Slashdot Mirror
How To Make PC Gaming Better
New submitter RMingin writes "Bruno Ferreira at Tech Report has a number of suggestions that he feels could improve PC gaming. Some are quite thought-provoking. For example: 'When technology advanced [in the '90s], the industry came up with a certification specification to ensure punters didn't miss out—and consequently spent more on better PCs. That spec was called MPC, short for Multimedia Personal Computer. The first version of the MPC spec said, in simple terms: Thy computer shalt be blessed with a sound card and speakers.
Thou shalt be provided a CD-ROM drive in which to receive silver discs. Thy processor shalt not be completely crap. At the time, this spec meant a lot—and, to be honest, I think it worked marvelously. We need something like that again. People wanted MPC, everyone sold the better hardware, and everyone was happy. Let the powers that be come up with a new baseline specification. Call it MPC-HD or whatever acronym the marketing Nazgûl want to give it. I'm fine with whatever, as long as it gets the job done.' He also calls for an end to the unintuitive model numbers for GPUs and CPUs, and more consistent driver support."
Port everything over to Linux so we can ditch Wine and Windows.
Someone had to say it.
It's called Tablet App Gaming. Thy computer shalt have no native input device save the screen. You shall not have full control of the device. Some of your data must needs live in the cloud.
Stop thinking every title needs to be a triple AAA title with millions of dollars in cost, that has to sell a large amount of copies to turn a profit.
Stop putting crappy DRM on your software, since that only hurts your customers.
Stop making crappy consoles ports.
And quit fucking blaming everything on piracy.
Be seeing you...
Those who finds model numbers unintuitive usually asks one of their geek friends to build a PC for them, those who don't even bother looking at model number but rather look up the benchmarks don't care about the model numbers.
The real issue with PC gaming is that a lot of games these days are shitty console ports with atrocious controls, awful camera and graphics that are still stuck on xbox360/ps3 level which are already outdated by just about any discrete video card, and there's no incentive for companies to change their "make console game -> port to pc to milk" agenda.
There's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's miles better than any console. An I5/I7 paired with a midrange graphics card blows them out of the water. The problem isn't the hardware, it's the software writers who write for consoles and then port that back to PCs... Case in point, Skyrim, which has about the most awful interface ever inflcited on the keyboard & mouse using public ever. More first-person shooters that all look the same. No innovation any more. No, the problem is the game companies and their crap.
I've been using computers since the late 80s, and I don't recall this term at all. I do remember people talking about "Multimedia PCs", which must be the verbal expression of that (just saying the letters MPC seems odd - makes me think of the MCP from Tron). But I don't recall it being a big deal... at least not as a home user in middle school and high school, building my own computers (and some for friends). Maybe it was a bigger deal among the major brands at the time?
Anyways, as a professional who helps folks figure out what they need in a computer today, I don't see how this would be all that helpful. Maybe as a guide for those who know nothing about specs, have no interest in learning, and are buying from a source where they cannot get decent advice... but there is such a wide range of specs and performance these days that a simple label would have a hard time encapsulating enough info. All modern computers (save some servers) have audio, some level of 3D performance, etc - and while not all have optical drives that isn't always a big deal, since the advent of Steam and similar services.
On the other hand, if you want to ensure decent game performance then you have wildly different specs to aim for depending on the game, the resolution the user will be running, the quality and FPS settings that they consider reasonable, and future-proofing. I don't think that can all be covered by one arbitrary standard, personally.
William George
... none of the major players give a shit about the PC as a platform. Since Microsoft has abandoned the PC as a gaming platform for Xbox. This leaves a huge opening but unfortunately big companies aren't very bright. Valve sadly has went the data-mining DRM route and is adding more barriers and cluster-fuckery to gaming that doesn't need to be there.
If I was Intel right now I would see the profits apple is making and attempt to standardize the PC space and prevent bargain basement PC chaos from occurring. When one looks at steam hardware surveys one see's most people have very little clue about their computers and tend to buy the cheapest shit.
As much hate as intel gets if it was intelligent it would get serious about creating a platform and not pull the software shenanigans like DRM/closed ecosystems like what the big software companies do (ms, valve, etc). Software is becoming hugely inefficient to create because software parts the equivalent of ROADS and SEWERS are being patented and copyrighted/protected.
Software really needs public R&D investment in 'foundation level' like stuff to get over these barriers and solve these problems, but barring that Intel (one of the biggest hardware companies) doesn't seem to seriously grasp the need for a software ecosystem that drives people to need their stuff. They are too content with idiocy and clusterfuckery of the current batch of software companies.
If I were intel I would turn GOG.com into a platform and increase R&D in how to make better games for cheaper as well as invest in better tools to drive down costs. The biggest problem we have today is making complex apps people want costs too much time and money so there need to be serious R&D in tools, software aided-creativity and automation.
CPU model numbers are fine.
i3 i5 i7.
Biger has more power.
220, 3470 etc... bigger is more power.
Quick, hotshot! Which has more power, a 5450,or a 4870?A 2700K, or a 3470?
The upcoming Steambox will hopefully be the new benchmark for software. It would be nice if they'd release a certification badge upon release that other hardware makers could use. I agree 100% with the comment about GPU/CPU naming conventions. They are even worse than cell phones. If there's one thing we can learn from the iPhone, let it be simple names.
I have to second this. Though I cherish my memories of playing the Ultima series in my youth, I find the games practically unplayable now. Sure, they had a very detailed world and story, but the systems while fairly fresh at the time, seem very primitive and unfriendly now. Granted the games did do a few things that I've rarely seen since (if at all - granted I haven't played every game in existence so I may be missing some things) that would certainly be welcome (by me) in a modern game.
I remember that the story in Ultima VI wasn't exactly linear, though you could follow cue given to you by NPC's and work your way through the game in a linear fashion, you could also avoid the major conflict with the gargoyles from the start and forge your own path through the game. Sure, some things could only be done one very specific way, other could be done multiple ways, especially if you got creative (and if you really got stuck somewhere, you could go the evil route and kill a few npc's or steal some goods to get what you needed, granted you could also make the game unwinnable this way).
I really don't think the state of PC gaming is in that bad of shape. I've also been hearing complaints about the state of PC gaming for almost as long as I've been gaming on a PC (1985). Sure, some companies do crappy ports, others just try to get some fodder out the door to capitalize on the current trend, and other companies cater to the PC audience even while courting the consoles and for others, the PC represents the vast majority of their output.
The first Borderlands runs and looks better on my tower than it's console version does, and can even be dialed down enough to be playable on my laptop (inexpensive laptop purchased primarily for school work, not gaming). I haven't tried to run 2 on my laptop yet, but it's still awesome on my tower. Skyrim? sure the menu system may suffer from consolitis a bit, but everything else about it is better on PC, and again runs great on my tower and can be dialed down to be playable on my laptop. That's not even consdering the mods (and support of!) available for the PC version.
Sure, there are plenty of games out there with poor PC support, barely playable on my tower due to poor optimization, lack of video settings or both, but I'm usually not surprised by those ones when I see who developed/published the game.
Of course there are also several genres that thrive on the PC and rarely, if ever see the light of day on a console (how many 4X games make it to consoles?) and certain games that hold a larger (or longer) PC following. How many people still play Morrowind on the Xbox vs. how many people still play it on the PC? Hell, given how cheap it is on steam, the various (new!) mods, and younger audiences being introduced to TES for the first time by the latest game in the series, I'm sure Bethesda still sees a fair amount of sales on Morrowind for the PC.
You have (and shall) never hear the term "console port".
The main problem with a LOT of PC games, nowadays, is they've been dumbed down, and lots of features stripped out or simply never done (or done right) in the first place. Simply to make it easier to share code-bases between a console port and the PC game.
DCUO is a prime example of this.
It's so incredibly limited, and the controls for the game absolutely SUCK. Why? Because they designed it with a controller in mind. They limited the game's models and costume options because most consoles just couldn't handle the sheer variety a full-blown costume/model system would have given them.
As a result, you have a console fighter game masquerading as a PC MMO. And it does NEITHER well.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
That happened 30 years ago with consoles. Japanese console manufacturers figured they would corner the market if they adopted a standard console system called MSX. It would be extensible enough for the systems to be used as home computers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX
Didn't last simply because each manufacturer used the standard as a base level and added their own custom features - extra sound channels, larger screen resolutions, more cartridge memory, extra peripherals like light pens, light guns.
In the end games designed on one system wouldn't run on others, and the system become forgotten.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
#1. Make all games use OpenGL or some other newly invented standard that is cross platform.
#2. Have congress declare that "virtual goods" or whatever you want to call them are no more than poker chips. Selling items in game is probably the most detrimental change in the history of gaming as it leads to developers intentionally making the game un-fun and grindy so you'll sink real money to obtain imaginary items to make your play easier. Also... they really are poker chips... it's wrong that they are sold to children.
#3. Games that are online and can not work without the servers provided by the publisher should be required by law to provide service for a certain period of time after you buy the game. A certain portion of the proceeds of the sale of the game should go into a 3rd party account to pay for the continued operation of the servers even if the original producers of the game go out of business. At least someone buying the game could be guaranteed a certain about of play before it just stopped working all together. But better yet, hopefully producers of games would not want to have to put money into a trust and instead would open up the server platform to the players.
...also, 2013 will be the year of Desktop Linux. Suuure...
Ironically 2013 is the year of Android that is the point, and Windows gets relegated to second place. It kind of makes your statement a little sad. Personally I look forward to the gains on the Linux Desktop from Microsofts Monopoly getting broken.