I guess we'll see deftangel, I'm just far from convinced. And I actually liked the interview quite a bit. As a PC gamer, I think we need journalists that are willing to step up and ask for clarification on issues like these -- especially when it comes from Microsoft. Even if Elliott is misinformed about live any where's gold tier, Peter Moore should certainly not be.. those questions shouldn't be hard for someone in the know to answer, but he just avoided them all together.

I'm not sure I really buy the secure API angle either. Are there not "hackers" on Halo 2 and more recently Gears of War? What has Microsoft really done to sell this thing. And you misunderstand Xfire, or systems like Ventrillo or TS. It does not require much work from the developer to support these systems. They are independent applications and they do a lot of the heavy lifting for them. I don't doubt they'll have an API that's beneficial to the developers in offering an easy alternative to doing a lot of the back end work yourself (server browser, friends, VoIP) -- but how secure is it really -- and how much does it offer to existing PC systems anyway (dedicated servers, being an important function).

Hell, look at Xfire. It has been turning into a gaming platform (unified friends list, VoIP chat rooms, one click join, stats tracking, etc) itself for years now. Can Microsoft do it better? They probably can.. but do we really need it when there are already alternatives that work and for free?

I'm just skeptical. I do think it brings in new value to the gold membership for existing members and I think that's a good thing. But I don't know if they're really marketing this towards the existing PC market at all -- it seems they're really trying to shape the future here and I think we need to be certain that they're doing it with the best interest of that community in mind.. or else we should just ignore it and continue to use Xfire and Ventrillo as the end all solution.

That interview cemented any fears and concerns I previously had.. lets not price gauge the PC gamers to recupe those Xbox losses. MS already makes it entirely too easy to spend money on the 360, I don't need the damn marketplace coming next. We already have Steam for that :P

Live dedicated servers -- good one!

All valid points, it's what Elliot should have been asking. I don't think Moore really ducked anything and he doesn't have any previous with ducking touch questions as far as I'm aware. He didn't answer one, which the other guy did. Can't really see a problem there.

I don't have much experience with Xfire, though I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it didn't have API and does a lot of the work for developers, I'm quite sure it does. The GFW Live API will merely be competing with it in terms of scalability, security, ease of use and whatever extra features they might add. Right now, on the face of it there probably isn't much between them. It would be interesting to see a PC dev talk about the pros and cons of each at some point in the future and if the cost of GFW adds any value. It may not, the jury is still out. I'm certainly looking forward to seeing Epic's thoughts on it.

The Halo 2 hacking epidemic was largely because by the time that came out, the original Xbox security was very very easily circumvented. As it stands, things aren't at the same level with the 360 right now and the system is that much more secure from the off being a second effort. I haven't seen any widespread cheating outside of taking advantage of any glitches within the games themself, not the platform. That said, I've not been on Gears for a while, I didn't know it had been "hacked"?

Like you say, we'll see and I certainly don't disagree, your skepticism is well placed. What I disagree with is all anybody wants to do right now is wave hands and complain that MS are charging us for things which were always free! Which in reality, they're not. The real issue is why haven't they brought more to the table for launching this service and when can we expect to see features that make it worth while.

In a way, it's a bit like the Elite. The potential is there for something good but the deal breaker is what's NOT included and ergo, the price isn't justified. I hope that's not endemic of 2007 for MS.

If they want to maintain the leadership gap in online, and as a premium service. They'll need to get closer to the vision they showed at E3.

As for Shadowrun, was that one of the games they confirmed to be out before Q3 2007? It's about time they got it out the door.

1up yours is up deftangel, and what can I say.. Epic isn't giving me much of a reason for restored faith in Microsoft either. Hell, not only are they the most dangerous party involved with PC gaming at the moment (a ridiculous truth) but they're probably their own worst enemy on just about every front (Zune, Windows, Xbox, Windows Mobile).

The Xbox 360 is in a wonderful position right now -- but Epic is one of the only companies that's keeping my interest by not jumping on the microtransaction bandwagon. Seems like MS is trying to police what kind of content they're even allowed to give away. That's mighty discouraging.

I just hope MS realizes the potential for serious damage to PC gaming with live anywhere, but it really does not seem like they do. They're a company and they need to make money -- I appreciate that -- but they're having a potentially negative impact on market trends in order to do so. I'm starting to worry about how they feel about their consumers. Support and choice are both just PR buzzwords to them it seems. Lets not worry about segmenting the GOW community -- lets just do it because what's right is always what makes us more money -- right?

They have a great platform, and they've found themselves in a market where they don't come with a bad reputation by default. They should work hard to keep that good name -- they should know by now what it's like to have control of a market that resents them.