Tuesday, April 26, 2011

On why the XBox 360 sucks.

Microsoft's XBox 360 is a great gaming machine.  I'm not big into platform wars -- anything that works is fine by me.  Over 50 million happy gamers use their XBox 360s and XBox Live, and I actually think Microsoft has done a great job with its console overall.  Aside from the notorious red ring of death, those little machines work and work well, and bring gaming countless games to countless gamers yearly.  When it launched, everyone was primed and ready for the next generation and Microsoft brought it to us.

The problem is, it launched pre-holiday 2005.  I remember well -- I was working for GameStop at the time.  (And what a mess that launch was.)  That sucker is nearly six years old.  And it is not anywhere near as technically capable as a PS3 or a gaming PC.  It's slower, smaller, and aging.

But platform-exclusive games are rare, these days.  I completely understand why: a modern AAA game can easily run between $15 million and $75 million for the studio behind it -- even up to $100 million.  You're not going to recoup that investment on just one platform -- there simply aren't going to be enough gamers on it.  (A 2009 study placed the average cost for a current-gen console game at $10 million.)

In short, almost every game we buy for our PCs or our PS3 is a cross-platform release (there are some exceptions).  And I'm sorry, 360 gamers, but your antique is holding the rest of us back.

There are the visual differences.  When you're in the middle of something like Uncharted 2, you see the full potential of the PS3's raw computing power and the capacity and definition of a blu-ray disc.  The thing looks gorgeous.  Crisp, sharp, detailed, and thoroughly amazing.  The merest hint at what the future of HD gaming can keep looking like.

But graphics aren't everything! you cry.  And you're right.  They're not.  If there were, I'd never use any other machine than my gaming PC (still state-of-the-art, even though it's a year old -- that curve has slowed way, WAY down in the last 3-4 years) and I'd have it hooked up to the best pair of HD monitors money could buy.  But many of my favorite games aren't about the graphics, they're about the writing.  Portal 2 is not state-of-the-art in visuals and Tales of Monkey Island certainly doesn't roll that way.

But right now there's a full keyboard attached to my desktop, of which the only keys I get to use are W, A, S, D, space, left-CTRL, tab, and sometimes Q and E if it's a game where strafing is a separate motion.  Controls, menus, and maps are all better, more detailed, and easier in most MMOs I've tried than in any other game of the last few years, and I think it's because they're PC native.  You can assume the player will use her mouse to manipulate a map in EQ2 or LOTRO.  But for Mass Effect the default assumption is that the player has only a controller, and that he can just sit closer to the TV (which will be 35" or larger) in order to read the map.

Admittedly, some despair over the future of PC gaming isn't the 360's fault.  It's Apple's.  As non-workplace "computing" tasks get relegated to the iPad and the smartphone, a capable desktop or laptop computer is fast fading from presence in the modern home.  There are 3 million people logged in at any given time to Steam, but there are over 6 million active iPhones in the US alone and over 300,000 daily new Android activations (across carriers and manufacturers).

All of this adds up to one clear fact: aside from a handful of niche titles, the era of the PC exclusive is well and truly over.  And I could take that (if grumpily), if we were not stuck right where we were at the beginning of this post: the XBox 360 is holding back content and performance for my PC games.

So Microsoft -- Nintendo's announcing their new console this summer and the PS3 is a full year newer than your device and had higher specs to start.  You are falling behind and taking me with you.  Step it up sometime soon for us with your 8th gen release, would you?

8 comments:

  1. This is relevant to my interests.


    ...I blame the xBox for the boss fights in DA2 being so stupid (err, "console style" that is. Of which I want NONE in my pc rpg!).

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1) It's not the Xbox's fault, it's the developers. If the developers you're paying money to are putting out PC versions that aren't up to your standard, punish them by not buying their crappy PC versions, and e-mailing them about it. I nearly bought Grand Theft Auto IV Complete on Steam last week, when they were selling it dirt cheap, until I looked for reviews and saw that the port was atrocious. Or if you decide you have to have the game, sending in complaints to the game companies is the best way to get voices heard on problems like this. The Spore DRM fiasco is just one example. Red Dead Redemption is console exclusive, I imagine in large part because of the problems Rockstar had with GTA IV, and decided that the PC market wasn't worth their trouble. Honestly, that's probably a good thing for all concerned. Better nothing than a crappy port.

    There are developers that are serious about making their console games work right for PCs. Valve and Portal 2 had a really good integration on PS3 and PC that the Xbox version can't match for the same price. MMOs all target the PC market nearly exclusively (does anyone ACTUALLY play FFXI on Xbox 360?). RTS games have never been done well on a console, they merely become less bad with gameplay innovation. Civ Revolutions is not Civilization, and Civ 5 will never hit consoles, and most strategy games are not good fits either, aside from the console strategy-RPG dual subgenre. Fallout 3 & New Vegas are much better on the PC (if only because you can patch things yourselves and have access to the in-game console).

    2) While plenty of developers have hobbled their PC games control schemes because of the console, the move to simplifying the control schemes with an eye toward gamepad play, whether on the console or the PC, has been, in my humble opinion, a vast net benefit to game design as a whole, despite the real risks of over-dumbing.

    Context sensitive input is a stone cold requirement for gamepad play, and in the old days this was a serious problem for PC games, and still is. Every action had to have its own key. Limiting the amount of simultaneous keys you need is a good thing. It forces the designers to think about the physical interface of their game as well as the graphical interface, and it makes it easier on your hands. The biggest problem with how this has been implemented is actually a problem for console gamers as well: for most games you can't remap your keys/buttons. To an extent it's understandable on a console, but it's still a bad idea. It's inexcusable on PC ports. Again, something to mightily complain about.

    3) I'm personally really glad I have an Xbox and didn't buy a PS3 after Sony just admitted that they stored everyone's passwords and credit cards in cleartext. Their hardware might be better, and Microsoft may be no prize, but Sony appears to be going out of their way to screw up their relationship with users. Microsoft had their own crap with the early 360 launch and the red ring fiasco, but they've improved tremendously. Sony started well and then has just gone downhill from there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It's not the Xbox's fault, it's the developers. If the developers you're paying money to are putting out PC versions that aren't up to your standard, punish them by not buying their crappy PC versions, and e-mailing them about it."

    The problem with this approach is two-fold.
    First, this problem is not limited to a small number of developers, but rather to the vast majority of the industry. If PC users were to only cater to those who provide good ports, you'd pretty much only be playing MMOs and Valve titles. (And even Bethesda is going the way of the console.. they said recently that Skyrim will be primarily a DirectX9 game in order for better console compatibility, despite that DX11 has been out for nearly 2 years now.) By limiting yourself to only good ports, you're missing out on an awful lot in the world of gaming.

    Second, PC users are in a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation right now. They've been saddled with increasingly restrictive and annoying DRM practices (topped off with Ubisoft's AC2 "always connected" strategy). The argument on that also was simply not to buy products from developers with that DRM, but then what happens is that the beancounters at those developers see PC sales drop and think that it's not worth developing PC ports at all any more. Assassins Creed Brotherhood only came out very recently for the PC, months after the console versions were released.

    In other words, if PC users were to stop buying games from companies that produced bad console ports, they'd be limited to only a handful of games released per year, and an ever dwindling supply as less and less developers bother to release products for them. It's a no-win scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is one Xbox specific app that no one has beaten yet though, and it's the Live network. Myself, I own a pc, wii, and most recently a ps3, . As you said, game wise, I'm missing out on just a few entries, the only one I regret missing out on is the community which most of my friends are a part of, and will purchase games to stay in. I was pretty excited about the PSN+Steam connection (sadly, my Portal 2 arrived after the PSN shutdown, so I haven't been able to activate Portal 2 on my steam account), but thinking more about it, Microsoft doesn't have much to gain with from letting something like work well, really its for the developers. Games for Windows was shot across Valve's bow that I'm sure cost MS at most their annual budget in paper clips--in other words, sloppily supported--by gaming wise the Live install base is large enough that I'm sure it affects purchasing.

    Obviously, this is pure speculation, but I'm wondering how well Nintendo's next console will do. I hope the maintain their populist streak and keep the price low, because even with better specs, I don't know if they'll have a library strong enough to compete with the other two consoles--the Wii is for many households the one game system or the other game system, it's approachable enough to be an extra. I don't know if even with the bank they've made with this last system that they could go toe-to-toe with Sony or Microsoft, that the market can sustain another top tier console with its own unique development needs and costs.

    And I'm sure Microsoft has some more mindbending technology waiting in the wings, but I'm also I'm sure they'll be late in deploying it, but via inertia and dint of size they'll make it long enough to compete. They seem to develop ideas on an endearingly naively optimistic plane without much/enough regard to selling products with it (Surface, Zune social), combined with a behemoth's willingness to ship 1st gen products that seem more like tests of principle than full concepts (xbox 1, zunes again).

    I'm not sure how it all works out exactly, but I'm always wondering how the mixed interests of the companies involved affect their plans. Microsoft and Sony are both pushing for entertainment center thing, and just Nintendo and Valve are the most invested in just gaming. Nintendo's like a populist Apple: design oriented, classy software that helps drives hardware sales, but the focus on just gaming hardware may be their downfall someday. And Valve, feel like Google, sitting on a pile big enough to make them meaningful in whatever they want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If PC users were to only cater to those who provide good ports, you'd pretty much only be playing MMOs and Valve titles

    Possibly, if you choose to only play PC games that are multi-platform launches. Blizzard hasn't put out a console port since the PS1. Dawn of War and other good RTS games never see a console port worth playing (C&C 3...no...) Civilization, as I mentioned, plus the raft of serious strategy and wargames.

    Even then I don't accept that Valve is the only company that produces decent PC versions of their games on consoles, but that's tangential to the point, I think, which is it's not the console's fault. If Valve can do it, anyone can. If they don't, that's the developer's fault.

    Second, PC users are in a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation right now.

    I've heard this before re: DRM, lousy ports, and so on for YEARS, and PC gaming is still happening. A few years ago, when I dropped PC gaming nearly altogether when I dropped Windows for Mac & Linux exclusively, I had made the same call. I didn't care to deal with the increasingly idiotic DRM, even though I played quite a lot of games that had no console ports, or weren't worth playing in their console incarnation. I had accepted the end of PC gaming. Fast forward 3 years, I get a new Windows machine, and I see that in fact, that the forces of DRM have retreated significantly after the Spore low water mark (aside from a few idiot holdouts, like, you know, EA/Bioware). Steam is going strong with pretty minimal DRM (and announces when there is 3rd party DRM on there). GoG.com is going strong (DRM free release of Witcher 2, and the first Witcher for $5 promotion, and tons of serious classics). Stardock went a little crazy with their DRM and they've rightly suffered for it, after their "DRM sucks" stance turned out to be hypocrisy. I also see the same conversation that PC gaming is dying. Somehow I don't think that'll be the case. Quality producers like Valve and Blizzard will ensure the PC game producers will stick around, because they prove the market. Blizzard alone kept Mac gaming on life support long enough to get Valve in the game where it should have been all along, and kickstart it all. It wasn't the Mac's fault that no one but Blizzard cared enough to produce a decent game for it.

    Which leads into...

    By limiting yourself to only good ports, you're missing out on an awful lot in the world of gaming.

    The example of Blizzard is really telling here. For years Blizzard was the only game company that produced their own ports to the Mac. Everyone else handed them off to MacPlay or one of the other companies that specialized in shoddy ports of PC games to the Mac. Because Blizzard came to meet them on their platform of choice, Mac users gave Blizzard a lot of money. The platform is famously more important to them than the gaming they miss out on. By the same token, Windows gaming WILL survive, because for lots of people, the PC platform is more important to them than getting the latest games. Lots of big name publishers may have decided to treat PC gamers as second class customers, but there are lots that don't, and pushing the money there shows up, even if the dumb publishers take the wrong message. It's still not the Xbox's fault that they're stupid, they just don't want your money. And getting the latest games isn't always possible even if you don't care about platform. I just got AC: 2 and Brotherhood at hideous discounts because as a rule (sometimes broken, which proves it) I don't buy games for $60 no matter how great it's reviewed. I won't be playing Portal 2 for a long time for that reason, among other great games.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The fate of PC gaming has absolutely nothing to do with the Xbox 360. It has everything to do with the nature of PC gaming.

    THQ had a sale recently, and I picked up a sleu of titles. One of them was Titan's Quest Gold Edition for PC. Two buddies from my regular gaming clan also bought in, and so we sat down for our first night of co-op TQ.

    First we had to get together on Xfire. Had to patch that, because it had been a while. Then we all had to install and patch TQ. Then I needed to update my drivers. Then we had problems connecting with each other within the game. Finally I said "Fuck this, let's just go play NHL," and over to the Xbox 360's we went.

    PC users have always been so proud of the fact that they could build their own rigs, that they could exercise so much control over their setups, that they had so much choice. That choice bit PC gaming square in the ass. Games are entertainment. Pundits like me wish they were more, and it's slowly happening, but they're entertainment for the most part. Introduce "pain in the ass" to "entertainment" and you lose market share.

    Gamers just want to plug in a cartridge, or put a disc in the drive, and fucking PLAY. Not screw around with drivers and hardware and all the myriad problems they bring with them. And it's not about being too lazy or ignorant to address those problems. It's about time. Gamers are getting older. Our average age is 35. We're married, have kids, full-time jobs - our free time is at a premium. Hence our collective bullshit tolerance when it comes to gaming is truncated. Hence PC gaming suffers.

    The era of the PC exclusive is far from over. RTS and MMO. Two genres that I never foresee working on consoles, specifically due to their complexity which suits PCs and the unique control schemes they offer. You're going to have plenty of steadily-flowing content for PCs for a very long time. It's just not necessarily going to be the content you get on consoles, because that content is intended for mass audiences and mass consumption, and that scheme doesn't work well when the content is a pain in the ass to access.

    Finally, much of your argument is based on graphics, and that's become a very dead horse to beat IMHO. Some of the best, most inventive games from a critical perspective over the past year were not graphics-intensive titles. Play mechanics and rulesets trump graphics. Story and theme trump graphics. Inventiveness trumps graphics.

    This is another clue why PC gaming is in the state it's in. Companies like Epic are pushing console manufacturers to chin up to high bars of graphical fidelity and hardware power. The next generation of consoles from Microsoft and Sony might completely blur the line between the PCs on that slower curve you refer to and the consoles.

    The appeal of the PC, aside from access to the two aforementioned genres, has to be based on something other than graphics...and they don't really have much to offer that consoles can't also provide, and in a more accessible fashion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do think Sony just sold an awful lot of next-gen MS consoles (and maybe even the Wii successor) and hurt PS4 sales tremendously.

    And they hurt PS3 sales too. I was considering getting one (since there are a lot of exclusives I'm interested in), but after this crap, no way in hell. MAYBE if they somehow prove that they fixed this in a far more transparent manner than they ever have before, I'll reconsider, but as of now, no way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PC users have always been so proud of the fact that they could build their own rigs, that they could exercise so much control over their setups, that they had so much choice. That choice bit PC gaming square in the ass. Games are entertainment. Pundits like me wish they were more, and it's slowly happening, but they're entertainment for the most part. Introduce "pain in the ass" to "entertainment" and you lose market share.

    Gamers just want to plug in a cartridge, or put a disc in the drive, and fucking PLAY. Not screw around with drivers and hardware and all the myriad problems they bring with them. And it's not about being too lazy or ignorant to address those problems. It's about time. Gamers are getting older. Our average age is 35. We're married, have kids, full-time jobs - our free time is at a premium. Hence our collective bullshit tolerance when it comes to gaming is truncated. Hence PC gaming suffers.


    this is a great point.

    really, i don't have anything more to add. i like the freedom of tweaking and modding that a lot of pc games offer, but it can suck massive amounts of time from my schedule. and when i need to tweak something just to get it to work right, i will occasionally just give up.

    ReplyDelete