How 'Games for Windows' Will Change PC Gaming

Joystiq has a short piece up talking with Windows (GFW) Marketing Director Kevin Unangst and PR Manager Michael Wolf about the future of the 'Games for Windows' initiative. With the launch of Vista, Microsoft is making a big push to turn PC games into a 'console-like' cohesive brand. Instead of relying on the good name of individual publishers to sell titles, Redmond is requiring that all titles use similar packaging and a distinctive logo. Along with the new gamer-centric features in Vista, and the tie-in to Xbox 360 with 'Live Anywhere', this is meant to reinvigorate the PC games market for the sometimes not-so-savvy consumer. From the article: "By making gaming a priority in the Vista experience, Microsoft is molding a powerful pairing of the Games for Windows and Xbox 360 brands. To some extent, this is based on a hope that Live Anywhere will be embraced by GFW developers and publishers, pulling Xbox Live (and your Gamertag) outside of the 'Box, in turn encouraging an unrivaled virtual community. But there are simpler touches that also spark our interest. For example, start up Vista's Minesweeper, connect your 360 controller, and enjoy a subtle rumble each time you slip up. It's the melding with the familiar that will drive new and lost consumers to the Games for Windows brand."

Comments

Re:If they can pull it off...

[ergo98]

Anything that brings the usability of a console with the flexibility of a PC together is a good thing in my book.

But ultimately that would just turn PC gaming into second-rate consoles.

Personally I'd like to see the exact opposite -- PC gaming that is more appropriate for a PC. For instance windowed gaming: There are a tremendous number of games that can only play in fullscreen mode, yet I like the ability to hop between applications without a time sucking, crash-inducing schism, not to mention that I like to see all of my other windows.

New and lost?

[Aladrin]

"It's the melding with the familiar that will drive new and lost consumers to the Games for Windows brand."

So they have given up on all the current gamers, eh?

Besides that amazingly stupid thing to say, which I'm sure was more of a slip-of-the-tongue-while-trying-imitate-Nintendo, PC games have always been wildly different. Trying to make them somehow the same by making them all use the same box design is crazy. (Same meaning moreso than they already are, considering they are all the same shape and size, etc etc.) Requiring the logos to be the same spot, and the requirements in the same spot, etc etc will only stifle the creativity of the box designers. It will not somehow create a community for pc gamers that didn't exist before and draw in people that have been resistant to PC gaming.

Those people DO NOT CARE.

If you can build a Wiimote for PC and not get sued, THEN you can probably get some non-gamers to care. (Or another suitably wonderful and fun controller.)

Re:New and lost?

[LionKimbro]

They're not talking about those people.

Most likely, they're talking about the rapidly-growing "casual gamers" crowd.

They want a super-smooth and polished purchase, install, and play path for casual gamers. They want an experience as reliable and smooth as that of purchasing a game for a console, but for a computer with Windows installed.

On a console, the hardware is basically identical. The OS software is basically identical. The controllers are standardized, and perfectly regular.

There is never any ambiguity, in a Nintendo Wii game, about what the "(A)" button refers to, and what the "[B]" button refers to. The same on a PS2 controller, with an X, a triangle, and so on. The game developers know exactly how everything is laid out.

There are never install problems, you just put the disk in, and it works. If it doesn't work, it's because the disk is bad. There are very simple decision trees at work here.

When you're in the store, looking for the Wii games, there's no difficulty finding them. Not only are the sectioned, but all the titles have the same look and feel. Hoards of consumer psychologists have found out that Brands Work.

They want to make it possible for there to be "Windows Games," which work on Windows just like N64 games work on an N64. Platform, platform, platform.

It's a sensible strategy.

They're not talking about games that hard core gamers play. They're not talking about your community. They are talking about a super-fast growing market segment. Businesses love super-fast growing markets, it's where all the action in determining what the landscape will look like is. Things that don't grow are basically set in their patterns, and change is only made very slowly, unless the market is being torn apart by some obsoleting force.

Re:New and lost?

[dagamer34]

You've nailed it right on the head. The reason why I don't even bother with PC games even though I DO have a decent graphics card is that it requires way too much tweaking and jumping through hoops to get a decent play experience. You either have to spend $500+ on a video card or wait until decent video cards are cheap before running a game well than came out 6 months ago. What developers really need to do is to make their games AWARE of the state of the computer. If a game is only running at 25FPS because HDR is on, give a cue to turn it off. What would be really nice is a to have a playtest of your system for 5 minutes or so and then have the game figure out what settings would be best to maintain 30FPS (for eye-candy) or 60FPS (for smooth framerates).

Re:If they can pull it off...

[HappySqurriel]

Anything that brings the usability of a console with the flexibility of a PC together is a good thing in my book. An XBox Live system for the PC+XBox would be welcome too.

Honestly, I think Microsoft has the right idea except they're only 10 years too late. 10 years ago, in the wake of Window's 95, everyone wanted someone to make PC gaming a more user friendly experience that didn't require endless patches and work to play games; today if people want something that is inexpensive and easily plays games they're going to buy a console without even considering a PC.

Another Tactic to Discourage Multi-Platform Titles

[Apple Acolyte]

This is yet another tactic from Microsoft to discourage the development of multi-platform titles by tying games to Windows even more.

Windows games

[RichPowers]

Of course MS wants to emphasize gaming on their OS. Many people, myself included, would never touch Windows again if it weren't for the games... But I find this stupid: "To earn the GFW brand, a title must comply with certain Microsoft-tested specifications, including ... compatibility with the Xbox 360 controller." Another example of MS bullying game publishers to adopt its standards. Do all PC gamers have an Xbox or like its controller? Why not other PC-only gamepads that might work better? Besides, what true gamer would limit their FPS experience with a friggn' console controller? But simplifying install (and uninstall) and system reqs makes sense. Too bad it took so damn long.

Re:Windows games

[PygmySurfer]

I think one of the reasons they're targeting the Xbox 360 controller is because of the mess that exists currently. Currently, button assignments differ wildly for gamepads. I think Microsoft is hoping Logitech and other vendors will adopt a similar layout, at least with regards to the naming of the buttons, etc. It also gives developers something to target as well, so that one game doesn't have the fire button as button 1, while another has it on button 7, because the developers tested with a controller from different manufacturers. That would even help with current games, because at least the gamer is going to get the same button configuration between games.

Besides, what true gamer would limit their FPS experience with a friggn' console controller?

I don't think MS is going to remove the ability for developers to target the keyboard and mouse, I think they just want the gamepad to work as well, which isn't too bad of an idea - giving the user a choice is always a good idea.

Hey Sony, Nintendo, and Apple, Listen Up!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This is your wake up call. MS intends to leverage their OS monopoly to give themselves and advantage in the gaming console market. This also provides another layer of defense around their core, OS monopoly. This is bad news for all of you, Nintendo, Sony, and Apple. They're also trying to build out DirectX tools to make the PC and Xbox a one stop shop. This is their classic strategy and it works, unless the existing players form a good, open standards based partnership. You're all influential OpenGL houses. You all have a vested interest here. Sony has already moved towards making OpenGL models key to their gaming platform. Now is the time for all of you to abandon trying to build lock-in strategies in this field and start making a concerted effort to interoperate. Build a game development toolset that makes OpenGL games on Windows, PS3, Wii, and the Mac a single entity. Beat MS at their own game. Give Blizzard and Id a call. You've got one shot at this guys, and if you fail your media enterprises are going to be easy targets. Get to it!

Re:Hey Sony, Nintendo, and Apple, Listen Up!

[Spikeles]

Dammit! Stop comparing DirectX to OpenGL!!!! You can't!! If you are going to compare OpenGL to something compare it to Direct3D

Re:Hey Sony, Nintendo, and Apple, Listen Up!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You must be on crack if you think that Microsoft's push of DirectX will sway the console wars.

Yeah, people have said the same thing about other markets they embraced.

Game studios which put out multi-platform games are not interested in abandoning their multi-platform market in favour of the oh-so-lucritive[sic] PC and XBox market.

MS already owns a lot of those game studios. They will buy more as they need to. And they don't need to change the minds of entrenched players, if they can win over the new development shops. Already a lot of games are developed with DirectX tools, simply because the tools and skills are cheap and easy. Some of those new companies move on to make good, multi-platform games, but some have enough important people with a DirectX-only skill set that they stay with it out of momentum. Every one of them, is just that many more Windows/xbox exclusive titles that contributes to their win. Maybe it won't happen with the Xbox360, or even the next generation of consoles, but it only needs to hit critical mass once, and then it is theirs.

There is much more money to be made in selling the same game on numerous platforms instead of only 2.

There are different types of costs. There is overall cost and their is up front investment cost. If a new company wants to make a game and they can cheaply use existing DirectX talent and kit the Xbox and Windows, they'll do it. Hell, a whole lot of small time companies already do so and all they hit is the Windows market. Unless they have a toolset that competes and lets them hit a similar number of end users for similar or lower upfront cost, this number will slowly grow.

The only explanation for your reasoning is that it will simplify development - but the only one who is having trouble with their dev kits (at this point) is Sony, so your argument goes out the window.

Game developers always complain about dev kits, for every platform. Anything that makes it easier, or cheaper in the short run is a real competitor. This is a proven market strategy and it will be benefitting MS. The only question is how much will it benefit them and will it be countered.

Re:Another Tactic to Discourage Multi-Platform Tit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah think?

One of the top reasons people cite when they reconsider moving to another platform is the unavailability of the games they like, or the reality that the games don't become available until months later. That's an advantage MS would like to preserve. Every game written for DirectX 10 / Vista rather than OpenGL / multiplatform is a step in that direction, and every effort to make OpenGL a second-class 3D API on Vista is too.

Re:If they can pull it off...

[Randolpho]

I would also like to see more "light" games that are less graphic-intense and more *gameplay* oriented.

However, the two are not going to be mixed anytime soon. Windowed games are going to be less performant, simply because you're going to be operating your desktop at a much higher resolution than you're going to be playing your game (unless you have an uber-card that can do 1900x1440 at 120fps, in which case your game window might not *fit* on your desktop).

Monopoly Abuse Again

[Tom]

So MS is once again leveraging it's monopoly on the desktop to gain market share where they can't dominate without (game consoles). Wasn't there an antitrust case or something?

Keyboard & Mouse for Xbox360

[Lashat]

Developing a KBM for Xbox360 is a must for any solution to be a success. I have seen a few posts already here on the subject of KBM control being one of the most significant advantages to PC gaming. Being a fan of games on both platforms and knowing many games experienced with both platforms the opinion is universal. The KBM user will always have an advantage over the controllers, some exceptions might be in racing and the less evolved "questing" games. No FPS games believes that they have more precise aming or agile movement with a console controller. Try playing Lord of the Rings:Strategy with the controller, you will cry for a mouse. Even the 360 chatting features would benefit from a KBM solution. Imagine being forced to use a virtual scrolling keyboard to type any messages to game allies and friends. I would rather style my hair with a steel bristle brush while chewing on aluminum foil and playing "This little piggie" with Kris Kristofferson and his lackey wielding the 14-pound sledge hammer.

Re:Why feel the need to hate Microsoft so much?

[Tony]

If you say "I only play on Windows because Linux has no hardware drivers and no games, it means there is no market for these.

Microsoft has destroyed the market for Linux by disallowing Microsoft OEMs from shipping other operating systems (SEE BeOS, for instance). Microsoft fucks over other people, including their customers, just to maintain dominance.

That's why I hate Microsoft. If they played fairly, I wouldn't mind their incompetence and terrible products so much. But, since that's they only way they can survive, I guess I shouldn't hold it against them.