Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why Do We Need To "Install" PC Games?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 16, 2009 10:06:51 PM

... Why can't we just run them direct from the disc's like consoles?

More about : install games

October 16, 2009 11:35:37 PM

Because you need more spyware on you computer
Related resources
October 17, 2009 12:34:17 AM

ooo think of the loading times pulling all that data in from a DVD
October 17, 2009 4:32:32 AM

LePhuronn said:
ooo think of the loading times pulling all that data in from a DVD


I don't know really... Tech moves on. Consoles have cought upto PC's from a long run, yet then can just push and play but we need to install. With all the Quads, and Sata drives out there they should just have the option to "direct play from disc" when you insert the CD in for people that choose not to install.

Just my 2 cents.
October 17, 2009 6:05:53 AM

PC's use much better data than consoles do. Texture & models are much higher resolution for PCs, and therefore take much more data (and longer to transfer). Also, consoles use various tricks like streaming levels than PCs usually don't deal with.

Installing is a luxury, trust me.
October 17, 2009 12:55:41 PM

Buy a new SSD and install a game on it, you will see. And loading from Disc is much slower and lower quality than HDD. Also it is easily damaged unlike HDD where you can't touch it.
October 18, 2009 2:42:23 AM

Because the game files need to be extracted from the disk, and more importantly, the game needs to have keys written to the registry. If it does not require registry entries, it does not need to be installed, and will work after a re-install of Windows providing the files have been extracted previously. I have run Crysis from a dual-boot OS that did not have it installed.
October 18, 2009 4:04:50 AM

External media is far slower then loading from a HD (not even close). Nevermind the wear and tear that constantly using the CD/DVD drive would do...

Quote:
Because the game files need to be extracted from the disk, and more importantly, the game needs to have keys written to the registry. If it does not require registry entries, it does not need to be installed, and will work after a re-install of Windows providing the files have been extracted previously. I have run Crysis from a dual-boot OS that did not have it installed.


Nothing is stopping a DVD only app from writing to/from the system Registry for its game settings.


The *best* solution, of course, is to load all game data into RAM at one shot. Of course, this involves more RAM then we have, and would cause massive load times...
October 18, 2009 4:17:25 AM

gamerk316 said:
Nothing is stopping a DVD only app from writing to/from the system Registry for its game settings.

Of course, but that would still be "installing" (by my definition). Simply extracting the game files to a folder is, well, extracting.
October 18, 2009 5:38:27 AM

godbrother said:
... Why can't we just run them direct from the disc's like consoles?

Because it's a step backwards. Physical mediums are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. I'm not sure why "insert disc and play" is still considered a plus for consoles over PCs. I'd rather just "click on the icon and play" and not have to worry about a disc at all which is what I currently do for 90% of the games I play on PC. The one time installation is A LOT less of a hassle than having to search for and swap out discs every time you want to play a different game. Why anybody would prefer to run games directly from a disc - or even use a disc at all - is beyond me, but then again I know people who still use cassette tapes for their music collection rather than MP3s.
October 18, 2009 5:40:23 AM

Most games still require a CD check without cracking them first though.
October 18, 2009 7:36:41 AM

Makes sense. Seen as it was bought up, I still had game dev's for not figureing out a way to use less resourses to play games. Take the PS3 for example... Only 256MB of ram yet plays games like GTAIV flawlessly. On the PC you would need at least 4GB to play it at a so called "OK" rate. I know it was a terrible port to begin with, but overall, you need double or triple tech to play a game with just higer graphics and thats about it.

Why can't people get the same performance as a console with only slighter higher hardware?

OK... I've started to sound gay, I know. :D 
October 18, 2009 7:39:13 AM

The games can be heavily optimised on the consoles.
October 18, 2009 7:58:10 AM

Still ticks me off that we need to have Quad Cores with 4GB's of Ram, and GTX GPU's to play GTAIV at the same rate of a 360. It hurts :)  I somtimes do want to go out and get a 360 for like 50 bucks off ebay, and use that instead. BUT I know I can't see my keyboard and mouse, so it will suck for me in FPS's.
October 18, 2009 8:01:17 AM

There are keyboards and mice for consoles too.
October 18, 2009 9:11:23 AM

Wow. For the 360? An actual keyboard and an actual mouse? Or is it one of those stpuid joypad addons?
October 18, 2009 10:27:26 AM

Dekasav said:
PC's use much better data than consoles do. Texture & models are much higher resolution for PCs, and therefore take much more data (and longer to transfer). Also, consoles use various tricks like streaming levels than PCs usually don't deal with.

Installing is a luxury, trust me.



Actually PC's dont user memory better than consoles. Consoles have typically 256mb of system ram and usually the same figure for Video RAM and can play COD4 in HD. Ok PC's have a higher resolution and therefore need more video RAM.

The reason why PC's have to install games is because there is such a wide variety of hardware out there. Why would you install code specific to one brand of video cards if you didnt have say an ATI video card ?

The chief reason being that your typical SATA HDD is faster are transfering data than CD/DVD drives.
October 18, 2009 10:28:42 AM

Sorry forgot to mention - consoles do often install data on the internal HDD too.... though not to the extent that PC's do
October 18, 2009 10:35:07 AM

For a start if you were to lower the settings/resolution in GTA IV to the same as a PS3 you would not need 4GiB of RAM, probably like 2GiB, granted it is still more than the 256MiB, but XP/Vista/7have a lot more overheads than the console's OS, you probably also have an anti-virus and msn installed, which also uses resources.

Also in the case GTA IV, the PC port wasn't very well made and is probably optimised for cell processors which PCs don't have. With a lot of other games you see less of a difference.

As for the CD/DVDs, I don't want to be swapping discs all the time, and for games I play a lot the disc would probably get too scratched to use after a few years, or even months for some people. I prefer that it goes on the hard drive, although I don't think they need to use that piece of rubbish known as the registry, which really doesn't need to exist.

And you do realise the best you can get from a console is a pewny 1080p, which is pretty much what I'd have had 10 years ago on a PC.
October 18, 2009 3:17:47 PM

If we could save full game into RAM and play from it. Until we shut it down.
October 18, 2009 3:19:45 PM

[...delete post...]
October 18, 2009 3:25:47 PM

^^ Seriously though. My friend wanted to sell me his 360 for £40. (60 bucks?) with controller and 1 game. I guess its worth it.

O no, o wait. somthings terribly wrong here. Are you telling me I can go ONLINE with the 360 useing a keyboard and mouse? And pwn all no0bs? I doubt that's possible. Even if it is, the speed of moving the aim around would be the same as the console right?

If so, then there is no point. Blah... Back to PC gaming. :D 
October 18, 2009 4:07:13 PM

randomizer said:
Most games still require a CD check without cracking them first though.

Only if you choose to go with the CD version in the first place. I can't think of any new games off the top of my head that are not available in a digital only format.
October 18, 2009 4:18:00 PM

purplerat said:
Only if you choose to go with the CD version in the first place. I can't think of any new games off the top of my head that are not available in a digital only format.


Is digital format cheaper? If its the same price... Id go with the CD really.
October 18, 2009 4:18:52 PM

godbrother said:
Still ticks me off that we need to have Quad Cores with 4GB's of Ram, and GTX GPU's to play GTAIV at the same rate of a 360. It hurts :)  I somtimes do want to go out and get a 360 for like 50 bucks off ebay, and use that instead. BUT I know I can't see my keyboard and mouse, so it will suck for me in FPS's.


First of all that isn't a great example. GTA IV for the PC is a poorly optimized port and is not representative of actual PC requirements to run that type of game. Secondly comparing the hardware in a PC to a console is like comparing the engine of an 18 wheeler(PC) to a motorcycle(console) and complaining that it takes so much more power for the truck to go as fast as the motorcycle.

I just bought a 360 myself and it's ok for what it is but even with games with equal graphics in terms of things like textures the PC still blows it away just because of higher resolutions, better frame rates and AA. One of the games I bought the 360 for was Madden 10. I have 08 on my PC but bought 10 for online play. Comparing the graphics between the two (08 on PC and 10 on the 360) the 08 version looks just about as good and runs a hell of a lot smoother. Now obviously Madden games don't really update their graphics that much even over 2 years but the 08 PC game is actually the PS2 port. So basically my PC is taking a PS2 game and making it look as good as a 360 game. Really the only difference is the display styling between the two (close ups, angles, etc) and not really the graphics themselves.
October 18, 2009 4:24:32 PM

godbrother said:
Is digital format cheaper? If its the same price... Id go with the CD really.

It's about the same. Honestly it is the way to go and the way all games (consoles included) are eventually going to go. The advantages really outweigh the disadvantages by a lot. The only reason not too is if you are technologically lacking - i.e. poor broadband access, not enough hard drive space.
October 18, 2009 4:39:53 PM

purplerat said:
It's about the same. Honestly it is the way to go and the way all games (consoles included) are eventually going to go. The advantages really outweigh the disadvantages by a lot. The only reason not too is if you are technologically lacking - i.e. poor broadband access, not enough hard drive space.


I'm guessing the next gen console will be avalible in "basic - 1TB" or "premium - 2TB" and "5TB - extreme" or 'black edition' as they call it.

Digital download will be a priority in order to play a game. OR, dev's will wisen up and notice that its all about USB drives. Have the game on a 20GB USB drive to transfer it onto the console to store. etc etc. I don't know.
October 18, 2009 4:41:11 PM

They should make the digital downloads half the price. That way, everyones happy, and piracy is cut down. But I guess greedy people will always stay greedy. i.e if a game is usally 50 bucks when realesed, it should be 29 bucks digital download.
October 18, 2009 5:00:22 PM

godbrother said:
They should make the digital downloads half the price. That way, everyones happy, and piracy is cut down. But I guess greedy people will always stay greedy. i.e if a game is usally 50 bucks when realesed, it should be 29 bucks digital download.

That doesn't make sense at all. You do realize that the cost of the CD and packaging of a game is only a few cents? There is some cost saving to digital distribution but it's not as cheap as you may think.

The biggest difference with pricing of digital versus retail is when a game has been out a while and demand for it has dropped. It's a lot more beneficial for digital distributors to sell a low demand title at a big discount than it is for a retail outlet to carry a product that there isn't a great demand for. So it's easier to find a really cheap copy of a less then new release via digital than retail.
October 18, 2009 5:07:51 PM

godbrother said:
I'm guessing the next gen console will be avalible in "basic - 1TB" or "premium - 2TB" and "5TB - extreme" or 'black edition' as they call it.

Digital download will be a priority in order to play a game. OR, dev's will wisen up and notice that its all about USB drives. Have the game on a 20GB USB drive to transfer it onto the console to store. etc etc. I don't know.


That would raise the cost of a game quite a bit. See my above statement about how CDs (including DVDs and eventually BD) only cost a few cents to put a game on and package. USB drives would be a bit more expensive in order to have the capacity to make it worthwhile and the quality to actually last. It would almost be like a step back cartridges for console games. The only real use for USB drives would be if you had a single one you bought and went to a store to have a game put on it so that you could bring it home and install it on your console. The only point of that would be for people who can't download the game directly at home. If I'm not mistaken Nintendo did/does something like that with the DS.
October 18, 2009 7:45:41 PM

I suppose for those who do not have good enough broadband, having a USB drive you could say take down to a store that sells games, plug it into a machine like an ATM but with a USB port and transfer it in minutes, would be a good idea. But given the fact that broadband is, in most places, being rolled out in the near future that idea probably wouldn't be viable.
October 18, 2009 11:43:26 PM

Actually the biggest determinent of price is the country of sale. Australia retails new releases for $99.95-124.95 and they stay like that for about a year. In order to prevent retail sales being cannibalised by digital sales such as on Steam, publishers often jack up the price there too. For example, THQ charges 30 USD more for Red Faction: Guerrilla on Steam AU compared to Steam US. Why? Because it would be about 30 USD more in stores here. Not all publishers do it, or to that extent. Valve never sell their games at region-specific prices, except maybe in Russia where a game sale (meaning a bought game) is rare :) 
October 20, 2009 10:24:00 PM

randomizer said:
Actually the biggest determinent of price is the country of sale. Australia retails new releases for $99.95-124.95 and they stay like that for about a year. In order to prevent retail sales being cannibalised by digital sales such as on Steam, publishers often jack up the price there too. For example, THQ charges 30 USD more for Red Faction: Guerrilla on Steam AU compared to Steam US. Why? Because it would be about 30 USD more in stores here. Not all publishers do it, or to that extent. Valve never sell their games at region-specific prices, except maybe in Russia where a game sale (meaning a bought game) is rare :) 


Haha. It's worse in Turkey. There are no such thing as game stores. Even offical PC stores bootleg games and sell em for 5 bucks a piece :D  It's a laugh :D 
October 30, 2009 10:05:26 AM

Why simple,when complicated is much more interesting..............
November 1, 2009 9:13:52 AM

alexj022 said:
Why simple,when complicated is much more interesting..............


:S
!