"Games for Windows": Microsoft's new marketing strategy

[Mountain Man]

The latest PC Gamer has an article about Microsoft's latest marketing strategy intended to make the Windows PC a more visible contender in the gaming market. They've introduced a new Windows logo and the "Games for Windows" branding which they hope to put on all PC game boxes, and they'll be setting up centralized displays with a demo computer in stores, much like the displays you currently see for consoles.

Now I have mixed feelings about this. For years, people have said that the reason consoles have dominated the gaming market is because of large corporations promoting them to consumers, and PC gaming has never had any sort of unified marketing campaign. The "Games for Windows" campaign will be the first that I know of. So PC gaming could get a nice economic boost, which sounds good in theory.

But the question I have to ask, is making PC games even more mainstream necessarily a good thing? Personally, I've been looking forward to PC gaming becoming a niche market again, dominated by independent but creative developers. By marketing PC gaming as mainstream entertainment, I fear that we'll get more generic mainstream games (indeed, part of Microsoft's goal with DirectX 10 is to essentially turn the Windows PC into a glorified gaming console; to that end, 360 peripherals--such as the stock controller--will be designed to work out of the box on Windows Vista).

I also worry about Microsoft being the one behind this marketing drive, meaning that "Games for Mac" and "Games for Linux" will become even rarer than they already are.

I can see both sides of this, but I'm more worried than optimistic. What do you guys think?

[Dogy]

If the PC turns into the crapfest that the consoles are facing now, I'm gonna have to go back in time to save myself from the insane flow of junk.

[SyntaxN]

I don´t care if MS names something different because that won´t change the way everything in gaming goes atm ;)

[mysteryperfecta]

I also worry about Microsoft being the one behind this marketing drive, meaning that "Games for Mac" and "Games for Linux" will become even rarer than they already are.

Wouldn't worry about Macs. My friend has the new MacBook Pro, and with it's new architecture, can dual boot OSX and XP without issue.

[Mountain Man]

And Linux has been able to dual boot for years. However, you are apparently unfamiliar with the joys of being able to play a game out of the box on your preferred non-Microsoft OS.

[Mongorian]

This was announced almost six months ago in one of the gaming mags. So far I am not impresssed with the campaign; what I've seen is full-page magazine ads with a guy jumping in the air, smiling, and then some schpeil about pc gaming on windows. It was pretty tacky and I doubt it convinced anyone to go buy a $1,000 PC.

[Mountain Man]

Well, the kiosks and the other elements of the marketing strategy were only unveiled recently at this year's E3. To Microsoft's credit, the displays are actually very attractive and eye-catching.

[ZuljinRaynor]

I went to Target where they had one of those kiosk... along with a pitful selection of games....

[Scream]

The developer tools Microsoft wants developers to use for the Windows PC will be very similar to the tools used for developing for the 360. That gives added reason to developers to concentrate on Microsoft products (360 and Windows) because of the larger potential market with the two platforms. This is turn serves to push them further away from the competition (i.e. Sony).

One thing MS has always understood is that it pays to keep developers of ALL kinds of software happy, and they have always provided them with easy to use and powerful tools.

Anyway, I see this as just another smart way for MS to indirectly leverage their OS monopoly to help them beat their console competition. They've been doing it for years in other market areas (Office Suite, Browser, soon anti-virus and other security software) and are masters of the technique. The 360 and the PC will help each other's sales.

As far as the games go, I don't think it will be MS who decides the future of games as far as content goes. They're simply trying to dominate the platforms and provide the building tools. It's up to developers what they do with them.

[Twin]

i have mixed feelings about it...

on a plus side i think PC games could finally get the recognision they deserve which could lead to the PC becoming popular again as a gaming platform which could ALSO lead to some great exclusive PC games again...

on the downside...it's obvious that microsoft are doing it for themselves as a company and not PC games in general...if anything you could say that microsoft has 2 gaming platforms in the market because they practically own the PC games market as every decent game works on windows anyway...and in a way it COULD hurt the sales of the 360 therefore resulting in either microsoft sticking with there console or sticking with there gaming PC...

or then again it could work out great for both sides :D

[slapnutz]

btw.. i've always wondered this... is MS doing this PC gaming push... simply to prime up buyers for Windows Vista? Then a few years down the track... they will not be bothered with pc gaming again?

[Dr. Kill]

"Games for Windows"? What else would they be on, Macs?! (bursts into laughter)

God I hate Macs.

[ZuljinRaynor]

^ Agreed. Well, the hating part at least. The other part is a bit cloudy.

[Dr. Kill]

I laugh my ass off every time I see these mac commersials on tv where there are two guys. On represents a pc, the other a Mac. And the mac guy says how mac's don't get viruses. And I say "Yeah, cause nobody but developers use macs!"

[Mountain Man]

Actually, it's because Mac OS X is a wonderfully secure operating system. It is impossible for something like a virus to gain root priviledges without the user explicitly granting them.

[Dr. Kill]

I see.

[ZuljinRaynor]

If Macs were more popular... people would spend more time virusing them up.

[Odin]

Actually, it's because Mac OS X is a wonderfully secure operating system. It is impossible for something like a virus to gain root priviledges without the user explicitly granting them.

Macs aren't any more secure than PCs. Macs are simply not used enough for crackers to care about them. I'm sure that if the crackers really cared about the Mac user base, we'd see many more Mac viruses.

[0marTheZealot]

Macs aren't any more secure than PCs. Macs are simply not used enough for crackers to care about them. I'm sure that if the crackers really cared about the Mac user base, we'd see many more Mac viruses.


^^^^^

[Zero]

If Macs use the same security as BSD/Linux then MountainMan is correct, if everything in the Mac OS is treated as a file (Hardware and all) then if you dont have privleges to something, well your not running, since the virus would be exicuted under a parent process and act as a child if its ran within the user prilvliges then its imposible to infect the entire machine without a kernel exploite, because this is how it works really
once in user space nothing unless you have permission can harm the filesystem
this means no virus can modify anything accept the save flies you have in /home/username and /tmp the rest of the file tree is rooted witch means you need to be root to touch anything else.

[crunchy superman]

Just more bs marketing to get people to buy another OS. Design DX10 & Vista to go hand-in-hand exclusively + push developers to get their games to require DX10 = "mommy, we gotta upgrade Windows now!"

I think they're afraid that if they don't aggressively push people like this, they'll see that a lot of folks won't care so much about Vista.

[0marTheZealot]

I don't mind this push. All it means is more games (yes!) and probably better ports.


Most gamers can vote with their wallets anyways. Bad games will come out no matter what. PS2 has fifty billion games but most people only own the 20-30 games worth having. The same will happen with this sort of push.

[Mountain Man]

probably better ports.
Will they be better, or will there be less effort to make them proper PC games with developers lazily expecting us to buy a 360 gamepad to play them?

[Damien_Azreal]

I don't care what the hell they do.

I play PC games for me, I dont' really care if the little "mainstream" kiddies or companies try jumping in. Doesn't effect me personaly, and there will always be triple A developer's out there making great games (Monolith, Valve, iD).

[0marTheZealot]

Will they be better, or will there be less effort to make them proper PC games with developers lazily expecting us to buy a 360 gamepad to play them?


Right now, that would be pretty much the case for many of the 360/PS2/XBOX ports, they suck dick. If this push means that developers put in a bit more effort, than I'm all for it. If they don't, then nothing changes because ports nowadays suck.

[Damien_Azreal]

Not all ports suck, the GTA series was done very well. Same with Condemned and Riddick. It takes the right developer to pull it off.

But I read some more info about this "Games for Windows" thing and actualy I like the idea. For some gamers (like me) it can be a pain in the ass to get newer PC games, stores just don't seem to try to get them in by release. Our store here actualy tried to tell me that PC games don't have set release dates, they come out whenever. :rolleyes:

But, a push for PC gaming such as this could draw some much needed attention to PC gaming and make it possible for more stores to carry more PC games and to get them in on time.
We'll just have to wait and see.

[avatar_58]

Will they be better, or will there be less effort to make them proper PC games with developers lazily expecting us to buy a 360 gamepad to play them?

That depends what you mean by that MM. I've come to expect all console ports to have perfect gamepad support, as its just common sense considering thats what the game was meant to be played on (save for shooters).

My logitech gamepad is shaped and modeled after the PS2 controller and every game post 2000 has set it up for me without having to lift a finger. Thats the way it should be, not force me to download a PDF of the PS2 game just to get the controls to be comfortable.

[Mountain Man]

I prefer playing my PC games with a keyboard and mouse. I would not be pleased if every console crossover expected me to use a gamepad.

[avatar_58]

'Expected' no, I agree. However they better have full support. Some games have reduced gamepad functionality - although I guess the lack of a standard in PC gamepads is the culprit.

I like mouse/kb too, but not in racing or platformers. I certainly would NOT attempt to play Indigo Prophecy with any but my gamepad.

In fact, unless a game specifically uses a mouse for accuracy then I see little reason why a gamepad can't be used.

[Phayzon]

As a few people said. This has a few good and bad aspects. I honestly dont care, I am and always will be a mainly-PC gamers (Mainly as in if its a multiplatform title I choose PC, and my PC gets more use than my GCube/X360 [Wii])


(Monolith, Valve, iD).

3DRealms?

[Damien_Azreal]

Well, of course 3DRealms falls into that catogory. But I couldn't list every developer out there that's a triple A quality. Woudl take to long... and I'm lazy.

[John]

:D Making triple-A games is different than releasing triple-A games. [/sorry]

[Dr. Kill]

Not all ports suck, the GTA series was done very well. Same with Condemned and Riddick. It takes the right developer to pull it off.

Yeah. Same thing goes with PC to Console ports. Some are good, most are awful.

The Prey port looks good.

[Damien_Azreal]

Yeah. Same thing goes with PC to Console ports. Some are good, most are awful.

The Prey port looks good.

Well technically PREY isn't a port, it's being co-developed on both the PC and 360 at the same time.

[SyntaxN]

Well technically PREY isn't a port, it's being co-developed on both the PC and 360 at the same time.
The original design was made only with the PC in mind, right?

[Opus131]

Well technically PREY isn't a port, it's being co-developed on both the PC and 360 at the same time.

Technically, that's what EVERYBODY says, but for the most part they are really developed for the Xbox and then ported to the PC, badly i might add... :(

[Damien_Azreal]

Opus have you even played PREY? If not then don't speak of which you do not know.
Speaking of something you have not played/experienced for yourself is hypocritical.

Yes, a great deal of games are first done on the console and then ported to PC. But that is not the case this time around, nor was it the case with Oblivion (developed for both) or Serious Sam 2 (developed on PC first and then ported to Xbox).

[avatar_58]

Technically, that's what EVERYBODY says, but for the most part they are really developed for the Xbox and then ported to the PC, badly i might add... :(

Yes because you work for the industry and have seen this personally behind closed doors right? Which company was that for again anyway, I seem to forgotten you ever mentioning it....band-wagon entertainment perhaps?

[big fat lazy]

Technically, that's what EVERYBODY says, but for the most part they are really developed for the Xbox and then ported to the PC, badly i might add... :(
No you're thinking of DX Invisible Whore.

[Mountain Man]

For the record, Gamespy.com says that Prey runs better on the PC than on the Xbox 360. You can find the preview here (http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox-360/prey/714109p1.html).

[Steve]

No you're thinking of DX Invisible Whore.
Don't get me started about that POS game...

[Karthik]

I think Prey would run quite nicely on the XBOX as well.

[hell-angel]

Not all ports suck, the GTA series was done very well. Same with Condemned and Riddick. It takes the right developer to pull it off.


Well, I heart other stories about condemned. And there where a lot of things in the GTA series (especially vehicle and camera control) that show the game is a port of a console.
They did do a good job, but it could have been better IMO. :)

[Kristian Joensen]

Technically, that's what EVERYBODY says, but for the most part they are really developed for the Xbox and then ported to the PC, badly i might add... :(

Prey's current form began development in 2001, in the Xbox 360 port was started in mid 2005.

[Wooloomooloo]

Rockstar has been doing a good job since Vice City. It runs better than GTA III even with the added eye candy.

[Mountain Man]

Except they really jacked up the mouse/keyboard controls in San Andreas.

[Wooloomooloo]

I got used to it pretty quickly. The excess of vehicle controls is annoying though, because it keeps me from finding a configuration that lets me drive cars using my left hand (i.e. not using the arrow keys) while using the mouse to look around. :tinyted:

[John]

I like the mouse/keyboard control of GTA:SA alot better. I enjoy being able to look around with the mouse while driving with the keyboard. It's pretty simple and it's ALOT easier to see everything around me. I can't stand analog controls though.


Oh and Opus could you please emphasize on your previous statement, I'd love to hear more.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, but they introduced unintuitive nonsense, like not locking the camera to your character's facing like in every other 3rd person shooter that uses WASD controls (including Vice City). For example, pressing S wouldn't cause your character to backpedal. Rather, he'd turn around and uselessly run towards the freakin' camera! And don't get me started on the stupid timing games with the bouncing cars with what can only be described as broken controls.

Thing is, they got the mouse/keyboard controls dead on perfect in Vice City. (Well, almost. The helicopter controls were shit.) So I'm not sure what happened in San Andreas

[avatar_58]

Thing is, they got the mouse/keyboard controls dead on perfect in Vice City. (Well, almost. The helicopter controls were shit.) So I'm not sure what happened in San Andreas

I use kb/m for walking and driving and swap to my gamepad for the helicopters....works wonders. :) Also there is a patch for those minigames in SA on rockstar's website...makes them easier.

[Dr. Kill]

Rockstar has been doing a good job since Vice City. It runs better than GTA III even with the added eye candy.

On my friend's pc, GTA 3 runs at 60fps! :D It just requires a LOT better than what the back of the box says. My pc has the recommended requirements (with my shitty built in video card), and it runs really bad even on low settings. VC at least runs decent.

[avatar_58]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/43364

As longtime PC gamers know, retail treatment of PC games, even in specialty video game retailers, is less than appealing. According to McIlvaine, Microsoft is currently working with all major game retailers to revamp their display and marketing practices for PC games and putting them more on the level of games for a dedicated console gaming platform. This includes things like official Games for Windows branding, well maintained displays, and actual in store Windows game demo kiosks. Gamers will frequently be able to try out a game in a store, then take that same demo home on a DVD. Microsoft will be launching a revamped dedicated Windows gaming site, analagous to the comprehensive Xbox.com site it maintains for its console platforms. "It's been a little corporate," admitted McIlvaine. "The Microsoft Windows gaming sites have been more business, like Windows itself, [instead of] like Xbox." The Game Advisor, which allows gamers to check if their systems are capable of playing specific games, will also be updated.

Hmm, what do you think? I reserve judgement, because if Microsoft can get retailers to give PC games more shelf space and generally more presence then its definately a good thing.

[Cheapy]

oh great, those dumb "Designed for Microsoft Windows" stickers from a decade and a quarter back is returning

[hell-angel]

Well, if it gives me more PC games, I am not complaining. :D ;)

[Vivi]

More PC games would be cool. But I would hope that they don't shift focus off of the 360 back to the PC. I want more 360 games to justify my purchase.

[Dreams]

I guess Microsoft now sees that games are Windows' only trump card left, because Linux can pretty much do anything else Windows can now. It's logical they try to accentuate that Windows is good in Gaming, especially now Vista will come soon.

[Joe Siegler]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/43364

Hmm, what do you think? I reserve judgement, because if Microsoft can get retailers to give PC games more shelf space and generally more presence then its definately a good thing.

It's an attempt to uniform boxes mostly. Which is probably a good thing.

And let's not get into a PC/Mac pissing match, it'll get deleted. The label is "Games for Windows". Not "Games for PC", so we don't need a Mac/Linux jihad here. Sigh.

[8IronBob]

Hmm, I'm sort of wondering how much better Vista was going to be for gaming. IMHO, Win XP is far better than anything to the gaming community, atm, needless to say. I just don't see Vista catching on as much as we all thought. Let's face it, Windows just crashes too much with heavily-intensive gaming, regardless if you're using high-end hardware or not. If only Bill Gates've done a better job on these operating systems to make it more stable for gaming on...

[Foxy]

Like I said before (ahem!), this is just an attempt to try and turn PC gaming into a Microsoft platform like the XBox. Sorry Microsoft, but it's the IBM PC that's the platform, and you're just an OS vendor. I wouldn't be surprised if MS tries to start charging publishers for including their games in this 'Games for Windows' branding scheme, should it be a success.

[FireFly]

I think there's much more revenue to be gained in trying to broaden the gaming industry than there is in marketing purely to demonstrate OS superiority. The scheme is focused on unifying game settings (consistent cross-game resolution support, a central game/setting database allowing for all save games to be in one place). Developers will be rewarded for creating games that are quick and easy to install, and for integrating with the Media Center browser.

As part of the Showcases scheme, Microsoft will be rewarding developers that take full advantage of PC hardware (supporting multi-core processors, for example) and that use the 'Windows Error Reporting Utility' to diagnose users problems and report back to them.

It's all about making Windows a better gaming platform.

http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2006/081406_gamesforwindows_1.x

[Joe Siegler]

Like I said before (ahem!), this is just an attempt to try and turn PC gaming into a Microsoft platform like the XBox. Sorry Microsoft, but it's the IBM PC that's the platform, and you're just an OS vendor. I wouldn't be surprised if MS tries to start charging publishers for including their games in this 'Games for Windows' branding scheme, should it be a success.

You're wrong. Don't know how else to say it, and it appars you're uninterested in hearing other opinions, so what's the point in discussiing it?

[Mountain Man]

And let's not get into a PC/Mac pissing match, it'll get deleted. The label is "Games for Windows". Not "Games for PC", so we don't need a Mac/Linux jihad here. Sigh.
However, it is a fair point that many folks would love to see this "standardization" employ cross platform solutions like OpenGL, OpenAL, and Open SDL instead of proprietary solutions like DirectX 10.

Microsoft's goal is not to promote system uniformity but to reassert Windows as a dominant platform, which is certainly a viable marketing strategy seeing as it's the only area where Windows maintains a clear advantage over Mac OS and Linux.

[Foxy]

(consistent cross-game resolution support, a central game/setting database allowing for all save games to be in one place)

What problem does this fix? Saved games largely go into 'My Games' these days anyway, and I'm wondering what's the issue with resolutions?

Developers will be rewarded for creating games that are quick and easy to install

How is it possible to make installers easier then they are now?!? You pop in the disc, it autoruns, you click install, wait a few mins, then click the icon to play. Is this supposed to be hard?

It's all about making Windows a better gaming platform.

Windows is not a gaming platforn, Windows is a friggin operating system. Why don't they focus on producing a better product that runs fast instead of trying to nanny gamers like they're console players?

Dumbing down the PC will do nothing but hurt it. Console-ised games are a warning. Convergence doesn't work. The PC is not a console, and shouldn't ever be.

Oh, and here's the brick through the window:

Though OpenGL will work in Vista, another Essential is using Direct3D as the default game renderer.

What a surprise. MS is up to it's old tricks yet again.

[FireFly]

Its goal is to promote uniformity within the Windows platform; it's not just a marketing scheme.

[Foxy]

You're wrong. Don't know how else to say it, and it appars you're uninterested in hearing other opinions, so what's the point in discussiing it?

How is making a blanket statement, "You're wrong", not precisely what you accuse me of? You're clearly not interested in hearing my opinion, now are you? I continue the debate to find out exactly what this scheme does that would convince me otherwise, and to put forward my point of view.

[Phayzon]

How is making a blanket statement, "You're wrong", not precisely what you accuse me of? You're clearly not interested in hearing my opinion, now are you? I continue the debate to find out exactly what this scheme does that would convince me otherwise, and to put forward my point of view.

The man said no. (http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpost.php?p=388251&postcount=57)

[FireFly]

What problem does this fix? Saved games largely go into 'My Games' these days anyway, and I'm wondering what's the issue with resolutions?
Inconsistent resolution support, so for example, lack of support for widescreen displays (Prey being a recent case). It's there to ensure that all games support all the required resolutions. With regards to save games, the purpose is to ensure that every release uses the Game Explorer to handle them.

If you're taking a pragmatic perspective, as a hardcore gamer, you might conclude that these things don't particularly affect your gaming experience. And that's fine, I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that the user shouldn't have to worry about these things in the first place, there shouldn't be any exceptions.

How is it possible to make installers easier then they are now?!? You pop in the disc, it autoruns, you click install, wait a few mins, then click the icon to play. Is this supposed to be hard?
Well, a game might run entirely from the CD-ROM drive for example, or it might install some of the art assets on the hard-drive, but still rely on streaming from the CD-ROM drive.

Windows is not a gaming platforn, Windows is a friggin operating system. Why don't they focus on producing a better product that runs fast instead of trying to nanny gamers like they're console players?
It's an operating system that acts as a platform for games. Microsoft don't produce the games (well, ignoring their publishing division), all they can do is encourage developers to make better use of the hardware, which is one of the purposes of this scheme.

Otherwise, I don't see how making it easier to manage games, and ensuring minimum compatibility requirements, is of detriment to the user.

Dumbing down the PC will do nothing but hurt it. Console-ised games are a warning. Convergence doesn't work. The PC is not a console, and shouldn't ever be.
The PC will always be an open platform, open to a huge variety of games - that doesn't mean we should purposefully restrict certan types of user or certain genres, it doesn't mean we should promote barriers to entry. Let the PC provide an open, flexible and easy to manage gaming experience.

[Joe Siegler]

It's an attempt to uniform boxes mostly. Which is probably a good thing.

And let's not get into a PC/Mac pissing match, it'll get deleted. The label is "Games for Windows". Not "Games for PC", so we don't need a Mac/Linux jihad here. Sigh.

How is making a blanket statement, "You're wrong", not precisely what you accuse me of? You're clearly not interested in hearing my opinion, now are you? I continue the debate to find out exactly what this scheme does that would convince me otherwise, and to put forward my point of view.

See above. You're barking down completely the wrong path. This is an attempt to push their Windows operating system, and also at the same time uniform the box for Windows based games.

THAT is what you're ignoring. You're taking this down the wrong path, man. Chill.

[Zixinus]

I also worry about Microsoft being the one behind this marketing drive, meaning that "Games for Mac" and "Games for Linux" will become even rarer than they already are.


Neither are OS that have much support for Windows games in the first place, and neither is a gaming operation system. Mac's are ideal for artist and office workers as far as I know, while Linux is primary a computer geek's ideal (again, as far as I know).
Few games are ported to these OS, and a decrease will most likely not effect it.

Actually, it's because Mac OS X is a wonderfully secure operating system. It is impossible for something like a virus to gain root priviledges without the user explicitly granting them.

That is also said about windows.

Look, no system is secure from a cracker, no matter what the hell you do. Macs are safer becuse crackers/hackers don't give a shit about it. If they did, they will find holes that the developers cannot imagen. Regardless what the OS does.

[Mountain Man]

Few games are ported to these OS, and a decrease will most likely not effect it.
This is probably true, but it's not because Mac OS and Linux are not perfectly capable of running modern games (Linux especially, since it can run on the exact same hardware as Windows; see Unreal Tournament 2004, Doom 3, and most recently Quake 4 as examples of AAA shooters that run natively in Linux). Games for those platforms are certainly rare, at least compared to what's out there for Windows, but they do exist. The biggest problem is lack of market share, and I fear that Microsoft promoting the idea that "PC gaming = Windows gaming" will effectively obliterate those already struggling markets.

Look, no system is secure from a cracker, no matter what the hell you do. Macs are safer becuse crackers/hackers don't give a shit about it. If they did, they will find holes that the developers cannot imagen. Regardless what the OS does.
I'm making it a point to ignore these comments as they appear to be nothing more than uninformed flamebait.

[Phayzon]

^
MS already planted the idea that "PC = Windows", so "PC gaming = Windows gaming" wont change much

[avatar_58]

Would you rather PC gaming be gone entirely? If making the term "PC gaming" = "Windows gaming" is what its going to take to make it work then so be it. You can whine and bitch for all enternity, but the fact of the matter is that its basically been true for almost last 10 years now.

Whatever helps out PC games and gets me the better product is the perfect solution in the end.

[Phayzon]

Would you rather PC gaming be gone entirely? If making the term "PC gaming" = "Windows gaming" is what its going to take to make it work then so be it. You can whine and bitch for all enternity, but the fact of the matter is that its basically been true for almost last 10 years now.

Whatever helps out PC games and gets me the better product is the perfect solution in the end.

QFT :)

[Gryph]

I just hope Microsoft pushes more console game style DVD cases since they are the perfect size. Or atleast something more compact than what we have now. Those thick plastic cases are better than cardboard boxes with either a jewel case or CD sleeve but I think we can do better.

That's why I like to shop during GoGamer's 48 hour madness sales since they're usually European imported DVD games.

[Destroyer]

I just hope Microsoft pushes more console game style DVD cases since they are the perfect size. Or atleast something more compact than what we have now.
ya we need something that lasts, those cardboard boxes are mess up too easily.

[0marTheZealot]

It's not like Mac gaming and Linux gaming are even viable markets. No developer/publisher will publish a game on Mac OS only or Linux only, at most they are a fraction of a single percentage point in terms of total marketshare. It's simply not worth it. Worst case scenario : All 4 serious gamers on the Mac OS and Linux move to Windows dual boot. The casual Linux/MacOS user dual boots for Windows, which he/she should be doing in the first place.

[avatar_58]

Exactly. No one is saying Linux or Mac OSX are bad platforms, but lets face it - when you choose to use one of those two you do so accepting the lack of new games. Some people attempt to run Cedega/Wine but on the whole if you are a serious gamer you will end up using Windows or go to a console. Its a simple as that.

So I say power to microsoft for attempting to get more interest in PC gaming. I'm sick of entering EBgames and wondering why the hell half the games I'm looking for aren't on the shelf.

[Mountain Man]

Would you rather PC gaming be gone entirely?
This is a false dilemma. The alternative to Microsoft monopolizing the PC gaming market is not the death of gaming.

If making the term "PC gaming" = "Windows gaming" is what its going to take to make it work then so be it.
The thing I'm saying is that this isn't the only solution, nor is it necessarily the most desirable. By promoting cross-platform standards, you can get the end result of a more unified PC platform while giving consumers a choice as to which operating system they prefer.

I also worry that Microsoft is going to try and turn the PC into an extension of their console market and that games unique to the PC will become increasingly rare as the PC market becomes flooded with lazy ports of generic console titles.

Whatever helps out PC games and gets me the better product is the perfect solution in the end.
It's debatable whether this is going to be good for PC gaming in the long run.

[Joe Siegler]

I also worry that Microsoft is going to try and turn the PC into an extension of their console market and that games unique to the PC will become increasingly rare as the PC market becomes flooded with lazy ports of generic console titles.

What makes you think that isn't going to happen anyway? With larger and larger budgets, and less and less people wanting to take risks on unproven and unknown properties, the push for profit squeezes out somewhere.

[Mountain Man]

What makes you think that isn't going to happen anyway? With larger and larger budgets, and less and less people wanting to take risks on unproven and unknown properties, the push for profit squeezes out somewhere.
I guess I'm less concerend about the PC having unique games and more concerned with PC becoming the home of lazy console ports of generic titles.

Personally, I have no problem with console/PC releases in theory (Knights of the Old Republic and Prey being two notable examples). My primary fear is that the PC will get the short end of the stick in such deals. Afterall, not every developer is as careful with their ports as Bioware and 3D Realms.

[Phayzon]

As long as 3DR is still making DNF I really dont care what happens :tinyted: :p

[avatar_58]

I guess I'm less concerend about the PC having unique games and more concerned with PC becoming the home of lazy console ports of generic titles.

Personally, I have no problem with console/PC releases in theory (Knights of the Old Republic and Prey being two notable examples). My primary fear is that the PC will get the short end of the stick in such deals. Afterall, not every developer is as careful with their ports as Bioware and 3D Realms.

Whats your point? This is already happening, only right now we miss out on tons of games because some developers think the PC isn't worth developing for. With this campaign it might end those worries.

[Mountain Man]

Whats your point?
My point is, I don't want to see the PC gaming market flooded with poorly ported games that aren't even worth playing on their native platforms, and I'm concerned that Microsoft's "Games for Windows" initiative will only serve to facilitate this. We're not going to have PC games, we're going to have "Xbox for your desktop", and everything we love about PC gaming will be spoken of in terms of "Remeber when...?"

Perhaps PC gaming as we know it really is dying. :(

[avatar_58]

Everything I love about PC gaming is already a "Remember when". Every game I've enjoyed on the PC for the last 5 years is either a console port or has been ported shortly after release.

If, however, microsoft makes the PC a good alternative for game developers though then we might see more and more PC-only games that actually bother to use our hardware and input methods (kb/mouse) properly.

Its hard to say. I don't want to see PC gaming go down in flames so whatever helps it, even only a little, is worth a try right?

[Mountain Man]

...whatever helps it, even only a little, is worth a try right?
We'll see.

[Phayzon]

I think the problem with PC Gaming is the requirements to look good with modern games. I mean, to get the most out of Doom3 or HL2 you're looking at a $1000 computer! Alot of (all of?) the store-bought computers ive seen have cheap GPUs or onboard GPUs, and, untill recently only 256/512MB of RAM.

Another thing on the $1000 issue, Ive seen plenty $1000 in-store computers that arent anything special, just a 3.6Ghz P4, 2GB of RAM, XP MCE, and a goddamn DX7 level Radeon. Oh yeah, and hugeass widescreen LCD screens

[avatar_58]

Its been like that since the dawn of PCs, if anything its actually gotten cheaper. Check the prices of the 386 or 486 when they were first released, or when the first 3d cards hit the market. Thefore I don't think thats a problem at all.

[Mountain Man]

Phayzon does have a point, though. It used to be that, for example, a mid-range video card would be viable for several years. These days, technology is advancing so quickly that a mid-range video card is obsolete in less than two years (sometimes much less).

It's not as easy to keep your system up to date as it used to be.

[Morry]

Two games that are coming out under the Games for Windows banner are Alan Wake and Crysis. If we continue to see games of this quality, then I have no worries at all about Microsoft's aim.

[Joe Siegler]

Two games that are coming out under the Games for Windows banner are Alan Wake and Crysis. If we continue to see games of this quality, then I have no worries at all about Microsoft's aim.

Indeed. I get the feeling people are seeing this as a "Big Rigs" move. It isn't.

As I said, this is about standardizing boxes. Not pushing crap games in the name of "Windows Everywhere" or some "Microsoft Agenda" type of nonsense.

[0marTheZealot]

Phayzon does have a point, though. It used to be that, for example, a mid-range video card would be viable for several years. These days, technology is advancing so quickly that a mid-range video card is obsolete in less than two years (sometimes much less).

It's not as easy to keep your system up to date as it used to be.

Mid range cards were never good for more than 2 years. Unless you play games at a compromised resolution/details, mid-range cards usually die out 18 months or so into it's lifespan.

[Mountain Man]

As I said, this is about standardizing boxes.
I just wish it wasn't Microsoft doing the "standardizing".

[hell-angel]

I just wish it wasn't Microsoft doing the "standardizing".

I don't know, they are just standardizing the interface basically, and that is something MS has allways been good at. :) IMO anyway :)

[Mongorian]

I don't know, they are just standardizing the interface basically, and that is something MS has allways been good at. :) IMO anyway :)

Who elses opinion would it be?

[hell-angel]

Who elses opinion would it be?

Well, if the interface of windows sucked, most people would have bought something else. ;) So I guess that most people feel that way. :)

[Mountain Man]

Well, if the interface of windows sucked, most people would have bought something else. ;) So I guess that most people feel that way. :)
You're under the mistaken assumption that Microsoft got where they are by making superior products.

[0marTheZealot]

You're under the mistaken assumption that Microsoft got where they are by making superior products.

Well, they obviously must be doing something right :(

[FireFly]

No, it was all chance.

[Mountain Man]

Well, they obviously must be doing something right :(
Slick marketing and underhanded anticompetitive strategies mostly.

[Mongorian]

Slick marketing and underhanded anticompetitive strategies mostly.

It's true.

[Phayzon]

That may be true now, but what about when it all began (Early DOS days)?

[Mountain Man]

That may be true now, but what about when it all began (Early DOS days)?
Yeah, then too. Microsoft became rather infamous back in the day for deliberately coding their software so that it would "break" competitor's products. The most well known instance was their battle with DR-DOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR_DOS#Aggressive_competition_by_Microsoft).

[hell-angel]

You're under the mistaken assumption that Microsoft got where they are by making superior products.

I said nothing about their product, only about their interface, which is (or at least it has been so far) superior then the competition. :)
You may not agree with that, but 90% of the computer users in the world think so since they buy their products. :)

I must say that the competition is catching up on the interface though.

[Kristian Joensen]

90% of computer users are using Windows because of it comes preinstalled on their computeres. They don't even know that an operating sytem is, even less so that their are more than one of them and certainly not what criteria make a good operating system.

Also have you tried the interface of other operating systems ? What exactly are they lacking ?

[hell-angel]

Yes, right now they do, but that was not allways the case.

As in what the others are lacking, accessability for the "stupid" users. And with "stupid" I mean the users who don't know anything about computers other then how to use the mouse (which are most users IMO). Most users need a graphics interface which can be completely operated with the mouse (as I am sure you will agree) and IMO MS made the best interface for that.

For example: (a small example, but a good one imo)
Users need a place to start when using a computer, a place from where to access all the programs etc. Microsoft placed them all under the button "start", simple, effective and everybody automatically know that you start there.
Linux doesn't have that (now they do, but they didn't even remotely have it back in 95) or at least it was not so obvious, so most users didn't understand it.

Granted, the windows interface (and some of there tooling) could use some improvements as well, but they are still better then most other ones IMO.

[Mountain Man]

I said nothing about their product, only about their interface, which is (or at least it has been so far) superior then the competition. :)
You're kidding, right? That sounds like something one would say if they had never used another operating system.

You may not agree with that, but 90% of the computer users in the world think so since they buy their products. :)
Sorry, but appeal to popularity doesn't prove that the Windows interface is superior to the competition. Also, a majority of people use Windows simply because of market saturation and not because they've examined the alternatives and decided that Windows is the best choice. Really, how many people even know that viable alternatives exist?

For example: (a small example, but a good one imo)
Users need a place to start when using a computer, a place from where to access all the programs etc. Microsoft placed them all under the button "start", simple, effective and everybody automatically know that you start there.
Linux doesn't have that (now they do, but they didn't even remotely have it back in 95) or at least it was not so obvious, so most users didn't understand it.
Actually, Apple has had something similiar since 1986 with their Apple Macintosh line of computers (the Apple icon in the menu bar was basically a "Start" menu), and in fact it's debatable if cramming every single program under a single button is really an ideal solution.

Anyway, here's a history of the graphical user interface (http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-the-graphical-user-interface). Looking through the images of past GUIs, you quickly realize just how little innovation Microsoft brought to the table.

Granted, the windows interface (and some of there tooling) could use some improvements as well, but they are still better then most other ones IMO.
Just out of curiosity, how many UIs besides Windows have you actually used for an appreciable amount of time?

[Phayzon]

Sorry, but appeal to popularity doesn't prove that the Windows interface is superior to the competition.

Apparently it does, if people didnt like it (I sence total bullshit replies to this), they wouldnt have bought it and stuck with whatever else was out there.


Actually, Apple has had something similiar since 1986 with their Apple Macintosh line of computers (the Apple icon in the menu bar was basically a "Start" menu), and in fact it's debatable if cramming every single program under a single button is really an ideal solution.

An Apple icon isnt bleeding obvious, I'm sure there are millions out there who couldnt figure out that was the equivalent to the Start Button.

[Mountain Man]

Apparently it does, if people didnt like it (I sence total bullshit replies to this), they wouldnt have bought it and stuck with whatever else was out there.
Are you aware that the hype for Windows 95 reached such a fever pitch that when it was released, people who didn't even own computers were buying copies (source (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/design/windows.html), on the right under the heading "Did You Know")? You can't tell me that most people who adopted Windows 95 were making an informed decision. That's why I say that part of Microsoft's success is driven by slick marketing rather than creating superior products. And once Microsoft got a foothold, anticompetitive practices like "vendor lock-in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in)" prevented consumers from exploring alternatives. From a 1997 internal memo written by Bill Gates himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Microsoft):

"The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead...

"It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move.

"In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago."

An Apple icon isnt bleeding obvious, I'm sure there are millions out there who couldnt figure out that was the equivalent to the Start Button.
So Microsoft took an existing concept, relabeled, and took all the credit. Yeah, that sounds about right. :D

Anyway, this is taking us off topic and into potential flame war territory.

[Phayzon]

So Microsoft took an existing concept, relabeled, and took all the credit. Yeah, that sounds about right. :D

Im serious. I know a few people who probably couldnt figure that out http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Xerxes]

1997 internal memo written by Bill Gates himself:
Wikipedia says it was written for Gates, not by him(unless I'm not understanding something)...

[Mountain Man]

Hmmm...I took "drafted for Bill Gates" to mean that he dictated it to a secretary, but I see on rereading the entry that the memo was actually written by a Microsoft manager named Aaron Contorer to Bill Gates.

Either way, it's a documented fact that Microsoft depends on draconian measures like vendor lock-in to maintain market share.

[DorDuke82]

@Topic
The "Games for Windows" Branche is a great Idea and can bring back lost market shares to PC Gaming, because mainly this will cause EB Games and Other "Gaming Stores" to have a bigger PC Shelf then they do now have.
So the casual Consumer goes in and buys a Game wich he wouldn't have done if it wasn't there - now a days there are not much PC Games in those "Gaming Stores".
As for Linux/Mac Games : What's the Problem, these five users that actually use their MacOS or Linux to play Games surely bought their Games online or something - let's face it Linux und MacOS are NOT ment for playing, great for Office use but surely nothing for gaming, because its mainly a pain in the arse to code games for them. DirectX may not be the perfect Solution but its generally easier to code games to, because its a Standard now wich Linux for Example does not have - some Linux Games only run under certain Distros, some don't even run because Lack of Drivers.
The Majority of Games is for Windows now, live with it and there is simpy no Difference if it Says PC DVD-Rom in the Top left Corner/ Requires: Windows200/XP on the Back and ift it will Simply have the "Games for Windows" Sticker.

@"OS-WAR"
As I said above Linux and MacOS are great for Office use - but only Geeks really use those Systems to play on. Windows is the simpliest GUI you can find, because all the main functions can be set by mouse-use - nothing is to complicated and its a self-explained GUI.
Ever tried Linux? i startet with some RedHat Distro - and from time to time when a new Suse Distro comes around i try it since version 4.5 - If Something is not working correctly you have to have main Computer-Skills to work around most of these Problems. The File-Structure is cryptic and a Casual Consumer would simply not find what he/she searches for on the Drive and Hardware-Drivers are mostly a Pain in the arse to install and get running if your Hardware is not supported from the start.
MacOS is simply just for Macs and they are to expensive for the Casual Consumer - and come on, how long did they support the One-Button-Mouse?
Microsoft maybe the "Teh Evil Company" but they surely did somethign right - simplified Windows so a Person with no Computer-Skills can work on it, play on it and use it as a Media Center.
I don't really like Microsoft and i hate some of their Ideas but thats no reason to not use Windows, because it IS the main supported OS and thats for a reason - if it really would be so much better to make Games for another OS then why aren`t there more Companys making Games for them (and NO M$ didn't just bought every Game-Developer and made Deals with them to only make Windows Games)?

If some of you don't like what i said don`t take it to personal - just make a experiment: Take someone who does know Jack Sh*t about PC use, then try to explain them how to use a Computer, work with it, play on it - WindowsXP will be the one wich comes out on Top, because its simplified and sefl-explained - its easy to use, no need to know any Console-Commands - just Plug and Play, that means something.
More Competition in this Area would be something needed for sure - but there is not one OS that could make the Casual User make a shift away from Windows now or in the near future.

[Mountain Man]

Your criticisms of Linux and MacOS are about 10 years out of date. If there's one thing this thread has brought to light, it's how little the average computer user knows about non-Windows operating systems.

[0marTheZealot]

Worst thing that could happen is Windows losing marketshare. Think about it. If Linux and MacOS have 33% marketshare apiece, games will be split across them. It's a pain in the ass dual booting any system, let lone triple-booting.

Imagine a time where companies have to choose which platform to develop for. The gamers lose in this scenario. Want the new RTS? It's on MacOS while you only have Linux/Windows. How about that new FPS? Time to dual boot into Linux every time you want to play it. For better or worse, Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS scene and that's good for us gamers. It keeps the games all on 1 platform.

[avatar_58]

Worst thing that could happen is Windows losing marketshare. Think about it. If Linux and MacOS have 33% marketshare apiece, games will be split across them. It's a pain in the ass dual booting any system, let lone triple-booting.

Imagine a time where companies have to choose which platform to develop for. The gamers lose in this scenario. Want the new RTS? It's on MacOS while you only have Linux/Windows. How about that new FPS? Time to dual boot into Linux every time you want to play it. For better or worse, Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS scene and that's good for us gamers. It keeps the games all on 1 platform.

Which is why is pisses me off when people complain about lack of linux support. Would you rather have this scenario? Where we end up having no games because each platform has thinned itself out?

Multiplatform games that work on all three would be a dream, but its a pipe dream. Its not going to happen. Hell I'm willing to bet in my lifetime linux will never gain desktop marketshare over windows....but thats another arguement.

I honestly couldn't care less about the monopoly because really its no worse than the way consoles are owned by one company. Its theoretically "unfair" but to whom? Business men thats who. To us it matters not, just use windows and suddenly it all works.

[hell-angel]

You're kidding, right? That sounds like something one would say if they had never used another operating system.

Not really, the stats prove it. :)


Sorry, but appeal to popularity doesn't prove that the Windows interface is superior to the competition. Also, a majority of people use Windows simply because of market saturation and not because they've examined the alternatives and decided that Windows is the best choice. Really, how many people even know that viable alternatives exist?

Yes, but that is today, because windows is the only one people know, but MS made home PC's populair and more accessable to other people as well. And we all know that wasn't because it was such a good OS.

Actually, Apple has had something similiar since 1986 with their Apple Macintosh line of computers (the Apple icon in the menu bar was basically a "Start" menu), and in fact it's debatable if cramming every single program under a single button is really an ideal solution.

While that is true, the succes of an interface is not only the functionality, but also how obvious everything it is. And for most people the word "start" says a whole lot more then just a logo. If MS had put only the logo up there nobody would like it.


Anyway, here's a history of the graphical user interface (http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-the-graphical-user-interface). Looking through the images of past GUIs, you quickly realize just how little innovation Microsoft brought to the table.

Maybe they where not that innovative in terms of ideas, but maybe just in how they where using it.
Nice read btw. :)


Just out of curiosity, how many UIs besides Windows have you actually used for an appreciable amount of time?

I tried to use several version of linux, but they where all much less accessible then windows so I sticked with that. (and I used dos, but that doesn't really count since it has no UI :) )

You may not like the windows UI, but there succes was not just a marketing strategy, there interface is really accessible to the average user, and that's why they are so successful.

[Mountain Man]

Imagine a time where companies have to choose which platform to develop for. The gamers lose in this scenario. Want the new RTS? It's on MacOS while you only have Linux/Windows. How about that new FPS? Time to dual boot into Linux every time you want to play it. For better or worse, Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS scene and that's good for us gamers. It keeps the games all on 1 platform.
The beauty of using open, cross-platform standards like OpenGL, etc. is that developers don't have to choose which platform to support (for example, Unreal Tournament 2004 and Quake 4 shipped with Windows and Linux versions on the same disc). Unfortunately, most developers simply don't have portability in mind when designing software and tend to code themselves into a single-platform corner.

[avatar_58]

The beauty of using open, cross-platform standards like OpenGL, etc. is that developers don't have to choose which platform to support (for example, Unreal Tournament 2004 and Quake 4 shipped with Windows and Linux versions on the same disc). Unfortunately, most developers simply don't have portability in mind when designing software and tend to code themselves into a single-platform corner.

Prey uses OpenGL and OpenAL, and yet still has no Linux port. It takes more than just open protocols to make a linux port, and most devs simply don't bother taking that much more time and money to port it when they know it won't be in demand.

[Phayzon]

While that is true, the succes of an interface is not only the functionality, but also how obvious everything it is. And for most people the word "start" says a whole lot more then just a logo. If MS had put only the logo up there nobody would like it.


Before someones else says "well vista doesnt say start anymor!!!11one??!", Ill battle them ;)

1. People know to click the object in the lower left, whatever it may be

2.Remember when you used XP for the first time, and a message popped up near the system tray that says "Press Start to begin" or something like that? Vista will probably have something similar.

[Mountain Man]

Prey uses OpenGL and OpenAL, and yet still has no Linux port. It takes more than just open protocols to make a linux port..
I never said it would make it automatic, but it does make it easier, certainly. That's why games like UT2004, Doom 3, and Quake 4 are able to ship with Linux and Windows versions on the same disk. And 3DR/Human Head could have easily ported Prey to Linux if they were so motivated which, unfortunately, they weren't. Which leads us to:

...and most devs simply don't bother taking that much more time and money to port it when they know it won't be in demand.
Yes, that is the problem. However, Epic and id have both proven that multiplatform support is possible and perhaps even profitable.

[Zegraphoob]

Worst thing that could happen is Windows losing marketshare. Think about it. If Linux and MacOS have 33% marketshare apiece, games will be split across them. It's a pain in the ass dual booting any system, let lone triple-booting.

Imagine a time where companies have to choose which platform to develop for. The gamers lose in this scenario. Want the new RTS? It's on MacOS while you only have Linux/Windows. How about that new FPS? Time to dual boot into Linux every time you want to play it. For better or worse, Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS scene and that's good for us gamers. It keeps the games all on 1 platform.

But think about it even further: When all games are developed for Linux, and none for Windows, there would be no backwards compability problems anymore. All old games would still work perfectly in the future, and all games would ship without copy protection.

[avatar_58]

But think about it even further: When all games are developed for Linux, and none for Windows, there would be no backwards compability problems anymore. All old games would still work perfectly in the future, and all games would ship without copy protection.

What are you talking about? Games have broken in the past due to SDL version differences and other updates, just as they do in windows. The only difference is that most Linux games are open source and therefore are fixed by people on their spare time. Full fledged closed source games developed for Linux would have just as many issues running on a Linux box 10 years from now as they do in windows.

Then you might ask "Why aren't the games open source then?". Welcome in piracy? Think how easy it would be to defeat CD checks or other methods when the code is right there for the viewing. So really piracy is much worse on a 'nix box when you think about it....which cuts sales down even further.

[0marTheZealot]

But think about it even further: When all games are developed for Linux, and none for Windows, there would be no backwards compability problems anymore. All old games would still work perfectly in the future, and all games would ship without copy protection.

God himself couldn't get Linux to get that much marketshare; more likely, other OS platforms eat into Windows significantly, scattering the userbase like so many grains of sand. If Windows loses marketshare to other platforms (MacOS and Linux), most developers will go out of business. The resources for most developers to develop on 3 different platforms is too much. Lots of developers will have to learn OpenGL/AL to port their games and we will have to buy more OS and learn how to dual-boot like pros. When your potential customer base is cut in 1/2 or 1/3 by virtue of having different OS's, so does your profit potential get cut in 1/2 or 1/3. If that scenario happens, it's more likely that developers will eschew computer gaming completely and simply focus their efforts on consoles.

[avatar_58]

PC gaming is already losing a great deal of profit and customers, so anyone who believes cutting it up further won't harm us is naive. Most Linux users seem to think companies do things for free, without profit there are no games....its as simple as that.

I'd like a perfect world where every game is on all three O/S and we don't have to worry about how much money is lost per title, but its just not going to happen.

[hell-angel]

But think about it even further: When all games are developed for Linux, and none for Windows, there would be no backwards compability problems anymore. All old games would still work perfectly in the future, and all games would ship without copy protection.

Untrue, since even the different linux versions often have compatibility problems with each other there is no way that anyone can guarantee backwards compatibility.

Besides, the only reasons epic is releasing their games on linux is
1) They like linux
2) The dedicated servers are usually run on linux boxes
3) They are developing their engine to be cross platform (incl. consoles) from the start because they sell their engine. Then there is (relatively) little effort to port the rest as well.

[FireFly]

Besides the big players like id and Epic, who else are committed to Linux and Mac development?

[Mountain Man]

[Epic is] developing their engine to be cross platform (incl. consoles) from the start because they sell their engine. Then there is (relatively) little effort to port the rest as well.
Exactly my point. :) And Microsoft is scared to death of other developers adopting the same strategy, hence "Games for Windows".

[hell-angel]

Exactly my point. :) And Microsoft is scared to death of other developers adopting the same strategy, hence "Games for Windows".

Nope, that's because PC gaming revenue is dropped below the 1 billion mark in 2005 and that will cost them sales, since PC games are genrally the most important reason as to why people by new PC's and thus new windows versions :)

[0marTheZealot]

Exactly my point. :) And Microsoft is scared to death of other developers adopting the same strategy, hence "Games for Windows".

Microsoft isn't scared of anything. They control a massive portion of the gaming scene (Xbox/Windows). This campaign is just a way of realizing an easy source of income. Some VP realized at the last circle-jerk that 95% of home computers have Windows on it. Why not market games to that platform and cut a nice profit off it.

Games for Mac and Games for Linux are 99% sure to be DOA, if they even get that far. MS has nothing to fear from Linux/Mac obtaining any marketshare.

[hell-angel]

Microsoft isn't scared of anything. They control a massive portion of the gaming scene (Xbox/Windows). This campaign is just a way of realizing an easy source of income. Some VP realized at the last circle-jerk that 95% of home computers have Windows on it. Why not market games to that platform and cut a nice profit off it.

Games for Mac and Games for Linux are 99% sure to be DOA, if they even get that far. MS has nothing to fear from Linux/Mac obtaining any marketshare.

They don't fear linux, they fear consoles. They are taking away PC gamers which will result in a lot less new PC's being bought and thus a lot less new windows versions. :)

[Mountain Man]

Nope, that's because PC gaming revenue is dropped below the 1 billion mark in 2005 and that will cost them sales, since PC games are genrally the most important reason as to why people by new PC's and thus new windows versions :)
That's another reason, yes. Basically, if Microsoft doesn't do something to solidify their stake in PC gaming then they stand to lose gamers to competing platforms.

But this again begs the question, is that necessarily a bad thing? Wouldn't open standards that don't lock consumers into a single operating system be good for PC gaming in the long run? "Games for Windows" will be good for Microsoft, obviously, but I'm not certain the long-term impact on PC gaming in general will necessarily be beneficial.

[0marTheZealot]

That's another reason, yes. Basically, if Microsoft doesn't do something to solidify their stake in PC gaming then they stand to lose gamers to competing platforms.

But this again begs the question, is that necessarily a bad thing? Wouldn't open standards that don't lock consumers into a single operating system be good for PC gaming in the long run? "Games for Windows" will be good for Microsoft, obviously, but I'm not certain the long-term impact on PC gaming in general will necessarily be beneficial.


PC gaming will be long dead before developers move on to open source platforms. The marketshare just isn't there and the average consumer doesn't know the first thing about open source platforms. FFS, IE6 is still the #1 browser. Anyways, I wouldn't have it any other way, as per my other posts.

The biggest threat to PC gaming is those shithole intel graphics cards (50% marketshare!) that come with the basic systems. And misleading video card marketspeak that makes people buy x1300 or 7300 gs with 512mb of RAM and think they got a great card. But really, if introductory computers came with a half decent video card, PC gaming would really take off.

[Phayzon]

The biggest threat to PC gaming is those shithole intel graphics cards (50% marketshare!) that come with the basic systems. And misleading video card marketspeak that makes people buy x1300 or 7300 gs with 512mb of RAM and think they got a great card. But really, if introductory computers came with a half decent video card, PC gaming would really take off.

Just like I said earlier. :) Another big threat is the common misconception that 'becuase its expensive it'll run *game*'. Wrong. Maximum PC built a $1000 rig that ran FEAR on max settings with a steady 50-60FPS. But $1000 storebought PC's would be lucky to even run Doom3. Im blaming intel for their overpriced hardware that cant handle today's games. MS shouldnt see consoles as that much of the threat, they have 2 on them out there themselves! They're probably making ALOT off XBox Live.

[avatar_58]

The biggest threat to PC gaming is those shithole intel graphics cards (50% marketshare!) that come with the basic systems.

I can't agree on that one. The reason why its '50%' is because not everyone plays games, and not everyone wants or needs the latest and greatest PCs. What is utter shit to you is just fine for the person who just wants a business PC and maybe plays some games on the side.

Believe it or not but there aren't as many power users on PCs as you think (which again is why this campaign is a good thing)

[seregrail7]

PC gaming will be long dead before developers move on to open source platforms. The marketshare just isn't there and the average consumer doesn't know the first thing about open source platforms.
I think you're missing the bigger picture. Linux doesn't have much dominance yet, but Games for Windows is taking away the chance of Linux getting a larger market share. Without Games fo Windows, more and more Linux releases could happen, and Linux could become a favoured gaming OS alongside Windows. But with Games for Windows, MS are clearly trying to be the only OS for gaming on the pc, as they don't want people switching to what may be a better OS for playing games.
I'm sure there are conditions that have to be met to get that little Games for Windows stamp.

I'm not saying Games for Windows is bad, I'm saying that it's MS' way of ensuring their domination of the OS market.

[Zegraphoob]

What are you talking about? Games have broken in the past due to SDL version differences and other updates, just as they do in windows. The only difference is that most Linux games are open source and therefore are fixed by people on their spare time. Full fledged closed source games developed for Linux would have just as many issues running on a Linux box 10 years from now as they do in windows.

Then you might ask "Why aren't the games open source then?". Welcome in piracy? Think how easy it would be to defeat CD checks or other methods when the code is right there for the viewing. So really piracy is much worse on a 'nix box when you think about it....which cuts sales down even further.

What is the difference with the situation now, then? Every game has its own noCD crack for every version of the game, and those why do not, like Starforce games, have other ways around them.

God himself couldn't get Linux to get that much marketshare;

True, but I am talking about a "what if..." scenario, not an "if ever..." one.


The biggest threat to PC gaming is those shithole intel graphics cards (50% marketshare!) that come with the basic systems. And misleading video card marketspeak that makes people buy x1300 or 7300 gs with 512mb of RAM and think they got a great card. But really, if introductory computers came with a half decent video card, PC gaming would really take off.

The advantage of a PC is that you can choose what to put in your case. If you are going to force everyone to get one of the latest graphics cards, this would almost be a console.

[0marTheZealot]

I think you're missing the bigger picture. Linux doesn't have much dominance yet, but Games for Windows is taking away the chance of Linux getting a larger market share. Without Games fo Windows, more and more Linux releases could happen, and Linux could become a favoured gaming OS alongside Windows.


In what fairyland? Name 1 major Linux game to come out recently. I can only think of Quake4 and Doom3. Linux will never be a favored gaming OS. It never has, it never will. Linux has 1% marketshare and all the best efforts haven't been able to raise it. Microsoft could kill a baby on Live TV and Linux will still not be a viable OS for the vast majority of people. Linux had 10+ years to establish itself as a gaming platform. Face the facts people, Linux/MacOS only games are no more viable than an aborted fetus in a dumpster. The only thing Linux is good for (gaming-wise) is running dedicated servers for MP games. That's it.


But with Games for Windows, MS are clearly trying to be the only OS for gaming on the pc, as they don't want people switching to what may be a better OS for playing games.
I'm sure there are conditions that have to be met to get that little Games for Windows stamp.


Windows is the only OS for gaming on a PC. If you buy a Mac (pre-intel) for games, you might as well buy the Flintstones' car for racing. Apply the same analogy for Linux gamers. The cold, hard truth is that Windows has been the only and still is the only OS supported for the longest time. And, as per my other post, splitting up the marketshare is a death knell for PC gaming. No one will want to make PC games if MacOS and Linux have significant marketshare. Games today are already buggy without the need to code for 2 different OSes.


The advantage of a PC is that you can choose what to put in your case. If you are going to force everyone to get one of the latest graphics cards, this would almost be a console.


I think you are mis-intrepretating my statement. An Intel onboard graphics card is literally crap. You can do the calculations faster by hand. An x1300 (absolute garbage, not fit to even be in my hands) is light-years ahead of an intel onboard card. I'm just saying that if you buy a modern computer, it should have some ability to run PC games. No need to put a 7900GTX in there, but at least a 7600 GS or a x1600XT. Something decent that'll play video games at more than 2 FPS. Most computers from OEMs have absolute crap video cards. Put something in it that can run games today at at least 800x600 or 1024x768. Don't even need bells and whistles on it (AA,AF, etc etc), just something that runs it at an acceptable clip.

[Zegraphoob]

I think you are mis-intrepretating my statement. An Intel onboard graphics card is literally crap. You can do the calculations faster by hand. An x1300 (absolute garbage, not fit to even be in my hands) is light-years ahead of an intel onboard card. I'm just saying that if you buy a modern computer, it should have some ability to run PC games. No need to put a 7900GTX in there, but at least a 7600 GS or a x1600XT. Something decent that'll play video games at more than 2 FPS. Most computers from OEMs have absolute crap video cards. Put something in it that can run games today at at least 800x600 or 1024x768. Don't even need bells and whistles on it (AA,AF, etc etc), just something that runs it at an acceptable clip.

I can see your point for a gaming machine, but why would anyone that wants to use his PC solely for business purposes have to spend extra money on a graphics card he'll never, ever use?

[hell-angel]

That's another reason, yes. Basically, if Microsoft doesn't do something to solidify their stake in PC gaming then they stand to lose gamers to competing platforms.

But this again begs the question, is that necessarily a bad thing? Wouldn't open standards that don't lock consumers into a single operating system be good for PC gaming in the long run? "Games for Windows" will be good for Microsoft, obviously, but I'm not certain the long-term impact on PC gaming in general will necessarily be beneficial.

I don't know, because the linux platform (for example) is not uniform enough, what runs on version A, doesn't have to run on version B. So if you where a developer, would you then do it? You would have to test 10 different linux versions, not to mention the changes some people make themselfs. Even the unreal engine doesn't run on all linux versions for that reason. That also doesn't benefit the games, so one platform would be preferable I think.
The biggest problem is indeed the hardware which in a lot of computers
A) suck
B) are not of quality
C) can't run everything people say they can run.
Those are the biggest threads to PC gaming IMO.

EDIT: D) is to expensive.

[Mountain Man]

I don't know, because the linux platform (for example) is not uniform enough, what runs on version A, doesn't have to run on version B.
I'm really not sure where you've gotten that idea. There is actually very little incompatability between the various distros. The primary difference are packages for specific configurations, such as if someone is running KDE or Gnome, for example. However, there are certain programs that are standard in pretty much every Linux distro. And that shouldn't be a problem for commercial software anyway which should include all required packages on the CD.

...one platform would be preferable I think.
No, standardization is preferable, and standardization can be cross-platform. Vendor lock-in should be avoided.

[Zero]

Okay... First of all no SDL program has ever broken in Linux, UT2K3 uses SDL and it's been a while since Epic released a patch for it, infact SDL has had 2 major revisions since then! Hell even Heavy Metal FAKK2 uses SDL and it 6 years old! Now that this statement is shotdown and destoryed. NEXT!!!

ALL Distros are compatible with all software, sure it may not run due to an envorment varible not being set, if you look into the documentation you will find that this can be fixed by exporting the variable(s) or doing what it says to get the game going. This is no different then placing a game in compatiblity mode under xp, accept your doing it in a console. And the desktop or window manager doesnt matter, games are usally compiled agesnt X not there window managers. Now that I have also shot this BS down. Lets contenue...

There is not alot of piracy on Linux, I own every game I have installed in wine and nativly , the only games I don't own are the open source ones, that have granted me free use of them anyways.

Today is linux's 15'th bday and from this very day it has somehow beable to keep backwards compatiblity for all 15 years... I donno about you, but that counts for something in my books, now Windows has how many years of compatiblity? maybe 5 if your lucky and the service pack doesnt break anything, Linux has it beat 3 times over and is still going.

Linux has more games then Quake 4 and Doom 3.

Serious Sam 2 is still being ported
The entire quake series
the entire doom series
Serious Sam
Serious Sam the second encounter
Heavy Metal FAKK2
RUNE
The Unreal Tournament series
The Postal series
The Hexen Series
and tons more...

Basically you have to want t play the games cause there are select at the moment, but they are still there and there are more to come. you cant bash it because it has no magical Direct X API, that is not cross platform at all.

Hell-angle can you please tell me what unreal tournament game(s) dont run on any version of linux? as far as I know and I know, linux is just linux, you post requarements and the user has to meet those, its the same for windows and driectx.

is there anything else anyone would like me to debunk for them?

[0marTheZealot]

Serious Sam 2 is still being ported
The entire quake series
the entire doom series
Serious Sam
Serious Sam the second encounter
Heavy Metal FAKK2
RUNE
The Unreal Tournament series
The Postal series
The Hexen Series
and tons more...

Look how old those games are.... Not a single game in that list is from 2005 or 2006. Face it, Linux games are few and far between. For Windows, I've bought about a dozen games every year since 1998 or so. Linux? There's barely a dozen games on it and very few that are popular online.

[Zero]

I am not denying that, and there is a couple Quake series and Doom Series includes Doom 3 and Quake 4 and games that arent on that list include X2 that was released in 2006 so your wrong, again it depends on preference of games, you like certain games to you say there arent any games for linux, there are games, there are few games, but there they are there!

[avatar_58]

I am not denying that

Thats the whole debate here, that Linux isn't a viable platform for game companies to consider when making new games. The potential profit for a brand new 2006-2007 game - which platform do you think would make the most money?

No one said Linux was bad or 'doesn't have games'. The point being made here is that the PC gaming industry can already barely stand on its own two legs with windows, if people start segmenting it into OSX/Linux/Windows then you might as well pack your bags as a PC gamer.

It doesn't take a genius to see that.

[Zero]

The amount of games depends on fan base of the OS though, it doesn't mean that OS is nessarly the best OS for games to be on, just because everyone can walk doesn't mean its the best way to get around....

We are talking about the platform itself, not its popularity, when it comes to compatibility and stableness there is no question about it, linux is the OS of choice. the only reason why Windows dominates is because you buy a PC from Dell or HP or anywhere it ships with windows, so instead of making games for an OS that doesn't come with a PC the company's make there software for Windows because by default is has more fan base already, it starts with it. if and I mean if Linux and M$ started the same years and had equal bessness practes and had equal venders then this thread wouldn't exist at all. because now you have the choice of linux or windows, there would be no dominate one, this would mean the company's would have to port there code just like back in the SNES and Genesis era, a lot of games were not exslives.

[avatar_58]

We are talking about the platform itself, not its popularity

You are in the same thread we are right? Read the posts on the other pages, the whole point of the thread was to highlight the fact the PC is losing footing as a popular development platform.

The Games for Windows brand is attempt to solve this dilemna. This thread isn't about Windows VS Linux and its pointless to go that road.

[Zero]

I know its not, but in the making of this brand, you elimaite the competion with the title "savour of PC gaming"
PC gaming is not dying it's slowing down, due to technology moving too fast, once devs get a grip on it, things will get better, a few years back you could license the quake 3 engine and make like 5 games with it, today you cant do that, because companys push tech out too fast, instead of companys making games on tech that is last gen then are simply making fewer games until things slow again, this happend back in 1993 as well when everyone was using some other engine doom came out and everyone said whoa wait a minute.. hold on here ... its just a pause, there is no need for a savour

[avatar_58]

Linux has the same odds of being a viable gaming platform as Ralph Nader did to be the president.

[Zero]

Linux has the same odds of being a viable gaming platform as Ralph Nader did to be the president.

Right now yes, but only time will tell, some other platform could blow away both
But like I said, it takes time, Microsoft didn't exactly get where it is today without cheating. Now that it has the hold, only time can break that hold, they will make the mistakes and when they do, that is the only way linux will gain anything right now.

Well I guess everyone has a shot at becoming president then, PS3 is using Linux has its OS, the GP2X also is using linux, the PS2 Dev Kit used Linux. So Ralph Nader is president I guess

[Hudson]

Linux has the same odds of being a viable gaming platform as Ralph Nader did to be the president.

In this growing world of high-cost O/S's and DRM I fully expect to see a massive jump in Linux users in the near future.

The fact is even now with Linux's small (home) user base, it's still considered a major threat to Microsoft.. that has to say something.

[0marTheZealot]

In this growing world of high-cost O/S's and DRM I fully expect to see a massive jump in Linux users in the near future.

The fact is even now with Linux's small (home) user base, it's still considered a major threat to Microsoft.. that has to say something.

Sure, after that miracle, Linux can go punch out God.

[Phayzon]

but at least a 7600 GS or a x1600XT.

Not even. Even a GeForce4 can pump out pretty decent results in Doom3 engine games. (Havent tryed FEAR/Source yet) If not that, a GeForceFX.


Zegraphoob
"I can see your point for a gaming machine, but why would anyone that wants to use his PC solely for business purposes have to spend extra money on a graphics card he'll never, ever use?"

Why do these onboard GPUs have an assload of VRAM? Office and IE and the like require 0MB of VRAM... 256/128 is overkill.

[mon2908]

The only thing that Microsoft is really good for is for creating monopols.

Quality and the interests of customers does not really play a role for this global player. Linux started as server os, konquered the Desktop and if there will be really a wide vendor support for www.khronos.org / The Open Media Library. OpenML will be a real alternative to DirectX10.

It would be possible to to create games once and run it on each platform you prefer, if it supports this Media Layer. Like Java runs on every platform that has a Java Runtime Environment.

[Phayzon]

The only thing that Microsoft is really good for is for creating monopols.

...are you insane? (I'm serious)

[mon2908]

...are you insane? (I'm serious)

To answer your question!

Yes! I must be insane (serious!). To see that people cannot make decissions because of quality but compatiblity reasons drives me insane. To know that it is with less efforts possible to develop system independant programs and see a marketing that wants to force user to buy special equipment to use this programs with special hardware, special versions of operating systems, drives me insane.

If I spent my money for a real good PC and will be forced to play a special game on NES, XBOX, XBOX360, Playstation, Playstation 2, Playstation 3 or other expensive hardware and I know that it would be easily possible to port it for my machine drives me insane.

I was born at a time where the customer could decide what kind of equipment he wanted to use. Games were ported to all available platforms if the hardware allowed it.

Today the customers are pushed by marketing (Oh you have a PC, sorry but you need a playstation to play this, Oh for this one you need a XBox, No no, XBox 360 not XBox. XBox 360, no your old Playstation games won't work on this hardware, no this new console does not have a slot to play your old Atari 2600 games, arrrggghhh)

And if someone shows mercy and develops an emulator for PC he will be imprisoned by ignoring copyrights or crushed because of marketing reasons.

Yes you are right to notice that I am insane! I think it has become something special in this days to get something without paying the double or tripple price for it.

[Phayzon]

Hmm.. where to start..

Well, the 1st paragraph, I'll give you that.

The second paragraph is just... no...

Third. Was there such a time? (Years please) AFAIK it has ALWAYS been this way (Atari games werent on Intelivision/Colecovision, or viseversa. Or Nes VS SEGA system)

The fourth sounds like BS.

5th is true

6th... ok...

[mon2908]

I regret that not the demand of the user gives the decission if a game will be released for a special system. Marketing decides which game console you have to buy this year to play actual games and in the next year you start the same procedure again with a different system. And you won't be able to play the old stuff you already spent your money for with this new equipment. So you have to buy games you like again and again.

If there is an independant media library it does not matter what kind of system you decide for, you are not even forced to purchase a special kind of hardware to make your games run as long as the vendor of your equipment supports this layer and your system is fast enough to fullfill the demands of the game. You can decide if you need a high end machine for the hottest strip poker ever or if you decide to keep your machine the way it is.

The availability of certain games should not influence you in your decission for a special platform. How many hardware vendors will be crushed by this marketing?
If you spent an amount for a SUN SPARC and Sun supports this media layer you could play your games on this machine. If you prefer a flavour of Linux you can decide which one fits your needs best and an independant layer would allow you to play your games. If you think that a console will fullfill your needs and you do not care about anything else you can play the games on a console that accepts this layer. Or if you like the support of Microsoft you can use your Windows and will be able to run your programs with that special layer.

Quality should make your decission, customer support should make your decission but not the availability of certain games or programs that only work on special kind of hardware or software. Windows XP wasn't bad for me, the customer support was the reason I switched to Linux. I paid for a license but wasn't able to reactivate Windows after I reinstalled it on my machine again. Before I become criminalised by using an OS I spent money for I go and use something else. Linux is my choice, I bought it in a box (Ubuntu/Dapper), I bought printer drivers (would not buy the printer again because of the lack of support for alternate operating system) and I am willing to pay for the programs and games I use (I already paid for my games) but I won't tolerate that others decide, what I am able to do with my Computer or ask every time if I am allowed to install or launch certain games on my machine, like Half-Life 2 demands it.

So what was the reason that makes you think I am insane? Ever used Linux? Installed it or run a live cd? Ubuntu is really a simple to use/simple to install out of the box Linux. You can install it on your harddrive an play cards or google the internet the same time. Even the support is great. Enough online documentation to keep you busy for years and really great communities.

[Phayzon]

So you have to buy games you like again and again.

Keep your old hardware. I did.

How many hardware vendors will be crushed by this marketing?

All of them. 1983 all over again. (I know 1983's event wasnt because of this)


Ever used Linux? Installed it or run a live cd? Ubuntu is really a simple to use/simple to install out of the box Linux. You can install it on your harddrive an play cards or google the internet the same time. Even the support is great. Enough online documentation to keep you busy for years and really great communities.

Yes, I ran a Quake4 server up until v1.1. Both. I know. w00t cards and internet, I can do that on alot of machines. Ok, never needed the support though. This is Linux' problem, there isnt one solid 'community', they're broken up among many many different distros.

[Karthik]

And if someone shows mercy and develops an emulator for PC he will be imprisoned by ignoring copyrights or crushed because of marketing reasons.

What planet do you live in, mon? Al the emus I've come across are still being updated or discountined because the author is not interested. I never cam across any emu authour being imprisoned for emulating a console/computer hybrid. In fact, MAME is being updated, there's a new functioning PS2 emulator and even a second Dreamcast emulator was released recently.

[Phayzon]

http://taltos.pha.jhu.edu/~tamas/files/images/emu.jpg

Nobody's shutting down this Emu! (Sorry, I had to)

[hell-angel]

I'm really not sure where you've gotten that idea. There is actually very little incompatability between the various distros. The primary difference are packages for specific configurations, such as if someone is running KDE or Gnome, for example. However, there are certain programs that are standard in pretty much every Linux distro. And that shouldn't be a problem for commercial software anyway which should include all required packages on the CD.

That is not what I am told, but I don't use linux anyway.

No, standardization is preferable, and standardization can be cross-platform. Vendor lock-in should be avoided.
Although that is true, the problem is that companies don't want to standardize. Just look at the hardware, there is a standard, but very few are following it properly. Resulting in game companies having to cut back on what they can do because some people have substandard (like compaq or HP or PB) hardware. You don't have that problem with one company.

[0marTheZealot]

I'd use Linux, but I want to play more than 2 games a year. It's as simple as that.

[mon2908]

Sorry! I forget to quote:

For example bleem was crushed by sony.

The picture of that EMU looks pretty nice.

Planet earth, Germany, a country where fundamental laws are kicked and ignored by people who create politics in our country. If you loose your job you will also loose your standard of living and your fundamental rights. (No Joke).

"Das Deutsche Grundgesetz" - "The German fundamental Rights" which contains the fundamental rights of everyone is bend by our political leaders. There exist a high rate of unemployed people (more than 4 million people and there will not be a chance that this situation changes), but they become forced to work for amounts that do not long to pay their dues or keep em eating all day. The worst is that more than 40% of the germans also if they work, need to be additionally supported by this state. This has become a vicious circle.

There does not even exist a basic salary an employer is at least forced to pay to an employee for his work. "Mindestlohn". Our government believes that this would cause industry to leave Germany and that they move their industry in countries where they have to pay less to keep their business up and running.

I hope that this political leaders become removed. Not only do they support industry more than the people who gave their vote, but they also become part of this industry if their political career ends.

[Mongorian]

Saw the new setup they're putting in EB Games. It's a tall kiosk that says "Games for Windows" across the top. It had demos and video demos, plus a keyboard and mouse to try them with.

[Mountain Man]

EB Games, huh? That's a bit ironic considering the shrink ray they've been aiming at their PC games inventory for the past couple of years. I wonder if this "Games for Windows" deal will be able to reverse that trend?

[avatar_58]

Saw the new setup they're putting in EB Games. It's a tall kiosk that says "Games for Windows" across the top. It had demos and video demos, plus a keyboard and mouse to try them with.

Wait woah - Ebgames is actually going through with it? :o Now this I have to see to believe. The ebgames where I live is anything but PC friendly. If this can change that fact then I'll really be impressed.

[Phayzon]

I wonder if this "Games for Windows" deal will be able to reverse that trend?

Wasnt that the whole point of "Games for Windows"?

[Damien_Azreal]

Apparently our Wal-Mart is getting a makeover early next year, and this "Games for Windows" thing is going to be put into the Electronics department.

This could actualy be a good thing, if it works and goes over well I may not have to order as many games online. Would be awesome if that was true.

[Mountain Man]

Wasnt that the whole point of "Games for Windows"?
Yes, it is. I'm wondering if they'll actually be able to pull it off.

[Karthik]

Apparently our Wal-Mart is getting a makeover early next year, and this "Games for Windows" thing is going to be put into the Electronics department.

This could actualy be a good thing, if it works and goes over well I may not have to order as many games online. Would be awesome if that was true.
My spider sense tells me Wal-Mart will then proceed to decrease PC shelf space when PS3, Wii and X360 sales pick up.