The death of PC gaming

[Servo]

I used to love PC gaming when I had a PC that could keep up with the latest requirements. That's getting on for 6 years ago now.

It just seems like a constant headache. Upgrading components (or even the full system) to keep up with with the latest standards, compatability issues, DRM...etc.

I bought a PS2 10 years ago, and I can walk into any store today and buy a game for it (even a brand new one), secure in the knowledge that all I have to do is put it in the console and play it. There's no way on god's earth that I could do that with a PC game. I imagine that I'll be saying the same thing about my PS3 and 360 in several years time (RROD's and YLOD's notwithstanding).

Don't get me wrong, I still play some old school games that my PC can still handle, and If I had the cash to spare, I'd go out and buy a brand new gaming PC in a second (even if it was just to play stuff like the new C&C), but at the moment it's simpler to own and play on consoles, especially with the level of graphics and gameplay available on the current gen consoles.

 

[Hermiod]

^Yeah, word of advice - don't buy a new PC just to play the new C&C.

 

[Jax]

PC needing upgrading is a total bitch, lucky we are reaching the peak for now for how far games can look so graphics card are lasting longer than in recent years. My PC is...

Intel Dual Core E6600 - 2.4Ghz
4GB DDR 2 Ram
Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX

Back in late 2007 this was more than enough and now I can play most if all games but its becoming much much harder to get by and the next 18 months will probably put me at my limit for new games, thank god for the 360.

 

[Hermiod]

^That potentially not being enough to run any game on the market today is a sign of what's wrong with the PC games business.

 

[Jax]

Yeh I mean its still pretty good just tweak with settings here and there but now people are wanting Direct X 11 games...excuse me 10 10 10 ? why on 11 already. PC games are cheaper but its easier to play on a 360.

 

[Nick Ryder]

Yeah the whole "oh you need a better graphics card" thing turned me off of PC gaming. I mean I shouldn't have to buy a new graphics card every couple of years because some publisher wants me to. I mean, riddle me this...

Why can a gaming console that's already nearly 5 years old (or hell a decade old in the case of the PS2!) can still play all these new and awesome games. When a computer from 3 years ago can't play crap? Or... is starting to 'feel long in the tooth'? Hmm? Why can't a graphics card that's probably a few years old and probably exactly the same as the consoles is 'not enough' for these new games. Plus the fact that half the games now want to take like 20 gigs of space just to install content, when you can get by with a whole lot less and still have good speed and all that on a console that needs far less than that in way of storage? How much RAM does an XBox or even a PS2 have compared to a PC? I mean we went from 'minimum req's - 512MB of ram to 'minimum req's 1-2 gigs of RAM.'. To play essentially the same game.

I just got tired of the constant upping of specs just to play a game and play exclusively on consoles, its easier, cheaper and for the amount of gaming I do, more than enough.

 

[Jax]

^ The HDD space is a problem with games getting bigger and bigger. I've always wondered how can a 360 or PS3 produce better and better looking games over the course of years with the same card it started with...That proves that the PC market really owt to slow down instead of trying to push the benchmark too often.

 

[ATimson]

One thing Blizzard does well which so many others don't is that they seem to scale down their graphic requirements. Low end systems can run their games comfortably.

It's not so much that the scale down, as that their games are in development for so long that what was their original "state of the art" target is three years old by the time they're done.

 

[ATimson]

Why can't a graphics card that's probably a few years old and probably exactly the same as the consoles is 'not enough' for these new games.

It's enough for the new games if you're willing to run it in sub-HD resolutions like console games are. Consoles can't even manage 1280x720 in flagship titles like Halo 3.

If you want to run in high resolutions, you need more power.

 

[Lindley]

I know I'm a Valve fanboy but the Source engine should be the model here. Source engine games are playable on Direct X 7 cards if necessary but can still look good on top end machines.

Valve are also getting it right by making their games cross compatible with Macs. Their chunk of the consumer PC market continues to grow. You're cutting off a big slice of your potential audience otherwise.

Basically, you're saying you favor the OpenGL model over the DirectX model altogether. Compatibility issues aside, the basic difference in philosophy is this:

For DirectX, you have a specific set of capabilities associated with each DX version number, and you code to those capabilities. Then any machine purporting to support that DX version number must be able to handle your program.

For OpenGL, there is no guarantee that you'll have any particular capability. You need to test for each advanced capability (OpenGL Extension) that you want to use, and have fallback options available if the particular graphics card doesn't support that extension. This requires more coding effort, but the finished product is usually able to run to some degree on a wider variety of hardware.

 

[ATimson]

You need to test for each advanced capability (OpenGL Extension) that you want to use, and have fallback options available if the particular graphics card doesn't support that extension. This requires more coding effort, but the finished product is usually able to run to some degree on a wider variety of hardware.

This method does allow better fallback, yes, but by discouraging any graphics innovation (you need to either handle the new functionality three separate ways, for nVidia, ATI, and Intel's specific implementations; or wait for the next OpenGL version, which is likely to be years away for a spec, much less compliant drivers).

 

[Lindley]

You need to test for each advanced capability (OpenGL Extension) that you want to use, and have fallback options available if the particular graphics card doesn't support that extension. This requires more coding effort, but the finished product is usually able to run to some degree on a wider variety of hardware.

This method does allow better fallback, yes, but by discouraging any graphics innovation (you need to either handle the new functionality three separate ways, for nVidia, ATI, and Intel's specific implementations; or wait for the next OpenGL version, which is likely to be years away for a spec, much less compliant drivers).

True, but proper use of software abstraction can mitigate the difficulty of that process. Just create an interface for each particular bit of functionality, and instantiate the supported derived object type at startup.

If it really is the same functionality, odds are a similar set of parameters will be needed, even if the particular function calls are different.

 

[Arrqh]

Er, well one of the points of DirectX is to provide that abstraction. I see nothing in what Hermiod said that points towards the OGL "model" (and it's less of a model and more of a hodgepodge when it comes to the higher level stuff). Especially since he's referencing the Source engine, which like all modern PC engines, uses DirectX where available.

What you're suggestion is going to seriously compromise both the overall artistic integrity of a game, not to mention significantly increase the complexity of QA. DirectX allows you to fallback to known feature sets, which should theoretically look the same on all cards that support them. Coding to individual implementations of available extensions is a step back... more reminiscent of the days when each 3D card manufacturer had their own API. One of the main goals of DirectX was to make things simpler, easier and more consistent and none of this makes it less effective at scaling to lesser or legacy hardware.

The reason why using OGL on Macs doesn't run into this problem is because of their hardware... it's all known hardware so you have specific targets that you can code for and test on. It's sort of a middle ground between consoles and PC's, hardware is still variable but within a known set.

 

[Hermiod]

All of this is a little bit irrelevant these days when you only really have two major video hardware manufacturers in PC gaming, well maybe three if you count Intel's attempt at graphics hardware. The extensions are implemented in the drivers. For the most part, ATI and nVidia have got that part covered.

As have Valve, who have added OpenGL support to the Source Engine and iD who may as well be renamed "We Love OpenGL".

 

[ATimson]

As have Valve, who have added OpenGL support to the Source Engine and iD who may as well be renamed "We Love OpenGL".

iD may as well be renamed that, but I'm not sure how relevant they are any more. Epic (and to a much smaller extent Valve) has the engine market cornered nowadays - there was, what, one non-iD licensee of the Doom 3 engine? And for all its sales volume, was Doom 3 even any good?

 

[Hermiod]

As have Valve, who have added OpenGL support to the Source Engine and iD who may as well be renamed "We Love OpenGL".

iD may as well be renamed that, but I'm not sure how relevant they are any more. Epic (and to a much smaller extent Valve) has the engine market cornered nowadays - there was, what, one non-iD licensee of the Doom 3 engine? And for all its sales volume, was Doom 3 even any good?

Wolfenstein.

Though that's largely because Carmack's busy with Rage and Doom 4. Their new engine remains based on OpenGL and not DirectX.

 

[ATimson]

Wolfenstein.

Raven did the grunt work, same as with Quake IV, but it's still an iD game. Says so right on the box.

 

[Lindley]

Er, well one of the points of DirectX is to provide that abstraction. I see nothing in what Hermiod said that points towards the OGL "model" (and it's less of a model and more of a hodgepodge when it comes to the higher level stuff). Especially since he's referencing the Source engine, which like all modern PC engines, uses DirectX where available.

What you're suggestion is going to seriously compromise both the overall artistic integrity of a game, not to mention significantly increase the complexity of QA. DirectX allows you to fallback to known feature sets, which should theoretically look the same on all cards that support them. Coding to individual implementations of available extensions is a step back... more reminiscent of the days when each 3D card manufacturer had their own API. One of the main goals of DirectX was to make things simpler, easier and more consistent and none of this makes it less effective at scaling to lesser or legacy hardware.

Yes, DirectX was a good idea in that respect. Shame it was developed by a company which felt the need to restrict it in other ways, such as arbitrarily deciding DX10 wouldn't be supported pre-Vista (there's no software justification for that), or not allowing non-Windows implementations of the interface.

 

[ATimson]

Shame it was developed by a company which felt the need to restrict it in other ways, such as arbitrarily deciding DX10 wouldn't be supported pre-Vista (there's no software justification for that), or not allowing non-Windows implementations of the interface.

There's no software justification for not rewriting XP's entire display driver model in a service pack?

 

[Capt. Vulcan]

Yeah the whole "oh you need a better graphics card" thing turned me off of PC gaming. I mean I shouldn't have to buy a new graphics card every couple of years because some publisher wants me to. I mean, riddle me this...

Why can a gaming console that's already nearly 5 years old (or hell a decade old in the case of the PS2!) can still play all these new and awesome games. When a computer from 3 years ago can't play crap? Or... is starting to 'feel long in the tooth'? Hmm? Why can't a graphics card that's probably a few years old and probably exactly the same as the consoles is 'not enough' for these new games. Plus the fact that half the games now want to take like 20 gigs of space just to install content, when you can get by with a whole lot less and still have good speed and all that on a console that needs far less than that in way of storage? How much RAM does an XBox or even a PS2 have compared to a PC? I mean we went from 'minimum req's - 512MB of ram to 'minimum req's 1-2 gigs of RAM.'. To play essentially the same game.

I just got tired of the constant upping of specs just to play a game and play exclusively on consoles, its easier, cheaper and for the amount of gaming I do, more than enough.

Hold your pc games to the same standard as the console games and you shouldn't need a new video card. If you're content with how console games look, then why do you feel the need to crank up all the settings to max on the PC? Particularly when you consider the pc version of the game is probably going to be significantly cheaper and have many more options.