900°

CS:GO - Doomed on Xbox 360, but Not the PS3

Counter Strike: Global Offensive has just been announced, but how will it fare on the Xbox 360 with Microsoft and their infamous update approval system?

Bigpappy4671d ago (Edited 4671d ago )

I love predictions. It is another word for 'guess work'.

I did not read the article because the title sounds like a baseless comparison, that only exsist because fanboys fight over the 2 systems.

But don't let me stop yah.

ddurand14671d ago (Edited 4671d ago )

seriously. if you had read the article you would have seen what a reasonable, well thought out article it was.

it makes alot of sense. its a shame you missed it. but i guess thats what fanboy tunnelvision will do to you.

Agent_hitman4671d ago

The title is interesting, It's obvious that two words are appropriate for this "Bragging Rights"

gamingdroid4671d ago

You do know that the reason why MS puts a restriction on the patch size, frequency and quality is to ensure devs don't ship you a broken game they intend to fix later by using you as a beta tester.

We don't want patches to fix broken games repeatedly or worse patches to fix patches!!!

Yup, it has happened.

mastiffchild4671d ago

@gamingdroid-you ARE having a giraffe, aren't you? Since when did ANY Bethesda game launch this generation on 360(or anywhere else) than wasn't glitchy as all hell and, for many, plain broken pre patches? If what you say is true then just how bad does a game need to be before MS consider it a paid for beta? All it REALLY means is shedloads of LITTLE patches rather than sorting out en masse surely?

Has MS allowed Valbve to have mods imported to L4D1 and 2 on 360 that game would have been comparable to the greatness it is on PC and as PS3 had us cooking over UT3 mods I fail to see the harm in it happening over Live too and PSN more often in future-why ever not? I don;t think MS have to be so heavy handed in trying to get a bit of every DLC pie on Live do they? It wouldn't cost or hurt them and they'd get great PR from, it.

Allow console gamers to cook over PC mods for some games-it can work and hurts nobody.

Fanboyism shouldn't, either, come into this and /MS have a great chance to show Gabe that what he intimated on Sony's stage last year about closed off Live need not always be the case. Prove him wrong and make a lot of curious 360 gamers happy-and , Sony, do more like UT3. Any news of a WiiU CSGO? Mods allowed with friend codes?

OH, I'm guessing what's in the article as it won't load for my phone for some reason. I always wondered why we didn't get to see more mods brought over to console too.

MrBeatdown4671d ago

@gamingdroid

You're saying it like it's a good thing.

It's a pretty poor attempt to prevent the release buggy games. If Microsoft is really that concerned about buggy games, they should approve the games pre-release, not limit the amount of fixes. Prevent the problem, not the solution.

fr0sty4671d ago (Edited 4671d ago )

gamingdroid, I agree with you that it does put pressure on the devs to get it right the first time, however there are certain instances where it can get in the way. We've heard devs say before how they are limited by how much free DLC they can give away on 360, and that's likley because of this regulation saying they can only have so many patches (free dlc would likely be considered in that category). So, it's a double edged sword.

For instance:

""The Free Roam Pack was originally planned as a free download, but due to the platform networks' restrictions on numbers of free packs we can give away (and our promise to bring you the free Hunting and Trading Outfits Pack"..."

Quoted from R* games.

badz1494671d ago

"You do know that the reason why MS puts a restriction on the patch size, frequency and quality is to ensure devs don't ship you a broken game they intend to fix later by using you as a beta tester."

WHAT A LOT OF CRAP!

Aggesan4671d ago

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Steam support which the ps3 probably will have and the 360 won't. That's another major reason to favour the ps3 version over the 360.

bayport4671d ago

Is he suggesting that SONY doesn't have a stupid QA process like Microsoft?

Well he's wrong.....PS3 exclusives have to deal with the same bullcrap. It's just how consoles are.

gamingdroid4671d ago (Edited 4671d ago )

@mastiffchild

***If what you say is true then just how bad does a game need to be before MS consider it a paid for beta? All it REALLY means is shedloads of LITTLE patches rather than sorting out en masse surely?***

Obviously it doesn't prevent buggy games, but it certainly makes you think twice about shipping a buggy game you have limited ability to fix.

@MrBeatdown

***If Microsoft is really that concerned about buggy games, they should approve the games pre-release, not limit the amount of fixes. Prevent the problem, not the solution.***

Obviously MS testing their third party games aren't realistic. However, if you read developers report they all speak very highly and how rigorous of MS testing methods and certification process.

@fr0sty

***gamingdroid, I agree with you that it does put pressure on the devs to get it right the first time, however there are certain instances where it can get in the way.***

Thank you for being neutral. You are right, it can swing the other way as it has in many instances. Absolute rules are rarely if ever perfect. All I'm saying is with the bad, comes the good.

***Quoted from R* games.***

Why not just add everything into one pack? Which is what R* did.

Also, although it seems reasonable to guess MS since they have a history of being more strict, it was never specified in the original source, which is R* press release. It simply said "platform networks restrictions"... it could have been another platform.

source: http://www.rockstargames.co...

I certainly don't want gazillion patches to a broken game, that said I have seen far too many patches on many games on Xbox 360... so it seems MS is more liberal with some titles than others.

MrBeatdown4671d ago (Edited 4671d ago )

@gamingdroid

"Obviously MS testing their third party games aren't realistic. However, if you read developers report they all speak very highly and how rigorous of MS testing methods and certification process."

But is it any more realistic to expect that a developer's QA could find and squash every bug and glitch that millions of users could potentially find over a period of months?

Fact is, hindering solutions (the number of patches and free DLC packs) does not solve problems. Sony, as far as I know, puts no limits on patches, yet PS3 games aren't any worse off than 360 games.

If lazy devs releasing buggy games really was a problem, those devs should be held accountable, rather than restricted to how much, and how often, they can fix their game. If Microsoft was really serious about it, and knew a dev's previous game was unusually buggy, they'd bar that developer from releasing their next game on 360 without proving there was significant improvement in their QA.

And, it wasn't directed at me, but you said... "Why not just add everything into one pack? Which is what R* did."

There's a simple answer to that. Because then it can limit the free content to paying customers. Rockstar was forced to bundle free content with a paid expansion, which essentially defeated the purpose of free DLC. You can't tell me that is in any way good for the gamer.

Limits on patches just aren't a good thing. RDR and Team Fortress shows it's a hindrance to devs trying to enhance an already great experience. Fallout: NV and a slew of multiplayer games show it isn't a deterrent or an effective preventative means to keep bugs to a minimum. And PS3 games prove it isn't necessary to keep devs from releasing shotty games.

And worst of all, if a dev is limited in the number of patches they can issue, they will use them sparingly. They can't issue immediate, small fixes because they need to hold off until they can squash a number of bugs. That just means players have to deal with bugs longer, as a dev waits until releasing a patch is worthwhile.

gypsygib4671d ago

@gamingdroid:

Just as many or more 360 games ship with bugs, Crysis 2 for example has a horrible grain bug that Crytek won't fix - probably because it will cost them money to release the patch!

evrfighter4670d ago (Edited 4670d ago )

As much as I hate ps3 fanboys and enjoy it when they nerdrage. Gabe is singlehandedly changing the way we game. If there were one developer that led the way this gen it would be him.

In this case the ps3 will have the full support of Valve. That much is confirmed. The only way It'll work on 360 is if Gabe can get M$ to pry the lid off their closed sytem they have now. If he does that he deserves a statue.

But for some reason I don't see cs doing too well on 360 to begin with. I see 360 gamers as gamers that need their aim bots. They probably couldn't handle the amount of skill that's involved with cs anyway.

PirateThom4670d ago

Microsoft's patch size restriction has nothing to do with QA, it's to do with the fact they have consoles that either lack a HDD entirely or have very limited space.

The patch size limit is just another problem caused by Microsoft's lack of foresight.

Karum4670d ago

Yeah no need for all those patches to fix game breaking bugs and glitches in every COD game that gets released every year.

Basically anyone that plays those games online is an ongoing beta tester.

OhMyGandhi4670d ago

Although Bigpappy sounds rather paranoid in his assumption of a flamebait article, I must admit that the title sounds more biased then it actually is.

great read though!

pixelsword4670d ago (Edited 4670d ago )

@ gamingdroid:

Nice try.

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 4670d ago
meetajhu4671d ago (Edited 4671d ago )

dude read the article first. It clearly states Microsoft restriction to allow frequent updates otherwise it will end up being like a broken game like Black Ops or cods. None of the games are 100% perfect even with 10 patches.

gamingdroid4671d ago (Edited 4671d ago )

You do know that the reason why MS puts a restriction on the patch size, frequency and quality is to ensure devs don't ship you a broken game they intend to fix later by using you as a beta tester.

We don't want patches to fix broken games repeatedly or worse patches to fix patches!!!

Yup, it has happened.

limewax4671d ago

Lol you sure it isn't because after an update is of a certain size, or contains too many free gifts, MS charge you for it? Since, y'know....It's happened in the past

miDnIghtEr4670d ago

But COD Black Ops isn't broken. Maybe on the PS3, but why would you play it on PSN? I've never seen crazy glitches and bugs while playing Black Ops and they hot fix the game all the time.

Counter Strike was doomed ever since it was announced as an Xbox Live arcade game... make it a real game. Not an arcade game.

TKCMuzzer4671d ago

Surely your using 'guess work' in your comment if you have not read the article.

TheXgamerLive4671d ago

myself and the "inteligent" owners of an XBOX 360 would like the system to stay closed like it is now and has always been.
why?
It's arguably the best gaming system there is, much much better than ps3 and pc.
The Xbox LIVE feature is closed and will not go down for months like ps3/psn and pc has no organization for online and always always always has bugs errors etc... and rarely plays a game smoothly.

This is hands down a no brainer and will make more sence to those that appose it in the next couple of years with the next X gaming system.

KratosGod34671d ago (Edited 4671d ago )

@XGamer
Your comment is a joke, Right???

TheXgamerLive4671d ago

You mean like you and your bubbles are?