Support NeoGAF

[1st Course]

The Verge asked AMD and several devs about what they think:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/21/4452488/amd-sparks-x86-transition-for-next-gen-game-consoles

No definitive answers, but interesting read nonetheless.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Why would PC gaming want to be downgraded to merely "first class citizen" instead of master race?

 

[SparkTR]

I don't know, but at least this is a nice contrast to the 'PC gaming is dead' mantra the gaming media was echoing at the start of last gen.

 

[Sub_Level]

I think that 2 or 3 years you'll have more people with nice gaming PCs than 2 or 3 years into the PS3/360 life cycles. Seems like so many games will be ported.

The only exception other than first-party stuff is the Japanese. Capcom and Square Enix are pretty good about it, but Konami and Atlus need to bring stuff to PC!

 

[injurai]

Even though the architectures is similar, aren't most games going to be developed on console dev kits?

 

[Wiktor]

I think that 2 or 3 years you'll have more people with nice gaming PCs than 2 or 3 years into the PS3/360 life cycles. Seems like so many games will be ported.

The only exception other than first-party stuff is the Japanese. Capcom and Square Enix are pretty good about it, but Konami and Atlus need to bring stuff to PC!

I think the chances of that look pretty good. Support for PC from japanese devs have been growing a lot recently.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Why would PC gaming want to be downgraded to merely "first class citizen" instead of master race?

This is one of the only posts I've ever seen you make that I agree with lol

But it should make the process and optimization a little more fluid on multiplatform games. I suspect this will benefit PC even more in the long haul.

 

[littlebirdtoldme]

would it really matter that much.

 

[Durante]

There's so much bull in that article. Porting isn't "a thousand times easier" because of the ISA of a processor. That's the last thing developers think about when writing 98% of the code.

Also, I find it funny that Verge remarks that many games were being run on PC this E3, and imply that this is a huge change. It's not like that is a particularly new thing that only started happening now. Most third parties have chosen to show off their games on the platform they are best at for a while now.

 

[tjohn86]

Why would PC gaming want to be downgraded to merely "first class citizen" instead of master race?

.

 

[teiresias]

I'm not terribly familiar with the complexities involved in how memory access is abstracted away from programmers (on consoles or PC), but both MS and Sony have considerable memory access modifications in the APUs they're getting from AMD.

MS, obviously, has the whole ESRAM thing. Sony, as indicated through interviews with Cerny, has added buses to the GPU that aren't traditionally there in order to bypass caches. I'd think these fairly disparate memory architectures, when compared to a PC using system RAM and separate GPU memory, may be an issue, but perhaps only first party games would do enough to-the-metal coding to make these things a problem for ports (in which case it wouldn't matter since first party stuff would likely never get sent to PC anyway).

 

[Berordn]

Even though the architectures is similar, aren't most games going to be developed on console dev kits?

Undoubtedly, but having an identical architecture (and effectively developing for Windows for one platform) will make porting faster and easier.

At that point it'll mostly be a business decision to have a PC version rather than a technical feasibility one.

 

[solarus]

It's dumb that some devs are holding off releasing pc versions of next gen games because they feel most PCs won't be able to run it, and even if that's true it's a chicken or the egg problem. They need to do it so people go out and upgrade their PCs, otherwise why bother.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

This is one of the only posts I've ever seen you make that I agree with lol

But it should make the process and optimization a little more fluid on multiplatform games. I suspect this will benefit PC even more in the long haul.

It can't harm, thats for sure. But really PC's issues hasn't been so much how easy it is to put games on it, but rather how profitable publishers anticipate them being. An even simpler process may reduce risk and encourage PC versions more, but I wouldn't be shocked if you still have companies pretending a PC version isn't possible for anything other than commercial reasons.

 

[cyberheater]

Interesting article.

The new architectures for Xbox One and PS4 will certainly help PC gamers in the long run.

 

[Manmademan]

Absolutely not.

The barrier to adoption by PC isn't software (PC has plenty) but useability and accessibility. These things are still not resolved to the point where adoption will pick up by the broader audience. Without that, games will still be built for whichever console has the greatest marketshare, then ported elsewhere.

In addition, gaming capable PCs (or desktops capable of being upgraded) are getting rarer as their marketshare is being eaten by tablets and notebooks.

 

[legacyzero]

Why would PC gaming want to be downgraded to merely "first class citizen" instead of master race?

First post nails it.

 

[Alien Bob]

Absolutely not.

The barrier to adoption by PC isn't software (PC has plenty) but useability and accessibility. These things are still not resolved to the point where adoption will pick up by the broader audience. Without that, games will still be built for whichever console has the greatest marketshare, then ported elsewhere.

In addition, gaming capable PCs (or desktops capable of being upgraded) are getting rarer as their marketshare is being eaten by tablets and notebooks.

Yup, PC games are niche, that's why LoL only has 5 million concurrent players.

 

[Thraktor]

The author of this piece seems to be unaware of the invention of the compiler, for some reason.

 

[Manmademan]

Yup, PC games are niche, that's why LoL only has 5 million concurrent players.

and WOW has or had more than that. But this is still a drop in the bucket compared to what EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Square Enix etc sell on consoles.

SOME titles sell well on PC (usually those built with the platform in mind- MMOs in particular, Diablo always sells well, etc) but consoles routinely outsell them on average. And as long as that's true, third parties will still treat PC as a second class platform.

 

[SparkTR]

Absolutely not.

The barrier to adoption by PC isn't software (PC has plenty) but useability and accessibility. These things are still not resolved to the point where adoption will pick up by the broader audience. Without that, games will still be built for whichever console has the greatest marketshare, then ported elsewhere.

In addition, gaming capable PCs (or desktops capable of being upgraded) are getting rarer as their marketshare is being eaten by tablets and notebooks.

Debatable on both accounts. Japanese PC support has been pretty spotty up until the last generation, and even now it isn't ideal. I imagine that's a reason why plenty of gamers shy away from PC, and I can see that changing. Getting a decent PC these days is much simpler than it was in 2005, but yeah there is software reasons.

The second reason doesn't make much sense. Tablets are eating into the marketshare of prebuilt dells and some laptops as consumers who would otherwise use them to surf the web or use MS Office feel no need to upgrade or go to a more consumption-friendly device like a tablet. None of those markets include gaming capable or upgradable PCs (BIOS are often locked) and none of those markets would likely game or use Steam anyway. The gaming market is largely tied with other segments.

The PC market is so large some sectors can shrink while other thrive, and that seems to be what's happening with the gaming sector, with it being the only gaming market to increase in revenue alongside smartphones and tablets.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

There's so much bull in that article. Porting isn't "a thousand times easier" because of the ISA of a processor. That's the last thing developers think about when writing 98% of the code.

Also, I find it funny that Verge remarks that many games were being run on PC this E3, and imply that this is a huge change. It's not like that is a particularly new thing that only started happening now. Most third parties have chosen to show off their games on the platform they are best at for a while now.

Yup, many multiplatform games were being shown on PCs at the last few E3s, I think. It's not anything new.

 

[BigDug13]

and WOW has or had more than that. But this is still a drop in the bucket compared to what EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Square Enix etc sell on consoles.

SOME titles sell well on PC (usually those built with the platform in mind- MMOs in particular, Diablo always sells well, etc) but consoles routinely outsell them on average. And as long as that's true, third parties will still treat PC as a second class platform.

While it sells less numbers of individual games than consoles, the guaranteed install base of the platform is the biggest, so the potential for sales is still high.

 

[Durante]

and WOW has or had more than that. But this is still a drop in the bucket compared to what EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Square Enix etc sell on consoles.

WoW never had 5 million concurrent players. Not even remotely close. And neither is 5 million concurrent players a "drop in the bucket" compared to anything.

 

[Qassim]

While it sells less numbers of individual games than consoles, the guaranteed install base of the platform is the biggest, so the potential for sales is still high.

Indeed, the potential is there. When Diablo 3 sells over 12 million copies alone on PC, you know there is a very high potential install base for you to sell into. 12 million is more than most games on console too, it's just console ports on PC don't sell as well as they do on console, which shouldn't really be that surprising.

 

[SparkTR]

and WOW has or had more than that. But this is still a drop in the bucket compared to what EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Square Enix etc sell on consoles.

WoW never had more than 5 million concurrent, that's surpassing even CoD launch day/week concurrent player numbers for both 360 and PS3 combined.

e: beaten

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Porting may be easier, but will it matter? I wouldn't be surprised if we see a decline in PC gaming. It made sense to play on PCs when consoles struggled to display even sub-720p resolutions at a solid 30fps, but now I guess many people will be satisfied with 1080p gaming on consoles. And there are improvements on consoles regarding other aspects, too, which were exclusive to PC gaming before, like having 64 players at 60 fps in Battlefield 4. I don't think many gamers will care about stuff like super-sampling etc. ... (at least in combination with the price tag it's coming with).

 

[low-G]

I suspect there will be a dip in PC gaming for a few years (as gamers move temporarily back to the consoles they've been waiting for) but it should come back stronger than before (stronger than it is now).

 

[Chiggs]

Porting may be easier, but will it matter? I wouldn't be surprised if we see a decline in PC gaming. It made sense to play on PCs when consoles struggled to display even sub-720p resolutions at a solid 30fps, but now I guess many people will be satisfied with 1080p gaming on consoles. And there are improvements on consoles regarding other aspects, too, which were exclusive to PC gaming before, like having 64 players at 60 fps in Battlefield 4. I don't think many gamers will care about stuff like super-sampling etc. ...

As a fan of pc gaming, I agree with your sentiment--to an extent. We're going to see an initial decline for the next 2-3 years because console games are going to feature graphics that are "good enough" for most everyone; however, PCs will start to eclipse that and many core gamers will flock back over.

Of course, in order to understand my perspective on this you would first need to accept that PS4/Xbox One visuals are not that great and I don't currently subscribe to any "diminishing returns" arguments. So much more can be achieved with visuals. Much, much more.

Just my two cents.

 

[Atomski]

Porting may be easier, but will it matter? I wouldn't be surprised if we see a decline in PC gaming. It made sense to play on PCs when consoles struggled to display even sub-720p resolutions at a solid 30fps, but now I guess many people will be satisfied with 1080p gaming on consoles. And there are improvements on consoles regarding other aspects, too, which were exclusive to PC gaming before, like having 64 players at 60 fps in Battlefield 4. I don't think many gamers will care about stuff like super-sampling etc. ... (at least in combination with the price tag it's coming with).

If Oculus Rift stays PC exclusive I imagine it will be doing pretty damn good. Many will get a PC to get an actual next gen experience.

 

[PFD]

Why would PC gaming want to be downgraded to merely "first class citizen" instead of master race?

hehe

 

[BigDug13]

If Oculus Rift stays PC exclusive I imagine it will be doing pretty damn good. Many will get a PC to get an actual next gen experience.

Absolutely. This is the kind of experience I want to have. Not Kinect. I already do things like play GTA IV with the first person mod. Just imagining that same immersive experience but with Oculus? Can't wait!

 

[Sami+]

As a fan of pc gaming, I agree with your sentiment--to an extent. We're going to see an initial decline for the next 2-3 years because console games are going to feature graphics that are "good enough" for most everyone; however, PCs will start to eclipse that and many core gamers will flock back over.

Of course, in order to understand my perspective on this you would first need to accept that PS4/Xbox One visuals are not that great and I don't currently subscribe to any "diminishing returns" arguments. So much more can be achieved with visuals. Much, much more.

Just my two cents.

I think the issue is just that more and more people got started getting into PC gaming around the middle-end of last gen, with Steam actually being a very good service now and the difference in visuals being hugely apparent.

Maybe it's because I was just young at the time, but I don't recall it being like that in the PS2 generation. PC versions of games were even rarer, if I rememember correctly, and the difference wasn't anywhere near as large as it is now. Because of that, the bleeding edge hardware of the PS3 and 360 introduced visuals we'd never seen before, and that's a huge deal. There's no doubt in my mind that if it weren't for PC gaming today, the "diminishing returns" argument wouldn't exist.

 

[1st Course]

Porting may be easier, but will it matter? I wouldn't be surprised if we see a decline in PC gaming. It made sense to play on PCs when consoles struggled to display even sub-720p resolutions at a solid 30fps, but now I guess many people will be satisfied with 1080p gaming on consoles. And there are improvements on consoles regarding other aspects, too, which were exclusive to PC gaming before, like having 64 players at 60 fps in Battlefield 4. I don't think many gamers will care about stuff like super-sampling etc. ... (at least in combination with the price tag it's coming with).

With the rise of APUs I can actually see a rise in popularity for PC gaming in countries like China or south America where consoles are not an option or are more expensive than PCs. $300 small factor HTPCs that are capable of running most MMOs and F2P games can find big success there if done right me think, but I yeah I think a decline in western PC market is definitely possible.

 

[Manmademan]

WoW never had 5 million concurrent players. Not even remotely close. And neither is 5 million concurrent players a "drop in the bucket" compared to anything.

Let me clarify a bit. Diablo 3 has great sales. LOL has a lot of players.

But third party companies like EA/Activison/Ubi and the First parties themselves sell a LOT more software on consoles than they do on PC, and at higher price points.

Activision can sell 8 million copies of COD:MW2, then turn around the next year and sell another 12 million copies of Black Ops at $59.99 on the 360 alone. EA Can sell 10 million copies of battlefield in a year, AND 10 million copies of Fifa AND 5 million copies of madden- and will probably do it again next year. 12 million copies of Diablo 3 is great, until you realize Microsoft somehow convinced 24 million people to buy Kinect Adventures.

This kind of volume doesn't really happen very often on PC. What else moves that much software annually? The Sims? not for a decade now. Granted, revenue is a lot different for F2P titles and MMO's, but EA/Activision/Ubi/etc tend not to make very many of those- and it's very hard for a company to have more than one successful MMO at one time- or a successful MMO at all, as EA found out the hard way with that Star Wars MMO.

Consoles haven't traditionally been good platforms for MMOs for a number of reasons (controllers, extra fees, etc) so if you want to play something like WOW or LOL, the PC is your only option. What happens if/when that changes? who knows. Sony appears to be pushing F2P titles for the PS4, so we may very well see very high volume F2P titles in the next gen or so.

 

[dgrdsv]

In addition, gaming capable PCs (or desktops capable of being upgraded) are getting rarer as their marketshare is being eaten by tablets and notebooks.

Gaming capable PCs are being eaten by tablets? What tablets are those? Do they come with a 600W PSU and can they run Crysis 3 already?

Other than that I agree with you.

 

[careless mango]

But third party companies like EA/Activison/Ubi and the First parties themselves sell a LOT more software on consoles than they do on PC, and at higher price points.

Activision can sell 8 million copies of COD:MW2, then turn around the next year and sell another 12 million copies of Black Ops at $59.99 on the 360 alone. EA Can sell 10 million copies of battlefield in a year, AND 10 million copies of Fifa AND 5 million copies of madden- and will probably do it again next year. 12 million copies of Diablo 3 is great, until you realize Microsoft somehow convinced 24 million people to buy Kinect Adventures.

This kind of volume doesn't really happen very often on PC. What else moves that much software annually? The Sims? not for a decade now. Granted, revenue is a lot different for F2P titles and MMO's, but EA/Activision/Ubi/etc tend not to make very many of those- and it's very hard for a company to have more than one successful MMO at one time- or a successful MMO at all, as EA found out the hard way with that Star Wars MMO.

Yeah the volume has never been there for PC but as long as developers have reasonable expectations of sales that is not a problem.

It's like how Square Enix expected millions and millions of sales for Tomb Raider and Hitman to be financially successful. Developers and publishers need to set their sales expectations realistically so they can make a handy profit by setting the development costs lower to match.

This is why AAA is so unprofitable, they rake in huge amounts of money but they cost almost the same or maybe even more to make. Anyone operating a business knows you want high profit margins to make money, not extremely low.