|  Mail  |  You might also like GameDaily, Games.com, PlaySavvy, and Joystiq

Big Ideas: Why technology shouldn't drive the games industry


Each year seems to bring new advances in gaming technology. On the hardware side: video cards that push more pixels and render more geometry, faster. Processors that get smaller and more powerful. Keyboards and mice that offer more ways to interface with the games we play. On the software side: bump mapping, per-pixel shaders, dynamic lighting. The ability to have more enemies on-screen at a time. Clothing deformation systems. Motion capture animation.

Some of these tools are available to all developers. Some are only available to those studios with strong financial backing. In many ways, it's almost better not to have access to these cutting edge technologies because it forces development studios to innovate. Certainly, the two are not mutually exclusive, but perhaps there are hidden costs to choosing the path of incorporating the latest and greatest tech tools to drive the games industry forward.


There is an arms race in progress between the makers of high-end video cards, and lesser races between the makers of custom gaming rigs. Both struggles hinge upon offering gamers the most recent advances in computing power. Some game companies, in fact, choose a side by optimizing their games to run better on a particular company's card. Unfortunately, this is an artificial rivalry that doesn't serve the average gamer. Forcing the customer to upgrade her computer merely for the sake of an optimized experience is both expensive and wearying.

The problem is one of perception. If gamers believe that having the best gaming computer offers them a pure experience, then they're doomed to a lifetime of constant dissatisfaction and one-upmanship, always feeling that falling behind the trend is somehow indicative of reprobation by the larger community. While this may be somewhat true among those of the "hardcore" set, it behooves developers to remember that while gamers might be upgrading their rigs all the time, they're only going to be buying one copy of their game. Why, then, the need to create a false and elevated standard?

One could argue that, ultimately, these hardware wars serve to enrich the industry by pushing the boundaries of technology forward, which has a trickle down effect to the non-gamers, arguably the largest demographic of computer purchasers. However, the same problem applies -- 90% of users will never need the raw power that the modern cards offer, and Vista itself is already such a processor hog that people are beginning to look backward to the relative stability of XP.

Small wonder, then, that the home consoles are popular alternatives to PC gaming. The hardware is locked down, so there's no need to worry about a newer, faster, more powerful card coming along. There may be the occasional firmware upgrade, but it's a simple download and over relatively quickly. In fact, with the ubiquity of broadband access and the right peripherals, there is scant difference between a top of the line PC and this year's home console. Even the indie development scene, once a solid mainstay of the PC community, now has a place in the home console. And it's here that the biggest argument against keeping up with forced technology advances can be seen.


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Advertisement

Our Writers

Steven Wong

Managing Editor

RSS Feed

John Callaham

Senior Editor

RSS Feed

James Murff

Contributing Editor

RSS Feed

Learn more about Big Download