Blue's News: Comments - More on Gamer's Rights

Gamer's Bill of Rights Follow-up

[Sep 05, 2008, 01:02 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments

Devs Leery of -Gamer’s Bill of Rights on Edge Online follows up with Stardock's Brad Wardell about the recently proposed Gamer's Bill of Rights (story). As the article's title suggests, there has been some resistance among developers to the idea, which was co-authored by Chris Taylor of Gas Powered Games, with Edge finding numerous developers to be "standoffish" when asked about the subject. Wardell says he also found some of his colleagues more receptive, but there were vagaries (like defining when a game is "in a finished state") and intellectual property issues that would prevent a wholehearted endorsement. The article specifically quotes Microsoft's Kevin Unangst saying: "Microsoft certainly agrees with the importance of improving the quality and consistency of PC games. For two years now, Microsoft's Games for Windows program has worked to make great Windows games even better, and this is why Stardock and many other publishers are participating in the program."

View

48 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next >

48.	Re: No subject	Sep 7, 2008, 18:30	Jerykk
	They make the majority of their money in software sales, not Xbox360's. People will always have a computer for work/recreational use but without software like Games, it becomes much easier to pick a cheaper replacement for the Windows OS. Microsoft doesn't have to worry about their PC software sales because 99.9% of businesses still use Windows and Office. This isn't going to change anytime soon. As for games, MS makes more money off 360 games than PC games. With PC games, they only make profit off games they publish. With 360, they make money off every disc printed and all DLC. MS clearly does not care about PC gaming anymore. They'll occasionally throw it a scrap in the form of a 2-3 year old 360 port and that's only so they can milk it further after it's dried up on the 360.

47.	Re: No subject	Sep 7, 2008, 12:10	Verno
	No one is shifting anything. It's pretty simple - as a gamer, I have no control over whether developers use GFW. If most of them do, then issues like forcing the XBox 360 controller become very important. As a gamer you have total control of your purchase decisions and zero control over development decisions in the first place, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. You never had any control over developers period. They've always had the ability to do whatever they want, including supporting one gamepad only, making their game only render in certain resolutions or frankly whatever the heck they want. Everything is in someone's opinion. All you are countering with is your own opinion. The difference is that I can recognize some people are dissatisfied with GfW's effectiveness in the market right now. You on the other hand just say it's entirely useless and then assert that as a fact as if everyone else in the universe agrees with it. Why would I? What you keep failing to realize is that I consider GFW to be a "bad" thing. I don't want there to be a GFW - at least, not one that is implemented by MS. MS has no interest in making things better for gamers, therefore they have no reason to implement ideas that would actually be useful for gamers. Once again, MS is simply interested in increasing their OS and Console sales. That's not in gamers' interests. If you don't want something like GfW then I'd think you'd be fundamentally opposed to similar guidelines from someone like Stardock. The strength of the platform is it's openness but unfortunately that's exactly what developers are complaining about. How do you accomodate both gamers and developers satisfactorily? I see a lot of criticisms from you but no offered solutions. Now, if developers want to get together and come up with some standards, then I'd be all for that - most developers (not publishers, but developers) are genuinely interested in promoting gamers' interests, as they tend to be gamers themselves. And since their primary focus is on promoting games, it's in their interests to ensure that the standards they put forward improve things for gamers. It's also in Microsoft's best interests to keep games on Windows. They make the majority of their money in software sales, not Xbox360's. People will always have a computer for work/recreational use but without software like Games, it becomes much easier to pick a cheaper replacement for the Windows OS. In fact without games, there's nothing really holding back competing operating systems like OSX and heck, maybe even Linux. I think there's an argument to be made about a conflict of interest and the need for Microsoft to really put more effort into the initiative but that wasn't the argument you were making.

46.	Re: No subject	Sep 7, 2008, 09:50	Bhruic
	Hold on a minute there little buddy, you're not getting to shift the goalposts that easily. GfW isn't an intrusive game mode forced on gamers or something, it's a technical certification for developers. No one is shifting anything. It's pretty simple - as a gamer, I have no control over whether developers use GFW. If most of them do, then issues like forcing the XBox 360 controller become very important. In your opinion. See, was that so hard? Everything is in someone's opinion. All you are countering with is your own opinion. Some people like having most/all of their games in a central location Yes, exactly. So for GFW to work, most/all developers need to use it. Which means MS has got most/all developers using their specifications, which means that most/all developers are forced to use the XBox 360 controller. See how that works? Hell no, that's just you being stubborn and refusing to acknowledge someone else might have a point or different idea of what is useful. Ah, so I'm supposed to accept your opinion, and you get to ignore mine. Nice try, but I'm not buying it. Maybe instead of heaping scorn you could give feedback to what they're doing so wrong and what would be better. Why would I? What you keep failing to realize is that I consider GFW to be a "bad" thing. I don't want there to be a GFW - at least, not one that is implemented by MS. MS has no interest in making things better for gamers, therefore they have no reason to implement ideas that would actually be useful for gamers. Once again, MS is simply interested in increasing their OS and Console sales. That's not in gamers' interests. Now, if developers want to get together and come up with some standards, then I'd be all for that - most developers (not publishers, but developers) are genuinely interested in promoting gamers' interests, as they tend to be gamers themselves. And since their primary focus is on promoting games, it's in their interests to ensure that the standards they put forward improve things for gamers.

45.	Re: No subject	Sep 7, 2008, 09:24	Verno
	You know, you keep saying this, but I'm not sure why you think it's at all relevant. GFW is optional for the developer. It is not optional for gamers. It's not like company X is going to make a GFW version and a non-GFW version of their games. Hold on a minute there little buddy, you're not getting to shift the goalposts that easily. GfW isn't an intrusive game mode forced on gamers or something, it's a technical certification for developers. There's no need to market a non-GfW version in the first place. Maybe if you said Games for Windows Live, I could've agreed with that when they were charging for it. You literally just cherry picked what you didn't like from that whole document and yet again dismissed points out of hand. Your opinion doesn't apply to the entire market. Maybe you don't think any of those things will have an impact for gamers but it doesn't make you right. 1) Game explorer integration Useless. This will only have the desired effect if every game is GFW. Otherwise, you still have to look in "other" locations to find games, at which point you don't have a unified game location, making having any games in it pointless. In your opinion. See, was that so hard? Your opinion doesn't reflect entire world tastes. Some people like having most/all of their games in a central location, see Steam. Of course it isn't unified yet, the GfW platform isn't even 2 years old. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Is it all entirely useless? Hell no, that's just you being stubborn and refusing to acknowledge someone else might have a point or different idea of what is useful. Even little things like not disabling Alt-Tab might be silly to you but important to someone else who likes to use FAQ's or whatever. Aspect Ratio might mean fuck all to you but other people might enjoy having choice. I don't think rebooting after an install/uninstall is the end of the world but it drives other people crazy. Could they expand this further? Absolutely. I have many ideas they could implement that I think both you and I would see as more beneficial. It's a first step for them, it's not comprehensive by any means nor do I expect them to turn Stalin on developers by having a massive set of restrictions on their first go. How does one define "dont make your game a shitty console port"? How do you put that into a document and who judges it? These things take time. Maybe instead of heaping scorn you could give feedback to what they're doing so wrong and what would be better.

44.	Re: No subject	Sep 7, 2008, 06:58	Jerykk
	Microsoft may not be perfect and yes they are business out to make money but unlike you I will give them some credit for even attempting to help out PC gaming. Help out PC gaming? Sorry, but everything MS does is catered towards helping out themselves. If they were interested in helping out PC gaming, they'd start developing/publishing PC exclusives or at the very least, launch PC versions at the same time as the 360 versions. Where's Fable 2 PC? GoW2 PC? Halo 3 PC? Not that I actually care about any of those games but it's the principle that I take issue with. Microsoft very clearly wants developers to focus entirely on 360, at the expense of the PC. The same self-serving mentality is embedded into GfW. It only requires that you support the 360 controller and it recommends using the 360 buttons in the UI instead of using the standard 1-10 PC controller buttons. All the Vista features exist solely to promote Vista sales. Where are the XP features? After all, XP has proven itself to be the superior gaming OS in both performance and compatibility. DX10? Ah, right, Vista only. GfW Live? When they realized that they couldn't charge people for it, they made it free. Unfortunately, it still sucks. It's in their best interests to make it the standard multiplayer platform for the PC, as once that happens, they can start charging for it again. Whatever credibility MS may have once had with the PC gaming market was destroyed the moment they created the Xbox. Since then, any "support" they show the PC only serves to promote Vista or the 360.

43.	Re: No subject	Sep 7, 2008, 01:02	Bhruic
	GfW is optional. You know, you keep saying this, but I'm not sure why you think it's at all relevant. GFW is optional for the developer. It is not optional for gamers. It's not like company X is going to make a GFW version and a non-GFW version of their games. It's one thing to say that their efforts have been ineffective and quite another to say they're only out for themselves and have done nothing to help developers and gamers. And this is why discussing things with you is pointless, you keep claiming I've said things that I obviously haven't. I never once claimed that they've done nothing to help developers. Go read this and tell me nothing there has any gamer related benefits with a straight face. Ok, there are no gamer benefits in that list. Wow, that was easy. Let's take a look at this list: 1) Game explorer integration Useless. This will only have the desired effect if every game is GFW. Otherwise, you still have to look in "other" locations to find games, at which point you don't have a unified game location, making having any games in it pointless. 2) Support Family Safety / Parental Controls While there's nothing wrong with this, there's absolutely no reason to make it mandatory, nor does it provide any advantage to gamers. 3) Support the Xbox 360 Common Controller for Windows "This requirement gives gamers freedom of choice to use either the Xbox 360 controller or the keyboard and mouse" - I think that says it all. It's not about ensuring that gamers can use A controller, it's about making sure they can use MS's. 4) Support Multiple Aspect Ratios and Resolutions Irrelevant. Developers that are trying to market a game are going to do this anyway. 5) Support Launch from Windows Media Center Pointless. Again, unless all games do this, having some games do this isn't useful. 6) Direct3D Support Basically force D9+. There's nothing wrong with this, but there's no advantage to it either. I could keep going, but the next sections can be easily summed up as "do what you already do anyway". When's the last game you saw that didn't support long filenames? Or didn't install to the "correct" folders? MS gets no credit for "forcing" developers to maintain the status quo. I will give them some credit for even attempting to help out PC gaming. If there was any indication they were doing so, or even trying to do so, I might do the same. But considering their "efforts" so far, there's absolutely no reason to think that's their goal. Using my brain to think about a situation instead of rashly jumping down on one side without knowing anything about the topic material doesn't make me an apologist. No, not using your brain, and parroting MS talking points is what makes you a MS apologist.

42.	Re: No subject	Sep 7, 2008, 00:08	Verno
	Are they forcing you to use a 360 gamepad? No. They are trying to do so. Where's the proof? GfW is optional. Are they forcing devs to do so? No. They are trying to do so. How? Where have they have forced someone to make games for Vista? Where have they forced someone to release under the GfW brand? Where have they forced gamers to buy GfW games? How about a straight answer for a change? Is there a gain for gamers in there somewhere? Yep. No, there's no gain for gamers. I think you're reaching if you really believe that there is zero gain for gamers in the Games for Windows initiative. Have you even looked at the feature list and technical requirements? It's one thing to say that their efforts have been ineffective and quite another to say they're only out for themselves and have done nothing to help developers and gamers. they are simply pushing sales of Vista and XBox 360. Neither of those are going to make games any better, and MS shouldn't be allowed to get away with claiming they are - apologists like you not withstanding. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that I am not excusing Microsoft's various failures with this program, apparently one more time at least. You on the other hand take a hilariously extremist view that dismisses evidence out of hand and just keeps parroting your own partylines. Go read this and tell me nothing there has any gamer related benefits with a straight face. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173456(VS.85).aspx Microsoft may not be perfect and yes they are business out to make money but unlike you I will give them some credit for even attempting to help out PC gaming. Using my brain to think about a situation instead of rashly jumping down on one side without knowing anything about the topic material doesn't make me an apologist.

41.	Re: No subject	Sep 6, 2008, 23:30	Bhruic
	Having a recognizable logo, branding, unified multiplayer UI and so on isn't in gamers best interests? And once again you drag in points that aren't part of GFW. There is no "unified multiplayer UI" in GFW. Furthermore, no, having a recognizable logo and branding isn't doing squat for gamers. PC gaming has not been suffering from a lack of a logo. Disagreeing with you isn't lying, it's just you assuming you couldn't possibly ever be wrong. Saying something that is provably false is lying. You claimed that I switched from saying GFW was promoting Vista to saying it was promoting the XBox. I posted a quote where I very clearly pointed out I was claiming it was promoting both. That, sir, makes you a liar. Are they forcing you to use a 360 gamepad? No. They are trying to do so. Are they forcing devs to do so? No. They are trying to do so. Is there a gain for gamers in there somewhere? Yep. No, there's no gain for gamers. Is it the big conspiracy you make it out to be? Nope. I never claimed it's a conspiracy. I simply pointed out that it's nothing but MS promoting MS products. Is there anything "wrong" with that? Certainly not from a business perspective. But from a gamer's perspective, there is. Instead of doing what they claim, "make great Windows games even better", they are simply pushing sales of Vista and XBox 360. Neither of those are going to make games any better, and MS shouldn't be allowed to get away with claiming they are - apologists like you not withstanding.

40.	Re: No subject	Sep 6, 2008, 16:42	Verno
	I would, but compelling arguments seem to roll off you as easily as you claim insults do. Funny, I notice you still have no rebuttal to my earlier reply. Yes, because it can't possibly be both. Yes, MS wants to promote Vista sales. Yes, MS wants to promote XBox 360 sales. No, there is nothing wrong with doing either, unless you are pretending that's somehow in the interests of gamers - which they are. Obviously there is a financial consideration in there for them, they're a business. Saying that GfW isn't in the best interests of gamers is disingenuous though. Having a recognizable logo, branding, unified multiplayer UI and so on isn't in gamers best interests? Who are you to judge that? Oh, and because you are once again being a blantant liar Disagreeing with you isn't lying, it's just you assuming you couldn't possibly ever be wrong. I've debunked your arguments here every time with reasonable replies showing both sides of the debate. It's not my fault you don't have an open mind and see black Microsoft helicopters circling overhead, waiting to swoop in with a team of ninjas to kidnap your generic gamepad and forcibly installing Vista on your machine. For the final time, how is the OPTIONAL GfW brand so fucking harmful to your state of mind? Are they forcing you to use a 360 gamepad? No. Are they forcing devs to do so? No. Is there a gain in there for Microsoft somewhere? Sure. Is there a gain for gamers in there somewhere? Yep. Is it the big conspiracy you make it out to be? Nope.

39.	Re: No subject	Sep 6, 2008, 11:34	Bhruic
	First off yet again, no point in calling me names because frankly I'm impervious. Might as well put that time towards a compelling argument instead. I would, but compelling arguments seem to roll off you as easily as you claim insults do. First it was Vista sales, now it's 360 sales instead. Yes, because it can't possibly be both. Yes, MS wants to promote Vista sales. Yes, MS wants to promote XBox 360 sales. No, there is nothing wrong with doing either, unless you are pretending that's somehow in the interests of gamers - which they are. Oh, and because you are once again being a blantant liar, here's a quote of mine from earlier in the thread: The GFW brand is, first and foremost, a tool that MS is using to propel sales of Vista and XBox 360s. If you can bother reading, you'll note that I already brought up the fact that MS is trying to promote both.

38.	Re: No subject	Sep 6, 2008, 09:24	Verno
	Are you really that stupid? It has nothing to do with the PC and everything to do with the XBox 360. MS wants to dominate the console market. Anything they can do to make the XBox 360 look "more attractive" as a purchase, they will do. If that includes forcing PC developers to support the controller for it in order to qualify for their GFW label, they'll do it. First off yet again, no point in calling me names because frankly I'm impervious. Might as well put that time towards a compelling argument instead. GfW is an optional certification. Optional. No one is forced to do anything. If you don't want to meet their specs, you do not have to release it under the GfW label. Nothing at all prevents you from not doing so. You can still make and retail a game any way you please without the GfW label. I don't see how any argument you can make will escape that fact. First it was Vista sales, now it's 360 sales instead. Take a stance somewhere and stick with it. Of course Microsoft wants people to buy their products but you're ignoring the fact that their software is what brings in the billions, the Xbox360 barely makes money at all right now and for the forseeable future. Despite your repeated (and completely unsubstantiated) claims about "standardization", there is no "standardization" going on. If MS was saying "we require you to support a game controller with X, Y and Z features", then yes, that would be standardization. Saying "we require you to support our controller" is not. I was directly replying to you about standardization, I never said I thought it was the right thing to do nor am I praising MS for attempting to do so. I don't even like the 360 controller but your claims in this thread so far have been laughable - first it was 360 controllers pushing Vista sales then now 360 controllers pushing Xbox360 sales. I know it's much more fun and dramatic to imagine some big conspiracy behind the scenes but this is the gaming industry, not the X-Files. There is no monopoly, no one is forced into Games for Windows, its entirely up to the publisher/developers if they want to implement it. If it was a forced specification then I'd be the first person agreeing with you but they give people the choice. A good example of not having a choice is Xbox Live Arcade where devs must meet specs as it's their only distribution option on the console other than retail. That is what you should've brought up instead. We recommend that menu navigation be implemented to use the widely accepted standard controller buttons: * A - Accept * B - Cancel * Start - Accept or pause * Back - Cancel, back one screen or up a menu level Interesting, I didn't realize the 360 buttons were the widely accepted standard PC controller buttons. Silly me, I thought the widely accepted standard PC controller buttons were 1-10. Also noteworthy is that they only require the 360 controller. From a player standpoint, wouldn't it be more beneficial to require support of any standard 10-button controller? I don't have a 360 controller because I don't like it. As a result, I can't play Alone in the Dark with a gamepad, even though it's Games for Windows certified. Funny how that works out. I find noteworthy the word "recommend" in there, not "you must do this". I can't verify your Alone in the Dark claim as I don't own the game. If the developer chose to only support the 360 controller then that's their problem.

37.	Re: That quote...	Sep 6, 2008, 03:54	Jerykk
	360 pad support is only required for games that support a gamepad. Fair enough. However, I find this part rather questionable: We recommend that menu navigation be implemented to use the widely accepted standard controller buttons: * A - Accept * B - Cancel * Start - Accept or pause * Back - Cancel, back one screen or up a menu level Interesting, I didn't realize the 360 buttons were the widely accepted standard PC controller buttons. Silly me, I thought the widely accepted standard PC controller buttons were 1-10. Also noteworthy is that they only require the 360 controller. From a player standpoint, wouldn't it be more beneficial to require support of any standard 10-button controller? I don't have a 360 controller because I don't like it. As a result, I can't play Alone in the Dark with a gamepad, even though it's Games for Windows certified. Funny how that works out. This message was edited at Sep 6, 03:59.

36.	Re: No subject	Sep 6, 2008, 01:59	zirik
	Are you really that stupid? yes he is.

35.	Re: No subject	Sep 6, 2008, 01:14	Bhruic
	A gamepad monopoly on the PC, why yes how lucrative!! Are you really that stupid? It has nothing to do with the PC and everything to do with the XBox 360. MS wants to dominate the console market. Anything they can do to make the XBox 360 look "more attractive" as a purchase, they will do. If that includes forcing PC developers to support the controller for it in order to qualify for their GFW label, they'll do it. Standardization does not lead to a monopoly, there are entire industries(in fact most of them) built on it. Despite your repeated (and completely unsubstantiated) claims about "standardization", there is no "standardization" going on. If MS was saying "we require you to support a game controller with X, Y and Z features", then yes, that would be standardization. Saying "we require you to support our controller" is not.

34.	Re: No subject	Sep 6, 2008, 00:32	Verno
	Yeah, key word there being "too". They have to support the 360 controller, but they're going to need to support all the other controllers too. Or, they decide not to, and all the sudden MS has a(nother) monopoly. So which is it, MS is going for standardization, which would lead to a monopoly, or they aren't trying for a monopoly, in which case developers will still support all the other controllers too, in which case there's no standardization? You can't, no matter how much you try, have it both ways. A gamepad monopoly on the PC, why yes how lucrative!! Standardization does not lead to a monopoly, there are entire industries(in fact most of them) built on it. The certification is entirely optional and therefore also not a monopoly in the first place, try again. This message was edited at Sep 6, 00:32.

33.	Re: No subject	Sep 5, 2008, 22:39	Bhruic
	In fact, all that they ask to get GfW(with regards to gamepads) is that if your game supports gamepads, you implement a trivial library so that it supports the 360 controller pad too. Yeah, key word there being "too". They have to support the 360 controller, but they're going to need to support all the other controllers too. Or, they decide not to, and all the sudden MS has a(nother) monopoly. So which is it, MS is going for standardization, which would lead to a monopoly, or they aren't trying for a monopoly, in which case developers will still support all the other controllers too, in which case there's no standardization? You can't, no matter how much you try, have it both ways.

32.	Re: No subject	Sep 5, 2008, 20:27	Verno
	They aren't shoving it down anyone's throat, you can still use a regular gamepad and people can still release games for Windows Vista without the GfW certification. In fact, all that they ask to get GfW(with regards to gamepads) is that if your game supports gamepads, you implement a trivial library so that it supports the 360 controller pad too. I'm sorry they made a mistake in the past with your Sidewinder and Windows XP but that's not really applicable to this scenario. They aren't disabling anything nor forcing anyone to do anything. If you want the optional GfW support then you have to meet their specifications which are attempting to set some standards so that people can get a consistent UI experience across different games. Now if they'd only add "Your game must not be a lackluster console port with no effort made to transition it to the PC" to that required spec list then I'd be a happy man This message was edited at Sep 5, 20:49.

31.	Re: No subject	Sep 5, 2008, 19:50	zirik
	If ain't broke don't fix it is just plain silly when applied to the gaming and technology markets by the way. it is silly if they intentionally break functionality on a product that does not need to be replaced. joysticks are like keyboards. theyre both input devices and both have not changed much while games have evolved. you are confusing game design to hardware functionality. as they named their marketing strategy its games for windows not hardware for windows. so i dont really see why they should shove the 360 pad support down the throat of consumers and developers.

30.	Re: Controlers	Sep 5, 2008, 19:23	Verno
	Nah its just so you can have a way to play all the crappy ass console ports thats the future of PC gaming. Meh, plenty of good games on the consoles too. I'll put up with the crappy ports if it means getting stuff like Lost Odyssey, Grand Theft Auto IV and Mass Effect.

29.	Re: Controlers	Sep 5, 2008, 18:02	Bone43
	I have always stood by the reason MS mandates 360 controller support on PC is so that game developers don't have to "waste time" reworking the game to play well with KB&M. Nah its just so you can have a way to play all the crappy ass console ports thats the future of PC gaming.

48 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next >