# Article: The sorry state of Windows gaming



## ToeClaws (Nov 6, 2009)

Okay so ah... first off, I didn't write this article so if any MS fanboys are horribly offended, don't offload on me. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33624209/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

It brings up some interesting points for sure but for me it also highlights an interesting concern over how PC gaming will continue to roll out in the next few years.  

There's also been some great advances in game compatibility under WINE in Linux/Unix, plus the MacOS has an ever-increasing market share, so it's possible that Windows will be on the decline as a game platform soon (something else the article does hint at).  

It will be interesting to see how the market plays out in the next 4 years - could be some big changes, or could just return to the status-quo with Windows 7 being the main platform.  Would love to see DirectX open-sourced, but highly doubt that will happen.  Anyone have some predictions or thoughts to share?


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 6, 2009)

Msnbc is totally a legit source for gaming news.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 6, 2009)

MSNBC.com said:
			
		

> Of the 20 most acclaimed mainstream Windows games released in 2008, half were multiplatform, and of those, majors like "Mass Effect," "Grand Theft Auto IV" and "Dead Space" arrived in console form first.



Ugly truth:  It's just easier to develop console games.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 6, 2009)

As much as people joke about gamers' propensity to be constantly upgrading their systems to the latest and greatest technology, I do believe Microsoft has been overestimating that and has been since Vista. They've been very brazen about forcing new technologies on people (DX10 is Vista only) and then fucking that up (Halo 2 being marketed as a DX10 game despite the fact that it works fine in DX9 on XP with version checks disabled.)

And, well, people are getting tired of the bullshit. 

Gamers are tired of the new technologies of questionable benefit being forced on them.

They're tired of the draconian, machine-crippling DRM that comes bundled with most modern PC games.

They're tired of being told they can only install the game three times before then they need to buy a new copy.

They're tired of being lumped in with the frothing-at-the mouth fanboys who will happily upgrade their systems to accommodate all this.

With all the bullshit involved in PC gaming these days, it's little wonder that the $250-$400 gaming console that will work for at least a couple of years starts to look really, really appealing.

(And yes, I do realize that the problems aren't caused only by Microsoft. They are endemic to the PC gaming community, of which Microsoft is a part.)


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 6, 2009)

net-cat said:


> As much as people joke about gamers' propensity to be constantly upgrading their systems to the latest and greatest technology, I do believe Microsoft has been overestimating that and has been since Vista. They've been very brazen about forcing new technologies on people (DX10 is Vista only) and then fucking that up (Halo 2 being marketed as a DX10 game despite the fact that it works fine in DX9 on XP with version checks disabled.)
> 
> And, well, people are getting tired of the bullshit.
> 
> ...


I think you're overanalyzing this just a tad.

I'd say people just prefer playing games with controllers rather than a keyboard and mouse, myself.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 6, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I think you're overanalyzing this just a tad.
> 
> I'd say people just prefer playing games with controllers rather than a keyboard and mouse, myself.



I think Net-Cat's correct in a lot of his suggestions, but so are you - the increasing complications with PC gaming are driving a lot of game developers to try and produce games for consoles as well, or exclusively.  From a developer's perspective, that makes sense too given that writing for fixed hardware as opposed to random hardware bound by a fixed standard is a more sure way to make sure the game works with less testing.

My opinion on the matter is that gaming will move more (if not exclusively) into consoles eventually unless some more binding and stable standard comes into play for PCs.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 6, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I think you're overanalyzing this just a tad.
> 
> I'd say people just prefer playing games with controllers rather than a keyboard and mouse, myself.



I'd say it's more a case of consoles becoming the pre-eminent platform as far as the difficulties with keyboard/mouse control go. Take for example Saints Row 2 - Nigh unplayable with a keyboard and mouse, and yet had the control scheme been designed as such, it wouldn't have been a problem. Plain and simply, the controls were an afterthought when bringing the game to the PC (and this is especially evident in the fact that one cannot even choose which controller to use, and control customization barely works, if at all).

As more and more games take this route, more and more PC games become more playable with a controller than without, which has almost never been the case. Thankfully, Games For Windows brings native support to games bearing the label for the 360 gamepads, but I ask you, why is this even necessary? And wouldn't it be just as well to play on the 360 at that point?

It's sad, because you necessarily get much more precise aiming control with a mouse than you do a joystick - And yet, many shooters and other games that never would have been ten years ago are being optimized for joystick control. I wouldn't mind playing shooters on consoles if not for the fact that 1) there are frame rate issues, always and 2) Joysticks suck ass. If I could get a mouse and keyboard to run, I'd be fine.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 6, 2009)

I think that there's cost issues here, for both devs and consumers.

You can get a top of the line gaming console for $300. You can't get a PC for the same. Hell just upgrading your PC can cost more than that.

More over, piracy is a LOT easier on the PC.

PC piracy: Replace EXE with hacked EXE.

Wii: Softmodable, self-doable, but a lot of people are not computer savey enough to understand these instructions. (You know, all those Wii owners who ARN'T nerds.)

360: Drive mod, requires disassembly of system and the right tools to reflash the drive. Modded units could also be detected and banned from Xbox Live.

PS3: Currently Unmodable.

If I was a dev I sure as hell wouldn't make games for the PC. It's just too damn easy to pirate. Not only that, everyone bitches about DRM on the PC, but consoles are DRM from the ground up but no one moans about it.

The only PC games that seem to do REALLY well are online games that must link to centralized servers and be authenticated to play. What does Valve care if you pirate Left 4 Dead on PC? You need a ligit copy to play it on Steam or you are stuck playing on hacked servers and ass backwards systems that emulate LAN games, where all your friends are ligitimately playing on Steam. The same applies to MMORPGs.

There's little doubt that currently the PC is the secondary considderation for most developers who can't reliably get players to authenticate on their online network.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 6, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Not only that, everyone bitches about DRM on the PC, but consoles are DRM from the ground up but no one moans about it.


That's because the consoles are a closed environment and said DRM actually JustWorks(TM), whereas DRM on PC's usually has to be run as a system driver or service and constantly monitors in the background, some of which will even refuse to work if certain software (even something like Alcohol 120%) is present. Some DRM conflicts with other, legitimate programs, and even some hardware. This is why nobody bitches and complains about it on consoles - It isn't because PC users are pirates, it's because it doesn't bloody _work_ half the time and legitimate users get pissed off. See also: Spore (before the reversal).

One example of DRM that actually works to curb piracy is with The Sims 3 - Locking out content unless the user actually connects to a centralized server to download it using a legitimate key. Getting said content to work on a pirated copy of the game is nigh-impossible. However, even that wasn't foolproof, as some people still had issues with authentication.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 6, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> PS3: Currently Unmodable.


Interesting how Sony is the only console maker this generation that has embraced homebrew to a certain extent. (You can install an alternative OS, although it has limited hardware access. This seems to be sufficient for most homebrew.)


----------



## Runefox (Nov 6, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Interesting how Sony is the only console maker this generation that has embraced homebrew to a certain extent. (You can install an alternative OS, although it has limited hardware access. This seems to be sufficient for most homebrew.)



Especially interesting since the PSP is so closely-guarded and patched rigorously to attempt to thwart homebrew. Though I think the reasoning behind PS3 homebrew was to show off the power of the console and the Cell processor to devs - Things like render farms and such can be set up by networking PS3's in a cluster. Frankly, though, the desktop environments one might want to install onto the PS3 are almost unusably slow due to the lack of even 2D acceleration and the ability to access only 512MB of RAM (the 256MB VRAM can be added as swap space). It's not capable of rendering YouTube video at a proper rate, unlike the normal browser (which can, but has its own unique problems), because the single PowerPC processor that you're allowed to use (the SPE's are unlockable, but unusable without specialized software) is doing the decoding AND the rendering of the video, the cursor, the windows, everything. Actually, it would be neat if someone could write an Xorg driver to offload the rendering to the SPE's - That might speed things up dramatically.

But they dropped it for the PS3 Slim. D=


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 6, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Interesting how Sony is the only console maker this generation that has embraced homebrew to a certain extent. (You can install an alternative OS, although it has limited hardware access. This seems to be sufficient for most homebrew.)


 
But said hardware is PRETTY damn limited. It can't even access much of the graphics resouces outside of the frame buffer, so there's little to no 3D acceleration possible. The hypervisor is evidently rock solid on the PS3 and so long as there is an effective hypervisor, there is no real risk to enabling 'homebrew' without it turning into 'piracy'.

That said, few people ever actually utalized other operating systems on the PS3 and it's been abandoned for the PS3 Slim.

It is impressive however, to have released a console and now three years into it's life there isn't even a HINT of a mod on the horizon. Maybe Sony isn't outselling the Wii or the 360, but at least Sony is certian that every game played is a ligitimate paid for copy.



Runefox said:


> Especially interesting since the PSP is so closely-guarded and patched rigorously to attempt to thwart homebrew.


 
Let's not delude ourselves here.  Sony isn't fighting 'homebrew' on the PSP, Sony is fighting 'Running pirated ISOs straight off the MemoryStick' on the PSP.  Piracy on the PSP has been fucking HUGE and it has lead developers to be less interested in it as a platform.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 6, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Especially interesting since the PSP is so closely-guarded and patched rigorously to attempt to thwart homebrew. Though I think the reasoning behind PS3 homebrew was to show off the power of the console and the Cell processor to devs - Things like render farms and such can be set up by networking PS3's in a cluster.


I've heard many reasons, including but not limited to evading some European tax codes. (Not sure I believe this, though. Nobody gives a shit about European gamers, why would they start now?)



Runefox said:


> But they dropped it for the PS3 Slim. D=


I didn't realize that. LOL.



AshleyAshes said:


> But said hardware is PRETTY damn limited.  It can't even access much of the graphics resouces outside of the frame buffer, so there's little to no 3D acceleration possible.  The hypervisor is evidently rock solid on the PS3 and so long as there is an effective hypervisor, there is no real risk to enabling 'homebrew' without it turning into 'piracy'.


Actually, another factor in play here is that Sony is the only one of the current generation of consoles that isn't trying to make an extra few bucks reselling old titles.

With some performance hacks, I could run a SNES emulator on a 90 MHz Pentium. If Nintendo allowed even limited homebrew on the Wii, how much business would Virtual Console get when the homebrew emulators hit? (That's why Nintendo has been cracking down on it. System Update 4.2 was released for the sole purpose of breaking homebrew.)


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 6, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Actually, another factor in play here is that Sony is the only one of the current generation of consoles that isn't trying to make an extra few bucks reselling old titles.


 
You can directly download various PS1 titles off of the PlayStation Network. o.o  Sega is also apparently looking at releasing Dreamcast titles over PSN by some means.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 6, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Let's not delude ourselves here.  Sony isn't fighting 'homebrew' on the PSP, Sony is fighting 'Running pirated ISOs straight off the MemoryStick' on the PSP.  Piracy on the PSP has been fucking HUGE and it has lead developers to be less interested in it as a platform.



That's not all of it; Sony has come out and said on multiple occasions that "there is no interest in homebrew on the PSP"; I'm very sure that they could easily set up some kind of system whereby homebrew applications could be launched without allowing the launch of copyrighted material. Attempts to circumvent THAT would in my mind be a lot easier to call piracy.

For me, I've copied my games to my memory stick - As I'm sure Sony's found, they not only run faster (even when compressed), but also sip the battery by comparison to the UMD drive's guzzling. However, Sony's got Magic Gate - They're doing DRM to prevent copying of media files and so on already, why can't they do the same with their UMD's and offer the ability to do this normally?

Of course, the answer to all of that is that it's more work to extend to what they consider to be a niche market than it is to continue to claim that it's nothing but rampant piracy and release patches to fix holes in their firmware and new hardware to bypass other methods for enabling homebrew access.

No doubt piracy is rampant on the PSP, but that's honestly not what I use it for.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 6, 2009)

Runefox said:


> That's not all of it; Sony has come out and said on multiple occasions that "there is no interest in homebrew on the PSP"; I'm very sure that they could easily set up some kind of system whereby homebrew applications could be launched without allowing the launch of copyrighted material. Attempts to circumvent THAT would in my mind be a lot easier to call piracy.


 
I think that Sony would rather have things that just ARN'T piracy than things they can CALL piracy.

The PSP doesn't really have a hypervisor nor the hardware to do it.  Homebrew is a minor concern on the PSP and enabling it would leave doors open to straight up piracy.  Obviously the PSP has had enough issues with doors open to piracy.

Simply put, supporting homebrew on the PSP would not profit Sony in any way and with the risks it presents to piracy, it would just be STUPID to do so.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 6, 2009)

Runefox said:


> That's not all of it; Sony has come out and said on multiple occasions that "there is no interest in homebrew on the PSP";


Kind of funny, since (if memory serves) they were all for homebrew on the PS2; even had their own Linux distro for it and everything.

But that's neither here nor there. *goes back to watching the thread*


----------



## net-cat (Nov 6, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> You can directly download various PS1 titles off of the PlayStation Network. o.o


I didn't realize that. It might explain the lack of any form of graphics processing in the "Other OS" mode, though. (Though I bet you could do it if you abused the SPEs.)

Still. I gotta respect them for the way they expertly played the homebrew community. They essentially distracted them with a hypervisor that they could try to poke holes in. Just enough to be promising, but not quite enough to be useful. Then they can pull it, citing "lack of interest" and have a console that nobody's bothered to try to hack in any significant way.


----------



## Azure (Nov 6, 2009)

I dunno, I got some good games for PC.  And keyboard/mouse is far superior to some shitty controller.  But that's just a personal opinion.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 6, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I'd say people just prefer playing games with controllers rather than a keyboard and mouse, myself.


Preferences = opinion  There are certain _styles_ of games that work better with a gamepad, and certain styles of games that work better in mouse/keyboard.  RTS and point/click adventures being two large examples of the latter.

I need to go dig up my rant about PC game dev....


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 6, 2009)

My PC is showing to be weak when it comes for Left 4 Dead 2.  Namely, while totally playable, Source is seriously cranking up the fog and I can't see the bridge in the opening demo.  I can somehow see the flames coming off the bridge however.  There's no way to override this without activating cheats, so I'll always have heavy fog unless I get a better graphics card.

I've debated getting the Xbox 360 version instead, however the lack of keyboard and mouse make it unappealing.

Though at the same time, there are lots of forms of gameplay that do play a lot better than keyboard and mouse.  Driving and fighting games come to mind.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 6, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> I've debated getting the Xbox 360 version instead, however the lack of keyboard and mouse make it unappealing.



Only problem with L4D2 on the 360 is that if it's anything like L4D, there's gonna be all kinds of framerate issues. x_X


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 6, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> My PC is showing to be weak when it comes for Left 4 Dead 2.  Namely, while totally playable, Source is seriously cranking up the fog and I can't see the bridge in the opening demo.  I can somehow see the flames coming off the bridge however.  There's no way to override this without activating cheats, so I'll always have heavy fog unless I get a better graphics card.
> 
> I've debated getting the Xbox 360 version instead, however the lack of keyboard and mouse make it unappealing.
> 
> Though at the same time, there are lots of forms of gameplay that do play a lot better than keyboard and mouse.  Driving and fighting games come to mind.



Get a better video card.  Reason: better video card benefits not just L4D-2, but all other newer games that you want to play, so one purchase has many positive gains.  Buying L4D-2 for the 360 side-steps the issue with one slight gain at the cost of control and saving a few bucks - basically postponing the inevitable.  



Runefox said:


> Only problem with L4D2 on the 360 is that if it's anything like L4D, there's gonna be all kinds of framerate issues. x_X



And yet another reason to get the better video card.   Frame rate was great on the L4D PC version, even with older cards.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 6, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Get a better video card. Reason: better video card benefits not just L4D-2, but all other newer games that you want to play, so one purchase has many positive gains. Buying L4D-2 for the 360 side-steps the issue with one slight gain at the cost of control and saving a few bucks - basically postponing the inevitable.


 
The problem is, my PC is at an evolutionary dead end.  AGP port.

Need new motherboard, new CPU, new memory... THEN new graphics card.  $$$.

Meanwhile I have this Xbox 360 that only cost $150 right on my desk, even wired into one of my PC monitors with the VGA adaptor.  It can run all SORTS of new and shiney games without 'upgrades'.

I'm also not a huge hard core gamer but play for the distraction.  While I doubt I will get L4D2 on 360, I think a lot more of my gaming purchases will be for the 360.  It's just easier.  Every game that says 'Xbox 360' on the box will play great on my Xbox 360.  No wondering about memory, or shaders or anything.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 6, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> The problem is, my PC is at an evolutionary dead end.  AGP port.
> 
> Need new motherboard, new CPU, new memory... THEN new graphics card.  $$$.
> 
> ...



Hmm... well, depending on your CPU, you have two options for high performance on AGP.  If you have a dual core, the best card you can use is a Radeon HD3850.  I used one in my Athlon X2 3800 system, which I recently gave to CAThulu.  Plays L4D, Fallout3, Bioshock, etc. with no problems at all.  If you have a single core, however, the 3850 and later were designed to make use of multi-core rendering, so you never really get the full potential out of them.  For Single core, the best bet is the HD2600 XT.  On the Nvidia side, the last AGP was the 7800 GS, but it's not as quick the as the Radeons.  That's the card I had prior to the Radeon, and it was having trouble with some of the newer games.  Would have been nice if they kept their cards in AGP another generation or two, but they didn't. 

There are two catches to this though: 1) ATI had no plans to continue AGP support after the HD2X00 series, so the cards that came out were the brainchild of the card manufacturers.  To run them, you have to download the AGP "hotfix" drivers.  They're not posted on ATI's driver download page, but they used to be a bitch to find.  They install just like the normal drivers, but they have some tweak that enables them to work for AGP.  If you try the normal drivers, they won't see the card.

2) There is no support in Linux/Unix for the AGP HD3850, so you can't use the card in anything other than VESA mode.  This is was a BIG downside for me since up until getting that card, Linux was the primary OS on my PC.  

I have seen a Radeon HD4650 here and there for AGP, but it's garbage - it's benchmarks never come close to the 3850, so don't bother.  Choice comes down to whether you're willing to drop $130 or so on the card, or put that towards a core change for your computer.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 6, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Preferences = opinion



Gee, no shit? That, and your crufty follow-up, has absolutely no bearing on whether what I said is actually true.



> There are certain _styles_ of games that work better with a gamepad, and certain styles of games that work better in mouse/keyboard.  RTS and point/click adventures being two large examples of the latter.


Psst..._nobody actually likes RTSs._


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 6, 2009)

Single core, Athlon 64 3200 (Clawhammer) with a Radeon X800 XT for graphics.  Fairly powerful itself but sadly lacking in Shader Model 3 which is a requirement.

However EXCEPT for high end game, this desktop is FINE for my needs.  Since I'm also not a huge gamer, having a top of the line gaming PC is a hard expense to justify.  L4D2 does run fine, the fog is just cranked up due to the games autodetection of my system's capabilities.  Apparently the manual overrides which exist in other source games, were removed for the L4D series.

The 360 appeals to me.  Because despite my issues here, I can turn on the 360 and play Dead Rising at 1280x1024 on my 21" CRT monitor.  It looks great, it runs reliably, and the controller is fine for the game.  One of my major notivations towards shifting to console gaming is that it gets me out of this endless game of hardware upgrade leapfrog you get with consoles.  Every 360 plays every 360 game.  It's an appealing simplicity to never have to read the 'hardware reqirements' on the side of the box.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 6, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Single core, Athlon 64 3200 (Clawhammer) with a Radeon X800 XT for graphics.  Fairly powerful itself but sadly lacking in Shader Model 3 which is a requirement.
> 
> However EXCEPT for high end game, this desktop is FINE for my needs.  Since I'm also not a huge gamer, having a top of the line gaming PC is a hard expense to justify.  L4D2 does run fine, the fog is just cranked up due to the games autodetection of my system's capabilities.  Apparently the manual overrides which exist in other source games, were removed for the L4D series.



My roommie ran L4D initially on her Athlon XP 2500+ with  Radeon X850 Pro, which like you, worked pretty good for the most part.  Big horde situations and fog were problematic for her too.  I found a used 512M Radeon 1650 Pro for her (cost like $40), and that fixed it up.  Eventually though she did buy a more current machine.  So even if you just get a used 1650 somewhere, that will help.  The 2600XT is your best bet, but shop around a little first to make sure you're getting a good price - don't drop more than $150 on it, preferably a lot less.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 6, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Single core, Athlon 64 3200 (Clawhammer) with a Radeon X800 XT for graphics.  Fairly powerful itself but sadly lacking in Shader Model 3 which is a requirement.
> 
> However EXCEPT for high end game, this desktop is FINE for my needs.  Since I'm also not a huge gamer, having a top of the line gaming PC is a hard expense to justify.  L4D2 does run fine, the fog is just cranked up due to the games autodetection of my system's capabilities.  Apparently the manual overrides which exist in other source games, were removed for the L4D series.
> 
> The 360 appeals to me.  Because despite my issues here, I can turn on the 360 and play Dead Rising at 1280x1024 on my 21" CRT monitor.  It looks great, it runs reliably, and the controller is fine for the game.  One of my major notivations towards shifting to console gaming is that it gets me out of this endless game of hardware upgrade leapfrog you get with consoles.  Every 360 plays every 360 game.  It's an appealing simplicity to never have to read the 'hardware reqirements' on the side of the box.


And you don't wind up being like this guy if you try to beat the system.


----------



## Geek (Nov 6, 2009)

Not surprising. Though the article really seems more like the death of Game For Windows LIVE than Windows 7's issues with gaming, though I imagine the point that 7 is sub-par for gaming still stands if it is a Vista rework.

Honestly I'm glad to see GFW LIVE dying, it was a clunky pain in the ass that did nothing but get in the way and make my gaming experience less enjoyable. On the other hand, I can't imagine 7 will be that much more of a joy for gaming. I can't say for sure as I haven't used 7 yet and don't plan to until the major kinks inherent to a new OS are worked out, but I assume that it has the same compatibility problems as Vista meaning that older games will be either partially or totally unplayable or will require extra work to make playable. Which to me, as someone that only uses Windows for gaming is a considerable problem.

I think Microsoft is really failing to see the significance of the fact that they essentially have a monopoly on PC gaming right now and are starting to let their grip slip by not making sure that Windows is easy to use for gamers as well as causal PC users. I don't see an Apple OS (or even a Linux OS) swooping in to become the next big thing for PC gaming in the next few years, but should Microsoft continue to ignore gaming I can see potential in another OS developer picking up the slack to edge in on what is for now Microsoft's territory.

Just my 2 cents, though


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 6, 2009)

Sadly, I've found all the Windows games I play work better in Linux than in Windows. Except Prototype and TLJ, but eh.

If I weren't so lazy and stubborn I'd have switched back already. I can't even run Steam on this piece of shit now...



> I think Microsoft is really failing to see the significance of the fact that they essentially have a monopoly on PC gaming right now and are starting to let their grip slip by not making sure that Windows is easy to use for gamers as well as causal PC users. I don't see an Apple OS (or even a Linux OS) swooping in to become the next big thing for PC gaming in the next few years, but should Microsoft continue to ignore gaming I can see potential in another OS developer picking up the slack to edge in on what is for now Microsoft's territory.


It' not bloody likely to ever happen, I'd say. Apple's too elitist, and the only corporate-friendly Linux distros available right now are still aimed mostly at office workers and casual users. As long as that's where the money's at--and as long as Wine, Cedega, and CrossOver continue being practical enough alternatives for the determined Linux/Mac gamers out there--M$ can do as little as it wants.

Though, it's not like Microsoft _ignores_ gaming. They just seem to implicitly recommend that people take all their gaming to a platform better suited to such an application.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 7, 2009)

Does pushing for gaming on the PC on Windows 7 help sell copies of Windows 7?  That is the goal for Microsoft afterall.  It's not like the gamers are going to defect to Mac or Linux currently and everyone will EVENTUALLY go to Windows 7.  There were plenty who said 'Oh no, I'll stick with my Windows 98SE.  I don't need XP'.  But for the vast majority, XP eventually became necessary.

Meanwhile, Microsoft does face real competition for gaming in the console wars from both Sony and Nintendo.

Microsoft's reasonings and motivations are clear here.


----------



## Geek (Nov 7, 2009)

What's ironic about that article is that it's published on *MSN*BC. '

Microsoft aren't exactly chomping at the bit to make a solid PC gaming experience because they have the Xbox, where they can charge consumers for online play, accessories, micro-transactions and much more. The PC gamer in comparison has been used to free online play, mods and all sorts of awesome community stuff. Which doesn't get Microsoft any money, bar the sale of Windows (if genuine). So it's understandable that Microsoft are being a bit lazy here.

But on the other side of things, developers are turning to console gaming a lot more, and leaving a lot of what made PC gaming so great dead in the water. The latest trend seems to be ditching dedicated server support for FPS games. Modern Warfare 2 won't be doing it, and id have suggested that RAGE will be following suit.

I'm not much of a home computer gamer - stick me on a console all the way, since the Mega Drive and SNES era - but there are games where it has its charms for me. I love playing the old classics like Command and Conquer and Theme Hospital. And back in the late 80s/early 90s, I absolutely adores my Commodore Amiga 500+. That was when home computer gaming superseded console gaming, for me. Those classic adventure games in Monkey Island, platformers in Superfrog, action games in Alien Breed and Chaos Engine, Speedball 2, James Pond, Genesia... good times. And games that either couldn't be done, or wouldn't be ported to a console.

The moment PC/home computer games were able to be ported to consoles was the start of a huge decline for that market. No two ways about it. And it's sad, but as has been said Microsoft has largely been the cause, half-hearting initiatives like GFW. Valve are about the only people propping up the platform with Steam, but now other D2D services are boycotting them because games like Modern Warfare 2 will come with Steamworks (and thus, the Steam store - which is a complain I can understand totally). So the PC industry is soon going to be cannibalizing itself.

As I've said before, I'd love Apple to take a home computer initiative to the Mac. No hassle of driver errors, meaning a guarantee that you'd get the best results in gameplay, and a game browser akin to the iTunes store or something, would be awesome. But, Apple aren't the kind of people to head in that direction forcefully. They like to play their game one step at a time - first it was music, then mobile phones, looks like they're going into TV and video territory now. So games aren't really on the agenda.

I kind of miss the days where you simply put the disc in the drive and the game loaded and worked without any of this install bollocks.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 7, 2009)

Geek said:


> What's ironic about that article is that it's published on *MSN*BC. '



*chuckles* I know - I have seen more negative press on Windows 7 from them than other major news sites... which is kinda self-loathing, technically.  That or MS actually does respect the freedom of speech of their news branch.


----------



## Azure (Nov 8, 2009)

Man, this thread is like, the same 3 nerds posting in unison. You guys are discussing stuff that 99% of people don't know or care about. Though I will say that they would love to limit gaming to consoles, if only for the Nickel and Dime you to death bullshit they love to do. But it's funny how my 1,000 dollar laptop has better graphics and better HD than the PS3, and does way more shit as well. I don't think PC gaming is going anywhere. 

EDIT- One more thing.  When the whole 95% of market share that Windows has declines, that'll be the day that it gets overtaken as the primary gaming OS.  MSNBC? More like PMSNBC.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 8, 2009)

There's only one game that I play that linux (or mac) can play, and windows plays it better. Windows will always be the gaming OS.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> There's only one game that I play that linux (or mac) can play, and windows plays it better. Windows will always be the gaming OS.



Well, that's mainly because the games that are available on Linux are generally not either major releases - Or they're played via Wine. Which... Well...


----------



## Shireton (Nov 8, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Psst..._nobody actually likes RTSs._


Not true at all.


----------



## Rel (Nov 8, 2009)

This is how i see it

Windows: Most games are made for (.exe), very easy to install, and very easy to run and play, any gamer can do it without a problem. Even non-gamers could do something like that

MacOS: Many games are made for it, and they are also very easy to  install, but really? Most gamers dont buy a mac to run games, and the only people who run games on mac, are usually just artists, movie editors, or rich kids. No one can really afford their overpriced machines, so not as many people play on it

Linux: Barely any games are made for it, and most gamers don't even know about Wine. And even if they did, most of them would go through hell just to configure Wine correctly to run games. Even then, you would still have the random crashes, Errors, and multiplayer connectivity errors on most, standard linux machines. Unless, well, you were a huge fanboy of linux and were extremely handy with Linux, and knew how to get it set up just right, so you can run it with minimal errors. Like the OP as well as some others.

Console: Plug it in, put in the CD, and play.

Which do you think most people would rather use?


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2009)

Honestly this article is fail, they made a big deal about Windows 7 and Microsoft not focusing on PC gaming. Microsoft owns a console, why would they promote PC gaming when they don't get a penny from PC game sales? Microsoft's only role in PC gaming is to manage their API's; which they have done. Are they honestly judging the condition of PC gaming by Games for Windows? Whoever wrote this article is deeply uninformed if they think GFW is of any significance in PC gaming.

"Of the 20 most acclaimed mainstream Windows games released in 2008, half were multiplatform"

As opposed to the console line-up which is almost entirely cross platform? When compared to consoles PC has far far more 3rd party exclusives, consoles exclusive line-up almost entirely consists of 1st party published games. If PC has exclusivity problems why does it have the most AAA/AA games by GameSpot's reviews; while this years console AAA/AA line-up doesn't have a single 3rd party game?

"and of those, majors like "Mass Effect," "Grand Theft Auto IV" and "Dead Space" arrived in console form first."

I suppose that Mass Effect and Grand Theft Auto IV were both enhanced for PC just slipped past this article writers attention? Dead Space is the only one of those games that didn't receive any PC specific enhancements as a result of the delay; and the delay was next to nothing, they made it sound like it was delayed months or something.

"Where things stand in 2009: 34 GFW-branded titles have been released to date, only 10 of those with LIVE support. Fifteen of those 34 have full Xbox LIVE support but lack corresponding Games for Windows LIVE functionality.

Major PC releases like "Borderlands," "Dragon Age: Origins," "Left 4 Dead 2" and "Modern Warfare 2" â€” the holiday headliners â€” are shipping without GFW branding entirely. It's hard to say who's more to blame â€” Microsoft, or an obstinately independent development community â€” but the sense one has is of an international accord devoid of signees.

What to do about it? I'm not privy to the certification hoops developers have to hop through to get Microsoft's seal of approval. I don't know why one multiplatform game gets Games for Windows LIVE support while another dozen don't. I can only guess â€” just like you â€” that the dearth of original, mainstream PC games has to do with broader sales and better economic scaling in other (read: console, handheld, mobile) markets. "

The horror! What are we PC gamers going to do without GFW?

"What I can speak to are the naked actualities. Take NPD's September PC gaming top 20 sellers"

NPD... aren't they the ones that only monitor US sales?

"What we need at this point isn't the same tossed off rhetoric laced with signifiers that win points in a game of you-know-what-bingo, but honest consumer leveling. Tell us what the issues are and why. How do you go about solving a problem? By admitting you have one, first."

Here's an idea, try actually understanding PC gaming before writing yet another dooms day article :roll: You don't judge the condition of an open platform by the success of those who try to regulate it. PC is an independent platform, it doesn't have a mummy and daddy like Microsoft and Sony to baby it and splash out cash to convince people to become a PC gamer.

PC is doing fine as it is, the only thing that is giving the illusion that consoles are so better off right now is the cash injections from the 1st party. Take away the 1st party support and suddenly consoles exclusive line-up disappears, they're lucky to get any 3rd party games these days.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 8, 2009)

ADF said:


> As opposed to the console line-up which is almost entirely cross platform? When compared to consoles PC has far far more 3rd party exclusives, consoles exclusive line-up almost entirely consists of 1st party published games. If PC has exclusivity problems why does it have the most AAA/AA games by GameSpot's reviews; while this years console AAA/AA line-up doesn't have a single 3rd party game?


 
...Is there even such a thing as a 'First Party Game' for PC...?


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> ...Is there even such a thing as a 'First Party Game' for PC...?



I guess if IBM opened a game dev studio...


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> ...Is there even such a thing as a 'First Party Game' for PC...?


Since PC gaming has no owner there cannot be a 1st party.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 8, 2009)

ADF said:


> Since PC gaming has no owner there cannot be a 1st party.


 
Then why even say that 'When compared to consoles PC has far far more 3rd party exclusives'?  Hell, the PC doesn't have third party games, when there's no first party, there isn't a third party either.


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Then why even say that 'When compared to consoles PC has far far more 3rd party exclusives'?  Hell, the PC doesn't have third party games, when there's no first party, there isn't a third party either.



Because on consoles games that come from companies independent from the 1st party are called 3rd party. 3rd party may not be the correct term on PC as all of its games are like this, but if I used two different terms for what is essentially the same thing; people could become confused.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 8, 2009)

ADF said:


> Because on consoles games that come from companies independent from the 1st party are called 3rd party. 3rd party may not be the correct term on PC as all of its games are like this, but if I used two different terms for what is essentially the same thing; people could become confused.


 
I still don't see why you would compare console first and third party title selection to PCs when there's no such thing as a first party PC game.  What's the point?

Not only that, but a lot of the titles that you deem as 'First Party' are not developed by first parties and only PUBLISHED by them.


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> I still don't see why you would compare console first and third party title selection to PCs when there's no such thing as a first party PC game.  What's the point?
> 
> Not only that, but a lot of the titles that you deem as 'First Party' are not developed by first parties and only PUBLISHED by them.



-edit

I guess the long version then.

The article decided to take note of the cross platform games on PC when judging the condition of the platform. Why are cross platform games relevant to a platforms condition? A cross platform game is essentially saying that platform isn't going to provide a worthwhile return on its own, they spread the game out across multiple platforms because it makes more money. This is why a exclusive game has so much significance, by choosing to make a game exclusive when they could make more money by going cross platform; they are essentially making a statement of that platforms worth.

Exclusive games can therefore be used to judge a platform worth to a developer, the platform with the most exclusives has the strongest position in the market. This is why the winner of each console generation is often determined by which one managed to get hold of the most exclusives, the PS2 was market leader last generation because of its unparalleled 3rd party support, it provided the best game selection on a single platform.

There is only one type of exclusive on PC, however as I'm sure you know there are different types of exclusives on consoles. There is the 3rd party exclusive, games that chose to be exclusive, then there is the 1st party exclusive, exclusive because Sony/Microsoft either developed it themselves or wrote a check. I'd argue a 3rd party exclusive says more about a platforms condition than a 1st party exclusive, 3rd party choose to remain exclusive of their own free will; were as 1st party are artificially restricted to the platform in order to differentiate its selection.



> "I can only guess â€” just like you â€” that the dearth of original, mainstream PC games has to do with broader sales and better economic scaling in other (read: console, handheld, mobile) markets."



The article made the argument that consoles are doing better than PC at acquiring certain games, my argument was is this really the case? When you look at many of the console games that this article would likely bring up; they tend to all share a common trait, 1st party published.

The lure of increased profits from cross platform development has resulted in many platforms losing games that were previously exclusive. Consoles are reliant on exclusive games in order to differentiate themselves from the competition, if they cannot convince 3rd party developers to remain exclusive of their own free will; then they have to use other means. Hence why every major title to come out on PS3 and 360 these days is 1st party published, they are essentially bought exclusives that they themselves fund.

As stated earlier 3rd party games say more about a platform than 1st party. When you consider today's market; it's a miracle that PC has been able to keep hold of as many exclusives as it has. That article is supposed to have us believe PC gaming is in trouble, yet it has attracted developers that 'chose' to keep games exclusive; while Sony and Microsoft become the publishers of games in order to keep them platform exclusives.

In short from outside observation PC looks like it is in a stronger position, consoles are having their exclusive line-up supplemented by the 1st party to fill in what the 3rd party used to provide.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2009)

ADF said:


> Since PC gaming has no owner there cannot be a 1st party.



Technically, "PC's" are IBM's brainchild, and everything we know and love came from their standardization of the hardware. Ergo, IBM = First-party as far as PC *hardware* goes.

As for PC *software*, it then depends on the operating system you're running - Mac OS users would have Apple to turn to for first-party gaming. Windows users would have Microsoft. In truth, only *NIX users truly lack a "first-party" in any traditional sense to speak of.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 8, 2009)

Still, anybody that purchases a Macintosh or gets Linux for gaming will simply be laughed at.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Still, anybody that purchases a Macintosh or gets Linux for gaming will simply be laughed at.



But dude, Apple's gonna get Halo dude. Bungie's all over Apple! It's a Microsoft-killer.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2009)

I actually don't think that ADF has really looked a lot of the 'cross platform titles'. Particularly those designed with the console in mind first, the PC ports tend to be rather shoddy and seriously feel like like you're trapped with console commands. F.E.A.R 2 for PC is a prime example of this even if it's predicessor was primarily PC oriented, FEAR 2 was quite the opposite and you felt it when playing it on the PC.

Then there's also the cheaper 'value ports' of various titles. Crazy Taxi 3 and Outrun 2006 for example, these games are SO tied to their console sibbilings that on the PC their game clocks are tied to the framerate of the game. On a console, all games are clocked to run at 60fps. Know what happens when you run Crazy Taxi 3 or Outrun 2006 on a PC with a refresh rate other than 60hz? The entire game adjusts it's speed to match. At 85hz, these games run *41%* faster than they should.

Flat out, a lot of 'multiplatform' games that are released to PC get pretty shitty PC ports.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 9, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Crazy Taxi 3 and Outrun 2006 for example, these games are SO tied to their console sibbilings that on the PC their game clocks are tied to the framerate of the game.



I can think of many, many PC games that weren't designed with real-time synchronization in mind.

The 1993 CD-ROM title "MegaRace" for example, the tracks were FMV (gorgeous nonetheless) and it merely calibrated the framerate to your vehicle's speed, but it didn't calibrate your vehicle's speed to real time.  Try running it on anything close to a modern PC and it runs _at least_ ten times faster than it was intended to.

I also remember a lot of personal experience with certain late Sierra adventure titles where, although most parts of the game were calibrated to account for real time, certain parts still were relative to CPU speed, which could result in anything from being unable to solve a certain puzzle or area (Space Quest 4 comes to mind), to the game outright crashing when you step onto a certain pixel of ground or head onto a different screen.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> I can think of many, many PC games that weren't designed with real-time synchronization in mind.
> 
> Take the old CD-ROM game MegaRace. The tracks were just FMV (gorgeous nonetheless), but it wasn't calibrated to a real-time clock. Try running that thing on a modern PC and it runs a good _ten_ times faster than it's supposed to.
> 
> I also remember a lot of personal experience with certain late Sierra adventure titles where, although most parts of the game were calibrated for real time, certain parts were not, which could result in anything from being unable to solve a certain puzzle or area (Space Quest 4 comes to mind), to the game outright crashing when you step onto a certain pixel of ground or head onto a different screen.


 
Your examples are all old and they're about software expecting a specific CPU speed.

This is a matter of ports from console to PC expecting 60fps.  It doesn't matter how fast the CPU is, if the desktop refresh rate is 60hz the games will run fine, reguardless of CPU speed, even if it's fast as crap.  Instead the game's speed is tied to the rate the frames are rendered at.  It's because on a console you can always assume 60hz but not on the PC and no one made the effort to account for variations on the PC.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 9, 2009)

Yeah, old PC games and specific CPU speeds do go hand-in-hand.



> Instead the game's speed is tied to the rate the frames are rendered at.


Gotcha.  Details differ but in the end the game is calibrated relative to something other than a real-time clock/timer.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 9, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> I actually don't think that ADF has really looked a lot of the 'cross platform titles'. Particularly those designed with the console in mind first, the PC ports tend to be rather shoddy and seriously feel like like you're trapped with console commands. F.E.A.R 2 for PC is a prime example of this even if it's predicessor was primarily PC oriented, FEAR 2 was quite the opposite and you felt it when playing it on the PC.


F.E.A.R 2 is fine on PC for me, controls worked just like in F.E.A.R 1, almost exactly the same.


----------



## Azure (Nov 9, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> I can think of many, many PC games that weren't designed with real-time synchronization in mind.
> 
> The 1993 CD-ROM title "MegaRace" for example, the tracks were FMV (gorgeous nonetheless) and it merely calibrated the framerate to your vehicle's speed, but it didn't calibrate your vehicle's speed to real time.  Try running it on anything close to a modern PC and it runs _at least_ ten times faster than it was intended to.
> 
> I also remember a lot of personal experience with certain late Sierra adventure titles where, although most parts of the game were calibrated to account for real time, certain parts still were relative to CPU speed, which could result in anything from being unable to solve a certain puzzle or area (Space Quest 4 comes to mind), to the game outright crashing when you step onto a certain pixel of ground or head onto a different screen.


Dude, MegaRace was awesome.


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> I actually don't think that ADF has really looked a lot of the 'cross platform titles'. Particularly those designed with the console in mind first, the PC ports tend to be rather shoddy and seriously feel like like you're trapped with console commands. F.E.A.R 2 for PC is a prime example of this even if it's predicessor was primarily PC oriented, FEAR 2 was quite the opposite and you felt it when playing it on the PC.
> 
> Then there's also the cheaper 'value ports' of various titles. Crazy Taxi 3 and Outrun 2006 for example, these games are SO tied to their console sibbilings that on the PC their game clocks are tied to the framerate of the game. On a console, all games are clocked to run at 60fps. Know what happens when you run Crazy Taxi 3 or Outrun 2006 on a PC with a refresh rate other than 60hz? The entire game adjusts it's speed to match. At 85hz, these games run *41%* faster than they should.
> 
> Flat out, a lot of 'multiplatform' games that are released to PC get pretty shitty PC ports.



I think you are exaggerating quite a lot, there are some poor ports but they hardly represent the majority. Console orientation of ports is explainable in that a game that runs on consoles will be able to run on PC; were as the reverse causes issues. There are instances in the past were a PC to console port has resulted in the console version struggling significantly, consoles just don't have the resources a PC has. When designed to cater to console limitations however; it runs well on both systems.

When the game is built intelligently you can do a PC to console port and have it run well on both system. However most developers simply rely on the console to PC method, as it ensures good compatibility across all platforms. It's nothing personal, the console orientation of games is more of a convenience on the developers part rather than a statement of PCs importance.

When you look at game development these days you will note that developers are in fact using the intelligent methods. Increasingly today's game engines are PC native; these include MT Framework 2.0, Crystal tools and of course CryEngine 3. So there are cross platform developers who use PC as lead.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Your examples are all old and they're about software expecting a specific CPU speed.
> 
> This is a matter of ports from console to PC expecting 60fps.  It doesn't matter how fast the CPU is, if the desktop refresh rate is 60hz the games will run fine, reguardless of CPU speed, even if it's fast as crap.  Instead the game's speed is tied to the rate the frames are rendered at.  It's because on a console you can always assume 60hz but not on the PC and no one made the effort to account for variations on the PC.



Actually, if I remember correctly, Microsoft introduced a "bug" in Windows 2k/XP refresh rates wherein when the resolution is changed (say, for a game), the refresh rate would drop pretty reliably to 60Hz. This is still an issue; ATI's Catalyst Control Center still has an option to force a specific refresh rate while in-game. Of course, with LCD's, the only reason you'd want to force a refresh rate would be if an LCD supported 120Hz modes. The example of OutRun is just laziness though.

For the most part, newer games don't mind at all, and much-older games are based on CPU cycles (which is absurdly funny; the original Command & Conquer ran this way, and turning up the game speed setting to anything other than minimum was a quick (and hilarious) way to end the game, even on a Pentium II 350).

In addition, there's a rather large chunk of the world where TV's run at 50Hz - Thankfully, games are no longer slaved to that, and haven't been for some time (they actually used to just lower the clock speed of the processors for PAL territories for no discernible reason other than laziness and cost).


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> There are instances in the past were a PC to console port has resulted in the console version struggling significantly, consoles just don't have the resources a PC has.


The old 1999 RTS _Warzone 2100_ comes to mind when hearing that.  I never saw the console version, but I did see plenty of feedback citing poor control layout (it's an RTS, after all) and one game-breaking bug on the next-to-final level.


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> The old 1999 RTS _Warzone 2100_ comes to mind when hearing that.  I never saw the console version, but I did see plenty of feedback citing poor control layout (it's an RTS, after all) and one game-breaking bug on the next-to-final level.



I was thinking more along the lines of hardware resources than the practicability of certain genres. 

PC hardware is ever evolving and it has significantly more memory than consoles. When you build a game in that environment and then try to transfer it to the 2005 hardware in consoles; it isn't surprising that problems are encountered. How are you supposed to take a game that was built for 2GB ram and fit it into 256mb? If you can divide the game into small chunks then maybe you can stream it, if not then you have a problem.

Console users answer to this is usually to point out the lack of a memory hogging OS and application, while relevant; it is not a cure all. If a game is designed in a way to use more memory than consoles can provide; then you are looking at performance problems or it not being portable at all.

If the console is lead then you can be sure it will work across all target platforms, it's what they call targeting the lowest common denominator hardware.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> There are instances in the past were a PC to console port has resulted in the console version struggling significantly, consoles just don't have the resources a PC has.


 
It would be more accurate to say that consoles don't have the resources that a PC -can- have.  There are lots of people with PC's who are greatly outclassed by their consoles.  Lots of people looking the hardware requirements on the side of the box and wondering if the game will actually be playable or if they'll have to crank down most of the effects to get a decent experience.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> How are you supposed to take a game that was built for 2GB ram and fit it into 256mb?


 
You'd be suprised.  The specs of a PC and a console are entirely uncomparable.  The operating system on a console is insanely effience because it runs much closer to the bone than a PC.  Why?  There's next to no hardware variation on a console.

PC's with their hardware abstraction layers and everything else are absurdly inefficent at anything, however a PC can be used for a wide range of tasks.  Jack of all trades, master of none.  A lot of that 2GB of ram is being used for inefficent bullshit.

Not that a PC couldn't be made as efficent as a console.  You could very well code a game and port it to a PC, create your own limited operating system with straight up drivers for all the hardware and bam.  It'll be fast as fuck and uncomparable to any other gaming PC.  There's a catch however; You'd have to build the game for that exact PC, that exact hardware configuration.  It won't run on a different motherboard or a different graphics card or anything like that.  This of course is WHY we have to use inefficent PC operating systems, it's just to get it to work.

That's the reason why the Xbox1 with a 733mhz Mobile Celeron, a GeForce 3.5 class graphics card and 64mb of memory shared between EVERYTHING can vastly out class a PC of comparable specs.


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> It would be more accurate to say that consoles don't have the resources that a PC -can- have.  There are lots of people with PC's who are greatly outclassed by their consoles.  Lots of people looking the hardware requirements on the side of the box and wondering if the game will actually be playable or if they'll have to crank down most of the effects to get a decent experience.



Preying on PCs variable nature to question its hardware advantages is a fall back argument too many people rely on...

A PC, regardless of whether it is a gaming PC or not, has significantly more memory than consoles. I have to question why some people's first instinct when someone is talking about PC hardware advantages is to point out PC hardware is variable. Considering we are talking about gaming on both systems; what PC system did you have in mind for comparison? An office computer?

I assure you, any 'gaming' PC built in the last few years is more than capable of outperforming both consoles.



AshleyAshes said:


> You'd be suprised.  The specs of a PC and a console are entirely uncomparable.


This had better not be one of those arguments that rely on magical optimization fairy's that make anything run on anything 'somehow'. That's usually the argument you get from most game forums, only substitute the fairy's with the unknown techniques of game developers. 



AshleyAshes said:


> The operating system on a console is insanely effience because it runs much closer to the bone than a PC.  Why?  There's next to no hardware variation on a console.
> 
> PC's with their hardware abstraction layers and everything else are absurdly inefficent at anything, however a PC can be used for a wide range of tasks.  Jack of all trades, master of none.  A lot of that 2GB of ram is being used for inefficent bullshit.
> 
> ...



I am fully aware of the fixed hardware advantage of consoles enabling them to get several fold the performance out of hardware than PC can. However, as some console users seem to have trouble grasping, this performance advantage has its limits. There is a point were the sheer performance advantage of PC enables it to out perform consoles even with their fixed advantages, this happened with the introduction of the Geforce 8 series back in 2006. 

It gets irritating at times that I encounter console users on some forums that believe the capabilities of consoles to be infinite, that you can optimize anything to run on a console 'somehow'. It is impossible to fit more than 256mb worth of information into 256mb of memory, it doesn't matter how powerful the rest of the system is or how fast the memory it, 256mb memory will only ever be able to store 256mb worth of information at any one time. That is the same of any component, you can push it as close to peak efficiency as possible; but everything has its limits.

If a game is built on PC from the ground up it has 2GB worth of memory to tap, it doesn't matter if it is the lowest end gaming PC these day's; 2GB is the standard for even none gaming PCs. When it comes to transferring a game like this over to consoles; they use their faster memory to swap information more often, enabling them to run in such a low amount. However if a game needs more than 256mb of ram at any one moment, then you have a problem. Consoles fixed nature is irrelevant, if something needs more than the consoles memory capacity then the only solution is to cut it down to fit.

That's why consoles got Far Cry Instincts instead of Far Cry, Far Cry was designed to use more memory than what consoles could provide. That is also why Crysis 2 is coming to consoles were as Crysis 1 cannot, Crysis 2 was designed to accommodate consoles memory limitations.


----------



## webkilla (Nov 9, 2009)

i have only one thing to really say to ppl who claim that 'computer' gaming is in a sorry state

millions of WoW players cant really be wrong?

oh, and enjoy playing strategy games on consoles u.u


there are things that consoles are good at, but there are equally things that computers are good at. i wont bother listing what - because there are some things both of them can do as well.

thats another thing - the OP started out with saying that many of the best PC games these days are made for consoles, then ported to PC. he made it sound like a bad thing. I wonder how many games get the reverse treatment? Hmmm... what could this proove? nothing really - if anything, then it just shows that PCs as a platform is flexible in being able to do console style UIs, while i'm sure playing warcraft 3 on a console, if even possible, would be somewhat less of an experience, due to the lack of fast mouse-clicking action.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> I am fully aware of the fixed hardware advantage of consoles enabling them to get several fold the performance out of hardware than PC can. However, as some console users seem to have trouble grasping, this performance advantage has its limits. There is a point were the sheer performance advantage of PC enables it to out perform consoles even with their fixed advantages, this happened with the introduction of the Geforce 8 series back in 2006.


 
If you are willing to throw enough money at the PC, yes, you can make it about as fast as you want it to be. You are ignoring the issue cost effectiveness. Just how much 'gaming power' does $199 for an Xbox 360 get you in comparison to $199 to spend on a PC?  Or $299 for an Xbox 360 Elite or PS3 Slim agianst $299 to spend on a gaming PC?

I will content that if you will spend the money, you can out class a console with a PC, however the console will still get you the most bang for your buck without a a doubt.

I can't help but notice however that you have ignored the issue of cost effectiveness on consumers.



ADF said:


> If a game is built on PC from the ground up it has 2GB worth of memory to tap, it doesn't matter if it is the lowest end gaming PC these day's; 2GB is the standard for even none gaming PCs. When it comes to transferring a game like this over to consoles; they use their faster memory to swap information more often, enabling them to run in such a low amount. However if a game needs more than 256mb of ram at any one moment, then you have a problem. Consoles fixed nature is irrelevant, if something needs more than the consoles memory capacity then the only solution is to cut it down to fit.


 
My only point is that a lot of that memory that a PC is using, a console does't need. A great deal of it is being used for the general purpose operating system and for the systems in that operating system that translate universal commands from the game into specific commands for the hardware.


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> If you are willing to throw enough money at the PC, yes, you can make it about as fast as you want it to be. You are ignoring the issue cost effectiveness. Just how much 'gaming power' does $199 for an Xbox 360 get you in comparison to $199 to spend on a PC?  Or $299 for an Xbox 360 Elite or PS3 Slim agianst $299 to spend on a gaming PC?
> 
> I will content that if you will spend the money, you can out class a console with a PC, however the console will still get you the most bang for your buck without a a doubt.
> 
> I can't help but notice however that you have ignored the issue of cost effectiveness on consumers.



First you criticised PC's variable nature, as if the existence of none gaming PC's is supposed to be relevant to a PC gamer; and now you are using the cost argument? It's all too familiar, should I be expecting a piracy reference next? These are all the typical arguments I would expect from someone working their way down a list to criticise PC.

Since you are giving me typical arguments I'll give you a typical answer. You get what you pay for; but the cost of PC gaming is often over exaggerated, especially today when PC gaming is cheaper than ever. 



AshleyAshes said:


> My only point is that a lot of that memory that a PC is using, a console does't need. A great deal of it is being used for the general purpose operating system and for the systems in that operating system that translate universal commands from the game into specific commands for the hardware.



Which is something I commented on earlier, as I said it is relevant; but not the end all argument for explaining this. Even if you take away the OS and all background applications; some games just take advantage of more memory than consoles can provide. Building with consoles as the lead as opposed to PC is a way of avoiding accidentally exceeding console capabilities, if something runs on consoles you know it will work on a gaming PC; were as the reverse is not always true.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> First you criticised PC's variable nature, as if the existence of none gaming PC's is supposed to be relevant to a PC gamer; and now you are using the cost argument?


 
So, are you saying that the issue of cost and cost effectiveness is irrelevent to the consumer?



ADF said:


> Since you are giving me typical arguments I'll give you a typical answer. You get what you pay for


 
But if the console can give more 'gaming power' in reguard to what it costs per unit, then arn't you getting MORE for what you pay for?


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> So, are you saying that the issue of cost and cost effectiveness is irrelevent to the consumer?



I'm saying I get the impression that you are bringing up different subjects so you can criticise PC, moving on to the next when one seems not so successful. I'd have to question what your motives are...

But in regard to your comment, cost effectiveness is subjective, not everyone thinks about it in the same way. For instance there is a line of thought that questions why pay Â£250 for a console to play Â£40 games; when they could upgrade their existing PC and add to functionality they already use, cheaper games at that. The response to this usually involves preferences such as sitting on the couch and certain game genres that work best on consoles. That's all subjective and down to personal taste, not really counter arguments.



AshleyAshes said:


> But if the console can give more 'gaming power' in reguard to what it costs per unit, then arn't you getting MORE for what you pay for?



If they are entirely cost driven then perhaps a console is perfect for that person, but I actually care about what I am getting for my money; and I'm willing to pay more to get it. A console struggles to maintain promises of 720p in every game; were as it is entirely within my control to get 1080p in every game. I like to control my experience, something consoles do not offer.

Again it is dependant on the persons needs, you make it sound like consoles are the only valid option.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> But in regard to your comment, cost effectiveness is subjective, not everyone thinks about it in the same way. For instance there is a line of thought that questions why pay Â£250 for a console to play Â£40 games; when they could upgrade their existing PC and add to functionality they already use, cheaper games at that. The response to this usually involves preferences such as sitting on the couch and certain game genres that work best on consoles. That's all subjective and down to personal taste, not really counter arguments.


 
That's like $400 CAN.  Meanwhile I paid $150 for my 360 when it was on sale.   Maybe you just suck at shopping?

That $150 sure wouldn't bring my PC up to speed.  Clawhammer Athlon 64 3200 CPU, AGP graphics card and DDR1 memory.  It's an evolutionary dead end in terms of upgrades and it was a hell of a lot easier to get the 360.  Four years of back titles to dip into at discounted prices.

I'd need a whole new motherboard, CPU, memory and graphics just to get something like Grand Theft Auto VI running on my PC.  Actually it wouldn't even be 'my PC' anymore, would it?  It'd be a new PC for all intents and purposes.  But this $150 Xbox 360, I just pop the disc in and voila, welcome to Liberty City.

Consoles are highly cost effective.  They are also simple and easy to operate.  I never have to read the 'hardware requirements' on the side of the box.  I just need to pick up a HDD for it this Christmas and other than that, my only concern is getting another Hori EX2 arcade stick.

I was a PC gamer for a long time, but I'm just sick of playing that asinine game of 'hardware upgrade leapfrog' to try and keep the PC sufficent for any new games.  I'm quite releaved to have this white box that'll play every single game built for the white box.  It just 'works' and I like that.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2009)

> Maybe you just suck at shopping?


No, actually - The EU in general gets raped by this kind of stuff.


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> That's like $400 CAN.  Meanwhile I paid $150 for my 360 when it was on sale.   Maybe you just suck at shopping?



Xbox 360: Â£190
PS3: Â£250
Wii: Â£165

These are considered good prices here in the UK, remember that the US isn't the only country in the world...



AshleyAshes said:


> That $150 sure wouldn't bring my PC up to speed.  Clawhammer Athlon 64 3200 CPU, AGP graphics card and DDR1 memory.  It's an evolutionary dead end in terms of upgrades and it was a hell of a lot easier to get the 360.  Four years of back titles to dip into at discounted prices.
> 
> I'd need a whole new motherboard, CPU, memory and graphics just to get something like Grand Theft Auto VI running on my PC.  Actually it wouldn't even be 'my PC' anymore, would it?  It'd be a new PC for all intents and purposes.  But this $150 Xbox 360, I just pop the disc in and voila, welcome to Liberty City.
> 
> ...



So you are using *your own personal circumstances* as 'evidence' that the upgrade argument is completely invalid? You completely ignored every mention of the users needs being "subjective" and only seem to accept arguments were consoles are the only valid option.

To put it simply, you're clearly too console biased to consider anything that is not in favour of consoles. Making taking the time to explain certain things to you a waste of time, you had no intention of considering the PC perspective in the first place.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> remember that the US isn't the only country in the world...


 
'$400 CAN'  'Can' as in '*Can*ada'.




ADF said:


> So you are using *your own personal circumstances* as 'evidence' that the upgrade argument is completely invalid? You completely ignored every mention of the users needs being "subjective" and only seem to accept arguments were consoles are the only valid option.


 
My experience is that a console can get you up and gaming with the latest games for far less money than a 'gaming PC'.  And you've agreed with me on this.  Here is $299 for a PS3 Slim or an Xbox 360 Elite, and $299 will also get you bupkis towards a 'gaming PC'.  PC gaming IS simply more expensive.



ADF said:


> To put it simply, you're clearly too console biased to consider anything that is not in favour of consoles. Making taking the time to explain certain things to you a waste of time, you had no intention of considering the PC perspective in the first place.


 
Yes, having been both a PC and console gamer, it makes me so biased!  I didn't even get my first console untill 2007.  I have a very good view of the 'PC perspective' for years and years.

Your only arguement is that you can upgrade a PC to get graphical results superior to a console, but you're paying 2-4 times what the console will cost to get that.  As far as I'm concerned, the cost compared to the graphical improvement is not that signifigant.


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> My experience is that a console can get you up and gaming with the latest games for far less money than a 'gaming PC'.  And you've agreed with me on this.  Here is $299 for a PS3 Slim or an Xbox 360 Elite, and $299 will also get you bupkis towards a 'gaming PC'.  PC gaming IS simply more expensive.


You have been selective in what parts of my post you have chosen to recognise, looking at the parts that talk about console being good for the minimalistic/cost sensitive gamer; and then ignored the rest were I talked about the needs of the user being subjective. You have repeatedly rejected that a users needs are subjective, the impression I keep getting from you is you see consoles are being the only and superior choice, there cannot be a conversation on this subject because you have already decided which platform would win.

All you see is PC gaming is more expensive, you ignore what it offers over consoles simply because it doesn't interest you personally.



AshleyAshes said:


> Yes, having been both a PC and console gamer, it makes me so biased!
> 
> I didn't even get my first console untill 2007.  I have a very good view of the 'PC perspective' for years and years.


Irrelevant.

I grew up on consoles and have owned every Playstation released. That said I wouldn't consider myself unbiased; so I am hardly going to give you that benefit. Anyone can be biased, even if they own all systems personal taste will always be a factor.



AshleyAshes said:


> Your only arguement is that you can upgrade a PC to get graphical results superior to a console, but you're paying 2-4 times what the console will cost to get that.  As far as I'm concerned, the cost compared to the graphical improvement is not that signifigant.



So my mention of PC having a performance advantage is my entire argument is it? Excuse me if I have not gone through all the advantages of PC gaming, you don't seem like someone who would care to listen. In fact I believe it was you who made performance a issue by accusing all cross platform games of being poorly done. Most of my responses in this thread has essentially been reacting to you, so subjects you didn't decide to make an issue haven't been brought up.

I believe my original argument had nothing to do with the discussion we are having right now, you derailed the original discussion by bringing up different subjects (which I noted earlier); and it has steered further off track since. I think my original suspicion is correct, you didn't like where the thread was going so you have gone over a list of criticisms of PC gaming to change the subject I was discussing earlier.

I think any further attempts to explain anything to you would be a waste of time, you have already decided consoles > PC and are clearly not interested in changing that view. 

My explanation for the original thread topic was posted earlier on, you know; the one that explains these supposedly superior consoles are unable to compared with PC in the (finger quote) "3rd party" exclusivity department. I know PC is doing better than consoles in that area, I also know Sony has made a $4.7 billion loss on the PS3; and Microsoft is preparing an update to attack 360s using unofficial hardware. Apparently they only want 360 users to use 1st party goods that cost more than double; yet do the same thing.

Being independent means PC's existence is not reliant on the financial success of the 1st party, it also means we haven't got someone to boss us around and rip us off when there is a free market with competition out there. This isn't to change your mind, I'm just providing examples of why I'm happy I'm a PC gamer; and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Giving up my freedoms is not worth a little convenience and a lower price tag, well; on the console itself at least.

I think I'm done here for now, at least this particular conversation with you.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> Microsoft is preparing an update to attack 360s using unofficial hardware. Apparently they only want 360 users to use 1st party goods that cost more than double; yet do the same thing.


 
I really hope you only mean custom replacements of hard drives in their 360 enclosures.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2009)

> Microsoft is preparing an update to attack 360s using unofficial hardware. Apparently they only want 360 users to use 1st party goods that cost more than double; yet do the same thing.


Actually, this is false; Microsoft's cracking down on "unauthorized" memory units is purely aimed towards units not created by Microsoft partners - In other words, things like the Datel memory card SD adapters for transferring savegames to/from the PC to hack achievements and other such things ("UFO glitch" in Call of Duty 4). Any vendor adhering to Microsoft's specifications will still work just fine (that should include Intec, Madcatz, Nyko and the rest of the standard fare third-party companies).

While I'm sure at least some of the motivation is to prevent these cheaper goods from being used in lieu of their own or license-built parts, I'm also sure it's an effort to crack down on cheating.


----------

