Will Vista+Dx10+NextGenGPU+NextGenCPU ignite PC gaming?

[basanti]

with all the above coming seamingly in the same timeframe (amazingly and coincidently), will this ignite the PC gaming industry whcih has been suffering from staleness since the past 2-3 years?

 

[London Geezer]

with all the above coming seamingly in the same timeframe (amazingly and coincidently), will this ignite the PC gaming industry whcih has been suffering from staleness since the past 2-3 years?

Depends on price. I'm pretty sure the cost of all that will push a lot of people to get next gen consoles, which have just come out or will shortly, and be very happy with those.

 

[superguy]

I think it could help a lot if they get that "insert disk and play" thing going on PC's. Instead of installing games.

I think what's really killing PC games is the expensive video card upgrade cycle means less and less people are equipped with the Hardware to play top end games though as time marches on.

But I could be wrong.

 

[ByteMe]

With any luck it will be the beginning of the end for microsoft.

 

[Maintank]

I actually think DX10 will be the slowest implementation of DX standards yet.
The reason is obvious, millions and millions of legacy WinXP machines that are stuck at DX9.

It has taken a solid 3 years for DX9 to finally take hold, I would double that for DX10.

 

[Fodder]

No. The only thing that can re-ignite PC gaming is PC games. Raising the entry barrier higher will only dig the hole deeper.

 

[MuFu]

It'll ignite something that will burn a hole in our wallets.

 

[Entropy]

Increasing the cost of entry is hardly the ticket to market growth, particularly if the target audience already have working solutions. Compatibility and DRM issues would seem to make this transition a bumpier ride than the one from Win98 to WinXP.

(There are two posts I've wanted to write on these forums for three years or so but that I want to do a good enough job of that I never get around to it. One is associated with my area of expertise, about the hows and whys and pitfalls of benchmarking. The other is from my armchair about how industry inertia (myopia?) pushes PC gaming into a narrowing niche, instead of capitalizing on the real strength of the platform, the 200 million systems sold every year.)

 

[Jawed]

Moore's law is still chugging along nicely for GPUs.

And with the change in architecture brought about by GPUs with geometry shading (which is prolly worth about five x86 cores) and the way that D3D10 seems to streamline rendering, both in terms of performance and in terms of making advanced concepts more readily programmable (erm, fingers-crossed that's true ), I dare say that D3D10 looks like a big step forwards.

I'm optimistic.

Jawed

 

[Entropy]

Moore's law is still chugging along nicely for GPUs.

And with the change in architecture brought about by GPUs with geometry shading (which is prolly worth about five x86 cores) and the way that D3D10 seems to streamline rendering, both in terms of performance and in terms of making advanced concepts more readily programmable (erm, fingers-crossed that's true ), I dare say that D3D10 looks like a big step forwards.

I'm optimistic.

Jawed

So you feel that these technologies will "ignite the PC gaming industry"? Fair enough, but I have to say it sounds like technology optimism. What the rest of us are saying is that breaking compatibility will probably create both a comparatively sluggish uptake (and thus if DX10 is tied to Vista alone, VIsta will actually delay the penetration of these features), and a correspondingly split marketplace, both of which are negatives.

Last evening, without meaning to, I got stuck in front of Will Wrights (of Sims fame) GDC presentation based around his upcoming game. It was very interesting in how he discussed the content creation wall, code vs. data, getting the player involved et cetera. Warmly recommended if you can spare the hour.

But he never, in one full hour, mentioned shader models, SLI, or any of those buzz words that so fill these forums. Not even once.

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

i there will have to be next gen dev tools as well. the weight of development needs to be shifted back towards gameplay content and variety...and less so on exploiting wizbang graphics, lighting 'look' issues. speedy creation of machinery and interactive objects and innovative maps and integrated puzzles/problems would help 'ignite' alot.

geez in 5 years i suppose we could have realistic surf in games (we'll have common Terabyte RAM by then and parallel cores, maybe even scalable into the 10's or 100's)..

imagine a game where everything you see is as manipulatable as it is in the real world, just because your dev tools allows such quick implementation of anything that exists in the real world. a broom leaning against a wall (has nothing to do with the game at all intentionally) is just as usable as a broom in your house...you could actually sweep up debris if you wished!

 

[Jawed]

So you feel that these technologies will "ignite the PC gaming industry"? Fair enough, but I have to say it sounds like technology optimism.

I wouldn't describe it as ignition, no. More as lowering the technical barriers to entry.

A big plus with Vista is that it effectively culls DX8 and prior hardware. So it could limit the number of platforms a dev could aim for: DX9, DX10. That really depends on whether there's a grass-roots migration to Vista though. There's still 1 or 2% of gamers using W98 or lower... Alternatively Devs could draw a line between DX10 and say DX8, much like SC:CT (justifiably, in my view) drew a line between SM1.1 and SM3 (couldn't really describe that as DX8 and DX9, as SM2 is also DX9, but wasn't supported in SC:CT initially).

I haven't looked at CS and CS:Source stats for a few months, but it's interesting that there were 2-3x more people playing CS than CS:source. Theoretically that tells me we're doomed, Vista will make no difference at all, we might as well forget PC gaming.

Sigh.

What the rest of us are saying is that breaking compatibility will probably create both a comparatively sluggish uptake (and thus if DX10 is tied to Vista alone, VIsta will actually delay the penetration of these features), and a correspondingly split marketplace, both of which are negatives.

Perhaps the tying of Vista to "increased security", "easier to use", "really ready for the media-connected home" blah blah will make the difference. Erm...

Last evening, without meaning to, I got stuck in front of Will Wrights (of Sims fame) GDC presentation based around his upcoming game. It was very interesting in how he discussed the content creation wall, code vs. data, getting the player involved et cetera. Warmly recommended if you can spare the hour.

But he never, in one full hour, mentioned shader models, SLI, or any of those buzz words that so fill these forums. Not even once.

Well, I actually think that graphics engine programming is prolly a relatively minor part of the most advanced games now - moreso if there's a proliferation of these engines and middleware to buy-in. I agree, the message seems to be that "art" is the problem.

Really, my optimism is founded on the idea that the "art and gameplay" of a game is going to suck up the time and money, while the graphics will more easily (for the devs) match up to "modern standards", as DX10 GPUs bring a step-change in power and programmability.

In the end, the lovely graphics in CoD2 didn't alter the fact it was still a "rail shooter" which pissed me off enough that I was going to stop playing it, only to find that I'd completed the game. I still play a hell of a lot of Operation Flashpoint - not because of the graphics, either - even if I have a bit of a softspot for how advanced the tech was when it appeared.

Oh, and by the way, the graphics engine in the latest Sims is prolly not that well implemented:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=OTUzLDEx

Jawed

 

[Entropy]

I wouldn't describe it as ignition, no. More as lowering the technical barriers to entry.

A big plus with Vista is that it effectively culls DX8 and prior hardware. So it could limit the number of platforms a dev could aim for: DX9, DX10. That really depends on whether there's a grass-roots migration to Vista though.

Exactly. And that migration, by the looks of it, will not be as smooth as the one from Win98 to WinXP, even if Microsoft were to adopt no copy protection at all.

I haven't looked at CS and CS:Source stats for a few months, but it's interesting that there were 2-3x more people playing CS than CS:source. Theoretically that tells me we're doomed, Vista will make no difference at all, we might as well forget PC gaming.

Strange how perspective colours our perception. To me, that ratio is cause for hope - it means that even for 1st person shooters, traditionally very demanding in terms of graphics, people just don't care all that much about the graphics if they find the gameplay compelling. Sims, Civ, Wow and other big sellers tell the same story. This is good because it says that the spiral of producing ever more expensive content for an ever narrower customer base is not a natural law. In fact, going by statistics such as this, and the sales of titles such as WoW and Sims, it seems as if while nice, customers don't seem to think graphics quality in general and rendering technology in particular is of decisive importance. This both opens up a much larger part of the installed base of systems as potential customers, and can allow a good game to get by even if its production values aren't bleeding edge. Cheaper development to a larger customer base - what's not to like? Unless of course you're a graphics IHV. And if you are interested in 3D rendering tech for its own sake you might also gnash your teeth a bit, but on the other hand maintaining a healthy cottage industry and solid user base are fundamental if you don't take the short perspective.

I'm sure there is hope for PC gaming. Not all trends are sustainable, but when they crash or fade away, they leave room for something else. The strength of the PC platform is the sheer volume of users and systems, and the large numbers of programmers around the world that has easy and cheap access to this familiar platform. Those advantages won't go away anytime soon.

I really do recommend looking at Wills presentation. It's good stuff. And you can always press pause.

 

[Sandwich]

A big plus with Vista is that it effectively culls DX8 and prior hardware. So it could limit the number of platforms a dev could aim for: DX9, DX10.

It doesn't do anything about slow dx9 hardware though. A 6200TC is still a step down from a GF4 TI4200 in terms of fillrate, bandwidth, polygon throughput, onboard memory(obviously), etc.
It's not like there was a future for dx8 hardware, so it doesn't make a difference.
Even if M$ set GF6800 performance as a minimum to run Vista, it wouldn't matter much. I expect gamers to stick with XP for a very long time. My bet is game devs will continue to support WinXP even longer than win98. Vista doesn't offer as much of an improvement over WinXP than winXP did compared to old win98.
I wouldn't be suprised if, by the time Vista has penetrated the vast majority of the market, we may be looking at GF7900 peformance for gaming.

Strange how perspective colours our perception. To me, that ratio is cause for hope - it means that even for 1st person shooters, traditionally very demanding in terms of graphics, people just don't care all that much about the graphics if they find the gameplay compelling. Sims, Civ, Wow and other big sellers tell the same story. This is good because it says that the spiral of producing ever more expensive content for an ever narrower customer base is not a natural law. In fact, going by statistics such as this, and the sales of titles such as WoW and Sims, it seems as if while nice, customers don't seem to think graphics quality in general and rendering technology in particular is of decisive importance. This both opens up a much larger part of the installed base of systems as potential customers, and can allow a good game to get by even if its production values aren't bleeding edge. Cheaper development to a larger customer base - what's not to like? Unless of course you're a graphics IHV.

Exactly. Bad not only for IHVs but all hardware vendors and M$ aswell. If games don't demand ever increasing power, the whole PC industry will come to a standstill. There is only so much functionality you add to Word, Excel or an internet browser. In fact, I believe we have already past the point where we already have more functionality in Office apps than people will use.
Sure, there's always demanding professional applications, but without the huge bulk of the consumer market to fund PC develepment we may have a problem.

 

[Entropy]

Exactly. Bad not only for IHVs but all hardware vendors and M$ aswell. If games don't demand ever increasing power, the whole PC industry will come to a standstill. There is only so much functionality you add to Word, Excel or an internet browser. In fact, I believe we have already past the point where we already have more functionality in Office apps than people will use.
Sure, there's always demanding professional applications, but without the huge bulk of the consumer market to fund PC develepment we may have a problem.

"we" have a problem?
Besides, even if games act less as a performance driver, there are tons of other areas of PCs that stand to improve. Just look at how flat screens have acted to drive sales of new systems, even though the screen in principle could simply have been added to the existing box. Many (most?) people deal with PCs as a whole, rather than a conglomeration of exchangeable parts.
So: Screens can get larger, more power efficient, get better contrast and colour gamut, et cetera. Physically, cabinets can get smaller, quieter, more attractively shaped, go wireless to peripherals et cetera. Laptops already outsell desktop machines, so improved battery technology would be a huge sales driver, as would lower power LED backlighting or OLED screens. As I see it, on the software side, resolution independent GUIs/2D rendering is a biggie, because it will open up an entirely new market for displays, which in turn will need to be driven by new hardware. We hardly lack areas in need of hardware improvement.

Furthermore, the PC industry could take yet another leaf out of Apples book. Not only are Apple way ahead on the curve of making quiet, attractive and space efficient consumer machines, they also supply as standard software targeted at consumers that are creative in nature, which both enables their users and which incidentally take a decent amount of horsepower to run, helping justify upgrades. Some will take to the video editing in iMovie, (now HD capable and thus potentially more demanding), some will enjoy making their their own songs in Garage Band, some will be extremely interested in using iPhoto to manage the bazillions of photos that digicams encourages you to take, a trend which cameras in cell phones can only drive further. And then of course there is iTunes ripping, iPod video encoding, their built in video chatting hardware and software that can .....
There really is a world of applications outside Microsoft Office + games that could have massmarket appeal and that could help drive sales.

So if the PC market stagnates, it is only because of its own lack of creativity and innovation. And if so, aren't we really better off spending our money elsewhere?



(As far as games go, contrary to the general opinion on these boards, I feel that games producers should generally target a lowest common denominator grade computer for their products to leverage the greatest asset of the platform, the installed base, and games should to a greater degree be targeted at casual gamers rather than the ones with few other interests or duties in their lives, also to maximize the potential user base. Sell coffee rather than cocaine. Marketing and publishing remains a bit of a problem.
Hardware wise, the overall goal then becomes to raise this lowest common denominator level, to be able create more visually compelling content while still being able to target a massive installed base. Put the effort into raising the quality of integrated graphics, basically, rather than SLI or graphics cards that cost as much as complete systems.
From a purely PC gaming perspective, as far as I can see this is a path that has much better growth potential than following the upwards cost spiral of both game development and the hardware necessary to take advantage of the resulting products. It will also encourage a greater product diversity.)

 

[Ghost of D3D]

with all the above coming seamingly in the same timeframe (amazingly and coincidently), will this ignite the PC gaming industry whcih has been suffering from staleness since the past 2-3 years?

That staleness you speak of seems much longer than 2-3 years to me (but that's just my opinion) and this has nothing to do with with what we have now, which are stuff that are not yet "Vista+Dx10+NextGenGPU+NextGenCPU".

My opinion on the subject matter : No.

If all of the highest end products you mentioned were in a single machine right now, it would take far more than great new features (likely), much improved speed (not likely) and easy-to-use-but-comprehensive development kits/tools to make greater games (and that's what you mean, right, greater games?).

What then would make a game great if we have "Vista+Dx10+NextGenGPU+NextGenCPU"

 

[chavvdarrr]

No.
The industry is making ritual suicide.
Compare the top system with low-end system:
Quad-SLI (OMFG!) G71 vs 7300TC

Damn the difference is more than order of magnitude! never in last 15-20 years there was so big difference in performance. How a game developer can write game satisfying both groups of users?
We'll see market split, one will make "high-end" games for those mad enough to upgrade every 6 months, others will try to make games with good gameplay , and maybe third group trying to achieve the impossible...
I don't like consoles but so far they seem the easest way to have "gaming PC" . All they need to kill traditional PC is integrated browser and internet access IMHO.

 

[Grestorn]

No.
The industry is making ritual suicide.
Compare the top system with low-end system:
Quad-SLI (OMFG!) G71 vs 7300TC

Damn the difference is more than order of magnitude! never in last 15-20 years there was so big difference in performance. How a game developer can write game satisfying both groups of users?

I think you're wrong.

In 1997, it was Voodoo for high-enders and no Voodoo for everybody else. The difference was mind-numbing.

Even in 2000 gfx-chips with no 3D-support whatsoever were very common. The first intel chips with 3D-support (i740 / i752) and other low-end chips (SiS) performed horribly compared to high end chips back then (Voodoo 3-5, TNT2, GeForce 256 - GF2).

Nothing has changed. PC game developers will always have to create their products to be as flexible as possible. And I think that's a good thing. I love to tweak any new PC game I get to the best possible results on my system.

 

[chavvdarrr]

I think you're wrong.

In 1997, it was Voodoo for high-enders and no Voodoo for everybody else. The difference was mind-numbing.

Even in 2000 gfx-chips with no 3D-support whatsoever were very common. The first intel chips with 3D-support (i740 / i752) and other low-end chips (SiS) performed horribly compared to high end chips back then (Voodoo 3-5, TNT2, GeForce 256 - GF2).

Nothing has changed. PC game developers will always have to create their products to be as flexible as possible. And I think that's a good thing. I love to tweak any new PC game I get to the best possible results on my system.

bla, there were rendition 1000, rage3d, Riva128, Savage3d , Virge
And P2-300 was best CPU money could buy, and games were generally written for running on CPu as fast as iP-200 and 16-32Mb ram
Voodoo3 is not 10x times faster than i740 ... in fact playing TBS/RTS is still possible on such cards (like playing Warcraft3 on savage4)

 

[Wunderchu]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6143883/p-4.html















(I first found out about that write-up from: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33849182 )