Valve for Windows
FYI: This article was edited on 2/24 to match the article in CPU Magazine.
I wrote this article for the latest edition of CPU Magazine. CPU has not posted it on their site yet, and there may be a few edits - however I felt I should post it before my meeting with Microsoft at GDC. I'll likely write an updated article once we get some more perspective on the latest and greatest news from the Games for Windows initiative.
I'd like to start with an interesting (and valid) quote from Anita Frazier from NPD Group.
"The PC games market is greatly impacted by digital downloads and subscriptions, so there is an undetermined amount of PC games industry revenue that isn't reflected in retail sales. As we've seen from a number of our studies, the PC continues to be a top platform in terms of total game playing time, so I don't think this slight decline in retail sales is anything more than a reflection of a shifting of distribution channels..."
A little over a year ago, Microsoft was making all sorts of noise about its renewed Games for Windows initiative, touting it as the savior of PC gaming and acting like it was the most revolutionary thing since the invention of the joystick.
The Games for Windows vision was compelling; imagine walking into a game retailer and seeing a section of games dedicated to Games for Windows, all of which would support any approved gaming controller out of the box, and some of which would support “Tray and Play.”
Many industry players were interested in the concept of making the PC gaming experience easier, but some of us were a bit skeptical due to the fact that Microsoft was driving the initiative. Trouble is, Microsoft is notorious for starting major initiatives that barely get halfway through development before the company decides either to kill them or launch them. It’s sometimes hard to tell whether there is wide internal buy-in on such initiatives.
I have to admit, I was intrigued with the potential of Games for Windows, and I got caught up in the hype—until, that is, I saw Halo 2 with the Games for Windows moniker on it. Just when I thought things couldn’t get worse than an original Xbox port, I tried Shadowrun, which was equally bad. The lack of cross-platform gaming support really buried the program for me.
It was like fool’s gold, and I was one of many who were played by the biggest player in the industry. Perhaps GfW was not as compelling as we once hoped. Shortly after these fiascos, Peter Moore, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Interactive Entertainment Business division, decided to jump ship for EA. In the process, the director of Games for Windows stepped away from his role and was apparently replaced by someone else who I have yet to hear from.
So, where does that leave the initiative? Apparently it leaves a bunch of branded boxes on the shelves with an unknown future and some interesting marketing messages that have successfully generated more confusion over what “Games for Windows” actually means to the end user. On top of that, I’m starting to question whether Microsoft is capable of driving its commitment to PC gaming.
Now, before you start interpreting this as a funeral dirge for PC gaming in general, let me just say that we’ve all heard the rumors of PC gaming’s death over and over again, and like many, I’m tired of hearing them. PC gaming is not dying, so get over it. Valve is arguably the best PC game developer out there. Gabe Newell and his team make some of the best games ever, including the Half-Life series and Counter-Strike.
Over the years, Valve has done almost everything right, and while they’re quiet about it, the success of Steam is undeniable. Recently, Valve announced that Steamworks, a complete suite of publishing and development tools including such things as copy protection, social networking services, and server browsing, is now available free of charge to developers and publishers worldwide. In a nutshell, this system could significantly cut down on PC game piracy, which could in turn begin wooing developers and publishers back into the fold. And, of course, it will drive Steam into even more homes.
In implementing Steamworks, developers will gain access to real-time stat tracking, encryption and anti-piracy measures, voice chat, multiplayer matchmaking, and social networking. The buzz on the Internet seems to characterize this as “Games for Windows done right” and hails Valve as the saviors of PC gaming. If you haven’t tried Steam yet, I recommend you take a look. It’s the best game-distribution system on the planet, even remembering your purchases so that when you get a new PC, you can redownload them with no issue. In the meantime, don’t worry about PC gaming—it’s not going anywhere. It continues to grow, and there are new models of monetization coming into play, as well.
As for Games for Windows, well, if anyone at Microsoft would like to discuss this, please feel free to contact me and we’ll set up an interview for another column.
I wrote this article for the latest edition of CPU Magazine. CPU has not posted it on their site yet, and there may be a few edits - however I felt I should post it before my meeting with Microsoft at GDC. I'll likely write an updated article once we get some more perspective on the latest and greatest news from the Games for Windows initiative.
I'd like to start with an interesting (and valid) quote from Anita Frazier from NPD Group.
"The PC games market is greatly impacted by digital downloads and subscriptions, so there is an undetermined amount of PC games industry revenue that isn't reflected in retail sales. As we've seen from a number of our studies, the PC continues to be a top platform in terms of total game playing time, so I don't think this slight decline in retail sales is anything more than a reflection of a shifting of distribution channels..."
A little over a year ago, Microsoft was making all sorts of noise about its renewed Games for Windows initiative, touting it as the savior of PC gaming and acting like it was the most revolutionary thing since the invention of the joystick.
The Games for Windows vision was compelling; imagine walking into a game retailer and seeing a section of games dedicated to Games for Windows, all of which would support any approved gaming controller out of the box, and some of which would support “Tray and Play.”
Many industry players were interested in the concept of making the PC gaming experience easier, but some of us were a bit skeptical due to the fact that Microsoft was driving the initiative. Trouble is, Microsoft is notorious for starting major initiatives that barely get halfway through development before the company decides either to kill them or launch them. It’s sometimes hard to tell whether there is wide internal buy-in on such initiatives.
I have to admit, I was intrigued with the potential of Games for Windows, and I got caught up in the hype—until, that is, I saw Halo 2 with the Games for Windows moniker on it. Just when I thought things couldn’t get worse than an original Xbox port, I tried Shadowrun, which was equally bad. The lack of cross-platform gaming support really buried the program for me.
It was like fool’s gold, and I was one of many who were played by the biggest player in the industry. Perhaps GfW was not as compelling as we once hoped. Shortly after these fiascos, Peter Moore, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Interactive Entertainment Business division, decided to jump ship for EA. In the process, the director of Games for Windows stepped away from his role and was apparently replaced by someone else who I have yet to hear from.
So, where does that leave the initiative? Apparently it leaves a bunch of branded boxes on the shelves with an unknown future and some interesting marketing messages that have successfully generated more confusion over what “Games for Windows” actually means to the end user. On top of that, I’m starting to question whether Microsoft is capable of driving its commitment to PC gaming.
Now, before you start interpreting this as a funeral dirge for PC gaming in general, let me just say that we’ve all heard the rumors of PC gaming’s death over and over again, and like many, I’m tired of hearing them. PC gaming is not dying, so get over it. Valve is arguably the best PC game developer out there. Gabe Newell and his team make some of the best games ever, including the Half-Life series and Counter-Strike.
Over the years, Valve has done almost everything right, and while they’re quiet about it, the success of Steam is undeniable. Recently, Valve announced that Steamworks, a complete suite of publishing and development tools including such things as copy protection, social networking services, and server browsing, is now available free of charge to developers and publishers worldwide. In a nutshell, this system could significantly cut down on PC game piracy, which could in turn begin wooing developers and publishers back into the fold. And, of course, it will drive Steam into even more homes.
In implementing Steamworks, developers will gain access to real-time stat tracking, encryption and anti-piracy measures, voice chat, multiplayer matchmaking, and social networking. The buzz on the Internet seems to characterize this as “Games for Windows done right” and hails Valve as the saviors of PC gaming. If you haven’t tried Steam yet, I recommend you take a look. It’s the best game-distribution system on the planet, even remembering your purchases so that when you get a new PC, you can redownload them with no issue. In the meantime, don’t worry about PC gaming—it’s not going anywhere. It continues to grow, and there are new models of monetization coming into play, as well.
As for Games for Windows, well, if anyone at Microsoft would like to discuss this, please feel free to contact me and we’ll set up an interview for another column.
2 comments:
There are a few things that challenge the perception of PC gaming as a vital market:
1) "PC Gaming" is an open-ended statement. Playing chess online is technically "pc gaming"... so is playing Crysis. PC gaming means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
2) Consoles have an advantage as they present a baseline set of specs for which to develop. As a PC game developer, where do you set your target? Set it too low and you run up against the platform advantages of consoles, too high and you limit yourself to a small niche of high-powered gamers. Do you develop fun little games like Tetris or that crappy jewel one and go for volume or do you swing for the fences with a state-of-the-art FPS? Finding the sweet spot where you can monetize effectively while avoiding piracy or competition from consoles isn't easy.
3) With "friends" like Microsoft, game developers don't need enemies. MS is trying to accomplish two diametrically opposed goals:
a) Protect the value of Windows as a gaming platform. Without gaming, Windows has to compete on technical merit against Mac OS X and Linux.
b) Compete with Sony. The PlayStation is the biggest threat to Windows as it could supplant it as the platform of choice for what I call "sophisticated games" (complex, immersive, graphics intensive 3D games) and overall entertainment. Ironically, in order to match the PS console from an economic standpoint, Microsoft had to release a console of its own... fragmenting its own platform and, in essence, doing the very thing that it attempted to prevent. Now MS has to continue to find ways to keep Windows relevant to gaming and entertainment by finding new ways to tie the Xbox to the PC. But as Sony continues to extend the capabilities of the PS, Microsoft is learning the hard way that the entertainment capabilities of the PC can now stand alone as an entirely separate platform... so does it continue to build up the Xbox to compete with Sony or does it cripple it to keep it tethered to Windows thus allowing the PS to supplant both as an entertainment platfom?
The simple reality is that consoles have made "Games for Windows" obsolete. However, the installed base for PCs is so HUGE that game developers just CAN'T ignore it. The smart thing is to establish a hardware baseline for development of "sophisticates games" but how do you do that for a platform that grows exponentially in power every 18 months? Here are some suggestions:
* Powerful, easily and cheaply EXPANDABLE integrated graphics - integrated graphics should be the baseline for development as they are implemented at price points that can compete favorably with consoles. Consoles force developers to create efficiencies to get maximum power out of the platforms... the raw horsepower of the PC is both a blessing and a curse in that, while PC games are more complex and graphically compelling, they are also bloated and not always well designed. Setting a baseline integrated graphics solution and COMMITTING to developing for it within a specific TIME WINDOW, such as three years or whatever is practical, ensures that lower-end PCs will have compelling content at least for a certain time period. Expandable graphics ensures that, when a new baseline is established, users will not get left behind. If it is tiered in such a manner so that every iteration of integrated graphics is more powerful than the FULLY EXPANDED integrated graphics of two iterations earlier, a decent upgrade cycle could still be maintained without abandoning users who can not afford to upgrade as frequently.
Nvidia's Hybrid SLI could easily serve as the model for this strategy.
* Game developers should cut down on the number of graphically intensive games and devote some teams to creating less graphically intensive FUN and INNOVATIVE games. The raw horsepower of PCs has made developers uncreative. Nintendo turned the gaming community on its ear with the Wii by developing FUN, INNOVATIVE games that EVERYONE could enjoy. Even if the quality of Wii games can be debated, what about bringing back ADVENTURE games? While not as profitable as FPS's or other graphically intense games, adventure games and other like genres are necessary for a healthy gaming ecosystem. Game development companies should attempt to create compelling games at ALL ends of the graphical spectrum. There should be less focus on horsepower and more focus on compelling game play.
The ultimate benefit is that games that are less graphically intensive are EASIER and CHEAPER to develop. A smart game development company would probably devote 60-65% of its time and money to less graphically intensive but fun and innovative games while devoting the rest to a few potential blockbusters.
* Lo-res to Hi-res game development. This is already done... games have settings that can be configured for different levels of hardware. However, using an agreed-upon integrated graphics solution as the baseline would give the industry common ground and the overall market a point of reference.
I could go on but you catch my drift. The so-called PC Gaming Alliance should be the forum for determining many of these points. The focus should be on minimizing the economic and usability advantages that consoles have over PCs while maintaining the advantages of PC gaming, such as better overall graphics and superior online portals/play, (Steam being a great example). These strategies will also help in defining certain "zones" of PC gaming. For instance, games created for and above the technical baseline would represent a relatively well-defined "serious" PC gaming market while games created for below the baseline could be defined as the "casual" PC gaming market.
The main problem i have with Steam is that the end user has very little protection. If your account is hijacked and an exploit is run/credit card fraud attempted etc. then that account is banned from online play/banned with no chance being able to discuss it.
Some people can have upwards of £100-200 worth of games on a single steam account - not to mention that the username is your online identity with things like Steam community and such initiatives and yet all literature from Valve themselves states that they take no responsibility for any activity on your account whether you can prove it was you or not (say your laptop was stolen and your Steam logged in automatically upon start-up).
It seems very narrow-minded and is a major issue when taking into consideration the general lack of protection that ANY online service has for passwords/usernames with the exception of certain banks which use things like Chip and Pin to generate live numbers which can be inputted into a form when you log in.
The more users that Steam acquires, the more phishing attackers will target the system.
Post a Comment