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

[Crimsonmonkeywar]

If SteamOS takes off, I'm all in. No reason not to with consoles leading the pack.

 

[Tanakh]

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

How to keep their organization relevant, so far I am not sure they are succeeding.

 

[Strazdas]

Controller support as a PC gaming quality certification? Are you kidding me?

 

[Steve the Pocket]

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.

Yes, he certainly is. Although I believe there was at least one period where, in order to get Games for Windows certification, a game with a multiplayer mode had to use Games for Windows Live as its multiplayer platform. Or maybe it was just that they would be disqualified if they required Steam. I just know that all the post-2007 PC games I've seen box art of that lacked the "Games for Windows" banner were Steamworks titles.

Controller support as a PC gaming quality certification? Are you kidding me?

"If it's a cross-platform title," the quote said. That's not unreasonable at all; to port a game from a system that only accepts controller input and then not even retain support for said controller (as was done with BioShock 2, for example) is just shamelessly lazy. And if the "living-room PC" starts to take off, as Valve hopes it will, controller support will become all the more vital.

 

[J.McMillen]

The problem with trying to quantify a PC is that there are too many variables involved. Not just the various hardware configurations, but also the software running in the background. Since I do most of my non-gaming on my Mac, my PC only runs with minimal software running in the background. So my computer should run faster and smoother than someone with an exact copy of my hardware but running a bunch of programs in the background. There is no way for any organization to account for this.

 

[Gregg Lonsdale]

"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."

I like how their absolute minumum standard is pretty much the Xbone's maximum.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

So many different video cards, types or ram, mother boards, processors, and software set ups says this is a dumb idea.

 

[Strazdas]

Controller support as a PC gaming quality certification? Are you kidding me?

"If it's a cross-platform title," the quote said. That's not unreasonable at all; to port a game from a system that only accepts controller input and then not even retain support for said controller (as was done with BioShock 2, for example) is just shamelessly lazy. And if the "living-room PC" starts to take off, as Valve hopes it will, controller support will become all the more vital.

Crossplatform ahs nothing to do with it. you cant interact with Xbone players with a PC version and vice versa. Thus the control mechanisms of said consoles should not be a factor.
To port a game from controller mechanism to keyboard and mouse usually does by simply rearranging the input, to add controller support is to double the input programming (granted it would be mostly scavenged).
Living room PC has already taken off. It is called PS4.