PC releases are under scrutiny as of late. When compared to their console counterparts, PC games more frequently experience anything from immense graphical glitches to game breaking bugs regardless of an individual’s specific build. And since many high-end rigs cost upwards of thousands of dollars, questions often arise as to why so many titles launch in unplayable states.
Games like The Last of Us Part 1 Remake, Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, Redfall, and even Final Fantasy 7 Remake recently suffered from ports that required extensive post-launch patches to fix. Speaking with IGN, three experts familiar with porting games to PC discuss the challenges of porting, the complexities behind changing control methods, and how studios can work to potentially eliminate rough launches.
Challenging PC Ports
To the average player, it may be confusing when a PC game with a simultaneous release on consoles fails to function. If the price is the same and the overall content of the game is identical, regardless of platform, why are there such stark differences with performance? Senior staff writer and video producer for Digital Foundry John Linneman says that one of the primary problems with bugs may be PC gaming’s biggest selling point – customizable systems.
“One of the biggest hurdles is the variety of hardware configurations available – consoles are fixed platforms, but PCs are wide open,” Linneman said. “Any user can have a PC built from a variety of parts running a different operating system with different drivers. For games that push the visual envelope, this can put a lot of stress on the hardware, resulting in sub-par performance for some users. There are only so many permutations a developer can test while building their game, so it’s very likely that upon release, day-one buyers will immediately uncover issues that require patching.”
There are only so many permutations a developer can test while building their game.
Beyond a PC build, the overall design of games and their specific engines may initially be incompatible with PCs. The process of porting is not the result of a direct transfer of files or an action as simple as copying and pasting programs. Linneman notes that the engines for Jedi: Survivor and TLOU Part 1 Remake notoriously suffer from PC-related issues that require additional time and resources to fix. And when people continue to build vastly different rigs, developers need to account for each new scenario accompanied with pieces of hardware and software.
“[Star Wars] Jedi: Survivor, for example, is an Unreal Engine 4 title that exhibits some of the pitfalls we commonly see in games built with Unreal. Just-in-time PSO stuttering, poor CPU threading, and traversal stuttering are just three of the problems found in this game. The Last of Us Part 1 has similar issues, but the cause of these issues is different. I imagine it’s due to the very different underlying technology – it doesn’t use the Unreal Engine, and the original version was made specifically for one console. Unreal is purpose-built for multiplatform development, but until last year Naughty Dog had yet to release any of its modern games on the PC.”
Regardless of the issue, each PC port requires careful and explicit attention. Simultaneous launches are possible, but as Linneman explains, studios need to be aware of potential bugs and glitches by regularly testing games. Without dedicated resources, PC ports will continue to struggle with releases.
Redstart Interactive’s head of design and engineering Jon Lawitts notes that smaller studios may only support development for a single platform due to time and resources. While larger studios generally have more people on their teams, as well as a familiarity with multiple simultaneous platform launches, issues like budget and deadlines can affect any game.
“Small studios – and sometimes large ones as well – will launch their game on a single platform that they have tested well in order to start generating some revenue,” Lawitts says. “Then later down the road launch on additional platforms once they see some traction with their initial launch.”
Customizing Controls
While most PC launchers and systems include controller functionality, ports can occasionally suffer from poor control schemes and improper mouse support. Lawitts explores the causes of this issue, noting that it’s far more complex than assumed.
“The ergonomics of using mouse and keyboard feels significantly different from a controller, and often means a significant redesign of all the games’ controls,” Lawitts said. “On controllers players can move the joysticks a variable amount, changing the speed or movement. On the keyboard this isn’t possible. Similarly with a mouse or touch screen you can point to an exact position, whereas with a controller any position is relative.”
These variances between inputs impact all aspects of a game. From combat to traversal, mechanics are drastically altered on different controller types. Even actions as crucial as accessing menus can feel bogged down or even fail to work without proper support. For example, the PC port of Gotham Knights prohibited mouse movements and key customizations in certain scenarios, like examining the investigation board or driving the Batcycle during its launch.
While patches were eventually added to rectify these issues in Gotham Knights, initial gameplay experiences negatively impacted numerous players, and especially disabled individuals. And it’s far from the only game with this issue. Lawitts explains that seamless mouse and keyboard experiences are crucial to a successful port.
Sequences and move combinations that felt seamless on controllers can feel dramatically different on keyboard and mouse.
“Any differences in the input design also means changes to tutorials, menus, and other UI elements to accommodate the PC player” Lawitts said. “Sequences and move combinations that felt seamless and accessible to the player on controllers can feel dramatically different on keyboard and mouse and we need to find a way on the keyboard to bring that satisfying feeling back to the player.”
For disabled players who are unable to use different methods, PC ports with ineffective mouse and keyboard implementations add unnecessary barriers on top of bugs and glitches. While this is primarily an accessibility issue that affects physically disabled individuals, unusable mouse and keyboard controls are problematic for everyone. From able-bodied people to those with temporary disabilities like broken arms or fingers, poor controls can ruin an experience.
It’s one thing when PC ports experience immense bugs and glitches. But when combined with game-breaking occurrences and unusable control schemes, players are left unable to play the newest releases. And it’s ultimately up to developers to ensure that their launches are as smooth and accessible as possible.
Developer Support
No studio or developer wants to release an unfinished or broken game. Countless hours and resources are reflected in the final product and when PC ports arrive in incomplete states, both developers and consumers feel the impact. This doesn’t mean that polished PC ports aren’t possible, but rather require specific attention to deliver entertaining experiences. Modder, creator of DSfix, and co-founder of PH3 games Peter Thoman encourages studios to actively invest in proper PC port support. As hardware and software continues to advance, studios need to account for as many PC build scenarios as possible.
“Test on a variety of hardware and software configurations, and with a variety of settings, as early as possible,” Thoman said. “If you are a large publisher and can therefore easily afford to do this in-house, then do it. But if you are not, then you can still do things like closed external beta tests. You really shouldn’t need to rely on bug reports from your customers to get your first test results on relatively common OS, GPU or CPU architectures.”
Within the testing, Thoman emphasizes the importance of software design. Issues like the “framerate your game is running at, the resolution, its aspect ratio, the specific inputs and so on” are relatively easy when explored from the beginning. Thoman notes that the longer studios wait to address these issues, the more costly they become. But more importantly, he wants developers to stop limiting players to specific hardware and software scenarios. With the customizability of PCs, studios cannot focus on a small number of build potentials.
People appreciate having flexibility, even if not every single combination of all options is rigorously tested throughout the entire game.
“Provide as many options as you can, in all of gameplay, input, output, and graphics and performance scaling,” Thoman said. “You never know exactly what devices people will want or have to use with your game, or what scenarios they are going to play in. People appreciate having flexibility, even if not every single combination of all options is rigorously tested throughout the entire game – if you fix an obscure issue with one particular combination of options after launch, no one is going to be all too upset.”
Beyond accounting for the unique and individualistic natures of PCs, Thoman also advises developers to shy away from utilizing APIs and libraries that are uncommon. By choosing these tools, it places more emphasis on players’ systems, resulting in more frequent bugs and glitches. In other words, mainstream is the way to go.
“Minimize your reliance on more obscure Windows APIs and non-standard libraries,” Thoman said. “One particular example of this is using the Windows Media Foundation to access audio/video codecs for playback. Not only will that likely be annoying for Steam Deck and Linux users, relying on external components on the users’ system also means you open yourself up to bugs in those. With great patent-free open-source options available these days it’s much better to ship your own codecs.”
When examining the topic of optimizing ports, Thoman acknowledges that certain APIs are actually detrimental to quality. Since PCs are generally becoming more powerful, APIs not designed for better graphics can cause many of the issues as seen in games like The Last of Us Part 1 Remake.
“However, when it comes to optimizing that port, and providing a high-quality experience tailored to the PC use case, I don’t think things have gotten much easier,” Thoman said. “In fact, one might argue that lower-level APIs in graphics put more of a burden on game developers to ensure good performance, and complex middleware layers might make it more difficult to diagnose and fix fundamental engine performance issues. Just look at the large number of AAA Unreal Engine games which ship with similar stutter issues.”
PC ports are a strange topic. From graphical to game breaking glitches to controls that create unintentional barriers, it’s frustrating when AAA games are severely hindered on PC. But as technology progresses, developers and studios can devote resources to creating ports that are just as smooth as their console counterparts. Deadlines and budgets can affect development across all platforms and studio sizes, ultimately impacting the quality of ports. And with each troublesome release, Thoman hopes studios are open with their struggles. Not only does transparency benefit everyone, but he also believes the PC community can help developers if needed. And with the complexity of ports, more help is always welcome.
“Keep everything as open as possible and communicate with your audience,” Thoman said. “There are a lot of savvy people in the PC audience. If you try to hide things from them or try to spin some elaborate tale rather than admitting an error, that probably won’t work out. On the other hand, if you openly communicate – and ideally, are also open in your software to the maximum extent feasible, regarding e.g., file formats or encryption – then the community can actually be a huge asset.”
About Post Author
