I think Sam Stone’s assessment is generally reasonable, but people do overstate the “they need to make it compatable with millions of systems” type concerns. This was a much bigger issues in the early days, but standardized APIs (directX is pretty dominant now) have done an extremely good job of making it easy to develop.
The irony in this situation is that DirectX 10 took a huge leap in this regard. The main point of DX10 was to simplify things for the developers by standardizing development and in the process optimize the way renderers process. DX10 forces a compatable feature set in all dx10 cards, so that developers never have to write code to support one card that has a certain feature and write more code to cover situations where they don’t.
Due to the way they redid everything in DX10, writing a pure dx10 game is both easier for developers, looks better, and runs faster, and has fewer/no compatability issues. It’s a total slam dunk for gaming.
… except there have been all of… 2 or 3 games made with a pure DX10 renderer. Oh, some games will claim dx10 support and it’s technically true, but they just add a few dx10 features on top of a basic dx9 renderer to give some more eye candy - it doesn’t utilize all of the revamped developmental features that a pure dx10 renderer would.
Because consoles can’t do dx10. So almost no games are written with a native dx10 renderer, because it would be too much to port to consoles. So PCs could completely purge themselves of these compatability issues, and gain performance and visuals at the same time, while being cheaper, except the consoles are holding it back. So we don’t get any of that. And then console gamers hold it up as a disadvantage of the PC platform…
He basically doesn’t have a video card. The equivelant of this would be like asking “why can’t my ps1 run my ps3 games!?” or maybe even “why can’t my dvd player run my ps3 games!?”
Oh please. Of course he has a video card. It’s just a piece of crap. But he still has a PC. This is the problem with PCs. You don’t have a “PC” that runs games, you have a combination of video card, processor, memory, and whatever else that, between them, MAY combine to run games. Merely having a “PC” is not a guarantee that you can run any particular game, standardized APIs or not.
Having an Xbox 360 is a GUARANTEE that you can play any Xbox360 game released in your region. The hardware might fail, but you’re never going to have a game developer tell you “Sorry, we don’t support your model of Xbox 360.” A game might perform poorly, but that would because that game performs poorly for everyone (And is therefore a badly made game), not because the “minimum system requirements” are the “minimum system requirements for someone with the patience of a saint.”
Similarly for the PS3 and Wii. Overwhelmingly, consumers have spoken that this is how they feel. PC games are too fidgety for the average person. If they weren’t, they’d be crushing consoles in a monstrous landslide, but they’re not - they’re losing ground, with more and more developers going the “make the game for console and then maybe port it to the PC” route. So clearly, something is in the way.
The best part is buddy is saying that other buddy doesn’t have a gaming video card, but he’s about to pull out a chart that shows that the PC market is booming, but only if you count every computer with a discrete video card as a gaming computer.
The hell? I was perfectly comfortable sticking to next gen console specific topics.
The regular console brigade then began their usual baseless comparisons to the PC. I, as is the directive of this board, countered them with a much needed infusion of facts.
Surely enough, console brigade was deeply offended by my use of facts and my threat of figures and statistics and blames ME for turning this into another console vs PC thread.
This whole thing about blaming me for the derailment really pisses me off. If you don’t want me to correct your erroneous assertions about PCs and PC gaming, quit bringing them up.
Here’s a summary of my interactions on this thread for the extremely reading comprehension challenged.
Me: Discusses likely hardware choices for next gen consoles. Obviously referencing modern PC tech 'cause that’s what next gen consoles will use. Also mention digital download trend that might be a part of next gen consoles.
Justin Bailey: Doesn’t agree with my prediction of digital downloads for next gen consoles.
Me: Makes a passing comment of discomfort for a suggested future of motion only gaming as predicted by Sam Stone.
Me: points out to TBG that on PC publishers allow for a pre-load of digital download games to counter his statement that they take too long to download and play. Suggest that may happen on next gen consoles too.
Michael E Mouse: Suggests if PC’s continue their trend of going down in price while increasing in performance perhaps consoles and PC’s will meet and merge.
Sam Stone: Points out there are differences between the two platforms that go beyond price and performance. Also adds an incorrect assertion: “PC devs need to program around millions of hardware perturbations”.
ME: I point out that Sam Stone is incorrect. Standardized API’s help abstract the hardware making it easier for devs to develop on what is a varied hardware ecosystem on PC.
Sam Stone: Points out further differences.
Me: I agree but point out that indie devs can do it, so the issues are not all that big.
Airk: Is deeply upset that someone isn’t actively putting down PC’s and PC gaming, so goes on a tirade about something completely, utterly unrelated and begins to derail the thread. He does this by attempting to show how much PC’s suck because some guy can’t run ALL modern games on a netbook. What this has to do with the difficulties devs face when programming games on the PC, or next gen consoles, no one knows.
Riiight. You couldn’t find anywhere where I’m not talking about next gen consoles. Right? It’s obvious I WASN’T the one who derailed the the 'fing thread, Right?
Oh please. An integrated intel graphics chip is basically not having a video card. I mean, it’s sufficient to actually display stuff like your desktop, but it isn’t intended to be used for gaming. Having a video card is essentially what makes a gaming pc, so it makes little sense to bash PC gaming by pointing out a guy who doesn’t have a video card. To use it as evidence of “see, computer gaming is all voodoo and you have to be a wizard to figure it out!” is absurd. You basically need to know one fact - you need a video card. Your $300 best buy computer probably does not have one.
Incidentally, while it isn’t my intend to hijack (in these threads anymore I generally just respond to factually incorrect claims made), when you’re discussing next gen consoles, it’s a very pc-centric topic. Your next gen of consoles is just going to be a low to mid range PC matched to the development period of the console. You’re going to have most likely x86 processors and ati/nvidia graphics cards… you’re basically using shitty PCs that can never be upgraded for 10+ years. So it’d be weird if PCs and PC hardware wasn’t part of the discussion.
Put yourself back back to say 2003/2004 about 2-3 years before the current gen of consoles were released and at a time when the same questions were being asked. The prediciton back then was essentially the same as it is now, and it proved to be correct for the most part.
2004 - What will the next gen consoles look like? Well, take a peek at the current state of PC gaming:
Online gaming a big part of the experience.
Downloadable content and downloadable games (though not big titles at this time).
HD gaming
DX9 and equivalent Open GL renderer
The dawn of the multi-core processing on the PC.
That’s exactly what we got from the current gen consoles.
So, getting back at least a little closer to the topic at hand, is anyone else wondering if/how much gaming price points will impact upcoming generations?
One thing I’ve seen in relation to the new Nintendo and Sony handhelds is that they’re no longer just competing against each other, they have the iPhone/iPad/Android to deal with as well, where games range from free to $2 or so.
If I get used to paying a buck for Angry Birds, am I still going to be willing to shell out $40 for Nintendo/Sony games? With the possible exception of the really major “name” titles, I’m thinking people are a lot less likely to buy at the higher price points.
Which I think may bleed into consoles themselves–if a “games should be really cheap” attitude starts really prevailing (and I’ve also heard rumblings that Apple TV may start affing games in some fashion), then that would certainly insure that Microsoft and Sony have to abandon the “take a loss on the console at launch, make it up in the game sales” attitude.
Sony has announced that their Playstation phone is going to be optimized for social media and social games - I’m thinking things similar to Facebook games like Farmville and such. I can see the next generation having a higher capability for social games. Home is a disaster - or at least no one I know uses it. But something similar could be very attractive to more casual players if it’s well-integrated into social games.
Also, there were some really interesting things that just never took off with bluray technology - namely BD-Live. I think the idea of watching a movie simultaneously with a friend across the country is intriguing, but also see why no one does it. There were also times set up where you could watch it simultaneously with the director/cast as they commented on it. A revamped and improved version of that could feature very prominently with the bluray drive - or even a game like Heavy Rain where the devs comment on a game while someone plays it (someone professional who goes through it quickly and thoroughly).
Gabe Newell of Steam has been quoted as saying that games are too expensive and publishers are charging too much for them.
He gave an example of how a dev could end up making more money by lowering the price point of a game, but no one outside of indie devs have done that for a big release.
I don’t know how much What Gabe discusses is because of digital distribution nor how much of it would apply to a mostly retail market like on the consoles, but there you have it.
On the other hand, that $60 price point has been on for so long now that I think it simply points out the value of a new release as indicated by the market. That’s about how much most people interested in a particular game are willing to shell out at release time. I’m not sure how willing the publishers will be to relinquish that standard.
Also, remember that every $10 of a game sale goes to the console company itself. That has to figure in somewhere.
The last time we did this I used publisher-provided financial figures to prove the PC is a less popular platform than the 360, PS3 and sometimes the Wii.
Interestingly enough, that thread sank like a stone afterwords.
