Czechmate
05-13-2005, 01:15 PM
This is the next unedited Technicalities column (for the August 2005 issue of Computer Games Magazine). They usually don't edit me too much at all, so this may be 98% of what makes it to print. I'm posting it so you can see that I'm fighting the good fight, damnit. :P
~Czech
____________________________________
The Lowest Common Denominator
By Kevin Rice
Tagline:
The PC is dead! Long live the PC!
Body:
Microsoft has just announced their new console, the Xbox 360, on MTV. At E3, we'll most likely get a lot more information concerning not only Microsoft's next console, but also Sony's PS3 and Nintendo's Revolution. With each new generation of consoles comes another round of the dead PC market. It's true that PC game sales have been lagging a little while console game sales have been gaining momentum, there are a few things to remember here.
First, this next wave of consoles is promising all sorts of multimedia functionality. They want you to browse the Web, play (and rip) music, download content, and more, all from the comfort of your couch. There's not already a machine that does this, is there? While the extra functionality of the consoles will be nice, they are designed to do one thing: create new revenue streams.
Microsoft has already discussed "micro-charges" where, for miniscule fees, players can download, say, new skins for their console, new weapons or abilities for game characters, and so on. This will most likely work like a pre-paid phone card: You'll deposit $20 into an account and then, for 35 cents here and 25 cents there, you can get these tweaks. Get 10 million users spending $20 or more, and you can begin to see the revenue stream. On a PC, we call this modding, and it's free. Yes, you can go to places like IGE and purchase virtual goods for not-so-virtual cash, but a little elbow grease is always more satisfying.
Additionally, people point to the graphics on consoles, especially when a console first arrives (or is first publicly demonstrated). "Wow, my PC could never do that!" Lower your resolution to 640x480, and I bet it will. Of course, some games are designed to run on an HDTV, getting resolutions as high as 1080x760 or so. Now, go spend $2000 on the TV that will do that. The perception that a $300 console will handle what a $1500 PC can do goes right out the window.
Microsoft went as far as to point out some first person shooter games that were exclusive to their system. There's no such thing as an FPS game on a console that can control like the same FPS on a computer with a mouse and keyboard. Oh, and I'll run my Call of Duty 2 at 1600x1200, thank you. In fact, Halo on the PC was infinitely more fun than the clumsy, slow gamepad controls of its console cousin. I'm not saying FPS games on a console are not fun, but for some genres, there's just no valid comparison to a PC.
At issue here is not whether or not console games are fun – they are. The bigger issue is that console developers have a single set of hardware on which to work. Notice how games later in a console's lifetime are much better than the release titles? (Do you want to play Ridge Racer 5 or Burnout 3?) As the developers become more and more familiar with the consoles, more and more tricks are exposed, and more exploits for each console's unique structure are discovered. On a PC, there's no such consistency. Essentially, PC game developers have to develop for the lowest common denominator.
Some games scale better than others. Half-Life 2, for example, will play on relatively old hardware without too much of a hitch. Far Cry, on the other hand, struggles on anything more than a year or two old. In contrast, consoles seem to get better with age. That illusion is the developers maturing with the console. When the PS2 was released in October of 2000 (and I waited in line 23 hours in front of the Sony Metreon for one), it was the death of the PC. The graphics were simply unprecedented at the time, unless you had a very high-end system (for the year 2000 that is). Now, as good as the games are for the consoles, there's no comparison. While the consoles stagnate for five years, PCs continue to evolve, getting better and better. Consoles do not have this luxury.
So what can the dedicated PC game player do about this? A few months ago, I published a piece in this column about how to upgrade for around $500. If you're skimping along on something from four years ago, upgrade. For the last few CPLs, NVIDIA has been handing out t-shirts to anyone willing to fill out a short survey saying what hardware they have. This information is potentially used to help developer determine the lowest common denominator. Since PC game sales have to hit as broad an audience as possible, the higher that bar can be set, the better the games become.
And finally, stop the pirating or "borrowing from a friend" thing. Nearly every major PC game has a demo of some sort, and it should be used as your basis for a purchasing decision (as should our reviews). This won't make everything better, but the more a developer can assume that the Average Joe will be able to play their games on a decent system, the higher the bar goes. The faster that the PC can eclipse the next crop of consoles in performance, graphics, and connectivity, the better off the PC game industry is. And, the faster that happens, the quicker the console fan boys stop fanning the "PCs are dead" flames.
~Czech
____________________________________
The Lowest Common Denominator
By Kevin Rice
Tagline:
The PC is dead! Long live the PC!
Body:
Microsoft has just announced their new console, the Xbox 360, on MTV. At E3, we'll most likely get a lot more information concerning not only Microsoft's next console, but also Sony's PS3 and Nintendo's Revolution. With each new generation of consoles comes another round of the dead PC market. It's true that PC game sales have been lagging a little while console game sales have been gaining momentum, there are a few things to remember here.
First, this next wave of consoles is promising all sorts of multimedia functionality. They want you to browse the Web, play (and rip) music, download content, and more, all from the comfort of your couch. There's not already a machine that does this, is there? While the extra functionality of the consoles will be nice, they are designed to do one thing: create new revenue streams.
Microsoft has already discussed "micro-charges" where, for miniscule fees, players can download, say, new skins for their console, new weapons or abilities for game characters, and so on. This will most likely work like a pre-paid phone card: You'll deposit $20 into an account and then, for 35 cents here and 25 cents there, you can get these tweaks. Get 10 million users spending $20 or more, and you can begin to see the revenue stream. On a PC, we call this modding, and it's free. Yes, you can go to places like IGE and purchase virtual goods for not-so-virtual cash, but a little elbow grease is always more satisfying.
Additionally, people point to the graphics on consoles, especially when a console first arrives (or is first publicly demonstrated). "Wow, my PC could never do that!" Lower your resolution to 640x480, and I bet it will. Of course, some games are designed to run on an HDTV, getting resolutions as high as 1080x760 or so. Now, go spend $2000 on the TV that will do that. The perception that a $300 console will handle what a $1500 PC can do goes right out the window.
Microsoft went as far as to point out some first person shooter games that were exclusive to their system. There's no such thing as an FPS game on a console that can control like the same FPS on a computer with a mouse and keyboard. Oh, and I'll run my Call of Duty 2 at 1600x1200, thank you. In fact, Halo on the PC was infinitely more fun than the clumsy, slow gamepad controls of its console cousin. I'm not saying FPS games on a console are not fun, but for some genres, there's just no valid comparison to a PC.
At issue here is not whether or not console games are fun – they are. The bigger issue is that console developers have a single set of hardware on which to work. Notice how games later in a console's lifetime are much better than the release titles? (Do you want to play Ridge Racer 5 or Burnout 3?) As the developers become more and more familiar with the consoles, more and more tricks are exposed, and more exploits for each console's unique structure are discovered. On a PC, there's no such consistency. Essentially, PC game developers have to develop for the lowest common denominator.
Some games scale better than others. Half-Life 2, for example, will play on relatively old hardware without too much of a hitch. Far Cry, on the other hand, struggles on anything more than a year or two old. In contrast, consoles seem to get better with age. That illusion is the developers maturing with the console. When the PS2 was released in October of 2000 (and I waited in line 23 hours in front of the Sony Metreon for one), it was the death of the PC. The graphics were simply unprecedented at the time, unless you had a very high-end system (for the year 2000 that is). Now, as good as the games are for the consoles, there's no comparison. While the consoles stagnate for five years, PCs continue to evolve, getting better and better. Consoles do not have this luxury.
So what can the dedicated PC game player do about this? A few months ago, I published a piece in this column about how to upgrade for around $500. If you're skimping along on something from four years ago, upgrade. For the last few CPLs, NVIDIA has been handing out t-shirts to anyone willing to fill out a short survey saying what hardware they have. This information is potentially used to help developer determine the lowest common denominator. Since PC game sales have to hit as broad an audience as possible, the higher that bar can be set, the better the games become.
And finally, stop the pirating or "borrowing from a friend" thing. Nearly every major PC game has a demo of some sort, and it should be used as your basis for a purchasing decision (as should our reviews). This won't make everything better, but the more a developer can assume that the Average Joe will be able to play their games on a decent system, the higher the bar goes. The faster that the PC can eclipse the next crop of consoles in performance, graphics, and connectivity, the better off the PC game industry is. And, the faster that happens, the quicker the console fan boys stop fanning the "PCs are dead" flames.