Microsoft Fails PC Gamers

Is Microsoft Trying to Kill PC Gaming?

When Microsoft started talking up Vista's gaming functionality, PC gamers got all hot and bothered. There it was, laid out in front of us, the holy land of DX10 graphics, and an entire "Games for Windows" marketing program. It couldn't possibly get any better, as our PC gaming world was obviously not dying, and Microsoft was apparently not going to give up on us, expecting us all to move over to consoles, right?

If Microsoft's current PC gaming efforts are any indication, we're all very wrong in that assumption. Judging by the lackluster game releases and the attempt to suck the blood from PC gamers with "Games for Windows Live," it starts feeling like Microsoft is doing all it can to actually kill PC gaming.

View: Full Story
News source: Daily Game

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

A-Squared Free 3.0.0.313 Final

Next Story

Adobe Revs Acrobat For Windows Vista And Office 2007

44 Comments

View more comments

my work laptop has a gig of ram and it never idles beloew 87%. apps do not load faster, they open slower. i have installed vista on 6 brand new dell D620s with 2 gigs of ram and duel core cpus and all there end useres report the same crap.

your right, MS cant be blamed for 3rd party apps not working. but there is no excuse for having buggy vpn and terminal services.

the vista i have been using is enterprise and buisiness.


ati/amd and nvidia have had a year now to develop drivers and we still have crap.


can you expand on this
"There is no way Microsoft could have written DirectX 10 for XP. It is an entirely new architecture with roots deep in the OS"

rIaHc3 said,
Gaming on Vista is slower because you also need to download DirectX9. Vista comes with DirectX10 and although it is backwards compatible, if you have both APIs old games made for DX9 will run better.

That's not true. Vista comes with a version of DirectX 9 and DirectX 10.

Skanks said,

That's not true. Vista comes with a version of DirectX 9 and DirectX 10.

False. Search around and you will see that Vista does not have DirectX 9. Better yet prove it yourself; Download the latest copy of DirectX 9 and you will see how Vista allows it to be installed.

Nose Nuggets said,
my work laptop has a gig of ram and it never idles beloew 87%. apps do not load faster, they open slower. i have installed vista on 6 brand new dell D620s with 2 gigs of ram and duel core cpus and all there end useres report the same crap.

your right, MS cant be blamed for 3rd party apps not working. but there is no excuse for having buggy vpn and terminal services.

the vista i have been using is enterprise and buisiness.


ati/amd and nvidia have had a year now to develop drivers and we still have crap.


can you expand on this
"There is no way Microsoft could have written DirectX 10 for XP. It is an entirely new architecture with roots deep in the OS"

Im no Vista fan quite yet, but I gotta say, I've the exact opposite experience with Vista. I find it extremely responsive, much faster than XP loading apps, its one of the things I really like about Vista. Also, its the first OS that I haven't had to tweak the connection to hell. Im blown away at how steady, stable and fast my connection is with Vista.

rIaHc3 said,

False. Search around and you will see that Vista does not have DirectX 9. Better yet prove it yourself; Download the latest copy of DirectX 9 and you will see how Vista allows it to be installed.


No, Skanks is correct. DirectX 9 comes with Vista, it just isn't the latest version.

Danrarbc said,

No, Skanks is correct. DirectX 9 comes with Vista, it just isn't the latest version.

Yes and No. Vista comes with a new version of DX9 that XP will also not get. If i recall its DX9EX. Has alot of the new XNA stuff in it. Reason dude busted a nut. Was a game most likey installed and said he wasn't running the correct version of DX9. So it installed the one that came on the CD. Well at least started the installer. Then DX installer dose it checks and moves on.

If you look when it's installing, it installs the SDK updates for DX9 (and from what I can see mostly ones that are post Vista) which obviously it wouldn't include.

Even though I don't really play any games on my PC anymore, I see GfWL as something you could ignore if you really wanted to. Now hopefully they'll offer some kind of alternative if your game is GfWL and you don't want to shell out $5/month, but I don't see all games having GfWL. Plus what if you could have PC only titles that used GfWL that didn't have a console brother. Something like PC only achievements. I like the Live service, it's why I got a Xbox over a PS2 years ago, but I don't think it needs to regulated to the console space. Personally...I'm a big fan of cross game voice chat, achievements (no matter how easy or stupid they may be), a unified marketplace, etc. I just hope they do PC gaming right and can expand the Live system without ruining the core aspects of what makes PC online fun.

WOW subscribers :7 million
Lineage2 subscribers : 2.25 million.
Mapple Story players :50 million!! (not all are active player).
Steam accounts : 13 millions (not all are potential buyers) but i bet that there are more CS players that in Halo.
Runescape subscribers: 1 million.
Ragnarok Online :17 million! eh?
Final Fantasy Online : 0.5 million.


Versus:
XBOX live subscribers : 5 million (lol).


Results:
XBOX live is overhyped, MS is indeed trying to kill the pc gaming online but (currently) they are being beated by death. In fact there are a mere 7-8 million of console versus a gazillion of pc.

It's not a numbers race.

They recognize that people want to have some of the features that gamers get with Xbox LIVE.

It offers them a way to give people that functionality as well as a selling point for Windows Vista.

Of course there are more PC "gamers", it's been around a lot longer.

Console games haven't been online (I'm talking big services, not just one or two games) that long - about 5 years.

It's not in Microsoft's interest to kill PC gaming online - it's a key selling point of their platform versus Mac OS and Linux.

It's something people see the PC as being known for.

The non-LIVE efforts should be praised by gamers. It makes buying a game a much more satisfying experience.

LIVE on the other hand, is new. They are merging a well established service with a new, untried service. Expect there to be problems.

Magallanes said,
WOW subscribers :7 million
Lineage2 subscribers : 2.25 million.
Mapple Story players :50 million!! (not all are active player).
Steam accounts : 13 millions (not all are potential buyers) but i bet that there are more CS players that in Halo.
Runescape subscribers: 1 million.
Ragnarok Online :17 million! eh?
Final Fantasy Online : 0.5 million.


Versus:
XBOX live subscribers : 5 million (lol).


Results:
XBOX live is overhyped, MS is indeed trying to kill the pc gaming online but (currently) they are being beated by death. In fact there are a mere 7-8 million of console versus a gazillion of pc.


By that logic you'd have to count the number of each different game sold on the 360 instead of the installed Live base. A better estimate would be Steam, which has one application that brings together a collection of products. It would be nice to have Live built like an addon into the current PC online model. If you had Live, all your stats/achievements would record and you'd get the other Live additions. On the other hand, if you didn't want to use Live, you'd have the core online component without hassle. Anyway, I haven't tried Halo 2 PC, so I don't really know what's going on.

Also, everyone who has a 360 is going to have a PC and that means only a small fraction of PC users have any console at all.

well microsoft NEVER did anything to make pc gaming a viable option thats why they are dedicated to xbox360, i dont see any changes they was trying to make gamers to move on to vista but so far its failing miserably

eilegz said,
well microsoft NEVER did anything to make pc gaming a viable option thats why they are dedicated to xbox360, i dont see any changes they was trying to make gamers to move on to vista but so far its failing miserably

Guess there was no point in making DirectX in the first place with you comment. Its alot easier writing a 3D Program with all the DirectX functions that wrap up lots of common tasks in programing. Not saying OpenGL is bad. But at one point in time it wasn't the best.

Why does Microsoft think that we PC users will PAY for Windows Live?

We have:

Xfire = FREE
Steam = FREE
Gamespy = FREE (But Bloatware)

How can they think that this will take off. Xbox users pay for live because they have no alternative.
We definitely won't pay for it.

Every major PC FPS (Quake based, Unreal based) = Free Online play

The *Only* monthly fee where pc's pay willingly are MMO (Wow, Everquest, etc), but GuildWars have shown that a non-paid model can work as well.

B0GiE said,
Why does Microsoft think that we PC users will PAY for Windows Live?

That's because MS management are a bunch of latte-drinking, ivory tower, MBA white collar crooks who spend all day devising ways of "maximizing profits" without ever considering what it means to customers.

That is another term for "how can we squeeze every last penny out of these stupid kids?"

MS doesn't support gaming, they look at gaming as a product, rather than look at individual games.

Take Shadowrun, for example. Instead of making it an RPG, which it started out as and could have made a good game, they used the franchise as a cheap excuse for their own Counterstrike clone to peddle Vista.

Why Counterstrike? Look at how well STEAM is doing. In between drinking blood, Steve Ballmer took one look at "the most popular online games" and saw Counterstrike at #1. So he ordered his goons to "make me a Counterstrike clone! And put elves in it, because WoW is so popular!"

MS is pathetic. They're even worse than EA.

yeah and in a future if microsoft start charging for windows live messenger and their services people will pay for it, its all about microsoft branding, it suppose to give quality and the best experience but so far its disappointing

B0GiE said,
Why does Microsoft think that we PC users will PAY for Windows Live?

We have:

Xfire = FREE
Steam = FREE
Gamespy = FREE (But Bloatware)

How can they think that this will take off. Xbox users pay for live because they have no alternative.
We definitely won't pay for it.

Who said you have to? If you look at the base membership (GfWL Silver) you will see that it (like XBL Silver) in fact costs $0.00 (as in "nada, zip, zero, bupkis, gornischt"). Most X360 owners (and original XBOX owners) don't have XBL Gold (the paid membership); instead, they are perfectly happy with XBL Silver (which, like the cross-compatible GfWL Silver, has no fees). Get your facts straight, people.

B0GiE said,
Why does Microsoft think that we PC users will PAY for Windows Live?

We have:

Xfire = FREE
Steam = FREE
Gamespy = FREE (But Bloatware)

How can they think that this will take off. Xbox users pay for live because they have no alternative.
We definitely won't pay for it.

Are you speaking for the entire PC gaming fanbase? If you are trying to, then stop--you are wrong. There are thousands of people out there who are already subscribed. If you have an Xbox Live account, you're already subscribed to it, and I would say a good 70% of the people who play on Xbox Live also do some kind of PC gaming.

Commenting is disabled on this article.