Death to the PC Game
by Troy Jezeski · in General Discussion · 06/14/2001 (7:03 am) · 19 replies
Anyone else getting tired of the constant upgrading required to play the "latest" PC games? The turn-around rate for graphics cards is about a year and CPUs are 6 months. Granted you don't have to upgrade every year, but it's getting to that point in my opinion. New games keep coming out and upping the ante, forcing you to upgrade in order to get decent framerates and aesthetics from the game. And frankly, the new games are that impressive. CPU and memory prices keep dropping, but it still is costly to do an upgrade each year. I'm hoping that consoles break into the online gaming market and take control of it from the PC. The XBox probably won't do it, but perhaps the next generation after it will. With the XBox opening the door for broadband connected consoles, I can only hope. The cost of buying a new console each year is still cheaper than buying just a new graphics card (at today's prices), then you still have to throw in other upgradables. Consoles give you the option of playing with one input device from the comforts of your couch while watching your action on a wide-screen HDTV. I think there needs to be a stop to the PC upgrade situation, it needs to be throttled back some. Consoles dedicated to playing games, hopefully will do that.
I'm not anti-PC, far from it. In fact, I have a BS in CS and work as a Software Developer, so my lively-hood relies on the PC. But as a gamer, I want to see a change in status-quo.
Opinions?
I'm not anti-PC, far from it. In fact, I have a BS in CS and work as a Software Developer, so my lively-hood relies on the PC. But as a gamer, I want to see a change in status-quo.
Opinions?
About the author
#2
I've never written code for a console, but I have for the PC. Trust me you have to jump through hoops sometimes there too. There are so many different system configs, drivers, and other little nuiances to deal with. I don't think one is necessarily a better development platform than the other. They both have their Pros/Cons. I know that the PC probably will live a long life, but I would still like to see another alternative arise for online gaming. Whether it be the next-generation console or something totally different.
06/14/2001 (7:23 am)
I agree that you don't *have* to upgrade, but to get decent performance from a lot of games you do. For example, I doubt Tribes2 runs that great on your rig and if it does it doesn't look the greatest.I've never written code for a console, but I have for the PC. Trust me you have to jump through hoops sometimes there too. There are so many different system configs, drivers, and other little nuiances to deal with. I don't think one is necessarily a better development platform than the other. They both have their Pros/Cons. I know that the PC probably will live a long life, but I would still like to see another alternative arise for online gaming. Whether it be the next-generation console or something totally different.
#3
Dreamcast has Phantasy Star Online. ;-)
Consoles give you the option of playing with one input device from the comforts of your couch while watching your action on a wide-screen HDTV.
VERY few people have HDTVs. A PC's largest attraction for gaming is it's very crisp, high resolution graphics. TVs just can't compete yet - HDTVs lessen the gap, but it will be a while before they have any significant market penetration. You also know they have a keyboard, and can make use of it (rather than just special-case support in a console game).
I think there needs to be a stop to the PC upgrade situation, it needs to be throttled back some.
Well, I like that PC games are always pushing the envelope. I don't mind upgrading my machine periodically, as it's fun to play with new gadgets.
For the last 20 years it's been nothing but push push push as far as technology goes. Games mostly drive accelerator technology development - but keep in mind that games aren't what drive PC sales or technology development, it's business and personal applications. People always want to work faster, smarter and be more productive; faster and better hardware is how they get there.
Consoles dedicated to playing games, hopefully will do that.
Maybe. But everything from my Colecovision to the PS2 hasn't yet "killed" PC games.
There are so many different system configs, drivers, and other little nuiances to deal with.
Sure, it's not that fun, but it is what it is. You take the good with the bad. Consoles, while a stable platform, almost always have very limited resources. You're stuck with 64MB ram on the XBox, and much less on other consoles - GeForce and Radeon cards alone can come with 64MB (not to mention system ram). Resources is another plus for PCs.
But in the end, yea, I would love to have a stable platform for development. It's quite enticing.
06/14/2001 (4:56 pm)
With the XBox opening the door for broadband connected consoles...Dreamcast has Phantasy Star Online. ;-)
Consoles give you the option of playing with one input device from the comforts of your couch while watching your action on a wide-screen HDTV.
VERY few people have HDTVs. A PC's largest attraction for gaming is it's very crisp, high resolution graphics. TVs just can't compete yet - HDTVs lessen the gap, but it will be a while before they have any significant market penetration. You also know they have a keyboard, and can make use of it (rather than just special-case support in a console game).
I think there needs to be a stop to the PC upgrade situation, it needs to be throttled back some.
Well, I like that PC games are always pushing the envelope. I don't mind upgrading my machine periodically, as it's fun to play with new gadgets.
For the last 20 years it's been nothing but push push push as far as technology goes. Games mostly drive accelerator technology development - but keep in mind that games aren't what drive PC sales or technology development, it's business and personal applications. People always want to work faster, smarter and be more productive; faster and better hardware is how they get there.
Consoles dedicated to playing games, hopefully will do that.
Maybe. But everything from my Colecovision to the PS2 hasn't yet "killed" PC games.
There are so many different system configs, drivers, and other little nuiances to deal with.
Sure, it's not that fun, but it is what it is. You take the good with the bad. Consoles, while a stable platform, almost always have very limited resources. You're stuck with 64MB ram on the XBox, and much less on other consoles - GeForce and Radeon cards alone can come with 64MB (not to mention system ram). Resources is another plus for PCs.
But in the end, yea, I would love to have a stable platform for development. It's quite enticing.
#4
I agree that stability is good, but throwing away a machine just seems so wasetful. When you upgrade your PC, you upgrade the bits you need, and can sell the old ones. Developing for the PC I would say is easier then for a console. The basics don't change, and you have things like DirectX to handle all the different configurations. Developing for a console means learning everything about it, then forgetting it all and starting over when the next one comes out. Anyone can develop on the PC, and release freeware/shareware, but content on consoles is regulated.
Just a few resons on why there are 5 PC's in my house, yet no consoles. I enjoy games development, and I can do it for no extra cost for PC's, I wouldn't just be able to muck around with games development if I were doing it for a console, due to costs and licenses.
06/14/2001 (5:39 pm)
When the console dies, your forced to buy a new one, when your PC's out of date, you can upgrade it. The games you had for your console probably wont work with your new one, but the games you had for your PC will not only work, but chances are they'll run faster, and look nicer. 'Clasic' games for the PC are still selling now, years and years and years after they were made.I agree that stability is good, but throwing away a machine just seems so wasetful. When you upgrade your PC, you upgrade the bits you need, and can sell the old ones. Developing for the PC I would say is easier then for a console. The basics don't change, and you have things like DirectX to handle all the different configurations. Developing for a console means learning everything about it, then forgetting it all and starting over when the next one comes out. Anyone can develop on the PC, and release freeware/shareware, but content on consoles is regulated.
Just a few resons on why there are 5 PC's in my house, yet no consoles. I enjoy games development, and I can do it for no extra cost for PC's, I wouldn't just be able to muck around with games development if I were doing it for a console, due to costs and licenses.
#5
and a SNES cart slot) and it was created with the idea of giving schmoe-gamer-at-home a chance to create real console games stored on real SNES carts. The merge is coming, all we have to do is wait for it.
06/14/2001 (6:28 pm)
Wait a sec.... Sounds like some people are forgetting that PC tech is what drives the console markets. Without PCs constantly pushing the envelope, console technology would progress at a considerably slower pace. XBox, latest-greatest thing to be, and what's inside it? A GeForce3, an Intel CPU and a harddrive. Look at how consoles and PCs both are evolving, eventually they'll be one in the same. Indrema, if it hadn't died, would have been looked back on as the missing link between PCs and consoles. It ran a PC OS and had an upgradable GPU. Has anyone here besides me seen Nintendo's concepts and protos for their home game creation center they never released? It was a system designed with the consumer in mind. It looked like a PC tower with allot of proprietary hardware (a special disk drive, smart card slot, four SNES style controler ports
#6
I just started playing Quake 2 again. With a PIII and a GeForce I can turn every single option to the highest!
I think I might be digging out some other oldie but goodies!
06/14/2001 (6:47 pm)
Hmph.I just started playing Quake 2 again. With a PIII and a GeForce I can turn every single option to the highest!
I think I might be digging out some other oldie but goodies!
#7
I have an AMD700MHZ with only 96K RAM and a voodoo3 3000 -- but play tribes2 just fine. Before this last update, I had to turn some things down (the major one being the sky), but overall I am actually happy with it--and now the only causes of troubles is lag and packet loss.
The lower-end GeForce2 cards are now around $40. RAM is practically given away. So, for another $100 or so I'd have a system that pretty well could run whatever is thrown at it, and still be able to use it for word-processing (I'd hate to write a GDD on a console! LOL)and know that if I pick up a PC game it will load onto my hard drive, be able to be played, etc. Ever try putting a PS1 CD into an N64 slot? LOL... j/k, but it's nice to know that with only a few mods I can play any game on the PC market.
06/14/2001 (7:09 pm)
That's interesting, because I feel that games today DON'T push the envelope. That they are geared more toward the average computer.I have an AMD700MHZ with only 96K RAM and a voodoo3 3000 -- but play tribes2 just fine. Before this last update, I had to turn some things down (the major one being the sky), but overall I am actually happy with it--and now the only causes of troubles is lag and packet loss.
The lower-end GeForce2 cards are now around $40. RAM is practically given away. So, for another $100 or so I'd have a system that pretty well could run whatever is thrown at it, and still be able to use it for word-processing (I'd hate to write a GDD on a console! LOL)and know that if I pick up a PC game it will load onto my hard drive, be able to be played, etc. Ever try putting a PS1 CD into an N64 slot? LOL... j/k, but it's nice to know that with only a few mods I can play any game on the PC market.
#8
06/14/2001 (9:29 pm)
I used to be a huge console gamer. I remember buying a couple of systems every couple of years. Then i switched to the pc. Now i hear your saying that buying new parts for the pc is too expensive but its really not. You have to buy a $200 video card, about 256 ram which is like $60 i just bought one at crucial.com, cpu which rarely needs to be changed cause its not such a big thing in games. As for console games, if your a true console gamer you have to buy every system to be able to play all console games. This includes dreamcast, xbox, ps2, gamecube. The price $100 dreamcast, $300 xbox, $300 ps2, $200 gamecube. In total thats $900. Now that doesn't include memory cards and controllers. add a couple of hundreds for the accessaries. Now are we sure that a console is going to stay alive? nope just like the dreamcast which is pretty much taking its last breaths we dont know whats going to be good and whats not. So your paying $300 for a thing your not even sure will last a year. When u buy pc parts chances are pc gaming is not going away so u know its a good investment. Now wait like a couple of years and repeat all the console buying again. The point is a lot of people think that pc gaming is so expensive because of upgrades but they dont realize that consoles cost just as much if not more.
#9
There's my random comment of the moment LOL
06/14/2001 (10:56 pm)
If you know what brand and where to buy it you can get a GeForce3 card for less than the price of a PS2.There's my random comment of the moment LOL
#10
PC are individuals, rarely do you find two with exactly the same specs. While this can be a huge headache it is what owning a PC is all about for a lot of people. Regular upgrades are a necessity but each upgrade is usually not too costly. When your PC is getting a bit behind the times you have to turn a few options off on the latest game. When the newest console comes out you have to buy a new machine to play the latest game.
People who can't see the benefits of PCs should stick to consoles, they are simply a different type of person (these people probably also think internet computers are a good idea - which I guess they are but not to the exclusion of having your own PC). There will always be people who prefer to have their own personally configured and customised PC and for good reason.
06/14/2001 (11:57 pm)
Just felt the need to add my voice to the "Upgrading is the whole point of PCs argument". PC are individuals, rarely do you find two with exactly the same specs. While this can be a huge headache it is what owning a PC is all about for a lot of people. Regular upgrades are a necessity but each upgrade is usually not too costly. When your PC is getting a bit behind the times you have to turn a few options off on the latest game. When the newest console comes out you have to buy a new machine to play the latest game.
People who can't see the benefits of PCs should stick to consoles, they are simply a different type of person (these people probably also think internet computers are a good idea - which I guess they are but not to the exclusion of having your own PC). There will always be people who prefer to have their own personally configured and customised PC and for good reason.
#11
If you develop for the XBox, you know exactly what you have to work with.
And you know that you are limited to playing games (and now movies, maybe limited internet).
06/15/2001 (4:58 am)
The big benefit for consoles is that they are dedicated machines--at least, they used to be. Geared strictly for graphics and sound, they didn't need to have to control a dozen different items, from 12 different manufacturers.If you develop for the XBox, you know exactly what you have to work with.
And you know that you are limited to playing games (and now movies, maybe limited internet).
#12
What do you think of a machine dedicated to gaming and portable like consoles, yet have the ability to upgrade?
A PC that is stripped down to raw form for the sole purpose of playing games. A pseudo-PC with emulators that could play existing platform ROMs yet also be able to have new games developed for it. It would be nice, IMO, to merge the PC/Console together for sake of gaming. Maybe the XBox will be this I don't know, but it won't be upgradable as far as I know.
Do you think the majority of people would just say why do I need that I have a PC? The difference would be controlling the handware inside the machine. If the graphics card/processor, cpu, etc were all limited to one manufacturer then the potential for system config problems decreases significantly. Since developers know what the handware in every machine will be. Upgrades open the whole can of worms stated above though. Not sure how to stop it running rampant.
Just throwing out ideas, to see how crappy they really are :) That's the whole idea of these forums, to exchange gaming ideas and hear what others think.
06/15/2001 (6:23 am)
I agree with pretty much all that has been said here. Seems to be too many people that pick a camp and only side with them in this discussion (ie. Consoles suck, PCs rock or vice versa). Why pick one over the other? I enjoy both, however, I play games on my PC. Why? I love online games. My GameBoy Advance and PSX aren't capable of online gaming and I'm not sure that the next-gen consoles coming out in fall will be able to match the PC in online games. The thing I do like about playing games on the console, is the comfort. It's a lot more comfortable sitting on a couch kicked back with a gamepad in your hand than sitting at a computer keyboard/mouse. At least, in my opinion. What do you think of a machine dedicated to gaming and portable like consoles, yet have the ability to upgrade?
A PC that is stripped down to raw form for the sole purpose of playing games. A pseudo-PC with emulators that could play existing platform ROMs yet also be able to have new games developed for it. It would be nice, IMO, to merge the PC/Console together for sake of gaming. Maybe the XBox will be this I don't know, but it won't be upgradable as far as I know.
Do you think the majority of people would just say why do I need that I have a PC? The difference would be controlling the handware inside the machine. If the graphics card/processor, cpu, etc were all limited to one manufacturer then the potential for system config problems decreases significantly. Since developers know what the handware in every machine will be. Upgrades open the whole can of worms stated above though. Not sure how to stop it running rampant.
Just throwing out ideas, to see how crappy they really are :) That's the whole idea of these forums, to exchange gaming ideas and hear what others think.
#13
If you haven't i'll explain what happens. The Engine is designed to change itself based on the computer it's loaded on. YOu can see during play time it's changing around polygons and such to give you optimum performance. Currently noone that i know of can even think of playing smoothly on insane level (i've known people with very high end computers not be able to). My friend played it with a little below the minimum requirements, and it even looked fine. Mind you the minimum requirements is 300Mhz! Hell it requires a 8mb 3d accelerater video card but at my dad's i played it with a non 3d card! and It looked fine and went smooth. The official sacrifice site claims that they even planned on someone playing with a 3Ghz computer someday with a top noch video card, so it can get even better than can be shown on computers today.
The range of Mhz this can support is just mind-blowing and it doesn't require you to upgrade for a LOONG time! If more developers did this when designing their engines ti would make it a lot more favorable. The site even says that It's hard to guess what kind of computer the user will be using to play the game on. That is why they did this.
anyways that's my 2 cents
06/15/2001 (7:23 am)
IF more developers start coming out with engines like Shiny did in Sacrifice there wouldn't be a need to reall yupgrade all the time. How many of you played sacrifice?If you haven't i'll explain what happens. The Engine is designed to change itself based on the computer it's loaded on. YOu can see during play time it's changing around polygons and such to give you optimum performance. Currently noone that i know of can even think of playing smoothly on insane level (i've known people with very high end computers not be able to). My friend played it with a little below the minimum requirements, and it even looked fine. Mind you the minimum requirements is 300Mhz! Hell it requires a 8mb 3d accelerater video card but at my dad's i played it with a non 3d card! and It looked fine and went smooth. The official sacrifice site claims that they even planned on someone playing with a 3Ghz computer someday with a top noch video card, so it can get even better than can be shown on computers today.
The range of Mhz this can support is just mind-blowing and it doesn't require you to upgrade for a LOONG time! If more developers did this when designing their engines ti would make it a lot more favorable. The site even says that It's hard to guess what kind of computer the user will be using to play the game on. That is why they did this.
anyways that's my 2 cents
#14
Not to mention, you can't create custom content for your console games. I find it odd that to find someone with the "I'm sick of the PC" attitude on a web site dedicated to game development. Games are developed on PCs!
PC gaming is not supposed to be cheap. But you're not supposed to buy a PC JUST to play games, either.
As for the 6 month thing, that's just silly. Everything in my PC is at LEAST a year old and I can run any released game, and most games at 1024x768x32 at 60fps. In fact my motherboard will turn 2 in another couple months. (I have a P3-700, a BP6, and a GF2 GTS, if you were wondering) I admit it is upgrading time for me right now, but I'm upgrading mostly to do other things, as this system is plenty fast for games.
06/15/2001 (11:21 am)
Consoles won't have multiplayer gaming like the PC does until the console makers push for it hard. It's pretty obvious at this point that that is not happening with the Xbox, PS2, or Gamecube. Which means waiting another 5 years for the next wave of consoles. And even if they do make a big push with the next wave of consoles, it's not like a huge online community is going to pop in out of thin air. Give that entire generation to catch hold. I will estimate consoles will not have online gaming even remotely comparable to the PC for at least 10 years.Not to mention, you can't create custom content for your console games. I find it odd that to find someone with the "I'm sick of the PC" attitude on a web site dedicated to game development. Games are developed on PCs!
PC gaming is not supposed to be cheap. But you're not supposed to buy a PC JUST to play games, either.
As for the 6 month thing, that's just silly. Everything in my PC is at LEAST a year old and I can run any released game, and most games at 1024x768x32 at 60fps. In fact my motherboard will turn 2 in another couple months. (I have a P3-700, a BP6, and a GF2 GTS, if you were wondering) I admit it is upgrading time for me right now, but I'm upgrading mostly to do other things, as this system is plenty fast for games.
#15
Whatever the future holds, I will play the games I want to play regardless of platform.
06/15/2001 (12:29 pm)
I never said I was "sick of PCs". I was just throwing ideas out there to see what the consensus was. Also, the turnaround rates I listed are facts: new spec graphic cards come out about every 12 months and CPUs about every 6 months. I never said you personally have to upgrade everytime a new product comes out, I was just listing an example of how the industry keeps churning this stuff out. I've been writing code probably as long as you have been alive, I know the value of a PC and never claimed to be anti-PC or pro-console (if such a classification exists). I was trying to get a feel if people think the future consoles will supplant the PC as an online gaming machine due to the reasons I cited above. The online market already exists contrary to your statement that it doesn't. Look at the subscription numbers for online games that currently exist. Whatever the future holds, I will play the games I want to play regardless of platform.
#16
8gb harddisk, ha... haha..
64mb of total mem, thats whats on my old pentium from '96,
733mhz cpu.. ok for today, but hey, already 1ghz behind pc's,
games, what? #65 US?
s'like an old computer.. No thanks.
06/15/2001 (12:43 pm)
The X-Box,8gb harddisk, ha... haha..
64mb of total mem, thats whats on my old pentium from '96,
733mhz cpu.. ok for today, but hey, already 1ghz behind pc's,
games, what? #65 US?
s'like an old computer.. No thanks.
#17
If you're still using anything below a 500mhz/geforce 1 machine then it is pretty old. The 300mhz processor was first released when, '97? I don't know as I didn't have a computer back in '97, but in that case you've got a machine that's four years old. The consoles from back then are upgrading to the next gen consoles, so you should expect to have to upgrade the PC in that time too. And as allready said you can't go back and play old games on most systems (PS2 being the exception), and some games only come out for a certain console.
If anything games should be requiring more power then they are now, there is hardware out there capable of pretty damned good graphics, I'd like some games to come out that use that power before it is replaced by the next. Unfortunatly if you do that you get into the debacle of people complaining that it won't run on their 300mhz/voodoo 2 system, and as we've seen with the release of Tribes 2 there are alot of them.
06/15/2001 (1:11 pm)
For games you don't need to upgrade the processor much at all, the current bottleneck is the graphics card (Geforce 2 GTS) which will only go to 120fps I believe. I have Athlon 800/geforce 1/128mb ram and it runs all games I've tried on it perfectly, Tribes 2 and operation flashpoint being the most graphics intensive. This is a system I got July 2000, when the Geforce 2 was allready out. To upgrade to more graphics intensive games all I need to get is a geforce 3, or whatever the best card out when I need to upgrade is, and I won't be needing that for a good while yet.If you're still using anything below a 500mhz/geforce 1 machine then it is pretty old. The 300mhz processor was first released when, '97? I don't know as I didn't have a computer back in '97, but in that case you've got a machine that's four years old. The consoles from back then are upgrading to the next gen consoles, so you should expect to have to upgrade the PC in that time too. And as allready said you can't go back and play old games on most systems (PS2 being the exception), and some games only come out for a certain console.
If anything games should be requiring more power then they are now, there is hardware out there capable of pretty damned good graphics, I'd like some games to come out that use that power before it is replaced by the next. Unfortunatly if you do that you get into the debacle of people complaining that it won't run on their 300mhz/voodoo 2 system, and as we've seen with the release of Tribes 2 there are alot of them.
#18
06/15/2001 (4:48 pm)
Another significant bottleneck is fill-rate. System bandwidth isn't great enough yet - usually, either the card or the CPU isn't at full capacity.
#19
06/15/2001 (6:04 pm)
hehe I still play Counterstrike on my p1 200mmx with 256mb ram and savage4. I get 50-60fps! 
Torque Owner Ryan J. Parker
I wouldn't want PC gaming to die out even if that was the case. You sure can have lots of multi-player fun. I feel it's actually a benefit to be gaming on a PC vs. a console. If you do want it to run faster, or do something it won't do with your current setup, then you have the choice to upgrade. You don't have to wait until the next generation of the console for a better version. Developers and gamers alike are hindered when developing for/playing on console systems. Anyway, that's another topic ;-).
Ryan J. Parker
rjp@awingsoftware.com
Awing Software, LLC