-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What obligation does Microsoft owe the PC gaming market?
- Thread starter Stoney Mason
- Start date
1. Microsoft's primary source of income is Windows, not the xbox.
2. People generally get a new copy of windows when they purchase a new computer.
3. People generally purchase a new computer when either A) Their old one dies or B) They are unsatisified with it's performance, often times with games.
4. Thus if they want people to keep buying new computers and with them new copies of windows, it'd would be wise to help foster the PC gaming community.
2. People generally get a new copy of windows when they purchase a new computer.
3. People generally purchase a new computer when either A) Their old one dies or B) They are unsatisified with it's performance, often times with games.
4. Thus if they want people to keep buying new computers and with them new copies of windows, it'd would be wise to help foster the PC gaming community.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Microsoft has the obligation of making Windows a good platform for gaming, assuming they care about how popular their operating system is (and considering that's where they make most of their money, I'd say they care a lot). Thats a big reason a lot of people don't buy macs.Stoney Mason said:
That said, I can't wait for macs to start getting some real muscle behind them as far as computer game releases go. Microsoft is really taking that shit for granted right now and they need the competition.
I agree with the guy that said Microsoft should develop games to show off their new directX APIs. I think that would be smart.
Kill Your Masters
Member
You kinda make it sound like Windows is only used as PC-OS and for gaming.Sinatar said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
usea said:
I explained exactly what I meant in the post above. That's as good as its going to get and I apologize if it isn't clearer because its not going to get any clearer. That's about as well as I can explain it.
This thread was prompted by an idea and thought process I've seen in many threads on GAF and most recently in that Alan Wake thread. I've done my best to explain it multiple times and if suddenly no one feels that Microsoft has any obligation to the PC then we can consider the discussion ended and lock the thread.
That is of course until I hear the very same argumet or concept referenced in a future thread upon which I will point back to this thread and ask why didn't somebody step up to the plate in this one and intelligently argue the position that isn't something I just invented for the heck of this thread or to troll the PC.
Exiting the thread now. If it isn't locked I'll come back later this evening and see if anybody has attempted to add any sort of argument instead of everybody just agreeing with my default position or not understanding what the thread is about.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
They have a goddamn operating system on it, you know, the one that you pretty much have to buy to play PC games on. I'd say they have a lot of vested interest in PC gaming.Tellaerin said:
Gully State
Member
Hellraizer said:
If it wasn't for PC gaming, I know I would've went the OSX route by now.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
I can't say I would join you, but I know a LOT of people would.Gully State said:
edit: The Sims 3 got a Mac/Windows release in the same box on the same release date. If more companies start doing that I think that'd be good as far as pressuring Microsoft to release games like Fable 2 on Windows.
Microsoft cared about PC gaming until they realized console gamers could be fleeced for yearly online fees and expensive add-on content, while PC gamers had higher expectations for services and support.
Games for Windows Live seems to have been trying to do two things. One of which was a well-intentioned goal of promoting more clear standards in the PC-gaming space, making it less confusing, particularly for things like system requirements and quality assurance. The other objective was to make PC gaming more console-like, attempting to raise product prices and reduce expectations for free updates like patches.
Ultimately, it seems that due to their latter objective, the GFW initiative was poorly recieved. Instead of addressing the complaints and developing it into a service that was good for gamers, they basically killed the project. Where are the GFW demo kiosks they said they wanted to put out? I've never seen one.
I think it's likely they would have been better off supporting GFW. Even without direct returns like a yearly GFW subscription fee, they'd eventually make their money back on game liscencing with increased PC game sales. Admittedly, that's not a certainty, but even if they just broke even, the benefits to their reputation would be worth it.
Games for Windows Live seems to have been trying to do two things. One of which was a well-intentioned goal of promoting more clear standards in the PC-gaming space, making it less confusing, particularly for things like system requirements and quality assurance. The other objective was to make PC gaming more console-like, attempting to raise product prices and reduce expectations for free updates like patches.
Ultimately, it seems that due to their latter objective, the GFW initiative was poorly recieved. Instead of addressing the complaints and developing it into a service that was good for gamers, they basically killed the project. Where are the GFW demo kiosks they said they wanted to put out? I've never seen one.
I think it's likely they would have been better off supporting GFW. Even without direct returns like a yearly GFW subscription fee, they'd eventually make their money back on game liscencing with increased PC game sales. Admittedly, that's not a certainty, but even if they just broke even, the benefits to their reputation would be worth it.
Kill Your Masters
Member
Just wanted to point out the flaw in the "Since Windows is their biggest income, gaming is a big part of it" logic, as you seem to forget that Windows Server, Office, Visual *, etc. exist. And looking at Vistas performance I'd say they make much more money with those than "just" their current Windows OS for PC's.
Kill Your Masters
Member
So the question remains, how much does gaming influence the Windows OS (PC) market? Looking at how they handled Ensemble, no Halo 3 or Gears 2 for the PC, apparently it's not that big of a factor for them anymore.Slavik81 said:
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Weird, the last number I saw was 390 million.dLMN8R said:
How many of these people will go for W7 though? That's what I'm getting at. Especially the users that keep the same machine will likely not accept W7.
I should have been clear about that. W7 sales have to consist largely of people that get it despite having bought Vista 0-3 years ago (and being uninformed).
How do you sell W7 to a current Vista user who isn't hooked on the stuff already and doesn't stay informed about OS yadda? Most likely through a new computer. What's the current incentive to get a computer if your machine is 2 years old from a non-power-user's perspective? Well.. Uhm..
BobsRevenge said:
I think you're a little hazy on the meaning of the word obligation. 'Obligation' and 'vested interest' aren't the same thing.
Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary said:
You can argue that it would be profitable for them to support the PC gaming market, and that's a reasonable position to take, but they don't owe PC owners a damn thing. They have no 'duty or responsibility' to the market beyond making sure their software runs the way it's supposed to. It's nice that they go further to cultivate the PC gaming market, and they'll do it as long as they feel they're getting an adequate return for their troubles, but they're certainly not obligated to.
They're throwing most of their support where it needs to be right now, the 360. There is no threat to Windows gaming in the computer space, not by a long shot. While I'd still like to see them be more robust with their PC gaming support just because I like the platform, I don't blame them for being light on it lately, either.
If you budgeted X amount of dollars for your video gaming ventures, one of which was smack in the middle between its two main competitors and the other of which towered over its competitors by a ridiculous margin, where are you putting the money?
If you budgeted X amount of dollars for your video gaming ventures, one of which was smack in the middle between its two main competitors and the other of which towered over its competitors by a ridiculous margin, where are you putting the money?
BigKaboom2
Member
That's the essence of what I meant to convey.Tellaerin said:
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Or maybe I didn't say 'obligation' because I don't think they have an obligation.Tellaerin said:
They are just being stupid.
I actually agree with the statement I quoted of yours on a basic level. I probably jumped to a conclusion when I took your statement negatively.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Because these people are "casual" early adopters. Apart from the techies, they're the ones who will drive W7 sales in the first year.Fredescu said:
Okay, there will be XP people in the W7 adopters' ranks, obviously. But I've got a feeling that they will sit the early months out.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
...TheFallen said:
What?
First of all, this thread came out of the Alan Wake thread. Think of it as someone breaking off a tangent and making a thread out of it. Alan Wake has always been assumed as a PC release, and I know at least I thought it would come out on the same day because of Remedy's role as developer and owner of the IP.
Second of all, no one said anything about Valve or Microsoft having to cater to their every whim. They just want to see the games on PC, and considering Microsoft's previous stance on PC gaming it is disappointing that they completely turned around on making PC games. They had some really great properties in MS Flight Simulator and Age of Empires that they seemingly completely abandoned.
Kasumi1970
my name is Ted
BeeDog said:Well, this might sound like a weak reasoning (and it probably is :lol ) but Microsoft used Alan Wake as a bait for PC gamers to lure them into multicore computing and mainly Vista. I can only assume there are a few early adopters out there that stuffed Vista into their PC's to prepare for the "onslaught of games that will be Vista-only", starting with little Alan Wake.
I bet those people feel MS owe them something.
But really vista is now old. Windows 7 is coming. So I am sure Microsoft would rather have an exclusive game on thier 360 to sell it, then a game that was designed for vista, an OS that about to be obsolete in MS. Really MS owes the pc market nothing. Just becuase a game was shown years ago eyes doens't mean things can't change. Really I don't blame them form abandoning the PC market with alot of games being pirated.
Think of it this way, should MS, sony or Nintendo supportthier older systems. No. Times change, and move on.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Yeah, I didn't specify early adopters. I thought that goes without saying because the level of acceptance towards DX11 depends largely on that crowd and their affinity towards new games in W7's first year.Fredescu said:
This could turn out to be quite the clusterfuck under the current circumstances.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
A lot of people are still going to have to upgrade from XP to play Alan Wake though.Kasumi1970 said:
I know I will. The only reason I was planning on upgrading to Vista was Alan Wake.
edit: about your statement: "Really I don't blame them form abandoning the PC market with alot of games being pirated."
Now, because of this it makes sense to release a game a couple months down the line or something, but if it wasn't profitable to release it at all then explain all the weird console ports that the PC has been getting lately. When was the last time Street Fighter was seen on the PC? Street Fighter 2? If these other companies find it worthwhile and profitable, why wouldn't MS?
I think there's a difference between the question the OP asked, and what he meant to ask. It would be practically impossible for Microsoft to have any sort of obligation to the PC gaming market. They have no contractual obligations, and few other sorts of obligations have any sort of universiality.Tellaerin said:
If he really meant to ask about 'obligations' as per the dictionary definition you quoted, the answer would be "no". That would make for a pretty boring thread, with a single question and a single word answer.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
To be honest, I think I'm gonna abandon Windows completely, and the only thing that could reliably turn me around is an onslaught of new games with DX11 at the core. Not seeing it now though. That's where Microsoft could turn a wheel or two because they are developing the technology, so they could give me the incentive in W7's first year.BobsRevenge said:A lot of people are still going to have to upgrade from XP to play Alan Wake though.
I know I will. The only reason I was planning on upgrading to Vista was Alan Wake.
The last thing I'd do is going with Vista. That's out of the question.
Kasumi1970 said:
You don't understand the PC market. Windows OS's are not equivalent to console life cycles, so don't bring those arguments here. Games are more tied to hardware generations and not software generations. When W7 comes out, most games will still support XP but probably no games will support hardware that was current when XP came out.
Does MS owe PC gaming anything? No, but they made a lot of money selling hugely successful PC games to PC gamers. And basically, they killed off their entire division that did that when the xbox came out. They killed it off slowly but they still killed it off. Doesn't make much sense to me.
MrPing1000
Member
Microsoft gutted their PC base to fulfill the needs of the xbox 360. I guess at the time of the original xbox it was understandable to fight to get as many games as possible onto the consoles.
Now, meh not so much.
Now, meh not so much.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
I do. The problem is though that going for a new DX version is an investment from a developer's perspective. How many have accepted DX10? How many will accept DX11? How can I tie my game to an OS so that it benefits sales-wise from its success?Fredescu said:
Developers won't sell their DX11 game to the Vista crowd, so if W7 doesn't take off, they might snap and jump ship because it might be smarter to not tie your game to an OS in the future. That's where I started this trail of thought.
Simply put, "Also works on Vista" doesn't sell anything. "Also works on XP", on the other hand.. And the reasons for this aren't sales numbers, as the Vista adoption numbers clearly show. That would have to change!
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
I actually didn't realize that. I got so used to MS screwing me on things like that that I assumed it wouldn't. :lol :lolFredescu said:
If I may, I'd like to further comment on this eloquent point. Speaking as someone who consumes PC games on a semi-regular basis, it's always nice to see better support and more games. That said, nobody is obligated to offer me anything. Companies put products up for sale and I decide whether I want to buy them or not.Kabouter said:
The Librarian
Banned
In general? None.
benjipwns
Banned
Most?wmat said:
I have trouble thinking of major PC-only titles that haven't supported extra features in 10. Even a lot of console ports or simultaneous PC versions get both DX9 and DX10 versions.
Companies have kept DX9 versions, same as why they had (some still have) DX7/8 versions for so long to maximize the number of customers.
The reason 10 hasn't "taken off" like 9 was because the consoles are based around 9 and more "big name" companies are doing crossplatform development. (Also because 10 was somewhat "held back" in scope for...various reasons.)
Same thing with x86 and x64 support.
The reason Microsoft's attempts at "ONLY ON VISTA!" didn't work was because you actually didn't need Vista or DX10. (And because they weren't exactly the biggest name titles.)
wmat said:
Who is the Vista crowd? Windows 7 is going to have a much better launch because Microsoft need it to if they want to put XP to rest. If it "doesn't take off" they're gonna have to keep supporting XP for another five years because anybody that elects to not use W7 on a new machine isn't going to bother with Vista.
Windows 7 will take off, but to answer the question of the thread: no, they don't really owe the PC gaming market anything. Despite how much better it will perform and with all of the hardware it will be on it will not particularly matter because the biggest selling PC games will still run on a system from four years ago. Microsoft doesn't get royalties on PC games, and they've learned that people are quite willing to pay for additional content that was always free on the PC.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
I was talking about how it is right now. Who makes DX10-only games? Noone. Doesn't sound good.Fredescu said:
The current perception has to change (new Windows = shit, new DX = shit, devs coding for them = suckers). Then, all's well for Microsoft. But they have to play an active role in this. That includes fucking making games, obviously..
Minsc
Gold Member
Simply put, Windows is the most versatile gaming platform there is.
MS merely needs to keep it that way, by continuing its success. I read half of all business computers that shipped with Vista were downgraded to XP.
Here, look:
If that shit keeps up, things are going to get messy. That is god-damned pathetic.
Microsoft needs Windows 7 to be everything Vista wasn't, and that is what they owe PC gamers. Continued popularity.
MS merely needs to keep it that way, by continuing its success. I read half of all business computers that shipped with Vista were downgraded to XP.
Here, look:
If that shit keeps up, things are going to get messy. That is god-damned pathetic.
Microsoft needs Windows 7 to be everything Vista wasn't, and that is what they owe PC gamers. Continued popularity.
I would say they have some obligation to promote PC gaming, considering that they are a member the Promoters group companies of the PC Gaming Alliance, and have a seat on its board of directors.
http://www.pcgamingalliance.org/ABOUT/OurMembers/tabid/409/Default.aspx
http://www.pcgamingalliance.org/ABOUT/OurMembers/tabid/409/Default.aspx
DX9 is seven years old, the longest running version of Direct X by a long long way. In the early days of DX9, all games supported DX8 as well. I don't see why it matters that games can run on DX9 if they have DX10 features available. It's a good thing if anything. It won't last though.wmat said:
Bundling it with machines with only 1GB of RAM was a huge mistake.Minsc said: