Does microsoft get some profit from games made for PC?

[Dendio]

Microsoft is all about the xbox. They tend to leave windows gaming to its own devices. Do they get profit from the pc gaming master race? If they don't maybe they should figure out a way to tap into the pc market. Maybe we'd get better ports and access to more exclusives if they did

 

[DazZ.]

Only for GWFL games, and nobody wants GFWL to be attached to a game they're anticipating.
Thankfully it's dying next month I think. (edit: "discontinued on July 1, 2014" says wiki)

So to answer some of your questions, they did try, we got worse ports, Microsoft please stay away from the games I like, thank you.

 

[Weaver]

There is no license fee to develop software for Windows, so no they don't.
If someone uses GFWL (which dies in June btw) then I imagine they get some kind of cut.

What they should be worried about is SteamOS actually displacing some of their market share.
I won't lie, the only reason I'm not on a Linux only boot is because i want to play games.

Gaming has a surprising amount of sway in the OS market. We saw this even in the DOS days where people weren't upgrading to Windows 95 because Doom was DOS only and they wanted to keep playing Doom. Gabe Newell, who was working at MS at the time, actually started the team at MS to make Doom95; the Windows 95 compliant version of Doom (previously called WinDoom).

 

[pilouuuu]

No, because they don't invest in PC games. In fact I believe they hate PC gaming. I still remember when they had the brilliant idea to make Halo 2 Windows Vista only. And when they paid Alan Wake developers so they made it an XBox exclusive.

In my opinion they can go eff themselves and PC gaming will be much better without them.

 

[DoPo]

Microsoft is all about the xbox. They tend to leave windows gaming to its own devices.

Not surprising - they get mroe money out of Xbox. As in, they get money. For every single game. As opposed to the PC market, where they will only get money if they release a game on it and if enough people get it. Well, there is probably a small source of revenue in the face of GFWL but considering it's being shut down, one can reasonably assume it costed more (combined money and effort) than it generated.

All in all, there is no competition when it comes to which platform is ultimately more profitable.

It should also be noted that Microsoft do try to ensure that Windows is compatible with games - if it's not, for a lot of gamers there would be little reason to stay and MS will lose a customer base.

With that said, Microsoft seem eager to embrace the Apple model and incorporate a Windows Marketplace which could be used as a sole point of installing anything (or at least the alternatives could be made less desirable). So there is that.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Microsoft is all about the xbox. They tend to leave windows gaming to its own devices. Do they get profit from the pc gaming master race? If they don't maybe they should figure out a way to tap into the pc market. Maybe we'd get better ports and access to more exclusives if they did

There is no "platform holder fee" as there is for consoles,which is also why games on PC have always been more inexpensive than in consoles.
Microsoft earns money from PC gamers,by selling them Operating Systems though,well at least each time they include in their next operating system some really fresh and worthwhile DirectX functionality that is.


On another note Microsoft couldn't force such fees on PCs as it does with its console,simply because if they did that for Windows,then Windows would stop being an OS for 'PCs'.

For a computing system to be considered a 'PC',it has to meet the following criteria:

#The operating system is not locked to run only on specified first party hardware.
#The operating system maker has no control on what is made for,or released for the operating system.

Failing to meet the above 2 criteria is also why Mac machines while they are functional computers aren't called 'PCs'.
If Microsoft made it so everyone who wants to publish software on Windows has to pay Microsoft a fee,then computers that would run Windows wouldn't be PCs any more.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Nope.

They could have done, Windows having the biggest piece of the PC market, making an MS console, GFWL. All they needed to be was smart, and they could be where Valve is (for better or worse) in terms of PC gaming.

If from the xbox they went cross platrom with their exclusives, distributed games through GFWL the way Valve does with Steam, integrate PC gaming to the Xbox like it was a low teir PC, same to to the 360, I guess their original plans with the Xbone might have been quite sucessful

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

No, because they don't invest in PC games. In fact I believe they hate PC gaming. I still remember when they had the brilliant idea to make Halo 2 Windows Vista only. And when they paid Alan Wake developers so they made it an XBox exclusive.

In my opinion they can go eff themselves and PC gaming will be much better without them.

Why yes, PC Gaming would be much better off without the creators of the only operating system that PC Gaming is viable on. /sarcasm

Considering the cancer that was GFWL (may it burn forever in computer hell), MS's attempt at introducing Xbox Live Gold style subscriptions for multiplayer, locking off version of DirectX for the newest version of Windows and their attempts at creating a 'walled garden' similar to Apple with Windows 8...

Yes, PC gaming actually would be better off with nearly anyone else at the OS helm.

There was a reason why people were jumping for joy at the announcement of SteamOS, and no wasn't because they were all Valve fanboys. SteamOS represents a greater push away from Windows and toward PC gaming also using Linux based distros.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Only directly with GFW/GWFL, and by proxy with simply holding down the only option to PC gaming which is Microsoft's software.

And don't worry they are well under way to turn Windows into their Appstore space, which I'm sure sounds delightful for some but for the knowledgeable PC audience it is absolutely horrific.
"Oh but that will mean better ports" ... yeah in no conceivable scenario is that true, the worst ports for PC came with GWFL while Appstore is a cesspool of hustling/theft and all around horror because you just have no other options to get games, so no MS locking things down for themselves is in no way shape or form ever going to ever be a good idea.

 

[sanquin]

I believe they do get a bit of money for sales on their new marketplace thing in win 8. Just like Valve gets money for games on steam and such. But that's about it.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Also as far as MS is concerned, the future isn't in the home PC market for them. Apple and mobile devices are displacing them very quickly. They'll surely be concentrating on the corporate market.

Well if Windows 8 is their strategy for keeping the corporate market then they might as well give up now.

The Uni I work for didn't even purchase a review copy, something even Windows Vista achieved. And if the rumours are true ITS is using it as a reason to stitch of a Linux distro post Windows 7.

MS really screwed the moneymaking pooch with 8.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Since I was brought up with MS I'd rather stay with MS, not really a fan of linux and it's millions of variations and the like, not exactly a Valve fanboy and dislike the Steambox and OS, so if all of gaming moves to only Steam OS and Linux then I'll happily give up gaming and take up some better hobby that won't force me to use something I don't want to use just to have a good time.

 

[MeTalHeD]

No, because they don't invest in PC games. In fact I believe they hate PC gaming. I still remember when they had the brilliant idea to make Halo 2 Windows Vista only. And when they paid Alan Wake developers so they made it an XBox exclusive.

In my opinion they can go eff themselves and PC gaming will be much better without them.

Why yes, PC Gaming would be much better off without the creators of the only operating system that PC Gaming is viable on. /sarcasm

Considering the cancer that was GFWL (may it burn forever in computer hell), MS's attempt at introducing Xbox Live Gold style subscriptions for multiplayer, locking off version of DirectX for the newest version of Windows and their attempts at creating a 'walled garden' similar to Apple with Windows 8...

Yes, PC gaming actually would be better off with nearly anyone else at the OS helm.

There was a reason why people were jumping for joy at the announcement of SteamOS, and no wasn't because they were all Valve fanboys. SteamOS represents a greater push away from Windows and toward PC gaming also using Linux based distros.

Yeah, I don't know about you, but I will take Microsoft over Valve every single time.

Its linux. Not valve. Everyone is moving to an anti-corporate OS for safety, that is what Linux is. Valve only made a variation, but its all the same damn thing.

And Microsoft would destroy PC gaming if it meant xbox got more people. Their plans make Valve's look like bambi, and will have no problems yanking away your games to shove their overpriced xbox live down your PC's throat.

When it comes to who does more damage to gaming, Microsoft takes the damn cake. They fucked over anyone on GFWL and anyone who bought their exclusives.

That all sounds like some Grade A Certified

I'd rather an operating system with actual support in case something fucks up, rather than a forum full of techno-snobs to help me with any computer trouble. Oh hi Valve. You have Linux AND Steam? Great! Two things I don't want anything to do with! Fuck off.

Okay, I see where this is going.

"linux is all new and scare-wy."

Go get a mac. Seriously. If you are that scared of your own computer not having support, get a mac and be done with it.

I'm not scared of my computer. I simply prefer it when my computer actually runs. And I use my computer for things other than gaming.

Can I run all my games, my production software, my video rendering software, the word processors I work with, the animation tools I work with, the coding software I work with, After Effects, and everything else I use on my computer in a Linux Operating System?

The answer to that is a big fat fucking NO.

It's not that "Linux is new and scary" it's that "Linux is new and incompetent"

I prefer Microsoft, because it means someone's culpable if something doesn't work. If something breaks or the system corrupts, there's someone I can call up and demand to know "What the fuck is this?!" Right now, everything works on Windows. Call me when Linux is on their level. And being "Free of a corporation" isn't an end all praise.

That's all very well, but we're talking about gaming, not the reason you need extra software support and why you're clinging to Windows - which in itself is a problem. We shouldn't be stuck with Windows if there is a better option. Some of the stuff you mentioned, such as a word processor - as far as I know - are available on a Linux based system. However, I will say this, the only reason I keep a dual boot (for now) is because I know some of the games I enjoy will run. Still, I love Steam and Linux and am waiting for when it provides far more support for gaming. Linux does require more fiddling, but it's not impossible to work with if you're willing to run it.

Also, while the pros you speak of are largely about support, there is something to be said about the way Microsoft has done business. It tends to impose itself on users (new PC sales come with a copy of Windows) and while you might be able to hold someone accountable for a problem or call a Microsoft help desk - which is nice - supporting a company and its bad business model isn't healthy in the long run. Windows may work for you in your present situation, but is it working for gamers? It doesn't seem like that. I hated GFWL. I love Steam. There is a reason Valve is moving away from Windows and if they can convince game developers to move with them (and their millions of users) Windows would actually, you know, have to provide a better product. It's far too easy for companies to provide mediocre or poor service if they're running a monopoly, and I think Valve must be aware that there's a gap in the market to exploit. It's sad that the gap is service, a stable, inexpensive OS and consumer freedom, but companies need to find ways to reinvent themselves to stay alive. For example, it might not be long before Microsoft requires a subscription service for using the OS. The reason they wouldn't do this now is because it isn't a standard for the OS - yet. It seems like a subscription service for online gaming, though, is creeping into Sony and Microsoft's model which would be like Valve charging to use Steam.

While you're able to make use of animation tools and video editing software, the average gamer is not necessarily doing so. I use my PC for gaming and work, but if I didn't HAVE to have Windows to run games, I'd gladly ditch it for Ubuntu or SteamOS (holding thumbs this will work out). There's a good chance you won't be left in the lurch without video editing software either but if you're hanging onto Windows for those reasons, you're stuck like many of us are - we seem to have no other choice, but this is a myth. If you're willing to throw money at Microsoft for providing support for your software and even gaming, that's great. Your choice. If you don't like Steam or Linux, that's fine. But they're at least trying to offer people a choice and I think it's worth looking into.

Oh and FYI I believe the bulk of servers worldwide run off Linux because of their stability. Servers are key for anything from the internet, to networks and you having a spot to store your animation online for people to look at.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

No, because they don't invest in PC games. In fact I believe they hate PC gaming. I still remember when they had the brilliant idea to make Halo 2 Windows Vista only. And when they paid Alan Wake developers so they made it an XBox exclusive.

In my opinion they can go eff themselves and PC gaming will be much better without them.

Why yes, PC Gaming would be much better off without the creators of the only operating system that PC Gaming is viable on. /sarcasm

Considering the cancer that was GFWL (may it burn forever in computer hell), MS's attempt at introducing Xbox Live Gold style subscriptions for multiplayer, locking off version of DirectX for the newest version of Windows and their attempts at creating a 'walled garden' similar to Apple with Windows 8...

Yes, PC gaming actually would be better off with nearly anyone else at the OS helm.

There was a reason why people were jumping for joy at the announcement of SteamOS, and no wasn't because they were all Valve fanboys. SteamOS represents a greater push away from Windows and toward PC gaming also using Linux based distros.

Yeah, I don't know about you, but I will take Microsoft over Valve every single time.

Its linux. Not valve. Everyone is moving to an anti-corporate OS for safety, that is what Linux is. Valve only made a variation, but its all the same damn thing.

And Microsoft would destroy PC gaming if it meant xbox got more people. Their plans make Valve's look like bambi, and will have no problems yanking away your games to shove their overpriced xbox live down your PC's throat.

When it comes to who does more damage to gaming, Microsoft takes the damn cake. They fucked over anyone on GFWL and anyone who bought their exclusives.

That all sounds like some Grade A Certified

I'd rather an operating system with actual support in case something fucks up, rather than a forum full of techno-snobs to help me with any computer trouble. Oh hi Valve. You have Linux AND Steam? Great! Two things I don't want anything to do with! Fuck off.

Okay, I see where this is going.

"linux is all new and scare-wy."

Go get a mac. Seriously. If you are that scared of your own computer not having support, get a mac and be done with it.

I'm not scared of my computer. I simply prefer it when my computer actually runs. And I use my computer for things other than gaming.

Can I run all my games, my production software, my video rendering software, the word processors I work with, the animation tools I work with, the coding software I work with, After Effects, and everything else I use on my computer in a Linux Operating System?

The answer to that is a big fat fucking NO.

It's not that "Linux is new and scary" it's that "Linux is new and incompetent"

I prefer Microsoft, because it means someone's culpable if something doesn't work. If something breaks or the system corrupts, there's someone I can call up and demand to know "What the fuck is this?!" Right now, everything works on Windows. Call me when Linux is on their level. And being "Free of a corporation" isn't an end all praise.

Windows is a different thing than Games for Windows Live (GFWL)
In case you don't know,GFWL is a piece of software that was buggy from the very first moment and randomly crashed,and never got fixed. And there are games that were made for it,to use it as a DRM meaning they can't be played without it.
And Microsoft stops supporting it,means the games you bought that used it are turned to non-functional and you can't play them any more.
Except if someone hacks it and release the mod that is.

 

[The Lunatic]

It's a lot more complicated really.


And it really depends.

If a company uses certain software to make their game. Microsoft gets a payment.

Certain drivers, plugins, all that kinda stuff.

I believe it's the same on the consoles too.


However, a company doesn't have to purchase the rights to publish on a system, as one might with a console.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Since I was brought up with MS I'd rather stay with MS, not really a fan of linux and it's millions of variations and the like, not exactly a Valve fanboy and dislike the Steambox and OS, so if all of gaming moves to only Steam OS and Linux then I'll happily give up gaming and take up some better hobby that won't force me to use something I don't want to use just to have a good time.

If I did as what you state you are going to do I would have dropped gaming around the time Windows 98 came out.

Damm, I miss DOS.

 

[votemarvel]

Just because Windows 8 has its store front doesn't mean you have to use it. I have Steam and Origin installed and they operate just fine.

I could understand the complaints if Microsoft were actually stopping people from installing Steam and Origin but they aren't.

 

[Zipa]

No, because they don't invest in PC games. In fact I believe they hate PC gaming. I still remember when they had the brilliant idea to make Halo 2 Windows Vista only. And when they paid Alan Wake developers so they made it an XBox exclusive.

In my opinion they can go eff themselves and PC gaming will be much better without them.

Why yes, PC Gaming would be much better off without the creators of the only operating system that PC Gaming is viable on. /sarcasm

Between Steam supporting Linux and OpenGL and AMDs mantel Microsoft might well find themselves superfluous to PC gaming in a couple of years. The only reason Windows is needed for PC gaming is DirectX and it looks like Valve and AMD are working on getting around that.

 

[MeTalHeD]

No, because they don't invest in PC games. In fact I believe they hate PC gaming. I still remember when they had the brilliant idea to make Halo 2 Windows Vista only. And when they paid Alan Wake developers so they made it an XBox exclusive.

In my opinion they can go eff themselves and PC gaming will be much better without them.

Why yes, PC Gaming would be much better off without the creators of the only operating system that PC Gaming is viable on. /sarcasm

Between Steam supporting Linux and OpenGL and AMDs mantel Microsoft might well find themselves superfluous to PC gaming in a couple of years. The only reason Windows is needed for PC gaming is DirectX and it looks like Valve and AMD are working on getting around that.

This is a good point Zipa. Thoralata calling it the ONLY operating system PC gaming is viable on ignores the fact that Linux based operating systems have been doing it already, albeit without the massive publicity. Assuming it is the only one that is viable is incorrect. There is a reason Valve provided Linux versions of their games. Left 4 Dead 2, which is among their most successful titles, is available on Linux. Their move towards an OS that doesn't require Windows means they have a different outlook for the future. Steam has like 60 million users. That's a chunk of the market they will be encouraging to use their Linux based OS for gaming. I suspect many people will ditch Windows once they realise Linux isn't as scary as they think it is.

And your sarcasm aside, if you could have a stable OS, with game and software support, a large community of interested support providers and people generally interested in adapting or updating the OS for the better, and it was free, wouldn't you take it? Seriously, I don't see why people HAVE to use Windows. The alternative isn't scary at all, and I am new to Linux. I have used Windows for years and while it isn't terrible, Microsoft has a lot to do if it wants to get the PC gaming thing right.

 

[Zipa]

No, because they don't invest in PC games. In fact I believe they hate PC gaming. I still remember when they had the brilliant idea to make Halo 2 Windows Vista only. And when they paid Alan Wake developers so they made it an XBox exclusive.

In my opinion they can go eff themselves and PC gaming will be much better without them.

Why yes, PC Gaming would be much better off without the creators of the only operating system that PC Gaming is viable on. /sarcasm

Between Steam supporting Linux and OpenGL and AMDs mantel Microsoft might well find themselves superfluous to PC gaming in a couple of years. The only reason Windows is needed for PC gaming is DirectX and it looks like Valve and AMD are working on getting around that.

This is a good point Zipa. Thoralata calling it the ONLY operating system PC gaming is viable on ignores the fact that Linux based operating systems have been doing it already, albeit without the massive publicity. Assuming it is the only one that is viable is incorrect. There is a reason Valve provided Linux versions of their games. Left 4 Dead 2, which is among their most successful titles, is available on Linux. Their move towards an OS that doesn't require Windows means they have a different outlook for the future. Steam has like 60 million users. That's a chunk of the market they will be encouraging to use their Linux based OS for gaming. I suspect many people will ditch Windows once they realise Linux isn't as scary as they think it is.

And your sarcasm aside, if you could have a stable OS, with game and software support, a large community of interested support providers and people generally interested in adapting or updating the OS for the better, and it was free, wouldn't you take it? Seriously, I don't see why people HAVE to use Windows. The alternative isn't scary at all, and I am new to Linux. I have used Windows for years and while it isn't terrible, Microsoft has a lot to do if it wants to get the PC gaming thing right.

That and there are now around 340 or so games that now work on Steam compared to around 60 last February. The game changer in PC gaming is who it has been for the last 10 years or so - Gabe Newell and Valve. Valve are big enough and have enough industry clout that when they do something like promote Linux companies like Nvidia and AMD listen and help them when previously they haven't supported Linux in the case of Nvidia.