Interesting Read on Microsofts Invasion of PC Gaming

http://pc.ign.com/articles/854/854119p1.html

I personally think that Games for Windows should just go and die in a ditch somewhere because all it's doing is lowering PC gaming standards. I just thought it's funny how they try to defend Live as a legit feature we should pay for.

 

if it's a feature you can live (lol) without, then why care for it.

 

Well, not really. It makes playing with friends very annoying. If you think of any multiplayer Pc game that doesn't use Live, you can make private games, on a private server that is password protected, while they're making you pay for this feature that has always been free. Also, when was the last time you had to pay for voice chat? All they are doing is taking features that PC games have always offered for free and making you pay for them. I for one just hope that devs like Infinity Ward keep their senses and don't make their games under the GFW label if they have deep online components.

 

Going out on a limb here, it don't think the idea of Games for Windows isn't that bad.
The whole idea is to work to good compatiblity with the Windows platform. GFW games also are compatible with the x64 version of Windows. Besides that these games all support wide screen res. Something that not all games do now. I like this about GFW.

I don't really care for the whole live thing.

 

I agree that windows live is ****, asking people to pay for something like that is going to hurt pc gaming not help it. However, you dont have to use Live in a GFW game, so its kind of seperate from that whole issue.

My main beef with Microsoft is DX10 exclusive on Vista, THAT is what is going to hurt gaming more then anything else they do. It basically stunts the growth of DX10 as most of the gaming market is still on DX9 and will continue to be so throughout 2008. Sure they have lots of dx10 games but really its just dx9 thats the main focus, with a few minor effects added under dx10 instead of full focus on it.

 

Microsoft is trying to push more copies of Vista by making it the only platform through which DX10 is available, but at the moment this isn't doing too well for two reasons:

1) Vista plain sucks when it comes to game performance. A 10% average framerate hit compared to XP on the exact same DX9 settings? Pah.

2) The extras you get with DX10 aren't very pronounced, even with DX10's poster boy Crysis. Hack DX9 to have Very High graphics and you'll get a visual experience roughly similar to the DX10 Very High one, and with three times the FPS.

 

The only thing I see in DX10 is its particle effects with smoke. But... that's about it.

 

i allready pay for live on my 360 so i dont really havve to pay for windows live since i allready have a gold account.

 

That's great, but most people who are buying PC games probably don't have 360s.

 

For whatever, Lord of The Rings Online, which isn't even of the games mentionned when talking of DX10, is the only one that really looks better under it. Dynamic Shadows FTW.

It sucks to pay for live though, they should just allow people to play online for free.

 

I can' believe you have to pay to play online with a 360?! I hear Sony PS3 have free online services? Correct me if im wrong.

 

It's true, PS3 and Wii both have their own free service. Having to pay for XBL is being justified by Microsoft because it *is* the best online service on consoles. You just can't compare it to the others. But on PC, it's a different story. It's all already been done, better, and free.

 

I am new to PC gaming have always played on console but I purchased COD4 on PC and I like the multiplayer it is actually a better experience than I expect playing a FPS on PC.

I also have a 360 and a gold account so being able to use that feature is something I like. I do sympathize with PC gamers that if it was free and taking that away is crap.

My thought is maybe Microsoft end goal is to unify console and PC gaming under one umbrella.

 

BLASPHEMY! I'd rather see Microsoft go bankrupt trying rather than force some of the prices console gamers have to pay for their games in return for sub-standard entertainment.

Fortunately I've never had much experience with Windows Live since I don't buy the games that require the service. It does strike me as Microsoft's typically insidious attempt to enter every market that isn't closed to them.

 

Microsoft's attempts to get hold of a specific market and make everyone pay for it is not news. I remember ~4-5 years back they tried to do the same with the H*tmail service: free? we give you 2MB space, pay? we give you 20MB. I remeber an interview with one of their regional managers trying to explain that services are not free (that's why they do not have adds in the screen, right??).
But since there were other strong providers like Y*hoo offering 100MB for free!!!, then that idea totally collapsed, specially when G**gle started its business as an email provider, encouraging a free service with a different funding source.

 

I remember that Hotmail farce very well! Couldn't believe it, but also knew it wasn't going to last.