Games for Windows Live Adds Anti-piracy Solution, In-game Marketplace

March 24, 2009 6:00 AM

Microsoft today announced new features coming soon to the Games for Windows Live service, including an anti-piracy solution and in-game marketplace.

Few details were revealed of the server-side, "zero-day" anti-piracy solution. However, Microsoft did note that Games for Windows Live will now require authentication for online play.

In-game marketplace capability has also been added, allowing developers to sell content through their own store fronts through customized APIs. Games for Windows Live will now save users' settings in the cloud, allowing access to the settings regardless of the PC used.

"This update and other features currently in development represent a tipping point in the evolution of Games for Windows Live as a leading online PC gaming network," said general manager of Games for Windows Live Ron Pessner. "In the coming months, we will continue to deliver on our promise to provide gamers and publishers with the industry's best connected gaming experiences through the Live service."

We'll have more details on the updates following a briefing with Microsoft later today.

Nick Breckon

Filed Under

From The Chatty

Refresh Go To Thread

The_Archon

 reply
March 24, 2009 6:06 AM

And pirates won't be able to defeat it? Okay.
- node
  
   reply
  March 24, 2009 6:54 AM
  
  Well, no, because they won't have the .exe to crack until launch day. That's the point, not stopping piracy 100%.
  - Johnnsen
    
     reply
    March 24, 2009 7:01 AM
    
    Woop de doo. So people can only download it 2 hours later. Have a medal. Therefor every legit customer has more hassle. Great.
    - The_Archon
      
       reply
      March 24, 2009 7:27 AM
      
      See, I don't mind the whole digital distribution thing, in fact I kind of like it. I dig Steam.
      
      But three things about GFW.
      
      1. They are trying to sell it as anti piracy. That's just a fucking lie, they know damn well it's not going to stop any pirates. Maybe they don't get their game plucked before zero day, but other than that it's just going to be business as usual for the pirates. So that's dishonest.
      
      2. It's Microsoft.
      
      3. It's MICROSOFT.
      - WTHInac
        
         reply
        March 24, 2009 7:43 AM
        
        Hear hear!
        
        Microsoft is trying to sell it as whatever is currently popular among the gaming community, as the company as a whole is now just a politician.
        
        I can't remember the last time they had a good idea....1995 maybe? While I liked their 2019 video, advertising stuff they are in no way going to INVEST MONEY into does nothing for those of us who aren't bought by silly gimmicks, like GFWL.
        
        The entire service is merely a ploy to help the "Steam is a monopoly!" crowd get more traction and a louder voice.
        
        You know what I want to see? Valve + Google. Now THAT would be a monopoly and would have Microsoft throw their cards in. One company with more user information on everyone combined than Microsoft and Yahoo combined and another company with the most hardware statistics and gaming habits then everyone else combined. Would be awesome! :D
        
        MeestaNob
        
         reply
        March 24, 2009 5:11 PM
        
        We absoluetly do not want a monopoly, even though I am admittedly on Vavle's bandwagon.
        
        That said, if Google started hosting content servers Steam downloads would suddenly become fucking FAST, which couldnt be a bad thing.
        
        Perhaps when Google gets their game development arm happening Valve and they could come to some sort of distribution agreement. That would be pretty huge.
    - Pneum0
      
       reply
      March 24, 2009 7:36 AM
      
      They'll probably lure some big developers with the zero day piracy thing, then when the majority of players are using it and enjoying it... they'll introduce the subscription model. Most people will just bend over because they're already used to doing it with LIVE.
    - dagla
      
       reply
      March 24, 2009 7:50 AM
      
      Some games are leaked weeks before the official release, this (just like steam's encrypted pre-load method) can prevent that from happening. Although steam failed to do that with fear 2, we'll see how this goes.
      - Johnnsen
        
         reply
        March 24, 2009 9:45 AM
        
        How can it prevent leaking? If it leaks from whoever stores the file? Pretty useless.
        
        SilverSnake
        
         reply
        March 24, 2009 10:34 AM
        
        Whoever stores the file with the ability to leak it is the developers and a handful of operators. With the current system with printers, distributors, warehouse workers and stores it can be thousands of people that's able to leak a game before it's released.
        
        It doesn't technically prevent the leaking, but since it's practically impossible to do it anonymously (well, maybe not for the dev, but they usually have no interest in leaking it) it's practically prevented.
  - WTHInac
    
     reply
    March 24, 2009 7:33 AM
    
    I don't think they can do that method of control.
    
    What about the people not connected to the internet? This is the problem with DRM that uses online authentication or "requires an internet connection" - not everyone has an ISP.
    
    If I can't play it out of the box, I'm not buying it - period.
    
    Also, since they are admitting that zero day piracy is an issue....why not spend the money to fix the REAL problem, the people in the supply chain who are stealing the software before it hits shelves?
    
    If they did that, they would go a lot further to reduce zero-day piracy. And, it would be the RIGHT THING TO DO, instead of harming actual customers.
    
    God I miss the old days, where you bought a new game, threw it in the drive and were playing once it was installed. Now you have to update the game to fix last minute bugs and authenticate yourself to prove you bought it. How about some quality from games these days, eh?
    - SilverSnake
      
       reply
      March 24, 2009 8:21 AM
      
      You think mind control chips on everyone working with printing, packaging, delivering and selling of boxed games is a better solution?
      
      And people who buy games but don't have an internet connection is a rapidly shrinking market. Do you know of anyone who plays games on their computer that doesn't have an internet connection?