PS3 - What will it do to PC gaming?

[Iron Draggon]

So now we know that the PS3 will use Blu-Ray DVD ROM's. I hope this means that any PC ports of PS3 games will be released on DVD ROM's instead of on CD ROM's. It's bad enough that most new PC games are still being released on CD's, when it would make far more sense to release them on DVD's. The average high-profile PC game comes on 2 or 3 CD's now. Some even come on as many as 5 or 6 CD's.

And the question is, WHY? DVD ROM's are not that much more expensive than CD ROM's are anymore. And DVD ROM drives for PC's are not expensive anymore either, nor are they uncommon. They are standard issue with every new PC, and they have been for years now. So why are PC game developers still clinging to CD ROM's, and releasing all their games on multiple CD's, when they could and should be released on a single DVD instead? It makes no sense.

And once the PS3 comes out, the situation will become even worse, if all the PC game developers do not get over CD's and make the transition to DVD's. How much more data than a regular DVD does a Blu-Ray DVD hold? If a PS3 game comes on one Blu-Ray DVD, how many CD's would it take to port that game to the PC? 8? 10? 12?

The time has come for all us PC gamers to stand up and BITCH like a mofo about multiple CD ROM games not being released on DVD ROM instead. It makes absolutely no sense at all in this day and age to release a game on multiple CD's when it could be released on just one DVD. Chances are that the average PS3 game would require at least 2 DVD's to port it to the PC. So we should not tolerate anything less than DVD's for all our PC games now. There is no reason to publish any games on CD's anymore, unless they can fit on just one CD. Otherwise a DVD should be used. Multiple CD games are bullshit now.

[Ed Oscuro]

So now we know that the PS3 will use Blu-Ray DVD ROM's.
Blu-Ray =! DVD. The formats are not compatible.

Q: PS3 - What will it do to PC gaming?
A: Not much.

[njiska]

It's interesting that you tie in the PS3 because really it's irrelevant to the problem. Games regardless of system are getting big and you're right unlike the console world which always tries to keep games on the fewest number of disc, PC games have been sticking to CDs.

Honestly i don't think the console realm is gonna have any effect on the CD issue, but i'm hoping that PC games companies will come around all the same.

Thankfully many companies have started to put more and more games out on DVD and most recently i enjoyed C&C: The First Decade on DVD.

You're absolutely right that DVD is the new standard drive in PCs so it really is mind-boggling that companies won't change their medium.

[Ed Oscuro]

Manufacturers will start shipping games on DVD exclusively when they decide they can do that without losing too many customers. You'd be surprised how many people don't have a DVD drive.

As njiska said, the PS3 is irrelevant to this problem.

[Yago]

This takes me back to the very early days of PC gaming. When you bought a new game, it was released in the NEWER 3 1/2 inch floppies. You could mail in the 3 1/2 inch disks for the older 5 1/4 inch disks. They could release new games on DVD and offer a CD version for people that don't have a DVD drive. But seriously, most newer games won't run good on a computer more than 3-5 years old anyway. So, I would guess that most people playing games have newer computers that without a dout most likely WOULD have a DVD drive. </rant>

[Mr.FoodMonster]

I dont know where the "Blu-Ray does not play DVD's" thing got started, because that is totally wrong. The first Blu-Ray player Sony is putting out supports DVD's, and I'm willing to bet that isn't a feature that is going to be cut.

Also, most 'High Profile' PC games always come with atleast 4 discs, unfortunatly. The bigger releases pretty much all have 'Collectors' or 'Directors' editions that is the game on one DVD, for usually 5 or 10 bucks more. Last time I checked, 1 DVD is still cheaper then 6 CD's, but thats how they do it.

What will Blu-Ray do for PC gaming would probably be the better question here. My responce is, nothing for a few years. Wait unil they dont make PC games on CD's, only DVD's, then wait another year after that, and games might start coming out on Blu-Ray for the PC. Mind you, DVD's are pretty old now, and they are pretty much just getting around to bringing out PC games on it. Once a PC game needs a 25 gig Blu-Ray disc, things are going to get intresting. And very, very detailed.

[njiska]

I dont know where the "Blu-Ray does not play DVD's" thing got started, because that is totally wrong. The first Blu-Ray player Sony is putting out supports DVD's, and I'm willing to bet that isn't a feature that is going to be cut.

Also, most 'High Profile' PC games always come with atleast 4 discs, unfortunatly. The bigger releases pretty much all have 'Collectors' or 'Directors' editions that is the game on one DVD, for usually 5 or 10 bucks more. Last time I checked, 1 DVD is still cheaper then 6 CD's, but thats how they do it.

What will Blu-Ray do for PC gaming would probably be the better question here. My responce is, nothing for a few years. Wait unil they dont make PC games on CD's, only DVD's, then wait another year after that, and games might start coming out on Blu-Ray for the PC. Mind you, DVD's are pretty old now, and they are pretty much just getting around to bringing out PC games on it. Once a PC game needs a 25 gig Blu-Ray disc, things are going to get intresting. And very, very detailed.

Something that i think is being forgotten here is, Blu-Ray isn't supported by MS. They want all PC discs to be HD DVD. If Windows Vista doesn't support Blu-Ray data discs then it's kind of irrelevant.

[Mr.FoodMonster]

Something that i think is being forgotten here is, Blu-Ray isn't supported by MS. They want all PC discs to be HD DVD. If Windows Vista doesn't support Blu-Ray data discs then it's kind of irrelevant.
That is a good point, I hadn't thought about that. While I would hope that Vista will support Blu-Ray, I wouldn't put it past MS to not support it though. After googling a bit, I've come up with things saying MS wont have it in Vista, then that they will leave that up to software developers, and then that they are supporting it with their latest beta. The best link relating to this subject is http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/49103/49103.html So, my guess is that we'll just have to wait and see.

[unwinddesign]

It's CDs, DVDs and PCs, not CD's, DVD's and PC's. x_x

I hope that PC game makers will start to put their games on DVDs though. It gets old with 2500000 discs plus 678 character CD keys.

[Iron Draggon]

Well whichever format prevails, Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is not really that important. I'm sure that optical drives for both formats will become available for the PC, and there may even be some combo drives that support both formats.

But it doesn't really make any difference if either format is compatible with DVD or not. DVD is not compatible with CD, but games that were made on DVD for the consoles are being released on CD for the PC. So that is not the issue here. The issue is that the PC gaming industry is still neglecting to make the transition from CD to DVD for some unknown reason, and no one but them understands why.

When floppies went from 5 1/4 to 3 1/2, the transition was not this slow. And as already mentioned, all you had to do was buy the 3 1/2 version and you could send in for the 5 1/4 version. So you only paid a little more for postage, and you ended up with both versions. Everybody was happy.

When CD ROM drives came out, the transition from floppy to CD was nowhere near this slow. Nobody was going to release a new game on dozens of floppies when it could be released on just one CD instead. It didn't make any sense.

Which brings us back to the issue at hand. Why the hell is the PC gaming industry still releasing new games on CD?

Some developers offer a DVD version for a higher price. The higher price isn't really justified, but I do not mind paying it for the convenience of only having to install one disc instead of multiple discs, not to mention not having to store multiple discs that are no longer necessary after installation. If a disc is required for playing, it is usually only one disc. Very rarely would you have to insert another disc while playing, and even then that would probably be by choice, depending on how you chose to install the game.

But currently I only own two DVD-only PC games. And those are TOCA Race Driver 2 & TOCA Race Driver 3. So cheers to Codemasters for being the only PC developer I know of with the balls to say to the masses "If you do not own a DVD ROM drive then you are not playing our game." There is no CD version of those games. And I do not think that it is affecting their sales of those games in the least.

As someone else already pointed out, if you do not have a DVD ROM drive in your PC by now, then chances are that you couldn't run any of the current games worth a shit on it anyway. So it is time to get a DVD ROM drive, or a new computer that has one, which would be any new computer.

But for some strange reason, the majority of new PC games that are being released on DVD are all FPS games, and they are still not DVD-only. There is still a CD version as well. Which really makes no sense at all, as most people who play FPS are obsessive about staying current with the latest technology. They all have DVD ROM drives, and if they are buying the CD versions of their games instead of the DVD versions, it is only to save a little money that they would rather spend on upgrading their systems instead.

So I am just wondering what it is going to take for the PC gaming industry to start supporting DVD technology the way that they should be. Most developers who make PC games on CD are also making console versions of their games on DVD. So why the hell are they sticking with CD's for their PC games? It doesn't make any sense to anyone.

I recently bought Trainz Railroad Simulator 2006 for the PC. The North American version is only available on 5 CD's. But all the previous versions (UK, AU, EU) were available on one DVD. And strangely enough, the DVD version in those regions has been discontinued for some unknown reason, so even they are being forced to buy it on 5 CD's now. I did not time the installation, but I estimate that it took me at least 30 minutes to install it, and probably even longer. Part of that is only because they used the world's slowest installer for it, but the other part of it is because I had to sit there and babysit it and wait for it to prompt me to insert another disc, instead of being able to just leave it for 30 minutes and come back later to find it fully installed. There is no excuse for making me do that when they could've released it on just one DVD, and they did so for other regions, but for some strange reason a DVD version was too good for North America. So they gave us 5 CD's.

Anyhow, that is why I am wondering what kind of impact the PS3 will have on PC gaming, if any. I am wondering the same thing about the XBOX 360 as well, but from what I understand the PS3 is far more advanced, so it would probably have more of an impact than the 360 would. But of course that is all speculative. Microsoft is behind the 360 and the PC, so they may have more influence than Sony. But Sony has far more legions of loyal drones, regardless of what makes sense, so Sony may have more influence.

And then there is Windows Vista and Direct X 10. So that in itself could have an influence as well, and it may be an even bigger influence than any of the consoles may have. Vista is being designed with HD-DVD playback in mind. I don't know if it will offer any Blu-Ray support as well, but I'm assuming that it will support both formats. Of course this is all being done with watching movies in mind, but since Direct X 10 is one of Vista's main exclusive features, and that feature is being designed solely with games in mind, it makes sense that they should be designing it with the idea that games will eventually come on either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs, or both. Or at least one would assume.

But in the meantime, the PC gaming industry is just now getting around to releasing games on DVD, and even then they are so anal about sticking with CD's that they very rarely release a game on DVD-only. It is always on CD too.

So I am just wondering how long it's gonna take all the other PC game developers to get over CD's and do what Codemasters did with TOCA Race Driver 2 & TOCA Race Driver 3. It's about time that they abandoned releasing games on multiple CD's. It just isn't necessary anymore.

[Ed Oscuro]

But seriously, most newer games won't run good on a computer more than 3-5 years old anyway.
Maybe it's a mass illusion, but it seems that new games are playing better on older systems than they did in the past. Take Quake, the original - when that came out you couldn't play it well on a system much more than a few years old (maybe '93 or '94 was the earliest CPU release that could run it, I'm guessing, with the early Pentium).

Today you can play new games on systems from 2002 very well. I think a good PC from 2001 would play Half-Life just fine. Quake III? I imagine that even the lowliest S3 chip capable of playing the game correctly wouldn't have been much older than 1996.

I dunno if this proves my 'point' or not, but it seems that the shelf life of gaming PCs has lengthened, maybe only slightly. Hm. Could be wrong on that, but I do know that other people had this same impression.


Which brings us back to the issue at hand. Why the hell is the PC gaming industry still releasing new games on CD?
I'm really sorry my first post threw you off (which was my fault), but dude, I already answered this.

- YOU LOSE SALES if people can't play your game
- YOU GET BAD KARMA and your support line gets clogged with people angry that they didn't look at the box closely
- Lots of people still have PCs with no DVD-ROM drive. According to the Valve Hardware Surveyfound here (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html), just over 90% of people who use Steam have a DVD-ROM drive.

That means that one out of ten people wouldn't be able to install Half-Life 2 if it came on DVD (and you wonder how many people never were able to play due to the forced internet activation).

Furthermore, that's for a demographic that has pretty up-to-date hardware - the vast majority have Windows XP, for example. However, large game companies marketing games with wide appeal (think Will Wright's Spore) will think twice about casting off these gamers.

I'd also like to point out that it's entirely possible for somebody to have updated their video card and possibly RAM ("necessary" updates) but to have neglected swapping out that old CD-ROM drive for a DVD-ROM drive (a somewhat more involved process).

[YoshiM]

I think the biggest reason PC game companies don't go DVD only is because there are probably hundreds if not maybe thousands of PCs from like 2001/2002 that are still potentially viable gaming platforms that might not have DVD drives. For those who have decent machines sans DVD drive, what's the reason to add one? Watch movies on a 15" to 17" screen while sitting in an office chair hunched over a desk?

Besides, going DVD only in the legacy-saddled PC market would make some consumers yell for joy but would probably make those with the loudest voices, the bean counters, scream bloody murder. CDs are still (probably) a cheaper medium, everyone has a drive that can use them and you can compress a LOT of data onto them. Take the CDs away and you may lose out on potential revenue.

Then there's the product: do they bundle a DVD in the box with the CDs or do they sell the DVD separately? If they do the bundle bean counters may cry because this opens up a potential of software piracy: the buyer could hand someone else the DVD to play, essentially robbing the company of money (in their eyes). Or something more realistic: why spend the money of including dual formats when CDs are good enough, even if there are a bunch? In the case of a separate package for the DVD version, is there enough retail shelf space for two versions of the same product? Will the stores allow that? Will the DVD version confuse people who don't have DVD drives, causing more issues (hey, I'll bet lots of people STILL don't look at the requirements part of the box). Plus with the PC game industry kinda "eh" in eyes of retailers, why rock the boat by releasing two different formats? Stick with what works.

What about a license fee to use the DVD format? Not sure if there is one but if so that could also be an additional factor.

I'd say in about 2 more years we'll probably see PCs start using DVDs for software exclusively. With compression technology software developers can probably get a LOT of mileage out of DVD, thus saving money by foregoing HD DVD or Blue Ray and the costs that may come with those formats.

[suckerpunch5]

Q: What will PS3 do to PC gaming?
A: It will utterly destroy it. Everyone will abandone PCs, which will then be usefull only as doorstops. (Just like with every other next-gen console launch since the SNES.)




Yeah, in other words, I don't think it will do anything to PC gaming.

[Crazycarl]

absolutly zilch, nadda, zip. Mainly do to the fact that this comes up when ever a new generation of systems come out, and games on comps. are still going strong. Mainly to the ability to update a comp damn near quartally a year, so it will be around as long as the systems.

[SirDrexl]

I've been wondering about the DVD issue too. They have no trouble putting out games that require faster and faster video cards, but a $50 DVD-ROM drive is going to alienate buyers? I could understand a few years ago, as many people would choose a CD-RW over a DVD drive if the PC assembler offered a choice, but now it seems they should make the switch (and not just for those "collector's editions" they charge more for).

As far as production costs are concerned, I have a hard time seeing their point when some companies can turn a profit selling DVDs for a dollar. I also wonder if they save any money by producing 3 CD's rather than 1 DVD.

BTW, how many PS2 games get ported to the PC anyway? Many top games are from Japanese developers like Capcom and Konami who usually won't touch the PC with a ten-foot pole. Even for the games that do make it (like EA's games), dual-layer DVD-ROM is plenty of space. Although all PS3 games will use Blu-Ray for copy protection reasons, I honestly don't think the capacity of the discs is going to be used for real game content for a while.

[Poofta!]

blue ray will fail, fall, crash and burn like every other sony format ever. hddvd is the future. youll be seeing hddvd pc games in about 8 years id say.

[SegaAges]

Well I completely understand some people's points about there being people out there that still do not have a dvd-rom drive, but what about the 5 cd install for doom 3?

If you have a machine good enough to play half life 2 or doom 3, it is pretty safe to say that you will have a dvd-rom drive. I do not know a single person that has a computer good enough to support those high end games that does not own a dvd rom drive.

Now, if companies never made a fast transition to cd's, than we would have had to install games using 50+ floppies. I mean, they all might as well start putting games out on that as well, because there are probably .001% of pc gamers that still have a floppy drive and use it frequently for gaming.

That was obvious sarcasm if you could tell, but it makes a point: if your computer is good enough to run a high end game, what are you doing not owning a dvd drive? Did you just up and decide to get the new nvidia chip for $350 but not want to shell out an extra 25-50 for a dvd drive? it makes no sense. I can see how some of the games that are coming out that are not as beefed up as, say, half life 2 or doom 3, not coming out on dvds, there is no need, but for the people that own a system good enough to run a game like that, we should have a "too bad for them" and help them finish their computer by getting them a dvd drive.

[Iron Draggon]

About DVD ROM drives, I installed one in my crappy old Emachines Celeron 366MHZ PC for only $40 about 5 years ago. So there is literally no excuse not to have a DVD ROM drive in your PC now, no matter how ancient it is, unless it's so ancient that it will only run DOS games. And in that case you are obviously a retro PC gamer and you will never upgrade it to meet current PC gaming standards anyway.

I really don't understand anyone in this day and age not having a DVD ROM drive in their computer, unless they are not a gamer in the first place or they have no interest in watching DVD movies on their PC. That is the only excuse.

And if 90% of all Half Life 2 players own a DVD ROM drive, then why are they being held back by only 10% of the players who don't? Don't you think that those 10% would be willing to spend about $40 for a new DVD ROM drive if it was the only way that they could play Half Life 2? They're willing to put up with Steam to be able to play it, for God's sake! I think that they should all be forced to upgrade.

As for the rest of the PC gaming population, if they do not own a DVD ROM drive by now, then I can't imagine what they're waiting for. If they are willing to pay $100's for a new video card just to be able to play a game, then why would they not be wiling to pay a mere $40 to be able to play one? That's less than what most of the games that could benefit from a DVD ROM version would cost them. I only paid $30 each for TOCA Race Driver 2 & TOCA Race Driver 3. And I doubt that I would have to look very hard to find a DVD ROM drive for only $20, if I was on that tight of a budget. So they really have no excuse at all not to upgrade, unless they are just getting off on holding the rest of the PC gaming world back by refusing to upgrade.

Perhaps when Windows Vista comes out later this year, things will finally change. In order to play a Direct X 10 game that is not coded for Direct X 9 compatibility, I will need to buy a new OS and a new Direct X 10 compatible video card for sure, and possibly a new motherboard. I may also have to buy a new power supply, a new CPU, and some new RAM too. So in effect, I may have to buy a whole new system, just to be able to play a Direct X 10 game.

And if that is what it comes to, then I will have to decide if it is cheaper to build my own system, using as many parts as I can spare from my current PC, which is only 3 years old now, or if it will be cheaper to just buy a whole new PC. All just because of Direct X 10, which will become the new standard for all PC games sooner or later, and probably alot sooner than later. Game developers will have way more freedom to create games with Direct X 10 than they ever had with any previous versions of Direct X, and supposedly there will be several Direct X 10 only games available when Windows Vista is released. And that means that there will also be new Direct X 10 compatible video cards from ATI and Nvidia when Windows Vista is released too. The change is coming at the end of this year, whether we are ready for it or not. So the best thing that we PC gamers can do at this point is to start saving as much as we can for all the upgrades that we're gonna need right now. Otherwise, at some point we will not be able to play any new releases.

[davepesc]

This takes me back to the very early days of PC gaming. When you bought a new game, it was released in the NEWER 3 1/2 inch floppies. You could mail in the 3 1/2 inch disks for the older 5 1/4 inch disks. They could release new games on DVD and offer a CD version for people that don't have a DVD drive. But seriously, most newer games won't run good on a computer more than 3-5 years old anyway. So, I would guess that most people playing games have newer computers that without a dout most likely WOULD have a DVD drive. </rant>

I remember being left in the dust, scouring the game shelves for games still available in 5 1/4"

We were always late to adopt everything. LOL

[YoshiM]

Here (http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2005/112205_wherethedvdsat_1.x) is a decent article that tackles the question of "why no DVD on PC". One of the comments had a couple good reasons why CDs are still used:


Publishers do CD's over DVD's for two reasons:

1) Confused consumers who don't understand the difference. Instinct for business is to make the things easiest on the customers. This is why Google just finds things for you. It's why your digital camera just works with Windows XP. And it's why games come on CD's - the consumer would rather change out four discs that work than one disc that doesn't

2) CD manufacturing and distribution just works. DVD manufacturing still has kinks. Activision said the reason they didn't want to do a DVD version of DOOM 3 was because they get lots of defective returns on DVD's and almost none on CD's. So from what I understand it wasn't id's call. How many of those "defective" DVD's were just some confused person without a DVD-ROM drive is anyone's guess.

It's the same basic reason the banks still use mainframes - they just work and making changes costs money. CD-ROM's just work and changing to DVD will cost money.

And it sounds like its an American thing, like someone mentioned.

[cyberfluxor]

Simple answer: No.

Drop the HDDVD vs. Blu-Ray. Too much discussion to fight over it in this thread, and I believe it was already done in another. Just refer to that one. Play nice. :)

[Tan]

blue ray will fail, fall, crash and burn like every other sony format ever. hddvd is the future. youll be seeing hddvd pc games in about 8 years id say.

considering that sony helped develope the standard DVD as we know it, expect blu-ray to stick it out, hell we're still in the tail end of the dvd+r versus dvd-R. i know one of the concerns about hd-dvd/blu-ray is that they don't want movie playback on pc's unless it's heavily governed, the possibility of piracy and people running movies through tv-out instead of $1000+ players makes them sick to their stomach.

if there was going to be an impact from the ps3/360/Rev, it'll be if online explodes to massive proportion, taking away from MMO games and causing net slowdown, it might even help fibre optic lines get a more stable foothold as the need will outweigh the cost.