[Mize]

joker454 you have a very valid point. It's not a great future, by your observations, though.
A few comments..

You say next console gen will do 1920x1080 with 16x AF and 8xMSAA. I'm not sure I buy that. You're talking >3GHz CPU + >5870 perf to do that on a PC today. If you're right then $300 will go a long way with the next console round...but then do we become stuck here?

PCs push the envelope of graphics. Today, years after its release, multi-GPU solutions can finally run Crysis at high settings and high resolution. Even then, Crysis is not even close to where graphics can go as far as realism. Without the PC to push the envelope, consoles represent a future of mediocrity.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by Mize

You say next console gen will do 1920x1080 with 16x AF and 8xMSAA. I'm not sure I buy that. You're talking >3GHz CPU + >5870 perf to do that on a PC today. If you're right then $300 will go a long way with the next console round...but then do we become stuck here?

I don't think he's talking about consoles launching tomorrow, but in 3years.

As quality improves on both sides the difference becomes less important. ie. The quality jump from vhs to dvd quality was much more noticeable than the jump from dvd quality to HD.

[Mobius1aic]

Diminishing returns in graphics have been an issue for a while but there are a few more generations of real time graphics to go before we really hit the barrier. Visuals are still getting better in movies, but budgets will have to be higher for better looking titles, games and hardware could be pricier too. I'm surprised there are not more middleware companies out there licensing their work. Also, the work towards creating more realistic worlds via interactions and orchestrations is never ending, unlike graphics where there is a perceivable "dead end" (kind of, I tend to think of it as an exponential factor where x never equals zero).

[3dcgi]

I believe most console buyers already think graphics are good enough. At least they think this until the next console comes out. I agree with the diminishing returns concept, but think we're mostly across that threshold already.

I'm hoping that other technology improvements will drive interest in PC gaming and high end graphics. It might take a few years, but 300 dpi displays will come. 10+ years after that we'll have holographic like displays and the jury is still out on stereoscopic.

Also, as GPGPU and consumer products like Google Earth/Maps drive demand for graphics more people will have PCs capable of playing the latest games thus reducing any cost advantage of consoles.

Yes, I understand this post is based on a lot of hope and hand waving.

[AlphaWolf]

The problem for PC is that all those advances come with a cost to development. Costs have already escalated and the number of independent studios is shrinking.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

The problem for PC is that all those advances come with a cost to development. Costs have already escalated and the number of independent studios is shrinking.

No. Small/independant developers shouldn't follow the high tech/highproduction value route just because the option is there/for the sake of it. High budgets associated with the high produciont values are the reason WHY so many games are easier to play/dumbed-down. I would take Natural Selection 2 over Modern Warfares any day of the week no many how many dollars went into its marketing, production and "scripting of the setpieces".

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

No. Small/independant developers shouldn't (and can't) follow the high tech/highproduction value rpute just because the option is there. I would take Natural Selelction 2 and Quake Live over Modern Warfares any day of the week no many how many dollars went into its marketing, production and "scripted setpieces".

Which would only mean that there is no advantage for PC in terms of output quality. And while you might prefer that, I have no idea how profitable those ventures were. I do know that the MW games make boatloads of money.

[green.pixel]

Ubisoft: Only AAA Profitable On Home Consoles

The home console market is no longer supporting alternative products for big publishers, leaving only blockbuster titles to break the top ten and become profitable.

That’s according to Ubisoft Euro MD Alain Corre, who told GamesIndustry.biz that it’s safer to invest in one AAA title rather than hedge bets on a handful of smaller productions.

"The games that are not triple-A are not profitable anymore," said Corre in an interview published today. "And that’s changed in the last 18 months.

"When you have a triple-A blockbuster it costs more money to develop, but at the end of the day there’s also the chance of a good return on it because there’s a concentration at the top of the charts. To a certain extent it becomes less risky to invest more in a single game or franchise than spreading your investment between three or four games. Because if those three or four games are not at the right quality level, you are sure to lose money," said Corre

[AlphaWolf]

Link isn't loading, but that says nothing about PC anyway (not that it introduced any facts at all). And it certainly doesn't show that escalating costs will improve that situation in anyway

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

Link isn't loading, but that says nothing about PC anyway (not that it introduced any facts at all). And it certainly doesn't show that escalating costs will improve that situation in anyway

The point is that you don't have to shoot for "AAA or bust" model on PC.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

The point is that you don't have to shoot for "AAA or bust" model on PC.

Nothing you quoted suggests that, not that I believe its true on console either. Escalating costs are an issue for development, more features higher resolutions etc, don't help in that respect.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

The point is that you don't have to shoot for "AAA or bust" model on PC.

Exactly and why there are so many small devs groups releasing PC games year in and out while often pushing tech envelope and even sometimes targeting a special group of gamers (X series, Settlers etc). Ubisoft being publisher for Settlers, Anno which are games from Blue Byte. They also publish games like Silent Hunter which is WWII submarine war sim. Game series that existed for many many years and still continue to get new sequels. This shows it is profitable despite games reaching out to a limited group of gamers due to the type of gameplay.

[Dr Evil]

I've said it in the past, but I think the best thing that could happen to PC-gaming is if AMD and nVidia establish their own game studios, essentially focusing their marketing dollars to that, which could produce maybe 2-4 AAA games per year that truly push the envelope and thus create demand for their own products. Upgrading ones PC is not very rewarding these days.

Those games should have a good chance to do well in the market and even if they are heavily pirated, they would still help drive hardware sales. Console ports for more profit could still be done also.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Nebula

Dual-boot!? Virtual PC with VMware WS FTW, no dual-boot.

It needs to be brain-dead for Joe Public. Having to launch an application from winthin Windows loses that transparency. I think the ideal would probably be two ON buttons on the computer - one for Windows and one for Game Mode. Although that would still confuse some peeps!

Most actually do, even exclusives. And that since years ago and even lastgen to and further back. But this gen it has been more frequent. Ofcourse some exclusive games cant be played with gamepad in anyway due to the limitations of gamepads.

That's what I mean, by design. Sacred 2 may support pads on PC, but the game was designed for mouse and keyboard, and it's not a particularly comfortable pad interface (assuming pad support on PC is like the console ports). Games designed for kb+m may allow pads, but if not designed for pads it's not really an alternative input means, at least not one anyone would want to choose.

...Hell I played for a long time with tops 10-15 shortcuts. But with time I learned more shortcuts and it made it easier for me instead of having to guide mouse pointer through multiple menus for same function.

Right. But that outlines the difference in design philosophies. If you're not using keyboard shortcuts, you're wading through menus and complex, mouse driven interfaces. Which is a degree of complexity that many gamers don't want. The game itself is complex to the point it doesn't fit, comfortably, with a pad mechanic, and encourages kb shortcuts. it's that overall design philosophy dividing the traditional PC game and console game.

Originally Posted by tongue_of_colicab

I think you can. Complaining that your 400 euro laptop won't play games is pretty silly. If you buy such a machine I hope you have the common sense to not expect it to be a great performer.

That's missing the point! Lots of us buy laptops for conveniece and portability. You can't say "the cost of PC gaming is just a faster GPU and more fool you for buying a laptop." The cost of PC gaming would, for lots of us, be the cost of a new computer. Which is more than the cost of the consoles mid cycle, and which doesn't provide the same experience. So gaming as consolers know it isn't just a case of buying a GPU and putting it in our PCs.

...Spending 200 euro's extra will, certainly on a desktop, give you a system that is very well capable of playing games at 1680x1050 with good settings.

Buying a new PC, sure. But if you already have a PC, and everyone does, then the cost of getting a gaming PC versus a console is much higher. Unless you can just put in a new GPU, ignoring RAM and CPU issues, but that's beyond Joe Public's technical capabilities. There's also the issue of PC maintenance. It's definitely not a like-for-like investment between PC gaming and console gaming.

The other day I configured a 500 euro system with the cheapest intel quad core, 2gb ram and a HD5770 (If I remember right) and that should perform about as well as my q6600, 2gb ram and HD4870 when I did a quick benchmark check.

My personal anecdote, I have used my Athlon XP machine for a good five years, and it served me pretty well. I wanted a bit more power for creativity and Windows 7. Upgrading needed completely new everything - I could only really keep the case and graphics tablet! I picked a laptop for convenience and flexibility - I don't need a powerful GPU as I have a console. There wasn't an upgrade path, and there isn't an upgrade path now. Come next-gen, my choice will be a new PC with decent GPU, or a console. I don't need a new PC as my current fine is as fast it needs be, so a new Pc is overkill and likely more expensive than the consoles, especially if I upgrade console after the first price reduction.

So atm pc gaming defenitly isn't very expensive and you might even say that if you jumped in on this gen consoles at the beginning you might even be off cheaper with the extra expense in pc hardware.

Baring in mind my starting point, my 1GB AthlonXP, nForce mobo, how much would I have had to spend on a PC in March 2008 to get PS3's performance including BRD playback? I bought my PS3 for £260.

Originally Posted by Nebula

If there is something you can notice then it is that PC gamers tend to have both PCs and consoles more than the other way around.

Many PC gamers have already had experience/played console games but few console gamer have played PC games and only knows one game.. Crysis. I guess it has to do with the age group.

I think that's only because of aging, and I very much disagree that console gamers don't know what PC gaming is like. the average age of a PS360 is something like 30. Unless the consoles have attracted a demographic that didn't pay PC and 16bit games, chances are the consoles offered a natural path for their gaming habits, and I imagine that the main reason for picking console over PC was useability factors and affordability of <$200 gaming devices mid-generation.

Originally Posted by eastmen

We pc gamers are moving to multi monitors something that i don't think we will ever see with consoles.

That's not a Joe Public feature though! PC gaming is thus diverging moreso, becoming very specialist if the differentiating factor between PCs and consoles comes down to multimonitors.

Isn't this alot to expect ? 1080p , 8x fsaa and 3d ? I don't see it happening. One thing to remember is bandwidth and the pc will allways have more of it for the video cards. I don't see a next gen console having the bandwidth of even todays cards

That's open ended. There's definitely the chance. If the BW is there, these features would be present, and the BW may come. We'll have to see (that's a discussion for the next-gen console tech thread.)

I don't think that's a deciding factor though. PCs have the graphics upper hand now, but they aren't the platform of choice for most gamers. Whatever the other issues are need to be addressed if PC gaming is to extend past its niche.

More ram ? Consoles may have 2 gigs of ram. But the pcs will have 12 gigs of ram plus 2-4 gigs of ram on the graphics card plus fast ssd's to load from.

Gamer's PCs, yes. Joe Public's? I'll still be using my Core-2-Duo laptop with 3GBs RAM and never hitting a memory wall. What reason have I to get a brand new PC with 16 GBs RAM? A current, everyday PC can create media in full HD and print resolutions without really struggling, so where is the upgrade incentive for everyone to buy new, faster PCs? Thus the average installed PC will be well below the best, or even average new PC, and I think this divide will increase as technology progresses well beyond people's needs.

Originally Posted by 3dcgi

I believe most console buyers already think graphics are good enough.

Definitely. How many people who play Uncharted or LBP2 or GT5 are going to feel the visuals suck? On a technical level faults can be found, but the overall feeling is very good that you don't lament the standard.

I'm hoping that other technology improvements will drive interest in PC gaming and high end graphics. It might take a few years, but 300 dpi displays will come.

How is that going to promote PC gaming, when at normal veiwing distances you can't perceive that?! Tech for tech's sake isn't going to win over console gamers! That's why there's already the divide despite PCs being able to wave much bigger numbers at the consoles.

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

It needs to be brain-dead for Joe Public. Having to launch an application from winthin Windows loses that transparency. I think the ideal would probably be two ON buttons on the computer - one for Windows and one for Game Mode. Although that would still confuse some peeps!

With a specialized bios and some really fast flash for the hibernation file you could probably manage a switch in a couple of seconds.

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

Ubisoft: Only AAA Profitable On Home Consoles

We've seen that argument before. It seems to be founded in the mistaken belief that if the publishers pour more money into more big-budget ""AAA" titles there will be progressively more and more breakout big sellers.

I'd like to see some actual data supporting that notion, as my instinct says that the number of blockbusters will still be limited (while the remaining busts grow even bigger). Gamers will be even more prone to gravitate towards a clear leader of the bunch when all the contenders are samey since the payoff for deviating is reduced.

Then, when all the choice is limited to "generic shooter" #1...15, and 14 of them are financial disasters, there will once more be room on the sides to serve the "niches" left behind by "the rush to mainstream". With lower risk (and, yes, lower reward) projects better serving smaller markets.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by MfA

With a specialized bios and some really fast flash for the hibernation file you could probably manage a switch in a couple of seconds.

But you'd still need to boot into Windows in the first place. Don't get me wrong, a switch within windows makes sense too, but I think for the average gamer, a boot into game mode, perhaps when there's a game disc in the drive, should be present to avoid having to start Windows and select gaming from it.

[Davros]

little article on game pricing (since it was brought up)
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...me-pricing.ars

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

But you'd still need to boot into Windows in the first place.

I'm just saying a switch could be fast.

Don't get me wrong, a switch within windows makes sense too, but I think for the average gamer, a boot into game mode, perhaps when there's a game disc in the drive, should be present to avoid having to start Windows and select gaming from it.

No ... traditional windows should work exactly like traditional windows, it's for power users any way. Let the common joes just run it in game mode all the time, with an appstore for Chromium/Android apps which can't fuck things up.

Of course specialized install scripts have to be written for all games which run in game mode (windows has to stay hidden at all times). So not all games would work ... but that gets back to why someone big like Valve needs to kick this off, they could offer a specialized store for it, with ratings depending on how well the game works with gamepads etc.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by MfA

No ... traditional windows should work exactly like traditional windows, it's for power users any way. Let the common joes just run it in game mode all the time, with an appstore for Chromium/Android apps which can't fuck things up.

Well the PC owners are still going to want access to Works/Office and their video editing and photo editing software. If these could be launched from the game interface, perhaps that'd be better. in fact, boot into XNE and have Windows as an option there, with the user able to select whether boot into XNE or Windows at startup. Certainly a walled app environment is a very good idea. We have enough processing power to spare that we can virtualise a lot of code to run across platforms, making for uniform interfaces and shared content, which is what the end user wants.

[MfA]

Well you could simply write to disk that the app has to be launched, reboot into normal windows and launch the app ... but I'm not certain it would add much compared to simply booting into normal windows and launching it there.

The problem with virtualizing windows (rather than Android or Chrome OS) is that you need two licenses ... you can have two separate installs and select between them during boot with one license, but you can't virtualize windows inside windows with 1 license. You could build it in, but the user would have to supply his own windows install/license.

[Shifty Geezer]

Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly; I didn't mean virtualising Windows. I envisage two solutions for simplifying games on the home PC. Both cases have a game frontend, like XNE. In that you could add Chromium/Android apps as you say, providing access to basic functions like web browser, social networking, email, etc, elliminating much need for full Windows access. For access to the user's existing and future full Windows applications, the full on image and video editing software, you'd either boot into Windows proper, or provide rewritten applications to work in the virtualised program space of the Chromium/Android apps. The former is probably the best choice for the whole reason Windows is still with us, massive legacy support for every title imaginable. Of course with that comes the compatibility issues that make PCs a pain to use, and those of us who understand them end up providing support for friends and family! That's where an app system may offer a better choice, with every program written from scratch to run in a virtualised space thus solving (hopefully!) all the compatibility issues and meaning you can just buy and run an app. With the added advantage those photo-editing apps also run on whatever other devices you have.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Then, when all the choice is limited to "generic shooter" #1...15, and 14 of them are financial disasters, there will once more be room on the sides to serve the "niches" left behind by "the rush to mainstream". With lower risk (and, yes, lower reward) projects better serving smaller markets.

The problem is the samyeness in mechanics, themes, handholding and so on.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

That's what I mean, by design. Sacred 2 may support pads on PC, but the game was designed for mouse and keyboard, and it's not a particularly comfortable pad interface (assuming pad support on PC is like the console ports). Games designed for kb+m may allow pads, but if not designed for pads it's not really an alternative input means, at least not one anyone would want to choose.

Right. But that outlines the difference in design philosophies. If you're not using keyboard shortcuts, you're wading through menus and complex, mouse driven interfaces. Which is a degree of complexity that many gamers don't want. The game itself is complex to the point it doesn't fit, comfortably, with a pad mechanic, and encourages kb shortcuts. it's that overall design philosophy dividing the traditional PC game and console game.

And that's the way it should be. When you start designing around infererior input schemes, things start to fall apart. You can look at Dungeon Siege 3, it looks like it won't be party based this time like the first two games. It will play more like Baldurs's Gate: Dark Alliance and Champions of Norath on PS2, which weren't similar (other than the genre label) to how previous DS games worked.

You can also look at R6 Vegas compared to the previous games in the series. Operation Flashpoint 2 vs the first game, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Thief 3... The end result is simplification and loss for the PC audience.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Definitely. How many people who play Uncharted or LBP2 or GT5 are going to feel the visuals suck? On a technical level faults can be found, but the overall feeling is very good that you don't lament the standard.

The main reason why the visual difference is/will be less noticeable is because PC doesn't have a conglomerate to fund blockbusters or money hat third party publishers. The PC specific advantages won't attract the majority of population.

[MfA]

Isn't there anyone here studying for MBA or something which could write a decent business proposal for this from the perspective of Valve for a class project? (With profits being derived from increased Steam sales as well as licensing fees for hardware manufacturers creating compliant hardware, with the incentive for the hardware manufacturers being the Valve maintained gaming mode windows install.)

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by swaaye

Green Pixel, I think game developers are simply making games differently today and that your examples are de-evolution are not a direct result of control scheme. It's more a "focus group" mentality to try to appeal to everyone through normalization and general simplification.

Yes, it's a combination of both. I was just naming some PC games which lost their previous selves..

Originally Posted by swaaye

If you don't think there have been complex console RPGs and such, I suggest you look harder. Console games have seen a general "de-evolution" this decade as well I think. Hell there used to be full-on complex simulators on NES (Silent Service comes to mind) and the Ultima RPGs, Final Fantasy classics, Shadowrun, etc.

Yes, I agree. For example, diverisity of the racing games on N64 is nowhere to be found today.