PC Gaming Alliance Seeks Unified, OS-Agnostic PC Game Certification

[Steven Bogos]

PC Gaming Alliance Seeks Unified, OS-Agnostic PC Game Certification

The PCGA's goal is to introduce a quality bar for PC games so customers know better what to expect from PC game purchases.

Remember the PC Gaming Alliance? Founded all the way off [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/81439-PC-Gaming-Alliance-Revealed] since. Nonetheless, the alliance is still determined to further PC gaming, and PCGA president Matt Ployhar has just detailed an "OS-agnostic" certification program for PC games, aiming to introduce a quality bar for PC games so customers know better what to expect from PC game purchases.

The program, which is completely opt-in, is in part an attempt to achieve standardization across games within the open PC market, hopefully encouraging more consumer confidence and as a result, more sales for developers. Members of the alliance can get their games certified for free, while the cost for non-members is $500 per title if applicants test the game themselves, or $2500 if they want the PCGA to help test it - still considerably lower than any console certification program.

PCGA-certified games would sport an official logo showing compliance with the standards, designed to be used on physical retail and digital products.

"We don't need to have it completely locked down and so restrictive," says Ployhar. "We don't need to tell people, 'This is your minimum configuration.' But, you still need to hit a certain quality bar." Ployhar says, as an example, games would have be be able to maintain 30 frames per second at 720p on medium settings, and have controller support if it's a multi-platform title.

Some of you may be having Vietnam-style flashbacks to "Games for Windows - LIVE" after reading this, but Ployhar assures us that that the platform-agnostic nature of PCGA's program is one aspect that will help make his system more viable that Microsoft's train-wreck.

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/206084/PC_Gaming_Alliance_plans_March_launch_for_certification_program.php]

Permalink

 

[The Apple BOOM]

I'm all for this. If this takes off it would help out insanely for consumers doing research. It could also push developers for higher standards. I would really like unlocked FPS, unlocked resolution, and a minimum of 90 available FOV where applicable. That last part seriously needs to happen. I hate it when people can't play a game because it makes them sick.

 

[Doom972]

I don't see how relevant this quality bar would be in today's almost download-only PC gaming scene. I do appreciate any effort made in the name of PC gaming regardless.

 

[Zeren]

I would love to see this. I'm so sick of getting a game then finding out that I can't map the controls or some other stupid little thing like that.

 

[A-D.]

Some of you may be having Vietnam-style flashbacks to "Games for Windows - LIVE" after reading this, but Ployhar assures us that that the platform-agnostic nature of PCGA's program is one aspect that will help make his system more viable that Microsoft's train-wreck.

That being said, whats the point of it? I mean..a unified process sounds nice and all, but unless everyone plays ball, and evidently they dont, its not really gonna amount to much.

Its essentially the same thing as "optimised for X" you see as stickers or pre-trailer blurbs in games.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

The problem is, and always will be, that with so many possible configurations, it's impossible to make sure a game will run exactly as it's supposed to on every PC. Unless I'm missing something? I mean, they're welcome to try, but I really don't see how that will make much of a difference, although I'll welcome properly optimised ports.

Also, I love how 2008 warrants a 'all the way back', like this is ancient history or something.

 

[iblis666]

not sure this is necessary for those of us that buy all our games off steam, where we have access to the forums for user ratings and meta critic

 

[O maestre]

Windows live was a quality assurance scheme? That is news to me, I just thought they were trying to "Xboxify" the PC

 

[Oskuro]

You hit the nail on the head. This is something that sounds very good on paper but it really does nothing, remember performance is a function of your hardware and soft and other people's software...

I think you guys are missing the point here.

In my opinion, the important bit here is not the performance optimization or hardware support, I agree that such a thing will always be an issue in a hardware-unlocked market.

I think the important point is to promote the idea of there being platform-independent standards that developers can adhere to. In other words, breaking the notion that software needs to be tied to an specific OS or hardware (You know, the whole "exclusives" thing)

I'm guessing such a thing won't sit well with hardware/OS manufacturers, though.

I hope the PCGA publishes guidelines for their certification process, so smaller/independent developers can try and comply (even if actual certification is way out of reach for many budgets). I for one, even when developing games just as a hobby, won't mind having a benchmark standard to measure my game to, specially if it is a standard that doesn't require use of specific technology.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

You hit the nail on the head. This is something that sounds very good on paper but it really does nothing, remember performance is a function of your hardware and soft and other people's software...

I think you guys are missing the point here.

In my opinion, the important bit here is not the performance optimization or hardware support, I agree that such a thing will always be an issue in a hardware-unlocked market.

I think the important point is to promote the idea of there being platform-independent standards that developers can adhere to. In other words, breaking the notion that software needs to be tied to an specific OS or hardware (You know, the whole "exclusives" thing)

I totally agree with the idea, and I wish them good fortune in their endeavour, but I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Petromir]

Windows live was a quality assurance scheme? That is news to me, I just thought they were trying to "Xboxify" the PC

It had many parts, most of the hatred for it (ignoring the obligitory its MS therefore hate part which was not insubstantial) was for those parts tied to its store and DRM elements, which for many caused real problems.

It wasnt a system entitrely berift of good ideas, and the benchmarking with simple numbers was a reasonably good one.


This system if it basically ran standard benchmarks on your PC and put itn into a system with an overal score and a breakdown for some bits, with numbers in a understandable realm so intialy rating PCs from say 1-5 in power. and then games had these numbers in the recomended and min specs to help tell you what you can run, it would help.

Hell Steam letting you store your registered machines so its store could tell you which will run a game and how well, would be great, if you could further allow steam friends to check it for gifting purposes even better. A disclaimer saying it is a standardised score so only a guide would be fine.

 

[LosButcher]

I still don't get it. What is the problem they are trying to solve?

 

[Stavros Dimou]

It seems like a bad joke.
This "alliance" was formed 5 years ago with a single goal: to release a set of standards for PC games,and still 5 years later they haven't done it,while they are eating the membership fees of those who become members for all that long.
And after 5 years of no set of standards publication,they come up to make a statement that shows they are COMPLETELY IGNORANT with PC gaming.

You can't force "30 frames at 720p for medium settings" on PCs. For which hardware configuration ? That's the stupidiest thing I've ever heared for PC gaming.
For a developer to make a game have a set number of frames on a set number of resolution,he have to know the exact hardware configuration of this machine,and there are THOUSANDS possible PC configurations. What does he think a PC is,a console ?PCs dont all have a certain model of processor and graphics card,and amount of RAM. The person who said that shows that not only he doesn't have any knowledge of game development,but he barely knows how computers and games works at all. A console gamer who not only doesn't know how game development works,and how PC gaming works,but probably doesn't even have the slightest idea of what is a "PC",is going to set standards for PC gaming ?That's ridiculous. Doesn't he know that there are multiple companies making multiple different models of hardware pieces,each different year,and thus the consumers end up having hundreds of different combinations every year?

You want standards on PC gaming ?
These can be something like these:

# Make a game playable on computers up to 5 years old.
# Make games have FOV,resolution,Mouse Smoothing ON/OFF,adjustable on their options menus.
# Make games support different resolutions.

You can't apply a hardware performance standard on PC game developers,because doing so requires that all PCs have the exact same hardware. It's physically / practically impossible.
The only kind of standards you can set is that the software is scalable across a given number of hardware choices,and that it's allowing enough customization to fit individual player's preferations.

 

[Something Amyss]

Okay, if an agnostic is a person who believes the existence of a God is unknown or unknowable, does that mean an OS agnostic doesn't believe it's possible to know whether operating systems exist?

And wouldn't that be the last guy you want certifying your games?

I hate it when people can't play a game because it makes them sick.

You hate it? Try being one!

I don't see how relevant this quality bar would be in today's almost download-only PC gaming scene.

You can advertise it and display the logo on a digital marketfront?

 

[Dr.Awkward]

If they want to enforce things like keybinding, mouse smoothing and FOV, they'll have to write a library that allows for easy implementation of such things, just like how OpenGL and DirectX allows for easier creation of 2D and 3D drawing and rendering, and GLSL and HLSL for shader implementation.

However we are overdue for an open-source user interface library that can easily integrate with renderers... Perhaps they should start working on an OpenUI language, similar to Scaleform but it's free?

 

[jezcentral]

I think the write of the article is confusing GFWL, the wannabe-Steam trainwreck, with Games For Windows, which was quality assurance (e.g. controller support). GFW is still going strong.

 

[Kahani]

I think you guys are missing the point here.

In my opinion, the important bit here is not the performance optimization or hardware support, I agree that such a thing will always be an issue in a hardware-unlocked market.

I think the important point is to promote the idea of there being platform-independent standards that developers can adhere to. In other words, breaking the notion that software needs to be tied to an specific OS or hardware (You know, the whole "exclusives" thing)

That's what I assumed the article would be about, but it actually has nothing to do with that. There's nothing about making software independent of hardware, but just saying that they meet a certain minimum fps on all the OSes it's been released for. It really is just an attempt to charge developers money for giving them a sticker saying their game runs at 30fps. Hardly surprising that many of the big players have dropped out. It's an utterly pointless attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist using methods that wouldn't work even if it did.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well I'm sure that idea made a lot of sense back in 2008, but right now any random youtuber can do what you want two and a half grand for, PC Gaming Wiki meanwhile does it do an absurd extent also without compensation.
The only thing I wonder at this point is how you kept alive for so long without doing a damn thing for 5 years straight.