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

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.

No doubt! No one running a 32bit OS in 2013 is a serious gamer, those systems are going to be low-end bargain boxes or business systems that for compatibility reasons HAVE TO use a 32bit OS so the only games that crowd is likely to attempt to play are casual flash games or simple puzzle type games... They need to stop catering to this crowd when making things like shooters, RTS, RPGs, MMOs etc..
 
Ehm.... no. A new good gameplay in any genre doesn't care about graphics or technical issues. A game can have great gameplay and poor graphics or amazing graphics but poor gameplay; DX has nothing to do with gameplay.

Of course it's great when you find a game with nice graphics and nice gameplay; but ultimately when a game only has good graphics it ends up as a tech demo or benchmark tool.
 
According to my professor C++ does not support multiple cores. Maybe that is also a problem.

Natively it doesn't; but you can use APIs like pthread (POSIX thread) to add that functionality, it works in Windows too. Many game developers find their own way to sort it out when programming for multi-core and in C++; even they may create their own headers to do the job.

Java implements multi-thread easily but... just look at Minecraft's graphics. There are always ways -may be very hard- to sort out several problems no matter the programming language, as low level as you want to go. Microsoft does some optimizations to new versions of Office programs by disassembling some parts of source code and improve by either modifying that assembler section or adding new assembly instructions that are not yet supported by the current compiler but that will come on a brand new processor.
 
You need to step back and look at reality. Steam reports that combined 64-bit users are around 65%. So how many developers are going to eliminate approximately half of their potential customers just so you can have more toons on the screen? almost none. The situation will change as the number of gamers running 64-bit grows.
 
People seem to be missing the point that you can't really scale down some things. You can just scale down the number of enemies you have to kill, it's a completely different difficulty and game.
 
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.

No doubt! No one running a 32bit OS in 2013 is a serious gamer, those systems are going to be low-end bargain boxes or business systems that for compatibility reasons HAVE TO use a 32bit OS so the only games that crowd is likely to attempt to play are casual flash games or simple puzzle type games... They need to stop catering to this crowd when making things like shooters, RTS, RPGs, MMOs etc..

Actually a lot of serious gamers were running 32-bit versions of windows because it was easier to cheat in leagues.
 
"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."

Nope. The reason I play RPGs in first person with no party is because those are my favorite games. Even if I can have a party, I prefer to go solo (Oblivion, Fallout 3 / NV, Bioshock).
 
Too bad poisonous bad language and immorality just keep getting worse. There is no reason at all some of these game makers couldn't put and option in their games to filter such content.
 
I look more at the game anymore then the Graphics, mainly since I am done dropping $3k on my system every 2-3 years (laptop gamer here) to be able to play latest and greatest on high. I just want good gameplay something only 3-4 games over the last 4-5 years have truly offered me. But as some of you have said games that Push PC's sell hardware Crysis was one of the firsts and BF3 was prob the most recent a lot of people upgraded since they needed something DX11 capable to play BF3 properly (since BC2 can go down to DX9 and become much graphically lighter), If the trend keeps up I wouldn't be surprised to see Hardware manufacturers supporting devs in development to help get high standards out of games, kinda like what nvidia already does but more involvement and cash.
 
I don't mind them taking advantage of more RAM on 64bit as it's (relatively) cheap these days. What is more annoying though is that within a few months I upgraded to a GTX 660Ti and yet Metro Last Light will still not run "optimally" unless I have a GTX 690 or TITAN. Isn't that resource requirement taking it too far in terms of what most gamer's can afford?
 
I look more at the game anymore then the Graphics, mainly since I am done dropping $3k on my system every 2-3 years (laptop gamer here) to be able to play latest and greatest on high. I just want good gameplay something only 3-4 games over the last 4-5 years have truly offered me.
You said it! The newest graphical offering, I believe is TressFX. TressFX looks truly amazing but if game-play is lacking, why would anyone buy into it.
 
Back