How 'Games for Windows' Will Change PC Gaming 392
Joystiq has a short piece up talking with Windows (GFW) Marketing Director Kevin Unangst and PR Manager Michael Wolf about the future of the 'Games for Windows' initiative. With the launch of Vista, Microsoft is making a big push to turn PC games into a 'console-like' cohesive brand. Instead of relying on the good name of individual publishers to sell titles, Redmond is requiring that all titles use similar packaging and a distinctive logo. Along with the new gamer-centric features in Vista, and the tie-in to Xbox 360 with 'Live Anywhere', this is meant to reinvigorate the PC games market for the sometimes not-so-savvy consumer. From the article: "By making gaming a priority in the Vista experience, Microsoft is molding a powerful pairing of the Games for Windows and Xbox 360 brands. To some extent, this is based on a hope that Live Anywhere will be embraced by GFW developers and publishers, pulling Xbox Live (and your Gamertag) outside of the 'Box, in turn encouraging an unrivaled virtual community. But there are simpler touches that also spark our interest. For example, start up Vista's Minesweeper, connect your 360 controller, and enjoy a subtle rumble each time you slip up. It's the melding with the familiar that will drive new and lost consumers to the Games for Windows brand."
Re:If they can pull it off... (Score:2, Informative)
Ah, but with the online capabilities of the latest generation of consoles, the joy of endless patching is coming to consoles too. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Changes little (Score:5, Informative)
The inclusion of a distinctive logo doesn't change the need to turn the box over and read the fine print for "required" and "reccomended" hardware to play the game. Console gaming works because a Wii is a Wii is a Wii.
Great live needed for on line play (Score:4, Informative)
NO MODS when playing online.
Being forced to use M$ servers for on line play would be a bad thing.
ID software games may be forced to drop mac, linux, and opengl If they want to be part of this.
"Gaming for Windows" disingenuous (Score:4, Informative)
FTFA: "Computer Gaming World was also renamed as Games For Windows to help drive Microsoft's new brand."
Also, it's good to know there's another gaming rag I can safely ignore.
In summation, I really enjoy watching people I don't trust announce what they'll do to shove things I don't want down my throat.
Re:Windows games (Score:4, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that everyone I know, friends and family alike, would drop Windows for Linux in a heartbeat if the following two conditions were met:
1. Device manufacturers (especially printer, scanner, and other external device manufacturers) started shipping easy-to-install Linux drivers on a CD.
2. All new games ran on Linux
That's it.
They'd switch to OSX, for that matter, given that the above conditions were met for it. Satisfy those two requirements, and Windows either dies or is forced to change (and probably get MUCH cheaper) to make itself relevant.
Those two items are the only things maintaining Windows' dominance. The OS would become about as relevant as MS-DOS were it to lose those two exclusivities; that is, it would be a legacy OS. MS probably knows this, and the last thing they want is for the hardware or gaming markets to become more open to other operating systems. This move has nothing to do with anything but locking in the gaming market, no matter what PR they come up with to promote it.
Re:Changes little (Score:3, Informative)
Re:New and lost? (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, when it said "Instead of relying on the good name of individual publishers to sell titles, Redmond is requiring that all titles use similar packaging and a distinctive logo." I think it meant it. There's nothing like that in the article. Nothing.
Instead, the article is about a 'branding' scheme by Microsoft where they will certify that the game meets certain standards and functionality, and can wear their logo in return.
I'm interested in that.
I was not at all interested in MS making every single game publisher wear their logo if they want it to work on Vista, with nothing in return for said Monopoly.
I should have RTFA.
Re:360 Controller Requirement (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If they can pull it off... (Score:3, Informative)
I only mention them as I expect its the kind of games the
Armadillo Run [armadillorun.com] - Physics-based puzzle game. You have to build structures with the purpose of getting an armadillo to a certain point in space.
Ballance [ballance.org] - Fight against the force of gravity! Face dizzying heights and plummeting depths. Steer a ball through a surreal cloud world full of puzzling mechanisms, over metal rails, wooden bridges and more.
Good games
DugUK
How will it be "required"? (Score:4, Informative)
The PC platform is not like the consoles in that it is not generally possible for the operating system vendor, Microsoft in this case, to exclude third parties from writing software for the platform. This has both positive and negative consequences as the experience of Microsoft has demonstrated (i.e. third parties producing poor quality software which gives Microsoft Windows a bad name while at the same time giving more software choices on Microsoft Windows). I suppose that you could invent some logo scheme like "playsforsure" or "designed for windows" or "games for windows" or whatever and not allow use of the logo if the vendor will not play by the rules (combined with a FUD advertising campaign warning consumers about "untrusted" non-logo software), but how does this in any way help the consumer? People buy games because they hear about them from a friend or read about them in a gaming magazine, not because the game has some "games for windows" logo. The only place that I can see this making any difference is when grandma is at Walmart trying to purchase a "game" for her grandson and chooses "math blasters 2007" because it is a "game for windows" and it is educational so it has to be good right? Wrong.
Re:If they can pull it off... (Score:2, Informative)