Fable III "first step" of big PC push

By Robert Purchese Published 22 June, 2010

MS keen to promote Windows 7.

The arrival of Fable III on PC will be the "first step" of a much larger push by Microsoft to boost the profile of gaming on Windows 7 desktops.

That's according to a head office-circulated response designed to placate inquiring journalists. Luckily, this fell onto Kotaku's lap.

Anyone asking this: "Does Fable III on Windows signal a larger reinvestment by Microsoft in PC gaming? How is this different from the previous times you've announced a reinvestment in PC gaming and not quite come through with a robust offering?"

Will be met with this: "In terms of revenue, Windows is far and away the largest gaming platform in the world, so it's an incredibly important part of Microsoft's business. From core games like Fable III to casual, social and Facebook titles, more gaming happens on Windows than anywhere else.

"Windows 7 is a world-class gaming platform, and you can bet Microsoft has a vested interest in using it as a platform for amazing first party content. Fable III on Windows as well as Xbox 360 this holiday is a great first step, and we'll have more news for you later this summer."

Lionhead boss Peter Molyneux gave Fable III a 26th October release date at E3. He didn't specify whether this will be simultaneous on PC and Xbox 360.

Fable III at E3 2010.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (80) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • NewbieZilla #1 2 years ago

    Fable 3? A misstep.

  • Zephro #2 2 years ago

    Yeah I'm sure it will really show the merits of Direct X 11 or modern PC hardware generally.

  • RodHull #3 2 years ago

    If it heralds a usable and bug free Games for Windows client then bring it on. However me thinks it's more likely to be a big advertising push with little technical improvement.

  • stevetuck #4 2 years ago

    Peter Molyneux invented the dog you know?

  • Zephro #5 2 years ago

    Also "big PC push" should just mean they're putting it on Steam honestly.

  • Apaar #6 2 years ago

    Hopefully they really mean that, as PC has always been the dearest platform for me. I think for a long time Valve and Blizzard have been pretty much the only big players really investing in the PC as a platform. Would be good if other big guys started pushing it again. PC gaming is a thing of greatness.

  • UncleLou #7 2 years ago

    Last time I heard that when Vista was out, and then the PC Gaming Alliance was formed. Then I had a good laugh at the "Games for Windows" internet site which must have stayed exactly the same for about 4 years or so. Then they closed all of their dev studios.

    In short: I'll believe it when I see it, and not a second earlier.

  • chukcyQ #8 2 years ago

    Fable III has got nothing on Gothic 4.

  • KillerMonkey #9 2 years ago

    That didn't look very exciting at all.

  • metalangel #10 2 years ago

    The largest gaming platform in the world, the majority of users enjoying titles such as Solitaire, bad Mahjongg shareware and Meet n' Fuck: Vacation. Seriously, guys, there are folks in my work you've counted because they play awful flash games, but they won't give a shit about Fable 3 or what could be genuinely considered "PC gaming".

  • ignatiusjreilly #11 2 years ago

    A console game without its prequel, released after an enforced delay, subject to a price hike over every other PC game, and released exclusively on the almost universally disliked GfWL.

    Yes, I believe this is a good indication of MS' support for PC gaming.

  • cianchristopher #12 2 years ago

    "From core games like Fable III to casual, social and Facebook titles, more gaming happens on Windows than anywhere else"

    So are they saying that PC gaming is basically Farmville and World of Warcraft and Solitaire and (now) Fable III?

  • bad09 #13 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    I was just about to post the same thing! :)

  • Nazo #14 2 years ago

    MS really need to do something to improve the profile of Windows as a home consumer product. With Apple and Google both pushing their own platforms, which cater for what most people use their PCs for and in a more user-friendly manner, MS may find itself losing ground in its core businesses before long.

  • jag10 #15 2 years ago

    can't believe people actually think MS are going to release another xbox. games on demand, kinect, i think they'll be the first to jump on the onlive bandwagon.

  • Zephro #16 2 years ago

    Why there are far better, prettier FPS's on the PC with better AI.

  • EvilSpaceHamster #17 2 years ago

    Peter Molyneux is such a bandwagon hopper.

  • rayscoota #18 2 years ago

    If this is anything like the poor halo2 port count me out, plus the movie looks a bit trash

  • StooMonster #19 2 years ago

    Microsoft suit: "it's [gaming on Windows] an incredibly important part of Microsoft's business"

    If it's so important, why have Microsoft's efforts to date been so craptacular?

    I'm incredulous of this PR spouting, we heard similar things when GfWL launched ... and look at the state of that.

  • Vlad27145 #20 2 years ago

    It would be about F***ING time someone did that. But MS? Mah...

  • PlugMonkey #21 2 years ago

    metalangel
    The largest gaming platform in the world, the majority of users enjoying titles such as Solitaire, bad Mahjongg shareware and Meet n' Fuck: Vacation. Seriously, guys, there are folks in my work you've counted because they play awful flash games, but they won't give a shit about Fable 3 or what could be genuinely considered "PC gaming".

    And yet bobby Kotick, head of the company that owns the biggest console franchise in the world, thinks 70% of the profit of his company comes from non-console-based games.

    [link url=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29052/Kotick_70_Of_Activision_Operating_Profit_Comes_From_NonConsoleBased_Games.php
    ]http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29052...[/link]

    But I would imagine you know what you're talking about more than he does?

  • Haloboy #22 2 years ago

    Peter will no doubt take his dog for a walk when Gothic IV and Two Worlds II hit. Never to be seen again. A chewed up leash and smatters of blood will be all that remained.

  • sneetch #23 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly
    A console game without its prequel, released after an enforced delay, subject to a price hike over every other PC game, and released exclusively on the almost universally disliked GfWL.

    It's not exclusively on GFWL really, there's also a boxed version for PC. It'll use GFWL sure, but you can buy it in the shops.

    [link url=http://www.amazon.com/Fable-III-Pc/dp/B002I0KO8I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1277201219&sr=8-1
    ]http://www.amazon.com/Fable-III-Pc/dp/B0...[/link]

    Yes, I believe this is a good indication of MS' support for PC gaming.

    Very true. They're talking up their alleged PC support again (for the one billionth time) a few months after cancelling yet another big name game on PC (Alan Wake).

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    Edit: the most telling indication of their "commitment" to Windows gaming was the complete and utter lack of any mention of the platform during their E3 presentation which was purely about Xbox 360 and very Kinect heavy. Hell, while introducing Fable III Peter Molyneaux even said (at the start) "Ladies and Gentlemen it is my great honour to bring you yet another Xbox exclusive: Fable III", when I heard that I shrugged and thought "there they go again, PC version cancelled already".

    Nintendo talked about their DS models and the Wii, Sony talked about the PS2(!), PSP and PS3. Microsoft didn't even mention Windows. Not a single word, unless I nodded off and missed it.
    Edited by sneetch at 22/06/10 @ 12:30

  • UncleLou #24 2 years ago

    Seriously, guys, there are folks in my work you've counted because they play awful flash games, but they won't give a shit about Fable 3 or what could be genuinely considered "PC gaming".

    No, they weren't counted, unless they contributed to the revenue. Which they didn't with Solitaire, Mah Jongg shareware and flash games. Learn to read.

  • Haloboy #25 2 years ago

    Halo 3 PC coming to one of those things that is not a console soon? Come on MS, you know you want to.

  • sneetch #26 2 years ago

    @metalangel
    The largest gaming platform in the world, the majority of users enjoying titles such as Solitaire, bad Mahjongg shareware and Meet n' Fuck: Vacation. Seriously, guys, there are folks in my work you've counted because they play awful flash games, but they won't give a shit about Fable 3 or what could be genuinely considered "PC gaming".

    Read the quote again: "in terms of revenue, Windows is far and away the largest gaming platform in the world" that is "in terms of the gross income returned by an investment, Windows is far and away the largest gaming platform in the world". Given that it's not surprising that Microsoft want back in, what is surprising is that the company that did such a good job with LIVE on the Xbox have done such a piss-poor job with LIVE on Windows.

  • CrispyXUK64 #27 2 years ago

    I'm not sure how PC gaming survived without Fable.

  • muscleblade #28 2 years ago

    Third person adventure and action games is much better suited for consoles imo. The exeption is MMOs of course.
    Every PC gamer i know play nothing but WOW anyway.

  • cianchristopher #29 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    From that link you provided (re: Activision and the 70% of profits from "non-console-based" games)

    "Other "non-console-based" Activision games include iPhone titles and PC games, but those businesses are small compared to World of Warcraft."

  • Buran #30 2 years ago

    Microsoft is over as PC gaming player. No one in the scene of developers cares about GFWL (totally overshadowed by platforms as Steam or Battle.net) and no one cares even about Direct X 11 or Windows 7: Valve, Blizzard, id Software... even Crytek is aiming for Windows XP and Direct X 9 users, mainly.

    Microsoft has now a "solid reputation" as PC gaming flopper, with disasters as the Fasa Corporation studios or the Alan Wake debacle, which not only was heavily nerfed in gameplay -sand box thriller to linear survival horror- but also was canceled in PC only to see how abysmal were the 360 sales.

    Instead of wasting time with thumbs down or up my post, could anyone try to rebate my words? Good luck at it.

  • Haloboy #31 2 years ago

    Amusing how this so called push also comes not long after Alan Wake only managed to sell 80k units. God of War 3 sold something like 400k units in a single day.

    Alan Wake PC coming to one of those things that is not a console soon? Come on MS, you know you now have to. Your children need shoes.

  • ignatiusjreilly #32 2 years ago

    @Buran

    MS being over as a player in the PC gaming scene would be a great thing in my eyes, but as long as they supply the operating system and DirectX they're still heavily involved. Devs will move past DX9 when the consoles do too, that's just a symptom of the new hierarchy of games machines.

    MS' PC gaming presence will be over when they are no longer needed, but that day is not here yet. Steam for Mac is an excellent start, and cloud gaming means PC games can be played on a Linux machine or even a Sky TV box. Those things will become more important soon.

    The operating system is becoming less and less important, as is boxed software, and apart from the Xbox, that's all Microsoft has. If I were them I'd be worried. Regarding gaming, they have a choice - push and support the PC for its strengths, or try and encourage gamers to move over to consoles instead. In typical MS fashion, right now they are doing both and neither, but pretty soon they will have to make a decision.

  • PlugMonkey #33 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher

    From the post that you posted:

    "but those businesses are small compared to World of Warcraft"

    What was your point?

    My point was that for the company that owns the most successful franchises on both console and PC, the most profitable one is the PC one. By a ratio of something like 2:1. That would seem to suggest that there is a lot of money to be made in PC gaming.

    And while I'm at it, for the world's 2nd biggest publisher EA, their biggest PC franchise (The Sims) is so big that it exists as it's own 'label'.
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 22/06/10 @ 11:36

  • Darren #34 2 years ago

    I'm happy to see Fable III coming to the PC but I do hope the game is a big improvement on the second. While Fable II was certainly a damn sight better than the disappointing Xbox original, which promised so much and delivered so little, it still fell short of my expectations. Most of that can be blamed on Peter Molyneux though who has a tendency to overpromote his games and make them sound way better than they actually are. I remember being quite excited at the idea of having a faithful dog but the reality was that it was far less useful and appealing that it appeared to be in those early preview videos.

    Third time lucky then?

  • Haloboy #35 2 years ago

    I loved Fable II as it happens. Once I got stuck in I just couldn't tear myself away from the bloody thing. Even my cat walked out on me.

  • paketep #36 2 years ago

    Sure, sure, Microsoft, we believe you.

    Unlike the previous 5 times you said that you loved us and that we were SO important for you.

  • oceanclub #37 2 years ago

    The irony is that Microsoft are still losing money hand over fist when it comes to the XBox, while Windows is profitable (and indeed funds the XBox division). Yet, they treat Windows gaming as the idiot stepchild. Announcing a single

    At this point in time, Microsoft are so far behind Valve that the best option would to do would be to team up with them an integrate the systems. Or at least have cross-platform facilities (games bought on GFWL accessible on Steam, shared achievements, etc.) Most people absolutely hate using GFWL; I'm fairly OK with it, but have no idea why I would buy an overpriced game on it but with none of the benefits of Steam.

    Trumpeting the release of a single - an overhyped RPG-lite at that (Fable 2 is one of the handful of Xbox 360 games I have, since it was not released on PC, and it is an underwhelming experience to say the least) is hardly the dawn of a new era.

  • ignatiusjreilly #38 2 years ago

    yeah right, msoft have abandoned the platform, but at least sony fans cant say the 360 exclusives aren t "real exclusives".

    This is terrible, terrible reasoning.

  • metalangel #39 2 years ago

    Oh no, the PC fanboys are going to get me. My point was that Fable is a high-end, top whack title... which casuals like those mentioned in my post won't care about nor be able to play. Do you see? Last I checked, shareware did contribute to revenue when it gets registered. But you can't really lump some Puzzle Bobble rip-off coded by a guy in his basement and into the same league as a megablockbuster like Fable. You have all these users who'll be happy with low end fun like Diner Dash and Bookworm Adventures and such, what is the point of making something so vastly different as Fable the figurehead? It's not like they going to rush out to buy gaming PCs because they quite liked Farmville, let's get Fable.

  • Zanuah #40 2 years ago

    Fable 3 for PC? Great I guess, aside from the fact that there is no Fable 2 for PC.

    Unless I'm missing something?

  • ignatiusjreilly #41 2 years ago

    @metalangel

    What's wrong with those different types of games existing on a single platform? Microsoft don't need Farmville players to rush out and buy gaming PCs - they don't make the PCs, so MS doesn't really care if they run an over-priced Alienware or a netbook.

    Your point just seems to be some kind of "proper gamers" rant, which is deadly territory :)
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 22/06/10 @ 12:43

  • sneetch #42 2 years ago

    @metalangel

    You seem to be the only one attempting to "lump some Puzzle Bobble rip-off coded by a guy in his basement and into the same league as a megablockbuster like Fable".

    The existence of casual gamers on a platform (who I doubt contribute all that much to the revenue generated on the platform, but I could be wrong) doesn't mean there aren't "core" gamers on the platform too, there are a lot of gamers who spend a lot of money on "megablockbusters" on PC too.

    Either way there's a lot of money to be made on the platform. The people who play Farmville or some random flash game may or may not be interested in a game like Fable III but it looks incredibly accessible (the last one was too) and it would make a good introduction to this kind of game for people getting into more high budget games.

    Basically, casual gamers aren't the only market on PC but Fable III would appeal to a lot of gamers, casual and core alike.

  • UncleLou #43 2 years ago

    You have all these users who'll be happy with low end fun like Diner Dash and Bookworm Adventures and such, what is the point of making something so vastly different as Fable the figurehead? It's not like they going to rush out to buy gaming PCs because they quite liked Farmville, let's get Fable.

    So your point is they should have made something like Puzzle Bobble the spearhead of their new PC campaign, because obviously that's where all the money is in PC gaming?

  • cianchristopher #44 2 years ago

    They should have fucking made Alan Wake the spearhead of their PC gaming campaign, not this...

  • dingo75 #45 2 years ago

    Just fuck off MS!
    You hurt the PC enough with the Xbox exclusives.

    PC gamers don't give a rat's ass about your games.
    Just stick to your waggle next-gen and leave us alone kthxbye.
    Edited by dingo75 at 22/06/10 @ 13:18

  • Caimbeul #46 2 years ago

    And meh to Fable. Let's have a sequel to Freelancer (shame MS dissolved the studio that made it :().

    Shame they also dissovled FASA and the team responsible for the legendary Shadowrun on the SNES. That would make an utterly amazing game these days if done right.

  • PlugMonkey #47 2 years ago

    metalangel
    Oh no, the PC fanboys are going to get me. My point was that Fable is a high-end, top whack title... which casuals like those mentioned in my post won't care about nor be able to play. Do you see?

    I'm not pro-PC, I'm just anti-stupid.

    The casuals, like those mentioned in you post, are not the people that MS, or Acti for that matter, are referring to when they are talking about the enormous PC market. Do you see?

  • mkreku #48 2 years ago

    How about starting by porting over Fable 2 first then? I've played through and enjoyed Fable: The Lost Chapters already and now I'm supposed to jump over to Fable 3?

    Oh, and I wouldn't mind seeing Crackdown 2 on the platform either.. *winkwinknudgenudge*

  • FooAtari #49 2 years ago

    Guys, don't argue with metalangel.

    Once thing I have noticed about him is he has some kind issue with the PC as a gaming platform. Why it bothers him so much I have no idea, but I doubt he will listen to reason.

  • Lunaticorc #50 2 years ago

    Fable 3 i might play, but it doesn't excite me. If someone brought God of War to PC though...*wets pants*

    I can't be the only one who wants to see more action games on PC. I was so dissapointed when Darksiders PC was delayed :(

  • metalangel #51 2 years ago

    Dear god, I post one slightly controversial opinion and everyone - including long time posters who should know better - are all immediately out to label me a stupid troll.

    I'm not trying to troll. I played PC games from the age of five (I can already hear some eyes rolling at the back) but stopped about 2003 when the games no longer held any interest for me, certainly enough to justify the expense. I'd always had consoles too, and that's what I do now (though I do keep an old PC to hand for some stuff that is only there, simulators and strategy/management games)

    ANYWAY. The point I was trying to make is that I think if PC gaming is going to survive in any real commercial sense outside MMOs, they should be pushing the little 'casual' type games because they certainly make the likes of PopCap and Zynga a LOT of money. These don't require fiddling with new graphics cards or other system settings or anything especially technical and will run on any standard PC right away. Sure, push these games, BUT:
    -why would anyone want to get involved in a GFWL type service and have to jump through MS' hoops when they can just do business on their own? People really didn't like all the crap they had to go through to get GTAIV or Fallout 3 working on PC.
    -why make something really complicated like Fable the posterchild for this new order? People who might want to buy a little game or two want a fun little thing they can play for five minutes that costs a few quid, not a £40 epic.
    -it's always been a very 'free' platform and that won't change. MS might insist, for example, no stupid Ubisoft DRM any more, so Ubisoft would just not bother signing up to MS' big push. Likewise, I think a lot of PC owners see these sorts of initiatives as trying to 'consolize' the format.

    So I'm not against the PC as a games platform so much as I don't think it can or should try to continue trying to be the dominant force in the cutting edge games like Fable, GTA and the like. It should play to its strengths, which are the pick-up-and-play puzzle games, the strategy games, the flash games, the indie games and the stuff that really can't be done as well anywhere else. Because, much like with a console, you just start up and go with those games, and that's what the majority of people want.

    It wasn't intended to rub people up the wrong way, it's just my view of the way things are going. I still read PC Gamer and I see it full of articles about how PC gaming is 'broken' and very few of the games that aren't crossplatform look that interesting, compared to the 90s when the PC was home to much of the great innovation and great franchises still going around today. It still has a role to play today, too.

  • UncleLou #52 2 years ago

    Dear god, I post one slightly controversial opinion and everyone - including long time posters who should know better - are all immediately out to label me a stupid troll.

    Er, I am pretty sure I am speaking for most of us, including whoever labelled you a stupid troll, that it wasn't "one slightly controversial opinion".

    a) It wasn't controversial, it was stupid. That's a different thing altogether.
    b) You troll PC threads all the time. That wouldn't be so bad if only it wasn't such ill-thought out nonsense all the time.
    c) You've proven several times that you don't know the first thing about the PC as a platform, yet you can't shut up about it.
    Edited by UncleLou at 22/06/10 @ 15:08

  • metalangel #53 2 years ago

    I'd like to see some examples of points b and c if you've got any.

    I'm also willing to be told where I've gone wrong in my thinking here.

  • Ryuken #54 2 years ago

    Not believing anything of this. MS once was a great publisher for PC games but after they switched to consoles they've only been canceling PC games, offloading PC franchises and killing off their own PC developers. Very poor show.

  • UncleLou #55 2 years ago

    @metalangel You know what? I might just have to apologize because I confused you with muscleblade. Let me check this, and if I have, I will indeed apologize.

  • X3Entente #56 2 years ago

    just release alan wake on pc, that is all

  • bad09 #57 2 years ago

    "just release alan wake on pc, that is all "

    They won't do that, the only reason Fable 3 is coming is because they hope they can shift that human waggle crap on us PC gamers as well as 360 owners.

    Hang on, this "new" focus on PC has some convenient timing there MS......
    Edited by bad09 at 22/06/10 @ 15:44

  • UncleLou #58 2 years ago

    @metalangel

    Right, a cursory glance at your posting history indeed suggests that you're not whoever I've been confusing you with. So, while I still don't agree with what you wrote today, I did lash out a lot more than I would have in my reaction based on what I thought your "history" was. Apologies for that, especially the a), b), c) post above.

  • metalangel #59 2 years ago

    @UncleLou: Hey, no problem, no harm done. I appreciate your making the effort there.

    I am surprised by the overall reaction, and would like to be set straight. My (wrong, I think!) view is that very broadly there's two sides to the PC gaming market... the hardcore and the casual. The hardcore are already mostly happy with all that PC gaming involves, while a campaign to promote the platform seems to be aimed at the casual who are unsure of it. And Fable seems to be a hardcore title (and however friendly Molyneux has been trying to make the series, in the grand scheme of things, it is) to be front such a campaign.

    I'm probably barking up the wrong tree with that along with everything else. So someone set me straight, I can admit I'm wrong! Most of my current PC gaming is done at a LAN cafe where I get to play all the high-end stuff that is PC exclusive that otherwise I'd only get to read about.
    Edited by metalangel at 22/06/10 @ 16:53

  • sneetch #60 2 years ago

    @metalangel
    I'm also willing to be told where I've gone wrong in my thinking here.

    I'm not trying to make you out as a troll, I just strongly disagree with the idea that the only market worth pursuing on PC is the casual low-end game market. I generally speaking only play online games on PC, I know a lot of PC gamers, gamers who play "core" games and aren't interested in a console for one reason or another, they spend a lot of money on games preferring digital copies over physical ones a lot of the time (the instantaneous nature of a release and pre-order offers being all we need to spend the €5-10 over and above the retail prices). Your view of the PC market (a market you seem to have been out of since 2003) seems to be that it's a dying market apart from the casual side or MMO's and it's simply not accurate, IMO.

    This is why they need a game like Fable III: they are trying to get into a PC market that's been changing a lot in the last few years while they were absent, in this market they have real competition which is something they don't have on Xbox. There are a lot of companies like Steam and Direct2Drive that are doing well and so they have a lot of ground to make up on the other online services (especially Steam) and the only way they can do this is with big name exclusives. Another shop selling the same games that everyone else does (like the PopCap games) will largely be ignored.

    As for why would anyone get involved with GFWL when they can do it on their own? Damn good question ;) the real question is why not go for someone like Steam? A company that already offers everything that GFWL is planning on doing but Steam does so cheaper (more money for the publisher/dev), already has a user-base of millions, is more open and provides great marketing pretty much for free (I don't know how many times I've logged on to Steam, seen my friends playing something new and bought it straight away because doing so was so damn handy).

    There is a persistent myth that you constantly need to upgrade PCs or know a lot about PCs in order to get games to work on them but that is just not true anymore. I installed my copy of Windows 7 on a new PC I built a few months ago and haven't had a single moment of difficulty since then, it's made PC gaming as easy as hell for me (well, apart from having to run my Steam copy of Mass Effect in administrator mode by right clicking and selecting "run as administrator" something which was stated on the Steam page). This PC replaced a 5 year old Dell that I bought and did not upgrade (and it was hardly cutting edge when I got it) and could still play every game I wanted to with medium or higher graphics settings. My point on this is that I didn't need to upgrade, I chose to but I fully expect my new PC to do very well for several years too.
    Edited by sneetch at 22/06/10 @ 16:44

  • makeamazing #61 2 years ago

    MS had a problem internally, on one hand you had the Xbox division who were only interested in making games exclusives, while you had the OS division who want people to use the OS on PC's.... suddenly you have this situation where you have two departments actually harming each other (well lets be honest, console hurting PC's more)... I think MS listened to the Xbox division more, they closed lots of PC based studios, and stopped making PC versions of their own games.

    Now when they suddenly realise lots of people are moving away from PC, maybe onto Wii/PS3 and more worrying for the OS division MAC, they realise they should be supporting the PC market...

    Well you have to feel sorry for the OS division as whats the point of having an OS that can play the best games, and one their own divisions put a stop to it.

    As someone else said, where is our Freelancer follow up please.

  • metalangel #62 2 years ago

    @sneetch: Thanks for the answer.

    I don't think casual is the only thing worth pursuing so much as something that should be more of the focus for an effort to promote something as a games platform. Most hardcore players already know what's what about each format.

    I will admit to being mostly absent from the 'scene' such as it is for several years... I was wrong about the year, I stopped when Battlefield 2 came out (2005) as that was when the last PC game I played regularly (Desert Combat) died. Since then I've played a few indie and small-time download only games here and there - stuff like 18 Wheels Of Steel, OpenTTD. I have too many painful memories of running an increasingly shit PC as a kid (and having to pester my dad to upgrade), not to mention ongoing wrangles with my existing PCs at home. I just don't have the time or inclination to spend the money. A decent games PC is still £500 or so which is more than I'm willing to spend on something I know I'll have to waste more time tweaking than playing.*

    I've tried to keep up with developments on EG and PC Gamer and other sites but I see the PC games market as increasingly dominated by MMO stuff and cross-platform ports of varying quality. I suppose the games media and editorials citing publishers abandoning the platform as too piracy ridden or imposing draconian DRM or doing away with dedicated servers and other freedoms hasn't help my perceptions. In terms of this Fable 3 thing I'm not sure how I'd promote Windows as a gaming platform simply because I know how wrong PC games can go in terms of crashes and lack of reliability. I should probably stop digging this hole now, I can't see daylight any longer. :p

    *I do miss some of the stuff, though. If I had the time to spare then I'd love to be playing ArmA2 and Flight Simulator X and Silent Hunter and Napoleon: Total War.
    Edited by metalangel at 22/06/10 @ 16:52

  • Lunaticorc #63 2 years ago

    This console vs PC discussion got me thinking... There's no reason why PC gaming should be a complicated affair. PC's have been way more powerful than consoles for a long time now, even cheap ones. It is not difficult at all to buy a good gaming machine for relatively low cost. But the problem is you need to do a lot of research to end up with best bang for your buck. I find this absurd. PC sales is dominated by big numbers escalation. Add more memory to your product and people will buy it, even if adding that extra memory didn't improve the user experience in any way whatsoever.

    So how to fix this? How to make sure people actually get what they want when buying a computer. Well why isn't there a Windows Gaming certificate? Computer makers love slapping stickers on their machines, how about making a sticker that is actually useful and means that this particular PC is also good for playing games. Add the same to PC games and you can be sure your Windows Gaming certified PC will play the Windows Gaming certified game on the shelf of the local store.

    That way buying a gaming PC would be no different from buying a console...

  • metalangel #64 2 years ago

    @LunaticOrc: Isn't there the 'performance rating' (I forget the proper name) that was added in Vista to tell how your system stacks up with what a game will demand of it?

  • PlugMonkey #65 2 years ago

    @metalangel
    I think where you're mostly going wrong is in stuff like this:

    something I know I'll have to waste more time tweaking than playing.

    That's simply not the case any more. I can't remember the last time I tweaked a config of any sort to make a PC game run. Probably 2003? You've been gone too long. It works now. :)

    Especially Steam. Running a Steam game is so much less hassle than running a console game. No disc, better interface and friends integration, automatic background updates. It's unrecogniseable from the stilted, broken, heap of crap it was in the early years.

  • sneetch #66 2 years ago

    @Lunaticorc

    They've added something like that, the Windows Experience Index: it gives values between 0 and 7.9 for Processor, Memory, Graphics, Gaming graphics (3D graphics performance) and Primary hard disk along with a Base Value that is the lowest value. A lot of the games I've installed recently display a minimum Base Value and if your PC has a greater value than that then it should be more than enough to play the game (that's the theory anyway :) ). The reason they went with a number is because the maximum value can be raised every few years as PC hardware advances (the maximum was 5.9 when Vista was released I believe).

    Now, I haven't seen these numbers as a sticker on a PC yet but you can check it out on a demo machine easily enough, it would be fantastic if they started to put it on stickers though; I'd love to be able to take a swift look at a laptop for example and say "ah, Gaming Graphics is a 5.7 that should be more than enough for my needs".

  • Bakumatsu #67 2 years ago

    Screw you Microsoft! And where is Fable II? And what Ding75 said: You hurt the PC enough with the Xbox exclusives.
    Edited by Bakumatsu at 22/06/10 @ 17:35

  • sneetch #68 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey
    That's simply not the case any more. I can't remember the last time I tweaked a config of any sort to make a PC game run. Probably 2003? You've been gone too long. It works now. :)

    Especially Steam. Running a Steam game is so much less hassle than running a console game. No disc, better interface and friends integration, automatic background updates. It's unrecogniseable from the stilted, broken, heap of crap it was in the early years.

    I agree, Steam was a wee bit dodgy when they first added the new UI and Mac OS support for me (nothing major, just a bit unresponsive at times) but it's better again.

    However to be fair to metalangel Microsoft operating systems before XP were absolutely dire for gaming. XP which I started using about 2004 (I think) helped a lot but that easy gaming experience wasn't quite there yet (I'm hoping Win 7 is, it certainly seems to be so far) but I remember gaming on Win ME with a sense of horror: sometimes it required a level of arcane knowledge that would get you burnt as a witch in the past. ;)
    Edited by sneetch at 22/06/10 @ 17:46

  • PlugMonkey #69 2 years ago

    @sneetch
    Oh, god yes. I remember those days. Just randomly tweaking configs until you found one that worked. Usually the first one you tried, which hadn't worked before, but for some reason does now. With MS-DOS it was practically part of the game!

    Those days are looooong gone though. Anyone saying PC gaming is inaccessible these days because either:
    a) "You need to upgrade your graphics card every 5 minutes"
    or
    b) "You spend more time fiddling with configs than playing games"
    is badly out of touch with the modern day reality.

    Edit: The only exception is if you're hoping for some sort of reliable backwards compatability, but none of the consoles bother with that nowadays either. ;)
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 22/06/10 @ 17:59

  • FooAtari #70 2 years ago

    @metalangel
    "I'd like to see some examples of points b and c if you've got any".

    Well because you asked...

    From the following thread
    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/lewis-360-has-at-least-five-more-years/comments
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/lewis-...[/link]

    "I have a feeling the only people who disagree are those who've just paid £2000 for a bleeding edge gaming PC and want to whinge that consoles are again holding their niche hobby back because all the big budgets are going to console games and they want to show off to other PC gamers how well their ridiculous new graphics card can render grass or slime or nostril hairs or something."

    While not trolling a PC thread, it was trolling the PC platform a little. And thinking a bleeding edge PC costs £2000 shows you are out of touch more than a little on the cost of PC gaming.

    I'm sure I've seen similarly daft posts in the forum. But may have been by someone else :) The post above was the one I remembered and was why I posted what I did.
    Edited by FooAtari at 22/06/10 @ 18:08

  • metalangel #71 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey: Boot disks :) I think I had four of the bastards.

    @FooAtari: Yup, that's me, I admit it... while that is by no means the typical price of a gaming PC it is also by no means beyond what you can pay for one (I know several people with an Alienware). And some of those Cyberpower machines are quite impressive.

    I am sorry for derailing your PC-related news like this, it's come up in the 360 area as well (thanks to Fable blimmin' 3) which is why I saw it.

    EDIT: Yup, I think that became my all-but standard boot disc... except for stuff that didn't want XMS and EMS. I remember the original Comanche and also Zone 66 being this picky. I needed another version of the Falcon one that included CD drives, though.
    Edited by metalangel at 22/06/10 @ 21:06

  • PlugMonkey #72 2 years ago

    You have to be going out of your way to waste money to spend £2000 on a gaming PC. I'm not saying that people don't do it, or that I wouldn't do it if I had the cash to spare, but a £2000 Alienware is to a PC gamer what one of these is to a console gamer. ;)

    http://computer-choppers.com/index.html

    Edit: And speaking of boot disks, it's downright eerie when I'm running something in DOSBox and all these forgotten DOS commands just start flowing from my fingers. That was a black, black art.

    Falcon 3.0 created the mfing rosetta stone of boot disks. If that bastard wouldn't make it run, you knew you were in serious trouble.
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 22/06/10 @ 19:24

  • mumblyjoe #73 2 years ago

    Don't suppose that 'Big push' will include Fable 2 as well?

  • GreatBlackthorn #74 2 years ago

    @Microsoft.

    There already is a big PC push. It's called Steam.

  • Headless_Monkey_Boy #75 2 years ago

    btw i'm holding back the rant.

    Looking at this article my thoughts are too little too late. This move is simply a reaction against steam and apple and they realise that they have to open up to the pc market and bolster the GFWL (lets face it, its broken) and get people buying windows pcs again.

    For so long microsoft have been working against pc gamers in favour of hemming people to buy the xbox. If not just for the exclusives then because half the time the pc user has to wait 6-12 months to get a shoddy port. Then there are the DRM issues that only effects legit users (and is often as much about stopping the resale of games as it is piracy). its no wonder more people play games on consoles

    Dont get me wrong consoles have a lot of advantages, but i prefer the freedom of a pc. And people should have the freedom of choice of what system to play their games on.

    frankly i think MS has done too good a job of screwing itself over. (I would take a positive note on Alan Wake for PC, but since i reckon MS already stuck its ore in its development to make it console friendly i'm not convinced i'm interested in a port)

    Also if anyone thinks that this means MS will be putting as much effort into the the pc (game wise) as its dedicated gaming system are being "unrealistically optimistic"

    grrr i dont know why this has made me angry.

  • Ravenger #76 2 years ago

    Microsoft arrived very late at the digital distribution party. Steam had already arrived with a crate of beer, a load of party balloons and a big box of cool games to play. When Microsoft eventually turned up with a small bottle of non-alcoholic beer (which they tried to charge for) and a battered copy of travel scrabble they found that PC gamers were having too much fun with Steam to care, and they were kicked out of the party because no-one wanted to play with them anymore.

  • UncleLou #77 2 years ago

    Very good. :D

  • orangpelupa #78 2 years ago

    is microsoft really back serious in PC gaming?
    long time ago there info like Project Natal will be able to be used on PC..

    here hoping because this new "concentration" on PC Gaming, Natal can be used on PC :D

    really love to use it to navigate menus :D

  • peppergomez #79 2 years ago

    what a load of toff. m$ is doing a piss-poor job of supporting games for windows. gfwl is one of more invasive and clunky interfaces imaginable.

  • payback7 #80 2 years ago

    What about Fable 2 on PC? That would have been nice? Fail if you ask me. Although I am looking forward to playing Fable 3, it would have been nice to play through Fable 2.