StarDestroyer.Net BBS

To begin with, this is my first post here.

Thoughts about PC Gaming:
It's no secret that PC gaming has taken a second seat to consoles. Often, a lot of the PC games that we see by the major publishers these days seem to be console ports and bad ports while we're at it. Sales have been declining, with publishers often blaming piracy, when in fact their games simply don't justify being bought.

As a platform though, PC gaming is in superior to consoles in every way (a statement sure to tick off console fanatics).
- It is more open for Indie gamers (console publishers often charge a lot) and indeed all who wish to publish.
- The hardware is more powerful (consoles are outdated in their CPUs and GPUs compared to a desktop when released and are more comparable to an HTPC.
- Support for accessories such as a controller or HDMI for the TV is available if needed.
- Games are cheaper (which can be a mixed bag for a publisher, but if there was a PC-centric focus on gaming, I'd bet volume of sales would pick up) on the PC.
- Certain types of games such as RTS, which is my favourite, and various types of simulations only work on the PC.
- Many people already own a PC, which makes it easier for them to game.

Nonetheless, despite all of these advantages, consoles have taken over. The end result these days seems to be poorer games for PC players and ever restrictive DRM, although consoles too are subject to increasingly strict DRM. It seems that it would be easier to put people back on the PC for high quality games. The only real reason why consoles even dominate now seems to be control. It is easy to lock a purchaser of a console in afterwards, because of the closed nature. Offsetting this somewhat is the fact that consoles are often sold by publishers at a net loss, which is subsidized through more expensive (relative to PC) game and online service prices.

From experience, this seems to be a heated issue on gaming website between PC and console gamers. Often, this results in flame wars, something I hope to avoid in this forum. Your thoughts and how to possibly improve the quality of games that are released these days?

I hardly know where to begin. At least you're right about the piracy bit.

As a platform though, PC gaming is in superior to consoles in every way (a statement sure to tick off console fanatics).

Except perhaps the most important one: Accessibility. The PC's capacity for superior hardware doesn't do much good when Joe Average can't buy a game off the shelf and be not have to worry if it will work on his machine.

- It is more open for Indie gamers (console publishers often charge a lot) and indeed all who wish to publish.

I'd say this is really a moot point these days, with things like XNA and WiiWare making it easier to develop and publish indie titles on consoles. Plus, I should think indie developers would benefit the most from only having to test against one (or two or three, if it's multi-platform) hardware configuration.

- The hardware is more powerful (consoles are outdated in their CPUs and GPUs compared to a desktop when released and are more comparable to an HTPC.

This is true, but who the fuck really needs x9001 anti-aliasing and terapixel textures? 99% of games will look the same on a console to the average user.

- Games are cheaper (which can be a mixed bag for a publisher, but if there was a PC-centric focus on gaming, I'd bet volume of sales would pick up) on the PC.

Woo, ten whole dollars. You know what you can do with console games, though? Buy them used, or even cheaper, rent them.

- Certain types of games such as RTS, which is my favourite, and various types of simulations only work on the PC.

RTS games have become quite playable on consoles, as time has gone on and they've figured out functional control schemes. For hardcore sim games a PC is still best, but mainly because of the large number of controls available to be mapped to things.

- Many people already own a PC, which makes it easier for them to game.

Most people, however, don't own a gaming PC, which means they'll have to run on low settings, if they can even run the game at all. Any of the consoles are cheaper than a PC that can run games at the same visual quality.

Nonetheless, despite all of these advantages, consoles have taken over. The end result these days seems to be poorer games for PC players and ever restrictive DRM, although consoles too are subject to increasingly strict DRM. It seems that it would be easier to put people back on the PC for high quality games. The only real reason why consoles even dominate now seems to be control. It is easy to lock a purchaser of a console in afterwards, because of the closed nature.

Three words: lowest common denominator. Like I said before, Joe Average is the reason why consoles dominate, because they make gaming accessible to him.

Offsetting this somewhat is the fact that consoles are often sold by publishers at a net loss, which is subsidized through more expensive (relative to PC) game and online service prices.

You're right about the game prices, by whatever small amount, but not about online services. Let's see:

Xbox Live Gold: $50 a year, or slightly more than $4 a month, a drop in the bucket for even Joe Average. Even better, if you don't play online multiplayer you can get by with Silver, which is free.
Playstation Network: Free, unless you want some largely useless benefits, in which case it's also $50 a year.
Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection: Free

Wow, my wallet sure is hurting because of this Wii I have.

Note: most of my gaming is done on my PC, before you accuse me of being a 'console fanatic'. I'm not sure which I hate more, console fanatics or PC fanatics. Both of them think their platform is the be-all end-all god of everything, and take every opportunity to try and rub this supposed fact in the collective nose of the opposite camp. They are also both equally wrong.

Inb4StarkPCGamingIsDead


I'm a proud member of the PC gaming master-race, but yes, there are less and less good new PC games. Or rather, PC-only games. Developers realized a few years back that they could make games for console then port them to PC and dramatically expand their potential audience. So they do that.

The PC, without exception, always has superior potential graphics, but they're hampered by two factors. The first is that only a small percentage is at the bleeding edge, so making games that push the boundaries alienates a large percentage of your market. If you're doing the PC/console thing, making a bunch of high quality assets when 90% of your PC market can't use them and 0% of your console market can isn't a smart move. The second thing is that good graphics takes time, and time = money. There's a reason so many people license someone else's game engine. It takes time and money to build them. Making a game that pushed the N64 was also a lot fucking cheaper and quicker than making a game that pushes an XBOX 360. So people don't always push graphics. The more capable the hardware, the costlier it becomes.

There are still good games on PC, and many games are superior on PC (Mass Effect 2 comes to min recently). If nothing else, you can get them to look nicer on PC than they do on console thanks to obscene resolutions and ramping up the AA, if they are otherwise graphically identical. K&M improves some shooters but not others (i.e. Halo port wasn't great on PC).

And yeah, restrictive DRM is getting out of hand.

Honest question. Nostalgia from the 90s aside what do people mean by "good PC games" ?

Sarevok wrote:Honest question. Nostalgia from the 90s aside what do people mean by "good PC games" ?

We're talking about high profile games made specifically for the PC. Crysis was the "last great PC game". Games like Half Life 2 pre-console porting.

Edit: Nevermind

adam_grif wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Honest question. Nostalgia from the 90s aside what do people mean by "good PC games" ?

We're talking about high profile games made specifically for the PC. Crysis was the "last great PC game". Games like Half Life 2 pre-console porting.

I dont about the specific part. Very few games have been console exclusive. Every super duper hit game from Bioshock to ME series is very much enjoyable on the PC as well. My questions is, is the gripe about consoles or is it about the nature and quality of modern games ?

Sarevok wrote:

adam_grif wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Honest question. Nostalgia from the 90s aside what do people mean by "good PC games" ?

We're talking about high profile games made specifically for the PC. Crysis was the "last great PC game". Games like Half Life 2 pre-console porting.

I dont about the specific part. Very few games have been console exclusive. Every super duper hit game from Bioshock to ME series is very much enjoyable on the PC as well. My questions is, is the gripe about consoles or is it about the nature and quality of modern games ?

You realize Bioshock was on the PC first?

Actually that was what I was getting at. It seems to me many people are of the impression cross platform games have hurt PC gaming. I don't understand that sentiment at all.

Sarevok wrote:Actually that was what I was getting at. It seems to me many people are of the impression cross platform games have hurt PC gaming. I don't understand that sentiment at all.

Consoles are cheaper to develop for and provide less of a barrier to entry for most people than PC gaming (not as much crap to fiddle with, no real concerns about compatibility on the consumer end, cheaper hardware etc), so it's turning out to be the more attractive option for developers since they can reach more customers than just people who can afford to drop $2,500 on an ultra-powerful rig. Not really a big shock.

I'm a creature of preference. For FPS games, or anything high twitch (GTA games spring immediately to mind) I prefer a PC, because I find myself clumsy on console controls. However, for even similarly high-energy 3rd person action titles (Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia, Batman: Aarkham Asylum, Gears of War), I prefer the consoles even if in some cases (Batman) the controls can get quite complex. It all comes down to how comfortable I find the control scheme. If I have to manually move a cursor to aim, gimme a PC. If I can largely rely on snap-to aiming assist or context aiming such as in Batman/Assassin's Creed, a console has a smooth feel to it. In short, to me it is primarily a handling issue that'll determine PC vs console, rather than any other factors.

However, there are two other major issues that may force my hand in favour of the PC. One is option - I can access titles on the PC that would not likely exist on consoles (Mount & Blade, various adult games), but not vice-versa. I also have far more flexibility with my PC because I am not limited to a specific control scheme or format, if it comes to that, because I can buy what peripherals I want and customize them as I want.

The second and far more important is support; I like mods, and I like the accessibility of third-party utilities. I could not even begin to imagine playing Fallout 3, or GTA: San Andreas, or Dragon Age on consoles, because I like to mod the socks off of them, and I cannot do that on the console.

General Zod wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Actually that was what I was getting at. It seems to me many people are of the impression cross platform games have hurt PC gaming. I don't understand that sentiment at all.

Consoles are cheaper to develop for and provide less of a barrier to entry for most people than PC gaming (not as much crap to fiddle with, no real concerns about compatibility on the consumer end, cheaper hardware etc), so it's turning out to be the more attractive option for developers since they can reach more customers than just people who can afford to drop $2,500 on an ultra-powerful rig. Not really a big shock.

A side effect of the not as much crap to fiddle with section is that consoles also force developers to try to keep the control scheme simplified. There is very definite control bloat with PC games. I mean, there are tons of buttons on a keyboard, may as well use them.

Going back to the OP, though, the problem is not console vs. PC, but that most developers either don't know what they are doing, lack imagination, or are only concerned with milking the current cash cow. Microsoft announces the Kinect, and the list of launch titles reads like a Nintendo Wii games list minus the proprietary IPs like Mario and Zelda. Or some company tries to develop an MMO, but their end product is just World of Warcraft with a reskin, setting change, and a gameplay gimmick (seriously, I once saw someone playing WoW, except the graphics looked off and I didn't recognize the zone. Took me a couple minutes to realize they were actually playing Champions Online). Or how about how there pretty much hasn't been an FPS that's not about either space marines or Earth marines since Halo? These types of problems aren't the fault of consoles.

@Lag: People always tout control schemes and customization, but how often are they actually going to use all the available range of combinations instead of just one or two that they like which is probably pretty close to the default scheme anyway? I can't help but feel that this is just a rationalization most people like to use whenever it's brought up; probably because a lot of PC game devs couldn't design a simple interface if their lives depended on it.

Civil War Man wrote:. Or how about how there pretty much hasn't been an FPS that's not about either space marines or Earth marines since Halo?

Uhm, what? Bioshock? Metro 2033? Borderlands?

Lagmonster wrote:I'm a creature of preference. For FPS games, or anything high twitch (GTA games spring immediately to mind) I prefer a PC, because I find myself clumsy on console controls. However, for even similarly high-energy 3rd person action titles (Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia, Batman: Aarkham Asylum, Gears of War), I prefer the consoles even if in some cases (Batman) the controls can get quite complex. It all comes down to how comfortable I find the control scheme. If I have to manually move a cursor to aim, gimme a PC. If I can largely rely on snap-to aiming assist or context aiming such as in Batman/Assassin's Creed, a console has a smooth feel to it. In short, to me it is primarily a handling issue that'll determine PC vs console, rather than any other factors.

However, there are two other major issues that may force my hand in favour of the PC. One is option - I can access titles on the PC that would not likely exist on consoles (Mount & Blade, various adult games), but not vice-versa. I also have far more flexibility with my PC because I am not limited to a specific control scheme or format, if it comes to that, because I can buy what peripherals I want and customize them as I want.

The second and far more important is support; I like mods, and I like the accessibility of third-party utilities. I could not even begin to imagine playing Fallout 3, or GTA: San Andreas, or Dragon Age on consoles, because I like to mod the socks off of them, and I cannot do that on the console.

I agree with you Lagmonster. However can you say the aforementioned things that you enjoy in a videogame have disappeared ? Mouse based high twitch FPS games are still widely played on the PC. Almost every popular first person shooter game out there has a PC version. Despite games like Fallout 3 being available on consoles there is still the PC version and its large modding community. Name a popular game and there are user made mods for that. How can we say that the rise of consoles is depriving PC gamers ? It seems to me the PC community often has the same games as consoles - only in some cases way better due to mouse and mod support for their versions.

General Zod wrote:@Lag: People always tout control schemes and customization, but how often are they actually going to use all the available range of combinations instead of just one or two that they like which is probably pretty close to the default scheme anyway? I can't help but feel that this is just a rationalization most people like to use whenever it's brought up; probably because a lot of PC game devs couldn't design a simple interface if their lives depended on it.

It's less about control schemes per se and more about handling, if you'll excuse the semantics. For example, I hate WASD, because I don't find my fingers fit comfortably in that pattern. On a console, I'd be stuck - the buttons are where they are, and the controller is designed for the average fit. If you don't have the dexterity for sensitive movements on a thumb stick, or you're like my mother and have small hands and thus find some of the buttons a bit of a stretch, then you're equally stuck. On the PC, I simply re-map the buttons to keys elsewhere, or buy a peripheral controller such as a Nostromo (which I have), or even various types of gamepad of varying size and more if I so choose, all the way up to esoteric interface devices if you're into that sort of thing.

Now, that feeble point aside, as I said, it tips me personally in favour of the PC in some instances, while making no difference in others.

What nobody really called me on was that none of my reasons for preferring the PC really help the idea that PC gaming is going downhill - game devs don't care about my handling preferences, or the mod community, and will follow the money trail.

Imagine my surprise when Executor32 had already made my post. Turns out the answer is pretty obvious.

Lagmonster wrote:

General Zod wrote:@Lag: People always tout control schemes and customization, but how often are they actually going to use all the available range of combinations instead of just one or two that they like which is probably pretty close to the default scheme anyway? I can't help but feel that this is just a rationalization most people like to use whenever it's brought up; probably because a lot of PC game devs couldn't design a simple interface if their lives depended on it.

It's less about control schemes per se and more about handling, if you'll excuse the semantics. For example, I hate WASD, because I don't find my fingers fit comfortably in that pattern. On a console, I'd be stuck - the buttons are where they are, and the controller is designed for the average fit. If you don't have the dexterity for sensitive movements on a thumb stick, or you're like my mother and have small hands and thus find some of the buttons a bit of a stretch, then you're equally stuck. On the PC, I simply re-map the buttons to keys elsewhere, or buy a peripheral controller such as a Nostromo (which I have), or even various types of gamepad of varying size and more if I so choose, all the way up to esoteric interface devices if you're into that sort of thing.

Now, that feeble point aside, as I said, it tips me personally in favour of the PC in some instances, while making no difference in others.

What nobody really called me on was that none of my reasons for preferring the PC really help the idea that PC gaming is going downhill - game devs don't care about my handling preferences, or the mod community, and will follow the money trail.

That seems to just reinforce my own point. That most PC game devs don't know how to make a good UI.

Consoles are a lot easier to design and error check for. If a title works on one 360, it works on every 360, because every 360 is the same. Further, because you know exactly what hardware the platform has, you can do more with less by avoiding inevitable bottlenecks: every piece of software is limited by the weakest link in the hardware that runs it, and for a PC the location of the weakest link varies between each individual user.

adam_grif wrote:The PC, without exception, always has superior potential graphics, but they're hampered by two factors. The first is that only a small percentage is at the bleeding edge, so making games that push the boundaries alienates a large percentage of your market. If you're doing the PC/console thing, making a bunch of high quality assets when 90% of your PC market can't use them and 0% of your console market can isn't a smart move.

I think it's worth mentioning that with the stagnation in game graphics (whether it's due to being bottlenecked by console hw or developer budget constraints) even low-grade modern PC hardware with an average video card utterly stomps all over the capabilities of consoles. It's not like developers who decide to exceed the capabilities of consoles would be only targeting the tiny fraction of a percent with $2500+ computers; a $300 dell with a current non-integrated gpu is already going to way outstrip what consoles are capable of. Not that this really changes anything; they're still going for the lowest common denominator regardless.

Feil wrote:Consoles are a lot easier to design and error check for. If a title works on one 360, it works on every 360, because every 360 is the same. Further, because you know exactly what hardware the platform has, you can do more with less by avoiding inevitable bottlenecks: every piece of software is limited by the weakest link in the hardware that runs it, and for a PC the location of the weakest link varies between each individual user.

Yes. PC developers also shot at their on foot when they designed the games so that in order to run well you have to have high end hardware. This has become especially damning during the last 7 year or so, since the average lifespan of PCs has increased. It used to be something like 36-48 months but now it is twice as long. How many PC games released this year would run acceptably on 2005 let alone 2003 average new PC hardware? Or even upper middle class hardware of the same vintage? (i.e. with a discrete GPU and not terribly tight memory). There are some, no doubt, but most PC games still require fairly recent hardware, even though the situation is not quite as bad as it used to be, like Seggybop wrote above.

Then again, the development of graphics hardware was and still is mostly lead by PCs. It is interesting to see how much the pace will slow down when increased marginalization of the PC as a gaming platform can no longer support the large R&D costs of new generation GPUs.

Seggybop wrote:

adam_grif wrote:The PC, without exception, always has superior potential graphics, but they're hampered by two factors. The first is that only a small percentage is at the bleeding edge, so making games that push the boundaries alienates a large percentage of your market. If you're doing the PC/console thing, making a bunch of high quality assets when 90% of your PC market can't use them and 0% of your console market can isn't a smart move.

I think it's worth mentioning that with the stagnation in game graphics (whether it's due to being bottlenecked by console hw or developer budget constraints) even low-grade modern PC hardware with an average video card utterly stomps all over the capabilities of consoles. It's not like developers who decide to exceed the capabilities of consoles would be only targeting the tiny fraction of a percent with $2500+ computers; a $300 dell with a current non-integrated gpu is already going to way outstrip what consoles are capable of. Not that this really changes anything; they're still going for the lowest common denominator regardless.

When was the last time you so much as looked at a console game? 1998? If you think a $300 Dell could play Arkham Asylum without a hitch I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. And "non-integrated GPU" is laughably meaningless. A 256mb GPU? Fat chance. A 512mb+ GPU? Then you're talking console realm.

The hardware specs for the 360.

http://hardware.teamxbox.com/articles/x ... ations/p1/

He touches on another issue; most people simply don't give a fuck about the incremental improvements high-end gaming has shown in the last few years. Cross platform games often have less/no post processing and worse textures on console, and nobody cares. Sit three metres away with a beer and it turns out the average person in the marketplace doesn't care about five layers of PS3.0 or 2048 texmaps.

My average computer from years ago is still more powerful than my 360... this simply has no real impact on the marketplace. Idiots who buy megahardware to turn everything to max can turn their nose up to consoles all they want; the far, far larger market doesn't care. Hell, *I* don't care anymore, and I could get xyz game on PC instead and make it look better!

Worrying about GPU stagnation when nobody could think of a real use for modern high-end video cards is strange.

Stark wrote: Worrying about GPU stagnation when nobody could think of a real use for modern high-end video cards is strange.

Last time I checked games were still not anything near photorealistic, so there is still room for improvement, but since the console hardware platforms now pretty much decides how the graphics will be designed, we will have to wait for the next console generation for significantly better graphics. You make it sound like the current 360/PS3 level graphics were the end of the line, which is pure hogwash and you know it. 1920x1080 HDTVs with larger screens are also getting more common and now that HDMI is standard everywhere, more and more people will also have the opportunity to appreciate the improved graphics.

There are more consoles. They operate on a fixed hardware and software configuration. This makes them cheaper to develop for and have a very large player base. It makes sense that game companies would be biased towards creating console games. From a business perspective, it makes sense to put your work into console games. PC sales are secondary. Some companies merely use PC development as R&D towards future technology they can utilize in their console environment. So the PC sales cover developmental costs behind advances in the engine while the console sales are pure profit (well, after taking other expenses into account). I like PC games, but I have no illusion on whom the game companies are exerting their attention on.