Game Stash: Microsoft?s Missed Opportunity

[Dhatz]

I didn't know you were such a joker, "steam's copy protection". lol it has about same meanind as protection wanting CD to start. Absolutely common to be removed.

 

[Weaver]

Maybe Microsoft means they're supporting PC Development over making games. Direct X is still about 3 years ahead of Open GL in terms of flashy new features and it's also (IMO at least) a lot more... intuitive to use.

So if I'm reading this right, what you're really saying is you want a new Crimson Skies game for the PC.

Finally! Someone understands me.

Seriously, I once asked the new head of the Games for Windows group how MS could claim to be supporting the PC when all the great PC exclusive franchises like Crimson Skies and Mechwarrior and Midtown Madness were showing up as watered-down Xbox exclusives. His response was to laugh at me and ask, "You seriously think those are great franchises?"

At that point, I kind of new MS was out of touch with what it was losing.

Why would he think those WEREN'T great franchises? Was he just using sales numbers or something like that?

The older gamer generation has been aching for a true blood mechwarrior sequel for years and years now. Crimson Skies was (in my opinion) a slightly buggy PC game, but it was still a damn lot of fun and it just oozed character which can't be said of many modern games.

Oh, Microsoft

 

[imgunagitusucka]

Accessibility just makes people lazier.

I think of it more as "Laziness makes accessibility more lucrative."

The lazier people are, the more accessible things need to be, which makes people lazier.

The final form of accessibility as a business model is children's television with blood, tits, and shaky cam.

blah blah blah

I'm a Douche

Finally something we can agree on

 

[Weaver]

Accessibility just makes people lazier.

I think of it more as "Laziness makes accessibility more lucrative."

The lazier people are, the more accessible things need to be, which makes people lazier.

The final form of accessibility as a business model is children's television with blood, tits, and shaky cam.

blah blah blah

I'm sorry, but you can't really make me feel guilty for having the capacity to learn new things.

You also apparently missed the significance of "17 years ago." computers have evolved from dumb machines in front of smart people to smart machines in front of dumb people. I got in pretty much at the tipping point, which just says to me, pretty much anyone shouldn't have any real trouble.

Not to mention, every time the "i just wanna put it in and play" bit comes up, I have to groan, because well, I've "installed" console games and ran PC games directly from a disc. Then when you have steam games removing even the "stick it in" step, the bit just loses all meaning.

I agree with Hopeless Bastard here. You simply do not need to know much about PC's or hardware now-a-days to play PC games. You, of course, need to know the basics of using the windows operating system, but by the sheer nature of being on here I assume pretty much everyone is capable of installing software to a desired folder (which a game is) and double clicking an icon.

Everything is hand held now. If Direct X is out of date, it will automatically update for you. If you're video drivers aren't up to snuff, I've seen lots of games warn you then provide you with a link to download the new ones. How do you install these drivers? Just run an executable wait about 1 minute for it to finish then continue on.

There is no longer mystical IRQ conflicts, a billion sound cards with proprietary transports so you have to know exactly what you're doing, there is no longer long and complicated Setup.bat files from the DOS days - all of that is gone. Things are as easy as they've ever been, and with so many games being console ports and the fantastic popularity of the UE3 engine, requirements for games are pretty low compared to the old "push the envelope" mentality on the PC.

 

[ahpuch]

I really don't get this argument. I don't want Microsoft to make games. At all.

I just want them to provide a decent OS that allows real gaming companies to provide kick ass games. I don't want Microsoft thinking they need to compete with those companies and thus manipulating the platform (OS) to allow them to have an edge over other gaming companies. I don't want them forcing GFW on developers so that they can get a piece of the pie. In fact if we have to give up directX and go back to an open model like OpenGL, I could live with that. And Microsoft's continual development of directX surely shows a commitment to the PC as a gaming platform.

Microsoft doesn't need to provide games to allow PC games to thrive. In fact I think it is counter productive.

 

[Steve Butts]

I really don't get this argument. I don't want Microsoft to make games. At all.

I just want them to provide a decent OS that allows real gaming companies to provide kick ass games. I don't want Microsoft thinking they need to compete with those companies and thus manipulating the platform (OS) to allow them to have an edge over other gaming companies. I don't want them forcing GFW on developers so that they can get a piece of the pie. In fact if we have to give up directX and go back to an open model like OpenGL, I could live with that. And Microsoft's continual development of directX surely shows a commitment to the PC as a gaming platform.

Microsoft doesn't need to provide games to allow PC games to thrive. In fact I think it is counter productive.

This argument is coming up a lot. What's the difference between MS making PC games and the other first-party console developers? MS makes 360 games, Sony makes PS3 games, and Nintendo makes Wii and DS games. How is that less objectionable than MS making PC games?

 

[ahpuch]

I really don't get this argument. I don't want Microsoft to make games. At all.

I just want them to provide a decent OS that allows real gaming companies to provide kick ass games. I don't want Microsoft thinking they need to compete with those companies and thus manipulating the platform (OS) to allow them to have an edge over other gaming companies. I don't want them forcing GFW on developers so that they can get a piece of the pie. In fact if we have to give up directX and go back to an open model like OpenGL, I could live with that. And Microsoft's continual development of directX surely shows a commitment to the PC as a gaming platform.

Microsoft doesn't need to provide games to allow PC games to thrive. In fact I think it is counter productive.

This argument is coming up a lot. What's the difference between MS making PC games and the other first-party console developers? MS makes 360 games, Sony makes PS3 games, and Nintendo makes Wii and DS games. How is that less objectionable than MS making PC games?

I think there is a conflict of interest for MS in supporting games on the PC vs XBox. I think some of the issues we see with them releasing on XBox vs PC is a result of this conflict.

Additionally, there is a risk of conflict between games that MS makes vs other companies. Microsoft would rather you bought their game instead the one from BioWare or Valve. I accept that this is the same model that is applied to consoles but it is a model I do not care for. The controls that Console makers put on content on their consoles is one reason I don't own a console. If PC gaming was ever subject to the same content restrictions, that would really be the death of PC gaming. Is it happening now, no. Is it a risk, unlikely. But all the same, it is simply an issue I prefer to avoid.

Also, I overstated my point to rebut that MS not making PC games is an indicator that PC gaming is dying or that MS doesn't support games on the PC.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

So if I'm reading this right, what you're really saying is you want a new Crimson Skies game for the PC.

Finally! Someone understands me.

Seriously, I once asked the new head of the Games for Windows group how MS could claim to be supporting the PC when all the great PC exclusive franchises like Crimson Skies and Mechwarrior and Midtown Madness were showing up as watered-down Xbox exclusives. His response was to laugh at me and ask, "You seriously think those are great franchises?"

At that point, I kind of new MS was out of touch with what it was losing.

I'd have cut his face off to expose the soulless troglodyte hiding behind the skin mask.

Anyone who can't see the potential behind those franchises is not only soulless but a bit thick as well. The Crimson Skies and Mechwarrior franchises speak to the geek on an almost instinctive level, they're perfectly designed to empty the wallet without conscious thought getting in the way because it's too busy going "fuck yeah! that sounds sooooo fucking cool!".

Also, the fact that these franchises were being shunted over to the console seems to say that someone on that side of things knew they had some worth.

 

[Galad]

Just posting to say how much I dig the "primordial DOS soup" expression

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Additionally, there is a risk of conflict between games that MS makes vs other companies. Microsoft would rather you bought their game instead the one from BioWare or Valve. I accept that this is the same model that is applied to consoles but it is a model I do not care for. The controls that Console makers put on content on their consoles is one reason I don't own a console. If PC gaming was ever subject to the same content restrictions, that would really be the death of PC gaming. Is it happening now, no. Is it a risk, unlikely. But all the same, it is simply an issue I prefer to avoid.

Big difference there is that the PC is an open platform and MS has a lot of people watching them, ready to jump on their nuts at the first sniff of them using their OS dominance to restrict trade on the platform. Console manufacturers get away with what they do because consoles are closed platforms and they own the whole show.

Microsoft would not be stupid enough to give companies like EA and Acti/Blizz such an excellent openning to sue the living christ out of them.

 

[Callate]

PC to PC multiplayer has always been free. Only the PC to 360 multiplayer was charged for. People got involved, and the misconception spread.

What I said was:

Microsoft realized that they weren't going to succeed in getting PC gamers to pay for the kind of network gaming features that they'd been used to getting for free for years

Gold Membership Features
All Silver membership features
Multiplayer matchmaking with friends
TrueSkill matchmaking
Multiplayer achievements
Cross-platform gameplay

Source: http://kotaku.com/244045/games-for-windows-+-live-gold-to-cost-50

So it wasn't just cross-platform play they were initially charging for. And the fact of the matter is that they didn't so much make that feature free as drop it like a hot potato... 'round bout the time they realized they couldn't charge for it.

Well, that and realized that mouse players were likely to eat 360-controller gamers for breakfast in First Person Shooters.

But they are... Microsoft is publish four games for the PC that we know about so far, probably more will be announced at Gamescom. They are making more games than everyone's go to guys at Valve.

Plus, the games they make are almost always top notch. Tell me you didn't have fun with Viva Pinata or Age of Empires.

That Valve itself hasn't made many new games, I'll grant you. But their download service has made thousands of games accessable, including scores from small independent publishers. The Source engine has been used in several others, including indie darling Zeno Clash. And their support for their existant titles has continued in earnest, which is more than can be said for, say, Shadowrun. Or Halo, come to that.

I don't think Microsoft is inherently and in every way evil. But as far as games and the games community goes, they're far from an effective benefactor and advocate.

 

[carpathic]

First off: Is it the moustache that gives you your powers of adroit recognition?

Secondly: I am not 100% sure it is all Microsoft's fault. A lot sure, but part of it is the variable nature of PC hardware I think. Take my Rig, 6 GB ram, big old HDD, 2.6 ghz quadcore processor, and a decent videocard.

Take my closest friend who has a computer that is a BEAST. The take another of my closet friends and his computer basically struggles with much more than Internet Explorer, because he cannot afford to upgrade.

I know it is a bit of a cop out, but it is still a problem.

Blame Micro$oft - sure. They should be pilloried for the unadulterated CRAP they called VISTA, before we even bother with videogames.

 

[imgunagitusucka]

Accessibility just makes people lazier.

I think of it more as "Laziness makes accessibility more lucrative."

The lazier people are, the more accessible things need to be, which makes people lazier.

The final form of accessibility as a business model is children's television with blood, tits, and shaky cam.

blah blah blah

I'm sorry, but you can't really make me feel guilty for having the capacity to learn new things.

You also apparently missed the significance of "17 years ago." computers have evolved from dumb machines in front of smart people to smart machines in front of dumb people. I got in pretty much at the tipping point, which just says to me, pretty much anyone shouldn't have any real trouble.

Not to mention, every time the "i just wanna put it in and play" bit comes up, I have to groan, because well, I've "installed" console games and ran PC games directly from a disc. Then when you have steam games removing even the "stick it in" step, the bit just loses all meaning.

I agree with Hopeless Bastard here. You simply do not need to know much about PC's or hardware now-a-days to play PC games. You, of course, need to know the basics of using the windows operating system, but by the sheer nature of being on here I assume pretty much everyone is capable of installing software to a desired folder (which a game is) and double clicking an icon.

Everything is hand held now. If Direct X is out of date, it will automatically update for you. If you're video drivers aren't up to snuff, I've seen lots of games warn you then provide you with a link to download the new ones. How do you install these drivers? Just run an executable wait about 1 minute for it to finish then continue on.

There is no longer mystical IRQ conflicts, a billion sound cards with proprietary transports so you have to know exactly what you're doing, there is no longer long and complicated Setup.bat files from the DOS days - all of that is gone. Things are as easy as they've ever been, and with so many games being console ports and the fantastic popularity of the UE3 engine, requirements for games are pretty low compared to the old "push the envelope" mentality on the PC.

this wasn't about whether PC games were hard to install or what not, Hopeless Bastard [at least his handle is apt] catergorically labeled console gamers lazy because....well I'm not sure why exactly, I guess because they're not PC gamers. He sees accessibility as a negative, evidently not realizing that profits gaming companies generate from the casual gaming market help pay for the development of games for AAA titles aimed at 'core' gamers. That is why I took exception to his post, unfortunatly he chose to omit or deface the posts that expose the flaws in his views. You need to see the full posts to make an informed judgement on his opinions, as he was too insecure to leave the quotes as they were posted.

 

[tharglet]

I just don't see how people equate GFWL and Steam. Yes, in essence, they do fulfil the same basic requirements, but Steam does more, and in my opinion, does it a lot better. Steam is far from perfect, but it does have some good, solid features that I use on a regular basis. GFWL.... doesn't. To me GFWL feels like a DRM auth system with an online achievement system tacked on. Steam feels like a game-management interface, with some extra nifty features.

Other thing I don't get is people counting exclusives. Imo, I think PC is less prone to exclusives, due to PC players don't seem to care if a game is exclusive, and there isn't really extra money in going PC exclusive. If a game is exclusive to PC, the only reasons should be either the dev couldn't afford to go cross-platform or the game just isn't suited to consoles.
As for MS being a first-party dev - I don't think that's really needed. Just the incentives for devs to develop for Windows, by providing the tools - which is pretty much what they do.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

People tend to use the pseudonym "Micro$oft" because they really couldn't care less about anything other than money.

Their hardon for the Xbox is obvious, their support for Windows/GFWL is almost non-existent. They slam controlling mechanisms in everywhere they go and then launch frivolous law-suits at people who infringe on their right to control everything ever.

Apple, at least, act evil. Micro$oft just act spoilt.

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

[b/]Age of Empires, Flight Sim[/b]

And to reward the developers that made these fine games, well they shut them down, but I'm sure MS still cares about us.