Microsoft and Nvidia Abandon PC Gaming Alliance

An anonymous reader writes with this quote from PC Authority: "Ever since Microsoft turned its back on Windows gaming in favor of the closed Xbox ecosystem, the platform has been crying out for a champion. The company occasionally gives nods toward a revived focus upon PC gaming, most recently with yet another relaunch on Games for Windows Live and a trio of upcoming PC games, but when it comes to throwing cash around the Xbox is the beneficiary. What can definitely be said is that the one group that should be championing the PC, the PC Gaming Alliance, is going backwards. In 2009 the group lost the biggest PC game developer/publisher, Activision-Blizzard, and now it seems that both Microsoft and Nvidia have bid the alliance farewell."

Comments

No surprise

[Sir_Sri]

the alliance doesn't seem to have done anything. Good idea, non-existant execution. The PC gaming alliance is called Steam, Gamersgate, Impulse, Direct2Drive, and for better or worse, The Pirate Bay.

Steam, with it's billion dollars a year in sales knows what's causing problems, what you're playing (and how much), what you're buying, and has a fairly good sense of what developers should be building for. That doesn't mean steams data is applicable to every single user, or every scenario, or even that it is necessarily the best service out there, especially without WoW or starcraft the data isn't perfect. But it's more likely to be successful to have people motivated by support costs and sales than a hodgepodge alliance of people who mean well, but have no real money or clear direction to back up their goals.

Re:No surprise

[Machtyn]

I'd venture to say that those who are playing WoW are also likely to know about Steam and have it installed on their system. And, if the person is resourceful enough, they can even launch WoW, and other non-Steam games, from the Steam client. (Like adding a shortcut to the desktop.) I don't know if Steam collects usage stats from those types of games, but they'd be silly not to do that.

Re:No surprise

[Anthony Mouse]

the alliance doesn't seem to have done anything.

Exactly. If Microsoft wanted to improve the status of PC gaming, they would produce a new XBOX with an x64 processor in it. The 360 is six years old now anyway. And using the same processors as are used in PCs would make porting easier for developers who optimize for specific processor architectures. Right now the major consoles are PowerPC with weird SPEs that take special attention, which is just an invitation to write architecture-specific code and ignore the PC.

I suspect if they went and talked to AMD they could come up with some kind of Fusion-based console that would clean the clock of all this ancient cruft and do it on the cheap, and then maybe we could get some new games that take advantage of more than six year old technology.

Re:No surprise

[artor3]

Why would anyone make an effort to launch a non-Steam game under Steam? Not being sarcastic, just never used it.

• Digital distribution, with easy and non-intrusive copy protection -- you need an internet connection to install, but that's it unless the publisher (e.g. Ubisoft) insists on more.
• A digital storefront that millions of gamers see every time they play any Steam game, making impulse buys more likely.
• A friends list that lets people see what their friends are playing, essentially giving free word-of-mouth advertising without even needing your customers to talk about the game.

Re:No surprise

[0123456]

Exactly. If Microsoft wanted to improve the status of PC gaming, they would produce a new XBOX with an x64 processor in it.

If Microsoft wanted to improve the status of PC gaming, they wouldn't be trying to move people onto consoles.

Their problem is that they've been successful enough at doing so to reduce most people's need for a new Windows PC -- gaming is about the only thing Joe Sixpack does which could stress a modern system -- without making any money from consoles.

Re:No surprise

[scdeimos]

Digital distribution, with easy and non-intrusive copy protection -- you need an internet connection to install, but that's it unless the publisher (e.g. Ubisoft) insists on more.

Last time I checked you absolutely had to login to the Steam application before you could play any games. Even if you start the game directly from its own executable (as opposed to the desktop shortcuts that launch the game via the Steam application) you still get the Steam application starting and prompting for username/password details before you can start to play. If there's particular games that don't do this I'd like to know which.

Re:No surprise

[judeancodersfront]

Problem is that games without DRM get pirated just as bad. The main motivation for pirates is to avoid payment.
I think the only solution is to move more of the game online. Publishers seem to agree as seen by all the MMOs that are being funded.

Re:No surprise

[bipbop]

Add Winamp (or some other program you always have open) to your Steam games list, then rename it in Steam. Now you'll always show up to your friends as playing some game you made up ;-) Well, that's the only reason I can think of to do it, anyway.

Champion

[mehrotra.akash]

"the platform has been crying out for a champion" Thats what Steam is for!!!

Re:Champion

[Seumas]

Steam is merely a distribution system, however. It doesn't resolve the issues with developers attitudes toward PC gaming. I recently saw an interview with a developer who is creating a new engine who said that graphics are no longer important (nor AI or anything else, presumably, since the following is the only item he stressed importance of) -- only the ease of use of the development tools was. His reasoning was that we've basically reached the limits of the current console generation.

It used to be that PC gaming drove the industry, so you made your game as amazing for the PC as you could. Then you did your best to replicate as much of that experience on the console. It would seem that, but for a few exceptions such as Blizzard, the focus is now on pumping new franchise titles out as fast as possible with efficient tools that make the most of the consoles and then dumping whatever that comes out to be over onto the PC. Sort of like saying "we develop our content for the iPod viewing experience", but then also distributing the content to iMax theaters, because hey -- it's an extra potential buck, even if it's just an afterthought.

OF course, Steam also has it's own slew of problems. There's often external registrations and restrictions that apply to games through Steam. Games are often unbelievably buggy to the point of being unusable (go read the forums for people's experiences with Fallout 3 that continue even to this day and then a whole slew of similar problems with Fallout: New Vegas). Then there's the issue of games not being maintained so that their patching is out of sync with the real product (and then Steam puts the onus for it on the developers/publishers and the developers/publishers put it back on Steam and nothing is ever accomplished). Or worse, the lack of maintenance extends to some games no longer working on newer operating systems (seemingly sensible, until you remember that most titles on GoG are a decade or three old and run on modern operating systems -- all for about five bucks). Then there's the endless DLC and the rip-off multi-versions that come out for a year or two and the stupid participation in "custom DLC for retail outlets for pre-orders".

I love Steam. I have almost 400 titles on Steam. . . But it feels very much like the best of breed. That is, the best of a dying breed. It's only of value so long as the wealth of content for the PC is enormous and offers something consoles can't (other than just a venue for countless little indie games, spreading dual stick shooters like a plague).

Re:Champion

[artor3]

Steam is fantastic.

"Bombardment with ads!" - Go into the settins and set your favorite window to "Library". You will never see another ad.

"Some games require steam" - Because they use it as a multiplayer lobby (it beats GFWL and GameSpy) or because they use it as copy protection (it beats SafeDisc/Starforce/whatever else is around these days)

"Always running" - File > Settings > Interface > Run Steam when my computer starts. Uncheck it if it bothers you that much. Lots of programs do the same thing.

"Centrally owned" - If you refuse to use any software that's owned by a private organization, you're gonna have some trouble playing games.

"Why not just use the internet?" - Because, as I mentioned above, Steam supplies multiplayer functions and copy protection. Plus they probably don't want to make it support IE6.

Steam also syncs saved games and settings across platforms, provides in game text & voice chat, a very helpful friends list through which you can jump directly into a friends server, and tons of other nice features. Yes, you could get the same functionality by combining Direct2Drive, SafeDisc, Ventrilo, AIM, Games for Windows Live, and probably a few other programs. But that doesn't make Steam redundant. It makes all those other programs redundant.

And...

[amnesia_tc]

nothing of value was lost. Even if the whole of the PCGA dissolved, would anyone really care? The PCGA hasn't done anything for PC Gaming. There are more news stories about the PCGA getting a new president than there are stories about the PCGA doing something useful.

Can 13 year olds please stop pirating pc games?

[judeancodersfront]

And perhaps switch to the PS3?

PC gaming piracy has gotten out of control. Not for casual stuff like Farmville and The Sims but games that require an aftermarket gpu. It's the 'hardcore' pirates that have made the situation go from bad to downright embarrassing.
http://www.binplay.com/2011/01/pc-gamers-and-their-lame-excuses-for.html

Re:Can 13 year olds please stop pirating pc games?

[thegarbz]

No. Simple reason for it too. 13 year olds have nothing to gain by stopping piracy and everything to lose. Without a fully functioning moral compass the average 13year old feels no guilt (heck most people don't feel guilt about these things), and also sees no other alternative. Try telling someone who gets maybe $10 pocket money per week to save all their money for 6 weeks to get a game, rather than just downloading it off the net.

There's a lot of debate about pirates not doing it for the money, blah blah blah, but the reality is for a 13 year old... it's definitely about the money.

Re:Can 13 year olds please stop pirating pc games?

[Omestes]

Most 'hardcore' pc gamers are not paying for the games, period. We should be past the point of calling anyone a troll for pointing out how bad the situation has become.

Citation Needed.

Really.

Browsing through some torrents, looking at their seed/leach rates, I have a very hard time buying that. Unless only a few thousand people play any given game. And somehow we should also completely ignore Steam, and the ungodly amount of money they make. I have an odd feeling that if you could deduce the total amount of unique seeders and leachers on Pirate Bay, pirating games, and compare that to the total number of unique Steam Users (much less World of Warcraft's 11 million active accounts) it would be very eye opening. I have a feeling Steam would win, handily.

Yes, my statement lacks empirical evidence... which... I suppose... makes it as valid a premise as yours.

Re:Can 13 year olds please stop pirating pc games?

[Tei]

There has always been a lot of piracy in games. I remember people trading games with tapes, back in the 8 bits. If you don't want to pay for the games you play, you can, and this is true since 1981 and back.

Steam sells millions games every day. The whole PC market is a 14 billions business. But apparently is invisible to the likes of you, because the PC is evolving to something different to what you know and understand to become more.

What was it for?

[Alex Belits]

I never understoof, WTF it was about. Was it to make hardware manufacturers in some way change its design or pricing (ex: abandon OpenGL, sell more low-end devices subsidized by Microsoft)? Was it to make Microsoft somehow assist them in making their hardware more compatible with Windows games? Was it to somehow hurt competitors (who are right there in the same "alliance")?

Re:It really didn't do THAT much to begin with

[alvinrod]

Makes sense that they would throw more money at the Xbox. They get a fee for every game sold on the Xbox whereas they get absolutely nothing for almost everything sold on the PC. Linux gaming doesn't show any signs of catching on or taking off in a big way and even though Mac gaming is growing, it's nowhere near as popular as PC gaming and I suspect that a decent portion of Mac users boot into Windows to game anyways. Throwing money at the platform isn't going to get them anywhere. And Intel could care less what Microsoft does. As long as the hardware is using an Intel chip, they really don't care what operating system it runs or whose game it is. They just want to sell chips.

Odd given their busness model....

[Anonymous Coward]

I will NEVER buy an X-Box to game on, so they will not be getting money from me for that.
I DO buy windows products for 2 reasons 1) play games on, 2) keep up with current version so I can make money fixing other peoples PC's.
if they are no longer supporting gaming why would people buy their operating system? To do office work? Linux does that quite well. To do development? Linux does that even better.
Apparently their new business model will be leasing out cloud servers to run legacy OS to businesses that were not smart enough to use Linux. How sad.

Another M$ "partnership" bites the dust

[Compaqt]

Nokia, you're next.

Re:PC = Windows?

[polyp2000]

Game Developers are more than capable of developing cross platform. But they have to go where the money is and what the Managers say, games cost an awful lot to develop. and while developing the code to be cross platform may or may not impact much on development time , it certainly impacts on QA - you are at least tripling your playtesting time as you now have to support 3 platforms. Look at the market share of Linux and Mac and its obvious that while its possible to develop crossplatform - the additional cost of supporting those platforms becomes a real problem. Not to mention Linux having a million different distributions and questionable graphics driver support.

Unless someone finds a disruptive technology that solves this problem.

One way may be to develop some sort of Virtual Machine that runs on all 3 major platforms and have games target that - this would then allow developers to target one "virtual" platform.

By the way -Porting CryEngine or Unreal Engine to QT is a preposterous suggestion - they are in no way similar frameworks , QT is for building desktop / moble applications - the other is for building 3D games. As far as I am aware Unreal Engine is already crossplatform in its own right.

N.

Completely wrong about VAC

[Nick Ives]

That's total FUD. VAC doesn't scan your storage for cheat hacks and only the initial version of VAC banned people for faulty memory; those bans were rescinded.

Valve also doesn't take a "Talk to the hand" approach to VAC false positives, even the VAC Wikipedia entry lists four instances where VAC has made mistakes. All instances were rescinded.

That page lists only two instances of "benign cheats" causing irreversible VAC bans. Both those cases clearly contravened VAC policy.

Finally, only 56 games are VAC enabled and VAC bans only apply to games that use the same engine as the game you're caught cheating in.