# PC Gaming Alliance



## ADF (Feb 28, 2008)

PC Gaming Alliance

It seems companies have become fed up waiting for Microsoft to turn away from its pet project Xbox and actually do something helpful for their own damn market; so a bunch of hardware and software companies have chosen to put aside their differences and unite in a effort to do something useful, Microsoft it seems tagged along.

The objective is simple, to finally give PC gaming a representative with authority and the sole interests of PC gaming in mind. In the same way that 360, Wii and PS3 have Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony to stand up for their benefit. 

Iâ€™m cautiously optimistic after the half assed Games for Windows attempt. Yet itâ€™s not just Microsoft that has split interests in both console and PC gaming; big companies who would greatly benefit from a stronger PC gaming market are taking part in this, with the likes of Nvidia and Intel joining forces.

A few of their goals from what Iâ€™ve heard is to create a standard for measuring PC gaming market revenue; which at this point does not include hardware sales and online distribution, so that game developers can make a more informed decision of potential return from a PC title. Also to find ways to tackle piracy and cheating without severally impacting gamer experience, there are others but their goals are not entirely defined at this early stage.

This could just be a lot of noise followed by nothing, but it will be interesting to see if anything comes from it.


----------



## Bokracroc (Feb 28, 2008)

Are you always 3+ days behind on news?


----------



## ADF (Feb 29, 2008)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Are you always 3+ days behind on news?


Is there a thread? Quit complaining, I didn't really get my Internet back till Monday.


----------



## Bokracroc (Feb 29, 2008)

ADF said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is in the another forum I visit 

I get most of my news from a different forum and most other people don't really care about PC Gaming too much here.


----------



## ADF (Feb 29, 2008)

Then feel free to toddle off elsewhere if it doesnâ€™t interest you; I just wanted a few opinions on the event, looks like the group will actually have to do something noteworthy before it can become a discussion however.


----------



## KrazFabbit (Feb 29, 2008)

Anything that can get more good games away from the 360 and onto the computer is good in my mind. Just hope they don't screw it up.


----------



## ADF (Feb 29, 2008)

KrazFabbit said:
			
		

> Anything that can get more good games away from the 360 and onto the computer is good in my mind. Just hope they don't screw it up.


Seeing how a good deal of those games are long  running PC series gone cross platform, it would be taking back lost territory.

Frankly I think the Xbox was one the stupidest ventures Microsoft has made. Lets make a console based on the principles of PC gaming, port a load of PC games over, pay off many once PC supporting companies to develop for it (which Microsoft openly admitted) and see if we can make a buck out of it.

Windows made them the international monopolistic monster they are today; PC gaming is a part of it they know wonâ€™t simply jump over to Mac or Linux. What did they think would happen if they focused all their gaming effort on a PC like console?


----------



## Bokracroc (Mar 1, 2008)

Would you prefer it if they didn't?
Just how would it of 'improved' PC gaming? So they paid off companies to make something, it doesn't meant it would of been good on the PC to start with.
I would hate to see what gaming would be like if they didn't enter the Console market. Go go two-party/Black&White Seventh generation gaming?


----------



## ADF (Mar 1, 2008)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Would you prefer it if they didn't?
> Just how would it of 'improved' PC gaming? So they paid off companies to make something, it doesn't meant it would of been good on the PC to start with.
> I would hate to see what gaming would be like if they didn't enter the Console market. Go go two-party/Black&White Seventh generation gaming?


If Xbox didnâ€™t exist Windows would be Microsoftâ€™s only gaming platform, all there gaming orientated focus would have been there instead of trying to succeed in a new market. So yes, I think PC gaming would be allot better off today if Microsoft didnâ€™t encourage all the developers to jump ship to Xbox. You remember when the first Xbox came out?

â€œThere have been rumours circling the market that Microsoft have been buying up developers to work on the Xbox; rumours like â€˜blahâ€™ and 'blahâ€™ now working on the Xbox. I am here today to tell you that all these rumours are trueâ€ or something along the lines of that. Games make a gaming platform, if you suck out all the developers what is left? 

Xbox is a console based on the principles of PC gaming; the other consoles werenâ€™t that big a problem because they mostly dealt with Asian titles, with Xbox Microsoft created a platform that could grab any PC title it wanted. Why buy a Â£600 PC when you can get nearly the same on Xbox for Â£250?

On a side note, I donâ€™t see why you think if a PC copycat console didnâ€™t exist the gaming market would degenerate into stagnation.


----------



## psion (Mar 1, 2008)

WELL, this is still news to me.  I won't say it's a pleasent turn of events, but it is certainly an optimistic one.  It won't be the return of an era but at least it will stave off the grim reaper of PC gaming.


----------



## ADF (Mar 1, 2008)

psion said:
			
		

> It won't be the return of an era but at least it will stave off the grim reaper of PC gaming.


You cannot actually kill PC gaming, at least in the way that you can kill consoles.

If Nintendo bites the dust tomorrow the Wii will stop being made, because they directly own and are responsible for the production and distribution of Nintendo based systems. With computers no one owns them; they are built with components sold by many different companies, if one dies another one is eager to take their place. 

The position of PC gaming in the gaming market can weaken; mainstream developers can even choose to stop developing and porting to it all together, but PC gaming would still exist in the form of small/starter and indie developers. Microsoft could implode under its own weight and Mac/Linux/someone else would take up gaming on computers.

So this isnâ€™t really about helping PC gaming survive, because it is a very flexible and resilient platform. It is about itâ€™s position in the mainstream market and ensuring its needs as a unique platform are met.


----------



## ShagsterP (Mar 1, 2008)

Hey, look at that.  I sort of agree with you.  Other than cashing in on the console market, I think Microsoft's idea was an idiotic one on a basic level of originality.  What exactly was the point of creating a console (a defective one, at that) based on PC architecture for programming?  Other than to maximize profits and generate a mindless army of M-zombies ready to chuck themselves off the nearest cliff at Bill Gates' command, I just don't see any vision of creativity or evolution, especially with such a small foreign game developer influence.  The majority of Xbox titles are exactly like playing a PC game on a PC in disguise; one that can never really be upgraded in any way other than its storage capacities.

At least Nintendo and Sony are forward thinkers in their market, but Microsoft just gives people what they want and then never evolve from that point.  I have nothing against the console itself, but I can't find many reasons to say it's any better than a PC, other than convenience.


----------



## ADF (Mar 3, 2008)

The reason Iâ€™m optimistic about the PCGA as opposed to Microsoftâ€™s GFW is it is actually in these companies interest for PC gaming to do well. 

With Games for Windows Microsoft was juggling their focus on Xbox and PC, so much that they geared GFW for cross platform gamers. Is a closed online gaming network with a subscription model and limiting the number of assignable buttons in a game to what will map to a 360 pad in the interests of PC gaming? What does a PC gamer care about Xbox controller support or game folders in Vista? Granted it made some standards such as mandatory 64bit and widescreen support; which is good, but it doesnâ€™t really address any of the problems PC gaming faces.

Microsoft has two kids it wants to do well and it is trying to not favour one over the other, this sort of attitude isnâ€™t going to make PC gaming better. PC gaming needs a representative that isnâ€™t afraid to talk down consoles, to fight for PC gaming exclusives rather than be happy with ports, to organise and unify the industry in a way that tells developers PC gaming is worth developing for.

Who better to do this than the very companies that profit from the sale of gaming computers and components? PCGA is a none profit organisation, but all its investors are in a position to make allot of money if PC gaming becomes popular again. Microsoft was just maintaining their cash cow while abusing PC gaming to help push their newest venture, the likes of Intel and Nvidia have something worthwhile to fight for from all this.

Letâ€™s just hope what makes sense on paper can be applied to the real world.


----------



## psion (Mar 3, 2008)

Again, I find this a interesting development.  Time will tell if anything comes of it though, maybe for once we'll remember that Microsoft doesn't rule the world.


----------



## ShagsterP (Mar 3, 2008)

What I'd like to hear is an explanation to this question: What makes the PC worth developing for?  Other than shiny textures and some popping visual enhancements that are only made use of by tech-heads, what can a PC do both game-wise and genre-wise, that any console can't?

I find that even the big name PC games, like the current title "The Witcher", lack any kind of development flair.  Characters commit to their bland speech with recycled animations that have no emotional bearing whatsoever on what they may be saying at the time (lacks any kind of scripted gestures and impact), their expressions hardly change, and it has the whole anti-immersive feeling that tells the player "This is just a computer game and not something you should take seriously".  I mean, really, this trend in PC game development has been going on forever and it pisses me off.  Other than having prettier looks on a PC, most games in these categories would be just as well off on a console, but it wouldn't hide the lackluster core quality of the game itself, or any other in the same vein.


----------



## ADF (Mar 4, 2008)

This is going to be a long post, hopefully I wonâ€™t hit a console users nerves giving my views on the PC advantage.

Like with control pads there are games that just work better with a mouse and keyboard, consoles release games in the FPS and RTS genres but they are never really up to the same ease of control. I am sure there are those who would like to disagree; but thatâ€™s the way things are, being playable doesnâ€™t negate that a mouse is faster and more precise than a control pad.

Graphical horsepower is the obvious advantage, as time goes by it becomes increasingly cheaper to build a system that performs on par with consoles. The new 9600GT for instance will make a great 1280x800/1440x900 GPU for a system that will run many of the cross platform games, at just over Â£100 it is hardly a bank buster either. 

The console equivalent/beating performance always starts at the top during a console launch and then trickles down through each price range, it wonâ€™t be too long before even the budget crowd can enjoy many console ports without a graphical compromise. For a little extra, in my case Â£50 more for an 8800GT, you can enjoy better than console performance.

Everyone, whether a gamer or not, has a PC. Upgrading that into a gaming rig is allot cheaper than building/buying a whole new system. When looking at PC expense people tend to look at the total replacement costs and forget often it is just a matter of swapping the GPU or the typical Motherboard/CPU/RAM combo to play modern games. You donâ€™t have to buy a new monitor or case every time you need to up performance.

But graphical and control differences aside the actual platform benefit of PC games is difficult to see these days, what with cross platform development being more present in todayâ€™s market than ever. If a game is coming out on three different platforms at once such as 360, PS3, PC typically you are not going to see the unique benefits of each platform taken advantage of. Utilise something like cell to its maximum and the game wonâ€™t port to other platforms very well, so they target the lowest common denominators in hardware.

If you look back at games like FarCry they were never really ported, Instincts was the console version of FarCry but it wasnâ€™t a port of the PC version. Consoles are very good at streaming data due to fast memory speed; an open environment can be subdivided into cells that are loaded in and out of memory as they are encountered. FarCry PC wasnâ€™t designed to take limited memory into account, why stream so much when you have this big chunk of memory? It is not just about how much memory you have, Bioshock recommended 2GB despite running fine on consoles. How that memory is utilised dictates if it will work on console or not. Crysis is currently in the same position; run around that game and you can tell it is not using the old fashioned cell method you encounter in games like Oblivion, you can fly from one side of the island to the other without any cell loading pauses.

So memory not being at a premium does more than simply sharpen PC game textures and normal maps, it allows â€˜nativeâ€™ PC games to have bigger game worlds without the immersion breaking loading pauses. Loading is inevitable, but it doesnâ€™t have to be every couple of feet. Graphics are scalable and I think it is fine to say 360 & PS3 have enough CPU power for todayâ€™s games; memory is really the big divider in what gaming PCs can do over consoles. You can have the graphical horsepower to render a environment but how much you can store in memory will always be the bottleneck; whether it be game data, objects, animations, physics data and so on. But as said you donâ€™t see this very often these days, cross platform development demands that console memory become the targeted minimum.

But all this is just the hardware aspect of PC gaming; the culture part of being an open platform anyone can mod and contribute to can draw people to it regardless of their system price range. As consoles continue to age, the benefit of being on a constantly improving and evolving platform becomes more evident. I wonder what they will be doing with hardware based parallel processing in a few years? The new stuff always starts on PC then appears on consoles in their next generation. 

Not having to pay licensing fees and distribute through traditional methods also draws smaller and indie companies to PC, which allows a much wider range of creativity and diversity than is possible to develop for a closed platform were everything is dictated by the console manufacturer. The likes of Counter Strike, Team Fortress and Portal only exist because of this open development environment.


----------



## ShagsterP (Mar 4, 2008)

I still see nothing but a list of minor advantages that can easily be overlooked without any drop in a gamer's personal entertainment experience in the slightest.

Consoles make use of mice and keyboards, so that negates that.

But you have to understand that all these little technical marvels that a PC can make use of don't matter to anybody but the smallest percent of immersed tech-heads like yourself who border on the ability to work on a team and develop their own games; it's all a bunch of mumbo jumbo to everybody else.  Don't get me wrong.  I understand everything you're talking about and I've got a nice handmade gaming rig of my own to make use of all these graphical niches, but I hate the fact that when GIVEN the tools to create exclusive PC games, developers don't seem to know what the fuck they're doing.  Crysis is nigh impossible/borderline annoying to play if you want it as legitimately pretty as it's made to be, The Witcher is bland and uninteresting as hell with practically zero presentation values (save for a snazzy CG intro), FarCry had horrible gameplay mechanics, and so on.  Even Battlefield games eventually make everyone have to go into their registry in order to fix problems the support teams can't nail down after a year's release (BF is stronger than Windows itself if the game crashes in certain ways, also).

Unless you're an RTS maniac or an MMO life-waster, what else is there that the PC can do?  I don't give a monkey's shit what "possibilities" PC gaming has if developers don't have half a brain to do it all correctly in the first place, and this idiocy has been going on for years.

PC games also lack visual presentation.  Instead of creating landmark events, amazing storylines, and believable characters, it's nothing but mute heroes, NPCs animating like dead corpses on strings (Half-Life 2), or random non-scripted animations taking place while listening to the same trite and uninspired dialogue you've heard for years in every fantasy RPG or FPS that was ever born (Bioshock as an exception).  These games tend to have no soul, no powerful "I wanted to express something in this game" background like you get with those in the Metal Gear series, or Devil May Cry, or ANY game in ANY beloved franchise.  Instead, the PC gets popular by go-nowhere, do-nothing games like The Sims, the upcoming Spore, casual games, MMOs, and online shooters (and I love online shooters).  This is what you want more of?  I don't WANT these developers to have more power if this is the kind of age-old shit they're going to puke out every single time.

Sorry, but you can take your enhanced memory and shove it up your enhanced ass.


----------



## chronoteeth (Mar 4, 2008)

I'm all for PC gaming, but shelling out a crap load to play a game when shelling out much less gives the same experience?

I'll go for the latter.


----------



## ADF (Mar 6, 2008)

Looks like ShagsterP took offence; hard to talk about the advantages of something without highlighting the disadvantages of another, try explaining the benefits of Cell to a exclusive 360 user some time and see how long that stays civil. I did give a warning at the top of the post some console users may take offence, pretty much went after every title of interest to PC users right now huh? Iâ€™m not even going to attempt to tackle that hateful mess.

Anyway Nvidia did an interview regarding PCGA.



			
				chronoteeth said:
			
		

> I'm all for PC gaming, but shelling out a crap load to play a game when shelling out much less gives the same experience?
> 
> I'll go for the latter.


Consoles are not cheaper than gaming computers; consoles pile up costs over time as opposed to on the day of purchase. The up front costs of PC gaming deter people, when they see a console for a 3rd of the price of a brand new gaming rig they jump at the price difference. 

What they donâ€™t consider is the price difference on the games soon add up, console games tend to sell at a higher price and maintain it for longer as well. They also get you in the price of peripherals, $100 for a 20gb 360 HDD? $50 for a wireless gamepad? Not forgetting 360s $50 a year online subscription. There is also of course the price of a HDTV, seeing how HD movies are only just being introduced to the market what else could the majority possibly need a high resolution TV for? Hook it up to an old TV? I can do that as well; if Iâ€™m forced to include the price of a monitor in a new PC setup you have to include a HDTV.

Itâ€™s really based on perspective if you ask me; you donâ€™t have to upgrade a console but that can be seen as an advantage/disadvantage depending on who you ask. Whether or not consoles offer the same experience, considering they slowed down the PS3 version of UT3, is also debatable.


----------



## AlexX (Mar 6, 2008)

ADF said:
			
		

> Looks like ShagsterP took offence; hard to talk about the advantages of something without highlighting the disadvantages of another, try explaining the benefits of Cell to a exclusive 360 user some time and see how long that stays civil. I did give a warning at the top of the post some console users may take offence, pretty much went after every title of interest to PC users right now huh? Iâ€™m not even going to attempt to tackle that hateful mess.


How is it a hateful mess? All he said was "95% of gamers don't care about the technical specifics you explained" and "PC gaming companies don't even make use of the extra potential that you pointed out".

The only way to take it as a "hateful mess" would be if you skimmed his post and only read the bottom line.


----------



## ADF (Mar 6, 2008)

AlexX said:
			
		

> [snip]


I suppose you skimmed the parts were he insulted (in his own way) popular PC games, summarized the PC audience as â€œRTS maniac or an MMO life-wasterâ€, said he didnâ€™t give a damn about PC potential (which from a PS3 user is saying something), said most of its games have no soul or storytelling ability (probably simply prefers Asian market games), said PC is only popular because of the Sims and MMORPGs (none of which I play) andâ€¦ well you know the last bit.

Honestly I donâ€™t want to touch any of that with a 10 ft pole, this is a thread about PCGA and I am not going to lower it into defending PC gaming against people who feel the need to insult it. Most of the problems he complains about were caused because the creative developers like Bioware ran to other platforms, which was caused by the false impression of PC gaming weakening PCGA is attempting to resolve.


Now to give this post some sort of useful purpose here is a GDC video by PCGA.


----------



## ShagsterP (Mar 7, 2008)

Beautiful.  I like how you jump to generalize me as simply a console user.

No offense, but I've played every single damn game that I mentioned and more (with the exception of Spore, obviously).  I'm on my fifth (technically sixth) PC, the third of which I customized myself.  I devote full days to gaming because my life is admittedly not the most exciting.  And I asked logical questions to determine the advantages of a PC and the realistic ways in how those advantages are utilized (or not utilized, in this case).  Don't mistake my asshole-ness for taking offense; I laugh at things like that.

Are you saying that RTS and MMORPG games aren't the major niche right now for the PC gaming market, even though practically every known franchise has an RTS game based on it by this point and World of Warcraft has practically become its own self-contained religion, with little "religions" popping up here and there attempting to overtake it?  I'm trying to find a real reason why developers should even focus on PC creation any more, especially since indie developers are making more headway than big name teams; the developers of Portal were lucky to have their shtick together and have big daddy Valve behind them.  But even that's falling behind, seeing as consoles are welcoming independent developers to their marketplace now and allowing them to gain royalties.

So what is it?  Tell me your big holy reason why this gaming alliance isn't going to fall flat on its face.  If its purpose is to shoot a giant wad of more of these same games, with the occasional Spore every 3-4 years, I'll be teetering ever closer to the edge of fully giving up on PC gaming.


----------



## ADF (Mar 7, 2008)

You made your experience with PC gaming clear ShagsterP; the reason I am treating you like a console user is because, despite playing on the platform, you seem to absolutely hate it. That and you are a very active PS3 user, obviously preferring that platform.

It is not my problem you personally donâ€™t like PC gaming; I have enjoy the platform just fine without even touching MMOs or RTS or Sim games by playing a mixture of RPGs and single player FPS games, so logically I mustnâ€™t exist right? How could anyone possibly have fun in PC gaming without being a part of the genres people are most likely to see as PC gaming at face value?

Look over there, see that thread? The one labelled â€œThe PS3 Threadâ€? Go over there, because you are obviously happier and less pessimistic over there. I am not going to debate with someone who had already decided PCGA is going to fail, even before they have done anything, simply because they personally donâ€™t like PC gaming. Which obviously means no one can right? I personally donâ€™t like the Eastern games you seem to prefer so much, but Iâ€™m not trying to shove my personal distaste down someone elseâ€™s throat.


----------



## ShagsterP (Mar 10, 2008)

Thanks, but I'll stick right here.  It's not as fun only talking to people that agree with you.

Levels of fun are relative.  It's not that I hate or dislike it, more like I constantly garner a feeling of disappointment in whatever PC title I play.  The flaws are always glaring, and while even FPS games are enjoyable, they're just one-shot popcorn throw-aways and then it's time to wait a few more years for the next big thing.  Nothing is exactly made to be memorable or expressive.  If this PCGA changes that, I'll eat my words, but I'd bet you money it won't.

Why does it take so very long to produce a PC game that has half the production value of most console titles, anyway?  Besides having to test benchmarks for various computer types, etc.  And why is it that my $200 video card I bought nearly a year ago is now incapable of running recommended settings on some current games because they just had to make the jump to shader 4.0, eh?  Why stop there?  Let's go all the way to 7.0!  10.0!  50!  Exaggerations, yea, but it seems most developers focus on piling on the graphics rather than balancing that out with gameplay value.

Preferences aside, you still never attempted a reply to my statement: *What is going to make this PCGA remain afloat and actually create any difference whatsoever?*


----------



## Kasseth (Mar 10, 2008)

ShagsterP said:
			
		

> Levels of fun are relative.  It's not that I hate or dislike it, more like I constantly garner a feeling of disappointment in whatever PC title I play.  The flaws are always glaring, and while even FPS games are enjoyable, they're just one-shot popcorn throw-aways and then it's time to wait a few more years for the next big thing.  Nothing is exactly made to be memorable or expressive.  If this PCGA changes that, I'll eat my words, but I'd bet you money it won't.



Have you ever played System Shock II(essentially the original Bioshock), Deus Ex, or Thief?  Perhaps they're a bit older now, but they were plenty memorable, and there's no way they'd have been developed on a console.  And you can't tell me that the flurry of independently produced levels and mods that followed the original Half-Life could have possibly occurred on any console game.  That was what really sold me on PC games in the first place.  Most of those modifications were completely free, to boot.  As for FPS games being "one-shot popcorn throwaways", I have yet to encounter a game that is quite as engrossing to actually play as Doom or Descent, and as one-shot as those games might at first seem I still find myself going back to them to this day whenever I need to let off steam after a frustrating day.  There's just nothing else that compares.

The really beautiful thing about PC games is that they are always fully backwards compatible.  I can run my original copy of Doom on the exact same machine I use to run Bioshock, and I will always be able to, because there is an army of volunteer developers working to make sure that I can have emulators to run these games.  Sure, PC gaming might be in a bit of a slump right now, but it comes in waves.  It's just an easier platform to develop for, from a technical perspective.  Much of the reason that PC games seem less polished is because they take more risks and often involve amateur developers, but every game developer starts with a PC version and learns the craft by making games for the PC.  There's going to be another wave of great games developed for the PC pretty soon, and they'll still be playable when the consoles are long gone.

To get back to the original topic, there's a wealth of talent out there for PC game development, and if the PCGA helps find and direct that talent, it could lead to something really special.  NVidia's presence is a major plus, given John Carmack's history of supporting PC game development of all kinds.  The fact that Microsoft got in late can only help their odds, since they won't be competing with them AND they (hopefully) won't be controlled by them.  I'll have to keep an eye on this.

I just hope they don't focus too much on piracy prevention.  If I have a game that has to verify itself with the developer's server to run correctly after I legally purchase it, I might as well go with a console because that game will be worthless whenever the developer decides to stop supporting it.


----------



## ADF (Mar 10, 2008)

ShagsterP said:
			
		

> Preferences aside, you still never attempted a reply to my statement: *What is going to make this PCGA remain afloat and actually create any difference whatsoever?*


Before addressing that; you may want to look up information on the upcoming major Witcher patch, they actually address quite a few of your complaints regarding expressiveness and animation.

As to why I think they will make a difference, have a look at what the group is composed of. 

Nvidia
Intel
AMD
Activision
Epic Games
Acer
Dell
Alienware
Gateway
Razer
And of course Microsoft.

Now with Games for Windows Microsoft was simply throwing a bone to their existing cash cow, why put effort into improving a market you have already dominated when the Xbox is still under heavy competition? If you look at the details of GFW it doesnâ€™t really do anything that addresses existing issues, they mostly in fact use it to further their dominance on PC by making standards they control like Windows Live. Standards like Xbox controller support actually worked against the interests of PC gaming, because all the sudden making sure all the games controls mapped to a 360 game pad took higher priority than keyboard and mouse controls.

With PCGA there is actually motivation to improve the platform rather than patch it up and maintain it. The majority of these companies benefit directly from PC gaming; whether that be in hardware components, retail setups or game sales. So it is in their interests to ensure PC gaming does well, because a strong PC gaming means demand for their products.

That doesnâ€™t necessarily mean Intel and Nvidia are in it to sell more expensive hardware; while flagship products take the headlines it is their mainstream products that ramp up the profits and sales, there is always a place for the high end but mainstream and budget hardware is were all the money is at. Clearing up confusion among developers as to what minimum system spec they should target and what hardware makes up the majority is one of PCGA objectives.

While Microsoftâ€™s solution brought nothing helpful to the table; PCGA objectives actually take the issues of sale figures reporting, piracy, consistent user experience and promotion into account. Keep in mind while Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are putting big budgets into the promotion of their platforms no one is doing it for PC. There is no one to stand up for PC gaming and highlight its benefits over the competition; PCGA is taking that role, something Microsoft didnâ€™t dare do because it conflicted with their Xbox interests.

I was pessimistic regarding GFW from the beginning and as things turned out I was right; but this isnâ€™t just Microsoft anymore, these are actual companies that work within and for the PC industry rather than treating it as a already conquered space. We have game developers, publishers, hardware manufactures and retailers all represented here. I think they will have a better idea what direction PC gaming needs to take than Microsoft, who despite having significantly more money than everyone else doesnâ€™t have anymore authority than Dell or Epic games within the group.

Saying all that PC gaming itself isnâ€™t in dire need of improvement, latest figures say it is doing just fine and is in fact growing. But as specified in one of the video interviews with Intel this isnâ€™t getting across to those in the games industry, the voices of the doomsayers are loud and developers are actually taking their word for it. Real industry figures and promotion is a big part of PCGA, because if things keep going as they are all the good developers will jump ship to console based on a false impression.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Mar 10, 2008)

ADF said:
			
		

> On a side note, I donâ€™t see why you think if a PC copycat console didnâ€™t exist the gaming market would degenerate into stagnation.



What makes anyone think it hasn't already, what with how reviewers are constantly bitching about games being the exact same as this game or the game before it, and then whining when they change it to make it stand apart from the other games in the series. Remember how people complained that WArrior Within was inferior simply *because* they didn't follow the same formula as Sands of Time?


----------



## ShagsterP (Mar 11, 2008)

Kasseth said:
			
		

> Have you ever played System Shock II(essentially the original Bioshock), Deus Ex, or Thief?  Perhaps they're a bit older now, but they were plenty memorable, and there's no way they'd have been developed on a console.



I have, actually, except for System Shock 2 directly.  They were all good games, especially Deus Ex, though I have a different opinion on Thief.  That actually helps point out how much richer games were back in the heyday of things.  It's as though when graphics were simpler, developers knew what to focus on most, but with today's constantly changing benchmarks it's a disgusting mess of more shaders, more bloom, and the incessant need to buy new video cards.

I can swallow all the "what ifs" with this PCGA thing, since it's only in that phase, but I still don't have the highest of hopes.  Throwing Nvidia into the mix, along with Alienware and the like.  They WANT their high-end hardware to sell, you know.  I'd swear they were making deals with developers to constantly "tighten up the graphics", especially with the whole shader 4.0 crap I mentioned.

So I'll spare some hope for this and wait to see if these developers really can muster the need and want to shift gears on the way they do things.



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> Before addressing that; you may want to look up information on the upcoming major Witcher patch, they actually address quite a few of your complaints regarding expressiveness and animation.



Heh, the game's been out far too long for me to care by now.  The characters and events are bland, the dialogue is yawn-inducing, and no patch will ever fix the animation and expression problems I described.  It's not about getting them to work, but the fact that the developers put no inspiration into even creating specific animations as they speak and act to convey a sense of emotion.  They just recycle the same idle motions randomly as they speak.. and yet this game took years and years to create.  Maybe that will change under PCGA rules.  Maybe not.


----------



## Bokracroc (Mar 11, 2008)

Digitalpotato said:
			
		

> ADF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WW was annoying because they turned the Prince into an Emo-Bitch with Rock music.


----------



## ADF (Mar 11, 2008)

ShagsterP said:
			
		

> Heh, the game's been out far too long for me to care by now.  The characters and events are bland, the dialogue is yawn-inducing, and no patch will ever fix the animation and expression problems I described.  It's not about getting them to work, but the fact that the developers put no inspiration into even creating specific animations as they speak and act to convey a sense of emotion.  They just recycle the same idle motions randomly as they speak.. and yet this game took years and years to create.  Maybe that will change under PCGA rules.  Maybe not.





> The Witcher: Enhanced Edition will be a completely polished product. A product that is rarely found on the PC market. Of course, it would be best if the premiere edition could look that way. For different reasons that was not achieved, now we're trying to make up for it. It should be easier for the fact that there aren't that many elements in the game which need improvement. Work is being done on two levels. One concerns the removal of technical obstacles that hinder the player from properly using the game and thus gaining enjoyment from it. By that I mean level loading times, which will be reduced by 80%, the stability of the game on different configurations, as well as a whole array of smaller fixes that will increase interactivity and precision in combat. The other level consists of very important changes that are not usually found in patches. First and foremost, the English language version will be, for the most part, completely re-done. The amount of text in that version was reduced compared to other language versions and that was said to cause a significant decrease in immersion and atmosphere. Now the English version will be as polished and atmospheric as the other language versions. Speaking of language versions, most of them will be more or less improved. Significant changes will also be made in the German version, where we are planning to re-record the voices for many of the characters. The most important improvements concern those elements of the game that the players criticized the most. So for example, over 50 new supporting character models will be added, so that the player won't run into the same person too often. The inventory panel will be re-designed and improved, and some elements of the main game screen will be polished. However, one of the biggest changes that will greatly increase the player's immersion in the game world will be improvements concerning dialogue scenes. Both Geralt and the NPCs will get over 100 new animated gestures which will make their "body language" during a conversation much more natural. Additionally, the face animation and lip-sync system will be re-created, making the faces of the speakers now even more natural as well. Of course, I've mentioned only the most important changes, and that's still a lot. There will be many smaller changes that will make the game more fun. I'm convinced that, thanks to them, The Witcher will be an almost ideal game.



If you read the changes you will see they are going to address many of the complaints you have, these updates will be provided in both the retail enhanced edition and freely for existing owners as a patch. So they didnâ€™t do it right the first time, at least unlike other developers they are making an effort to improve on it. If you make a complaint, and they address that complaint, I donâ€™t know what else I can say if you are still angry at the game.


----------



## Bokracroc (Mar 11, 2008)

I'll notice a lot of problems come from the Publisher pushing out the game before it's ready.
Most Completed games just have 'Balancing issue' patches.


----------



## ShagsterP (Mar 11, 2008)

Oh yea.  By the way, since...



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> Saying all that PC gaming itself isnâ€™t in dire need of improvement, latest figures say it is doing just fine and is in fact growing.



...feel free not to throw out judgments on piracy any time soon after stating well-known knowledge to everybody.  Especially since realistic developers are saying piracy isn't killing PC gaming.  And your PCGA only has the potential to make things better.  Opinionize all you want on the ethical aspects of the issue, but I'd like less crucifying of people who are more conservative with what they spend their fifty bucks on.  Even with The Witcher's new "patch" (I'd call it an entire game overhaul; too little too late), I'm glad I avoided shooting myself in the foot and buying the thing.

If this PCGA _really_ does turn a developer's focus more towards gameplay value and creative vision, rather than "Hey, what new effects can we put into this FPS to make it 2% different than all the rest?!", then I'm all for it.

I pray for the safety of Deus Ex 3.


----------

