Will it use windows live?

[kenjara]

As its game for windows will it use live so we can get acheivements?

[JBAdams]

Though the developers have not suggested that Civ 4: Colonization will use "Windows Live," I would be surprised if the game was connected with the service. Colonization is very different from your "typical" game that is networked through the Windows Live service.

[kenjara]

well theres not much difference im terms of online matchmaking between gamespy and live so I cant see why it would be a problem. I was just wondering because I have a few pc games with live since I got my 360 and its nice to have a combined profile and gamerscore etc.

[Falk]

I know it says: "Civilization IV: Colonization will be for Games for Windows." in the FAQ, but what's the chance of seeing the game on a console some day ?
I really enjoy playing Civilization: Revolution but I'm waiting for a new Colonization for soo long now :)

[kenjara]

I know it says: "Civilization IV: Colonization will be for Games for Windows." in the FAQ, but what's the chance of seeing the game on a console some day ?
I really enjoy playing Civilization: Revolution but I'm waiting for a new Colonization for soo long now :)

that has nothing what so ever to do with this topic but, I very much doubt it will.

[JBAdams]

Kenjara,

My biggest concern at this point is that Firaxis/2K Games will continue to use GameSpy for multiplayer functionality. In disagreement with your previous post, I find there to be a huge difference between the performance of Windows Live and GameSpy.

Given the absolutely enormous and truly devastating amount of trouble that users have encountered when playing Civ 4 online, I would hope that Civ 4: Colonization will be revamped at least somewhat from a multiplayer standpoint. With that said, the easy/lazy thing would be to continue using GameSpy. I really, really hope that does not happen.

[kenjara]

Well my idea is that the game should use direct ip as it always has for playing arranged games with friends, and live for matchmaking. That way when playing organised games with friends you avoid all multiplayer server troubles but can still go on live and play online.

[JBAdams]

I agree with that, and I really hope that something similar to Windows Live is used for C4C. The GameSpy infrastructure is absolutely horrible, as you probably know. We reported problems for more than a year. GameSpy blamed Firaxis, and Firaxis blamed GameSpy. Rumor has it that Firaxis never tested Civ4 multiplayer over the GameSpy lobby system pre-release.

[kenjara]

I know that all to well I am afraid. The amount of times I have brought and online game and have been unable to play because the gamespy servers are down is silly.

[JBAdams]

I just don't understand how there could be so many "sync" problems. Billions of bullets are fired accurately every minute on shooter games, with minimal problems. Yet basically a board game (Civ4) with 3D graphics turned out to be the glitchiest, most finnicky online experience I ever had.

[Bantams]

due to the fact its built using basically what is a civ4 engine it will more than likely use Gamespy in fact it wouldnt supprise me if it uses the same crappy 286dx server that bts uses:eek:

[CanuckSoldier]

Well there are a few things you need to have in your game to qualify for the Games for Windows logo, but windows live is not one of them.

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/AboutGFW/Pages/gamesforwindows.aspx

CS

[kenjara]

I am well aware the the standard to get games for windows branded on your game. I just meant as it is game for windows they could maybe take it a step further and add live, since there are no live games without the games for windows branding.

[JBAdams]

Well there are a few things you need to have in your game to qualify for the Games for Windows logo, but windows live is not one of them.

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/AboutGFW/Pages/gamesforwindows.aspx

CS

CS,

I understand that you are mainly making a technical point that Windows Live doesn't necessarily follow from "Games for Windows" designation (I made the same point, indirectly, in my first post on this thread). However, if you are trying to justify GameSpy's continued use in the Civ franchise, then I must ask you why you would continue to support the use of a service that has UTTERLY failed the Civ community.

The finger pointing and total lack of effort in dealing with multiplayer issues on BTS was pathetic. If Firaxis/2K Games decides to give GameSpy "another chance," that would be highly disappointing. Perhaps 2K will get bought out by EAGames, thus making it legally difficult for Civ4Colonization to use GameSpy.

[CanuckSoldier]

CS,

I understand that you are mainly making a technical point that Windows Live doesn't necessarily follow from "Games for Windows" designation (I made the same point, indirectly, in my first post on this thread). However, if you are trying to justify GameSpy's continued use in the Civ franchise, then I must ask you why you would continue to support the use of a service that has UTTERLY failed the Civ community.

The finger pointing and total lack of effort in dealing with multiplayer issues on BTS was pathetic. If Firaxis/2K Games decides to give GameSpy "another chance," that would be highly disappointing. Perhaps 2K will get bought out by EAGames, thus making it legally difficult for Civ4Colonization to use GameSpy.

No I'm not supporting Gamespy at all, and I have no idea what Col is going to use, but if I were to guess I'd say that GS will be used just because they already have the code for it in Civ4 already and know how it works, and it doesn't make them learn a new system and totally redo the MP code for some other system. Unless 2K wants a new system used and is willing to put the money into it, I don't expect major changes. This is assuming that there is any MP at all, there has been no offical mention of it so far. And a game with 4 overpowering european powers is not the best balanced game for MP.

CS

[JBAdams]

No I'm not supporting Gamespy at all, and I have no idea what Col is going to use, but if I were to guess I'd say that GS will be used just because they already have the code for it in Civ4 already and know how it works, and it doesn't make them learn a new system and totally redo the MP code for some other system. Unless 2K wants a new system used and is willing to put the money into it, I don't expect major changes. This is assuming that there is any MP at all, there has been no offical mention of it so far. And a game with 4 overpowering european powers is not the best balanced game for MP.

CS

It's more correct to say that they know how GameSpy doesn't work. So basically unless 2K Games is willing to spend money to make a product that is worth buying, then I won't be willing to spend money to play a game that is worth playing. Surely the biggest complaint about Civ4 (horrendous multiplayer experiences where successfully hosting a game often took multiple hours) deserves at least some level of attention by the designers of C4C.

I'm guessing if there was a multiplayer function to Colonization, it would be that either all four players are colonial dependencies, or all four players are mother countries. I don't think it would be very balanced (maybe I'm wrong) if some players were mother countries and others were colonies.

[Jason2K]

Colonization is Games for Windows certified, which means we adhere to certain standards for installation and compatibility (like running on Vista and supporting parental controls and stuff). But that's all it is. We don't support Games for Windows LIVE, we don't support the gamepad, etc. Civ 4 Gold and Beyond the Sword were also GFW certified products.

For multiplayer we use GameSpy. This isn't the forum to discuss any Beyond the Sword issues.

[JBAdams]

Colonization is Games for Windows certified, which means we adhere to certain standards for installation and compatibility (like running on Vista and supporting parental controls and stuff). But that's all it is. We don't support Games for Windows LIVE, we don't support the gamepad, etc. Civ 4 Gold and Beyond the Sword were also GFW certified products.

For multiplayer we use GameSpy. This isn't the forum to discuss any Beyond the Sword issues.

Jason, can you explain the decision to stick with GameSpy in the light of the massive amount of problems experienced in Civ4 BTS? Or, will there be no multiplayer at all in Civ4: Colonization?

[Imperial Dane]

Considering how gamespy works, i don't think they have much of a choice, it's kinda of a indentured multiplayer thing, they made a contract that probably stretched for all CiV4 games, kinda the same reason that DoW used gamespy even though Relic managed to get Relic Online for CoH. So don't blame 2k or firaxis.Though i understand the displeasure with gamespy, they just suck when it comes to multiplayer it seems.

[JBAdams]

Dane,

Are you merely speculating that 2K/Firaxis has a K with GameSpy that forces them to use GameSpy for all Civ titles, or is that based on any fact?

[Imperial Dane]

Well if you read what i wrote you would see i used Relic as an example, they couldn't change from gamespy, the reason being the contract they made with them, i don't know the details but i know what relic did tell us, and one would imagine that gamespy let relic use their servers on the condition it would be so with the game and any future expansions, because if one expansion changes it then it would have to change for all games and gamespy would suddenly lose a game from their servers, so it's most likely the same for CiV4, that making colonization use other servers would constitute some contract breach, the contract ensuring that gamespy get's something out of it.