They need to get buy-in from the giant game companies like EA or your next iteration of Battlefield will be just as buggy at release as BF4 was/is. EA or other similar game publishers won't even care about some game-standards organization if they see no benefit to it.
How do you sell this certification to companies like EA who will sell software regardless of what the PC Software Alliance has to say? This is the major obstacle to the success of the program.
"He provided an example, saying that games would need to hit 720p resolutions on medium settings, 30 frames per second, and support a game controller if the PC game has a console counterpart."
I don't understand. Do they expect every computer ever made to achieve that framerate?
no, it's more about the ever mysterious 'minimum required configuration'. which even in this day and age say things like 2GB of memory with a radeon 6670 or something like that.
there need to be a standard on what defines a minimum requirement. in that regard, I fully support this
Ah that makes perfect sense. That's a great idea. Make the min/recommend/max actually mean something. If 30 fps @ 720P on medium was min and then maybe 45 fps @ 1920x1080 on medium for recommend then 60 fps @ 1920x180 ultra could be max.
30fps at 720 should be basically achievable with an APU at this point, though, setting the bar pretty darn low.
For casual players who just want a playable gaming experience without excessive lows for their occasional gaming sessions, this is often good enough.
APUs are about to catch up with my 1GB HD5770 and it is still good enough for me even at 1200p with most details on High for the few games I play. At this rate, I think my main motivations to upgrade GPU will be for 2GB VRAM and lower power once 20-22nm GPUs become available at some point next year.
[saying that games would need to hit 720p resolutions on medium settings, 30 frames per second, and support a game controller if the PC game has a console counterpart.
The "platform-agnostic" nature of PCGA's program should also make it future-proof ]
720? 800x600 went out with the 90's even in 2000 1280x1024 was standard and above 30FPS.
as far as needing to have console controller support on a pc that is a joke even my flight controllers have better and more functionality than console controller POS. i even have triple the buttons and on top of that 3 modes for each button giving me 9 times the functionality of console garbage. and that's with just the joystick and throttle!
Clearly they want to bring the consoles poor standards as reference point for the PC, the laughable 720p is extinct on PC and even considered High-res on Consoles. Controllers? Really... would not surprise me if they even rant down on a rts/fps if it don't have controller with the then mandatory auto-aim feature, making the game play itself for the player *LOL*
720 is a strange resolution that constantly gets benchmarked for PC. Why not do 1366x768? That at least is VERY common on medium and low-end laptops. I do think people want to know a mobile and desktop minimum requirement to hit both that resolution (768 @ 30fps?) and 1080 @60fps. People do need to get over 1280x720 as nothing since the 2010 Macbook Pro (or something thereabouts) has used that resolution.
@Dalauder ; 720 is a display standard at lowest "High Def" at the correct aspect ratio, that's why it's so often compared to; also it's what most of the last gen console games ran at. Also I find it interesting that they'd do "Minimum" requirements with a non minimum standard. I CAN (and do until an aftermarket 290 or 290x comes out) run BF4 on my rig using the integrated 4600 intel hd igpu @ 720 on minumim settings with no frame lag or drops at 45+ fps. It looks ugly as high hell but it runs smooth enough to play.