What has chat and invites got to do with whether the games play well online?

I'm saying there is no difference in the experience of playing a PS3 game online or playing a 360 game online except for the fact that 70% at least don't use headsets which is kind of a bummer. I think if sony would just release a headset that said "I'm the official headset, buy me!" people wouldn't be so reluctant.

They won't for the pure and simple reasons that Xbox Live policies, both public and internal specifically prohibit any publisher charging for content that is free on other platforms. The publisher in this case being Midway. Not that I've ever seen Rein give any kind of inclination that they'll try to charge for it. The issue is one of certification. I.e. how do we allow user-generated content on a closed platform without giving those with malicious intent an opportunity to screw stuff up for everyone else, how do we make sure content doesn't break the game, infringe on copyright, break any laws etc.

The PC gaming world is a very different one to the console one for better or worse. Of course hackers/cheaters find ways anyway but it's daft to think such possibilities aren't magnified like 100 times if a free reign is given to mods and it's poorly implemented. If they're going to do this, it needs to be done right. This isn't the PC space.I never said it had nothing to do with it, it's just not the only reason. If there is one thing you can say about Bungie, like Epic is that they are pretty good to their fans. From what I can tell, the matchmaking population is very important to them. If there is anything they would want to protect, it's that.How many times to they have to talk about the XNA stuff for you to believe it?! You are entitled to your cynicism of course but they've said it enough times, it's where they're headed ultimately. They're just working out a way to get there and putting a lot more thought into it than the other two platform vendors at that.

They've adopted a particular strategy/direction for Live which you can either fundamentally agree with or disagree with. I.e. a closed network or an open network. They have their reasons for that, some of then purely fiscal as you point out but I don't believe they are so short sighted as to purposely make it difficult for Epic to make user-generated content available on the 360 purely to protect premium DLC. It's not about that because if it's free somewhere else, there is no way they'll charge for it here. If the idea of UGC was a non-starter the game wouldn't be on the platform and they have let Sony moneyhat Epic for the "exclusive."

Flame them by all means for doing it the "Microsoft" way if you like but to frame the UT3 delay as a result of them trying to protect some kind of business just doesn't make any sense. There was clearly a large element of that with the row over Gears maps but not here.

Elderscrolls Oblivion already proves this to be untrue.It may not be the only reason, but I suspect it's the most significant. I also don't think there's much evidence to suggest that this would seriously endanger the match-making population. And what about all of those other customizations to the multiplayer game? And now you can advertise/search for private rooms.. wouldn't this endanger the match-making population as well? Their publisher wants them to protect future DLC, this has to be an issue.I know that we're going to see XNA software--but I also don't doubt that there will be some sort of charge involve, and that it will have to pass certification.

Also, having a closed network doesn't mean they have to nickle and dime the consumer--there was free content on the original Xbox, remember? This whole trend started w/ the original map packs for Halo 2.. and it's effecting the whole industry. I don't see what's wrong with being critical of that which harms the consumer, and segregates online communities.

Clearly there is an issue here when it comes to user created content, and part of that issue is protecting the concept of premium DLC. Mods really aren't the instant-in that hackers are looking for.. I don't believe that's a significant part of the issue at all. I'll be damned if people don't cheat in Halo 3.

Also...

Fair one, I hadn't seen the quote from Rein. Regarding Oblivion, that was before the policy I'm referring to was in place. If the same situation was to occur now, they wouldn't let Bethseda charge as I understand it.

I really don't think if user-created mods showed up in some form on Live they would allow Midway to charge for them. Unlike Gears, Microsoft are not the publisher for UT3 nor are they the publisher of the DLC. There is nothing, repeat nothing that prevents any third party publisher putting free content on the marketplace. It's simply not MS's call here.

Again, I'm going on official documentation that all third party developers get when I say that.

As for Bungie, Microsoft is their publisher and Halo 3 is they're biggest title. I don't dispute there are probably plans in place for premium content. What I don't buy is that the only reason Forge isn't a full map editor is because of this. If Halo 3 is going to be compromised online anyway, surely the potential for that is increased by introducing such a feature. It would be a hard thing to do right if you don't have much experience in doing this kind of thing before. (Halo Vista,PC were ports, doesn't count)

There will already be enough tits online setting up Forge maps with spawn points totally unfair to one team so they can "shoot noobz" all day.

Despite being owned by Microsoft, Bungie do not have a history of ripping us off.

Again I'll emphasize, I don't doubt premium content is in the works somewhere or that such things aren't thought about. But there wasn't a conversation at Bungie like "Hey we have this really cool map editor but we need to gimp it because then we can't charge for downloadable maps" and I don't believe the UT3 delay has anything to do with wanting to charge for user created mods.

The certification stuff is what it is, it has it's drawbacks and it's benefits.

Fair enough, though I don't see why it wouldn't be free by now.. especially with the GOTY edition on the horizon. But you claim MS doesn't have influence over third parties here.. (although, they did make Bizarre charge for GeoWars, technically a third party title, isn't it?)

A controlled a local map editor wouldn't lead to more exploits in match-making, where it mattered.. so I don't see how that could be the real issue. I honestly don't think that Bungie is incapable of creating a map editor that allows you to create new geometry from a predefined set of tiles. I know they have that capability, even terrain deformation, they are simply choosing not to include those features.. and really.. I don't see how it would further compromise Halo, or deplete the match-making community anymore than the custom features they're already supporting. It's not like these maps would ever leave the console domain, or like maps would be imported from the PC.

And yea, Bungie does have that history--free map support for Halo 2 would have been the right thing to do but instead we got a new system/trend that just segments the community for those who don't want to pay.. essentially ripping the online community in two, and forcing people into that pricing structure if they want to stay on top of their game. I give Bungie a lot of credit for what they could achieve, which is getting those maps to be free content within months of their release, and also releasing them on a physical disc for the same price. I'm sure that was their idea and not Microsoft's, on both accounts.. so kudos there.. but they are forced to compromise with Microsoft's marketing just like everyone else.

And no matter what you tell me, I really believe that the perception of premium pricing, and the fact that Microsoft owns bungie, has a lot to do with the limitations of Forge. Try proving otherwise :P

re: UT3. The delay has something to do with the distribution of mods, and the concept of mods as premium content was put out there by Mark Rein, not me. The fact that Rein even suggests that he'd have to convince MS to let him give away user created content is not promising, and this is coming straight from a developers mouth.

And again, I'm not trying to paint the picture of Microsoft as the villain here. I understand that they're running a business and they're trying to be profitable--and I'm sure the Marketplace is a big part of their current revenue stream.. but I come from a history of gaming where the precedent for a lot of this sort of content is free and open.. and I don't think the security of their network has much to do with why it's not here. Its effects span the whole industry, and they're even having a negative influence on the PC space--which thankfully--MS doesn't really have much control over.

If I seem more critical of these trends than others it's probably because.. well.. I'm a PC gamer. I recognize the difference in the markets, sure, but I don't like it when market trends tend to shaft the consumer. We already pay a subscription for a peer 2 peer network (where all of the actual selling features appear in the free version of the network)--we already pay $60 for console games--and we're faced with the reality of in game (and in dashboard) advertising on a daily basis.. and what's getting passed back to the consumer in return for all of this? Not much from where I'm sitting.. premium DLC is the icing on their cake (and gamer pics, hah!).. but to me it tastes pretty bitter.

I'd love to play Gears online again with my friends.. but I aint paying for what Rein and Co. wanted to give me for free.. the result is a segregated community and the loss of some serious game time. Making them free in September.. is a joke.

Now go ahead, own me with your insider information.. though.. many of these points are really subjective when it comes right down to it. I'm always going to take the side of the consumer over the corporation.. even if the majority of consumers are dumb enough not to care :)