[HissingNewt]

In the issue of PC Gamer that UaW is previewed (June 2007), on page 16, it says:

Quote

Petroglyph, the developer of Universe at War: Earth Assault has confirmed that its game will integrate Live to manage its multiplayer games, and that UaW will run on XP. It's not hard to connect those dots!

I'm not sure what the last part means though. It seems unlikely this game will be on 360, even though that would be wonderful.

This post has been edited by hissingnewt13: 09 May 2007 - 07:28 AM

[sh0td0wn]

Meaning if UaW releases on 360, we can face em while using the PC?

[Foshjedi2004]

The thing is that with it being on Windows Live it DOES allow it to be on 360 if Sega and Petroglyph Ever decided to take it that way after the PC release.

Kinda how Rockstar only really moved San Andreas over to PC after the Console Versions sold really well and even that was 6 months later. By working on Microsoft Live it allows a decision to be made whether to transpose the game.

While I have doubts over whether such a choice would really be beneficial in the MP Sense. If you look at the C&C3 handling on 360 its shockingly bad. Compared with PC it takes you an age to do the same thing on the 360.

EDIT: Yes, if such a thing did happen UAW would only be the second or third game out to actually utilise the cross Platform MicrosoftLive Feature of playing PC Vs 360.

[MageLite]

Hopefully Petro will put all their effort into the PC version, then think about a console port.

[Luga]

Definatly, make the PC version first, then the 360 version. I really dont want them to split apart their attention. The reviewers of CnC3 360 version also told how much gimpy that version was compared to the PC version

[Golradaer]

I have yet to see a console RTS that comes close to matching a PC RTS, the control scheme is just not suited for RTS games.

[Luga]

Bingo, UaW name on a console will just bring a bad reputation more then anything, sure it wont be a "PC game so it's no worries" but the name that the game "Sucks on consoles" will still be there and it wont add anything good. Better to put full focus on the PC game.

Though when they've done that, THEN port the game, then it's fine, becouse it dosnt really affect me, a PC player, much, though I still think they should focus on the PC game, and it's bugs/patches etc that happends

[popcorn2008]

Raiden, on May 9 2007, 08:33 AM, said:

While I have doubts over whether such a choice would really be beneficial in the MP Sense. If you look at the C&C3 handling on 360 its shockingly bad. Compared with PC it takes you an age to do the same thing on the 360.

While true, C&C 3 doesnt allow cross-platform multi play, so it equals out. And its also a matter of how skilled you are on the 360. Some players can build quite fast.

[CowGoMoo]

popcorn2008, on May 9 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

And its also a matter of how skilled you are on the 360. Some players can build quite fast.

doesnt matter how good with a controller you are, not having hotkeys is a terrible hindrance. you will still be significantly slower than some 1 with a keyboard/mouse bc there is no speed-cap while using a mouse and keyboard while you can only go so fast with a controller.

[VonVentrue]

hissingnewt13, on May 9 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

It seems unlikely this game will be on 360, even though that would be wonderful.

Wonderful?
If that was supposed to be a joke, then that's undoubtfully the best one I have heard in a while...

I'd rather Petro focused their efforts on making the PC version as good as possible.

[HissingNewt]

So, why couldn't another studio port it while Petroglyph makes the PC version?

[Luga]

I'm quite sure the Petro people would have to go back/forth to check in that they are doing things right and answering questions the studio have, attention spreads out and it all becomes bleh.

In my point of view, it's silly to request an RTS over to a console anyhow. If you like RTS games, you'd play it on PC since it's there where you can truly get the great RTS feeling, while on consoles, you are at a real disadvantage with the controller and cumbersome set-up

[HissingNewt]

Consoles are at a disadvantage, but I do like the idea of RTS games getting better controls on consoles and becoming more popular.

[Mr. Pokey]

Can't the Xbox 360 have a keyboard and mouse anyway?

[HissingNewt]

I don't think it can for games.

[Luga]

hissingnewt13, on May 10 2007, 12:29 PM, said:

Consoles are at a disadvantage, but I do like the idea of RTS games getting better controls on consoles and becoming more popular.

I don't mind that, as long as the porting gets done AFTER the original, and true game has come out on the PC, that way the PC version dosnt get screwed over becouse "Oh no, we cant have that on the PC version becouse that wont work on the 360"

That will really make my eyes water >.<

[WhiteKnight]

You all should read this article :- Microsoft is Screwing Up Live on Vista

[Saracen]

Interesting article, and very much an ever growing grim reality of how despite Microsoft already being illegally monopolising, they still continue to do so.

So when is UaW coming out for Linux?

Point being that Vista is really the worst thing that could ever happen to the PC market. It's forcing PC Gamers to upgrade and pay a lot of money to do so. It's wiping out any chance of Linux ever becoming an alternate Operating system, and well Vista's features are nothing but a Linux rip-off anyway.

There needs to be a company that can stand up to Microsoft, give a great viable alternative OS and best of all keep it lower priced and easy to develop for. But meh, I'll never see myself upgrading to Vista unless I can get a legitimate copy for nothing. I will never give my money to Microsoft for an OS. I never have and never will. I have 3 legitimate non-OEM copies of XP, so I'll have to get in touch with my friend and see if he can get Vista. Cos I'm not going to pay for it.

[Delphi-PG]

WhiteKnight, on May 13 2007, 06:02 AM, said:

You all should read this article :- Microsoft is Screwing Up Live on Vista

We have been assured by MS that UAW should have no problems running LIVE on XP. Also, we are working with MS on our Silver match making setup to ensure that players have a good experience online. Keep in mind, that if you do buy a gold account or already have one, you'll be able to play any game with the same LIVE account on both XBOX and PC.

In comparison to popular MMO's which charge close to 14.95 a month, a LIVE gold account averages out to a little more than $3.85 a month. In addition, there are boatloads of features such as VOIP with friends at any time, online achievements, friends list, player tracking, voice mail, e-mail, and leader boards players get that other systems don’t offer. All of this, plus the backing of a Microsoft Tech support team seems pretty solid.

Is it worth 4 bucks a month? I would have to say yes. My hope is that SEGA and MS can work out a trial deal for fans to help prove your hard earned cash is being used to create a solid online experience with no interruptions.

XBOX GOLD INFO

[Saracen]

The problem being with PC gamers though Delphi is why should the end user pay any more money for playing a game after it's been purchased. In the UK we have to pay close to $70 a game. If this is Microsoft's strategy for online gaming, (since it's been free since the beginning of online gaming) then publishers need to seriously lower the price of their games, and I'm talking about at least half of what we already pay.

Less than 20% of people who buy games actually play online. Paying for that option isn't going to get more people on, it's gonna prevent people who cannot take that money out of their budget, from getting online at all. And while you guys in the USA may only pay 5 bucks, the UK is looking at more like $10-25 a month for the option. It's simply not worth it!