Carmack on the future of PC/Console developement*8/8/08*

M

Master Blaster

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
1,442
Well, as long as the games aren't shitty ports I'll be happy. It's kind of odd that a company well known for pushing the envelope of video game graphics is favoring consoles.
 
why is it odd? companies' #1 motive has always been making money. pushing the graphical envelope was profitable back then, it's not now. thats all there is to it.
 
“We certainly expect Rage and the Doom project on the PC. We’re contractually obligated to have Rage on the PC, and I would be stunned if we did not do Doom 4 for the PC,” Carmack added. “It would just be wrong. Even if it was a marginal business case, we would still do it because it’s the right thing to do.”

I second that.
 
I like that quote, it's pretty much saying "I don't make these decisions, but you'd better believe they'll listen if I tell them we're going to do it anyway"
 
I must confess that after posting this article, I was feeling secure in id’s and the like minded PC devs decisions to make consoles they primary dev platform. After thinking about my own personal feelings towards id, as being one of my favorite developers bar none, I feel personally agitated and a little worried.

{I felt like I needed to come back and post a second round…}

I’m uncomfortable about what he stated. On one hand you have the cold hard truth about PC/console gaming that we’ve debated over for two years now. Neither you nor I can change what game sells and what the public enjoys at that point in time. I’m a bit confused as for what the hell is happening to be honest. Last week the article stating that JC will be trying his best to breath new life in not only the PC community, but also the modding community that he appreciates so much.

This seems nonsensical now if the strategic decision at id is to capitalize on console market and make the PC platform the “junior” developmental platform. How is anyone with a console going to mod anything? They’re not, that’s how. How is PC gaming going to grow and be “saved” if it’s not your primary focus? It’s not.

{Saving the PC community is not likely unless by pure residual side-effect.}

The articles posted in the past few days leave me asking more question and leaving little answers.
So if you use the consoles as the primary platform, what about the controls? Are you going to dumb down and “consolify” the layout? Are GUI, plug-ins, menus, and the like going to be an afterthought? Why would you do that?

Carmack has assured everyone that it would be wrong to neglect the PC platform, and rightfully so. He's a man of class and standard. I’m still unsure on how you’d pull it off….sigh. If anybody in the industry knows what is going on beyond what we see Carmack either knows of it or about it. Let’s just hope he’s right.
 
Master Blaster said:
So if you use the consoles as the primary platform, what about the controls? Are you going to dumb down and “consolify” the layout? Are GUI, plug-ins, menus, and the like going to be an afterthought?
Click to expand...
Those are the questions on my mind at this point. I wonder how "dangerous" id Tech 5 is in this respect, where you're funneling everything down to a low common denominator, and there's an elaborate back-end moving through and bouncing everything in such a way that it works on each platform, how much control do you have from port-to-port? Can the PC version get an entirely different GUI than the X360 version? Does the PC version get a dev console? What about FOV and input acceleration? John hasn't really answered these kinds of questions yet.

Something else that concerns me is that id's targeting a Teen rating for Rage purely because it'll give Rage a wider potential audience. My question is...why the hell is id getting so greedy? Pushing Rage on every capable platform in addition to ensuring that children can buy it too? What, was Doom 3 (rated M) not successful enough for you, John? Your custom carbon fiber Ferrari GTO not fast enough...?

It just seems like they're putting themselves in a position where it's more likely they'll end up upsetting PC gamers (despite the likelihood of that seeming pretty low to me) so they can profit as obscenely as possible. Like you said, it doesn't seem like there's any focus at all out of Mesquite to try and "save the PC".
 
damonposey said:
why is it odd? companies' #1 motive has always been making money. pushing the graphical envelope was profitable back then, it's not now. thats all there is to it.
Click to expand...
You're thinking of when John Romero worked there. Carmack always seemed to have a bit more class and cared about innovation. Guess not.
 
John Carmack said:
"The ground truth," replies Carmack, "is just that the sales numbers on the PC are not what they used to be and are not what they are on the consoles."
Click to expand...
Source

And so its begun..

I was actually going to post my worries about this in the Gamesultra discussion but i decided against it (the pushing of good PC developer away from the platform because of the piracy issue).. But damn if i am not worried now..

Here we are talking about John Carmack, the man who's passion has been PC gaming, the man who said he would probably not get consolitus.. but even He is now jumping the PC ship..

John Carmack said:
Carmack says it's hard to second guess what the reasons for the decline in PC sales are.

Certainly, piracy is a contributor to that. I also think a lot of the people that bought PC games have bought consoles and are happy with them. We still think the PC is a market worth supporting, but we're not making decision around the PC. It's probably more of the junior partner in the cross-platform strategy, although obviously, our day-to-day development is predominately on the PC
Click to expand...
 
I'm going to miss the days where a company could spend 6 years building a ridiculously powerful new game engine, with a flashy new game to show it off.
 
personally, im not too upset as ID has failed to make a decent/memorable pc game in recent history. the things they make feel to me - like console ports regardless. flame away, but just my 2 cents.

nonetheless, ID reverting to a console based market would be a crusher for the PC market in many different ways, and for this reason - it is a bother to me.
 
I have been a PC gamer for 20 years.
Let's face it, PC gaming is going nowhere and the consoles are the future of gaming. :(
 
It'll be a long long time before consoles do MMO's well, probably never unless KB/M support grows vastly. Same with RTS games and (imo) FPS games.

TBH if consoles had the server size upper limits of a PC (64+ players) and were easily KB/M-able I'd probably get one. For now, I have my PC and a Wii for the girlfriend.

PC gaming will be fine. It will be a bit of a niche but its where real competitive multiplayer will be and will always be the performance king. Look at GTAIV. It runs like absolute ass once the shit hits the fan but a PC will be able to handle the graphics no sweat if they do a decent job porting it, not to mention mods, etc, etc.

Its ok if the market shrinks as long as they still make games and either make or port them well.
 
The frustrating part is how consoles really hold back the technical side of gaming. It's not like PCs have stopped getting better, instead consoles just "catch up" every 5 years or so, and then immediately start becoming obsolete again.
 
Litfod said:
The frustrating part is how consoles really hold back the technical side of gaming. It's not like PCs have stopped getting better, instead consoles just "catch up" every 5 years or so, and then immediately start becoming obsolete again.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right.. Want to know another shocker ? Doom 4 will not be DX 10 compatible because consoles cant run dx10 yet. YES you heard right because consoles cant do it , the game wont be devloped for it.
 
FlyinBrian said:
You're absolutely right.. Want to know another shocker ? Doom 4 will not be DX 10 compatible because consoles cant run dx10 yet. YES you heard right because consoles cant do it , the game wont be devloped for it.
Click to expand...
Bioshock? UT3? Assassin's Creed? All those games are DX10 on Windows but are out for consoles too, so I'm curious where you got that information from.

If anything I think there needs to be less emphasis on "the technical side." The worst part about games today is so many people play them just to look at the pretty graphics. The prettier the graphics, the better the game, regardless of how shitty the story, dialogue, gameplay, etc. is. You all know the example I could use, so I won't even say it.
 
FlyinBrian said:
You're absolutely right.. Want to know another shocker ? Doom 4 will not be DX 10 compatible because consoles cant run dx10 yet. YES you heard right because consoles cant do it , the game wont be devloped for it.
Click to expand...
Doom 4 is powered by id Tech 5. id Tech 5 runs OpenGL on Windows.

So, yes, Doom 4 will not support Direct3D 10. Good call.
 
The worst thing to happen for gamers was for gaming to become popular. Like the music and movie industries before it, the gaming industry is a victim of its own success. Games are no longer just made by a bunch of guys doing stuff they love, business interests now rule the day. This is the downside of capitalism and it happens to every industry, eventually. We'll still see original games from smaller and indy developers, but the "golden age" of PC gaming is over.

.
 
balthan said:
The worst thing to happen for gamers was for gaming to become popular. Like the music and movie industries before it, the gaming industry is a victim of its own success. Games are no longer just made by a bunch of guys doing stuff they love, business interests now rule the day. This is the downside of capitalism and it happens to every industry, eventually. We'll still see original games from smaller and indy developers, but the "golden age" of PC gaming is over.

.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. I'm just glad I got to enjoy those wonderful times!
 
balthan said:
The worst thing to happen for gamers was for gaming to become popular. Like the music and movie industries before it, the gaming industry is a victim of its own success. Games are no longer just made by a bunch of guys doing stuff they love, business interests now rule the day. This is the downside of capitalism and it happens to every industry, eventually. We'll still see original games from smaller and indy developers, but the "golden age" of PC gaming is over.

.
Click to expand...

i disagree. sure the market is flooded with a bunch of crappy games, and the industry has to change to adapt. but change is good. no one really wants anything to ever stay the same. look at the new games coming out. sure a bunch of them suck ass, but there are some really amazing games out there. look at the way we play video games. because of the overall success and popularity, online gameplay is easier and better than ever. there would be no steam without such great demand. no xbox live. consoles now come with wireless controllers standard. wifi built into gaming systems, etc...
 
Dome said:
i disagree. sure the market is flooded with a bunch of crappy games, and the industry has to change to adapt. but change is good. no one really wants anything to ever stay the same. look at the new games coming out. sure a bunch of them suck ass, but there are some really amazing games out there. look at the way we play video games. because of the overall success and popularity, online gameplay is easier and better than ever. there would be no steam without such great demand. no xbox live. consoles now come with wireless controllers standard. wifi built into gaming systems, etc...
Click to expand...

The world would be a better place without Xbox Live. Now, a lot of the changes you talk about are good, but at the same time, a lot of those really amazing games are more along the line of rehashes of old stuff. Very well done rehashes, but rehashes nonetheless. A lot of those changes also really have nothing to do with game developers being ruled less by business interests than they were before. You are right, nobody wants things to stay the same forever, but nobody wants to lose what makes games fun or unique either. That is the thing, developers are a lot less willing to go out on a limb and try something.

You could say something about Nintendo but they really are the exception that proves the rule. The only reason they are doing so well is because nobody else has come out with anything really innovative or interesting. Nobody else is really trying. The PS3 and 360 are essentially the same gameplay in a different wrapper. There is nothing about the console itself that lends itself to a unique gameplay experience (and no, throwing a load of extra computing power at games doesn't count, at least not at this point).

At this point, where the market is, there is little incentive for developers to try to stick their neck out because there are now a bunch of (deservedly) major game studios that stick to just rehashing the same old gameplay concepts. The chance that a new company could breakthrough has been significantly decreased, and we all suffer as a result. We end up a heck of a lot less likely to ever try out things like this, which I had the pleasure of trying out at quakecon, or for things like that to manage to get enough support from game devs.
 
I don't PC Gaming is dead or the goldne age is over. Look at what is coming out this Fall, some of the best games in years.


- Left 4 Dead looks very promising as a fun CoOp, I can't believe I typed that, but an original game for the PC is shipping with CoOp about fucking time

- WarHammer Online could never be played on console, that will be a new fresh MMORPG, that I bet 6 months after release will have a huge following be very fun

- S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky looks like a fun game made by small company

- FallOut3 will be godly

- WoW WoTLK of course will be huge and just a PC title and tons of fun for us

- StarCraft2 due soon will own

- COD5; Call of Duty 5 back in WWII, and real CoOp will make this a PC Gamers wet dream for fun CoOp action.


Those above games all due out by the end of the year will be true classics, and most of those are only for the PC, or play much better on a PC. So no PC Gaming is not dead, and sorry John Carmack thinks so, which is sad.
 
Litfod said:
The frustrating part is how consoles really hold back the technical side of gaming. It's not like PCs have stopped getting better, instead consoles just "catch up" every 5 years or so, and then immediately start becoming obsolete again.
Click to expand...

I'm probably half-wrong on this comment, but aren't games developed (UT3, Crysis, etc) with future upcoming hardware in mind? I remember seeing pictures of the new Unreal engine years ago, that was supposedly just a slideshow I believe on a 9800.

How would you do this with consoles? I'm under the impression that optimizing for the PS3 is quite different due to the nature of the hardware.

If it's hard to know exact specs of future CPUs/GPUs, wouldn't this be even worse for consoles?

I know they have developer kits for consoles before the consoles are out, but doesn't this have the potential to delay a new game tech by years?

Anyway, I am probably wrong...

I don't game much, but my main concern is this: I just finally grabbed TDU a few weeks ago, and thought it was a blast. First time I've stayed up later than I wanted to in probably two years... But I kept thinking my framerate should be better on my new 4870, and there are constant lock-ups of the game. Then I read around in the forums, and come across the line "horrible console port." It's not the first time I've heard that, but apparently it's the first time I have experienced it.

I haven't played TDU since...

I'm probably wrong on the console dev angle, but the console porting needs to be addressed... Even if it's only identical to the console (hope not), show-stopping issues need to be squashed...

I can't say I've ever experienced as many lock-ups with a game as I have with TDU... Since the on-line game demands you have the most recent patch, I know I am up-to-date there. But if this is the future of gaming, I can't say I have the free time nor the patience for it...

Since TDU was only $7, maybe I can't complain so bad... Certainly only worth $7 (the typical price of a movie ticket) though, as you are only going to get the same amount of time of enjoyment out of it...
 
Consoles rely on PC's to function in the capacity they do today.

I'm not worried about the PC market because everything about todays consoles relys on 2nd generation PC technology, without the technology drive behind the PC, the innovation and the high quality expectations, the consoles would fumble.

In short if PC gaming died, consoles would be fucked, they'd have to start writing their own API's and paying for R&D for the new generation of hardware between console revisions, it would all cost MORE and be of LESS quality. Take a moment and read about what sort of hardware and technology is crammed inside the Xbox360 and PS3 and the sort of API's they use, and who provides the hardware for them.

You think Nvidia or AMD can afford to make a profit in the GPU market with gaps between demand for video hardware being something like 5 years? Hell no they can't.

The knock on effects of PC gaming dying (either completely or fading out of significance) would cripple consoles in their current form, thats just my predicition based on what I know about all the platforms.
 
Frostex said:
Consoles rely on PC's to function in the capacity they do today.

I'm not worried about the PC market because everything about todays consoles relys on 2nd generation PC technology, without the technology drive behind the PC, the innovation and the high quality expectations, the consoles would fumble.

In short if PC gaming died, consoles would be fucked, they'd have to start writing their own API's and paying for R&D for the new generation of hardware between console revisions, it would all cost MORE and be of LESS quality. Take a moment and read about what sort of hardware and technology is crammed inside the Xbox360 and PS3 and the sort of API's they use, and who provides the hardware for them.

You think Nvidia or AMD can afford to make a profit in the GPU market with gaps between demand for video hardware being something like 5 years? Hell no they can't.

The knock on effects of PC gaming dying (either completely or fading out of significance) would cripple consoles in their current form, thats just my predicition based on what I know about all the platforms.
Click to expand...


So really the connections between the console market and the PC market, it's almost as if the PC market is in a better position development wise just based off the fact that consoles are now [trying] to better themselves as PCs. This is just the case for the hardware as you have stated. I just hope software devs get the idea! What it really comes to is what the public is interested in as well...and not everyone can handle the PC side of things though ;)
 
Yeah thats the hardware side of things, but without the AAA titles why would anyone buy new video cards? If people aren't buying new video cards then how can Nvidia and ATI make a profit?

It's a complimentry relationship between the hardware and software, if you invest in a business model like the consoles use you want large upgrades but not very often, they make a loss on the hardware sales since the hardware is so expensive, the money is made back + the profit on the games, the lifespan of consoles im sure would also expand if there wasn't some current hardware to compare it to, without things like tri sli and quad crossfire to make the consoles look like an embarrasment of modern technology, sony and microsoft would bleed their customers for many more game sales before advancing the platform.
 
To be honest, it's becoming very clear to me that the PC Gaming community is what's going to kill PC Gaming. It's going to kill it dead. You have all these kids whose sense of entitlement allows them to download games that they don't think are good, which leads to developers abandoning the platform for the platforms with higher sales numbers (consoles) which leads to more kids rationalizing their piracy by stating that the game wasn't worth the money in the first place. Well, no shit it was a crappy game, because all the good developers bailed because of you.
 
I really hate the piracy card being the blame for PC gaming woes. Is there any business booming these days besides oil companies with high gas prices, bad credit markets, lost home equity, and general economic malaise? It's not as if consoles are complete and udder cash cows (pun intended) given the size of their market relative to PCs.

Really, consoles are to PCs what Windows was to the DOS command prompt. No one needs to mess around with expensive hardware upgrades, gets guaranteed compatibility, and just plugs and chugs and plays. I would rather have the control over my hardware and settings with PCs, but the average person isn't knowledgeable enough and inclined enough to game on PC instead of a console. As the market has matured in the past years, it's become accessible to a lot more people than PCs have, and the types of people who game on console are not necessarily the same as those who inhabit the PC world. That's pretty much the biggest reason if you ask me. It's just cheaper and easier for the general public.

It's also not as if this debate hasn't already been to done to death 100s of times by now. So think of all the reasons you want why this situation is around, then also remember that piracy does exists on consoles, and would exist at a far higher rate if not for that on PCs. Piracy is just a part of the whole equation.
 
whether piracy is a large enough detriment to sales to be a real problem is unknown, the fact is the PC gaming industry is growing year by year and is showing no signs of making any less profit.

People talk about the sense of entitlement that PC gamers seem to have when it comes to pirating games etc, but in my eyes the whole situation is irregular. People seem to give development studios some kind of special pass in their minds that makes them appear to be somehow different and special from any other business out there today.

All open markets are saturated with more business than the public can afford to support, it's competition like just between the manufacturers that make cars, or the companies who sell you your breakfast cereal. Some go bust, others do well...what decides that is the quality of your product and your business model/plan.

We need to either treat these developers as businesses and just accept that some go bust, people lose their jobs but if they're good at what they do, they will get jobs elsewhere with development studios who are making money, just like in every other warp of life.

Quite frankly I dont think piracy has anything to do with making developers go bust, theres only so much money we can put into the industy. Like the developers behind sins of a solar empire who made their game without copy protection and still sold well, you need to target the audience that is going to pay for your game and give them what they want.

While games come packed with copy protection (that been PROVEN not to work, yet hurts legitimates consumers) then I have zero sympathy for the people involved.
 
It's pretty obvious that console are the larger audience. The issue is that developers are just lazy about the way they port their games, and then blame piracy on failure of their PC releases. PC gamers aren't the biggest audience, but the PC is still a viable platform. But if you want to take advantage of that, you have to put more effort into it than a simple recompile. Don't bother bringing it to market if you don't want to put the effort into it to make it successful.

Epic's UT III is a textbook example of doing this all wrong. They made a game that could have easily been successful on both the console and the PC. They tailored the interface specifically to consoles, which was fine, but instead of creating a new interface for the PC version, they just shipped an interface designed for systems that didn't need be configured and used controllers. It would have taken very little effort to make an interface for the PC game, that took into account PC users' needs.

This caused several problems. First, it was clear to PC users, that the PC version was tacked on as an after thought and that Epic assumed that the name alone was enough to command purchases. Second, because the graphics configuration options were so limited, playing on full settings also enabled hideous post processing effects that put users at a disadvantage to players playing on low settings. There were several other small gameplay and atheistic tweaks that the community asked for during the beta, Epic could have easily addressed, but did not. These were ignored, and as a result that game failed. The money they saved not making those changes is insignificant compared to the amount of money they lost in sales. Apologists can say what they want; the number of severs on the master list speaks for itself. Piracy was the problem, pirates didn't even want the game. Epic's monumentally stupid mismanagement of the franchise was the problem.

Game shouldn't have to be totally redesigned in order to be ported to the PC. If they do, it's best to either not port them or hand it over to a dedicated development team if that is an economically viable choice. Half assing it is not an option. I'm talking you to you, short sighted publishing executive. You fail to recognize that consoles and PC are distinct. Some genres are just stupid to try to market on PCs. Some are stupid to market on consoles. Some genres are good on both, and these are excellent candidates for ports, if the ports are done right.

Here are a couple of guidelines to make a console to PC port successful. They don't cost very much in comparison to overall development costs, but are critical to making PC gamers feel happy and appreciated. If you can't do this don't bother with the port.

1. Interface.
a.We use a keyboard and mouse. That means a point and click interface, not a
controller interface with mouse support.
b. Configuration. You tailor one look for console, and that's their only option. Well, that's not the way we do things on the PC. We configure our graphics the way we please, and if we don't want to use your unspeakably retarded "next-gen" post processing effects, you better give us that option.
c. Resolution. This has mostly been remedied but deserves mention because of its unbelievable stupidity. Don't give us five resolution to choose from. Give us an interface and engine that scales to any resolution and takes proper advantage of wide screen displays. Failure to do so is totally unacceptable.

2. Graphics. Current gen. consoles aren't as fast as our PCs, but they're still pretty fast. We don't need you to rewrite all the shaders and redo all the models, but keep in mind that we have at least 1.5GB of RAM to work with here, not 512MB. Please adjust your textures and normal map sizes for max detail accordingly. If one guy in his basement can do it, so can you. It's not like you don't have uber high res. source textures for all your assets any way. This combined with a 1920x1200 res. and 4xAA is plenty to make us feel that our expensive rigs are being properly utilized.


3. Recognize the difference between consoles and PCs. If the genre is viable on both platforms, it should not be too expensive to tweak it for both. Just realize that some differences exist and adjust the releases accordingly.

It would *really* like to see [H] do a write up on this.
 
Frostex said:
whether piracy is a large enough detriment to sales to be a real problem is unknown, the fact is the PC gaming industry is growing year by year and is showing no signs of making any less profit.

...


All open markets are saturated with more business than the public can afford to support, it's competition like just between the manufacturers that make cars, or the companies who sell you your breakfast cereal. Some go bust, others do well...what decides that is the quality of your product and your business model/plan.
Click to expand...

but i think you just missed a huge part of why piracy hurts a the free market..



the problem is, Piracy does not discriminate against the so called "good games".. If a great game comes out in the free market, it should sell proportionally as you say.. Good game makes more money, more good game is made.

But i'd almost argue that the best games are actually pirated much more.. Thus the good games don't make what they should IF piracy has a large impact (Which IMO i think piracy has much more of any impact that any wants to admit)..

If a good game doesn't make the money to show it, it goes by the way side (developer) as you state.. This is even more so for a PC SIngle player game (the easiest to pirate)..

Infact Ritual (Sin Episodes) was directly effect because of this..(although Good game is subjective, it was good enough to be pirated like crazy), the interview can be found Here.. And this was a Steam game, something many "for" piracy say will fix piracy..

and this back in 2006, how many more have discovered the torrent sites, and the free game ride? And since piracy probably is a one way street (how many people who pirate today, will not pirate this time next year? probably very few pirates stop the practice) the numbers will only get worse..

and now we see more and more developers finding out the same thing, Piracy sucks.. It sucks to put so much into your creation, only to see it stolen in the millions..

So yes, the free market should work, but game developers should close from bad games, not from a few million bad apples..
 
It entirely depends on the person, I'd argue the opposite of what you're saying is true for me and at least for some other people.

I pirate things I cannot afford, as I get older and I climb the ladder of my career I get more disposible income and I spend more on games.

Again I tend to pirate first and pay later, in this respect because I've already played the game or most of the game I'm in the perfect position to give my money to the developers who I think deserve it the most, without piracy you're left with demos and reviews which are all pretty bad ways judge how good the full game is going to be. Demos are selectively picked areas which represent the best of the game not how good the game is on average, and reviews are paid for and subjective anyhow.
 
H-street said:
Piracy sucks.. It sucks to put so much into your creation, only to see it stolen in the millions..
Click to expand...
As long as they're making a profit it shouldn't bother them. They already make plenty off of the consoles. Piracy on the PC has been going on for ages. It only got bigger because of the Internet and the growing popularity of PCs. Didn't any of them see this coming?

I've said in the past that money shouldn't be the main driving force for any field that you enjoy working in unless you're a greedy person. The entertainment industry rakes in billions of dollars a year and many people have gotten very wealthy from it. Even with piracy as rampant as it is, I don't see any company shutting its doors because of it. They'd rather waste millions of dollars on trying to prevent it, which has ultimately failed for the most part.
 
I have often wondered how much better games might be if the money wasted on failed attempts at anti-piracy was spent on polishing the game itself.
 
You guys put too much stock into what Carmack says or does. id hasn't had a true hit since Quake2. Quake3 was already considered merely "good" at the time it was released and was overshadowed by UT in terms of popularity. Team Arena was deservedly a flop. Doom 3 did not do PC gaming any favors.

There has been several closely related works that have been very important (rtcw, cod, etc), but nothing coming directly from id has in any way shaped PC gaming in the last ten years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top