Future of PC games ?

Can't really say I agree with you on the controller issue.
It makes it way too easy for devs to skimp on the port, forcing pc-players to use a console controller to play games. And skimping on the controller makes it easier to justify keeping the console user interface, with invisible walls, "dumbed down" puzzles etc., since it "fits" the controller better.
Which then begs the question, why buy the pc game when it'll give you the same experience as using a console? (Albeit with possibly better graphics)

 

shouldnt be limited to a 360 controller either

 

Absolutely.

See below.

Btw, I realize that D3D10 with the new driver model brings improvements but I think much of that doesn't make a dent against the entropy that is a regular joe's PC system with antivirus and whatever he has running.

Which in turn means devs/publishers have to aim their min requirements higher, pushing everything over. With a "Windows Gaming Edition" (WGE - which could be a free add-on for Vista Home Premium/Ultimate users) RAM requirements for games would be lower, there would be less hardware conflicts because the OS would only "see" the hardware that is relevant for games. There would be less software conflicts because as a gaming OS with the sole purpose of Installing/Playing/Uninstalling games even if the system was compromised there wouldn't be much for the hacker to do so there wouldn't be a need for AVs, etc.

You could even have the WGE automatically log in to your Games for Windows LIVE account or something. It would have a custom, simple UI, ditching Explorer and its many DLL dependencies and resources.

I think Demirug maybe referring to the special requirements you need to fulfill to be part of the programme. I'm pretty sure you need to be a certified developer (i.e. have to pay a fee to MS). Then there's all kinds of "silly" requirements which I talk about below:

For me, this is the best part of the Games for Windows push. I can plug in my XBOX 360 controller into Gears of War and alternate between keyb/mouse and controller, I get force feedback and I know it works out of the box.

However, not all GfW need to have XBOX 360 controller support. Only those which support DirectInput gamepads. In which case MS requires that you also support XInput.

As I mentioned this is not fool-proof. Bioshock is a GfW game and it didn't have "proper" WS support and had to release a patch to fix it. This wasn't caught by MS.

Personally I dislike this feature as I prefer to wait 10 mins and have speedier load times. But I can see how this would help some console users adapt to the PC.

No argument there. MS needs to understand that PC games have offered multiplayer and even matchmaking before XBOX LIVE came around. IMHO, Vista Home Premium/Ultimate should have come with a lifetime Gold account subscription. (lifetime of the OS)

I think this is answered by the fact that while every console comes with a controller, not all PCs will have one so developers always have to have keyb/mouse input.

This is a more serious problem (Oblivion anyone?) but one that can be readily apparent with screenshots, trailers and the demo.

It's not limited to 360's controller. The GfW requirements only state that if your game supports DirectInput controllers then it has to support XInput controllers as well. AFAIK the 360 controller is the only one that uses that API but there's nothing stopping someone else from building a controller with XInput.

 

But these additional programs will run independent from the OS and 3D API used.

I agree that such an OS edition would solve some problems. But if I take a look at my daily work the GPUs are the biggest problem. Unfortunately a low end GPU will still be a low end GPU no matter what OS you use.

The last time I checked you need to be invited to be part of the program. I am not even sure if someone at MS validates if you fulfill the requirements.

 

Thats easy. Because when a game is better suited to a K/M you can play it on one (FPS's/RTS's) but when its better played on a pad, we get an equal experience to a console - which is something we have never had before.

The fact is that some games do play better with a pad - much better in some cases. I see no reason for PC gamers to have to compromise on the control scheme for such games or even worse, not get them at all.

And whats the difference between playing the game on PC to playing on a console if your using the same pad, and perhaps even the same TV and sound system you ask?

I would answer, does there need to be a difference? Its £10 cheaper on the PC!

That said though you can generally count on higher resolution and/or more AA/AF with a smoother framerate on the PC. In many cases other aspects of the graphics are improved as well. Throw in faster loading times, no need to use disks, and far better cutsomisation/modding options and its a no brainer for me. Hell the one big disadvantage the PC used to have for me was the poor controls in games that needed a gamepad. I couldn't be happier that the playing field has been leveled on that front.

Its essential that the layout if standard or it simply won;t work. And IMO the 360 pad has just about the best gamepad layout available. I have no issue at all with other companies making pads to compete with it as long as the layout remains the same.

 

That seems silly to me.

Sometimes I join a server but it is full so I surf the internet till a slot opens. Then I switch to full screen and have fun. If you had some weird OS that would not allow it then I would have a worse experience.

Other ties I write documents, do calculations while waiting or whatever. I like that option.

 

I think a "gamer-friendly" version of Windows Vista or a "game mode" would be really nice. Outside of programs you may have open like Windows Media Player (I like to listen to music as I play ), it would get rid of anything else the OS needs to operate in the background, like all that memory used just to monitor and keep itself secure. If you have 3 or more gigs of RAM though, I don't think it would matter then except for luxury of a sheerly simple Windows that doesn't hinder you in any way. I'd love to see a Linux that's just for that, and if I had the programming knowledge to do it, I would. Built for games and media, and Cedega/Wine.

 

that's about the ram usage of my non-nlited XP install (with a few utils such as autohotkey and supercopier, and an auto-starting winamp).
at one point I was down to 256MB system ram and it was still a fast system for surfing, movies etc., better than 512MB machines with AV/FW and filled with junk (except when visiting lots of heavy websites)

 

Not with me. I've ran the 64 bit version of Far Cry, several torrents via Azureus, and GameTap in the background(I believe I had forgotten to turn it off.). I had no RAM or speed peoples. I only have two gigs of RAM.

Edit:

PC gamers have had that for years. It just wasn't all that well known.

Controller converters FTW!

 

Mods mods and mods, much better framerate, improved graphics and cheaper prices aswell and ( IMO ) not having to think about your console breaking down (peace to the mind)!

 

Yes but its not about the gamepad itself, its about how games support it. Sure you could use the original xbox pad on your PC if you wanted. There were also many decent PC pads. But games didn't properly support them. And by properly I mean designed with their layout and functionality in mind.

Compare that to say Bioshock today though were you can just pick up the 360 pad and play the game exactly as it was designed to be played. Every button does what the devs intended, every axis works perfectly, the on screen prompts are relevant to the controller your using and rumble actually works!

Thats the evel of support PC gamers have been lacking and I think MS really deserves a lot of credit for finally bringing it to us.

It still needs to be implemented more widely though. For example CoD4 didn't support the pad at all. Why not? Yeah I know it plays better on the K/M and thats how most would choose to play it givn the choice but I see no reason to strip out control pad support thats already designed and implemented on the 360. Some people just might prefer to play the game on a TV with the pad. I'm not one of them but it would just be nice to know that if I did choose to do so, every one of my games would work perectly from the couch.

 

Personally I like having the options that the full OS offers me sitting in the background. I can have other things going on in the background, or I can run FRAPS, or I can minimise the game after takeing screenshots, swapping between the game and paint. Or when modding and fiddling around with settings I'll often be starting and stopping the game a lot in between playing around with files and folders.

So yeah, personally I would lose out if games started to focus on a gaming OS. Yes they would be designed to work on either but I expect the full operation might lack optimisation once the option of a much cleaner OS exists.

Also I don't think it should be left to the user to switch between which OS they use and when. It should be linked to the game so that when the game is started, the system automatically boots into the gameOS in as transparent a way as possible. From a user point of view it should just seem like the game is taking a little longer to load. The reverse would happen when the game is closed, i.e. full Windows is re-booted. The problem is that this all takes time and thus takes away from the user experience rather than adding to it.

Yeah thats just stupid. Even more so if its by invitation only as Demirug mentioned. The programme requires wide adoption to be successfull and MS seem to be deliveratly standing in the way of that? I'm not quite sure of the logic in that. All devs should be invited to take part and it should be free. It should simply be a case of "as long as you meet these requirements, you get to support the GfW logo and all the associated marketing that comes with that".

Yep exactly. Its how i'm playing Bioshock and Lost Planet at the moment. Even Crysis fully supports it and thats not even a console game.

Thats a mistake IMO. All games should support it because it makes for a much better end user experience to know that this one pad will natively play every game they might buy. Whether they choose to use it or not is a different matter but if the pad is so closely tied to the platform, it stands to reason that more people would get one, it should probably be included as part of the package of gaming PC's aswell. As more PC's get the pad, developers might be encouraged to release games for it that previously wouldn;t have worked well such as sports and fighting games. We may even see a resurgence of same screen multiplayer which is currently the PC's biggest weakness as a platform.

Thats a FOV issue though, not a widescreen one. The game still supported widescreen resolutions with the proper aspect ratio's. How they did tat isn't really MS's concern. Many believed thy simply took a shortcut by letter boxing the "full" 4:3 version. I still believe the devs were telling the ruth when they said it was the exact opposite. The 16:9 version was how the game was intended to be played and its 4:3 users who got stiffed because all the devs did was add a little extra screen at the top and bottom.

I've only ever seem it work once - in Halo 2. And it didn't seem that seemless then (although it may have been better for others - I had a couple of install issues). I think if it worked as advertised, i.e. put the disk in and the game just starts as it would with a console while simultaneously installing in the background then it would be great. I'm not seeing that yet though. It just definatly have options to turn off aswell though - and to customise default install options like the games directory and where icons/shortcuts are placed - I like to install everything to "games" rather than the default "program files"

Yes that would have been a great idea and probably allowed it to get a lot more traction. It should also be tied into the 360 control pad so that pressing the centre button automatically pulls up the gamer dashboard - similar to the one on 360 were all of your games can be selected from.

Imagine that, simply picking up your control pad , pressing the centre button and instantly have full - pad controlled access to all your games, demoes, Live content, achievements, matchmaking services etc....

It could improve the user experience for joe average immensely (not necessarily for hardcore PC gamers) and would also greatly encourage the use of the PC as lounge entertainment device.

Funnily enough, Oblivion doesn't support the 360 pad - at least not properly, much to my dissapointment. Its too old really.

I think there needs to be a balance between making the PC more user friendly for "the console generation" and keeping it focussed on the advantages of monitors and K/M control. Big interfaces and puzzles designed for the TV and pad aren't necissarily a bad thing as they can encourage the take up of the PC as a more casual gaming devise based in the lounge but that does need to be balanced against the requirements of the majority who still choose to play at a desk with K/M. Bioshock handles this perfectly. Two highly optimised control schemes which switch the interface and even menu options depending on which one you choose. Its a little extra dev time but it can't be that much in the grand scheme of things and it improves the user experience no end.

 

Well you got to remember that CoD4 isn't part of the Games for Windows program/initiative so it's not like Infinity Ward had to do it, plus I'm sure MS didn't like Infinity Ward for being equally attentive about the multiple versions, nothing special for MS be it on Windows or 360 And still you got to look back and consider that Infinity Ward knows that this Call of Duty really will be the one that shifts focus off the single player mode and into multiplayer where the money really is going these days. IW knows it's suicide to hit a PC FPS game online and try and survive using a gamepad for all functions. You won't survive too well.

 

Unreal creator Tim Sweeney: "PCs are good for anything, just not games”

http://tgdaily.com/content/view/36390/118/

 

would of been good if you posted the context that was stated in [shockingly its not piracy related nor was game piracy mentioned once].

Its a complaint about the performance gap between a mainstream PC and a gamer PC compared to 10 years ago which is in turn causing devs to alienate a large percent of perspective people who may want to buy their product but cant play it due to hardware limitations. Brief discussion but the point is totally valid.

 

Wow, I feel sorry for Mark Rein. Here is is trying to hold up the image of Epics loyalty to the PC as a games platform and then you have Sweeney and CliffyB running around saying how crap it is.

Way to treat the market that made you guys. What are you doing in the PCGA again?

 

The funny thing is UE3 is at home and generally runs great on the PC. Not so much on the consoles. Mass Effect and Lost Odyssey being prime examples.

 

It may be a valid argument (the gap between low and high end being too big) but its hard to take his comment to mean anything other than "I no longer consider the PC a viable gaming platform"

If he didn't mean that then it was one very unfortunate choice of words.

 

It seems it is OK for console UE3 powered games to run at 15-30fps but not on a low-end PC.

They are probably trying to gain the console gamers trust....

Hopefully to improve things...

 

It comes out as that, especially after all the buzz EPIC (top figures) has made in several interviews. I guess they still are rabbid for the ?bad? sales of GEoW and UT3. Perhaps they should take a moment to fix their games and then after that point finger at random PC related topic.