How to Fix What's Wrong with PC Gaming

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I have a feeling that a lot of you are going to take issue with this article about fixing what is wrong with PC gaming. Make PCs more “console-like?” Yikes!

In many ways, the PC is the most important gaming platform on the planet. It’s the platform almost everybody has in their home. It defines videogames by pushing the technology forward more rapidly than consoles. Yet it’s also riddled with hurdles that get in the way of its greatness. Unless changes are made, we may see it becoming increasingly marginalized within the gaming industry. Here’s how to make it the baddest gaming platform around once again.
Click to expand...
 
That is one of the best articles i have read on PC gaming in a long time;

I agree on bringing the PC back to E3, as in the article, and their point about making PCs more console like is actually more spot-on, as it basically states that the GPU is the crucial component and is modular. The Point that PCs need Less messy Interfaces is great too, why do we even need to open the hood any longer on PCs to add Video Cards or other Accessories.. its an antiquated concepts that should go the way of DIP switches and Seating Pinned RAM Modules.

Living room integration is another sore point, many have HTPCs, but the MPAA/RIAA have made sure we cant have user friendly Media Jukeboxes, so that attraction is gone, along with the ability to make easy use of the gaming component of the PC for the general masses. Its way to easy to just hook up a PS3, get Netflix, Games and BD, all in one box. The PC could have dominated here.
 
IMO, PC games should inculde the one thing that has been missing for a long while now.

CO-OP!
 
not to bad, alot of what he is wishing is nothing more than a pipe dream. No way would microsoft get every company on the planet using there PC scoring system. Would be nice though.
 
People that don't know jack about PCs shouldn't write articles about PCs. That was horrid
 
DeathCloud said:
not to bad, alot of what he is wishing is nothing more than a pipe dream. No way would microsoft get every company on the planet using there PC scoring system. Would be nice though.
Click to expand...

I think the "one score" approach is unrealistic. But you could device a 2-score approach - 1 score for CPU/mem/disk and 1 for video card.

Not a bad article. His "let everyone use Steam" approach, though, contradicts the DRM part of it. There's a lot of folks mad that Civ5 is using Steam for DRM. I won't buy a game for $50 that I might not be able to play 5 years down the road due to DRM.

Steam is good, but the DRM part of it has to go. Even if they took the DRM /steam requirement off of the game later (like 2K did with Civ4...no disc required thanks to the final patch).
 
GreenMonkey said:
Steam is good, but the DRM part of it has to go.
Click to expand...
The publishers would never go for it. Publishers have even been apprehensive about Good Old Games not offering a DRM system for their 10+ year old catalogs.

Some publishers get it — most don't. These basic DRM schemes aren't going anywhere.
 
I disagree on the first section of the article. I think he's exaggerating about the whole Microsoft Game user ratings. You can't predict the future, and anyone with half a brain will know that tomorrow's games aren't as likely to play smoothly on yesterday's hardware. The ratings aren't that great to begin with, but as it is, it's more or less fine. All you can really do is keep adjusting the rating because today's Crysis score of 2.5 user rating is going to be 5.9 in a couple years (yeah right lol), and it's going to continue to change as hardware improves and because the next version of Windows isn't going to run at the same speed as the previous.
 
Nothing is wrong with the PC's game industry other then sometimes it makes games that really sucks.

Good games sell a lot, earn big bucks for companies and bad games, well, they are bad games. Why even bother to buy then?

Increase quality control, stop releasing sub-standard and unfinished titles.
 
How about the return of some good turn-based RPGs that aren't saddled down with needlessly complex combat systems or dumb side games.

That and a lot of genres just seem so much like the others. You have FPSs, then real-time RPGs that are just FPSs with stats, levels and a slightly more complex inventory system. And between those, they all seem the same.

As far as party based RPGs, they've all modeled themselves after Baldur's Gate for so long that they're starting to feel like animated novels.. Just set up the AI and watch the game play wit.. err.. by itself.

As far as strategy games are concerned, I couldn't give less of a crap.. But it seems RTS and TBS games are still around.

Maybe it's just time to bring the old classic style of defunct genres back with prettier graphics, just to break away from the blandness and banality of today's games. They've fallen into a rut.
 
This article looks like it was written by a guy who doesn't pc game and who researched everything he wrote. He basically wants upgradeable consoles to take the place of the PC. Some of his ideas are all right, most are downright stupid.
 
This article was sad and boring. I for one do not agree that there IS or ever was an error when using a PC! I think buying a new PC with an EXP Rating is better than not, but games ratings and requirements should be built up before looking to change hardware prerequisets.
 
PC gaming is so much larger of a market than people seem to think. Everyone looks at the retail sales and thinks there is a problem, when in reality, retail sales are not the driving force behind the platform, Steam and D2D type services are.

I honestly think what is "wrong" with PC gaming is the lack of dev support, shed the yoke of console oppression.

Putting the responsibility on Microsoft is trouble, they do seem to be a lot more focused on closing down the gaming platform rather than expanding upon the groundwork already laid. Closed systems tend to stifle innovation and allow devs and publishers to put less effort into their games. It's not wholly about the money they spend on making games, it is about how much thought and effort goes into them. This is not to say that there aren't any developers and publishers that do break their backs to satisfy their customer base, because there are, it just isn't the status quo. CD Projekt Red is a good example of a dev that puts the effort into what they sell.
 
He does bring up some very valid points.

Now, lets say for example a standardization of PC Hardware took place across even 1 mfg, they dubbed it the Gaming Standards PC.

It was the minimum requirements necessary to run games being developed over the next 12-18 months, and would insure your investment was solid and stable, as all games for it were guaranteed to run.

If it sold for $500, would you buy it? No, how about $300? How about $700.

Thats really the sticking point for gamers, most just want something they can sit down, plug in and fire up.

I will agree with about 90% of what he says in the article though, its all very valid points and stuff that should be heavily weighted.

Steam moving to the Mac platform is a positive thing, it gives Valve and many other companies developing around the Source engine a potentially new gateway to profit, and helps to spread the wealth around.

DRM has really hurt the PC, because developers are so hellbent on protecting their IP (and they should be, not saying they should throw it away) that many of them have turned focus away from PC Development to console development because of the DRM / Copy protection issue (not that dongling a Xbox or PS3 was impossible, but thats a moot point right).

Frankly, I haven't played a console in years, I sold my PS2 way before the PS3 came out, I think I played Wii Bowling for about 30 minutes one day, but otherwise, just not interested in most of what console gaming offers me.
 
Woah! Woah! Who said there's anything wrong with PC gaming? Besides, whatever consoles are doing, it's not something PC wants to copy. The problem with PC gaming is the same problem with console gaming, it's the industry.

#1 How much money did it cost to make a game like Call of Duty 4 compared to Sonic The Hedgehog? Games today cost too much money to make, and that means companies are afraid to take risks. Risks is what makes PC gaming. There were a lot of firsts for PC gaming because a lot of people took risks.

#2 Have developer tools evolved? I remember how using skins for Quake was amazingly easy. Nowadays it seems you have to be proficient in Maya to do something like that. The lack of easy to use tools has even killed the mod community, which created amazing games like Counter Strike.

#3 One for the money, two for the show. The greed factor went up a lot for game development companies. PCs don't get their own games because they would alienate consoles, or require half ass PC to console ports. So like Hollywood, they try to make everyone happy, which has never worked in the past. Why make better games for PCs when we can make everyone happy by programming for the lowest common denominator.
 
I have to agree, this guy really doesn't have an accurate grasp of the gaming community, the tech, or it's recent history.

PC gaming is on the up, and a big part of that is thanks to Steam and other digital download services. What caused a big hit to PC gaming actually was marketing analysts that for a while touted consoles as the big bank machine and PC as a losing cause, because of retail sales (they neglected digital sales) and pirating (which may not be the evil thing it's made out to be).

The future's PC gaming. It really is. Within 50 years there's going to be a main computer hub in every house, and everything will be linked to it. Consoles will be phased out and will transition into these networked systems. But all in all, the future is PC.
 
What I learned from this article:

Computers would be better if they were simpler, homogeneous, cheaper, prettier, and performed better all at the same time.

The most complicated game is World of Warcraft.

PC Gamers are fragmented and unable to communicate ideas about games between one another because they don't have a common service they all use.

No-one knows about Indie games.

PC Developers can't release their games on-line for free without a Publisher.

All you need to play the latest games on your Netbook is a 3D Chip.

PC's need better peripherals, because PC users love peripherals, they just don't have any good ones to choose from.
 
Many (if not most) people don't give a crap about upgrades, open platforms, DRM, or performance. They just want to play the game without hassle - which is what a console provides. Some of the guy's suggestions - such as a compulsory user experience ratings and (more) modular PCs - seemed to be an attempt at creating a middle ground that nobody cares about.

Then again, they said the same thing about netbooks so maybe he's onto something (or on something depending on who you ask).

PC gaming needs games that can take advantage of what a PC can offer - something which most publishers don't care enough about considering the multitude of console-only or multiplatform games. Otherwise gamers would rather just get the game on their XBOX/PS3/Wii because the PC version really doesn't offer anything extra. Basically, the only 'fix' for PC gaming is make more PC-exclusive games.
 
Ashbringer said:
#2 Have developer tools evolved? I remember how using skins for Quake was amazingly easy. Nowadays it seems you have to be proficient in Maya to do something like that.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. If you want to reskin a model today, you aren't just make a simple texture map: You're making a texture map, a normal map (bounced from a very high polygon source model), a specular map and perhaps one or two other surface effects maps.

To get that level of visual detail takes a lot of work and quite a bit of skill. The tools themselves are perfectly suited to accomplishing these things, but it's just a function of doing the work and, furthermore, knowing how to do it. The tools themselves are fine.
 
Azhar said:
I disagree on the first section of the article. I think he's exaggerating about the whole Microsoft Game user ratings. You can't predict the future, and anyone with half a brain will know that tomorrow's games aren't as likely to play smoothly on yesterday's hardware. The ratings aren't that great to begin with, but as it is, it's more or less fine. All you can really do is keep adjusting the rating because today's Crysis score of 2.5 user rating is going to be 5.9 in a couple years (yeah right lol), and it's going to continue to change as hardware improves and because the next version of Windows isn't going to run at the same speed as the previous.
Click to expand...
Sorry, what's the problem? If your system has a 5 rating, it would still have a 5 rating in the future. Today's games might require a 4 and future games a 6, so you know when to upgrade. As long as the benchmarks stay consistent, the numbers can just keep increasing as hardware gets better. If a new OS is more of a resource hog, a system's ratings would drop again, but a game's requirements wouldn't. It's pretty much self-levelling.

You can't just tie everything to a number, though. Certain features will require PhysX or DX11 support, for example.
 
Bill Gates wanted to get a PC into the living room for the longest time. MS never made it happen. Now they're rolling with the X360 as the living room PC but it's just not capable of being what they envisioned.

I'm guessing that the next Xbox will blur the line between PC and console even more. I'm not sure if that should excite me or scare me. Really, all I want is an HTPC to game on, which is already do-able but it does have some handicaps, most notably in that the Windows UI wasn't designed to be viewed from 6 to 10 feet away.

If MS released a secondary UI designed for TV use, I'd be more or less sold. I still feel that to game the way I want I'd need to be at a desk though. Nobody has figured out how to comfortably get a keyboard and mouse on their lap to use on the TV. Not well enough to game anyway.

All thats certain is that gaming has become big business in the last ~5 years. A move to mainstream, mass appeal games has already started and will continue on until we get rehashed crap like we do at the movie theater. Sad part is, the public will gobble it up and ask for more. I think by the time I'm old enough to see the games I like go away I won't have time for gaming anymore so I should be able to get over it.
 
TheBluePill said:
Page 1 of that Article wasnt that Great, but the rest of it is really good.
Click to expand...

It was all over the place IMO. I didn't get his rant on indie games, it's sounded like he personally had bad relations with Johnathan Blow or some other game maker. Then he goes on to suggest Steam be more like XBox Live's Indie section in that anyone can make a game and sell it. I don't know how Live's service works but we all know what happens when people can sell nothing for something, app stores are littered with who-knows-what. I can just imagine 99% of the "games" being pure junk.

His picture in the last section seems to contradict what he is saying. It's shows a guy struggling with the myriad of peripherals needed for different video games, consoles are probably the worst offenders when it comes to special peripherals. I like the PC because everything is designed with the mouse/keyboard combo in mind.

He does make some good points but it seems like he had to meet a minimum-word-count quota and the stuff he scrapes off the bottom of the barrell just drowns out the good.
 
srangara said:
Sorry, what's the problem? If your system has a 5 rating, it would still have a 5 rating in the future. Today's games might require a 4 and future games a 6, so you know when to upgrade. As long as the benchmarks stay consistent, the numbers can just keep increasing as hardware gets better. If a new OS is more of a resource hog, a system's ratings would drop again, but a game's requirements wouldn't. It's pretty much self-levelling.

You can't just tie everything to a number, though. Certain features will require PhysX or DX11 support, for example.
Click to expand...

I know. I'm saying the guy in the article was complaining that the scores are inconsistent and changes all the time. I'm saying "well no duh they change. Hardware do improve and the next version of Windows isn't likely to run the same speed as the previous version".
 
srangara said:
Sorry, what's the problem? If your system has a 5 rating, it would still have a 5 rating in the future. Today's games might require a 4 and future games a 6, so you know when to upgrade. As long as the benchmarks stay consistent, the numbers can just keep increasing as hardware gets better. If a new OS is more of a resource hog, a system's ratings would drop again, but a game's requirements wouldn't. It's pretty much self-levelling.

You can't just tie everything to a number, though. Certain features will require PhysX or DX11 support, for example.
Click to expand...

They basically couldn't do the one number thing.. ever. As the number that MS gives you is the lowest rating of any of your hardware.

Even though I have a nice RAID 0 setup, my system score is only 5.9 because that is what my drive setup scores even though the rest of my hardware is closer to the currentl;y highest available score of 7.9.

Processor 7.6
RAM 7.9
Graphics 7.4
Gaming Graphics 7.4
Primary Hard Disk 5.9


The single number system is super crap anyhow.

Even if they put one of these in ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...227517&cm_re=pci-e_ssd-_-20-227-517-_-Product ) to get rid of the stupid low hdd score, you still might need to think about other specific stuff stuch as processor, RAM, video card, hard drive space, optical drive type, sound support, input devices, etc.
 
Azhar said:
I know. I'm saying the guy in the article was complaining that the scores are inconsistent and changes all the time. I'm saying "well no duh they change. Hardware do improve and the next version of Windows isn't likely to run the same speed as the previous version".
Click to expand...
Oh, that's not what I read. He's arguing that hardware vendors shouldn't be allowed to just market their products as "Windows X Ready" without backing that up with the User Experience Rating. He's on board with the idea that "a 7 will always be better than a 6, even in 2012 when we’re all running 34s."
 
Ashbringer said:
Who said there's anything wrong with PC gaming?
Click to expand...

That's precisely what I thought too. The author is solving a problem which I don't think exists.

Also, the probability of me listening to "industry advice" from an outfit which distributes a physically printed magazine in 2010 is slim to goose egg.
 
cyclone3d said:
They basically couldn't do the one number thing.. ever. As the number that MS gives you is the lowest rating of any of your hardware.

Even though I have a nice RAID 0 setup, my system score is only 5.9 because that is what my drive setup scores even though the rest of my hardware is closer to the currentl;y highest available score of 7.9.

Processor 7.6
RAM 7.9
Graphics 7.4
Gaming Graphics 7.4
Primary Hard Disk 5.9


The single number system is super crap anyhow.

Even if they put one of these in ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...227517&cm_re=pci-e_ssd-_-20-227-517-_-Product ) to get rid of the stupid low hdd score, you still might need to think about other specific stuff stuch as processor, RAM, video card, hard drive space, optical drive type, sound support, input devices, etc.
Click to expand...
Since components can be purchased independently of the system, you would still need the individual scores, this is true.
 
Yes everyone has a pc, but most of those have a ppos intel igp which is incapable of gaming. That is the problem, oh and MS has a gaming console and wants you to use that instead.
 
The big piece that struck me about the article was the "Open up our friends list" section.
If you want to know what your friends are playing....ask them.


-"If you stop playing WoW, then you lose contact with guildmates unless you convince them to come with you to Lord of the Rings: Online."
Because you could never just give them your AIM or GTalk info... :rolleyes:

So....you want an IM system that is exactly like XBox Live?
But I don't always want all my friends lumped into one list. That's some serious cross-contamination.
There are some people I know that I don't want bugging me every time I fire up LFD2. Maybe I don't want people I met on MW2 knowing that I've put 900 hours into Dragon Age, or finding out that I play LFD2 and then suggesting that we should "totally play that together too, man!"
And I certainly don't want to be asked to play WoW while I'm immersed in Barbie Online Princess Adventure 7.


As for the rest of the article:
Leave PC gaming alone! It isn't perfect, but some of us like it fine the way it is. Those who don't like it can buy a console. They won't be missed.

(Of course some of us own consoles as well, for when we feel like slummin' it)
 
GDstew4 said:
His picture in the last section seems to contradict what he is saying. It's shows a guy struggling with the myriad of peripherals needed for different video games, consoles are probably the worst offenders when it comes to special peripherals. I like the PC because everything is designed with the mouse/keyboard combo in mind.QUOTE]

I just take that picture to mean: "Look at all this awesome stuff PCs can use!"

I agree with the article that eventually the mouse/keyboard will be replaced. Until then, however, people who don't like the combo are welcome to plug in their 360 controllers and have at it! (Or buy a Novint Falcon)
Click to expand...
 
PC Gaming is the future of gaming. Consoles are merely a transition period. Once general computing power advances sufficiently there will be no need for a console.

It's only a matter of time until it comes full circle.
 
Looks like I should have previewed my previous post after cutting down that quote. Sorry, everybody, but I'm not allowed to edit my posts. :(

Well to at least make this post worthwhile:
"Let's bring the PC back to E3"? How about "Let's bring E3 back to E3" instead?
 
phide said:
Yep, we're doin' just fine. The more 'they' try to 'fix' PC gaming, the more it ends up breaking.
Click to expand...

No kidding! Give me dedicated servers and advanced video settings or give me death!
(Though I'm willing to settle for the cessation of $60 launch prices before they gain any more traction)
 
Lith1um said:
PC Gaming is the future of gaming. Consoles are merely a transition period. Once general computing power advances sufficiently there will be no need for a console.

It's only a matter of time until it comes full circle.
Click to expand...

It really is a Cycle.

PC gaming was virtually Non-Existent in the Mid 70s (as were PCs..), then the Atari Hit and consoles ruled.. But the PC had the power advantage it was all swell through the early 80s.. then Nintendo Hit it big and the PC was relegated to RPGs, MUDS and Sims.. Then the PC poped back up with Wolfenstein and other interesting games in the late 80s/Early 90s.. The consoles were on the losing side and the PCs had FPS games and Space Sims and RTS games. and it was Swell.. Then Halo hit the Xbox and there was a rapid shift to console gaming again, the 360 and PS3 and Wii took the attention.. And now, after a few years, the PCs are again starting to take back some ground..

Its a Cycle.. But the problem is, Convergence.. 2-3 more cycles (10-15 years) down the road there wont be a PC or a Console.. It will all be in the cloud and you will just have a thin-client box you can put on any display device and that will be that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top