Microsoft and PC Gaming [Archive]

Voodoo

01-28-2009, 08:37 AM

I was over at Edge Online this morning and they have some interesting features covering Microsoft's stance towards PC Gaming. On January 27, 2009, Kris Graft (http://www.edge-online.com/users/kris-graft) proposed the question "Is Microsoft Really Committed to PC? (http://www.edge-online.com/features/is-microsoft-really-committed-pc)" His article is in response to Microsoft still presenting themselves as still behind PC Gaming, but as shown it is very hard to believe...

In a statement to Edge, Microsoft had the following to say...
Moving ahead, Microsoft will continue to invest in Windows as a first–class gaming platform through great Windows out of box experiences, our online gaming services including Games for Windows – LIVE, MSN Games, and Messenger games, and through new games for Windows developed by Microsoft Games Studios

This is hard to believe based on the number of PC Gaming focused developers they have closed. It is also hard to swallow based on their extremely amateurish execution of Games For Windows - Live. How a company can develop a product like this that runs on an operating system and API they developed is inexcusable.

Microsoft went on to say...
Our Windows gaming service efforts will be led by General Manager Ron Pessner, who is joining Microsoft’s Interactive Entertainment Business. He comes from within Microsoft’s Entertainment & Devices Division.

Working closely with Ron will be Dave Luehmann, a long time Microsoft games veteran and general manager within Microsoft Games Studios, who will now be overseeing internal development and publishing for all Windows-based games

How can anyone in the most serious of presentation state that Microsoft does not have a conflict of interests?

Voodoo went on to say...
http://i41.tinypic.com/2u4k4qo.jpg

Here an excerpt from Kris Graft's article...
Since 2006, the software giant has dissolved no less than five internal studios that had a PC gaming focus: Aces (Flight Sim), Ensemble (Age of Empires), Digital Anvil (Freelancer), Hired Gun (Halo 2 PC) and FASA Interactive (Mechwarrior, Shadowrun).

Meanwhile, the few remaining Microsoft Game Studios are now decidedly focused on Xbox 360 development. Strange that the company that has the PC OS market cornered doesn’t appear to have found a synergy with PC game development. Microsoft didn’t even mention PC gaming during its recent Consumer Electronics Show presentation, where Windows 7 took the spotlight; Xbox 360 on the other hand enjoyed a nice chunk of attention.

What do you all think about Microsoft's "commitment" to PC Gaming?

Telefrog

01-28-2009, 08:53 AM

Who is even left at Microsoft Game Studios?

Ensemble - For a few more days.
Turn 10 - Console racing sims.
Rare - Console "family" games and NXE Avatar dvelopment.
Lionhead - Still trucking along.
Wingnut Interactive - Yet to do anything.

I sure don't see much development potential for PC gaming there.

Cit Phil Cit

01-28-2009, 08:57 AM

MS is a bloated company with too many fingers in too few pies. They obviously have the money to do whatever they want, but they have neither the drive or leadership to do anything with it.

Steam = PC, Live! = Xbox. SteamLive! aka GFWL does not equal good product.

Goronmon

01-28-2009, 09:11 AM

I would say they are fairly committed to the PC as a gaming platform. I mean, without a considerable amount of support from MS, there would be no PC gaming platform.

Voodoo

01-28-2009, 09:22 AM

I would say they are fairly committed to the PC as a gaming platform. I mean, without a considerable amount of support from MS, there would be no PC gaming platform.
What is your opinion about games that are native on OS X? Would it be more accurate to say that the primary reason computer game developers focus on Windows is that it is the leading platform?

I'd go so far as to say that computer gaming would continue to exist even if Windows and/or Microsoft's support ceased to.

Related, here is a quote from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D) explaining the difference between DirectX and OpenGL. This quite plainly states that another leading reason developers produce games on DirectX is that it is easier than OpenGL...
In general, Direct3D is designed to be a 3D hardware interface. The feature set of Direct3D is derived from the feature set of what hardware provides. OpenGL, on the other hand, is designed to be a 3D rendering system that may be hardware accelerated. These two APIs are fundamentally designed under two separate modes of thought. The fact that the two APIs have become so similar in functionality shows how well hardware is converging into user functionality.

Even so, there are functional differences in how the two APIs work. Direct3D expects the application to manage hardware resources; OpenGL makes the implementation do it. This tradeoff for OpenGL decreases difficulty in developing for the API, while at the same time increasing the complexity of creating an implementation (or driver) that performs well. With Direct3D, the developer must manage hardware resources independently; however, the implementation is simpler, and developers have the flexibility to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible for their application.

Even so... Tom's had a feature about OpenGL 3.0 vs DirectX 11 (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opengl-directx,2019.html). It is an interesting read and a bit disheartening.

biosc1

01-28-2009, 10:04 AM

The problem is that they are doing "just enough". There is no compelling reason for them to put more effort into it. Apple is not competing and neither is the open-source community. Even with a poor effort, MS still produces the leading platform for gaming. Of course, it's a chicken and egg thing...MS leads because they are in the most households...if Apple or Linux had more coverage, then they may become a bigger threat which would hopefully push MS to try harder.

Ancalagon

01-28-2009, 10:06 AM

Everything I've heard about OpenGL 3 is pretty bad. One thing that Microsoft does very well is develop DX11, but part of the reason for that is that they dont really answer to anyone. Is your app broken by MS's new DX? Too bad, update it. OpenGL doesnt seem to have the same mindset - they have legacy code for stuff 20 years old in there so I hear. In this case, MS is efficient at doing a task because they are the only one doing it - its not a committee decision as to what goes into the next stage (although I would guess major players like ATI and Nvidia have considerable input).

As for MS's stance on gaming on Windows... they just wont admit it upfront, but yeah, they dont support cos it isnt as profitable for them. Why bother with GFWL, when they have extemely tough and ingrained competition for the platform (Steam), they dont release many PC games, and those they do release arent nearly as profitable as XBox games. To them, whats the point? The best they can do is make Windows as compelling as possible, because they sure as hell make money off of that, and lots of it.

Goronmon

01-28-2009, 11:35 AM

What is your opinion about games that are native on OS X? Would it be more accurate to say that the primary reason computer game developers focus on Windows is that it is the leading platform?It's the leading platform for games because MS has done a better job supporting the technologies for gaming on the personal computer than anyone else. Apple just doesn't take gaming seriously, so it's almost pointless to worry about OSX in this context.

It's easy to complain about MS's gaming support from the end-user software perspective, but they are the best we've got at the moment from the API/hardware support side of things. So I feel there is a limit to the scorn one can point towards MS, since maintaining DirectX requires a significant amount of resources.

OpenGL is great and all, but it's been outdone by DirectX for quite a while now, and I haven't seen anything that makes it seem like that will be changing.

J Arcane

01-28-2009, 11:46 AM

What do you all think about Microsoft's "commitment" to PC Gaming?

It's a load of old bollocks. It's marketing nonsense to try and sell more copies of Vista/7, and nothing more. Everything about the "Games for Windows" initiative is a fucking joke.

The only advantage Windows really has had for gaming in the past decade or so is Direct X, and that's as much because OpenGL's consortium is a bunch of hidebound idiots as it is anything else. And DirectX is as much the vidcard companies' baby as it is Microsoft's anyway, the two go hand in hand, and I have no doubt there's plenty of mutual backscratching and cash waving involved with that process.

Norse

01-28-2009, 12:03 PM

MalReynolds

01-28-2009, 12:09 PM

id have to agree with Norse

J Arcane

01-28-2009, 12:10 PM

Why should MS care about PC gaming? They just need to provide the tools (DirectX) for other companies (Bethesda, Maxis, Bioware, Crytec etc.) so they can create games for their platform. I really don't see why MS should focus on PC gaming when they make money of X360, something they probably wouldn't do directly from PC games.
Oh I don't know, maybe it's that little thing called "Windows", being the platform on which the overwhelming majority of the world still plays their games, and them having made it and all only to abandon it for cheap TV consoles that break in 3 months.

But I guess I shouldn't expect that expect that kind of perspective from someone with a Gamertag that actually has the number 360 in it, should I?

Telefrog

01-28-2009, 12:12 PM

Why should MS care about PC gaming? They just need to provide the tools (DirectX) for other companies (Bethesda, Maxis, Bioware, Crytec etc.) so they can create games for their platform. I really don't see why MS should focus on PC gaming when they make money of X360, something they probably wouldn't do directly from PC games.

Well, from a purely business perspective, one could point to Steam as an example of how a closed storefront matchmaking DRM system could pay off for MS even if they don't plan on actually making any PC games. I'm sure Valve isn't complaining about how Steam has helped their company grow.

Norse

01-28-2009, 12:26 PM

Oh I don't know, maybe it's that little thing called "Windows", being the platform on which the overwhelming majority of the world still plays their games, and them having made it and all only to abandon it for cheap TV consoles that break in 3 months.

But I guess I shouldn't expect that expect that kind of perspective from someone with a Gamertag that actually has the number 360 in it, should I?

I fail to see what my gamertag has to do with anything. Norse was taken, so adding 360 made more sense than anything else.

The perspective from a 360 hater is more relevant?

Cit Phil Cit

01-28-2009, 12:31 PM

Why should MS care about PC gaming? They just need to provide the tools ..

indeed. Why aren't they doing that then? Instead of buying and closing studios and making lackluster software solutions that are already solved?

Too many fingers too few pies.

Norse

01-28-2009, 12:34 PM

indeed. Why aren't they doing that then? Instead of buying and closing studios and making lackluster software solutions that are already solved?

Too many fingers too few pies.

What other tools than DirectX do the devs need? A near perfect digital distribution model (Steam) already exists on the platform. Accessibility is improving as far as I can tell. There's a "Games" section in the start menu in W7, and there's support for automatic updates if the game devs choose to implement it. Hasn't MS also provided tools for automatic "silent" installing of games?

I don't know what the problem is. Was MS really a games company before the Xbox came along?

roboninja

01-28-2009, 12:38 PM

Why should MS care about PC gaming? They just need to provide the tools (DirectX) for other companies (Bethesda, Maxis, Bioware, Crytec etc.) so they can create games for their platform. I really don't see why MS should focus on PC gaming when they make money of X360, something they probably wouldn't do directly from PC games.

While J Arcane's response was more antagonistic than needed, he was right. If I can no longer count on Windows being a robust gaming platform, my need to purchase the OS disappears. It would then be time to move to Linux. MS has done just enough over the past couple of years to keep PC gamers on their platform. It seems obvious that they want people gaming on the 360 more, where they get their draconian control over the hardware and software, including any online interactions. This may make sense for MS, but not so much for us the consumers.

Goronmon

01-28-2009, 12:40 PM

MS has done just enough over the past couple of years to keep PC gamers on their platform.Even if it is "just enough" it's still a lot more than anyone else is doing.

Norse

01-28-2009, 12:44 PM

roboninja

01-28-2009, 12:50 PM

Even if it is "just enough" it's still a lot more than anyone else is doing.

You are right, there are currently really no alternatives for a gaming OS. I do hope that changes eventually.

Deadend

01-28-2009, 12:56 PM

Ok. So if Windows isn't doing anything for gaming, what does OS X and Linux offer that's more "game" friendly?

I was a huge PC gamer some years ago. When I quit, it wasn't because the software, but because of the system requirements of the games I wanted to play, which led to frequent upgrades.

Nothing, it's just nerd rage in here. MS doesn't have to do shit for games at this point, the studios can all try and fend for themselves. As I really don't think games are going to get people to upgrade to Windows 7. As if someone is willing to shell out money for games, they own a 360 already.

Really, cut with the whining and rage in here. Yeah, GFW is shit, but I didn't realize Steam was on Linux or OSX, so blame Valve for Microsoft not putting in effort. MS should also be more concerned with getting into the casual gamespace, as in the popcap market and make it easy to put those games on the PC.

J Arcane

01-28-2009, 01:06 PM

You are right, there are currently really no alternatives for a gaming OS. I do hope that changes eventually.
Apple could've done it. IF they'd moved to take a leadership role over OpenGL, or of GameSprockets had been anything more than a GFW-ish marketing ploy, they could've remained a viable platform for gaming. IT used to be that anything that came out for PC just about, came out for Mac, but that was a long time ago, largely because of DirectX pushing ahead of OpenGL. Apple has a lot of clout with the workstation faction that is a large part of why OpenGL is so goddamn backward.

Cit Phil Cit

01-28-2009, 01:19 PM

What other tools than DirectX do the devs need? A near perfect digital distribution model (Steam) already exists on the platform. Accessibility is improving as far as I can tell. There's a "Games" section in the start menu in W7, and there's support for automatic updates if the game devs choose to implement it. Hasn't MS also provided tools for automatic "silent" installing of games?

I don't know what the problem is. Was MS really a games company before the Xbox came along?

I wasn't clear. I agree with you: they should be providing the tools and leaving it at that. They aren't doing that, they continual make lameass attempts to rope-in the PC gaming market with rusty hooks - and are shocked when no one takes the bait.

Steam already exists and they still pump-up GFWL which doesn't offer half as much (unless your are mostly a Xbox user). Instead of doing anything to improve their product, they pay-off (one way or another) studios to implement their boneheaded schemes (Fallout 3 and DoW2) or try to force people to buy things (DX10 tied to Vista).

MS has a history of (as mentioned) buying devs and closing them afterwards (which isn't to say some of them were going out of business or bankrupt) and of making ho-hum match-making software that they would force into their games (and obscurity).

i wouldn't address the issues (good or bad) of a beta product until it is retail.

violent

01-28-2009, 02:12 PM

I would say there was no future in PC gaming if my competition was Steam too.

Jackel

01-28-2009, 02:16 PM

I would say there was no future in PC gaming if my competition was Steam too.

While I'm a Steam Junky..I gotta say that I really hope Stardock and MS don't see it that way.

Without Competition Steam will go stagnant again. Remember what the old friends system used to be like?

If only to ensure that Steam keeps being awesome, we should work to ensure competition exists.

violent

01-28-2009, 02:20 PM

While I'm a Steam Junky..I gotta say that I really hope Stardock and MS don't see it that way.

Without Competition Steam will go stagnant again. Remember what the old friends system used to be like?

If only to ensure that Steam keeps being awesome, we should work to ensure competition exists.

I don't see Steam being a deterrent to Stardock. Microsoft? Potentially. We should all be aware of how Microsoft isn't always the innovator but rather the exploiter of markets. Hell, look at GFWL. Something that has to this day, been free. Now with the recent announcement of paid DLC for Fallout 3, it only reinforces this belief. GFWL will only succeed if they throw all their money at publishers to make their games "Games for Windows" and therefore, cornering the DD market. Economy the way it is though, it may be a risky bet at this juncture.

Stardock is offering original content and is more in the market of providing rather than cornering. At least is my outlook of the situation.

Also, on the subject of stagnant Steam, I think the way things are now, Valve is smart enough to know that having a huge lead is no guarantee. Something that I'm rather proud of as a result of the last generation of gaming.

Voodoo

01-28-2009, 02:20 PM

I wasn't clear. I agree with you: they should be providing the tools and leaving it at that. They aren't doing that, they continual make lameass attempts to rope-in the PC gaming market with rusty hooks - and are shocked when no one takes the bait.

Steam already exists and they still pump-up GFWL which doesn't offer half as much (unless your are mostly a Xbox user). Instead of doing anything to improve their product, they pay-off (one way or another) studios to implement their boneheaded schemes (Fallout 3 and DoW2) or try to force people to buy things (DX10 tied to Vista).

MS has a history of (as mentioned) buying devs and closing them afterwards (which isn't to say some of them were going out of business or bankrupt) and of making ho-hum match-making software that they would force into their games (and obscurity).

I wouldn't address the issues (good or bad) of a beta product until it is retail.
Exactly what I think as well. :)

Karak

01-28-2009, 02:24 PM

What part? Creating, or Delivery.
I hope they remove all creation attempts and go towards fixing their delivery system and giving Steam and others something fight against.

Get better at delivering tools and move on and let others develop.

violent

01-28-2009, 02:25 PM

I would love if Microsoft stuck to tool development only. Unfortunately, they don't market well on the side of a Corn Flakes box.

Voodoo

01-28-2009, 02:48 PM

I would love if Microsoft stuck to tool development only. Unfortunately, they don't market well on the side of a Corn Flakes box.
Would it be fairly accurate to say that based on their moves (closing down internal PC Gaming development houses) that this may be their ultimate goal?

violent

01-28-2009, 02:51 PM

Would it be fairly accurate to say that based on their moves (closing down internal PC Gaming development houses) that this may be their ultimate goal?

I'd like to think so and I would was the economic situation not as dire as it is and therefore could be the culprit of such a move.

Deadend

01-28-2009, 03:38 PM

Would it be fairly accurate to say that based on their moves (closing down internal PC Gaming development houses) that this may be their ultimate goal?

It is, as publishing games from a first party, the point of the games is to attract consumers to the platform. If consumers do not need to be directly attracted, being a publisher is a great way to flush money down the toilet unless you can churn out hits. Microsoft doesn't really need to publish games at this point for either platform, in terms of publishing games serving a larger goal than just making money directly.

Microsoft wants to make the PC game market unified and then start charging a fee for making a GFW game. Or it's all part of J. Allered's big Live Anywhere scheme, which just isn't working right yet.

RandoM51

01-28-2009, 04:23 PM

Microsoft's only interest in PC gaming is in its ability to sell their operating systems, and related services, particularly ones that require periodic payments. If they can't charge you a fee for PC multiplayer, why bother with pc multiplayer when they can push you towards the 360 instead?

...which probably makes sense from a high-level business perspective.

Karak

01-28-2009, 04:49 PM

Would it be fairly accurate to say that based on their moves (closing down internal PC Gaming development houses) that this may be their ultimate goal?

I am wondering if the 3-4 development houses they have opened in the same small amount of time might not only do 360 but also PC games? Since many of the developers have gone from the closed to the new ones.
MS is quiet about opening them though. My co-workers cousin works at MS and was recently cut from one internal house and then mysteriously rehired at another to work on a "game". But she won't tell him ANYTHING else.
We get to see here 2 weekends from now. And she drinks. I am going to get her wasted and begin asking her questions. Hopefully I can get more:)

Goronmon

01-28-2009, 05:11 PM

Microsoft's only interest in PC gaming is in its ability to sell their operating systems, and related services...Is there some other interest they should have with PC gaming?

Edit: And yes, I know your comment about business perspective covers this, I'm just curious to read what you think would be other motivators.

MagGnome

01-29-2009, 08:09 PM

Microsoft would rather move all of us over to the 360, where they can charge for things like multiplayer and images - things that wouldn't fly on the PC. The console market is much more exploitable than the PC market.

I personally don't care that MS has abandoned the PC market. I just wish they would stop mucking it up with crap like GFWL. I'm also disappointed that they've wooed over some of my once-favorite developers to the console side of things, but new development houses have arisen to take their place.

J Arcane

01-29-2009, 08:20 PM

I am really, really disappointed in Relic for going GFWL. I'm a bit disappointed in the game itself too, but while that was pretty much just a rehash of my frustration with COH, it is nothing compared to the level of irate annoyance GFWL managed to induce just trying to get the game to let me play a CPU skirmish.

First I had to log in, but then it tells me there's a new TOS, and I have to agree to it. But rather than just giving me a standard box to click through, instead, it logs me off, and then opens up my bloody browser to a Live login page. Thinking this is some kind of glitch I try again, same result, so I finally login again to the website, where it gives me a very short little bit of text asking to agree to the new TOS, mind you, without actually showing it to me, no for that I have to click the link and go to another goddamn page to find out what I'm actually agreeing to.

All just to log into the damn game. Then of course I get logged in, and first I try just jumping into the matchmaking, figuring if Trueskill's so damn great it should pair me up with someone who isn't going to totally rape me or anything, but of course, all it does is sit there and do fuck all for 5 minutes before I finally get fed up and quit and go try the Custom Game section, which appears to display a normal server browser, but of course there's nothing listed on it. I start my own, and it's only there, buried in the player options side of the screen that I find the option to add a CPU player.

Mind you, I'm technically setting up an online game by doing this as far as I can tell, so even though there's no open slots not taken by a CPU player, it's probably still broadcasting it to their damn matchmaker system, not that it matters since it doesn't seem to do any damn thing.

Once I figured it out, I could get right back to things again, but I was stymied by just how retarded the whole process was.

Xerxes

01-29-2009, 08:47 PM

Is there some other interest they should have with PC gaming?

Not hindering it.

Tron

01-29-2009, 08:52 PM

Microsoft's only interest in PC gaming is in its ability to sell their operating systems.

Or it might have to do with the fact that there are probably several hundred million PCs out there and only 30 million 360s.

Deadend

01-30-2009, 03:14 AM

Or it might have to do with the fact that there are probably several hundred million PCs out there and only 30 million 360s.

Yeah.. and how many will be allowed to have any games at all?
Out of that number, which ones have real video cards? Ok, those are owned by gamers. Ok, now how many PC games out there does MS get a cut of the money from?

The 360 gives MS some money for every single game sold. Of course they are more interested in that. They are trying to figure out a way to do that with the PC as well.

I still don't get the sense of nerd rage in here. As it stands... Microsoft matters to PC gaming because no one else is willing to step up as much. OpenGL is a pain in the ass for most companies, Apple doesn't give a shit about gaming on OSX, Linux... not really many games on there. But hey, game studios COULD make their games for those OS's. Or make them using OpenGL, or not be interested in DLC via GFWL.

I don't see how MS is hurting PC gaming with GFW. Hell, when GFW was announced it didn't make sense, as there really isn't gaming outside of Windows.

And when GFW DOES work right, like it mostly has for me, it works nicely and does some cool shit. Not sure if it has the music player over the games soundtrack like 360s do. Or if it has party chat.

But it's targeted more towards the casual gamer, to ease them into PC gaming from casual gaming.

Eh, not like any one here can do anything more than whine and rage about the very concept of GFW.

Oh and if someone brings up about how Steam did it first... they fail. 2005 is when Live existed in current form on 360. It just took almost 4 years to make it to the Pc and in that time Steam improved from being a pain in the ass barrier to playing Counter Strike to being what Live is supposed to be. Even down to achievements. But why does Microsoft do GFW when Steam is better? Same reason Stardock does Impulse and Greenhouse and others exist... because competition from digital storefronts is GOOD.

Voodoo

01-30-2009, 07:12 AM

...
You seem to have misunderstood everyone in the thread. We are not saying "Don't make GFW or GFW-L anymore Microsoft!" Instead we are saying, "Stop fucking around and make GFW-L better Microsoft!"

We also aren't saying that Steam should be the only system. Instead we are asking Microsoft, the creator of everything that the topic we are discussing is based on, why do they release this product which is clearly not using the capabilities of their own operating system to its fullest extent. If there is anybody that could do it, it is Microsoft due to their unique stance.

In essence, Microsoft has little excuse to not be the leader with GFW-L.

Deadend

01-30-2009, 09:30 AM

You seem to have misunderstood everyone in the thread. We are not saying "Don't make GFW or GFW-L anymore Microsoft!" Instead we are saying, "Stop fucking around and make GFW-L better Microsoft!"

We also aren't saying that Steam should be the only system. Instead we are asking Microsoft, the creator of everything that the topic we are discussing is based on, why do they release this product which is clearly not using the capabilities of their own operating system to its fullest extent. If there is anybody that could do it, it is Microsoft due to their unique stance.

In essence, Microsoft has little excuse to not be the leader with GFW-L.

In that case.. I'd go with that the team for GFWL is made up more of Marketing people who have no clue exactly what they are trying to sell (PC Gaming.. it's what you do in Windows!) and a few people who are trying to port Live over to the PC side of things. On the bright side.. I think that Live is patchable and that it will patch across all games.

Worst part about it right now is the Live Marketplace client, it should be part of the games tab in Vista... in fact the Games Tab SHOULD BE GFW Live. But it's probably done by another team in another location.

TrackZero

01-30-2009, 09:39 AM

Oh I don't know, maybe it's that little thing called "Windows", being the platform on which the overwhelming majority of the world still plays their games, and them having made it and all only to abandon it for cheap TV consoles that break in 3 months.

By that logic, you can complain about the PS2. It was just a platform, 3rd parties made it what it was.

Has MS done PC gaming some favours? Yeah. Could it do more? Hell yeah.

That said, it really doesn't matter. So long as they keep DirectX in good order, I'm more than happy to let other developers and their online services keep PC gaming going. Frankly, if MS had a ton of internally developed great games, I wouldn't be surprised to see people claiming that they had a "monopoly" on the market since they also make the platform/API. If anything, they're doing us a solid by avoiding that fiasco.

Edit: And back on topic per Voodoo. Yes, GFWL is badly in need of a complete rewrite. I'd think Steam would make many things obvious on what they need to do, but perhaps they're being handcuffed too much to the XBL system.

Voodoo

01-30-2009, 09:45 AM

In that case.. I'd go with that the team for GFWL is made up more of Marketing people who have no clue exactly what they are trying to sell (PC Gaming.. it's what you do in Windows!) and a few people who are trying to port Live over to the PC side of things. On the bright side.. I think that Live is patchable and that it will patch across all games.

Worst part about it right now is the Live Marketplace client, it should be part of the games tab in Vista... in fact the Games Tab SHOULD BE GFW Live. But it's probably done by another team in another location.
Exactly correct. I think the most disappointing part of GFW-L was its launch. If I remember correctly, the first GFW-L title was Halo 2 which required (for reasons mysterious) to be installed on Vista...

What this told us PC Gamers is that the GFW-L focus isn't customer service, it is a pure marketing strategy. Hopefully, with what is happening with Fallout 3 in regards to GFW-L, Microsoft will get its head on straight about the whole thing.

Personally, I don't care if I can play a Windows game with a 360 counterpart or not. I'd rather the GFW-L be solid on the Windows platform in spite of Live on the 360.

In essence, the standard GFW-L client should be able to overlay any game I am playing on Windows just like Steam does. I expect this because I am playing the game in Windows and with DirectX. I should be able to get on Live and see what anyone of my friends are doing, even if they aren't in a GFW-L 'enabled' game. If they have the client installed and are happily running around System Shock 2, I should be able to message them.

Steam and XFire does this...

Anything less, from Microsoft especially, I do not find to be acceptable.

Regarding the Marketplace, it makes sense on the 360 to have it based on a credit system but it doesn't on Windows. I don't doubt that there are programmers at Microsoft with enough talent to have the GFW-L market place know if the client is a 360 or Windows. It could then auto-switch between standard money and their internal credit system.

Ancalagon

01-30-2009, 09:53 AM

Exactly correct. I think the most disappointing part of GFW-L was its launch. If I remember correctly, the first GFW-L title was Halo 2 which required (for reasons mysterious) to be installed on Vista...

What this told us PC Gamers is that the GFW-L focus isn't customer service, it is a pure marketing strategy. Hopefully, with what is happening with Fallout 3 in regards to GFW-L, Microsoft will get its head on straight about the whole thing.

Personally, I don't care if I can play a Windows game with a 360 counterpart or not. I'd rather the GFW-L be solid on the Windows platform in spite of Live on the 360.

In essence, the standard GFW-L client should be able to overlay any game I am playing on Windows just like Steam does. I expect this because I am playing the game in Windows and with DirectX. I should be able to get on Live and see what anyone of my friends are doing, even if they aren't in a GFW-L 'enabled' game. If they have the client installed and are happily running around System Shock 2, I should be able to message them.

Steam and XFire does this...

Anything less, from Microsoft especially, I do not find to be acceptable.

Regarding the Marketplace, it makes sense on the 360 to have it based on a credit system but it doesn't on Windows. I don't doubt that there are programmers at Microsoft with enough talent to have the GFW-L market place know if the client is a 360 or Windows. It could then auto-switch between standard money and their internal credit system.

Yeah, I agree with that.

The thing is, yes Microsoft does enough for Windows as a gaming platform, and that includes DirectX. Its the market leader (in gaming operating systems) for a reason - it actually, somehow, manages to mostly be good at it.

GFWL is a different story, and as I see it, unrelated to Microsoft's committment to the PC and Windows as a gaming platform. And GFWL is of course a complete joke, a useless piece of crap that is somewhat surprising to see from Microsoft. Microsoft is usually known for releasing feature complete and relatively bug free software, so when they release this half hearted embarrassingly bad piece of turd, I think its fair that people hold them to high standards. They are much bigger than Valve, Stardock and Greenhouse put together and multiplied by 5, to think that they couldnt make a decent Windows client and API is nothing short of embarrassing. They should pull GFWL, pretend it never happened, and continue to do what they do best - make DirectX and Windows. Look, everybody can understand that they make more money from the XBox than from GFWL, really, we understand. If you want to abort GFWL and throw it in the dumpster, by all means go ahead. Just dont continue operating it and pretend you are really behind it, cos thats blatantly not true.

Tron

01-30-2009, 09:57 AM

Yeah.. and how many will be allowed to have any games at all?
Out of that number, which ones have real video cards?

Its widely known that there are hundreds of millions of PC gamers out there playing everythig from solitaire to flash based puzzles.

MS could easily target them AND the high end gamer. Silverlight could easily become a competitor to Flash if they incorporated support like XNA for it.

Think outside the box...hardcore gamers aren't the only gamers in town...look at the Wii

Telefrog

01-30-2009, 10:03 AM

MS could easily target them AND the high end gamer. Silverlight could easily become a competitor to Flash if they incorporated support like XNA for it.

Well, to be fair, Silverlight has a long way to go before it really starts to compete with Flash in any serious way.

Voodoo

01-30-2009, 10:03 AM

Its widely known that there are hundreds of millions of PC gamers out there playing everythig from solitaire to flash based puzzles.

MS could easily target them AND the high end gamer. Silverlight could easily become a competitor to Flash if they incorporated support like XNA for it.

I've been pretty impressed with Silverlight so far. It seems to be a lot lower in CPU requirement when streaming video than Flash. I haven't used it for anything else, though.

Spectre-7

01-30-2009, 10:11 AM

This quite plainly states that another leading reason developers produce games on DirectX is that it is easier than OpenGL...

Ummm... I'm not sure how you got that reading out of it. To my eye, it states the exact opposite.

This tradeoff for OpenGL decreases difficulty in developing for the API, while at the same time increasing the complexity of creating an implementation (or driver) that performs well. With Direct3D, the developer must manage hardware resources independently; however, the implementation is simpler, and developers have the flexibility to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible for their application.

Read: It's easier to develop software using OpenGL, but more difficult to develop OpenGL drivers.