Slashdot Mirror
Valve Questions Microsoft's PC Gaming Commitment
GamesIndustry.biz is reporting on comments from an interview they conducted with Doug Lombardi, marketing manager at Valve Studios. Lombardi criticized Microsoft's recent commitment to PC gaming in the form of the 'Games for Windows' initiative, which we've previously discussed here on the site. In Lombardi's view, this new push for games on the PC platform is nothing more than an extended advertising scheme to sell the Vista OS. "'Sony and Microsoft both have armies of PR people whose job it is to cram that information down the throats of press and analysts every day ... All those people do is say the PC's dying, the console's winning, and nobody on the PC side is championing that platform. And sales data tracks retail, and there's no doubt about it, PC sales at retail are declining ... World of Warcraft is making a whole lot of money outside of the retail channel, we're making a decent bit of cash off Steam, all the casual guys are not tracked - the PopCap games, Bejewelled, all that stuff doesn't show up.'"
It happens every couple years. The new consoles come out, everyone's hooked onto them and the PC games die down. A year or two down the road PCs come out ahead, or at least on par again. As for the whole "Gaming for Windows" that's obviously just a marketing scheme Microsoft is using in prediction for when PC gaming catches on again.
On one hand they have the PC gaming market they need to support; On the other hand the more they move to console the more they make money and Vice Versa. Though with Vista's new Xbox live connection feature allowing Xbox 360 owners and PC owners to play each other. It sort of bridges the gap. But they did it to themselves.
and nobody on the PC side is championing that platform
People are buying and playing the games, thats good enough.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
and then I'll take you seriously about that "Games for Windows" bit. I don't want to hear about your other games made by other companies on your Steam platform. The game should alert me if there is an update at start up like in Blizzard games. I don't want to install your store.
It is all about the metrics:
.... ...
PC gameing is not dead. Probably more people playing longer and more often than ever before (Warcraft).
Retail Box store sales of PC games is low compared to console sales.
Hours played of PC games: missing is Warcraft, web games,
Sales: missing is Warcraft, online sales
Blizzard gave the box stores a thank you for the Burning Crusade release. It could have totally be done with a download and all those stores would have had nothing (currently you can do a direct online, avoid the store upgrade).
Because PC's can download, even burn DVD's. New PC games can totally avoid the box stores in the future.
If the box stores want to live they must champion the console games.
Valve could make extra cash by championing a download system, if they make it work out for more cash for a game maker than a box store. It could be the end of box stores.
Really? I have to admit that I'm quite the opposite. I'm probably in the minority, but I seem to have the attention span of a 6 year old with a 2-liter Jolt cola when it comes to games, anymore. I'd MUCH rather pay a smaller fee ($10, $20) for episodic content than take the $60 plunge on a game that I'll grow tired of before finishing. This is probably why I've spent more money on Xbox Live Arcade and smaller Steam games than I have on retail titles over the last few years. If I don't end up really, really liking the game it's no huge loss. Bite-sized gaming appeals to me. This doesn't excuse the long delays between titles, I'll admit.
As for staying on the original topic, I applaud MS for the "Games for Windows" route. They're trying to standardize PC gaming requirements with a points system that could ultimately prove useful. They're also bringing Live to Windows, which is far and away the best online multiplayer service (yeah, go tinker some more with Battlefield2/2142's matchmaking service and tell me that Live isn't better).
Never had to buy a hard copy of eve online. I just downloaded it and started playing/paying one night.
Screw retail anyway.
What's the news? That Microsoft is encouraging people to develop/port games for/to Vista so that its latest OS continues to be the one most often used with games? Even if this is news to most people, why would this be surprising to guy with a marketing job? (He either saw this coming or is probably not qualified for his job.)
I can remember similar whining around the time Windows 95 came out; "32-bit DOS is great and everyone knows the command-line: why should we launch from Windows 95?"
I think a lot of this whining (and a big reason that M$ is taking heat for "allow-allow-allow") is that game installers and designers are so used to being ROOT on any box they live on that when someone finally tells them to pay attention to where and what you can install, they start crying...
I'm far from loving Microsoft but I don't understand why people see a marketing ploy in the Games for Windows thing. As I see it, it's a guideline for developers so that the customer knows that the games he/she's buying will work in a certain specific way, and from what I read, it's not bad at all.
For example, the game must be executable from a normal user account (finaly!) and the savegames must be placed in the users' home directory (My Documents). It's a huge step for Windows - especially for games - where lots of programs can't be run under a normal user environment (this was becoming less and less true recently but there where still many games unplayable without admin rights). Then, it forces the game to support widescreen displays, task switching (alt-tab), have a shortcut in the Games Browser, etc.
Nowhere does it say that is has to be installed on Vista. Granted, it was announced a only a few months before Vista came out, but I think it's normal that they try to start fresh with a new OS with guidelines for programs that will be coming out from now on. Still, none of the requirements state that it needs Vista. Company of Heroes is a Game for Windows and does everything right on Windows XP.
I havent read it all, but I doubt it would prevent developing games for other platforms (Mac, Linux). It only makes it so that IF the game is to be installed on Windows, it should follow the guidelines. And some of them are a given for MacOS and Linux (user account, savegames)
Of course it's an advertising scheme by Microsoft. I'm sure it's also to let people know that you can't get directX 10 unless you have Vista!
Valve could make extra cash by championing a download system, if they make it work out for more cash for a game maker than a box store. It could be the end of box stores.
Hmmm, that might just be an idea. Once they come up with such a thing, maybe they can choose a cool name for it, like "steam"
(granted steam is more than just a download system, it also handles their rather annoying copy-protection, advertisements, etc, but it's been around for awhile, and hasn't killed box stores yet).
32-bit DOS is great and everyone knows the command-line: why should we launch from Windows 95
And you know what, for the first while, probably several years at least. DOS was the best way. It allowed much more of the PC to be dedicated to *gasp* the game.
Hardware was a bit behind too, so when you ran your game you tended to end up a little short (or just enough), when running
DOS->Win9x->Game
Not to mention all the funny issues with resources (soundcard) etc being tied up be the OS, needing to reboot into DOS mode, etc etc
From a developers perspective, I suppose the DirectX was quite a nice thing, but it took awhile to evolve (not without many bugs and quirks). In terms of performance, DirectX on DOS had more resources to work with, and was a more powerful solution.
With Vista I see this being moreso. Instead of having 900MB RAM and 80% of CPU free for the game (on top of XP), you're running 300-400MB or less RAM free for the game, and likely less CPU as well.
Episodic content isnt episodic if it takes years between "episodes", and the "episodes" feel more like expansion packs for a game you've bought.
If they could spew out an hours worth of gameplay a week, I'd be interested. As it is, I don't even remember what happened in the last half life "episode", so the upcoming one just registers in my brain as "shitty budget title fps that I'll beat in an hour"
These aren't episodes: they're just really crappy sequels.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I should have looked myself first.
Ah many a wasted hour to be wasted again
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I agree. I'll admit. I'm addicted to digital distribution. I have even re-bought games that I had on disc already, so that I would have an electronic right recorded somewhere stating that I can download and play this game whenever / wherever I choose. It actually makes me feel like the game is mine, more than just owning a physical cd.
Granted, I might be a slightly unusual case, because I move A LOT, and every time I move, things get misplaced, lost, damaged, left-behind, or stolen, and this especially includes CDs/games. And the physical form of a game (box, manual, cd's) mean very little to me and I'm liable to just throw them away, which I know is not the case with a lot of gamers. However, I love knowing that I can uninstall a game, and 5 years later if I get the urge to play it again, then that game is mine, and I can just re-download without any fear that the game disc has been lost or damaged over that time.
The one thing that bugs about digital distribution services is that they are heterogeneous, owned by different companies, and I have different accounts with them. My copy of GalCiv 2 is purchased through Stardock, while Half-Life 2 and Jagged Alliance 2 I have through Steam. This could potentially be a problem years down the road if many other game companies jump on the digital distribution bandwagon. It would be much better if (imo) all of my games could be available through a single service, but I can't imagine a service any time soon that could make that a reality. I wonder, if maybe, the Games for Windows initiative might open this possibility up in the future.
Now if only the RIAA/MPAA could move to a model similar to this for albums and movies (pay for once, and I am permanently licensed to download/burn/play on whatever format/player I choose), then that might be the first fair use model I have seen yet that might actually tip me in favor of DRMed content. But since they keep holding on to a 'worst of both worlds' model (worse for the consumer, good for them) I have to vehemently reject any notion of ever buying DRMed content.
Did you mean Sentinel, The Sentinel, or Sentinel Worlds? If you found something, share!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Valve should look to themselves for their "commitment" to the PC gaming market. They've done what? THREE games in over a DECADE, and two of those are sequels. Quit riding the gravy train, Valve. Steam's a DRM nightmare and Half-Life 2 had a lousy story and mediocre gameplay.
Can someone shut the limelight off on their way out? Thanks.
I'm confused on a couple of points. Why did you re-buy your games over the internet again? I distinctly recall that when you enter a Galactic Civilisations CD-Key into Stardock Central that it binds it to your account, allowing you to download updates - or indeed, the entire game - anywhere on any computer at will? And Steam, when you enter a Half-Life, Blue Shift, or whatever key into it binds the game to your account as well, allowing you to download the entire game at will as well.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
If Microsoft were committed to PC gaming in the sense Valve is using the term ("to promote PCs as a gaming platform" as opposed to "using PC gaming as a tool to promote Vista") Gears of War would already be available for PCs. So I'm with Valve on this one. "DirectX 10 - Vista only" Need I say more?
For GDC, Xfire released a snapshot of stats from their gaming client from December 2006. Gaming on Windows PCs is on the upswing for the amount of time spent playing the games, even if retail sales seem to be in a slump.
Xfire Stats December 2006
One game, World of Warcraft, just counting Xfire users, accounts for 15,000 *days* of play time every day.
In unrelated news, there is still no cure for cancer.
Militant Agnostic: "I don't know, and damn it, neither do you!"
He's right. You have to connect to the internet if you want to play your game. If they released patches that you have to download, and you're on dialup, and I can certainly understand why he would be frustrated. I don't see much that was troll about his comment.
Now why doesn't it surprise me to see, out of all the people in the industry, Valve's PR guy is making the most noise? Okay, maybe not quite true. What should be noted here that there is HUGE value in the platform. Valve makes a cut when other developers release through Steam. They've invested heavily to become that platform. I'm not sure what all they offer but I assume it extends to distribution, copy protection, matchmaking, buddy lists, etc. Now, with G4W stepping in with the Live platform, they have a very giant competitor. This isn't about enforcing some very sane basic requirements for a half-decent user experience, it's about marketshare wars between live marketplace and steam to be the entry point to buying your games.
Valve is a staunch defender of the PC? Aren't they porting the whole Half-Life 2 package to the Xbox 360 and the PS3? Valve probably just feels that Steam would be overtaken by Games for Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sentinel_(compute r_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_Returns
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I'm definitely not a fan of steam/digital distribution. I hate it so much that while I was a great fan of Half-life I've never purchased HL 2 simply because of Steam. I hate being dependant on a network connection and someone else for access to games I might buy. Why should my single player game require that I log onto the 'net before I play it? What happens when I'm on my laptop, or even on my desktop but don't have 'net access and want to play some games without being able to get online?
How do I know that such a service will continue to exist as long as I want to play my games? I still go back and play my old games like Wing Commander, and Descent. Are Origin Systems and Interplay still around to authorize my play if I didn't have the disks?
Software companies and distribution systems come and go. By at least having some physical media that I can personally take care of, I can guarantee that I'll be able to play in the future. Systems such as Steam just don't allow this. You're counting on the fact that the service will still be available in 5 years, but companies come and go. You also are sort of counting that the games work on the latest systems/hardware. I actually have older systems or might duel boot an OS so I could go back and play an older game that doesn't work with XP.
How long do you think a company would support their old software/clients on a dated system? In most cases not very long. Many great games just don't work after a few years and lose support. Steam doesn't really make it that less expensive to keep patching an old game. In 5 years the best support you'll be getting for most old games is grabbing some patches off a download site. Half-life, is a rare exception to that rule.
My other big complaint is steam requires you be online to play. Sure you can play HL 2 offline, just make sure you authorized with steam first, and didn't shut it down. Steam can be a nice compliment to an online component of a game, but the hassles and restrictions it puts upon me for single player/offline gaming are not worth the hassle. If I could download and burn copies of my games that worked completely independently of the digital distribution system then I might be interested. Until then I'm not touching steam.
As you can see my concerns are very similar to yours, but rather than seeing steam as a solution I see it as just another problem. The difference is you rely on someone else have access to you games, while I trust myself to do a better job.
I've always assumed that "Games For Windows" was a lock-in strategy to prevent people from jumping ship to Linux or OS X. How many people do you know would like to switch over to Linux but don't because they then couldn't easily play their games? What if nobody played "serious" games on PCs anymore? Microsoft would lose one of their last remaining roadblocks.
I have noticed for quite a few years now the PC gaming section shrinking. Honestly, I think the biggest fault for the decline of PC games rests with the developers. The first problem is the complete lack of variety among most PC games. There are three basic genres, FPS's, RTS's and RPG's. And with each of these genres there's even less variety.
What do we get for FPS's? We get gritty, monochromatic future worlds infested by demon aliens. Either that or it's a war game, either based in WW2, modern times and most recently the near future. How about RTS's? It's predominantly some Age of Empires/Civilization, Warcraft or Starcraft clone. The PC RPG genre is probably even worse. Virtually all PC RPGs are based in Tolkien, D&D type worlds. With the recent RPGs developers have gotten obsessed with trying to depict realistic-looking worlds so they've sucked all personality out of these games. They all end up looking identical with player characters all looking like actors in some third-rate fantasy movie.
There's a lack of variety in the console market, but nothing like PCs suffer from. Cross-platform games hurt the PC market further. Developers inevitable build a game around the lowest common denominator. This means PC versions of console games are usually subpar. PC gamers are stuck dealing with poorly designed, awkward interfaces and graphics that are inferior to those of most PC-only games. A PC essentially reveals the short-comings of a console, so why even play the game on a PC?
There is one problem unique to PCs. During the lifespan of a console a gamer never has to worry about compatibility. They don't have think about whether or not that console will be able to run a game developed five years down the road. In fact, that game will likely be far more impressive than anything released years earlier. Not so with PCs. New, mainstream PC games are constantly making a gamer feel inadequate. Especially with games nowadays. Buy a new PC today which will run anything at high detail and don't be surprised if even a year from now if you don't get acceptable frame rates at medium detail.
This is a problem I think is worsening with each passing year. Developers are building games to push the limits of the latest hardware available at the game's release. Sure, the game looks impressive but only for maybe 5%, at best 10% of the market. It creates a gaming environment that tends to alienate more casual gamers.
I recently bought Supreme Commander. It's a good game, but its performance demands are ridiculous. My PC more or less meets the "recommended" requirements but once my army has reached a significant size I start experiencing poor framerates. I find it very hard to believe they couldn't have coded the game more efficiently. So I end up not bothering. Why am I going to buy a recent game when it's unlikely to run well? I'll just wait to upgrade. And that in and of itself is another mess, trying to balance cost and performance, trying to ensure the longevity of new hardware. I'm sure this is a problem many PC gamers are constantly contending with. I have friends who've by and large given up on PC gaming for this reason.
What I don't understand is why PC game developers aren't pushing casual gaming more aggressively. In fact, there's virtually no marketing whatsoever for PC games. People promote the Wii as the ideal casual gaming platform. But they fail to realize that there's a $250 initial investment. That's a lot of money for a non-gamer to put down just because they thought Wii Sports was entertaining. PCs, however, are close to being truly ubiquitous. Who isn't familiar with a PC? It's far more approachable than any game console. And that same non-gamer is far more likely to spend $20 to $40 on a game that catches his or her eye.
The problem here is that the most prominent games in the PC market don't appeal to these people at all. There are plenty of great casual games out there but nobody knows they exist if they aren't specifically looking for them. It's a big opportunity that's being wasted.
then why is Halo 2 still for xbox only as far as i know?
See, this is exactly why I don't like digital distribution. With a physical CD, I know that I can just go grab it and reinstall it 5 years down the road. With Steam (or another service), on the other hand, there's always the various risks that Valve went out of business, or lost my account, or disabled it because it got hacked (this actually happened and I had to email Valve a photo of my original Half-Life 1 CDs to get it reinstated), etc. that only occur because my property is out of my control.
Incidentally, it is because of this that I don't own Half-Life 2 (although I might go buy a physical copy in a store, eventually).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
HL2 blows compared to the first game; graphics alone don't cut it...you need to put some effort into a few other aspects of game design as well. Before you sold your souls, you apparently understood that. Then you did the usual thing these days and allowed yourselves to be assimilated by corporate middlemen in the form of Vivendi.
I therefore am not interested in hearing your opinions about much of anything...and I consider it hypocrisy that you criticise Microsoft. You've done well enough on the corporate sellout scorecard yourselves in recent years.
Basically this could be something like a "package management" system like many linux distros use. Steam doesn't quite do this, but I think it's actually due to lack of adoption (I believe they did offer some non-value products or products of affiliated companies at one point, I could be wrong).
It sounds like a great idea, but it would have to involve a very trustworthy middleman.
To be fair, with Steam you can go into 'Offline Mode', which locks the games to that PC until you choose to log in again.
I don't know if this is geniue but things sure have changed in my dorm doing the past few years. Two things have happened, people have gotten laptops, and given up their computer tables when they started using their flatscreen television as monitors. The laptops flying around a student community, at least here in tax heavy daneland, aren't really capable of any sort of top end gaming, and sitting in your bed/sofa while playing games isn't really optimal for keyboard/mouse either. So quite naturally most of the gaming that goes on here, and there is quite a lot, has moved to consoles.
I havn't joined the boat yet, I have a laptop but I also have a stationary pc and I got a normal television because I could get ten times the television for less money. But my gaming machine is ageing fast, and I've got to say that the console gaming has made me consider whether or not I'll ever upgrade it again. I don't think I will.
Darnit, I meant to say OpenGL...
Which is why Steam is actually superior to just purchasing a physical CD.
I purchased HL1 so long ago I can't even count the number of years. My CD has survived five moves and much abuse. But even if it ever died, I still have a backup of the most current version of it saved to a thumb drive and another copy on a CD. Both of these were made using Steam's built-in backup utility, I don't have to worry about if Valve were suddenly to disappear.
You are avocating wearing just a belt because you think the suspenders will fail. But in reality, Steam gives you the option to wear a belt AND suspenders.
I personally think the whole "Games for Windows" thing is terrible. For one thing it get's the uninitiated user thinking that any other game might not work for there machine. Second, it is a totally shameless f**king M$ plug, which is total b.s. And third, for any independent developers out there, it is stupid to have to fit some dumb ass constraints just to get a stupid little certification. It is like Microsoft is trying to slowly brainwash PC users, starting with Vista and "Games for Windows". That is why I like Steam, Valve is on the look out for good independent games getting made and they can offer them to the public without having to go through shifty publishers and marketing departments. Mark my words, the revolutionary PC games aren't going to be on the shelves at EB, or your local Fry's Electronic, they are going to be on steam or some other digital-only service. This is because the revolutionary games won't be made by 100 man teams for millions of dollars, they are going to be made by a group of 10 driven people who have the passion and the skill to make it happen. The revolutionary games won't come from developers with a marketing department or a PR team. They won't come from teams with connections to the big 5 publishers. In short: the revolutionary PC games will NOT be televised!! Consoles sell more because console games prey on the impulse buyer. That is why they spend millions on marketing and product desing and placement, because when grandma is in the store looking for a birthday gift for lil' Jimmy, she is going to pick up the game with the prettiest box art. My beef with consoles, and why they will NEVER be better than a PC, is because the console hardware developers spend billions developing these state of the art machines that can only play a few core types of games: platformers, thrid person action, puzzle, and jrpg. How many GREAT console games do you own? and how many of them fall into these catagories? It is my opinion that ANY game on a console (with the exception of the wii) can be played on a pc but how many good rts games do you see on a console? Consoles are just too limiting in their scope of games. The problem with a lack of diverse types of PC games is not due to the PC limitations, it is due to the lack of imagination of PC developers, or at least the major ones. Which brings me back to my main point: the great, imaginative, inspiring PC games will not be found in gamestop and will NOT be certified "Games for Windows", they will be made by indie developers and retailed digital-only, most likely on Steam because Valve knows what the f**k is up. And that is my (as a future indie PC developer) humble opinion.
Future indie game developer of America (and possibly Canada)