Agreed although it doesn't solve the "when I buy it" problem quite as elegantly as Steam (which always gets the latest version of the files rather than install-then-patch). Still that's a completely minor issue compared to just getting some sort of background updates happening in general! Here's hoping for the fall update for 360 and for PS3 to reassess the brain-dead decision to make this a premium feature.
ATI Gaming Evolved devrel program
- Thread starter hoom
- Start date
How do you explain the discrepancy from this generation of consoles and all others where 4 years in you had a vibrant PC gaming with many games using bleeding edge PC features? As Andrew stated consoles have gotten alot worse with the firmware updates, patches, networking, (mandatory) installation, free DLC VIP codes, and whatnot, while the PC games have gotten a lot better and so has the hardware/OS. (in 2004 many games didn't even support widescreen leaving you to tweak INI files if at all possible and that's a landmark year for PC gaming). The disc-to-gameplay time/experience is important, but it's not preponderant.
The big problem is that the difference between PC and Console games has been declining with the PC port often coming out (many months) later with no extra features and sometimes with less features. Even if the disc-to-gameplay experience was the same why would people that also owned a console ever buy a PC game?
Apple has a closed platform they have complete control over, they agonise over the end-user application experience and yet gaming on a mac has never took off. MS isn't going to do anything that could harm the XBOX, Intel is quite happy selling IGPs and would probably be even happier if all the recent games could run on the GMA 950. Khronos couldn't stop the adoption of D3D in commercial games.
If the solution to the PC gaming problem is all those companies getting together and work in tandem then I'm afraid the war is lost before it started.
System software updates are unavoidable when they system is so complex and does so much, leading to a features arms race for what's now more than just a games playing device. The upside is that updating that software is a trivial exercise. It's the same with game updates, which are delivered in the same fashion. Yeah, they should probably happen in the background and be ready for you before you fire the game up again, like Steam, but that's a fairly simple behaviour and UI change for the console vendors to make. I don't see PC or console really having an advantage there.
Free DLC VIP codes are common to both, not sure why you brought that up (or why it's a bad thing either). As for lack of differences between PC and console games being some kind of big problem, and games arriving on the PC much later with no extras, I don't get what you think you're owed here as a PC gamer. What right is there over higher resolution assets or extra features or what have you on one platform over another, exactly? I know what I'd rather the money get spent on when it comes to games, and it's not that.
Not having a desire to buy the PC version if you own a console is natural. The console is very likely a nicer place to play the same game (input system being the same of course) for the reasons I've already outlined, so what's the complaint here?
Gaming on the Mac might well take off now there's a game delivery system that rocks. There's work to be done with GL, but the basic infrastructure is there and I think it'll probably happen given the volume of Macs shipping these days.
As for getting better games on the PC again, en masse and not just a handful of titles per year that make the PC shine, I foresee a future with a grassroots movement where PC gamers stop whinging about it for the barren years in the middle of the console cycle and actually do something about it, writing software and fixing the broken systems.
As for things like just leaving Steam running just to save a few mins of a patch downloading and applying itself, err, what? Electricity isn't free.
Free DLC VIP codes are common to both, not sure why you brought that up (or why it's a bad thing either). As for lack of differences between PC and console games being some kind of big problem, and games arriving on the PC much later with no extras, I don't get what you think you're owed here as a PC gamer. What right is there over higher resolution assets or extra features or what have you on one platform over another, exactly? I know what I'd rather the money get spent on when it comes to games, and it's not that.
Not having a desire to buy the PC version if you own a console is natural. The console is very likely a nicer place to play the same game (input system being the same of course) for the reasons I've already outlined, so what's the complaint here?
Gaming on the Mac might well take off now there's a game delivery system that rocks. There's work to be done with GL, but the basic infrastructure is there and I think it'll probably happen given the volume of Macs shipping these days.
As for getting better games on the PC again, en masse and not just a handful of titles per year that make the PC shine, I foresee a future with a grassroots movement where PC gamers stop whinging about it for the barren years in the middle of the console cycle and actually do something about it, writing software and fixing the broken systems.
As for things like just leaving Steam running just to save a few mins of a patch downloading and applying itself, err, what? Electricity isn't free.
That's a pure matter of opinion. If you have a decent PC with a 360 wireless receiver hooked up to a TV you very well can have a strictly better experience on the PC (leaving all preference things out of the equation). Same everything except the PC will generally look and sound better, and sometimes not by a small margin...
Are you being sarcastic here? You're talking about the power delta between having steam running and not running on a system's power draw? That's ridiculous, so I can only imagine you're talking about leaving an entire PC on so that Steam can download patches... obviously that's unnecessary unless you use your PC only for gaming. Even if that is the case, it's a great candidate for a "wake up and backup, etc." type time slot in the middle of the night. There are a million options on PC, but none on the consoles.
And if you're making a power argument I'll note that even leaving your PC on all the time most likely won't compare to the cost of getting in your car to go buy a console game from a conventional retailer... you really don't want to play that card in this discussion
If these patches were "a few minutes" it wouldn't be quite as much of a deal, but they are very often much longer than that, particularly on the PS3. Still, this discussion was about the "experience" of getting a game up and running on each platform. I will continue to argue that Steam has at least equalized, if not swung that in favor of the PC in recent years.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's just the "after the game has started" experience, which I've tried to avoid talking about because it's not really what the problem is.
Yes, that's what I meant :smile:
If we're talking about the case when both systems are off to start with, I see no advantage in either system. Both have patches for the system and games handled in a fairly unobtrusive manner (talking about Steam only here).
Do you really want to bring TCO into it and claim PCs are cheap?And if you're making a power argument I'll note that even leaving your PC on all the time most likely won't compare to the cost of getting in your car to go buy a console game from a conventional retailer... you really don't want to play that card in this discussion
How much does this hypothetical PC you keep referencing cost? I could claim the cost delta there is enough to justify getting into my car and driving to buy the games....but then again who does that? We all shop online now right? The general premise that electricity isn't free stands, no matter what system. I don't want to leave anything on longer than I have to.I think it's got much better for the PS3 in the last year or so, firmware updates wise. It's down to the cup of tea length for me at least. Steam makes it nice to get the game on the PC, yes, I totally agree with you. But not every game comes out on it and it's only a CDN and doesn't fix the rest of my laundry list of issues. I can point to many games delivered lovingly and without fuss to my PC via Steam, which then failed the very next task of getting started properly. The number of times you double click, get 800x600 and monitor mode switching (which on ATI drivers is laughable for me), and rearranged desktop icons because of it, then a resulting fugly UI because of it, which means I need to select native res, wait for more mode switches and then have to go through a round of toggling quality/perf tradeoff switches to find good performance for my system and THEN I get to sit down and play the game and oh look, all that took the time of a dozen old slow PS3 firmware updates. See what I'm getting at? On Windows without a graphics driver installed, ATI's installer UI doesn't even fit on the f'ing screen properly!
Some games get that initial launching bit right too on a PC, but it's far from all and probably not even half. All of them get that bit right on a console.
Sure, although the consoles are still guaranteed to interrupt the game that I want to play whereas the PC has a reasonable chance of downloading a patch for game Y in the background of me playing game X. And in reality, I do use my PC for other stuff than gaming
Oh hell no! Consoles are certainly the most inexpensive in terms of just playing games, but that's sort of besides the point here. I'm just saying bringing electricity into this is off-topic... it has nothing to do with the discussion of the "starting a game" experience unless you really are claiming that you never do anything on your PC other than gaming.Do you really want to bring TCO into it and claim PCs are cheap?
Sure, but I'd say that stuff is less of an issue than it was before. More games have better defaults nowadays (most for instance start in my monitor's native res now, and even if not Vista/Win7 handle the mode changes miles better than XP) and even midrange cards can handle the highest quality settings on most games as well. So sure, I'm obviously biased coming at this from the point of view of having high-end hardware, but as I've already conceded the PC certainly isn't the cheapest gaming platform. That said, given all of the platforms that I have, it's the preferable one.
I guess we just need an overlord company of the PC smacking heads similar to the console cert process?
Microsoft dipped their toes into this a bit with the windows logo stuff but that hasn't really gone over all that well so far. That said, a lot of the recent AAA games have gotten this right, and the commonality of using licensed engines is actually helping the polish in this space too (on all platforms).I agree you can definitely criticize specific games for problems on the PC, but there's a lot that do work well now demonstrating that it's not as much of a platform issue as one of enforcement, etc. I do think the market has begun to select more polished experiences though on all platforms and I imagine this will continue.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, the interruption sucks and I think it should change. I use my consoles for other stuff than gaming too, FWIW.Sure, although the consoles are still guaranteed to interrupt the game that I want to play whereas the PC has a reasonable chance of downloading a patch for game Y in the background of me playing game X. And in reality, I do use my PC for other stuff than gaming
In hindsight and rereading the posts that I thought brought TCO up, it was a cheap shot on my part (although not intentional).
For the record, it's my preferable platform too when it works well. The annoyances I mention are maybe less of an issue than they were before, but arguably they shouldn't be there to start with.
Maybe an overlord is needed if developers can't wise up and QA their pre-game dicking about. My point has always been that I'd like more progress here and developer guidance from the major stakeholders in PC gaming (including gamers themselves).I guess we just need an overlord company of the PC smacking heads similar to the console cert process?
And long may the trend continue :smile: I'll still enjoy a more polished experience elsewhere though, and generally prefer it if there's a choice between the two to be made. I don't have the time for the dicking about any more.
I fixed that for you, even though there's big cult for Starcraft, Warcraft as franchise is a lot stronger (and the games better (yes, meaning 1-3 compared to SC1-2) - excluding south korea.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Heh, in your opinion only. Warcraft III is but a shadow of Warcraft II and doesn't hold a candle to SC1 or 2. There's Warcraft I and II and SC1 and 2 for the traditional Blizzard RTS's. And then there's Warcraft 3 which was Blizzard's experimental RTS. It was decent (I don't regret buying the CE of it) but not anywhere close to any of their other RTS efforts. The only area in which it excelled was in modability which SC2 also shares, thankfully.
Regards,
SB
Warcraft III is but a shadow of Warcraft II and doesn't hold a candle to SC1 or 2. There's Warcraft I and II and SC1 and 2 for the traditional Blizzard RTS's. And then there's Warcraft 3 which was Blizzard's experimental RTS. It was decent (I don't regret buying the CE of it) but not anywhere close to any of their other RTS efforts. The only area in which it excelled was in modability which SC2 also shares, thankfully.Regards,
SB
I brought it up because you're arguing that the better console user experience is what the PC needs to revert this situation whereas I'm pointing out there's no evidence that supports that. Consoles have gotten worse while PCs have gotten better and yet the PC platform is worse off now than it was before. I'm not even talking about the autoexec.bat days either. Last console generation, 3/4 years into the generation the PC had a tremedous couple of years during 2003-2005 at a time when we still had Windows XP with no Windows Driver updates, manual tweaking of resolution, complete non-standard installation, no Games Explorer, no Ratings, no standard G4W boxes. And the consoles had no cd-key codes (VIP DLC), no mandatory installation, hardly any patches, etc. By your argument PC gaming ought to have died back then.
The reason PC gaming was vibrant in those years is because you had:
a) PC exclusive titles.
b) Multiplatform titles with better PC features.
c) Multiplatform titles that shipped first on PC.
I'm not asking for PC exclusive titles. What I am asking is that games don't drop features and ship simultaneously for PC. That will only get us half-way though. There needs to be PC high-end features, so people keep buying new GPUs, so AMD/NVIDIA don't go bankrupt. Console design wins only give them a leg up on future PC designs. If the later aren't happening, the former aren't viable.
And what exactly has been the point of two major D3D and OGL versions plus half a dozen minor versions if there are hardly any games that use them? Because consoles are price-conscious equipment they'll never be bleeding edge so they'll never use bleeding-edge features/APIs.
Let me turn that around: what do you think you're owed for wanting better installation/setup experience? This discussion isn't about what we want. It's whether devrel can improve PC gaming. Since history shows PC gaming has been better off when there are games that exploit its superior tecnology and you need the help of NVIDIA/AMD to exploit those features, those two companies have a fundamental impact on PC gaming. And PC Gaming has a fundamental impact on them, which has been my point throughout.
Despite the recent years of record-breaking sales, Mac is at 4% WW market share. The problem with macs is that most of their sales go to existing customers. I'd love to see Apple make a dent because monopolies are bad and wake up Microsoft to the fact that without games Windows is not needed; but if we have to wait for Apple we'll be waiting years.
Gamers? You mean, go to college and major in CS? That would take years and I have doubts it would help revert the situation - look at Linux in the desktop. If you mean modders, how is that grassroots movement going to happen when more and more devs are abandoning the practice of releasing mod tools?
Seems like „Gaming Evolved” is beginning to show:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,8...deons-vor-Geforce/Rollenspiel-Adventure/Test/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,8...deons-vor-Geforce/Rollenspiel-Adventure/Test/
This is a bit off topic, but those drivers aren't "leaked". They are the CUDA 4.0 RC drivers (which any registered developer can download).
Assuming they actually do improve DA2 performance (I have no reason to doubt you), it's a bit odd that Nvidia doesn't make them more "public".
Actually, my colleague who did the test did try them:
„Der geleakte Geforce 270.32 Beta soll die Leistung von Nvidia-Grafikkarten in Dragon Age 2 drastisch steigern, wir können dies nicht bestätigen. Im Rahmen der Messungenauigkeit erreichen wir die gleichen 34 Avg-Fps unter DirectX 11 wie mit dem Geforce Beta 267.24/26.”
Translated (and shortened): We've tried 270.32 but are getting the same 34 fps as with the older drivers.
It just seems, that either DA2 does some things Fermi hates and EG/NI love or Nvidia has a major bug preventing competitive performance, but if that was the case I guess they would have responded to our mails, promising new drivers soon which will make DA2 more pleasant for their customers. But this time, they did not.
Member at Futuremark tested this, and according to him performance on his GTX580 without HDAO is around 115 FPS, and with around 50-60 FPS, so it's indeed HDAO killing the performance.
