If developers were pushing the current CPU and GPU capabilities on PCs there would be more demand for upgrades, but instead most games target the current console standards and offer little else extra if they find more power available.
I suspect there will be a blip over the next 18-to-24 months as the next generation of consoles become common and developers start targeting them rather than the last generation, so what is not "bog standard" on the desktop will not be good enough, then it'll settle again once the people that care for high spec games on the PC have upgraded.
The most common use for PC's is Microsoft Office, web browsing, and email. None of those should be 'pushing the current CPU and GPU capabilities.' Most people aren't gamers or enthusiasts, those groups don't drive the market anymore.
Lets also keep in mind that most publishers would like to sell games to more then the 4 (size artificially small for emphasis) people who buy the latest graphics card every 6 months. That means targeting hardware on a 1-2 year lag at least. Hard core gamers, while a market that spends money, is very small. Targeting the most powerful doesn't make sense.
If developers were pushing the current CPU and GPU capabilities on PCs
And why should developers do so? If Drew Crawford's blog post "Mobile web apps are slow" and its more famous follow-up taught me anything, it's that we developers are already ridiculously spoiled with our current desktops and laptops. On laptops, we satisfy our infinite appetite for performance by "plugging it in, strapping a 2-lb battery to it, and throwing in a few fans" (to quote a comment on the first blog post mentioned above); for a desktop, we plug it in, use a large 20+ pound case, and throw in more fans. I can't help but wonder if these computers will someday be near-universally regarded as monstrosities akin to gas-guzzling SUVs. I think it's time more of us developers (myself included) learned to work within real constraints again, by using devices that are designed to be fanless and battery-powered, e.g. modern phones and tablets, for more of our day-to-day activities and software testing.
I'm with you. What we're witnessing here it's the confluence of two different trends. First the push to mobile, as everyone has been pointing out for the last few years (yawn) and secondly the plateau in HW requirements. We've reached a point where our PCs are powerful enough to do everything we need them to, so there's no need to upgrade them (yes, we still need affordable 4k displays). This has happened for two reasons:
1) What were once desktop apps have become online services so as to both reduce shipping time and reach a wider audience (browser improvements obviously are the main force behind this even being possible)
2) Apps that were previously the preserve of powerful desktop computers are now available on mobile phones (who needs that photo-editing software when I can apply a filter to the pic I've just snapped with my phone?)
Comments
It's called market saturation. Most people don't need hardware upgrades for facebook and shitty flash games.
If developers were pushing the current CPU and GPU capabilities on PCs there would be more demand for upgrades, but instead most games target the current console standards and offer little else extra if they find more power available.
I suspect there will be a blip over the next 18-to-24 months as the next generation of consoles become common and developers start targeting them rather than the last generation, so what is not "bog standard" on the desktop will not be good enough, then it'll settle again once the people that care for high spec games on the PC have upgraded.
The most common use for PC's is Microsoft Office, web browsing, and email. None of those should be 'pushing the current CPU and GPU capabilities.' Most people aren't gamers or enthusiasts, those groups don't drive the market anymore.
Lets also keep in mind that most publishers would like to sell games to more then the 4 (size artificially small for emphasis) people who buy the latest graphics card every 6 months. That means targeting hardware on a 1-2 year lag at least. Hard core gamers, while a market that spends money, is very small. Targeting the most powerful doesn't make sense.
And why should developers do so? If Drew Crawford's blog post "Mobile web apps are slow" and its more famous follow-up taught me anything, it's that we developers are already ridiculously spoiled with our current desktops and laptops. On laptops, we satisfy our infinite appetite for performance by "plugging it in, strapping a 2-lb battery to it, and throwing in a few fans" (to quote a comment on the first blog post mentioned above); for a desktop, we plug it in, use a large 20+ pound case, and throw in more fans. I can't help but wonder if these computers will someday be near-universally regarded as monstrosities akin to gas-guzzling SUVs. I think it's time more of us developers (myself included) learned to work within real constraints again, by using devices that are designed to be fanless and battery-powered, e.g. modern phones and tablets, for more of our day-to-day activities and software testing.
I'm with you. What we're witnessing here it's the confluence of two different trends. First the push to mobile, as everyone has been pointing out for the last few years (yawn) and secondly the plateau in HW requirements. We've reached a point where our PCs are powerful enough to do everything we need them to, so there's no need to upgrade them (yes, we still need affordable 4k displays). This has happened for two reasons:
1) What were once desktop apps have become online services so as to both reduce shipping time and reach a wider audience (browser improvements obviously are the main force behind this even being possible)
2) Apps that were previously the preserve of powerful desktop computers are now available on mobile phones (who needs that photo-editing software when I can apply a filter to the pic I've just snapped with my phone?)