Microsoft Reboots Two Classic PC Games

An anonymous reader writes "Ever since it launched the Xbox, Microsoft has had a fickle relationship with Windows as a gaming platform. On one hand PC gaming is a major driver of hardware and operating system sales, but on the other hand the PC is inherently less secure than the Xbox console, with piracy much more likely to impact sales of a PC title than a console one. Games for Windows Live has been an attempt to bring some of the success of Xbox Live to the PC, and while many games have shipped with support for Games for Windows Live, it hasn't exactly been a favorite of PC gamers. After all these half-hearted efforts, the last thing anyone expected was for Microsoft to announce new PC-only reboots of two classic game franchises, Flight Simulator and Age of Empires. But yesterday it did just that, announcing a massively multiplayer version of Age of Empires and a new Flight Simulator called Flight. The big question is whether Microsoft can make Games For Windows Live relevant in a market where Steam has taken hold, or if it's too late."

Comments

AOE MMO

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it's persistent (which it isn't), how can they claim that it's a "massively multiplayer"? You might as well call any online game a "massive multiplayer" if:

a. It has a game lobby
b. Many people can play online at once.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play my favorite MMO, Counter-Strike.

Re:AOE MMO

[Sockatume]

I think the confusion lies in the definitions of persistence. One meaning refers to the world's continued operation when the player is absent, as in WoW, which is the sense you use. However it can also refer to the persistence of player actions, such as the way Halo keeps track of the positions of dead enemies and weapon drops indefinitely. WoW is quite clearly not a very persistent game in that sense, otherwise it'd be a ghost town knee-deep in corpses, which explains the AC's confusion.

Reboot is such a poor word

[cronius]

The term "reboot" is used to describe something "done again", but I think it's a pretty stupid word to use as it's not descriptive at all. Does my OS or hardware somehow radically change whenever I reboot it? Maybe Windows users experience this, I don't know.

When I first heard the term years ago I immediately disliked it. It feels like someone that don't work with computers as a profession thought that it was "cool" or "trendy" to use "pc terms" outside their original context, so "reboot" was the victim of the day.

< /rant >

Re:GFWL, no thanks

[Spad]

What's that? You want me to register for a GFWL account and sign in every time I load the game just so I can play in single player? Good luck with that.

Yes, I know, you can create offline accounts, but you still have to create them and sign in just to play single player and yes, I know Blizzard have done the same thing with Starcraft II & Battle.net and they're fuckers for doing it too.

Re:GFWL, no thanks

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Don't forget about all Steam games.
Or the recent Bioware games.

Re:Wow i must be tired

[Anonymous Coward]

Not many people use screen resolutions that low

You'd be surprised.

Re:GFWL, no thanks

[CeruleanDragon]

I don't know what Bioware's up to, but I think Steam is different... since you're buying the game from them and getting it download-only, setting up an account is less invasive, since you had to do it to make the purchase to begin with. GFWL games require you to setup an account and login every time you play for a game you purchased in a box at the store. To that I disagree wholeheartedly. If I buy something at the store it's mine and unless it's something like WoW, I do not want to have to sign up with anything when I get home with it, I just want to jump in and play. If the game offers online gameplay against friends, then the worst I would hope I'd have to do is create a username. That's all.

On the other hand, does GFWL not allow an auto-login feature? When I double click a Steam-based game icon I get a brief, "Logging you in" screen and then on with the game. Unless I'm not online in which case it's not as brief and eventually changes to, "You are offline, loading the game anyway, 'cause we love you like that" screen. Which is ok, as long as it gets into the game.

Re:Wow i must be tired

[CeruleanDragon]

You just made thousands of Flash- and Microsoft-hating nerds knowingly enter a pure-Flash Microsoft site.

Truly well played!

Could've been worse/better, could've been made requiring Silverlight to load the pic. :)

Re:GFWL, no thanks

[Spad]

Registering * Signing In to get Bonus Content is *not* the same a having to do so just to play the game.

Re:Wow i must be tired

[Spad]

Half the people I know still use 1024 on 19"+ monitors because otherwise "the screen is too small" for them to read.

Urban Assualt

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they make UA2? The game was a faliure because it was ahead of its time.

Roland985...

Marketing is exempt from dog food

[Cornelius the Great]

You notice when Microsoft is trying to reach out to a large audience and advertise one of their own products, they don't force Silverlight down our throats?

Re:GFWL, no thanks

[morari]

I don't know what Bioware's up to, but I think Steam is different... since you're buying the game from them and getting it download-only, setting up an account is less invasive, since you had to do it to make the purchase to begin with.

Yeah. Imagine my surprise when I bought Half-life 2 down at the local Wal-Mart on a whim, only to discover that I couldn't play it because 56K was the only available internet at the time. Steam is no less shitty than Games for Windows.