Slashdot Log In
DirectX Architect — Consoles as We Know Them Are Gone
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Friday March 21, @07:24PM
from the something-about-a-nomad dept.
from the something-about-a-nomad dept.
ThinSkin writes "DirectX architect Alex St. John swims against the current and predicts the demise not of PC gaming, but of game consoles, in an exclusive two-part interview at ExtremeTech. In part one, Alex blasts Intel for pushing its inferior onboard graphics technology to OEMs, insists that fighting piracy is the main reason for the existence of gaming consoles, and explains how the convergence of the GPU and the CPU is the next big thing in gaming. Alex continues in part two with more thoughts on retail and 3D games, and discusses in detail why he feels 'Vista blows' and what's to become of DirectX 10."
Related Stories
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Go figure... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Go figure... (Score:5, Funny)
His mind is clearly a-buzz with hormones, let's not be too cruel.
Re:Go figure... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, consoles really are like cell-phone: a product line whose whole logic is consumer lock-in. They sell the console without a profit (like cell phone are sometimes sold for zero), and make up future on expenses which you are forced to make to the same company (through the license cost on the games).
What do you get in exchange for that? A PC (complete with hard drive, internet connection, support for usb, etc), excpet you can't use it like a PC. If the same games where made for PC directly, you would simply win on all fronts (even on the price; it's true that you save on the console, but you lose that by the lack of competition on games).
The hardware design of the PS3 could be sold as CPUs and GPUs (6 cores, why not if some games support it?).
I shouldn't have to wait for an extra year for GTA4 to be available for PC, only to inevitably find that it's a laggy on recent hardware, being a port.
People who get locked up with a console, only to buy games made for 4 different consoles and thus completly unoptimised are being ripped off.
Re:Go figure... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not convinced that a PC analog could have replicated, in the given timescale, the user experience there.
I do think that the PC, once fully integrated into everyday entertainment, will compete in this regard, but the console is/has been a vital stepping stone to what is clearly a fun PC-based future.
The main benefit of consoles is supposed to be ease of development. From what I understand, PC game developers are rather hamstrung by the need to factor in the thousands of potential hardware configurations their products might encounter.
I see all of these problems as a consequence of the immaturity of the field, a short-term hassle to be stomached until the way ahead (open, common standards) is clear and obvious to all the major players.
That's great, but this isn't a hardware problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the whole point.
When was the last time your Play station got a virus? How much do you spend on your Play station's anti-virus software every month? How many controllers can you plug into your PC? When was the last time you had to install a game on your XBox? Or install drivers for your newest controller? Or work through compatibility issues between your latest game and your PS3's GPU?
It's also true that for the price of a microwave, I can get a nice laptop, that connects to the internet and all that. But it kinda sucks at heating food, doesn't it?
There's a reason the Wii is selling so well, even though it doesn't even support HD graphics. People don't want something with internet, that can do their taxes, that catches viruses, that they can read their email on, or that has the bestest fastest hardware.
They want something they can play fun games on, with other people, in their living area where the television is, on something that isn't the size of a desktop PC. And they want those games to work when they plug them in, every time. About the limit you can expect from a console consumer is blowing the dust off the cartridge pins.
Are PC's more powerful? Sure. But there is a whole bunch of overhead that comes with the advantages of the PC over a game console that are just not worth it to the majority of console players.
Re:That's great, but this isn't a hardware problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The other advantage to game consoles is that they hold up better than most regular PCs. That may change with hard drives and other parts to fail. I have a NES, SNES, N64, GameCube, Wii, Genesis, 32x, Sega CD, Dreamcast, and GBA all working. i can play the same games on them now I could play in the past. With Windows, games that ran on Windows 98 no longer run. Many games don't even make it to the next windows release. For instance, LucasArts games have terrible compatibility issues. Some of the win98 era games didn't even make it past a DirectX update! Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic has terrible memory leaks and graphics card bugs. (its' great otherwise) I've got a pile of games I can't play anymore that also won't run in emulators yet due to 3d or opengl requirements. I don't have a PC that will run Windows 98 handy anymore either.
It is very rare that I get rid of a game console, but PCs come and go. (and windows versions) In fact, the only console I've sold in the last 12 years was my xbox.
PC gaming has a place, and some companies like id and blizzard know how to make games run on several os versions (or patch them). I couldn't imagine WoW on a console or QuakeWars. I hate FPS on consoles. They look bad and the controls suck. SImulations tend to be better on PCs and Macs too.
I think there is a market for both. If you look at articles, it seems like cell phone gaming is the hot ticket right now anyway.
Way to prove the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Use a firewall (Windows Firewall does the trick).
3. Avoid suspicious
4. For the love of God, use Firefox.
5. Never click on ads.
6. Never install bundled adware or browser toolbars.
7. Nobody offering free screensavers/themes/ringtones/pr0n/minigames in
8. Train yourself to recognize spam in all forms, on all media. Every trendy Internet product, service, feature or meme will have a spam-clone, made either to spread badware or to conduct phishing scams - and you must be ready for both.
9. ???
10. No viruses and no anti-virus! Enjoy your new computer experience. You're welcome.
So that's the list for the PC. Looks like you have 7 legitimate items that you have to do. While they all may be common sense for you or me, they're not common sense for the average consumer.
For comparison, here's the list for the console:
1. Uh.. nothing.
See?
Re:Go figure... (Score:5, Insightful)
And return stronger as genuine, cross-platform PC gaming.
Xbox uses DirectX (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go figure... (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, Alex St John was hardly a primary DirectX Architect. He was, however, the first official DirectX Evangelist. That's like comparing Spock to Uhura.
Second, ASJ's current software company, WildTangent, is predominantly mentioned as some of the cruftware most of you guys were screaming to have removed in the Sony article earlier today.
Third, DirectX is doing as much for consoles by making the XBOX easy to program as it is for PC's. Why do you think the original XBOX console came out of nowhere and did so well? It took the best of DirectX ease of programming and subtracted a big chunk of the cruft and compatibility pains of Windows PC's and put them to work in a common target.
The one thing I agree with ASJ is that Intel is own worst enemy when it comes to PC games. Intel wants the PC game market to thrive which will help sell their $$$ high-end processors but there is nothing out there recently that has held back the PC game market more than the crappy performance of Intel's IGP's which are in about 70-80% of consumer PCs.
Consoles... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Microsoft Dislikes Intel Graphics (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Why Microsoft Dislikes Intel Graphics (Score:5, Informative)
I'll enumerate the primary reasons quickly, since I don't expect you to be intimately familiar with the relationship between graphics programmers and graphics driver developers (it's drastically different from Intel's relationship with the X developers):
1) Intel graphics drivers are possibly the most inconsistent drivers on the market. Any given user with a particular Intel chipset might have one of a hundred different driver configurations, as a result of the fact that the chips are bundled with different motherboards which then come with their own driver package... and when you add pre-built machine vendors into the mix the situation is only worse. If their driver quality was extremely high across the board, this wouldn't be an issue, but...
2) Intel graphics drivers have a bad stability track record, at least on Windows. They have a tendency to return invalid/nonsensical error codes from driver calls that shouldn't be able to fail, or to silently fail out inside a driver call instead of returning the error code they're supposed to... resulting in graphics programmers having to special-case handling of individual Intel graphics chipsets (and even driver revisions). In my case, I ended up just having to shut off entire blocks of my hardware-accelerated pipeline on Intel chipsets and replace them with custom software implementations to avoid the incredible hassle involved in coming up with specific fixes. (The wide variety of chipsets and drivers out there meant that for my particular project - an indie game - it was impossible to ensure that I had worked around every bug a user was likely to hit, so I had to just opt out of hardware accel in problem areas entirely).
3) Intel graphics chipsets have sub-par performance across the board, despite marketing claims otherwise. This is mostly problematic for people developing 'cutting-edge' games software, where it creates a 'he-said-she-said' situation with a game developer/publisher claiming that a user's video chipset is insufficient to run a game while Intel claims the complete opposite. (in most cases, Intel is lying.) This is particularly troublesome in areas like support for cutting-edge shader technology, where an Intel chipset may 'support' a feature like Pixel Shader Model 3.0 but implement it in such a way to make it completely unusable. Users don't benefit from this, and neither do developers.
4) Intel graphics chipsets harm the add-on graphics market by discouraging users from picking up a (significantly better) bargain video card from NVidia/ATI for $50 and dropping it into their machine. This hurts everyone because even though that bargain card is significantly better (and most likely more reliable), the user already 'paid' for the integrated chipset on their motherboard, and the documentation that comes with it attempts to make them believe that they don't need a video card. I consider this a dramatic step backward compared to the situation years ago, when integrated graphics chipsets were unheard of and people instead had the option of 'bargain 2d' video cards like Trident or Matrox that would do everything needed for desktop 2D, but also had the option of fairly affordable 3D accelerator cards if they wanted to play games occasionally.
On the bright side, most integrated ATI/NVidia GPUs these days are mature enough to be able to run games acceptably and meet the needs of a typical user. The only thing really holding the market back here, in my opinion, is Intel's insistence on marketing inferior products instead of partnering with ATI or NVidia to please their customers.
Of course, this is unrelated to your point that their Linux/Free Software support is superb, as is their documentation - I'm inclined to agree with you here, but it unfortunately doesn't do much to outweigh their other grievous sins.
Great explanation! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, on the mailing list for this driver, I immediately got access to the lead developers. OK, they knew I was Bruce, but it looked like they were treating all callers the same way. They connected me with Intel BIOS programmers, etc.
Now, imaging having this problem in the Windows world. You would be routed to a call-center employee in India who would go through a script with you.
I am using the same driver with i915 in an old Sony laptop and i965 in a new duo motherboard. Both seem to work fine. I don't know how much lower-level DirectX is than GL.
Bruce
The appeal of console gaming (Score:5, Insightful)
As to the demise, I mean lots of people (me included) are still playing vintage game consoles. Heck I got an Atari Paddle Set that works of AA batteries that I still play. But perhaps that says more about the timelessness of Breakout and Pong than consoles...
WildTangent has been a dead end since 2001 (Score:4, Informative)
Bottom line: Nothing to see here, move along.
This guy is on crack (Score:5, Insightful)
Just bought a console (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't want to do that again in order to upgrade to PCI-E, so I bought a 360 console for less than half the price and I don't intend to upgrade my PC again for at least two or three years. I think a 3.2 GHz processsor and 2 GB of memory will be fine for software development for at least that long.
I also wanted to play games on a large screen and not have to sit in the same chair where I work all day when I'm relaxing.
OK, some facts now... (Score:5, Interesting)
2) His current software and games are very much NOT 3D, so he is commenting on the 3D market why again?
3) His argument about PCs not being good gaming platforms is that they don't contain enough DRM? Truly, go back and read this again. What the hell does he want, a gun pointing a peoples faces if their mouse gets near the rip or copy button?
4) Throughout the article they keep talking about WildTangent Orb, which is a program that competes DIRECTLY with Windows Vista & Windows Marketplace & Games for Windows, in Rating games based on system performance, and providing a consistent expectation for the gamer.
5) WildTangent huh... Ok, anyone that installed this software or has removed it from a friends computer would shudder to think that this guy has any insight when it comes to programming at all, let alone 3D gaming. (WildTangent is borderline Spyware, and the games are kludges, slow, etc.)
6) He thinks DirectX is bad and Vista is bad, but argue that they the best that can be done with 3D gaming. Hmm..
7) He talks about the DirectX hardware abstraction levels and implies DirectX 10 is further from the hardware than previous versions. This is really really inaccurate, as DirectX even opens a new diret pipeline for shoving calculations and physics to the GPU. The only place DirectX 10 is 'further' from hardware is the removal of DirectSound, but this has been replaced in 10.1 with a new hardware layer that is compatible with the new Vista sound subsystem. This stuff makes me think the guy is insane, has a chip or both.
8) His argues about current 3D technology is tricks, but raytracing is real 3D? Um, raytracing is also freaking tricks, especially if you work to get any performance out of it. (And this is just in studio level rendering we are talking about, let alone gaming). Moving raytracing to games or adding it to current 3D technologies would be great, but it is going to take more 'tricks' for good performance and STILL WILL NOT BE REAL 3D, any more than current gaming technologies. He is an expert and yet doesn't understand this? Holy cow...
9) The only thing I can agree with in the article is the portion about onboard Video being a bane to the gaming industry, and Intel being a horrible proponent of bad entry level 3D chipsets that can't even run Flight Sim 98, let alone a current game with more than 15fps.
And here's why we need raytracing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Getting great graphics from the next generation of raster engines is going to cost even more. Sure, you can sit there and micromanage every goddamn thing on the screen and get graphics that look good enough that you can't tell them from optically correct rendering at a glance. But that costs you five times as much as building a model and telling the graphics engine to render it, and letting the software figure out where you need shadows and hilights and bloom.
The other side of this is the Myst problem. Remember Myst? Remember how you could only go where they're rendered the scenes? Now in many modern games, guess what, you can only go where they've prepared the scenes. You can't even walk across a flowerbed and around the back of the tavern, because they haven't prepared the back of the tavern. you get puzzles that involve figuring out what rope to grab to climb up a 45 degree slope, and if they haven't decided that you're going to be able to climb that slope you can't... even if you've got elf boots and a magic rope.
Why? Because it's so damned expensive to get them looking good.
Let the computer do the stuff that we know how to make a computer do... simulation... and let the humans worry about making the simulation fun.
As long as pcs have free online play and user mods (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some payed for mods on the consoles but they are not the same as the free stuff on the pc.
Also who would want to pay for LIVE and for the game as well paying a monthly fee for the game for something like WOW?
There are also a lot of cool free and open pc games that will never be a consoles.
Also there are games that work better with a mouse and mouse are not used that much on a consoles.
Games also like to use the web and other stuff on the same system that they game on.
more Intel bashing from PC gaming world (Score:5, Insightful)
and then proves how great the PC gaming market is by mentioning the success of a game that does not need much in the way of graphics hardware,
I am so tired of the PC gaming industry blaming its demise on Intel giving people cost effective graphics that do exactly what their users want. The whole reason for the demise of PC gaming is because the market split because consumers want different types of computing devices at prices they can afford. The PC has tons of possibilities, but all the industry seems to create are rehashes of the same old ideas; mostly FPS and RTS. Traditional PC gaming is not dead, but it is in a losing battle with the consoles because it is failing to innovate. The real PC gaming growth is in small games that are fun, addictive, and sometimes are the center of online communities. Hell, I had to kid a Yahoo Pool addiction a few years ago and I don't think I will ever see anything like that on a console.
Re:Why consoles will win (Score:5, Insightful)
Lockout chip business model (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Vista Blows" (Score:4, Interesting)
Now even microsoft encourages game developers to use the system libraries, for playing those standard formats(like they did on XP). Except now they make some games all but unplayable.
I'd say that's an example of vista sucks, and it's pretty closely tied to DirectSound, not DirectX.