Microsoft's refusal to allow free updates to games has been a sticking point for a number of developers - such as Valve, which chose to simply stop supporting Team Fortress 2 on the 360 rather than charge for content updates. Gabe Newell went on label Xbox Live policies "a train wreck."
"Damnit man! If you wont accept this free ice cream without asking to pay for it, I'm not going to give you this ice cream at all!"
^--- That's what I believe most Xbox Live fans think of when they think of Valve refusing to update TF2.
It sucks we have to pay for major updates, however most Devs need to realize we are more than willing to pay for them if we like the game.
Seriously, I still don't see Valve's line of logic. "If you wont let us be generous to you we aren't going to give you what you want... Even if you're willing to pay for it."
I am not willing to pay for updates. Updates fix broken games, why would you have to pay for that? Even Microsoft doesn't charge for years of updates to Windows.
Shoggoth2588: Slightly off-topic question to the people who bought Minecraft 360; can you play it offline? I've been burned before by content that can't be played offline like TMNT Arcade and, Bring Down the Sky (which keeps me from playing ME1 at all offline)
This sounds more like a DRM issue. Try transferring all of your DRM to your current console. I had that same issue with a few games recently, and this fixed it right up.
Coldster: I hope they keep doing updates every now and then to try and keep up with the still superior PC version of Minecraft. That would be nice.
...and so the whole pc vs. console battle is decided. OT: I don't own an Xbox, but wtf Microsoft. It's really as bad as all the paranoid people claim.
Well, as a Xbox gamer, its true. We can't download the mods or of those texture packs. Plus it seems we can't actually do as much as we can in the Xbox 360 Minecraft. Maybe its just that they haven't updated it yet, but so far its true. That's all I meant.
Microsoft's refusal to allow free updates to games has been a sticking point for a number of developers - such as Valve, which chose to simply stop supporting Team Fortress 2 on the 360 rather than charge for content updates. Gabe Newell went on label Xbox Live policies "a train wreck."
"Damnit man! If you wont accept this free ice cream without asking to pay for it, I'm not going to give you this ice cream at all!"
^--- That's what I believe most Xbox Live fans think of when they think of Valve refusing to update TF2.
It sucks we have to pay for major updates, however most Devs need to realize we are more than willing to pay for them if we like the game.
Seriously, I still don't see Valve's line of logic. "If you wont let us be generous to you we aren't going to give you what you want... Even if you're willing to pay for it."
I believe it's a matter of principle, Gabe doesn't like Microsoft, and who can blame him.
People love Valve for being incredibly consumer friendly, so they stick to those ethics.
Hammeroj: I'm just annoyed that the Xbox version of Minecraft is even a real thing. After making dozens of millions, Notch's top priority is getting the game on as many platforms as possible instead of finally starting to develop content at a not-snail-like pace.
P.S. Minecraft on the Xbox360 sucks.
How does it suck on the 360? Granted, I havent really played the game much, but I was considering picking it up on the 360, because one of my boys might really be interested in it. So, I am highly uninformed when it comes to the game. Any further input on that comment would be helpful, so I will know if I should spend any money on this or not.
Hammeroj: I'm just annoyed that the Xbox version of Minecraft is even a real thing. After making dozens of millions, Notch's top priority is getting the game on as many platforms as possible instead of finally starting to develop content at a not-snail-like pace.
P.S. Minecraft on the Xbox360 sucks.
How does it suck on the 360? Granted, I havent really played the game much, but I was considering picking it up on the 360, because one of my boys might really be interested in it. So, I am highly uninformed when it comes to the game. Any further input on that comment would be helpful, so I will know if I should spend any money on this or not.
It's a year-old, even more basic version of the game than it is already. Plus, the map is literally the size of a 1000x1000 square. You run into invisible walls if you try to leave that square.
That would be enough, but why stop there. I seriously doubt mods are present on the Xbox360 on any level. Minecraft without mods is seriously dull and shallow, unless you're into the creative mode.
As a personal pet peeve, I hate it when any sort of an FPS is being made on a console. The wooden aiming just kills me.
Hammeroj: I'm just annoyed that the Xbox version of Minecraft is even a real thing. After making dozens of millions, Notch's top priority is getting the game on as many platforms as possible instead of finally starting to develop content at a not-snail-like pace.
P.S. Minecraft on the Xbox360 sucks.
How does it suck on the 360? Granted, I havent really played the game much, but I was considering picking it up on the 360, because one of my boys might really be interested in it. So, I am highly uninformed when it comes to the game. Any further input on that comment would be helpful, so I will know if I should spend any money on this or not.
It's a year-old, even more basic version of the game than it is already. Plus, the map is literally the size of a 1000x1000 square. You run into invisible walls if you try to leave that square.
That would be enough, but why stop there. I seriously doubt mods are present on the Xbox360 on any level. Minecraft without mods is seriously dull and shallow, unless you're into the creative mode.
As a personal pet peeve, I hate it when any sort of an FPS is being made on a console. The wooden aiming just kills me.
I've been playing MineCraft using an xbox 360 controller and Pinnicle since I bought the game way back when it went beta has always worked great. That said I would never think of actually playing the game on the xbox, some people just must not have computers... how sad.
I choose to see this as a herald of some unannounced policy shift. Sure it'll have to be forced at first, but at least it means it can be done. Very interesting to see how they've handled it, good to see Mojang fighting hard-ball, maybe Bethesda's taught them something.
OK. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the article regarding Microsoft's XBLA policies.
Well, it is, because Microsoft's XBLA policies would normally make the updates he's referring to impossible. It's actually directly addressing the article.
The point of the article is that Minecraft is being allowed to bypass all of the limitations Microsoft places on every other Live title. Saying that Minecraft "needs" that bypass is not relevant, because there have been other titles which would have "needed" that bypass, such as TF2.
Umm it is relevant. Here's why. Minecraft updates one hell of a lot. A lot more than any other LIVE Market game. TF2 is a full freaking game that couldn't even get these bypasses.
The point of the article (as read in the Title) is to show that MS is literally creating an unfair market with preferential rules for just Minecraft. Had it not been for these rule changes Mincraft would not be on the LIVE marketplace. Period.
Less about favoritism, which I first thought, and more about Microsoft desperately wanting a piece of the somehow still impressive sales bucket that is Minecraft. That Notch was able to barter for things in his favor is impressive.
It's kind of lame that Minecraft gets special treatment. The really weird/sad part is that the things that are considered special treatment are things that ideally should be fairly standard and not special at all. When distribution is completely digital and everything is tracked in an automated way, getting sales info to people should be almost trivial to do in near-real-time, and this update policy nonsense got old years ago...
It's not that the sales data would be difficult for MS to hand out, and it definitely wouldn't lose them any money whatsoever to allow free or nearly free updates as an option for developers. It's just another way for them to exert their control and dominance. When something with enough power like Minecraft comes along, Microsoft can't play the "we're doing you a favor" card. So they hand out the stuff that should be standard as gifts to the VIPs.
Microsoft does not allow free updates because every time somebody wants to create an update it costs microsoft money. They have to check and approve every single update to make sure it works. They then allow you to use their bandwidth to download said update.
Microsoft does not allow free updates because every time somebody wants to create an update it costs microsoft money. They have to check and approve every single update to make sure it works. They then allow you to use their bandwidth to download said update.
The exceptions make the game possible, its a shame ps3 users dont get it. right now it doesnt have texture packs or mods, as it is on console, and they plan on putting these in through updates. This convinced me to buy the game as without mods and texture packs it wouldnt be worth the cash. Microsoft dont allow constant updates for free as it would cause every problem to be fixed when it appeared and it would be inconvenient, plus it encourages devs to have everything sorted on launch, they do allow the first update free which is fair as it helps route out the big bugs, however it means game such as new vegas dont get fixed and they are still pretty dodgy. Charging is scummy though. If they wanted to limit it then they could easily implement a time basis or simply give them a set amount. I doubt they like breaking this fairness, either that or it really does cost em if they had difficulty getting it on minecraft. I can understand why they show such favouritism, they probably want to make a good relationship with notch and they want such records published quick as was the case with trials i presume, though how they show it simply fixes an issue they have anyway.
Microsoft's refusal to allow free updates to games has been a sticking point for a number of developers - such as Valve, which chose to simply stop supporting Team Fortress 2 on the 360 rather than charge for content updates. Gabe Newell went on label Xbox Live policies "a train wreck."
"Damnit man! If you wont accept this free ice cream without asking to pay for it, I'm not going to give you this ice cream at all!"
^--- That's what I believe most Xbox Live fans think of when they think of Valve refusing to update TF2.
It sucks we have to pay for major updates, however most Devs need to realize we are more than willing to pay for them if we like the game.
Seriously, I still don't see Valve's line of logic. "If you wont let us be generous to you we aren't going to give you what you want... Even if you're willing to pay for it."
I am not willing to pay for updates. Updates fix broken games, why would you have to pay for that? Even Microsoft doesn't charge for years of updates to Windows.
The updates on windows are part of the package, I assumed so since they need to make it compatible with most programs and that would need constant tinkering.
"Damnit man! If you wont accept this free ice cream without asking to pay for it, I'm not going to give you this ice cream at all!"
^--- That's what I believe most Xbox Live fans think of when they think of Valve refusing to update TF2.
It sucks we have to pay for major updates, however most Devs need to realize we are more than willing to pay for them if we like the game.
Seriously, I still don't see Valve's line of logic. "If you wont let us be generous to you we aren't going to give you what you want... Even if you're willing to pay for it."
I am not willing to pay for updates. Updates fix broken games, why would you have to pay for that? Even Microsoft doesn't charge for years of updates to Windows.
The updates on windows are part of the package, I assumed so since they need to make it compatible with most programs and that would need constant tinkering.
The updates for games are also part of the package. What's the difference?
I am not willing to pay for updates. Updates fix broken games, why would you have to pay for that? Even Microsoft doesn't charge for years of updates to Windows.
Thing is, patches to fix glitches in the game are completely free, it's not THOSE updates everyone is complaining about. It's the fact that Xbox 360 TF2 players have been, on a whole, completely ignored, there hasn't been a single update to include new weapons or maps or anything like that. After playing 2fort for the hundredth time, you honestly start to get tired of the game.
Grey Day for Elcia: Minecraft on PC: mods, custom worlds, adventure maps and texture packs.
Minecraft on 360: .............
Irrelevant flamebaiting is irrelevant. Though I have Minecraft on the PC, I would have liked a PS3 version, considering the 360 version has both a split-screen option and the ability to invite friends into my world via a friends list.
On topic, from what I've seen so far, Minecraft on the 360 looks like it's built on a version before the adventure update. It would suck for the Xbox players to pay for an incomplete version AND have to fork over more for extra content (read: the rest of the actual game). Kudos to notch for getting Microsofts heard out of their arse, however brief it may be.
I can understand why it'd be frustrating for every other company releasing games on XBLA, y'know, seeing Minecraft being treating all special-like, but I'm certainly not complaining. Even if Minecraft only gets a set number of free updates, it's certainly better than paying for every single one. Yes, I'm completely bias, what can I say?
Having said that however, it'd be nice to see Microsoft start allowing a set number of free updates or being a bit faster when it comes to releasing sales stats, period. So, speak up disgruntled companies, speak up!
Yeah, I know it's not gonna happen anytime soon what with Microsoft desperate to snag one good exclusive-- wait, let me add something..."exclusive" title to their library. I mean, take away Halo, GoW and L4D and the 360 is doomed! For being the company who paid millions of dollars to keep it a 360 exclusive, they're not doing a good job at wowing people.
(Alright, I sounded like a cheap PS3 fanboy. Sorry, people. I'm just pissed at the fact that I can't get it for my console. And I'm not very PC friendly. So yeah.)
Captcha: Hot diggity dog. You know, I feel stupid for typing stuff like that. At least the old captcha allowed up to come up with Lord Inglip memes.
Grey Day for Elcia: Minecraft on PC: mods, custom worlds, adventure maps and texture packs.
Minecraft on 360: .............
Irrelevant flamebaiting is irrelevant. Though I have Minecraft on the PC, I would have liked a PS3 version, considering the 360 version has both a split-screen option and the ability to invite friends into my world via a friends list.
On topic, from what I've seen so far, Minecraft on the 360 looks like it's built on a version before the adventure update. It would suck for the Xbox players to pay for an incomplete version AND have to fork over more for extra content (read: the rest of the actual game). Kudos to notch for getting Microsofts heard out of their arse, however brief it may be.
Stating my perceived pros for each version is flame baiting? Try again.
OK. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the article regarding Microsoft's XBLA policies.
Well, it is, because Microsoft's XBLA policies would normally make the updates he's referring to impossible. It's actually directly addressing the article.
The point of the article is that Minecraft is being allowed to bypass all of the limitations Microsoft places on every other Live title. Saying that Minecraft "needs" that bypass is not relevant, because there have been other titles which would have "needed" that bypass, such as TF2.
The thesis of the article, such as it is, does not command all possible discussion on that topic. His comment is relevant. It is not a comprehensive response to the article, but it is appropriate for the purposes of engendering free discussion after the fact.
Hammeroj: I'm just annoyed that the Xbox version of Minecraft is even a real thing. After making dozens of millions, Notch's top priority is getting the game on as many platforms as possible instead of finally starting to develop content at a not-snail-like pace.
P.S. Minecraft on the Xbox360 sucks.
well severel things, maybe he wants to get it to as many people as possible
and no it doesn't suck, it is essential the exact same game with simplified crafting
I am not willing to pay for updates. Updates fix broken games, why would you have to pay for that? Even Microsoft doesn't charge for years of updates to Windows.
The updates on windows are part of the package, I assumed so since they need to make it compatible with most programs and that would need constant tinkering.
The updates for games are also part of the package. What's the difference?
Windows is an operating system, it must update as it has to be able to handle new things otherwise it would become obsolete very quickly. You buy a game and your done, unless they add new things through update sor DLC. An operating system such as windows has to evolve by necessity, most games dont need to have all their bugs fixed do they? Very few games have game breaking glitches and those tend to get fixed. Updates dont just fix broken games, they update them, to say they just fix faults is simplistic.
SayHelloToMrBullet: Wait a second, console users have to pay for updates!? Am I interpreting this wrong or is this for real? (I'm a PC guy so I wouldn't know)
For content updates, not patches.
Yes, sadly XBLA remains the most used platform despite being the worst invention still in production.
On the other hand, not telling the sales numbers to the developer should be considered criminal offence, as they are basically hiding vital information.
ablac: The updates on windows are part of the package, I assumed so since they need to make it compatible with most programs and that would need constant tinkering.
The updates for games are also part of the package. What's the difference?
Windows is an operating system, it must update as it has to be able to handle new things otherwise it would become obsolete very quickly. You buy a game and your done, unless they add new things through update sor DLC. An operating system such as windows has to evolve by necessity, most games dont need to have all their bugs fixed do they? Very few games have game breaking glitches and those tend to get fixed. Updates dont just fix broken games, they update them, to say they just fix faults is simplistic.
Grey Day for Elcia: Minecraft on PC: mods, custom worlds, adventure maps and texture packs.
Minecraft on 360: .............
Irrelevant flamebaiting is irrelevant. Though I have Minecraft on the PC, I would have liked a PS3 version, considering the 360 version has both a split-screen option and the ability to invite friends into my world via a friends list.
On topic, from what I've seen so far, Minecraft on the 360 looks like it's built on a version before the adventure update. It would suck for the Xbox players to pay for an incomplete version AND have to fork over more for extra content (read: the rest of the actual game). Kudos to notch for getting Microsofts heard out of their arse, however brief it may be.
Stating my perceived pros for each version is flame baiting? Try again.
Won't drag this on, but the "PC= MOAR, Xbox= Shit"(paraphrased) post is a bit of a no brainer in regards to how people will react (particularly people who have Xboxes and actually, if you can believe this, Like Minecraft on it). Whether you meant it or not, you flamebaited.
FYI, PC and PS3 are my primary platforms. So no fanboy nonsense here.
Minecraft on PC: mods, custom worlds, adventure maps and texture packs.
Minecraft on 360: .............