Gaming The PC Gaming Alliance Interview

I expected comments like these after I read the article.... because that's also how I felt.

I feel the same

 

With Microsoft on a big push for PC gaming (no really they are) and PCGA at the helm promoting the platform what could possibly go wrong?

 

It would be cool if you purchased a console game, stuck the disc in your Pc and paid a 5er or so and got access to the full downloadable PC version via Steam or something.

Also System requirements should go off a grading system... maybe some sort of letter or code for processors and GPUs for minimums yet still have the full boar for reccomended.

 

@mpr Portal 2 on PS3 unlocks the PC/Mac version in your steam account for free. That's a first step in a direction I didn't think would ever occur. The pessimist in me just thinks that that is just Valve getting more people onto their platform, but I don't mind, steam is my primary platform anyway.

On topic, agree with the rest of the posts. I hope the PCGA eventually does something useful but right now I just see them as all talk. Hopefully with the more transparency this new president is promising they won't seem as useless. Also, screw Epic games.

 

Valve, one of the few developers that has stood by PC gaming, are conspicuous by their absence.

 

Agreed.

 

Bit-tech: So what you done for us
PCGA: Well heres some numbers
Bit-tech: Did you help with simplifying required game specs?
PCGA: Nope, Microsoft are doing that.
Bit-tech: Any last words?
PCGA: I like the word ecosystem.

 

@Mentai: One of the reasons that I've heard for Valve offering the Mac & PC copies of Portal 2 with the PS3 is simply to stop second-hand sales. If your game's registered to your Steam account there's no way you could sell it on, the same as if you'd bought it on PC. Microsoft have GFW, so they probably rejected it on the grounds that they would be giving their potential PC customers over to Valve.

I just hope Portal 2 is cheaper on PC. If it's the same price as consoles I'll definitely be annoyed.

 

meh, an ingenious way of profitting from the pc gaming industry without actually developing a product or doing anything worthwhile.

 

EA has bought the web site domain CampaignforPCGaming.com................ must be more behind this stuff than meets the eye.......

 

How is this NOT multi-platform releases? How can you say you're dedicated to supporting PC gaming when you're "perfect world" is limited to the platform with the slowest hardware? This guy's not talking about protecting PC gaming, he's pushing the industry's DRM infested multi-platform model and blaming it on piracy as usual.

You, sir, are a lying sack of crap.

As much as I hate to get into the "us vs. them" mindset, at some point you either have the gamer's best interests at heart, or the industry's. The two don't seem to align very well. At $35k a crack, I think it's pretty clear who's interests the "PCGA" has at heart.

 

This article set me thinking a bit and one possible way forward for gaming in future might be a dedicated gaming operating system -- lets call it GOS, for short. The key features are as follows:

1. GOS must be readily available for manufacturers or consumers to adopt. It doesn't need to be open source, necessarily, but it can't be a walled garden like a console OS.

2. GOS is only for running games -- no bells and whistles.

3. Because it is stripped down to bare essentials, GOS can run virtually on top of another OS or directly on hardware.

4. GOS comes in a variety of flavours that are defined by enforced minimum hardware requirements -- e.g. GOS Level 3 might only require a single core processor at 3.0Ghz, GOS Level 8 might require a quad core processor.

5. Games written for GOS can incorporate a range of different features, e.g. levels of texture quality or complexity of AI, that are selected in accordance with the Level of the GOS they are running on -- the same way that a website has a range of different versions to react to different browsers and resolutions.

6. Games may also be locked to only operate on a given GOS Level or if the GOS is running on specific hardware.

The consequences would be as follows:

1. Consumers can install GOS over their regular windows or linux installation and game on their regular PC with as high a level as they can manage, or they could dual boot.

2. Manufacturers can build dedicated all in one boxes (i.e. consoles) that run a specific GOS Level, either alone or parallel with a proprietory OS.

3. Console manufacturers can use GOS and still have some games that are locked to that specific console hardware. So console exclusives are still possible.

4. Buying games is simply a matter of checking that your set up meets the minimum GOS Level. In practice, a given generation of consoles are likely to operate on the same GOS Level, while PC gamers will be moving up to the next GOS Level as fast as they can afford the hardware.

5. Developers have a much easier and cheaper time developing for multiple platforms. The same game may provide an awesome PC gaming experience on an up to date PC with GOS Level 8 while also providing an adequate console experience on a console running GOS Level 4. So they can spend more money on each game, by saving money on ports.

6. Best of all, console manufacturers have an incentive to encourage developers to include functionality for higher GOS Levels -- because when they come to push their next generation of consoles, a selling point is that existing games will suddenly look that much better. The console cycle is also speeded up because it is cheaper, quicker and less risky to develop a slightly upgraded console that moves up one or two GOS Levels than to develop a whole new top spec platform every five or six years.

The only question is who could take the lead in this sort of endeavour? PCGA? After all, it does involve numbers.

jhng

 

PCGA seems like a great way for companies who make money from consoles to keep an eye on PC gaming and make sure it doesn't do anything that threatens that.

Still, there's one good thing from this: he's the first person in the industry I've heard to who has come out and said "Second hand console games are as big a problem as piracy." Which is 100% true. It's just that no one's been willing to tangle with the huge game store companies. Since EB et al have all ignored PC games, I suppose the PCGA has nothing to lose. What, EB's going to bust PC games' shelf space down from six square inches to three?

 

I recommend you check out the thread at http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=193253 , where we discuss the issue of second-hand games and why they are not a problem in quite a lot of detail.

 

I don't think they should be, either. But since second hand games have the exact same effect as piracy (owner of the IP doesn't earn any money from the sale of a second hand game,) I don't see why more people aren't up in arms, either.

If IP creators/owners don't get reimbursed, it's piracy. What's worse, in my opinion, is that someone else is profiting off that IP.

 

A game is a commodity, the person who bought it has the rights to use it and can transfer those rights by selling the game. There is absolutely no reason a product developer should have any right to be paid more than once per copy. Piracy is different because there is more than one copy being produced and so the developer is not getting paid once per game as in the case of re-sale.

On a totally different topic, One of the things the PCGA claims to be doing is "funding research to prove that...". The point of research is not to prove a pre-determined point but rather to discover what the truth is. This kind of faux research detracts the value of real research and makes it harder to argue on the basis of facts when those facts are suspect.

likewise as has been pointed out before,m the companies that actually make games for PCs (Blizzard, Valve) are not part of this. I suspect that this is because they rightly believe that the PCGA is not serving the interests of PC gamers.

The more I think about this the less I like this organization.

 

Do please read the thread, as we explain in detail why it is not the same as piracy and why it actually helps the industry.

In a nutshell, the ability to sell a product on and recover some of the money spent on it increases the value of the product to the customer and decreases the risk. Eg. I will preorder the iPad 2 because I know that if I am not happy with it I can sell it on and recoup most of the money I spent on it. If that was not the case I wouldn't even consider it.

Moreover, the ability to sell an item on once you have finished with it allows consumers to recover some of their costs and gives them more money to spend on new products.

 

Depending on how much faith you have in your applicable legal system that may or may not be true. EULAs are still contended in the US.

The Devil's Advocate in me would like to warn you about a fatal flaw in your statement, as well. You give an exception to subscription MMOs. Consider for a moment Ubisoft's ill-fated always-online DRM. Notice the similarities? Make the game do nothing without an account, then charge for an account. Look at Steam, a simple rephrasing of their terms of use and Valve's safe. All a publisher has to do is drop the EULA and change what they're selling.

 

Just to echo others who question Epic's place in the PCGA..

Bulletstorm, co-developed by People Can Fly and Epic Games, described at one point as an amazing 'PC Game' by Mark Rein of Epic; is getting demos on PS3 and X360, but no PC demo.

Proof that the PCGA is nothing but a pile of reeking ******** lip-service.

Not that we actually needed proof anyway, especially in light of the non-answers given in this interview.

 

Great article!!!