Doug Lombardi Questions 'Games For Windows' Initiative

[fitbabits]

In an interview with GamesIndustry.biz (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/), Valve's Doug Lombardi has questioned Microsoft's Game For Windows initiative and suggested that Microsoft is using it to promote sales for their Vista operating system.

You can read Lombardi's comments here (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=23439).

"Right now it seems like it's part of the marketing push to help Vista," commented Doug Lombardi, marketing manager at Valve, in an exclusive interview for GamesIndustry.biz.

"To really back a platform is a sustained effort over years and years, so we'll see if in two years Microsoft is still spending money to put Games for Windows sections in retail, and having PR people preach that message that the PC isn't dying, it’s actually bigger than all the consoles put together."

"You know, if it were to sign up for that, that's great. If it's going to use it to promote sales of Vista, that's really not good for the industry, it's good for Microsoft in the short term," offered Lombardi.
I don't buy that Microsoft is only using the Games For Windows branding for Vista promotion alone. I saw enough commitment from them at GDC to nullify that notion.

[bapenguin]

It's most definitley a huge part of it. God I hate to use this word but, the whole thing is about the synergy between Vista and GFW titles.

[cppcrusader]

It was definitely born out of Vista promotion at the very least. They've got Vista, XNA, and DX10 and they want to push hard on the fact that PC gaming isn't dead as well as push Vista. It just so happens the two goals kind of coincide with each other.

Personally, I never liked the Games for Windows branding. It just rubs me the wrong way for some reason.

[Schnoogs]

Seems kind of silly for Doug to complain about something that might potentially bring customers his way...unless of course he's afraid that Steam won't be the main source of Windows gaming.

Sounds to me like a case of "why didnt we think of that" or "This is gonna take away from Steam".

Seems kind of silly for him to complain about an effort to stregthen a platform that has been Valves bread and butter. It can't hurt PC gaming so it seems silly to complain.

[Citizen Philip]

I tend to agree with him, I don't think it's more than another part of the same push to get everyone to buy vista: and shortly there after it will be dumped like the original Xbox. By all mean, prove me wrong: let's wait two years and see what happens.

[trip1eX]

Games for Windows is a pretty lame effort. IT's very superficial. IT's really a marketing effort only. And a way to sell Vista. I don't see it overcoming the real problems with pc gaming.

I mean it doesn't change that pcgaming is a hassle compared to console gaming. I think that will keep most away.

Something doesn't jive either with MS attracting pcgaming developers to the Xbox/360 (which hurt pcgaming) and now they want to help it?

They might as well just allow mouse/keyboard on the 360. IF developers want to release a 'desktop' game for the 360 then let 'em.

[Roc Ingersol]

"Right now it seems like it's part of the marketing push to help Vista,"
Uhhh... no shit.

It's a marketing effort to sell Windows, and you don't market the old model.

[Adam Blue]

Sounds to me like a case of "why didnt we think of that" or "This is gonna take away from Steam".

Exactly. Going by how Live! on XBox has panned out, I only see it going further on Windows in the future. There's still a lot planned that hasn't been implemented.

[KingGorilla]

Fitty, when the prom queen of PC gaming(Valve) is left out in the dark with GFW, when Microsoft makes little to no effort with many major software manufacturers of PC gaming like Valve, Blizzard, I cannot blame them for questioning the whole idea. Vista and GFW has been a dismal failure so far...but so was Steam in its early days.

[Goronmon]

It's a marketing effort to sell Windows, and you don't market the old model.Yeah, I'm not sure why everyone is hung up on this. I mean, people don't give MS shit when they try to market the 360. Windows is just another platform. When did promotion of a platform become a bad thing? So what if it is to help sell Vista? I thought that was the point of marketing?

[Evil_SPanKY]

What I find interesting is this statement:

and having PR people preach that message that the PC isn't dying, it’s actually bigger than all the consoles put together."


Is this statement true, anyone know? Is PC gaming still bigger than all consoles put together? Or is thios going back to the dawn of time and counting everything across the board.

Just food for though....discuss!

[Citizen Philip]

Windows is just another platform. When did promotion of a platform become a bad thing? So what if it is to help sell Vista? I thought that was the point of marketing?

Because, it becomes another useless marketing shell to sell something, it isn't an actual genuine interest in the market as much as it a self-interest in helping themselves promote Vista under the pretense of being a harbinger for a 'new age' of PC gaming.

Steam for example, doesn't pretend to be more than an interface for buying games with some internet related features built-in. Which I believe is the distinction between the two, and the reason why it's being called bullshit by others.

[Mason]

According to the GFW site, compatibility with both XP and Vista is a requirement for a GFW title. So I'm kind of unclear as to how this explicitly aids the Vista push. By necessity, if people remain PC gamers then they'll eventually be forced onto Vista (by discontinued XP support), but that's a pretty round-about way to run a conspiracy.

[Citizen Philip]

What I find interesting is this statement:



Is this statement true, anyone know? Is PC gaming still bigger than all consoles put together? Or is thios going back to the dawn of time and counting everything across the board.

Just food for though....discuss!

He maybe referring to the fact there are millions of computers, in general at most businesses, and I wouldn't be surprised that most homes have computers in them: but not all homes use them to play games. I think he is taking quite a few liberties with the definition of 'pc gaming', like all those stupid articles about gaming: where someone who plays a hand of solitaire has equal value with someone who plays WoW.

Which does bring up the interesting point that WoW alone has 8 million active accounts: which excludes people who don't play WoW or PC gamers who don't play MMOs.

[vallor]

There is a lot of mis-information here; though I am not sure why that surprises me.

Sounds to me like either Valve wasn't let into some special program, they tried to bully their way through without complying with some requirements, or that the Games for Windows team otherwise wouldn't budge or kiss the ass of the 800lbs gorilla that is Valve.

Standardizing on something to bring order and consistency to the games domain isn't a bad thing. Before the Windows user interface guidelines windows programmers and PMs used to put all sorts of things willy-nilly in the menus. Now even the most novice programmer and PM knows that a File menu typically has some things, and edit menu typically has some things. More importantly USERS are able to set some expectation of the content of a File or Edit menu.

Games for Windows is NOT specific to Vista. There are a number of games out there right now with the G4W branding (Flight Sim, Zoo Tycoon, to name 2). Notice that none of them are Vista only games.

A game can be probably be Vista only and be branded with the Games for Window logo, assuming it meets the fairly low bar Games for Windows sets out but so what? It doesn't seem like there is any Vista only Mandate attached to Games for Windows. Now DX10 is a different story...

Unless someone is wanted to specificially design a game to incompatible with Vista it probably wouldn't take much effort for a modern game designed to run on XP and Vista to be Games for Windows.

Games for Windows is good for PC gaming in the same way standard user interface designs are good for applications and isn't that hard to do.

[TrackZero]

It was definitely born out of Vista promotion at the very least. They've got Vista, XNA, and DX10 and they want to push hard on the fact that PC gaming isn't dead as well as push Vista. It just so happens the two goals kind of coincide with each other.

I don't see how, they've wanted to add parental controls and bring out DX10 for some time, why not make GFW and standardize the industry? It's a win win situation, and in this case, I really don't want to hear about developers pissing and moaning that they have to meet certain criteria that helps us gamers.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I just don't think games for Windows is going to revitalize the PC market - the problem with PCs isn't the development tools, or anything having to do with the way you program on them - the problem is that only a few genres have any level of success. The PC is completely dominated by First Person Shooters, Real Time Strategy, and MMOs (almost entirely WoW), with a very specific niche that is The Sims. Developers keep marginalizing all other genres - games like Oblivion are RARE.

[motor]

I think the thing I'm most worried about is that Vista, Games for Windows, and the increased emphasis on security and parental control will move toward some kind of certification process for windows games and other software. This will absolutely kill the small developer. If Microsoft can move toward that model, they will make so much money they might not even need to charge for windows!

[Goronmon]

Because, it becomes another useless marketing shell to sell something, it isn't an actual genuine interest in the market as much as it a self-interest in helping themselves promote Vista under the pretense of being a harbinger for a 'new age' of PC gaming.The differences between DX9 and DX10 seem to show that it's more than a marketing shell...

[CptTripps]

I don't see how, they've wanted to add parental controls and bring out DX10 for some time, why not make GFW and standardize the industry? It's a win win situation, and in this case, I really don't want to hear about developers pissing and moaning that they have to meet certain criteria that helps us gamers.

Yup, I like it. And company of heroes shows up under "games" in my media center PC, also..... it plays without the CD, HOORAY!!!!

[MacD]

GFW are spec'd to run on XP and Vista? Yeah, so what about Halo2 and (probably inevitably) GoW pc?

As for 'standardising' games through GFW due to the added hassles of pc games. Bollocks! PC gaming has been "insert, install to desired directory and play" for a while now. The days of setting irq's have been gone for a long time.
And that GFW sticker? Do you really think there isn't a certification process there already? Why do you think the indies aren't too happy? Because they already have to pay of they want their games to show up under the vista 'games' section (and who needs that Vista 'games' section anyway? How dumb do you have to be to need that?).

The fact that there are no problems with implementing DX10 in XP (and I have said that for a while, before mr Carmack said so publically) yet it wasn't done...do you really think that was a decision made for the software users? Or may it have been MS' decision so they could push Vista?

Anyway, end-of-story is that GFW means more hoops to jump through for developpers and more money they have to spend on devellopment. And what's the gain for us players? A sticker on the bloody box, that's what. And maybe a matching system slightly better than Gamespy's. That's it. Only MS wins here.

They should rename GFW to GFVista.

[Citizen Philip]

The differences between DX9 and DX10 seem to show that it's more than a marketing shell...

Tell me that in two years, when we can see if they have any follow through. Put me in the category of 'cautiously optimistic (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/03/01)'. Now, I'm not arguing over the technical merits that Vista/DX10 and future games will possess: but specifically 'Games for Windows'.

Unless they have EA, Valve, etc. on board, I don't see it more than a half-hearted attempt and a short-term marketing gimmick.

[Royal Fool]

According to the GFW site, compatibility with both XP and Vista is a requirement for a GFW title. So I'm kind of unclear as to how this explicitly aids the Vista push.
Games for Windows is NOT specific to Vista.
Well, sorry, but that's bullshit. Microsoft is putting pressure on every developer using the branding to remove support for XP. Halo 2 (lol Microsoft), Shadowrun, Alan Wake and probably Marvel Universe will all be Vista-only. Others might do the same since the platforms still haven't been announced. Once we see more 360 ports going to Windows, you can bet that they'll be Vista-only.

Valve aren't pissed off about anything in particular - they've been taking part in Microsoft's program for some time now. It's just that MS hasn't been adamant enough about placing the branding on the boxes (Blizzard, Valve, EA, Ubisoft and others) and developers are feeling suspicious about Microsoft's long-term support for XP.

[Goronmon]

Tell me that in two years, when we can see if they have any follow through. Put me in the category of 'cautiously optimistic (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/03/01)'. Now, I'm not arguing over the technical merits that Vista/DX10 and future games will possess: but specifically 'Games for Windows'.I'm more worried about their actual commitment towards gaming on Windows than I am about any specific marketing campaign. I'll take changes such as the DX10 improvements over any commitment to GFW.

[Citizen Philip]

I'm more worried about their actual commitment towards gaming on Windows than I am about any specific marketing campaign. I'll take changes such as the DX10 improvements over any commitment to GFW.

You're set then. DX10 improvements are beneficial and will eventually be adopted by developers. I believe Vista removes some of the tedium of looking for drivers and such: which is of benefit to those less interested/technically inclined. My concern is that MS is using GFW as a marketing gimmick: the creation of Vista-only games (no XP) and this convenient new-found interest in PC gaming in general; more debris on the road of unenforceable standards for PC games.

[RMan]

According to the GFW site, compatibility with both XP and Vista is a requirement for a GFW title.
As Royal Fool stated, clearly that is not true. I’m in agreement with there being little way that this helps the PC gaming industry. Look, Vista is almost purely about one thing, and that’s MS controlling the media. The ‘big thing’ in Vista strategically, IMO, is DRM, which MS wants because it’ll allow them to distribute more media. The GFW initiative is also about controlling the media, but at the same time Vista contributes to/represents what is wrong with PC gaming from a consumer perspective, and that’s that changing technology makes for games that are sometimes more trouble to run than they’re worth. I do not think Vista or GFW will be anywhere near a net gain for the PC game industry, they’ll be a good thing for MS I’d imagine, but for consumers and developers it’s not good. MS superfans can wail all they want about how glorious Vista and GFW will be for the PC gaming industry, but unless the initiative is about greatly lowering game prices, or stripping support for file downloading and CD/DVD writers, developers will continue to move to consoles or server driven games (like MMOGs), and PC gaming will continue along it's current path.

[bean19]

Yep. They want to be the exclusive online merchants of PC games and other internet delivered media. Games for Windows is Microsoft positioning to be this on PC and it is far more than simply an in-store marketing push.

Really, the in-store marketing push is just a drop in the bucket for Microsoft when it ropes in all these 3rd party PC developers and gets them to follow Microsoft standards in order to get better promotion. That's the carrot. The stick is that eventually PC titles won't really get shelf space at all unless they salute to Microsoft.

Hopefully Microsoft will continue trying to be a "benevolent dictator" though. . . It seems like they are increasingly learning that customers won't put up with adware, spyware, malware and/or operating systems that are invasive and unfriendly. You still get a certain amount of crap from them, but, at least with Xp, I actually have an operating system that doesn't cause me a bunch of crap anymore. . .

I guess that's my biggest fear with Games for Windows and Vista. . . that we'll have to go through even more years of junk like having web browsers that allowed pop-ups, and instant messengers that were difficult to uninstall/disable or that were tied irrevocably to other "free" software and access to one thing lead to needing it all.

Well, also they really aren't presenting me with any features that interest me beyond DX 10, and that will take a while to gain full adoption and support (as well as becoming affordable - I can't stomach spending more than $250 for a single component on my PC and thus I never buy a videocard that isn't at least 2 years old). Unless you count Live Everywhere and I don't really see why I need a new operating system for a Steam service that uses my Xbox information. . . that's just a gimmick to get us to buy the new OS.

[NeoSuplex]

Out of curiosity, CitPhill, do you fashion Valve as this 'harbinger for a 'new age' of PC gaming?' Cause I hate to burst your bubble... but they're also a business. Everything ANY business does is out of the interest of making money. From EA's NFL License exclusivity to the Mom and Pop store that gives you a freebie once in a while. They all just want your money.

Now, if you're saying that MS is going to drop the GFW branding and marketing after 2 years, I have still have to disagree. It simply isn't worth it to promote a brand that isn't going to exist after 2 years. In fact, if Valve really feels this way and this isn't just a reminder PC game publishing isn't solely a retail focused effort, I have to question their understanding of the business world. GFW will persist if only so MS can recoup these investments they've made. Hell, it better persist... a GFW game doesn't even mean it's a Vista exclusive! It's not even really to help sales of Vista.
C'mon guys... he just wants people to sell games on Steam. He doesn't even try to hide his marketing.

[Citizen Philip]

Out of curiosity, CitPhill, do you fashion Valve as this 'harbinger for a 'new age' of PC gaming?' Cause I hate to burst your bubble... but they're also a business. Everything ANY business does is out of the interest of making money. From EA's NFL License exclusivity to the Mom and Pop store that gives you a freebie once in a while. They all just want your money.

Now, if you're saying that MS is going to drop the GFW branding and marketing after 2 years, I have still have to disagree. It simply isn't worth it to promote a brand that isn't going to exist after 2 years. In fact, if Valve really feels this way and this isn't just a reminder PC game publishing isn't solely a retail focused effort, I have to question their understanding of the business world. GFW will persist if only so MS can recoup these investments they've made. Hell, it better persist... a GFW game doesn't even mean it's a Vista exclusive! It's not even really to help sales of Vista.
C'mon guys... he just wants people to sell games on Steam. He doesn't even try to hide his marketing.

I'm not sure if you are entirely reading what I am writing, seeing what you like or I am failing to stress the points I find interesting.

There is no second coming for PC gaming in sight. I like Steam, but I like Stardock better for some of the choices when it comes to online stores: especially getting a retail box and an online download for the same price. If Steam had killer bandwidth and cheaper prices, I'd be all over it: but I must admit, I do like their VAC secured servers, banning your account if caught cheating is a nice touch.

In regards to GFW, which I thought I was particularly clear on: my concern is, it is a marketing gimmick that will be discarded when no longer useful. To see what MS intentions with GFW truly lie, we will have to wait a couple of years. I am doubtful about it's success if they don't have the major publishers on-board from the get go: The fact that a half dozen games are Vista-only and a subscription fee for Live Gold accounts, I take negatively.

If your clever remarks in black text are directed at me, you can fuck off, shitstick.

[Pretzel]

A lot of people here are misreading what Lombardi is saying. This is not Valve being worried about GFW or anything. It's about the image of the PC as a gaming device because with console manufacturer's PR and sloppy reporting, the common stamp put on PC gaming is "Is it dying?"

Valve has said this in other interviews. Basically, whenever the press is looking for someone to talk about the 360, or the PS3, or the Wii, a PR consultant comes up and gives them rosey quotes about how successful they are, but there's no one that handles that for the PC. Lombardi is basically saying that he hopes MS will be taking that role now that they're doing GFW and not simply stop talking about PC games when the Vista marketing push is done.

The problem MS faces is that they have two seperate markets that they have to promote, and focusing on one tends to eat away at the other. Part of the reason GFW came to be is because MS realized that when the put the big push for the XBox, many people who were making games for the PC switch to console. They effectively stole from their left hand to put it into their right hand. GFW was originally a marketing effort to counter that, but then Windows Live turns into more of a way to push people towards the 360. Maybe that will swing back as more GFW games come out, but for now it almost seems that MS isn't really behind the whole GFW thing as much as they are behind the 360.

I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning their commitment on this front. It serves to add pressure to MS to keep treating PC games as important a market as the 360.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

The Xbox seriously damaged PC gaming in my eyes. Too many exclusives were taken and too many developers moved to the console that were previously big PC supporters. The 360 has only made this worse. I can definitely understand someone like Lombardi being skeptical of MS' intentions when they suddenly are so "gung ho" about the PC.

[timmyd]

And they screwed up Flight Sim 10 something horrible.
DX10 is being promoted as a solution, however, you need Vista to run DX10. Therefore, I'd say they're pushing Vista.

[Schnoogs]

The Xbox seriously damaged PC gaming in my eyes. Too many exclusives were taken and too many developers moved to the console that were previously big PC supporters. The 360 has only made this worse. I can definitely understand someone like Lombardi being skeptical of MS' intentions when they suddenly are so "gung ho" about the PC.

The XBox reaffirmed my love for the PC...some of the best PC years were post 2001.

HL2
Far Cry
Doom 3

To name a few