![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Kitebasher
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 99
The things that he is not admitting is that Microsoft has little stake in PC gaming. Sure, the home user is valuable to Microsoft, but that is the home user not the home gamer.
The only ways that Microsoft actually pulled in money from gaming is if they use something of Microsoft's beyond the OS. Sure they make money if you legitimately buy an OS, but for the first 10 years of my gaming career, I was using what was provided which was what my parents bought me. And they bought what they were familiar with, which is what the used at work. After that, I used what took the least amount of effort to use which was Windows. If I remember correctly most of my friends used either the same copy of Windows across all of their systems or they only used pirated copies. I always tried to keep at least one legit copy of Windows around. From my experience with Windows gaming, a lot of them are tech savvy enough to find cheaper alternatives to purchasing a copy of Windows for every system, but still be able to use Windows (even if not legally).
You tack that onto the fact that if a company makes a game, Microsoft does not make money off of it, unlike say the Xbox, where Microsoft makes money off of each game sold, and you know, it's not that hard to figure out. Plus Microsoft honestly has no control over any of the other companies content unless they can get some form of marketing deal going, so they really have no ability to demonstrate the games of someone else at E3. Which means Microsoft has better have a good first party lineup, but they save that for the console, which is a platform that they want to have adopted into everyone's house for market domination.
Plus Microsoft's history of supporting PC gaming has been complete and utter shite. When games for Windows Live came out they talked about how grand it was going to be, only it everyone hated it. It had bulky DRM, the market place was barren, steam controlled the market, anti-microsoft people wouldn't support it, transfering game saves was a pain, getting offline mode going was a pain (which was also the only real way to be able to transfer games), Microsoft did not even try to transfer their own games over (like the Gears of War series, or Halo) which would have been a big boost to it. All they have ever done for gaming is just a bunch of lip service. They did not even have the decency to use a breath freshener.
But in general Microsoft has always been disingenuous when it comes to PC gaming, especially ever since they started working on the Xbox. Even that article was disingenuous, and I would much rather they shut up than talk about PC gaming.
The only ways that Microsoft actually pulled in money from gaming is if they use something of Microsoft's beyond the OS. Sure they make money if you legitimately buy an OS, but for the first 10 years of my gaming career, I was using what was provided which was what my parents bought me. And they bought what they were familiar with, which is what the used at work. After that, I used what took the least amount of effort to use which was Windows. If I remember correctly most of my friends used either the same copy of Windows across all of their systems or they only used pirated copies. I always tried to keep at least one legit copy of Windows around. From my experience with Windows gaming, a lot of them are tech savvy enough to find cheaper alternatives to purchasing a copy of Windows for every system, but still be able to use Windows (even if not legally).
You tack that onto the fact that if a company makes a game, Microsoft does not make money off of it, unlike say the Xbox, where Microsoft makes money off of each game sold, and you know, it's not that hard to figure out. Plus Microsoft honestly has no control over any of the other companies content unless they can get some form of marketing deal going, so they really have no ability to demonstrate the games of someone else at E3. Which means Microsoft has better have a good first party lineup, but they save that for the console, which is a platform that they want to have adopted into everyone's house for market domination.
Plus Microsoft's history of supporting PC gaming has been complete and utter shite. When games for Windows Live came out they talked about how grand it was going to be, only it everyone hated it. It had bulky DRM, the market place was barren, steam controlled the market, anti-microsoft people wouldn't support it, transfering game saves was a pain, getting offline mode going was a pain (which was also the only real way to be able to transfer games), Microsoft did not even try to transfer their own games over (like the Gears of War series, or Halo) which would have been a big boost to it. All they have ever done for gaming is just a bunch of lip service. They did not even have the decency to use a breath freshener.
But in general Microsoft has always been disingenuous when it comes to PC gaming, especially ever since they started working on the Xbox. Even that article was disingenuous, and I would much rather they shut up than talk about PC gaming.
