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.
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.
I don't see the huge issue with Steam, and why everyone thinks it's evil and want it to go away. Personally, I love it, especially because other companies are starting to adopt it. I hate having to store CDs, keep them in good condition, and find them every time I want to play or get a crack if I don't care about online play. Steam is a way to centralize the games you own, let you re-download them and even play them on different computers. The only problem I see is that Valve can and has decided what you can and can't play, but that's easily countered by going to the store, buying the game (if it's a Valve title) and registering it through Steam. I bought the Source pack in store and added it to my steam account, and if they ever mess up my account I still have the CD key.
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)
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.
The main issue I have with steam is in the long run. Sure for the moment if you have the time it takes to download the game its fine but what about 2 years from now when there is no longer steam distribution available to you (hypothetical)? Valve could be bought out, go under, or the CEO or board of directors could just kill steam on a whim. At that point you just lost your game. You paid for it, you played it you own it but you now have no way of installing it and playing it again.
I have seen way to many game studios go under to trust that I will still be able to play my game a year from now unless I physically have the game in my position in the form of a CD or some other backup installation source.
Of course I'm one of those crazy gamers that actually keeps the games he buys so I can play them again later rather then selling them back to EB for trade in value. You never know when you might get the urge to whip out the Atari 2600 and play some pitfall.
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.