The lack of a persistent, unified and collected achivement system on the PC is appalling. Sure Steam has some achievements but including achivements in your game is not mandatory so most don´t bother. Even games who has achivements on their 360 counterskrew(!?) I think we can all agree on Games for Windows Live not at all being up to snuff on game catalogue nor application quality and design. What is wrong with them? How hard is it to "copy" the already very successful Xbox Live system? Why does the GFWL client make so little sense when the company making it has already proven it knows a thing or two about online game communities on their console? I mean, our GFWL ID is in actuality already an Xbox Live ID already so what is the problem?
And now Blizzard is going to start sporting their own achivement junctions for only their own games. I thank whatever maker there might or might not be for Giantbomb and their efforts to unify all these in one place.
It´s not that I am a huge fan of Microsoft or Apple or Sony or Valve or anything, but I feel by now if the PC wants to be a viable game platform, not just in the future but in a sense in the present too, we have to have the same sorts of unifying community systems in place as the consoles has. Either Steam learn some tricks from GFWL or vice versa. I don´t care (except Steam games are more expensive than Direct2Drive games, at least in Europe) as long as we get such a system that unifies PC game enthusiasts.
Such a system might even alleviate some of the piracy issues. At least from the people who cares about achivements and bragging rights. Sure it might move us towards an end to games beingg played offline at least with achievements activated. Personally I would love to have more achivements in PC games. Might make me spend more time on the games I buy or even buy more games.
Giantbomb, you seem to have figured this stuff out. Can´t you beat some sort of sense into their heads? :p
We need better PC achievements
The lack of a persistent, unified and collected achivement system on the PC is appalling. Sure Steam has some achievements but including achivements in your game is not mandatory so most don´t bother. Even games who has achivements on their 360 counterskrew(!?) I think we can all agree on Games for Windows Live not at all being up to snuff on game catalogue nor application quality and design. What is wrong with them? How hard is it to "copy" the already very successful Xbox Live system? Why does the GFWL client make so little sense when the company making it has already proven it knows a thing or two about online game communities on their console? I mean, our GFWL ID is in actuality already an Xbox Live ID already so what is the problem?
And now Blizzard is going to start sporting their own achivement junctions for only their own games. I thank whatever maker there might or might not be for Giantbomb and their efforts to unify all these in one place.
It´s not that I am a huge fan of Microsoft or Apple or Sony or Valve or anything, but I feel by now if the PC wants to be a viable game platform, not just in the future but in a sense in the present too, we have to have the same sorts of unifying community systems in place as the consoles has. Either Steam learn some tricks from GFWL or vice versa. I don´t care (except Steam games are more expensive than Direct2Drive games, at least in Europe) as long as we get such a system that unifies PC game enthusiasts.
Such a system might even alleviate some of the piracy issues. At least from the people who cares about achivements and bragging rights. Sure it might move us towards an end to games beingg played offline at least with achievements activated. Personally I would love to have more achivements in PC games. Might make me spend more time on the games I buy or even buy more games.
Giantbomb, you seem to have figured this stuff out. Can´t you beat some sort of sense into their heads? :p
Encouraging achievements anywhere is a bad idea. All it does is give developers and publishers and excuse to produce a four hour game and make the normal mode ridiculously easy and then claim "but we have lots of ridiculous achievements, like driving 1,000,000 miles or finding 10,000 hidden objects!" as some sort of proof that the game has a lot more content than it does and has "hard core gamer" (ie, people who don't just want cut-scenes and QTEs) content.
If PC gaming jumps on board, then it's just further sinking the ship for playing a game for the enjoyment of the game and I'm afraid once every platform is onboard, it's just a small step from there to a unified system among all of them. Once we have that, we'll never turn back and nobody will ever remember a time when you played a game for a reason other than building up your "gamer score".
Good point. And yeah that would be a cheap shot from the publishers but obviously something they would go for.
To me though the act of having fun playing the game on its own merit is only slightly more important than the act of sharing mutual experiences with friends be they RL or online. The actual number of your gamer score not really being the goal but rather which achievements have built up said score as well as the "where were you when friend X did something in game Y". More achivements in my games would though probably make me spend an hour or two more in a game in order to complete it thus actually, in a sense giving me more bang for my buck without necesarily turning me into a wannabe achivement whore going for your mentioned 10,000 hidden objects. I might be in the minority in this ofcourse and most "gamers" might just be interested in the score as an epeen.
Still I feel, achievements only has the power you give them and I have to admit I am not too experienced in achivement distribution reasonable vs. your example is since I don´t own that console. But are the developers and publishers not already doing this with the games if they want?
I dont care about acheivments on any platform and I hate the idea of any unified platform on PC. One of the biggest strength's the PC has over the consoles is that its an Open Platform (well I consider it a strength anyways), rather than just Microsoft dictating what we can have and how much we pay there is Valve (with Steam) giving us some choice and prices, also Gog.com (for older games), Direct2Drive, Impulse and other services each with varying games and prices. Unlike XBL/PSN (for the most part) prices on these services come down over time and have to change in accordance with other services (for example if Steam sold a game for £40 but Direct2Drive had it for £10 then a lot of people wouldent buy it from steam) same as most Brick and Mortor stores have to.
This strength also allows games to come out which arent by big publishers and be populer (not to the degree of Halo 3 or Cod 4 but enough for their needs) such as a game like Iron Grip: Warlord which is an indie based off the Quake 3 engine which they can sell through their website for $25 without need to ask permission or to changed there content to suite Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo.
Also if a game like Freelancer was tied to Games for Windows live and you needed to sign in and go through microsoft for Online Multiplayer, rather than the current model of using an IP address or a Master Server, then at a whim Microsoft can shut it down for not being profitable. Microsoft have already shut down the Master Server for Freelancer but a player has set up there own and now players can change the IP in a text file and suddenly you can play again, or alternativly you can use an IP address in a shortcut to connect to a server.
These 2 things for me are some of the great strengths of the PC as a platform and I beleive if they had a single unified system you had to sign in to use for multiplayer, acheivments and the like then it would make the PC more and more like a console and suddenly it would purely be fighting next to the PS3/Xbox 360 when it shouldent be, though it covers a similer market it stands in a seperate space wheras PS3 and Xbox 360, for me, stand in the same space as each other fighting over the same people. That is not to say the Console does not have strengths (it has many like it generally works excluding the trouble im still having with SOCOM: Confrontation :|), that these are the only strengths of the PC (It has many others, and many weakness') or that I dislike consoles (on the contrary I love to play my PS1, PS2, PS3, N64, Gamecube, Wii, DS, Xbox, Xbox 360, GB, GBC and DS).
Basically what im saying is that a unified platform is a console, to bring a unified platform to PC (on the assumption that its accepted by PC gamers which I feel is unlikely) would ruin all the unuiqe points it has.
Though my argument is slightly diffrent than just a unified platform for acheivments as the OP said this is where I fear it will lead. Though I also think the idea of a unified acheivments platform would be unlikely to be accepted by publishers (unless it got populer) because they would most likely have to pay to be a part of it but in return they dont get anything (for example Games for Windows live is supposed to make it easier to impliment Netcode rather than write your own).
"...I hate the idea of any unified platform on PC. One of the biggest strength's the PC has over the consoles is that its an Open Platform (well I consider it a strength anyways), rather than just Microsoft dictating what we can have and how much we pay there is Valve (with Steam) giving us some choice and prices, also Gog.com (for older games), Direct2Drive, Impulse and other services each with varying games and prices. Unlike XBL/PSN (for the most part) prices on these services come down over time and have to change in accordance with other services (for example if Steam sold a game for £40 but Direct2Drive had it for £10 then a lot of people wouldent buy it from steam) same as most Brick and Mortor stores have to.I agree 100%. We don't need a gatekeeper on the PC. Unfortunately, that is what it would take to create a single unified system for achievements. Not having a single gatekeeper is why we can have fantastic and experimental indie games popping up all the time. However, I do like achievements. Dawn of War 2 had an excellent implementation of GFW Live. Steam achievements also work quite well. I just wish more games would opt to include support for these existing standards in their games. Sure, it might be nice on one hand to have a unified system, but I would prefer to have the freedom PC gamers have now. As a workaround, we have fine sites like Giant Bomb that can consolidate all our achievements in one place to unify the fragmented systems!This strength also allows games to come out which arent by big publishers and be populer (not to the degree of Halo 3 or Cod 4 but enough for their needs) such as a game like Iron Grip: Warlord which is an indie based off the Quake 3 engine which they can sell through their website for $25 without need to ask permission or to changed there content to suite Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo."
Unlike XBL/PSN (for the most part) prices on these services come down over time and have to change in accordance with other services (for example if Steam sold a game for £40 but Direct2Drive had it for £10 then a lot of people wouldent buy it from steam) same as most Brick and Mortor stores have to.
Idd the mode of purchase should not be linked and currently they arent necesarily. Your example of Steam is (here at least) already the case with several titles costing significantly more on Steam than Direct2Drive (Overlord 2 for what equates to €28 compared to €50 on Steam, current exchange rates) in return providing the easiest download and redownload service. But at least one game I bought on D2D is unlocked via Steam anyway (Empire: Total War) and GFWL achievements are included in at least one of my Steam purchases (Dawn of War 2).
Anyway that was beside your point and I only wanted to hammer in that I completely agree that a one-place-of-purchase dictatorship of XBLA is not what I was suggesting. Merely the inclusion of achievements.
Yes I do see the point of the PC losing it´s special "independant" status, where you choose your operating system and your hardware specs. Also, certain genres of games have traditionally appealed more to the PC player because of depth in the sense of ... i don´t know.. length of manual I suppose. I mean, not alot of console players would bother with Masters of Orion or Civilization in their current PC form. But to a certain degree at least with the AAA titles our PC versions are already feeling like ports of the more profitable console version (I´m not judging this good or bad as it comes down to personal preference in games and how much you care for the business side of the games industry i guess).
I guess what I´m arguing is that as far as playing the actual games on the PC is concerned, I personally don´t mind a unified system much like Steam/GFWL sans the shop. But you are indeed right, the PC game players would not embrace it for fear of losing independance. At least never if the service came from Microsoft.
Also, we all saw how badly Bethesda handeled GFWL achivements in Fallout 3 for PC. Real proof that if your execution is wrong, any idea can be awful :p
Yes at least we have the Bomb and I think you are right about the gatekeeper comment. Maybe GB should make their own app in the same vein as Steam. Personally I prefer an app to a site. I like the "friend X just logged in" messages and "friend Y just achieved Z" you can never really get though a browser :)
The PC already gets pretty much every major 360 game ported to it about six months after it's 360 release, can download demos for games and watch interviews and allow you to pay to download games and DLC and play online multiplayer at no extra cost. Not to mention all the FREE third party mods available. I can also use my 360 controller to play games on my PC that support it and any game on my PC via 3rd party add on. If the PC had the unified achievement system like the 360 does why the fuck would I want to buy a 360 and pay the $50 a year for LIVE? Why would anyone want to buy a 360 and pay for LIVE when everyone already has a PC and the PC could do the exact same thing and do it for cheaper? Not to mention the rampant piracy on PC, which allows many people without a concience, or that are too cheap to pay for their games to get the games for free.
It seems to me that Microsoft would be killing their business model if they took their unified achievement system from the 360 and applied it to the PC. If anything, GFWL is intentionally shitty so that it will frustrate PC gamers in an attempt to drive them to the 360 where the system is working properly and where Microsoft has total control and turns a bigger profit.
Haha I certainly hope the shittyness is intentional. Otherwise I would be ashamed of working for a company like that. The achievement system as a piracy prevention method (not technical, just "if you want achievs you need to register with serial like some free mmo type thing" stuff) it would probably from a practical standpoint have to be microsoft.
Yes, the 50$ pro anno thing is probably why they never made GFWL any good in the first place. I seem to remember back around Vista launch Microsoft was talking about it as being the same stuff as XBLA with subs and all. Just they couldn´t get PC people to pay money for something they had never had to pay for before, so they ditched it.
On the other hand, the console is also different from the PC in a more social sense just from the fact you can play your console with your friends in your livingroom instead of everyone having to bring their own pc and each staring into their own screen at a LAN or via some form of internet.
But Steam has achievements and while not being an expert on the subject I don´t think Steam has a problem with pirated versions unlocking any achievements on their system.
" Basically, shut up. "If you're not going to add to the topic and say something productive don't post if you're going to be so rude
But yeah TC, like someone else said, the PC is an open system, and that's what is so appealing about it. No one wants to be forced into being part of some kind of number system. And PC games have great communities, much better than most if not all Xbox games...
i agree with op. to many different things like steam on the pc compeating with each other. if there was one unified community, like on the consoles, the pc it would be much better imo
" If the PC had the unified achievement system like the 360 does why the fuck would I want to buy a 360 and pay the $50 a year for LIVE? Why would anyone want to buy a 360 and pay for LIVE when everyone already has a PC and the PC could do the exact same thing and do it for cheaper?I would wager that most people don't have gaming PCs, and their 360 runs games better than their PC can.
"i agree with op. to many different things like steam on the pc compeating with each other. if there was one unified community, like on the consoles, the pc it would be much better imo "
Exactely, at least Giantbomb sort-of fixes the actual achievement unification part in a way. It is still annoying on the PC to have to use an IM-unifier (Pidgin) plus Steam plus GFWL (and I cannot even see my friends stuff outside of GFWL-enabled games) just to keep track of what my friends are up to and playing. And ofcourse not all my friends have all those systems or use them, so it just feels like a tangled mess who-what-where. Giantbomb doesn´t help with this fact unfortunately since unless you want to be an active member of the community there really is no point in even making an account on this site.
@nail1080 said:
TC, like someone else said, the PC is an open system, and that's what is so appealing about it. No one wants to be forced into being part of some kind of number system. And PC games have great communities, much better than most if not all Xbox games... "
But couldn´t we still have the communities like we already have? I´m assuming you mean forum/message boards or do you mean actual ingame communities?
" Encouraging achievements anywhere is a bad idea. All it does is give developers and publishers and excuse to produce a four hour game and make the normal mode ridiculously easy and then claim "but we have lots of ridiculous achievements, like driving 1,000,000 miles or finding 10,000 hidden objects!" as some sort of proof that the game has a lot more content than it does and has "hard core gamer" (ie, people who don't just want cut-scenes and QTEs) content. If PC gaming jumps on board, then it's just further sinking the ship for playing a game for the enjoyment of the game and I'm afraid once every platform is onboard, it's just a small step from there to a unified system among all of them. Once we have that, we'll never turn back and nobody will ever remember a time when you played a game for a reason other than building up your "gamer score". "This. I don't want achievements on the PC.
It's an unfortunate side-effect that comes along with the open nature of the PC. But I think everyone would agree that having a truly open platform is a way better than having achievements in every game would be.
The PC already gets pretty much every major 360 game ported to it about six months after it's 360 releaseScrew achievements, if those 2 things were true, most everyone would move to PC over 360.
Why would anyone want to buy a 360 and pay for LIVE when everyone already has a PC and the PC could do the exact same thing and do it for cheaper?
I for one hate the open-ness of PC gaming. I don't want to keep a ton of bullshit programs running on my computer just to be able to game. At this point I got xfire, GFWL client, Rockstar Social Club (wtf is this?) and Steam running, totalling like a gig in memory usage. Some games patch themselves, sometimes I need to go to shitty sites, sometimes games just don't work and I have to dig through forums. Playing online is a tedious operation of finding decent servers that don't run ridiculous mods that don't interest me in the least and that isn't located in fucking Germany or Poland. It's just needless hassle, I want to just throw in a game and start playing. Whatever happened to that crap Microsoft was raving about in '95 about PC games moving to a console style where you just pop the cd in and play? Consoles got installs instead and PC's got bigger installs. Bah. A unified system would make everything so much easier.
@Diamond said:
And what, that's a bad thing? If the platform is better and cheaper, fuck 360. Artificially making the PC experience annoying to make everyone buy a 360 is bullshit. I don't want a god damn 360." @Cerza said:
The PC already gets pretty much every major 360 game ported to it about six months after it's 360 releaseScrew achievements, if those 2 things were true, most everyone would move to PC over 360. "
Why would anyone want to buy a 360 and pay for LIVE when everyone already has a PC and the PC could do the exact same thing and do it for cheaper?
I for one hate the open-ness of PC gaming. I don't want to keep a ton of bullshit programs running on my computer just to be able to game. At this point I got xfire, GFWL client, Rockstar Social Club (wtf is this?) and Steam running, totalling like a gig in memory usage. Some games patch themselves, sometimes I need to go to shitty sites, sometimes games just don't work and I have to dig through forums. Playing online is a tedious operation of finding decent servers that don't run ridiculous mods that don't interest me in the least and that isn't located in fucking Germany or Poland. It's just needless hassle, I want to just throw in a game and start playing. Whatever happened to that crap Microsoft was raving about in '95 about PC games moving to a console style where you just pop the cd in and play? Consoles got installs instead and PC's got bigger installs. Bah. A unified system would make everything so much easier.Openness is a two sided coin. You have more cheats, piracy, incompatibility, inefficiency. You also have free online play, 3rd party mods, free indie games, and further customization. I wouldn't want to lose my Vanguard Princess and MAME on PC...
@fuzzyponken said:
@Diamond said:I don't know what you're asking. I'm saying that if PC had all of 360's games, and it really was cheaper, most people would play on PC.And what, that's a bad thing? If the platform is better and cheaper, fuck 360. Artificially making the PC experience annoying to make everyone buy a 360 is bullshit. I don't want a god damn 360. "" @Cerza said:
The PC already gets pretty much every major 360 game ported to it about six months after it's 360 releaseScrew achievements, if those 2 things were true, most everyone would move to PC over 360. "
Why would anyone want to buy a 360 and pay for LIVE when everyone already has a PC and the PC could do the exact same thing and do it for cheaper?
It's true though that there are a lot of people that choose 360 over PC simply because it is easier and quicker to play. One more thing that would matter to me is online cheats (especially on leaderboards, I love those things).
Agree wiith you. Love achievements.
First off, thank you everyone for participating in the discussion be it agreeing or disagreeing doesn´t matter.
After a couple of days of thinking about this I think I will just be happy that SOME games have achivements and start looking for a 360 soon.
@Jeff:
Sounds like you already know you will be able to support battle.net, AWESOME! :D
@Pazy:
Thanks a bunch for making me aware of ImpulseDriven. Nice to have more than Steam and D2D to check for prices :)
But on the subject of GFWL hasn´t alot of games been released for PC and 360 both and for some reason the PC version being just GFW and not Live (achivements having been pulled out)? Is this because of hugely different requirements for XBL and GFWL if anyone knows? It would surprise me if there would be such a big difference seeing as a) it is both Microsoft and b) I was under the impression developers preferred 360 for their "main" development because of its relative ease, thus having their main version already including achivements. Is this factually wrong?
Wait Wait Wait!!!!........There are pretty good achievements out there for the PC, and I'll just say right now I got a list of just the ones that really stuck out in my mind.
1. Sweaty Balls-walking over 100 miles
2. Bumper Cars-smash over 50 cars on highway
3. Atomic Wife Beater-kill nothing but women for 30:00 mins
4. Butt hole surfer-do a wheelie for 50 miles
5. Car Warrior-kill everyone while in a car
These achievements are within a PC game called "CrimeLife" and its pretty much a lowjack version of GTA. Its in Beta form and kinda low on the graphics side.
i don't care to much about achievements. it seems like a lot of the games are getting them on steam. they can sometimes be fun to get but i don't try and get them. i don't care to much about them because they are just numbers adding up. they should make it so u unlock something when playing, like kill five people in a row, make the person have a better shield or something like that. if i could unlock things like that then i might get it.
same goes with trophies, i don't try and get them.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment