Posted 10/13/2008 at 08:50:00am

I'm missing something - the article refers to "Going after Apple next?" but it's not clear to me how that is part of this. Or is that going to be a separate article? (Frankly, I hope Microsoft is not planning on "going after Apple" in any way other than producing better software, particularly on the OS front - we PC users don't need another advertising campaign, just better products.)

Posted 09/30/2008 at 09:08:36am

 I've got a bias in this discussion but, first, my background. I've been a computer gamer since the days of Pong - my Apple //e had the first "Wizardry" on it. I was a beta tester for 360 Pacific's "Harpoon" and Atomic Games "V For Victory" and an advisor to their "Close Combat." Yeah, I'm old. Right now I'm playing a mod for HL2 and "The Witcher: Enhanced Edition," made 70 on WoW before terminal boredom, and play MechWarrior4 with an online team I've been with since 1998. Yeah, I'm real old.

I'm not a fan of DRM measures since losing a CD drive to StarForce. Beyond that bias, a couple of points come to my mind. First, what is the financial cost for EA or anyone else to develop and install DRM programs (SecurRom, StarForce, etc) onto a game? Second, has any copy protection scheme ever kept a PC game from being copied (or, as a collary question, has any copy protection scheme remained unhacked)?

In response to my first question presumption is that DRM costs, whatever they are, eat into the profit margin.This would be a justifiable expense if the answer to the second question was "Yes." Unfortunately, the answer is "No." So why do game makers bother?

I think the reason they bother has nothing to do with protecting games and everything to do with supporting Microsoft's efforts to end gaming on PCs. For game makers, developing games on PC platforms means dealing with a myriad of configurations and, therefore, hundreds of programmer hours spent developing patches. Console gaming, otoh, is fixed, a known quantity, and, in terms of the programming costs, cheaper. For Microsoft, ending major PC gaming means drawing the gamers to consoles, most hopefully to their Xbox which they sell at a major loss. (There is more evidence of M$'s anti-gaming position, such as the deliberate flop of "Games for Windows," the purchasing of "Computer Gaming World" and then closing it down, and so on, but that's a discussion for another time.) Some game makers, then, want to make playing their games on the PC as burdensome as possible - I think this is deliberate, but won't argue hard against the idea that the burden is inflicted because the makers simply refuse to expend the money to do sufficient play testing prior to release. To put it another way, their difficulty with programming for the PC variations is overcome by doing their beta testing AFTER selling their product.

 I also believe both the makers and Microsoft are doomed to failure. First, there are just too many PCs out there - that's a market that leads each console platform in sales (forget the nonsense that PC sales are declining - the counters never took into account online sales; PC sales have steadily increased and are higher than any individual console platform) and is too rich for it to be passed up. There will always be some makers who will want to take advantage of that opportunity (case in point: Mac games are still made and the Mac only represents 9% of the PC market). Second, companies that try to work with Microsoft, at least in gaming, find themselves eventually screwed (case in point: FASA Interactive went bankrupt supporting Vista/DX10 with its "Shadowrun", a Vista-only game).

So GOW2 isn't going to be on the PC? Well, I can't buy every PC game made as it is. All EA is doing is making my choices easier because there will always be FPSs to choose from (lots of them because they are the easiest games to write). And, I have to say, I wasn't that impressed with GOW in the first place. So if EA wants to go away, I won't cry for them - I'll stay with CDProjekt, Bethesda, and all the others who want my retirement check. And as the EAs leave, that makes that market even more inviting and rewarding for those game makers who remain.

Btw, I think the business model used by Stardock for its "Sins of a Solar Empire" may be the way to go - they claim they are doing well financially in spite of no DRM. If I liked that kind of game I'd buy a copy and I'm watching for what else they produce. And that's a neglected point - I support with cash game makers who do it right. I don't pirate, don't get a woody from showing a couple of hundred stolen games on my terabyte drive (I think a large proportion of pirates are actually collectors who never play the games they steal),and took BitTorrent off my computer years ago. From conversations with family and friends, I think the number of thieves stealing PC games is actually quite small and not the boogey man some would have us believe.

Posted 09/22/2008 at 11:58:08am

Someone in marketing should let Mr. Gates know that you don't make a good ad that starts off by reminding people of the points your competition already has scored. ("I'm a PC" reminds you of...) Instead, hit their weaknesses. Some good ideas have been posted about how to approach, for example, user freedom of choice. (An ad showing all the different brands for one component, such as video cards, would be good but Microsoft won't do that because folks who are buying video cards are the very people Microsoft wants to buy Xbox). Still, if Microsoft ever decided to support PC gaming, showing one game after another, screen shot after screen shot, more and more rapidly, with the final screenshot of the phrase, "First on the PC, Only on the PC." would be a killer. But a similar approach could be used by having people describe the number of programs in their profession that are available: science programs, stat packages, marketing, etc. Yes, I know the best of these are generally available on Macs or Linux, but the point would be to demonstrate the superior availability of the range of Windows programs. Another approach would be lower costs: "A PC can add a couple of gigs of memory for $120 - visit apple.com to see how much that would cost you in their computers." In any case, don't play the Apple game but do talk about Windows advantages. And don't stay with the "PC" references - the ultimate issue is OSes. Show the stuff that Vista does better than OSX. And, if not that, then show where Vista has improved/fixed past problems as a way of tearing down the image of a bug-ridden, bloated, slow OS.