×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Are Consoles Holding Back PC Gaming?

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the pc-game-makers-are-holding-back-pc-gaming dept.

PC Games (Games) 518

An anonymous reader writes "Despite all the excitement over Nvidia's upcoming Fermi GPU, there is still a distinct lack of DirectX 11 games on the market. This article points out that while the PC has returned to favor as a gaming platform, consoles are still the target for most developers, and still provide the major limitations on the technological sophistication of game graphics. Inside the Xbox 360 sits an ATI Xenos GPU, a DirectX 9c-based chip that bears similarity to the Radeon X1900 series of graphics cards (cards whose age means that they aren't even officially supported in Windows 7). Therein lies the rub. With the majority of PC games now starting life as console titles, games are still targeted at five-year-old DirectX 9 hardware."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Short Answer: Yes! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647080)

PC Games are designed for the graphics capabilities of the gaming
consoles (The Wii is a fisher price funbox designed for non-gamers and
drunk idiots). Few are as bad as the PC version of Final Fantasy 7 but
it still happens.

But then in a few years mobile phone gaming will hold back console gaming.

Causes...

Piracy: It is much easier to pirate a PC game.
Market size: With a few exceptions (WoW etc) console gaming earns a lot more money. Not just because console games usually cost 50% more than a PC game.
Laziness: Creating a console game might get you x million sales but the extra effort required for a proper PC version (higher res textures, modability) doesn't get you that much more than a straight port.
Your target audience: Most console gamers have short attention spans and prefer flashy lights and 5 mins of intense adrenaline to a game with a story.
Thats why RPGs dont do well on consoles. (The Final Fantasy series is not RPG it is just teen angst emo crap)

TFS blames the DX9 hardware in the Xbox and while that is partly true, PC gamers tend to expect more than just flashy lights and explosions.
Games companies try to make interactive movies with bits of action thrown in but dont realise that the story parts are mostly just pathetic.
Big name actors doing voices, more cut-scenes and Quick Time Events does not make up for a lack of gameplay.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (0, Troll)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647250)

I don't think you ever played FF7's PC version. Even the software renderer was graphically superior on a middle-ranging PC at the time of its release to the PSX version. Having a fast enough computer/3D accelerator to run it in high resolutions and there was no comparison.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647434)

Superior to the PSX version? Barely. It used the same textures but in a different resolution.
It also used the same low resolution cut-scenes and had fixed save points.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1, Informative)

djnforce9 (1481137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647436)

There were other problems with the PC version FF7 though. Just to name a couple:

1. The music went through your sound card's Midi Synthesizer which was MUCH lower quality than the PSX's sound hardware at the time (although the included Yamaha XG SoftSynthesizer did help mitigate the quality gap) and was incapable of producing vocals (yes that meant that you got absolutely no lyrics during the "One Winged Angel" song heard while fighting the final boss).

2. The FMV compression was also rather poor and looked more pixelated than on the PSX.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647442)

But it was buggy as all hell. Even today, if you want to replay it, I tell people to play the PSX version in an emulator with every thing maxed out. It looks better and plays better.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647258)

Market size: With a few exceptions (WoW etc) console gaming earns a lot more money. Not just because console games usually cost 50% more than a PC game.

For console multiplayer against visiting friends, you usually need one console, one large monitor and one copy of the game. But for PC multiplayer against visiting friends, you usually need a whole LAN of PCs because most major-label PC games don't have a mode for gamepads and split screen. So you have a $60 console game vs. two to four copies of a $40 PC game.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647302)

Yes, but for a lot of games, split-screen sucks. Not only do you have only a portion of the screen, but your friends are probably cheating by looking at your screen to see where you are. There are games which are reasonable to play with local multiplayer, but for most, I'd just as soon not play at all... so I wouldn't really call that an "advantage" for consoles.

It's not cheating to see your teammates (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647360)

your friends are probably cheating by looking at your screen to see where you are.

It's not cheating to see where your teammates are in almost any game. (See Gauntlet or Secret of Mana.) Nor is it cheating to see where your opponents are if all players are in an arena. (See Bomberman, any WWE game, or Smash Bros.)

There are games which are reasonable to play with local multiplayer

So with the rise of TVs with PC-compatible VGA and HDMI inputs, why aren't these games ported to PC?

Re:It's not cheating to see your teammates (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647380)

You only described games that don't require tactical elements where the opposite player shouldn't know everything. Civilization, Age of Empires, all those strategy games. Most of shooters like Call of Duty are a lot better too when the enemy doesn't know where you are. Those kind of games don't work good on split-screen, and on minimum lose all tactical elements.

Re:It's not cheating to see your teammates (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647514)

Most of shooters like Call of Duty are a lot better too when the enemy doesn't know where you are.

Who said anything about the enemy? Read the subject line of my comment: "It's not cheating to see your teammates".

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

frieko (855745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647388)

Simple solution to the screen watching cheat - just accept it. It adds an interesting new element to the game. I remember back in the Halo 1 days the advantage would go to the players that could instantly glance and interpret what they saw.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

halowolf (692775) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647490)

It also helped that for the first time in gaming history the pistol in Halo 1 was actually a good choice of weapon instead of a default way to alert your peers that you were a sure kill.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647304)

Sure, but you can't really compare those two. Both console gaming with friends and LAN parties are completely different. I don't know why people always have to compare the two - you can have both.

LAN parties also offer one strategic element more - other people don't see where you are / what you are doing / what you are planning and you can have your whole full screen just for yourself. Our Call of Duty LAN parties would had been quite less fun if you knew where everyone was. No hiding, no surprise attacks, no tactics. Just mindless who-shoots-and-hits-first attacks.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647390)

Both console gaming with friends and LAN parties are completely different.

I agree. So why don't PC games support the console-style experience for players who have a PC tucked under the HDTV?

I don't know why people always have to compare the two - you can have both.

But why can't I have both on one machine?

Our Call of Duty LAN parties would had been quite less fun if you knew where everyone was.

If modes like Goldeneye 007 on N64 aren't acceptable, have you tried a team game? If you have two people on your split screen, can you do two on a team vs. two bots? Split-screen first-person shooters all the way back to FaceBall 2000 for Super NES have supported team matches.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647452)

So why don't PC games support the console-style experience for players who have a PC tucked under the HDTV?

It's been a while since I looked at the state of PC gaming, but most of the games that looked like they'd make sense as shared-screen games that I owned did support it. Some really old examples include things like Wacky Wheels, which supported both serial-line and split-screen modes. Future Cop LAPD is slightly more modern and it did too. Atomic Bomberman supported up to 8 players (I think), and you could have them on any mixture of computers. We played it at a LAN party where we ended up with more people than computers. Some people shared a keyboard and a couple played with joypads. I don't know if this trend was reversed in more recent PC games, but a lot of recent console games, particularly on the XBox 360, don't support single-console multiplayer either.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647498)

I agree. So why don't PC games support the console-style experience for players who have a PC tucked under the HDTV?

People that have done such are so minority that it probably doesn't make much sense to developers. Most people now a day have console for that purpose. PC games used to have multiplayer split-screen support in a lot of games and we used to play so in the 90's (there was some fun games too, especially some freeware ones). But when Internet got around and LAN parties started to become more common, there wasn't really need for such anymore.

If modes like Goldeneye 007 on N64 aren't acceptable, have you tried a team game? If you have two people on your split screen, can you do two on a team vs. two bots? Split-screen first-person shooters all the way back to FaceBall 2000 for Super NES have supported team matches.

Co-op campaigns like Left4Dead, Borderlands and so on sure can work that way, I agree. But since I like these strategy games and games where enemies not knowing where you are is important thing, I rather take PC and have LAN parties. But when we sit down for a beer or quick game, my consoles work just well for that. Take the best from both worlds.

As to what comes to why not a single machine, there isn't a single console either. With current generation it actually makes even some sense, since Wii is so completely different to the other machines. However pretty much all people are just fine with the current differences between PC/Consoles and I am too.

Sometimes it's better to separate things and not try to build a "Jack of all trades, master of none" -device.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (1)

djnforce9 (1481137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647482)

To be honest, that only applies to games with local "split screen" multiplayer to which not all console games have and sometimes it just does not work depending on the game's genre. Sega & Sonic All-Star Racing has local multiplayer on both consoles and PC and it uses split-screen so like you said, you only need one copy for multiple friends to play. However, if we got into a game that has no local multiplayer (RTS and even some FPS games for example which could never work on split-screen), then whether you are using consoles or PC, you will need a network and multiple consoles (and copies of the game) to play multiplayer.

Re:Short Answer: Yes! (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647402)

>>>The Wii is a fisher price funbox designed for non-gamers and drunk idiots

Sure if you pretend that Nintendo doesn't have a 30 history of creating excellent games. I don't own a Wii but the games I've played (Zelda Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3) are just as good as those games I found on my Gamecube, N64, Super Nintendo, and NES. And just as good as on my Xbox, PS2, or PS1. I can't believe your comment was marked "insightful" since it's mostly just fanboyism.
.

>>>Most console gamers have short attention spans and prefer flashy lights and 5 mins of intense adrenaline to a game with a story.

How ironic you post this on an article about how PC games are not shiny enough. If Pc gamers care more about story than flashy lights, then why worry if the graphics are "only DirectX 10 instead of 11?) Probably cause you're wrong. I've met lots of PC gamers who refuse to play a classic like Wing Commander or Baldurs Gate 1 just because it's pixelated.

As for story, if console games don't like story, why are RPGs so popular on consoles? Once again I question why your fanboyish anti-console rant was labeled "insightful". Trollish is more like it.

So? (3, Insightful)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647090)

StarCraft all the way! *zerg rush* Dang it...

Why? (5, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647094)

Why would you target DirectX 11, when nobody really wants to use it? PC gaming would be better off if you targeted OpenGL.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647170)

Same problem really, the PS3 uses OpenGL 2.0 ES, it isn't 3.0 or 4.0.
The RSX (PS3's GPU) is based on a 7800.
Hi-end GPU for PC are only useful for higher res and FSAA, nothing more ATM.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647180)

Yes, this is the issue. Lack of cross platform pc gaming is holding back a ton. However, it's almost equal to the amount if games were available on both wii/ps3/xbox360 at the same time.

The difference, and why the PC gaming will win in the long run? It's easier to just program a game in openGL that runs on all platforms than it is to program for wii/ps3/xbox360 where you have 3 entirely separate hardware and development requirements.

Re:Why? (0, Flamebait)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647212)

No one really cares about cross platform on PC, other than those few people who run Linux on desktop. Most games already work on Windows (where all the gamers are and don't care about philosophical things with Linux) and Mac OSX has most games too, along with the upcoming Mac version of Steam too.

Thinking that the lack of gaming on Linux is what's holding back PC as a gaming platform is hilarious, and so wrong.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647364)

No one has mentioned linux until you showed up. Why is it that the anti-linux crowd shows up the minute anyone mentions openGL or cross platform? I suggest you go back and re-read the GPs post which is directed at wii/ps3/xbox360.

Even so, your post makes no sense. You list everyone being on Windows and OSX yet fail to realise that OSX uses openGL. What on earth was your point with this off-topic rant?

Re:Why? (0, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647412)

And in turn your post about cross platform support for wii/ps3/xbox360 also doesn't make any sense, because
1) 360 doesn't support OpenGL, it supports DirectX
2) Wii and PS3 OpenGL support isn't compatible, and they also have other technical (cpu, SD/HD, ram, so on) and gameplay (wiimote) differences that would still require complete rewrite of graphics engine and gameplay.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647454)

Why is it that the anti-linux crowd shows up the minute anyone mentions openGL or cross platform?

Probably the same reason the anti-Microsoft crowd shows up even when the post/summary/article doesn't call for it.

...and it's why slashdot sucks.

Re:Why? (0, Flamebait)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647422)

You have absolutely no idea how many linux and apple gamers use windows simply because it's the only thing that will run their games.

hint: a ton. I'd go so far as to say even half of all pc gamers.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647444)

Question -

If OS X is a unix operating system, does that mean Mac games will work on Linux too?

Re:Why? (0)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647510)

No of course not. Blizzard (makers of Warcraft) donesn't care. Valve doesn't seem to care (all Steam games are getting converted to run on Mac using OpenGL). And all the game makers embracing the iPhone and iPad sure don't care about OpenGL since it doesn't support DirectX.

Wow. You are so right. All these industry leader racing toward openGL just proves how right you are?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647230)

It's easier to just program a game in openGL that runs on all platforms

As I understand it, working around NVIDIA driver defects, ATI driver defects, and Intel driver defects is almost as hard as writing a wrapper around PS3 OpenGL ES, Xbox 360 DirectX, and Wii GX.

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647262)

Really? You seriously think PC gaming is being held back by the tiny market share of Linux and Mac desktops?

That's a little like saying iPhone game development is being held back by the N-Gage....

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647188)

And who exactly are those who want to use OpenGL? Not the developers, as it has serious problems and shortcomings compared to DirectX [slashdot.org] - not all technical, but other issues too.

Gamers? They probably don't even know the technical or philosophical differences between OpenGL and DirectX, and if they do, they don't care.

And who doesn't want to use DirectX 11? You should make your games to support if already, along with providing fallback to DX9 and DX10. Gamers and their hardware will catch up.

Re:Why? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647322)

And who exactly are those who want to use OpenGL? Not the developers,

Plenty of developers want to develop for multiple platforms, and don't want to be tied to Windows. Especially with the rise of powerful mobile gaming platforms.

Gamers? They probably don't even know the technical or philosophical differences between OpenGL and DirectX, and if they do, they don't care.

Gamers in general (90% console), maybe not, but PC gamers are much more likely to understand the difference.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647356)

Saying OpenGL allows direct development to multiple platforms including mobiles doesn't make much sense because in pretty much every case you would need to do the rendering engine again, and in most cases also change the gameplay completely. Mobile phones don't scale up to same performance as consoles or PC.

If PC gamers understand the technical difference, then they know DirectX is technically superior. But those who understand and care about the philosophical difference are probably along the same numbers than those who run Linux on desktop as a main OS - not much. Open source people sure, but not gamers.

sopssa, go work in the gaming industry for a while (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647394)

sopssa, for fuck's sake, go work in the gaming industry for a while before you go making your blatantly stupid comments.

Who wants to use OpenGL? Just about every game developer! I looked at your link, and for fuck's sake, you just cited yourself. You have trouble speaking on behalf of yourself, let alone for all developers. That said, the "problems" you mention in your other post are PURE BUNK. Those who replied to you did a pretty good job tearing your "arguments" apart.

We all want to use OpenGL because it's a nicer API than Direct3D, we can develop for it on our Macs, and our games will support just about every modern gaming platform imaginable (because we aren't tied to Microsoft's platforms).

No, gamers shouldn't care whether a given game uses Direct3D or OpenGL. But when they're Mac users (like approximately 10% of all users now are), Direct3D is pretty fucking useless to them.

In terms of DirectX 11, we don't want to use it because OpenGL is better for our needs. DirectX 11 doesn't support Macs, it doesn't support the PS2 or the PS3, it doesn't support the Wii, and it doesn't support most mobile devices.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647246)

DirectX 11 in this context does not mean 'version 11 of the Microsoft API for game programming' it means 'graphics cards with geometry and compute shaders and hardware tessellation support'. Whether these are programmed using DirectX 11 or OpenGL 4 (with OpenCL) is largely irrelevant. If you use these features effectively, you need quite a different design to the older model where you just had vertex and pixel shaders. If you target the older functionality, supported by consoles, then your game will work fine on newer hardware. If you target the newer hardware then a console port will involve a significant amount of rewriting.

The Voodoo card did texturing in hardware and the GeForce did transform and lighting as well, but these were just accelerating parts of the fixed-function pipeline. You used the same programming model with and without this acceleration, it just made your code run faster. With pixel and vertex shaders, you had two separate code paths, one for the fixed-function pipeline and one with shaders. This was a bit more effort, but you were mainly using the shaders to do the same thing as the fixed-function pipeline, just with a few more special effects. With geometry and compute shaders, you can generate a lot of your data on the GPU. Writing fall-back code basically means either writing the engine twice or not using the new hardware to anything close to its full potential.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647432)

Why DX11 graphic cards? There is so much you can do with the SPU on the PS3...

And, all DirectX caps are grossly overrated. Look at the HD gaming experience on the consoles, the titles have really worked out every detail.

And, if you haven't figured it out, the PC providies the least ROI. At least evident when DX12 hits you :P

Re:Why? (1)

msormune (808119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647466)

If "no one really wants to use it", why are AMD (ATI) and nVidia implementing it then in their hardware? In the past those companies have been succesful, because they have made products people want.Yes it's true, we have to wait for the games that can use it, but so what? It's the same as with DX9 and DX10 before.

Besides you need a lot more than just OpenGL, because you need input and sound right?

Ubiquity sometimes trumps functionality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647096)

It doesn't hurt that all the interface novelty is occurring on the console front as well.

PC games are targeted at old hardware too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647102)

Availability is not the same as installed base. Installed base is what people have and what the game needs to perform adequately on.

Re:PC games are targeted at old hardware too (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647404)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Installed base is what people have and what the game needs to perform adequately on.

During a console launch, the console isn't installed base; the previous generation is.

PC gamers are still on equivalent hardware (2, Insightful)

cthellis (733202) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647106)

That's still where the majority of PC gamers can handle things well, too. (Their hardware may be newer than the consoles, but DX9 is still the majority support, and they have higher resolutions to cover.) The real questions is if the developer is even INTERESTED in targetting higher-performance hardware with unique features, or if they mainly want to use it to be "slightly shinier" and hit better framerates.

Why the tech? (5, Insightful)

Rurik (113882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647126)

Why are modern games being judged based on their technological prowess? How is this holding back PC games? Games produced for five year old tech still run on modern machines. So what if games are targeted towards years-old technology? Are they fun? Are people buying them? There's more to a game that shading effects and the hundreds of hours that dedicated teams put into making realistic water ripples.

Games are sold based upon gameplay and fun. In this current market, those are more easily found in the console market. I don't see that changing. //PC Gamer since 1986 ///Now happily a 100% console gamer ////Though I love to play Cave Story

Re:Why the tech? (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647256)

You're somewhat wrong, because games are also sold by their graphics and sounds and such. You're probably thinking that great graphics and sounds make a bad game, but you can have the both. I enjoy some of the old games, but seriously I rather play with awesome graphics and sound environment too.

Also, you are missing one important thing. If you free more resources from the graphic rendering by using newer technology, you can have more resources on AI and other gameplay elements.

Re:Why the tech? (4, Insightful)

Rurik (113882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647366)

"Graphics" != "latest hardware". Graphics are important, but to a limited extent. The graphics created on five-year old tech pleases the vast majority of the market. The common gamer does not see a need to move to DX11 when games produced on DX9 are "good enough". I never said that graphics were unimportant, just suggested that continually pushing the graphical envelope is a fruitless journey.

Mods and indie games are better on PC (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647294)

//PC Gamer since 1986 ///Now happily a 100% console gamer ////Though I love to play Cave Story

Your example of Cave Story just illustrated another point: PCs tend to be better for games from smaller studios. Indie games on PCs are commonplace; indie games on Sony and Nintendo consoles need a jailbreak unless some major label notices the developer. See Bob's Game [wikipedia.org] for an example of what Nintendo can put developers through. And the modding tools for PC games tend to be far more complete than for console games. For example, the stage editor in Super Smash Bros. Brawl is limited to just a few predetermined pieces on a grid; there's no way to add custom pieces, custom characters, or a custom soundtrack.

Re:Mods and indie games are better on PC (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647458)

Bob's Game sucks. That's why Nintendo (or Sony or Sega or Microsoft) would reject it. They don't want a repeat of what happened to Atari, with a glut of cheaply made games that eventually caused the 1983 crash.

Re:Why the tech? (1)

frieko (855745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647504)

Exactly. About a decade ago I gave up PC gaming because I was sick of buying games only to find out my $299 computer wouldn't play them. I can pop any brand new game in my console and it just works. I find it hard to believe I'm having less fun in MW2 because it's only DX9.

no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647134)

DRM is.

Re:no... (1)

Quartus486 (935104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647224)

DRM is.

Perhaps not DRM in itself, but rather the wrong approach to the "problem". There are probably loads of viable business models out there, you just have to find them...

MMOGs are Holding Back PC Games (4, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647142)

There is no shortage of MMOGs. The category is growing, even, at an insane rate, despite (or because of?) WoW's dominance. There are only 24 hours in a day, and peeps who play MMOGs can never "beat" their game -- they are continuously rewarded for playing, constantly and forever, and pay monthly for the privilege in many cases.

Many no longer have the time or inclination to start a new, one-off PC game. I recall an interview with supposed "Diablo-Killer" Titan's Quest creators who attributed the poor sales of their well-reviewed game to the fact that their prospective player-base could not break away from their MMOGs.

Re:MMOGs are Holding Back PC Games (1)

tbcpp (797625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647266)

Well the real reason Titan Quest failed, was it had some major flaws IMO. Inventory management was worthless, the system requirements (at the time) were rather steep, and every review of it I saw gave it about 7.5 out of 10. So yeah, it sounds like the developers were looking for excuses.

Re:MMOGs are Holding Back PC Games (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647328)

It also didn't really offer anything new, but just the same old stuff and it didn't have any personal feel to it either. It's like they tried to cheapo Diablo 2 copy six years later.

Re:MMOGs are Holding Back PC Games (1)

AntiNazi (844331) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647416)

I'll pile on another major flaw. If you ran a mob to its leash point and then ran back over the leash point (into range) the mob would turn back to you. At this time you could then run out of range again and it would begin leashing. At this time you could run back into range and it would run back to you. At no point during this would the mob regen health or anything to punish you for doing this. You could basically kill any mob using this tactic and enough time. This alone basically ruined the game for me.

Re:MMOGs are Holding Back PC Games (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647270)

That's not holding back. It's just that players find those MMORPG's more fun to play. Isn't that improvement in gaming?

That's almost like saying that a few more fun and great games are destroying the market because people play those and don't buy the ones they don't enjoy so much.

Re:MMOGs are Holding Back PC Games (1)

kodr (1777678) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647274)

Ho ?
I thought Titan's Quest didn't work well because of the lack of a good piracy protection (the game crashes due to the crack). And the lack of dedicated servers (like battle.net) is also a problem, they used gamespy "matchmaking", and the players host the server and it's a real problem if they use cheats, it ruins the game.

Guild Wars came out at the same time as WoW and is still successful, Guild Wars 2 is one of my most anticipated games.

Re:MMOGs are Holding Back PC Games (1)

Exitar (809068) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647306)

In theory, MMORPG are more profitable than other games because:

1. They bring money from monthly fees if P2P or microtransactions if F2P
2. As you need to connect to a server with a valid account, cannot be pirated

Seeing the low quality of the latest games (the cannot possibly keep a large number of players after a couple of months),
it seem to me that the second reason is the real one for the constant production of new MMORPGS (companies are more interested
in the "fast money" from boxes sold)

Re:MMOGs are Holding Back PC Games (0)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647310)

Titan's Quest was boring.

You can't remake Diablo and expect great sales. Diablo was great because it was a good game *and* it was groundbreaking. Titan's Quest was ok, and it certainly wasn't ground breaking.

Torchlight is even worse. It's Diablo with some fish and a pet.

Game developers, yes it's easy and safe to make a game clone. But I've played those games, and not very long ago.

There are two games I'd like to see made into modern equivalents, Magic Carpet and Populous.

I can think of a couple reasons why developers.. (4, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647152)

...prefer game consoles. For starters, you're dealing with a uniform hardware platform. The core specs and capabilities don't change too often, only about once every 5 years or so. So if you are developing for the Xbox360, you only have to get it to work on one 360 and it should work on all. On a PC, you're encountering a vast array of hardware configurations. X CPU with Y Motherboard using Z GPU. So while you can optimize for a number of these, you can't do it for all and that leads to a certain percentage of your customer base complaining.

That and pirating console games is a bit tougher for the average consumer. Usually requires a hardware mod chip and most people don't feel they have the technical skill to install one. On the PC, piracy is pretty much fire up bittorrent, go to the piratebay, and download.

Re:I can think of a couple reasons why developers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647296)

So, because Developers like it easy they code on the "simple to develop on" PS3? No way in hell THAT is the reason.

Also the "X thousand configurations" are a thing of the past. These days, you have DirectX and have to pay attention to ATI or NVIDIA GPU.

"Piracy" as reason is shit as well. Piracy has been around since there were games and games sold nicely back then and still do today. What does it say about piracy? Overestimated.

Re:I can think of a couple reasons why developers. (1)

Wicko (977078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647502)

I think you're exagerating the amount of configurations developers deal with. Motherboard version is largely irrelevant. X CPU, well, if the software is designed to scale on the amount of cores, then the only concern is if the CPU is fast enough to execute what you need it to. Well, its the same with single threaded games but I would hazard a guess that most AAA games are capable of scaling. As for videocards, its largely about what feature set it has, and many of them share the same feature set, within similar performance brackets. So its more like they are looking at groups of videocards rather than each individual one.

Since PC games tend to have a set of options you can fiddle with, if the game doesn't run smoothly at one of the presets usually you can adjust it to perform better on your particular machine. Not all games do this but you can safely blame the developer/publisher for this.

As for modding consoles, people who don't know how exactly can easily get it done at a local modding store. I think its fair to say that if you are aware your console can be modded to play burned games then it is likely you are aware you can pay someone to do it.

Optimization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647164)

>>Inside the Xbox 360 sits an ATI Xenos GPU, a DirectX 9c-based chip that bears similarity to the Radeon X1900 series of graphics cards (cards whose age means that they aren't even officially supported in Windows 7)

A long time ago, John Carmack once stated that if you have a static hardware platform, you can optimize for that and get about double the amount of FPS than for a "generic PC" whose components vary from owner to owner.

The difference between DX9 and DX11 is minimal from an eye-candy point of view and only now are we getting PC cards than can approximate the performance of an optimized platform like the Xbox360.

What's Their Motivation? (5, Interesting)

Rydia (556444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647168)

Why should devs adopt DX11? Because the last iteration of DX lasted about a year and a half before being ditched and extended/redone? Because the majority of the market doesn't have DX11 cards? Because there's no clear advantage in developing to DX11 rather than DX9c?

Why should developers shift from something they know to something that they don't know as well unless there was significant profit motive to do so? There simply isn't in this case.

Re:What's Their Motivation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647464)

It is a bit soon to be asking about dx11 stuff. The spec basically was on 'everyones' computer about mid last year. Cards are just *NOW* starting to show up that can even use some of the APIs. That there is a small handful of games that use dx11/10 is not to surprising. If I were making games I would target to 9. As that hits 100% of computers and all 3 current consoles capability wise.

Most people do not realize that most games are actually PC games first. That is where the tools are. You can not develop 'on' the embedded platform (as that is what these things are). There are shims in place to help you debug. You may run your program on the console but you debug it on a PC. Many times the first builds are PC builds.

The real reason holding back PC gaming is not piracy (though it is rampant). The real reason is number of sales. If you target a console you are 100% guaranteed that the people buying your game is some sort of gamer or buying for one. Almost every single console out there is for gaming (there are some exceptions). You know up front what sort of 'base' you have to target. With PC's it is not so cut and dry. PC's dwarf consoles sales by millions. I would be willing to bet Dell alone sold more computers last year than all 3 console makers combined. Yet not every single one of those sales is for gaming.

With a hit console game you probably will sell 10 million copies. With a hit PC game you are lucky to crack 1 million.

where would you invest your time and money?

I am not worried about PC gaming. Happens every 3-6 years that it is 'dying'. But the graphics keep getting so much crazy better than the consoles people come back. The ones that should be worried are Nintendo and Sony with their portable divisions. They should worry because not of the 'high end' PC. But look to the low end netbook. In 5 years a netbook will have so much power some people will consider them first for their gaming needs. All my games in 1 place and I can plug it into my tv if I want. Once netbooks get under the same price point as the DS or PSP you will see some people shift.

Me? Im crazy and just bought a 4 platforms :)

Wrong question. (5, Insightful)

mathieuI (1534721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647172)

The real question is: Is the rush for performance and graphics killing the fun in video games? I think so.

How do we get the fun games to the player? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647248)

Well, the wii has serious underpowered graphics. Are there more fun/original games there? Some are, but also a long line of games that is not worth it's money is published on that platform.

Same can be said for iPhone.

The real question: what will be the correct question?

Maybe the question is : how do we get the fun games to the players?

Re:Wrong question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647338)

Absolutely right,

They spend so much time on graphics, they forget story telling, gameplay.

Console cycles: How is this any different? (5, Insightful)

Silvanis (152728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647186)

Does anyone really think this cycle is any different? We're pretty much at the mid-point of the console cycle: PCs are flexing their muscle (again) and developers are reluctant to design just for PCs. But, as always, more will jump back on the PC bandwagon as it becomes obvious that the PC is the place to be for graphic quality (and the market loves eye candy). Eventually the console makers will decide to release new hardware to try to coax them back, and we'll repeat this cycle again.

So what's changed?

Re:Console cycles: How is this any different? (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647340)

Eventually the console makers will decide to release new hardware to try to coax them back, and we'll repeat this cycle again.

Except it appears the next generation of actual console hardware is far off. The new gimmick won't be better graphics but instead "Mii-too" motion control. Sony has the PlayStation Eye and the new Move controller, and Microsoft has Natal. And among the big three, the only console maker that has taken any effort to coax the smallest developers away from PCs is Microsoft with its XNA Creators Club; the others require a dedicated office and prior commercial titles [warioworld.com] .

So here's a radical idea... (4, Insightful)

Thumper_SVX (239525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647194)

... instead of focusing all your energies on creating fancy graphics for your latest title, why don't you try something different like making the game actually compelling and fun to play?

I'm not an huge gamer, but my preference is to sit in front of my TV on my XBox 360 or Wii when playing games. In truth I couldn't give a rat's derrière about the graphics of the games I play so long as I find them compelling and fun. Then again when your business model is based solely on churning out the same game time after time and you only differentiate the games by the graphics I suppose this argument becomes reasonable.

Hey game makers, here's a clue: In the last few weeks I have played video games quite a bit due to a knee injury that's meant I can't do much else. If I think seriously about the amount of time I've spent playing video games recently, the one game that really sticks in my mind and has me itching to play it more is Bit Trip Beat on the Wii. Realistically I probably could've run that game on my 25 year old Amiga if I still had it... but damn that game's fun!

The only thing I don't understand... (1)

Patman64 (1622643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647200)

...is why games such as Grand Theft Auto IV can run beautifully on 4-5 year old PS3/360 hardware, yet require the most cutting edge hardware to run well on the PC. I had to upgrade my video card just to get it to be playable, and I was running a 3xxx series Radeon HD, while the 360's X1900 based GPU can run it no problem. Or am I jus

Re:The only thing I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647474)

Maybe it's because it's an un-optimized piece of shit (the engine, that is)?

Even Worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647204)

The more troubling aspect of this is that the ballooning budgets and team requirements for console game development pressure the hardware makers to delay research, development, and release of new consoles. Game developers aren't interested in learning a whole new system after pouring so much money into perfecting their engines and coding techniques, and publishers don't want to deal with the greater financial risk of dealing with a next-generation platform like the PS4.

So not only do consoles delay graphics advancement of PC games, in a way they delay their own advancement.

Re:Even Worse... (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647228)

That's strange. My comment was posted anonymously... must've misclicked. Oh well. One more point is that you can see Microsoft and Sony's desire to extend the lifespan of their current consoles with their willingness to release game-changing hardware peripherals like the Move and Natal. Last generation you definitely wouldn't have seen them focus so much energy on new control methods in the middle of the console generation. They would have instead waited for the next line of consoles.

Re:Even Worse... (1)

Rurik (113882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647336)

That all sounds completely backwards. Console game developers don't have ballooning budgets and team requirements because they're on a console. Those are attributed to the blockbuster games, on PC and console alike. Additionally, developers shouldn't be learning whole new systems on a continual basis. This is what makes bad games and delays advancement. Once a developer has the code for a system perfected, they can turn their attention to focusing on the gameplay itself. Console games allow developers to opportunity to devote more of their development time towards game play and less on building/reworking game engines and device support.

PC gaming is its own worst enemy with non-standard device drivers and APIs and designing games for wide varieties of end performance. The development community knows this and found the answer in designing games for the console so that they can advance their art.

Your company must be at least this tall to develop (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647462)

Console game developers don't have ballooning budgets and team requirements because they're on a console.

Sony and Nintendo appear to require a minimum business size for console game developers. A micro-ISV [wikipedia.org] that tries to meet these will in fact experience these "ballooning budgets and team requirements". Perhaps ironically, the company that Slashdot users associate with closed source is also the most open console maker, with the XNA Creators Club.

Follow the money (1)

wheelema (46997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647210)

Programming resources are finite and (since the gamer gets more bang-for-his-buck) consoles enjoy greater market penetration. If you were coding where would you aim your efforts?

Console business overhead (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647486)

Programming resources are finite and (since the gamer gets more bang-for-his-buck) consoles enjoy greater market penetration. If you were coding where would you aim your efforts?

Probably PCs, because Sony and Nintendo don't want to deal with micro-ISVs. I get more bang for my buck from actually developing the software than from trying to satisfy business overhead requirements such as "Home offices are not considered secure locations." [warioworld.com] And then I get further bang from my buck by porting to Mac OS X for two reasons: the game market there isn't as crowded, and more affluent Mac owners tend to buy more proprietary software.

DirectX 9... Really? (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647222)

Why even mention the 360's use of DirectX 9 and ignore that the other systems. The other consoles all use a custom built version of OpenGL. If the PC had a version of OpenGL that was just as advanced as the PS3 and Wii then maybe the game developers wouldn't have to learn a new graphics language like DirectX just to write a decent game. But no MS forced out OpenGL and with it all the developers who don't really want to learn another langauge and are just fine learning a few custom OpenGL extensions. So the rub has nothing to do with DirectX being used to target but that OpenGL is the primary target of game developers and DirectX is meaningless to most save for the 360.

They obviously have to rush with support... (1)

vafd (688693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647238)

...of all 3.3% of the market:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ [steampowered.com]

The real question is... (1, Insightful)

ijakings (982830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647240)

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Once a PC fan, now a Console fan (2, Informative)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647272)

I've always been a PC fan all the way back to the original SimCity on my 286. Throughout the years I've also owned Consoles (Nintendo, Gameboy, SNES, N64, Gamecube, GBA, XBox, XBox360, Wii, etc, etc, etc). I've probably owned/built just as many gaming rigs as well.

Obviously I take gaming a little more as a hobby than just a time waster.

The one thing I have loved all this time is Multiplayer. It wasn't really possible back on the 286 unless you shared a keyboard as gaming on PC's was in its infancy. At this point in time it was easier to play multiplayer on one console with a friend.

A few years passed and the internet became a big thing. Quake for example was one of my favorites! Especially CTF online with clans. I even ran my own unsuccessful one but even so, it was a blast! Consoles couldn't touch this kind of fun! 5 on 5, 10 on 10. Just awesome!

Consoles at this time, really couldn't do this at all. XBox + Live just wasn't around yet.

Later on when XBox arrived and I got into the Live! Beta I started to see what multiplayer on consoles is like. Pretty fun! Problem for me here was that FPS games just weren't fun with a controller. I really did (and still do to a certain extent) need a keyboard/mouse combo to be a threat.

So for quite a while, I still preferred to play FPS's on a PC. However, this has changed as of late. Games that I want to play are either coming out without server support and/or mod support (Modern Warfare 2) or are simply outpacing my hardware. Combine those two and frankly, I simply don't want to upgrade my graphics card every year just to play the latest and greatest games. Especially considering that Modern Warfare 2 works just fine on my 360 and I get to play nice multiplayer battles. When it came out, my hardware was just as good as everyone elses. Sure, I have to get use to a controller, but it seems a small price to pay versus making sure my rig can handle the game (plus I run Ubuntu now).

In the end, I'm realizing that gaming on a console is just a _ton_ easier than it is on a PC. They both have the same options and generally roughly the same graphics. The only difference is the controllers.

In my mind, consoles just have the upper hand. Less cost, less hassle (juggling OS's), and the same multiplayer options. It has just become a lot more convenient over the years to play on a console.

And that's my 2 cents on the issue.

Re:Once a PC fan, now a Console fan (4, Insightful)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647350)

Console = 5 years old PC hardware with locked options.

Re:Once a PC fan, now a Console fan (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647472)

I simply don't want to upgrade my graphics card every year just to play the latest and greatest games.

Why would you say this and expect anyone to believe you when the story is about all games being targeted towards lower powered consoles to the point that it's futile to upgrade your PC?

Re:Once a PC fan, now a Console fan (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647496)

@rotide: On which platform do you prefer to play indie games? Or do you just stick to major-label games?

Nothing to do with OpenGL or DirectX (2, Insightful)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647278)

This is all about piracy. Games are harder to pirate on the consoles. If you can boot a pirate copy on a console it can often be detected when you go online. You then get banned from online play.

You can also trade in console games and get a reasonable amount of money back.

Yes-but consoles and PC gaming are interdependent. (2, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647280)

Right now, consoles are behind PC gaming and derided by some as antiquated and holding back progress.

And then, in a year or two, the next generation of consoles will slightly leapfrog the average gaming PC, the death of PC gaming will be predicted, and the new commoditized hardware will sell like crazy.

The sales surge will fund ATI and nVidia's development of the next generation of GPUs, PC gamers will provide an eager market to test the next generation hardware, and the cycle will repeat itself.

PC adoption is holding PC back (5, Informative)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647342)

Steam HW survey results Feb 2010 [steampowered.com] :
  • 3% DX11
  • 53% DX10*
  • 39% DX9
  • 5% DX8 or lower

The simple answer is that 95% of the PC gaming market** can use DX9 while only 56% can use DX10.

* That 39% for DX9 includes 22% people with DX10 hardware using DX9 Win XP.
** Assuming Steam account holders who allow the HW survey are indicative of the relevant PC gaming market. Personally I'm inclined to assume it's not far off, at least not so far that it matters.

Next on Slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647346)

Is MP3 holding back the CD?
Is the LCD holding back the CRT?

- AnonyCoward

Good! (5, Interesting)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647348)

If not being able to use the latest shiny things is holding things back, then I say good. Why should I have to spend 2 grand on the latest and greatest hardware every 6 months just to play the latest fad game, when the computer I bought 2 or 3 years ago still serves perfectly well for everything else? Computers are expensive, and last I checked most of the world is dragging it's feet out of financial crisis. Additionally, we reached the 'good enough' mark a long time ago. Pushing the technical envelope for the sake of pushing has been an exercise of diminishing returns for a while now.

The Nintendo Wii in particular has proven a very important point. Hardware spec wise, it's a pile of crap. Yet it's also a wildly popular platform. Why? Affordability is a significant factor. Also it's because instead of focusing on massive polygon counts and 1600x antialiasing and whatnot other geewhizbang features, they make games that are enjoyable to play.

If I wanted high quality photorealistic graphics withe pixel perfect shading, etc, I can go outside. It's better than 1600x1200x32 bits [userfriendly.org] out there.

Now get off my lawn!

One big reason PC gaming is dying... (2, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647368)

Most computers being sold today contain crappy integrated graphics (Intel GMA etc). Only the high end expensive machines tend to come with graphics good enough to play modern 3D games on.

If you want a machine with 3D graphics capabilities, you need to either build one yourself or buy a high-end expensive machine. If you just buy your typical "house brand" PC from stores like Best Buy, Staples, Office Depot etc, you will get crappy graphics.

Whereas, for the price of a typical "gaming" PC, you could likely buy an XBOX 360 or PS3 AND 1/2 dozen games (if you buy the cheaper titles instead of the latest and greatest that is)

Re:One big reason PC gaming is dying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647478)

"If you want a machine with 3D graphics capabilities, you need to either build one yourself or buy a high-end expensive machine. If you just buy your typical "house brand" PC from stores like Best Buy, Staples, Office Depot etc, you will get crappy graphics."

Or just add a decent PCIe graphics card.

Re:One big reason PC gaming is dying... (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647516)

I have seen many el-cheapo machines from various places where adding a decent PCIe graphics card would be difficult (either due to lack of slots, lack of space or lack of power/airflow).
Dell for example, I have seen a number of Dell models that would be unable to accept ANY PCIe graphics card at all. All of these models contained Intel integrated graphics.

Fist Person Shooter suck on Consoles (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647370)

I played console FPS games and they suck. Glitchy VOIP, whining kids, lack of community thatnks to the loss of dedicated servers. Graphics rich, skill poor. I can't get on with console controllers and I doubt if any console player could ever cope in a map full of PC gamers. At some point (prob soon) consoles will go away. _ALL_ hardware will be 'good enough' for 99% games and people will be free to choose the best tool for the job.

It's because it's easier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647398)

It must be easier to target a console. It's one platform, one set of hardware(you don't have to worry about everyone having the latests and greatest video card), consoles have a standard set of inputs, the only thing that might be different is screen resolutions across different types of tvs. Oh and lets not forget much less piracy(it's a lot harder to casually copy and crack a game on an xbox as compared to a pc). And after you make your money on the console, release it on the PC to see what happens. And I can only imagine that more people are console gamers these days as oppose to PC gamers.

DX11 is actually a success. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647408)

DX11 has enjoyed a far faster adoption rate than any DX version before it. Anyone who says that technological progress doesn't allow for better games is likely to only be thinking about graphics. Graphical fidelity alone increases immersion and therefore drives up the entertainment factor, but better hardware also allows for more advanced AI, Physics and events to place on a larger scale. The PC as a platform is superior to consoles in every single way imaginable.

People have just become lazy, gaming now takes place on the couch as a seat in front of a desk is too much like hard work.

No... (2, Insightful)

while(true) (626738) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647460)

No. Piracy is holding back PC gaming. PC sales are ridiculous low for most single-player, non-casual, PC games. Game publishers are doing the natural thing; focusing on consoles where the problem of piracy is much, much smaller.

IMHO the industry should be commended that it, unlike some other industries, fight piracy by changing it's way of doing business instead of choosing the path of litigation and legislation.

Because nobody has a DirectX 11 Computer (1)

salemboot (1178525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647470)

Even now stores aren't exactly selling computers with 4-Gig of ram, a high-end directx 11 card, and the Quad-core processor power enough to run these absurd requirements. Look at starwas force unleashed. I can disable one of my cores and it won't play at all past the main menu like they are checking for dual core or something. i call Shanagans.

Graphics are NOT the issue... (3, Insightful)

cliffiecee (136220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31647492)

There are much bigger issues than graphics in this "Console/PC" debate. The really big issues are things like user interface and game controls. Take Oblivion for example- that game's interface was significantly altered to accommodate console play, which made it a sub-optimal for the PC: an overly simplistic UI and relatively poor use of screen real estate.

PC gamers expect a lot more from their games- private servers, LAN play, mods, etc.; and as the Modern Warfare 2 debacle showed us, game companies are showing less & less love for the PC. There's tons more money (and less hassle) to be make on the consoles. That's a MUCH bigger hurdle than "Console graphics are the holding PCs back!"

What's really interesting to me is how MMOGs haven't really made it to the console. I think that's because of the console's revenue model, which really only supports "throwaway" games with a very short life span. You'd think a subscription-style game would have amazing appeal for console game-makers, but where are the games?

There are quite a few exceptions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31647518)

There are still people making good storyline games. Look at Mass Effect 2. It has a great story but terrable graphics. But it's still a great game.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?