
We recently sat down with Games for Windows (GFW) Marketing Director Kevin Unangst and PR Manager Michael Wolf for a brief pre-launch tour of gaming on Vista. Admittedly, the implementation hasn't changed much since we first previewed Vista nearly a year ago. Even so, from a GUI-perspective, Vista features a user-friendly central location for cataloging, accessing, and tweaking (settings, parental controls, updating, etc.) GFW-branded games -- non-GFW games won't necessarily be excluded, but they won't feature many of the required functionalities built into the branded titles.
Games for Windows is still very much a vision. The first priority, a retail initiative, is currently underway. By employing marketing strategies used by console makers, namely platform-branding, Microsoft hopes that PC gaming (under the 'Games for Windows' banner) will become less intimidating to mainstream consumers -- no longer will the PC games isle be a cluttered mess of disparate titles. Computer Gaming World was also renamed as Games For Windows to help drive Microsoft's new brand. Aside from retail consolidation, this branding will ensure certain requirements are met by games' publishers. To earn the GFW brand, a title must comply with certain Microsoft-tested specifications, including widescreen support, compatibility with the Xbox 360 controller, parental control features, and simple installation. GFW games will also begin to carry a system rating, based on a 5-point scale. Vista will assess the value of your PC's gaming abilities and assign a rating (or "WinSAT"), say 4.5. You can then weigh that rating against a game's recommended rating (example: 5.0) and its required rating (example: 3.5) before purchasing. Update: The scale will begin at five points, but is designed to grow as newer technologies enter the market.

For console gamers, especially Xbox 360 owners, the most intriguing aspect of gaming on Vista is 'Live Anywhere.' Unfortunately, Xbox Live awareness won't be built into the initial release of Vista. Instead, it will gradually be tested on the Windows platform via launch titles like Shadowrun and Halo 2. Both these games will be fully integrated into Xbox Live -- Shadowrun will feature cross-platform multiplayer, while Halo 2 will be limited to cross-platform communication (messaging, invites, voice-chat, etc.) -- and will include achievement points (added to your pre-existing Gamerscore); we should note that achievements points can't be doubled for cross-platform titles. If you own Shadowrun for Xbox 360 and PC, you can only unlock any given achievement once (per Gamertag) between the two versions. To enhance cross-platform mingling, certain elements of 360's GUI will be included in Live-enabled PC games, like a version of the 'Guide-button' interface, but the hope is that eventually the core elements of 360's GUI will be offered as a free Windows application, capable of running without a game (à la the 360 Dashboard).
By making gaming a priority in the Vista experience, Microsoft is molding a powerful pairing of the Games for Windows and Xbox 360 brands. To some extent, this is based on a hope that Live Anywhere will be embraced by GFW developers and publishers, pulling Xbox Live (and your Gamertag) outside of the 'Box, in turn encouraging an unrivaled virtual community. But there are simpler touches that also spark our interest. For example, start up Vista's Minesweeper, connect your 360 controller, and enjoy a subtle rumble each time you slip up. It's the melding with the familiar that will drive new and lost consumers to the Games for Windows brand.
But how will the Games for Windows invasion affect the comfort level of core PC gamers who appreciate the intricacies of the machines Microsoft is trying to simplify (at least, from a consumer perspective)? Some will certainly shun its arrival, but as the GFW brand grows to encompass Live Anywhere, others will happily embrace the competition; that is, the opportunity to take on their controller wielding counterparts. Are the keyboard n' mouse mightier than the gamepad? This argument may finally be settled, but Microsoft will have to overcome the Xbox Live subscription dilemma first.
While it's been confirmed that pre-existing Xbox Live Gold members can extend their memberships to PC usage, it's unclear how Microsoft will woo PC gamers who aren't tied into Live through Xbox 360. As standards go, PC gamers have longed enjoyed online multiplayer for free -- though certain titles, like World of Warcraft, demand monthly subscription rates that well-exceed Live's asking price. "We're not crazy enough to think that people will suddenly start paying $50 a year to get something they already get for free on Windows ... all I can say now is that we're working to make a Gold membership worthwhile even if you're only connecting to Live from Windows Vista," Wolf hinted slyly.
It's a risk. The Games for Windows strategy is on the verge of being schizophrenic. Can the cumbersome PC gaming experience really be simplified down to a console scheme? There are just too many freedoms and variations that exist in the PC universe to accurately interpret the PC as "the console that everybody already owns." It's not that simple. So is GFW a trick? Is Microsoft trying to lure back some of the consumers that were lost when Xbox was launched (an initiative that cannibalized PC gaming sales by design)?
The answer, like the Games For Windows vision, is not so clear. But there is most certainly the opportunity for Microsoft to create something very special. A cross-platform community where you and I can jump from Xbox to PC to our cell phones seamlessly. Anywhere.











(Page 1) Reader Comments
Reply
Really? A 5-point scale? I thought the scale wouldn't have a limit, and would keep on going up in order to be compatible with future high-tech games which might surpass level 5. Otherwise, once we get to level 5, and then a game with twice the requirements come out, the system is screwed!
Reply
I also like the "must-have" features, but question whether the 360 controller support should be a "must". There are a lot of games where I don't think it fits as well as a flight stick, or maybe a mouse and keyboard. Again, clear labelling of input support would accomplish just as much. Certainly, the standardization on the (undeniably awesome) 360 controller will be a huge boon.
Reply
thatd be awesome!
:)
Reply
Is it me or is that an incredibly idiotic example? So I'll pay 50 bucks to hook up a controller to my computer to play a game with an inferior input device -just- so I can feel a tiny rumble when I screw up? Yeeeah, the future is certainly amazing.
Reply
to accomplish their goal yes it must have xbox 360 controler support. why? casue they want a seamless and consitent experience for all games on the brand. These games will have full keyboard/mouse support but lets those casual console types be able to game on their pc and have the same experience as if they were using a xbox 360.
thats their goal. to merge the 2 platforms and give users the choice. buy a gaming rig and game with and like the console community. to do that u need to support the controler of the console. Now ms really needs to let keyboard/mouse support be a part of the xbox 360 and it really becomes about choice. for me i like havung a dedicated gamiung machine so the console is good for me but this allows others who like their set ups be a part of the platform and still maintain that control that pc gaming is.
Reply
50 bucks? what are u talking bout? theres a widnows controler, a basic xbox 360 controler, for 20 bucks. it was an example of controler integration. the ket here is now those consoel touches like rumble and seamless plu and play are in the os even at the simplist level ie minesweeper
Reply
I mean, how long can it take to sit and copy a Mac OS ?
Reply
Reply
Assuming any of that made sense. Makes sense in my head, it's just putting it into words that's hard.
#8: Try programming some time. I think you'll understand why it takes bloody forever. It's amazing Microsoft can pull it off with as few bugs as they wind up with, really (and that's taking into account that yes, the things are frequently buggy as hell - but they could be so much, much worse).
Reply
The way I see it, people that are pirating windows are probably pirating games too. PC games NEED a standardized way of doing things if they're going to survive. It's far to easy to open up a P2P application and search for a pre-cracked, serial-included PC game. How can we expect to keep getting material when so many people are just stealing it.
Here's hoping they find a way to keep piracy down. The threat of taking away a Live Membership is pretty good incentive.
"Is it me or is that an incredibly idiotic example? So I'll pay 50 bucks to hook up a controller to my computer to play a game with an inferior input device -just- so I can feel a tiny rumble when I screw up? Yeeeah, the future is certainly amazing."
-David D
I don't know what your problem is. If you're citing the 50$ Live membership or the 50$ controller, either way you seem kind of dumb. I think everyone knows there's no '-just-' about this.
Reply
Reply
Reply
You must really be Super Stupid.
Apple has "copied" MS on many features in the past, just as MS has copied Apple.
Both Vista and Leopard appear to continue that tradition.
Who cares?
We all get a better OS in the end.
Reply
I mean, how long can it take to sit and copy a Mac OS ?"
Considering that this article is all about Games, I consider a Mac Fanboy negative comment extremely ironic.
Reply
Not really matey, i just object to having to wait while Microsoft taking so long to complete the job when they're not exactly building it from the ground up without any pointers. How long's it been again ?
Reply
Reply
My roommate is a PC gamer, and it seems all he plays are FPS. I would rather play games on my console really. Thats why I am a Mac user.
Yes, many of us OS X users will point out every single thing that Vista has stolen from OS X.
To tell the truth, I don't think anyone really cares about Vista. This new Games For Windows thing seems to be a trick to force gamers to use Vista. I have yet to talk to a person who wants Vista, let alone even knows there IS a new Windows version.
Reply
Reply
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3121/windowsexperienceiez9.png
I don't think it's a 5 point scale. In fact, I don't think there is a limit at all... but I can't be sure. A limit just doesn't make sense, or isn't really needed.
I do look forward to the simplified categorization, however.
Reply
FTW!
Reply
Reply
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/15/gears-selling-like-its-supposed-too/#c2927842
I don't really like this whole make PC gaming exactly like the 360 policy. So if Games for Windows are all going to be compatible with the Xbox 360 controller, have a gamerscore, and tons of games will be available for both platforms (Bioshock, Alan Wake), why should I get the Xbox 360 version? If I was already a PC gamer with a nice enough system, why would I play a game that might even look worse on an Xbox 360? Especially with games $50 instead of $60, and the hinted at cheaper Xbox Live price for the PC. I feel like they are hurting their console brethren.
Reply
What does this even mean? The article is about how MS is trying to simplify stuff through really cool ideas and integration, and suddenly the author throws this in there. This sounds like a fantastic idea and I have no idea how it's on the verge of being "schizophrenic" (which only is a correct usage of the word in a colloquial sense).
Reply
Reply
Nearly all recently released games keep their configs and saves in "My Documents" folder.
"I feel like they are hurting their console brethren."
Oh the horror! Right now, the XBox is doing better than PC as a gaming platform. Frankly, I don't care if it hurts console sales(which it probably won't), as long as the PC market sees a resurgence.
And what's more, somehow I am sure that Microsoft will put even more of its marketing muscle behind Games for Windows once it sees the most likely disappointing sales of Vista-since the primary early adopters for it will be PC gamers, and Windows sales are the primary source of financing for Microsoft's other projects(like, you know, the XBox).
Reply
I think you misunderstood this requirement. A "Games for Windows" title has to support an XBox controller ONLY if it supports gamepads at all. Company of Heroes, a "Games for Windows" title, being an RTS doesn't have gamepad support at all.
Reply
I will pay for an mmo, but i could care less about gamer stats, an AOL interface, and for what i consider "crap". If i want a community its easy enough to create one on the pc. I dont want to have to pay the MS tax to play Half Life online.
Reply
Reply
Well, fittingly, it's on Vista.
"Apple has "copied" MS on many features in the past, just as MS has copied Apple.
Both Vista and Leopard appear to continue that tradition.
Who cares?"
YAY... look, it's the invisible hand-- er... I mean, "who cares!"
Dude, I'm waiting for those examples of how Leopard looks a lot like XP..
Oh wait, I should know this, since I'm a Mac user, I've been lusting after XP for.. er.. 5 years now.. LOL
Reply
Reply
Again not that this plan doesnt have its merits but i dont like the idea of MS controlling almost every aspect of gaming like they do with OS
Reply
Reply
Seriously i would have thought someone would have thought this out people they started the whole thing. They have to pick either one or the other (unless they stop the subscription for live and make it all free)
Reply
Reply
PC gaming does not nor will ever need a savior. It is exactly because there is very little barrier to entry that there will always be new, neat, amazing, and entertaining titles on the PC. Having this MS authorized games for windows label will only hurt studios that don't want to pony up to MS's extortion.
MS wants another secure revenue stream and this is just another monopoly tactic that won't even be questioned until the smoking remains of another free market lies in the wake of Microsoft's corporate juggernaut.
It'll change PC gaming alright. It'll hem it in, stick it in a cage where the only titles that can be successful have MS's name on the corner of the box. But it's great news for those stock holders.
God I'm so disgusted right now...
Reply
All this "initiative" is, is Microsoft flexing their monopolistic muscles. They're going to attempt to make all PC games into X-Box 360 games. No "standard" would consist of compatibility with ONE certain console controller.
This is a sad, sad joke. Microsoft is trying to do to the console wars the exact same thing it did with the browser wars in the 90's.
"To earn the GFW brand, a title must comply with certain Microsoft-tested specifications, including widescreen support, compatibility with the Xbox 360 controller, parental control features, and simple installation."
Pathetic.
Reply
As for post #38 - Blizzard started out with console games. Look it up.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
It's probably the reason halo 2 won't be playable together between the systems. At least I hope so.
Take for example Unreal Tournament 2007 - would you want to play with a controller against someone with a mouse? Hell no.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The best thing about PC gaming is that, unlike consoles, I can grab gcc and some other free tools and make a game if I want to. Then, I can sell it. Nobody *owns* the PC, it's an open platform for development and use.
MS would have you believe that THEY own the PC (of course they don't like the name "PC", they prefer if you call it "Windows"). And they're trying damn hard to enforce it. Creating this shitty "Games for Windows" scam is just trying to prevent anyone from making PC games without their approval (money, licensing fees, etc). In short, they want to control PC gaming like they control Xbox gaming.
Sure, I can still make games with GCC and ignore this brand. But how long until the *next* version of Windows (or, of course, a simple mandatory Vista update) deems that all games must be certified or will not run.
You have to admire their skill at Monopoly.
Reply
1) As mentioned above, they started out with console games.
2) StarCraft Ghost is *still* in development hell.
3) When was the last time they made a game that hasn't resulted in them just sitting back, raking in money and releasing a bit of content now and then? Blizzard as a games developer died years ago - Where are StarCraft 2 & some new properties?
Nah, they're just a massive lethargic monolithic entity now, content to just sit back and pump out incremental updates to their cash-cow MMORPG.
Reply
Reply
Hate it: They came so close with the internet connectivity and sharing of Mii characters to giving us something so great the other consoles could go in the trash, BUT WHY DIDN'T THEY GO THE EXTRA YARD AND ALLOW ONLINE PLAY OF THE Wii Sports GAMES??? I cried like a little baby for hours after I hooked it up and found this out. The pain is too horrible to put into words.
Reply
Reply