Microsoft Responds to Windows 8 Backlash From Game Developers

63

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

praetor_alpha

I will believe it when it happens.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Most have stopped short of calling it a “catastrophe” the way Gabe Newell did
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ya you better!

My cats name was "Catastrophe" and I'll sue if you use it

Brilliance, Magical and Fantastical are not mine so you can use those if you like

SEE, I'm not Anti-Microsoft

avatar

Xenite

Microsoft's problem is they never grasped the fact that they already had the number one game console installed on 95% of computers. It's called Windows!

GFWL had the potential to be HUGE, larger than Steam and Origin combined. Instead it was rarely used and instead turned into the red headed step child of PC gaming.

Why? Because some bonehead at MS said "hey, let's make a console!".

At this point they are so invested in the xbox, they don't care about gaming on windows, they want... no NEED you to buy an xbox. Something this PC gamer will NEVER do.

avatar

sundropdrinker3

Hey uh, you might want to get your facts straight there. XBox came out a few years BEFORE Games for Windows-Live. the Live part came from XBox Live. So basically, you are one of the many people who speaks but doesn't know. XBox released 2001, XBox Live first appeared 2002, and it was then made available to Windows in 2007.

So, they invested in XBox about 10 years before GFWL was released. Thanks for playing though.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

Actually if you paid attention: people would game on windows platforms or the playstation before xbox joined the fray which I believe he was getting at. pc gaming on windows didn't need a special title before,but MS decided to try and make their own niche with GFW to take on the likes of steam but failed at it. and that is what Xenite was pointing out.

avatar

AnglicDemon00

As much as it sucks they there wont be any new features, what Captain_Steve states is the truth.

avatar

Captain_Steve

Windows has one purpose that it can hold over other operating systems; it plays games well. Linux can't claim that, Apple can't claim that; and unless you count Angry Birds; Android can't claim that.

If it's not broke, don't fix it; and if you're already making all the money (I believe that's what Windows 7 made), there's no reason to take risks in an attempt to get more.

avatar

Peanut Fox

I agree with you on all counts.

While Windows 7 isn't broken (for the most part), Games for Windows Live is. I call it God Awful for short, because that's what it's acronym looks like it spells, and exactly how I feel about it. If they improve on it in anyway it's a boon for the platform.

I think they'll pretty much screw it up, but it doesn't cost me anything to wait and see.

avatar

Formedras

No, both Linux and OS X CAN claim it. It's just that nobody MAKES games for them, which I'm hoping Valve will change for Linux. (And internally they already have, with that performance spike over Windows with L4D2.)

On a side note, I'm kinda hoping that the next gen of consoles will be the last successful one, succeeded by HTPCs. Not sure whether I want Windows or Linux to be spearheading that though. Probably both, with a split similar to Xbox vs Playstation, with half the games being made in a VM-directed language like Java or C#/.NET and working on both from a single binary. (After that, can we get a BSD other than Darwin?)

avatar

Captain_Steve

I'm not saying that it can't be done; anything is possible. The problem is just that when the developers look at what they're making, it makes sense to base your product around the Windows operating system.

I have all the Indie bundles, but I can only get about half the games to work on my version of Linux (I run Fedora instead of Ubuntu). This problem alone creates a problem when developing on Linux; will it work on all versions or just Ubuntu/Fedora/Slackware/Puppy/etc. There's already enough problems ensuring all games developed will run on Windows with differing system specs. Imagine development costs/time if we have to make sure it works on "Linux."

While it would probably be much easier to port games to Apple than to Linux; there's still that cost to benefit approach when it comes to game development; are there enough people on Apple who will buy the product to make it worth it? If you have a small Java based game, then it's not much of an issue. If you're a massive company with a huge title (think EA with The Sims), then you have the manpower/title power to easily get your money back. But that's all you're going to get is either the small games without much to code, or the massive triple A titles. You're probably not going to see many of the in-betweens, and if you do you may not see them until long after they've been released on every console and Windows.

So while any OS can easily become a gaming OS, Windows is the only platform that has an install base that looks good on a pie-chart in a boardroom when you start talking about spending millions of dollars in production cost.

Edit: Just noticed the part of your post about BSD other than Darwin. BSD is a tricky subject; because rather than being Linux, it's a Unix based OS, and the only free one at that (that I remember correctly) due to some kind of educational loop hole or what not back when it was developed. For anyone else to develop a Unix based OS they would need to purchase a license to do so, and it's really not worth it for most developers.

avatar

Peanut Fox

I took a look at HTPCs a few days ago and wondered weather they'd be around in ten or even five years. I'm not sure if HTPCs make a ton of sense when you look at the ever growing number of smart TVs. When your TV set can offer you pretty much every bullet point that an HTPC can they're need suddenly becomes redundant. Seriously. Pair a smart TV with a cable card and a home server and it doesn't look good for them. I saw that Samsung is even rolling out Gaikai as a BETA on some of it's sets so the thing has somewhat decent gaming capability out of the box.

avatar

sundropdrinker3

Also with HTPCs, I believe the main drive for those were the hard drives for people to store shows and movies and be able to watch them on their tv. Having internet was a plus, but mainly a by-product. So the need for HTPCs is still their to SOME degree. I say some because their are newer products that perform the same as an HTPC while offering almost all of the benefits at a fraction of the cost. The ONLY thing I am missing on my WDTV Live Hub is gaming, but that's what I have my 360 and laptop for.

avatar

Chronologist

Small form-factors do make sense. If you look at motherboard trends, Mini-ITX is on the rise. We're seeing more and more power-user cases to accommodate this trend; the Silverstone FT03-Mini, the Bitfenix Prodigy, and the Coolermaster Elite 120, and spades of other boxes made by Lian-Li and Silverstone. Every one of these cases are small, light, and powerful. They all support 2 slot gpu's, and most support full ATX PSU's. The Bitfenix Prodigy even supports a dual radiator. I myself am running a FT03-Mini with a i7-2600k+h60 lqu paired with a gtx 680. This rig fits easily inside my media cabinet, and affords me much more gaming power + flexibility over consoles. On the plus side, it's a breeze moving this rig from place to place for LAN events.

avatar

kamikaji

The thing is though, our economy is unfortunately based on the principle of infinite growth. If your company doesn't continually improve year after year, investors are going to go elsewhere. So Microsoft is forced to try and improve past what they have already done.

avatar

Happy

+1

avatar

PCLinuxguy

very true

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.