Microsoft and Sony have it easy, in a way.  Xbox Live and Playstation Network are easy methods of integrating a multiplayer experience because everyone has the same operating environment, the same hardware, the same software.  The PC is a different issue altogether.  The PC is a platform, in a sense, but only in the respect that they basically all run a Windows operating system for gaming (yes, I know, Mac OS can run some stuff, but it’s pretty much just Windows).  Even that fact is complicated by XP, Vista, and 7, 32-bit versus 64, Direct X9 or 10 (or soon, 11), hardware drivers, background software, etc.  It’s not a stable environment, and I’m sure that compared to a console with fixed hardware and software it’s considerably more difficult to develop for.

These 3 logos represent at least 18 different versions you might play games on

Now, I’m not big on consoles in general.  I don’t like paying an extra $10 for the platform provider’s fee, I hate gamepads as a controller for most games, and (in the case of Xbox) I can’t justify paying a fee for a service that’s traditionally been free for PCs (and is for PSN as well).  They have some pretty decent games, to be sure, but overally I personally feel that PCs are a better platform to game on.  But I have to hand it both MS and Sony, they have online services that are very well integrated into their overall experience, that offer options that PCs can come close to matching, but can’t quite get complete.  The reason for this is, oddly enough, the thing that probably makes the PC one of the best platforms for innovation; the lack of monopoly.  Since no one publisher or company has a hold on the whole PC market, the PC lacks a binding force to bring the experience of all of the different games into one common place.

Not to say there aren’t admirable attempts.  Steam is a great example.  I’m a huge fan of Steam in general (and unlike alot of folks, Mack and myself have had faith in it from the get-go), and I think it’s going to be the closest we get to XBL and PSN, save some really immense effort from some other company (and it would have to be one hell of a competitor).  The problem, though, is that each publisher and developer likes to take their own course.  Naturally, all of Valve’s games are closely integrated into Steam, so that it’s easy to jump into the game a friend is in.  Creative Assembly also integrated Empire: Total War into the system rather well.  But other games, like Company of Heroes, COD4, and Bad Company 2 all use their own systems once one gets into a game.

Steam as it once was…

This isn’t really that big of an issue in and of itself.  Relic Online sucks, but it’s generally functional enough, and it runs from inside the game.  But in listening to the latest (2/11/2010) PC Gamer podcast, it was mentioned that Ubisoft is coming up with their own system (also mentioned here on Kotaku).  This system requires its own login, and requires you to be online to play the game, even in single player mode.  But unlike Steam, which requires you to get online only to verify the game files, Ubi’s system requires you to maintain the connection to continue playing.  Any interruption, whether it be your network, your internet, or even Ubi’s own servers, will kick you out of the game.  There isn’t any “offline mode” like Steam.  You must be online for it to work.  So now I’ve got a bigger headache than I had when dealing even with SecuROM and limited installs, especially since I live in the realm of one of the worst ISPs  ever (Fairpoint Communications, who have not only filed for bankruptcy but are also apparently being investigated for duping Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire and have had problems with making sure 911 service works correctly.  WTF?).  And not only do I have to worry about my connection winking out randomly (as it does just about every day, repeatedly, between the hours of 4 PM and 7 PM), but I have another login to worry about, another place to enter my credit card, another community that I have to try to manage with friends.  The same thing is going on with the new Battlenet for Starcraft 2.  You need to be logged in to their network in order to play LAN games.  Just to be clear, in order to play, just for example, Company of Heroes (Steam), Bad Company 2 (Steam), anything Ubisoft (Ubi’s network), Borderlands (Steam), and Starcraft 2 (I wouldn’t be surprised if Blizzard makes their own download client, but let’s assume Steam for the sake of argument) I would need the following logins: Steam (duh), Relic (COH specific), EA global account (BC2, which manages my BF2, 2142, and Dragon Age accounts too), Ubisoft, Gamespy (Borderlands… why, Gearbox, after all Valve has done for for you?), and Battlenet (SC2).  Thankfully, I one of the few that has maintained a constant email address since I first made one with Yahoo in High School (yes, I have others too), so recovering even the oldest passwords and usernames is doable for me.  For those who haven’t done this – most of the world, I’d imagine – it’s a nightmare to get a handle on everything if you forget a username or a password.  Not all of my usernames match because of various names being taken.

I pay over $65 a month for this, believe it or not…

Why do we have to deal with all of this nonsense?  It’s idiotic.  Look, I know that, from a business standpoint, it makes sense to lock down as much revenue as possible.  Valve probably saves a ton of money by publishing through Steam, while it probably costs other publishers a fair bit of coin to get a license to sell through the service.  But Valve does it better than the rest of you, at least in most respects.  EA Downloader (and their website setup in general) is an aberration, a crime against humanity.  Direct 2 Drive was, at least the last time I used it for The Witcher, more difficult than Steam.  Steam integrates my games, mods, friendlist, and patching with the store and a greater community of personal and group webpages.  I’m sure there are other things it doesn’t do that might be nice (either real-time match viewing for certain RTS games or post-match replays, more reliable downloading when the servers are under heavy loads, etc.), but it’s the closest thing we as PC gamers get to a “platform.”  I personally think that companies like EA would be better served putting their entire catalog on Steam, integrate future titles more closely with it, and get rid of their proprietary services altogether.  Yes, I know, it seems like you’re giving up a revenue stream.  But Steam is the least intrusive DRM system (how many people have complained about HL2 and it’s bretheren, other than when it first came out?), the most reliable service, and probably the most widely used.  Ultimately, the publishers would be better serving their consumers, and they’d probably sell more digital content instead of less.

Sure, it looked alright, but try getting that game work properly

So in the end, I suppose I’m a little bit jealous of Xbox and PS3 crowds for the ease with which their community is built.  But the PC still has, in my opinion, the best communities, regardless of how much extra work might go into them.  It would just be nice to not have to remember so many damn passwords…