Is Microsoft Trying to Kill PC Gaming?

Saw this link this morning at Blues News and I haven't seen it in any threads, so cough me if you dare.

The answer, obviously, is "No", and the author is just using the title facetiously. (That means it's just a joke.)

http://www.dailygame.net/news/archiv...

When Microsoft started talking up Vista's gaming functionality, PC gamers got all hot and bothered. There it was, laid out in front of us, the holy land of DX10 graphics, and an entire "Games for Windows" marketing program. It couldn't possibly get any better, as our PC gaming world was obviously not dying, and Microsoft was apparently not going to give up on us, expecting us all to move over to consoles, right? If Microsoft's current PC gaming efforts are any indication, we're all very wrong in that assumption. Judging by the lackluster game releases and the attempt to suck the blood from PC gamers with "Games for Windows Live," it starts feeling like Microsoft is doing all it can to actually kill PC gaming.

MS isn't trying to kill PC gaming. MS is trying to rape PC gaming, but PC gaming is struggling and screaming a lot, and MS ain't goin' back to jail over some dumb bitch, dammit.

Gamer-driven OS sales are likely not a huge factor. Gamers' big expenditures are on ancillary 3rd-party hardware.

With the Xbox, they have proprietary hardware. Even better, consumers behaved according to Mr. Gates' wildest dreams: they bought untested hardware, put up with unready software requiring future patches, and best of all rolled over when their consoles started acting like fembots thrown in a swimming pool.

So let me get this straight.. Microsoft has killed PC gaming by releasing two lackluster titles and the just released attempt at a unified Online Platform for Vista?

So what about all the other crap games that have been released in the past? did they kill PC gaming also?

How about Gamespy? did that kill PC gaming?

TheGameguru wrote:

So let me get this straight.. Microsoft has killed PC gaming by releasing two lackluster titles and the just released attempt at a unified Online Platform for Vista?

So what about all the other crap games that have been released in the past? did they kill PC gaming also?

How about Gamespy? did that kill PC gaming?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The answer, obviously, is "No", and the author is just using the title facetiously. (That means it's just a joke.)

I think the key word there is TRYING. I think they're honestly trying to support the platform more because they think it can be profitable. They're just making mistakes in judgement along the way, such as
A) People are willing to upgrade to Vista en-masse to play lackluster and/or dated games
B) People are willing to pay for services (GFW live) that they can get elsewhere for free (steam)
C) Developers are willing to fall under the GFW banner (we've seen resistance to this).
D) People want their PC gaming experience to ressemble the console experience.

If anything MS should be looking at blizzard for a model of how to create successful PC games.
A) Take your time to make a good product, don't rush things
B) Have accessible system requirements
C) Allow and encourage user created content, and make it even more user friendly.
D) Give access to some free services to accompany your games (Battle.net)

The two keys to improve the PC gaming market IMO are
A) Increased user-friendliness (Which Vista purports to have, except for the fact that drivers are STILL not working, eg, Creative XFI cards not working with GFW Live) by reducing bugs, compatibility errors, etc.
B) Accessibility through games that are able to scale well to a diverse array of systems (WoW.)

Ultimately, I think that MS's big mistake was rushing out the GFW brand. They should have waited until Vista became a lot more stable and a lot more widespread and they actually had SOLID GAME RELEASES to accompany it rather than rushing it out with two games that have been received rather poorly among the PC gaming community.

Don't even get me started on GFW Live. It's not a good model among a PC audience who is used to receiving things for free. I'd much rather they offer the service for free and finance it through microtransactions, if necessary.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

So let me get this straight.. Microsoft has killed PC gaming by releasing two lackluster titles and the just released attempt at a unified Online Platform for Vista?

So what about all the other crap games that have been released in the past? did they kill PC gaming also?

How about Gamespy? did that kill PC gaming?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The answer, obviously, is "No", and the author is just using the title facetiously. (That means it's just a joke.)

No I completely get that.. but then whats the point of the article? To complain about crappy PC games? and crappy online matchmaking for PC gamers?

So then.. whats exactly new and original about that? I've been living with that for basically the day the Internet came to the PC.

One big thing they could/should correct is making Live something that's available outside of games as well. Right now it's like when Live first launched on the original Xbox. You already had to be in a game to get invites to it or even see who else was on. If Sony can be ridiculed for the PSN being so far behind Xbox Live, GFW Live has a similar relationship to PSN right now.

I read it as a call out to MS: "Hey, if you guys are serious about pushing your GFW concept, take a step back and realize you are doing things wrong. Here are some ideas."

The two keys to improve the PC gaming market IMO are
A) Increased user-friendliness (Which Vista purports to have, except for the fact that drivers are STILL not working, eg, Creative XFI cards not working with GFW Live) by reducing bugs, compatibility errors, etc.
B) Accessibility through games that are able to scale well to a diverse array of systems (WoW.)

Ultimately, I think that MS's big mistake was rushing out the GFW brand. They should have waited until Vista became a lot more stable and a lot more widespread and they actually had SOLID GAME RELEASES to accompany it rather than rushing it out with two games that have been received rather poorly among the PC gaming community.

These are excellent points.. I think someone at MS (notably Bill) should have pushed the button and held Vista for at least another year.. this would have allowed for more development time to polish the product.. allowed for DX10.0 cards to achieve a bit more market penetration (also sub <$150).. given various manufactures more time for driver development and perhaps have given game developers more time to examine DX10.0 and get some titles ready for DX10.

Instead Ballmer (who sucks ass) didnt have the balls to push for another year and caved to certain board members who were convinced that getting the product out ASAP was more important that the extra development time that several key Vista people were screaming for.

And point B should be the freakin bible for every single game developer in the market today on the PC Platform.. Blizzard games just flat out work.. and work across every single PC practically made.. and still look better than decent.

LobsterMobster wrote:

MS isn't trying to kill PC gaming. MS is trying to rape PC gaming, but PC gaming is struggling and screaming a lot, and MS ain't goin' back to jail over some dumb bitch, dammit.

I actually do think Gamespy is killing PC gaming...

Dysplastic wrote:

I think the key word there is TRYING. I think they're honestly trying to support the platform more because they think it can be profitable. They're just making mistakes in judgement along the way

Yes, they're trying to kill of the PC as a gaming platform by not trying to kill it off. (My own reasoning not inferred from your post).

It's one of those instances that they can plead ignorance or innocence....

*reinforces tinfoil hat*

Before the LIVE launch this month, I was excited to see Microsoft try to rebuild a better retail presence for the pc games platform with the first examples of Games for Windows branding and standardized packaging. It seemed the only hope for gaining back some shelf space in brick and mortar stores.

At this early stage of the game though, I think Games for Windows-LIVE is in danger of confusing the new branding, mainly cause the launch just feels shakey and the features possibly incomplete.

Possibly incomplete? Did you see that video at (i think it was) GDC? They were showing off Uno on live and talking about the features of it. The head of GFWL basically said, "We don't force any standards across the platform so although Uno has voice chat, other games may not."

IMAGE(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/TheRealEdwin/omgonozkt6.gif)

Irongut wrote:

features possibly incomplete.

I was just being overly soft with my wording and I guess I watered down my own comment. The inner Irongut was really trying to say "I think it was released before its ready, its benefits feel unclear and I'm just not convinced its a mature service that should be charged for." I need to be more direct sometimes.

lol @ Edwin

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

With the Xbox, they have proprietary hardware. Even better, consumers behaved according to Mr. Gates' wildest dreams: they bought untested hardware, put up with unready software requiring future patches, and best of all rolled over when their consoles started acting like fembots thrown in a swimming pool.

Careful, that kind of talk is liable to get you labeled an Xbox hater/Sony fanboy.

You know, I think that GFW was rushed....It's part of a pattern of premature releases from the company. That said, not all early releases are bad...I recall a alot of teeth gnashing about Steam, XP....pretty much anything that upsets the status quo, and mostly it has turned out ok.

The Xbox-Vista integration thing puzzles me, though. Are they deliberately trying to cut out OEMs from the Gaming segment, or are they just trying to push the console? It's not so easy to tell from where I sit.

Faced with a Dell branded Alienware, or an Alienware branded Alienware, and an Xbox 360 Elite the choice is pretty clear: the savings on the Xbox 360 buys alot of games, beer, hot dogs, and presents for the missus when the 360 bogarts all my time.

Yes Microsoft is attempting to rule the world. The answer to all "Is Microsoft trying to..." questions are most likely "Yes.". Is Microsoft trying to kill me. Yes. Is Microsoft the reason why global warming is happening. Yes. Is Microsoft the reason why War exists. Yes. What other things can we attach to the Microsoft name. It could become a game if it hasn't already. Have fun.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

With the Xbox, they have proprietary hardware. Even better, consumers behaved according to Mr. Gates' wildest dreams: they bought untested hardware, put up with unready software requiring future patches, and best of all rolled over when their consoles started acting like fembots thrown in a swimming pool.

Careful, that kind of talk is liable to get you labeled an Xbox hater/Sony fanboy.

Maybe we should change his name to H.P. Lovebox?

In re: Vista performance.. [H] did another follow up with ATI hardware to their original article.. and updated their Nvidia benchmarks with newer drivers..

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...

Its clearly obvious its all about driver immaturity...or specific issues with certain game titles.

The real question isn't about Vista or XP. How does it run on Surface?

Edwin wrote:

IMAGE(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/TheRealEdwin/omgonozkt6.gif)

Yea, this sums it up pretty well. MS will continue to do the things MS does. In the meanwhile, Anonymous will continue to do the things Anonymous does, such as post articles like these.