DirectX Architect — Consoles as We Know Them Are Gone 434
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."
Go figure... (Score:4, Insightful)
Consoles... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
St John is under the delusion that (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter what GPU is on the on-board video, it won't be enough for gamers.
This guy is on crack (Score:5, Insightful)
Why consoles will win (Score:3, Insightful)
Updating your video driver (or other drivers) is not a fun part of gaming. But for PC games, it's usually the first level you have to play.
Now that consoles have comparable graphics and sound to a mid-level PC, there's little advantage to using a PC over a console for games. And there are often large disadvantages.
Re:If He Thinks "Vista Blows"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I specifically used the term "convergence", which is what Microsoft (and Sony) would like to see happen. That's where the "console" turns into an entertainment center and a home computer. IF (and that's a big 'if') that actually happens, you will see consoles become malware targets. Furthermore, if the convergence between PC and console does happen, you'll find that it won't be so easy or desirable to "reset" your console, for much the same reason that "resetting" a PC is such a pain.
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.
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:Why consoles will win (Score:5, Insightful)
Xbox uses DirectX (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Lockout chip business model (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Go figure... (Score:2, Insightful)
And just what percent of PC games run on anything other than Windows? Not too many, I'm guessing. Console games are more and more being release for more than one console brand.
Summary of above novel (Score:1, Insightful)
- the Windows drivers suck, and
- they're not as fast as more expensive cards
While both of these statements sound entirely true, I fail to see how it distinguishes them from any other graphics cards ever made.
I'm using Linux full-time now, and if having a graphics system which is documented, has good free drivers for X11, and is far faster and more reliable and consistent than the $50 ATI I had 2 year ago (much less the $100 Matrox card I had 5 years ago) makes it "utter garbage", then I wish Intel more luck in "marketing inferior products instead of [...] pleas[ing] their customers". With one exception, so far, the OpenGL support is the most consistent and reliable I've ever seen in a sub-$100 graphics card.
Why can't other companies sell me utter garbage half this nice?
Re:If He Thinks "Vista Blows"... (Score:3, Insightful)
No it is not: you don't understand the term. At best you mean "Plug N' Play" or something similar. Write Once means I can write this code and it will run intact on multiple platforms. You can't run software written for a Playstation on an X-Box, the architectures and software tools are entirely incompatible. Sure, the same game may exist across different platforms, but under the hood it's different software.
The economics of a $300 device are wildly different from a $2500 multipurpose tool.
Are they? PCs don't cost $2,500 anymore, don't know where you pulled that number from. A decent low-end PC (sufficient for office work and light gaming) can be had for a few hundred dollars. Spend another $200 for a decent video card and they're comparable, game-wise. The only difference is that the PC vendor is actually turning a profit on that sale, rather than selling at a loss and hoping future software sales will make up the difference. Well, that's true for Sony and Microsoft: Nintendo plays a much straighter hand in that regard. Oddly enough, Nintendo has no interest in converging anything: they just make consoles, even though their business model is the most PC-like (they turn a profit on every console sold.) It's Sony and Microsoft that keep making noises about "convergence" and replacing PCs and disc players and the rest of the home-entertainment center's repertoire.
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:Go figure... (Score:5, Insightful)
And return stronger as genuine, cross-platform PC gaming.
Re:Go figure... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you get something else, a box that you know you can plug the games into and they just work. The purpose and use of PCs is widely varied so there is no guarantee that you buy a game, pop it into your PC, and it just works.
There are other benefits as well, lack of spyware, viruses, trojans, etc., although that could change with the new direction consoles are taking.
And yes, as Alex had noted, if every PC sold, including the all in one integrated boxes, included the latest and greatest eye popping GPU technology and CPU technology then the PC gaming market would be much simpler, but what can I say, the guy is a doofus.
When I'm building a headless server and I purchase an all in one motherboard to support the system the last thing I want is some high priced bleeding edge GPU soldered into the motherboard, cranking up the cost, generating heat, and really doing absolutely nothing.
The PC gaming market is what it is because the PC is a general utility tool that you spec for the purpose, you don't spec it to meet the needs for one persons marketing desires.
Oh, and by the way, in some cases those consoles that you believe cannot be used as a desktop even though they have desktop type hardware, some of them can. You can run a linux desktop on the PS3 [youtube.com].
Re:This guy is on crack (Score:1, Insightful)
But these days for newbie game programmers, there are steep barriers to entry on the console market. Expensive dev kits and licenses. Remember the group that made some neat games in college, then got hired by Valve and made Portal? The same kind of routes into console gaming don't really exist yet. Thus, for now, hobbyists are still going to do their first work on the PC; they've already got one anyway, and it's free to write code for, and other people have PCs and internet connections to play those games on, and you can do some really fun games even if everyone in the world only has 5-year-old graphics cards that cost them $30 from the bargain bin.
(Alternately, PC gaming could kill itself off on its own, if the console market opened up simultaneously with the PC market closing off. I prefer the third scenario: PCs stay open and consoles become more open too. Then we the gamers and we the coders all win.)
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:Go figure... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to burst your bubble, but I hope you're wrong. I hope neither wins and that PC, console, cell phone, smartphone, PDA gaming markets all continue. The more the merrier. Bring the simple games to all of them more easily and make cross-platform and open development tools and practices the standard. Targeting just one console is fine too, but really if we don't have to tools to easily target multiple platforms, then we don't have healthy competition. We end up with more and more "exclusive" titles so we have to buy multiple systems of miss out. Worse yet, in such a market one player could gain the upper hand and suddenly we have another monopoly that leads to slower innovation, higher prices, and fewer choices.
Forget hoping either PC or console gaming "win" and join me in hoping game players "win" by having healthy market producing games and losing money when those games suck.
The problem with this is "PC gaming" is pretty much the same thing as "Microsoft wins" since they control 90%+ of all PCs and the proprietary DirectX APIs. They're aiming at removing just the competition you're hoping for with DirectX and a PC or Xbox. If the other consoles "lose" (even if the Xbox does) nothing stops them from being the gatekeeper of all games and that means higher prices and fewer choices.
Re:Consoles... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Consoles... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
It's the software, stupid! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's interesting how a lot of people here are discussing the hardware.
The reason why consoles succeed is because of the software. So long as the content is there, the hardware really isn't important. I despise the Wii, but that underpowered, overdressed (and less reliable than we are led to be believe) contraption proves the point perfectly. While Sony and Microsoft have gotten into the e-penis war just like the PC community, Nintendo went with... "unusual" software, and is now walking away with billions in revenue. Lesson learned?
The 360 is hailed by many as having the best software lineup of any next-gen console, but sales of the PS3 have been catching up to the 360 very quickly. Why? Wasn't the PS3 a piece of expensive junk with no games just a few months ago? There's a lot of factors involved, but the summary is that Sony is far better at making exclusive games than Microsoft, and their 1st and 2nd-party titles are looking to be much more interesting than all the 3rd-party 360 games that will also be available on the PS3, the PC, and practically every other architecture.
Well, except for the Mac. Maybe Apple would have a shot at those titles, too, if they actually gave a s**t about games.
Re:Sigh... (Score:1, Insightful)
Because the IBM Cell CPU was made for these kinds of processing in mind. The US-, I thought it was the airforce but I'm not sure, just replaced their 400 node supercomputer with 30 Playstation 3's. Have a look at how much power this console brings to the Folding@home project.
The current mainstream PC architecture was not made with gaming in mind. That said, I believe consoles are much better for games at a stunning full HD res, and the cost no more than $499. Try getting a PC gaming rig which can do the same and look at the price of it. Consoles give the gamer more bang for their buck and therefore I believe it will be the consoles smashing the PC in terms of gaming.
Re:A $250 PC could copy the wii (Score:4, Insightful)
Which of the 400 different controllers on the PC market do you use? And which drivers?
ATI or Nvidia graphics? Because picking one locks out the other to a degree.
The reason consoles exist is because once you dictate a standard down to the point where everything always works you can pretty much only have a console.
I realise it would be awesome for me and most of my friends if developers dropped consoles and went PC full time but think of the children (GASP! it's relevant); Little Timmy doesn't want to spend any time fiddling with settings to make his new game work, he just wants to plug it in and go.
Re:Microstudios (Score:2, Insightful)
Not if you also want to run a modern OS. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go figure... (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft sunk billions and billions into the franchise only to come out with a very distant and sloppy second (in a market of only three) not to mention a 4 billion dollar in debt.
Re:Why Microsoft Dislikes Intel Graphics (Score:3, Insightful)
Bruce
And you think Intel is your savior? Inventor of HDCP? Inventor of CPUID?
Now I've heard everything...
OpenGL is going to keep 3D open, not Intel. Even Microsoft's DirectX is going to keep GPU manufacturers agnostic when it comes to provided features, not Intel.
Instead of Intel providing at least quality entry level graphics, they have been milking the business and onboard market for years now with more than sub par GPU chipsets.
This is WHAT has continued to make gaming a problem for PCs. Even all Intel chipsets were abolished and every computer had a 'real' dedicated GPU (even an entry level Geforce 6100LE), then gaming could me far more lucrative and standardized on the PC platform.
This has nothing to do with being OPEN, OSes or any other aspect. This is about a hardware company being allowed to cripple a market, along with OEMs that try to makea buck off of computer buyers that don't know better.
Microsoft even has been fighting against this crap for years with OEMs and Intel (Intel don't like MS over this issue, see lawsuits). This is also why MS decided to go ahead with the new WDDM in Vista to shove low level gaming level hardware even into the hands of ALL computer users, sadly Intel pushed back on this and made their crap 950 and newer chipsets that are continuing to water down the market, even though at least they have full hardware PS 2.0 support in the 3100 series FINALLY.
Also when did 3dFX become the Open 3D hero of gaming or the industry? Did I miss the memo back then? Sure NVidia screwed over 3dFX, but its technology was horrid at best in comparison to today's 3D technology. In the timeframe 3DFX died, ATI was aleady getting ready to kick ass.
Remember 3dFX and NVidia said that users didn't need anything more than 16bit 3D bit depth, and performance would not be able to handle 24bit or 32bit Alpha. Then less than two months later ATI introduces their Rage series which not only did full 32bit Alpha bit depth but was several times faster than 3dFX and NVidia technologies. If we would have been left to the 'awesome' 3dFX, who knows how limited gaming technology would be, especially if they were willing to insist on secondary acceleration and 16bit level bit depth technologies. Holy Cow...
You can't get much more open than OpenGL, and their support is virtually on par with DirectX and NVidia's code engine. NVidia isn't going to strong arm anyone here, as they no longer have to deal with just ATI or Intel, but the OpenGL group AND Microsoft.
Again, this is scary. Intel has a horrible track record when it comes to standards, horrible track record when it comes to consumers, and a horrible track record when it comes to GPU technology.
CPUs they do fine, but keep everything artificially in the economic Moore's law, GPUs on the other hand they suck the life out of the PC industry... (Even Apple has fallen for their idiotic standards with SSE2/SSE2 video optimizations in the Core of Leopard, which completely suck in terms of comparative performance. Apple would have been smarter to use OpenGL at core level instead, but no, they lock themselves to Intel and deliver crap video performance in return for Quartz Desktop.)
Re:That's great, but this isn't a hardware problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, backwards compatibility on the windows platform is less than perfect, but at least it's correctable with software. Good luck sticking an NES cart in your Wii, or playing a PS1 game on your late model PS3. Hell, there were a bunch of PS1 games that wouldn't even smoothly on PS2s.
Re:A $250 PC could copy the wii (Score:4, Insightful)
> his new game work, he just wants to plug it in and go.
To hell with Little Timmy. I'm a senior systems developer with roots in the PC repair field, in the early 90s while I was in school. I am perfectly capable of specifying, purchasing, and assembling a hardware platform suitable for whatever I might want to play.
But you know what? I spend about 40 hours a year gaming. It takes 15 minutes to buy a Wii and some controllers and 10 more to ask to the Wii nerd at Walmart what doesn't suck. That's it. 25 minutes invested. When I want to play games, I DON'T want to piss around installing an OS, patches, making sure Direct X version 18.4 is installed, blah ablah ablah abl h.
PC is *shitty* platform for games because it is _general purpose_. NOBODY wants to come home and work to play.
(PS, are there any good FPSs for Wii?)