Comments on: The game that hurts http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/ This is where diatribes go to die Fri, 18 May 2012 06:47:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Sierra Planet News » The Game That Hurts http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-36 Sierra Planet News » The Game That Hurts Sun, 23 Apr 2006 02:47:43 +0000 http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-36 [...] work, if they get that initial error message, the battle is already lost. Originally from Unfettered Blather No Comments » No comments yet. [...] […] work, if they get that initial error message, the battle is already lost. Originally from Unfettered Blather
No Comments
»

No comments yet.

[…]

]]> By: knight37 http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-24 knight37 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:43:20 +0000 http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-24 Direct X would have been (was) really good in a world where there were more than 2 video cards to code for. Back when it was originally conceived, there were a lot more players in the video market. It's good for game programmers, because in theory they only have to code for Direct X, not build in hard-coded support for every video card maker. In practice, however, only ATI and nVidia make gaming-capable video cards anymore, and even then game makers have to make sure their code runs right on both cards, because they don't behave the same way using the same Direct X code. Direct X would have been (was) really good in a world where there were more than 2 video cards to code for. Back when it was originally conceived, there were a lot more players in the video market. It’s good for game programmers, because in theory they only have to code for Direct X, not build in hard-coded support for every video card maker. In practice, however, only ATI and nVidia make gaming-capable video cards anymore, and even then game makers have to make sure their code runs right on both cards, because they don’t behave the same way using the same Direct X code.

]]> By: Jason "Botswana" Cox http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-23 Jason "Botswana" Cox Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:37:20 +0000 http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-23 That would actually be the best solution, an auto-updater. You're right that you don't have to be a techie, but I don't know anyone outside the technology field that really likes the idea of going out to patch their software. Also, my recent experience was that driver updates have simply gotten more confusing, but I'd just as soon cover that in a separate post. Regardless, it should be that happens behind the scenes, under the covers, incognito, etc. If at all. Honestly, despite all their claims, I think Microsoft has made things worse for gamers and the industry because now everyone has to chase Direct X around. How was all this integrated nonsense supposed to make the experience better again? That would actually be the best solution, an auto-updater. You’re right that you don’t have to be a techie, but I don’t know anyone outside the technology field that really likes the idea of going out to patch their software.

Also, my recent experience was that driver updates have simply gotten more confusing, but I’d just as soon cover that in a separate post.

Regardless, it should be that happens behind the scenes, under the covers, incognito, etc. If at all.

Honestly, despite all their claims, I think Microsoft has made things worse for gamers and the industry because now everyone has to chase Direct X around. How was all this integrated nonsense supposed to make the experience better again?

]]> By: knight37 http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-22 knight37 Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:21:43 +0000 http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-22 The problem you're describing is a problem on the user end. It's an education issue. Video card makers can't afford to stop patching their drivers, their cards would stop working with the latest DirectX features, and their competitors would end up with a better product. OS vendors can't afford to leave security vulnerabilities unpatched, and even less critical bugs need to be fixed in a timely manner, not waiting seven years for the next version of the OS to release (cough, Vista, cough). Game companies who can afford to patch their games and make them better are better off doing it than leaving a buggy mess of a product in the wild. Now, sure, it would be BEST if they tested first and released a rock solid product. But companies that take too long to release don't sell either, so a balance has to be made. So what really needs to happen is for PC owners to realize that patching is just a way of life on the PC. And most do, believe it or not. You don't have to be a "techie" to download and install a patch. And another thing that could help is for there to be an automated system for updating not just your OS software but all your programs. If Windows Update would automatically schedule updates for your graphics card drivers and game programs, there'd be no problem. But it's not being used for that, when it clearly should be. The problem you’re describing is a problem on the user end. It’s an education issue.

Video card makers can’t afford to stop patching their drivers, their cards would stop working with the latest DirectX features, and their competitors would end up with a better product. OS vendors can’t afford to leave security vulnerabilities unpatched, and even less critical bugs need to be fixed in a timely manner, not waiting seven years for the next version of the OS to release (cough, Vista, cough). Game companies who can afford to patch their games and make them better are better off doing it than leaving a buggy mess of a product in the wild.

Now, sure, it would be BEST if they tested first and released a rock solid product. But companies that take too long to release don’t sell either, so a balance has to be made.

So what really needs to happen is for PC owners to realize that patching is just a way of life on the PC. And most do, believe it or not. You don’t have to be a “techie” to download and install a patch.

And another thing that could help is for there to be an automated system for updating not just your OS software but all your programs. If Windows Update would automatically schedule updates for your graphics card drivers and game programs, there’d be no problem. But it’s not being used for that, when it clearly should be.

]]> By: Jason "Botswana" Cox http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-20 Jason "Botswana" Cox Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:54:12 +0000 http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-20 From a software best practices perspective, I agree. From an end-user standpoint I think it's a horrible idea. Especially if I've already got games on the system that have been working just fine without ever updating. Not to mention, typical end-users hate forced upgrade paths in terms of either software or hardware. They want it to be static. They want to get the PC up and running and never have to mess with it again. I expect patches, updates, etc. because I work in software so I find it less onerous. That is also why I didn't take the game back, because I knew there was probably a way to get it to run. If we only assume that PC games are for the high-end, techy geek audience, then they will continue to pigeonhole themselves until they have only the barest of audiences left. This is not just casual users either. Thanks to consoles we are seeing the rise of the non-technical gamer. If PC game developers don't make their games as accessible as possible, they are going to limit their audience and ultimately their sales. From a software best practices perspective, I agree. From an end-user standpoint I think it’s a horrible idea. Especially if I’ve already got games on the system that have been working just fine without ever updating.

Not to mention, typical end-users hate forced upgrade paths in terms of either software or hardware. They want it to be static. They want to get the PC up and running and never have to mess with it again. I expect patches, updates, etc. because I work in software so I find it less onerous. That is also why I didn’t take the game back, because I knew there was probably a way to get it to run.

If we only assume that PC games are for the high-end, techy geek audience, then they will continue to pigeonhole themselves until they have only the barest of audiences left.

This is not just casual users either. Thanks to consoles we are seeing the rise of the non-technical gamer. If PC game developers don’t make their games as accessible as possible, they are going to limit their audience and ultimately their sales.

]]> By: knight37 http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-19 knight37 Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:22:11 +0000 http://www.unfetteredblather.com/the-game-that-hurts/#comment-19 The main reason for driver updates is to fix bugs. Performance gains, sure, that's nice, but fixing the bugs and incompatibility issues is the main reason to upgrade. I never upgrade my driver unless I encounter a game that is doing something wrong and the new driver fixes it. Most new games will require an updated driver if a) the driver fixes a bug, or b) the driver supports a new feature that the game uses. I think it's wrong to assume that a driver should be a static piece of software. No other software on your system is that way. If a game has bugs, you expect them to patch it. If the OS has a bug, you expect them to patch it. Same with drivers. The main reason for driver updates is to fix bugs. Performance gains, sure, that’s nice, but fixing the bugs and incompatibility issues is the main reason to upgrade. I never upgrade my driver unless I encounter a game that is doing something wrong and the new driver fixes it. Most new games will require an updated driver if a) the driver fixes a bug, or b) the driver supports a new feature that the game uses. I think it’s wrong to assume that a driver should be a static piece of software. No other software on your system is that way. If a game has bugs, you expect them to patch it. If the OS has a bug, you expect them to patch it. Same with drivers.

]]>