Is PC gaming alive or dead?

[Oskuro]

Obviously, nobody is arguing that nobody plays PC games anymore or nobody's making money selling PC games, but the question at hand is, "Is the PC still a viable, mainstream gaming format?"

Indeed, that is the question at hand. My gripe is with the use of the word gaming. It's just like those self-proclaimed hardcore gamer idiots who dismiss casual games as not being true games or something. I don't want to delve into the whos or the whys, but that whole gaming rethoric is trying to equate the concept of playing videogames to unrelated things, like marketing or frat-boy oriented games, or whatever whoever uses the term wants gaming to mean. It's the ages old social engineering practise of challenging people's confidence through peer pressure to realign their priorities.

Incidentally, I snipped the rest of your reply, but butthurt much? Jesus Christ.

Don't give me that crap, I know that trolling is in style around these parts, but that doesn't make someone less of a cretin when he uses these moronic tactics to pick on others. But apparently calling an idiot idiot is being butthurt, who knew.

[MKSheppard]

That said, computers back then also had the "advantage" of being able to demand much higher-cost components

The sad thing is, unlike the "golden age of gaming" from 1985-1999, it's a lot easier to develop a game now -- you no longer need a specialized engine and library to do 2D graphics pushing or to handle input from the user -- basic 2D graphics and user input can be handled by a ton of engines; and if you want to do 3D strategy games; there's a large catalog of established and well-documented 3D engines with licensing agreements all across the spectrum from the Unreal Engine's $250,000 to $350,000; to Torque Engine's $2,250~ per programmer seat license.

And even the problem of getting 3D models to populate your game world is becoming easier; as more model libraries like TurboSquid show up and bulk out their portfolios.

There are also a lot of useable game system rules out there for boardgames or tabletop minatures that could be licensed and turned into electronic versions with five times the detail level and much more streamlined play mechanics than would be otherwise possible with the physical versions.

For a good example, look at how The Operational Art of War series handles gameplay -- you move your pieces, plan your attacks and select theater options all in the same pulse; rather than dividing everything up into a MOVE PULSE, ATTACK PULSE, OPTION PULSE like a traditional boardgame would.

Plus, with the TOAW series you can have monster scenarios, like one such scenario I saw that actually tried to simulate the Eastern Front at...company level. That's simply not possible with a pen and paper game, unless you:

1.) Have an extra building to put the game map and pieces in.

2.) Are paid professionally to wargame by the Department of the Army or Navy (ala the old 1920s Wargames done at the Naval War College in basketball courts)

[Stark]

Holy shit, every boardgame I've ever enjoyed would make a great XNA title. Arkham Horror would be way better just by electronicalising the 50 decks and 800 pieces and making it a party game.

Never happen though, which is a shame. Not really relevant to PC gaming, either.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

Apologies for the wall of text, I missed the start of this thread.

One point that I don't think has been raised yet is the quality of console ports to PCs. These certainly have been problematic in the past, but in my experience they are getting much better now - for the majority the differences between the console/PC versions are on a similar level to the differences between the 360/PS3 versions of a game. Integration of plug and play 360 controller support has also improved to the point where it is almost a standard feature, and this is very useful for convenience and in certain genres of games.

The prime example of how a PC port should be done would be Bad Company 2. The PC version has been perfectly adapted to the platform, you simply cannot tell it started life console only. It even includes features that native PC games lack, such as the ability to choose during install whether you want to use CD based authentification or disk-free online authentification. As was widely reported it sold more copies on PC than on either console.

Something that has harmed the the image PC gaming is that usually by this point in any console generation PC games start looking graphically more impressive than those the consoles can manage, and PC hardware becomes ever more affordable; this is a fact widely trumpted by PC gamers everywhere and rubbed in the faces of the degenerate console masses. However this has not happened so far this generation, as development costs for even the current graphical standard can only be justified when spread across multiple platforms; this makes the consoles, and specifically the 360, the limiting factor in the level of technical graphical power available to most games. Reference the fact that Crysis, from 2007, is still the best looking game around (minor nitpicking aside).

Remember though that PC hardware is still advancing. At the beginning of this generation my desktop PC could run anything the 360 could handle, now I have a netbook one third the size of a 360 which can run anything it can; certainly it was expensive, but last year it was impossible, and in coming years it will be cheap. If Steam were to introduce some sort of Windows Media Center like ten foot display for TVs, you would turn the PC into a platform where a teeny-tiny box can belt out the best games the fat noisy old consoles can, straight onto you TV and looking better; and where you can buy games from your sofa, usually for cheaper than the console variants - conveniently side stepping the second hand market for developers too.

[Stark]

Thats ironic because if the last few years have shown anything it's that most people dont give a shit about nose-hair rendering. Beyond a certain point the pressure just isn't there.

The idea of steam being the last best hope for PC gaming is utterly hilarious. We saved pc gaming y locking it down and making it a really expensive xbox!

[JointStrikeFighter]

Crysis looked like shit too.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

The idea of steam being the last best hope for PC gaming is utterly hilarious. We saved pc gaming y locking it down and making it a really expensive xbox!

It need not be Steam, just something with a decent interface; I mentioned Steam because the new UI for it reminded me of WMC. The locking down part is probably going to be non-negotiable for many publishers though, unless there is softening of attitudes towards DRM in the future.

[Rye]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the upcoming onlive in this whole debate? I know that Sony registered an equivalent streaming/cloud gaming technology, so if onlive works as described, there could be a homogenisation of PC and console gaming; PCs can get the client and play maximum quality whenever they want just like console owners.

[General Zod]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the upcoming onlive in this whole debate? I know that Sony registered an equivalent streaming/cloud gaming technology, so if onlive works as described, there could be a homogenisation of PC and console gaming; PCs can get the client and play maximum quality whenever they want just like console owners.

Onlive? lol. I'll believe its' hype when I can play it in a non-controlled environment.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the upcoming onlive in this whole debate? I know that Sony registered an equivalent streaming/cloud gaming technology, so if onlive works as described, there could be a homogenisation of PC and console gaming; PCs can get the client and play maximum quality whenever they want just like console owners.

Onlive? lol. I'll believe its' hype when I can play it in a non-controlled environment.

I'm sure it works, but it's not going to be anywhere near the experience of running the game locally. There will be control lag and there will be video compression artefacts on the screen; how bad these are will depend on your connection. I don't see it becoming more than a niche product, at least until there are significant improvements in the average broadband connection's bandwidth and latency.

I have heard it said that it might be a nice way to provide beta test clients for games, but then almost the whole point of that kind of test is running it on as many hardware configurations as possible to try and force out issues, which will not work if you are just running it on your weird rendering farm. Demo's would be another possiblity, but the mentioned problems with input lag and graphics artefacts likely means it won't actually be a very attractive way to demo your product - also as with betas it removes the ability to use the demo to check how well a game runs on your system before purchase.

[General Zod]

I'm sure it works, but it's not going to be anywhere near the experience of running the game locally. There will be control lag and there will be video compression artefacts on the screen; how bad these are will depend on your connection. I don't see it becoming more than a niche product, at least until there are significant improvements in the average broadband connection's bandwidth and latency.

Er. . . if it delivers games with noticeable lag and compression artefacts, then it's not living up to the hype. I'm not questioning whether or not it will work.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

Are they really still trying to sell it as that? I thought that nonsense didn't survive the first demonstration.

[General Zod]

Are they really still trying to sell it as that? I thought that nonsense didn't survive the first demonstration.

I haven't really heard much since their demonstration. So I can only assume they're sticking with it unless there's information to the contrary.

[Medic]

Except they don't have to do those things? Keyboard support already exists. Keeping the network closed is the business plan.

What you described as 'the next step' is 'make them PCs' which is missing the point.

You've said that now, twice.

And I note you didn't say mouse, cause you missed the point.


As you said, an RTS UI tailored to the mouse and ported to console sucks out loud. Well, if you get an adapter for example to use a keyboard and mouse for the x360 you'll notice the complete opposite -- an FPS UI tailored to the controller whilst using a mouse. It is still (marginally) better, but it is NOT precise at all, and you need a LOT of real estate for that mouse to work. I've not used a keyboard / mouse set-up on the PS3 versions of any games but by looking at them can't fathom them being any different. The sticks horizontal movement has a hard-and-fast limit to pan rate, because, well, it's a control stick.

Mouses have no such limitation, if the sensitivity is a certain degree, minuscule movements are adequate for iron-sight plinking while a fast movement of the arm is quick and accurate enough to do a full 180. Using a mouse on consoles isn't the same as a mouse on a PC and you miss Feil's point badly. For example, ever notice on CoD4 console that the sensitivity of the sticks changes when you're in iron sight or just moving? This isn't necessary in the pc, it's a console UI implementation to make controllers less-than-shitty. For fuck's sake, sniping in almost every console games these days has an auto-aim 'tug' that's like the milder hacks on the PC. Another thing they do is there's a MASSIVE tug when objects are crossing your screen. You cannot physically turn the stick hard enough (on all but the highest sensitivities on a console FPS) to do a 180 spin if someone darts past you -- but -- the software 'knows' you'd want to whip around and automatically tugs you along. Just throwing in a mouse on CoD4 using an adapter doesn't get rid of this and there exists no option for 'real' mouse use cause that would be, ... well it'd be funny, but also insane. It'd be like the Marianas Turkey Shoot all over again.

The consoles haven't co-opted keyboard and mouse support, in other words -- stop saying they have.

[Medic]

And if I'm wrong (either cause 1) things change quickly or 2) only PS3 adopted it, in which case I was just ignorant of it): what would be the point?

Having genuine access to a mouse in any FPS against mostly controller using opponents would border on hacking, it'd be so easy. Besides the type of person that does in fact end up hacking on PC games, what would most PC-gamer converts on the console side get out of that? Some inflated sense of skill? It would be false and anyone with any competitive zeal or sense of fairness would be acutely aware of just how false. I wouldn't want to play an FPS bifurcated by console controllers and mouse users. It's not a level playing field and it would get boring at any rate very quickly.

[Stark]

Mice work fine on 360; you don't need an 'adapter'.

Turns out nobody uses the functionality because people want controllers. You can make RTS work fine on a controller anyway (The WiC port would have been great).

Amusingly, it doesn't matter that controllers are 'worse' for shooters; shooters on consoles are a huge market stealing sales from what used to be a PC genre. Oops.

[Oskuro]

Mice need a flat surface too, while you can hold the controller confortably while sitting on the sofa, specially if it is wireless.

[montypython]

Simulations like the Falcon series, Distant Guns, Jutland, Silent Hunter series, or Steel Beasts are all something that only a PC can do justice to, making better games of that ilk is still something that needs to be done.

[Stark]

You mean that dead market of tiny audience niche games? Anyway, Silent Hunter would work on controller; so would Jutland, since they're all menu-based. You just lose the 2736 useless keyboard shortcuts of suck.

Oskuro, if they put a trackball in place of right stick, once people got used to it it'd be fine for most mouse roles. I don't think there's much of a point, though.

[TheFeniX]

(*I heard about one or two games being withdrawn from Xbox Live; I don't use the system so I need to ask, is there a way for people to continue to play those games online, or are they SOL?)

Chromehounds was one. I had a few friends pick it up during the dead spot last fall. For like 3 bucks we all had a month or two of decent fun. From Software pulled the servers in February (I think) and now about 90% of the game is inaccessible. This is one of the issues I've had with console gaming. While many PC gaming servers are shit and run by assholes for assholes, I could find a few that were run well (or run my own) and cut out the jackasses. This isn't possible on XBLive and MS has a vested interested in not banning the shit out of foul-mouthed 12-year-olds. This makes games like L4Dead almost unplayable at times (oh wait, Valve used the same bullshit matchmaking system for the PC version). Scavenge was a god-send in that regard.

MW2 is the worst offender with it's idiotic "No party chat in Team Deathmatch." So, my girlfriend has to deal with shit-heads non-stop and has to manually mute/report the real winners. As I write this post, she just got a message "Sup A/S/L?" In all fairness, PC gaming isn't immune from this shit.

Make them take a standard mouse and keyboard as a simple toggle option in most games, let them connect to a monitor in stead of a TV, and use the right resolution (can they already do this?),

My xbox is run to my ASUS 24" LCD with an HDMI cable. Looks great at 1080.

As for the controls, the biggest issue (even above the sticks because everyone has to use them, so it's even) is that developers don't let you re-map fucking keys. You're lucky if you have 2-3 presets and that's just bullshit. Lost Planet 2 is an excruciating example of this as the preset are fucking terrible. Even the ones that remove the worthless LB RB = turn 90 degrees, have keys in places only designed to torture me. So, if I want even a semblance of decent controls, I have to use LB RB (2 of 4 keys that don't require me to let my hand off the thumbsticks to use) for something worthless.

connect them to the internet without making people buy a subscription to Games for XBox Live,

Silver is free and gives you access to pretty much everything except gaming online and most demos are released for Gold first. There's nothing to stop, say, an avid Rock Band fan from buying shit-tons of content from the market-place and just never play online. Personally, I find the party system alone is worth the money when I think about how illiterate my friends are when it comes to PCs. And that's really where console gaming offers an advantage. Up until the release of the 360, none of my friends could be considered gamers outside the few that may have played GTA or sports games.

On-topic: I'm not really qualified to answer anymore (if ever). Team Fortress 2 pretty much killed PC gaming for me. I had considered buying SP games like Mass Effect 2, but I'm just burnt out of them. The only games I'll even buy anymore have to have co-op because I'm just tired of a lot of the bullshit. Since consoles pretty much have all the good co-op games, the only PC game on the horizon for me is Natural Selection 2, if it ever gets released.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You mean that dead market of tiny audience niche games? Anyway, Silent Hunter would work on controller; so would Jutland, since they're all menu-based. You just lose the 2736 useless keyboard shortcuts of suck.

Yes, serious simulations are a tiny niche market, at least for now. They will never become mainstream again, but of course one can hope that they would gain a somewhat larger audience. Of course one can also hope that Hollywood would start making non-shit movies with big budgets again; it's pretty much the same thing...

[Nephtys]

I suppose a number of factors contribute to this. I personally trace the 'Golden Age' of PC Gaming from 1991-2001 or so. During that Era, 386 and onwards computers were becoming available, which had the memory and processing sophistication to basically 'do what needed to be done'. So you could have enough memory, possess decent enough sound capability (soundblaster, woot), and soforth. Then once like, 1997+ hit, games became more compatible with less horrible 'manage that memory' stuff that we remember from DOS days. And with CDs, you had plenty of space for content. Games were designed for creativity, since everyone's assets were of the same sophistication. So even smaller titles and budgets could be great games.

And here, I think is the core of PC gaming. Enough content, enough processing ability. The hyper-expensive development of assets in graphics, animation and such go well with the hardware-optimized nature of the console experience, but are not nearly as vital for PC titles. However, PC games of the future will probably make do with 'good enough', and we'd have more functional graphics, while trying to maximize the advantages in control options that a PC game setup has. The PC's increased online presence likely will be a major asset in the future as well, as are the greater options for distribution of more independent titles.

I guess what I'm saying is that the big break-point was when the 3D graphics card went from a nice novelty to upgrade your graphics, into a mandatory component for any sort of gaming. If gaming continues to focus on that, then it's obviously in the console's favor. Those types of games usually work well with controllers or the type of play experience as seen on console.

[Stark]

Alternately, in this period game design was driven by and based on common PC interfaces. During this period console games were 'limited' by foolish attempts to directly port these games. Nowadays, many/most games are based primarily on controller interfaces (with WASD for PC) and this is no longer the case.

I don't think people who talk in terms of 'superior' or 'works well' are getting the point. You could ALWAYS have made shooters work on console (well, post-thumbstick anyway) but nobody did it right. Now that the UI caught up, this is different.

[Vendetta]

Simulations like the Falcon series, Distant Guns, Jutland, Silent Hunter series, or Steel Beasts are all something that only a PC can do justice to, making better games of that ilk is still something that needs to be done.

There is actually a sub sim on the way to consoles (Naval Assault)

Yes, serious simulations are a tiny niche market, at least for now.

.

They're always going to be a niche market, because the thing that would make them not-niche would be to reduce the level of simulation detail in the name of accessability, and that would make them not serious simulations. (I thought IL-2 on the consoles did that quite well, with an adjustable level of simulation detail from basically Ace Combat at the low end to proper simulation at the top end. If they'd used Forza style individual adjustable components it would have been even better).

Serious simulations are a type of software product that only very few people will ever want to play.

[Medic]

Mice work fine on 360; you don't need an 'adapter'.

Turns out nobody uses the functionality because people want controllers. You can make RTS work fine on a controller anyway (The WiC port would have been great).

That's a change from the more distant past of the x360 but obviously plug-and-play was never a reality forcing you to buy stuff like this:

(there's a video in the link, too. My internets here are too slow to play it, but I bet I know what it looks like)

Behold a link:

*I tried a couple mouse controllers before. They all just remapped to the analog stick. They were really clunky and awkward. Anyone try one that worked well?
*by that do you mean that moving the mouse away from the origin (0,0 in a cartesian plane) and then stopped, your view would continue to move in that direction in-game, like a joystiq? if that's the case, i would think that those mice would be harder to use than a joystiq, because with a joystiq, you have a constant, easy frame of reference for the origin. using mice like that, it could be difficult to accurately find the origin, throwing off your aim in all situations.

do we know how the playstation Move works? does it work like a joystiq, or like a traditional computer mouse (i.e. the view on-screen only moves as long as the mouse is moving)?
*The reason these never work is that the game is programmed for analog control. The mouse can effectively "mimick" analog, but the problem is the reason people prefer mice is the much *greater* range of movement. This is something that can't be mapped down to analog and back up. Imaging flicking your mouse in Counter Strike to spin around 180 degrees. There's no equivalent analog stick movement that will do that that fast, thus the mouse can't send that input to the game. It's as simple as that. Console shooters are designed to be played with the console's controls, IMO it's just a different sort of game and one worth embracing rather than just considering them flaws because you're used to M&K (flanking someone in Halo means so much more than in Unreal for instance).
*If this is like the splitfish FragFX for the PS3, it's not quite the advantage you'd imagine. It still has the speed limitations as the joystick, because it just remaps the controls. It makes it easier for a PC gamer to pick up a console, certainly, but at the elite level, it's not much of an advantage at all.
*well, on most games, there is an option to turn off the auto aim...
*Crosshair speed on consoles is limited and you can't improve it enough in the options to match the PC speed.

Almost everything I said.

The inability to remap buttons as you so desire makes plug-and-play mice a non-starter, meaning you have to fork over $80 or so for these kinds of things (instead of just reusing a mouse you already have) and it's tied to analogue.


And the fundamental reason people don't adopt these (besides for PC gamers it not being genuine) is they're sitting on a couch. Seriously, a query of, like, 10 people that have played PC and console games but prefer the latter will substantiate this claim; it's not an oversimplification nor do I mean it as an insult. It just is. Just that little bit of extra ease locks a lot of mighta-tried-PC-gamers out. That's why these aren't adopted. It would mean leaning forward, getting a chair, and a table and... you really can't drink to that. (well I drink and play PC games, but I have 3 useless keyboards to show for it)

Amusingly, it doesn't matter that controllers are 'worse' for shooters; shooters on consoles are a huge market stealing sales from what used to be a PC genre. Oops.

A fact no one in this thread was currently aware of until you pointed it out.

Until or unless a mouse is a mouse, and not a remapped joystick, then yes, controllers are 'worse.' (I'm making no claim to fun-factor - the sales speak for themselves) Any PC FPS gamer who got into these consoles for the very reason you point is immediately struck by how frustrating it is. You can do things with a mouse the controller UI can't do, let alone mimic.


edit: is, are, pu-tay-toh, pat-ah-toe...