PC Games On the Rebound 179
Via The Escapist, an article on the New York Times website discussing the rebirth of the PC games industry. The piece talks about the bright-looking future for titles on the PC, citing the platform's ease and speed of development and Microsoft's 'Games for Windows' initiative as points in its favour. Mass-market PC maker adoption of the hardcore gaming market is also discussed, with financials being the main thrust of the article. That focus is a double edged sword, given the obvious comparison to console games: "The upsurge comes after some recent reversals. Over all, retail sales of PC-based games in the United States exceeded $970 million in 2006, an increase of about 1 percent of sales the previous year of $953 million, which represented about a 14 percent drop from $1.1 billion in 2004. By contrast, according to the NPD Group, retail sales for console games in 2006 were $4.8 billion; another $1.7 billion was spent on games for hand-held devices like Sony's PlayStation Portable."
I dare to disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
With DX10 for Vista only, and Vista not being the hot cake MS wanted it to be, studios are sitting between chairs now. Develop for Vista and DX10, and risk not selling much 'cause people refuse to upgrade (erh, downgrade) just for a game? Or develop for XP and DX9 and suffer bad reviews for using "old tech"?
Honestly, I could not make a qualified decision now if I was in the exec's chair of a game studio.
"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push (Score:5, Interesting)
"Games for Windows" is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
What it pretends to be is Microsoft trying to improve the PC gaming scene. Make game system requirements more legible to the non-geek, increase compatibility, better market PC games, etc.
However, what it REALLY is, is Microsoft using their complete dominance of the PC game market to extend that dominance to the console. They're using their PC Monopoly to leverage the X-Box, and X-Box Live. The end result will be to get PC Gamers to pay extra for content they get for free now, just like console players are doing on X-Box Live.
A requirement for a game to be branded a "Game for Windows" is that it is compatible with an X-Box 360 Controller. Need I say more? They're pushing for all PC games to also be X-Box 360 Games. If the PC Game is also an X-Box game, then it can use X-Box Live. If it can use X-Box Live, they can figure out a way to release content for it in micro-payments, and nickel and dime us to death on games that we used to get updated content for free on.
Considering the fact that Sony and Nintendo are incapable of competing with Microsoft on this initiative... I'm really surprised no one at the Justice Department has taken notice. It's blatant leveraging of a monopoly if you ask me. I don't see how it's legal.
And I don't see PC games as dying. They're not going anywhere. There might be a little less of them than there used to be... but 50% of the console games that come out nowadays are complete crap. I'd say only about 20% of the PC games that come out nowadays are crap. Those numbers come right out of my butt, of course. I'm willing to deal with better quality and less quantity on the PC.
Thinking of upgrading BUT (Score:5, Interesting)
What serious PC gamer cares about Games for Windows? Same goes for MS's upcoming "Xbox Live Only for Windows" online gaming service. We already have Steam and free online games sans MS's bullshit and complications. Publicly, MS is trying to make PC's more "gaming-friendly," but I think we all know what they're really up to: making PCs into an extension of their Xbox franchise. But I don't think the devoted PC gamers will buy into it...at least I hope not.
PC gaming's biggest issue will remain piracy. I used to pirate games left and right until I stepped back and realized what I was doing to the industry. Now I buy all of my games. While I'm certainly not a pirate witchhunter, I fear that continued piracy will force developers to release PC games crossplatform. And that basically means dumbing-down PC games so they work with the consoles.
PS: "Rebirth" suggests PC gaming died. Contrary to the flood of half-assed alarmist articles we see, this was never the case.
Re:I dare to disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
- Sound. Pretty important. You can go OpenAL here if you want (and it's the only way of getting accelerated sound on Vista, since it doesn't accelerate DirectX audio), or you can stick with DirectX 9 and still have it work on XP and Vista.
- Networking. DirectPlay has come a long way, but I'm not sure how many games actually use it. If you want, Apple have released a(n open, cross-platform) replacement, but I think most big game houses roll their own networking code.
- Media. You could use QuickTime, but it's a huge pain to develop with compared to DirectShow (or whatever it's called these days). On the other hand, you can once again stick with the older API and not have any problems.
- Input. DirectX does well here, but this is a very small part of the codebase of your average game. Most companies will use some custom middleware that will handle it on their supported platforms, using DirectX or whatever else is available on the back end.
The biggest improvements DirectX 10 brings to the table are in graphics. You could probably write most of a game using DirectX 6, and just use the latest APIs for graphics, and few people would notice. Sticking with DirectX 9 for everything except the graphics isn't really a hardship for most people, especially since they've just spent the last few years developing tools to work with DirectX 9.Re:I dare to disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
can we please stop acknowledging these articles? (Score:2, Interesting)