The death of PC gaming

[Kegg]

Either your computer isn't as up to snuff as you think it is, or you're doing something horribly wrong. My PC was brand new in March of 2007 (new GPU though, GeForce 9800GT), and it can run GRAW2 at full settings without breaking a sweat.

Precisely. I have a brand new computer and no problems, and it's the first update I've needed in five years.

Console gaming never appeared to me. Console gaming will never appeal to me. And so long as there are people like me, who insist on their damn keyboards over those fiddlesome controllers (never found those intuitive, tbh) there will be PC gaming.

Granted, I do lean heavily towards RTS games and Paradox-type strategies, the sort of game it makes little sense to do on a console.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

Computing of any sort (social, gaming, business, educational) will eventually move to THE ALMIGHTY CLOUD and the function specific machines of old will be antiques.

 

[Lindley]

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?

All of the "DX10" GPU features are supported just fine on XP via OpenGL extensions. So clearly *someone* was willing to do the necessary work.

 

[Canadave]

Granted, I do lean heavily towards RTS games and Paradox-type strategies, the sort of game it makes little sense to do on a console.

I can't wait to play Europa Universalis IV on XBox.

 

[Iasius]

Granted, I do lean heavily towards RTS games and Paradox-type strategies, the sort of game it makes little sense to do on a console.

I can't wait to play Europa Universalis IV on XBox.

I'm looking forward to Victoria II. The developer diaries sound very promising.


PC gaming isn't dead and it also isn't dying overall. A few genres are primarily developed for consoles these days where that wasn't the case a few years ago, but things have moved back and forth for a long time, I believe. If you only care about those particular genres, then it may seem to you that way. Others (like myself), haven't really noticed anything of the sort.


PS: The CEO of Paradox has promised to shave his head if Victoria II ever shows a profit.

 

[Arrqh]

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?

All of the "DX10" GPU features are supported just fine on XP via OpenGL extensions. So clearly *someone* was willing to do the necessary work.

Even if they had made an XP version of DX10 with a partial implementation of features... I'd guess that very few companies would have developed specifically for it. Having to do two separate highend branches in addition to all the legacy sets is getting a bit crazy here. Obviously there's some marketing decisions rolled in there too.

Anyway, not allowing non-Windows implementations is a non-issue. Who else was going to implement it? How would that have helped game developers?

 

[Hermiod]

This is where the Source Engine has an advantage. Specific features are handled by a runtime DLL. The game detects what Direct X version you have an chooses the appropriate DLL. It supports everything back to Direct X 7, making their games highly scaleable.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the unusually high number of female players Left 4 Dead has.

 

[Lindley]

Anyway, not allowing non-Windows implementations is a non-issue. Who else was going to implement it? How would that have helped game developers?

It seems to me that anyone writing OpenGL drivers could also write Direct3D drivers if they were so inclined, and for the same platforms. That could mean NVIDIA; or it could mean open source groups across the web.

 

[Arrqh]

Anyway, not allowing non-Windows implementations is a non-issue. Who else was going to implement it? How would that have helped game developers?

It seems to me that anyone writing OpenGL drivers could also write Direct3D drivers if they were so inclined, and for the same platforms. That could mean NVIDIA; or it could mean open source groups across the web.

I didn't mean who would be capable of implementing it, I meant who would benefit from D3D being implemented on other platforms (which ones?) from a business perspective? How would it have helped the gaming industry?

 

[Lindley]

The question you should be asking is, which is the better business option: gaming companies coding to OpenGL, or graphics companies implementing D3D for non-Windows systems? Because those are the two options you have for getting games to non-Windows platforms.

Clearly Valve thought the first option was worthwhile. But there's no denying that many companies favor DirectX for the relatively stable target it presents.

 

[Arrqh]

And then the next question is, why should most developers care much about non-Windows platforms when the gaming market on those platforms is so small? Which is why I asked what the actual benefit of getting D3D on other platforms was. Further, a game is a lot more then its graphics engine and simply having the same graphics API on multiple platforms doesn't make doing a port trivial. As it is now, many major games are done in three APIs... one for the PS3, one for the 360 and one for PC. So obviously going across APIs isn't some intransigent barrier.

To be a little more specific, having a D3D implementation for Macs doesn't really change anything. It would help bring the costs of ports down a little, but I don't think the reduction would be significant in the long run. It doesn't get more people to buy games on Macs. It doesn't magically make a bunch of Windows games appear on Macs. The lack of games on non-Windows platforms has very little to do with graphics APIs and so having a native port of D3D on those platforms doesn't actually change the market. And therefore, from a business perspective, is a non-starter.

 

[Jadzia]

The question you should be asking is, which is the better business option: gaming companies coding to OpenGL, or graphics companies implementing D3D for non-Windows systems? Because those are the two options you have for getting games to non-Windows platforms.

It's my impression that programmers are at the bottom of the pecking order. They're expected to adapt to whatever tools they're given. So for a game being being made for the PC, they're expected to code the latest incarnation of D3D, however friendly or unfriendly that API is. If they can't/won't then someone else would have been hired instead of them. And to an extent, I think programmers accept having to adapt to whatever tools they are provided. It's a submissive job in that respect.

Games programmers don't shape the evolution of standards, nor do they force hardware/OS manufactures to adopt those standards. This is simply because programmers are two a penny, and companies can pick and choose whoever is most adapted and most willing to use to the latest technologies that have been sent down from above, so to speak.

 

[Arrqh]

It's not so much that they're at the bottom of the pecking order (they aren't). Instead, it's because what APIs you're going to code for is as much a business decision as a technical one.

Pointing it out as a "submissive job" seems very odd to me. All jobs in the entire gaming industry are "submissive" by that definition, because you have to adapt to the realities of the hardware, budget and timetable available. The purpose of making a game isn't to push standards or develop new techniques or whatever... the point is to make money. It's a business.

 

[Lindley]

It doesn't magically make a bunch of Windows games appear on Macs.

Not so sure about that.

I mean, certainly you wouldn't expect Mac packaging and support and whatnot, but if a game works under Wine on Linux, then you can probably get it working under Wine for OSX; and the biggest problem with getting games working under Wine is the need to hook all the D3D calls to OGL equivalents. Remove that issue, things speed up.

Of course, at that point you may as well just use Boot camp to play the thing.

 

[Jadzia]

Pointing it out as a "submissive job" seems very odd to me. All jobs in the entire gaming industry are "submissive" by that definition, because you have to adapt to the realities of the hardware, budget and timetable available.

IT is a very interconnected industry though. I think the ideal would be for feedback to be given from the people who develop software using the APIs, upward to those who create those APIs. And for those at the top to act on any complaints, so as to give the programmers the tools they want. From what I gather, many programmers dislike things about DirectX. There is discord all round over the 3D APIs, and how well/badly they are implemented in Windows.

 

[Arrqh]

It doesn't magically make a bunch of Windows games appear on Macs.

Not so sure about that.

I mean, certainly you wouldn't expect Mac packaging and support and whatnot, but if a game works under Wine on Linux, then you can probably get it working under Wine for OSX; and the biggest problem with getting games working under Wine is the need to hook all the D3D calls to OGL equivalents. Remove that issue, things speed up.

Of course, at that point you may as well just use Boot camp to play the thing.

What does Wine have to do with retail ports? Making stuff run better in Wine would be great; it wouldn't however generate any revenue. There's no business case for it. When I said it wouldn't make games magically appear on Macs, I meant actual retail products. Because when we're talking about the business of game development, that's really all that matters.

 

[Lindley]

Clearly there is a business case for making games available on other platforms, or Valve and Blizzard wouldn't be doing it.

I'm simply tossing around the notion of doing so by porting D3D, which might make it easier to port the engines which run on it. You definitely want to make the porting process as easy (and cheap) as possible since, as you say, the demand is lower than it is on Windows and things have to stay profitable.

 

[Corran Horn]

Clearly there is a business case for making games available on other platforms, or Valve and Blizzard wouldn't be doing it.

Mass Effect 2, BioShock 2, MW2...these make me think PC gaming will be around for a long, long time.

 

[FPAlpha]

PC Gaming is dying? Again?

Shit.. i might want to sell most current games before anyone notices and buy a console then

 

[Teiwaz]

I'd have to say that the mouse isn't so much 'the prefered controller' as it is the default one.

Same with Consoles. Console games that require you to buy a different controller to play the game exist, but the're usually tied to that game and have no life beyond that game.