Microsoft "answers" the PC question (Here ABF)

[Dark Jaguar]

http://kotaku.com/5567711/fable-iii-real...-this-time

Interesting... At the very least, they are clearly aware they've been neglecting the platform (and considering how much work they've put into DX10 and the upcoming DX11, that's really lame). They are "committed" but that's not really an answer. ABF, you were right. E3's now over and there's been almost nothing announced for the PC. There's Fable 3's announcement of a PC port, sure, but that's a token gesture. In fact I've no reason to bother with it, as I really doubt it'll be designed with modding in mind anyway. In the end, there's still plenty of PC games coming along, it's just that Microsoft isn't being a part of that.

What I'd do in their shoes is design "The 360 Platform Experience". Aside from making "Games for Windows Live" (Just rename it, call it "Live Games"), I'd see what work it would take to make ALL 360 games playable on Windows 7. The 360's hardware seems to have a lot of stuff that the PC shares, so the emulation wouldn't need to do too much I'd think. If pulled off well, people with high quality PCs wouldn't need to shell out for a 360 and could instead simply buy 360 games. Microsoft alone is in a good position to do this, and it'd give them a big advantage.

[Great Rumbler]

Microsoft wouldn't even put Alan Wake on the PC.

[alien space marine]

I think its because MS wants to force fans of their games to buy their console and not turn to PC ports instead.

[Dark Jaguar]

You are aware they are selling the 360 at a loss and make their money on the game's sales right?

[Great Rumbler]

They did at the start, but production costs have probably gone down a lot since then.

[Dark Jaguar]

They have, but I think they're just barely breaking even last I heard. Point is, they don't use games to push the system so much as use the system to push the games. The PC market is there, and there's no problem in making more games available there, especially if they're the ones making them.

[Great Rumbler]

Well, then why aren't they?

[Weltall]

Because Microsoft doesn't control the PC platform and cannot collect royalties for games designed for its use. On the 360, it doesn't matter whether Microsoft makes the title or not; they're taking a mafia-like cut of every sale regardless.

The reason why Microsoft favors the 360 is because it offers a stable opportunity for return on investment. The PC does not, not as a gaming platform, anyway.

[A Black Falcon]

Microsoft wouldn't even put Alan Wake on the PC.

Forget Alan Wake, at least that's a sort of consoley title... though perhaps it ended up that way because of the platform it's on, who knows. That they also didn't publish PC versions of Halo 3 or Fable 2, that they closed the Flight Simulator studio, that they closed Ensemble after forcing them to make a 360 exclusive (which sold reasonably well, too, making the closure really not make sense), that at E3 for several years now PC games have had less of a presence each time than the time before, until this time they bottomed out at zero at their conference... those things matter more. I mean, one game is one game... but a lot of games, studios, and more, forms a very clear pattern.

So how about I answer the question for them...

Q: Does "Fable III" on Windows signal a larger reinvestment by Microsoft in PC gaming? How is this different from the previous times you've announced a reinvestment in PC gaming and not quite come through with a robust offering?

It doesn't, and it isn't.

I mean, who cares about Fable III when we haven't been allowed to play Fable II yet?

[Dark Jaguar]

Well, then why aren't they?

How should I know? Companies don't always do smart things.

[Dark Jaguar]

Because Microsoft doesn't control the PC platform and cannot collect royalties for games designed for its use. On the 360, it doesn't matter whether Microsoft makes the title or not; they're taking a mafia-like cut of every sale regardless.

The reason why Microsoft favors the 360 is because it offers a stable opportunity for return on investment. The PC does not, not as a gaming platform, anyway.

Not entirely true. We're talking about games made by Microsoft studios, who's sales would go directly back to them. Further, Microsoft's "Games for Windows" label requires a license. A company can choose to go that route or just release it independently. There's still a good opportunity for a revenue stream there.

Besides, what's the point in investing so much time in developing top of the line DirectX components if they aren't going to use them?

[Weltall]

Games for Windows is a certification process for compatibility. It's not like the licensing scheme required for publishing games on the 360. It couldn't be, because Microsoft holds no claim to any configuration of PC hardware. And, the GfW label is entirely voluntary. As best I can gather, there's no revenue-sharing involved.

PC games made by Microsoft Studios will earn Microsoft revenue, but 360 games made by anybody will earn Microsoft revenue. The latter is a better investment and a more stable platform from an economic standpoint. If Microsoft publishes an Xbox 360 game, every 360 owner is a potential customer because every 360 owner plays games, and every 360 console is guaranteed to be compatible with the game. Publishing PC titles is inherently more risky because the vast disparity of hardware configurations is certain to inhibit potential customers, and since games are some of the most computationally-intense PC applications there are, this is far more pertinent a concern than it is with the bulk of Microsoft PC products.

[Dark Jaguar]

MS doesn't have to hold the hardware. To put that logo on the box requires paying certain fees. Further, they certainly would need to offer revenue for MS's Live servers to support "Games For Windows Live" and be sold as direct downloads on their store.

And, in spite of all your protesting, MS themselves recognize they've sold their own platform short. Besides all your reasoning, you fail to explain why, if MS has decided the PC market is "dead", they spend SO much money and time developing new versions of DirectX.

[Great Rumbler]

As far as I can tell, games only need to meet basic requirements to display the "Games for Windows" logo.

[Weltall]

Besides all your reasoning, you fail to explain why, if MS has decided the PC market is "dead", they spend SO much money and time developing new versions of DirectX.

Before I explain why Microsoft continues to develop DirectX, point out where I said, or implied, that Microsoft considers the PC platform 'dead'.

[A Black Falcon]

I said that, and it's not really dead, but it sure is compared to where it was 10 years ago. And Microsoft's abandonment of the platform is one of the many reasons why.

[Weltall]

So DJ is mistaking his quotes, and not simply putting words in my mouth?

[Dark Jaguar]

It sounded like you were defending it. Anyway, I'm confused. On the one hand you seem to argue MS has no reason to woo 3rd parties because they don't make money from the sales, but on the other hand you aren't saying they are wasting their time developing DirectX. So, what is DirectX if not an attempt to woo third parties to make games? Clearly there's SOME incentive to get more people to make games on Windows.