Spiraling towards the holiday season.

Is Microsoft killing PC games sales?

From Ryan Campbell -

So Microsoft has this whole new Games for Windows thing that they're really trying to pimp, backing it up by making Live services available for PC, etc. But the trouble is that all these games that are coming out require Vista: Lost Planet and Bioshock are two I'd love to pick up if they didn't have this requirement.

At least the last I read, Vista wasn't doing too well -- people were sending back laptops that came with Vista delivered, and there are constant reports that even with an upgraded rig, everything just runs slower. Really the last thing that I want to do is install an operating system that requires me to go out and purchase brand-spanking new expensive hardware and that runs everything more poorly anyway. Regardless of whether this is actually the case, this is the public perception. No one I know wants to upgrade to Vista.

But these games that I want to play (shooters on a CONSOLE? feh!) require it. Which basically means I can't play them. If it's happening for me, who's a bit more of an upgrade nut than most, then it's happening for a lot of other people, too.

Well Ryan, there's actually a distinction to be made within the Games for Windows branding. Lost Planet and BioShock are Games for Windows branded, meaning the retail box has the GFW logo on it, but they're not Games for Windows Live enabled. The Games for Windows branding does not mean the game requires Vista. Games for Windows Live supported games, which so far only includes Halo 2 and Shadowrun, required Vista when they first came out.

So what's the difference between GFW and GFW Live? A GFW branding is an attempt on Microsoft's part to give more of a unified identity to PC games on the retail shelf, as well as act like a kind of Nintendo Seal of Quality. GFW Live, on the other hand, means you can sign in using your Xbox 360 gamertag, or Windows Live ID, and earn achievements that contribute to your gamerscore, as well as, in Shadowrun's case, play against Xbox 360 gamers.

Gears of War, the next significant GFW Live title, will be playable on both Windows XP and Vista. It appears Microsoft saw the Vista-exclusivity as the mistake it was.

-- Charles

---

Steve Butts

From Jens -

Holy crap. The guy who wrote the hands-on for spore it called Steve Butts. Steve BUTTS. BUTTS. That is all.

Oh my god, I've never thought about it like that before! I've always pronounced it Steve Butte, like the hills.

-- Charles

---

PC Podcast

From sam I am -

Woo! It's about time the PC got it's own podcast. Good luck, and I hope this podcast gets as popular as game scoop!

Heh, probably not going to happen. People these days don't seem to care about PC games as much. Maybe it's just because console fanboys are much more vocal and visible around internet communities, or maybe the average consumer is sick of trying to maintain a PC and deal with all the troubleshooting required. Or maybe people have been saying exactly that for the past 10 years.

It's clear nobody has a problem playing MMOs. But then again, MMOs may be part of the problem with PC gaming. People get so wrapped up in the specific world they're subscribed to they don't spend the time required to browse other games coming out in other genres. It's great for a popular MMO's developer, bad for everyone else trying to push games onto the market.

That may be a load of crap, however, as we've yet to see truly how far MMOs can penetrate the mainstream. UO, EQ and WoW were only the beginning. Do I sound like a drug dealer when I say that?

-- Charles

---

GWEN

From Tim Enright -

Enjoyed your writeup on GWEN, BUT you really ruined the game with polymock, snowmen, snowballs, brawling and the fighting challenges. You should have kept it without that gameshow junk. It's a RPG, not a game show. Please, please keep GW2 pure. Thanks.

Interesting perspective Tim, but we assure you we didn't create Guild Wars, its Eye of the North expansion, and have nothing to do with Guild Wars 2. That would be the developer, ArenaNet.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "keep GW2 pure." From the information that's been divulged about GW2 so far, it sounds like a vastly different game than the original Guild Wars. The whole leveling scheme is getting fiddled with, for example, and you'll have selectable character races.

I can't really argue with you about GWEN, though, as I've only played it for a few hours so far. We were shown all the polymock and brawling games at preview events, but don't really have a good sense of how it affects the overall feel of the game yet.

-- Charles

---

Sins of a Solar Empire gameplay

From Jeff -

In reading your Hands-On report of Sins of a Solar Empire, it seemed to be suggested that the battles took place in real-time in the outer universe. In the past 4X/RTS hybrid games I've played, when battles were taking place, only the participants already in place took part; there were no reinforcements. The preview suggests that a counter-attack with forces outside the field of battle is possible in SotS. Did I read this correctly? I've been dreaming of this battle mechanic for years.

Hey Jeff, I think you're asking if it's possible to bring in additional forces while already engaged in battle. The answer would be a simple yes, as all of Sins plays out in real-time. If you're bombing a planet or engaged with the enemy, you can indeed build more ships as the fight is going on and jump them over to battle. Just keep in mind the enemy can do the same.

If that's interesting to you, definitely keep your eye on this game. It's a lot of fun from what we've played so far.

-- Charles

---

Harry Potter Ending

From Ben -

Dude what the hell Matt Wales ruined the ending to Harry Potter for me. In an article about the popularity of Bioshock he gave away the ending. I know there is nothing that can be done for me now i just think it was a little inconsiterate. At least edit the article so this does not happen to someone else

Ben, you've put me in a really tough spot here. I haven't read past Book 4 in the Harry Potter series, yet I plan to. I assumed Matt's reference in the story was a joke, but there's absolutely no way for me to confirm this without asking someone what the actual ending is. And I'm just not going to do that right now.

But really, if that is the real ending, I mean, would you be angry with Matt over spoiling it, or would you be angry with J.K. Rowling for an egregious narrative cop-out?

-- Charles