Topic: The Mac App Store And The PC Gamepocalypse

[idolminds]

Interesting article.

The newly launched Mac App Store will change everything. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen, and the results will be very far reaching. App stores change how users think of software, how they pay for it and also how they maintain it.

They’re as radical a shift as that which changed mobile gaming from a Java platform to a real gaming system, and with the sort of financial repercussions of the Facebook ecosystem. It’s that significant, and yet almost nobody in games even realises that it’s happening.

The reasons why are these assumptions:

- Digital distribution of games has already been solved by Steam
- The Mac is not a viable game platform
- The PC is not the mobile market
- Content is valuable

All of which are shaky. Let’s start with the first.

[MysterD]

In reality, PC graphics plateaued out a couple of years ago. It’s been a long time since anyone could actually notice the difference between one bleeding edge graphics card or another.

Pure bullshit - it's up to the designers to push systems as hard as they can.

The problem is nobody is there hasn't been much DX11 support b/c aging consoles like the 360 are holding us back.

That's going to change very soon w/ more games suddenly either being DX 11 Only (Battlefield 3); games that support DX9 through 11 (Dragon Age 2, Two Worlds 2, Metro 2033); games supporting only DX 10 and above (Just Cause 2).

[W7RE]

Pure bullshit - it's up to the designers to push systems as hard as they can.

The problem is nobody is there hasn't been much DX11 support b/c aging consoles like the 360 are holding us back.

That's going to change very soon w/ more games suddenly either being DX 11 Only (Battlefield 3); games that support DX9 through 11 (Dragon Age 2, Two Worlds 2, Metro 2033); games supporting only DX 10 and above (Just Cause 2).

This is one of the reasons I hate the idea of a 10 year console life cycle. I appreciate good gameplay, but I like me some pretty graphics too. I hate that graphics aren't going anywhere because MS and Sony refuse to release a new system. It's even more retarded that it's holding back PC gaming just because of the dominance of consoles. (yes, I game more on consoles than my PC these days, but it's still retarded)

[sirean_syan]

You know, I never understand these sorts of statements (by MrD and Wyre). I'm still completely impressed by most games that have come out in the past few years. Things look good and on a technical level, good enough for me. I'm thankful that we don't have to upgrade constantly right now and that my two year old system is more or less running everything I throw at it at the highest detail.  For every upgrade you can skip you can buy some more games and not have to go through the hassle of upgrading (which is somewhat more valuable to me currently). Visual improvement are producing diminishing returns and, worse yet, making game production more difficult. Do you really want to make the graphic requirements so high for "big" games that they take five years and armies to produce so that they all have to be Call of Duty? Right now it's all about making games smarter, not brute forcing it with bigger hardware. That's nothing but a good thing because when you brute force it you get Crysis and, I'm sorry, that really wasn't that good.

[iPPi]

I agree with sirean here.  Graphics have come a long way and I'm very impressed with where they're at right now, though this is primarily with games like God of War III and Uncharted as those truly stand out as amazing looking games.

There's always room for improvement, but they're making small increments and the need to have the latest and greatest hardware is no longer a real concern at this time.

Maybe it's because I no longer want to invest a ton of money on a new gaming system and I've become far enough removed from gaming that I no longer care as much.

[idolminds]

That and I would hope PC gaming is about more than being prettier than consoles. More Mount & Blade and Minecraft, kplzthx.

[MysterD]

You know, I never understand these sorts of statements (by MrD and Wyre). I'm still completely impressed by most games that have come out in the past few years. Things look good and on a technical level, good enough for me. I'm thankful that we don't have to upgrade constantly right now and that my two year old system is more or less running everything I throw at it at the highest detail.  For every upgrade you can skip you can buy some more games and not have to go through the hassle of upgrading (which is somewhat more valuable to me currently). Visual improvement are producing diminishing returns and, worse yet, making game production more difficult. Do you really want to make the graphic requirements so high for "big" games that they take five years and armies to produce so that they all have to be Call of Duty? Right now it's all about making games smarter, not brute forcing it with bigger hardware. That's nothing but a good thing because when you brute force it you get Crysis and, I'm sorry, that really wasn't that good.

My point is the writer of this article is saying graphics have plateaued on the PC and that was actually taking a dig at PC gaming.

My point is this is VERY far from true - mainly it's b/c most designers aren't supporting DX10 or DX11 b/c they're also making for the lowest console system out there (X360) that is very DX9.0-like. They're multi-platforming - and especially first and foremost supporting the X360 b/c that's a BIG-TIME money-maker.

And the above is also why I've somehow made 6 years w/ this PC, I think. Sure, it's nice I ain't had to force myself to buy a new PC sooner and all - but, still...the above is really why PC graphics ain't been pushed to the maximum and blown aging consoles like the X360 away even further.

There's A LOT graphically on the technical side that would be going on with the PC, if even some designers actually supported what hardware and software is really out there for the PC. I really can't wait to see where the performance boosts in passes/calls the newer versions of DX have over DX 9.0 that have been talked about in interviews and stuff. Old example - see benchmarks for AC1 PC in DX 10 before it got patched-out vs. DX9.0C for starters, for example. I really can't wait to see Tessellation and other DX11 stuff that will take us to new places.

Here's some more details and stuff on DX11 and its features from Gamasutra.

EDIT:
We're always going to need companies to push the hardware and software like DICE, Crytek and Id.
We're always also going to need companies to push gameplay in new directions - which are what a lot of the Indie companies are doing.
We need both.

[Cobra951]

D, you're missing the forest because of the trees.  It's not about DX this or that.  It's about rendering convincing vistas at good frame rates.  We're essentially there, and have been there for a few years.  Sure, there are incremental improvements possible.  The question is will they be significant enough to obsolete a generation of hardware, to force the big companies who invested so much in the current generation to spend the uber-bucks again for years before seeing a profit?  A yes answer to that question takes much longer now than in decades past.

[Cobra951]

I think this article is off base in a number of ways.  The most obvious wrong assumptions relate to Steam.  Steam's business model is what it is because it works in the current reality.  If that changes, so will the business model.  Either that, or they go out of business, and someone else takes their place, someone who will know how to compete with the Apple concept. 

There's a big difference between indie games developed by 2 guys and a major commercial blockbuster.  This difference is not just in the minds of developers.  Everyone involved in the game scene understands and appreciates it.  No gamer expects to pay $5 for the next top shooter (whatever it may be).  If 3 guys got together in a basement and whipped up something unique and briefly entertaining, yeah, $5 will suffice.

Mobile gaming is an inherently different animal from fixed device, big-screen gaming.  I hope I don't need to elaborate here.  It's ridiculous to assume that gaming on the go is the same market as hardcore gaming in your inner sanctum.

[W7RE]

Lack of new hardware to push graphics means game devs are finding other ways to push graphics (oh we don't need 60 fps, thet's just hit 30. Oh 25 fps is still acceptable) Remember this thread about how Insomniac would no longer be pushing for 60 fps because they could make games look better at 30? That's a result of wanting more power but not having it. They want their games to look as good as possible, and they stopped chasing 60 fps because of it.

I'm not saying games don't look good enough now. I'm saying they could still look a lot better. Yea, you can say stuff looks amazing now, but I thought the same thing the first time I saw SNES games. There's always room for improvement.

[idolminds]

There's a big difference between indie games developed by 2 guys and a major commercial blockbuster.  This difference is not just in the minds of developers.  Everyone involved in the game scene understands and appreciates it.  No gamer expects to pay $5 for the next top shooter (whatever it may be).  If 3 guys got together in a basement and whipped up something unique and briefly entertaining, yeah, $5 will suffice.

Bolded part for interest. I think Steam is already pushing that mindset, actually. Lots of big budget games get announced and you see people saying "I'll wait for a Steam sale." Ok so maybe they won't drop to $5 at launch but I definitely think we'll see the typical $50-60 launch price get pushed down.

[Xessive]

I still recall a few years ago when the average price-point was $35-$45, $50 being the expectation for Collectors' Editions. Before that I remember when the big publisher releases were close to $70! The price ranges do fluctuate frequently (by frequently I mean every couple of years or so).

The Steam sales definitely stir the playing field. The patient players don't mind waiting for a good deal. EA, Ubisoft, and Activision took action by reinforcing new purchases with tactics like promoting Collectors' Editions, rewarding early-adopters, and especially by encouraging pre-orders. Furthermore there are the "one-time-use DLC keys" that usually accompany pre-orders or special editions. I can usually ignore the excess rubbish and enjoy a game for what it is, but there's often that nagging feeling that something was stripped from the core game and repackaged into a "special" order.

[sirean_syan]

Lack of new hardware to push graphics means game devs are finding other ways to push graphics (oh we don't need 60 fps, thet's just hit 30. Oh 25 fps is still acceptable) Remember this thread about how Insomniac would no longer be pushing for 60 fps because they could make games look better at 30? That's a result of wanting more power but not having it. They want their games to look as good as possible, and they stopped chasing 60 fps because of it.

While I think giving people new hardware constantly just allows them to get sloppy and rely on better PCs (again, see Crysis), that's as fair of an argument for that side of things that I've heard. Maybe we're starting to see a balance between the two sides with these longer upgrade cycles.

Something interesting that might come out of the whole digital download world is that there might be a larger pricing scale for new games based on some perceived value. This exist somewhat, but people are already used to a $5-$15 scale for Xbox Live Arcade style games where the relative price difference is huge. With that mindset, there might be more desire to see bigger retail games priced at $40-70 range so that a standard 10 run game comes out on the lower end and huge multiplayer event or sprawling open world game are priced on the upper end.

[Cools!]

Screw the App Store. And screw all the developers who remove direct download links from their site after putting their apps on the app store.