How standardized branding could help PC games
Shopping for console games is easy; you just look for the console branded bar on top of a standardized box that is easily noticed, pick it up, and buy. Shopping for PC games is a little more difficult (at least in terms of shelf browsing) due to no visual mark telling the consumer what hardware requirements the game has and a lack of standardized box sizes for easy browsing. Now Microsoft hopes to change all that. In an interview with Next-Gen, Microsoft commented on the new use of the "Games for Windows" brand with standard box sizes and what it means for PC gaming. The report states that "Games for Windows" labeling is used as a set of guidelines that Microsoft requires publishers to meet for easy installation, upcoming Vista support, and ESRB parental controls. The hope is to have retailers push PC games alongside that of console and handheld games (read: more sales).
Said the interviewed Microsoft spokesman: "New game titles carrying the Games for Windows branding will support wide-screen gaming, can be launched from within Windows Media Center, will be compatible with 64 bit consumer versions of Windows and support the Xbox 360 Controller for Windows (for games which enable gamepads)... We're going to be supporting Windows as a real gaming platform nowadays."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
A Reader @ Sep 18th 2006 9:44PM
Who is this really going to help? There are still going to be system requirements you're going to have to meet for an enjoyable experience. What MS is doing here isn't a bad idea, but it's a pretty small step. It seems like it's going to do more for Vista marketing than Joe Gamer, or Joe Gamer's parents, whoever it is that MS thinks needs a snazzy logo to show them the games on the PC GAMES shelf at Wal*Mart are for, you know, PCs.
Zo K. @ Sep 18th 2006 9:45PM
Am I wrong, or didn't the ISDA just standardize PC software's packaging several months ago?
What kind of issues will this raise?
Psaakyrn @ Sep 18th 2006 9:56PM
You don't get it.
I suspect they'll have different standards, like:
PC Basic: works with any PC using Windows XP, period.
PC XP Regular: works as long as you can install DirectX 9
PC XP Advanced: in addition to the above, must support Direct3D and DvDRom.
PC Vista Advanced: in addition to the above, the PC card must fulfil certain speed and ram standards.
PC Vista Elite: in addition to the above, you must also have a dedicated soundcard, and a much higher card standard.
PC Uncharted: Only for the TOP END PCs, the items here can't be obtained in your regular hardware shop. Essintially means unrated.
Additional icons: Online capable, Online only, Multiplayer only, Expansion Pack (i.e. requires previous modules to play, so HL2 episodes don't count).
jg @ Sep 18th 2006 10:07PM
Am I the only one that has been waiting for this? Out of the box support for wide screen gaming and launching from Windows Media Center. Perfect!!!!
NeuroMan42 @ Sep 18th 2006 10:10PM
Yes... they did somewhat standardize PC packaging, but with various, constant changing system requirements this does not help much.
peregrine @ Sep 18th 2006 10:18PM
Psaakyrn is on the right track, but the tiering of games will likely be tied to your computer’s "Windows Performance Rating" I give you the following quote from an ArsTechnica article (URL below)
"'The idea behind the Windows Performance Rating is to help average consumers easily understand their Windows Vista PC's overall performance, and to simplify the process of determining whether certain software applications will run smoothly based on their system components,' said Microsoft in a statement."
[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060316-6399.html]
It seems likely to me that when Vista ships the Games for Windows branding will include a minimum performance rating recommended to run the software. The benchmarking tool even breaks down you score into categories, so it could say something like "Requires a 3 performance index of 3 with a 4 or higher in Gaming Graphics."
PS since the above quoted article was published, the tool has been rebranded "Windows Experience Index," and does contain a category labeled "Gaming Graphics"
A Reader @ Sep 18th 2006 10:23PM
Thanks for the link peregrine. Psaakryn, I "didn't get it" because that kind of information wasn't offered in this joystiq article. My comments were reasonable given what I read here first.
Zixaphir Kote Modnar @ Sep 18th 2006 10:25PM
:
Is Microsoft really THAT desperate to try Market Locking?
Louis S. @ Sep 18th 2006 10:26PM
As much as people bitch about it, having Live Anywhere syncing Xbox 360 and Vista gamers is smart move towards driving Vista PC sales, and most likely, Games for Windows too.
I like that they are trying to standardize it. One of the turn offs for me from PC gaming was that I never really knew what I needed for my PC.
I suspect a system like the one Psaakyrn mentioned would come into place, and that Vista would automatically reconize any updates to the system and tell you what PC "level" you're at.
But instead of what Psaakyrn mentioned, it'd be more like this:
XP Basic - Works with any XP running PC released after 2004.
XP Advance - Works with any PC running XP with Vista Basic hardware standards and DirectX 9.
Vista Basic - Works with any Vista PC.
Vista Advance - I wouldn't know
Vista Ultima - I wouldn't know
Vista Infinite - Constantly updated to fit modern requirements.
... I dunno, something that I just gave 2 or 3 seconds thought... I'm not a PC expert, so don't look at me.
junkie @ Sep 18th 2006 10:30PM
Hey, I for one welcome our new Games for Windows overlords.
Xel @ Sep 18th 2006 10:31PM
I saw the first Games of Windows today at Walmart, it was Lego Star Wars II.
dsub @ Sep 18th 2006 10:49PM
what some of you are asking for, simply cannot be done. The only way PC gaming could be as streamlined and user friendly as console gaming is if MS required developers have there games run at a certain set of minimum system requirements. That is the only way PC games will have the guaranteed compatibility that consoles have, and with the rate at which PC hardware and gaming advances technologically, we know this simply is not possible.
Lekko @ Sep 18th 2006 10:49PM
It can't really be "basic to advanced" Because hardware is always changing. HL2 USED to be "advanced" when it came out, now it would be considered basic?
It needs to be on a static scale, going from set steps from 1, up. The scale should be based on a simple program, to rate your PC's performance step rating. You download the program, run it on your PC, and it spits out a number. You can buy any game with that number or lower and it will work to some spec like say, 30fps on high @ xxx resolution.
The program would also help guide you with what is lacking in your PC and why it is rated where it is. i.e.- "you got a 7 because of poor memory usage, upgrade RAM."
With numbered steps, it can keep going up and progressing with technology, and games stay at whatever step they are originally rated at.
If they did it like that, it would make a LOT of sense, and be "no-duh" to the consumer. Run program, it gives you a number, you can buy any game at that number or lower. simple.
dsub @ Sep 18th 2006 10:54PM
Zixaphir Kote Modnar-
this isn't really an attempt at marketing as much as it is an attempt to gain back some of that precious shelf space for PC games at the EB Games/Gamestops of the world. Have you looked at the PC games section at game stores lately? It's cluttered, unorganized, and difficult to sort through.
As the creator of Windows, which IS the platform that all these games are developed for, it is MS' duty to see to it that there is a viable marketplace and retail support for PC gaming. If MS just leaves this up to the developers, we end up with a hodge-podge smorgisboard of scattered titles on a confusing (and ever decreasing) amount of shelf space. By creating a standard brand name for PC games to be marketed under, and creating an organized cover and box format the PC games section will quickly begin to appear more organized and consumer friendly, and hopefully PC games will win back some of the shelf space that they have lost.
There was once a time when the PC games section at my local EB was just as big as the Gamecube section, now it has been decreased to one measly shelf sporting maybe 50 different titles. Hell, EB has a better selection of DVD's than they do PC games, and that has to change for PC gaming to gain some ground.
taliesin-nine @ Sep 18th 2006 11:02PM
The biggest problem with PC games is not only that people don't have good enough computers to run the latest, greatest games, but these people also get turned off to PC gaming when they buy games that won't run on thier computers. I bought Company of Heroes just the other day at EBGames, and the guy at the store warned me that my computer may not run it and it's not returnable if your computer isn't good enough. If they have to say that, it must be horrible for sales.
What they need to do is make a simple system of numbers that apply to your PC's power in a few different areas and if a game had numbers lower in those areas it would run on your PC. It wouldn't be perfect cause it isn't that simple, but it would be a lot easier for the average consumer.
Also, publishers/developers need to stop fudging with their system specs, for some recent high-profile games like Oblivion, the minimum system specs initially displayed were too low. Lying to customers about this will hurt the PC gaming industry badly in the long run, even if it does make a few extra sales in the short term.
Oh, and Company of Heroes is a very good game, I reccommend it, if you know your computer can run it, that is. ;)
GeoFlame @ Sep 18th 2006 11:07PM
LOL wow...how come people dont look at the bottom of the box's it says the system requirments....SOOOOO easy, I thought everyone know about that but I guess not everyone has. They need to make a standerd required course in computers I mean if this many dont understand the simple terms and who things work then will get no where in the future, it really isnt as hard as it seems to learn about computers.
mountain_rage @ Sep 18th 2006 11:15PM
If you ask me they are just trying to lower peoples desire to get an apple. If anyone has noticed lately apple has been gaining alot of momentum with their home computers thanks to ipod as well as bootcamp. With this new threat I think microsoft is trying to make apple look less appealing to the masses.
Shogan @ Sep 18th 2006 11:25PM
I think it will help. A standard applied to games could make them competitive with the consoles moreso than they are today.
Lex @ Sep 18th 2006 11:33PM
@17 PC gaming is continously losing ground to the consoles. While hardcore pc gamers may not see it or may not want to see it all you have to do is go into your local game store.
Just this past weekend I went into a EB games looking for Dawn of War 40k and it was no where to be found and of the hundreds of games they had on the shelves they only had about 50 PC games on an isolated rack in the middle of the store.
Between competition with consoles and drop in the demand and number of PC games something like this is just what is needed. Any gamers don't by MACs because you can't upgrade them not just because they don't run windows.
Freakhead @ Sep 18th 2006 11:37PM
Wow I always got the pc and mac games mixed up.
And always had difficulty too reading the PC logo on the box and locating the Windows logo. :P
LIke most have said - this is bs. It ain't going to stop the main downfall of pcgaming which is that's it's a pain in the ass. I like playing my pc games, but it seems like there's always problems with games not working, sound f'n up, video having problems, crashes, yada yada yada. And it ain't going to stop your game from runninig crappy because it's an un-optimized 360 port or works better with the vidcard you don't have etc.
It's time for MS just to give in to the future and let games on the 360 support mouse/keyboard. I mean you notice how this Windows logo means you have to provide support for the 360 controller on the pc. Why not the other way around?
360 Desktop Games. That would be my logo for 360 games that support mouse/keyboard.
'course we know MS needs more money and are stuck on doing that by selling more copies of Windows.
Zixaphir Kote Modnar @ Sep 18th 2006 11:42PM
dsub --
Excuse my standing point here, but as I see it, Microsoft's losing a bit of its desktop market daily, not yet enough to be threatening to their profit, but other markets such as Linux and Mac ARE beginning to be viable threats, Linux mainly because its FREE.
Right now, Gaming IS pretty much Windows Exclusive, and Microsoft would like to keep it that way. Putting a big "WINDOWS" logo on the top of PC Games as a method of ensuring quality is a little bit like Nintendo's ole' "Seal of Quality", which mainly stated Nintendo controlled quality, hence locking out non-Nintendo games, sealing a Market for Nintendo. If a game is for, say, Linux, it aint gonna get this "for Windows" branding, and hence won't be found on the same shelves as "for Windows" games, which seemingly guaranty some form of quality.
Again, Market Locking in a sense, if only for the fact that as long as Windows is equal to Gaming, gamers will buy Windows. I'm thinking Microsoft doesn't want it any other way.
Kevin @ Sep 18th 2006 11:47PM
If you think Microsoft did this to stop the windfall of PCGaming you are very stupid.
They are trying to force down standards that shouldn't be in place. To force companies to make them Vista Capable only and have 360 controller support is stupid.
If you can't see, Microsoft is trying slowly but surely enough combine the xbox brand name and windows brand name into one. It will happen soon so they can boast it to be a 'TRUE' all entertainment system in everyones home.
Tim @ Sep 18th 2006 11:55PM
they'll come a day when you buy a PC game and if you hook up your 360 via a router, new content,levels etc etc will be available to either user.. kinda like the GBA with the GC.. what a horrible thought!
Ritz @ Sep 19th 2006 12:07AM
Lekko's idea makes the most sense. If the number system doesn't have a max cap, then implementing a system like that should be easy enough =(
frost @ Sep 19th 2006 12:15AM
Some of the conspiracy theories running through here are stupid.
Microsoft created a bunch of guidelines to help publishers and consumers buy games that will work on their PC. The key word in that sentence was 'Guidelines'. No-one is forcing publishers to use this system, but most of the big ones will, because they know that PC games in retail have been losing shelf space, and they know this will help them sell more games.
This initiative will also help consumers, a) because you will be able to buy games and know it will run on your 64bit/media centre version, b) you will get the benefit of that widesreen LCD display. Something that game makers have been lagging in supporting. Games branded in this manner will also allow parents know that they can set guidelines on their use for their kids (this might not be important to you, but this is a big issue for some).
Indy companies will still release titles in their own boxes, but if they see the benefit they will probably switch to the new packeging, mainly because they can do it without having to pay a licence fee.
After Vista hits, and Live anyware is released this system will probably be expanded to include Rating Numbers for Games performance, and a feature/icon list so you know by glancing at the back that the game is multiplayer etc.
These are all good things for consumers. No more buying a game to later find out it has no widescreen option, or that you bought the stupid multi-CD version instead of the DVD one you wanted.
And if it doesnt suit a publisher? they can do their own thing. Honestly, where is the downside here?
Mik @ Sep 19th 2006 12:22AM
As someone with a widescreen lcd and several gamepads, I think this is a great idea if it helps to encourage developers like EA to finally support that hardware. For example, NHL07 for PC supports neither. It limits my 12 button gamepad to 8 buttons, locks the left analog stick button to "pull goalie" so I'm constantly pulling my goalie by accident when I try to move any of the other players, and doesn't support widescreen resolutions. Seriously, these are not issues that a consumer should be facing when trying to play a brand new game.
Jarmyn @ Sep 19th 2006 12:22AM
@16: System requirements aren't always the definitive information one needs. I recently purchased Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines. My computer far exceeded the requirements printed on the box, but I later found out my graphics card actually wasn't up to snuff. My local EB Games manager knows me, so he took it back, but the point is that the box isn't always right.
James Yencken @ Sep 19th 2006 2:51AM
I wonder how much money will be extracted from the Publishers (and hence the developers) to license this branding from Microsoft?
Zixaphir Kote Modnar @ Sep 19th 2006 2:57AM
@25 --
While no one is being forced into using "for Windows" branding, it will soon become an advantage to have when you're locked out of the market for not meeting quality standards.
See this as ANOTHER ESRB tag. You don't have it, who's gonna buy? Everyone knows what Windows is -- they see it every time they boot up their PCs (Unless they use Mac or Linux), and if theres a bunch of games that say "for Windows" on them, then a few that don't, which games are they gonna buy?
foobob @ Sep 19th 2006 8:57AM
where's my "Games for Linux" label?!
Kevin @ Sep 19th 2006 9:04AM
I don't think there's any conspiracy here: The performance rating benchmarks don't have to run under Vista (especially considering that the benchmark out at the moment is to tell yo if you can run Vista well in the first place), and there's nothing to say that an equivalent benchmark can't be created for Linux and the Mac OS that will give the equivalent numbers for that platform. The only thing that needs to be changed on the box is that system name, and if the benchmarks are all calculated and weighted correctly for their respective platforms, then then numbers on the back of the box can stay the same.
The only thing is that the ratings must be well planned for them to hold their relevance in a couple of years time, otherwise we will end up with a tiered performance rating system, which would be counterproductive for everybody.
With only a few basic numbers to remember for their MSR, consumers can go in and be reasonably confident that the game they're buying will play as it should.
This is the only way that PC games are going to get back to the consumer market, rather than the enthusiasts and hardcore gamers (which is the way things seem to be heading). I know a few people who've bought games and ended up having to upgrade the graphics card or processor. They're not exactly inclined to start buying more games after that experience.
Even start to mention DirectX or Radeon to most end users and their eyes start to glaze over. This proposition could be a very good step to getting normal people back to playing games on computers rather than consoles. I imagine that publishers would like this, as the console manufacturers generally take a cut of the title's RRP, don't they?
While it is of course a strategy designed to benefit Microsoft at the expense of Sony and Nintendo, if it's picked up by other publishers and on other platforms, I believe there's nothing to say that it means Vista will be the only beneficiary. I would love to go into a shop and see some boxes with "Games for Linux" on them.
Kevin @ Sep 19th 2006 9:07AM
P.S. I know the post didn't say anything about individual system component ratings, but it would make sense to have an overall rating, and separate ratings for Graphics, CPU, Memory and Disk performance. How many people do you know get confused between Megabytes and Gigabytes?
LaughingTarget @ Sep 19th 2006 10:20AM
What Microsoft can do is offer a sort of system requirements "inflation" option. Developers can still use the 1-5 option in various categories and Vista can still offer this feature, but with an option to translate into specific dates. What games can do is list the month and year the specifications were listed on and you plug that month and year into your system. It will then give you what your system would be rated at when compared to that day in time. This eliminates the need to have a bunch of strange names and allows users to figure out if their system can run it or not.
jg @ Sep 19th 2006 10:28AM
kevin...who said msft was trying to just force xbox 360 controller compatiability. just because they are using that as their guidelines doesn't mean other controllers won't be supported. wireless 360 controllers, launching from media center, and widescreen support is great for a user like me. i don't play games at all, but i have a media center and will definitely buy madden 08, live 08, etc...only if they have that "games for windows" badge. now i can get my tivo functionality, music, pictures and games all in one box. how is this a bad thing?
uh_oh @ Sep 19th 2006 11:43AM
Im glad somethin is being done because it wasn't improving on its own.
KP @ Sep 19th 2006 11:57AM
Just to make it clear, the Kevin talking about the controller is not the same Kevin that's talking about the benchmarks (time to start using my full name or an alias...)
dsub @ Sep 19th 2006 12:13PM
Zixaphir Kote Modnar-
I can see where you are coming from, and can see apple perhaps gain a little ground in the PC war, but not linux. MS' logo still pops up on 98% of the home computers in the world, and there OS branch consistently sees higher profits. MS will continue to dominate the home PC arena until someone comes along who offers a better product at a lower OEM price to the big manufacturers. So until I can buy a dell/HP/gateway with Linux or Mac on it...MS will not be losing any ground. Apple's sales are hard to increase because they have created a niche market with Macs that really is only supported by Graphic Design companies and enthusiasts. Occasionally you get a person who has a mac as a home PC, but it's a rarity.
Also, if apple did start to gain ground, their current "we're virus and spyware free" ad campaign will no longer remain true. The biggest reason that windows is plauged with viruses and spyware is that 98% of the world uses it. I don't think people are going to spend that much time developing viruses or spyware to infect 2% of the home PC market.
As far as gaming goes, there really is no way to streamline the process...mostly due to the fact that it's an open market. There are hundreds of video card, ram, and motherboard manufacturers who sell thousands of variations of their products and it is nearly impossible to test a game for ALL these products. Who is to blame? Is it an issue with Direct X? Is it an issue with the hardware drivers? Is it an issue with the hardware itself? Is it an issue with the company not taking the time to fully optimize the game? You can point the finger any which way, but in the end, it's all of these things that add up to the reasons why PC gaming is not "consumer friendly". Therefore, if MS can at least figure out a way to streamline the system requirements and packaging guidelines they can at least do their part and help a little.
A good example on my part is when I originally purchased BF2 it WOULD NOT work well with my video card. I have an X800XT, and at the time it was the top of the line card. Yet the game would not run at anything over 1024x768 resolution on the lowest settings. Six months later EA released a patch that remedied my issue, but still...for six months I was forced to play a game on superior hardware in an inferior manner because EA took so long to patch the game. THAT is why PC gaming is on the downfall. People want reliability, and PC gaming just can't offer that right now.
mliving @ Sep 19th 2006 10:11PM
Who are they kidding. No amount of "branding" is going to save PC games from mass exstinction.
The problem lies in the platform NOT the brand. Branding is too often used as an inappropriate means to reposition a product that has failing and weaknesses well beyond branding.
PC gaming's problem lies with Windows. Period. Multiple configurations do NOTHING but confuse and water the "Windows" brand down. Not to mention cause a greater number of casual gamers to walk away from a potential purchase because they're too embarassed to ask the store clerk for assistance thinking they might look stupid.
Make your market segment feel or look stupid and you'll eventually alienate them to the point where they WILL find more personally suited alternatives.
Henk Boom @ Sep 29th 2006 1:46AM
The first thing I think about this is: how will they leverage this to manipulate developers and publishers? I could just imagine their reply to the makers of Unreal Tournament 2004:
"Sorry, we can't give you the Games for Windows label unless you remove all unapproved software from your disk."
Read as:
"Get rid of the linux native version or else you don't get onto windows gaming shelves."