By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft sees Fable III as a "great first step" for PC gaming

.jayderyu on 22 June 2010
aragod said:

I don't know if I can lose more sympathy for Microsoft anymore, I thínk we've hit the rock bottom. They kept screwing PC gamers for years, closing down studios, axing great series, with the release of Xbox forcing PC user to switch to the console, creating the worst fucking piece of crap that is Windows Live and now suddenly they want to make the U-turn and make it seems all fluffy and dandy?

Amazing first party content? Sorry Microsoft, but you have none, thank yourself. Thanks god there is nothing like first party in the PC world. And a finger to you software dinosaur .!..

Preach the word brother. Screw MS and their propaganda and BullShit. They can go axe themselves and the total BS road now. MS lost their claim and are going a bitch of a time rebuilding their PC gaming brand in the coming years. We have done just fine adapting to their departure. F' off MicroSoft. We have no pity or interest in you crawling back.



Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 22 June 2010

Microsoft is pissing me off.



DirtyP2002 on 22 June 2010
shio said:
DirtyP2002 said:
shio said:
DirtyP2002 said:

a very strange way to spin the numbers. Windows is the largest gaming platform, because of the revenue browser-games create... MS won't see one cent of that revenue. People can play their browser games on other OS as well, but Windows is by far the most used and best (There I said it) OS.

This is like saying Windows is by far the best platform for marketing, because most of the marketing revenue on the internet is because of Windows users. I doubt Google or Yahoo paid MS a dollar for it though.

There is a reason why Epic, Valve and iD are not PC only anymore.

I think they try to build up their Games on Demand service nothing more and nothing less.

 

Wow, don't tell me you really believe the revenue of browser-based games is anywhere near as much as traditional PC sales or MMO revenue?! Browser-based games revenue is only a tiny fraction of PC Gaming...

SOURCE?

The reason Epic "moved" to consoles is because Microsoft gave them loads of money to go exclusive.

SOURCE?

They were already making exclusive Xbox games long before Gears of War, with those Unreal Championship games. In the mean time, UT2k3 and UT2k4 were HUGE successes, selling millions on PC (despite UT2k3's criticism).

SOURCE?
The only flop Epic ever had on PC was UT3, and that was because the game was mediocre and hammered down by PC gamers. Somehow they still sold 1 million.

SOURCE?

Epic even admitted they were wrong, and they released a HUGE update that completely overhauled the consolized interface, added Steam support, and brought new modes/maps for free.

Valve, lol?! Valve is 100% PC. They only release games on consoles to get a few more bucks.

SOURCE?

 Gabe Newell himself said consoles are not the future. He said Consoles will die "soon".

SOURCE?

id Software I don't know. The last game they made sold millions on PC.

SOURCE?

As far as I can see, they have no reason to even be thanking consoles, since they never anywhere near the success with them as with the PC.

Microsoft is afraid of Steam. Valve is pushing non-Windows gaming with the release of Steam on MAC, and soon LINUX. Now that Steam is has most major publishers and studios, Microsoft doesn't want the situation to become even worse.

Epic: The money is on console

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/05/16/epic-president-the-moneys-on-console/

Valve is not 100% PC. Every major Valve game was released on consoles since Counter Strike Source.

Half-Life 2 / Orange Box / Team Fortress 2
Left 4 Dead
Left 4 Dead 2
Portal
Portal 2

All of those games are playable on Xbox 360 and Valve expands to PS3 now.

What about Crytek. Once the new highly praised PC only developer. Now with Crysis 2 they are PC / consoles and with Kingdoms they will be probably consoles (Xbox 360) only. You can add them on that list.

And btw MS won't see a cent of the MMO fees either.

PC is about Blizzard and browser games these days. And yeah, maybe sims.

How about YOU give sources for all the lies you're spouting?

But since I actually know what I'm talking about, and can back it up, here: http://kotaku.com/5038833/pc-gaming-a-107-billion-industry

From PC's $10.7bln in 2007, only $800mln were from ads (part of which came from hardcore games). $4.8bln was from Online revenue, which digital item sales and subscriptions. Expect nearly all of it to come from MMOs (World of Warcraft alone had $1.1bln).

Now matter how much you spin it, you'd be lucky if even 10% came from browser games.

--------------------------------------

As for Epic, why would they not release Gears of War on PS3 or PC? Don't they want more sales or what?!

It's obvious that they have an exclusivity contract with Microsoft with Gears of War atleast, and with console unreal games before that. UT2k3/UT2k4 was a success, and Epic never had a flop before UT3 (which coincidentally was also their first "consolized" PC game).

Still, I'm glad they admitted they updated UT3 to feel more like a true PC game. And also, they just integrated Steamworks with the UE3.

---------------------------------------

Valve: http://5by5.tv/conversation/16

In the interview Gabe Newell said, among other things, that proprietary hardware(consoles) will be irrelevant and disappear in the future. He also said that the future will be about digital services like Steam and Xbox Live.

He also said that Xbox 360 is there to generate extra revenue.

When Valve has a much bigger service than Xbox Live and PSN combined, you think he cry for lost money on consoles?

------------------------------------------

In January 2007, they said Doom 3 sold 3.5 millions: http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/010710_id_carmack_emmys.x

That was 3.5 years ago, so Doom 3 should be over 4.5 millions by now. And that was a game that was criticized by the PC community.

--------------------------------------------

No high-profile developer goes console exclusive without some sort of deal, especially if it comes from the PC side. Take a look at Remedy and their Alan Wake game.

Crysis was a success, not only from sales (even though it got some flak for the specs), 1,5 million in just 6 months (faster than Starcraft's sales), but also for showcasing their new engine.

Crysis will reach 3 million when all is said and done, if it hasn't already. PC games have HUGE legs, hell, just last week Crysis showed up #5 on Steam's best sellers: http://store.steampowered.com/feeds/weeklytopsellers.xml

Their Kingdoms game is, no doubt, from an exclusive deal. Why wouldn't put it on PC and PS3 otherwise?


What kind of sources do you want?

Do you want a source for Valve releasing every game on consoles?

I posted a link for Epic saying the money is on consoles and you still aren't convinced? He is the PRESIDENT OF EPIC GAMES. How can he or I make it more obvious for you? Do you want him to call you up? He knows this business better than both of us and he does not agree with you.

---

I did not listen to this 60 minutes interview, but I think I remembered Newell saying that cloud is the future. That would kill the PC as a platform as well, because there won't be a "real" platform anymore.

And the fact that Valve is expanding to PS3 shows, that consoles are more relevant than PCs for gaming.

And why should steam be bigger than XBL and PSN combined? This is a lie and you know. MS just said they have a 25 million UNIQUE USERS on Xbox Live. PSN has 50 million ACCOUNTS. Steam has "only" 25 million ACCOUNTS.

You ask for a source?

 http://www.vg247.com/2010/01/29/valve-steam-has-over-25-million-accounts-unit-sales-up-205/

http://playstationlifestyle.net/2010/06/17/sony-over-50-million-psn-accounts/

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/press/2010/0614-e3gamespressrelease.htm

----

and why should Doom 3 have sold 1 million in the past years? Let me guess, you have no source. And according to VGC 1.4 million were on Xbox btw.

http://www.vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=Doom 3

---

"No high-profile developer goes console exclusive without some sort of deal, especially if it comes from the PC side."

What about Fifa World Cup South Africa or Red Dead Redemption. Who paid Rockstar or EA here? MS, Sony or Nintendo?

---

And talking about 2007 PC sales you mentioned:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23800152/

Read this article. Probably some of the most important people in this industry talk about PC gaming. And it comes with facts. Read what Cliffy B, Peter Molyneux, Sid Meier and more have to say. But I guess they don't know what shio on the internetz knows.



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

slowmo on 22 June 2010
Scoobes said:
slowmo said:
Foamer said:

It's probably to push Kinect for Windows or whatever they're going to call, it or maybe a response to Valve porting Steam and various games to OSX. Microsoft has done more to damage PC gaming than any other company I can think of.


Were you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

Explain to me how gaming is worse now than it was when I had to use several boot disks in DOS to run my games and how each game had settings for the hardware in my PC.  Microsoft revelutionized gaming with Windows 95 and have created many evolutions on the platform since.  why should they as a company keep elements going that aren't making enough money or meeting the company goals.  I'm afraid you'll find many publishers ignoring the PC long before Microsoft focused on the 360 did the damage.

You're either very young or someone with a irrational dislike for a company.

What exactly have MS done since 2004 that has promoted PC gaming? They used to be one of the major PC publishers with some top games like Age of Empires, Rise of Nations Flight Simulator etc. Since 2004/2005 Microsoft have shifted focus to 360 and deliberately reduced the PC gaming side of their business.

  • Closing and selling PC centric developers in favour of 360 developers.
  • Trying to charge PC gamers for using a version of Live that had almost no game support and to play online, something that'd been free on PC for many years.
  • Having old X-box 1 games (Halo 2) require Dirext X10 to run even though the graphics were outdated on release

@ underlined

Which PC devs and publishers ignored PC exactly? And before MS concentrated on 360? Most games are now multiplatform, that doesn't mean the PC isn't getting those games, it means devs and publishers have expanded to consoles.

So if we assume you mean ignoring all the technological advances they've made with directx then maybe they'e lighter these days in terms of software publishing but I hardly see how it is THEIR responsibility for propping up the PC market.  I don't see you guys complaining how Sony and Nintendo are killing the PC segment by refusing to go multiplatform onto PC.  I find it rather ludicrous reasoning you're using to just bash Microsoft personally.  There is a HUGE list of publishers and developers not supporting the PC in any way at all far more deserving of the scorn.

 

1.  I personally would have wrote closed poorly performing/not profitable developers which mkes perfrct business sense.  I was gutted Ensemble closed, I loved Halo Wars but the development schedule on that game alone showed the problems possibly brewing underneath the surface.

2.  Charging for GFW failed miserably and there is no charge anymore.  The only thing this damaged was their profits not gaming on the PC.  It's grasping at straws suggesting otherwise.

3.  They have a right to sell their own software and make money, once again I find it rather hypocritical you aren't having a go at companies doing far more damage. 



zarx on 22 June 2010

mmm just imagine if this was a clue that Microsoft is gonna try to steal Sony's thunder by releasing Forza on PC that looks better than GT5. I can hear the fanboys crying now. Some Halo 3/reach and Halo Wars action wouldn't hurt ether.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
makingmusic476 on 22 June 2010
slowmo said:

So if we assume you mean ignoring all the technological advances they've made with directx then maybe they'e lighter these days in terms of software publishing but I hardly see how it is THEIR responsibility for propping up the PC market.  I don't see you guys complaining how Sony and Nintendo are killing the PC segment by refusing to go multiplatform onto PC.  I find it rather ludicrous reasoning you're using to just bash Microsoft personally.  There is a HUGE list of publishers and developers not supporting the PC in any way at all far more deserving of the scorn.

 

1.  I personally would have wrote closed poorly performing/not profitable developers which mkes perfrct business sense.  I was gutted Ensemble closed, I loved Halo Wars but the development schedule on that game alone showed the problems possibly brewing underneath the surface.

2.  Charging for GFW failed miserably and there is no charge anymore.  The only thing this damaged was their profits not gaming on the PC.  It's grasping at straws suggesting otherwise.

3.  They have a right to sell their own software and make money, once again I find it rather hypocritical you aren't having a go at companies doing far more damage. 

Sony and Nintendo never had any PC-centric developers to begin with (save SOE, who still actively support the PC).

In the end, Microsoft was at one time the most active supporter of Windows as a gaming platform, yet at some point they decided to end this support, killing very popular franchises and hurting PC gaming by damaging its portfolio of upcoming games.

If Sony came out today and said they were no longer going to make PSP or PS3 games, wouldn't the owners of said consoles have a right to be pissed?



Scoobes on 22 June 2010
slowmo said:
Scoobes said:
slowmo said:
Foamer said:

It's probably to push Kinect for Windows or whatever they're going to call, it or maybe a response to Valve porting Steam and various games to OSX. Microsoft has done more to damage PC gaming than any other company I can think of.


Were you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

Explain to me how gaming is worse now than it was when I had to use several boot disks in DOS to run my games and how each game had settings for the hardware in my PC.  Microsoft revelutionized gaming with Windows 95 and have created many evolutions on the platform since.  why should they as a company keep elements going that aren't making enough money or meeting the company goals.  I'm afraid you'll find many publishers ignoring the PC long before Microsoft focused on the 360 did the damage.

You're either very young or someone with a irrational dislike for a company.

What exactly have MS done since 2004 that has promoted PC gaming? They used to be one of the major PC publishers with some top games like Age of Empires, Rise of Nations Flight Simulator etc. Since 2004/2005 Microsoft have shifted focus to 360 and deliberately reduced the PC gaming side of their business.

  • Closing and selling PC centric developers in favour of 360 developers.
  • Trying to charge PC gamers for using a version of Live that had almost no game support and to play online, something that'd been free on PC for many years.
  • Having old X-box 1 games (Halo 2) require Dirext X10 to run even though the graphics were outdated on release

@ underlined

Which PC devs and publishers ignored PC exactly? And before MS concentrated on 360? Most games are now multiplatform, that doesn't mean the PC isn't getting those games, it means devs and publishers have expanded to consoles.

So if we assume you mean ignoring all the technological advances they've made with directx then maybe they'e lighter these days in terms of software publishing but I hardly see how it is THEIR responsibility for propping up the PC market.  I don't see you guys complaining how Sony and Nintendo are killing the PC segment by refusing to go multiplatform onto PC.  I find it rather ludicrous reasoning you're using to just bash Microsoft personally.  There is a HUGE list of publishers and developers not supporting the PC in any way at all far more deserving of the scorn.

 

1.  I personally would have wrote closed poorly performing/not profitable developers which mkes perfrct business sense.  I was gutted Ensemble closed, I loved Halo Wars but the development schedule on that game alone showed the problems possibly brewing underneath the surface.

2.  Charging for GFW failed miserably and there is no charge anymore.  The only thing this damaged was their profits not gaming on the PC.  It's grasping at straws suggesting otherwise.

3.  They have a right to sell their own software and make money, once again I find it rather hypocritical you aren't having a go at companies doing far more damage.

Microsoft are deserving of scorn because of the sheer amount of games on Windows and the support that Microsoft previously showed to PC has been left to falter to nought. Prior to X-box, MS supported PC. Now, it's fallen to other developers and publishers such as Valve with Steam and services like Direct 2 Drive and GOG. Previously, Microsoft saw PC as a viable gaming platform, but now they've effectively given up, yet continue to say they support the platform.

Sony (with SOE) is releasing more PC games at present than Microsoft. Considerring MS are the software giant and their previous ties to PC gaming, it's just a bit sad. And as for Nintendo, they've always been on consoles and never on PC. They can't damage it as their experiences are quite different (and having said all this you can emulate most Ninty games, but I digress).

If Ninty or Sony decided to stop making console games and concentrate on PC, wouldn't that piss off people who enjoyed their franchises on those platforms? And then what if they decided to start charging for stuff thats been free on the consoles for the past 10 yrs? And then what if they designed a new DX-like software system that only supported 2 games, but forced you to buy that software system to enjoy those games (and one of those games a a 2 yr old port)? You don't think this is going to be damaging for those companies and those hardware platforms?

On your 3 points:

1. Every game Ensemble made broke even and made a profit prior to Halo Wars (which probably did profit, but I can't say either way, plus they closed the studio prior to its release). The Age of Empires series sold over 20 million copies. They were sucessful for the vast majority of the studios life. If Microsoft were worried then management should have intervened, not just closed an entire and relatively sucessful studio with no prior warning. And Ensemble was just one of many. They no longer have any PC centric studios or publish very many PC games. Other 3rd-party publishers that published PC games still bring games out on PC. The vast majority are multiplatform.

Heres another thought, if we follow this train of thought of closing down poorly performing developers and expand to other parts of the business, why did they not close X-box division after the failure of the first console? Considering the billions of dollars that have been wasted, it seems to me that MS would have been better off financially sticking with PC publishing and development back then.

2. The whole service failed miserably. Not just the payment aspect although for many PC gamers it was basically an insult for Microsoft to think they could charge for services that were free prior to GFWL. Little to no support and an interface that is mediocre in comparison to what is offered on Live on 360. You think this isn't going to breed resentment from PC gamers? They are more than capable of producing a great system, yet on PC it's a shell of a service from one of the previously PC gaming greats.

3. Right to sell products and make money, yes. So why restrict a portion of the market for no technical reason? Oh, right, because you want an excuse to sell operating systems. Fine, exclusives sell systems, right, so why not OS'? But, they tried to force all this upon PC gamers and all on a 2 yr old port of a game! Of all the games to push this feature, a 2 yr old port of a game most had probably already played and with dated graphics? And it was 1 of 2 games that were Direct X10 exclusive. If Microsoft were serious about pushing PC gaming, where were all the games? The worst part was it came out that the "exclusive" need for Direct X10 wasn't even correct as you could get an unofficial XP patch to run the game. Even in Crysis you could change a bit of code in the ini file and it could force a lot of the Direct X10 effects.

So, was DX10 really that much of a technical push, or just a marketing tool?

Also, what other companies have damaged PC gaming? I can think of a few, but most still support and release on the PC and this thread is about MS saying they'll push PC again, when for the last 5 years everything has been half-hearted with 3rd-party support now moving to other groups.




Get your Portable ID!

M.U.G.E.N on 22 June 2010

lol OFCOURSE it is :P it's their next big pc game...pretty sure the one after that will be also a big 'first' step



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

slowmo on 23 June 2010
makingmusic476 said:
slowmo said:

So if we assume you mean ignoring all the technological advances they've made with directx then maybe they'e lighter these days in terms of software publishing but I hardly see how it is THEIR responsibility for propping up the PC market.  I don't see you guys complaining how Sony and Nintendo are killing the PC segment by refusing to go multiplatform onto PC.  I find it rather ludicrous reasoning you're using to just bash Microsoft personally.  There is a HUGE list of publishers and developers not supporting the PC in any way at all far more deserving of the scorn.

 

1.  I personally would have wrote closed poorly performing/not profitable developers which mkes perfrct business sense.  I was gutted Ensemble closed, I loved Halo Wars but the development schedule on that game alone showed the problems possibly brewing underneath the surface.

2.  Charging for GFW failed miserably and there is no charge anymore.  The only thing this damaged was their profits not gaming on the PC.  It's grasping at straws suggesting otherwise.

3.  They have a right to sell their own software and make money, once again I find it rather hypocritical you aren't having a go at companies doing far more damage. 

Sony and Nintendo never had any PC-centric developers to begin with (save SOE, who still actively support the PC).

In the end, Microsoft was at one time the most active supporter of Windows as a gaming platform, yet at some point they decided to end this support, killing very popular franchises and hurting PC gaming by damaging its portfolio of upcoming games.

If Sony came out today and said they were no longer going to make PSP or PS3 games, wouldn't the owners of said consoles have a right to be pissed?

At least they still support the platform, thats more than many developers do.  How many of Sony's developers work on PC?  You keep telling me how Microsoft don't support PC anymore.  It's a simple fact PC gamings been suffering for years, mainly due to the cross over with consoles.  Consoles these days provide an experience very close to that capable on a PC, 15 years ago the PC was quite ahead of consoles in the experiences available.  Microsoft still release games, they just don't target it as a main platform, thats hardly destroying the platform like the first claim I responded to says.

Well Sony came out and took a nice feature from their system we had since launch but 99% of Sony fans on this site said that was fine.  We were told we didn't have any right to be annoyed over that issue so apparently we dont have the right to be pissed.

 

@Scoobes

The reason they chose to keep the Xbox division is the project was never about just money initially, now things are starting to change as we've seen by the fact they're allowed Sony to take back market share in the last year in order to make some profit back. 

I'm a PC gamer and I did not resent GFWL in anyway, I refused to pay for the service and buy those games but that wasn't destroying PC gaming imo.  Your grasping at straws.

Blame developers for not pushing Directx10 effects more and sticking to Directx9 for most of the work.  There were very few Directx 10 focused titles made.  The same is happening with Directx11 at the moment in that developers aren't solely focusing on it and giving everyone a reason to upgrade.  Restricting PC owners from games encourages growth in their Xbox division, thats fairly obviously a huge technical reason right there. 



Scoobes on 23 June 2010
slowmo said:
makingmusic476 said:
slowmo said:

So if we assume you mean ignoring all the technological advances they've made with directx then maybe they'e lighter these days in terms of software publishing but I hardly see how it is THEIR responsibility for propping up the PC market.  I don't see you guys complaining how Sony and Nintendo are killing the PC segment by refusing to go multiplatform onto PC.  I find it rather ludicrous reasoning you're using to just bash Microsoft personally.  There is a HUGE list of publishers and developers not supporting the PC in any way at all far more deserving of the scorn.

 

1.  I personally would have wrote closed poorly performing/not profitable developers which mkes perfrct business sense.  I was gutted Ensemble closed, I loved Halo Wars but the development schedule on that game alone showed the problems possibly brewing underneath the surface.

2.  Charging for GFW failed miserably and there is no charge anymore.  The only thing this damaged was their profits not gaming on the PC.  It's grasping at straws suggesting otherwise.

3.  They have a right to sell their own software and make money, once again I find it rather hypocritical you aren't having a go at companies doing far more damage. 

Sony and Nintendo never had any PC-centric developers to begin with (save SOE, who still actively support the PC).

In the end, Microsoft was at one time the most active supporter of Windows as a gaming platform, yet at some point they decided to end this support, killing very popular franchises and hurting PC gaming by damaging its portfolio of upcoming games.

If Sony came out today and said they were no longer going to make PSP or PS3 games, wouldn't the owners of said consoles have a right to be pissed?

At least they still support the platform, thats more than many developers do.  How many of Sony's developers work on PC?  You keep telling me how Microsoft don't support PC anymore.  It's a simple fact PC gamings been suffering for years, mainly due to the cross over with consoles.  Consoles these days provide an experience very close to that capable on a PC, 15 years ago the PC was quite ahead of consoles in the experiences available.  Microsoft still release games, they just don't target it as a main platform, thats hardly destroying the platform like the first claim I responded to says.

Well Sony came out and took a nice feature from their system we had since launch but 99% of Sony fans on this site said that was fine.  We were told we didn't have any right to be annoyed over that issue so apparently we dont have the right to be pissed.

 

@Scoobes

The reason they chose to keep the Xbox division is the project was never about just money initially, now things are starting to change as we've seen by the fact they're allowed Sony to take back market share in the last year in order to make some profit back. 

I'm a PC gamer and I did not resent GFWL in anyway, I refused to pay for the service and buy those games but that wasn't destroying PC gaming imo.  Your grasping at straws.

Blame developers for not pushing Directx10 effects more and sticking to Directx9 for most of the work.  There were very few Directx 10 focused titles made.  The same is happening with Directx11 at the moment in that developers aren't solely focusing on it and giving everyone a reason to upgrade.  Restricting PC owners from games encourages growth in their Xbox division, thats fairly obviously a huge technical reason right there. 

I have to ask, what games has Microsoft released on PC recently? The last full game releases I can think of were in 2007 with Gears, Halo 2, Shadowrun an AOE expansion and the last ever Flight Sim. Three yrs and nothing? At E3 their only showing on PC was Fable 3.

In contrast, the last game Sony released/developed for PC was last year with Free realms and have 3 potential 2010 titles (from wiki: DC Universe online, SW: Clone Wars adventures and Magic: The gathering - Tactics). It also continues to support Everquest II with a host of expansions.

As for the comment about X-box, I know this, but it doesn't change the logic about closing Ensemble and all other PC centic studios. They closed down these studios because they moved into a market all to combat a perceived threat from Sony, and then they lost money when they did. They cut these PC studios to save that money, hindering PC development.

As for GFWL, you might be indifferent to the service, and whilst it may not damage PC gaming directly, it does stink of a lack of effort on MS' part. A 360 gamer looks at Live on 360, then sees the PC equivalent, what's he/she going to think?

MS have far more power than most developers to influence PC gaming. Devs may share some of the blame, but it's only understandable because of the incredibly low market share DX10 and 11 still have to DX9.  Many PC gamers are still using XP and DX9. Had DX10 & 11 been supported in XP then we probably would see more games use these features. As they're locked to the OS, developers aren't going to push those features until the market for those games increases and no matter how popular, that takes time. MS who are meant to be pushing the OS' haven't done enough to convince the majority of PC gamers to upgrade (although Win 7 uptake is slowly increasing).

@ underlined

This right here is the problem. MS say they'll support PC, yet their interests lie elsewhere. Why say you're going to support PC when their emphasis is very much in a competing market?




Get your Portable ID!