Slashdot Mirror
Are Consoles Holding Back PC Gaming?
An anonymous reader writes "Despite all the excitement over Nvidia's upcoming Fermi GPU, there is still a distinct lack of DirectX 11 games on the market. This article points out that while the PC has returned to favor as a gaming platform, consoles are still the target for most developers, and still provide the major limitations on the technological sophistication of game graphics. Inside the Xbox 360 sits an ATI Xenos GPU, a DirectX 9c-based chip that bears similarity to the Radeon X1900 series of graphics cards (cards whose age means that they aren't even officially supported in Windows 7). Therein lies the rub. With the majority of PC games now starting life as console titles, games are still targeted at five-year-old DirectX 9 hardware."
PC Games are designed for the graphics capabilities of the gaming
consoles (The Wii is a fisher price funbox designed for non-gamers and
drunk idiots). Few are as bad as the PC version of Final Fantasy 7 but
it still happens.
But then in a few years mobile phone gaming will hold back console gaming.
Causes...
Piracy: It is much easier to pirate a PC game.
Market size: With a few exceptions (WoW etc) console gaming earns a lot more money. Not just because console games usually cost 50% more than a PC game.
Laziness: Creating a console game might get you x million sales but the extra effort required for a proper PC version (higher res textures, modability) doesn't get you that much more than a straight port.
Your target audience: Most console gamers have short attention spans and prefer flashy lights and 5 mins of intense adrenaline to a game with a story.
Thats why RPGs dont do well on consoles. (The Final Fantasy series is not RPG it is just teen angst emo crap)
TFS blames the DX9 hardware in the Xbox and while that is partly true, PC gamers tend to expect more than just flashy lights and explosions.
Games companies try to make interactive movies with bits of action thrown in but dont realise that the story parts are mostly just pathetic.
Big name actors doing voices, more cut-scenes and Quick Time Events does not make up for a lack of gameplay.
StarCraft all the way! *zerg rush* Dang it...
Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
Why would you target DirectX 11, when nobody really wants to use it? PC gaming would be better off if you targeted OpenGL.
... and then they built the supercollider.
That's still where the majority of PC gamers can handle things well, too. (Their hardware may be newer than the consoles, but DX9 is still the majority support, and they have higher resolutions to cover.) The real questions is if the developer is even INTERESTED in targetting higher-performance hardware with unique features, or if they mainly want to use it to be "slightly shinier" and hit better framerates.
Why are modern games being judged based on their technological prowess? How is this holding back PC games? Games produced for five year old tech still run on modern machines. So what if games are targeted towards years-old technology? Are they fun? Are people buying them? There's more to a game that shading effects and the hundreds of hours that dedicated teams put into making realistic water ripples.
Games are sold based upon gameplay and fun. In this current market, those are more easily found in the console market. I don't see that changing. //PC Gamer since 1986 ///Now happily a 100% console gamer ////Though I love to play Cave Story
There is no shortage of MMOGs. The category is growing, even, at an insane rate, despite (or because of?) WoW's dominance. There are only 24 hours in a day, and peeps who play MMOGs can never "beat" their game -- they are continuously rewarded for playing, constantly and forever, and pay monthly for the privilege in many cases.
Many no longer have the time or inclination to start a new, one-off PC game. I recall an interview with supposed "Diablo-Killer" Titan's Quest creators who attributed the poor sales of their well-reviewed game to the fact that their prospective player-base could not break away from their MMOGs.
...prefer game consoles. For starters, you're dealing with a uniform hardware platform. The core specs and capabilities don't change too often, only about once every 5 years or so. So if you are developing for the Xbox360, you only have to get it to work on one 360 and it should work on all. On a PC, you're encountering a vast array of hardware configurations. X CPU with Y Motherboard using Z GPU. So while you can optimize for a number of these, you can't do it for all and that leads to a certain percentage of your customer base complaining.
That and pirating console games is a bit tougher for the average consumer. Usually requires a hardware mod chip and most people don't feel they have the technical skill to install one. On the PC, piracy is pretty much fire up bittorrent, go to the piratebay, and download.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
The real question is: Is the rush for performance and graphics killing the fun in video games? I think so.
Does anyone really think this cycle is any different? We're pretty much at the mid-point of the console cycle: PCs are flexing their muscle (again) and developers are reluctant to design just for PCs. But, as always, more will jump back on the PC bandwagon as it becomes obvious that the PC is the place to be for graphic quality (and the market loves eye candy). Eventually the console makers will decide to release new hardware to try to coax them back, and we'll repeat this cycle again.
So what's changed?
I'm not an huge gamer, but my preference is to sit in front of my TV on my XBox 360 or Wii when playing games. In truth I couldn't give a rat's derrière about the graphics of the games I play so long as I find them compelling and fun. Then again when your business model is based solely on churning out the same game time after time and you only differentiate the games by the graphics I suppose this argument becomes reasonable.
Hey game makers, here's a clue: In the last few weeks I have played video games quite a bit due to a knee injury that's meant I can't do much else. If I think seriously about the amount of time I've spent playing video games recently, the one game that really sticks in my mind and has me itching to play it more is Bit Trip Beat on the Wii. Realistically I probably could've run that game on my 25 year old Amiga if I still had it... but damn that game's fun!
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
This is all about piracy. Games are harder to pirate on the consoles. If you can boot a pirate copy on a console it can often be detected when you go online. You then get banned from online play.
You can also trade in console games and get a reasonable amount of money back.
Right now, consoles are behind PC gaming and derided by some as antiquated and holding back progress.
And then, in a year or two, the next generation of consoles will slightly leapfrog the average gaming PC, the death of PC gaming will be predicted, and the new commoditized hardware will sell like crazy.
The sales surge will fund ATI and nVidia's development of the next generation of GPUs, PC gamers will provide an eager market to test the next generation hardware, and the cycle will repeat itself.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Console = 5 years old PC hardware with locked options.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
I played console FPS games and they suck. Glitchy VOIP, whining kids, lack of community thatnks to the loss of dedicated servers. Graphics rich, skill poor. I can't get on with console controllers and I doubt if any console player could ever cope in a map full of PC gamers. At some point (prob soon) consoles will go away. _ALL_ hardware will be 'good enough' for 99% games and people will be free to choose the best tool for the job.
No. Piracy is holding back PC gaming. PC sales are ridiculous low for most single-player, non-casual, PC games. Game publishers are doing the natural thing; focusing on consoles where the problem of piracy is much, much smaller.
IMHO the industry should be commended that it, unlike some other industries, fight piracy by changing it's way of doing business instead of choosing the path of litigation and legislation.
There are much bigger issues than graphics in this "Console/PC" debate. The really big issues are things like user interface and game controls. Take Oblivion for example- that game's interface was significantly altered to accommodate console play, which made it a sub-optimal for the PC: an overly simplistic UI and relatively poor use of screen real estate.
PC gamers expect a lot more from their games- private servers, LAN play, mods, etc.; and as the Modern Warfare 2 debacle showed us, game companies are showing less & less love for the PC. There's tons more money (and less hassle) to be make on the consoles. That's a MUCH bigger hurdle than "Console graphics are the holding PCs back!"
What's really interesting to me is how MMOGs haven't really made it to the console. I think that's because of the console's revenue model, which really only supports "throwaway" games with a very short life span. You'd think a subscription-style game would have amazing appeal for console game-makers, but where are the games?
Yes, games are being held back by consoles. PC games used to push the edge of the envelope, not they simply follow the consoles. It's getting particularly bad, with many games designed for consoles and then poorly ported to PC. It wouldn't be so bad if the studios would at least make an effort to port them properly. I've come across all of these problems in many games over the past few years:
- Poorly designed menu systems that do not support mice (keyboard/gamepad only)
- Poorly designed keyboard maps that don't follow established PC standards, which leads to the next item
- Inability to remap or customize keyboard controls
- Games which do not support standard PC peripherals (e.g. some PC games only support console gamepads. I don't own an Xbox so don't force me to buy a damn Xbox gamepad to play your game). Same for driving wheels/pedals.
- Games with severely limited graphics options. These are a must to tailor the game experience to the hardware and performance expectations.
- Games with crippled graphics effects (limited draw distances, low-res textures, artificially limited environments, etc)
- Games with poor savegame support, or only support checkpoints
- Games being launched on consoles, with PC ports following very late afterward (sometimes 6-12 months later or never)
I could go on and on. Literally, there are very few games I've purchased in the last 5 years which do not have at least one or two of the above problems, with a few managing to tick nearly all of the above. I blame the cross-platform game development environments which basically force the game design onto consoles with PC's being treated as second class citizens. It's not likely to change either, as consoles are very popular and many game studios see them as a more profitable market.
I don't hate consoles, they are fine for what they do and I happen to own 2 (Wii and PS2), but the games I play on consoles are vastly different than the games I play on PC. I want my PC games to push the envelop of technology, sadly this seems to be against the trend.
Bob's Game sucks. That's why Nintendo (or Sony or Sega or Microsoft) would reject it.
Do all games developed by micro-ISVs suck? Because console makers tend to reject them from day one.
This used to be much more true when DirectX wasn't artificially limited to the OS version. You just downloaded your new DirectX version and went to town when you bought a new video card.
DirectX 10 became a "Vista exclusive", despite the fact that unofficial ports made it work on Windows XP without much muss or fuss. It was an artificial limitation. So, in order to upgrade from DirectX 9 to DirectX 10, you had to buy a new video card and a new OS. Even some Microsoft games artificially limited detail to make the game seem better on 10 than on 9. Of course, a few clever hackers exposed this as well. DirectX 11 is and update to DirectX 10 and similarly incompatible with Windows XP.
This bs has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Couple that with the absolutely absurd Digital Restrictions Management in some PC games and the taste is downright sour. (Related note: Honestly, if you knowingly buy an Ubisoft game at this point, you're an idiot... their games are basically useless because of DRM now.)
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Desktops are obsolete and laptops aren't powerful enough to run the games. That keeps me from PC gaming. There's no way I can be bothered or justify the expense of setting up a desktop just for gaming, and I already have a laptop for everything else.
The only way it could work is if my HTPC became a gaming PC too. However that would interfere with its HTPC duties, it would require a more powerful box and hence no 10W idling (and possibly even be noisy, ouch!) and I'd be playing on the TV which negates most of the advantages of PC gaming in the first place.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Also, Windows XP does not support DX10 or 11.Microsoft did this thinking that it will cause the gamers to upgrade when new games need the new version (in the past games used the newest DX version that was available). However, since DX10 was on Vista, people did not upgrade, so the game companies continued to make games that work on XP since this way they can have a larger customer base (DX9 game runs on XP, Vista and 7), since intentionally restricting your customers is stupid.
Windows XP is still on ~50% of PCs (I don't know what part of gamer PCs is XP). The company has to make a decision - make a game that runs on, say, 80% of gamer PCs or make a game that runs on, say, 40% of gamer PCs. The second option means that if your game is equally as good, you will only get half the money you would if you used DX9.
Companies that make games that use DX10 still must make them compatible with DX9, so DX10 cannot be used for the main part of the game, and is only used for stuff like enhancing the graphics a bit.
Somewhat offtopic, but a lot of people have been posting comments equating TFS's question to "is PC gaming dying?" Last year, when the overall gaming market declined, PC gaming revenues increased by 19% worldwide (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62729). PC Gaming is definitely not dying.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
And the problem is? Console games for the most part "just work". Pop in the disc and thats basically it. No having to worry about if your hardware will function properly with the game or if you will have some weird glitch that only happens in .3 percent of people that might never get fixed. No draconian drm except having my disk in, not a big problem.
Console = 5 years old PC hardware with locked options.
That would be more insightful if PC games didn't typically hold back to support the older cards out there. Depending on where you are in the cycle, PC games are more like 2 years, if that, ahead of a console.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
While you may say "please step away from your Slashdot reality distortion field" in relation to DRM, Ubisoft's piss-poor DRM implementation has made a lot of people swear off their games on PC. Assassin's Creed 2 much? All the major game sites covered when Ubisoft's DRM server went down and no one could play it. So that shiny Ubisoft game you bought for your PC will only work when your internet connection is up and Ubisoft's DRM servers are reachable... even though you're not playing the game online. And this after the first one was bad ui, bad drm, bad port and had the same issues.
All of this is well outside the Slashdot reality distortion field and starting to clue people in that you don't actually own a DRMed game. You rent it. And you play it with the temporary permission of the publisher... which they can take away at a whim... or can be taken away by a simple network issue.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Fair enough.
If only PC gaming tecnology could make us able to fully experience today's games with 5 years old hardware (not too expensive at the time), I'd ditch the console NOW.
But reality is different. If you want to fully enjoy modern games you have to buy modern mid-priced hardware continuosly. Or spew out blood on extreme class shit.
The Nintendo Wii in particular has proven a very important point. Hardware spec wise, it's a pile of crap. Yet it's also a wildly popular platform. Why? Affordability is a significant factor. Also it's because instead of focusing on massive polygon counts and 1600x antialiasing and whatnot other geewhizbang features, they make games that are enjoyable to play.
Popularity has nothing to do with quality. Wii is popular because it's a very social platform. people like to have friends over and play things together. they never really care for game quality, as most Wii games are a pile of crap (just like the hardware), but they are fun when you're with friends.
Games as a business probably make more sense on the console. but just because most people are happy with crappy games and equally shitty hardware is that a reason to stop pursuing new frontiers?
Most people don't need high levels of education. Most people don't need anything sophisticated in their lives. Most people would be perfectly happy if we close down NASA and stop exploring space. Most people don't care about the Higgs Boson and the LHC.
Is that really a reason to stop trying to push the envelope?
Sigs are for the weak.