backtop

Print 65 comment(s) - last by roadrun777.. on Feb 16 at 5:57 PM
Band of Brothers: Microsoft, Intel, NVIDIA, AMD

Mark Rein of Epic Games recently told the story of the shift in gaming from the PC to consoles.

“When Call of Duty 4 came out, I heard some of our guys sitting around talking about the great game they'd had last night and I'm like, 'Hey guys, what server are you playing on? I'd love to come and join you,' and they said, 'Just send us a friends request,'” he said.

“It was at that point I realized they were all playing it on console. Plus, the sales of the console versions are something like ten times the sales of the PC versions,” Rein continued. “I'm a real fan of the PC, but yes, consoles are definitely stealing a lot of hardcore gamers from the PC.”

The controlled nature of consoles, along with the multiplayer capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, are enticing former PC gaming faithful with their relatively hassle-free experience. The open, uncontrolled nature of the PC, is both the platform’s strength and weakness.

According to Dean Takahashi’s blog on Mercury News, the major powers in PC technology will soon announce a fellowship amongst them called the PC Gaming Alliance. The reveal is said to take place at next week’s Games Developers Conference, and will include Intel, Microsoft, NVIDIA, AMD and several other computer companies.

The aim of the PC Gaming Alliance is to keep the PC as a viable and attractive platform for developers, and to remain competitive with the console industry.

This comes shortly after NPD revealed its data showing that PC game accounted for only 14 percent of retail game sales in 2007. NPD, however, did not track digital download or online subscription sales for 2007, a now considerable factor in the PC market. NPD announced recently that it intends to begin collecting information on game subscriptions for online games such as MMOs.

Blizzard with its online model seems to be flourishing even with the rise in console sales. “We believe that the PC gaming industry is strong when you look at everything together,” said Mike Morhaime, president of Blizzard Entertainment, last week at the DICE Summit. World of Warcraft currently has more than 10 million subscribers pouring money into PC gaming, but the monthly revenue generated isn’t counted as part of retail sales.

The Games Developer Conference 2008 runs from February 18 to 22 in San Francisco.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Times are tough
By amanojaku on 2/13/2008 4:52:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Band of Brothers: Microsoft, Intel, NVIDIA, AMD


When these guys are teaming up you know things are bad. But let's be honest: I love my PC (PC's, really,) but it's a pain to deal with compared to a console. Let's look at the benefits of a console:

1) Seamless connectivity to a big screen
2) Less patches than a PC, at least for now...
3) Your friends can join in with a $30-$40 controller
4) No need to install anything (well, the Wii does update its firmware for some games)
5) Game saves are portable, so you can go to a friend's house and start where you left off
6) Waaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than a high-performance PC

What are the benefits of the PC?

1) You can use any vendor's product, as long as it's got the muscle
2) Backwards compatibility is generally stronger than on a console
3) Online play is pretty much a given
4) Upgrading the hardware usually provides a richer graphics and audio experience
5) Patches and expansions provide better more features, content, and stability.
6) Picture quality is usually better, even on a smaller screen

It's pretty much a tie. I have a cheap gaming box for about $800 (dual-core Athlon in a Shuttle) that doesn't play anything recent (read Crysis.) I have two consoles (PS2 and a Wii) that cost less than $300 each that play games released for them today. I'd say the tie breaker is either price or your dedication to gaming.




RE: Times are tough
By anotherdude on 2/13/2008 5:09:06 PM , Rating: 5
What about us poor souls who can't get used to the console controller for shooters? Any way yet to use mouse and keyboard on xbox360?

If you add back pirated PC games I wonder what the stats would look like? Not that that helps the industry at all.


RE: Times are tough
By wrekd on 2/13/2008 7:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
I am playing Metroid Prime 3 and am not familiar with that problem.

It is actually quite nice to be able to point with the Wiimote.


RE: Times are tough
By EglsFly on 2/13/2008 8:34:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Any way yet to use mouse and keyboard on xbox360?
Not on a 360 that I am aware of, however you can connect a mouse and keyboard up to a PS3.


RE: Times are tough
By sweetsauce on 2/13/2008 9:19:50 PM , Rating: 4
Its completely up to the developers on the ps3. I plugged in a k/m for cod4 on the ps3 and it didn't work, though it could've been me being stupid since it was new years time and i was very drunk.


RE: Times are tough
By treehugger87 on 2/13/2008 10:10:14 PM , Rating: 3
k/m work on COD4, and i have personally used them for Unreal Tournament and it was like the first time i heard the beattles.


RE: Times are tough
By BruceLeet on 2/14/2008 8:17:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I cannot use a controller to save my life (literally, I keep dying - even on RECRUIT in Campaign) in COD4. Microsoft needs to make some sleek attractive peripherals for the 360 for us Controller-retarded gamers so we can enjoy 360 FPS' aswell.

Same as my nephew, he's 16 but he cannot play PC FPS'like COD4 or BHD on my SLI rig, he gets owned on the PC. He doesn't like PC gaming for one simple reason...he believes everyone who kills him is a cheater/hacker lol.


RE: Times are tough
By PrezWeezy on 2/14/2008 2:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually nVidia, Intel, and AMD could care less if the game is pirated or not. You still have to buy their hardware to play it on. So it in a way it still does help the industry.

I also tend to believe that PC games are played longer. I know with my console I tend to play it, beat it, and be done. However with PC games I play them for 2 years sometimes.

I'm with you on the controller for shooting games. Although racing with a controller is much easier, so there are trade-offs.


RE: Times are tough
By roadrun777 on 2/16/2008 5:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
I have avoided console games for that very reason. I can not play games with my thumbs. I am sorry, I tried and tried and tried. I just couldn't do it.
I learned to play games using a keyboard and then a mouse, then a keyboard + mouse at the same time. It was an evolution of games from the 80's up till now.
I still can't play flight simulations, and space sims, that force the player to use those big honking sticks or "joy sticks" (haha) with over sized elongated controller sticks and huge ill placed buttons that force you to take your hand off the stick to hit it.
I still don't understand why this isn't a problem for most people. I guess if you grew up with a certain kind of controller you got used to using your thumbs to steer. I use my wrists and hands for fine motion control, not my thumbs.
I haven't got to try the Wii controller for a FPS yet, but I may get to this year.

Btw, does anyone ever remember those "Play Station on a PCI card" devices? You could just drop in a PCI card to your computer and play all your favorite play station games.
Why can't they do this for the PC? If they are so scared of pirating, they could just develop an add on board PCI-E and use the pc's blu-ray rom to play legally owned discs.
This opens up a whole world of modding to an otherwise creative and artistically void console world that is so closed and locked down.
I still play PC games from several years ago for the very reason that I can download expansions and modifications that turn the game "engine" into a new experience. You don't get that on a console.
Console games are like sex, they are good for an hour or two then the experience gets a bit repetitive and you feel like sleeping after wards.


RE: Times are tough
By roadrun777 on 2/16/2008 5:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
You know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder why they don't do it?
If they can sell a console game for 300$ then why can't they make an add on card with all the necessary hardware and ports for less? It should be cheaper to make and would only require minor software development, since most of the software developer kits for these platforms are on the PC anyway.


RE: Times are tough
By Digimonkey on 2/13/2008 5:10:16 PM , Rating: 5
It really doesn't seem all that bad. On top of not counting online sales, they also groups PC's by themselves and consoles together. I believe this even included handhelds. So what, like 5-6 systems vs PCs? 14 percent would be a decent number.

It also makes sense that these companies are joining each other since they have a big stake in the business.

Intel/AMD sell alot of processors to gamers. Nvidia and AMD, again, for 3D video cards which are consumed heavily by gamers, Lastly Microsoft, one of the biggest arguments between the Mac and Windows OS is more games are developed for Windows. So of course Microsoft will also want to defend PC gaming.


RE: Times are tough
By JoshuaBuss on 2/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Times are tough
By PrinceGaz on 2/13/2008 10:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
If every PC game was released through STEAM, I doubt there'd be much of a market left at all. Having a physical disc which I know will work forever (barring some accident) is preferable to relying on a remote server all the time.

If the only choice for PC gaming was downloading via STEAM, or downloading and burning a copy to disc from an unofficial third-party source along with the patches needed, I know which I would choose. I wouldn't be alone either.


RE: Times are tough
By The Sword 88 on 2/14/2008 1:32:43 AM , Rating: 1
I will always buy a physical disc over steam


RE: Times are tough
By RedStar on 2/14/2008 2:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
me 2 --i prefer to buy a disk ..price for me is usually same anyways. But i do love steam ...

WoW takes up most of my time now..even though i still buy all the latest great games (esp love COD 4). I still have to get to some of the ones i bought last xmas.

PC gaming forever!! :)

AND the xbox people (MS) said that they would never support mouse/keyboard because it would then be too much like a PC.

Sony, on the other hand, has said thier console IS a PC.


RE: Times are tough
By djtodd on 2/14/2008 8:41:48 AM , Rating: 1
QFT, give me physical media any day, kthx :)


RE: Times are tough
By ElFenix on 2/14/2008 11:02:52 AM , Rating: 3
i prefer steam now, assuming valve remains in business i like the fact that it keeps the game up to date, that i don't have to have a CD in the drive or a 'patch' to play without CD (copy protection blows) and the devs get a bigger cut than they do buying a CD in store.

assuming i can use steam offline (i've never tried), and backup my games to DVD, then there isn't even really the issue of valve going out of business.


RE: Times are tough
By V2K on 2/13/2008 5:27:50 PM , Rating: 5
I don't care how console users try and spin it, the gamepad will never be better than mouse and keyboard for FPS and strategy games.


RE: Times are tough
By mmntech on 2/13/2008 5:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
You pretty much summed up the argument perfectly. I love PC gaming but the issues you mentioned became painfully obvious. I love PC gaming too but it's almost impossible to keep up with unless you have deep pockets. Consoles offer a measure of stability. There's also no intrusive DRM (ie Starforce, SecuROM), no Windows SNAFUs, larger variety of games and genres. Games tend to be less buggy on consoles as well. I think this is really the first time in video game history, at least in my opinion, where consoles are a viable alternative for PC gamers. The problem though is they're pretty much static between generations with the exception of storage upgrades.


RE: Times are tough
By Hakuryu on 2/13/2008 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
I would add alot more things to the PC benefits :

1. The ability to mod and make new maps. Some console games allow this but it's very limited compared to PC modding.
2. The ability to use any server browsing software you want. You can use the built in game browser, Gamespy, All Seeing Eye, etc.
3. Hardware modding like water cooling, lights, case mods. Some of this is avaiable to consoles, but again it's very limited.
4. You can generally play with many more people than any console game - 64 player games of ET for example will never happen on a console.
5. You can play games and surf the internet at the same time with dual screens. I have a widescreen for games and normal aspect ratio screen for the internet.
6. Games dont always cost $50-$60 for the PC, even new games. I bought Crysis for $34.99 the day it was released... never find that with a console game.

Imo consoles are just mini-PC's. The ideal solution for the technically challenged (you know, those ppl that put down PC's because of patches, OS, or hardware), but a definate downgrade for someone with tech expertise.


RE: Times are tough
By Haltech on 2/13/2008 7:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
2 problems with your ideas. Of those people who still buy computer games MAYBE only less then 1% of them mod their computers.
Dual monitors are really expensive and lack of support.


RE: Times are tough
By rsasp on 2/13/2008 7:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
dual monitors isn't that expensive, you can use two CRT? lol they are like $50-100 bucks each. plus most of the video card in the market has dual DVI input.
Dual monitors are much easier to set it up these day. you'll know what I'm talking about when you have dual monitors


RE: Times are tough
By leexgx on 2/13/2008 10:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
more that most users Do not bother with dual monitors or how to even set it up


RE: Times are tough
By SlyNine on 2/14/2008 12:14:00 AM , Rating: 3
Im sorry. Set it up.. You mean plug it in. Most people dont know how to do that?? wow we are in a lot of trouble.


RE: Times are tough
By clovell on 2/14/2008 1:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
> 4. You can generally play with many more people than any console game - 64 player games of ET for example will never happen on a console.

Guess you missed the preview for Resistance 2, eh?


RE: Times are tough
By Hydrofirex on 2/13/2008 7:25:02 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think things are bad at all for the industry. Given this fact why would companies wanting to drive more business to their market necessarily indicate times are tough? I don't argue that consoles, and all the recent hype around them, haven't stolen the show for the moment - because they have, but rather that it's just a sign of the times and something that will probably ebb and flow as technology and culture changes.

Not to mention you're implicitly ignoring the fact that M$ is standing on both sides of the playing field. They've been pushing this "Games For Windows" initiative for a bit now. Now that I think about it most of those hardware manufacturers make components for gaming various platforms as well....

Issues with your reasoning:
1) Virtually any modern video card, and many motherboards, "seamlessly" connect with about any TV from the last decade. S-Video is more prevalent than you're letting on. Further, there are other cheap, easy, and effective options. Home entertainment and PC connectivity are converging at an extremely rapid pace.

2) If games for the PC were simply coded to be able to use multiple controllers you could use an adapter, or PC controller for $10 and do the same. My emulation collection on my HTPC is always a hit when I have people over... to this day everyone goes nuts when I turn on Mario Kart.

3) You can save your saves on a thumb drive.

4) You don't really don't need a PC so powerful it's self-aware now-a-days. OK, if you HAVE to play every game the day it comes out you're going to be upgrading a lot, but if you pace yourself you don't have to get a new set up every year. Further, do you really plan on not owning a PC? OK, everyone in here who plans on not owning a PC please raise your hands... So, if you're already going to have a basic PC then you should only really count the marginal cost of adding a video card as this is all you really need to do to play the vast majority of PC titles at graphical fidelities superior to consoles.

Otherwise you do have some great points. I would even add that many times you get really burned on the PC by game manufacturers who rush out a half-finished product which is so buggy you can't even play it. Even worse are glitches that prevent you from being able to complete the game, and worse still are ones that when applied make you're save file incompatible.

HfX


RE: Times are tough
By amanojaku on 2/13/2008 8:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the industries are always crying wolf. But if you remember a few years ago the PC was king in the game arena. There was no Xbox, the N64 wasn't able to keep pace with the jump in PC performance and graphics quality, and the PS2 was the only console getting respect. When the Xbox came out people were skeptical, the Gamecube was laughed at for being too kid and family friendly, and the PS2 was still fighting for a decent game library. Now on to your points:

1) S-Video? Are you KIDDING me? After playing games at 1600x1200 no one wants to go back to 720x480, even on a big screen. If you wanted hi-def you needed component video (there was no HDMI, and DVI wasn't present on most TVs.) So where were the component cards for the PC? I still can't find many. Thank the hardware gods for finally making HDMI commonplace. Oh, and there's the little problem of native resolution. Not enough cards support 1920x1080 or 1280x720.

2)" If " is such a nice word. " If " I were rich. " If " I had a Lamborghini. " If " Jessica Alba and Halle Berry were part of my harem. " If " I had a harem. " If " games supported many types of controllers, like the Wimote.

The hell with controllers, I'll take the harem!

3) Sure, you've got a point. But how many PC games ask you were the saves are? Not many, if any. Consoles do that. And for us lazybones we don't want to have to COPY anything to and from a PC.

4) I have an ATI X300 in my PC that I paid about $120 for. I knew I wasn't going to spend $500 for a video card ever again because the last time I did that I barely played any games. Clearly I'm a casual gamer and finally learned that an expensive card doesn't guarantee longevity. It's only recently that hardware has dropped in price to the point that casual gamers can get a rockin' machine. I remember when a $250 CPU was common. Now I can get a great CPU for $100 or less. Same with hard drives (we need space for pr0n, not games. ;-) Built-in sound cards are good enough if you don't have a $500+ speaker set or home theater receiver. So the biggest expense is the video card, and plenty of people have complained that even the recommended specs for a video card barely play some modern games.

If I sound unreasonable that's because I am. I want my console to have the horsepower of a PC. I want my PC to have the ease of use of old consoles. Modern consoles are practically PCs. Updates? UPDATES ?!? And I want them all for a reasonable amount of money. On second thought, maybe I'll just read a book, or go out and play football. And here's a great FPS: PAINTBALL .


RE: Times are tough
By inighthawki on 2/13/2008 9:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Many, if not all modern day graphics cards give u a component adapter, and a few of the new ones even offer hdmi outputs...Maybe you should do a little research? x300s are crap, of course they wouldnt have any good features.


RE: Times are tough
By amanojaku on 2/13/2008 10:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh...

I said
quote:
Thank the hardware gods for finally making HDMI commonplace.
Reading is fundamental.

An adapter is not the same as a native interface. I know of two types of adapters: S-Video to component and DVI to component. Neither is ideal. S-Video has less resolution than HDTV, so you'll be sending a high quality source (the PC) to a lower quality output (the S-Video) then converting to a high quality input. The problem is the converter can't recover lost picture data so you have an S-Video quality picture sent to an HDTV input. The DVI input can produce a picture that is of higher quality than HDTV. The problem there is the converter, which is a cheap $5-$10 part. When $2,000 powered video scalers have difficulty converting between interfaces you can't expect a cheap unpowered adapter to do the picture justice. YOU do the research and see how people feel about these things. Every adapter is mediocre at best.

As for my X300, I think I was clear in stating that I bought it because it was cheap. I know damn well an X300 can't provide the same performance as an HD 3870 X2!


RE: Times are tough
By SlyNine on 2/14/2008 12:26:24 AM , Rating: 2
You need to take a step back, Not only can you're X300 not provide that kind of performance, But it cannot even match yesterdays integrated graphics.

Iv used the component with my 9700PRO AIW way back, and the person that owns it now ( Broke got a new one that's a 9800pro AIW). He can play Crysis on the dam thing.It looks great with component cables.

My old X800XT I sold runs Gears of War great, my friend that bought it enjoys it more then on the Xbox360, Sure it doesn't have AA but with out it it can manage over 30FPS constantly. Something the Xbox360 cannot. Don't buy a X300 or a 5200FX and complain about having to upgrade.

actully some games used to offer split screen gaming on the PC, one of the NFS games did and it was great. All the devs have to do is support it. In fact why not support that and 2 monitors so instead of split screen, dual screen.


RE: Times are tough
By SlyNine on 2/14/2008 12:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
I ment other games look great with component, Not Crysis lol.

Not sure why it double posted.


RE: Times are tough
By SlyNine on 2/14/2008 12:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
You need to take a step back, Not only can you're X300 not provide that kind of performance, But it cannot even match yesterdays integrated graphics.

Iv used the component with my 9700PRO AIW way back, and the person that owns it now ( Broke got a new one that's a 9800pro AIW). He can play Crysis on the dam thing.It looks great with component cables.

My old X800XT I sold runs Gears of War great, my friend that bought it enjoys it more then on the Xbox360, Sure it doesn't have AA but with out it it can manage over 30FPS constantly. Something the Xbox360 cannot. Don't buy a X300 or a 5200FX and complain about having to upgrade.

actully some games used to offer split screen gaming on the PC, one of the NFS games did and it was great. All the devs have to do is support it. In fact why not support that and 2 monitors so instead of split screen, dual screen.


RE: Times are tough
By Xenoterranos on 2/14/2008 12:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
I bet if I could build a paint ball robot, and could control it with a keyboard and mouse, that it would be better than a paint ball robot controlled via two-handed remote.

Just sayin'...


RE: Times are tough
By Zoomer on 2/13/2008 9:14:02 PM , Rating: 1
SVideo? Why use that when there's DVI/HDMI? Pretty much ANY modern video card has DVI support.

To game with nice graphics on a PC requires a $100-200 more for the graphics card; I would probably spend $100 for a graphics card anyway. Unless there are decent integrated alternatives. (Not Intel)


RE: Times are tough
By BrownJohn on 2/13/2008 8:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
"4) No need to install anything (well, the Wii does update its firmware for some games)"

Tell that to PS3 owners, especially those that bought Devil May Cry 4.

Also, for some games on the 360, mainly XBLA games, an update is needed, although it is always very quick.


RE: Times are tough
By Alias1431 on 2/13/2008 10:14:15 PM , Rating: 3
Let us not forget the gift that keeps on giving.

Alt-tab.


RE: Times are tough
By ajvitaly on 2/13/2008 10:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
Consoles are not necessarily that much cheaper than PC's.

1) The cost of a decent sized HDTV is up there.
2) You must pay monthly fees to play games online that are normally free for PC users.
3) The equivalent console game typically costs more than it's PC counter part.

If you take into account just 2 & 3 alone, someone who buys a game regularly (lets say 12-15 a year) they're spending $200 more per year for the same thing PC users are getting.


Glad but scared
By Cobra Commander on 2/13/2008 4:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
Glad to see some protection but OMG we need protection from extinction??? Pretty scary stuff.

I'm sure if the developers quit rehashing crap a LOT of problems would be sorted out, possibly the decline of PC Gaming.




RE: Glad but scared
By someguy123 on 2/13/2008 5:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
indeed. when was the last non first person shooter/RTS/MMO released? i even saw screenshots of a game that was an almost exact copy of WoW with updated textures.

I'd like to see even just one RPG (not a fps rpg mind you), large scale puzzle game, or 3rd person adventure this coming year.


RE: Glad but scared
By CannedWeasel on 2/13/2008 6:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
A recent release of the sort you're asking for would be The Witcher, which was a fantastic game if you're an RPG fan.

I do see your point, however; the game was put out by a Polish company composed of RPG fans, and RPGs and adventure games (although Sam & Max: Season One was good) are the exception rather than the rule.


RE: Glad but scared
By someguy123 on 2/13/2008 8:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes the witcher, apparently a great game from the reviews it's received. As you said though, it is a rare exception.

Right now it seems more like every company is focusing on addictive multiplayer rather than a great single player experience, which makes economic sense since addictive multiplayer is like free advertising. Once one person finds the game they'll coax their friends into buying the game as well.


RE: Glad but scared
By just4U on 2/14/2008 1:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
Fallout3 should be nice... Pretty sure that's for the PC and umm coming out in 08. :)


It's just another evlolutionary process
By Chosonman on 2/13/2008 5:09:10 PM , Rating: 1
Whoever said PC gaming was dying never bothered reading the Blizzard, Steam side of the story and never considered AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Microsoft's reliance on the platform for their own survival.

This alliance probably signals a shift in PC game toward a more systematic approach to game development and marketing rather than the hodge podge that's been going on up until now. This could mean MS could take the lead in developing a unified online platform for gaming (ie Windows Game Live).

I would like to see use move away from a Microsoft Direct X dominated gaming platform and to a more open source platform such as OpenGL so hard core gaming can happen on windows and we won't need to upgrade to Vista or whatever OS Microsoft wishes to force us to buy. But by the looks of it, this alliance is probably going to help keep use gaming on Windows.




RE: It's just another evlolutionary process
By Chosonman on 2/13/2008 5:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Edit: I meant to say Linux instead of Windows..

I want hard core gaming to happen on Linux using OpenGL rather than having to upgrade Windows Vista just because it supports DX10 and XP doesn't


RE: It's just another evlolutionary process
By KernD on 2/13/2008 7:33:56 PM , Rating: 3
DirectX is the best thing about developing PC games, it has all the API you don't want to code yourself(game/driver interaction), you may like OpenGL because it is portable, but DirectX on windows is better, it's lots more than graphics. And it has some portable stuff(to XB360) like XInput and XAudio.

All these companies want to do is make games more accessible to the average Joe, Vista has the Game Explorer just for that. And DX10 may not seem much to you now, and you may not like Vista, but it's still a step in the right direction for PC gaming. BTW you won't have to upgrade for a while, DX10 games aren't even considered by many companies yet, and when they switch, some will support both for some time, by then you will have had enough time to download your illegal copy of Vista.

Unfortunately the main hurdle for developers will remain, pirate and cheats. The console will stay superior for a long time on those aspects.


By Zoomer on 2/13/2008 9:15:50 PM , Rating: 1
There may come a day where people dual boot between XP and Vista to play these darn DX10 games.


By sweetsauce on 2/13/2008 9:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Do yourself a favor. Read up on Directx 10 and what it actually will provide for developers once they stop making crap to be compatible w/ dx9. Dx10 is an amazing evolutionary step for gaming, but we probably won't see games made specifically for it for at least one more year. Once game engines are made from the ground up for dx10 all will be well.


hahaha
By dare2savefreedom on 2/13/2008 5:35:12 PM , Rating: 3
see the irony, this is like when they made the rings of power,

We we get a fellowship of Sauron(Microsoft), smeagol(Intel), frodo(NVIDIA), Sam(AMD) - we can give up hope since sauron will just backstab and make the controlling ring.




RE: hahaha
By BruceLeet on 2/14/2008 8:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
Wow look at you whipping out your preciouses =o


Consoles are more casual
By EnzoFX on 2/13/2008 7:18:10 PM , Rating: 1
Consoles are a more casual form of gameplay. They aim to simplify a lot of the features that are on the PC. The PC gaming industry is always on the cutting edge, technologically speaking. It thus makes sense/gives reason to it having a much wider feature set. This also leads to the conclusion that it will always be ahead, feature wise, and technologically wise. I hardly think they are in competition, and it's pretty ignorant to think so IMO.
People that feel strongly about PC gaming, is because they like upgrading hardware, tweaking, they're die hard fans. The reason that pc's are a "hassle" are the very reasons they're into PC gaming. Also, IMO most people just need to upgrade to a good graphics card. Which is definitely cheaper than a console. Plus the fact that PC games usually cost half the price of their console equivalent, you can even argue its cheaper to be a PC gamer.
PC gaming will never go away, so long as there are PC's and there's gamers.
Currently, there's a lot of companies that are doing PC gaming justice (valve/blizzard), but most are probably trying to find their way, comparing to console gaming industry. They should treat it as separate but equal, and not compare the numbers so directly, as they don't tell the whole story.




RE: Consoles are more casual
By EnzoFX on 2/13/2008 7:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and it feels silly to compare things so directly, it feels ignorant and stupid. They are 2 dynamically different industries. There are so many factors in the PC side of things. Where it's pretty simplified in the console world. And are you guys simple or something? Keep up with computer gaming? Well you eventually have to buy the next iteration of console too you know... and then you won't be able to play your old games from generations past....
If your going to compare.... Consoles will always be playing catch up. Hard words it seems, but I'm not comparing. This whole argument/article/industry theory of there being a problem sounds ridiculous to me.


RE: Consoles are more casual
By JustTom on 2/14/2008 1:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is there is overlap between the markets. And console sales do impact on PC game sales. No matter what the relative advantages of a PC over a console may be a large number of people own consoles and console games. And at least some of those would have purchased computer games if there were no consoles.


Hassel free but not A**hole free
By Tacoloft on 2/13/2008 4:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
I love playing on the PS3 or 360 online but there are some annoying users out there. There is also the feeling on xbox Live that there aren't oo many modders trying to F up the game because MS tries to ban those guys whereas on PC you can be facing a modded user who runs laps around others and is invincible to everything... not very fun IMO. (but maybe I just suck at gaming...)




RE: Hassel free but not A**hole free
By tjr508 on 2/13/2008 9:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
Less QQ, more pew pew.


Playing both sides?
By ninjit on 2/13/2008 5:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it a little odd for Microsoft, nVidia, and AMD (ATI) to be forming this alliance to fight the "console" onslaught?

I mean, MS is responsible for the xbox 360, which contains an ATI graphics engine.
nVidia has it's silicon in the PS3, and ATI is also in bed with nintendo for the Wii.

About the only one who would have a genuine interest in this is intel, since MS gave them the boot after the original xbox in choice of CPU.

Granted, I doubt nVidia and ATI make as much on margins for their console parts as they do for add-on PC cards, but what about Microsoft?
Licensing alone for the XB360 must be raking in the green for them




RE: Playing both sides?
By EnzoFX on 2/13/2008 7:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
No, every company wants its products/solutions in every avenue they can get it into. More money for them. These companies would not limit themselves to consoles only.


So in other words, DirectX Part Deux?
By UNCjigga on 2/14/2008 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that the original aim of Microsoft's DirectX was to enable a common platform for developers to take full advantage of a multimedia PC's hardware and graphics capabilities, with minimal OS overhead between the hardware and the application.

I'd say DirectX has done a pretty good job of fulfilling the original goal. But over the last 5-6 years we've been in the situation where DirectX gets updated, new hardware comes out, and games taking full advantage of the new capabilities are 2 years away. By the time these games come out, the hardware's already been refreshed, or new consoles have stolen the thunder. So there's little incentive for developers to devote the time/resources needed to take full advantage of the hardware--they're always going to be too late. Nevermind the fact that at most, only 20% of their core market is even running on the latest and greatest hardware--designing for cutting edge AND playability is difficult to impossible.

Hopefully this new alliance can take care of this problem--otherwise they're just wasting their time with this initiative. Thoughts?




By roadrun777 on 2/16/2008 5:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think the original goal of directX was to have a quicker path to hardware and a set of standards for 3D (3d HA! why do they call 2D 3D gaming?) programming.
The problem?
The standards changed every few years, and the more features they added the more complicated it got.
Not only that, it was impossible to guarantee an certain level of "experience" while playing a game. They tried to help the consumer out by stating minimum requirements, but this often left you with a game that was horrible to play even at the minimum requirements.

The PC gaming industry is all about simplifying gaming engines. DirectX was supposed to allow a virtualized hardware interface to simplify programming. It didn't simplify programming, and that is why the development time and costs keep going up.
There is a dire need for a complete game / physics / graphics engine that is rock solid and free of bugs. If they can design a game developer kit for companies that virtualizes hardware interface so that even in the future, a game can take advantage of technology that didn't exist when it was created, then you will see much more development on the PC; Especially if they make this engine portable to other platforms with an emphasis on minimizing base code changes.

They way the game industry works now is that separate companies develop separate engines and the end developer is left with a huge task of altering source code and stitching all these different packages together to try to make something playable out of it. Not only do they have to fix bugs in these unfinished engines, they also create new bugs by doing things the original software wasn't designed for.
So after all this coding effort, you barely have time to create a decent story with great sound / art / acting.
Then, usually the companies try to sell these "modified" engines to other developers coming along, and they get to inherit the nightmare.

It needs to change, they really need to standardize the base code, and allow developers to concentrate more on art and story rather than squashing bugs in unfinished software.


14 percent is way off
By Discord on 2/13/2008 5:41:27 PM , Rating: 3
Actual game sales for the PC, including subscriptions and digital distributions, are easily three times the figure quoted in the NPD article. It's either a very biased organization or they are woefully ignorant/outdated in their ability to track the market.
This makes the PC easily the most dominant gaming platform out there. PC gaming has evolved to another level while the consoles struggle to catch or and even quantify it.




like me
By conrad13a on 2/13/2008 6:33:47 PM , Rating: 3
I am one of the "stolen" gamers. But after weeks of trying to wash the console taste out of my mouth, I'm left utterly disgusted with all forms of gaming these days.

I agree with anotherdude's post.

I tried fps on the pos3, tried halo2 on the xbox. The experience made me so sick, I don't play any games anymore.

I'm fed up with the inefficient OS for PCs - it's not about the money, it's about the experience. Can't anyone understand that? Guess having taste means you're an unimportant minority these days.

Consoles pissed me off because of the palsy controls and atrocious key/mouse support.
Tried playing ut3 with a mouse on the playstation? I can tell you that it's not gaming. And don't think I've never used a controller before.
PS3 speaking, I'm a proficient warhawk and resistance player. Hell, I've got a world record in DiRT, but that's completely different and off topic.
I'm talking First Person Shooters here. Why do PC games adopted for the console have to suck so much testicle? Doesn't anyone spend the time to do things right?

My favorite UT3 console experience is when you miss a dozen or so frames because it lags (not online play). It's almost as enjoyable as the drunk-mouse inputs.

Management should never have given the go ahead on that game - just proves they don't care about ruining a great reputation.
Before I forget, what ever happened to being able to name the bots??? (good call Bowen). There goes more fun on half-assed console software.

Among the blind, the one eyed is king. So enjoy stealing gamers. I for one am fed the fug up with games today. They don't build 'em like they used to.

I'll go rant elsewhere now...




consoles exist to combat piracy
By mattclary on 2/13/2008 9:29:28 PM , Rating: 3
The reason consoles get so much love from the industry is it is harder to pirate console games. If as much was spent on marketing the PC as a gaming platform as is spent on the XBox and PS3, it would be a different story.




PS3
By thebrown13 on 2/13/2008 6:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
I like how they said PS3 like PC gamers are actually switching to that instead of 360.

Just thought it was funny.




Greatest Controls of all time
By rupaniii on 2/13/2008 8:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
Madcatz Panther XL controller for PC.
This is the defacto.
Big Red Trackball and 5 firing options on the left with it, two hats, top, mid and pinky trigger on the stalk...
Overall, this had 17 firing options and PRECISION movement.
Mat Catz needs to release an updated USB version.
I would play 5x as much PC if i had a new one of those.

For now, i'm trying not to wear this one out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_XL




The Downfall of PC Gaming
By BansheeX on 2/14/2008 2:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
With the advent of HD lcd televisions and this generation of consoles making several important strides (netplay, automatic patching, HD resolutions, digital connections, mouse/keyboard support, linux support, downloadable content), many of the PC's longstanding advantages have been lost, and the PC as a gaming platform is in serious jeopardy. This is my own personal assessment as a former PC gamer. Let's look at some of the problems with PC gaming:

-Numerous different hardware combinations. Increases likelihood of bugs, makes bugs difficult to trace as OS, program, driver, hardware, or user error. Increases burden on developers and forces them to compromise graphical potential for increased sales (look at Crysis and its poor sales). It's a catch-22. Since most users don't have cutting edge hardware, they didn't buy the game. But unless someone comes out with a game that utilizes a new DirectX, there will be no incentive for gamers to upgrade their hardware. So even though PC gamers go around touting their latest greatest hardware, it takes years for even a few games to take true advantage of it. With consoles, transitions are more painless. Every seven years, someone like Sony will finalize an up-to-date hardware spec on which developers can focus to make the latest generation of games. It treats development as an era rather than a half-month penis-comparison fest.

-No gamepad standard. For the same reason that few RTS games ever appear on consoles, many genres like fighting games never appear on the PC. The ideal platform is one that supports and provides both a keyboard/mouse and gamepad peripheral. Sony with the PS3 is beginning to understand this and pushing mouse/keyboard support on genres that would benefit from it, but they've still let it be optional, which is a mistake. Look at Orange Box. Does it have mouse/keyboard support? No. Because Sony gave them the option. It needs to be forced in order to supplant PC gaming and get people to view the PS3 as a true replacement for normally exclusive PC genres.

-Online Cheating. This is a rampant problem in PC games, but a very difficult thing to pull off on consoles. I can't tell you how much more enjoyment I get out of beating people on a console, knowing that no one is wall hacking me, and then having no one accuse me of cheating, or coming back with cheats to grief me into leaving. It's pathetic and no one should have to deal with this stuff.

-Lack of standardized packaging. When the PS2 came out, everything shipped in a slim DVD case with the same slipcover markings. For years, PC games have been in a seemingly endless transition from giant wasteful cardboard boxes, to standardized small cardboard boxes, to durable double-sized plastic DVD cases with cardboard housings. Nobody wants to agree on a logo either. There seems to be a fetish with cardboard and a phobia of saving gamers shelf space. They even opted for the double-sized DVD case over the slim one. Why?

-Dreadfully slow adoption of new media standards. Look at how many games were released on multiple CDs despite DVD being fairly popular and drives being fairly cheap. Of course, the problem is that PC developers want to retain the extra sales of people who still only had CD drives. So they got their extra sales and made all the DVD drive owners sit there for thirty minutes swapping discs to install and search for the right disc every time they wanted to play. The same thing will happen for the DVD to blu-ray transition. Meanwhile, the console model with its single configuration can simply push the latest media format with ease. Since every PS3 has a blu-ray drive, it is immune to these transitional annoyances.

-Pirating. A huge problem on PCs and always has been. Developers lose sales, get paranoid and implement intrusive DRM like Starforce which afflicts PC usage on the whole. The PS3, with a simplified, restricted OS and a state-of-the art media format that has yet to be cracked and is currently expensive to create burns for, is in no immediate danger of succumbing to this scenario. This is also a major reason MMORPG development has exploded leaving traditional single player genres behind (since piracy is impossible when the game is online-based).




By joemoedee on 2/14/2008 6:38:59 AM , Rating: 2
I grew up on consoles, switched to PC in the early 90's, and switched back to consoles.

Here are a few reasons why I see consoles dominating...

The graphical delta between PCs and consoles is not as great as it once was, which I think has affected the PC game market of late. Yes, a prettier experience can be had on a PC, but at a large price difference vs the all-in-one console solution.

Xbox Live (I cannot speak for PSN, as I don't have either a PS2 or PS3) has simplified on-line gaming 10 fold. Techie or non-techie, I don't care who you are, the idea of popping in a game and going on-line without having to apply multiple patches beats setting up PC multi-player games any day of the week.

However, I think the ultimate difference maker has been the variety, or lack thereof, of PC games.

Sports games are practically non-existent nowadays on the PC. Back in the day, you had so many choices as to what you wanted to play. When was the last non-sim baseball PC game released? 2004.

Madden is the only football game in town, and it's based off of the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube version.

There were many golf games to be had, and now we're down to one.

The lack of sports games has affected my PC gaming, as someone that spent countless hours of playing Front Page Sports Football, Hardball, Tony LaRussa, etc, etc.

Same goes for adventure games, or lack there of. I may be in the minority, but I know a lot of people that used to play those games as well.

The PC has worked itself well into a niche market. Outside of MMORPGs, RTS, and FPS, there has not been a large variety of games available. Consoles cover a broader market, which help its mass appeal. Until PCs can cover the broader market and expand out of its niche, I see their market share continuing to fall.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki