PC Game Installs - why aren't they more like consoles?

R

RyanLucier

Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
667
This is kind of just a random thread, but I can't help but wonder why PC's STILL have installs. PC's have dvd drives that are muuuuch faster than consoles, more ram and more performance as a whole - why is it when we put a DVD in the drive, the game doesn't just start up like a console might and pre-load in the background while we play?

To put it another way, a console might load 4 or 5 city blocks surrounding the player in GTA4, whereas a PC could easily load the entire city into memory creating a more fluid experience.

So... why do we still have bloody installs? The game could easily install itself while we play, with a short 15 second "buffer" prior to the game starting, as would be expected on a console.

Any thoughts?
 
DVD drives are pathetically slow compared to hard drives and RAM. Halo 2 did something interesting by allowing you to play while it installed, but at times the game was hard to play due to lag while installing. However, that is a great feature. I would like to see it improved and used more, but H2 is the only one that has.

Many PS3 games force installs and many 360 games run better while installed. Consoles are moving away from "pop in and play" because its not efficient. Games simply run better when they have a faster medium to load off of.
 
RyanLucier said:
This is kind of just a random thread, but I can't help but wonder why PC's STILL have installs. PC's have dvd drives that are muuuuch faster than consoles, more ram and more performance as a whole - why is it when we put a DVD in the drive, the game doesn't just start up like a console might and pre-load in the background while we play?

To put it another way, a console might load 4 or 5 city blocks surrounding the player in GTA4, whereas a PC could easily load the entire city into memory creating a more fluid experience.

So... why do we still have bloody installs? The game could easily install itself while we play, with a short 15 second "buffer" prior to the game starting, as would be expected on a console.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...


Because every PC has a different hardware and software environment.
 
Derangel said:
DVD drives are pathetically slow compared to hard drives and RAM. Halo 2 did something interesting by allowing you to play while it installed, but at times the game was hard to play due to lag while installing. However, that is a great feature. I would like to see it improved and used more, but H2 is the only one that has.

Many PS3 games force installs and many 360 games run better while installed. Consoles are moving away from "pop in and play" because its not efficient. Games simply run better when they have a faster medium to load off of.
Click to expand...

+1. The fact that streaming off an optical disk is significantly slower than running off a hard drive invariably results in significantly greater loading times and much more constrained environments. Just look at how GTA 4 had to be comprised on consoles (in terms of view distance and details) in order to get it to run at a satisfactory standard.

If given the choice, I will always install a game over trying to run it on the fly off a disk be it a console game or a pc game.
 
Fuck that jazz. It would run like shit, also changing disks, patching, config files, etc, etc. Start the install, walk away for a few minutes, come back and play.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
Fuck that jazz. It would run like shit, also changing disks, patching, config files, etc, etc. Start the install, walk away for a few minutes, come back and play.
Click to expand...

and always having to have the disk in the drive, and swapping between games....no thanks!
 
I don't want to have to play off the disc. It's a hell of a lot faster loading from the hard drive. I wish consoles (I'm hoping next gen will) allow full game installs (I know 360 already does this) with simple disc checks.
 
I prefer the install everytime. I can't stand waiting for games to load on my PS3 when I have 80GB space that could be used to speed that up.
 
Obviously everyone knows that hard drives are much faster than optical drives, but the op's point is that by and large console games can run off discs while pc games cannot and in many cases load times are not as different as one might expect.

That may be lazy porting, having to load larger, higher res textures, or simply that consoles are more efficient since they're optimized for a specific task and a specific hardware environment.
 
Reading games off of a hard drive is much faster than reading from a DVD. Also, it's no wonder consoles are trending toward PCs when it comes to installing games. Load times on consoles are pathetically slow.
 
Because consoles only have to load low res textures at low rez and within the memory footprint that they have.To load larger,higher rez stuff on a PC would choke any DVD drive going..Id much rather install and have games either running from ram or my HD.
 
i think we're all missing what the op is asking...

let me see if i have this right:

he's asking, why dont games allow you to play some introductory level or go through character setup or watch a little movie or anything interactive... while the install is going on

like one person mentioned halo 2 did... right when you put it in you were playing... and in the background, the game was installing

where as - pc games, you get a box that says install... then you sit for 20 minutes doing that... then you restart, then you defrag, etc etc

i think its a question of why are our pc game install still following the mold that they have since day 1 / with very few being more interactive - a game before a game so to speak

i remember nox on the pc had that... the installer was a story and while the files were loading you got a little background...

to the op - it is the way it is because that's how its always been... get the game installed, config it, the play

its only recently that some games with autodetect your native resolution - and many still dont do that...

i think the reason is pc's range from being barely able to run a game on the lowest settings to blowing the game out the water with all options turned past 11

and getting that to work harmoniously across all systems would be a pain for the developers...

with a console, they know exactly what you have...

with a pc, you could be running anything... any widget, any gadget, any anything that could screw with the interactive experience...

which means support calls - which means patches - which means some people wouldnt be able to play the game at all...

so, they dont worry about it... they let what works work...
 
I don't play console games so I'm used to installing. It also make using mods easier.
 
There is always that learning curve when a new game starts where it is giving you basic missions so you can understand what the game wants and how to play. i think the OP has an excellent point and these first missions should be used while the game is installing.

It took me 17 minutes to install borderlands.
 
jamhamm said:
i think we're all missing what the op is asking...

let me see if i have this right:

he's asking, why dont games allow you to play some introductory level or go through character setup or watch a little movie or anything interactive... while the install is going on

like one person mentioned halo 2 did... right when you put it in you were playing... and in the background, the game was installing

where as - pc games, you get a box that says install... then you sit for 20 minutes doing that... then you restart, then you defrag, etc etc

i think its a question of why are our pc game install still following the mold that they have since day 1 / with very few being more interactive - a game before a game so to speak

i remember nox on the pc had that... the installer was a story and while the files were loading you got a little background...

to the op - it is the way it is because that's how its always been... get the game installed, config it, the play

its only recently that some games with autodetect your native resolution - and many still dont do that...

i think the reason is pc's range from being barely able to run a game on the lowest settings to blowing the game out the water with all options turned past 11

and getting that to work harmoniously across all systems would be a pain for the developers...

with a console, they know exactly what you have...

with a pc, you could be running anything... any widget, any gadget, any anything that could screw with the interactive experience...

which means support calls - which means patches - which means some people wouldnt be able to play the game at all...

so, they dont worry about it... they let what works work...
Click to expand...

As I mentioned with bringing up the play while installing feature of Halo 2, the game was laggy at times while playing it and installing. Its a feature that needs major improvement and support and its something that won't work with games that require a ton of resources.
 
TheResidentEvil said:
There is always that learning curve when a new game starts where it is giving you basic missions so you can understand what the game wants and how to play. i think the OP has an excellent point and these first missions should be used while the game is installing.

It took me 17 minutes to install borderlands.
Click to expand...

Play Fallout 3 on the xbox, notice loading times, even when installed to the hdd. 17 minutes seems like a godsend overall compared to waiting 2-5 minutes per "zone".
 
I rather not have devs bother on something silly like that
the game shouldnt give you something to do while it installs, you're on your freaken PC already theres plenty of stuff you can already multitask with
 
We're talking about a not-insignificant amount of development resources being spent on something like this, compared to creating an Inno Setup or InstallShield installer. Resources better spent elsewhere, like making PC-specific adjustments from console ports like removing mouse acceleration, improving the GUI for PC users, addressing the widescreen implementation and so forth.

If you're using Steam, the typical install time is typically under a minute, after the content's downloaded. Since distribution of PC games is shifting toward digital, I don't expect that there's much "need", nor any real interest, in streamlining DVD-based install processes.
 
Its like riding in a car and stopping for gas. You kid asks you why your stopped and you tell him the car needs gas to move. So he points to the Sled in the back and asks we don't we use that, it doesn't needs gas.

It makes sense unless you have the bigger picture. Then the question seems a little silly.
 
phide said:
If you're using Steam, the typical install time is typically under a minute, after the content's downloaded. Since distribution of PC games is shifting toward digital, I don't expect that there's much "need", nor any real interest, in streamlining DVD-based install processes.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure you meant "digital" up above. Perhaps "download-on-demand"? Digital distribution of content has been around since the 70's... when's the last time you tried to load up an analog tape to fire up a game? :)

2.png
 
No matter How hi-tech the device - its still considered an analog delivery method if it has to be inserted into the computer through any means other than a direct digital connection. If you get really technical.
 
Tytalus said:
I'm not entirely sure you meant "digital" up above. Perhaps "download-on-demand"? Digital distribution of content has been around since the 70's...
Click to expand...
Digital distribution has always referred to distribution via download. While CDs and DVDs are digital, they are not distributed digitally.
 
Console game programmers often have to make sacrifices to make sure the game runs smoothly directly off the disk; they wouldn't have to worry so much about it if they could just assume that the game would run directly off a hard drive.

One example of this in practice: level transitions. I've noticed that a lot of games that are designed for multiple platforms have maps that are broken into smaller chunks compared to PC-exclusive games. A noticeable example would be Thief 1/2 versus Thief 3.

Developers don't have unlimited time or money. I would prefer that they spend the money to make a better game than on making something fairly trivial. What's 10 minutes for something you only have to install once?
 
Rebel44 said:
use Steam :)

Click to expand...

I used to, but then when I wanted to play UT2004 -
"This game is currently unavailable"
~Steam

Oh well, back to the old retail DVD and patches again :D .

Plus, I'd like to mention Steam defeats the whole purpose of having a SSD or Velociraptor, because it adds about 6-8 extra seconds to launching a game. Maybe I need faster internet for it but I mean just launching the game, not getting into multiplayer or anything shouldn't take way longer to launch.
 
PC installs, while the first install takes a bit after that your golden. Its been that way for many years now. If your a PC gamer your used to it. At least you don't have to swap out 6 floppys or CDs anymore. ;)

Consoles on the other hand are becoming less and less plug and play. I've gotten irritated as hell when I pop a new console game in and have to install it. Even after its installed it still has long load times between levels. Thats not why I buy consoles. I buy them for a quick bit of fun which their manufacturers have lost site of. At this point I plan on skipping the next generation of consoles after 20+ years of console/PC gaming.

Seriously if people want PC type games/graphics then buy a damn PC and PC game. If they want to play a friendly plug and play console game then get a Wii. The PS3 and 360 are nothing more than PC wannabees. I should know I have all of them......but get a PS3 for Blue Ray. ;)
 
because it costs money to develop and test that functionality and only a small percentage of the market is would use it

I'd only use it if a. I was impatient, or b. I didn't have enough harddrive space. a. is a character flaw, and b. is easily remedied for half a c-note.
 
Right, look how many PS3 games have mandatory installations just like PC games. This is especially true for many multiplatform games where the 360 runs the game without an installation just fine.

Console games are also getting bugs and along with them, patches and firmware updates to fix them. They are getting the drawbacks of PC gaming but rarely the benefits, such as mods and keyboard/mouse support. :D
 
nerdydesi said:
Right, look how many PS3 games have mandatory installations just like PC games. This is especially true for many multiplatform games where the 360 runs the game without an installation just fine.

Console games are also getting bugs and along with them, patches and firmware updates to fix them. They are getting the drawbacks of PC gaming but rarely the benefits, such as mods and keyboard/mouse support. :D
Click to expand...

I can play Unreal Tournament with keyboard + mouse on both PS2 and Dreamcast and it works great so they have that advantage there.
 
Actually, there was a time when you didn't install games, apps- hell, even operating systems to a computer. As a matter of fact, some PCs didn't have any form of hard drive at all for installing stuff. Everything came on removable media; the floppy disk comes to mind.

Nowadays, its possible to install stuff on 2/3s of the current generation of-- wait, am I seeing a trend here?
 
ZodaEX said:
I can play Unreal Tournament with keyboard + mouse on both PS2 and Dreamcast and it works great so they have that advantage there.
Click to expand...

Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3 also has keyboard/mouse support as well as mod support. I wonder why more PS3 games won't have this? Actually I don't want it as it gives the consoles more advantages over the PC. ;)
 
I think you guys are totally missing the point. The game could QUICKLY load the entire first level to the hard drive and begin playing. Unlike a console, the PC has more than enough horsepower to keep streaming data from the DVD to the HDD, while playing off of the HDD. Whereas a console is kind of one or the other, it can't install and play, whereas a PC could since PC's have considerably faster 3.5" HDD's compared to the "budget" 2.5" HDDs in consoles (you don't really think that $120 60gb xbox 360 hard drive is worth $120 do you?).

Considering it takes most Xbox 360 games 30 seconds before you actually even start "playing", and the PC is the same with all the splash screens, menu screens etc., this would give the game 30 seconds to begin copying to the HDD. 30 seconds with an average 8x DVD drive would yield 330mbytes already installed.

Even a "complex" game, such as Modern Warfare 2, probably would only need 45 seconds to load... I have a hard time believing any MW2 map has more than 500mb of compressed textures.

I just think it's because of lazy developers really... I just can't stand the 15 minute installs!!
 
And furthermore, even if the game was "laggy" for the first couple minutes as it was installing in the background, that would STILL be better than requiring me NOT to play for 15 minutes. Hell, teh developer could even have a disclaimer saying if you don't have an enthusiast PC, you probably will notice very slow performance until it's fully installed, and give them the option to install & play, or install & wait.


BTW, I've installed MANY games while playing other games waiting for the installs to finish lol, so the PC is certainly capable.
 
RyanLucier said:
I think you guys are totally missing the point. The game could QUICKLY load the entire first level to the hard drive and begin playing. Unlike a console, the PC has more than enough horsepower to keep streaming data from the DVD to the HDD, while playing off of the HDD. Whereas a console is kind of one or the other, it can't install and play, whereas a PC could since PC's have considerably faster 3.5" HDD's compared to the "budget" 2.5" HDDs in consoles (you don't really think that $120 60gb xbox 360 hard drive is worth $120 do you?).

Considering it takes most Xbox 360 games 30 seconds before you actually even start "playing", and the PC is the same with all the splash screens, menu screens etc., this would give the game 30 seconds to begin copying to the HDD. 30 seconds with an average 8x DVD drive would yield 330mbytes already installed.

Even a "complex" game, such as Modern Warfare 2, probably would only need 45 seconds to load... I have a hard time believing any MW2 map has more than 500mb of compressed textures.

I just think it's because of lazy developers really... I just can't stand the 15 minute installs!!
Click to expand...

As others have said, its not worth the time and money to develop it further. Games are god damn expensive already, lets not ask them to spend a few more million.
 
RyanLucier said:
And furthermore, even if the game was "laggy" for the first couple minutes as it was installing in the background, that would STILL be better than requiring me NOT to play for 15 minutes. Hell, teh developer could even have a disclaimer saying if you don't have an enthusiast PC, you probably will notice very slow performance until it's fully installed, and give them the option to install & play, or install & wait.


BTW, I've installed MANY games while playing other games waiting for the installs to finish lol, so the PC is certainly capable.
Click to expand...

Then play them and shut up!
/end thread
 
Back in the day, one of the rts's i was installing had an movie playing in the background, as well as various info about the units in the game. It may have been one of the red alerts or c&c games. But that was a good kill of a couple mins.
 
RyanLucier said:
I just think it's because of lazy developers really... I just can't stand the 15 minute installs!!
Click to expand...

It takes about 30 seconds to install on Steam, and almost all of that is taken up by Microsoft Direct X and Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime, or whatever games insist on installing over and over.

Why take a massive step back from Digital Distribution, to optical media anyway? We're so over that. It's the consoles that are lagging way behind in digital distribution and only because it's taken them so long to get decently sized hard drives as standard.

DVD Drives are rapidly becoming as obsolete as Floppy Drives. I can't even remember the last time I ejected the DVD-tray on my PC to be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top