PC Games On the Rebound

Via The Escapist, an article on the New York Times website discussing the rebirth of the PC games industry. The piece talks about the bright-looking future for titles on the PC, citing the platform's ease and speed of development and Microsoft's 'Games for Windows' initiative as points in its favour. Mass-market PC maker adoption of the hardcore gaming market is also discussed, with financials being the main thrust of the article. That focus is a double edged sword, given the obvious comparison to console games: "The upsurge comes after some recent reversals. Over all, retail sales of PC-based games in the United States exceeded $970 million in 2006, an increase of about 1 percent of sales the previous year of $953 million, which represented about a 14 percent drop from $1.1 billion in 2004. By contrast, according to the NPD Group, retail sales for console games in 2006 were $4.8 billion; another $1.7 billion was spent on games for hand-held devices like Sony's PlayStation Portable."

Comments

Games ONLY for Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of them.

Re:Games ONLY for Windows

[xebra]

Well, it's not called "Games for Linux" for a reason. But I suppose you can hate Microsoft for any reason, really, even for being honest.

Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising when you consider that a PS3 combined with a handful of games will cost you almost as much as a midrange gaming PC.

Re:Not Surprising

[jimstapleton]

Not surprising when you consider that a PS3 more than a a midrange gaming PC.

Normally I hate the "fixed" style replies, but...

fixed.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when I worked at Computer Store, we would occasionally run specials on PCs that ranged from $250-300 after many, many rebates. Most basic home PCs started at $600, and that would get you an 80GB hard drive, a DVD combo, onboard video and whatever cheap processor they could afford to stick in the box. For a midrange gaming PC, well, we did sell "high-performance" HPs and Sonys for $800-1200. Or you could upgrade your OEM machine with a better processor and video card for about $200-400 extra, assuming the upgrade didn't break your machine. We also offered custom PC building (even though we weren't technically supposed to; my manager would cut people deals) and the people who bought their systems ala carte usually paid between $800-1000 for parts. So unless you bought all your parts on special, probably over the course of a month or two from many different sources, the PS3 is actually cheaper than a midrange gaming PC.

Seems like a moot point, though, since the 360 is even cheaper and gets a lot of hit PC ports. (Captcha: Oblivion. Priceless.)

Re:Not Surprising

[autocrawler]

As far as I am concerned, the "you get what you pay for" principle applies here. I have both a good gaming PC and a 360, and since I like playing games from the couch they should compete with each other for that sacred spot near my TV set. The end result: my 360 remains buried underneath a book pile in the corner of my living room for, what now?, six months? Since I completed Gears of War and Dead Rising, I found out that every single game simply looks prettier on my PC, which I got for ~$1200. I manage to run most games in full 1080p resolution on that thing, with nearly everything maxed out. So, are gaming PCs more expensive? Yes, they are. Are they worth paying the extra? Absolutely.

Re:Not Surprising

[CronoCloud]

the PS3 is actually cheaper than a midrange gaming PC.

And since it also runs Linux it does what the PC does too, in addition to all the other things it does.

Re:Not Surprising

[jimstapleton]

except prices have gone down a lot recently, and depending on the store, there could be quite a bit of overhead.

WoW

[Reason58]

Over all, retail sales of PC-based games in the United States exceeded $970 million in 2006, an increase of about 1 percent of sales the previous year of $953 million, which represented about a 14 percent drop from $1.1 billion in 2004. World of Warcraft was released in 2004. The first expansion was released in 2007. What do you want to bet that the there will be another spike in sales for the 2007 figures?

Re:WoW

[Itchyeyes]

WOW did not start out as the massive success that it is today. Additionally, most WOW accounts are outside of the United States. While WOW had an impressive launch, it wasn't released until near the end of the year. And lastly, WOW subscriptions and online sales would not be included in NPD sales numbers. My point is that the mere launch of WOW doesn't account for the $1.5 billion difference between 2004 and 2005.

There are a lot more factors at stake here. Things like online distribution are not being accounted for as the industry shifts more and more in that direction. Also, competition from consoles comes and goes depending on where they are at in their life cycle. For some reason, people like to point to WOW to explain almost any changes in the PC gaming market, but there are a lot more forces at work here than simply one game.

Re:WoW

[Radres]

I seem to remember WOW selling out worldwide when it launched. There was a waiting list to even get a copy of the game.

Re:WoW

[jeffasselin]

No, it was released in Europe only in 2005 and in parts of Asia over 2005 and even 2006. There were AFAIK no problems getting hold of the original game at release or of the expansion at least in my area (Quebec). Collector's Editions were an issue, but not very relevant. I DO remember a surge in sales and lack of game boxes at the beginning of 2005, but not at release in Nov 2004.

Re:WoW

[toleraen]

I distinctly recall there being a shortage of copies at release, at least in the US. It was common practice for my group of friends, and for the people in my major, to buy a copy if you found one, even if you didn't need it. It took several weeks for everyone who wanted a copy to get one.

Re:WoW

[Itchyeyes]

Oh it certainly sold a lot of copies, broke records even. But it didn't sell the 8 million copies that are out there right now before the end of '04. At most it sold around 1 million copies between its Nov. 23rd release and the end of the year. That's about $50 million of revenue, about 3-4 times short of the difference between 2004's PC game sales and 2005's PC game sales. In fact more copies of WOW have been sold in 2005 and 2006 than were sold in 2004, yet PC game sales are still far below 2004's $1.1 billion. There's a lot more at work in this market than just WOW.

Re:WoW

[Anonymous Coward]

off topic
if you meant with your sig: "Did you enjoy translating my sig",
then I'd use "Genoot u van het vertalen van mijn handtekening?"

Re:WoW

[Itchyeyes]

Actually, I just checked some figures. WOW's worldwide sales for 2004 were approximately 700,000 units, that's only $35 million in revenue for 2004, again a far cry short of the $150 million difference between PC game sales for 2004 and 2005.

Re:WoW

[Anonymous Coward]

NPD numbers are scaled to reflect the portion of the market they don't have direct data for. And online sales only make up a small portion of overall sales so having that data wouldn't alter NPD's estimates by much.

Re:WoW

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet, thanks! I kind of figured Babelfish would mess something up in there

Re:WoW

[aztektum]

Yeah I'm sure Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 coming out in '04 had no impact either. I mean WoW was pretty popular from the start, but they didn't get 8 million+ subscribers in the 1.5 months of release in '04.

Re:WoW

[Glonoinha]

Maybe WoW is responsible for the difference in numbers.
It could be that people bought WoW and didn't buy another five different games that year, games that they might have bought if they weren't still playing WoW.

Re:WoW

[Kardall]

Does NPD evaluate online sales of Half-Life 2 into it's figures? That game sold more copies than WoW did in 2 years I am willing to bet. very very important game.

Re:WoW

[Killjoy_NL]

And I thought you were making a joke by screwing up the dutch language or using Afrikaans?
Ah well, joke's on me :)

(p.s. dutch here)

Re:WoW

[sortius_nod]

I strongly doubt it... HL2 was met with some stiff opposition from the gaming community. Thus the shift to the BF series. Cstrike had already gone to dust (pardon the pun) before HL2, and most gamers, myself included, avoided HL2 like the plague.

I personally moved to BF series, and only recently moved to WoW. I see no reason to buy a new game at the moment, unless it's for my Wii. Nuff said I think.

Re:WoW

[mikkelm]

Well, 2004 *was* also the year of Half-Life 2 and DOOM 3, among many other very good and very anticipated games.

Re:WoW

[Chabo]

I'll buy that. I have plenty of friends who played no other game, even when they already DID own it.

Re:WoW

[BloodyIron]

Actuallly Blizzard sold so many copies they had to take them off the shelves because their servers could not handle the massive ammounts of people who bought in. It was months before they started selling again, after increasing their server farm size.

Re:WoW

[yoyhed]

What shift to the Battlefield series? More people still play CS than BF, easily. And where do you get that most gamers avoided HL2? What "stiff opposition"? Most gamers were foaming at the mouth for it, myself included. HL2 is a great game. I would accept that people were apprehensive about using STEAM, but that didn't stop many people from getting HL2.

I dare to disagree

[Opportunist]

Actually, I predict procrastination and/or a desaster.

With DX10 for Vista only, and Vista not being the hot cake MS wanted it to be, studios are sitting between chairs now. Develop for Vista and DX10, and risk not selling much 'cause people refuse to upgrade (erh, downgrade) just for a game? Or develop for XP and DX9 and suffer bad reviews for using "old tech"?

Honestly, I could not make a qualified decision now if I was in the exec's chair of a game studio.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Joe U]

Or develop for both DX9 and DX10, like Flight Simulator.

Re:I dare to disagree

[deinol]

No results found for desaster.

Did you mean disaster (in dictionary)?

Re:I dare to disagree

[SighKoPath]

Why not just develop for OpenGL?

Re:I dare to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that for the next couple of years all new games will be likely work with BOTH DX10 and DX9, right?

It's not a very hard thing to do. Running it with DX10 will just allow more advanced settings to be enabled. It's not like developing for DX10 is radically different than developing for DX9. DX10 just has extra features that don't have to be used.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Lord Crc]

Or develop for both DX9 and DX10, like Flight Simulator.

Indeed, just like several other games have a DX8 and a DX9 rendering path (STALKER, FEAR, WoW and many others).

Re:I dare to disagree

[brkello]

There are only 2 options that make sense from a business perspective. Make the game run in both DX9 and DX10. Or go with DX9 because that is the lagest install base. Going with DX10 only would be a huge mistake and it would cost you a lot of money. For example, World of Warcraft isn't the most graphically amazing MMO out there by a long shot. But because it can run on older hardware, they have many more subscribers. If they made World of Starcraft DX10 only, it would die a horrible death. There will always be ids and other game companies that push the graphical edge...but right now it doesn't make sense from a business perspective. Most gamers know that XP runs games better. Until Vista can beat XP, no one in there right mind is going to touch it.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the vendor lock-in in that? I refuse to develop/use anything unless it will get me further locked in and completely at the mercy of Microsoft!

Re:I dare to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that whenever someone mentions DX10, some goof always has to ask "why not just use OpenGL?"

Here's a hint: DirectX handles A LOT more than just 3D graphics.

Re:I dare to disagree

[LoofWaffle]

Actually, I thought DX10 was completely revamped to drop all legacy code, hence it working only with Vista. Seems to me that development would be "radically different" between the platforms.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

How about using SDL instead?

Re:I dare to disagree

[Radres]

The main upgrades in DX10 have to do with 3D graphics. You can use OpenGL + DX9 for everything else. I doubt you'll be able to access the advanced features in OpenGL that rely on DX10, though.

Re:I dare to disagree

[TheRaven64]

It does, but the graphics bit is the hardest. Here are some of the other things DirectX handles:

• Sound. Pretty important. You can go OpenAL here if you want (and it's the only way of getting accelerated sound on Vista, since it doesn't accelerate DirectX audio), or you can stick with DirectX 9 and still have it work on XP and Vista.
• Networking. DirectPlay has come a long way, but I'm not sure how many games actually use it. If you want, Apple have released a(n open, cross-platform) replacement, but I think most big game houses roll their own networking code.
• Media. You could use QuickTime, but it's a huge pain to develop with compared to DirectShow (or whatever it's called these days). On the other hand, you can once again stick with the older API and not have any problems.
• Input. DirectX does well here, but this is a very small part of the codebase of your average game. Most companies will use some custom middleware that will handle it on their supported platforms, using DirectX or whatever else is available on the back end.

The biggest improvements DirectX 10 brings to the table are in graphics. You could probably write most of a game using DirectX 6, and just use the latest APIs for graphics, and few people would notice. Sticking with DirectX 9 for everything except the graphics isn't really a hardship for most people, especially since they've just spent the last few years developing tools to work with DirectX 9.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Lazerf4rt]

I doubt you'll be able to access the advanced features in OpenGL that rely on DX10, though.

Yeah, you can. OpenGL extensions are already available.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because most "goofs" are actually talking about Direct3D when they mention DirectX. Many people who think "OpenGL as opposed to DirectX" are actually talking about the FLOSS path of doing stuff which usually includes SDL+OpenGL+OpenAL.

Here's a hint: DirectX does NOT A LOT more than 3D graphics. At least for games Direct3D is the only component of DirectX that's important (directinput is dead with SDL as an free/open alternative and directsound is dead with OpenAL as an free/open alternative...)

Re:I dare to disagree

[grumbel]

What exactly would OpenGL provide that you can't get with DirectX9?

Re:I dare to disagree

[SighKoPath]

For one, there's the potential to run the game on Linux - see Unreal Tournament 2004.

Re:I dare to disagree

[DCastagna]

Why not OpenGL?

Re:I dare to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly would OpenGL provide that you can't get with DirectX9? Direct3D 10 features.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Opportunist]

Generally, yes, though I disagree with DirectPlay. It has one HUGE disadvantage: You can't create a server for Linux without rewriting the code comletely, while it's fairly easy if you rely on standard BSD sockets, since they work on any NT kernel and linux almost without any changes.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Opportunist]

"Radically" would maybe be a bit too strong a word, but looking at the differences made me realize that I will not switch to coding in DX10 for a long, long, long time.

At the very least as long as I can avoid it.

Re:I dare to disagree

[PopeRatzo]

I think most people who are the core market for PC games, when faced with the decision between having Vista and DRM forced down their throats just to get DirectX10 are going to say "no thanks". The companies who make games that make the most of DirectX9 are going to do very, very well.

Until some website publishes instructions for disabling all the DRM features of Vista, and all of the vendors who produce hardware and software that I use to produce music and video say Vista is OK to use, and all of my apps perform better on Vista than the do on XP Pro SP2, I will not buy or recommend Vista. It is NOT what I'm looking for in an Operating System, and I've decided to become a more demanding consumer when it comes to all technology. It's really not so hard, you just have to decide to evaluate carefully before buying into any "upgrades", and occasionally realizing that things are working just fine, thanks and resisting the impulse to have the latest everything.

I'm still interested, and I still spend a fair amount on new technologies, but I'm trying to be a lot more thoughtful in the choices I make. The misery that was Vista really opened my eyes as a technology consumer.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Talgrath]

Because OpenGL is dead as far as most of the video game industry is concerned. When was the last time you bought a game that used OpenGL?

Re:I dare to disagree

[DCastagna]

I usually play with console, so I never bought a PC game (however the Dolphin architecture has a 3D library very similar to the OpenGL).
I would not say that OpenGL is dead.
Companies like ID Software still use OpenGL, and remember that OpenGL is the only way to go if you want to make a cross platform 3D application.

Re:I dare to disagree

[ben there...]

Exactly. Some of the best games are OpenGL. Like one game I've got on preorder for June: Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. Check out the in-game footage. The game looks to be one of the biggest online FPS games of the year. It's not missing anything by omitting DX10.

Re:I dare to disagree

[bigman2003]

Will this still be used as an example in 2009?

Seriously, Epic did themselves a huge PR favor by releasing UT 2004 on Linux, but was it a commercial success?

Re:I dare to disagree

[Chosen Reject]

Dead? Where have you been? Let's start with a very short list of companies that use OpenGL.

Epic - makers of the Unreal engines
id - makers of the Doom and Quake engines
Valve - they are porting Half-Life 2 to the PS3 which uses a variation of OpenGL
Blizzard - makers of Warcraft games, Starcraft, and the Diablo series

For a very short list of games please refer to the lists found here, here and here, and that is only for three engines. I will admit that those engines also use Direct X, but if they use OpenGL at all, and they all do, then I wouldn't exactly call OpenGL dead.

Re:I dare to disagree

[westlake]

Why not OpenGL?

The mid-line DX10 card will arrive this is spring and will be everywhere by this fall. The high-end DX 10 card of 2007 will be the mid-line card of 2008. Direct X (which is more than graphics) tends to evolve faster than OGL.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct X (which is more than graphics) tends to evolve faster than OGL. Whatta.. it's the other way around!
DirectX doesn't really "evolve" at all. Totally controlled by Microsoft and you only get updates if Microsoft feels like it while with OpenGL you have a lot of companies and people giving their input on what's gonna be included (extentions). Also with OpenGL you actually could do Direct3D10 stuff before DirectX10 (and Vista) was officially released. Even on platforms other than Vista.
So if you're anything other than a Microsoft shill you should embrace OpenGL.

"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Murrdox]

I'm very upset over the MS "Games for Windows" initiative.

"Games for Windows" is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

What it pretends to be is Microsoft trying to improve the PC gaming scene. Make game system requirements more legible to the non-geek, increase compatibility, better market PC games, etc.

However, what it REALLY is, is Microsoft using their complete dominance of the PC game market to extend that dominance to the console. They're using their PC Monopoly to leverage the X-Box, and X-Box Live. The end result will be to get PC Gamers to pay extra for content they get for free now, just like console players are doing on X-Box Live.

A requirement for a game to be branded a "Game for Windows" is that it is compatible with an X-Box 360 Controller. Need I say more? They're pushing for all PC games to also be X-Box 360 Games. If the PC Game is also an X-Box game, then it can use X-Box Live. If it can use X-Box Live, they can figure out a way to release content for it in micro-payments, and nickel and dime us to death on games that we used to get updated content for free on.

Considering the fact that Sony and Nintendo are incapable of competing with Microsoft on this initiative... I'm really surprised no one at the Justice Department has taken notice. It's blatant leveraging of a monopoly if you ask me. I don't see how it's legal.

And I don't see PC games as dying. They're not going anywhere. There might be a little less of them than there used to be... but 50% of the console games that come out nowadays are complete crap. I'd say only about 20% of the PC games that come out nowadays are crap. Those numbers come right out of my butt, of course. I'm willing to deal with better quality and less quantity on the PC.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[KDR_11k]

A requirement for a game to be branded a "Game for Windows" is that it is compatible with an X-Box 360 Controller.

Really? How do I play Company of Heroes with that gamepad, then?

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[xsarpedonx]

I'd like a branding of "Not a Game for Windows". Developing a PC game with all the limitations of a console tends to be a bad thing in most cases, a la Deus Ex Invisible War.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Phil246]

with difficulty.

besides, its not the first rts which has appeared on a console you know, i remember playing red alert 1 on my ps1 at one point. Not sure if that was the first, but its certainly possible ( if rather annoying ) to play them on gamepad

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[interiot]

Have you used the 360 controller? It's not hard to make a PC game compatible with it, many come close already. If the PC world had to standardize around a reasonably cheap and reasonably well-designed normal controller, you could do much worse than standardizing around the 360 controller.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Vexor]

I'll admit the idea of using a xbox controller for a few games on the PC slightly appeals to me (flying games/racing). Nothing is ever going to replace a keyboard/mouse combo for a shooter game though....

Making a game controller compatible to get the "games for windows" tag is completely crap though. Windows == PC == Keyboard/Mouse. No way should a controller be a requirement.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Manchot]

Considering the fact that Sony and Nintendo are incapable of competing with Microsoft on this initiative... I'm really surprised no one at the Justice Department has taken notice. It's blatant leveraging of a monopoly if you ask me. I don't see how it's legal.

The current administration isn't interested in prosecuting monopolies who abuse their power. That's why Microsoft got off their guilty verdict so easy when Bush came into office. Hopefully our next president believes in a fair, competitive market.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Joe The Dragon]

Dumbing down pc game to work with a controller sucks.
A mouse is a big thing that the x-box does not come with.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[WombatDeath]

One of the ideas they've trotted out is that of PC and XBox gamers competing. I'm not sure how that's going to work, as the average keyboard/mouse player will have a massive advantage over the average console player. I can imagine some sort of horrible handicapping system for the PC players, which doesn't sound like fun.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'd love to see this as blatantly as you, I don't. Are they somehow forcing you to buy an XBox360? How exactly is this going to make them get a monopoly in the console market? How does this affect Sony or Nintendo?

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[brkello]

Your premise that MS has dominance over the PC game makert is false. Thus the rest of your reasoning is flawed. I don't see how you can think what they are doing is not legal. They are finding a model that makes money for everyone involved. Other companies and independants will still exist...so if you don't like what MS is doing, don't buy it. Nothing is going to change.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Murrdox]

You'll have to describe to me how my premise that MS has dominance over the PC game market is false.

Walk into a game store, and find for me the PC games that are made for other operating systems besides Windows. If you go into an Apple store, you'll find a few Mac versions of some games, but not much. Besides some educational titles, you won't find many Mac titles that aren't also on Windows.

It is not COMPLETE. You can find scattered games that are made for Mac. You can find scattered games for Linux. However, I'd say well over 95% of the PC games that are made (I'm talking about retail games here, not browser games) are for Windows. Some of these games are made with a second version for a Mac. Some make a Linux version.

If that's not dominating the market, you'll have to explain to me what is. You seem confident in your assertion that I'm wrong... but you don't really explain why. I'm interested to know.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Vexor]

That's a excellent point. Though I bet we don't get a handicap. I think it'll end up being console players get some form of autoaim. Then again that's just the FPS genre. RTS games are far better on the PC as well. I really only think that consoles are best for driving games and the action/adventure genres (jak&daxter, devil may cry etc). Even then the PC still fares more then well.

There is also that issue that the PC has the potential for running all kinds of stuff in the background. Last thing we need is a bunch of counterstrike wall/speed hacks marring the consoles.

Prehaps someone could provide more info then I could on this but isn't the current system that 1 players xbox hosts the game. A lot of midrange PCs might run into CPU troubles with hosting and maintaining a 1/2way decent frame rate for whichever game.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[nomadic]

If the PC world had to standardize around a reasonably cheap and reasonably well-designed normal controller, you could do much worse than standardizing around the 360 controller.

Back in the early 90s the PC world DID standardize around a erasonably cheap and reasonably well-designed normal controller--the Gravis gamepad. Maybe I'm showing my age but I prefer the smaller olden days controller.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[FingerDemon]

Well, a game made by a third party that runs on Windows doesn't make MS any money, in of itself. So that wouldn't be a case of Microsoft dominating the game market. But I'll let someone else argue about that.

My point is that you assume Microsoft's goal is to push Xbox. But lets not forget they have to protect Windows dominance itself. How many times do people post here that they use Linux for everything except games. Microsoft may not be blind to this trend (if it can even be called a trend). They may be hoping to slow complete conversion to Linux or Mac by reenergizing the PC gaming industry.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Akaihiryuu]

The computer game sections in stores are often misleading. True, a lot of games are Windows-only, but there are not very many Mac-only or Linux-only games. A lot of companies are doing what Blizzard does (put all versions of the game on the same CD in the same box). Take WOW for instance...you aren't going to find it in the Mac section, because the "Windows" boxed version has both Windows and Mac versions on the same CD. I think this makes a lot more sense than having separate "Mac-only" and "Linux-only" sections...most retailers don't have space for that. This does mean that people will have to look at the system requirements a lot more closely though, rather than walking to the Mac section and grabbing something. I do agree though, that "Games for Windows" is a very bad thing. Say WOW was certified for that...it would be in the "Games for Windows" section even though there is a Mac version. Sure the smarter people would just look at the requirements on the box, but what average person would think to look in that section for a Mac game? It wouldn't surprise me if M$ attempts to undermine that by making "Games for Windows" certification mean that there can't be any non-Windows versions included. But if they do, and say Blizzard doesn't get the cerfitication, where would they stock the game? This is just an example, I don't know if WOW has that certification or if Blizzard has any interest in it.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[calbanese]

There really aren't any antitrust violations going on in the games market, though. Microsoft doesn't lock anyone into developing solely for the Windows platform (as far as I know). If developers choose to release their games only for the platform with the most users, that really isn't Microsoft's fault. You can debate their OS monopoly, but here, they aren't using any anticompetitive measures to dominate the games market. Plus, from my understanding, all "Games for Windows" is is a way of ensuring that games meet specific standards, akin to what Underwriters Laboratory does (though obviously Microsoft has a much bigger interest in the products). While there is a benefit to Microsoft, it would be difficult for the DOJ, if they were so inclined, to find anticompetitive measures with this. The program appears to be completely voluntary, does not preclude anyone from developing for alternate platforms or incur negative consequences from Microsoft if they don't use Games for Windows.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[radish]

However, what it REALLY is, is Microsoft using their complete dominance of the PC game market to extend that dominance to the console

That doesn't make sense to me. How does Windows as a gaming platform (which I rarely use) affect what I do with my 360? Why would the GfW program encourage people to buy a 360? Please - explain how MS intend to use their Windows market position to "extend that dominance to the console"?

The end result will be to get PC Gamers to pay extra for content they get for free now, just like console players are doing on X-Box Live.

So hang on, are they using GfW to take over the console space or Xbox to take over the PC space? Which is it? As for the "paying for extra content they get for free now" - which content exactly? I have to say from my limited Windows gaming experience I don't recall getting much free content other than patches. Want new levels? Buy an expansion pack, or the new version of the game. You see the same thing on XBL (e.g. recent Oblivion expansion). What you also see are small micro-payment upgrades, like additional characters, tracks, whatever. In my experience you generally don't see these at all on the PC as online purchasing is still pretty rare (Steam is fixing that) and distributing a retail box for a couple of new character models is not worthwhile.

A requirement for a game to be branded a "Game for Windows" is that it is compatible with an X-Box 360 Controller. Need I say more? They're pushing for all PC games to also be X-Box 360 Games.

Well first off, compatibility with the 360 controller is not a firm requirement, the way they word it implies that if you support any controllers, the 360 one should be one of them - but if you don't, no problem. Secondly, yes - of course they want to encourage games to come out on both platforms - why not? As a publisher I'd see that as very attractive, a larger potential audience for not much additional dev cost.

If the PC Game is also an X-Box game, then it can use X-Box Live. If it can use X-Box Live, they can figure out a way to release content for it in micro-payments, and nickel and dime us to death on games that we used to get updated content for free on.
Ahhh....back to that mysterious PC-only free content. Do elaborate...

Considering the fact that Sony and Nintendo are incapable of competing with Microsoft on this initiative... I'm really surprised no one at the Justice Department has taken notice. It's blatant leveraging of a monopoly if you ask me. I don't see how it's legal.

Well judging by sales figures Nintendo (and to a lesser extent Sony) seem to be doing a pretty good job of competing on their own terms. Couldn't Sony launch a rival "Sony Games for Windows" brand which requires PS3 network compatibility? Of course they could. Couldn't Nintendo launch a PC version of the Wii controller? And add a way of generating a Friend code for your PC? Of course they could. They could even make it cross platform and grab the nascent Linux gaming market share (ha!).

I really can't comprehend how this is a monopoly issue. My purchase (or otherwise) of a Microsoft games console has NOTHING to do with whether I have a PC running Windows or not. There's virtually no functionality on one which is linked to the other (just some media playback stuff). All that's happening is that they're adding some features to one platform which used to be exclusive to another. So I can now use Xbox Live from a PC, great - nothing says I HAVE to and nothing says I need (or would even benefit from) an Xbox to do it.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[LordSnooty]

This much is clear. I expect the killer app will be Xbox Live on your PC - with these certified games. However this doesn't preclude the gaming scene as it stands. EA and others try to develop their own on-line arena.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[MBGMorden]

Had one way back when (even remember the little screw in joystick you could put into the pad :)), but that couldn't really work out long term, and for one, very, very important reason: calibration. Just to put this into perspective for the youngins: back then when you started a pc game, you had to first move the joystick/gamepad to the upper left, and press the action button. Then to the lower right, and press it. Then center it, and press it. Then you could play the game. Sorta.

For a kid who also had an NES system, it sucked. Instead of a nice responsive system, you got characters who would move a little bit at a time even at neutral position. Or who would get stuck going on one direction. The calibration would eventually get out of whack, and you'd have to exit, restart the game, and recalibrate to play for another hour at most.

Back then I even went so far as to purchase a seperate ISA Gravis gamecard, complete with external speed adjustment dongle and everything, because they were supposed to hold calibration much better. Credit where credit is due, it was better than just a sound card gameport, but it still was not perfect.

Now, EVENTUALLY, they came out with digital gamepads (Gravis made one of these too). Far, far better, but the digital nature had trouble with many gameports. The USB gamepad was nothing short of amazing to anyone who remembered the aweful old analog gamepads, though it seems by the time they came along there was nothing left worth using a gamepad to play :(. All the 2d scrollers that could have been appropriate for it (Commander Keen, Crystal Caves, Megaman PC, etc) were all just memories by then.

Still, back then I did get decent and used to just using the keyboard to play instead. Computer games at the time generally were far cheaper than console games (certain clearanced ones, classics like Elite for example, I got for under $5), and so I don't look at that time completely negatively :).

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[secolactico]

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/780/780989p1.html

Just because it's true doesn't mean it's not funny. :-)

Mouse/keyboard FTW!

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[sesshomaru]

Well, an initiative from Microsoft isn't necessarily a wolf in sheeps clothing. It might be an alligator in sheeps clothing or a giant mutated spider in sheeps clothing. The main thing we know about it is that it will be some sort of predator that eats sheep.

Seriously, though, I think this is actually simpler than domination of consoles, where Microsoft has been behind for two generations now. I think Microsoft is refiguring out how important games are to keep Linux and OS X from encroaching on the PC market.

Microsoft had a standard PC joypad in the past, the Sidewinder, so I expect they are simply repurposing the XBox controller to this task. From their About Games for Windows Page, "Games for Windows titles that support controllers are also compatible with the Microsoft XBOX 360 controller for Windows, including the XBOX 360 Wireless Gaming Receiver for Windows." So Dawn of War is safe for now, it's only games that use joypads that have to use the XBox joypad.

Yes, it's true, Microsoft would love to be able to sucker people into paying for each car in a PC racing game, but the PC is still an open platform compared to consoles. It will be up to the individual publishers to go along. (Mind you, I do know how screwed up Vista is, and how closed it is compared to previous PC OSs... it's still better than the locked down consoles from the big three...

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Anonymous Coward]

absolutely spot on analysis. There is of course nothing altruistic in MS's goals here. Its about money. It's not just microsoft though. There is a push for controlling content (which you supposed own) remotely through networks like Steam & xbox live, as well as MMORPG's and the like. Eventually you'll need to be logged in and verified before you can use the game. Sure games can be played offline.. for now, though the Steam client needs to be tweaked to allow LAN games offline. I own a 360 and there are some cool games I have downloaded and played, but overall the xbox live content (movies and stuff..)is dreadful, just give me the damn game and let me play online freely. Nope, its catering for the lowest common denominator and their 'convenience' which will be the excuse to get pennies out of everyone.
Of course there will be lemonheads who come out and support these networks as the awesome future, the same people who think rfid implants are just cool.

Valve episodic gaming? 3/4 the price for 1/5 the game..when is part 2 coming out?

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a joystick for flight sims, and a wheel for racing games. The only time I use a gamepad is for console games ported to PC, and console emulators.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[fotbr]

[i]Ahhh....back to that mysterious PC-only free content. Do elaborate...[/i]

Probably not strictly what you were looking for, but how about 3rd party mods or addins/addons for games? Bethesda gives away The Elder Scrolls Construction Kit and there are mods and addons for Morrowind and Oblivion all over. EA doesn't give tools away, but there are literally thousands of addon cars and tracks for the various Need for Speed games.

Of course, such mods and addins/addons haven't been possible for consoles in the past, but with the PS3 and 360 both having hard drives (ok, yeah, there's a version of the 360 without one) finding a way to use their online services to provide mods and addins/addons may happen in the near future -- or might be happening now, I don't know, I don't really care, I'm not a console gamer and likely will never be since the types of games I like get mutilated for the 3-minute-attention-span generation when they're implemented for consoles.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[CronoCloud]

Not sure if that was the first,

The first console RTS as well as the first RTS on any platform was Herzog Zwei for the Sega Genesis. Yes, that's right, the RTS genre got it's start on the consoles.

On the PSone, the original C&C predated C&C Red Alert.

but its certainly possible ( if rather annoying ) to play them on gamepad

What, you weren't hardcore enough to have the PSone mouse? :-)

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[ShadowsHawk]

And magical pigs will fly out of my ass. Corruption and power go hand in hand. The only way to cut back on political corruption is to eliminate campaign financing (bribery).

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Chabo]

Nothing is ever going to replace a keyboard/mouse combo for a shooter game though....

That is, until they come out with a better aiming system that uses VR. :)

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Skrapion]

You can rest easily. I happen to have the Games for Windows specs in my bookmarks, and they only specify that if your game supports gamepads, it must support the 360 controller, and the 360 controller must be the default controller (as well as some other, minor, generally good practises).

I'm no Microsoft lover, but as a game developer, it would be useful if Windows standardized on a gamepad. Keyboard and mouse are great for lots of games, but they can be very limiting for many other games. And as much as it pains me to say it, Microsoft's controller is probably the best controller available for the PC.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[westlake]

The current administration isn't interested in prosecuting monopolies who abuse their power. That's why Microsoft got off their guilty verdict so easy when Bush came into office. Hopefully our next president believes in a fair, competitive market.

Anti-trust sentiment in the states has always been notoriously short-lived.

The break-up of Standard Oil into regional operating companies did nothing to hurt Rockefeller and left the small independents even more vulnerable than before. The "Baby Bells" have merged into something that looks very much like the old AT&T.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Anonymous Coward]

No way should a controller be a requirement. I completely disagree. The fact that developers can't specify a controller where it's appropriate (e.g. a hack-and-slash like, say, Dead Rising, or anything with multiple players sharing a screen) is a major factor in the PC being left out of a lot of game releases.

It's not like similar things don't already happen - game developers routinely shut out people who don't have, say, a Geforce 6 or above. A controller is a lot cheaper and easier to install than one of those.

Of course, I already have controllers hooked up to my PC so perhaps I'm biased.

PC games *ARE* dying

[GreatDrok]

I was in Game yesterday looking for something new to play on my MacBook Pro with Windows XP Pro. Been playing Half Life 2 again and really enjoying it so I thought I would look for something similar. I was appalled at how small the PC game sections are in game shops these days. Worse though, they all seem to be strategy games which really aren't my thing. FPS on a console is worse than horrible so I wanted a PC FPS. Nothing I haven't already played and very little coming. The PC section was about the same size as the Gamecube section.

Looks like PC users won't even be able to hold Games up as the great reason to use Windows instead of OS X for much longer.

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[kannibal_klown]

I was in Game yesterday

I'm going to guess you meant to say "Gamestop?"

Yeh, most of the small-building places (EBGames/Gamestop, mom-and-pop shops, etc) carry very few PC games now-a-days. By me, EBGames/Gamestop are little more than pawn shops, half of their shelf space is dedicated to "used games" and the new-game-shelves are very shallow (1-2 copies of each game). Places like BestBuy still carry a lot of PC games, in fact the ones near me have almost equal shelf space for PC games as they do console games.

Personally, with few exceptions like C&C 3, I've been leaning towards the console end of things. It's just less of a hastle.

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on where he lives.

Over in the UK the major games seller in the street is called Game. (game.co.uk if you want proof)

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[Hamfist]

A quick browsing of online stores seems to indicate that the highest selling games and franchises (Warcraft, The Sims, Civilization) are available for Mac. I think one could reasonably say that only Hard Core PC gamers can still use that as a reason to not use a Mac. Now if only more were available for Linux then I'd be really happy.

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[megamerican]

You must remember that PC games are increasingly becoming available by download. The last few games I've purchased I've downloaded (Steam Silver package and Battlefied 2142). With the emergence of Steam, EA Downloader and a direct download for WoW:TBC very little space is needed in stores for those titles. I assume that the majority of PC Gamers have a high speed connection and access to a CC or debit card. Large game developers like Valve, EA and Blizzard can save lots of costs selling directly to people than through retailers. This is a main reason why shelf space in a retail store isn't as big of an indicator of success as it used to be.

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[Scorpion265]

Have you been to best buy? the PC games section defeats all of the (individual) game ares for the consoles. PC gaming is far from dying. It seems like it has started to rebound. Command and Conquer three was developed for the PC then ported for consoles, bioshock is also being ported to the consoles. I think developers are starting to develop for the PC again, instead of these crap ports from console to PC. One more: stalker was also developed for the PC, and then ported to the consoles as well ;)

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at Future Shop earlier today and their PC games section is about the size of all their console game sections put together.

So I guess PC games *AREN'T* dying.

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[joystickgenie]

Try shopping at a place that doesn't base its business model on selling used games and it won't look nearly the same.

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[MemoryDragon]

There is one reason, you can charge more for the average console game reused than you can for the average use pc game. Used pc games can bo obtained for 2-3 dollars and new ones often for 30 dollars, while new console games range from 50-70 dollars and used ones can be obtained for 30 dollars. Now those shops make their bucks via used game sells, so which platforms do they want to target most...

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[kannibal_klown]

At least by me, I've never seen used PC games for sale. I always imagined that it would be a legal headache for the stores, as perhaps the original owner made a copy and is logging on w/ the CD key or something.

It's just like a friggin college book store. You sell them a used textbook for $10 USD, they turn around and sell the thing for $70 USD. It's kind of depressing that second semester when you sell a book back for the price of 2 lunches, only to see it sitting on the shelf later with a fat price tag.

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[jac_at_nac]

Dude...every time I go to Fry's they have the largest selection I've seen short of going online.
There are alternatives; depending on your location and access to CC i.e. debit cards.

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[bishiraver]

You forget stardock - makes are Galactic Civ II.

Re:PC games *ARE* dying

[MemoryDragon]

Actually you have never seen a european used games store. Sure EBGames/Gamestop does not cover them but there are lots of shops which do.
But in the end it is not really worthwile.

The average PC game hits the below 30 euros mark after 3-4 months (with around 50 for the new one) and hits the below 10 euros garbage bin mark after 8-10 months.
So if you do a lot of gaming, PC games definitely are the way cheaper option than console.
Especially if you go for the 4 months old and older mark.

I recently bought a wii, and after buying a few games, I started the calculation of what I had to invest into PC gaming in the past and how the console will fare, I ended up with the PC even with upgrades every two years being a lot cheaper, while the entry mark for the console was lower (which is nowadays not the case anymore in case of the PS3)

With Wii games ranging averagely on the 50-60 euros mark, and PS3 even worse in the 70 euros mark and neither system having any significant pricecuts the first year on games, and even used games being expensive (average Cube game here is 30 euros), this is a very expensive hobby, and if people would really look into options of not buying entire new pcs because the old one has become too slow but only would replace the needed replacement parts, things would look way cheaper on the PC side.

"Games for Windows" = no monopoly push.

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, what it REALLY is, is Microsoft using their complete dominance of the PC game market to extend that dominance to the console."

I'm sorry but Microsoft doesn't have COMPLETE dominance in the PC game market, no matter how much Ballmer whispers in your ear at night.

"Considering the fact that Sony and Nintendo are incapable of competing with Microsoft on this initiative."

They're not incapable, they're just not interested.

Re:"Games for Windows" = no monopoly push.

[Murrdox]

Sony and Nintendo don't have any leverage over the PC, Windows, or PC Games.

I suppose Sony and Nintendo could make products for the PC that make use of things like the "Miis" for the Wii, and the "Second Life" type clone that Sony is creating for the PS3 (what is it called? "Home"? I forget, sorry)

However, since there are no Nintendo or Sony games on the PC, I don't really see the point. In order to compete with MS on this front, Sony and Nintendo would need to start making PC games. They COULD do this, but it's not really practical for them. To me, that makes them incapable of competing.

Re:"Games for Windows" = no monopoly push.

[servognome]

They COULD do this, but it's not really practical for them. To me, that makes them incapable of competing.

Sony has "Station.com"

Re:"Games for Windows" = no monopoly push.

[toleraen]

However, since there are no Nintendo or Sony games on the PC

My level 75 Rogue would like to have a chat with you. Preferably in a dark alley.

Re:"Games for Windows" = no monopoly push.

[kosanovich]

there are no Nintendo or Sony games on the PC There have been some recent developments since you last checked out the PC game scene. There was this little game called Everquest which has had a sequel. There was another called Star Wars Galaxy which got a lot of notice, and most recently there is another one called Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. All of these games are developed and/or published by Sony along with others not mentioned.

it's amazing consumers

[oldwarrior]

can't see that a console is just a PC with prebought video that the makers cripple to disallow you from doing what YOU want with the device, rather than restricting yourself and $$ to what THEY want. PC games expose the emporers shiny hiney - no clothes.

Re:it's amazing consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

can't see that a console is just a PC with prebought video that the makers cripple to disallow you from doing what YOU want with the device, rather than restricting yourself and $$ to what THEY want. You're assuming that console users want to do something other than play games on it. For many (if not most) console gamers, this isn't the case. They just want to pop in a disk and have everything work.

Re:it's amazing consumers

[drinkypoo]

You have a point on the issue of it being crippled. But they have a point regarding preventing cheating. And anyone, no one is forcing anyone to buy a console. When I bought my Xbox I bought it specifically because I could hack it and do as I like. For instance I can copy games (which I have purchased, naturally) to the hard disk of the system so that not only do I not have to wait for the disc to load but I don't need to find the disc to play, either. Grand Theft Auto SA is much more enjoyable when you don't get big black blocks saying "LOADING PLEASE WAIT" in the middle of a fucking race. If I couldn't do all that jazz I wouldn't have bought an Xbox and Microsoft's success in locking down the Xbox 360 would prevent me from buying one if I had any intention of doing so. I don't, however :P

Re:it's amazing consumers

[oldwarrior]

How about playing games (running programs) from more than one vendor or allowing open source gaming?

Re:it's amazing consumers

[pragma_x]

That's a good point.

20+ years ago the C64, to many, was a video game console that happened to have a built-in BASIC interpreter, printer support, and decent office software - not that you'd need any of that stuff, but it sure helped dad open up his wallet.

Re:it's amazing consumers

[AKAImBatman]

20+ years ago the C64, to many, was a video game console

This is a terminally backwards assessment of what happened. The C64 was very much a home computer that happened to play Video Games. (And play them well, mind you.) Its only real nod to home console design was the cartridge port, something which practically none of the games used.

Consider for a moment: The C64 was a descendant of the Commodore PET. Would anyone think of the Commodore PET as a video game console? Not very likely, eh?

The reason why the C64 was so good at games was because Trameil felt that his computers weren't flashy enough to keep the market's interest. With Atari also making home computers, he felt that the best way to "win" the computer war (Jack was all about "business is war") was to make his machines the best darn video-gaming computers on the market. Thus starting with the VIC-20, Commodore began making computers with sophisticated graphics and sound capabilities. With the memory boost to 64K and the addition of a high-res, 40 character text mode, the Commodore 64 managed to become both an incredible home machine for "serious" BASIC application and an unsurpassed system for "fun" game programs.

Here, you might find this of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUEI7mm8M7Q

Re:it's amazing consumers

[grumbel]

Buy a PS3 and install Linux or an Xbox360 and invest $100 a year to get access to XNA. Its certainly still far away from the freedom you have on a PC, but thinks are better now then they where a few years ago.

Re:it's amazing consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the GP's meaning was fairly clear; that was, most Commodore 64s were *in effect* being used almost exclusively for games, regardless of what the machine was actually capable of.

Re:it's amazing consumers

[drinkypoo]

Consider for a moment: The C64 was a descendant of the Commodore PET. Would anyone think of the Commodore PET as a video game console? Not very likely, eh?

The C64 has graphics, the PET doesn't, the fact that they use the same CPU and run the same BASIC (more or less) is quite irrelevant. AMD's hammer architecture is arguably a descendant of the intel 8086, but clearly they aren't in the same league. (I realize I went from computers to CPUs, but you can't reasonably sue for mixed similes, so I should be okay.)

The C64 was designed from the beginning to have graphics and sound capabilities; the PET wasn't.

Thinking of upgrading BUT

[RichPowers]

Vista and DX10 pose a problem for me. Should I upgrade to Vista and buy an expensive DX10 graphics card even though gaming studios won't enthusiastically support DX10 for a while? Or should I buy a solid DX9 graphics card (saving me money), keep XP, and hope studios still support DX9 over the life of my new system? Or do I continue using my aging system while waiting for the PC gaming landscape to pan out? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I imagine many people face the same conundrum.

What serious PC gamer cares about Games for Windows? Same goes for MS's upcoming "Xbox Live Only for Windows" online gaming service. We already have Steam and free online games sans MS's bullshit and complications. Publicly, MS is trying to make PC's more "gaming-friendly," but I think we all know what they're really up to: making PCs into an extension of their Xbox franchise. But I don't think the devoted PC gamers will buy into it...at least I hope not.

PC gaming's biggest issue will remain piracy. I used to pirate games left and right until I stepped back and realized what I was doing to the industry. Now I buy all of my games. While I'm certainly not a pirate witchhunter, I fear that continued piracy will force developers to release PC games crossplatform. And that basically means dumbing-down PC games so they work with the consoles.

PS: "Rebirth" suggests PC gaming died. Contrary to the flood of half-assed alarmist articles we see, this was never the case.

Re:Thinking of upgrading BUT

[dustin_c1]

Or should I buy a solid DX9 graphics card

Since the availability of the Nvidia 8800 GTS 320, there is no such thing as a solid DX9 card. Buy a DX10 card. They do DX9 games faster than any DX9 cards available at each price point. Nvidia's DX10 line starts at under $100. You don't need DX10 to use a DX10 compatible card. Also, games that support DX10 will also support DX9 for a long time because it will take years before developers are confident that almost all of their potential customers have DX10 compatible cards, let alone Vista.

Re:Thinking of upgrading BUT

[brkello]

I fail to see how this is a real problem. DX10 games aren't something you need to worry about right now. So get a machine, stick XP on it, and get your cheaper video card. If a game comes out in the next few years that you just have to have, get a DX10 card. But if you are building a decent system, a few extra hundered dollars shouldn't be a big deal to get a DX10 card (I should know, I just built my own system with a DX10 card).

PC gamers won't care about Games for Windows until something awesome comes out and that is they only way to get access to it. Steam wouldn't work either if it didn't have some quality games.

Nice work there

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I hate to tell you this, but...

Well, I don't like it either...

[zzo38]

I don't like it either, just people are going to buy Windows, or a X-Box, and people will have to pay licensing costs and other stuff. Also, when the old version of Windows expires, people will have to purchase new one. And the new one is DRM. WiiConnect24 is supposed to let you update game content online as well, but really it messes up things. I am starting to make my own game console system, and it is not going to have such problems, because it will be Open-Source Linux based, and if somebody wants to write software to update game content by Internet (whether for free or whatever) then no problem! You could also write software for NES/Famicom or whatever (and you could put the file on a DVD,USB,Internet,etc.) , and be able to run on many different kind of systems.

Re:Well, I don't like it either...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother. Just buy a GP2X It already does most of that, and it's portable!

Flight Simulator X Service Pack 1

[Cryptnotic]

The current FS X is DX9 only. DX10 rendering is part of the first service pack, which is not due out until fall 2007.

Re:Flight Simulator X Service Pack 1

[FreyarHunter]

Even then with it's advertising, DX9 FSX does not bring about anywhere near where it was being shown as. Hopefully DX10 will indeed be what it should be, but at the moment FSX is collecting dust while FS9 is still happily keeping me along.

Re:I disagree

[AntiNazi]

You are honestly going to blame PC games for you buying a low end integrated graphics solution and then trying to do something it wasn't made to do?

Would you also be upset if your Honda Civic couldn't pull an industrial sized trailor back and forth across the continental US every day?

Games for Vista

[flaknugget]

PC gaming will be as strong as it has been for the past couple of years, which is to say potentially profitable yet competitive. With a larger market for indy-developers and innovation compared with consoles.

But these new-fangled vista-only/DX10 games are beginning to worry me.

Fortunately it's only Microsoft that is pushing that initiative, and MS, historically, has a relatively poor stable of games to make their push with.

So the bright side is the only games forcing a Vista upgrade are/will be available on the 360. And a 360 could be had for pretty much the same cost as Vista Ultimate.

What extra content?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't really get any "extra content" for free on the PC. Instead, you get less content and you have to buy an expansion pack for the rest. Micropayments for mini-updates just makes it easier to spend money instead of all at once.

Re:What extra content?

[joystickgenie]

I think you should google the word "MOD" as it relates to games.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say it is slightly expected with a Intel graphics card. While Intel graphics cards are great (especially if you run non-Windows OS as well), if you want to play games, you should get a laptop with a ATI or NVIDIA card, as every game company seems to base development on these two.

My 4 year old laptop (Dell Inspiron 8600) plays Tiberium Wars fine with its GeForce 5650 Go (with very low graphics settings though)

Also, my box states:
"Graphic card: AGP/PCI
  XP: 64 MB
  Vista: 128 MB

Supported chipsets:
  XP: NVIDIA GeForce4+ (GeForce4 MX-series not supported); ATI Radeon 8500+ (Radeon 9200 and 9250 PCI not supported).
  Vista: NVIDIA GeForce 6100+; ATI Radeon 9500+.
Laptop versions of these chipsets may work, but are not supported."

So, unless your box is different, they did warn you.

Re:I disagree

[sholden]

The website says:

Video: GeForce4, ATI Radeon 8500 or greater (ATI Radeon 9200 and 9250 PCI, NVIDIA Geforce 4 MX cards not supported.). Windows Vista - NVIDIA GeForce 6100 or ATI Radeon 9500 or greater. Labtop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported.

Which seems straight forward enough; your graphics card needs to have Radeon written on it with a number 8500+ except for 9200 and 9250. Or GeForce written on it with a number 4+ except for ones with "4 MX" on them.

Of course if you don't know what the damn models and numbers are it'll be confusing, but on my two machines one says in the Display Control Panel:

GeForce 7600 GT
Intel 82852/82855 GM/GME

I'd take a punt that the first will work (7 is greater than 4) and the second won't - since it doesn't say Radeon or GeForce. The last sentence (with the typo fixed) would imply to me it's unlikely to work on a laptop built today let alone a year ago.

Also if you think you need a new video card every 6 months, why would you think a year old laptop would have enough video grunt for a new game?

Did they talk to anyone in the industry?

[kinglink]

This is like going to Las Vegas, hearing all about the great and sexy wanda in big and bright lights, paying the 200 bucks to meet her, and getting a ugly whore instead.

Ok not exactly like that, Wanda is a lot more attractive than Vista is right now.

That's not what I wanted to bring up but that's the sum of the article. You get the "It's going to be big. It's going to be huge" syndrome that you always hear in hype pieces, but you're inevitably going to be disappointed if you buy in.

Skimming the names in the article, I see mention of Microsoft, and Dell. Wow I wonder if they are going to say PC gaming is going to be big. One is selling their new PC OS, and the other sells PCs. Then you have ID who sounds like they aren't major supporters of PCs, but look at their track record, if anything they shun the consoles (Doom 3 for the Xbox was a horrid port).

But the actual industry basically disagrees. Publishers see lack luster sales on the PC, a game that earns 90+ percent reviews sells about a third or a fourth as much as a 360 game that gets 80-90 percent reviews. That means an average game on the 360 will likely outsell the PC. It's not a shock we are seeing RTSes running for the 360. If EA can sell anything in that market for Command and Conquer 3, expect more RTSes to run the same way.

Attribute the lower sales for the PC to what you want (people not wanting to upkeep PCs, piracy, crappier games, driver issues, having to deal with Copy protection). But the off line PC market is dying. However there are a couple bright areas, MMOs will continue to shine, anything service driven, and games like Flight Simulation will continue to shine. But they are a very dim light compared to 10 years ago when everything was bigger better and badder on the PC.

There will always be PC games, people who can't buy into the consoles 20K a dev kit demands, will always make games on the PC, but that doesn't mean EA and others will continue to support it forever.

Note this is the industry vision, it's not some analyst talk, or someone trying to sell some goods, which is why you likely won't hear it in the newspaper but we can dispute the reasons for it but the fact is if the publishers see lower return on investments, why would they even support it?

Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[WidescreenFreak]

Wait ... let me get this straight. You bought a system that is not meant for gaming and then you complain that it's insufficient for gaming! WTF did you expect? And to top THAT off, you then bitch about PC gaming with probably the broadest brush imaginable.

With the exception of high-end laptops, almost every laptop out there uses integrated video that steals - sorry, shares - memory from RAM, which automatically makes it slower than video cards with their own RAM and makes it far inferior when compared to "regular" video cards. If you want to play video games on a laptop, you can't go into Best Buy or Staples and buy one off the shelf unless the extent of your gaming stops at Bejewelled or Zuma. (Yes, I'm being facetious, but not by much.)

Please, by all means leave the PC gaming scene. You clearly have expectations that prove that your really don't have a clue about PC gaming. What's next? Buying a Geo Metro (or equivalent micro-car) and then complaining that it can't speed past a Lamborghini on the Autobahn?

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[DogDude]

It's absurd that a $50 video game takes more computing power than my $10,000 point of sale system, or my $500 accounting package. It's absurd that you have to buy a $2000 PC to play $50 games, when a $200 console will work even better. To anybody who isn't a 12 year old with an unlimited allowance and tons of free time, it doesn't make any reasonable sense that you have to have a souped up PC to play a regular, mass-market game sold at Wal-Mart.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[WidescreenFreak]

What the hell kind of PC are you looking at? Oooohhhh... The one that looks like an alien? Puh-leaze...

I'm building the specs for a new gaming rig, and a system with 320 GB HD, 2 GB RAM, Athlon X2 6000, and GeForce 7950GT (or a low-end 8000 series) STILL comes in less than $900! And being a PC it clearly does a hell of a lot more than playing games, downloading content, or running a Second Life wannabe. I have no idea what the hell you're buying or what you think constitutes a gaming rig, but you obviously have never built one yourself and are "wow"ed by marketing and oh-so-cool PC cases.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[Anonymous Coward]

DogShit, just do us all a favor and shut the fuck up, mmmkay?

> It's absurd that a $50 video game takes more computing power than my $10,000 point of sale system, or my $500 accounting package.

For example, this statement makes you look like a retard.

Can you see why?

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[CronoCloud]

I'm building the specs for a new gaming rig, and a system with 320 GB HD, 2 GB RAM, Athlon X2 6000, and GeForce 7950GT (or a low-end 8000 series) STILL comes in less than $900!

Most people don't build their own. How much would that machine cost if it came from Dell or Gateway.

And being a PC it clearly does a hell of a lot more than playing games, downloading content, or running a Second Life wannabe.

The PS2 and PS3 both can run Linux so they're PC's too.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[CronoCloud]

You may not realize this but games are some of the most hardware intensive pieces of software out there. Back in the old days users ran accounting and POS software on machines far far less powerful than say a PS2.

You have to remember that the gaming consoles are optimized for gaming, they have hardware designed specifically with the computing requirements of games built into them. That integrated graphics chip is designed for nothing more strenous than a few 3D visualizationf in a media player, and perhaps older or less graphically intensive 3D games.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[WidescreenFreak]

And the people in both of the cases you mention are not the kinds of people that necessarily give a rat's rear about Microsoft's Games for Windows push. And, no, a PS2/3 is NOT a PC for the aims of a Windows gaming thread just because it can run Linux. Oh, right! WINE under Linux on a PS2/3. Anyone who is willing to go to such lengths to avoid having to build or buy a PC on their own should have probably just bought a PC in the first place.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[CronoCloud]

You're not getting my point. A lot of slashdotters say they'd dump Windows if it weren't for commercial games. Well the PS2/PS3 can play commercial games AND run Linux, no mussing about with WINE or Cedega. It's a similar situation to those who dual boot Linux and Windows for games, except without haveing to deal with Windows.

That's the relevance. The PS3 is $600 for basically one reason, it has all those features because it's designed to destroy Microsofts market in the home. Not the Xbox market, the PC market. Remember the days when you didn't need Microsoft operating system to play lots of games and do computing tasks? Well those days are back. Who needs a second or third/fourth PC in the house for lil timmy to do his homework on when Mom or Dad are using the PC when his PS3 runs OpenOffice. With household penetration of computers flattening and people not upgrading their Microsoft software as often, Microsofts been counting on the income from vendors selling multiple PC's. to households keep growing. That income isn't safe anymore. People don't like Microsoft, they don't like dealing with the hassles of Microsoft's software. They'd dump it in a minute if they could do what they wanted to do with something else AND have games. And now they can.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[snuf23]

"The PS2 and PS3 both can run Linux so they're PC's too."

Good luck getting that discontinued PS2 Linux kit. Oh and boy what a powerful system that would be.
Even a PS3 is RAM and hard drive limited versus a PC that cost the same amount.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[CronoCloud]

Good luck getting that discontinued PS2 Linux kit.

I pre-ordered it, so I've had mine for years

  The PS3 doesn't need anything other than the install media and that otheros.bld thing.

Oh and boy what a powerful system that would be.

Powerful enough for reading e-mail, web browsing, IMing, and Nethack.

Even a PS3 is RAM and hard drive limited versus a PC that cost the same amount.

True, but that $600 PC will not play games as well as the PS3 does. And what RAM and HD the PS3 does have would be quite sufficient for most home computing tasks.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[ben there...]

It's absurd that you have to buy a $2000 PC to play $50 games, when a $200 console will work even better.

The PC I just built will run every game out there at performance ranging from acceptable to overkill. It is a Core 2 Duo E6600 with an EVGA nVidia 7600 GT. I paid about $750, and moved a couple old components to it. It even has a fancy Lian Li aluminum case, and an aftermarket CPU fan for overclocking. The E6600 has come down in price since, by about $100.

It's still about twice the price of a budget Dell, but it runs almost any game you throw at it, and doesn't cost anywhere close to $2000. Hell, it's fast enough to record TV with a tuner card while playing most games. That's really what I bought it for: video. But you can spend about $500 to build a decent game rig no problem. You can't put an 8800 GTX in it, but you don't really need that for most games.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[WidescreenFreak]

Heh. It's $600 because of a completely different reason - Blu-Ray. If the PS3 came with a standard DVD drive, it would probably cost about the same as the Wii and still be completely hackable. Look, I'm not disagreeing with what you've said, but I don't need to tell you the major differences between a console and a PC. No matter how you hack it, a PS/3 is not a PC (as the term has come to be known) just because it can run an operating system that happens to run on a PC. It's a console that can run a different operating system. I see a huge difference. Apparently, you don't. So be it.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[mcvos]

It's absurd that a $50 video game takes more computing power than my $10,000 point of sale system, or my $500 accounting package.

Is it? How much real time 3D rendering do your point of sale system and accounting package do? Because that's the issue here: the graphics card.

It's absurd that you have to buy a $2000 PC to play $50 games, when a $200 console will work even better.

Unless you want to play games that are state-of-the-art and aimed at ridiculously high graphics (like Oblivion when it just appeared), any bog standard PC with a decent $100 graphics card will do. A good graphics card doesn't have to be expensive. You just have to make sure that it really is a good graphics card, and not something that was never intended for what you want to do with it.

Re:Complaining that oranges taste like oranges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know anyone using a PS3 as a PC?
Do you know anyone who'd pay 500 or 600 dollars for a linux system that's only got 256 megabytes of main memory and isn't even upgradable? Because I have some obsolete hardware I wouldn't mind selling.

Posted from a Sony-made Vaio PC, ironically enough...

your numbers are off

[snuf23]

"$1.5 billion difference between 2004 and 2005"

From the summary:

"Over all, retail sales of PC-based games in the United States exceeded $970 million in 2006, an increase of about 1 percent of sales the previous year of $953 million, which represented about a 14 percent drop from $1.1 billion in 2004."

So you have:

2004: $1.1 billion
2005: $953 million
2006: $970 million

Re:your numbers are off

[Itchyeyes]

sorry, I put the decimal point in the wrong place. I meant .15 billion.

Never ceases to amaze me...

[immcintosh]

It happens every five years or so. It's almost like clockwork. A new generation of console systems will come out, and suddenly everybody will be predicting the demise of the PC. And sure, PC game sales and development will lag for a bit, then it'll bounce back. Now I know for a fact this has been going on since the 80's when the original Nintendo generation was supposedly going to spell the demise of the PC for gaming, and of course it never did. Why do people keep acting surprised?

Re:Never ceases to amaze me...

[MS-06FZ]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there's so many new PC games coming out these days as there were, say, 15 years ago... Certainly PC games don't get the shelf space that they used to.

As for the Nintendo thing - bear in mind this was back in the mid-80s. Console gaming had recently all but died, and that led to a boom in computer gaming. The NES was a big revival for console gaming - and while the NES didn't kill off computer gaming, it certainly diverted a lot of attention away from it.

Re:Never ceases to amaze me...

[CronoCloud]

Now I know for a fact this has been going on since the 80's when the original Nintendo generation was supposedly going to spell the demise of the PC for gaming, and of course it never did.

It did kill PC gaming, on the Atari's and Commodores. Remember, PC means more than just the Microsoft/Intel platform. When Atari and Commodore died, PC gaming became a far less mass-market and more hardcore, platform It also became much more expensive, which helped cement the consoles as the mass market gaming device of choice.

Re:Never ceases to amaze me...

[ookaze]

It happens every five years or so. It's almost like clockwork. A new generation of console systems will come out, and suddenly everybody will be predicting the demise of the PC I and several other people must have suffered of collective hallucination, when we were arguing on many forums (even Slashdot IIRC) against people saying that the PC would kill consoles. I've actually never heard of people saying consoles would be the demise of the PC or PC games.
Or what you said was irony ?

And sure, PC game sales and development will lag for a bit, then it'll bounce back. Now I know for a fact this has been going on since the 80's when the original Nintendo generation was supposedly going to spell the demise of the PC for gaming, and of course it never did. Why do people keep acting surprised? Because you have it backwards. For example, I remember clearly people saying consoles were dead when Tomb Raider on 3DFX was "more beautiful" than on PS1.

More anti-MS nonsense

[stinkbomb]

Way to spread the Anti-MS FUD.

Straight from the Games for Windows Requirements page:

"Games that support gamepad controllers must support the Xbox 360 Controller for Windows using the XInput API.
...
This requirement does not apply to games that only make use of the mouse and/or keyboard."

Re:I disagree

[Murrdox]

Well, you're an excellent example of why PC games are selling less I suppose.

I'm a very knowledgeable PC person. I'm a geek.

I could tell you, without even KNOWING what laptop that you bought... that there is no way you will get Command and Conquer 3 to run on your laptop. I haven't even PLAYED Command and Conquer 3, but graphically, I know what it does.

You, as the typical PC consumer, don't realize this. You end up getting burned as a result.

That is kinda sad. Granted, I can think of a LOT of games that you CAN play on that laptop of yours. However, nowadays I'm sorry to say that even if you buy your laptop from Alienware, you aren't going to get a laptop that can play the "best" games. Gaming laptops are dying right now, until video card technology miniaturizes some more. Right now, your average laptop just has no hope of competing with what the latest desktop is capable of.

Play console games and be happy my friend... or buy games for that laptop that have been out for 2-3 years already, and you should be happy as well.

Parent makes an excellent point

[woodhouse]

The extension mechanism is the single biggest advantage OpenGL has over D3D. Graphics chip vendors are able to expose new features through the extensions independently of Microsoft's (or anyone else's) release schedules.

Right now the only way to access advanced features such as geometry shaders on an XP system is via OpenGL.

Third option

[Travoltus]

Develop for DX9 using something like the Unreal 2 engine (great graphics that even exceed TES 4: Oblivion if you throw in Speedtree) and an awesome, nonlinear story line.

IOW if you do a Deus Ex or a Morrowind in the same game engine that brought us Unreal Tournament 2004 and you don't make it a simple knockoff of said titles, but an original, deep game with action and RPG elements, you can moon the reviewers and make them get down and lick it because all the PC gamers will be beating down the doors for your game.

Beyond UT2004's level, graphics are overrated until you reach super-realistic (Speedtree, for instance) graphics and super realistic animations. What you'll need to compete now is a highly superior and addictive gaming experience. And really well made expansion packs.

Re:I disagree

[CronoCloud]

I had an "Intel" which wasn't on the list anywhere.

Integrated graphics aren't good for gaming. I've got a Gateway 400SP plus with the i852/855 and my PS2 runs rings around it gamewise. I've tried a few games on it now and then, older ones, like Diablo aren't too bad. FATE from WildTangent ( installed without the web driver using "certain means") is sluggish, and Deus Ex simply doesn't run as well as Deus Ex does on the PS2. I did buy one full price game to try because I'd heard so many good things about it, NWN and it sucked. I wanted to love it, but the UI and choppyness just made it intolerable. So I just stuck with the consoles.

Now admittedly the PS2 doesn't run GIMP as well as the laptop does.( Yeah I've got a PS2 with a Linux kit installed), but for gaming, I'm console all the way.

Re:I disagree

[default luser]

Yup, unfortunately this is the state of PC gaming.

You have too many fancy cases surounding crap hardware, too many companies RENAMING existing products to give them new life, and far too many derivative products; it is a confusing world out there.

The PC industry could fix this problem with banchmarks and simple grading systems, but then you have to answer the tough questions:

What happens when someone has to update the benchmark? New features usually need new benchmarks. How do users get the latest data on their system?

What happens when OEMs refuse to label their PCs with these numbers because they want to sell on style? As soon as you can attach easy numbers that MEAN something, consumers will start to do a LOT more comparison shopping, and that's not good for an industry that upsells on useless features.

The PC industry makes this even worse because they charge outrageous prices for "upgrades," so most people end up going with the base model (and discover too late just why their PC was so cheap).

In the end, PC gaming is a mess for the same reason it is a panacea: choice. Unfortunately, that is also the reason why it is at a dead-end: there are only so many people who can stomach the hoard of knowledge required to play. Me, I'm going to stick around for as long as I can, because I really can't enjoy an FPS without a mouse.

So, go play flash games (they usually work everywhere), or go play console games. Or, go learn about gaming hardware. Your choice.

Why shouldn't it?

[phorm]

Why should dollars correspond to system power?

My microwave costs less than my television, but requires more power to work (better breaker, at least). My stove may or may not cost more, but it requires a 210V input. Just because one costs more doesn't mean it requires more power

Besides, there are plenty of expensive things that cost more than your accounting package and require more power than either it, or games. High-end rendering software, graphics software, etc. Stuff in the realm of CAD or the stuff used to build/compile those nifty console games is generally run on higher-end PC's. Rendering high-CG movies takes multiple machines.

It has nothing to do with cost, it's all about the amount of complexity of the software. And yes, that $50 game might be more complex than your $500 accounting package. It might also be less-well tested, but it's probably also selling to a lot more people. Chances are also that more people will be buying the game - which means the cost can be less - or at least the game developer would hope so.

Why Dell or Gateway?

[phorm]

Neither of those brands are known for being good at gaming. You want a good PC built by somebody else, for $50-100 the local shop will give you some advice on what you want, and put it together. It'll also net you a better warranty than the one you build yourself (3 years regardless of manufacturer warranty), so it's not a bad deal in my book. As somebody who used to build systems, I'm inclined to have it built for me just for the warranty-extension.

Re:Why Dell or Gateway?

[Anonymous Coward]

your $50 or $100 dollars can get the machine built for you; but if you do it yourself thats another 10-20% in performance (better gfx, more ram, more HD space). Also your typical 12 month (or even 3 month to be honest) warranty is usually long enough to discover most faults in time to replace the hardware; I find if it survives the first month; it wont break before the ~~18 to 24 month lifetime (after which if it breaks it will cost you almost nothing to replace with equivalent parts - a saving of $50 to $100 dollars ?)

but; warranty aside; your local shop building it for you easily beats dell/gateway prices for performance.

Re:Why Dell or Gateway?

[CronoCloud]

Neither of those brands are known for being good at gaming.

I thought the Dell XPS series were well regarded by gamers.

You want a good PC built by somebody else, for $50-100 the local shop will give you some advice on what you want, and put it together.

Slashdot, where everyone thinks there's a local shop that builds gaming boxes, a Fry's and a LUG that meets at the pub/bar, everywhere.

Most people don't go to their local shop either, even if they have one. They buy their computer from Gateway/Dell or they buy it from a mass merchandizer.

Re:Why Dell or Gateway?

[snuf23]

There are plenty of boutique online system builders that cater to gamers. Try www.ibuypower.com, Falcon, Voodoo, Alienware etc. I prefer the smaller guys because you can choose off the shelf components and they are cheaper. Dell XPS systems are by no means cheap for what you get. The same goes for the more well known brands such as Alienware. That's the price you pay for going with a popular brand.

Re:Why Dell or Gateway?

[phorm]

Well, my home-city isn't particularly large. There's no Fry's or well-known name, but there are a few locally run computer shops that do well enough. Heck, even when I lived in a crappy little town (yes town, not big enough to qualify as a city) there was at least one computer place that could put shit together, and the next city was only a 45min trip away.

Finding a shop that's semi-local and knows how to put shit together isn't incredible hard in most places.

Re:Why Dell or Gateway?

[mcvos]

You want a good PC built by somebody else, for $50-100 the local shop will give you some advice on what you want, and put it together.

I wouldn't blindly trust the local shop, unless they're known to be good at this sort of thing. Some local shops are brilliant, others suck. Do a bit of research. Or do a bit of research into the hardware itself. I know next to nothing about hardware, but with a helpful website and some advice from friends, I'm confident I can put together a good gaming machine for myself. If you get stuck, then go to the local shop, and by now you know enough to tell if their advice makes sense.

MOD PARENT UP!

[crhylove]

Seriously. The hegemony that MS is rapidly losing thanks to an awful DRM laden release of an OS could easily be fully expunged by some better games for Linux/Mac.

If I could get a full screen game that was worth playing and I could alt+ctrl+arrow to the left or right out of bringing instant mute and no more CPU load, well, that would be nice for my work environment?

The MS killer is here:

OpenGL and an improved Ubuntu/Beryl. And some really great games for that setup.

Imagine just ONE really great game that played better on Linux than Windows. Besides Urban Terror.

rhY

Wait for DX11

[omnirealm]

Now is the time to buy a DX9 card. When DX11 comes out, then buy a DX10 card.

can we please stop acknowledging these articles?

[darga]

i really wish slashdot was above forwarding on the constant stream of "the game industry is dying!" "consoles will put pc out of business!" "pcs will put consoles out of business!" "the game industry is thriving!" bullshit articles. nothing reeks more of a slow news day. it's all spin and idle speculation. i swear these guys write these articles based on what they had their stock broker do the day before. =|

Parent makes an excellent split

[Anonymous Coward]

"The extension mechanism is the single biggest advantage OpenGL has over D3D."

It also creates fragmentation in the market. The very thing the API's were suppose to prevent.

Re:Parent makes an excellent split

[Creepy]

I don't think it hurts that much - if you choose to use extensions, you need to realize they might not be adopted as-is into the core API. It's like using beta software - it's cool and new, but all the kinks may not be worked out. The real problem is in ARB consists of a bunch of competitors that offer several independent solutions to the same problem, where with Microsoft, you get their solution and are stuck with it. Sometimes this results in long delays in implementing features, or what I can best describe as party infighting (e.g. why GLSL was developed even though nVidia already had a working shader language in Cg).

What is really hurting OpenGL right now, however, is just that DirectX beats it squarely performance-wise and developers know it. It therefore is only the first API looked at by developers that want to write cross-platform, but most developers are satisfied with just writing for the major market - Windows. Even though OpenGL will be months behind Microsoft on this front, they plan to address the performance problems with two releases later this year. The first, codenamed Longs Peak, is backward compatible, but adds an optimized Lean and Mean profile for performance at the expense of backward compatibility. Toward the end of 2007 Mt Evans is supposed to be released, and will, like DirectX 10, not be backwards compatible and only usable on the latest hardware (but also be highly optimized for it).

Hard Core PC gamers

[snuf23]

I think you meant to say "MMO players that play something besides World of Warcraft".
Also just because something is released on a Mac doesn't mean it is released at the same time as on Windows. It usually takes 6 or more months to get out on the Mac. This might not seem like a problem but with something like an online FPS it is a huge problem. Jump on a server with people that have been playing for six months and you will get your ass kicked in two seconds. Either that or half the fans have moved on to the next game.
A perfect example is Battlefield 1942 which came out much later on the Mac.

Computers are multipurpose

[snuf23]

What would be absurd would be having to pay for a high end 3D graphics processor if you had no intention of ever using it. Your laptop is less expensive because it lacks a decent 3D chip.
Oh and my son's system cost $700 and plays everything out there just fine. That's with a mid-range 7600GT graphics card. So yeah that's pricier than a PS2 but it also is used for homework, research, Internet etc.

I'm Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

A 1% increase in nominal revenue over 2006 when inflation is 2% is a 1% decline. Note: decline != upsurge. Looks like another reporter slept through elementary economics.

Re:I disagree

[dosboot]

This is what I hate about graphics cards. By the time you read the back of the box for a game there is probably a new family of cards out which they could never have considered when writing the crazy "your card must bigger than these numbers but not contain this digit or letter". They always add in 'or better' too. If it was so easy to determine what 'or better' is then the requirements would be so convoluted in the first place.

In general the first number tells you which family/generation of cards it comes from and this has little correlation to its power; The top models of older families still beat half the cards in a newer family. You also have to deal with the random acronyms like GS, GX, MX which are always some codeword for 'economy family' and 'performance family'. The lowest number of the cheapo family (no matter how brand spanking new the card) is basically shit, it is just a step above integrated graphics. And likewise a performance family card may be serviceable even when the card is ancient.

Without PC Games consoles are dead

[jools33]

Consoles will never win out - and without PC gaming - they'll be non existent. Has no one ever sat down to figure out where do games programmers learn their trade? - on what platform? I'm pretty sure they don't start off by coding direct on their PS3s or Xbox 360s - they'd need a keyboard for that - and oh yeah a development environment or 2. If the day comes when all PC games are dead - then where will all the new console programmers come from - where will they learn their trade? The PC is the platform for games developers to learn their trade - without this there will be no consoles at all. The Console market has to wake up to the fact that without a strong PC games market - they too are consigned to history - no PC games programmers = no new console programmers either.

Re:Without PC Games consoles are dead

[MemoryDragon]

Yes, indeed, PCs are the entry portal to the console business for game makers... but there is more to it, consoles have drawn the last 10 years from the pc hardware, once the pc hardware especially the 3d chipset market stagnates, the so called next gen consoles will not get the desired advances. The main problem I see now, is now that AMD has sucked up ATI that this even could happen without any influence of the gamers not buying the latest hardware pushing games. Depending on AMDs strategy, if they drop out of the 3d race then NVidia has no huge incentive to push 3d further, and dont count on intel, while having the biggest market share, their 3d chipsets still suck compared to nividia and ATI performancewise, and they are neglegted by most game makers!

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously posting this on Slashdot... News for Nerds?

You really couldn't figure out the difference between integrated graphics and a 3rd party graphics card?

You know what, I think I speak for all pc gamers when I say:

GTFO, we don't want you to be associated with us anyway.

I don't view PC games and Console as the same

[MaximvsG]

IMHO, console games are you and your friends sitting around the living room with some brewskies playing Mario Kart. PC games are sitting in your home computer room playing World of Warcraft. To me there's a big difference. I like to play both and have for many years now. Finally just got a Wii recently and it's a blast to play with friends. I wouldn't give up either but don't see how they really compete with each other. It really depends what you like to do.

It's not shrinking, there are just more platforms

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years ago Game carried PC, Xbox, PS2, Cube and GBA games. Now it's PC, Xbox 360, Xbox, PS3, PS2, PSP, Wii, Cube, DS and GBA. PC shelf space shrinking is at least partly because they have several new systems to display games for and a limited area to do it.

Incidentally, I liked Prey, Dark Messiah and Oblivion quite a lot. The last two aren't traditional FPSes but they are first-person and allow you to specialise in shooting arrows and/or fireballs, so FPS enough for me. There's also STALKER which I haven't got around to playing yet but sounds really cool, and Rainbow 6 Vegas - again I haven't played but I enjoyed the earlier Raven Shield. Plus Resident Evil 4 PC just came out, worth a look if you have a controller hooked up (no mouse support AFAIK) and don't have a PS2/Cube. Finally, people are still making new UT2004 mods, so even if you played it a few years ago it's worth investigating again. If you didn't, you should, it's the best online multiplayer game ever and I've tried an awful lot :)

So, what I'm really saying here is that the PC FPS market has a decent amount of stuff going on (even if that does include some console ports). Playing everything would take more time than I have.

Looks like PC users won't even be able to hold Games up as the great reason to use Windows instead of OS X for much longer. Since you sound like someone who sees fanboys everywhere, let me just mention that I'm posting this from a linux PC and KDE makes anything MS have ever done on the desktop look like total amateurs. I'm formatting my Windows partition the minute WINE works with my entire game library.

I dare to disagree to your disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so much FUD, so little substance. Where to begin?

With DX10 for Vista only, and Vista not being the hot cake MS wanted it to be, studios are sitting between chairs now.

1. Vista is selling even better than projected. If you have better sales data than Microsoft does, I recommend you go public with it.

2. What studios are contemplating leaving the PC platform because of Vista? Please, let us know: this is the first the entire world has heard about this.

Word on the street is game developers absolutely LOVE DirectX... much to the dismay of those preaching that old false religion of OpenGL.

Develop for Vista and DX10, and risk not selling much 'cause people refuse to upgrade (erh, downgrade) just for a game? Or develop for XP and DX9 and suffer bad reviews for using "old tech"?

I dunno... id Software might make their next game for DX9. I hardly think anyone is going to accuse John Carmack of pedalling "old tech".

Also, DX10 can easily run anything made with DX9, and any game developer can easily have their game support both DX9 and DX10. Wow... it's actually possible to have it both ways! Imagine, Microsoft doing the smart business thing and not offering the binary decision you claim they are. That must be why they have billions of dollars, and you... um... don't.

The gaming industry had literally over 10 years to get their multiplayer matchmaking straightened up. Now that Microsoft is moving to fill that void, all the FOSS whiners are coming out with their preference for disorder and nothing working right. No wonder Lunix still isn't viable as a consumer level desktop OS.

Welcome to the real world, pal. Looks like your FUD doesn't cut the mustard in the marketplace of ideas.