Counting Rupees: The Network is the Platform
Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks contribute Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:

"The Network is the Computer" - John Gage, Sun Microsystems, 1984
When John Gage said this in 1984 it was a fairly controversial statement. Computers were getting smarter and more powerful and seemed to be moving away from the DUMB terminals of the past to more application-oriented, personal computing. At the time, most people probably weren't considering that an incredibly powerful, pervasive, interconnected web of servers and computers allowing for petabytes of data all over the world to be stored, accessed, manipulated and interacted with, would be used by more than 20% of the world's population, and nearly 75% of the US population. Looking at where we are today, his words seem fairly prescient. Not that the technology and power in computers hasn't also been improving at an astonishing rate, but there's certainly been a shift in how people use computers as internet penetration has increased. After all, would things like the iPhone or EeePC or Mini 12s or email terminals really serve much of a purpose if not for their ability to connect to a network?
So, what does this really have to do with gaming? Well, there's certainly been some interest in creating web games, ranging from incredibly simple but fun diversions like Desktop Tower Defense, to more complex first-person shooters like Fallen Empire: Legions or the Quake 3: Arena remake, Quake Live. But this is really just the start.
Recently, people have been mostly puzzled as to why Microsoft would continue to try and keep "Games for Windows Live" alive when it was so unpopular when it launched. Indeed, people were not very interested in paying for services that they were already used to getting for free. A few months ago, Microsoft had to scrap the idea of making people pay for the service and now, more recently, it has launched a new client for it. Judging from the response, it doesn't seem like most people care about the service. What's Microsoft thinking here?
Convergence.
This means a few different things. To begin with, digitally downloadable content, both large and small, is now being regularly served. Both Sony and Microsoft have been releasing past console content on their machines, and Sony has actually moved on to full-blown PS3 releases, including the previously disc-only game, Burnout Paradise. There are now some rumblings indicating that Microsoft may intend to do the same.
While it's unlikely that the next generation of consoles will completely forgo disc-based media, downloads are quickly becoming a much bigger part of the experience. Some games, such as Rock Band 2 and Gears of War 2, are now shipping with codes for free downloads. This isn't because the publishers like you and want to give you free stuff. It's part of a larger strategy to increase the importance of the online presence, where content can be tightly controlled and decrease the importance of physical media, and thus, used-game sales and rentals. Once a code is used it essentially ties the content to your online account and therefore a secondhand buyer will not be able to take advantage of it. Eventually, the same will likely be true for all content, even if it doesn't specifically require you to enter a code. Both online and disc media will act in exactly the same way by registering a specific game to your account, making the disc itself virtually worthless. We already have this in the PC-space with services like Steam. Whether you buy a Valve game in a store or through Steam itself, you still end up having to register your product through Steam, and launching your product through Steam.
The benefit of this, of course, is the ability to play your games anywhere you have access to your Steam account, or the ability to simply re-download whatever registered games you want on the service for as long as the service exists (even if you lose your original CDs/DVDs). With so much content already downloaded to 360 hard drives, I imagine Microsoft's customers probably wouldn't be too happy to lose all of that content with a new console release. Because of the fact that this kind of content will no longer be able to be sold or handed down so easily anymore (unlike consoles of old), backwards compatibility, at the very least for downloaded content, will probably become much more important. But at the same time, it's very likely that Microsoft (and Sony) will be moving in a direction that ties games to specific accounts rather than to a disc, just as Steam does already.
But this is where Games for Windows Live comes in and potentially gives Microsoft a major advantage in the next generation of console wars (over Sony, anyway ... Nintendo is a matter for another column). Microsoft already allows some interaction between Games for Windows Live and Xbox Live users, including a few games that have cross-platform multiplayer available. The next step would be for Microsoft to actually leverage its Windows platform and allow Xbox games to be played directly on a PC. This could possibly start with a client that allows some Xbox Live Arcade games to be played on Windows, but eventually Microsoft could support full releases on it as well. They could offer a certification that allows computers to be advertised as "Xbox-compatible" to ensure that particular machines could run new Xbox-branded games (Microsoft could even make it a requirement to run the games). Then Xbox users would have the freedom to basically take their games anywhere ... On their TV, a friend's TV, their desktop PC, maybe even a laptop. As long as they can login to their Live account, they can access their games. Suddenly, Microsoft doesn't need the money from "Games for Windows Live". They can just get it from "Xbox Live" users, whether they are PC or console users.
In this way, "Xbox Live" ends up being the standard. Yes, a specific kind of hardware configuration would also be required and could even evolve, but the real access to running your games comes from Xbox Live. The network is the platform.
As co-editors of A Link To The Future, Geoff and Jeff like to discuss, among many other topics, the business aspects of gaming. Game companies often make decisions that on their face appear baffling, or even infuriating, to many gamers. Yet when you think hard about them from the company's perspective, many other decisions are eminently sensible, or at least appeared to be so based on the conditions at the time those choices were made. Our goal with this column is to start a conversation about just those topics. While neither Geoff nor Jeff are employed in the game industry, they do have professional backgrounds that are relevant to the discussion. More to the point, they don't claim to have all the answers -- but this is a conversation worth having. You can reach them at

When John Gage said this in 1984 it was a fairly controversial statement. Computers were getting smarter and more powerful and seemed to be moving away from the DUMB terminals of the past to more application-oriented, personal computing. At the time, most people probably weren't considering that an incredibly powerful, pervasive, interconnected web of servers and computers allowing for petabytes of data all over the world to be stored, accessed, manipulated and interacted with, would be used by more than 20% of the world's population, and nearly 75% of the US population. Looking at where we are today, his words seem fairly prescient. Not that the technology and power in computers hasn't also been improving at an astonishing rate, but there's certainly been a shift in how people use computers as internet penetration has increased. After all, would things like the iPhone or EeePC or Mini 12s or email terminals really serve much of a purpose if not for their ability to connect to a network?
So, what does this really have to do with gaming? Well, there's certainly been some interest in creating web games, ranging from incredibly simple but fun diversions like Desktop Tower Defense, to more complex first-person shooters like Fallen Empire: Legions or the Quake 3: Arena remake, Quake Live. But this is really just the start.
Recently, people have been mostly puzzled as to why Microsoft would continue to try and keep "Games for Windows Live" alive when it was so unpopular when it launched. Indeed, people were not very interested in paying for services that they were already used to getting for free. A few months ago, Microsoft had to scrap the idea of making people pay for the service and now, more recently, it has launched a new client for it. Judging from the response, it doesn't seem like most people care about the service. What's Microsoft thinking here?
Convergence.
This means a few different things. To begin with, digitally downloadable content, both large and small, is now being regularly served. Both Sony and Microsoft have been releasing past console content on their machines, and Sony has actually moved on to full-blown PS3 releases, including the previously disc-only game, Burnout Paradise. There are now some rumblings indicating that Microsoft may intend to do the same.
"It's part of a larger strategy to increase the importance of the online presence, where content can be tightly controlled ..." |
The benefit of this, of course, is the ability to play your games anywhere you have access to your Steam account, or the ability to simply re-download whatever registered games you want on the service for as long as the service exists (even if you lose your original CDs/DVDs). With so much content already downloaded to 360 hard drives, I imagine Microsoft's customers probably wouldn't be too happy to lose all of that content with a new console release. Because of the fact that this kind of content will no longer be able to be sold or handed down so easily anymore (unlike consoles of old), backwards compatibility, at the very least for downloaded content, will probably become much more important. But at the same time, it's very likely that Microsoft (and Sony) will be moving in a direction that ties games to specific accounts rather than to a disc, just as Steam does already.
"The next step would be for Microsoft to actually leverage its Windows platform and allow Xbox games to be played directly on a PC." |
In this way, "Xbox Live" ends up being the standard. Yes, a specific kind of hardware configuration would also be required and could even evolve, but the real access to running your games comes from Xbox Live. The network is the platform.
As co-editors of A Link To The Future, Geoff and Jeff like to discuss, among many other topics, the business aspects of gaming. Game companies often make decisions that on their face appear baffling, or even infuriating, to many gamers. Yet when you think hard about them from the company's perspective, many other decisions are eminently sensible, or at least appeared to be so based on the conditions at the time those choices were made. Our goal with this column is to start a conversation about just those topics. While neither Geoff nor Jeff are employed in the game industry, they do have professional backgrounds that are relevant to the discussion. More to the point, they don't claim to have all the answers -- but this is a conversation worth having. You can reach them at











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mr Khan @ Dec 16th 2008 6:13PM
A pretty good summary of what i think the Next Xbox is going to be like. A decentralized platform that manages to avoid all the traps that decentralized platforms of the past (3DO) have managed to avoid, because of the network holding it all together.
Haggard @ Dec 16th 2008 6:16PM
That's quite an interesting idea, and something similar was said by someone in the PC Gaming Alliance (that the next generation of consoles might end up being built into PCs of some kind). Their reasoning was that in general MS and Sony lose money on the hardware, so if they could strip it down to third-party manufacturing etc and simply authorise and rubber-stamp computers with a "PS4 inside" or "Xbox 720 compatible", they would be able to make masses of moolah on third-party games and their own first-party titles.
On the other hand, if consoles were completely integrated into PC's then there would be very little to stop people making games for them, since they could just make it for Windows and earn a bigger share of their profits.
And in addition, talking to console gamers in the comments sections here they prefer it for the ease of setup, easy association with a TV and guaranteed compatibility. While a unified platform on a PC would make things a bit easier for the consumer than pure PC gaming, Nintendo would simply step in with a console in a traditional sense and win that generation.
So I guess in summary: foretelling the future is pointless unless you're that Moore guy.
Bakkster @ Dec 16th 2008 6:29PM
I don't see why those two things are mutually exclusive. Why not make a console for the console gamers, then allow the PC gamers to play the games as well, provided their system is capable.
Aside from the possible technical difficulties, wouldn't this be the best way to leverage both sides?
Haggard @ Dec 16th 2008 6:44PM
In that case it would probably be a lot of work for both MS and Sony for minimal benefit. Also, MS have been trying to force PC gamers to buy 360s for some time now.
Bakkster @ Dec 16th 2008 6:27PM
"Judging from the response, it doesn't seem like most people care about the service."
I like the service. I just wish the interface was designed to be navigated with mouse+keyboard, rather than a direct port of the XBox 360 interface. If it worked properly with a mouse, instead of requiring me to press the 'a' key to select items, it would be perfect.
Shagittarius @ Dec 16th 2008 7:08PM
Please see the new version.
Bakkster @ Dec 16th 2008 8:14PM
The new interface is better, but it still doesn't always work the way it should. Sometimes mousing over a button and clicking doesn't work. Also, buttons still stay highlighted after you mouse off of them, and a PC interface should not do that.
AwesomeTown @ Dec 17th 2008 7:45AM
Yea, it still need refinement. I find I have to click just below a button to get it to register. However, I really do like the new interface.
Snake Robot Podium @ Dec 16th 2008 6:30PM
By becoming the standard, Microsoft owns the data on what we like, our gaming habits, and our demographics. This data is very valuable to Microsoft, other publishers, and advertisers. Not that they're not doing that already, but the more you interact with Live the more information they get.
I've been studying "The Work of Being Watched" for my finals.
iFester @ Dec 16th 2008 6:38PM
With the proposed ability to play the "Xbox Platform" games on PC's Microsoft could essentially create their own uniconsole and eat up a larger portion of the games market. Coupled with an Xbox branded hand held device in the future for Arcade and XNA the monopoly will grow.
Excellent read there guys. Some interesting food for thought. :)
Blank-Mage @ Dec 16th 2008 6:56PM
Woot, Legions.
Casey Vincent @ Dec 16th 2008 7:00PM
I was thinking the exact same thing with my recent purchase of Left 4 Dead and Fallout 3 on the PC. It would be great if my rights to the game included copies for both the PC and Xbox. I would love to be able to play with people on steam, but still be able to play with friends who do not have a PC that can run games, but have a Xbox.
capt_carl @ Dec 16th 2008 7:40PM
Agreed. I have lots of friends who own games like Call of Duty, Left 4 Dead, and Orange Box on the 360. I'm a PC player. I'd love to play with them, and they'd love to play with me.
The only TRUE cross-platform game that exists right now is Final Fantasy XI, which plays on PC, PS2 and Xbox 360. Sony, Microsoft, and even Nintendo should take learn from Square-Enix here.
Mr Khan @ Dec 16th 2008 9:18PM
The problem is that the services are incompatible on a more fundamental level. LIVE has its hosting system, PSN with it's dedicated servers, and WFC, which i think uses a direct connection (GameSpy model)
Chin-Poh @ Dec 16th 2008 7:02PM
That would be pure fucking amazing, to have Xbox and Games for Windows LIVE truly converge, to be able to play Xbox titles on PCs with enough horsepower. : D
Ryan LN @ Dec 16th 2008 7:14PM
For some reason this frightens me. Change is scary.
The Dark Wayne @ Dec 16th 2008 7:19PM
I'm not really sure if I like how consoles are becoming more and more like PCs. One of the biggest reasons I prefer consoles is that I dont have to install games or worry about space, but that's changing and I dont quite like it. Also, I don't know how well that "games anywhere" sorta deal would work. How well would it work to play a game built for your 360 on your laptop?
Chin-Poh @ Dec 16th 2008 8:01PM
Either on lower settings than the original 360 version or you'll need a monster gaming laptop. Its still nice though isn't it, especially being able to play games you know will never make it on PCs. I dunno, I'd like to be able to play Tekken 6 or Soul Calibur 4 sometimes on a gaming laptop. :)
arrakisman @ Dec 17th 2008 11:28AM
My guess is MS would allow PC maker and possibly component makers to "certify" the computer/component as 360 compatable. This would mean MS gets a licencing fee and the consumer gets a computer thats "guaranteed" to play the game.
Alien Lord @ Dec 16th 2008 8:29PM
of course games for windows failed because PCs suck shit for gaming.
gst @ Dec 16th 2008 8:54PM
Sarcasm plz?
Alien Lord @ Dec 16th 2008 9:29PM
In your dreams boy.
Chin-Poh @ Dec 16th 2008 10:00PM
Jeezbus, you 360 fanboys are annoying Alien Lord.
Rudolphe @ Dec 16th 2008 11:41PM
I didn't realize it failed...
Squid @ Dec 16th 2008 9:10PM
Moving to a Steam-like system where game content is distributed - and regulated - completely online would certainly offer advantages, but the disadvantages having ownership control taken out of users' hands wont go unnoticed.
Eventually, developers will have to leverage the price of their products to stay successful.
Not every new game is worth $60, but currently that price seems to be the unbreakable standard. So when companies aren't facing the same overhead costs of physical distribution, or the same risks of piracy, or the same revenue losses from the resale market, prices will have to come down. Market efficiency won't allow them to continue charging $60.
If we can agree that the old business model of selling discs is obsolete, we must also agree that a one-price-fits-all mentality for games is obsolete.
Rudolphe @ Dec 16th 2008 11:44PM
Man do i ever agree with you on that one. There's on reason why Fallout 3 cost the same amount as Mirrors Edge or other games that cost less to make and don't offer nearly as much content or replay value. Steam definitley gets that part right, PC games in general are far better at pricing than console games. Also, i guess this wont be too bad if the next generation of consoles comes with 1tb or 2tb drives because I can see the size of games being twice as big as they are now...
Robert @ Dec 16th 2008 10:18PM
I recently sold my 360 to purchase a media center/gaming pc - the one thing I'm dissapointed with is the lack of support for gamepads. I don't want to play on a 42" using a mouse and keyboard (they remind of being at work anyway). One good thing about Games for Windows is the gamepad support (though there are still games that are GFW without gamepad support - Bond, for example). I would like it if all games had native support (no pinnacle or xpadder - not the same). I haven't tried any others yet, but when you play Tomb Raider Underworld it even shows up with the buttons on the 360 pad which is pretty cool.