Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
800_series

"Hardly anyone plays FPS on PC anymore"

Recommended Posts

From reading the article:

 

- He wants a skill based game that rewards people that played longer?

 

I don't think that would EVER be possible, for skill based games, it all comes down to execution, learning the game and strategy, and effort. You could spend alot of time, but still be skill-less if all you do is fight CPU bots. Human Players and CPU Predictable bots are never the same thing to be measured.

 

- He believes that Kinect is the next step to gaming evolution, just like placing FPS games from the PC to the console as an evolution.

 

FPS was the evolution of a new type of game. But to say transition from PC to Console as an evolution is like saying Apple made the iPhone and iPad and evolutionized the way we 'communicate'. If this was the case, then anyone could just literally say any change is an evolution.

 

- Hardly people play FPS games on the PC.

 

This is a statement he just proclaimed, which is like me saying that Hardly anyone pirate software on the console, especially in Asia *rolleyes*

 

- You can use Voice activation commands on Kinect to start up the TV.

 

Sounds awesome, but reminds me of the first episode of IT Crowd where the Boss tries to open his PC by shouting at it because the IT support said they 'installed' a voice activation software to it.

 

======================

 

Sounds more PR to me, I wouldnt take it as a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds awesome, but reminds me of the first episode of IT Crowd where the Boss tries to open his PC by shouting at it because the IT support said they 'installed' a voice activation software to it.

 

Hello computer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's just trying to promote his new Kinect. Gotta say though im happy enough playing FPS on my xbox 360 (just ordered in Halo Reach), and looking forward to its upcoming FPS and TPS due 2010/11.

 

Just give Xbox 360 a mouse and keyboard and i'm sold.

 

btw is it me or is he trying to recreate the young bono image??

Edited by alkahest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we arguing about? We all know that people play FPS games on the PC and that 'hardly anyone' is a relative term that was grossly over used. There's no sense in saying 'Halo was suppose to be on the PC' or 'I don't like console FPS' and 'FPS started on the PC'. Kudo was drawing a parallel between gamepads and motion controls, everyone played on a gamepad but everyone will use motion controls. You think that's absurd, do you think it's as absurd as saying console FPS will dominate PC FPS ten years ago?

Edited by King_TriTAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an admin myself I deal with hackers and cheaters all the time and Steam does a fucking great job of weeding them out in VAC secured games, I can't see a better platform for a developer because of this and because noone with a $500+ steam account is going to hack.

 

I was one of the biggest pirates around until I discovered Steam, it literally stopped me pirating.

I used to pirate most things but then I got a job.

Although I used to hate the idea of steam I actually prefer it now because of the lack of discs, boxes or disc emulation software. No more dodgy downloads with trojans and keygens.

Shopping on steam is better too because you regularly have discounts popping up for 25% and 33%. Additionally the back catalogue is becoming quite impressive. Where else can I get x-com apocalypse for $5. Seriously, I spent three times that for some sushi at lunch today.

 

As to the original poster, I'm a PC FPS type of guy unless it's a Halo or Uncharted which is console exclusive. It comes down to using your right hand versus your right thumb to aim. Plus a 5870 makes more triangles at 1080p than my xbox or ps3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if all games were steam-enabled then that would be the rise of PC gaming again....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if all games were steam-enabled then that would be the rise of PC gaming again....

Which important games aren't on steam?

 

You almost caught me out there lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within context though what Kudo said was benign, it's a gross exageration but I can't help sense that PC gamers are a bit defensive about this, with games constantly being targeted for the console do PC gamers feel... neglected maybe?

 

PC: Please sir may I have some more?

Developers: MORE!? This is for the con-soooole!

Edited by King_TriTAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within context though what Kudo said was benign, it's a gross exageration but I can't help sense that PC gamers are a bit defensive about this, with games constantly being targeted for the console do PC gamers feel... neglected maybe?

 

PC: Please sir may I have some more?

Developers: MORE!? This is for the con-soooole!

My biggest problem is that games aren't advancing at the same rate they used to. PC Hardware isn't being used to its full extent and developers can get away with making ugly games, because apparently its acceptable to make crap for the feeble console hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds awesome, but reminds me of the first episode of IT Crowd where the Boss tries to open his PC by shouting at it because the IT support said they 'installed' a voice activation software to it.

 

Hello computer...

 

A keyboard. How quaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if all games were steam-enabled then that would be the rise of PC gaming again....

Which important games aren't on steam?

 

Blizzard Stuff :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within context though what Kudo said was benign, it's a gross exageration but I can't help sense that PC gamers are a bit defensive about this, with games constantly being targeted for the console do PC gamers feel... neglected maybe?

 

PC: Please sir may I have some more?

Developers: MORE!? This is for the con-soooole!

My biggest problem is that games aren't advancing at the same rate they used to. PC Hardware isn't being used to its full extent and developers can get away with making ugly games, because apparently its acceptable to make crap for the feeble console hardware.

 

You know I had an interesting chat with someone about this, before the proliferation of multplatorming there was this reliance on the gamer to churn through new hardware to deliver that big new thing. But now that consoles are mixed into the fray developers have to constantly invent optimization tricks just to meet the ever growing expectations of what the next group of games should look like.

 

So is focusing on optimization techniques producing lesser results? In other words, is the jump from 2000-2005(PC) more dramatic than 2005-2010(Console)? I don't think it is. I'm not really sure what to say nuke, I'm not sure if a top of the line 3D accelerator can be pushed to the limit, if your thinking is 'if the Xbox 360 can do this than my 5870 should be able to produce something ten times better right now' I think that's an uneducated view on the nature of graphics programming.

Edited by King_TriTAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't activision have it's own digital download wank?

I dont think so, Modern Warfare 2 was a steam only game.

 

Within context though what Kudo said was benign, it's a gross exageration but I can't help sense that PC gamers are a bit defensive about this, with games constantly being targeted for the console do PC gamers feel... neglected maybe?

 

PC: Please sir may I have some more?

Developers: MORE!? This is for the con-soooole!

My biggest problem is that games aren't advancing at the same rate they used to. PC Hardware isn't being used to its full extent and developers can get away with making ugly games, because apparently its acceptable to make crap for the feeble console hardware.

 

You know I had an interesting chat with someone about this, before the proliferation of multplatorming there was this reliance on the gamer to churn through new hardware to deliver that big new thing. But now that consoles are mixed into the fray developers have to constantly invent optimization tricks just to meet the ever growing expectations of what the next group of games should look like.

 

So is focusing on optimization techniques producing lesser results? In other words, is the jump from 2000-2005(PC) more dramatic than 2005-2010(Console)? I don't think it is. I'm not really sure what to say nuke, I'm not sure if a top of the line 3D accelerator can be pushed to the limit, if your thinking is 'if the Xbox 360 can do this than my 5870 should be able to produce something ten times better right now' I think that's an uneducated view on the nature of graphics programming.

 

Thats not what I'm thinking.

 

My main concern is, theres has been 2 Direct X releases in the last few years and 90% of PC release games are still using DX9.

 

The games are not advancing at a rate they should be, considering the hardware and software available for them.

 

We're stuck in 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't activision have it's own digital download wank?

I dont think so, Modern Warfare 2 was a steam only game.

 

Within context though what Kudo said was benign, it's a gross exageration but I can't help sense that PC gamers are a bit defensive about this, with games constantly being targeted for the console do PC gamers feel... neglected maybe?

 

PC: Please sir may I have some more?

Developers: MORE!? This is for the con-soooole!

My biggest problem is that games aren't advancing at the same rate they used to. PC Hardware isn't being used to its full extent and developers can get away with making ugly games, because apparently its acceptable to make crap for the feeble console hardware.

 

You know I had an interesting chat with someone about this, before the proliferation of multplatorming there was this reliance on the gamer to churn through new hardware to deliver that big new thing. But now that consoles are mixed into the fray developers have to constantly invent optimization tricks just to meet the ever growing expectations of what the next group of games should look like.

 

So is focusing on optimization techniques producing lesser results? In other words, is the jump from 2000-2005(PC) more dramatic than 2005-2010(Console)? I don't think it is. I'm not really sure what to say nuke, I'm not sure if a top of the line 3D accelerator can be pushed to the limit, if your thinking is 'if the Xbox 360 can do this than my 5870 should be able to produce something ten times better right now' I think that's an uneducated view on the nature of graphics programming.

 

Thats not what I'm thinking.

 

My main concern is, theres has been 2 Direct X releases in the last few years and 90% of PC release games are still using DX9.

 

The games are not advancing at a rate they should be, considering the hardware and software available for them.

 

We're stuck in 2006.

 

That's a bit rich, what should PC games look like in 2010?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games...ectX_10_support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games...ectX_11_support

 

I've counted more than two.

Edited by King_TriTAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one can't stand FPS on console, although being told otherwise by countless friends, i think you get a lot more precision and control with a mouse and keyboard. With that being said most of my mates jumped ship and headed for console land after not being able to keep up with the PC hardware upkeep. Which is understandable seeing as it does cost a lot of money to have a rig which can play new titles (in all their glory) year after year when compared to a single console purchase, which would last you until the next console is released. Couple that up with driver updates and various other things you have to do to keep the system running games smoothly i can fully understand why most people buy a console and are extremely happy with it!

 

I think (FPS)gaming on the PC will not die, but rather fizzle down seeing as most kids these days are taking up consoles. My first console was a Sega MegaDrive then a Nintendo 64 (Perfect Dark was awesome and that was an FPS hehe), but since then only the best FPS came out on PC and i grew up right in the middle of the PC big bang so i'm a PC guy. So seeing as consoles are all the rage now it's not hard to understand why this current generation is right into consoles, it's their Big bang!

 

In 2010 my console gaming consists of Final Fantasy X, on PS2 :)

Edited by smakme7757

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't activision have it's own digital download wank?

I dont think so, Modern Warfare 2 was a steam only game.

 

Within context though what Kudo said was benign, it's a gross exageration but I can't help sense that PC gamers are a bit defensive about this, with games constantly being targeted for the console do PC gamers feel... neglected maybe?

 

PC: Please sir may I have some more?

Developers: MORE!? This is for the con-soooole!

My biggest problem is that games aren't advancing at the same rate they used to. PC Hardware isn't being used to its full extent and developers can get away with making ugly games, because apparently its acceptable to make crap for the feeble console hardware.

 

You know I had an interesting chat with someone about this, before the proliferation of multplatorming there was this reliance on the gamer to churn through new hardware to deliver that big new thing. But now that consoles are mixed into the fray developers have to constantly invent optimization tricks just to meet the ever growing expectations of what the next group of games should look like.

 

So is focusing on optimization techniques producing lesser results? In other words, is the jump from 2000-2005(PC) more dramatic than 2005-2010(Console)? I don't think it is. I'm not really sure what to say nuke, I'm not sure if a top of the line 3D accelerator can be pushed to the limit, if your thinking is 'if the Xbox 360 can do this than my 5870 should be able to produce something ten times better right now' I think that's an uneducated view on the nature of graphics programming.

 

Thats not what I'm thinking.

 

My main concern is, theres has been 2 Direct X releases in the last few years and 90% of PC release games are still using DX9.

 

The games are not advancing at a rate they should be, considering the hardware and software available for them.

 

We're stuck in 2006.

 

That's a bit rich, what should PC games look like in 2010?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games...ectX_10_support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games...ectX_11_support

 

I've counted more than two.

 

I didn't say there was only 2 games, I said theres been 2 releases of direct X (10 and 11) and 90% of games are still only using DX9, it doesn't matter how they look, its the optimizations and the new little features that they (DX11 especially) bring to the table.

 

The biggest problem, is console ports that dont allow you to change graphical settings, don't support AA, don't support all resolutions, don't take full advantage of the PC hardware (Dual GPUs, Multicore CPUs etc.)

 

Alot of games are still only single threaded, dual core has been basically the minimum for PC builds for the last 4-5 years at least and there are still heaps of games out there that don't take advantage of our setups. Usually because when they port them to PC they don't bother with optimization.

 

I'm not a graphics whore, I've been playing Minecraft for the last few days.

 

I own all 3 current gen consoles and a high end PC so I'm not biased either, I probably have more personal experience with most games than you do.

 

I remember back in the day when games had about 10-20 different graphical options you could change to get them to run on lower end hardware or just to optimize what sort of framerates you would get, now you're lucky to be able to change shadow quality. A good example of PC only games continuing to evolve with new hardware/software is the Stalker series.

 

They went from DX7/9 with all the bells and whistles (Back in 2007, Full Dynamic lighting was hardly seen in games) The second stalker release used DX10 and all the cool DX10 features, specifically the lighting and wet surfaces that it is capable of. The third Stalker game uses DX11 and all the DX11 features, including the damn fast loading times (still not sure why DX11 games load faster though, just noticed a huge dif between 1 game in DX9 vs the same game in DX11, Dirt 2 is a good example of this)

Edited by nukejockey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what counts as a port these days, I use to be a PC gamer about ten years ago, I remember a clever graphics programmer groaning over how horribly optimized video games were in general. And I don't know who has more personal experience with video games Nuke, I think we might have to take out our cocks and compare.

 

Years ago the PC had only one or two games that blew you away about every year, which is the same volume today. I wonder are todays high end systems invulnerable? Is there no game that can out spend what a high end system can throw at it?

 

Threading was never a very popular design decision for video games, probably because of how difficult dividing and allocating rendering tasks within a time critical application is, I suppose that's why the PS3 doesn't look 11x better than a 360.

 

I don't know, what are we arguing about?

Edited by King_TriTAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within context though what Kudo said was benign, it's a gross exageration but I can't help sense that PC gamers are a bit defensive about this, with games constantly being targeted for the console do PC gamers feel... neglected maybe?

 

PC: Please sir may I have some more?

Developers: MORE!? This is for the con-soooole!

It's just sort of a shame. The most appealing thing for me personally about pc gaming is the fact that a game can have such a strong community years after it's been released. Sequels of that game could have been made but still people will play the original. Then there is the user generated content which create a completely different game within a game. I look to css with a fuckload of mods u can play in simply joining a server. I've killed so many hours in that zombie mod. It's the shit like that you won't get with consoles, once the sequel comes out everyone will rush to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within context though what Kudo said was benign, it's a gross exageration but I can't help sense that PC gamers are a bit defensive about this, with games constantly being targeted for the console do PC gamers feel... neglected maybe?

 

PC: Please sir may I have some more?

Developers: MORE!? This is for the con-soooole!

It's just sort of a shame. The most appealing thing for me personally about pc gaming is the fact that a game can have such a strong community years after it's been released. Sequels of that game could have been made but still people will play the original. Then there is the user generated content which create a completely different game within a game. I look to css with a fuckload of mods u can play in simply joining a server. I've killed so many hours in that zombie mod. It's the shit like that you won't get with consoles, once the sequel comes out everyone will rush to it.

 

that is very true...not if only game devs can start making some PC only games again......Mircosoft where are you?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah there is a definite lack of pc power - i mean think back to the turn of the century. man what a time that was, pc gaming was going batshitcrazy, now it's the consoles that are eating up every ones attention, but that doesn't bother me much, my pc gaming ended with quake 3 and UT2k4 which i still love to play. there have been a few games on the radar tho...but by that stage the upgrade needed was easier replaced by a console...so damn, thats probably the only thing thats killing pc's the constant need to have your finger on the tech pulse because if you lapse a few years games become a problem on pc.

 

personally pc's are all about servers, work, non-work work (graphics and coding and old school fun) for me these days my multiplayer is handled by consoles :( it makes me feel so sad to admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats probably the only thing thats killing pc's the constant need to have your finger on the tech pulse because if you lapse a few years games become a problem on pc.

Not really any more.

 

If you bought a new PC 2 years ago, it would still play 90% of new games today with no hassles at all and if it doesn't, a $100 or $200 upgrade is all that is needed.

 

The cost of buying a current gen gaming PC is dramatically lower than it was 5 years ago too, 5-6 years ago, you needed to spend $2000+ to get top of the line stuff, which was needed to play games on max settings (games like HL2, Doom3, Far Cry etc. were playable perfectly on something like a 6800GT and an Athlon 64 cpu)Now you can buy a mid range build for around $1000 and still experience high graphics (not so much high frame rates or AA though)

 

Is it consoles holding the graphical advancements back? I'm sure many others will disagree, but I think it is. 90% of games these days seem to be ports and 90% of those games struggle on console, so there's no reason for the devs to make new engines. UT3 engine is nice, but doesn't have half the PC features it was supposed to have. If developers really wanted to push graphical limits without making new engines, they would use the Cryengine 2, not the same shitty COD2 engine, or the UT3 engine (which is admittedly starting to show its age)

 

If they were really looking at improving graphics, then we'd see more DX10/11 games utilising the technology more than they do. Games like Stalker and Crysis use them very well, other games you can barely tell the difference between DX9/10/11 (Metro 2033, Dirt 2, Resident Evil 5, Lost Planet etc.)

 

ids new engine is looking promising, but once again its been tailored to look and run well on consoles, I'm sure it wont look so nice on a PC with high settings, when you can see where they've cut all the corners to keep it at 60fps for consoles.

Edited by nukejockey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats probably the only thing thats killing pc's the constant need to have your finger on the tech pulse because if you lapse a few years games become a problem on pc.

Not really any more.

 

If you bought a new PC 2 years ago, it would still play 90% of new games today with no hassles at all and if it doesn't, a $100 or $200 upgrade is all that is needed.

 

The cost of buying a current gen gaming PC is dramatically lower than it was 5 years ago too, 5-6 years ago, you needed to spend $2000+ to get top of the line stuff, which was needed to play games on max settings (games like HL2, Doom3, Far Cry etc. were playable perfectly on something like a 6800GT and an Athlon 64 cpu)Now you can buy a mid range build for around $1000 and still experience high graphics (not so much high frame rates or AA though)

 

Is it consoles holding the graphical advancements back? I'm sure many others will disagree, but I think it is. 90% of games these days seem to be ports and 90% of those games struggle on console, so there's no reason for the devs to make new engines. UT3 engine is nice, but doesn't have half the PC features it was supposed to have. If developers really wanted to push graphical limits without making new engines, they would use the Cryengine 2, not the same shitty COD2 engine, or the UT3 engine (which is admittedly starting to show its age)

 

If they were really looking at improving graphics, then we'd see more DX10/11 games utilising the technology more than they do. Games like Stalker and Crysis use them very well, other games you can barely tell the difference between DX9/10/11 (Metro 2033, Dirt 2 etc.)

 

ids new engine is looking promising, but once again its been tailored to look and run well on consoles, I'm sure it wont look so nice on a PC with high settings, when you can see where they've cut all the corners to keep it at 60fps for consoles.

 

pretty much this, my younger sister until the other week was playing games at 1920x1080 on average settings easily on an old core 2 and X1950xtx, I had to replace the X1950 but still cause consoles limit the visual quality of the games we get it lasted a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×