Wow, you are a troll. You accuse me of saying nothing of substance, yet you continue to post the same exact shit in every thread. How ironic.

Why don't you do all of us Bluesnews cretins that you don't like a huge favor and carry your arrogant, condescending self to another (presumably better, as far as you're concerned) website. Maybe they will recognize your superiority; we are pretty much tired of your whining.

This comment was edited on May 8, 2009, 09:10.

Jesus dude, you do realize that there are more than 1 opinion on Bluesnews, right (besides yours, which you beat us over the head with enough, God knows...)?

Translation: I wanted to slag you but needed something to make this post seem on-topic.

Many of us like great games on the PC, regardless of where they originated. Many of us also hate shitty console ports and the dumbing down of once-great PC franchises for consumption by the console demographic. None of this means all of us view things in such a childishly binary manner as you continue to insinuate. As far as I'm concerned, if the game ends up great, this exclusivity is a bad thing. If it sucks, then no big loss. What is discouraging is that more titles are defaulting to this type of thing, making it more likely that the PC gaming library will continue to shrink.

Wow that was an impressively long rant where you said absolutely nothing of substance. You want great games on the PC, wonderful. If my question seemed binary, perhaps its because those are the prevailing attitudes around here. PC gamers want games designed exclusively for their platform to take advantage of it's strengths. Not many developers are willing to provide that these days. So you get stuck with multiplatform titles which many people(I dare say the majority around here) complain about. Yet people here want the company largely responsible for those problems to come to your rescue.

It's funny because it's so ass backwards. I'm not well spoken like Dades or theyarecomingforyou but I think it's pretty clear that the things you guys are asking for don't jive with most of your own complaints.

Many of us like great games on the PC, regardless of where they originated. Many of us also hate shitty console ports and the dumbing down of once-great PC franchises for consumption by the console demographic.

+1.

What is discouraging is that more titles are defaulting to this type of thing, making it more likely that the PC gaming library will continue to shrink.

At the same time the PC is getting games it would never have had before - Street Fighter IV, Silent Hill, Devil May Cry 4, Last Remnant, The Maw, Guitar Hero 3, etc. We're also seeing an upsurge in indie games, from Defense Grid to Zeno Clash, Multiwinia to Plants Vs Zombies, Crayon Physics to Cogs, etc. And genres that were console dominant like racing have been opened up by games like GRID.

Personally I'm fine with the direction that PC gaming is heading. Multiplatform gaming is having an impact but there are plenty of indie developers and lower budget games doing well. And we still have AAA developers like Valve and Blizzard putting the best that consoles have to offer to shame. There's PLENTY of room for improvement, don't get me wrong, but it's not all doom and gloom.

Many of you bitch about multiplatform titles in the first place. Which is it, you want them or not? You can't seem to make up your minds. Crying about them in one topic one day and lamenting the potential lack of them the next.

Jesus dude, you do realize that there are more than 1 opinion on Bluesnews, right (besides yours, which you beat us over the head with enough, God knows...)? You certainly seem to revel in belittling the Bluesnews crowd incessantly, yet ironically you stick around. Do you like playing "Me against the world"?

Many of us like great games on the PC, regardless of where they originated. Many of us also hate shitty console ports and the dumbing down of once-great PC franchises for consumption by the console demographic. None of this means all of us view things in such a childishly binary manner as you continue to insinuate. As far as I'm concerned, if the game ends up great, this exclusivity is a bad thing. If it sucks, then no big loss. What is discouraging is that more titles are defaulting to this type of thing, making it more likely that the PC gaming library will continue to shrink.

This comment was edited on May 6, 2009, 22:00.

Why not? Just because it hasn't been implemented well to date doesn't mean it's not beneficial but it shouldn't replace a standard server browser, which is what Valve did with L4D. I'm all for making it simpler to join games but that shouldn't result in more advanced features being dropped.

You just answered your own question.

Hence why I said the war against the PS3, not the console war in general. Nintendo has taken the position of targeting the casual gamer to the detriment of the traditional gaming crowd. It's proved financially brilliant but as a gamer I find it lacking - the graphics are unacceptably poor.

That's great but doesn't address the point, Microsoft meddling in PC gamer matters has few tangible benefits I can see given their console track record. It works well for them with a console market but not on the PC as shown by the reactions of many PC gamers. You're arguing theory about what they could have accomplished without realizing it might not have been a positive contribution. In fact there's more proof to show that it would've been negative than to support your theory.

But my point is more about Microsoft's gaming focus in relation to the operating system and as a platform rather than to their games

Addressed above. You mention DirectX 10 but in fact there have been two versions of DirectX that have essentially required hardware upgrades already and they were before the Xbox became the central focus for Microsoft. Microsoft simply can't be trusted when it comes to gaming. Put simply Microsoft doesn't possess enough young blood. Their every move in various markets including gaming seems to imply that they really do not understand the newer generation of computer users. They are failing at meeting threats on several fronts from Google and Apple on mobile computer use including mobile gaming. Their main success recently has been the Xbox360 where communication, development tools and ease of use are the main tools required. Those are all things Microsoft does excel at so it's no surprise they are doing well with the 360.

Microsoft shows a fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to things PC gamers want. Why bother to address them when you can simply move to a console market and make more money while doing so? Frankly I'm not sure Microsoft would even care to pay the kind of attention you are seeking when it comes to gaming on the PC. The utter failure of the PCGA, the Games for Windows initiative being largely toothless and the continued fiasco that is GFWL all showcase these things. Even when they do care it's bad.

Like I said already, the uncaring Microsoft does enough damage as it is despite thinking it's doing good for the market, I'm not sure I want them to start paying attention.

This comment was edited on May 6, 2009, 19:49.

PC gamers don't want matchmaking

Why not? Just because it hasn't been implemented well to date doesn't mean it's not beneficial but it shouldn't replace a standard server browser, which is what Valve did with L4D. I'm all for making it simpler to join games but that shouldn't result in more advanced features being dropped.

Actually Nintendo is winning the console war, not Microsoft.

Hence why I said the war against the PS3, not the console war in general. Nintendo has taken the position of targeting the casual gamer to the detriment of the traditional gaming crowd. It's proved financially brilliant but as a gamer I find it lacking - the graphics are unacceptably poor.

I remember their mishandling of Mechwarrior, Close Combat and other decent titles from way back when.

Yeah, great franchises that were run into the ground. But my point is more about Microsoft's gaming focus in relation to the operating system and as a platform rather than to their games, which have always been weak - there were a few exceptions like Combat Flight Simulator, Starlancer and Age Of Empires but they were the exception. Afterall, most of Microsoft's success with the X360 relates to the hardware and exclusivity deals that to their own gaming studios.

So why else wouldn't they release DLC that they'd paid for on PC? The reality is that the PC does pose competition - don't forget that would also factor in piracy, as PC users could pirate content they may otherwise have paid for on X360.

There is no pirated release of the Mass Effect PC DLC.

But that record's based upon Microsoft support of the Xbox, whereas that support would otherwise have gone on Windows and gaming as an extension. And the Xbox was first announced back in 1999, back when Microsoft first started developing Windows XP - that's a decade of Windows gaming taking a back seat while Microsoft focused on consoles, a time in which computing has made huge advances but gaming has plodded on.

Microsoft's focus on the console market worked because they're addressing the console market, not the PC market. Microsoft doesn't really seem to get us PC gamers. PC gamers don't want matchmaking, we don't want complicated DLC profile schemes and we don't want games that are "dumbed down", quoting gamers here including many of us here at Blues.

So they're leading winning the console war against the PS3 and yet they're utterly incompetent? That demonstrates what Microsoft can do if it wanted to. Office 2007 demonstrates what Microsoft can do if it wants to. Gaming on PC highlights Microsoft's indifference towards it, in large part because of the focus on consoles. Is it the only reason? No, obviously not. But it's certainly an important factor.

Actually Nintendo is winning the console war, not Microsoft. Sony's mistakes are glaringly obvious and it's no shock Microsoft is ahead of them to be honest. There are numerous reasons Microsoft is ahead, it's a far complex situation than any of you give it credit. All of which has nothing to do with the fact that their previous focus on PC gaming was a massive failure. For every decent game they churned out there were 3 stinkers. For every successful revision of DirectX there have been problems and hardware upgrades.

Microsoft can stay far away from my PC gaming market, thank you very much. I remember their mishandling of Mechwarrior, Close Combat and other decent titles from way back when.

edited for horrible spelling

This comment was edited on May 6, 2009, 17:25.

No it's really not. There's a difference between neglect and rivalry.

Microsoft themselves admitted that the PC was a rival to the X360 - it was posted here a while back, I believe quoting someone from Microsoft Germany.

Microsoft can be correctly accused of being a shitty parent to the gaming market on it's own operating system but to suggest they're dicking over the PC on purpose because it's some sort of valid competitor is ludicrous

So why else wouldn't they release DLC that they'd paid for on PC? The reality is that the PC does pose competition - don't forget that would also factor in piracy, as PC users could pirate content they may otherwise have paid for on X360.

Why exactly do you think Microsoft focusing on the PC would be a good thing? They seem to do well at the console traditionally and underperform on the PC platform.

But that record's based upon Microsoft support of the Xbox, whereas that support would otherwise have gone on Windows and gaming as an extension. And the Xbox was first announced back in 1999, back when Microsoft first started developing Windows XP - that's a decade of Windows gaming taking a back seat while Microsoft focused on consoles, a time in which computing has made huge advances but gaming has plodded on.

There's a huge conflict of interest and gaming on Windows still isn't being taken seriously. Does Win7 even have one feature that improves gaming? WDDM has seen an incremental improvement but that was mainly for reducing memory consumption for Aero; RAM usage is down but that was part of the optimisation process and not gaming specific. We're talking about the primary advantage Windows has over Macs and we don't get anything at all? Instead we had the Vista / DX10 debacle that set PC gaming BACK.

The PC gaming market is largely where it is due to Microsoft's utter incompetence, so lets lay the blame correctly when assigning it.

So they're leading winning the console war against the PS3 and yet they're utterly incompetent? That demonstrates what Microsoft can do if it wanted to. Office 2007 demonstrates what Microsoft can do if it wants to. Gaming on PC highlights Microsoft's indifference towards it, in large part because of the focus on consoles. Is it the only reason? No, obviously not. But it's certainly an important factor.

It's not unreasonable

It's horribly unreasonably and you know it. Nintendo and Sony have between them probably 50 amazing franchises that would work really well on the PC. You focus solely on Wii shovelware and ignore the rest.

Are you trying to suggest that Microsoft didn't base GfWL upon Xbox Live? That was the point I was trying to make - Microsoft merely copy & pasted the design and then tried to bolt on changes, which gamers rejected. And yet games still persist in using it. It makes tasks that used to be simple a chore, like backing up save games and loading games. Instead I have to deal with GfWL client updates, delays logging in, games not saving because my profile isn't logged in, etc. I haven't seen anyone say "I'm glad that this game uses GfWL", whereas I have seen that for Steam and Impulse (along with criticism, don't get me wrong).

You're dodging my question despite asking me to directly answer one but alright I'll play along. It's ridiculous to suggest a "copy and paste" just because they share UI similarities. Microsoft had a working system in Xbox Live that gamers use regularly and tried to adapt it to the PC. They did a horrible job of it and frankly that doesn't leave me with confidence that they really know what they're doing with the PC platform in general.

Over the years they have killed developers and entire franchises, some of these long before the Xbox was even made. They have released years of sequels and stale followups to long loved PC franchises. Why exactly do you think Microsoft focusing on the PC would be a good thing? They seem to do well at the console traditionally and underperform on the PC platform. You can say it's a conflict of interest but they were doing this before the Xbox was around. Go look at the Microsoft Game Studios wikipedia entry for a full list of what they started with and what has become of it over the years. It's not pretty.

The PC is a rival to the Xbox's success

No it's really not. There's a difference between neglect and rivalry. PC sales are not even close to approaching console sales on multi-platform titles. Not even in the same universe. Microsoft can be correctly accused of being a shitty parent to the gaming market on it's own operating system but to suggest they're dicking over the PC on purpose because it's some sort of valid competitor is ludicrous. Microsoft has a lot more to worry about from it's own console competitors, the PC is not even on the radar. I'm sorry if you think that's some sort of insult to the PC, it's not. The PC gaming market is largely where it is due to Microsoft's utter incompetence, so lets lay the blame correctly when assigning it.

And we still see this conflict of interest when Microsoft pays off developers for exclusive DLC but won't also release it on PC

They won't release it for any platform, it's not just the PC. This also isn't correct by the way, for instance Mass Effect was an exclusive title with DLC that is also available for free on the PC when it was eventually released. Exclusivity doesn't mean forever. There are other examples I'm sure, that's just the only one I know off the top of my head.

This comment was edited on May 6, 2009, 15:14.

I am shocked this is coming from you, you're usually a better poster. Yeah let's ignore the many awesome franchises Sony and Nintendo possess and focus on a single retarded one as the reason we don't want them developing on the PC.

It's not unreasonable. Look at the best selling / most popular games for the Wii and you see Wii Sports and Wii Fit, then games like Brain Training. You also have games like Mario Kart Wii. None of those are particularly suitable for PC, which is why I like the Wii as a console - it tries to do something different. It's just a shame I don't have any interest in most of the games. And as for Sony, I'm not really aware of their first-party games so I just clicked the Sony tab on Steam to see what they had. Killzone 2 would have been better on PC but they're just a developer that Sony bought out.

Back that up with something please. Given that their DLC distribution is done differently and the user interfaces are NOT identical, yeah they are different. Sharing the same sounds when you click on something doesn't mean it's done the same behind the scenes. I don't care if the matchmaking algorithms used are the same, the fact remains that the console version works very well and the PC version is notoriously troublesome in many ways. How do you explain those differences?

Are you trying to suggest that Microsoft didn't base GfWL upon Xbox Live? That was the point I was trying to make - Microsoft merely copy & pasted the design and then tried to bolt on changes, which gamers rejected. And yet games still persist in using it. It makes tasks that used to be simple a chore, like backing up save games and loading games. Instead I have to deal with GfWL client updates, delays logging in, games not saving because my profile isn't logged in, etc. I haven't seen anyone say "I'm glad that this game uses GfWL", whereas I have seen that for Steam and Impulse (along with criticism, don't get me wrong).

But much of that is missing the point. My criticism is the conflict of interest between Microsoft supporting the X360 and supporting gaming on Windows. The PC is a rival to the Xbox's success, hence why Halo was severely delayed and poorly ported - Halo 2 was an absolute fucking farce due to the Vista exclusivity! And we still see this conflict of interest when Microsoft pays off developers for exclusive DLC but won't also release it on PC. Microsoft has supported PC gaming the bare minimum necessary and at times worked actively against it. So Nintendo and Sony publishing games on PC is irrelevant to that criticism.

Oh yeah, how silly... they're completely different. You're joking, right?

Back that up with something please. Given that their DLC distribution is done differently and the user interfaces are NOT identical, yeah they are different. Sharing the same sounds when you click on something doesn't mean it's done the same behind the scenes. I don't care if the matchmaking algorithms used are the same, the fact remains that the console version works very well and the PC version is notoriously troublesome in many ways. How do you explain those differences? Are -you- joking?

Yeah, their gaming studio business was dead or dying before the Xbox got here but I'm talking about gaming support for Windows. I'm talking about DirectX really innovating instead of stagnating. I'm talking about PC studios like Ensemble and Bungie not being fucked over in favour of console exclusive content. I'm talking about real innovation on the PC platform instead of taking a backseat.

Can't really argue with something that generic. "DirectX innovating", every release can't reinvent the wheel. Look at the annoyance many users have had just with being forced to potentially switch to a new DX hardware platform. MS was screwing up franchises and devs years before the Xbox.

Oh yeah, PC Fit and Pirates Of The Burning Sea FTW! Oh wait...

I am shocked this is coming from you, you're usually a better poster. Yeah let's ignore the many awesome franchises Sony and Nintendo possess and focus on a single retarded one as the reason we don't want them developing on the PC. As if the PC itself isn't the dumping ground for mass amounts of shovelware in the first place.

I don't know where PC gamers get this from, it feels like some of you haven't even used Xbox Live. The underlying architecture is different, the UI has some similarities and you share a gamertag/friends list. They are not the same thing.

Oh yeah, how silly... they're completely different. You're joking, right?

Given Microsoft Game Studio's performance over the past 10 years, I would not share your confidence in MS supporting the PC well.

Yeah, their gaming studio business was dead or dying before the Xbox got here but I'm talking about gaming support for Windows. I'm talking about DirectX really innovating instead of stagnating. I'm talking about PC studios like Ensemble and Bungie not being fucked over in favour of console exclusive content. I'm talking about real innovation on the PC platform instead of taking a backseat.

I'd much rather see a console developer like Sony or Nintendo supporting the PC exclusively before Microsoft.

Oh yeah, PC Fit and Pirates Of The Burning Sea FTW! Oh wait...

Except they just did with Ghostbusters. And they did with GTA3... and with Final Fantasy... and so on. Sony invented exclusive content and now Microsoft has outdone them at their own game. It would be hilarious if PC gamers weren't being fucked over.

Publishing the title and paying for exclusivity are two different things. Blizzard for instance is not a PC exclusive developer, they simply don't publish to other platforms. They have never said they would not publish to a console however, their fans just assume they will not. If you still don't agree, I'll point out that there is a difference between simply taking publisher responsibilities and writing a $50mil cheque like Microsoft has done. GTA3 is how many years old now? Sony doesn't pay for exclusive content on the PS3, that's their official stance and it's well documented in the community and press, not to mention supported by their financial statements. Microsoft is the bad guy there nowadays regardless of "who started it". Even still you guys are arguing about consumers but what Microsoft does is "best" for it's Xbox consumers. Some of the best titles for the 360 are exclusives and people love them. I don't recall a law stating a game must be available to all platforms for the good of humanity.

Yeah, but GfWL was about Microsoft copy & pasting the Xbox Live system to PC and gamers rejecting it. I doubt we would have seen GfWL without the Xbox and even if we had it would have been considerably different.

I don't know where PC gamers get this from, it feels like some of you haven't even used Xbox Live. The underlying architecture is different, the UI has some similarities and you share a gamertag/friends list. They are not the same thing. Given Microsoft Game Studio's performance over the past 10 years, I would not share your confidence in MS supporting the PC well. They were fucking up long before the Xbox. Even their own productivity software divisions on the PC have been problematic and shown a clear lack of direction for awhile now. I'd much rather see a console developer like Sony or Nintendo supporting the PC exclusively before Microsoft.

Many of you bitch about multiplatform titles in the first place. Which is it, you want them or not? You can't seem to make up your minds. Crying about them in one topic one day and lamenting the potential lack of them the next.

This comment was edited on May 6, 2009, 13:49.

Sony's stance is that they will not pay for exclusive content.

Except they just did with Ghostbusters. And they did with GTA3... and with Final Fantasy... and so on. Sony invented exclusive content and now Microsoft has outdone them at their own game. It would be hilarious if PC gamers weren't being fucked over.

Given the reception to GfWL, I'm not sure why you guys would really want this. Microsoft has shown itself to be pretty daft when it comes to the PC.

Yeah, but GfWL was about Microsoft copy & pasting the Xbox Live system to PC and gamers rejecting it. I doubt we would have seen GfWL without the Xbox and even if we had it would have been considerably different.

I'm pretty sure Sony does buy content, otherwise MGS4, Killzone 2, Resistance, Uncharted, MAG, Ratchet and Clank, Infamous and a whole bunch of other games wouldn't be PS3-exclusives.

None of those titles were bought. Their developers chose to go PS exclusive and in some cases were either published by Sony or done first party. Sony's stance is that they will not pay for exclusive content. This has actually made some PS3 owners pretty upset as Microsoft has gotten some pretty decent titles and DLC by paying for exclusivity.

That includes releasing DLC for all of them. It's incredibly lame to buy a multiplatform game and then hear the announcement that the DLC is only coming out for the platform you don't have. This isn't good for consumers at all.

This is one of those things where time will tell. It would be nice if devs would not use "exclusive DLC" to mean the only DLC will be available to that singular platform but instead create additional DLC exclusive to that platform. Customers seem willing to tolerate it for the moment but that doesn't mean it won't change in the future.

I wish Microsoft hadn't got into consoles and had instead focused on supporting the PC.

Given the reception to GfWL, I'm not sure why you guys would really want this. Microsoft has shown itself to be pretty daft when it comes to the PC.

This comment was edited on May 6, 2009, 12:28.

Sony doesn't buy content by the way, only Microsoft does that.

I'm pretty sure Sony does buy content, otherwise MGS4, Killzone 2, Resistance, Uncharted, MAG, Ratchet and Clank, Infamous and a whole bunch of other games wouldn't be PS3-exclusives.

We don't need three identical consoles on the market so exclusive DLC/games is a good thing imho.

Exclusive games I can tolerate. Exclusive DLC? Not so much. If you release a game on multiple platforms, you should support the game on those platforms. That includes releasing DLC for all of them. It's incredibly lame to buy a multiplatform game and then hear the announcement that the DLC is only coming out for the platform you don't have. This isn't good for consumers at all.

@theyarecomingforyou

I wish Microsoft hadn't got into consoles and had instead focused on supporting the PC.

+100000.

This comment was edited on May 6, 2009, 12:12.

Do you own both consoles? I do and they each have plenty of exclusive titles to differentiate them from the other. That's like saying the PC and the 360 are the same because there's a lot of multiplatform titles on the market.

But that's my point... they basically are the same. The X360 COULD support keyboards, mice and other controllers but chooses not to. Why should I buy four platforms when the PC could run all of it and better? And why buy a PS3 when the X360 is perfectly capable of running a game like Killzone 2 if the developers had wanted to? Your point is basically that we should all buy four times as many platforms because choice is good, yet if it was all released on PC I could buy whatever hardware I wanted and wouldn't have to pay the console tax on games and hardware. How is having to spend ridiculously over the odds better than supporting an open platform like the PC? Consoles should just be PCs with specific hardware, where you could upgrade them to run better or simply build your own PC and run the games.

What's the point in competition if it makes everything more expensive and limits the amount of content you can have if you have the wrong platform?

This comment was edited on May 6, 2009, 11:58.

Actually Verno, you are the one who seems to be missing the point. If the only difference between the consoles and PC is exclusive titles then the customer is being hurt. Instead of owning one console/PC and playing all games, you have to own all four to get access to all games.

I'm sorry, when has it ever not been that way? Please name for me the fairy universe where we all owned one system and got to play every single ever released. You're positing your dreams in place of reality, dreams that have never existed nor ever will in the gaming market. Do you think there should only be one supermarket chain in the world? How about one bank? Having a single platform will mean lockin and lockin is not a good thing. It stifles creativity and lack of competition has never been a good thing for any market. Don't act like the PC would be immune to it either, when you start bringing in all of the console manufacturers then you can bet your ass they would make some pseudo-console PC like the 360 with a locked hardware platform, defeating the entire purpose. What you guys want would ruin your fabled PC and you don't even seem to realize it.

The most constantly bemoaned thing on Bluesnews is how console titles are ruining PC gameplay and yet you guys seem to want all of them on the PC. InBlack himself has argued against this before and that's exactly why I called him out on trolling. It's highly hypocritical at best and downright retarded at worst.

Actually Verno, you are the one who seems to be missing the point. If the only difference between the consoles and PC is exclusive titles then the customer is being hurt. Instead of owning one console/PC and playing all games, you have to own all four to get access to all games. If they made a console that could play all games and the same games could be played on your PC, would that not be a win for the consumer? Instead of the console manufactures competing for your dollars by buying off exclusives that would work fine on other systems, the game manufactures could compete for your dollars by making better games that ALL the people could play. All individual consoles are really doing is segmenting the market via exclusives. Exclusives only mean you get a fraction of the buyers that you would get without the exclusive.

and frankly, your arguments become worthless when you can't get past flame baiting someone on your judgment of them not knowing about a PC release or not. His argument is sound, you are the one who decided to start sounding like a troll

You obviously didn't even have a clue this was getting a PC release, you were trolling what you thought was a console topic. Go back to the corner.