The sorry state of PC gaming

[QwarkDreams]

I'm not sure if many good vendors can take on Steam. Even if there were several good alternatives some games would still be exclusive to some vendor-platforms. The problem with those unattractive alternatives would be erased (with them now being good) but you'd still have several accounts. Even with real life stores you're most likely to go where you have the best prices and largest range. Even if there are some stores that offer one or two items cheaper than the one you buy frequently at, you'd weigh if the lower price makes up for - lets say - driving an hour (which adds the time and gas money to the lower price for the item). The comparison may not fit that well and is a bit exxagerated but I think y'all get what I'm sayin' ;-)

Maybe it's just me not really caring for cross-platform MS games but I'm kinda happy with Steam and don't have the urge to look for alternatives (well, except when there's games I wanna play that aren't sold via Steam).

@Jas00555 On one hand there's the shareholders wanting MS to abandon the XBox, on the other hand it's abandoning GFWL and killing many games completely (rendering them non-playable).
Pulling the plug on such a service and not coming up with a great replacement shortly after doesn't look too commited to me.

 

[Jas00555]

I'm not sure if many good vendors can take on Steam. Even if there were several good alternatives some games would still be exclusive to some vendor-platforms. The problem with those unattractive alternatives would be erased (with them now being good) but you'd still have several accounts. Even with real life stores you're most likely to go where you have the best prices and largest range. Even if there are some stores that offer one or two items cheaper than the one you buy frequently at, you'd weigh if the lower price makes up for - lets say - driving an hour (which adds the time and gas money to the lower price for the item). The comparison may not fit that well and is a bit exxagerated but I think y'all get what I'm sayin' ;-)

Maybe it's just me not really caring for cross-platform MS games but I'm kinda happy with Steam and don't have the urge to look for alternatives (well, except when there's games I wanna play that aren't sold via Steam).

@Jas00555 On one hand there's the shareholders wanting MS to abandon the XBox, on the other hand it's abandoning GFWL and killing many games completely (rendering them non-playable).
Pulling the plug on such a service and not coming up with a great replacement shortly after doesn't look too commited to me.

To your first point. That is exactly what would give Microsoft the advantage. I don't know the exact numbers, but when you sign into Windows 8.X, you're asked signed into a Microsoft account. Microsoft could leverage the fact that since you've already got an account that came with that computer, you wouldn't have to make another one, thus eliminating that barrier, which I personally don't even see as that big of a barrier since most people have a Facebook, twitter, Microsoft (from Windows, Outlook/Hotmail/Xbox), Google (Gmail), Apple ID, and various other accounts so they probably wont care about another one.

To your second point. I would argue different service, different time, different management. I don't see the Windows Store becoming GFWL 2.0.

 

[AaHaa]

To your first point. That is exactly what would give Microsoft the advantage. I don't know the exact numbers, but when you sign into Windows 8.X, you're asked signed into a Microsoft account. Microsoft could leverage the fact that since you've already got an account that came with that computer, you wouldn't have to make another one, thus eliminating that barrier, which I personally don't even see as that big of a barrier since most people have a Facebook, twitter, Microsoft (from Windows, Outlook/Hotmail/Xbox), Google (Gmail), Apple ID, and various other accounts so they probably wont care about another one.

To your second point. I would argue different service, different time, different management. I don't see the Windows Store becoming GFWL 2.0.

Exactly. I think they could pretty easily make the Windows Store a strong Steam competitor without having it feel like one. When you buy an iPhone, it's not weird that there's a gaming service on there run by Apple, right? When you buy an Xbox, it's not weird there's a gaming service on there run by Microsoft. So why should it be weird or annoying that there's a gaming service on your Windows PC run by Microsoft? Of course, you'll have the PCmasterrace people who hate Microsoft and will do their best to delete the app and solely run Steam, but I don't think the general public will see a service like this as an annoyance.

By the way, I remember a news article from a while back that said that someone at Xbox/Microsoft said that they would start trying to retake the PC gaming market soon, but I can't seem to find it anymore... Anyone who can help me?

 

[QwarkDreams]

To your first point. That is exactly what would give Microsoft the advantage. I don't know the exact numbers, but when you sign into Windows 8.X, you're asked signed into a Microsoft account. Microsoft could leverage the fact that since you've already got an account that came with that computer, you wouldn't have to make another one, thus eliminating that barrier, which I personally don't even see as that big of a barrier since most people have a Facebook, twitter, Microsoft (from Windows, Outlook/Hotmail/Xbox), Google (Gmail), Apple ID, and various other accounts so they probably wont care about another one.

To your second point. I would argue different service, different time, different management. I don't see the Windows Store becoming GFWL 2.0.

That can be a disadvantage too. Having too many services combined under a single account with the same password (Hotmail/Outlook, PC account, Windows Store/XBox Live (that might include bank account information), etc.) makes the damage far greater if you get hacked and gives the hacker access to more than just one service with your information (like it is with Google services -> Gmail, YouTube, Play Store (which might include your bank account information too) etc. or all the services that allow you to sign in with your Facebook/Twitter/[insert social media service] account).

Also, having trouble with your account means you can't access any of the services it is connected with.

Exactly. I think they could pretty easily make the Windows Store a strong Steam competitor without having it feel like one. When you buy an iPhone, it's not weird that there's a gaming service on there run by Apple, right? When you buy an Xbox, it's not weird there's a gaming service on there run by Microsoft. So why should it be weird or annoying that there's a gaming service on your Windows PC run by Microsoft? Of course, you'll have the PCmasterrace people who hate Microsoft and will do their best to delete the app and solely run Steam, but I don't think the general public will see a service like this as an annoyance.

By the way, I remember a news article from a while back that said that someone at Xbox/Microsoft said that they would start trying to retake the PC gaming market soon, but I can't seem to find it anymore... Anyone who can help me?

What gaming service run by Apple do you mean?`Game Center? I find that one rather annoying.
Having XBox Live on your XBox is the only way to get DLC and other stuff for your XBox (well, besides retail versions but DLC is rather rare these days to be released on disc). Same goes for Sony's PSN. But those are closed environments with no alternative. With PCs being a very open environment the number of alternatives to get games/DLC/etc. is vast.

MS trying to introduce its own gaming service (again) reminds me of Nokia waiting too long to participate in the smartphone market. Without the cooperation with a bigger company that already has some experience and credibility in this field, I don't see how MS can stand out between mediocre services like uPlay or Origin, or even be a serious competitor against Steam. Offering the same services with no benefits (don't want to speculate on this, since I don't know what MS might be able to offer, so for simplicity I just assume there are none, not saying there will be none) will only attract people who play on both their PC and XBox console. Cross-buys would be a heck of deal (getting both PC and XBox version of a game so you can play it on both platforms or give the other one to a friend - the last part could be difficult to realize since there needs to be a system that makes suure you don't just sell one of the versions) or even fusing the servers so you can play online multiplayer on your PC with a friend that plays the same game on his XBox.

The possibilities for MS are quite a few but I'm not getting my hopes up that I will be wowed when MS comes up with a new gaming service on PC.

@AaHaa Do you mean this one? Phil Spencer: a 'renewed focus' on Windows PC gaming from Microsoft is coming | Polygon

 

[Jas00555]

*QwarkDreams uses confusion on Jas00555*
...
...
*it is very effective*

Alright, now you've confused me. Maybe I'm not understanding you or maybe you've misspoke, but you're not making any sense. First you were saying that having multiple accounts is annoying to people and you would rather have one. Then when I point out that you wouldn't need to create another account, you say it could be a bad thing because more of your stuff could be compromised. You can't have it both ways unless you wanted to make two Microsoft accounts. One for email and one for Windows 8.X.

To be perfectly honest, you sound like a Steam apologist that is just like "there's no need to make a Steam competitor because Steam is amazing". Well, I disagree that Steam is amazing and I would rather use the account that I already have with my PC than make another one.

 

[QwarkDreams]

*QwarkDreams uses confusion on Jas00555*
...
...
*it is very effective*

Alright, now you've confused me. Maybe I'm not understanding you or maybe you've misspoke, but you're not making any sense. First you were saying that having multiple accounts is annoying to people and you would rather have one. Then when I point out that you wouldn't need to create another account, you say it could be a bad thing because more of your stuff could be compromised. You can't have it both ways unless you wanted to make two Microsoft accounts. One for email and one for Windows 8.X.

To be perfectly honest, you sound like a Steam apologist that is just like "there's no need to make a Steam competitor because Steam is amazing". Well, I disagree that Steam is amazing and I would rather use the account that I already have with my PC than make another one.

Gee, I'm sorry^^ But you understood me quite well ;-)

What I meant was that having multiple accounts is annoying but having one account for many, many services just isn't that safe and it kinda worries me. The more services are merged into one single account (many services, one email address + password) the more you lose if there is a problem with it (being hacked or something like that).
Also, I'd rather have one account for one service and stick with it than many accounts for many services (not one account for many services).

That might be true. I really like Steam. It has all the games I want, unlockable achievements in games, a nice interface and great prices (if you take advantage of the sales). It's not perfect; e.g. I find it quite annoying that I need my cousin to buy games for me because I don't have a PayPal account or credit card (Steam prepaid cards aren't available in my country). But overall I'm very satisfied with the services it offers.

The reason why I think that other services won't be serious competitors is that Steam was introduced in 2003 for Windows. That means almost 11 years of experience and a loyal community. That's a huge advantage. Every competitor will be compared to Steam and new brands and services never have it easy against a company that has been around - and successful - for such a long time.

I just lost my hope in MS because they half-assed GFWL and just killed it. No attempt to save it or improve it while it was still "alive".

 

[Keith Wallace]

The reason why I think that other services won't be serious competitors is that Steam was introduced in 2003 for Windows. That means almost 11 years of experience and a loyal community.

Sony released the PlayStation 7 years before the Xbox. Nintendo got into the console business in 1977, 24 years before Microsoft, and look where they are now. Persistence can make up for lost time. The tech community is a pretty fickle one, IMO. If something better comes along, it'll usually succeed.

 

[QwarkDreams]

Sony released the PlayStation 7 years before the Xbox. Nintendo got into the console business in 1977, 24 years before Microsoft, and look where they are now. Persistence can make up for lost time. The tech community is a pretty fickle one, IMO. If something better comes along, it'll usually succeed.

That was a different time. There was less competition and consumers and companies were more patient. Also, MS had a completely different target audience, being mostly adults. That's how they established themselves in the console and gaming market. The attempt to take on Apple's iPod with the Zune was a different story that shows pretty good how the market works today: if a product/service doesn't get as much attention and is less profitable as expected it gets cancelled.

 

[AaHaa]

Also, everyone hated Steam in the beginning
But I get you. Steam is awesome (seriously). It does almost everything right. But it just bugs me that the best and "standard" gaming service on Microsoft machines is a competitor's product (because I think Microsoft and Valve are competitors and I think Gaben thinks so as well). It's a bit like earning Xbox achievements on a Playstation.
What would Microsoft have to do to win you over, QwarkDreams? Or maybe "win you over" is a bit too extreme. What would Microsoft have to do so you wouldn't mind running a Microsoft-powered service on your PC next to Steam?

 

[Jas00555]

So here's a curveball idea. Alright, I know this probably won't happen, but I think I know a great way to make Steam collectively sh*t it's pants.

So I think we can all agree that EA and Ubisoft don't actually WANT Origin and Uplay to exist. What they really want is to make more money by not paying Valve and preventing people from pirating their games. If they didn't have to pay Valve, they probably would put their games on Steam.

WELL what if Microsoft teamed up with EA and Ubisoft (and whoever else makes their own games distribution services, those two just come to mind) and assuming that Threshold does very well, they basically put those services in the Windows Store. Like you can search to find Titanfall and it could show up in the store or they could have a "desktop games section" apart from the other stuff. I'm assuming they would have to make the licensing costs worth it, but if they could.... Just think.... You've got a place to buy Halo, Forza, Titanfall, the Sims, and Assasins Creed all in the same store and only have to give out your CC one time and only to one company. Now THAT would be a way for Microsoft to make their dent in PC gaming.

Edit: Also, think of THIS. When BUILD comes around and they brag to developers how much money they're making from the Store, they can use those prices. Hell, selling $30 games would make their "revenue from store" numbers shoot up FAST. That *may* convince developers to make more games/apps, thus helping reach app parity. They can take on Steam and Google Play/App Store at the same time.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I think that's something that COULD have happened, but won't. EA and Ubisoft might have played along before they launched their stuff, but now they've invested the time and money to build up the system and get the customers, and they won't want to lose those people with this now. MAYBE they could work something out with MS on a PC marketplace launch where their games are present, but not something where they shut down Origin and/or UPlay with a deal.

 

[Jas00555]

I think that's something that COULD have happened, but won't. EA and Ubisoft might have played along before they launched their stuff, but now they've invested the time and money to build up the system and get the customers, and they won't want to lose those people with this now. MAYBE they could work something out with MS on a PC marketplace launch where their games are present, but not something where they shut down Origin and/or UPlay with a deal.

Well yeah, I wouldn't expect them to shut it down. Mainly because of a) discoverability (for a while, people's first place to get an EA/Ubisoft game won't be the Windows Store, especially if they're primarily a desktop user) and b) legacy people still on Windows 7. While I'm sure that most PC gamers will upgrade, there will be some that wont.

I just think that EA and, more so, Ubisoft don't like dealing with the server costs, being responsible for handling many logins and people's CCs, having people hate on the service etc... And would rather have someone else do it, but it just saves them more money by doing it themselves. I don't foresee them shutting it down, but maybe something where they offer it same day in the Windows Store or (more realistically) you basically have a modern/metro Origin running inside the Windows Store. Basically, what I'm imagining here is that to buy Titanfall 2, you go to Windows Store --> "Desktop games" (or whatever) where it takes you to a place that kinda looks like the Windows Store does now, but more mouse/keyboard friendly --> go to "EA" (where in the desktop store, categories are replaced by the top publishers) --> metro/modern Origin.... I mean, or you could just type "Titanfall 2" in the search bar. I realize that sounds like a lot of clicks, but it's really only about 3 once you're inside the store, and it would still be more convenient having 2 game stores instead of 4.

Plus, with extra servers to repurpose, EA can use those to finally take Battlefield 4 out of beta status. (;