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."
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.
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
Why should devs adopt DX11? Because the last iteration of DX lasted about a year and a half before being ditched and extended/redone? Because the majority of the market doesn't have DX11 cards? Because there's no clear advantage in developing to DX11 rather than DX9c?
Why should developers shift from something they know to something that they don't know as well unless there was significant profit motive to do so? There simply isn't in this case.
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?
The simple answer is that 95% of the PC gaming market** can use DX9 while only 56% can use DX10.
* That 39% for DX9 includes 22% people with DX10 hardware using DX9 Win XP.
** Assuming Steam account holders who allow the HW survey are indicative of the relevant PC gaming market. Personally I'm inclined to assume it's not far off, at least not so far that it matters.
If not being able to use the latest shiny things is holding things back, then I say good. Why should I have to spend 2 grand on the latest and greatest hardware every 6 months just to play the latest fad game, when the computer I bought 2 or 3 years ago still serves perfectly well for everything else? Computers are expensive, and last I checked most of the world is dragging it's feet out of financial crisis. Additionally, we reached the 'good enough' mark a long time ago. Pushing the technical envelope for the sake of pushing has been an exercise of diminishing returns for a while now.
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.
If I wanted high quality photorealistic graphics withe pixel perfect shading, etc, I can go outside. It's better than 1600x1200x32 bits out there.
Now get off my lawn!
>>>The Wii is a fisher price funbox designed for non-gamers and drunk idiots
Sure if you pretend that Nintendo doesn't have a 30 history of creating excellent games. I don't own a Wii but the games I've played (Zelda Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3) are just as good as those games I found on my Gamecube, N64, Super Nintendo, and NES. And just as good as on my Xbox, PS2, or PS1. I can't believe your comment was marked "insightful" since it's mostly just fanboyism.
.
>>>Most console gamers have short attention spans and prefer flashy lights and 5 mins of intense adrenaline to a game with a story.
How ironic you post this on an article about how PC games are not shiny enough. If Pc gamers care more about story than flashy lights, then why worry if the graphics are "only DirectX 10 instead of 11?) Probably cause you're wrong. I've met lots of PC gamers who refuse to play a classic like Wing Commander or Baldurs Gate 1 just because it's pixelated.
As for story, if console games don't like story, why are RPGs so popular on consoles? Once again I question why your fanboyish anti-console rant was labeled "insightful". Trollish is more like it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I'm a game developer. The only good point you make is that using OpenGL makes Mac ports a bit cheaper. The rest of your rant is bullshit, and if you're actually a gamedev (which I doubt) you should know better than to make such silly claims. There's a hell of a lot more to porting to a new platform than porting the graphics subsystem (and porting between DX and GL is trivial compared to what you have to do to squeeze stuff like physics onto console architectures).
We all want to use OpenGL because it's a nicer API than Direct3D
Hah! Bullshit. OpenGL might become a nicer API if Khronos ever gets their heads out of their asses and stops pandering to the CAD crowd. Until then it's an annoying mass of gotchas. Seriously, the backwards compatibility provisions in OpenGL make every Windows release look like a clean break from the prior version.
we can develop for it on our Macs, and our games will support just about every modern gaming platform imaginable (because we aren't tied to Microsoft's platforms).
Mac I'll grant you. What are these other modern gaming platforms? Seriously, what are they? Linux? Unless you mean all the mobile devices using OpenGL ES, but you need to rewrite significant portions of your engine and redo almost all of your art to get a reasonable experience on those, and a DX -> GL ES port is trivial when you're already doing all of that.
DirectX 11 doesn't support Macs, it doesn't support the PS2 or the PS3, it doesn't support the Wii, and it doesn't support most mobile devices.
Again, I'll grant you the Mac. What the fuck are you smoking as far as the rest goes? OpenGL doesn't magically give you free (or even meaningfully cheaper) ports to any of those platforms either:
PS2: No OpenGL here. Just a DMA controller and some hardware registers. The entire create/bind/release metaphor that both GL and DX are based around does not exist. The shading unit can't even express all of the common blend modes, and you have to do ridiculous gymnastics to fit textures into the tiny amount of video RAM you get. You should know this if you've ever worked with a PS2.
PS3: You're an idiot if you're using the GL library directly on the PS3. There's a reason Sony gives direct access to the hardware - if you care about performance you won't be using the wrapper libraries. But again, you'll be rewriting a bunch of your engine to get AI, physics, and other stuff running on the SPUs anyway and a graphics port from either DX or GL is fucking trivial next to that.
XBOX and XBOX 360: DirectX-ish API, so OpenGL gets you nothing here. Even if you start with a DX game you're still porting a bunch of code if you did anything worth mention since there are still fairly significant architectural differences between it and PC. About all you get out of the similarity is a good idea of what entry points will likely be named.
GameCube/Wii: Calling what those platforms expose "OpenGL" is just silly. The structural similarities between the libraries you get and OpenGL are trivial when compared with the mountains of restrictions, special cases, and other odd differences you'll be dealing with. And again, you're going to be rewriting a bunch of your engine to the execution environment so a 5% more direct graphics port saves you fuck all once you tack on the art changes and another QA cycle.
Mobile devices: we already covered the mobile devices. Have you actually worked on one? You should know better than to imply that you get magic free porting to them if you just use OpenGL. There's a hell of a lot more to a usable mobile port than flipping some defines and recompiling with GCC.
Seriously, the starting graphics API is fucking irrelevant to any serious porting effort. GL and DX have near identical capabilities, identical object lifetime management, trivially mappable entry points and trivially mappable state bits, and near identical performance and synchronization behaviors. Porting between the two is trivial compared all the other work a proper port requires.