Games for Windows Vista: how the new brand & OS will change PC gaming [update 1]
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Dec 18th 2006 at 11:55AM }
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.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
SuperStupid @ Dec 18th 2006 12:30PM
Jesus, Longhorn is finally getting released. At long, bloody last.
I mean, how long can it take to sit and copy a Mac OS ?
Antonio @ Dec 18th 2006 12:12PM
I'm excited about Games for Windows. It will give me a chance to get games outside of my XBOX 360 that I want to play and still be able to use my 360 controller. Plus, I think standartization is good when PC gaming can be complex (driver updated, etc.)
Lucas @ Dec 18th 2006 12:12PM
"GFW games will also begin to carry a system rating, based on a 5-point scale"
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!
David D @ Dec 18th 2006 12:24PM
"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."
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.
Erwos @ Dec 18th 2006 12:21PM
I like it. One of the things that drove me to console gaming was that system requirements were starting to not only get out of control, but too complex to handle - is my X800XT good enough to play this game? What if it's a 6600XT? Certainly, there will have to be some sort of scaling to the ratings (separate video and audio scores, per-year scaling), but that alone is good.
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.
John @ Dec 18th 2006 12:24PM
itd be cool if ms brought out games that could be played on both the 360 and pc!
thatd be awesome!
:)
Lefty @ Dec 18th 2006 12:29PM
Erwos
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.
Josh @ Dec 18th 2006 12:57PM
"Jesus, Longhorn is finally getting released. At long, bloody last.
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.
Lefty @ Dec 18th 2006 12:29PM
david d
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
Pomme @ Dec 18th 2006 12:35PM
@ Lucas > As we've already seen with the first beta of Vista, the rating system is going to change and evolve to match the "standard" hardware that's inside most of users' computer. Meaning that a GeForce 8800 + C2D E6800 may have a 5 today, but would have a 3 in 2 years, when the rating system will be updated.
azesino @ Dec 18th 2006 12:40PM
Someone that I know at a Microsoft Branch in Fort Lauderdale told me that one of the big M secrets haven't been reveled and it will be HYBRID GAMES witch means the same DVD's will play on both PC's and 360's under a totally different logo, He also told me that Shadowrun will be the first to implement this and it will be realesed as a test subject because no body really buy games for PC'S that cost $60, but hey in reality you are buying 2 games for one.
Shadow Hog @ Dec 18th 2006 12:39PM
#2: I assume things will continuously get re-rated as time goes on. Not on an individual basis, mind, but what the standards are for a 5-star computer as opposed to, say, a 2-star, and their relation to what 5- and 2- star computers were a year ago. Once the new rating is in place, games that were a 5-star computer last year would now ship with a 3-star computer rating, since that's what last-year's computer ranks as today.
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).
Tim @ Dec 18th 2006 12:40PM
If you try out Vista you'll see that it already rates your system. The 'scale' isn't a scale at all. It's more of a Performance Number. My processor is a lowly number like 2 or something, my Memory is a happy higher number, and my graphics card is a 4. They have no limits, though.
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.
Contra666 @ Dec 18th 2006 12:50PM
#8
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.
azesino @ Dec 18th 2006 12:49PM
From what I have red it will take at least 2 years to reach the level 5, so there really is not a problem in 2 years they just have to up the scale to 10 and leave all the same implementations in place.
SuperStupid @ Dec 18th 2006 1:09PM
Josh,
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 ?
Austin @ Dec 18th 2006 1:22PM
If MS decides to not charge for Live on computer then I'm switching and using my 360 controller on the computer. More likely is that they will charge or stop charging for Live on 360. If the pay for downloaded media works out, the gaming features could be used as a pushing strategy for the media. $50 a year for live could be offset by rental money like free hardware from comcast to get OnDemand dollars.
geekjutsu @ Dec 18th 2006 1:24PM
I never really got PC gaming much.
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.
Andrew @ Dec 18th 2006 1:34PM
I'd like to see Games for Windows support some sort of unified save game system. I change hardware frequently and reinstall a fresh copy of Windows often. It's a pain to have to hunt down and backup the save files from all the various games I have installed. It is comforting to know that if I ever want to revisit a game I haven't played for years on my Gamecube, I can pick up where I left off. Some type of system (maybe as simple as a visible Saved Games folder) on the PC would go quite a ways towards creating a more console-like experience on the PC.
Ritz @ Dec 18th 2006 1:37PM
Uhmm? Windows must think my graphics capabilities are just too smoking hot then?
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.
snoopdiggity @ Dec 18th 2006 1:42PM
You can't polish a terd!
FTW!
James @ Dec 18th 2006 1:51PM
Not crazy about *requiring* controller support -- the great thing about the PC is that it supports games that you just couldn't do right on a console. Consider some MMOs that have 90% of a 105-key keyboard mapped to an important function -- how would you replicate this on a ~12-button controller? Do you really want to use a gamepad to run Command and Conquer? What about games that require frequent text input -- will they *have* to support an onscreen keyboard? Ugh! I hope they were exagerating when they said it was a "requirement" to support the controller -- I would hate to see such a thing keep an otherwise-excellent game out of MS's new walled garden.
Judd @ Dec 18th 2006 1:59PM
As I've said before,
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.
ZacharyVladamir @ Dec 18th 2006 2:14PM
"The Games for Windows strategy is on the verge of being schizophrenic"
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).
Footlong! @ Dec 18th 2006 2:22PM
does anyone else worry that this will cut into the 360's sales? if you've got game that are on both platforms, offer the same service, play with the same community, canuse the same controller, but one is (in time) on a notably more powerful machine what's gonna happen?
Autocrawler @ Dec 18th 2006 3:03PM
"Some type of system (maybe as simple as a visible Saved Games folder) on the PC would go quite a ways towards creating a more console-like experience on the PC."
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).
uh_oh @ Dec 18th 2006 3:18PM
Nah it wont cut into sales, pc is a very different animal from 360, if anything it'll just make it more user friendly.
Autocrawler @ Dec 18th 2006 3:10PM
"Not crazy about *requiring* controller support -- the great thing about the PC is that it supports games that you just couldn't do right on a console."
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.
MagusDF @ Dec 18th 2006 3:14PM
I think the performance ratings will definitely bring in more gamers to the pc crowd as most causal gamers have a pc but feel they’ve been burned in the past with games that show poor performance or just flat out dont run on avg pcs. MS put in auto prioritization so it auto bumps games up to high from normal priority which is a plus to many people. But if they think to charge for online play they’re going to be hurting their market seriously.
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.
Matt @ Dec 19th 2006 7:42PM
@22, James, they aren't requiring ALL games to support the 360 controller. They are just stating that if a game supports/requires a controller, that the 360 one is supported.
mike @ Dec 18th 2006 3:21PM
"Games for Windows is still very much a vision"
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
uh_oh @ Dec 18th 2006 3:26PM
I highly doubt theyll charge for live service. I just cant see it happening, all pc games are not controlled by one place.
riskbreaker @ Dec 18th 2006 3:30PM
You know what is kinda of funny? it is good and all that MS is trying to make PC gaming more simple with this but end the end they are not giving the consumer more choices. if this takes off, PC gaming will almost essentially be a MS platform. all games would have to pass their standards and work with their equipment.
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
NES @ Dec 18th 2006 4:10PM
This should of been done last century ago...
KineticOnline @ Dec 18th 2006 4:29PM
Cheaper games and possibly free live? Not a chance if MS try to pull that they will kill the 360. On the other hand if they try to charge PC gamers for multiplayer then GFW will fail totally and the only games sold will be non GFW games.
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)
Latin Hobbit @ Dec 18th 2006 4:29PM
It is likely that you won't need an Xbox Live Gold account to play PC games online. The main reason you have to pay for it on the 360 is because MS runs ALL of the servers that host you online matches, whereas on the PC those servers are run by the publisher, fan sites, clans, etc. And it seems, judging from comments in the article, that MS has realised ( and they don't seem to like it ) this and are looking at other ways to make money off PC users ( DL content, pay for patches, etc ).
Moogle @ Dec 18th 2006 4:56PM
I for one do ***NOT*** welcome our authorization and licensing fee pressuring overlords. This does little to help me personally. The best argument is a resurgence of PC gaming will bring more games and I don't believe that tripe for a second.
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...
mgrinshpon @ Dec 18th 2006 10:26PM
I'm on the Vista Ultimate (Release Version) right now, and I can say it's amazing. This new games for Windows thing is even better. I love it. Go Microsoft!
Pete C. @ Dec 18th 2006 6:14PM
This doesn't have anything to do with "revitalizing" the PC game market. World of Warcraft alone already proved that games are doing just fine on the PC. Blizzard is one of the best game publishers out there, a household name amongst gamers. What was the last console game they made? Oh that's right, THEY HAVEN'T!
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.
BelgarathTAO @ Dec 18th 2006 7:24PM
Just a couple of quick comments - The scale will have to definately expand, or they would have to re-scale the games. If not, a game coming out today requiring a 5 will still be a 5 3 years from now, and if the scale doesn't go up, an average PC may be labled as a 3, even if it could run circles around today's games.
As for post #38 - Blizzard started out with console games. Look it up.
BigMikeN @ Dec 19th 2006 10:12AM
Read between the lines people. Microsoft is trying to put themselves between you and companies like blizzard and therefore in the money channel. 7 millions subscriptions, they want a piece.
ozone @ Dec 19th 2006 11:58PM
Love it: I used to play a lot of tennis when I was a kid, and I have to say, this console and the wand are an amazing achievement. My wife, who hates the XBox and Playstation even plays with the Wii (no pun intended Nintendo).
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.
n3ldan @ Dec 18th 2006 10:22PM
did I miss something, or do you need a wired controller to hook it up with the pc?
Chris @ Dec 20th 2006 1:33AM
What everyone here is failing to see is that the X-Box is really just a PC that uses your TV as a monitor. Microsoft has been using the X-Box as a means to penetrate the home market with a package that is "cool" and they have. It is the first computer put out by Microsoft and it will eventually compete directly with the Mac hardware, like they just came out with the Zune. I own both Mac and PC, the Mac is now for all intents and purposes a PC. It runs on Intel processors and in fact runs it's own OS slower than the OSX hack that runs on a PC. Microsoft is only inching into the last market niche that it seemingly forgot to get into - HARDWARE! by making these games compatible to both PC and X-Box they protect the consumer from having to upgrade once the X-Box gaming system becomes the central hub for home computing, internet, entertainment, television, and yes it will still be capable of games. Fusion and market penetration... Brilliant for MS, but will they allow third party vendors to continue making PC parts (which is why the Mac will never truely catch on with the serious computer crowd, not enough DIY and it holds your hand a bit too much). That's my observation and I have had this theory since the X-Box first came out.
Pirateinmymind @ Dec 19th 2006 2:35AM
Why are so many people reading this as a bad thing. It's not like every game playable on windows for now on has to be a "game for windows." As mentioned earlier not all games have this capability. I for one welcome our live anywhere overlords. I believe this is the best thing MS could do. I love the 360 controller on Windows the next logical step was compatibility to games with the xbox. I don't see any negative consequences.
Thomas @ Dec 19th 2006 4:02AM
What I don't want to see is both versions of e.g. FPS'es play on the same servers.. There's no way you can aim as fast or as precisely with a gamepad compared to a mouse.
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.
dextro @ Dec 19th 2006 8:37AM
so when a new RTS comes out it will only be a "game for windows" if I am able to play it with a 360 gamepad? Yeah, this is fair I can see... [/irony]
pat @ Dec 19th 2006 8:51AM
I'm not going to pay to play on a Windows service for what I have free and can setup anywhere I have a computer and a high speed connection. That counter-intuitive. The ship sailed many moon's ago and for the PC gamer's sake I hope Microsoft fails. To the same ends, I think PC gamer's are more technically inclined than their console counterparts. Condesning games down into a GUI interface is one of many sure signs that the hackability of games is going to flounder. While Microsoft may be the dominant player to determine the direction of PC gaming, they forget that the PC gamers ultimately makes the choice. To inhibit them or lock them to a platform while chanting innovation is just blind ignorance and another strategy to monopolize and capitalize on something they don't get.
Matt Giuca @ Dec 19th 2006 12:09PM
I'd like to thank the... 2... people who have seen this farce for what it is. I am disgusted with MS (yet again) and with all of the people who just said "cool".
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.
Thomas @ Dec 20th 2006 1:51AM
I rather admire your tinfoil hat capabilities Matt. Oh and everyone can develop for the Xbox 360 now with XNA, nice try though.
And if you don't like it on windows, go use linux, or bsd or whatever, nobody is forcing you to stay. Doors over there.