Hardware Demographics for Casual Gamers

[Greg Squire]

In another thread PoV posted this link ( http://steampowered.com/status/survey.html ), which shows some computer hardware demographics for Valve customers. This would essentially be info on hardcore gamers. Does anyone know where I could find something similar, but for the casual gamer? I know that the systems are going to be less powerful, but I don’t know exactly how much less on average.

I’m trying to determine what my baseline system requirements are to shoot for. I’m thinking that a PII 400 MHz with a basic 16Mb 3D video card, might be a good baseline these days (also I have one to test on, so I can verify that my game really functions on the minimum). I know some of this depends on the game itself, and in this case it will use some basic 3D stuff (No bump mapping, DirectX 5 or 7 compatible). I’m thinking most casual gamers would have a system capable of this or better. Is this a correct assumption?

[wazoo]

Just keeping this thread bumped, as I'm interested in the same exact kind of information..

My current engine is targeting DX8.1 (basically just for DirectPlay8), but I'm worried that I'm putting myself into the "dead zone"..

ie. too high DX requirements for most of my target market, but too low to attract the higher DX capable machines..

If that makes sense..

[Chaster]

Just keeping this thread bumped, as I'm interested in the same exact kind of information..

My current engine is targeting DX8.1 (basically just for DirectPlay8), but I'm worried that I'm putting myself into the "dead zone"..

ie. too high DX requirements for most of my target market, but too low to attract the higher DX capable machines..

If that makes sense..

I did a little research on this for our current project, and this is what I came up with for good "minimum" system requirements for the casual gaming market:

200-300 mhz cpu
DirectX 7
64 megs RAM
8 meg video card
Windows 98

FWIW, our previous project required DX8.1, and well, that was a mistake for us... We ran into a substantial number of customers who didn't have DX8 (much less DX8.1) installed... sigh...

Our current game fits the above listed minimum requirements...

Chaster

[Nutter2000]

200-300 mhz cpu
DirectX 7
64 megs RAM
8 meg video card
Windows 98
200-300MHz?
wow!

I'm not doubting your research in anyway, but I'm amazed that the average casual gamer is still that low!

[wazoo]

FWIW, our previous project required DX8.1, and well, that was a mistake for us... We ran into a substantial number of customers who didn't have DX8 (much less DX8.1) installed... sigh...

Our current game fits the above listed minimum requirements...
Chaster

Thanks Chaster, that's EXACTLY the same kind of problem I'm worried about..:)

Luckily my graphics engine is in OpenGL, but I'll have to investigate using a winsock middleware library of some kind...

[Lerc]

There's a growing HardwareSpecs (http://www.indiewiki.org/index.php?HardwareSpecs) page at the IndieWiki (http://www.indiewiki.org).
A note to whoever did the screen resolution portion on the wiki. The figures look like Desktop resolution to me, but I'm not positive so I don't want to change the labeling.

Desktop resolution should be considered distinct from capable screen resolutions. For starters the percentages should add up to more than 100. I suspect over 90% of systems can handle 1024x768 in 16 bit (I have no hard data though) even if the users have their desktop set at 800x600. I know every 800x600 system I have come accross has been able to go higher.

[oNyx]

200-300MHz?
wow!

I'm not doubting your research in anyway, but I'm amazed that the average casual gamer is still that low!

It's nice if your game works with those specs, but I won't put too much efford into that (or be that restrictive).

A 500mhz machine is already 5 years old. That's the timespan they were build to last. After 6 years PCs are either dead or not used anymore. And if they are still used it's usually just for browsing and email.

Oh and don't forget that you usually want to sell your game for several years. So even if your minimun system requirements are a tad too high right now, they'll be absolutely ok the day your product is just right.

I aim for something like 500mhz, 128-256mb and 2nd-3rd generation of accelerators, because that's about the hardware I need for everything I want to do right now and well... that stuff is 5 years old.

[Nutter2000]

yeah, that's what I thought.

I figured, no hard data just off the top of my head, 500MHz - 1GHz for casual gamers, anything below that probably isn't a gamer or at least there aren't enough to make it worth supporting.

[Chaster]

200-300MHz?
wow!

I'm not doubting your research in anyway, but I'm amazed that the average casual gamer is still that low!


My research didn't indicate the *AVERAGE* casual gamer system was that low, it indicated that there were a substantial number of users with systems that low. The distribution is generally a bell curve, and this was the "cut off" point (somewhat arbitrarily decided on our part) where we deemed the cost/benefit ratio to be at a tipping point.

The *average* casual gamer system was substantially higher (about 2-3X faster) but if you take the *average* system as your *minimum* you will cut out approximately HALF of your potential customer base.

It all depends on your definition of your target market, and your game. Our game is simple 2D sprites and so it really was just a question of CPU and DirectX level. According to my research, a lot of machines out there are still running Win98 variants, and that meant that we could use DX7 level graphics without losing a substantial chunk of our demographic.

Our next game may be in 3D (as our previous one was) so we'll probably have higher system req's, sacrificing some of the market in the process... <shrug>

It really is a judgement call on the developer's part. For OUR game, the req's listed in the post I put up previously seemed appropriate given the game, the target demographic, and the current proportions of hardware specs in the userbase. They may not be appropriate for YOUR game.. :)

Chaster

[Nutter2000]

ah, fair enough, my apologies.
I must watch my grammer my closely like what I should ;)

what I really ment was that I'm supprised that there is still a substantial "gamer" market with systems that low even if it is a casual market. That's substantial as in "large enough to worry about".

just to get a complete picture here (oh and being nosey :D ), you say you're using simple 2d sprites, would that be in a basically animated match the colours type game where there isn't much movement on screen, or a fast 2d shoot-em-up type with lots of graphics and movement?

I wouldn't say you're sacrificing some of the market by going to 3D, I would think it is more of a case of engaging more of the market and while dropping support for the lower end systems, it's probably more of a sliding scale really (to a point).

[Diodor Bitan]

Original post by Chaster
...


Hey, that's my developing machine :)

[Chaster]

ah, fair enough, my apologies.
I must watch my grammer my closely like what I should ;)

what I really ment was that I'm supprised that there is still a substantial "gamer" market with systems that low even if it is a casual market. That's substantial as in "large enough to worry about".

just to get a complete picture here (oh and being nosey :D ), you say you're using simple 2d sprites, would that be in a basically animated match the colours type game where there isn't much movement on screen, or a fast 2d shoot-em-up type with lots of graphics and movement?

I wouldn't say you're sacrificing some of the market by going to 3D, I would think it is more of a case of engaging more of the market and while dropping support for the lower end systems, it's probably more of a sliding scale really (to a point).


Apologies for the late reply - i've been a bit busy trying to code in our registration system for our game...

Anyhooo..

Our game is probably classified as not "fast 2d shoot-em-up style" however, we're still doing a lot of drawing, and surprisingly, we had to scale back a little bit on special FX because of performance problems (!).

One thing to consider - many computers out there have (relatively) high end CPUs (2+ ghz is very common nowadays even on entry-level systems) but these same systems are often using CRAPPY on-board built in graphics. Most games nowadays aren't bound by the CPU, they're bound by the video card. Just because people have fast CPUs doesn't mean their computers can run 3D games decently...

As far as 3D causing "sacrifice" of some of our market, I should have added - it depends on the market we're targeting. In the target market we've been working in for the last couple games, our target demographic actually has a tendency to DISLIKE 3D (particularly First Person Perspective). Our challenge is therefore 2-fold:

1) Make a game which isn't TOO high in system requirements graphically..
2) Make a game which doesn't turn off our target market (because it is 3D).

I don't think I'm expressing myself very well, but hopefully, it makes sense...

Of course, we could always target another market demographic (for example, the hardcore gamers) but I don't like battling it out with John Carmack, Tim Sweeney, and Co...

Chaster

[Nutter2000]

Apologies for the late reply - i've been a bit busy trying to code in our registration system for our game...
no problem, I'd forgotten about this thread anyway ;)

Our game is probably classified as not "fast 2d shoot-em-up style" however, we're still doing a lot of drawing, and surprisingly, we had to scale back a little bit on special FX because of performance problems (!).
fair enough, I only asked because we're currently working on a 2D platform/puzzle game with a fair amount of animation.

One thing to consider - many computers out there have (relatively) high end CPUs (2+ ghz is very common nowadays even on entry-level systems) but these same systems are often using CRAPPY on-board built in graphics. Most games nowadays aren't bound by the CPU, they're bound by the video card. Just because people have fast CPUs doesn't mean their computers can run 3D games decently...
Oh yes, I wasn't doubting the crappy intel onboard gfx (well, I wasn't doubting any of it to be fair).
it was the 200-300MHz that supprised me.

As far as 3D causing "sacrifice" of some of our market, I should have added - it depends on the market we're targeting. In the target market we've been working in for the last couple games, our target demographic actually has a tendency to DISLIKE 3D (particularly First Person Perspective). Our challenge is therefore 2-fold:

1) Make a game which isn't TOO high in system requirements graphically..
2) Make a game which doesn't turn off our target market (because it is 3D).

I don't think I'm expressing myself very well, but hopefully, it makes sense...
yes, I see your point, I think we're making the same point from two different angles here :)
I was just trying to say that it's more like a "window" you probably only really reach the same size of people no matter the spec.
for example, people with low spec machines generally prefer 2D games anyway, else they would have upgraded. Whereas at the top end, people with uber-machines probably wouldn't look twice at a 2D game (wot no shaders?!)
so I prefer to look at it that it's not so much as sacrificing users it's more of targeting a different market, because you're losing some lower spec users but probably gaining the same potential amount in higher spec users.

like I said, the same point from different angles :D

Of course, we could always target another market demographic (for example, the hardcore gamers) but I don't like battling it out with John Carmack, Tim Sweeney, and Co...

True, but on the other hand, Id and Epic both started out doing shareware like us. so there's hope for all of us. :)

[dan]

Our game is more casual-friendly than casual. A PII 400 with a 16M video card and DirectX8+ is the bare minimum. In 2005, I don't think that will scare off much of our audience.

[James C. Smith]

The question you have to ask yourself is would your target audience be likely to download and install DirectX? This is no problem for hard core games. Whey probably already installed Dx9 to play some CD-ROM game. But coffee break players may not even have the user privileges required to install DirectX and soccer moms may be afraid of breaking something if they install DX. Why risk it was they could just play Supper Collapse which doesn’t require a newer DirectX.

Unless users have Windows XP, or they install a DirectX update them self, they will not have DirectX8. Windows ME and Windows 2000 shipped with DirectX 7.

So using DirectX 8 is okay if you think your users are the type who would have no problem with installed the DirectX update. It all depends where your target demographic falls between coffee break player and hard core gamer.

[Chaster]

Yep - agree totally with James..

We lowered our requirements (for this project, compared to previous project) specifically because of these considerations... For the casual gaming market, people just don't download newer DX versions, so you have to work with DX7...

Chaster

[SunAndGames]

I always find these discussions of what version of DirectX to use somewhat bewildering. Why not just use SDL? It uses whatever version of DirectX is installed on the machine. It even runs on Macs. Is it the extra API layer people don't like? Seems like an obvious choice to me. But maybe I'm just missing something.

[Nemesis]

Depends on the requirements I guess.. I assume SDL has means to degrade capabilities gracefully when going down the DX version history. However, working directly with DX may give the developer better control of how to implement a capability not directly supported by a DX version. For example, SDL may simply ignore calls to render specific effects on older DX versions while capability limitations may be circumvented via software rendering when using a custom direct DX implementation.

I'm speculating here really.. if SDL is open-source there may be room for enhancing or complementing these capability issues. This may give the best of both worlds!

[SunAndGames]

From the SDL (http://www.libsdl.org) web site:

The Simple DirectMedia Layer library is currently available under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or newer. This license allows you to link with the library in such a way that users can modify the library and have your application use the new version.

[Nemesis]

In short, that seems like a "Yes" to my question :)

[Jim Buck]

I'm not familiar with SDL, but that quote seems to indicate that it has a plug-in architecture instead of allowing you to modify SDL's source code.

[Dominique Biesmans]

I'm not familiar with SDL, but that quote seems to indicate that it has a plug-in architecture instead of allowing you to modify SDL's source code.

The quote is a little confusing. LGPL actually means 2 things :
- you should link dynamically with the library, so users can (how often does this happen) replace the DLL with a newer/other version, and run your app against that.
- you're welcome to make changes to SDL, but must make them available under the same license (mainly meaning the source must be available)

[wazoo]

Chaster,

Can you get away with using DX7 for everything BUT graphics and use
OpenGL instead??

I'm leaning towards going this route with my current project, as direct3d7 worries me. It doesn't seem "as fast" in my test apps as OpenGL does..
I don't know if it's because of performance problems with the vertex buffers (in the drivers perhaps?? *shrug*)

and my test machine has the latest video drivers, etc.



Yep - agree totally with James..

We lowered our requirements (for this project, compared to previous project) specifically because of these considerations... For the casual gaming market, people just don't download newer DX versions, so you have to work with DX7...

Chaster

[gmcbay]

If you're going to use DirectX for everything else and don't care about platform portability, you might as well use D3D too. IMO. Using OpenGL instead simply introduces another dependency (now the user needs DX7 AND OpenGL with proper drivers).

If you plan on porting to Mac or whatever else in the future, obviously OpenGL becomes a better option in that case...

In my experience, D3D (when properly programmed for) is as fast or faster than OpenGL under Windows on virtually all videocards. Nvidia is really the only company that bothers to make really good OpenGL drivers, everyone else's are generally much worse than their corresponding D3D drivers (again, speaking of Windows here).

[wazoo]

Yeah when I got home today and re-read my post, you DO have a point. I'm introducing another level of "work" for the end-user...making sure they have video drivers updated for OpenGL..(it helps to read what you're thinking I guess).

I didn't mean to start an OGL vs D3D7 driver flame war though...(honest!).

I guess I was under the wrong impression about them re: driver performance. I'll have to dig up my DX7 SDK again to take a look at D3D7 and make a final decision..

for this week. ;)

Anyways, I DID manage to setup my vanilla test machine. Win98 with only the security patches (ie. no dx update or the like).

Does the casual gamer (that we all cater to), even install video drivers? Or do they leave on whatever comes shipped with their built PC?? I'm assuming that they're not even upgrading their vid drivers, so maybe using D3D7 is a better path to follow...

thanks!

[gmcbay]

It really depends who you talk to and what they consider to be "casual gamers"...

One of my primary motivations for keeping the sys requirements down is to keep the game playable by bored office workers. Yeah, yeah, that's evil and all, but hey if they want to buy my game and play it instead of spending all day surfing the web, that's fine with me... And a lot of them don't have access to make system level changes like driver installs...

As far as OpenGL vs D3D goes, you won't get a flamewar from me out of it. I think they are both great APIs. However, I do wish that OpenGL had better support under Windows (both from Microsoft and from videocard IHVs other than Nvidia).

[unreason]

Regarding OpenGL, everyone using Windows has at least software drivers, don't they? So, if your game isn't intensive enough to absolutely require acceleration, wouldn't it run automatically in software, unaccelerated, if the OpenGL drivers aren't present for the user's 3D card? I guess what I'm getting at is, if your game isn't intensive enough to really need the advantages of hardware acceleration, won't everyone under Windows be able to run it?

[James C. Smith]

Yes. Every modern version of Windows since Win95 has Open GL (Maybe 95a didn’t have it) But it is not nearly fast enough for any significant game unless it is hardware accelerated. It is especially inefficient if you were only using GL to accelerate 2D operations. Even GDI is faster than software OpenGL and you can write your own stuff faster than that.

[Steve]

Looking to find out the best way to determine PC video specs for Casual Games. Currently we have all systems in place SDL, DirectX 7.0, OpenGL but with the thousands of different video cards on the market it seems to be a difficult task to determine game/video compatibility.

What we have found is that OpenGL is not really fully supported on a variety of video cards.

DirectX seems to be more stable but some cards that pass the Direct3D test still seem to fail on some video effects we are using.

SDL is great but we loose framerate and special effects.

It would be easy to have the game just load up in SDL but people who have 3D cards will miss out on the upgraded features of the game. Yes, they can go into the options menu and select DirectX but most Casual Gamers do not know how to configure their systems.

So I'm hoping that someone out there can help me figure out the best way to determine the best possible video settings before the game loads up?

[Glen Pawley]

What we have found is that OpenGL is not really fully supported on a variety of video cards.

I keep hearing this line bandied about but never explained further. If you are willing I would love to hear more details. Do you mean that a basic OpenGL app (draw a textured unlit poly) just doesn't work at all? or that the less common extensions aren't supported? or that there are random crashes for no reason?

[MGL]

I keep hearing this line bandied about but never explained further. If you are willing I would love to hear more details. Do you mean that a basic OpenGL app (draw a textured unlit poly) just doesn't work at all? or that the less common extensions aren't supported? or that there are random crashes for no reason?

Every windows98 (and up) computer got a software based OpenGL 1.1 implementation installed by default. Win95 machines require a separate download.

That implementation is S-L-O-W and does NOT support multitexturing (or my code is faulty), so, for all practical purposes, you need a hardware accelerated implementation supplied by the video card vendor. It is supplied as part of driver installation (if vendor provides one for that videocard).

The problem is availability: several common videocards are known for their lack of HW OpenGL drivers or even worse, malfunctioning ones.

I have most experiences in this regard with ATI Rage Pro videocards. They were sold like crazy to be used in corporate desktops and laptop manufacturers.
They dont support alpha modulate (no particle fading) nor bilinear filtered alpha textures (you get blocky sprite zooms). Only certain Rage driver packages actually provide HW OpenGL and they ALL are buggy and fix/break stuff among different driver releases</ATI Rage rant off>

Keep in mind my experience comes as a freelance sysadmin/support so I know they are still in use (desktops at work, second hand market for wintel laptops and Macs from OS9 era), but got no idea if their owners actually buy downloadable games. Their average profile is a PII computer (some PIII too) in my experience.

Other problematic videocards like early Voodoos, Permedias, and the like I suspect are extinct (I never find them in use anymore). Now, I would love to see the stats from actual buyers.

Please note that while old desktop computers just disappear in the recycle bin (thankfully) laptops got a nice resell value (even old ones), are still sold in ebay and cannot be upgraded.

My 2 cents...

[Steve]

I have most experiences in this regard with ATI Rage Pro videocards. They were sold like crazy to be used in corporate desktops and laptop manufacturers.
They dont support alpha modulate (no particle fading) nor bilinear filtered alpha textures (you get blocky sprite zooms). Only certain Rage driver packages actually provide HW OpenGL and they ALL are buggy and fix/break stuff among different driver releases</ATI Rage rant off>

Yes, the ATI Rage Pro cards are terrible. Even DirectX does not work properly. I'm not sure about Voodoo cards but I think Dell was selling them like hotcakes years ago.

So right now were trying a simple test. Determine if the pixel buffer is using a hardware format, if so load in Directx. But as you know some of those 3D cards out there will be a real problem.

Another way would be creating a library of video cards then determining there 3D compatibility but that could be thousands of cards and we will never know if it really works?

Does anyone have an answer out there to help determine that a video card is fully supported in DirectX 3D? Would hate to default in SDL, as so much polish and effects would be lost.

Help!

[Glen Pawley]

Every windows98 (and up) computer got a software based OpenGL 1.1 implementation installed by default. Win95 machines require a separate download.

That implementation is S-L-O-W and does NOT support multitexturing (or my code is faulty), so, for all practical purposes, you need a hardware accelerated implementation supplied by the video card vendor. It is supplied as part of driver installation (if vendor provides one for that videocard).

The problem is availability: several common videocards are known for their lack of HW OpenGL drivers or even worse, malfunctioning ones.

I have most experiences in this regard with ATI Rage Pro videocards. They were sold like crazy to be used in corporate desktops and laptop manufacturers.
They dont support alpha modulate (no particle fading) nor bilinear filtered alpha textures (you get blocky sprite zooms). Only certain Rage driver packages actually provide HW OpenGL and they ALL are buggy and fix/break stuff among different driver releases</ATI Rage rant off>

Keep in mind my experience comes as a freelance sysadmin/support so I know they are still in use (desktops at work, second hand market for wintel laptops and Macs from OS9 era), but got no idea if their owners actually buy downloadable games. Their average profile is a PII computer (some PIII too) in my experience.

Other problematic videocards like early Voodoos, Permedias, and the like I suspect are extinct (I never find them in use anymore). Now, I would love to see the stats from actual buyers.

Please note that while old desktop computers just disappear in the recycle bin (thankfully) laptops got a nice resell value (even old ones), are still sold in ebay and cannot be upgraded.

My 2 cents...

Thanks. This helps :)

[Fabio]

Every windows98 (and up) computer got a software based OpenGL 1.1 implementation installed by default. Win95 machines require a separate download.

That implementation is S-L-O-W and does NOT support multitexturing (or my code is faulty),You are correct, that implementation does not support multitexturing.

I have most experiences in this regard with ATI Rage Pro videocards. They were sold like crazy to be used in corporate desktops and laptop manufacturers.
They dont support alpha modulate (no particle fading) nor bilinear filtered alpha textures (you get blocky sprite zooms). With the latter you mean also RGB+Alpha textures, or Alpha-only textures? (you know, in OpenGL you can also have textures which contain only Alpha or only Luminance, i.e. greyscale textures).

My experience with alpha-modulate support was with a SiS 630 chipset in which it works in immediate mode (glBegin/glEnd) but not with glDrawElements.

However, are you certain that these problems persist also with the latest Rage drivers?

[dxgame]

1000s of video cards? SDL, OpenGL, DirectX?? wow.. if you're that concerned with your user base, I would seriously go back to DirectX 3 or 5 and stick with software based rendering. Otherwise make sure it works on the latest Intel On Board GPU, a low spec Geforce, and roll the dice. ;)

[PrefixEx]

This is a very interesting thread; it seems while a lot of machines out there can support a display of 1024 x 768; Most apps or games on machines below 500 MHz with onboard video turn into slideshows at this resolution.

I've been really torn between going either 800x600 or 640x480 (with a strong lean towards 640x480 due to the vast number of crap boxes out there in corporate america)

Is 640x480 too low of a target in 2006?

[princec]

Yes. 8x6 is more like it.

Cas :)