Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 27 Nov 2012.
It might be the opposite really. It's getting to a point where you can do so much with the computing power of those things, that there's not that much incentive to upgrade.
Quite the opposite actually - PC gaming is having a bit of a renaissance at the moment because developers are building ever more expansive and complex games that must be severely scaled-back to run acceptably on the old hardware of consoles. Even close-to-metal optimisations aren't enough to make up the gap in performance. The next generation cannot come soon enough.
It's time to return to the old gaming scheme ... games for console ... and games for PCs. They should really stop all those cheap port and start to think the games for console only or PC only. This would be better for both platform.
agreed but for clarification does you PC bracket also include OSX and Linux?
I think that would be nice
That would be awesome, but it's unfortunatly unlikely to happen ... unless devs make a huge move to openGL and crossplateform I/O, sound, network libs ... instead of Dx.
Yes but when the ps3 came out, games companies moaned about the big differences in architecture between ps2 and ps3 and consequently between xbox 360 and ps3, leading to most studios using the xbox360 as benchmark and not using the full power of the gpu and cell processor in the ps3 for a couple years because of PC/xbox specs.
For this guy to have what he wants he would have to also request consoles to use similar architecture so games engines and studios can catch up easily.
Per example think on how long it took gran tourism 5 to be released because they wanted to explore the limits of the ps3.
Its easier for pc games to overtake consoles in time, since the architecture and legacy is not a big issue, games companies just need to assume what is the average PC, allow some sub specs to run and attempt to show whats possible with good machines, to sell as many copies as possible, and usually it is easier to extend the games engines used by the companies. If the architecture changes (even if it uses the an opengl specification) changes have to be made in compilers and game engines to adapt, all this takes time and costs a lot of money.
How is it that it's harder for new IP's and generating revenue the longer a console cycle lasts? I would have thought the larger install base, familiarity with the tools/technology and wide range of people with skills on the systems would make it easier over time.
Seems weird to me. Contrasting with a new console launch, even launch window games with very little competition could only expect to see a million (potential) customers in the early stages as the install base grows. Meaning your attachment ratio would have to be extremely high compared with consoles which have 50 odd million units sold. Hell, make it multiplatform and that could be 100 million!
I have none of the facts and don't work in the industry so I'm not saying he's wrong. I just find it very weird.
In other news....
Ubisoft chief executive Yves Guillemot says: "I always use the word 'less' when I should use the word 'fewer', it makes me feel alive."
which may happen. Apple sales are on the up, Valve is pushing linux and Windows 8 is forcing users to rethink.
Indie's tend to prove that it is viable. Some big title were cross-platform (Unreal, Quake, Doom, etc.) ... but the game industry is driven by profits. I don't see the big studio investing time and money to rewrite their engines for "a niche market". I'm a Linux user, but have windows installed only for games, that's the sad reality.
I have Windows installed for Games too. And Photoshop. And Wavelab. And Première. And Illustrator. And Lightroom.
Oh heck, that's quite a lot of things I "can't" run on Linux :/ Browsers are just about the only thing I would have no learning curve if I wanted to run Linux as my main OS. It's still got a LOOOOOONG way to go as a desktop OS in my opinion.
All that said, I think it's great that Some big players like Valve are starting to make a push into gaming on Linux, as that might encourage the hardware manufacturers to do decent drivers for Linux, at which point one of the major stumbling blocks for Linux as a Desktop OS becomes much improved. Also, it never hurts for MS to feel pressured – if they start making better software because of this, we all end up winning.
Maya (just to mention one professionnal software) is available for Linux, and works better than on windows ... the issue doesn't come from Linux itself, but from sofware makers.
Now it's a matter of what you use. Many software were only available on Macintosh (Quark express, Finale, etc.) .... when it got ported on Windows, almost everyone users moved to PCs, because the platform is cheaper.
The only professionnal software I use is Maya, and it is available on Linux ... so windows is only their for games now.
The only way that the cycles could be shorter is if the consoles adopt a COTS approach instead of creating a custom solution. It is the custom solution that is the reason the development costs were so high and needed to be recovered through licencing fees on top of the console costs, and why the manufacturers have left the next generation for so long.
The only viable COTS solution is an x86 one, seeing as modifying an expensive and low volume COTS platform (PowerPC) has locked them into a long cycle.
256MB RAM + 256MB VRAM,GeForce 7800 GTX-like performance in PS3, 512MB shared RAM and Radeon X1800-like performance in XBOX360... Cell was good only for limited types of F@H tasks (same as the GPU client) etc etc.
Sorry, but when developers have to scale back to 480p/30FPS for their games to actually run, then it is clear that these consoles have anything but enough computing power. They are already underpowered for last 2-3 years.
You only have to look at the difference between the XBox 360 version and the PC version of Far Cry 3.
The console version is very pretty. Until you see the PC version, then the XBox version looks crap.
Some people really can make any story about Linux here...
This is a nice OS .... with bad support from software makers and hardware builder (driver). An OS success is mainly driven by the softwares running on it. It's like consoles, they cannot be a success without lots of good games.
Some studios made the effort to port their soft on Linux (Maya, XSI, etc.) ... but many didn't.
my bad for bringing it up in this article!
Separate names with a comma.