Live Anywhere nowhere to be found in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Apr 3rd 2007 at 11:23PM }
As the first game to support Live Anywhere, Shadowrun has erected a rickety bridge between the realms of the PC and the Xbox 360, allowing players to dash across and kill each other using their peripherals of choice. Perhaps it is in the interest of peace then, that id Software has ruled out the possibility of cross-platform multiplayer for their upcoming shooter, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars."Console players will not play against PC players," says id co-owner and creative director, Kevin Cloud, in an interview with GameZone. "Consoles require a certain [adaptation], and that wasn't something that we wanted to take on." While there's no immediate framework to necessitate play between the PS3 and PC just yet, Live Anywhere promises to bring more convergence between Microsoft's Vista and 360 platforms -- but could the $50 Live entry fee for Xbox-PC multiplayer prove to be a turn-off for developers and gamers alike?
Gallery: Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
[Via CVG]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
dsub @ Apr 3rd 2007 11:36PM
I'd say this has more to do with the simple fact that controller toting players would get slaughtered.
iD would essentially have to come up with some sort of handicap system to balance the gameplay.
copa @ Apr 3rd 2007 11:42PM
"Could the $50 Live entry fee for Xbox-PC multiplayer prove to be a turn-off for developers?"
I'd say a much bigger turnoff is that Microsoft won't release the API's for cross-platform play to third-party developers.
http://play.tm/story/10013
PaperMario @ Apr 4th 2007 7:17AM
Great. Now I'm going to have that tune in my head all day.
Hot MP4 Converter
http://www.mp4-converter.net
dark @ Apr 4th 2007 2:45AM
Quake really sucks after Quake III.
DrXym @ Apr 4th 2007 4:44AM
Live Anywhere makes it sound like it would be impossible to enable PS3, 360 & PC versions of the same game to share servers right now.
Of course they could, however I don't think it is desirable for a couple of reasons.
First, consoles and PCs are far too different to develop for. On the PC, the publisher can push a patch when they feel like it from whatever server they like. On the PS3 and 360 they have certain obligations to the platform's technical requirements and certification which make patch deployment much slower. And on the 360 they have to deal with XBox Live and how do you share servers when MS wants exclusivity, or at least to shut out PS3s from the picture. In short, supporting 3 platforms is a development and QA nightmare.
Second is from a player perspective. It is far, far, far easier to play an FPS on a PC. A mouse and keyboard make it easier to move around, jump, turn, shoot and even hotkey actions. Console users would be slaughtered as they feebly rotate at the max speed their sticks allow. PCs also allow for higher resolutions (some console users may even be on SD TVs) and higher refresh rates, and users tend to be closer to the screen meaning they'll have the sight advantage too.
I can see the appeal of 360 vs PS3, but I don't see PC vs console even being possible. And 360 vs PS3 isn't going to happen while Microsoft hold the keys to the online cage that 360 players find themselves in.
Lemming @ Apr 4th 2007 6:38AM
"Quake really sucks after Quake III."
So that'll be the one game then; Quake 4?
Fiery Food Dude @ Apr 4th 2007 9:35AM
In a perfect world pc and consoles gamers would consider each other as fellow gamers. I vote to keep the Lobby's segregated since the Hatfields and Mckoys will never get along.