If Microsoft Won’t Support PC Gaming, Why Should Anyone Else

Submitted by Shane Whitehouse on February 16, 2010 – 1:12 pm8 Comments

This week, Microsoft delivered the not so surprising announcement that Alan Wake, their suspense horror game, would not be coming to PCs. Instead, Microsoft has stated that Alan Wake is designed to be experienced on a console, rather than a computer. Digest that statement for a second, and then realize that this statement is being made by the company that has the most to gain from PC sales, and even it cannot be bothered to develop games for its biggest selling platform.

Yes, I said that right; the PC has the largest penetration rate of any gaming appliance out there in gaming land. Of course, this fact is trumped by the fact that most of these PCs are not equipped well enough to run some of the premier titles that are on the platform. And at least 85% of the computer population runs some form of Windows, which seems like it would make Microsoft, at least somewhat concerned about supporting gaming on that platform.

However, we have not seen a Microsoft published title on the PC in at least two years. Either Gears of War for the PC or an Age of Empires III expansion pack was the last Microsoft published title for a PC. Sure, you could include Tinker and destroy my argument, but really, Tinker. Not exactly the game to brag about when it comes to supporting hardcore gamers.

Now most of the people that come to this site, or listen to the podcast know that I am an unabashed PC gamer. I love my PC, and it is my go to platform when it comes to my preference in gaming. Sure achievements are nice, but I have passed on 360 games for the PC version when I thought it would be better to play with a mouse and keyboard. But it becomes more and more painful to see Microsoft, who talked up gaming on Windows 7 at E3, completely ignoring the platform. I look to the other developers like Electronic Arts, Activision, Ubisoft and others still making PC games and I cannot understand why. Sure, I am happy that they are doing it, but when Microsoft abandons the PC gaming market, it seems strange that these other companies would continue on. I am sure that they are making some money, and the fact that digital distribution has taken off on the PC so well, helps improve sales of PC games. But you would never know it from Microsoft’s perspective.

Look at it this way – what was the biggest initiative that Microsoft has done for PC gaming in the last five years. Some would say DirectX9 or 10. I would go with the Games for Windows branding myself. The fact that they attempted to put some sort of standard on PC gaming was pretty cool. However, they went completely invisible after that. The marketing that they put behind it was minimal at best and atrocious at worst. They touted demo kiosks with games in retail stores, but to be honest, I don’t think I ever saw one of these demo kiosks up and running. The GameStop by my house had one, and they used it as extra shelf space, advertising consoles on top of it. When asked why, they said the machine would crash and they never called to get someone out to fix it. Another GameStop had one for a month and then the machine was gone. When asked, they said it was due to no one using the kiosk and that it was taking up valuable retail space. Even worse for Microsoft, was when they tried to use console pricing on the PC for the Games for Windows LIVE service. This service probably could have been a huge boon to PC gaming, but then they went with the $50 a year pricing scheme and killed it before it could get off the ground. It also does not help that many European countries, long champions of PC gaming, do not have regional access to LIVE.

So for now, I will take the time to enjoy Assassin’s Creed 2, Bioshock 2 and other new titles on the PC. It runs these titles like a champ, and makes them look a bit better than the options I get on my current big screen. I applaud developers like Ubisoft, 2K Games, Electronic Arts, Bioware, Valve and so many more that still give PC gamers the time of day. It is nice to know that some of them still care, even though the main proponent does not. I will probably play Alan Wake on the 360, but I am pretty sure that it would have been a far more enjoyable experience on the PC.

Tags: 2k games, alan wake, bioware, directx 11, directx 9, electronic arts, endgame, gears of war, lost cause, Microsoft, no support, pc gaming, ubisoft, valve, windows 7

Nat_K

This can be summed up in one word:

MONEY.

There is more to be made developing on a closed platform with no variations in hardware and sold with a higher markup. Microsoft is not stupid. I think this was a business decision.

What sets them apart from the other developers you mentioned is that they don't primarily make games to make money. It's secondary to their main business. EA, Valve, Ubisoft, et al. do.

However, with all that said, I gamed more on my PC last year than anything else. Go figure.
InfinityDevil

Oooh ooh I know the answer! Pick me pick me!

It's because Microsoft doesn't make any royalties on games sold for Windows or on hardware upgrades you need to play games on Windows. They most certainly do make royalties and profit on Xbox 360 games they didn't even make and oh boy do they rake in the profit on the exclusive accessory market for the 360. Obnoxiously overpriced hard drives anyone?

The big success of the 360 has basically given Microsoft virtually no vested interest in the success of the Windows OS as a gaming platform. You're going to buy Windows anyway since they have a 95% lock on the computer market, so why should they care if you play games on it?

Set the way back machine for almost 3 years ago when I wrote about GFWL and you can see my guess about what Microsoft wanted: royalties for Windows software. I'm not so much guessing that publishers told Microsoft to take a hike as much as Microsoft made it so cheap/free for them to develop on the Xbox 360 instead to make a dent in Sony's previous-generation market share that it became a purely business decision. Link: http://www.aeropause.com/2007/03/microsoft-reac…
http://www.aeropause.com mclazyj

Technically, there is a big royalty they make on a PC. It is called a copy of Windows. Yes, I know that this is a given for most PCs, but I just see a gateway of a ton of potential gamers if they would actually try to make more off of this huge install base. Games for Windows LIVE can be a great service, and I think in the long run, if they offered more services to it, they might be able to monetize it, but as it stands, it is a throwaway service. Rarely anyone uses it, because of the lackluster support by Microsoft.

What is the fastest growning segment of gaming right now – casual PC gamers who go to Facebook for fun. Imagine if Microsoft found a way to use its stranglehold on the desktop to migrate some of those users to other gaming properties, like Viva Pinata, or Halo 3 (yes, a shooter, but far more casual than say, Half Life). Alan Wake is a first person title, so there are no royalties being paid, as Microsoft is the content provider. So why no PC version? It just kills me.
http://kaya122.wordpress.com kaya122

I am very dissapointed in Microsoft. Not because they aren't bringing Alan Wake to to the PC, for I couldn't care less. No it's because they have dropped all support for the platform. The PC is my only gaming console(outside my wii but we wont mention that.). I will use myself as an example for why they are losing money. I have been wanting to play the Halo series for some time, but I reduse to buy the first 2 because I cant experience the third. If Microsoft released Halo 3 on the PC I would go out and buy all three at once. I have no interest in buying a 360 so Microsoft wont ever get money(unless of course they release Halo 3 for PC which we all know has a very slim chance of coming out). I will end my rant with the following statement: Screw you Microsoft, screw you.
morphiend

Having personally gone through this HEADACHE over the past month, I can tell you first hand why Microsoft no longer “cares” about gaming: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetail…

Yes, a top-of-the-friggin-line machine is close to $5K. I'll buy another car instead, thank you. I have spent the last month researching and researching and researching a replacement video card for one of my PCs, because it died. Turns out that I will have to spend over $100 updating my PC ($80 video card, and $30 for another gig of RAM). For that much I could have purchased 2 (!!!) games for the PS3, or 3 for the Wii.
http://www.aeropause.com mclazyj

Yeah, but that rig is on the extreme bleeding edge. You could buy all the parts that sit in my rig at home right now, and get blazing hot performance, and all for about a grand. Still pricey, but far less than the price of that rig.

Yes, price gets in the way, but as long as manufacturers would include at least a decent video card in the price of a computer for an extra $100, you would have a solid gaming rig in every household.
http://kaya122.wordpress.com kaya122

Yeah I have a pretty kick-ass pc for $1000 too.
morphiend

We had a problem with that at my university when I was in college. One of my friends was on the selection board for the next year's incoming freshman PC hardware. When there was extra money left in the price of the PC, many of the know-nothing staff and faculty said “bigger HDD”, while some of the students were saying “better video card”. Mind you “better video card” meant one that was decent, but not top-of-the-line. Ultimately the other people won out and those systems (for incoming freshman of the year 2000) got a 200GB HDD instead of a 100GB. And then the ethics committee and faculty were wondering why piracy of movies and music was so prevalent on campus.