The death of PC games is nigh!

[Gozu]

@Alien

Gozu, you keep mentioning this. I just can’t see how it can be true, and you have certainly not proved it. I have no doubt that a console will outperform a computer with identical or similar specs, but the thing is, they aren’t identical, computers are way more powerful. Consider this: I too could play in “console resolution mode”, at 640x480, if I wanted to, and I would blow any console out of the water in game performance. I can’t see how you can dispute that. So, do you have a cite for your claim or is this just your personal opinion?

When I say “outperform”, i mean the games look better. When I say the games look better, I mean they look prettier while having a nice framerate (IE 30-60 fps). That’s all I mean. If you understand that, then yes, consoles games routinely outperform their pc counterparts at launch and maintain that advantage for 2-3 years. As for providing a cite, I suppose that looking around, I could find a game magazine editor/reviewer that mentions that. But I was one myself so technically, i’m a cite. It’ll be better if I provide examples. Take Battle Toshinden Arena or Ridge Racer (2 launch games for the PSX) and compare them to pc games around the same era. Or take Soul Calibur for Dreamcast , Or take Metal Gear Solid 2 or FFX for PS2 (and those weren’t launch games so pcs had a chance to try to catch up) and do the same. I’ve been playing PC and console games side by side for over 10 years now and it’s really quite obvious. I can also say quite positively that today’s PC games look much much better than anything on the old PS2, gamecube and Xbox.

You also said in your OP that “the best you [computers] can do right now is … a 1920x1200 resolution. This is not going to improve for the next 10 years at least. PC games will no longer look sharper than their console counterparts.” Well, color me unimpressed. Do you really believe that computer hardware development will suddenly cease for some reason? Hardware developers have continuously pushed the limits for years. Why didn’t they settle for 1280x1024, which is good enough for most monitors on the market today? Why did they go for 1920x1200? And for what strange reasons will they not go even further in the future?

When was the first time you saw a pc game offer a 1600x1200 resolution? Can’t remember? Well that’s no surprise as such resolutions have been available for 10 years. That’s because there were monitors capable of reaching those resolutions for 10 years as well. Nowadays, 1600x1200 is Still the highest resolution offered by 99.9% of all pc monitors. So you can take my word for it when I say that , in 10 years, 99.99% of gamers will play at 1920x1200 or lower. To recap, PC games will look no sharper than their console counterparts for the next 10 years.

As an aside, here is another theory of mine. Monitors have steadily been increasing in size. It’s a slow process but it’s happening. From 14", we went to 15" to 17" to 19" to 20" to 21" to 23" to 24" and we’re slowly switching to a widescreen (16:10) format from the old 4:3. As monitors become bigger, the screen real estate increases and to keep a sharp image (necessary for text applications, image and video processing among other things -Oh, by the way, you don’t really need very high definition for gaming as the 100 million+ console gamers will tell you-) you need to increase the resolution. But there is a cap. Without drastically altering the current desktop environment, people will stil sit the same distance from their monitors and you just won’t see any pc monitors bigger than 30" in the next couple decades. They’d just be too big. A recent review of Dell’s 24" widescreen monitor mentions that the screen is almost too big to be comfortable. I own one and I can confirm that. So, if as I predict, monitors stagnate around the 30" mark (go to an apple store and sit in front of their 30" apple cinema display and you’ll see what I mean) there will be no need to further increase the resolution. This is all postulation on my part and i may very well be proven wrong. What I am adamant about is the first paragraph.

---

Anyway, this discussion about hardware performance is, as TonyF bluntly put it, a dead end. What will determine gaming in the future is one thing: Is there a market? I think we can all agree that there is. And as long as computers are the primary tool for a part of that market, games will continue to be made for computers.

Oh games will be made alright. The question is whether games that cost tens of millions of dollars will be made.

It’s true that mods are unimportant on the gaming market, but these developers represents the knowhow, the enthusiasm and the originality that will define gaming in the future.

Sure, just like independant movies are defining cinema today. Alien, meet the american public, american public, laugh at Alien. (feel free to replace american by any other nationality, my statement will remain true)

Whack-a-Mole mentioned that in his opinion there are fewer computer games available in the store. That might be true (I buy everything online). But it’s also true that in 2004 we saw the highest number ever of new releases in the great-action-games department, and on the surface, 2005 looks to be even better.

Far Cry, Doom3 and Half-life 2. Yep, 2004 was a good year for FPS. I’m not sure about 2005. STALKER : Shadow of Chernobyl is supposed to come out and it looks great. THe only other high profile game i can think of is an Unreal Sequel and it doesn’t look likely to hit until 2006-2007. So i doubt that the 2004 crop will be surpassed this year.

[The_Hamster_King]

I’ve worked in the game industry for more than a decade now. Right now I’m a designer at Sony, but I’ve worked on both PC and console titles.

IMHO, PC games are dying.

Or, rather, a certain type of PC game is dying. The high-profile big releases are dwindling away, leaving the platform to budget titles and casual downloadable games.

Yeah, I know there are exceptions. PCs still own the MMOG market and Will Wright still has the capacity to sell big on the PC, but when you look at the industry top-seller lists they’re dominated by the consoles. Walk into any EB and compare the size of the PC section to what it was even five years ago; it’s much, much smaller. Get ahold of some industry market-share figures and you’ll see that PC revenues have been declining while console revenues have been growing.

The relative power of the platforms is meaningless. What matters is that console titles consistenly outsell comparable PC titles by a wide margin. While PCs have a large install base, the number of PC owners who buy games is small compared to the total number of console owners. PC games have a smaller customer base than console games.

This means that console titles have an easier time hitting their break-even numbers. Which means that console games can support higher development budgets. And higher development budgets typically translate to better production values.

With the current generation of systems the PC games can still compete. But with the XBox 2 and the PS 3 the doors are really going to blow wide open. We’re talking development budgets in the $10-30 million range for next-gen AAA console titles. PC games simply don’t have the customer base to support that.

This means that three years from now console games will look significantly better than PC games. Not because the consoles have more raw power – they won’t – but because the economic realities of the PC marketplace will not support 150-person dev teams.

Will Wright realizes this. That’s why his next game hinges on leveraging huge amounts of player-generated art. But that model won’t work for most PC titles. Instead what will happen is that most projects will target a console as the primary platform with the PC titles following as a port – much like how the Macintosh game market has been served over the last fifteen years.

[Alien]

@RaftPeople

My first quote was regarding PS3, but due to the vapor nature of that processor, I then talked about the Xbox2, which is a less radical departure from the Power5 architecture it is customized from.

But you finished your post by referring still to the PS3. Not sure if that was just an oversight, but I think it’s important to note that the processing power of the Power5 is not only well established in benchmarks, it is well established in the servers IBM ships with that chip (iseries (AS400), pseries(RS/6000)).

GPU’s
I think you are more correct on this point because the new advanced GPU’s that get created for each generation of consoles, are then adapted to the PC market. But certainly that one component plays catch up rather quickly.

CPU’s
You talk about GPU’s wile I’m talking about CPU’s. Let’s just take the GPU out of the equation because they do catch up pretty quickly.
But the CPU is a different story.
These CPU’s are customized and optimized for games.
As Scoundrel pointed out, this customization allows the console designers to get around efficiency problems that would slow down game performance.

I’m sorry, but I’m not going down this road. If we have to end up in a debate about the pros and cons of detailed hardware specs for different platforms, we might as well whip out our penises and wipe the dust off the ruler. It should go without saying that market shares are won based on the quality, price and availability of a product. Hardware plays just one part in this.

The custom made CPUc, etc etc, in consoles may or may not be better than their PC counterparts at the time of design completion. As repeated many times, it’s then stuck in a box and stays there for years. Meantime, the retail price of the PC component drops 50% during the first year, as the next generation is released. Can the console industry go their own path and develope hardware superior to any computers in the future? Maybe, there’s a lot of interesting things going on inside the hardware world. But the future isn’t here yet. And the OP asked if the end of PC games is coming soon, not in ten or twenty years.

@RaftPeople

Here are some questions to ponder:
How much do you think it costs for Microsoft to have IBM customize a processor for them?
Do you think they would spend that kind of money if there was no gain?
Why would they switch from the slower Intel architecture to the faster Power architecture if there was no gain?
This will require a rewrite of much code due to the different instruction set, memory model, registers, etc.
Why would they do that when they can just get the next Pentium?

Here is the answer:
Because the only thing they care about is making money, and the only way they can do that is by being aggresive in competing with Sony, and that means they are going to spend the money necessary to create a machine that kick’s ass for games.

There’s another side of the story of the custom made console components. The manufacturers have to make proprietory systems to own the design. Failing to do so is an invitation for anyone to copy their product. So it’s not like they have much chose in the first place. Just saying.

And speaking of PS3, the irony is that if the PS3 ends up as good as some say it will, it’s not the PC who first and foremost will be feeling the competition. It’s the other consoles who’ll get squeezed first. They are the ones in direct competition with PS, the PC, after all, does represent a different kind of gaming in a different type of setting.

[Gozu]

@Pochacco

I’ve worked in the game industry for more than a decade now. Right now I’m a designer at Sony, but I’ve worked on both PC and console titles.

IMHO, PC games are dying.

Or, rather, a certain type of PC game is dying. The high-profile big releases are dwindling away, leaving the platform to budget titles and casual downloadable games.

Yeah, I know there are exceptions. PCs still own the MMOG market and Will Wright still has the capacity to sell big on the PC, but when you look at the industry top-seller lists they’re dominated by the consoles. Walk into any EB and compare the size of the PC section to what it was even five years ago; it’s much, much smaller. Get ahold of some industry market-share figures and you’ll see that PC revenues have been declining while console revenues have been growing.

The relative power of the platforms is meaningless. What matters is that console titles consistenly outsell comparable PC titles by a wide margin. While PCs have a large install base, the number of PC owners who buy games is small compared to the total number of console owners. PC games have a smaller customer base than console games.

This means that console titles have an easier time hitting their break-even numbers. Which means that console games can support higher development budgets. And higher development budgets typically translate to better production values.

With the current generation of systems the PC games can still compete. But with the XBox 2 and the PS 3 the doors are really going to blow wide open. We’re talking development budgets in the $10-30 million range for next-gen AAA console titles. PC games simply don’t have the customer base to support that.

This means that three years from now console games will look significantly better than PC games. Not because the consoles have more raw power – they won’t – but because the economic realities of the PC marketplace will not support 150-person dev teams.

Will Wright realizes this. That’s why his next game hinges on leveraging huge amounts of player-generated art. But that model won’t work for most PC titles. Instead what will happen is that most projects will target a console as the primary platform with the PC titles following as a port – much like how the Macintosh game market has been served over the last fifteen years.

Yes! Exactly what he said! I was actually hoping a console AND pc developper would step in and give a little more weight to my arguments right before you posted this.

I’d just like to add that it is likely that the pc will lose the flagship when it comes to MMOGs as well. Phantasy Star Online and FFXI have been quite successful despite the shortcomings of their respective consoles (the dreamcast only supported dialup and the PS2 didn’t have an integrated hard drive). Oddly enough, consoles seem to be moving away from Hard Drives instead of integrating them out of the box like everybody thought they’d do after the xbox came around. The next Xbox will only support it as an addon and the recent PSTwo removed the expansion slot that would allow you to use it. This second example isn’t really significant as the inclusion of a hard drive would have prevented Sony from shrinking the PStwo size as much as they did (and anyways, there are only 2 games that support it).

The most likely reason for this is that hard drive manufacturing costs never go below a certain point (around $50 I believe) because of manufacturing constraints unlike other components that become cheaper as you go (thus allowing you to reduce console prices without taking a loss and increasing your userbase as time goes by). This is one major reason why the xbox was such a money sink for microsoft. Another was the deal they stroke with Nvidia allowed Nvidia to keep selling their gpu chip to Microsoft at the same price throughout the life of the console. Nvidia and Microsoft had a big fight about that because Nvidia just wouldn’t renegotiate their price whereas their manufacturing costs had been reduced greatly over the years. That’s why they split up and Microsoft switched to Ati for the Xbox 2.

As a compromise, it appears consoles will instead support large capacity and high speed memory cards (think 256 Mb to 2 Gb memory stick duos and the like). We already know the Xbox 2 will do that and it’s likely that the PS3 and Nintendo Revolution will do the same. We’ll know more about that when the E3 comes around.

[Alien]

@Gozu

When I say “outperform”, i mean the games look better. When I say the games look better, I mean they look prettier while having a nice framerate (IE 30-60 fps). That’s all I mean. If you understand that, then yes, consoles games routinely outperform their pc counterparts at launch and maintain that advantage for 2-3 years.

Since both you and erislover return to this argument, I’ll play along: You bring a console, I’ll go down to the computer graveyard to dig up something old. We install our boxes and load the game. I watch you while you enthusiastically wave your arms around, directing my attention to the screens. My God, it appears that you are right, the console does seem to run faster and better.

But I remain calm [insert Clint Eastwood look]. First I point out that your console is running at 512x384 resolution, while the PC is running at 1024x768. Damn, that’s a lot of vasted power. So I reduce the resolution, though I cannot go below 640x480. I also take the opportunity to reduce the refresh rate from 72 down to 30. You look worried. I then bring to your attention the fact that the texture’s on my PC are more detailed and take up more of my precious memory. I demand to be allowed to unload my textures and replace them with yours. You reluctantly agree. As we continue to toss out stuff that has been added in the PC version, whether that’s higher details, graphic filters, sound filters, additional interactive elements in the maps, or other extras, you realize that your beloved console might not be so superior after all as my PC speeds away. Or maybe you don’t.

Look, console games are great games and they look a lot better than they used to do. It’s just that there’s a lot of things that are added in PC games that you never think about, or that you might never notice.

Yeah, I remember Metal Gear Solid 2. I looked forward to the game for months, I rarely ever do that for a game. It took 3 years before it hit the PC, then it turned out they had screwed up the controls.

@Gozu

When was the first time you saw a pc game offer a 1600x1200 resolution? Can’t remember? Well that’s no surprise as such resolutions have been available for 10 years. That’s because there were monitors capable of reaching those resolutions for 10 years as well. Nowadays, 1600x1200 is Still the highest resolution offered by 99.9% of all pc monitors. So you can take my word for it when I say that , in 10 years, 99.99% of gamers will play at 1920x1200 or lower. To recap, PC games will look no sharper than their console counterparts for the next 10 years.

As an aside, here is another theory of mine. Monitors have steadily been increasing in size. It’s a slow process but it’s happening. …

Ten years ago was 1995, the glorious days of W95, Doom, Quake etc. A standard game (if any) did not support 1600x1200 back then, so if you believe that you must be dreaming. As for the monitor size argument, I agree that there’s a ceiling.

I have nothing else to add to this.

@Gozu

Sure, just like independant movies are defining cinema today. Alien, meet the american public, american public, laugh at Alien. (feel free to replace american by any other nationality, my statement will remain true)

Do we have two types of cinemas, one for each platform? Oh, wait a minute, yes we do! Which one is doing better?

If all the wanna-be developers are programming on one platform, don’t you think that could hurt software development on the other platform?

@Gozu

Far Cry, Doom3 and Half-life 2. Yep, 2004 was a good year for FPS.

If that’s all the games you’re aware of, you’ve missed out on a hell of lot of fun. Doom 3 doesn’t even make it into my top 15 list of Best PC Games of 2004, but’s that’s just a personal opinion.

[Alien]

@Pochacco

IMHO, PC games are dying.

Or, rather, a certain type of PC game is dying. The high-profile big releases are dwindling away, leaving the platform to budget titles and casual downloadable games.

Yeah, I know there are exceptions. PCs still own the MMOG market and Will Wright still has the capacity to sell big on the PC, but when you look at the industry top-seller lists they’re dominated by the consoles. Walk into any EB and compare the size of the PC section to what it was even five years ago; it’s much, much smaller. Get ahold of some industry market-share figures and you’ll see that PC revenues have been declining while console revenues have been growing.

Well, there’s a big difference in first stating that “PC games are dying”, followed up by your “Or, rather, a certain type of PC game is dying. The high-profile big releases are dwindling away”

Every time a new console is released a lot of people claim that the PC gaming industry is going to hit the floor. That’s how it has always been. Everytime they have been proven wrong.

Just to clear up any misunderstandings, nobody as I recall has in this thread said that PC gaming has the biggest market share, or that blockbuster games is a PC thing. On the contrary, except for a small period in the 90s (AFAIK) PC gaming has always been a minority. PC games had 17% of the market in 2003, and 15% of the market in 2004.

However, according to the figures, the PC user base is stable (ie. there’s just as many new consumers coming in as going out), so we’re not seeing a huge group of users giving up on the PC, opting for a console instead. The slow decline of market shares we witness for PC gaming has mainly to do with growth, as expected, in the console market, not fewer PC gamers.

These days a lot of games are multi-platform releases, and many games, especially the high publicity games, are released on all 4 major platforms (Ubisoft for example is scheduled to release Rainbow Six Lockdown, Ghost Recon 3, Prince of Persia 3, Splinter Cell 4 and Brothers In Arms 2 on all platforms).

Personally, I don’t care if a game is released on other platforms than the one I’m using. And as long as the ports are good I really don’t see neither change, nor do I see a problem for PC gaming.

@Pochacco

With the current generation of systems the PC games can still compete. But with the XBox 2 and the PS 3 the doors are really going to blow wide open. We’re talking development budgets in the $10-30 million range for next-gen AAA console titles. PC games simply don’t have the customer base to support that.
…
Instead what will happen is that most projects will target a console as the primary platform with the PC titles following as a port – much like how the Macintosh game market has been served over the last fifteen years.

First of all, the PS3 is not rumoured to be released until 2007-2008. We will see several generations of computer CPUs and GPUs released before that. Many console games look good today, in spite of low refresh rates and resolutions. In 2007 we will have better looking console games and we will have better looking PC games. So what will be the difference from today? In reality, you are claiming that improved console hardware will trump the physical gaming enviroment, something I find hard to believe,

As for production cost: The PC gaming industry has been a minority for years. If the production cost of game is $10 million for the first platform, then a $2-$6 million for each additional platform, it’s’ only logical that the initial platform is the one with the biggest revenue potential. But that’s not a thing of the future, that’s how it is today.

There’s an old interview (before the Xbox) with Shawn Sanford, a group product manager at Microsoft, where he said:

I really don’t look at the console as a competitor to the PC in gaming, or vice versa. I view the PC and the game console as complementary devices that provide two different gaming environments. The game console is a much more social platform that allows people to sit on the couch with their friends and play games in the family room. Gaming on the PC enables a more intense gaming environment, where role-playing and strategy are more prevalent. When you look at the incredible growth in the computer games industry, it’s obvious there is plenty of room in the gaming world for both types of devices. With these two gaming environments, the ultimate benefit is to home users because they can choose the gaming platform that will give them the best experience.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/03-01games.asp

[The_Hamster_King]

@Alien

Well, there’s a big difference in first stating that “PC games are dying”, followed up by your “Or, rather, a certain type of PC game is dying. The high-profile big releases are dwindling away”

How about this: The future of PC gaming is casual games and console ports.

These days a lot of games are multi-platform releases, and many games, especially the high publicity games, are released on all 4 major platforms (Ubisoft for example is scheduled to release Rainbow Six Lockdown, Ghost Recon 3, Prince of Persia 3, Splinter Cell 4 and Brothers In Arms 2 on all platforms).

Odd that you should pick Red Storm games as your examples. I was the lead designer on both the original Rainbow Six and the original Ghost Recon.

When we made the first R6 back in '98 we developed for the PC first and turned a profit on that platform alone. The console ports came after the game was a hit and were just icing on the cake.

When we made GR in '01 the economics had changed. The PC and XBox versions were developed simultaneously to reduce the risk of developing for the PC alone.

I left Red Storm in 2002 but even then they were moving toward the consoles being the primary platforms with the PC being a niche market. Development effort follows money, and there’s more money to be made in consoles.

Personally, I don’t care if a game is released on other platforms than the one I’m using. And as long as the ports are good I really don’t see neither change, nor do I see a problem for PC gaming.

The problem for PC gaming is that as the PC market share gets smaller so does the economic incentive to do a port. PC gaming won’t go away entirely, but I can easily see it dwindling to resemble the Mac gaming market where only a handful of big titles get ported over and there’s very little original development.

This is a very different picture than the way things were in the early 90’s when some of the most original and innovative titles came out of the PC world.

First of all, the PS3 is not rumoured to be released until 2007-2008.

LOL. I’m the lead designer on a PS3 title. The new Sony and Microsoft consoles are both scheduled to be unveiled at E3 this year. Without revealing confidential information I will suggest to you that based on the timing of the public unveilings alone it should be clear that your release dates are unduly pessimistic.

We will see several generations of computer CPUs and GPUs released before that. Many console games look good today, in spite of low refresh rates and resolutions. In 2007 we will have better looking console games and we will have better looking PC games. So what will be the difference from today? In reality, you are claiming that improved console hardware will trump the physical gaming enviroment, something I find hard to believe,

No. If you go back and read my post I say nothing of the sort. I say that comparing hardware capabilities doesn’t really matter because marketshare is a far more important factor. I’m sure that the PCs of 2007 will be more powerful than the consoles of 2007.

The key point is that as the hardware gets better you need a big jump in content creation as well. If a system moves 10 times the polygons of its predecessor, then your content creation demands increase proportionally. This pushes break-evens over the 1 million mark, which the PC marketplace can’t support.

As a result, PC games will tend to look worse, not because they don’t have the processing power, but because their smaller sales figures can’t justify the increase in production quality. At some point the difference in quality will be great enough that it trumps any advantages the PC may have in a particular genre.

As for production cost: The PC gaming industry has been a minority for years. If the production cost of game is $10 million for the first platform, then a $2-$6 million for each additional platform, it’s’ only logical that the initial platform is the one with the biggest revenue potential. But that’s not a thing of the future, that’s how it is today.

Yes. But just as dwindling market share has been shrinking the number of games that have the PC as their primary platform, it will also begin to shrink the number of games that it makes financial sense to port.

There’s an old interview (before the Xbox) with Shawn Sanford, a group product manager at Microsoft, where he said:

Yes, some games play better on the PC. Each platform has its own strengths and weaknesses. But its interesting to note that even with a genre like first-person shooter where the PC delivers a much better experience, the movement over the last decade has been to the console being the primary platform.

Ten years ago I never would have thought that we’d arrive at a point where the dominant FPS would be (primarily) a console title. But nevertheless Halo exists.

[RaftPeople]

[QUOTE=Alien]

Gozu, you keep mentioning this. I just can’t see how it can be true, and you have certainly not proved it. I have no doubt that a console will outperform a computer with identical or similar specs, but the thing is, they aren’t identical, computers are way more powerful.

@Alien

I’m sorry, but I’m not going down this road. If we have to end up in a debate about the pros and cons of detailed hardware specs for different platforms, we might as well whip out our penises and wipe the dust off the ruler. It should go without saying that market shares are won based on the quality, price and availability of a product. Hardware plays just one part in this.

The only reason I was harping on the performance of Xbox2 and PS3 was because of the statement by you and others that PC’s are more powerful than consoles even at the time of the consoles introduction.

The point is, and it is relevant to this discussion, that your statement is clearly not going to be the case with the Xbox2 and the PS3. This is indicative of the general trend originally stated by Gozu and confirmed by Pochacco.

As for the pissing contest, well Sony and Microsoft (I don’t include Nintendo because they appear to have ceded a key portion of the market) would disagree with you. They each want the public to think that their system is the best, and you do this by creating something that people will be impressed with. It is the same reason every new action movie has special effects that surpass the last one.

Clearly you do not want to attempt to make any arguments that will support your position that PC’s will be as powerful as the Xbox2 and PS3 at their introduction. Ok fine. I will end that portion of the discussion with the following thoughts:

Just so you don’t think I’m talking out my ass, I got my start writing video games which means I understand microprocessors, etc. down at the low level (not just theory). I am now creating enterprise business applications and I follow the processor market closely due to an interest from the business perspective.

When the Xbox2 arrives in the holiday season of 2005 (most likely), you will see a processor that absolutely outperforms anything in a PC at that time. Even if Intel/AMD come out with dual cores in 05 they will not match the performance of 3 Power5’s. If you are not aware of the details or why this is, I suggest you research it and understand it, there is plenty of information on google.

When the PS3 arrives in spring of 2006 (most likely), you will see an even more powerful processor for games. If they have 4 cells (will they Pochacco?) then Virginia Tech might even be tempted to scrap their Apple Xserve super computer with one made from PS3’s (I know, I know, it’s only single precision floating point so the super computers can’t use it, but it sure would be funny to see a network of PS3’s in the top 500).

@Alien

There’s an old interview (before the Xbox) with Shawn Sanford, a group product manager at Microsoft, where he said:
I really don’t look at the console as a competitor to the PC in gaming, or vice versa. I view the PC and the game console as complementary devices that provide two different gaming environments. The game console is a much more social platform that allows people to sit on the couch with their friends and play games in the family room. Gaming on the PC enables a more intense gaming environment, where role-playing and strategy are more prevalent. When you look at the incredible growth in the computer games industry, it’s obvious there is plenty of room in the gaming world for both types of devices. With these two gaming environments, the ultimate benefit is to home users because they can choose the gaming platform that will give them the best experience.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/03-01games.asp

Here’s a tip: There is nothing that Microsoft says that does not serve their interests. I’m not being negative, just factual. Every single one of these quotes I’ve ever read from Microsoft reads like they ran it through their Micro-speak Quote Generator program. I have tremendous respect but Microsoft’s business abilities, clearly they have kicked ass on everyone, but their quotes are like reading propaganda during the war, they do not reflect reality, they reflect the reality they want you to believe.

[Gozu]

@Alien

Since both you and erislover return to this argument, I’ll play along: You bring a console, I’ll go down to the computer graveyard to dig up something old. We install our boxes and load the game. I watch you while you enthusiastically wave your arms around, directing my attention to the screens. My God, it appears that you are right, the console does seem to run faster and better.

But I remain calm [insert Clint Eastwood look]. First I point out that your console is running at 512x384 resolution, while the PC is running at 1024x768. Damn, that’s a lot of vasted power. So I reduce the resolution, though I cannot go below 640x480. I also take the opportunity to reduce the refresh rate from 72 down to 30. You look worried. I then bring to your attention the fact that the texture’s on my PC are more detailed and take up more of my precious memory. I demand to be allowed to unload my textures and replace them with yours. You reluctantly agree. As we continue to toss out stuff that has been added in the PC version, whether that’s higher details, graphic filters, sound filters, additional interactive elements in the maps, or other extras, you realize that your beloved console might not be so superior after all as my PC speeds away. Or maybe you don’t.

Look, console games are great games and they look a lot better than they used to do. It’s just that there’s a lot of things that are added in PC games that you never think about, or that you might never notice.

Sure, PCs always have more memory available which gives you the possibility of having higher resolution textures. And sure, you can lower a game’s resolution to 640x480 to improve framerates (heck, I remember lowering it to 512x384 which games actually used to support back in the day.) and no, you can’t lower the refresh rate to anything below 60. I’m not going to comment on graphic filters or sound filters which you appear to have thrown in just to make your list longer. What I know, as a gamer who has played both platforms side by side for many years is that as a general rule, console games are visually superior to their pc counterparts for the first couple of years after the console was launched. Maybe it’s all in my head, maybe i’m crazy or maybe not. All I know is that in my reality, that’s the way things are. I can postulate as to the why but it’s irrelevant. Only the end result matters.

Yeah, I remember Metal Gear Solid 2. I looked forward to the game for months, I rarely ever do that for a game. It took 3 years before it hit the PC, then it turned out they had screwed up the controls.

That is a testimony to your good taste. I actually played the PC port a few months ago (I had already played through the PS2 version) and while I still own the PS2 copy, the game just looks significantly better on PC (thanks to the higher resolution support). As for the controls, i actually used a ps2 usb adapter and played it using my dual shock. It played exactly like the PS2 version except for the missing vibration (the usb adapter supports it). So, if you still feel like playing it, get an ps2 usb adapter. They are very cheap. (I recommend the smartjoy plus)

[quote]
Ten years ago was 1995, the glorious days of W95, Doom, Quake etc. A standard game (if any) did not support 1600x1200 back then, so if you believe that you must be dreaming.
[/quote[

Ah, what’s important is whether or not monitors supporting 1600x1200 existed back then. I’m sure only a few games supported 1600x1200 at first. I actually tried to find out exactly when the first monitor supporting 1600x1200 appeared by I had no luck finding out. Maybe you’ll have better luck. In any case, I’d really like to know because I might be off by a year or two.

Do we have two types of cinemas, one for each platform? Oh, wait a minute, yes we do! Which one is doing better?

I’m sorry but I have no idea what you meant by that.

If all the wanna-be developers are programming on one platform, don’t you think that could hurt software development on the other platform?

Nah, not really. They all use the same programming languages. (C and C++ mostly) Everybody starts programming on a computer first. (or a calculator

If that’s all the games you’re aware of, you’ve missed out on a hell of lot of fun. Doom 3 doesn’t even make it into my top 15 list of Best PC Games of 2004, but’s that’s just a personal opinion.

Those are the 3 FPS i’ve played all the way through (well, I didn’t quite finish Doom3…)last year. I’m sure you can guess why those 3. Keep in mind that I have a very demanding taste and little patience and time so I only play outstanding games.

[UselessGit]

Based on my experience, a few statements here strike me as odd:

1: You need a top-end computer to play new PC games ‘like they were meant to be played’.

I installed Doom3 and a couple of other ‘heavy’ games both on my old PC (2.4Ghz, 1gb RAM, RADEON 9600 XT) and the one I just built (3.0 Ghz (HT), 1,5gb RAM, RADEON 9600 XT); there was no significant difference and the only time it doesn’t perform is when I run it windowed alongside Football Manager 2005, a mountrously heavy game to run. That said, I notice that people in the US tend to have older, slower machines, so maybe you consider my old PC ‘high-end’. shrugs

2: Consoles are better for ‘action’ games (sports, etc) and are a more ‘social’ platform.

I truly believe this is just due to the inherit awfulness of PC controllers. I had a PC for work and PC games and a PS2 to play Pro Evolution Soccer 4 (the 16 joypad buttons and endless combinations make it impossible to play on a PC) until I discovered the PS2 Joypad to USB2 converter and subsequently binned my PS2 (literally). I now play the same game with much, much better graphics (they really don’t even compare), the same joypads and all, and since my PC is hooked to the same projector as the PS2 was, the only difference you see are the vast graphical improvements (even in 800X600, the lowest I can go) and the total disappearance of loading times (by Thor, I hate these damned console loading times). Note that I do admit that the PS2’s graphics can really outdo its specs but it seems that most game programmers can’t utilize the system (see ICO for PS2 for a good example of the PS2’s possibilities).

3: PC games need endless patches and upgrades; console games don’t.

This is a bad thing? To take the same example as before, a lot of glitches in Pro Evo 4’s gameplay and physics in the PS2 were simply fixed in the PC game with a patch; something damn near impossible with PS2 games. I can also mod the PC games so they work exactly like I want them to. Again, to take the same example, Pro Evo 4 doesn’t have correct player and team squad information (copyright issues, I assume) but one downloaded option file for the PC version take care of that in less than a minute–download time included. I can also get an ‘England patch’, which would give me a chance to play the top three English divisions instead of the collection of international and club teams on offer in the original. Again, this would be very difficult to impossible to do on the PS2, as far as I know.

Mostly, I think consoles and PC’s just attract different types of people. PC fans like myself want to be able to mess around with the hardware and software, whereas a lot of people just want a no-nonsense, trouble-free gaming experience, something a PC simply can not offer. Seeing as I am a man who just threw out a perfectly good PS2, I daresay I am somewhat PC-biased, but I just can’t see a single thing about consoles or console games that makes me think they offer a better gaming experience for me; just simpler (and yes, I have played more games than Pro Evo 4 on the PS2). On the other hand, a lot of people apparently really aren’t into the whole ‘Zen and the Art of Computer Maintenance’ thing.

PC games will die when PC gamers do; until then we can only hope that releases will be fewer and better–WWII gets a little boring after the first 72 times you win it, and please, people, please give me something else than zombies to shoot. Commies, Nazis, Arabs, Eskimos… anything! The jumping Bunny Wabbitt console games have also lost some of their considerable charm by now. A little origininality, please.

[UselessGit]

Dangit… in the post above, I used to have a RADEON 9200 SE before I upgraded to 9600 XT; there obviously wouldn’t be much difference in graphic performance if I had the same GPU in both machines now, would it?

[Alien]

@Pochacco

The problem for PC gaming is that as the PC market share gets smaller so does the economic incentive to do a port. PC gaming won’t go away entirely, but I can easily see it dwindling to resemble the Mac gaming market where only a handful of big titles get ported over and there’s very little original development.

Well, I’m going to be hard pressed to disagree with someone with intimate knowledge of the industry. So consider the following some friendly poking

I agree with you entirely that this is about revenue. I also agree with you that we saw a shift in the market about 5 years ago. But I do not agree that the PC market will resemble the Mac gaming market with only a handful of ported big titles and little original development, because: While the market share for PC gaming has been shrinking slowly for several years, the user base (the number of PC game buyers) remains virtually constant. Meaning, there is just as many PC users buying games as before. I don’t think that user base will shrink, partly because the physical enviroment of PC gaming is different than console gaming. I believe that consoles first and foremost will compete will consoles.

But if I understood you correctly, you meant that the PC market has to increase it’s user base to make up for higher production costs, and that this also applies to ports? If so, what do you read into the comments from LucasArt and Microsft from this before-E3 article?

At LucasArts, the big title of the show will be “Star Wars: Empire At War,” a strategy game only for the PC, expected to release in the fall. Developed by Las Vegas-based Petroglyph, which created the successful “Command & Conquer” series, the game “represents LucasArts’ commitment to the PC market,” says Peter Hirschmann, vp of product development. “You know, you can get blinded by the sexiness of the new next-gen hardware, but the PC market is still a nice place to be; I think a lot of publishers look at the PC space for a little stability as the platform transition happens.”

Not surprisingly, Microsoft agrees. While it won’t talk about the games it plans to release for its next-gen Xbox, it is delighted to talk up its commitment to PC gaming (or “Windows gaming,” in Microsoft parlance). Microsoft will be showcasing “Age Of Empires III” at E3, the next iteration in the historical real-time strategy series.

“Some people have said that the popularity of Windows gaming will level off as the excitement of console gaming heightens,” says Microsoft’s Kim. “I think that’s too easy an answer. We’re obviously big believers in both platforms. You have to acknowledge that there’s a large audience out there that may never buy a console, but is very comfortable with their PC. We’re all about tailoring the content to the right audience. We’re trying to make sure that Windows gaming is as great as it can be and not taking titles that have been successful on consoles and trying to make them fit onto the PC. I don’t think that’s the best thing we can do.”

While Kim wouldn’t be more specific, he referred to Microsoft’s recent announcement that its next Xbox will move gaming “from the 3D Era to the HD Era.” The console is expected to feature lush, high-res video quality and Microsoft will require all its next-gen games to function with Xbox Live, its online gaming service.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=9194&filter=hollywood&email=

Is this a suicide strategy?

@Pochacco

No. If you go back and read my post I say nothing of the sort. I say that comparing hardware capabilities doesn’t really matter because marketshare is a far more important factor. I’m sure that the PCs of 2007 will be more powerful than the consoles of 2007.

Let’s see if I got it: You do believe that computers in 2007 will be more powerful than console in 2007, but it doesn’t matter because the increasing console user base will not only force the gaming industry to focus more on games for that market, but higher production cost will also force the industry to use less resources on the PC market … (?)

Something else, since this thread has your attention, could you bring some detailed insight on what kind of work it involves to port games?

[Alien]

@RaftPeople

The only reason I was harping on the performance of Xbox2 and PS3 was because of the statement by you and others that PC’s are more powerful than consoles even at the time of the consoles introduction.

If I did, I should take the opportunity to moderate myself. First, I differentiate between visuals and processing power. Regarding the latter, it might be true that some consoles process games just as well as computers, though I’ve never heard that a console does that for years after its release. Regarding the former, up until now consoles has had significantly lower resolutions, as well as missed out on advanced graphics filtering. That counts in gaming. And I’m not feeling comfortable discussing the visuals of a future console that noone has seen yet.

Xbox2 and PS3 might very well turn the table. BUT: This discussion about the death of PC gaming has always surfaced every time a new console has been released in the past. I would rather wait and see than jump on this bandwagon.

I also very well understand the impact on hardware development because of the fierce competition between the consoles. I don’t disagree.

And while I didnt’t sound that way (I recall I used the word never), I’m actually open for the possibility that all the console will end up having more processing power than computers. But I also have three objection: 1. Processing power isn’t all there is to data management, 2. The physical enviroment for PC gaming is different than console gaming, and 3. Nobody knows what the futere will bring.

What do you make of the comments by Pochacco that the PCs of 2007 will be more powerful than the consoles of 2007, but it’s not about that, it’s about user base and revenue?

[erislover]

I think Pochacco is merely reiterating a point made by several posters already in that regard. The economics of gaming development and end-user experience have been one of the top points in the thread since page one. What I find interesting is that, as primarily a console gamer, I feel the average lifetime of 5 years for a console is too short. Just as developers start hitting their stride (usually third year games, development for which probably lagged first-gen games by two years) plans begin for the next-gen and the learning curve starts anew. Every console’s end-run games seem to accomplish things that, generally, were not expected when the console first opened up, though I think the reality of that was most stark for the end of the PS1’s life when load times became the exception rather than the rule and the games still looked better. Metroid’s mostly-hidden load times still amaze me given the specification-deficient (from the perspective of PCs) GameCube. Console programmers seem to show a dedication to the gaming experience: instead of expecting hardware improvements to keep them afloat, they look to themselves and push the systems as hard as they can to accomplish their ends. The result is, to me, a higher level of quality in the experience rather than any kind of trivial appearance of technical proficiency; it is not the size of the wand but the magick that is in it.

The PC mindset does not seem to port to consoles, as the tragically crippled Fable from Lionhead demonstrates in spades. I do not believe it was that their ambitions were too high (though that is par for the course with Molyneux, witness the disappointing B&W) but that they lacked the mindset necessary for console development (however, I absolutely loved how seamless and smoothly-integrated different combat modes were, that constrol scheme was just brilliant; if only combat wasn’t so shallow!). But as others note, the console mindset does not port to PCs, either, without presenting the game as crippled there, too; it seems the expectations of the respective audiences are different enough to cause a real schism. I don’t believe those differences lie in sitting on the couch versus sitting in a chair, or anything more cynical about the nature of console gamers.

[RaftPeople]

@Alien

If I did, I should take the opportunity to moderate myself. First, I differentiate between visuals and processing power. Regarding the latter, it might be true that some consoles process games just as well as computers, though I’ve never heard that a console does that for years after its release. Regarding the former, up until now consoles has had significantly lower resolutions, as well as missed out on advanced graphics filtering. That counts in gaming. And I’m not feeling comfortable discussing the visuals of a future console that noone has seen yet.

Xbox2 and PS3 might very well turn the table. BUT: This discussion about the death of PC gaming has always surfaced every time a new console has been released in the past. I would rather wait and see than jump on this bandwagon.

I also very well understand the impact on hardware development because of the fierce competition between the consoles. I don’t disagree.

And while I didnt’t sound that way (I recall I used the word never), I’m actually open for the possibility that all the console will end up having more processing power than computers. But I also have three objection: 1. Processing power isn’t all there is to data management, 2. The physical enviroment for PC gaming is different than console gaming, and 3. Nobody knows what the futere will bring.

What do you make of the comments by Pochacco that the PCs of 2007 will be more powerful than the consoles of 2007, but it’s not about that, it’s about user base and revenue?

1. Processing power
   Yes processing power is not all there is, but it is a significant driver of what you can accomplish. Aside from all the obvious graphics issues, it also influences how much “stuff” you are keeping track of, how many AI’s, how advanced AI algorithms, neural networks are resource intensive (very) and these give you good AI compared to algorithmic methods, etc. etc.

2. Physical Environment
   Don’t disagree. Please recall my original post at the very beginning was that we would continue to have both.

My primary objection was with statements like “PC’s are more powerful than consoles.”

3. True. But we can see trends.
   As for Pochacco saying that PC’s of 2007 will be more powerful than consoles of 2007, I would say that could be accurate if we are talking about the leap frogging effect due to new console release dates.

But in general terms, if you are comparing consoles at time of introduction to PC’s at that same time, then it is clearly wrong.

I’m not sure if you’ve done that research yet on Power5 performance vs x86, and watched the slowing of the performance gains in the x86 architecture over the years (to the point of retaining the pentium name on a chip that was supposed to get a new name purely because it would have been a marketing disaster to have such limited performance gain in a new chip) etc. etc.

But if you do your research, you will realize that 3 Power5’s at .65nm, each with dual instructions running at about 3ghz is well beyond a dual core Pentium at .65nm.

Because me stating it is clearly unconvincing, do some googling, there is tons of information out there.

[Alien]

@Gozu

Keep in mind that I have a very demanding taste and little patience and time so I only play outstanding games.

[and]:

What I know, as a gamer who has played both platforms side by side for many years is that as a general rule, console games are visually superior to their pc counterparts for the first couple of years after the console was launched. Maybe it’s all in my head, maybe i’m crazy or maybe not. All I know is that in my reality, that’s the way things are. I can postulate as to the why but it’s irrelevant. Only the end result matters.

I would like to start with both your first and last comment - and make a broad assumption: If you only play the “outstanding games” (blockbusters or high production), can this be the reason why you believe that console games looks so good? Because there’s no doubt that high production games looks very good on some consoles. But the rest of the pack, IMO, looks ordinary or even terrible. On the PC there aren’t many games that look bad, my verdict is usually either very good or outstanding. And I say this as a buyer of both “blockbuster” games and a fair amount of unknown budget games.

@Gozu

Sure, PCs always have more memory available which gives you the possibility of having higher resolution textures. And sure, you can lower a game’s resolution to 640x480 to improve framerates (heck, I remember lowering it to 512x384 which games actually used to support back in the day.) and no, you can’t lower the refresh rate to anything below 60. I’m not going to comment on graphic filters or sound filters which you appear to have thrown in just to make your list longer.

Lowering resolution to 640x480 makes a PC game run like hell, though it looks like shit. We’re no only talking about more than twice the pixel density in advantage of computers, consols are typically also played on a bigger screen. Maybe it’s because it’s so far from the tv to the couch that console gamers don’t notice this.

Besides that, my example was based on the same amount of memory available for the game. And I didnt’t throw things in to make my list bigger. Graphic effects that are unavailable on consoles add * enormously* to the visuals of a PC game with a good GPU and monitor, at the expense of plenty of resources. Sound filtering may also require its fair share of resources, particularly evironmental sound (EAX) can be a resource hog.

@Gozu

>>>Do we have two types of cinemas, one for each platform? Oh, wait a minute, yes we do! Which one is doing better?

I’m sorry but I have no idea what you meant by that.

You thought I was talking about the indie-crowd and indicated that people should laugh at me, but I was talking about next generation developers flocking to one platform instead of the other.

@Gozu

So, if you still feel like playing it, get an ps2 usb adapter. They are very cheap. (I recommend the smartjoy plus)

Thanks for the tip. Appreciated.

@Gozu

Those are the 3 FPS i’ve played all the way through (well, I didn’t quite finish Doom3…)last year. I’m sure you can guess why those 3. Keep in mind that I have a very demanding taste and little patience and time so I only play outstanding games.

I was referring to action games in general, not necessarily FPS. As for PC releases so far in 2005, I have made mental notes of (not an exhaustive list, some multi-platform, some maybe of late 2004): The Chronicles of Riddick, KOTOR II: The Sith Lords, Second Sight, Star Wars Republic Commando, Freedom Force vs. the 3rd Reich, Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30, SWAT 4, Project Snowblind, DOOM 3: Resurrection of Evil.

I’m not going to buy them all, just saying that from the first 3 months alone this year there are more than enough to keep me occupied.

[Gozu]

@Alien

I would like to start with both your first and last comment - and make a broad assumption: If you only play the “outstanding games” (blockbusters or high production), can this be the reason why you believe that console games looks so good? Because there’s no doubt that high production games looks very good on some consoles. But the rest of the pack, IMO, looks ordinary or even terrible. On the PC there aren’t many games that look bad, my verdict is usually either very good or outstanding. And I say this as a buyer of both “blockbuster” games and a fair amount of unknown budget games.

That’s a possibility. I do only play outstanding games on both PC and consoles.

Lowering resolution to 640x480 makes a PC game run like hell, though it looks like shit. We’re no only talking about more than twice the pixel density in advantage of computers, consols are typically also played on a bigger screen. Maybe it’s because it’s so far from the tv to the couch that console gamers don’t notice this.

Indeed. That and the natural blurring/smoothing typical of tvs. Thankfully, that’s going to be a thing of the past soon.

Besides that, my example was based on the same amount of memory available for the game. And I didnt’t throw things in to make my list bigger. Graphic effects that are unavailable on consoles add * enormously to the visuals of a PC game with a good GPU and monitor, at the expense of plenty of resources. Sound filtering may also require its fair share of resources, particularly evironmental sound (EAX) can be a resource hog.*

Well, I figured you were talking about AA/AF but if you’re referring to the other kind, then consoles have been implementing those just as the PCs did. All the way from Gouraud shading to bloom effect.

**You thought I was talking about the indie-crowd and indicated that people should laugh at me, but I was talking about next generation developers flocking to one platform instead of the other. **

The devs as a whole will go where they can make good games and good money. I don’t believe some sentimental attachment to the PC will make any difference.

I was referring to action games in general, not necessarily FPS. As for PC releases so far in 2005, I have made mental notes of (not an exhaustive list, some multi-platform, some maybe of late 2004): The Chronicles of Riddick, KOTOR II: The Sith Lords, Second Sight, Star Wars Republic Commando, Freedom Force vs. the 3rd Reich, Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30, SWAT 4, Project Snowblind, DOOM 3: Resurrection of Evil.

Chronicles of Riddick: Played it. Surprisingly good considering the movie was mediocre and a commendable console port to be sure. KOTOR II (another console port) wouldn’t support my gamepad (what were they thinking?) so I skipped it. It was horrible trying to play it with kb/mouse. Second Sight (another port??!) didn’t get good enough reviews so I never bothered, SWRC (another port, what is it with the ports?) i have played and it was a nicely done game for sure. But then I got Resident Evil 4 and It’s been gathering dust. I’m sure i’ll pick it back in a little while. Haven’t played the others but the only one that appeals to me is BIA. I’ll have to check it out.

I’m not going to buy them all, just saying that from the first 3 months alone this year there are more than enough to keep me occupied.
[/QUOTE]

[Gozu]

Ack, I keep mixing up Bold with Quote for some reason. And for the second time I forgot to preview. Apologies.

[The_Hamster_King]

@RaftPeople

If they have 4 cells (will they Pochacco?) then Virginia Tech might even be tempted to scrap their Apple Xserve super computer with one made from PS3’s (I know, I know, it’s only single precision floating point so the super computers can’t use it, but it sure would be funny to see a network of PS3’s in the top 500).

LOL, answering that question would get me fired … if I knew the answer. In reality I don’t know much about the internals of the system. It’s very much on a need-to-know basis and since I’m not dealing with actual implementation issues, well, I don’t need to know. The way it works is that I propose something and the engineers who do know the internals tell me if its feasible or not.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Alien

Is this a suicide strategy?

Sorry … I have to answer quick because I’m heading out.

In the case of the first quote what they’re saying is that while the console world is undergoing the big upheaval of the generation switch they’re happy that they can could on some steady revenue from the PC side. It doesn’t address what happens after the console market settles out again.

In the case of the second quote … well, real-time strategy is the one genre where consoles haven’t made significant inroads. It’s the most mouse-dependent of the gaming genres and no-one has really figured out a satisfactory way to deliver that experience on the console.

I actually suspect that the real challege to the PC RTS market won’t come from livingroom consoles, but from handhelds. But that’s just a guess.

Let’s see if I got it: You do believe that computers in 2007 will be more powerful than console in 2007, but it doesn’t matter because the increasing console user base will not only force the gaming industry to focus more on games for that market, but higher production cost will also force the industry to use less resources on the PC market … (?)

Basically, yes.

Something else, since this thread has your attention, could you bring some detailed insight on what kind of work it involves to port games?

Yes, but not this morning. I’ll try to log on again tonight.