Replacing a video card is not an acceptable “solution” for a large majority of people who buy consoles too. Have you seen Halo 2? The Xbox only has a GeForce 3 GPU. Halo 2 came out in November 2004, which is about 6 months after the GeForce 6 series came out. PC developers don’t ever try to make a game perform on that low of hardware (GF3) because they always assume that everyone is running the latest chips, or will be soon.

Sure you can turn the settings down, but it looks terrible; worse than a console version. Most games have at least a dozen graphics options that less hardcore users won’t even understand. What are specular effects? Or volumetric shadows?

Many games do have a button for automatic graphics settings, but in my experience the results they end up with are far from optimal.

It would probably help if the game frame buffer didn’t have to be the same as the output resolution too. I played CoD4 on my Xbox 360 on a 1080p projector recently and it looked amazing, even though the frame buffer on the game is 720p (about 55% less pixels). If I try to play CoD4 on my PC (my LCD native resolution is 1280×1024) at 1024×768 (only 40% less pixels) for a better frame rate it looks terrible. The scaling is terrible. These were $400 monitors when I bought my video card too.

I guess my point (exactly details aside) is, unless PC developers can stretch out the life-cycle of hardware on a PC it is going to be relegated to a niche. One of the reasons WoW is so popular is that you don’t need the latest and greatest hardware for it. I even see people using ho-hum Dell laptops (with Intel GPUS) to play the game. What other “real” game can do that?

Some interesting thoughts, thanks for stopping by. One thing I’d point out is that console gamers don’t have to worry about tweaking settings. But if a PC gamer has to go with “medium” or “low” settings on game just to get a decent frame rate… Well, it’s not a good starting point for an enjoyable experience. By seeing that sort of information, you feel like part of your gaming experience is being taken away (maybe it’s just me).

It would be nice if PC games could like as nice as console games on $1000 computers, but I’m not sure we’re there yet.

There are TONS of great games that lie in between Tripple-A titles like COD4 and Halo and timewasters like snood and Solitare. Indie games, a lot like indie films, make up for their lack in budget with innovation and spirit. Just look at the IGF finalists, or any of the indie game blogs. The games exist, its just that not enough people know about them, or where they can get them.

These seems like good ways to improve PC Gaming as a whole, but nothing here is so broken that it needs to be “fixed.” But hey, what’s an article without a snappy title, right?

The controller is all about expanding the PC gaming market, not satisfying the current one, IMO. It would be a clear differentiating point between the “standard” PC and the gaming one, and it would probably only cost OEMs $25.

I caught this post on Slashdot after I wrote this post, but it supports my theory. You can lounge with controllers and you can easily use more than one on a single computer.

I already love PC gaming but would love it even more if your suggestions were adopted. One minor quibble I’d have is that of including a controller in PC gaming packages. I’m not sure that “most people” prefer this (and even then, it shouldn’t be included if most means 51% :-)).

And one thing you didn’t mention which is a MUST: unified/better online gaming support. If I want to join a public game, it needs to be easy. If I want to host a private game, same thing. Social gaming is all the rage these days, and requiring consumers to open ports on routers is the quickest way to frustrate non-hardcore gamers (and even hardcore gamers!).