Here is a thought, does anyone not think that the reason that gaming PC graphics are not improving much in recent times is because that if they did they would be out of reach for the Xbox 360 to reproduce on there aging hardware?

This is a good point, is the Microsoft inadvertently (or intentionally?) slowing down the progress of PC hardware evolution by pushing all the game designers not to much care about PC exclusives but to merely bring out ports of 360 games for the PC.

Think about it, if we keep running along this path, the thing that has been keeping PC hardware evolution at the bleeding edge will cease to exist. We will have no games to push the hardware forward so there for no need to buy faster computers and there for no need for Nvidia or the likes to produce faster hardware. Will we have to wait for Microsoft to release a new console before we have the need to upgrade our PC hardware again? Or will game designers realise that consoles are going to halt their progress and cap their ideas again, and move on to creating content for the infinitely more powerful and flexible platform of the PC.

What are your views on this?

people don't want to spend $400 on gpu and cpu every other year when new games come out,

its crap when a new game comes out and you discover you vid card doesn't work with it or you have to spend 3 hours downloading new drivers and figuring out how to make it run

how pissed was everyone when Crysis came out and they discovered no one could run it maxed, I'm not spending hundreds upgrading my pc just to play a damn game

they'd reather buy a console and know that its going to work (even though they don't always)

it certainly isn't MS's fault anymore than its Nintendo's fault

Simply put thats what Microsoft wants. They might lose money on the sale of a console but they quickly make it back on the overpriced games. Force us off PCs onto consoles and guess who makes more money...

Well, as Crysis shows, even the prettiest graphics doesn't make the best gaming experience.. sure it was alot of fun, but the multiplayer sucks (guess they never really learned from FC..)

Gameplay > GFX

Valve, Blizz, etc know it.. not that their games are bad looking, they're great, look at TF2, SC2, D3, they look pretty good, not as pretty as Crysis, but who cares, those game are/will be alot funner.

So if M$ does delay the graphics, I guess I don't really care that much, as long as the games are fun.. ever play Bejeweled? Tetris? Pong? Those games look like crap, but they're fun as hell. And that's what makes a succesful game imo.

So basically, if they don't haft to focus on graphics, they can focus more on gameplay.

Way to summarise in 1 post why consoles exist why uneducated people (in PC use) are driven to them rather than PCs!

1) The Myth that you have to upgrade every year to play the latest games. If you want to play them fully maxed out at the highest resolutions, then sure, you may have to. If, like the vast majority of PC gamers, you just want to play them and still have them look good and play well, you can easily have the same PC for several years. I've only just replaced my 7 year old PC (which was mid range at the time), but it played many games years after I built it, including Half Life 2, WoW, Fear, etc. Also factor in that games that are developed as multiplatform will work on any fairly recent PC for many years to come since it has to be able to run on a console, which are far behind the times technologically and won't be receiving new itterations for several years yet.

2) The myth that you have lots of tweaking and downloading drivers to do to get games to actually run. I can't remember the last time I had to update my drivers to have a game run, and when I do update my drivers it takes 3 minutes to install and restart the PC. 3 hours? Maybe you are better off with a console, although I'm wondering how long it takes you to open the game boxes and figure out where to insert the discs if you have problems with such simple tasks. As for tweaking the actual game to have it run properly, that takes no time at all, especially if like most games, the settings recommended for your PC are shown. If it runs slow, drag a few of the sliders to lower the details. Bingo, working fine.

3) The Myth that everyone was unhappy with the performance of Crysis and that people upgraded JUST to play it. People with Extreme rigs were unhappy, yes, but that would be because they lost the abiliy to brag about running all games fully maxed. They seemed to be blissfully unaware that Crytek designed the engine so that it was still pushing hardware limits 3 years after it's release. Also, Crysis can run perfectly smoothly on a cheap mid range PC and at the same time look better than anything available on consoles. My first play through of Crysis was on a £400 PC with an E6300 and a 7900GS and it still looked gorgeous!

4) The dumbing down of the general populous. "they'd reather buy a console and know that its going to work". Oh dear. If you aren't able to install a game by clicking on the big "Install" button that pops up when your game disc auto runs and then double click on the handy shortcut created on your desktop, how the hell are you going to earn enough money to buy a console instead? You can't, because you'll need to pick up trash for a living because you're retarded. Oh, "not all games work on all PCs" I hear you cry. Learn to read the back of the box to see if you meet the minimum requirements. Sure, it's not as easy as "Xbox360" or "PS3" on the console boxes, but it's hardly rocket science! If in doubt, ask on a forum, ask in the games store (not guaranteed to help) or ask the geeky kid in your class/work/cellblock instead of giving him a wedgie and taking his milk/soda/protection money, it's not a big deal.


So, in summary (for all you people who take 3 hours to install graphics drivers and will inevitably skip the large ammount of text above), you're talking crap!

You say that Crysis pushes the boundaries, but then I can run it very playably on my rig (check my specs) with all the settings turned to max, with all the new drivers and updates at 1680X1050 on windows Vista Ultimate 64Bit.

But this was not my point or what I was asking. I can see that Crysis is going to be the benchmark. The game that all others work just as well as but no better than, hell we may see a few badly coded 360 ports that need faster hardware, but nothing that really does need the extra power for good use. For some reason I just have this gut feeling that PC gaming is going to stall fairly bad.

Think about it, it would really not be in Microsoft’s best interest to have PC games and there developers evolving far beyond the point at what a 360 console can handle. It would be the perfect excuse for developers to dump Microsoft and for their customers to stop playing there games in favour, for ‘in theory’ a competitor’s platform (even though it runs on a Microsoft product). They would loose out on Billions that they make on the 360 games, as they don’t make sweet F.A. on the back of PC games.

I would not be surprised if ‘Games for Windows’ was nothing more than just a smoke screen for ‘360 ports for Windows’. It may be that it is just them showing in the short term that they are helping the PC market, but in the long term I bet there plan is for them to have full control of the PC gaming platform. The games are released for the PC, when they want, look exactly how they want and perform at the spec they want and no more.

It’s perfect, why would you ever need to buy a PC again, just wait for the wireless keyboard and mouse add-on for the 360 to come and things will be complete.

When you think about it, M$ isn't the only one stalling pc gaming.. a recent example, look at nvidia, assassin's creed and dx10.1..

I think your Microsoft conspiracy theory puts too much emphasis on the importance of graphics (or improving graphics) to gaming today. 5 - 10 years ago sure the race for better graphics was at the fore front of gaming. But it really isn't that important today and my guess is it will only continue to decline in importance going forward.
We're at a point now where even crappy games look great. Sure there will always be room for improvement, but by today's standards that area is so small that it's not going to make or break any game or a system. Just look at the current gen of consoles. Graphically PS3 > XBox360 > Wii. However one could easily argue that based on sales, popularity or what not Wii > XBox360 >PS3. Graphics just aren't that important any more. Starcraft 2 - if it actually makes it's December release date - may very well be the biggest game release of the year and it's graphics will be nothing revolutionary over what Starcraft had 10 years ago.
I'm not entirely sure one way or another as to how Microsoft would gain or lose based on PC gaming but I doubt they are out to try and kill it. One thing to consider though is what would happen to their share of the desktop market if PC gaming disappeared? Currently almost every other desktop application can be done, and quite easily, on other OSs. Gaming is the one application that is still heavily reliant on the Windows OS. Even more specifically with DX10 and the GFW initiative it's driving some gamers to move to Vista over XP.
Anyways I think you are looking at what is a natural shift away from the importance of graphics in gaming and trying to blame it on M$. If anything what PC gaming needs is better use of multi-core CPUs for things like physics and AI. I can play Crysis just fine on my rig but playing Civ 4 with 30 civs on a massive map after 500 turns and that game starts to beat the crap out of my machine. 4GB of ram at 80-90% usage but since it doesn't fully utilize my Quad core CPU the game starts to get real slow in between turns and while opening different screens. I don't think Microsoft is slowing down the progress of multi-core gaming.

Um no. MS is not. Either way gameplay is more important than graphics. Look at WoW. Not the best graphics but still one of the most played games ever.

you missed the whole point of the original post
a quote from that post
" the thing that has been keeping PC hardware evolution at the bleeding edge will cease to exist. We will have no games to push the hardware forward so there for no need to buy faster computers "

sure, we can play existing games on medium quality and lower resolutions and on older computers, but his point was all about "bleeding edge"
his question was, "is MS trying to hold back software, because they want it to work on the old hardware of MS consoles?"
he's saying that if it weren't for MS, then game graphics would be improving and that would spur hardware development, bleeding edge graphics = bleeding edge hardware

so my response is, I don't think MS is holding development back, but even if they are, I don't care because if gaming graphics was always improving then, yes, you would need the latest and greatest haredware to run it, bleeding edge hardware as he suggests

the fact that you can still play new games on old hardware would suggest that software and hardware development is not progressing as quickly as the original poster would like

I'm saying I don't want bleeding edge,

you say, "My first play through of Crysis was on a £400 PC with an E6300 and a 7900GS and it still looked gorgeous!"

but you weren't bleeding edge, that his is whole point, that single title didn't push hardware makers to and general users to reach the limits of their systems

he's saying game graphics are being dumbed down to play on older systems like yours so that they won't make consoles look too bad

he's saying you should not be able to play the newest games on your older hardware, he's saying games should be the driving force that causes us to upgrade to "bleeding edge" hardware
even if it means the newer games won't be able to play on comsoles at all

I'm saying MS isn't conspiring to hold graphics back so that old xbox hardware can play gmaes, I'm saying its simply economics, people don't want to upgrade to bleeding edge to play games

people are just like you, they don't want bleedign edge, they are happy to play "on a £400 PC with an E6300 and a 7900GS and it still looked gorgeous!"

you even say, "factor in that games that are developed as multiplatform will work on any fairly recent PC for many years to come since it has to be able to run on a console, which are far behind the times technologically and won't be receiving new itterations for several years yet. "

that is the OP's whole point, games have to be able to run on consoles which are behind the times, that's why he's asking,
do you think MS is purposely holding back graphics game development because they don't want the graphics to become so advanced that only advanced pc hardware can play them ?
because if that were to happen, then their consoles would become obsolete too quickly and they would lose money

that's what he's asking, but you got so wound up you didn't even understand his question

the question wasn't, "what's better, a pc or a console?"
the question was, "is MS holding back advances in pc hardware by making the xbox the first choice platform for developers?"


if you believe the answer is yes, that advances in graphics should be moving ahead much, much faster, and yes, games should be the software that forces hardware innovation and progress, then you would also have to believe that bi-yearly hardware upf\grades are a necessity to be able to play the most advanced games

now, as for you saying, "I can't remember the last time I had to update my drivers to have a game run",

really, you've never bought a new vidoe card, and installed the drivers that came on the cd only to discover they're out of date, so you go to ATI's site and download the official drivers, only to discover they don't work either, so then you go and download the Omega drivers and hope they work only to discover that the vista versions are not out yet?
everthing just always magically works for you, huh?

have you ever beta tested a game? have you ever tried to provide tech support to people who have Windows XP and don't see why they have to install sp2 just to play your game?
to people who are trying to play the game with ATI, nvidia, agp, pci-e, on XP, on vista, on linux using wine;

have you ever spent hours working with someone over a forum who can't play a game on their pc? telling one person to turn down their shaders, another to turn off multi-sampling, another who's got a 2 year old dell that they need to update their drivers?

have you ever tried to explain to someone that the game uses DirectX 9.0c but just because they have vista and vista includes DirectX 10 that doesn't mean their video card supports DirectX 9.0c ?
they'll argue they have 10 installed totally not understanding their card is 3 years old and doesn't support 9.0c

have you ever asked someone to run dxdiag and attach a copy to their post for technical help only to be told that they're not going to post technical info about their pc on a public form because they don't want to get hacked?

this is what I mean by "consoles just work",
everything is standardized, one operating system, one video card, one set of drivers;
game programmers have to conform to that standard if they want their games to run on that console

and that leads us back to the OP's original statement,
hardware should not limit software;
software should lead and hardware should strive to catch up;
he believes that consoles and expecially MS, is causing hardware to be the driving foce

do you agree?

@ jamesl,

You make my fingers tired..

I never said that I believed Microsoft where deliberately holding back hardware if indeed that is the case (I was merely hinting at it as a possible cause). I was suggesting that it could be a by-product of there heavy marketing. Microsoft need this console to make them money, they are loosing ground in all other fronts and gaming is the only one they can see for a huge scope of improvement in the future, I really do believe Microsoft thinks that gaming is the key for their future.

The thing is, who says you need to keep at the bleeding edge. No one, it’s a choice for you alone. If you want the best a game can give then you need to upgrade. But if you are like me and you are happy upgrading every 3 or 4 years then you can cope with lowering a few settings. The problem I can see happening though, and what my gut is telling me, once this PC is 3 or 4 years old. I don’t think I will have to lower any settings, I believe I will still be able to play most games on the max settings.

I have been a gamer since I was 8 years old, that’s 15 years of gaming I have racked up and 11 of those have been on the PC. Back then it was a completely different market. Consoles where even on release playing catch up and PC’s where constantly being upgraded multiple times a year. If you wanted the best gaming had to offer you had to go for the PC. If you wanted a laid back gaming experience… ‘No thrills gaming’ if you will. Then you got a Mega Drive or a Play Station.

The thing is, what determines the advancement of the next Consoles hardware has always been at what stage is the PC industry’s hardware at. But I can see this completely flipping the other way. I am not sure if it was intentional but I have a feeling that instead of the PC industry determining what a console should be like, it will be what the consoles will allow the PC to advance to.

If all of our games become Console ports, will we have any need for faster hardware before the next console is released? Does anyone know something I don’t, will there be a big injection of PC exclusives to push hardware forward or could everything be turning in to console ports?

Don’t get me wrong though, I am all for advancement of gameplay and features, I even agree that graphics are more advanced than most other features in gaming and all the others need to catch up. But if what I am worried about is true then all the other aspects of gaming will soon catch up and will have no where to go because the hardware will be keeping it back again, Just like in the 90’s when developers where stating “the only limitation to our imagination is our hardware”.

@ jamesl

I wasn't replying to the OP, I was replying to your post and the points you made. I don't agree with the OP either (the previous generations of consoles have never had any negative impact on the progress of PC games, even when one of them was Microsoft's first Xbox), I was just so enraged by yours, I responded to that one instead.

Just like me? I want bleeding edge though! That was my friends PC. My current PC (see sig) cost considerably more and while it's not bleeding edge (planning to SLI some future nVidia cards when the need arises), it's certainly no slouch!

In response to some of your other questions:

No, I've never had any problems with drivers not working, provided on the CD or otherwise. I'm using a beta nVidia driver at the moment and still have no problems.

Yes, I have beta tested a game (Crysis).

No, I've never explained to anyone why they can't run a game without a service pack. My 7 year old PC is running XP without a service pack and has never had problems with any games/demos I tried to run (apart from trying to play highly demanding ones obviously).

As for all the other points about people having to have things explained, having problems with hardware/software and how consoles "Just work", tell that to tens (hundreds maybe?) of thousands of console users that have had the red ring of death, had to return their consoles for replacements, have their consoles bricked by a bad firmware update, etc. Did they "just work"? If a PC malfunctions, it's a pretty simple affair to fix it yourself, ask on a forum or replace a faulty piece or hardware. If you have a console, you gotta say buh bye to it for a few weeks till it gets replaced.

Going into your definition of "consoles just work" where "everything is standardised", there are several completely different consoles with different specs that need different methods of programming, making developing games for consoles alot more difficult than just providing a PC game where you can adjust the settings to have it run on different specs. Sure, developing for 1 console will be easier, but it also limits what you can do. Later on down the line, you can't play that console game in the newest console from that maker and have it look and play much better.

Finally, the 3 points you broguht up from the OP:
"hardware should not limit software" Agree. Hardware should leave some room for improvement, but software should be (and is) written so that it can be used by older hardware. While eventually a particular piece of hardware in a system will limit the software being developed, it can be replaced, added to (more RAM, another Graphics Card) or overclocked to gain performance, which you can do with PC's, but not with consoles. I don't want to wait 6+ years for performance/graphical improvement when it can be increased in incriments if I wished.

"software should lead and hardware should strive to catch up" Not sure about this one. This happened with Crysis, and while it was and interesting idea (have a scalable engine that need is designed to only be fully utilised several years after release so it can look comparable to titles at that time), it put people off and made the extreme hardware enthusiasts bitter because they can't justify their hardware if it doesn't conquer every game completely.

"he believes that consoles and expecially MS, is causing hardware to be the driving foce". I didn't get that impression from his post and I don't believe microsoft are limiting/driving hardware at all. PC hardware will always progress, simply because there are always people who want more performance. Whether they be companies who want shorter response times, games/movie developers that need the latest and greatest machines to generate the prettiests games/movies or just your average gamer who wants bigger, better, faster. Everyone would like the best, and I don't believe that microsoft would fail to provide them with the tools to do so. Hell, Windows 7 and DirectX 11 aren't too far off, so they are hardly neglecting us in favor of their console.

Now it is my time to write.

Well, ins't really Microsoft fault mate. Coding a game can be really messing in the Graphics side. ive read several articles fo developers that didn't used to notch API, because 1 - You didn't noticed any big diference, 2 - They had to rewrite the whole code. PC is top notch. Graphics wise as well. But graphics isn't everything like ti was already mentioned here. Blizzard and Valve are just great examples of how great games that don't need a 5k€ machine to run good. And they are not graphically bad as well.

Another thing that turns the developers off, is that there are always multiple new goodies to code to. That delays the project or its just not taken in considerations in the latter part of it. Developers nowadays have a bigger conscience about the rigs the gamers use. Check valve numbers, still some nice percentage of 6600GT there. So they have to code for it. They have to sell. Crysis sold 1 million copies or so. It sold very well, IMHO, its market was very small. WoW is a multi-million Juggernaught and can be played (badly, but nonetheless) in a GMA 965.

So it is not Microsoft. Games for Windows, or Porting from Xbox its great i think. More games for US, PC gamers to play. No biggie here. DX10.1 doesnt bring much novelties, but hey, the novelty now is Physics calculations, not new effects. And i honestly think things are going that way. Cloth,water,collisions,explosions. It will revolutionize gaming like Transform&Lightning did. Just give it time. Resolutions are going beyond the roof with falling price on LCDs so no much improvement here. I payed 149€ for a 22" LCD 1650x1050. I wont need much more than that. Or 24x anti-aliasing for god sake. Those pixels are small enough already !!!

It is us i guess. We like gaming. We don't like to shell out 600$/€ yearly in a new GPU. Games are still made for those gamers with cash. Not all. But still, most of them are. Thats the true virtue of the PC platform for gaming. You can play Crysis in a decent FPS, in a 5000€ machine or in 700€ machine. The quality varies ofc. But it is still playable. In a console environment it is pretty linear.

I guess Microsoft isnt killing PC gaming. PC gaming is evolving, like always did.