Joystiq is reporting that Microsoft's Games for Windows plan, which is their effort to get all Xbox 360 and Windows Vista games integrated across both platforms, will kick off with a retail conformance initiative. Meaning, after being certified on various criteria like ease of installation, compatibility with the 360 controller, etc., all Vista games under the Games For Windows initiative will also require "branding" with similar packaging, the GFW logo, etc. The hope is that PC gaming choices "will become less intimidating to mainstream consumers -- no longer will the PC games isle be a cluttered mess of disparate titles."

While this conformity makes sense from a technical standpoint, I'm saddened by the decision to take it to the retail standpoint. Part of what I loved about buying, playing, and collecting computer games is the wide diversity in the personal computer field. Are we losing yet another unique aspect of our artform, or am I just being melodramatic?

Semi-related to this news... people may have already heard that Computer Gaming World (CGW) Magazine had undergone a name change. It will be now known as "Games for Windows" and is the Official Windows gaming magazine with Microsoft's approval. In a podcast interview with Gamasutra a few months ago, Editor-in-Chief Jeff Green explains the name change. He also assures everyone that the magazine remains exactly the same and will not pander to Microsoft Games or any other company. He also expects the name change to allow the magazine to receive circulation among more "mainstream" electronics stores and newsstands. But don't take my summary for it! Follow the link and listen to the whole thing if you haven't already.

So just like the official Playstation Magazine and the Official Nintendo Magazine and the Official XBox magazine, there's now an Official Windows magazine. Can Tux be far behind? :P

Wow, that's going to be a bit of a hastle, converting each and every PowerPC coded games to x86. Not that it's impossible. The Macintosh game porting scene had been doing the reverse of that for years.

eh? I would assume that CGW/Games for Windows will simply stop reviewing Macintosh titles if they haven't already.

As a subscriber to Computer Gaming World I'd just like to point out that it was renamed to the Games For Windows magazine about three issues ago. I'd also like to point out that the integrity of the reviews and editorials has not changed at all and is still a damn good magazine especially since it has "real" articles for people to read instead of being filled with previews (that you've already seen online 3 weeks before) and reviews (that you've also seen 2 weeks ago). The articles are always discusssion worthy and if you're a PC Gamer reader you really should do yourself a favour and pick up Games for Windows magazine. No I'm not trying to sell it to you because I get some kinda commision I'm actually doing it because I honestly like the people on this board and respect their opinions and I'd hate for them to be throwing their money away on that damn PC Gamer (to which I also used to subscribe).

Sounds both good and bad. I'd love to see all console games (or at least XBox 360 games, though all would be better) brought to the PC. There are some really good titles that I can't play because I don't have the consoles.

Another good thing is the rating system, where it rates your computer and lets you compare that rating to the game's requirements. If done well, it could make it easier for people to figure out if they can play a game by using just a number rather than all the specs. Though I'd still prefer to look at the specs instead... more accurate if you know what you have in your computer.

But requiring mutliplayer games to be done through the same Live thing as XBox? A pay-to-use thing? That's rediculous. Or making PC games specifically for a controller rather than for mouse/keyboard or even joystick? Stupid.

[I guess I should preface this with rumor/opinion...]

I've heard rumblings that the success of XBox's Live has caused several companies to once again look at providing some kind of standard "online game service". You may recall that this has been attempted before: With examples like Sierra's INN, and HEAT.NET and Kali to some degree and Microsoft's own Zone.com. The difference has always been that on PCs (and many other computers), there's already access to TCP/IP, so why bother paying or providing details to some other company so that they can mount a front-end on that connection and services. The company providing the actual game then submits some of the control of the content to one of these companies. Almost all of the popular MMOs on PC have created their audiences without any such "Live-like" interface... and don't really have any incentive to support one.

Obviously consoles and computers are in different boats as far as who controls the interface and the hardware and the licensing types available.

Yay! PC gaming can now be as watered-down and standarized as console gaming! Yipee!!

Zovni is obviously a PC fan, as am I. Zovni, let's go to war with those console loving freaks! IT'S ON!

:P

We need to get the pc a cute furry mascot of its own so we are on even ground...

I understand why Jim has voiced concern on this topic. We crotchedy old PC gamers do not want to see our games watered down or standardized.

But I think this kind of move was probably inevitable. The latest issue of Games for Windows (nee CGW) features a back-page editorial by Jeff Green calling for an end to the seemingly endless patches, updates, and sundry other technical headaches that PC gamers, unlike console gamers, have to endure.

Clearly one kind of quality (diversity of design and designers) has come at the expense of another (technical issues) in PC gaming. I think Microsoft can probably do a lot of good towards shoring up the weakness of PC gaming while still retaining the competitive advantage of lots of different designers and publishers.

Maybe I'm just in an optimistic mood?

M$ just wants to control even more things. If they can control the gaming market, even if they aren't the only ones making games, then their control of computers becomes about double what it is right now. That alone would make me against it.

As for patches, I prefer getting patches than not getting them. Yes, some developers put out garbage that you can't play until you get a few patches released, but that isn't what happens with most games. Yes, you run into bugs with all of the games, but they are generally minor and patches fix those without a problem. Patches also tend to add more features, smooth things out in gameplay, etc. They are a GOOD thing, people! Console gamers seem to think (from what I always hear them saying about patches) that patches are bad. Well, they are wrong. :)

That's because patches ARE bad -- if you're a console gamer. :-) Because patches implies bugs in the original, and until Xbox Live, you couldn't patch console games.

I think that's a shame, btw -- now console gamers are going to be treated to buggy launch products, then patches 6 weeks down the road, which will invalidate their saved games... joy :-/

And there are bugs in console games that can't be patched and you're left with a buggy game unless you go out and buy an updated release of the game (if one is ever made).

Yes, there are fewer bugs in consoles for this very reason. However, as was mentioned, this is more the fault of publishers (or management on the developer side) than of the system. It isn't the PC's fault that games are released too early and have many bugs in them.

As a note, the majority of patches do NOT invalidate saved games. That usually only happens if the bug being fixed is drastic enough or if there was some major loophole that allowed people to get lots of points/money/etc and they decided to invalidate the saved games to force players to play it without that loophole/cheat.

Like Sam...I mean Max?

Someone mention a World War against console infidels? Where do I sign up? Seriously.

*arms cleverly designed AK-47 inside a camoflaged keyboard*

PC games were already watered down the day XBOX was released. It single handedly destroyed Deus Ex and Rainbow Six franchise.

I agree in that patches are a good thing. Besides, patches are at times a necessity because PC games are designed to run on a wide variety of system configurations, which isn't the case with consoles. I would imagine that if everyone's PC had identical software and hardware configurations there would be little or no need for patches that fix bugs.

As Riamus pointed out, patches also serve to add to a game, not just fix it. User created content, user created 'mods', and even user created patches to fix bugs after support for a game has been discontinued (Emporer of the Fading Suns comes to mind) is something that consoles will likely not see the benefit of. Of course the technological gap between consoles and the PC has been narrowed, namely because consoles have become PCs themselves, the fact that a PC is a editor and not just a player is reason enough to keep the PC a more viable gaming platform.

In regards to Trixster's original post, I'd have to say that if all game titles between the PC and consoles were identical, I'd still choose the PC as a gaming platform. One reason for this (among many) are the controller options. Consoles would never be able to compete with that.

Aside from that, while major releases may be shared between consoles and the PC, there will always be smaller companies producing PC only titles. Malfador Machinations comes to mind. I'd venture to say producing a PC game is easier than producing a console game in that you don't have to go through licensing, red tape, or other such hassles. If I wanted to, I could produce a PC game, but it would be impossible for me to produce an Xbox 360 game. You're not being melodramatic, but at the same time I don't think you have much to worry about.

Ah, yes... mods. Mods are wonderful and are here thanks to PCs. :)

And the controller options for PC are also a great draw to me. I hate having to use a specific set of controls for a game (whether that is on PC or console) and PCs give you considerable choice in control setup for the majority of games where it would be useful. And those that don't let you adjust controls (such as forcing the user to use WASD instead of arrow keys) are among the games that I don't like very much for that reason alone.

As for it being easier to create a game for PC than for console... as far as licensing and such goes, that may be true. However, I think the programming aspect is easier for consoles.

Some may be, but there are still a lot of really great games for PC. I would hardly state that PC games, in general, are "watered down" as you're implying.

I agree. Fucking consoles killed the Denton brothers as far as I'm concerned.

Well, if you want one last Denton gasp, play Project Snowblind. I'm in the middle of playing it right now, and while it's a bit console-ized, it's still enjoyable.

Oh! A Zork reference! Love it!

Patches are both good AND bad. On one hand, they fix problems with a game, which in the case of PC titles is far more likely what with the many configs. As was said, they sometimes offer new features as well. On the other hand, if the corporate brass gave the development teams the proper amount of time, they wouldn't have much need to fix bugs. At least there are some good companies who still release well-supported games, but it's the companies who barely patch anything which concern me. (EA comes to mind.)

Just because there's going to be more console conversions, doesn't necessarily mean that we won't have PC-like games. They can't do RTS, and other mouse-driven games very well with the X-Box 360, (unless they start requiring people to have USB mice for their consoles). For the time being, I think we'll still see many PC-style games.

I'm not so sure that offering up for ample time for development teams would eliminate patching. Case in point EQlive; the game has been out since 1999 and they still patch little bugs and inconveniences here and there.

Having said that, I don't think that I've ever needed a patch to play through a game.

I think he was referring to major bugs that make you need a patch before even playing the game. Small bugs are always going to be present and having the ability to patch them is not a bad thing.

As a side note, I love how Blizzard works. They rarely put out a game on time. They could, just like most others do, and just patch it like crazy to fix all the problems, but instead they put off release until they are sure it's a quality game. Yes, there will be patches, but the games aren't garbage when first released.

With Blizzard, of course.

But you see, Blizzard's games aren't good because they don't need patching, they're good anyway.

Yeah, Blizzard is amazing. But besides the fact that they just simply make great games, the fact that they are willing to WAIT to release a game until all major bugs are squashed sets them apart from most developers/publishers even more.

True. Blizzard does put off titles quite a bit. As a matter of fact I can't remember any of their titles that were released when they initially expected them to be.

And you know what? I can't think of a single Blizzard game that I didn't like.

That's how most people work (Wright, Miyamoto, etc.) -- if they have the fame/fortune/track record to do so.

Miyamoto-san's quote is something like "A delayed game is eventually a good game; a bad game is bad forever."

Which is why my hearts go out to the hundreds of developers who don't get that luxury and are pushed by their managers/publishers to release a game by a deadline. Off the top of my head I can easily think of a dozen games that might have been great, but were rendered unplayable or annoying by one kind of bug or another..... and for whatever reason couldn't/wouldn't be patched.

One word: Gothic.