Bethesda: 'PC development is a headache'
'All it takes is some bad video card drivers and years of hard work comes off as buggy,' says Bethesda.
'From a technical standpoint, the PC is a headache,' Hines admitted to Joystiq.
'It just is - a million different possibilities of hardware, drivers, etc...As you saw with Rage, all it takes is some bad video card drivers and years of hard work comes off as 'buggy', when in fact it's a really solid, stable game.'
Hines also touched on the issue of piracy, which he described as a problem: 'Unless you decide not to make your games available for PC, it's a problem, and you have to deal with it.'
Bethesda's own response to the threat of piracy has been to hand extra resources to PC gamers in the form of a mod support, rather than restricting the experience with DRM.
'We continue to enthusiastically support our PC fans with things like the Creation Kit and the ability to create and add unlimited amounts of mods and content to your existing PC game.'
Our Skyrim review will be going up tomorrow, by the way. Until then, tide yourself over by telling us what you think about the game in the forum and watching Harry Partridge's 'Song of Skyrim' below.
Previous Article
69 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyWhen it was released vsync did not work, multi gpu was not and still is not supported, higher resolution textures had to be forced via a config file rather than being accessible from the interface and config files had to be used to enable texture caching so pop in didn't occur.
Far from the idtec5 engine pushing the pc to it's api bound limits as Carmack implied it didn't even make use of rescources commonly found in pc's......stop BS BetheSda.
for that, i'll let Bethesda get away with anything!
However the PC is such a diverse platform regarding system configurations that it can be nothing but a headache to some level.
With consoles you don't need to worry about a range of hardware. All 360s and PS3s are the same hardware. That makes the task significantly easier. Drivers aren't an issue, multi GPUs, dual core CPUs, all that funky buisness isn't much of a concern because no console utilises them.
When I was testing games for EA testing BF 2142 was significantly more complicated and often frustrating to say testing Fable 3 but not from a gameplay point of view. It took more coordination without a doubt but what was the real issue was trying to get 64 PCs with different system specs to all work at the same time. It was really tough at times.
The only thing you really need to worry about with a console is network testing, performance and does it look okay.
While the PCs flexability in hardware and software configurations is arguably its greatest strength, making effective use of that strength is considerably harder. Theres just so much more to take into consideration when designing the product.
Just my 2 cents.
Bethesda, if you ruin this for me, I will come to your homes and offices and take away everything you hold sacred.
I didn't see the Witcher 2 have multitudes of ridiculous game-breaking issues that weren't fixed immediately.
I especially liked this bit:
O'rly? When looking for a GT4 save game to use with PCSX2 the other day, I popped onto TPB to have a look. Typed in Gran Turismo, and low-and-behold, about 100 GT5 full game cracks etc for console use.
PCs hard to develop for? Piracy only exists on PC? Lame excuses for crappy development, and this does little to stem my fears that Skyrim will be a buggy mess if they're employing damage limitation before release.
The only good thing is that at least Bethesda allow modding, although that may just mean that modders have to fix their game for them...
Mr Hines just comes across as 'WAAAAAAAAAAAGH PC Development requires effort WAAAAAAAAAAGH why won't they just buy any random crap we churn out? WAAAAAAAAAAAGH'
...to me at least...
They could've taken the cost of the full sized London Underground posters and Channel 5 TV Sponsorship for Rage in the ad breaks for The Walking Dead and put that into QA, but they opted to "finish" it and go gold and just blanket hype it for sales.
I have a 360 and am still not buying Rage because of theirs and iD's attitude, when it works I'll take another look. In fact the guy knows Skyrim will sell gazillions so the people who bought Rage could go stuff themselves as far as he cares.
Which is why their games come pre-bundled with the Steam DRM for every distribution channel now then?
Damn that DRM!
I'd hoped that DirectX would abstract away most of it, but it would seem to be mainly an issue of competing implementations of various things.
That's what I was thinking.
Maybe Microsoft need to pull their finger out and update DirectX to enable a more abstracted system, kind of like java.
Although I suppose that just then shifts the burner onto Microsoft, although as the GPU drivers must be compatible with windows, it may be easier for Microsoft than game developers.
A lot of PC games came out just fine. Taking HARD RESET as an example, it is developed by an indie company, the game still feel smooth, the mechanics are solid, the game doesn't have texture popping craps...
As for the piracy issues, seriously, if your game is solid, like COD or BF. You will sell good, if not very good.
Give a man a game, and he'll play that game for a while. Give the man the means to change that game and it'll keep him amused for years.
I kind of agree, Bethesda doesn't really suffer from this but the problem with PC gaming in general these days is that the PC versions being released are shockingly ported console versions. You only need to look at the solid PC games like Starcraft 2 to see that PC gaming is alive and well, the problem lies with the developers. The other problem that Bethesda has suffered from is that PC developers today release their games when they are actually only in BETA, and then make all the consumers beta testers until they can get enough patches out to fix all the issues. While I am well aware the millions of configurations can pose problems as far as testing goes a lot of the time the issues that need patching on not just on a few systems but across the board.
Well sure, but at least then the work only has to be done once.
Perhaps the real issue here, underlying everything, is that DirectX is perhaps failing to provide sufficient abstraction.
Fact is, that there's a gazillion of different PC-setups to be dealt with and that alone makes development pretty hard. And now add tons of different and probably outdated drivers and voila... NIGHTMARE!
So, either the developer is looking for a solution based on two year old hardware and drivers, to make sure their game works on as many PC-setups as possible, or they aim high and develop for the most recent hardware and deal with the anger of lots of people not being able to run the game smoothly, etc.
I'm not defending the developers at all with this, but only making my thoughts about these issues objectively.
The next issue ofc is, that alot of games are developed for the console first and then ported to the PC. The result is very often rather unsatisfying and in this case you can actually blame the developer for not investing enough time to tweak the controls, POV, higher res textures etc.
I've little problems with those issues, as I've shifted to console-gaming (sports and racing usually) and only play MMOs on the PC which is fine. Those who like FPS or ActionAdventures do have to deal with the mentioned issues tho.
I guess that's the problem - everyone is still writing for DirectX 9, which is a compatibility cluster**** by comparison.
That's the theory. In practice, different drivers implement the API in different ways, which results in different bugs and performance issues.
Anything? that's a bold statement to make
+rep.
In essence they have to work out if they profit from releasing on the PC with all the 'effort' they make for PC. If they do, so be it and they should not complain - do you see them bitching about jumping through console certification hoops or sharing revenue with Microsoft and Sony? If not, just don't release for PC and someone else will.
I did find it to be a boring piece of **** though. Let me see you blame that on drivers Bethsduh.
Perhaps Bethesda should hire people that are competent enough to design and build PC games, grow a pair and start, at least trying, to address the problems that have been with the act of designing games for the PC since day one!
Don't come crying to us PC gamers with your problems. Those were there when Bethesda decided to start making games. It's part of the job. Always was. Now isn't the time to start whining about the difficulties involved. Bethesda has a major investment in PC games and stands to lose quite a bit of money by jut closing their eyes to the problems involved, giving up and just making platform games for children. You owe us PC gamers. You always will. We made you what you are. Were.
WE didn't ask you to waste your time on console games. We were and are concerned with actual computers. Not toys.
Now shut up, blow your nose and wipe away those tears of sissydom. Change your panties. Go out, get yourself a set of testicular implants so you at least appear to be a man!
Nothing pisses me off more than these devs that cut their teeth making PC games over 20 years ago building their companies up to what they are today and hear them piss and moan about developing PC games and scurrying over to consoles because "they are easier" and trying to snub those who have fed them for all these years.
How's about they shut up and stop developing games, and just concentrate on the engines, since that seems to be what they're good at?
From the point of view of a publisher who perhaps is more interested in consoles (due to the much greater returns), worrying about getting a game to work on all PCs when it's pretty simple for a console would probably seem like an unneeded headache.
The fact that Bethesda are willing to develop for PC at all when sales are often less than 10% of the total but require extra compatability effort is a plus all by itself.
Sent from Bittech Android app
I'd expect no sympathy whatsoever. It's what you get paid to do. If it was easy, we'd all be doing it no?
Hines, do one.
That means having to create a Steam account and the not-so-implausible situation of losing the game (and any other Steamworks or Steam-purchased content) if the account gets suspended.
Bit-Tech's casual approach to DRM in games (i.e. not including any details) is annoying enough but flagging a release as near-DRM-free when it uses one of the tightest DRM systems (only the always-on systems like Ubisoft's impose tighter restrictions) shows that the reviewer has got drunk on Bethesda's PR Kool-Aid.
And yes, I'll be boycotting this as I've done every other game requiring online activation (and I do own both Morrowind and Oblivion).
cant tell if sarcastic or stupid....
This. Hate how it is the accepted norm not to mention DRM in a review when essentially it can affect the consumer.
Can't tell if trolling or baiting. ;)
Upgrade yearly (at least) or do not cry!
S*D
P.S. If you are still using XP, delete it from your hard drive, smash the hard drive, melt the metal parts and make a knife, then stab it into your head many times!
Its those eijits who try to play crysis on a 6y.o. laptop who are the people who to be wary of. :p
I think you're doing yourself a disservice in this case.
Do you see there's a lack of logic in depriving yourself of great games just because of the minute possibility you may lose ownership of the games at some point in the future? These are £30 games, not a house.
Unless you feel that by boycotting the games you'll help to change the industry, which is commendable, but you're fighting against something 98% of PC gamers not only don't mind but often actively promote.
I'm not saying Steam is the perfect solution in a perfect world, but it's a half decent solution in a problematic world. And as they say, when in Rome...
Sent from Bittech Android app
HA! good one...
Of course you loose the Games you have on Steam if you are naughty enough to get the Account suspended, but there is a simple way around that problem, behave yourself when playing online...
As for Steamworks, I have a 3 digit number of Games on Steam, none of them ever refused to install or run due to Steamworks, while other DRM Systems cause issues like for example telling me I've installed it too often, cd key would not be valid, disc not recognized and so on, so Steamworks is the least annoying DRM System.
Of course no DRM at all would be even nicer, but lets face it, thats never going to happen anyway.
There's no doubt that the hardware industry owes a lot to those prepared to dash out for the latest GPU/CPU/RAM every 3 months, but measured in terms of money/performance gain it's a very inefficient and expensive habit.
I have a games collection going back to the 1990's - including genre-definers like Homeworld, Thief 2 and Imperium Galactica which I still fire up occasionally. The companies (and programmers) behind such classics have mostly long gone and if these classics had required any form of online activation, odds are that I would not be able to play them now - ShamusYoung's Authorization Servers article highlights the problems inherent with such systems and you can see a sterling example in the Two Worlds Official Activation Thread for a game released just 4 years ago (though thankfully also available DRM-free on GOG).
The problem arises when people don't protest enough - EA decided against online activation for Dragon Age: Origins, but required it for the DLC. Based upon the DLC sales, they presumably decided it would be OK to require online activation for DA2.
As for the 98% promotion by PC gamers, I'm going to suggest that most simply haven't considered the downsides because they're not in-your-face like disk checks were. However while disk checks were annoying, you didn't risk losing your software as long as you took good care of the media. With Steam and similar systems, your entire collection can be wiped in a blink of an eye - some Steam examples here, here, here, here and here.
Of course, as more people sign up and amass greater Steam collections, the possible income from such a fee increases geometrically (a higher charge could be levied with larger collections and more money at stake). So I would suggest that playing the role of a "digital doormat" is unlikely to be the best policy long-term.
Your proposition that there is a "minute possibility you may lose ownership" of Steam games is correct, but only because you never owned anything purchased from Steam in the first place (Steam EULA section 2A: "The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software."). The risk is in losing access to the games you've (effectively) rented and that, I would argue, is inevitable.
Retail games from smaller publishers tend to be DRM-free also, so hassle-free risk-free content is available for those prepared to search for it.
I completely agree with more or less everything he says. You'll put up a patch removing the DRM? While you're going messily out of business? Oh yes, of course. I'm sure the receivers are going to authorise you to spend time doing that, just to be nice. Lawyers are lovely that way.
The way I see it is platforms like Steam are here to stay, simply because they are so popular. They might be popular because most gamers haven't thought through the risks, but that doesn't mean it isn't here to stay in all likelihood.
Yes Valve could turn evil and blackmail you for all the games, and yes purchasing games through Steam is the most pitiful version of "buying" ever concieved. It's true, if there's a non DRM alternative, it's always perferable.
But what of the games that aren't available elsewhere? Life is too short to miss out on some amazing titles because you might lose them in the future. It'd be a shame if you couldn't play them in five years time, but does that mean you also shouldn't play them now?
As a hypothethical situation, would I have (for example) spent £30 on Left 4 Dead knowing that Valve would disable the game a year later? Absolutely. I'd pay £30 if they disabled it after six months, because those six months would have been more than worth £30. I'd rather they didn't obviously, but not to the extent I'd refuse to ever buy what has become one of my top five games.
I wholeheartedly agree we should always buy the non-DRM version when it's available, that way you send a message to the publishers without putting yourself out. But sacrifice ever playing dozens of amazing games because one day they might take them away? Doesn't sit right with me personally.
A similar situation can be seen with UK television - Sky charge high subscription fees for their satellite service (typically double what European satellite broadcasters charge) and use that income to outbid the terrestrial services on popular shows. So if you subscribe to Sky, you're helping them knock down the free-to-view alternatives.
There are good and great games elsewhere without the DRM shackles as I noted in my last post. If you really enjoy a game, wouldn't you rather be able to revisit it as you please rather than having to look over your shoulder worrying about triggering some arbitrary ban?
+rep agree so much! Not only gamers it does my head in businesses I support who refuse to upgrade from SBS 2003 and XP!
You're gaming system must be awful if you're limiting yourself to DX9. XP is over 10 years old, it is more clunky than win7 and there really is no reason to stay with XP.
Dx9 emulation? Run virtual PC, so your beloved XP is only a double click away.
Thanks, asses.
I'm in the exact same position. Can't you install from disk? Or find a friend who already has it and copy his common game content? Because that's what I usually do.
and the software LICENSE you bought for your precious Windows XP works exactly the same way.... Get used to it, you haven't owned probably 90+% of the software on your computer for years.
Funny, wasn't that why they put the DRM there in the first place?
Yes of course, but by your logic, I shouldn't play the game at all.
I think we're going to agree to disagree on this on. I respect your dedication to not buying DRM laden games, but I just couldn't do it. I would rather play the game now and be buggered by Valve in a few years time than not ever play it at all.
Better to have loved and lost etc.
Not that I can play anything anyway as my computer is currently in bits and missing the CPU, but that's another story!
Sent from Bittech Android app
Another example - look at the number of background processes Win7 has compared to WinXP. Even on a system stripped to the bare essentials you'll have a good few extra (such as dwm and a couple of instances of conhost) and more background services running (165 services listed for Win7 compared to 103 services listed for XP).
Then we have the use of file and registry redirection in Win7/Vista - that adds "clunkiness" whatever its justification.
XP isn't perfect - it has a number of dumb design issues (teletubby theming, control panel categories, "new" Start Menu) but these can be pruned back to (better) Win2000 settings. Win7 on the other hand makes some of those dumb designs compulsory (the Start Menu notably).
So saying WinXP is "clunkier" than Vista/7 is just demonstrating ignorance of Windows' internal working.
However just because Microsoft chose to screw over their customers doesn't justify other companies following in their tracks.
And XP FTW, only reason I've 'upgraded' to W7 is because I kept getting old to get an SSD, and I don't want tit dying so want TRIM support (which apparently XP doesn't have)
The one thing you may need to do with WinXP on SSD is setting the partition alignment properly (see this OCZ forum thread for details) and, if installing XP, it may not be able to format a partition on SSD - in that case, install to a hard disk partition and then copy it across.
I've found partition alignment makes a big difference with Crucial C300s but very little with Samsungs so YMMV.
A decade ago a map pack DLC was free, the majority of the DLC content as well came from the modding community, this made PC games massive and the primary platform, because you could do cool stuff for them. Now they are really restricted and the only extra content you can get for PC comes at a £10 cost for a pack of three maps normally 2 carbon copies from previous titles in the franchise and one new map.. That is not value for money *cough*CoD*cough*.
In conclusion, is all well and good Mr Hines, crying that PC development is difficult and full of pirating, but as they say, you make you bed you sleep in it.
As for the line on Driver issues, the solution to that one is seriously simple, distribute the correct display and audio drivers with the title... Problem solved...
Thanks for the links to ShowMeTheGames, GamersFront and IndieRoyale I didn't know about them. GOG and HumbleBundle are great locations for DRM free games and I would urge everyone to use and support these companies.
I do use Steam myself, more out of need rather than desire. If a steamworks game is available for < £5 and my connection is not playing up, has not reached the monthly limit and its not available DRM free from anywhere else then I will buy it. But out of principle I do not buy them full price as I disagree with the DRM.
My main gripe with publishers is that they make games steamworks only, so then I have no choice as to what I want and from where. This is not the case with all publishers just the vast majority don't seam believe in customer choice.
How long before Skyrim is made available DRM free on GOG?
P.S. For anyone who wants a steam free copy of SOTS2 this may be of use: The-Non-Steam-Version-Request
GOG do have a Wanted page so it may help to register interest there.