PC Gaming Isn't Dead; It's Just Dead to Microsoft

I've had my gaming PC for a little over three years now, though it's changed quite a bit in that amount of time. I'm very proud of my rig. I named her Patricia Claymore, or Patty C for short. Or PC for shorter. Or P for shortest. I'd post the specs for fun, but nobody likes a guy bragging about his setup-- and they like even less when another PC user comes in and one-ups those specs with his specs, etc. etc. And I only have a few measly sentences at the beginning of each post in which to capture your attention, so I really shouldn't let that go to waste talking abou--

Wait. Crap.

Well, if you've made it this far, kudos. Today's topic, kids, comes on the heels of the release details of Alan Wake for PC (coming Feb. 16 at $29.99), listed here. In case you don't recall Alan Wake, don't worry; it came out as an Xbox exclusive in 2010. It's 2012. Nobody's holding that against you.

Which is why this entire situation is weird to begin with. Alan Wake seems to be no more than an upscaled port of its Xbox 360 version, boasting higher resolutions, 3D support and a couple neat (but, to my mind, easily programmable) additions like a fading HUD. Oh, and keyboard/mouse controls. 'Cause it's for PC gamers.

The point is... this sort of stuff doesn't take two years to do, does it? That means something else happened involving red tape, likely from Microsoft's end, since Alan Wake was supposed to be an Xbox exclusive. It's fully possible that Remedy has wanted to release their Wake monster onto PC all along, but Microsoft, who funded the project, had other plans. Which is pretty ironic, seeing as to how Microsoft is synonymous with PCs. And making the situation even more puzzling is the fact that Microsoft has an Xbox Live little brother made specifically for PCs: Games for Windows Live. (And now, waiting for the collective sigh of PC gamers reading... annnnd... there. Feel better?)

I'm in the minority when it comes to GFWL. I actually like it. Why? Well, for one, I'm lucky; I've heard of horror stories involving keys not working, DLC not installing, and the game becoming unplayable. Never had that happen, and according to my desktop, I've got eleven GFWL games installed on my PC right now. I feel like that's a pretty large sample. But in addition to that, the GFWL UI for its home screen is fully compatible and navigable with a USB gamepad, meaning that when I want to play a game with my Xbox controller (which is usually the case), I don't have to set it aside and whip out my keyboard and mouse just to answer a message. This is an even bigger pain when I'm playing from my bed, not my desk. Plus, as an Xbox owner, GFWL gives me access to my friends list and the same games/achievements setup as my console. It's nice to be able to see which Xbox friends are online and have them see me; I've switched platforms many a time according to who's online on what.

But I digress. Regardless of your opinion on GFWL as a service, realize this: Microsoft has the unique opportunity to entice customers with two routes-- the PC and the Xbox-- that lead to one service. Why, Shadowrun aside, have they not tried to take advantage of this? Why haven't they flexed their PC muscle to not only make GFWL a relevant service, but also to entice PC gamers, potentially, into getting an Xbox? Or getting games specifically tailored to playing with their Xbox friends? Why not promote XBL and GFWL not as separate services from the same company, but as the same service with two options on how to get to it? Hell, you can access XBL through a Windows Phone, and they don't call that "Windows Phone Live".

Consider this: The only reason I got into PC gaming was to play the PC versions of console games. I loved The Orange Box on Xbox, and after being told how much better it was on PC, I finally purchased it-- almost half a year after I got the Xbox version. That was the only reason I ever wanted to get Steam. That then led to multiple purchases on Steam. Multiple purchases.

Consider this, Part 2: I have pirated games for my PC. However, none of these are games I never bought; they are games I already owned elsewhere. I had already put over $80 into Resident Evil 5 on the 360. There was no way in hell I'd pay $29.99 for it again. But I had a gaming PC, and I wanted to play it on DX10. It's a case of the chicken coming before the egg: had I not made a gaming PC already, I would've never bothered to try and get the game. But what if I had been offered the game for free, or at least at a heavily discounted price, to begin with...?

Think about it. Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware, but they do make Windows. And they make Games for Windows Live. What if a new copy of an Xbox 360 game gave you a free one-time download coupon for the PC version of that same game through GFWL? That could potentially get someone to 1) buy a copy of Windows, 2) actually use GFWL, and 3) buy other games through GFWL. The third part will then make more companies willing to invest in GFWL. Guess what that means? More money for M$. And if "free" were too much to ask, what if they release a "LIVE" version of the game at launch, where for $10-20 extra, the game comes with both versions of the game, instead of requiring you to purchase two separate $60 games to play the same damned game?

In addition to all that, they need to give GFWL a face lift, the same way they've done for XBL multiple times over. Make the GFWL marketplace less of a hassle just to use. Enable party chats between XBL and GFWL. And you know what? Try experimenting with cross-console play with non-sucky games. Yes, the keyboard/mouse versus gamepad debate is still there, but not every game matters in that respect; just FPS games and RTS games, really. Even then, you can simply provide matchmaking options to, you know, avoid PC users and vice versa. And here's something crazy: make DLC purchases compatible between versions. Can you even imagine a world where your DLC purchase on the Xbox version of SSFIV carried over to the PC version of SSFIV? I dare to dream.

It isn't like this is impossible or unreasonable to ask. Do you recall Valve giving PS3 copies of Portal 2 a free download of the same game on PC? And then making it so that the owners of both versions could play with one another? How did Microsoft let that opportunity slip? They were dealing with Valve first! Yet L4D and L4D2 remained separate and unequal between PC and console. I understand that there are complications, how Sony's and Microsoft's business models vary in their online services, yada yada. But customers don't care about the intricacies of red tape and convoluted contracts. They care about the end result. You can find most PC gamers using Windows, but you'll be hard pressed to find a PC gamer who likes Microsoft's approach to PC gaming. Has there ever been such a blatant disconnect between product and service before? How does Microsoft not see the potential in raking in the customers they already have?

To Microsoft, I propose this:

1. Promote PC and Xbox games side-by-side under one service. Screw the "only on Xbox" slogan. Use instead, "only on LIVE".
2. Make sure the versions release at the same time. We're tired of getting PC versions late, or having the PC version come to consoles way after the point of relevancy (hey Witcher 2).
3. Recreate the GFWL experience to better resemble the highly touted XBL experience. Stop treating it like the adopted one in the family. And if you're so Kinect crazy, make both services fully usable with Kinect controls.
4. Make sure that DLC, patches and title updates are released for both versions; don't leave one in the dust. Furthermore, make DLC purchases work on both versions; don't make us buy it twice.

Is that too much to ask, Microsoft? I mean, you couldn't even assure an Xbox exclusive (Alan Wake again) used your PC gaming service (it lacks GFWL support). Hell, it's not even coming out on the GFWL marketplace; it's only on Steam. How did you manage to mess that up?

I foresee a similar rant coming when Witcher 2 hits the Xbox 360 on April 17th of this year. Brace yourselves.