Don't worry, I swear I don't have a flaming digital arrow nocked and aimed at PC gaming's hypersensitive heart. Insert stuff about me loving my PC and PC games (yada yada) here. It's just that this morning, I was reading an interview with Unreal creator Tim Sweeney (the one-time "alternative" John Carmack) over at TG Daily and it got me thinking about how increasingly backwards the traditional PC games industry looks. Backwards, because at least in terms of the way it's covered by the press and marketed by its purveyors, it's weirdly front-loaded.
Front-loaded, because...
...the majority of PC games media coverage is enthusiast-oriented, e.g. male and niche focused, despite more PC gamers being statistically casual and female. In the old days when almost no one had a PC, it made sense -- PCs along with PC gamers were certainly niche. But anymore, finding representative press coverage of PC gaming is like looking for general entertainment news, e.g. Entertainment Weekly or People when all you can find on the shelf are copies of Cinefex.
...that coverage almost universally presents new games in a way that trumpets the futurist aspects -- still largely visually-focused -- that only a fraction of the actual PC gaming populace will ever functionally experience on their median-grade PC.
Consider Sweeney's response to the cost of "stunningly expensive gaming rigs":
There are many overpriced computers out there. It's like sports cars. They are everywhere, everybody writes about them, but there are only a few who can afford them. There isn't a great amount of people that will spend large amounts of money on that. In the case of PCs, they mostly don't deliver that amount of performance that you would expect to justify that cost. You pay twice as much money for 30% more performance... That is just not right.
And here, as they say, lies the rub. Sweeney's right, but he's also missing a crucial point.
He's right in that the cost of the PC hardware necessary to run a game like Crysis smoothly at the level of detail with which it's been shamelessly marketed really is preposterous. To this day, a tiny fraction of the total PC gaming populace has played Crysis at anywhere near detail settings worthy of the hype that game engendered for over a year courtesy developer Crytek, publisher Electronic Arts, and just about every game media site wiling to drool in tandem. Scan any related games forum right now, and you'll see that most people still haven't experienced the Crysis we saw in preview videos and montages slathered everywhere leading up to its release, and unless that majority revisits it in a year or two with new hardware eyes, they probably never will. In summary, the disconnect between median gamers and cost-to-do-business at a level that fulfills the marketing hype is horribly, deleteriously broken.
The critical point Sweeney misses, in my opinion, lies with the way game developers approach and/or intellectually subsidize game-oriented PC hardware cycles. Let's talk tough truths here. First-tier game developers like Sweeney tend to treat game design like it's the world's tallest mountain and hey-get-out-of-my-way, they just have to climb the thing...until the next tallest mountain comes along, at which point they do it all over again. That's all well and good in an experimental physics lab, or somewhere like NASA, but in the consumer market, if your end product only looks like you intended it to on a handful of PCs at time of release, what have you really accomplished? You may have designed the world's most efficient light-rendering path or plugged it into a game that looks better than a Pixar movie rendering in realtime, but it's like the tree in the forest: if virtually no one can play it at its hyped and marketed level -- and note the marketing aspect is key here -- did it even really come out?
Sweeney adds that "Intel?s integrated graphics just don't work...I don't think they will ever work." Well sure, they don't work if you're Tim Sweeney and always hell-bent on making games like Unreal that turn GPUs into whimpering puddles of molten silicon. Those sorts of games are always fun to read about in a preview or to watch in a trailer, but when it's time for the rubber to meet the road, most people don't have the tire tread to even register.
You look at consoles, by comparison, and they lock in a certain level of hardware for a sustained period. Consoles force developers to be innovative with the tools they have, to compete on a more or less level playing field with their peers. Consoles instantly equalize gamers -- no more nerdy hardware envy. And guess what: consoles are pretty much PCs in terms of their internal components. We just call them consoles as a point of reference. They're really just "locked-in" computers, and judging by international sales figures, all that adds up to "way more appealing" to the average generalist gamer.
Developers need to stop looking at the PC as an infinitely scalable platform, and publishers need to to stop selling us games we can't play...at least not the way they're marketed.
Final note: To anyone who thinks I'm just making an argument for dumber games in terms of embracing the growing casual PC games element, I'd say firstly that -- sorry to break it to you -- "mass appeal" is a factor in any growth industry, and second, that you need to also make absolutely certain that you're not mistaking complexity (of whatever sort) for intelligence and depth. Some of the smartest, most artistic, most enjoyable games I played in 2007 were in fact casual indies from studios with shoestring budgets.
Replay
Agree? Disagree? Have your say below in comments, visit Wake the Happy Words for expanded dialogue, or pelt me with emails here.
Right on! The obsessive, hardware-hungry march of game technology has gotten a bit out of hand and most likely is driving people toward consoles. Say what you want, but to MOST people (and if you are reading this you most likely aren't in that category) are simply afraid of opening their computer to change memory much less upgrade video cards or other hardware (look at Geek Squad and their "services", enough said). Also most people would rather spend $300-$400 on a console that will just work with any you get for say, 3-4 years instead of spending that money on video cards that may/may not run games at full res for a year or two max... I personally love all the hand-winging about how disappointing the sales for Crysis are, what do you expect when you release a game designed to run on hardware that doesn't exist? I know there is also a reason for scalable resolutions but before you say it ask yourself, when was the last time you bought a game to run it on minimum settings?
*agree* *agree* *standing ovation* *agree* *agree* YAY!!! the point is across, but sadly..... no one cares.... the hardcore PC gamers will say "good luck in a couple of years when your console is outdated" and they will stick with their PC's. the console gamers will say "try playing GOW on your PC at max settings and then we'll talk". i say, if PC gaming is a dying breed, let it die quietly. consoles are "in", PC's are wayyy too expensive for being mainstream for like a baggillion years. vista sucks, mainly because most of its ideas come from MAC OS X and THAT sucks just as much. in order to get a computer that can run anything you need to fork over at LEAST twice as much as a console that can run the game better. all in all, we can see why consoles are "in" but why advertise it? it just causes strife and angst in the gaming population.
I agree completely with this article. The absolute crazy hardware requirements and cost that someone must have/pay in order to play the top PC games is ridiculous. And it is killing PC Gaming for sure. For the newbie/casual gamer, it is just so much easier to buy a console and have 4 years of trouble free fun than suffering through the hell that is to make a game like Crysis play in High/Very High settings.
And who would want to buy Crysis to play it in Low Settings????
I say that because I am still one of this dying race... I only play games on my PC, I just had to make a HUGE upgrade in order to play Crysis in High settings (not even Very High). I had to personally install a water cooler for my double 8800 GTs in SLI or I wouldn't be able to play at all because of heat issues (I live in Rio de Janeiro and it is hot here!)
All in all, I was really wondering near the end if it woudn't be easier to just buy a PS3, a Wii or a Xbox...
PC Gaming is just too hard and expensive.
lol PC gaming isn't going to die. Its the gold standard. Developers will always be coding and testing their games on computers so shipping out PC versions of their games is just extra money. Who in their right mind would say, "yeah we have a game ready for the PC, but we are just going to ignore $30 million - half a billion dollars in sales, and spend more money to code it for consoles that will force us to limit the asthetic potential and limit our ability to advertise." It would be insane.
There is a market for people wanting the cutting edge in PC gaming so there will always be someone catering to their dollars.Its going no where.I would wager that the vast majority of people cant afford luxury or sports cars, yet they still get made.They drive advertising campaigns as well as technological innovation and design.
Taco Bell, Toyota camrys, casio, and playstation will always have the volume. But PC gaming is here to stay as long as people are still buying steaks and rolexes.
Btw Im not against consolers or anything. Its just insane to make a statement like that. Im sure the writer of this article understands this very well. But this argument pulls traffic onto their site. And I will come and post because the debate always gets going once PC game requirements blow past console abilities.
I used to see a bunch of really positive talk about crysis coming to consoles, but now that news is coming out saying that it might be just a rumor, the trash talk commeth.So don't try to bash PC gaming just because it is developing games you want to play but can't.If you don't want to buy a sweet video card to play cutting edge games, thats fine, don't buy them.Play madden and GoW.They are great games.
I want a Bugatti, but I'm not going to bash the luxury car industry just because I can't enjoy it too.Fortunately I can afford high end gaming.And as long as they keep coming out with great titles like Crysis, I will continue to drop cash to get the gx2 of the day.
Enough is enough. What is with all of these silly uninformed comments from both the media and gamers regarding Crysis. Yes it is demanding, but not that demanding as most people, including the writer of this article, think. I am playing Crysis with all settings on high with and 2x AA at 1280 x 1024 with a consistent frame-rate in the 40s with no slow-downs under 30. This is smooth. I can play it at 1600 x 1200 with most settings on high (minus physics) and no AA with approximately the same frame right. At a lower resolution of 1024 x 768 I can run it with everything on high with 2x AA with a frame-rate as high as my monitors (Samsung 204B) refresh rate. I built this computer this summer. Intel G33 Mobo, 2.33 Core 2 Duo E6550 stock speed, 2 GB DDR2 800 RAM, XFX 8800GTS 320MB XXX edition. Minus case and PSU which can spend a little or a lot on, this system cost me less than $750 in July and there were rebates. The hardware argument does not work and it has not worked for some time.
I run crysis on ultra high @ 1650x1050, 0AA and get 35 fps. It looks photorealistic and is incredibly fun to play. I have an overclocked quad core and gtx. My friend runs Crysis on his garbage PC just fine. He dropped a couple hundred for a new GTS. He will be able to play most games on high for quite some time.
Whats more, consoles are going to be lagging for the next 4 years waiting for a hardware upgrade (maybe not the new xbox). During that time, PC games are going to get more insane. Crysis just set the bar for new games that just wont be playable with technology from 2005. In 2009, gx2's will be cheap and even casual gamers will be playing games with mind blowing graphics and content.
Console gamers will be forced to play a repackaged version of their old games until a new system is released.
And UT3 failed because it was designed for consoles. I love UT, but UT3 plays like an xbox. He wanted the best of both worlds and alienated PC gamers. I didn't buy it.
grog and kj: Guys (no sexism here, but that's most probably what you are) you can't see the forest for the trees. I quote: "Intel G33 Mobo, 2.33 Core 2 Duo E6550 stock speed, 2 GB DDR2 800 RAM, XFX 8800GTS 320MB XXX"... and "I run crysis on ultra high @ 1650x1050, 0AA and get 35 fps." The average computer user replies: "HUH??" They go to the nearest big box retailer, buy the name of the machine they recognize, and know enough (from ads, I'm sure) that they have to get a Core 2 "cause that's the latest." They don't know an E4600 from a 6850 from and Extreme, and Wolfdale: what?? Add to that FSB speeds, and then get into video cards... ugh. The point Mark is trying to make is not whether you can get a gaming rig for $750, kj: it's the folks who buy retail who have NO FREAKING IDEA what any of that means. The industry loses customers--MILLIONS of them-- because it doesn't build for the vast majority of potential users, who want to put the game in and have it run. Period.
If every game from now on came with 3 model types: crap, average, and good, we could skip this whole issue. It's like, if you can make a game good, it won't matter looks like either Deus Ex, Half-Life 2, or Crysis. Just leave in the options for good GPu's, and everyone's happy.
PC gamers exxagerate. I have a dell xps 410 and purchased a $200 Radeon HD Graphics Card recently. I have a 46 inch tv/monitor that I use to play my pc games. I play Crysis, with everything high 1920x1080, and I do not see any slow-downs. I dont know how many FPS it is but who cares as long as its visually appealing. why people spend $400 to over $1000 on video cards is just crazy. Their thirst for power is insane. This is what is going to keep PC gaming alive. People want the best all the time no matter what the cost.
Short and sweet...I like the FPS games (Unreal, FEAR, etc.) and I would gladly trade the constant upgrades to my computer and all the headaches associated with it, for an XBOX 360 that came with a mouse. I don't know how people can use those thumbsticks with any sort of proficiency. That's really the ONLY thing keeping me attached to my PC. Game on!
I see most have expressed many of the same shared opinions here but I personally don't agree with the articles title that PCgaming is dying its a niche market for a select group of people that want to do more with their pcs then just game. Games like crysis just set a new bar or standard for performance and at this point and time the hardware available doesn't reach that potential, it will eventually, as far I am concerned most people I hear from really enjoy crysis. As for the people that want to play crysis on your bestbuy.com pc it says to me that a little more education is required to understand what market you are buying into, the information is there you just have to ask the questions or read it.
I want to mention *undefined* dell xps 410 at time of release is a $2400 machine and I would imagine that his 46" 1080P monitor cost an average of $1500-$2000 it might sound crazy that we would spend 400-1000 on a video card, but in comparison it doesn't sound that crazy to me
I agree that the system requirements for most new PC games are ridiculous. Also, most people dont really understand that an off the shelf pc without a graphics card is basically useless for gaming except for casual games such a POGO, etc. They buy a new pc and try to play a game and cannot run it. This puts them off on PC gaming in general.
That said, I game mostly on the pc with some gaming with my family on the Wii.
I feel that the other problem with PC games is that there are not a lot of quality and variety present in PC games today. It seems that the goal of most game developers is to just make another shooter game and up the graphics quality. I know a lot of people will not agree with this, but I would love to have some new role playing and strategy games coming out of the quality of the KOTOR games that are not superviolent and M rated.
The only innovative game I have seen recently is the Sam and Max series. Hopefully Spore will be great!!
Rock on brother! I'll just keep pluggin away at my Athlon XP 3800+ and 6800 Xtreme video to those games that can handle "the speed"
I stopped buying PC games a couple years back when the copy protection made them useless on my hardware. "Uninstall your cd copy software" to see your drives etc. Err well - NO. At least with a console when you plug it in it will play, and it will play on your neighbors console when you go there.
I DEFINITELY agree with this article, I've been an avid PC gamer ever since my dad had a custom built Atari with a 5.3 floppy drive (they exist! I swear!). I have just a few days ago finished the Crysis demo, just because I wanted to see how my system would even handle it. Well, I got what I thought I would get: disappointment, the feeling like my system is no longer good enough AFTER THREE YEARS OF UPGRADING.
Every year I've spending about $100 bucks upgrading instead of buying a new one, and every game I've thrown at it before Crysis I was definitely satisfied with. If Crysis is setting the bar, my system will go from performing like a teenager on caffeine to a 90 year old who has to wear glasses/bifocals and still can't see. I had to literally turn every single graphic aspect of the game down to low in order to perform.
Hey guys... this section's name is 'Replay'; shouldn't it be 'Reply'?
Excuse me for asking, english is not my native language.
Back to the issue at hand, I agree with everyone to a certain degree, but let's not forget that PC games are also about getting that 'perfectly real' look, something that's independent from the fun factor of the games. We all may complain about not being able to run Crysis, but we all were amazed by the realism of the graphics in the game. I guess that at a certain point entry-level hardware will be good enough to run realistic games, and we'll return to those old days where all you neded was a VGA and a fair CPU to run 99.9% of all games. Probably, that will take 5 to 10 more years, so I hope there will still be a PC gaming industry by then... On the other hand, software and hardware companies help each other by continuously raising the bar of what can be called an acceptable-performing computer, so I may be wrong...
Very good point about consoles having a "level playing field" for designers to compete on.
If you can't get your games to play any better on your PC than they do on an cracker jack box then your pc must be a com 64 or less.
last year I got bio shock on the PC any time they put it out on the PC I get it on the PC as for my pc I do a rebuild every two years (hate Vista) XP pro is the way to go! in the last thirty days I have got 9 games
1 ps3
3 360
5 PC
True Enough *Claps in applause* It's too bad that more people aren't educated in what the hell FSB, memory timings, what's the real benefits of Pci-express are, etc. I used to go to futurreshop and just talk to the guys about what that stuff actually was when I was younger.
On that note, I totally agree with the whole forest tree analogy. It's difficult for me to be convinced to spend a whole lot of money, especially upgrading my laptop, in order to play crysis well without the vents feeling like a jet afterburner or the keyboard able to warm my coffee and burn my hands. It's simply not as fesible as an Xbox 360, I'm not sure but do some Xbox games support a mouse? I mean it has usb ports, is it possible that the only issue of percision might not be a problem anymore?
I don't remember the guy who built the first mouse out of a wooden box and miscellaneous electrical parts & I didn't play Pong on a coin-op, but I've played electronic games since then both PC & consoles. Both have gotten better, but I have less time to play them now, so like those "Median" computer user I play the games I can afford the hardware to run. Yes, I'd love to drive a Ferrari ! But the fact that the costs of ownership outweigh the pleasure I would derive I drive Detroit iron. I am in the know about FSB,fps, AA,physics engines etc, but I don't drop 10 grand for the hot frag box of dual 8800's in SLI even though it'd probably be as hot as Elloit Spitzer's ride!!! The hard truth is unless I get Richie Rich coin I will play other games I enjoy on my PC & platformers on my collection of consoles. For all the hype of Vista being freed of legagcy applications it still rolls like all that beta crap Redmond sells us. On YouTube play "Anthony Cumia installs Vista" for fun!
I bought an xbox 360 just becouse its cheper then buying upgrades, $350 keeps me good for 2-3 years on hard ware when $450 was the cost to upgrade my computer (cpu,mother, graphics card) the play station 3 however is the home computer replacer! it plays lots of games and comes with linux so u can surf the inter net also, NO PC REQUIRED! with my xbox 360 i still cant surf or stream coast to coast radio while i play. if micro soft came out with a keyboard and mouse and had surfing threw x box live then they would double there sales , think use tv , lower cost ...the NEXT COMMODORE 64! EVERY ONE OWNES ONE . u buy one box ( not 3+ with pc + monitor + periferial s) plug it into tv and bam your playing ,surfing, kids are happy , parents get there own at half the price of a pc and do there budget/ banking/ investing. every 4-5 years pull off the external hard drive put it on new xbox to transfer old docs throw old box away, most would be happy, spend more money on games not on hard ware.
The thing is crysis was a game that was been sold as the best thing since slice bread and altho it look amazing fact is when it came out and thier was the big push for dx10 to see best visual of the game so alot of ppl upgraded whole systems and still got shafted with crap fps yet alone the new headace and the crap of hunrgy vista i know first hand i built a rig as much as i could afford and got the latest parts and guse wot crysis couldnt play at max res and setings not untill i got my 2nd 8800gtx and an other 2gigs of ram and cpu till i was happy with how it would run as for colsoles bugger paying (1000+ for ps3 when they first came out ) for some thing that you also so dont get to see it ing it full 1080p glory untill you upgrade your display to support it or all readly spent abit of money on the display
I have 2 XBox 360's, but for less than the price of a console the average uses could upgrade to a better GPU and monior and play at close to 1080p specifications. on a 22" monitor. The difference is your computer can then continue to do all it has done in the past and you don't have another thing hanging off your TV,
Secondly Crysis, really? Also, what console is it on? None that I know of so not really a fair comparison. COD4, yep playing at 1920 X1200 maxed with two wimpy 8800GTs in sli can play at 1600 by 1200 with one card. Looks better than any 1080P, and all on a machine I have less than $1500 dollars into, the local computer shop could build it ad it wouldn't have added much to the price.
Overall your computer can do more and with a little upgrade you can then use a computer to play as well without adding a second machine to your house. Also, you pay more for the Console titles average $10, which over the life also adds additional cost.
This article just breaks my heart because I totally agree that it's true. I've always wondered about the irony of games like Final fantasy XII, or Shadow of the Colossus, running on hardware that's, what, 5 years old? and still managing to keep up with current visual standards of next-gen consoles and PC. I'm a long-time supporter of PC gaming because of its mods and its strong community, but hearing people tout graphics as the ONLY source of competitive advantage everytime an argument like this comes up gets old fast.