Slashdot Mirror
The Future of PC Games, According to Microsoft
Geaty writes "Gamespot has an article up about Microsoft's big PC plans. Topics covered include why DirectX 9 will be the last DX for a while, the increased game support in Longhorn, and a 'standard' PC controller. Looks to this ignorant reader like Microsoft is trying to tackle the games market (again?), cornering matchmaking and patching. The controller issue seems like an attempt to bring to the PC platform some of the uniformity that consoles have."
the man from Microsoft suggests that longhorn will give users the ability to play games directly from the cd, without installation. Which is great in theory, but what does that mean? Either your loading the whole game into RAM, *shudder* or it will include a program to automatically install when you run the game, and uninstall the program when you finish. At least that's what I think, if somebody can think up other possibilities, I'm all ears.
Jacob
http://www.santacruzbynight.com/index.shtml Santa Cruz By Night Vampire Larp
From the article: As has been rumored, Longhorn will likely include a major overhaul in Window's visual presentation, which may include 3D interface elements. Lester also said it would include a special "My Games" view that would centralize all the matchmaking, control panel settings, patching tools, and game lists and make such tasks much simpler. Microsoft is working on streamlining a number of current technical trouble areas, like the installation process and display drivers, and will centralize game updates through a Windows Update-like patch server. It's also looking into making it possible to run Windows games directly from the CD without installation. Somewhat more straightforward features include adding sophisticated matchmaking into Microsoft Messenger and parental controls over which users can play certain games.
Integrated match making? So, while I'm busy running around in DAOC, blowing shit up in the next Duke Nukem, I can also be matched up... with what? Other games? Dating Services?
Second interesting point is the no-installation-needed... so PC games and XBox games will be seamlessly transferable? Neato!
--------
Free your mind.
If you ask me, that's the PROBLEM with games - they have become the ultimate bloat-ware. Insane memory and processor usage, and the latest 3d visual effects, do not necessarily make a good game - just look at the success of games like The Sims that don't require a $500 3D card and a liquid-cooled processor. Personally, I have more fun playing Sonic the Hedgehog in my emulator...
-"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
Microsoft doesn't expect to release another major DirectX update for a couple of years.
:)
It's also looking into making it possible to run Windows games directly from the CD without installation.
Microsoft is working on a standard PC controller
Microsoft is really heading the right way - gaming. The idea of boot-n-play and standard controller really makes standard PC an excellent game console, and that's the way we long to see. They should really put more focus on what they are really good and and not waste time on fighting with other platforms with things they aren't good at.
I can foresee the future propaganda of Microsoft Windows - 'Ultimate Gaming Platform for PC and your great office assistant'.
Am I the only person that thinks that System Requirement scheme sounds horrifically complicated and painful. How exactly, do you plan to describe a computer in a single character?
It simplifies things down to a small number of levels (or to a level of complexity that's stupid, like having to remember that you have a level 3.25 B R23 computer). What happens if you have a processer intensive game that requires little hardware video and sound acceleration? How does that compare to a game that has a great deal of hardware acceleration and requires very little processor power. At least the current system is able to specifically list individual requirements. If, however, you plan to rank individual requirements on a scale of some sort, how does that simplify anything at all?
Software uniformity is hardly the greatest of the PC game-maker's concerns as hardware configurations are far more diverse. It would seem, however, that the new ATI and nVidia offerings are bringing graphics closer and closer to photo-realistic quality and hopefully once such a quality is reached and the majority of casual gamers have the necessary hardware the focus of PC games will shift back towards the gameplay, storyline, and complexity that simply cannot be matched by console games.
assuming the above occurs, one must also realize that consoles are killing themselves in some aspects. one of the best aspects of early consoles such as the atari 2600 and nintendo was the ease of use - simply pop in a cart and play, no hardware, software, or OS issues. now take a look at the X-Box and PS2 (gamecube doesn't fit the paradigm but also is not as popular and arguably targeted at a much younger audience over all): they have hard-drives, increasingly complex RISC OSs, and are constructed at least partially of modified PC parts. with new features promised such as patches available over the internet and hardware expansions the consoles are turning themselves into nothing more than mini-PCs, and personally I'd rather spend a few hundred more dollars and buy myself a decent desktop PC.
But seriously, why would PC's need a standard gaming controller?? I can't see the keyboard mouse combo going anywhere anytime soon..
Considering Microsoft's console entry, XBox, the hardware it runs on, and the fact it runs windows... this could be a push to finally turn computers into a total entertainment solution. As it stands now, you can play PC games, watch movies, check email, etc, etc, etc... and it's not that much of a stretch to turn your PC into a console as well, should they standardize controllers. The XBox is already essentially a wintel machine, so coming out with software that added console functionality couldn't be terribly hard.
The video game industry is huge, and I could very easily see Microsoft trying to push windows into the console industry as well. Why would you ever want to buy a console again, if playing the games was as simple as buying a $30 controller and some $30-50 games for a computer you already have?
I already play tons of old emulated games on my PC with a game controller. Personally, I would be quite happy if I could just grab console games and play them without having to drop another $200-300 on console hardware.
Of course, this is all conjecture, so take it cum grano salis.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Hey Mr. Game Developer, why don't you go ahead and port that nifty new pc game to the Xbox2 too while you're at it? Look it has a controller also, what a coincidence!
From the article:
.[Microsoft is] also looking into making it possible to run Windows games directly from the CD without installation. . . .Microsoft is working on a standard PC controller, which would allow a more seamless conversion of cross-platform titles and generally simplify the use of PC gamepads.
The plan is to set up a numerical system that categorizes and groups system levels, and when this goes into effect in 2005 or so, a level-1 system might represent the current or year-old value-priced PC configurations, while level 2 and level 3 group systems that define the mainstream and high-end performance of the time.
This strikes me as bad solution to an already sticky problem. Whats to stop a studio from saying a game that runs at 10fps on a system considered a "1" from slapping a "1" rating on it in order to maximize their possible audience? Its all about sales, right? In addition, I wonder if in 2005 the hardware change-rate will be any different, limitations of silicon or no.
Somewhat more straightforward features include adding sophisticated matchmaking into Microsoft Messenger . .
Great, I've got a computer with a standard Microsoft controller, great graphics, that plays my DVDs, music, etc, and has matchmaking for me at no extra cost outside of bandwidth. Tell me again why I'd want an X-box?
Sure, there are other reasons for owning one, but it does seem that Microsoft, in working to console-ize the PC, might be somewhat shooting themselves in the foot. . . ? I'm sure they've thought of/discussed this, but it still strikes me as counter productive when they remain dedicated to the console industry.
- - - - - - - -
Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
meanwhile, people were still developing Playstation 1 games long past the time when it was _obvious_ that the Playstation 1 was the three year old PC equivalent of what their grandmother is using. Remember: consoles are special because they represent an unmoving target for game developers. Game developers optimize the hell out of console games, which they simply cannot do with PC games given the wide variety of available hardware (not to mention drivers, 3d lib support, operating systems, etc.) that the game could be running on. So, despite the fact that XBox is no longer (and has never been) a high-end PC, you will still see mind-blowingly complex games coming out for it because of this non-moving target fact. Same thing goes for the PS2, a 300MHz machine with some ridiculously small amount of RAM, and no hard drive.
iRooster, the Mac OS X a
(1) Standalone CDs - With what I've read on Longhorn, this shouldn't be an issue - since the traditional file system will be replaced by a registry type database. However, for massively multimedia intensive games, there will be a physical need for installation - unless they mean DVD instead of CD.
(2) Standardization of a PC controller - this could be fun, because if they actually standardize, it would mean that people could build their own controllers... *if* they make it an Open Standard. History says no.
(3) With DirectX 9 stalled and 64 bit processors due out shortly, I wonder if the hooks for utilizing the 64 bit instruction set for the new Intel are already there - or if Microsoft is handing AMD a nice swing at a juicy ball.
(4) Centralization of game patch updates is interesting in that it means that game manufacturers may become inspired to put out shoddy first releases so that people need to go through the Update server to get the fixes that make things work... and if they didn't buy the title... Well, think about it.
(5) "adding sophisticated matchmaking into Microsoft Messenger and parental controls over which users can play certain games" adds to point 4, but also demonstrates that they are also doing something naughty that the DoJ had something to say about.
In all... Just more Microsoft. No really *good* news.
It seems to me that from reading this article they may be planning on compatibility between Loghorn and Xbox2.
Standard Controller, possibility of running games from CD, centralized game management. Since the Xbox is basically a PC, and the games are basically Windows games using DirectX, this isn't a stretch of the imagination.
Buy one game, and run it on your Xbox2 or your PC. Play online with people running Xbox2's and you can use your PC, or vice versa. With a standard PC "gamepad" it would be the same type of controls.
I don't think this would be a terrible idea, but it sure would push game developers more to a "windows only" choice of platforms, which isn't really great. I'm still hoping for more games on Linux.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
So, I'll add my two cents, as an MCSE...
The plan is to set up a numerical system that categorizes and groups system levels, and when this goes into effect in 2005 or so, a level-1 system might represent the current or year-old value-priced PC configurations, while level 2 and level 3 group systems that define the mainstream and high-end performance of the time.
This numerical system could also be described as a "commodification system", a "social-engineering system", or a "market manipulation system". Be wary of this numerical system. This plan is begging to commodify PCs into more "bundled" and "console" like systems. Which, of course, is contrary to the concept of a generalized computing device, which many people believe a PC should be. My suggestion would be to clamor and veto this plan, if possible... It seems to have bad karma written all over it...
Lester revealed that DirectX 9 packs enough features to be future-proof and is a temporary stopping place for DX development.
A rather bold statement, all things considered. Does it support autostereoscopic monitors? How about lectiliniar monitors? What about multi-layer LCD or wave-monitors?
And what multi-head display configurations? Will it support a 9 screen configuration, in case I decide to build a dedicated MechWarrior station? (Anybody remember LucasArt's "X-Wing"? Heh... I always wanted to build a multi-head game pod for that game...)
Also, what about DICOM datasets and other volumetric biomedical datasets? Them algorithm based games are nice and all, but what about future games which may want to encorporate medical-grade bioinformatics? "Future-proof" is an awefully strong statement, it seems to me...
Anyhow... I don't know where I was going with this post. Just a couple of cents to add to the discussion...
compatibility between Loghorn and Xbox2.
Does that mean Microsoft is going to call Longhorn "Windows XB"?
Since the Xbox is basically a PC, and the games are basically Windows games using DirectX, this isn't a stretch of the imagination.
The Xbox 1 has NVIDIA graphics. Requiring an Xbox 2 compatible video card for whatever version of DirectX comes with Longhorn would pretty much hand the video card market to NVIDIA. Watch the next administration (that is, without AG A$$croft) breakup such a monopolistic action.
Will I retire or break 10K?
But they will market "GAMING!!" and everyone will buy it.
And then Nintendo will market "GAMING WITHOUT SPYWARE ON A BIG T.V. SCREEN WITH YOUR FAVORITE MIYAMOTO CHARACTERS!" and everybody will buy the GC2.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So dont buy a gamepad.
All I want is a good controller, with a standard PS2/xbox-like layout.
I like console games.
My PC is an order of magnitude more powerful than any console.
Why do the games I like have to run on lesser hardware? Why do the games for the better hardware bore me?
Thats the conspiracy.
John Carmack invented the Quake engine to bore the living hell out of me.
Now he's going to the moon. Good for him.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
1. X can handle multiple mice & keyboards per machine, no problem. (Ever hear of a USB hub?)
2. Games run in windows... I can certainly run two instances of Quake 3 side-by-side, or above one another, for instance.
Does the Half-Life engine support more than one keyboard or more than one mouse on one machine? Does it support split-screen?
:)
This brings up an excellent point. I would have to say that there is nothing more obnoxious in the console world than split screen gaming. I mean, who the hell wants to play a FPS game when you can see everything your opponents are doing? I have 6 computers in the house, at least 3 of which make decent game machines, and I would never, ever want to play Half-Life in split screen mode on one of them. One of them is just for lending to visitors. A half-way decent game machine is as cheap as $400, and is a normal computer for the rest of the family at other times.
I don't pay much attention to consoles, but it looks like they are just starting to get the multiplayer features that PC's have had since forever. The idea of a 16-player FPS game involving 16 different machines is a novelty in the console arena, yet every day I play games with twice to fifty times that number of people in them.
On a side note, concerning controllers, what a joke. I keep hoping that Microsoft will release a FPS that is multiplayer across platforms so I can beat the pants off of some kid playing with his thumbs. I can pick a flagrunner out of the air with a headshot at 2000m in Tribes/Tribes2, I'd like to see someone do that with a thumbpad.
Anyway, enough ranting, back to the games
Sorry violent WASD is to slow and cuts off a whole column of keys. Move it to the right one and use ESDF then you've got three extra keys for weapon hot keys or A & G for left and right lean functions. (It also still works on the natural key boards that split at the G key) Or get really wacky and make it YGHJ if you just absoluting insist on programing every key bind in BattleField 1842 to be reachable by the left hand. If you want a controller to go with your mouse a friend of mine uses MicroSofts battlefield commander or what ever that wierd C&C controller they came up with is called. He had an easy time programing and then using all the easy to reach buttons and it was much faster than a joystick which tend to be set up for right handers anyway.
...might give developers and computers a chance to catch up(possibly the reason for the delay). Right now we have games NOT being written for DX9 because most people still don't even have a DX8 video card. Hardware and software and keeping pace with each other, but the consumer is left in the dust. Its just time for a slow-down. Just like Intel and AMD producing ever-faster CPUs every other day, there gets to be a time when the market just says "ENOUGH! I'm happy with what I've got."
This gives hardware guys time to just pump out faster models, and take their time creating some big changes in new designs.
-Sir
I wouldn't call PS1/2 games mind blowingly complex. Find the key/weapon/item puzzle adventure games have been out since text based gaming. Anyone remember Madness and the Minotar? Consoles are for gamers that are afraid or don't want to be bothered with a PC or wish to play certain game types not available elsewhere. Admit it for the most part the PC lacks big time a descent variety of fighting, driving, or RPC games.
its called a mouse and keyboard, and imho beats the crap out of any console controller there is.
DirectInput abstracted the details of the controllers from the developer. All you needed to do was define a set of digital (i.e. button) and analogue (axis) controls, and the uses could configure these to their own preferences. Defining a 'standard' control seems like a step backwards.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This brings up an excellent point. I would have to say that there is nothing more obnoxious in the console world than split screen gaming.
Then why do games such as Puyo Puyo, which is a split screen falling pieces puzzle game, sell? Hell, it even splits the screen on the Game Boy Advance version, which does have one machine per person.
A half-way decent game machine is as cheap as $400
For one thing, does that include the display and the Windows license? For another thing, most working families don't have $1200 to convert a one-machine setup to a four-machine setup for the kids who may come over on a play date.
I can pick a flagrunner out of the air with a headshot at 2000m in Tribes/Tribes2
<lamer>It appears an aimbot has passed the Turing test, and we're all witnessing it right now!</lamer>
Will I retire or break 10K?
Does the Half-Life engine support more than one keyboard or more than one mouse on one machine? Does it support split-screen?
No, but Serious Sam does.
That's really beside the point though. Serious Sam is the exception, not the rule. And I wouldn't really want to play FPS with a joystick instead of a keyboard. If I wanted that, I would go out and get one of the new consoles. I don't see the PC (as we know it, anyway) having a "standard" controller. Microsoft tried that with the Sidewinder, which I really liked. It didn't catch on. Oh well, most of the games that enjoy better gameplay from a pad I already have for a console, and for those that I don't I have a USB-> PS2 converter. Play Smash TV or Robotron 2084 via MAME with a PS2 Dual Shock sometime. It's wonderful.
Microsoft will update its Sidewinder line
Considering how well my Microsoft Sidewinder 3D Pro works in Win2k (hint: can't use the hat switch and fire at the same time in MS OS's > 2k}.
I knew I should have stuck with the Logitec Wingman, but the hat switch on that thing kept getting broken {and Descent 2 multiplayer wasn't helping either}.
Oh, and you know why the 3D pro doesn't work properly in 2k...Microsoft won't update the drivers. {I've heard the win98 software will make it work, but no scripted events. Have not tried it, yet}.
IMO, before Microsoft attempts to make universal games and controllers, they should try to make their own hardware work with their software.
{grrr}
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Which games exactly ? I've run a pair of N64 pads via USB adaptors for a few years now, and never found anything incompatible.
B) Microsoft has mandated (or pushed for industry comittees to mandate) lots of PC hardware standards. They "invented" mouse scroll wheels, funny keys on the keyboard, etc. yet somehow Logitech manages to stay in business. Standards for hardware compatibility are good for users.
C) GameSpy won't dry up and blow away just because Microsoft introduces a metching service. Direct3D hasn't killed OpenGL. DirectPlay hasn't made all developers stop writing their own net code - because DirectPlay sucks. If Microsoft's matchmaker is less crappy than GameSpy, then they have a problem. Fair warning to GameSpy.
D) "One controller, for all games" - That's you talking, not Microsoft. There can't be one controller for all types of games. They're just talking about a standard layout for gamepads. And if people don't like it, Logitech will offer different products. After all, how's Microsoft going to stop me from plugging a huge fricking machine into my USB port if I want to?
The problem with this theory is that PC games seriously undercut XBox profits. After all, if you buy an XBox game Microsoft automatically gets a percentage. If you buy the same game for the PC then Microsoft gets nothing. Make no mistake, when Microsoft came out with the XBox their goal was the complete and utter distruction of PC gaming. The fact that they are now changing their tune indicates a sea change an One Microsoft Way.
The reason that Microsoft is changing their mind is two fold. First of all, Microsoft is facing the first real competition for the desktop in ages. Both Apple and the Linux community are fielding credible alternatives, and games are one of the advantages of owning a Windows PC. Secondly, the accountants at Microsoft are smart enough to know that their current XBox strategy simply isn't feasible. By the time that Microsoft is likely to stop losing money on XBox and XBox live sales they are very likely to face new competition from Sony and Nintendo's new consoles, triggering a new XBox console and a whole new round of bloodshed. The idea of putting high-end PC chips in a console was a novel concept, but giving these boxes away (ie. selling them at a price that is competitive to the PS2) has proved extraordinarily expensive. A shift back to PC gaming would put the onus of paying for the hardware back on the gamer's shoulders. Hardware, as Microsoft is realizing, is the sort of game where it is easy to lose your shirt.
Which is why the article focused on the services that Microsoft is going to provide PC gamers. That's how Microsoft is planning on making their dinero. Think of it as XBox Live without Microsoft having to pay an $150 subsidy for the hardware. Instead of losing money on the XBox and then trying to make it back in services, Microsoft will let Dell, HP, Gateway and the rest of the hardware OEMs sort out the manufacturing and sales of hardware, and Microsoft will simply skim money off the top hooking gamers up with online games and software patches.
In short, enjoy your XBoxes while you can, Microsoft is getting out of the console business.