Stardock: PC gaming is about to break free of 'poisonous' decade-old standards

By Julio Franco · 36 replies
Apr 17, 2013
Post New Reply
  1. Game developers have been stuck with DirectX 9 and 2GB of memory for the past decade. While this hasn’t harmed first person shooters (they only have to manage a handful of objects at once), it has been poisonous to other...

    Read more
  2. TS-56336

    TS-56336 TS Addict Posts: 609   +109

    Whatever, it may be good for a year or two and they will be outpaced again. I can barely play Bioshock Infinite. The game is so smooth with that old Bioshock/Unreal Engine it feels like I'm skating on ice. That is on Ultra settings and DX11 modes.
  3. PinothyJ

    PinothyJ TS Guru Posts: 460   +22

    Good job...
  4. 32 bit windows xp master race reporting in.

    but seriously, its not directx or windows xp holding gaming back, its developers who are too lazy/unskilled to use opengl like everyone else.
  5. Kibaruk

    Kibaruk TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,286   +902

    Do you even read bro?

    It clearly states, how the lack of 64 bit system adoption is holding back developers because they can't do good use of the hardware specs of the machine, so they are being limited by one core and 2gb ram development.
    SNGX1275 likes this.
  6. fimbles

    fimbles TS Evangelist Posts: 1,185   +208

    Lots of pc games support all versions of directX.

    IMO this is a poor excuse not to develop better scalabililty in to their games sooner.
  7. Sniped_Ash

    Sniped_Ash TS Maniac Posts: 253   +108

    Oh I saw "Stardock" and thought that the "poisonous" standard that they were breaking free from was Brad Wardell and his rampant misogyny.
  8. Kibaruk

    Kibaruk TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,286   +902

    (Yet again) Do you even read bro?
  9. MrBungle

    MrBungle TS Booster Posts: 151   +67

    I wish game developers would just make the best game they can and not pay too much attention to what the system requirements are...

    A big part of the decline of consumer PC sales is that there is no incentive to upgrade, people will buy faster machines if they want to enjoy gaming and their current setups are not cutting it. A very well done AAA title can drive sales of things like faster CPUs/GPUs/RAM kits. So, no Stardock, you haven't been waiting on me, I've been waiting for you to do something interesting. I would love for someone to put out a DX11 RTS that allowed 10 or 20K units... Just offer the option to turn down the unit count to allow lesser systems to run the game.
  10. fimbles

    fimbles TS Evangelist Posts: 1,185   +208

    Yes I did, I suggest you do the same.

    Quote from article:

    "Game developers have been stuck with DirectX 9 and 2GB of memory for the past decade. While this hasn?t harmed first person shooters (they only have to manage a handful of objects at once), it has been poisonous to other genres. Next time you?re playing an RPG in first person with no party you can refer to DirectX 9 and 2GB of memory as a big reason for that."
  11. Cycloid Torus

    Cycloid Torus Stone age computing. Posts: 3,021   +661

    I am a dodo about this please correct me.

    Guest said developers should "use opengl like everyone else". Is OpenGL 3.0 the big turning point? It's been available for almost 5 years. In that time Microsoft has done 'what'? DX10 and DX11 which falls back to DX9 if installed on XP. Has this been the industry standard due to inertial guidance from the head office? Why? Is this due to their interpretation of the remaining huge installed base for XP? Have they really thought about it? A HardForum topic convinced me that the gamers with XP installed on one of their systems are using XP to run OLD games. Could the head office types be clueless?
  12. Fbarnett

    Fbarnett TS Booster Posts: 210   +30

    32 bit win xp? What people with10 year old computers cant play the new games? I blame Microsoft for this.
  13. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,147   +915

    What? You only have to look at the steam survey's to see that Windows xp lost most of its ground when 7 came out, hell even Vista was reasonably popular with gamers.

    The reason I choose the Steam survey is because, well, a lot of PC gamers have it installed.

    Either way, this guy's an *****, although to be fair to him, Crysis flopped a little bit due to its seriously high requirements so I guess they need to get the balance right.
  14. Joel F

    Joel F TS Rookie

    Linux has been 64 bit since the start of 64 bit. I'm sorry that people are just so use to Windows that they can't step out and support Linux but as a gaming platform, it has the biggest advantages. It can be packaged with a game FREE. It can be optimised much much more than Windows. Frame rates are said to be higher in Linux in cross-platform games. Virus in Linux is much less likely so resources are gained by not having stupid antivirus software running all of the time.

    I'm running Xubuntu and Steam. Game play is smooth and I don't ever have to deal with nagware or other annoyances. Steam games are cheap and the ones ported to Linux run great. It really is the best gaming platform.
  15. amstech

    amstech IT Overlord Posts: 1,936   +1,101

    I don't know if I would say that Crysis 'flopped'. A game made purely for the PC is going to have a certain market, even now (although since then they have made Crysis available on a console). At mid settings during release it was quite playable on my Phenom II 720 X3 pushing CrossfireX 5770's. To this day I don't think many average gamers realize how fun and surprisingly good the single player campaign was for the original Crysis.
    From a requirements and software/drivers standpoint, the coding for the game also took some blame as well and now with the many tuneups since its release, if you have the latest version of Crysis and latest drivers you would never know that this game once was a benchmark for PC's.
  16. Ultraman1966

    Ultraman1966 TS Enthusiast Posts: 94   +10

    I think it's more to do with the Xbox and PS3 outstaying their welcome; so many games are made for those consoles first and then ported to the PC when they can be bothered. That's where the restrictions have been...
    St1ckM4n likes this.
  17. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 2,890   +1,224

    A few days ago there was a thread on techspot about the Xbox 720 and how it won't be backwards compatible with old games. People were calling developers lazy and pointing out that their PCs can run old games, why shouldn't our consoles be able to.

    This is a little different... the 720 is a new system that can't run old games, not an old system that's trying to run new games (like a Win XP PC). But we can still see how these old standards hold back progress.
    Catering to the old restricts the new.
  18. Mikymjr

    Mikymjr TS Booster Posts: 124   +9

    READY! ^^
  19. Greg S

    Greg S TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,071   +428

    DX11 has been available for quite some time as have 64-bit systems with powerful processors and graphics cards. Why do we still ask if we can play Crysis on a new powerful computer? The gaming industry has simply fallen behind on computer games. This has nothing to do with hardware or software limitations. It is the fact that there aren't many people willing to pay $60 for a game that is quickly redesigned to work on PCs and that development companies aren't making much money off computer games anymore, but it's now starting to become more profitable again, so they are focusing on PC games more.
  20. Dukenukemx

    Dukenukemx TS Member Posts: 71   +16

    I like how Direct X seems to be the only option for game developers. Whatever happened to using OpenGL? It's not OS limited like Direct X is.

    Also developers need to grow balls and make 64-bit a requirement. Make it so people have to be using 64-bit version of Windows to use your game. It's not like developers didn't have to do this in the past with games.
  21. Littleczr

    Littleczr TS Addict Posts: 439   +86

    According to my professor C++ does not support multiple cores. Maybe that is also a problem.
  22. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,147   +915

    No I absolutely agree, I was able to run it on medium to low at the time on a 7600GT but I read an article a year or two ago, I was frantically trying to dig it up to show you but it was an interview with some of the guys at Crytek and the gist of it was that they didn't want to push to much in Crysis 2 as they found a lot of people pirated Crysis 1 or simply didn't purchase down to its reputation of being impossible to run, even though it did a pretty good job at scaling, that's not what it was made popular for. So they were essentially blaming its high requirements as a negative to how many copies they sold. Its a shame because I personally don't think that was the reason, I think the reason was it was not advertised much, Crysis 2 was and Crysis 3 wasn't, or at least, that's how I've felt.
  23. ddg4005

    ddg4005 TS Guru Posts: 384   +54

    I think part of the problem has also been the focus on consoles instead of PCs. As limiting as 32-bit Windows has been many developers opted to write games for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 instead of primarily for Windows-based boxes. Consoles, by their very nature, have limited hardware resources and could not be upgraded to DirectX 10 or 11 nor could any of the hardware be upgraded (except the hard drive on the 360). That, combined with the aforementioned reasons, resulted in games being stuck in a 32-bit world.

    The real question is do developers have the chops to make good and compelling games that practically exploit the powerful hardware of modern PCs as well as 64-bit Windows? Only time will tell.
  24. danhodge

    danhodge TS Member Posts: 80   +13

    Okay, I moved over to Linux (actually, for the second time) and I was on Mint. Now, before I start disagreeing with you - let me just say that I loved it. Despite what people told me, I never had any crashing/bug issues (more than what I can say for Vista which I was on before that, and am on again now), it ran great, and the boot time was awesome.
    However, the problem that is still very prevalent, and will be until more developers port their games to Linux Steam, is the lack of games (I would say software, but there are always alternatives) supported on the OS.
    You can tell me 'Wine' all you want, but that is a pain in the *** to use, and makes it much less convenient to run games.

    So, to conclude, I will agree with you when there is a decent list of games on the Linux version of Steam :)
  25. MrBungle

    MrBungle TS Booster Posts: 151   +67

    Its probably because they changed CPU architectures... The 360 is PowerPC based where the 720 will be x86... It probably wouldn't take much to get Xbox 1 games to work with the 720 though.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...