Games for Windows Live necessary for multiplayer on Windows Vista?

In an interview with J.J. Richards, general manager of Live, “Games for Windows” magazine asked if certain titles that were developed for Games for Windows Live would still allow gamers to choose not to subscribe to Live at all and opt for a free match-up service. Or in short, if you don’t want to multi-play on Live, will there be any other option other than Live?

We’ll take the answer straight from the interview:

GFW: One question I put to Peter involved restricting choices. Imagine a Battlefield 3. It’s on Games for Windows Live, it has voice-over IP, stat-tracking, and a promotion system. Now, is it true that, at that point, EA or whomever could not provide workarounds for people who purchased the software but not Live subscriptions?

JJR: Short answer to your question is, no, if I heard it correctly. Let me walk through the specifics. Just like we’re giving consumers choices, game developers are always going to have choices as well. They can create multiplayer play for Silver users. If they want matchmaking, if they want to take advantage of our zones and achievements, they can add Gold. They’re not restricted to one or the other.

Check out the full article after the jump!

In an interview with J.J. Richards, general manager of Live, “Games for Windows” magazine asked if certain titles that were developed for Games for Windows Live would still allow gamers to choose not to subscribe to Live at all and opt for a free match-up service. Or in short, if you don’t want to multi-play on Live, will there be any other option other than Live?

 

We’ll take the answer straight from the interview:

GFW: One question I put to Peter involved restricting choices. Imagine a Battlefield 3. It’s on Games for Windows Live, it has voice-over IP, stat-tracking, and a promotion system. Now, is it true that, at that point, EA or whomever could not provide workarounds for people who purchased the software but not Live subscriptions?

JJR: Short answer to your question is, no, if I heard it correctly. Let me walk through the specifics. Just like we’re giving consumers choices, game developers are always going to have choices as well. They can create multiplayer play for Silver users. If they want matchmaking, if they want to take advantage of our zones and achievements, they can add Gold. They’re not restricted to one or the other.

GFW: Say they offer Silver and Gold through Live, as you say, but then they also want to provide stat-tracking, matchmaking, medals, and VOIP to people who do not subscribe to Live, period. Can they?

JJR: Game developers are in complete control over what stats they have in game. People who are not Gold, who are just Silver and are not paying anything, are able to access and earn every single-player achievement. With multiplayer achievements, that’s where we got into it and asked, how do we make…these worth something? On the console side and also when we were going out and seeing what PC gamers wanted — they wanted something that was almost auditable or accredited, free from all the hacking and the cheating that’s customary in PC games. What’s a rank matter if you think everybody above you is hacking? So you want your rank to…I don’t have a good word for it….

Adamant not to answer the question with a straight yes or no, despite Peter Moore‘s claims that “[Microsoft‘s] business model is such that we have to be up front with the consumer,” could it be that the next-gen games coming to Vista require people to spend another extra US$ 50 a year just to enjoy multiplayer matched up games?

Silver subscribers can multiplay, but once a game allows you to be ranked, Silver users have to pay just to be able to run that game and its feature. As if it’s not enough to buy an expensive operating system and a copy of your Vista-only game, now you’re forced to pay extra to be able to play multiplayer this coming summer? Kudos to 1Up for bringing this interview to us.

Via 1Up