My boss built his first computer - a gaming rig - about a year and a half ago. He's net-savvy enough to use online companies for his purchases and his research. It still took him about a week to fully piece together what was then a top of the line machine (with some help from his kids - both professional computer technicians). He paid about $1400 or so all told.
Since then, he's had to replace the RAM twice, the MB three times, the CPU once due to parts failing and the cascading failures that followed.
Even when the machine runs well (and it has for the last 10 months), he's been plagued with driver and DRM issues on numerous games. CoD4 wouldn't even install until he removed ARMA replaced the DVD Drive, and installed a stack of firmware updates. Crysis' patches broke his game. Same with Frontlines. Blazing Angels won't recognise either his gamepad or his joystick, and he doesn't care enough to troubleshoot it. These are just a few examples. Sometimes, I think he might be the unluckiest person in the world when it comes to computers, but then the last gaming rig I built ate fans and physically fried a $250 dollar graphics card nine months after I bought it.
My first dedicated gaming computer was built in 1995. It ran all of the games I bought for it quite well right up until it died of old age in 2001.
His children aren't very good computer people. I have been building my own shit and my families for the last 13 or so years and haven't lost that many parts total. Shit when I started my computer career I was building white box pcs for a local shop and even using shitty no name parts from god knows where in asia I don't think we had failure rates anywhere near what you described. If you buy the right parts and put it together right you should have very little trouble.
That said I tend to agree with all the developers that are complaining about the pc. What it comes down to for me is to put myself in their shoes. If I was a dev would I make the pc my primary platform? Not just no, but fuck no. It just isn't worth it. Too many hardware configs to qa for, piracy etc... it all adds up and it is just easier and more profitable to put it out on a console.
Also, Tim Sweeney mentioned that there's a 100x difference between low-end PCs and high-end ones.
It's pretty much true:
Shaders are around 4x more graphically intensive than regular polygons.
Going from 640x400 to 2560x1600 is a 16x increase. We're at 64x.
Then, you want 60fps instead of 40. 2/3x increase. We're at 100x.
So... take any modern game, remove the shaders and it'll run fine on integrated hardware in 640x480.
(textures and meshes are easy to scale down, if that's a problem.)
Logicow on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So what the games run, in your experience? You are not understanding this in the same sense I meant it. Can EVERYONE run EVERY game? No.
Oh I see. Now we've gone from "Currently, PCs generally fail miserably at A" referring to just running games to "Can EVERYONE run EVERY game?" Slick.
Once again, resolution isn't playing into this. I regret writing that in the first place now. The screen is smaller. That is all I mean. And I stated as much twice now.
Okay, it's smaller. Now that we've established that, can you show me that gamers prefer low res, large screen images over high res, small screen images? Or that there is any preference either way at all?
Valve & Blizzard - that's about it. There are some interesting independents out there now, as well. The hardware manufacturers have started doing a lot to standardize components, make things easier to understand, revitalize the hardware market, improve integrated graphics, and so on. They have recognized a problem and are working to fix it.
So how many companies are making $texas in the console market? Any of them performing to the level of those two companies that have a PC focus? Epic making 1.5 billion dollars a year on one game?
You mean with a multicore machine, I get infinite performance? Last I checked running iTunes, Firefox and HL2:Ep2 all at the time led to stuttering audio and occasionally pauses in HL2, despite my system's spec... and if I want to mix a song, I can only have Cubase open, otherwise performance goes in the shitter once I hit about 16 channels.
"Connecting it to the internet, running lots of files, BitTorrent, movies, MP3s, iTunes and other junk programs, etc." Well, to be fair, who's watching movies on their PC while playing games on their PC? AND we've gone from background apps such as bittorrent and winamp to high quality media creation? And you think there's no difference? Like I said, slick.
The device has a better, more straightforward implementation than most PCs and is connected to the bigger screen, so my movie watching experience is better on it. Also, to your point B there, once again, I wrote that you can get a 360 for less than a mid-to-high end graphics card - that's it. You can get 360 graphics out of a mid range card, for sure, but will you achieve the same frame rates (you most certainly will not at 1920x1080)? What about your processor? Is it fast enough? What is your hard drive's speed like? What about your RAM? How much memory do you have? Can it do 4xAA and remain playable?
So now we've gone from "Playing a game on PC" to "Playing a game (Crysis) on PC at MAX SETTINGS RAWR!" Come on. I run a GeForce 8800GTS that's been overclocked and I hardly go above 2x AA because it's such a little improvement. CPUs that handle ANYTHING are like, $80 now, all HDD are the same speed (Roughly) and RAM is cheap. You're REALLY stretching now.
With the approach I suggest, all these questions are answered out of sight, out of mind. You buy the console, and then you play games on it. Indy games from the internet, PC games, whatever games, you just go ahead and play them. I'm talking about a system that will facilitate a gaming experience first and foremost, with no compromises made for productivity. For that, you maintain a separate, cheaper computer. Is this really so crazy a concept? Are games simply better when you can segue immediately from an Excel spreadsheet, into Half Life, into Outlook Express to send an e-mail to mom, and then onto Firefox?
I just don't see how playing a game on a computer improves the experience.
A seperate, cheaper computer? When a $600 computer will serve as a gaming PC (Not a great one, but certainly offer similar experience to the consoles)? How cheap are we looking here?
Take the cost of an XBox premium - $350. Add the minimum cost of a computer that will do modern applications - $400. And you're already spending more than a serviceable computer that does both.
His children aren't very good computer people. I have been building my own shit and my families for the last 13 or so years and haven't lost that many parts total. Shit when I started my computer career I was building white box pcs for a local shop and even using shitty no name parts from god knows where in asia I don't think we had failure rates anywhere near what you described. If you buy the right parts and put it together right you should have very little trouble.
That's the point. The average consumer -- even those willing to learn -- are going to have a much harder time of getting their machine ready for gaming than the kind of people who visit these forums.
It's kind of difficult to base the current consumer's point of view on what it was like a decade or more ago when we were starting out (mine was a dirty biege 286) with the list of available computer components and their life cycles were relatively sane. To then go use that point of view as the basis for "LOL do research" is a little off base.
The problem is that a $300-500 PC these days would have trouble running any 3D game at all, due to the fact that integrated graphics suck huge amounts of ass, and the most common ones, those manufactured by Intel, sometimes have trouble even running 2D casual games like Bejeweled without freaking out and/or crashing.
Who said anything about integrated graphics. ATI Radeon 9800 was good enough for HL2.
While you and I might find it easy to build a computer, the average consumer has no fucking clue about this stuff. To them, a "$300-500" PC means whatever bottom of the barrel piece of junk Dell or HP hands them. At that price, I guarantee it will have only integrated graphics.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Every time a PC game comes out and doesn't sell well this is said.
so when is a good time to release PC games? The extra day we get on leap year?
They could try not releasing them during the November rush. Especially if they aren't going to bother with advertising for the game.
It's been said many times on this board that no one knew this game was coming out. Several people around here are hardcore fans of the series, and even they didn't know that UT3 had come out when it did.
If gaming hardware is going to become part of an integrated solution then stores like Best Buy, et al, need to stop selling shit hardware.
It takes more than just a GPU to make a computer a reliable gaming system. Gaming is probably the most demanding use of retail PCs that is anywhere close to common. Which means OEM computers need to stop having shit PSUs, shit MBs, shit RAM. You don't need performance parts, but you do need reliable parts. Most of the stability issues that aren't completely in the realm of user stupidity can be traced to cheap components. Particularly the power supply.
So an identifiable standard has to be established when it comes to what manufacturers can be used in a PC that is 'Gaming Ready (tm)'. Otherwise, it'll never happen because people like me will never buy a computer that isn't self-built.
This is what MS has already tried to do. The Vista Experience Index is supposed to distill a PC's gaming powerinto a single number rating, allowing an at-a-glance answer to the oft-asked "Can my computer run this?"
Except no hardware companies use it. GPU makers have no idea what CPU you have, and vice versa, so they can't list that buying card X or chip Y will give you a certain VEI score.
And no software companies use it. Even at the official Microsoft Games for Windows site, VEIs aren't listed in the system requirements - including for Vista-required games Halo 2 and Shadowrun.
The score doesn't really work all that well as an indicator. Graphics cards are far more important than processor speed for most 3D games, but it'll typically give you a low score if your processor isn't up to par. At the same time I've seen references (not first hand, so YMMV) to how it can over-estimate the capabilities of low end cards, especially if they're of the correct "generation".
All in all, there's no simple way of telling how well a game's going to run on your system, even if you meet the "recommended" spec that can pretty much mean anything in terms of performance. The VEI is pretty much useless.
I agree the VEI rating doesn't work. I'm questioning how viable any industry standard for rating a PC's gaming ability is going to be. I sure don't expect Nvidia/ATI to do it if MS can't, when Nvidia groups an 8300GS in the same "family" as an 8800GTX.
Intel Integrated video cards perform just fine, in the sense that they are more than fast enough to fill the screen at a good framerate, at an acceptable resolution, with plenty of polygons and textures.
As an example, your average macbook air can play Quake3 in 1024x768 at 80fps.
Basically, any game that doesn't use shaders everywhere is at least decently playable.
Combine it with the fact that it's dirt cheap, uses very little power, and is the absolute worst you can get in a new PC, and it's not too bad.
The GeForce 6150 and Radeon Xpress cards are better, and can play any game that doesn't use too many shaders at good resolutions and good detail levels.
The problem is not that low-end cards exist. Obviously they're fine for light gaming or last-gen gaming.
The problem is that those low-end cards aren't being sold as low-end cards. To quote Circuit City:
"High-end video: This desktop features advanced NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE graphics with TurboCache, 128MB of dedicated memory (an addition to the main system memory), and up to 1343MB of total available video memory. You'll be ready for more demanding games or video editing."
"High-end video," "advanced... graphics," "ready for more demanding games." How many consumers, hearing that description, are going to think "That must mean this machine is suitable for playing games from 1999"?
As opposed to how many are going to be comparing it to the graphics they see on a cheaper 360/PS3? And then decide to just pick up a cheap PC for email/Internet/office and a console for gaming instead, and still come out a few bucks ahead. That description from CC is on a $680 desktop PC with no monitor included.
Every time a PC game comes out and doesn't sell well this is said.
so when is a good time to release PC games? The extra day we get on leap year?
They could try not releasing them during the November rush. Especially if they aren't going to bother with advertising for the game.
It's been said many times on this board that no one knew this game was coming out. Several people around here are hardcore fans of the series, and even they didn't know that UT3 had come out when it did.
I've seen commercials on ESPN I believe. Their biggest problem was that they had "from the makers of Gears of War" but they haven't yet released it for the system that sold millions of that game.
Rakai on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
What devs need to stop doing is upping the graphics in favour of everything. Pretty yes, but you do not need to be pushing 10-million polygons a second to be pretty. If there is anything that WoW has thaught us is that if you make it work on a six-year old machine and make it fun to play, you're a winner.
man PC gamers dont get something, and they should, its very simple.
Gamers usually have two options:
A) Hardcore console gamer
- $300 to 500 dollar console once every five to seven years
Hardcore PC gamer
- AT LEAST $300 dollars (for graphics card or mobo + cpu, not counting ram, monitors, cases, power supplies, etc.) basically ANNUALY
Shut up PC developers, you're developing for a platform that is EXPENSIVE. When the games are relatively on the same level of quality, people are going to choose the cheaper way to play.
I'm in high school, and I can afford to console game with parental assistance and a part time job. But I would never ever, consider paying what I would need to get into PC gaming. That is what Sweening is talking about, and that is the problem. We're not idiots, and it has nothing to do with piracy. If there's a way I can download a 8800GT online, let me know. Get serious.
We simply would play if we could.
/rant over, phew... See you on Brawl PC gamers, oh wait
seriously im worried. these are truly the end of days. duke nukem forever is coming out, and the best nintendo ds game on the horizon is a sonic the hedgehog rpg by bioware.
Brawl: 4983-4625-3928
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
I'm playing Brawl just fine, thanks, steve.
Maybe we should start have a sticked "PC gaming is dead, elitist fuckwads / No it isn't, stupid fagface" thread. Consolidate the conversation in one easy-to-find bitchatorium. It seems we have the same goddamned thread every week whenever an industry personality decides to comment on the state of playing ur gamez on ur pee-cees.
And then people try to spin the conclusion in their favour.
PC gaming is more expensive than a console. Consoles offer less hassle than a PC. The point that needs to be addressed all around is to reduce the hassle on the PC. Everybody is happy.
Strifer on
0
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
Hardcore PC gamer
- AT LEAST $300 dollars (for graphics card or mobo + cpu, not counting ram, monitors, cases, power supplies, etc.) basically ANNUALY
I spent 200 dollars and shoved a mid-range videocard and some extra ram in the pc I got from my folks about a year and a half ago.
It's good to go to play games for another couple of years probably.
So I really don't know where you're getting this from. No I can't turn the nobs all they way up to eleven. It dosen't really bother me that "hardcore" people can.
Yes gaming on the pc is more complicated and probably expensive in the long run (depending on what kind of garphics you want) but man people like to blow it out of proportion.
Hardcore console gamers buy two consoles, and console games tend to be around $10 more than PC games.
Meanwhile you can buy RAM+motherboard+CPU every 5 year for around $500 and a new video card for $200 every two to three years.
Plus, there's the whole issue of the monitor/TV.
TVs are pretty much family entertainment centers. Watching TV is a social activity, in the sense that many people share a common channel, together in the same room.
With that in mind, typical families will have one, and only one good TV in their homes, and maybe a second, smaller one in a bedroom.
You either have to play video games when others aren't watching TV, or play on the smaller screen. Not good! (previous consoles weren't even HD so that wasn't an issue)
Meanwhile, excellent 22 inches monitors can be bought for $300, and laptops come with their own screens. And they are lightweight and thin. You could very well have one laptop/desktop computer per child in a family without any problem.
And, laptops are hassle free, in the sense that you can use them anywhere, at any time. It's actually a big plus!
Take me, for example. I'm a student in software engineering. I already need a good, functional laptop. And we only have a single, non-HD TV. And we're five in the family. There's no way I could really play games on the TV when my parents are back from work.
So, that's why our latest video game console is a SNES.
(But we have a nintendo DS. We split the cost among my mom, my sister and I. And my mom uses it the most...)
Man, we're getting solid games all around so why the fuck bitch? Some people are gamers who like to build and maintain hardware. It's just another hobby. Some people like to play tennis and video games.
@Logicow - I dunno man, but around here people have way more TVs than you give them credit for. Pretty much every person I know, or have ever really known, has a TV of their very own. I mean sure, they're never as good as the living room one, but they're decent enough. Our household of 4 people had 6 TVs. We had one in the living room, one in the kitchen, one in my parents bedroom, my sister had one, and I had two during my last part there (one was an older one for the kitchen that the family didn't need anymore, so I pilfered).
BUT, around here pretty much most families only have 1 computer in the whole household. Our family had one computer for most of my life. I didn't get a laptop until I graduated. A laptop is a far more expensive proposition for a kid to get, especially compared to a TV which was pretty much gift fodder for most families around here. In fact, I've never in my life actually paid for a TV.
Hardcore console gamers buy two consoles, and console games tend to be around $10 more than PC games.
Meanwhile you can buy RAM+motherboard+CPU every 5 year for around $500 and a new video card for $200 every two to three years.
Plus, there's the whole issue of the monitor/TV.
TVs are pretty much family entertainment centers. Watching TV is a social activity, in the sense that many people share a common channel, together in the same room.
With that in mind, typical families will have one, and only one good TV in their homes, and maybe a second, smaller one in a bedroom.
You either have to play video games when others aren't watching TV, or play on the smaller screen. Not good! (previous consoles weren't even HD so that wasn't an issue)
Meanwhile, excellent 22 inches monitors can be bought for $300, and laptops come with their own screens. And they are lightweight and thin. You could very well have one laptop/desktop computer per child in a family without any problem.
And, laptops are hassle free, in the sense that you can use them anywhere, at any time. It's actually a big plus!
Take me, for example. I'm a student in software engineering. I already need a good, functional laptop. And we only have a single, non-HD TV. And we're five in the family. There's no way I could really play games on the TV when my parents are back from work.
So, that's why our latest video game console is a SNES.
(But we have a nintendo DS. We split the cost among my mom, my sister and I. And my mom uses it the most...)
This is a bit silly for the same reason that someone saying console gaming > PC gaming because of their 51 inch TV. You can hook a console up to a monitor, just like you can hook up a PC to a TV. The screen should not really be considered as a pro or con of either one.
PC gaming won't die, because there's lots of people with good PCs and no access to modern consoles willing to play games.
And FYI I lied, we have two TVs, one of them is in the parents' bedroom and the other is in the living room. But both are standard definition, and neither are accessible in the evening.
We have at least one PC per person and a dedicated Stepmania PC. (Most of them are relatively old PCs though. The only game we play on them is Starcraft, in LAN.)
My uncles are pretty much the same: lots of PCs, lots of laptops, one TV in the living room and another TV somewhere else.
I guess we're a very PC-centric family :P
I was wondering that as well. I didn't sound bitter to me whatsoever. Nothing was even said about UT3.
The guy made some great points about the weird way the PC as a device has evolved. Integrated video is a horrible idea. But the absurd way NVIDIA/ATI design their products isn't much better (like having a 7xxx series card that is weaker than a 6xxx card, for example).
The PC industry needs massive standardization so potential buyers can figure out what the heck they are buying.
And the total cluster fuck that is Vista sure as hell isn't helping things.
Yeah, I'll admit I didn't read the article at first, but I came back and read it later and I agree there's nothing in there to draw a UT3-based conclusion. (Cliffy, on the other hand...)
Sweeney's a cool guy. And he makes some good points.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Man, we're getting solid games all around so why the fuck bitch? Some people are gamers who like to build and maintain hardware. It's just another hobby. Some people like to play tennis and video games.
God damn it.
WHO CARES?
Arguing is to the Internet like soccer is to most of Europe. Even the smallest country can play soccer and have riots over games.
I can definitely see where Tim Sweeny is coming from, though. I'm not sure why everyone seems to respond to this shit like fucking maniacs.
PC gaming is in a pretty transitional stage. I mean, we have games like Crysis that look next-gen (current gen?) that probably more than half of the people interested in the game can't actually play. The other option is games like Orange Box, that do run reasonably well on reasonably priced machines, but they do look somewhat dated compared to the Xbox 360's Gears of War. I mean, everyone wants their game to be accessible, but as developers I can't imagine them looking at new hardware and saying "look away, boys" every morning to keep their games accessible to the majority.
This is a really heavy subject. There's so much to talk about that I couldn't fit into a post, from hardware prices, staying current, digital distribution, to alternatives (why are we playing games on our PC over consoles?). But I think what it comes down to is accessibility, that's what he's talking about here. I mean, he wants his game to be accessible, he doesn't want to say "You didn't spend enough money, so you can't play with us" to people interested in his games. And he doesn't want people to have to invest much to get playing, it's intimidating as fuck. But he does want to push hardware and get games looking as great as possible, so he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think a lot of PC developers are.
So, I can totally see where he's coming from. He's not saying "LOL PC GAEMS", he's addressing a real issue. I mean, he's speaking about a touchy subject, but we don't need 4 pages of shit because he wants to talk about something interesting.
Edit: Actually, this thread did pretty well. I just seemed to hit KrunkMcGrunk's posts each page I touched on somehow.
Beck on
Lucas's Franklin Badge reflected the lightning back!
For me the Orange Box doesn't look dated at all compared to Gears of War (which isn't to say it looks better than Gears of War, but it doesn't look bad in comparison and it looks better than a lot of current console games out there). And Crysis is truly next gen, in the sense that current consoles couldn't dream of running anything with its visual quality.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
For me the Orange Box doesn't look dated at all compared to Gears of War (which isn't to say it looks better than Gears of War, but it doesn't look bad in comparison and it looks better than a lot of current console games out there). And Crysis is truly next gen, in the sense that current consoles couldn't dream of running anything with its visual quality.
Regarding the Orange Box, I kind of agree. I guess I'm mostly just noticing a difference at this point, some textures look a bit ugly, the lack of grass is a more noticeable one. I can't say they're deal-breakers, but they're things I'm noticing.
Crysis, though, I think equivalents will be running on the consoles. But I haven't actually played it - my PC isn't quite good enough. Judging from screen shots, though, I think they could get it going. Things like the 1000 barrels riding down the hill, though...Maybe not.
Beck on
Lucas's Franklin Badge reflected the lightning back!
The developers themselves have stated multiple times that it would be impossible for them to get Crysis working on consoles in its current state. It'd need all new levels with completely different, more enclosed level designs. And also probably a healthy reduction in the quality of the game's effects.
In any case, you really should play Crysis (on High or better) and see for yourself, even if you have to do it in a store or something. It's truly amazing, years ahead of its time technically, and I don't think it can be matched by anything on the 360 or the PS3 this generation.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
It's hard to say if PC gaming is dying.. but it's certainly not as well-off as it used to be. At least, it's not in terms of creative content and quality titles being released just as often as they are now on consoles. Developers are afraid to waste money on the platform until after their game has been established on consoles, if not during a mass cross-platform release for bigger-budgeted, big-name titles.
Even though series like the Sims and Battlefield (and mostly all the other EA-backed titles coincidentally) pull in tons of dough (who can forget World of Warcraft?), I'd comfortably speculate that the rest of games developed for the platform are too risky an investment. Too many creative companies have found this out the hard way.
So, much of the industry has shifted toward console gaming as their primary focus for development with PC gaming staying as more of a support platform. Naturally, some game genres do better, if not best, on the PC because of its control scheme (RTS and MMOs come to mind) and it likely won't change. Digital distribution has helped developers large and small for both platform type considerably so, if anything, you'll see gaming remain alive through these game types alone.
Personally, I'd take a keyboard and mouse any day over a controller, and there are always going to be some games that I just can't ask for on the consoles: realistic war games. Hell, look at Project Reality mod for BF2-- I can't get enough of it, but you'll never see something like that on a console. Same goes for games like Combat Mission, IL2, Falcon 4.0: AF, and I'm sure you get the point.
So, yeah.. I don't think that PC gaming is dead, or dying, but it's certainly getting smaller and more niche. The amount of big-name, AAA titles relesaed for PC will dwindle, but it won't fade out completely.
Even though series like the Sims and Battlefield (and mostly all the other EA-backed titles coincidentally) pull in tons of dough (who can forget World of Warcraft?), I'd comfortably speculate that the rest of games developed for the platform are too risky an investment. Too many creative companies have found this out the hard way.
Yes, but exactly what are you basing this "comfortable speculation" on?
According to the PCGA PC games sales in North America (not including casual games) made up 30% of the total game sales and are up 14% world wide. Looking at the financial reports of the big software companies it's clear that PC games are certainly holding their own against the other next-gen consoles when it comes to sales numbers. And more developers and publishers are moving into PC games as a third platform rather than away from it.
Even though series like the Sims and Battlefield (and mostly all the other EA-backed titles coincidentally) pull in tons of dough (who can forget World of Warcraft?), I'd comfortably speculate that the rest of games developed for the platform are too risky an investment. Too many creative companies have found this out the hard way.
Yes, but exactly what are you basing this "comfortable speculation" on?
According to the PCGA PC games sales in North America (not including casual games) made up 30% of the total game sales and are up 14% world wide. Looking at the financial reports of the big software companies it's clear that PC games are certainly holding their own against the other next-gen consoles when it comes to sales numbers. And more developers and publishers are moving into PC games as a third platform rather than away from it.
we all know statistics are flawed because we don't know if that's due to the MMORPG boom and/or if they are also counting weird titles like education titles for kids and ect. Either way, rarely do PC games do Madden or Need For Speed numbers and I think that's what they're getting at. It is certainly bad timing with UT3 being not that good of a game from the get go.
Even though series like the Sims and Battlefield (and mostly all the other EA-backed titles coincidentally) pull in tons of dough (who can forget World of Warcraft?), I'd comfortably speculate that the rest of games developed for the platform are too risky an investment. Too many creative companies have found this out the hard way.
Yes, but exactly what are you basing this "comfortable speculation" on?
According to the PCGA PC games sales in North America (not including casual games) made up 30% of the total game sales and are up 14% world wide. Looking at the financial reports of the big software companies it's clear that PC games are certainly holding their own against the other next-gen consoles when it comes to sales numbers. And more developers and publishers are moving into PC games as a third platform rather than away from it.
we all know statistics are flawed because we don't know if that's due to the MMORPG boom and/or if they are also counting weird titles like education titles for kids and ect. Either way, rarely do PC games do Madden or Need For Speed numbers and I think that's what they're getting at. It is certainly bad timing with UT3 being not that good of a game from the get go.
According to the interview in developer magazine (link) that is for non-casual PC gaming.
And it's kinda annoying that when PC Games do sell well people are very dismissive as if it's ok that Madden sells great, but if the Sims sells equally as well, it somehow just doesn't count. Just as very few PC games sell Madden/Halo numbers. A very large amount of console games don't sell Madden/Halo numbers as well.
t’s been coming for a while, if we’re honest. Epic have recently been taking it in turns to say disparaging things about the state of PC gaming, to the point that CliffyB’s now considered something of a Benedict Arnold figure in some of the more rabid PC camps.
And now they’re burning another bridge. It’s hardly a shock, but allow us a teary moment anyway.
The latest instalment of TG Daily’s multi-part chat with Epic CEO Tim Sweeney contains this minor bombshell:
Version 4 [of the Unreal engine] will exclusively target the next console generation, Microsoft’s successor for the Xbox 360, Sony’s successor for the Playstation 3 - and if Nintendo ships a machine with similar hardware specs, then that also. PCs will follow after that.
Well, the good news is we’ll get it eventually, though probably in the form of a port of a game that’s been out on Xbox 720 for a while already, and possibly with its features dictated more by what console hardware is capable of than has previously been the case. As Sweeney suggests the new engine’s due on console around 2011-2012, we’re in for a long, long wait to find out.
Guess all our moaning about UT3 not being enough of a step forward, and then not even buying the thing, may have spelt the end of Unreal’s loving relationship with the PC. Now we’re just one of its lesser concubines. UT engine revisions have always been synonymous with the march of PC progress, so who do we now look to as our vanguard? Valve and Crytek, perhaps. In the case of the former, there’s the excitement of their ability to twist a relatively undemanding engine into impossibly creative new shapes, and in the latter of making us gasp at evermore photo-real vistas. Epic? Pah - who needs ‘em?
Well, my worry is less about missing out on another UT, and more being denied great third-party titles that happen to use the engine - Bioshock was one of the first Unreal Engine 3 games, for instance. We don’t wanna miss out on stuff like that because the new engine’s bound up in Xboxian red tape for 18 months. We shall see, anyway.
Edit - it is worth nothing that Unreal Engine 3 first lead on console too, with Gears of War - though I’m not sure whether that was by accident or design, what with UT3 suffering a year-long delay. The engine turned PC friendly with Medal of Honor Airborne and Bioshock. And, crikey, look at all the Unreal 3-powered games out or due out soonish.
More happily, Sweeney hints what’s next for PC hardware:
Intel will implement lots of extensions into the CPU and Nvidia will integrate many extensions into the GPU by the time next-gen consoles begin to surface. We are going to see some CPU cores that will deal with gameplay logic, some GPU stuff that will run general computing… and two different compilers. One for the GPU and one for the CPU. The result will be a reduction of our dependence on bloated middleware that slows things down, shielding the real functionality of the devices.
This quad-core CPU isn’t going to last me much longer, is it? Sigh. Still, it’ll be fascinating to see what mutli-core gaming done properly will be like, and if all the old talk of separately-handled physics or AI can ever come to pass. The whole piece is well worth a read, going into further detail about the changing nature of hardware, the next console generation and the state of play with Unreal Engine 4.
I like the fact that one of the tags at the bottom is "pc gaming is not bloody dying alright"
Darnit guys, quit making it hard for Mark Rein to do his job! How's he supposed to spin this?
EDIT: Yes it's an exageration. The fact is that UE4 will still be available for the PC eventually, but the fact that they're going to be concentrating on that last means that there'll probably far fewer ports of games to the PC.
I haven't seriously gamed on the PC for years. FFXI was that last game I played a lot and Q3 before that. Back when I was young I played the shit out of PC games (Sierra Online I love you!) but over the years I got sick of upgrading my shit. I played consoles a lot during the same time frame starting with the Atari. I think the major reason I stopped playing a lot of PC games was because I knew I didn't have to touch my consoles once I bought them and the games would play and look the same on any box. I wouldn't say that PC gaming is dead but I do believe that studio's need to look at the busniess model. Piracy is certinally a concern (It fucked up the Dreamcast pretty bad) as is the need for upgrades or fine tuning of system specs.
It all boils down to ease of use, and personally, I believe consoles have that game wraped up. They are essentally plug and play. Not to mention I can play on my couch with a big ass TV and 5.1 surround.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump on him.
This has probably been address 7 pages ago but I just wanted to offer my opinion.
I used to be a big PC gamer in the Q2/UT era. Dark Forces 2 is still my favorite game of the time. But he's right, consoles nowadays just have the advantage. What it comes down to is that with a console, you go "Man, I want to go out and buy a game." so you run to the store, and buy a game that says "Xbox 360" on it, to play on your 360. You put the disk in, hit power, and you're in. Assuming the developers did their job properly, it'll play great.
With PC games it's a little different. You have to read the box. "Okay, this says it works on ___ processor and ___ video card as a reccomendation." Okay, well, my processor is not quite that fast and my video card is a little older, but it's above the minimum spec, so I'll pick it up anyway. So you run home, install it, and it works, but there are framerate issues, or something else related to the fact that your hardware isn't up to snuff. It's not the game's fault, it's your hardware. Your only real options are to lower the graphic detail of the game or upgrade your hardware, or even worse, tweak some .ini file to your liking. It make take you a couple of hours to tweak the game to run how you wish.
Consoles are like the Mac platform. Developers know what hardware the software will be running on so they can tweak it to run as well as possible for it.
Now before you PCheads come out and flame me to death, yes, PCs do have their advantages, the biggest being the mod community.
This doesn't help the fact that most gamers would rather spend $350 for a 360 or $250 for a Wii that will play games that they know will run well versus buying or building a computer for $800 that will more than likely need to be updated every 2 to 3 years to stay ahead of the game.
Darnit guys, quit making it hard for Mark Rein to do his job! How's he supposed to spin this?
EDIT: Yes it's an exageration. The fact is that UE4 will still be available for the PC eventually, but the fact that they're going to be concentrating on that last means that there'll probably far fewer ports of games to the PC.
I think the problem with reporting on people like Tim Sweeney, or indeed John Carmack is that they so obviously have a completely different perspective on the world than games journalists just shouldn't be allowed to comment on them.
As long as there are PCs, there will always be games for them.
The question is, will the games be limited to casual games and the few mammoth names like the Sims and WoW that absolutely dominate the charts for years after their release?
The thing people are missing here is that Sweeney's griping because big budget PC games no longer have access to the mass market. (That is, people with a smaller interest in games than we do.) Yes, you can easily build yourself a sweet gaming rig for relatively cheap. But I'd wager most people don't want to screw with it and buy a pre-made machine at Best Buy or Wal-Mart with, yes, integrated graphics that won't play modern games.
A big lesson the consoles are learning (with the Wii, especially) is that the mass market is absolutely crucual for retail success. If at least some of them don't buy it, you're screwed. And since most, if not all the mass market literally can't play their games any more... well, you can see why all these PC developers are coming out of the woodwork and bitching. True, the developers may be making their games overly complex for most machines to handle, but if you scale things down for every machine to run, suddenly you have games that look worse than what's on the consoles, annoying the hardcore.
Any way you slice it, it's a bad situation, and I feel that PC games will only continue their gradual decline.
Darnit guys, quit making it hard for Mark Rein to do his job! How's he supposed to spin this?
EDIT: Yes it's an exageration. The fact is that UE4 will still be available for the PC eventually, but the fact that they're going to be concentrating on that last means that there'll probably far fewer ports of games to the PC.
I think the problem with reporting on people like Tim Sweeney, or indeed John Carmack is that they so obviously have a completely different perspective on the world than games journalists just shouldn't be allowed to comment on them.
Are you dumping on game journalists or programmers?
I can't tell... if it's the former . . . 8-)if it's the latter . . . O_o
UE4 is not console exclusive. It says so right in the fucking article.
Yeah, and considering the problems they had with UE3 and the PS3 and the number of their clients using UE3 for console games it makes perfect business sense for them to focus their efforts for future engines on consoles first so they can avoid these problems.
Posts
Every time a PC game comes out and doesn't sell well this is said.
so when is a good time to release PC games? The extra day we get on leap year?
His children aren't very good computer people. I have been building my own shit and my families for the last 13 or so years and haven't lost that many parts total. Shit when I started my computer career I was building white box pcs for a local shop and even using shitty no name parts from god knows where in asia I don't think we had failure rates anywhere near what you described. If you buy the right parts and put it together right you should have very little trouble.
That said I tend to agree with all the developers that are complaining about the pc. What it comes down to for me is to put myself in their shoes. If I was a dev would I make the pc my primary platform? Not just no, but fuck no. It just isn't worth it. Too many hardware configs to qa for, piracy etc... it all adds up and it is just easier and more profitable to put it out on a console.
It's pretty much true:
Shaders are around 4x more graphically intensive than regular polygons.
Going from 640x400 to 2560x1600 is a 16x increase. We're at 64x.
Then, you want 60fps instead of 40. 2/3x increase. We're at 100x.
So... take any modern game, remove the shaders and it'll run fine on integrated hardware in 640x480.
(textures and meshes are easy to scale down, if that's a problem.)
Oh I see. Now we've gone from "Currently, PCs generally fail miserably at A" referring to just running games to "Can EVERYONE run EVERY game?" Slick.
Okay, it's smaller. Now that we've established that, can you show me that gamers prefer low res, large screen images over high res, small screen images? Or that there is any preference either way at all?
So how many companies are making $texas in the console market? Any of them performing to the level of those two companies that have a PC focus? Epic making 1.5 billion dollars a year on one game?
"Connecting it to the internet, running lots of files, BitTorrent, movies, MP3s, iTunes and other junk programs, etc." Well, to be fair, who's watching movies on their PC while playing games on their PC? AND we've gone from background apps such as bittorrent and winamp to high quality media creation? And you think there's no difference? Like I said, slick.
So now we've gone from "Playing a game on PC" to "Playing a game (Crysis) on PC at MAX SETTINGS RAWR!" Come on. I run a GeForce 8800GTS that's been overclocked and I hardly go above 2x AA because it's such a little improvement. CPUs that handle ANYTHING are like, $80 now, all HDD are the same speed (Roughly) and RAM is cheap. You're REALLY stretching now.
A seperate, cheaper computer? When a $600 computer will serve as a gaming PC (Not a great one, but certainly offer similar experience to the consoles)? How cheap are we looking here?
Take the cost of an XBox premium - $350. Add the minimum cost of a computer that will do modern applications - $400. And you're already spending more than a serviceable computer that does both.
That's the point. The average consumer -- even those willing to learn -- are going to have a much harder time of getting their machine ready for gaming than the kind of people who visit these forums.
It's kind of difficult to base the current consumer's point of view on what it was like a decade or more ago when we were starting out (mine was a dirty biege 286) with the list of available computer components and their life cycles were relatively sane. To then go use that point of view as the basis for "LOL do research" is a little off base.
While you and I might find it easy to build a computer, the average consumer has no fucking clue about this stuff. To them, a "$300-500" PC means whatever bottom of the barrel piece of junk Dell or HP hands them. At that price, I guarantee it will have only integrated graphics.
They could try not releasing them during the November rush. Especially if they aren't going to bother with advertising for the game.
It's been said many times on this board that no one knew this game was coming out. Several people around here are hardcore fans of the series, and even they didn't know that UT3 had come out when it did.
I agree the VEI rating doesn't work. I'm questioning how viable any industry standard for rating a PC's gaming ability is going to be. I sure don't expect Nvidia/ATI to do it if MS can't, when Nvidia groups an 8300GS in the same "family" as an 8800GTX.
The problem is not that low-end cards exist. Obviously they're fine for light gaming or last-gen gaming.
The problem is that those low-end cards aren't being sold as low-end cards. To quote Circuit City:
"High-end video: This desktop features advanced NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE graphics with TurboCache, 128MB of dedicated memory (an addition to the main system memory), and up to 1343MB of total available video memory. You'll be ready for more demanding games or video editing."
"High-end video," "advanced... graphics," "ready for more demanding games." How many consumers, hearing that description, are going to think "That must mean this machine is suitable for playing games from 1999"?
As opposed to how many are going to be comparing it to the graphics they see on a cheaper 360/PS3? And then decide to just pick up a cheap PC for email/Internet/office and a console for gaming instead, and still come out a few bucks ahead. That description from CC is on a $680 desktop PC with no monitor included.
I've seen commercials on ESPN I believe. Their biggest problem was that they had "from the makers of Gears of War" but they haven't yet released it for the system that sold millions of that game.
Gamers usually have two options:
A) Hardcore console gamer
- $300 to 500 dollar console once every five to seven years
- AT LEAST $300 dollars (for graphics card or mobo + cpu, not counting ram, monitors, cases, power supplies, etc.) basically ANNUALY
Shut up PC developers, you're developing for a platform that is EXPENSIVE. When the games are relatively on the same level of quality, people are going to choose the cheaper way to play.
I'm in high school, and I can afford to console game with parental assistance and a part time job. But I would never ever, consider paying what I would need to get into PC gaming. That is what Sweening is talking about, and that is the problem. We're not idiots, and it has nothing to do with piracy. If there's a way I can download a 8800GT online, let me know. Get serious.
We simply would play if we could.
/rant over, phew... See you on Brawl PC gamers, oh wait
Maybe we should start have a sticked "PC gaming is dead, elitist fuckwads / No it isn't, stupid fagface" thread. Consolidate the conversation in one easy-to-find bitchatorium. It seems we have the same goddamned thread every week whenever an industry personality decides to comment on the state of playing ur gamez on ur pee-cees.
PC gaming is more expensive than a console. Consoles offer less hassle than a PC. The point that needs to be addressed all around is to reduce the hassle on the PC. Everybody is happy.
I spent 200 dollars and shoved a mid-range videocard and some extra ram in the pc I got from my folks about a year and a half ago.
It's good to go to play games for another couple of years probably.
So I really don't know where you're getting this from. No I can't turn the nobs all they way up to eleven. It dosen't really bother me that "hardcore" people can.
Yes gaming on the pc is more complicated and probably expensive in the long run (depending on what kind of garphics you want) but man people like to blow it out of proportion.
Meanwhile you can buy RAM+motherboard+CPU every 5 year for around $500 and a new video card for $200 every two to three years.
Plus, there's the whole issue of the monitor/TV.
TVs are pretty much family entertainment centers. Watching TV is a social activity, in the sense that many people share a common channel, together in the same room.
With that in mind, typical families will have one, and only one good TV in their homes, and maybe a second, smaller one in a bedroom.
You either have to play video games when others aren't watching TV, or play on the smaller screen. Not good! (previous consoles weren't even HD so that wasn't an issue)
Meanwhile, excellent 22 inches monitors can be bought for $300, and laptops come with their own screens. And they are lightweight and thin. You could very well have one laptop/desktop computer per child in a family without any problem.
And, laptops are hassle free, in the sense that you can use them anywhere, at any time. It's actually a big plus!
Take me, for example. I'm a student in software engineering. I already need a good, functional laptop. And we only have a single, non-HD TV. And we're five in the family. There's no way I could really play games on the TV when my parents are back from work.
So, that's why our latest video game console is a SNES.
(But we have a nintendo DS. We split the cost among my mom, my sister and I. And my mom uses it the most...)
God damn it.
WHO CARES?
BUT, around here pretty much most families only have 1 computer in the whole household. Our family had one computer for most of my life. I didn't get a laptop until I graduated. A laptop is a far more expensive proposition for a kid to get, especially compared to a TV which was pretty much gift fodder for most families around here. In fact, I've never in my life actually paid for a TV.
This is a bit silly for the same reason that someone saying console gaming > PC gaming because of their 51 inch TV. You can hook a console up to a monitor, just like you can hook up a PC to a TV. The screen should not really be considered as a pro or con of either one.
PC gaming won't die, because there's lots of people with good PCs and no access to modern consoles willing to play games.
And FYI I lied, we have two TVs, one of them is in the parents' bedroom and the other is in the living room. But both are standard definition, and neither are accessible in the evening.
We have at least one PC per person and a dedicated Stepmania PC. (Most of them are relatively old PCs though. The only game we play on them is Starcraft, in LAN.)
My uncles are pretty much the same: lots of PCs, lots of laptops, one TV in the living room and another TV somewhere else.
I guess we're a very PC-centric family :P
I was wondering that as well. I didn't sound bitter to me whatsoever. Nothing was even said about UT3.
The guy made some great points about the weird way the PC as a device has evolved. Integrated video is a horrible idea. But the absurd way NVIDIA/ATI design their products isn't much better (like having a 7xxx series card that is weaker than a 6xxx card, for example).
The PC industry needs massive standardization so potential buyers can figure out what the heck they are buying.
And the total cluster fuck that is Vista sure as hell isn't helping things.
Threshold RPG - Our World, Your Imagination
Primordiax RPG - A New Generation in online role playing.
Sweeney's a cool guy. And he makes some good points.
Arguing is to the Internet like soccer is to most of Europe. Even the smallest country can play soccer and have riots over games.
PC gaming is in a pretty transitional stage. I mean, we have games like Crysis that look next-gen (current gen?) that probably more than half of the people interested in the game can't actually play. The other option is games like Orange Box, that do run reasonably well on reasonably priced machines, but they do look somewhat dated compared to the Xbox 360's Gears of War. I mean, everyone wants their game to be accessible, but as developers I can't imagine them looking at new hardware and saying "look away, boys" every morning to keep their games accessible to the majority.
This is a really heavy subject. There's so much to talk about that I couldn't fit into a post, from hardware prices, staying current, digital distribution, to alternatives (why are we playing games on our PC over consoles?). But I think what it comes down to is accessibility, that's what he's talking about here. I mean, he wants his game to be accessible, he doesn't want to say "You didn't spend enough money, so you can't play with us" to people interested in his games. And he doesn't want people to have to invest much to get playing, it's intimidating as fuck. But he does want to push hardware and get games looking as great as possible, so he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think a lot of PC developers are.
So, I can totally see where he's coming from. He's not saying "LOL PC GAEMS", he's addressing a real issue. I mean, he's speaking about a touchy subject, but we don't need 4 pages of shit because he wants to talk about something interesting.
Edit: Actually, this thread did pretty well. I just seemed to hit KrunkMcGrunk's posts each page I touched on somehow.
Regarding the Orange Box, I kind of agree. I guess I'm mostly just noticing a difference at this point, some textures look a bit ugly, the lack of grass is a more noticeable one. I can't say they're deal-breakers, but they're things I'm noticing.
Crysis, though, I think equivalents will be running on the consoles. But I haven't actually played it - my PC isn't quite good enough. Judging from screen shots, though, I think they could get it going. Things like the 1000 barrels riding down the hill, though...Maybe not.
In any case, you really should play Crysis (on High or better) and see for yourself, even if you have to do it in a store or something. It's truly amazing, years ahead of its time technically, and I don't think it can be matched by anything on the 360 or the PS3 this generation.
Even though series like the Sims and Battlefield (and mostly all the other EA-backed titles coincidentally) pull in tons of dough (who can forget World of Warcraft?), I'd comfortably speculate that the rest of games developed for the platform are too risky an investment. Too many creative companies have found this out the hard way.
So, much of the industry has shifted toward console gaming as their primary focus for development with PC gaming staying as more of a support platform. Naturally, some game genres do better, if not best, on the PC because of its control scheme (RTS and MMOs come to mind) and it likely won't change. Digital distribution has helped developers large and small for both platform type considerably so, if anything, you'll see gaming remain alive through these game types alone.
Personally, I'd take a keyboard and mouse any day over a controller, and there are always going to be some games that I just can't ask for on the consoles: realistic war games. Hell, look at Project Reality mod for BF2-- I can't get enough of it, but you'll never see something like that on a console. Same goes for games like Combat Mission, IL2, Falcon 4.0: AF, and I'm sure you get the point.
So, yeah.. I don't think that PC gaming is dead, or dying, but it's certainly getting smaller and more niche. The amount of big-name, AAA titles relesaed for PC will dwindle, but it won't fade out completely.
Yes, but exactly what are you basing this "comfortable speculation" on?
According to the PCGA PC games sales in North America (not including casual games) made up 30% of the total game sales and are up 14% world wide. Looking at the financial reports of the big software companies it's clear that PC games are certainly holding their own against the other next-gen consoles when it comes to sales numbers. And more developers and publishers are moving into PC games as a third platform rather than away from it.
we all know statistics are flawed because we don't know if that's due to the MMORPG boom and/or if they are also counting weird titles like education titles for kids and ect. Either way, rarely do PC games do Madden or Need For Speed numbers and I think that's what they're getting at. It is certainly bad timing with UT3 being not that good of a game from the get go.
According to the interview in developer magazine (link) that is for non-casual PC gaming.
And it's kinda annoying that when PC Games do sell well people are very dismissive as if it's ok that Madden sells great, but if the Sims sells equally as well, it somehow just doesn't count. Just as very few PC games sell Madden/Halo numbers. A very large amount of console games don't sell Madden/Halo numbers as well.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=1317#more-1317
I like the fact that one of the tags at the bottom is "pc gaming is not bloody dying alright"
Darnit guys, quit making it hard for Mark Rein to do his job! How's he supposed to spin this?
EDIT: Yes it's an exageration. The fact is that UE4 will still be available for the PC eventually, but the fact that they're going to be concentrating on that last means that there'll probably far fewer ports of games to the PC.
This has probably been address 7 pages ago but I just wanted to offer my opinion.
I used to be a big PC gamer in the Q2/UT era. Dark Forces 2 is still my favorite game of the time. But he's right, consoles nowadays just have the advantage. What it comes down to is that with a console, you go "Man, I want to go out and buy a game." so you run to the store, and buy a game that says "Xbox 360" on it, to play on your 360. You put the disk in, hit power, and you're in. Assuming the developers did their job properly, it'll play great.
With PC games it's a little different. You have to read the box. "Okay, this says it works on ___ processor and ___ video card as a reccomendation." Okay, well, my processor is not quite that fast and my video card is a little older, but it's above the minimum spec, so I'll pick it up anyway. So you run home, install it, and it works, but there are framerate issues, or something else related to the fact that your hardware isn't up to snuff. It's not the game's fault, it's your hardware. Your only real options are to lower the graphic detail of the game or upgrade your hardware, or even worse, tweak some .ini file to your liking. It make take you a couple of hours to tweak the game to run how you wish.
Consoles are like the Mac platform. Developers know what hardware the software will be running on so they can tweak it to run as well as possible for it.
Now before you PCheads come out and flame me to death, yes, PCs do have their advantages, the biggest being the mod community.
This doesn't help the fact that most gamers would rather spend $350 for a 360 or $250 for a Wii that will play games that they know will run well versus buying or building a computer for $800 that will more than likely need to be updated every 2 to 3 years to stay ahead of the game.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
I think the problem with reporting on people like Tim Sweeney, or indeed John Carmack is that they so obviously have a completely different perspective on the world than games journalists just shouldn't be allowed to comment on them.
The question is, will the games be limited to casual games and the few mammoth names like the Sims and WoW that absolutely dominate the charts for years after their release?
The thing people are missing here is that Sweeney's griping because big budget PC games no longer have access to the mass market. (That is, people with a smaller interest in games than we do.) Yes, you can easily build yourself a sweet gaming rig for relatively cheap. But I'd wager most people don't want to screw with it and buy a pre-made machine at Best Buy or Wal-Mart with, yes, integrated graphics that won't play modern games.
A big lesson the consoles are learning (with the Wii, especially) is that the mass market is absolutely crucual for retail success. If at least some of them don't buy it, you're screwed. And since most, if not all the mass market literally can't play their games any more... well, you can see why all these PC developers are coming out of the woodwork and bitching. True, the developers may be making their games overly complex for most machines to handle, but if you scale things down for every machine to run, suddenly you have games that look worse than what's on the consoles, annoying the hardcore.
Any way you slice it, it's a bad situation, and I feel that PC games will only continue their gradual decline.
Are you dumping on game journalists or programmers?
I can't tell... if it's the former . . . 8-)if it's the latter . . . O_o
UE4 is not console exclusive. It says so right in the fucking article.