Posts Tagged ‘netbooks’

7 Reasons PC Games Are Dying

May 2009

05

myst 7 Reasons PC Games Are DyingI started playing interactive computer games 20 years ago on the Apple Macintosh with The Manhole, Cosmic Osmo and Spelunx. Through a dozen systems (NES, SNES, N64, Game Boy, Sega Genesis, Sega Saturn, Jaguar, Dreamcast, Playstation, Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube, Xbox 360, Playstation 3) made by a half-dozen manufacturers, the personal computer was one of the few constants as a gaming platform. Since 1998, I have played games exclusively on the PC (running some version of Windows). So why is it that a constant, easily accessible** and innovative platform with the easiest controls** is on its last legs?
*There are far more people with computers than consoles.
**Playing first person shooters and real-time strategy games is infinitely easier using a keyboard and mouse.

 

Here are 7 reasons that I can think of:

 

1) Digital piracy is rampant. It’s pretty difficult to stay afloat when 80% of the people playing your game didn’t even pay for it. Come on, PC gamers. It’s no wonder developers flock to the PS3, Wii and Xbox 360 where it’s much easier to control piracy.

2) Rise of portable computers and the deemphasis on hardware performance for portability. Consumers no longer care as much about getting the best possible computer as it really no longer matters. To run basic internet and media applications and to do word processing, CPU and video card requirements are minimal. Which brings us to the next issue:

3) No hardware standardization. It’s difficult for PC game developers and publishers to create games that appeal to all gamers without any baseline for computer hardware specifications.

4) Xbox 360′s cannibalization of the market. You wonder how many console developers might have been producing PC games if the Xbox 360 wasn’t around. Microsoft has produced a gaming platform that is truly easy to develop on, but one which unfortunately has cannibalized some of its own audience.

5) PC versions come out after console game releases. Some of the biggest titles in console history were also released on the PC. The problem? Sometimes it can take 3 years to port a game over (see: Halo 2). GTA 4 and Halo 2 both had low PC sales due to a) late PC platform releases and b) the aforementioned Xbox 360 cannibalization of the PC customer.

6) Digital distribution numbers aren’t released. Digital distribution is the best way I can think of to save PC gaming. But right now it’s a duopoly (Valve + Direct2Drive), and very little sales data is released. Greater competition will breed innovation and an increased value to consumers.

7) Windows Vista. Windows Vista just wasn’t a good gaming platform. It registers significantly worse framerates and there were constant driver issues. Rumor has it, though, that Windows 7 will be “great for games”.

 

Windows gaming is in serious trouble. Digital distribution, Windows 7 and the PC Gaming Alliance’s efforts to standardize PC hardware requirements and bring more console games over to the PC will help, but it may be too little, too late. It’s sad thinking about the most robust gaming system coming to a close. The next two years will be the greatest test for PC gaming, as Blizzard will be releasing Diablo III and Starcraft II, and I’m sure we’ll see some big Valve titles coming soon. If PC gaming doesn’t see a renaissance now, it’s all but over.

 

Why do you think PC games are dying, and what do you think can be done about it?

 

Technology Portability vs. Performance

May 2009

01

Smallest PC in the worldI’m still not sold on iPhones and Eee PCs. That sounds like a bizarre thing to say, considering the early financial and social success of the two products, so let me clarify. I’d love an Eee PC, and I use a smartphone every day. What I’m skeptical about is the belief that the future will rely on portability and ease over performance.

 

Since at least the early 1900′s, audio production has focused on producing the high fidelity sound quality faithful to artists’ original performances. Improved technology brought us from AM radio to FM, from phonographs to records and through to compact discs. The introduction of online downloadable music and the iPod is one of the few changes in technology that actually decreased sound quality in favor of portability, but is taking a very similar path to the tape cassette.* Over the past few years, torrent sites have encoded music files at 256 kb/s or higher, and even Apple instituted iTunes Plus on all new songs, increasing sound quality.
*The cassette tape also reduced quality from the 8-track tape, but later increased its quality dramatically to make it nearly, if not as good.

 

Cloud computing, mobile technologies and netbooks have been not only popular, but heavily hyped over the past few years. They face a similar quandary, though: does the internet’s increase in portability and usability outweigh its decrease in performance when compared to an operating system? I’m not sure it does at this point. At All Things Digital in 2007, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were asked about cloud computing and future technology, but both pointed out that netbook and internet (cloud) capabilities are still nowhere near the operating system in terms of performance. Steve Jobs gave a concrete example:

 

“When we were doing the iPhone, we thought: wouldn’t it be great to have maps on the iPhone? So we called up Google… We ended [creating] a client app [that]… when we showed it to [Google], they’re just blown away by how good it is, and you can’t do that stuff in a browser. People are figuring out how to do more in a browser… but it’s happening fairly slowly, and there’s still a lot that you can do with a rich client environment. At the same time, the hardware is progressing to which you can run a rich client on [lower cost or lower power] devices. The marriage of great client apps with great cloud services… can be more powerful than just having a browser on the client.”

 

And Bill Gates noted that:

 

“The 5 inch screen does not compete with the 20 inch screen, [which] does not compete with the big living room screen… [It is important that] locally you have the responsiveness of immediate interaction without the latency or bandwidth limitations that you get if you try to do it [online].”

 

Granted, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have their own biases, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Will netbooks and smartphones eventually reach the point that their hardware is powerful enough to do what a personal computer does today? Absolutely. However, I don’t think that a smartphone will ever replace a personal computer and I believe it will still take years for netbooks to truly replace the functionality and performance of a full computing system. Take Google Docs, for example. The things that can be done with Google Spreadsheets are much more limited than what can be done with Microsoft Excel.* The differences in form factors and screen sizes only exacerbate the issue, too. I can’t even imagine trying to operate a spreadsheet on a touch screen iPhone.
*I’m a power user of Excel and have dabbled with Google Spreadsheets, and I don’t believe that the functionality is even close to there yet.

 

So every time I see a new Eee PC, or the next smartphone that will change my world, I can’t stop but think that we’re still not there yet. Touch screens (even with virtual keyboards) just don’t offer the computing or performance capabilities that I need every day, and there is absolutely zero chance that I would ever do 100% of my work from a mobile phone. Netbooks have the most attractive form factor, but most times I still prefer a larger monitor* to the ones featured on netbooks. Unfortunately at this point, my only option is to carry an iPhone-type device (smartphone + music player), netbook (small form factor PC for word processing, simple web browsing), desktop/laptop computer (heavier computing technology & gaming). As I said, I’m not sold. Yet.
*Or two monitors when I’m crunching numbers in Excel.