If MS manages to kill off PC gaming for good, the majority of gamers will migrate to the 360 where every game sold means cash for MS.

Never. I'd die first.

Without games in windows, MS is going to find themselves losing even bigger market shares of the OS market as people ditch their shitty OS for the better alternatives, no longer locked in to windows with the "but I play games so I have to run windows".

The point of Games for Windows isn't to promote Games for Windows, it's to *kill* Games for Windows. By launching a major branding push Microsoft successfully prevents other initiatives (because it would be stupid to have a bunch of competing PC game standards) while its utter lack of anything useful besides shiny boxes makes it useless.

Worse, in fact, the whole DX10 fiasco leads to ridiculous stuff, like a friend of mine being told by a Sierra marketing idiot that World in Conflict is Vista-only.

The Xbox360 has the most PC-like games of all consoles. If MS manages to kill off PC gaming for good, the majority of gamers will migrate to the 360 where every game sold means cash for MS.

I agree with RP.

Problem is, they'll never do it. Unangst can say whatever he wants, but the truth is (and MS has admitted it) they're only interested in selling for the 360. It's where the royalties are.

The best thing that could happen to PC gaming is for MS to stay the hell out. Better yet, release a gaming edition of Windows that cuts out the bloat and focuses solely on running games at max efficiency.

GFW Live! is a Vista only initiative.

This is wrong. They support XP now, for free. Someone learned the lesson, at least.

Can someone with a good bit of knowledge on the GFW front explain to me (in dumb terms) why this is a bad thing to saddle with DoW 2? Seriously i don't know. -unless that means Vista only?

GFW Live! is a Vista only initiative. Removing the fee is like saying I'm going to rape you but I'll do you the favor of wearing a condom.

GFW was a great idea that was never followed through properly. They got the box branding out, the retail displays, the console-style game kiosks (still playing Shadowrun close to a year later) but never put any effort into marketing the whole thing to the public.

Had Ed Fries still been there I think the PC could be going through a renaissance right now but, instead, we have Shane kim who should never have been given the position. He's shown an amazing lack of empathy for gamers and what they want. Since his appointment there's a feeling of stagnation. I'm sure he was good in his former position but what MS needs is someone is truly loves games and not another suit with a business degree. Fries was a good businessman but when he talked you knew he was speaking as a true hobbyist and not just saying what shareholders wanted to hear.

Can someone with a good bit of knowledge on the GFW front explain to me (in dumb terms) why this is a bad thing to saddle with DoW 2? Seriously i don't know. -unless that means Vista only?

Although I really do appreciate attempting to be corrected about something that I actually did.

I rightfully corrected you because you were wrong. You wrote in your original post "the second generation of 360 games" when clearly it WASN'T the second generation of XBOX360 games at E3 2005 when the XBOX360 had not even been released yet. E3 2006 or more accurately E3 2007 was the first show which showed the second generation of XBOX360 titles NOT E3 2005 which barely showed the first generation of XBOX360 titles. Yes, you may have attended E3 in 2005, but your description of the event was wrong.

the 360 was out on display, playable, in the MS booth and the EA booth.

Actually the 360's weren't in the booths. There were running videos of XBOX360 games in booths and there were some console cases under glass, but working consoles weren't there. Microsoft had very tight restrictions on their display at the show. To actually see and play an XBOX360, you had to get a private demo. I know because I got those demos.

This comment was edited on Jul 17, 20:19.

and FUCK Kevin Fuckangst.

Creston

Point is, there are still plenty of PC games being shown and promoted

No, the point is there aren't. The games which are being promoted are console games and even the cross-platform games which supposedly have PC versions are being demonstrated and promoted on consoles instead. The PC ports can end up being very different games since they frequently have delayed releases and they sometimes even end up being bastardized versions of the game since features found in the console versions get cut, e.g. EA and Disney games.

and yes we all know that this E3 inparticular is heavily focused on consoles. But it's not a "console show".

LOL! First, you are arguing semantics. Being heavily focused on consoles does make E3 a console show. One or two PC exclusive games shown at the show doesn't change that. PC games are a distant afterthought and even the cross-platform titles are being demonstrated on consoles. Second, it's not just this particular E3 which is console focused. Since 2006, E3 has been very console centric especially with the release of the XBOX360, PS3, and Wii. The last E3 I can remember that had a strong showing of PC exclusive or at least PC-centric games was E3 2005 with games like Crysis, Prey, F.E.A.R., Quake 4, Quake Wars, Tabula Rasa, Auto Assault, City of Villains, and Guild Wars. Sure some of those games turned out to be duds, but there was still plenty of hype around those PC games and others at that E3. This year there is nothing like that for PC game consumers.

I expect there will be major changes in the other direction for E3 next year, if E3 manages to even exist next year.

I don't expect that trend to change because video game consumers are simply buying too many console games for publishers not to favor that market. As for E3 existing next year, I bet it won't because I expect the exodus of companies from the ESA to continue. The ESA dues are simply too high for the return on investment.

Too many restrictions has swept the legs out from under it. Bring back the large open forum, put monitored booth sound restrictions in place and limit the number of booth babes per display/company.

Booth babes weren't the problem (because they do actually draw attention to the games) and sound restrictions were already in place years ago (though not enforced as diligently as they could have been). E3 simply needs to go back to a larger venue and open up more access to the show. Having a small, closed show is simply counter to the main goal of a trade show which is to draw widespread and mainstream attention to the products.

The reason for fewer PC exclusives being shown comes with my other point about smaller developers no longer being able to attend the event.

The fact that only the smaller developers are doing PC exclusive games proves my point that it's not E3's restrictions that have caused it to become basically a console show. It's the large developers and publishers. Back when E3 was affordable for the smaller developers and publishers, they were never the main focus of the show. Yes, it was a good place for them to get some exposure, but their games weren't the primary focus. So, even if they were at E3 today, they would still be drowned out by the din of the console game announcements.

If you don't have a big publisher, you don't get in....and even then you may only get a mention. Again, due to so many restrictions.

Again, it not the E3 show restrictions that cause this. It's the publishers. They are prioritizing their demonstrations at the show based upon their development efforts, and like it or not, those are mainly focused on the consoles.

There are many great PC exclusive games coming (not just MMO's)

Such as?

Do you think so many companies pulled out of E3 voluntarily because they liked the new restrictions?

It wasn't the restrictions. It was the money. The price of entry to E3 is too high for the small companies and even some of the larger ones passed due to the costs.

This comment was edited on Jul 19, 01:51.

You must mean E3 2006 as the XBOX360 was only officially revealed at E3 05 and the only place to actually see it running was in Microsoft's and a few other publishers' private demos like EA's. The XBOX360 didn't actually ship until late November 2005.

Shucks, I knew I should have asked the wonderful BN commenters what year I experienced something.

The PS3 showed off some lame video with pre-rendered shit, nothing was said about Revolution, and the 360 was out on display, playable, in the MS booth and the EA booth. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/614/614690p1.html

Although I really do appreciate attempting to be corrected about something that I actually did.

I'm not sure why so many gamers still consider E3 relevent, anymore. If anything interesting is revealed about a game I care about, and these days, it's a big "if," I'm going to see an easy to read line of text, at most a paragraph, about it when I open my browser and Blues pops up.

Where I work, everyone has a massive erection for E3, and they're taping it off of G4, and they're salivating in front of the broadcast like Jesus is going to bleed into their cups.

I just don't see the point in putting all that effort into paying attention to it when I can use this magical thing called the "Internet" to screen any information I care about and then go back to playing the games I haven't yet had time to finish.

As far as GFW goes, who cares? If you don't have a use for the Gold-level features, don't pay for it and play the damn game. Matchmaking is useless on PC games anyway since we have server browsers, and I use "server browser" here as a synonym for "functionality." There hasn't been much ridiculous extremism in this thread over it (yet,) but I know there's enough anti-Microsoft sentiment going around the intarwebs for plenty of people to declare they're boycotting GFW games over this issue and blah blah blaaaaaahhh. All that's going to do is convince developers they can't make money on PC games instead of shitty cookie-cutter console generic crap like Halo. Buy the game and don't pay for the silly gold membership and the worst thing that happens is, Microsoft keeps wasting money trying to push it. The BEST thing that happens, they realize no one cares and get rid of the excess garbage.

__
(o0)
/ || \

CES used to be the go to source for console gaming starting way back for the Atari 2600.

E3 is becoming irrelevant, if it isn’t already.

And maybe 80% on the console lists. Those lists are very similar. Point is, there are still plenty of PC games being shown and promoted, and yes we all know that this E3 inparticular is heavily focused on consoles. But it's not a "console show". I expect there will be major changes in the other direction for E3 next year, if E3 manages to even exist next year.

yes, yes. 'officially' its not a console show. but if you have eyes and half a brain you can see it basically is.

cross-platform isnt really a pc game anyway. they are abortions and abortions dont count.

90% of those titles are cross-platform titles

And maybe 80% on the console lists. Those lists are very similar. Point is, there are still plenty of PC games being shown and promoted, and yes we all know that this E3 inparticular is heavily focused on consoles. But it's not a "console show". I expect there will be major changes in the other direction for E3 next year, if E3 manages to even exist next year.

There are WAY too many "shows" to attend these days, and the companies just want 1 big show that everyone from around the world has to be at, E3 used to be it. Too many restrictions has swept the legs out from under it. Bring back the large open forum, put monitored booth sound restrictions in place and limit the number of booth babes per display/company.

The reason for fewer PC exclusives being shown comes with my other point about smaller developers no longer being able to attend the event.

If you don't have a big publisher, you don't get in....and even then you may only get a mention. Again, due to so many restrictions.

There are many great PC exclusive games coming (not just MMO's), but few have major publishers, or if they do, they aren't considered to be big enough to matter.

Do you think so many companies pulled out of E3 voluntarily because they liked the new restrictions? Or maybe it was because they didn't want to promote their products?

----------------------------------------------------
Civilization Revolution, Grand Theft Auto IV, GRID

PSN ID= Puscifer73
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

sounds like relic said 'either we give them the multiplayer we are making as is, or you can go fuck yourself'.

the GFW teams are in no position to be making any demands. fuck, they cant even make requests haha.

as for e3, i would say its a console show now. say what you will, but i do miss the old e3.

http://play.tm/wire/click/2011026 ... List of games for PC shown at E3

That list is grossly misleading as at least 90% of those titles are cross-platform titles, and the versions demonstrated at E3 are most likely the console versions. The PC is not the focus of those titles.

this is not even complete

It's more complete than it is accurate as Bioshock (released last year) is on that list. Obviously that refers to the upcoming PS3 version of the game not the PC version.

E3 isnt a console event, but logical choices based on the new restrictions leads to far fewer PC displays and presentations.

That's bullshit because many of the announcements and displays of E3 including the major press conferences aren't technically part of the official event as they aren't held on the official E3 convention facilities. Therefore they aren't restricted by any of E3's rules. If Microsoft, Activision, or EA wanted to focus primarily on the PC at their events, they certainly could. The reason that these big presentations aren't focused on the PC has nothing to do with any E3 restrictions. It's based solely on the game companies' chosen focus based upon their game sales and perception of the market. That's why it's console centric. E3 is just mirroring the video game market.

This comment was edited on Jul 17, 13:32.

E3 isnt a console event, but logical choices based on the new restrictions leads to far fewer PC displays and presentations.

That and with almost every major PC developer/publisher jumping into other conventions like PAX and, oddly, SDCC, it wouldn't surprise me that in the next couple of years PC gaming at E3 will be done as a side-event.

The old E3 was a pretty decent mix, but like you said Dagok, the new E3 has far too many restrictions.

http://play.tm/wire/click/2011026

List of games for PC shown at E3, and I can guarantee this is not even complete as 2 major titles off the top of my head aren't listed. Left 4 Dead and Dawn of War 2.

The lists for 360/PS3 aren't much longer.

Fact is, E3 with all their stupid new regulations severely limits developers/publishers in what they can show, and all but excludes smaller companies from even attending and displaying. Even some bigger games only get videos due to these restrictions.

E3 isnt a console event, but logical choices based on the new restrictions leads to far fewer PC displays and presentations.

----------------------------------------------------
Civilization Revolution, Grand Theft Auto IV, GRID

PSN ID= Puscifer73
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/