So from what I gather, Games for Windows Live online service IS essentially Xbox Live but for PC users? One question: If I already HAVE an xboxlive account does that mean I basically already have a Games for Windows account? Somehow I think the answer to that is no....there's no way I'm paying for the same account twice...

It'd be cool to keep track of my xbl friends while playing a windows game. Crysis looks great, but I don't think it supports the live service...bummer.

The computer games I miss are Monkey Island, Loom, and Grim Fandango. Those games were/are still amazingly fun. Ahhh... the simpler days of gaming!

I don't think Windows Live has a subscription fee.

Your Live account works on PC and Xbox, you don't need a second subscription. And coming later this year Xbox and PC gamers will be able to play against each other!

With the expansion of Gears of War onto XP, Micro$oft might be acknowledging that their initial strategy for Games For Windows was a marketing campaign to boost sales of Vista.

If Micro$oft were actually serious about PC gaming, they would release their biggest titles (Halo 3, Mass Effect) for both XBOX360 and PC simultaneously; Halo 2 as a Vista-exclusive game is an insulting gesture. They might also work to get at least one third-party developer to support GFW, and not shut independent game developers out of the Vista security protocols.

The company might also provide GFW Live acccounts free with the $400 purchase price of Vista. Currently, most of the important features of Live service are available free to PC gamers. What incentive is there to pay %50 per year for "new" features that have been available on the PC for at least a decade?

PC gaming thrives because of the active community that is already established; future success will not be due of Micro$oft.

Xbox 360 players and PC users can already play together in Shadowrun.

Why do you put MS down for being in it for the money? Every company is in it for the money.

Objection!

Nintendo isn't in it for the money. Their company president is the nicest guy ever! He creates games with the full intent of making kids happy. Why else would Nintendo focus more on gameplay and less on expense this time around, hmmmmm?

Then why is Nintendo the only company who makes profit on each console sold? Why are they appealing to the mainstream then?

Nintendo sells their consoles for less and they spend more time appealing to a wide audience of children. They've onyl recently begun to expand into the more adult gaming areas, hence your idea that they're only in it for themselves. I think you're upset that Nintendo is doing better than the giants currently, but you have to realize something: They've been doing this for a long, LONG time. When the other consoles broke off into the internet, Nintendo stuck to gaming. It only recently adopted the internet outlook and it's managed to do splendidly.

Why did it do it?

It wanted to please its fans and the gaming community. Nintendo, like any corporation, needs to make money to stay afloat; but I believe Carolyn has a point. Nintendo's always been more for the fun and games aspect than the "give us your entire savings to play one game because our console ate your funds" aspect.

You haven't shown how Nintendo isn't in it for the money. They are in it for the money just as much as anyone else. If they were in it for the gamers, wouldn't they take the hit on their hardware like the other companies, and make it back in software sales? Nintendo makes great games, so they sell well.

They make great games because they do it for the kids. They don't just beef up their system to make it run smoother graphics or cost a bazillion dollars. That's why I said it isn't in it for the money the way Micro$oft is. Geez. Stop being so defensive of XBox and open your eyes for a few seconds.

All corporations exist for two purposes: to produce a profit and to provide a service to the public. As such, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are all, to some extent, in the gaming business for money. The reason Nintendo does not sell at a loss on its console, is that it does not need to in order to stay competitive. Sony and Microsoft presently need to due to the high cost of their hardware.

The only difference between Nintendo and Sony or Microsoft, is their approach to the gaming industry. All three companies produce excellent games; but it is because Nintendo has more conservative and family-oriented games that its fan-base is larger, and it is because its conservatism that its games are received more readily by the general public. Microsoft and Sony have focused their attention on technological versatility and hardware prowess to produce games that appeal to more seasoned gamers.

It is true to some extent that the primary goal of Nintendo is to make children happy in simple, yet addicting games, but it is equally true that the goal of Sony and Microsoft is to awe gamers with visual appeal and complexity of choice in games. Both are noble causes, and in this seventh generation console battle, both niches (those seeking light-hearted, simple and addicting games, and those seeking deep, thorough and equally addicting games) must be, and have been filled.

Indeed, all companies are in it for the money; they are merely using different means to gain said capital.

Nintendo does take a hit on the hardware, just like every other console maker. Its pretty much a given that a company won't profit from the hardware until the 3rd year at best. Charles mentioned that Nintendo has been at this for a long, long time and in that time they have become very good at delivering excellent products and making them cheap. How? By avoiding exotic technologies. They keep it simple. It also helps that they know their target audience very well.

Microsoft just lost $1 Billion (!) on recall due to the "red ring of death". Sony is going to lose quite a lot trying to make their console affordable, not easy when each one packs a blu-ray player and the much touted cell processor.

Not only does Nintendo know how to put out a fun product, they clearly know how to make money too. Nintendo is happy, their fans are happy and having fun.

Re:Claudio an Nintendo fans being happy

Not to mention our nieces are kicking our butts at dancing games, thus helping us lose weight! *laughs*

Nintendo isn't taking a hit on the Wii. Reports peg the hardware costs of the Wiimote under 10 dollars. The console itself is estimated to cost 150. That's a huge markup, whereas the 360 and PS3 are said to cost more than the selling prices.

HAHAHA!! Glad to know I'm not the only one getting whooped by my niece!

Well I have been playing games for over 15 years now and I am glad to see that the PC is getting it's just desserts for once. In the past years, PC exclusives have gone the way of the dodo but some genetic engineer decided to reclone them and bring back PC gaming.

I am predominately a PC gamer but I do have consoles by my side as I enjoy all systems as I consider myself a true "gamer". A true gamer doesn't care who makes the games or what hardware it runs on but enjoys the game for being the game. That being said, I don't have my eyes closed to the world. Nintendo has been around for a long time but they have done things wrong time to time. When the N64/Plastion era was occuring, Nintendo appealed to all types of gamers. As soon as they switched to the gamecube they almost lost all of the hardcore gamers but kept with the casual gamers/Nintendo die-hards. When the Wii was released, people jumped on it do to it's low price point and interesting concept. Yes, Nintendo makes money off of their console but they are also using technology that is considered outdated in the world of computers and compared to the other consoles. Is this a bad thing? No. If they can generate the gameplay, then it is a success. That being said, all of the other systems rely on gameplay also no matter how graphical it is. As for Sony and Microsoft. They have made mistakes also but they aren't better or worse than the other. What really annoys me though is the fact that everyone jumps on Nintendo's PR bandwagon and says "They actually make games for the "people" and not money." This is far from the truth as they are looking to make a buck as much as Sony or Microsoft. They just went a different path than their rivals.

So don't buy one, Gar.

AMEN, Claudio! Seriously, I'm beginning to think she isn't human. Playing Mario DDR is hard enough considering I get distracted watching a slightly overweight and more than likely 39 year old plumber busting moves that would make MJ jealous... but getting a B on the Hard Setting while my niece gets perfects on Super Hard or whatever it was...

...well, let's just say I'm glad I have a couch and a beer nearby after collapsing under my own exhaustion!

(I do have to add, though, since we've started playing DDR together everyday, I've lost ten pounds. That's no easy thing for me, as I'm a couch potato, but that game is too dam*ed addictive!)

Oh. That, and Metroid and Smash Brothers. Back when I played Smash Brothers for 64, I ended up ruining the controller (the little white stick part started disentigrating or something and eventually developed a lag that made my characters randomly decide they wanted to mosey to the left until they fell to their dooms), ending up with a grand total of eight 64 controllers piling up in my house!! The gamecube's controllers were a NICE change.

If Nintendo was only in it for the money, they would make the Wii a graphic diamond, stopping in at the $599 mark, as well as toting all of the reserves Micro$oft and $ony use. It hasn't. Why? It knows that with its popularity, people would buy its systems regardless of the price, BUT THEY MADE IT CHEAPER ANYWAY. Why? Because they aim it for the kids. Yes. They don't think of people as just walking wallets; they sell the Wii knowing PEOPLE will want to buy it to have fun.

Alsmot anyone can afford a Wii. No one on my block (currently) has enough of a paycheck to afford buying a PS3 or an XBox360 without killing their rent payments and grocery money in the process. I'm glad Nintendo thinks of its market in terms of less being more.

Already owned one since launch.

Um yeah, all the talk about money is making my eyes bleed.. back to the fact that I am happy to hear that most Xbox games that are successful are gonna pop up on PC.

!!~PC GAMERS 4 LIFE~!!

Awww, way to end an argument! Just kidding, just kidding. I like PC games as well, but I only have old school ones.

I'm also glad that Nintendo always makes their systems affordable, and I admit that I've owned almost everything Nintendo has put out (except that gameboy micro thingy...hands are too big...I'd need tweezers to play that thing).

I'd like to have a PS3, but 1) I can't afford to buy one and 2) I have an Xbox360 and I don't see much difference between the two. Now before anyone bites my head off, this is only my opinion.

I also play PC games but mostly older games (Civilizations, Age of Empires/Mythology) or games I can't play on consoles.

I used to play all manner of Sims games from City to Earth to Coaster to Hospital to The Sims. Now? Now I spend my days getting whooped by my niece so the glamour of having a sim who acts the same has lost its charm.