[Rigor Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Stratadrake

Preferences = opinion

Gee, no shit? That, and your crufty follow-up, has absolutely no bearing on whether what I said is actually true.

There are certain styles of games that work better with a gamepad, and certain styles of games that work better in mouse/keyboard. RTS and point/click adventures being two large examples of the latter.

Psst...nobody actually likes RTSs.

[AshleyAshes]

Single core, Athlon 64 3200 (Clawhammer) with a Radeon X800 XT for graphics. Fairly powerful itself but sadly lacking in Shader Model 3 which is a requirement.

However EXCEPT for high end game, this desktop is FINE for my needs. Since I'm also not a huge gamer, having a top of the line gaming PC is a hard expense to justify. L4D2 does run fine, the fog is just cranked up due to the games autodetection of my system's capabilities. Apparently the manual overrides which exist in other source games, were removed for the L4D series.

The 360 appeals to me. Because despite my issues here, I can turn on the 360 and play Dead Rising at 1280x1024 on my 21" CRT monitor. It looks great, it runs reliably, and the controller is fine for the game. One of my major notivations towards shifting to console gaming is that it gets me out of this endless game of hardware upgrade leapfrog you get with consoles. Every 360 plays every 360 game. It's an appealing simplicity to never have to read the 'hardware reqirements' on the side of the box.

[ToeClaws]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

Single core, Athlon 64 3200 (Clawhammer) with a Radeon X800 XT for graphics. Fairly powerful itself but sadly lacking in Shader Model 3 which is a requirement.

However EXCEPT for high end game, this desktop is FINE for my needs. Since I'm also not a huge gamer, having a top of the line gaming PC is a hard expense to justify. L4D2 does run fine, the fog is just cranked up due to the games autodetection of my system's capabilities. Apparently the manual overrides which exist in other source games, were removed for the L4D series.

My roommie ran L4D initially on her Athlon XP 2500+ with Radeon X850 Pro, which like you, worked pretty good for the most part. Big horde situations and fog were problematic for her too. I found a used 512M Radeon 1650 Pro for her (cost like $40), and that fixed it up. Eventually though she did buy a more current machine. So even if you just get a used 1650 somewhere, that will help. The 2600XT is your best bet, but shop around a little first to make sure you're getting a good price - don't drop more than $150 on it, preferably a lot less.

[Rigor Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

Single core, Athlon 64 3200 (Clawhammer) with a Radeon X800 XT for graphics. Fairly powerful itself but sadly lacking in Shader Model 3 which is a requirement.

However EXCEPT for high end game, this desktop is FINE for my needs. Since I'm also not a huge gamer, having a top of the line gaming PC is a hard expense to justify. L4D2 does run fine, the fog is just cranked up due to the games autodetection of my system's capabilities. Apparently the manual overrides which exist in other source games, were removed for the L4D series.

The 360 appeals to me. Because despite my issues here, I can turn on the 360 and play Dead Rising at 1280x1024 on my 21" CRT monitor. It looks great, it runs reliably, and the controller is fine for the game. One of my major notivations towards shifting to console gaming is that it gets me out of this endless game of hardware upgrade leapfrog you get with consoles. Every 360 plays every 360 game. It's an appealing simplicity to never have to read the 'hardware reqirements' on the side of the box.

And you don't wind up being like this guy if you try to beat the system.

[Geek]

Not surprising. Though the article really seems more like the death of Game For Windows LIVE than Windows 7's issues with gaming, though I imagine the point that 7 is sub-par for gaming still stands if it is a Vista rework.

Honestly I'm glad to see GFW LIVE dying, it was a clunky pain in the ass that did nothing but get in the way and make my gaming experience less enjoyable. On the other hand, I can't imagine 7 will be that much more of a joy for gaming. I can't say for sure as I haven't used 7 yet and don't plan to until the major kinks inherent to a new OS are worked out, but I assume that it has the same compatibility problems as Vista meaning that older games will be either partially or totally unplayable or will require extra work to make playable. Which to me, as someone that only uses Windows for gaming is a considerable problem.

I think Microsoft is really failing to see the significance of the fact that they essentially have a monopoly on PC gaming right now and are starting to let their grip slip by not making sure that Windows is easy to use for gamers as well as causal PC users. I don't see an Apple OS (or even a Linux OS) swooping in to become the next big thing for PC gaming in the next few years, but should Microsoft continue to ignore gaming I can see potential in another OS developer picking up the slack to edge in on what is for now Microsoft's territory.

Just my 2 cents, though

[Rigor Sardonicus]

Sadly, I've found all the Windows games I play work better in Linux than in Windows. Except Prototype and TLJ, but eh.

If I weren't so lazy and stubborn I'd have switched back already. I can't even run Steam on this piece of shit now...

I think Microsoft is really failing to see the significance of the fact that they essentially have a monopoly on PC gaming right now and are starting to let their grip slip by not making sure that Windows is easy to use for gamers as well as causal PC users. I don't see an Apple OS (or even a Linux OS) swooping in to become the next big thing for PC gaming in the next few years, but should Microsoft continue to ignore gaming I can see potential in another OS developer picking up the slack to edge in on what is for now Microsoft's territory.

It' not bloody likely to ever happen, I'd say. Apple's too elitist, and the only corporate-friendly Linux distros available right now are still aimed mostly at office workers and casual users. As long as that's where the money's at--and as long as Wine, Cedega, and CrossOver continue being practical enough alternatives for the determined Linux/Mac gamers out there--M$ can do as little as it wants.

Though, it's not like Microsoft ignores gaming. They just seem to implicitly recommend that people take all their gaming to a platform better suited to such an application.

[AshleyAshes]

Does pushing for gaming on the PC on Windows 7 help sell copies of Windows 7? That is the goal for Microsoft afterall. It's not like the gamers are going to defect to Mac or Linux currently and everyone will EVENTUALLY go to Windows 7. There were plenty who said 'Oh no, I'll stick with my Windows 98SE. I don't need XP'. But for the vast majority, XP eventually became necessary.

Meanwhile, Microsoft does face real competition for gaming in the console wars from both Sony and Nintendo.

Microsoft's reasonings and motivations are clear here.

[Geek]

What's ironic about that article is that it's published on MSNBC. o_O'

Microsoft aren't exactly chomping at the bit to make a solid PC gaming experience because they have the Xbox, where they can charge consumers for online play, accessories, micro-transactions and much more. The PC gamer in comparison has been used to free online play, mods and all sorts of awesome community stuff. Which doesn't get Microsoft any money, bar the sale of Windows (if genuine). So it's understandable that Microsoft are being a bit lazy here.

But on the other side of things, developers are turning to console gaming a lot more, and leaving a lot of what made PC gaming so great dead in the water. The latest trend seems to be ditching dedicated server support for FPS games. Modern Warfare 2 won't be doing it, and id have suggested that RAGE will be following suit.

I'm not much of a home computer gamer - stick me on a console all the way, since the Mega Drive and SNES era - but there are games where it has its charms for me. I love playing the old classics like Command and Conquer and Theme Hospital. And back in the late 80s/early 90s, I absolutely adores my Commodore Amiga 500+. That was when home computer gaming superseded console gaming, for me. Those classic adventure games in Monkey Island, platformers in Superfrog, action games in Alien Breed and Chaos Engine, Speedball 2, James Pond, Genesia... good times. And games that either couldn't be done, or wouldn't be ported to a console.

The moment PC/home computer games were able to be ported to consoles was the start of a huge decline for that market. No two ways about it. And it's sad, but as has been said Microsoft has largely been the cause, half-hearting initiatives like GFW. Valve are about the only people propping up the platform with Steam, but now other D2D services are boycotting them because games like Modern Warfare 2 will come with Steamworks (and thus, the Steam store - which is a complain I can understand totally). So the PC industry is soon going to be cannibalizing itself.

As I've said before, I'd love Apple to take a home computer initiative to the Mac. No hassle of driver errors, meaning a guarantee that you'd get the best results in gameplay, and a game browser akin to the iTunes store or something, would be awesome. But, Apple aren't the kind of people to head in that direction forcefully. They like to play their game one step at a time - first it was music, then mobile phones, looks like they're going into TV and video territory now. So games aren't really on the agenda.

I kind of miss the days where you simply put the disc in the drive and the game loaded and worked without any of this install bollocks.

[ToeClaws]

Originally Posted by Geek

What's ironic about that article is that it's published on MSNBC. o_O'

*chuckles* I know - I have seen more negative press on Windows 7 from them than other major news sites... which is kinda self-loathing, technically. That or MS actually does respect the freedom of speech of their news branch.

[AzurePhoenix]

Man, this thread is like, the same 3 nerds posting in unison. You guys are discussing stuff that 99% of people don't know or care about. Though I will say that they would love to limit gaming to consoles, if only for the Nickel and Dime you to death bullshit they love to do. But it's funny how my 1,000 dollar laptop has better graphics and better HD than the PS3, and does way more shit as well. I don't think PC gaming is going anywhere.

EDIT- One more thing. When the whole 95% of market share that Windows has declines, that'll be the day that it gets overtaken as the primary gaming OS. MSNBC? More like PMSNBC.

[NewfDraggie]

There's only one game that I play that linux (or mac) can play, and windows plays it better. Windows will always be the gaming OS.

[Runefox]

Originally Posted by NewfDraggie

There's only one game that I play that linux (or mac) can play, and windows plays it better. Windows will always be the gaming OS.

Well, that's mainly because the games that are available on Linux are generally not either major releases - Or they're played via Wine. Which... Well... :P

[Shireton]

Originally Posted by Rigor Sardonicus

Psst...nobody actually likes RTSs.

Not true at all.

[Rel]

This is how i see it

Windows: Most games are made for (.exe), very easy to install, and very easy to run and play, any gamer can do it without a problem. Even non-gamers could do something like that

MacOS: Many games are made for it, and they are also very easy to install, but really? Most gamers dont buy a mac to run games, and the only people who run games on mac, are usually just artists, movie editors, or rich kids. No one can really afford their overpriced machines, so not as many people play on it

Linux: Barely any games are made for it, and most gamers don't even know about Wine. And even if they did, most of them would go through hell just to configure Wine correctly to run games. Even then, you would still have the random crashes, Errors, and multiplayer connectivity errors on most, standard linux machines. Unless, well, you were a huge fanboy of linux and were extremely handy with Linux, and knew how to get it set up just right, so you can run it with minimal errors. Like the OP as well as some others.

Console: Plug it in, put in the CD, and play.

Which do you think most people would rather use?

[ADF]

Honestly this article is fail, they made a big deal about Windows 7 and Microsoft not focusing on PC gaming. Microsoft owns a console, why would they promote PC gaming when they don't get a penny from PC game sales? Microsoft's only role in PC gaming is to manage their API's; which they have done. Are they honestly judging the condition of PC gaming by Games for Windows? Whoever wrote this article is deeply uninformed if they think GFW is of any significance in PC gaming.

"Of the 20 most acclaimed mainstream Windows games released in 2008, half were multiplatform"

As opposed to the console line-up which is almost entirely cross platform? When compared to consoles PC has far far more 3rd party exclusives, consoles exclusive line-up almost entirely consists of 1st party published games. If PC has exclusivity problems why does it have the most AAA/AA games by GameSpot's reviews; while this years console AAA/AA line-up doesn't have a single 3rd party game?

"and of those, majors like "Mass Effect," "Grand Theft Auto IV" and "Dead Space" arrived in console form first."

I suppose that Mass Effect and Grand Theft Auto IV were both enhanced for PC just slipped past this article writers attention? Dead Space is the only one of those games that didn't receive any PC specific enhancements as a result of the delay; and the delay was next to nothing, they made it sound like it was delayed months or something.

"Where things stand in 2009: 34 GFW-branded titles have been released to date, only 10 of those with LIVE support. Fifteen of those 34 have full Xbox LIVE support but lack corresponding Games for Windows LIVE functionality.

Major PC releases like "Borderlands," "Dragon Age: Origins," "Left 4 Dead 2" and "Modern Warfare 2" — the holiday headliners — are shipping without GFW branding entirely. It's hard to say who's more to blame — Microsoft, or an obstinately independent development community — but the sense one has is of an international accord devoid of signees.

What to do about it? I'm not privy to the certification hoops developers have to hop through to get Microsoft's seal of approval. I don't know why one multiplatform game gets Games for Windows LIVE support while another dozen don't. I can only guess — just like you — that the dearth of original, mainstream PC games has to do with broader sales and better economic scaling in other (read: console, handheld, mobile) markets. "

The horror! What are we PC gamers going to do without GFW?

"What I can speak to are the naked actualities. Take NPD's September PC gaming top 20 sellers"

NPD... aren't they the ones that only monitor US sales?

"What we need at this point isn't the same tossed off rhetoric laced with signifiers that win points in a game of you-know-what-bingo, but honest consumer leveling. Tell us what the issues are and why. How do you go about solving a problem? By admitting you have one, first."

Here's an idea, try actually understanding PC gaming before writing yet another dooms day article You don't judge the condition of an open platform by the success of those who try to regulate it. PC is an independent platform, it doesn't have a mummy and daddy like Microsoft and Sony to baby it and splash out cash to convince people to become a PC gamer.

PC is doing fine as it is, the only thing that is giving the illusion that consoles are so better off right now is the cash injections from the 1st party. Take away the 1st party support and suddenly consoles exclusive line-up disappears, they're lucky to get any 3rd party games these days.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

As opposed to the console line-up which is almost entirely cross platform? When compared to consoles PC has far far more 3rd party exclusives, consoles exclusive line-up almost entirely consists of 1st party published games. If PC has exclusivity problems why does it have the most AAA/AA games by GameSpot's reviews; while this years console AAA/AA line-up doesn't have a single 3rd party game?

...Is there even such a thing as a 'First Party Game' for PC...?

[Runefox]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

...Is there even such a thing as a 'First Party Game' for PC...?

I guess if IBM opened a game dev studio...

[ADF]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

...Is there even such a thing as a 'First Party Game' for PC...?

Since PC gaming has no owner there cannot be a 1st party.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

Since PC gaming has no owner there cannot be a 1st party.

Then why even say that 'When compared to consoles PC has far far more 3rd party exclusives'? Hell, the PC doesn't have third party games, when there's no first party, there isn't a third party either.

[ADF]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

Then why even say that 'When compared to consoles PC has far far more 3rd party exclusives'? Hell, the PC doesn't have third party games, when there's no first party, there isn't a third party either.

Because on consoles games that come from companies independent from the 1st party are called 3rd party. 3rd party may not be the correct term on PC as all of its games are like this, but if I used two different terms for what is essentially the same thing; people could become confused.

[AshleyAshes]

Originally Posted by ADF

Because on consoles games that come from companies independent from the 1st party are called 3rd party. 3rd party may not be the correct term on PC as all of its games are like this, but if I used two different terms for what is essentially the same thing; people could become confused.

I still don't see why you would compare console first and third party title selection to PCs when there's no such thing as a first party PC game. What's the point?

Not only that, but a lot of the titles that you deem as 'First Party' are not developed by first parties and only PUBLISHED by them.

[ADF]

Originally Posted by AshleyAshes

I still don't see why you would compare console first and third party title selection to PCs when there's no such thing as a first party PC game. What's the point?

Not only that, but a lot of the titles that you deem as 'First Party' are not developed by first parties and only PUBLISHED by them.

-edit

I guess the long version then.

The article decided to take note of the cross platform games on PC when judging the condition of the platform. Why are cross platform games relevant to a platforms condition? A cross platform game is essentially saying that platform isn't going to provide a worthwhile return on its own, they spread the game out across multiple platforms because it makes more money. This is why a exclusive game has so much significance, by choosing to make a game exclusive when they could make more money by going cross platform; they are essentially making a statement of that platforms worth.

Exclusive games can therefore be used to judge a platform worth to a developer, the platform with the most exclusives has the strongest position in the market. This is why the winner of each console generation is often determined by which one managed to get hold of the most exclusives, the PS2 was market leader last generation because of its unparalleled 3rd party support, it provided the best game selection on a single platform.

There is only one type of exclusive on PC, however as I'm sure you know there are different types of exclusives on consoles. There is the 3rd party exclusive, games that chose to be exclusive, then there is the 1st party exclusive, exclusive because Sony/Microsoft either developed it themselves or wrote a check. I'd argue a 3rd party exclusive says more about a platforms condition than a 1st party exclusive, 3rd party choose to remain exclusive of their own free will; were as 1st party are artificially restricted to the platform in order to differentiate its selection.

"I can only guess — just like you — that the dearth of original, mainstream PC games has to do with broader sales and better economic scaling in other (read: console, handheld, mobile) markets."

The article made the argument that consoles are doing better than PC at acquiring certain games, my argument was is this really the case? When you look at many of the console games that this article would likely bring up; they tend to all share a common trait, 1st party published.

The lure of increased profits from cross platform development has resulted in many platforms losing games that were previously exclusive. Consoles are reliant on exclusive games in order to differentiate themselves from the competition, if they cannot convince 3rd party developers to remain exclusive of their own free will; then they have to use other means. Hence why every major title to come out on PS3 and 360 these days is 1st party published, they are essentially bought exclusives that they themselves fund.

As stated earlier 3rd party games say more about a platform than 1st party. When you consider today's market; it's a miracle that PC has been able to keep hold of as many exclusives as it has. That article is supposed to have us believe PC gaming is in trouble, yet it has attracted developers that 'chose' to keep games exclusive; while Sony and Microsoft become the publishers of games in order to keep them platform exclusives.

In short from outside observation PC looks like it is in a stronger position, consoles are having their exclusive line-up supplemented by the 1st party to fill in what the 3rd party used to provide.

[Runefox]

Originally Posted by ADF

Since PC gaming has no owner there cannot be a 1st party.

Technically, "PC's" are IBM's brainchild, and everything we know and love came from their standardization of the hardware. Ergo, IBM = First-party as far as PC hardware goes.

As for PC software, it then depends on the operating system you're running - Mac OS users would have Apple to turn to for first-party gaming. Windows users would have Microsoft. In truth, only *NIX users truly lack a "first-party" in any traditional sense to speak of.

[NewfDraggie]

Still, anybody that purchases a Macintosh or gets Linux for gaming will simply be laughed at.

[Runefox]

Originally Posted by NewfDraggie

Still, anybody that purchases a Macintosh or gets Linux for gaming will simply be laughed at.

But dude, Apple's gonna get Halo dude. Bungie's all over Apple! It's a Microsoft-killer.