Just a thought on the state of pc gaming
So I got this pretty bad shoulder injury, and I'm sitting here like a lazy bum posting on a nerdy website (which I've been frequenting like a fiend for 12 years), but the time I've been a bit immobilized has given me space to do some thinking, and I just started smoking pot (because of the injury) since I couldn't sleep at night because of the pain & worry about the thing. I'm 23, and I've had this shoulder problem for 2 years in and out of operations it just sucks. Probably because of the pot, I just had this thought:
Ok, so I am an admitted pirate. Little caveat here is that for most of my gaming life I haven't been pirating anything, but I def. have stolen a fair share of games from torrents. I had this obsession with stealing when I was younger. I even went to jail for it once, for like 2 hours. But I shouldn't have pirated anything, that's a truth.
But now that I'm maturing and entering a more moral phase of my life, Ive essentially stopped torrenting anything, stopped DC++'ng anything, anyone who used Kazaa is a total idiot that program sucks, stopped Napstering anything (that was once a great service in like 98 or something when I was like 11 - 12 it was sweet and new). Now I'm starting to buy things. But the real question is what do I want to buy. And I realized I want to buy things that work as intended. The ability to pirate software contrasted with my decision not to really made me consider what I would, and would not, pay for. I understand now many of the issues I would put up with as a pirate, I wouldn't as a consumer.
And when I see a PC game, with my foreknowledge of their historical stability and polish, I don't get that confidence. There are so many freaking bugs in games, so many HW compatibility issues, that if I wasn't raised to be a little nerdy pasty kid, or especially if I was a bit older and hadn't learned to understand computers like my own hands, I wouldn't buy any PC games. I've decided now that I'm really not going to buy any games until I can read about them in the forums (PC only). My xbox360 is great. I mean I don't like it as much as my beautiful, sexy PC, and it red ringed on me, but you know what, at least I know if it isn't f'd up, the games will run beautifully. At least I have that confidence. I was just playing GRID on PC, and it kept crashing in the "Grid World" mode, and it isn't because of my overclocked PC (it's like 10 trillion or so OCCT 2.0 torture mode stable and at least hour Furmark 1.6 torture test stable). If I just dropped $50 or $60 bucks on a game, and I'm a working man (I'm not really yet, still in school), but point is, I respect my time, and if I buy something it better work. PC games just do not give you that confidence, that "yeah, no matter what, I'm putting this game in, and I will be playing it, nicely and smoothly unless its a fhead production, in like 5 minutes after I'm done playing with my penis). You just don't.
Sound off! Is the PC too unstable a platform, or rather do PC games not have enough QC to guarantee us the state [of the product] we need as the general consumer to buy with ? Or am I total narcissicist who likes hearing my own voice? Or I'm stoned? Or all 3? (all 3's the correct answer Ihink)
as an aside: What is the reason dev's are spending less time proportionally QC'in the balls off the PC games? What I mean is the QC spent on 1 console config proportional to the # of possible PC configurations (after # of possible PC configurations is * diminishing QC needs factor (say you only need to QC 60% of possible configs before having 95% confidence that the game will be fully playable). I think they're multiplying this * a third factor: the diminishing economies of scale (a cost directly proportional, however most probably can find a modular QC technique where this linear effect can be changed to a obtain a downard sloping log function) (in this case the third factor is directly linear with # of configs). whew! i haven't done that much math since high school thats just crazay.