit from downloads.

Bad Company is not a 1st party game. I said 1st party games use psn servers.

I haven't yet seen a 1st party ps3 game with host advantage and i don't ever think i will

Peer 2 Peer may be optional but a hell of alot of 360 devs use it don't they? You'd think Live's #1 played game online, Halo 3, would use servers. It would have made the game better, and different from Halo 2 as well, if it had more then 16 players.

"Host has ended game" refers to the message we don't see and you do. 1st party ps3 games that use dedicated servers are on continous loops online. No host, no end of game.

Xbox Live may have a little more polish and a couple more bells and whistles, but there is no incentive for me at all to switch to Live. I've used PSN since launch. Its amazing how far its come, and it suits me very, very well. And its free. And it performs online games (definately 1st party games) better and smoother then Live. That $50 should be going into investing some servers for games, not straight into MS's pocket

kwicksandz3771d ago

PSN has lag as well. Its entirely dependant on the clients connection as well as server load, that determines the quality of a connection. And guess what Plenty of ps3 games use P2P as well.

Just cut the BS

Nineball21123771d ago

I seem to see this quite often:

"it's only $50 per year (less than $5 a month). If you want to complain about that small out of money, you might want to sit this generation out;)"

The MAIN reason I went with Sony this gen is because their online is free. I, personally, have an issue with paying for something that should be provided free. I have never played any pc "pay to play" games for that very reason.

I make a comfortable living, so I could certainly afford to pay the $50/yr for it. But, why would I? I could also just throw $4.17 out of my car window every month, but why would I?

I, and many others I'm sure, don't really need all the bells and whistles... we just need the ability to play online with the games we spent $60 on. Are those extras nice? Sure... and Sony is finally stepping up and providing some of them... for free! If I didn't have them, it wouldn't be the end of the world though.

gaffyh3771d ago

It's really sad that MS (more than any other company) needs to diss their competitors to try and get console sales. Really pathetic to see a company go down to that level on a weekly basis. Even in E3, they attacked the PS3 directly by copying most of it's First party casual games and by saying that "this generation the 360 will beat the PS3".

They shouldn't need to do that, and they shouldn't do that. Just make good games and the consoles strong points will show themselves. Unless they're afraid...

Bucky Sligo3771d ago

"MGO doesn't use PSN servers at all. It doesn't use PSN servers, it doesn't use PSN ID's"
Precisely! PSN doesn't have the tight controls XBL have to ensure quality online.
"...partly what i think is down to keeping MGS4 exclusive to PS3."
That doesn't make sense

"Konami probably made Sony a compramise to allow MGO to be fully on Konami servers, so Konami get 100% profit from downloads."
Why would Sony do that since it doesn't benefit Sony? The point is you don't have a clue why Sony did this. Also, Konami had to endure a lot of costs to do the setup this way.

"Peer 2 Peer may be optional but a hell of alot of 360 devs use it don't they?"
Why do you blame XBL then? What about PS3 peer to peer games?

""Host has ended game" refers to the message we don't see and you do. 1st party ps3 games that use dedicated servers are on continous loops online. No host, no end of game."
It takes one minute (if that long) to get a new game, IF you encounter this.

The fact is there is nothing wrong with peer2peer games. I've played Cod4 a LONG time and the lag,lag,lag you have been shouting holds no water. There are endless amounts of available games to join, if you do encounter lag, join another game with no lag...

Bucky Sligo3771d ago

So Sony never said anything bad about Msoft? What world have you been living in?

You also seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Sony copied achievements from Msoft.

The double standards on N4G are amazing

marinelife93771d ago

Which downloadable game content does Xbox live offer that are on a par with.

Warhawk
GT Prologue and Gran Turismo HD
Ratchet and Clank Quest for Booty
Socom
Siren Blood Curse
Tekken 5
Hot Shots Golf
Wipeout HD

PSN has great content without the file size limit. Because every PS3 comes with a hard drive.

DeadIIIRed3771d ago

So what does Live have that PSN doesn't that constitutes $50?

SSCOOLCHEA3771d ago

Most people just wants to go online and play a lag free game for FREE with enough content for the players to have . Most people don't care about all the extras . Why do people complain about the psn ? What so difficult about it ? You can always find what you want and its easy to navigate . People are just finding reason to hate and in there mind since there paying for it . They assumed its better. What a dumbass...

ps...I mean what are you going to tell your Live subscribers ? Our product is inferior to Sony while theres is free where going to charge you for it .... Give me a break. make no sense

dan-boy3771d ago

it's clear you dont know much, and tell lies also! psn doesn't have any lag?? what a load of bollox! unless ofcourse, everyone that uses the psn has super amazing fibre connections and all live in the same region!!

live does have dedicated servers, frontlines has 50player dedicated servers and battlefield uses them also on both consoles. but coming from the fanboy that only two days ago was talking like he was in on the negotiations for the ffvii remake. it's to be expected...

although you do have a pont about first party games. microsoft needs a first party game which has a high player count, and has to run on dedictaed servers because of it.

thewhoopimen3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

Bucky... How difficult is it you think to implement an achievement board online when alot of game already feature in-game achievement unlockables? Not very. You just record unlocked achievements on a static board. That isn't ripping off anybody's "innovation" its a feature akin to recording how many steps you took in Final Fantasy or your favorite weapon in GTA IV recorded online ok? Stop touting that as some high-tech achievement, it is a ridiculous stupid minor feature that only the game addict would care about. Now MS ripping off the Sony dual shock that is an innovation rip. It takes years to perfect a controller design and MS happens to hire people who worked previously on the project. Notice the huge jump difference between Xbox 1 conrollers and Xbox360? Ergonomic designs ripped. Can you even begin to workout how to design a controller from scratch (without 'borrowing' on other's design?). What would you know about haptic design?

SPECTRUX3771d ago

just like jack tretton said in the press conference-we're not going to just put out a bunch of games to say we have the most. quality over quantity

gaffyh3771d ago

@1.13 - Sony don't insult their competitors as much as MS (that's what I was trying to say if you look at my comment), and so far I haven't seen Nintendo insult their competitors at all.

Also Sony copied MS with achievements, but they improved on it, in the Trophy system their are 4 different types of "achievements", as well as a leveling feature. Now MS copied Sony back with the introduction of Medals (when the new dashboard is released).

All I'm saying is MS needs to STFU (also David Reeves from Sony), they talk way too much, Aaron Greenberg talks way too much on his own.

Tomdc3771d ago

*Places hands on hips and waggles finger*

OH no they didn't!

lolz =P

BattleAxe3771d ago

Microsoft should just concentrate on their own system. They continue to show that they have absolutely no class what so ever.

RemmM3771d ago

Seems like MS is very immature. I think they are being overconfident because they got FFXIII. MS should shut up because theres a BIG chance it will backfire.

ericnellie3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

You can say what you want but it's obvious you don't have a Live account. I'm not dogging out anyone - I'm just saying that Live has been great for me so far and $50 a year isn't that bad for me or Live's other MILLIONS of users. You might get 31 agrees for your Live hating comments but when it's all said and done, it's a pretty good service with millions of users and some really great content! Try it, you just might like it ;)

ThanatosDMC3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

Did some ignorant (aka misinformed) people just say the game related online PSN games lagged?!

They obviously havent played the game Warhawk(32) or Resistance (20vs20)vs Gears (lag hax) servers!

You might want to deny it but PLEASE play the freaking games first!

In warhawk massive maps with chaos of fighting and explosions and deaths have absolutely no lag. Why? The answer is the use of "PS3 server clusters".

http://www.engadget.com/200...

Willio3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

Im curious, what has Sony said that dissed MS on a weekly basis with a rotation of multiple execs?

Copying achievements was preety obvious but at least Sony added trophys with extra elements.

Ms copied the crossbar and avatars without improvements.

Copying is fine as long as there is improvements. Whats so new and great about the dashboard? 360 works well just with the blades. Im also curious how the themes people bought will be compensated.

Silver3603771d ago

That is pretty much all he said and you people take that and run off to the front of the fanboy wars. WHY? It is just the truth. He didn't say PSN was bad or broken. Stop drinking the Fanboy Kool Aide

TheDude2dot03771d ago

What really grinds my gears is that Microsoft is doing another form of forcing products on consumers with Live. I know that no one is forced to pay for it, but who the hell that likes to play games never played online?

Online play brings a whole new level to gaming that makes it challenging and more fun than AI. Just look at Grand Theft Auto. They just brought online, and I have to say that it is awesome. Microsoft then decides that since online play is a feature that they could sell, that millions of people would buy just to play it, they put a price on it. If they maybe gave more features for a gold account (like access to betas of 1st party games), maybe it would be worth it. But no. It's only the ability to play online.

DaChinPin3770d ago

Dude, I think you're just delirious. But if you like wasting money for no extras or significant differences then you're in luck because that's what Live is. The PSN has grown a lot and out of the 15-16 million PS3s sold, about 10 million are online. I think that's just about 2-3 million less people online so your "MILLIONS of people online" comment falls flat and owns yourself. In the coming year we'll see the video store get better, and the PS3 getting in-game video. Lets see Live beat that.

+ Show (26) more repliesLast reply 3770d ago
Relcom3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

The fact PSN is free, and they it has only existed for 2 years makes it all the more impressive. Sony has very unique and better quality games over Microsofts quanity. Sony is catching up with Microsoft after every patch, so for them to dismiss Sony as a inferior product is ignorant because if sales trends continue, Microsoft is gonna be looking up at Sony and Nintendo.

Then what are they gonna say?

Ashton3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

360 has 200 games all using unreal engine 3 . So that definitely means 360 games are more unique and different from one another lol,,,,they just might appear to look the same since they all use only one engine in every game. ;)

ChampIDC3771d ago

Haha, it's true. The Unreal Engine 3 is so overused, but who can blame the devs. It's a darn solid engine.

hay3771d ago

XI. Thou shall not diss Playstation Network.

gumgum993771d ago

bubbles to you

@ Ashton how dare you sound like such a fanboy. The open zone is That-A-Way ------------------------------ ---------------------->

jessupj3770d ago (Edited 3770d ago )

I actually think PSN is superious to Live. Please read on before you automatically disagree. What is more important? an online feature or actual online gaming? We get online to play online, not for all the other sugar coated features. Online gaming is the most important feature and most games on the ps3 run on dedicated servers, unlike the p2p system on Live. Therefore, I come to the conclusion PS3 is superiour since on the whole it has much better online gaming, not only that, it's free.

Disagree with me if you like, but I love playing my games online and I really don't care about all the other bells and whistles.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3770d ago
Fishy Fingers3771d ago

When MS offer a free service I'll except their criticism of Sony/Nintendo. It also all depends on what you want, if you simply want to play your games online Sony actually offers more dedicated servers.

MS offers more bells and whistles yes, but as a cost. The core of online gaming is exactly that, online gaming. The rest is nice but not needed by everyone.

kazuma3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

totally true, they're basically saying "hey we've milked ppl 50 bucks a year for like 5 years and we used that money to make our service better! those FREE services u see at nintendo and sony aren't even on the same level!" maybe because ppl didn't pay for them?

ChampIDC3771d ago

Yeah, bashing another console really does nothing but scar their reputation. They should just stick to promoting what they have, not what others don't have.

fenderputty3771d ago

what else can they say. They HAVE to take the stance that their service is superior, otherwise they could not justify charging people for it. Even if the PSN were equal or above the quality that is XBOX live, MS would still have to say it's superior to charge for it.

xJxdOggyStYLe3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

people complain and cry about the 50 bux a year....xbox live service is like blizzards world of warcraft...they are always updating with new content ..and inovating (netflix,new dashboard) how software is used on our hardware / consoles ..how about the 2.40 patch screw up..ouch....that has never happend on xbox....and psn is VERY slow it takes me 30 mins to download 500 meg on psn.....takes me about 8-10 mins to download same amount on xbox live...live is much faster for downloads....hey psn IS free and good thing it is cuz i def wouldnt pay for that service they are offering now...its not worth anything BUT free...this is there first real try at online gaming(sony playstation) so im glad they are taken steps are realizing as msoft did last gen..that online gaming is now...i dont wanna play computers and invite people to my house to play splitscreen...zzzz...i have both systems...and if a game is multi platform released i ALWAYS get it on xbox cuz live is so much better...easier to use...and people have mics and talk...work together....not being biased here.....just saying i own both systems and live is leaps and bounds better in term of online use and play... i have 3 ps3 games and 48 xbox 360 games...heh

ZombieNinjaPanda3771d ago

How fast is your connection?

I download 1000mb of stuff and it rarely takes me more than 15 mins.

poopsack3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

you say you pay for live cause they update stuff like software and hardware through that? Oh and PSN is just sitting there right? I guess the new store interface, new in game xmb and in game music options, trophies and video store are a figment of my imagination then. Also the added capability with the PS Eye and Remote Play. I guess thats not innovation to you.

Im not being biased either, because I respect how Microsoft has made such a powerful online service, Im just not gonna let you downplay the PSN like if it was at Wiiconnect24 levels. You say you get your multiplats on xbox cause live is easier, but clearly you barely recognize PSN's functionality. Because other than Cross game voice chat, cross game invites and voice messaging, there is not much more that live has that PSN hasnt matched. Also, Home is coming... someday. lol

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3771d ago
Yi-Long3771d ago (Edited 3771d ago )

... Both Xbox Live and Sony's online could be better.

XBL is too expensive, and Sony lacks a bit but is free.
Both have their good and bad points, and it depends on the gamers and the games which is their preferred online option...

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the mud-slinging. It would be nice if the industry would mature a bit and just focus on improving their own products/services, instead of all this schoolyard yapping about how bad the competition is.

gamerosity3771d ago

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Yi. If I could afford it, I would get both systems. But I don't, I have a PS3, and am pleased with it and PSN, although I know it needs to keep improving and am happy that it does. I also know folks who have a 360 and are pleased with their online service as well, and from the things I've read, I would agree that they have an advantage over Sony with their online services. Why the corporate heads choose to act juvenile in touting their services while disparaging the others is beyond me. The competition is good for consumers, but the childish bickering is what breeds "fanboys", the silliness trickles down from them.

Nervz3771d ago

What's there to complain about, what an idiot.

Seriously...quit talking MS and let your online do the talking, otherwise you look desperate.

DOOMZ3771d ago

The talk is just for MASSIVE DAMAGE!!!

GarandShooter3770d ago

He was speaking mostly of XBL having a ton of content which they do.
What he failed to say was that 99% of it should have been flushed with my morning ritual after I drink my morning coffee. Let's focus on quality, not quantity.