I find PC gaming is slowing down like someone said before, because the graphics are to much for alot of people to be able to run. The average computer user will buy a computer knowing little about it except it may look pretty and ignore key things like the processor and video card. When they buy this computer it will probally be in some lame store that should never be allowed to sell PCs, and will come out with a brand new E-Machines or Compac. I used to have an E-Machines and it seems their goal is to make the shittiest computers possible to lure people, then design their computers so they are only compatible with E-machine upgrades that are hella expensive.

My point is to play games like FEAR, and Oblivion you actually have to know a fair bit about computers and can't impulsivly buy it with little worries like consols. I really want to play Oblivion but my graphics card isn't quite good enough (radeon 9600 pro)

The Sierra Quest games outside of FPSs are what made me an avid PC gamer. With no more of them I don't just dont' care anymore

My point exactly. People buy console games because they're easy to use and you don't need to know a thing about how the damn thing operates. All you need to know to play the game. Pop in a CD and close the tray and the game loads for you. Easy. PCs, you get the "Why does my computer crash when I try to load a game?" "Why is it so slow?" "Why won't it startup?" Let's face it, gamers everywhere are simply either too stupid or not patient enough to deal with these problems.

BTW, when I say decline of PC gaming, I didn't mean there aren't any good games out right now, I'm saying the flow of games has been greatly decreasing. I'm sure the ratio of good:crap games are still there, but because it's so much slower now, It feels like so much longer before we get good games.

Those problems have always been associated with PCs, I don't see why it's even an issue at this point.

Also, it's not like you always need top of the line hardware to play on the PC, unless you're a graphics whore.

I think the minimum requirements now-a-days to run a modern game is more around:

a P4 @ 2.0/AMD Athlon XP 2600+ or AMD64 @ 2.0
nVidia GPU at least in the 6 series 128MB/no idea with ATI series (not a user :P ); more than likely something in the 9000 series??
A gig of ram obviously DDR400/PC3200

Hmm I feel the consoles are going to be the ones on the decline with the high price of the "next gen" consoles that will without a doubt have issues reading games later on in their life span makes buying a PS3/Xbox 360 or WII not worth it... I think the PC should be the prefered platform for developers since it's price does not suck and it costs them nothing to drop games on it.... and oh yeah... the PS3 costs as much as one of those high end PCs now... so yeah...

I can only hope so....I'm an avid PC gamer and I hope good games continue to come out for PC. Not that I don't like Consoles (A Nintendo Fan BTW) but PCs are much more versatile than any Console out on the market right now bar none. Yes, PS3 does cost about as much as a decent PC right about now. Considering that you have been keeping up with your PC, (meaning you kept the stuff you don't need to change, i.e. Case, PSU, Keyboard, Mouse, Monitor, Speakers, etc.) a decent upgrade for a PC is about $500*. Coming in at about $100 less than a PS3. That is an upgrade that is capable of playing all the latest games mind you.

*This price is on Newegg. It's an Athlon 64 4000+ Processor with Compatible Mobo and a Radeon X1800GTO and 1 GB of RAM.

A high end PC costs $600? Thats news to me.

Nah, A decent PC costs about $600 though. That's not one capable of playing Oblivion, granted, but a stock PC will be able to play Oblivion once you drop another $150 on a decent Graphics card like the GeForce 7600GT.

A $600 PC with a moderate video card isn't going to get as good of a performance as a Xbox360, though. (On Oblivion, I mean) Maybe if you change 600 to somewhere in the 800~900 range it would be more believable.

I really haven't noticed the decline of PC gaming but to be honest 90% of the games on my PC are either RTS games or turn based strategy games. I tend to favor console gaming for all the other games I enjoy. It's been a bit lackluster recently in strategy games lately. Empire at War dissapointed. Ditto for D&D Dragonshard. The Winter Assault Expansion felt like too small of an update to Dawn of War for my tastes. I am rather happy with Galactic Civilizations II though. On the other hand I'm used to slow periods between good strategy games. Console gaming has pretty much destroyed PC gaming's golden age. After all why blow $1500 on a PC when you can spend $400 on a 360?

WTF?
A low end PC costs 700€.
A moderate PC costs 1500€.
A good PC costs 3500€.
A high end PC costs 8000€.

A excelent PC costs over 15000€.

You doubt? Just go to Alienware choose workstations and start pumping it up, before you kow it the bill will be in $14000
Of course this is not a gaming PC but a work PC (as in Pixar like work PCs).

And I take console over PC any day because PC games are mostly stratagy and FPS.

First of all, Why the hell are you going to Alienware? They're overpriced as hell. If you made your own, I guarantee you I can make a Computer capable of playing Oblivion with $1000 USD.

EDIT: I'll prove it to you.....Assuming you kept everything else I didn't list....

Albatron K8SLi Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail - $69.99
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester 2000MHz HT 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 Dual Core Processor - Retail - $357.00
XFX PVT70GUDF7 Geforce 7800GT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 VIVO PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail - $289.00
Patriot Signature Series 1GB (2 x 512MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM Unbuffered DDR 400 (PC 3200) Dual Channel Kit System Memory - Retail - $79.99

Hell I think that's all you need. What is that? $70 + $357 + $289 + $80 = $796. One of your "low-end" PCs. We can make more cuts on it too and I'd be sure that it could still play Oblivion. Granted $600 was as bit low, but a Low-End does not start at $700.

Proof that it plays Oblivion? My piece of shit Dell plays oblivion running a Intel P4 Prescott 2.8GHz plays Oblivion very well with a GeForce 6600GT and 896MB RAM (3x128 + 1x512). Now you can't tell me that one above can't cut it.

Dude... I said: "Of course this is not a gaming PC but a work PC (as in Pixar like work PCs)."

You may run any game on a 700€ machine but that doesn't mean it is a high end or excelent machine machine.
You were talking about a Athlon64 with 1 Gb of RAM and a game graphic card.
I'm talking about a system with 2 AMD Opteron CPUs, a professional graphic card (QuadroFX) and 16 (sixteen) Gb of RAM! Granted this is only for professional work only but this is indeed the most high end machine you can get in desktop/workstation level. More powerfull than this and you have to move to servers/supercomputers or Beowulf clusters.

Stop being a moron, we're obviously talking about high end GAMING PCs. The operative word being GAMING.

We don't give a damn what Pixar uses for their high end PCs.

PC Gaming isn't on the decline because of hardware. PC Games have always fluctuated in 3 to 4 year cycles where the new stuff won't work with older hardware. Perhaps some of you don't remember when you couldn't play 66mhz games with 33mhz processors, but I do.

There's a huge base of gamers that do know the ins-and-outs of their PCs, and do pay the money to keep up in terms of the hardware. That's because a lot of PC Gamers aren't 13, and actually have paying jobs and an income. You're also paying for more than just a gaming platform when you buy a PC. It doesn't matter if you can use a mouse and keyboard on an Xbox, nobody is going to game on it like they do a PC. Using it as so is just redundant, and leads to a lot of software compatibility issues.

Consoles are starting to lose a lot of the appeal they used to have. It's getting to the point where you can't even purchase complete games anymore. The online sweetspot has given console developers casus belli to justify early releases followed by the extensive patching that has plagued PC Gaming since its inception. The pre-requisite of unstable HD standards is also going to create huge dents in gamer's pocketbooks, since they'll be shelling out over a thousand dollars for a television that may not even be viable in the next two years in addition to the original 300-600 dollars they payed for the console. The only company that isn't adopting these trends seems to be Nintendo, which is why the Wii will be the first Nintendo console I've owned since the original NES.

The fact of the matter is that consoles are beginning to cost as much to make as mid-range PCs. The PS3 costs over a thousand dollars US to make, yet Sony is only selling it for 600 in the hopes that software sales will subsidize their cost of production. That's a lot of games for the average owner to buy, which is pushing it, since the lowest common denominator isn't like you and me, and has an extensive game library.

PC Gaming is on the decline because PC games suck. Don't believe me? Let's take a look at the big genres as they stand today compared to a couple years ago.

Modern Role Playing games barely qualify as roleplaying experiences to begin with. I don't see how you can say roleplaying gamers are sure to love Oblivion when that title has more in common with Grand Theft Auto than franchises like Fallout, KOTOR, and the early Ultima series that create tangible consequences in the game world based on the player's choices. Low-budget offerings are on the right track, but they get no real exposure. That a lot of them tend to be developed in Europe doesn't help either.

First Person Shooters are a dime a dozen. HL2 had great single player and multiplayer, but it serves more as a springboard for Steam than anything else. Valve's pay-to-play content doesn't hold a candle to what free mods used to offer. I love DoD: Source, but it doesn't hold a candle to the original Day of Defeat in terms of what it offers. 3rd parties can't just code-in the British, after all. HL2:ep1 is the same stuff you played in the original HL2, only with an incremental story progression and more shots of Alyx's ass. Everybody likes the first Sin episode, of course, but there's a very legitimate concern over whether or not 6 hours of gameplay is worth 20 dollars.

Doom3 was a great single player experience, but its multiplayer is very noob-hostile in terms of its accessibility (people who have played Quake 3 for the past 6 years are much more knowlegeable of Id's engine dynamics than people like me). Quake 4, not surprisingly was phenomenally average, and Call of Duty 2 lacked some of the lustre of its predecessor while offering little more in terms of its multiplayer. It also doesn't help, I suppose, that a lot of these titles are cross-platform releases, and as a result have been "dumbed down" by PC standards.

RTSes are just lame. I'm sorry, but whether it's Swords and Sworcery, or starships and phasers, it's all the same shit from a decade ago. RTSes are only truly great when the playable factions are well balanced between each other, and the gameplay actually involves a level of strategy. Supreme Commander seems poised to offer these, but the rest of the genre falls flat on its face. Even the sweetspot tactical RTSes are lacking in a lot of respects. Having to cater to their small online element, Rome: Total War had AI that was even dumber than in Medieval, and the player could simply hold back and decimate the AI with arrows before moving in for the kill. Granted, this is how the English defeated the French with the longbow, but the difference between the French and Rome's AI is that the French actually fought.

Other than that, I honestly can't comment much on RTSes. The Warhammer 40k game Dawn of War seemed pretty solid, but I could only repeat what I've heard through 2nd hand.

Honestly, what's going to save PC Gaming is digital distribution and its accessibility to independant developers. Steam is great and all but Valve makes a lot of shady business practices, which is why the advent of Galactic Civilizations 2 has proven the viability of the PC as a future gaming platform.

Galciv2 proved a lot of things:

1. Copy Protection is horseshit. Galciv2 had no cd copy protection, and yet it still rose to the top of Wal-Mart's retail charts. This disproves the notion that gaming sales have gone down because of piracy, as opposed to the fact that PC games just suck.

2. Digital Distribution is a great way to make more money for developers. With the distributor taken out of the picture, that means a bigger slice of the pie for developers themselves, which supplements the cost of developing the next project. Galciv2 itself wouldn't have been possible if it hadn't been for the online success of the Windows Galciv, which created a lot of revenue for Stardock. Not bad for a 10 man development team, eh?

3. People aren't interested in the name as much as they are by the gameplay. Publishers latch onto franchises like they were candy found on the street, preserved in its wrapper. Fallout, Ultima, X-Com, Command & Conquer, countless franchises have fallen by the wayside because their sequels failed to offer experiences that satisfied the original fandom. Galciv 2 proved this by offering gameplay that Masters of Orion fans loved, but wasn't offered at all in MOO3. It isn't about the name of the game that draws people, or even the narrative. It's the game.

The future of PC gaming depends in a large part on how many companies are willing to follow Stardock's example. The end result would be a lot of low-budget titles that are accessible and fun to play while making the process viable to independant developers. Sure you'd still have your big-budget successes like your FEARs, and Half-Life 2s, but niche gaming is what will support the PC as a gaming platform, and really that's what PC Gaming has always been to the mainstream: a niche.

What do you mean? There are persons how like to play with keyboard + mouse rathar than a gamepad? What has it to do with decline of the PC gaming?

I for one think patches in consoles are god sent, devs just can't spend that much time hunting bugs to meet the deadlines so patching is really needed. Even if they have the time some bugs will pass by their QA team so patch is teh good.
Of course abuse is abuse and they shouldn't release early titles and then patch them 999999 times. And I haven't understood this sentence: "It's getting to the point where you can't even purchase complete games anymore."

Again? This argument is getting tired, the X360 doesn't require any HDTV, it supports it but will also work on any TV that has a SCART or composite plugs, i.e. any TV that's not 20 years old. I still don't know about the PS3 but I doubt they'll require anything asides the SCART/composite. This is the so called 'Wii talk' where Nintendo fans rant against XBox360/PS3 pseudo requirements...

Go figure... the Wii also connects to the internet so there's space for 99999 patches games too. If Nintendo blocks patches then you're left with buggy games. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And the Wii also 'requires' LCD TV. i.e. It doesn't, like the X360/PS3 it only requires a special TV for special functions (progressive scan in this case).

The subsidized consoles are a wierd problem, if they aren't subsidized they'll cost more, if they do the games cost more... troublesome indeed. Anyway you can get a 360 for 300€, I dare you to find/build a PC with the same horsepower a 360 has for just 300€.

I sure do! I only play emulated games (Megadrive/PSX) on PC, so you bet I do.

Depends on the prices and conditions, for example some time ago I wanted to buy Legacy of Kain: Defiance, if I bought as a digital ditribuition I would pay 20€, I would need to activate it and then reactivate everytime I play it on a diferent PC. That means this PC would need to be connected to the internet, if it wasn't I wouldn't be able to play, plus you only get 5 free reactivations then you have to pay again for a game that it's yours.
The retail/CD version costs 8€...

SO TRUE!! This is what RIAA (in USA), game publishers, you name it need to understand. In fact I remember a very nice quote from someone in a forum:
"It's funnier to try and break a game copy protection than to play the game itself."

As I said it depends on the method.

PC lacks variety in games.
PC games need Patches and fixes after release in other words they are not optimized well for all cards.(FEAR for example,200 mb patch that's ridiculous).
PC needs upgrades every year,new tech comes in which then is applied in new games making your card obsolete.
PC is HD less.
How many of you guys think ,your PC can run upcoming CRYSIS?...lol.

PC is best for repetitive online games,RTS and FPS with refurbished ideas.
PC lacks creativity.
Evry PC hit also comes on consoles.
PC share of market is 8%(actiontrip).

Yeah PC is DEAD.

True
So do console games, just because there weren't any 'till now doesn't mean they didn't re

True and these upgrades are expensive.

WTF? Are you dumb? PC have been HD capable for years, PCs have been HD capable since Windows 95, maybe with (lots of) limitation be able anyway.

True... PC games are boring

PC doesn't lack anything, it's just a machine therefor has no creativity or any other feeling/thought.

True, at least the for the kind of games I like.

Have no clue

The PC is a machine and has no life, therefor it can't die. But it can burn :lolsign:

It's a pre-emptive argument against people who would use mouse and keyboard attachments on their consoles to get PC-like controls with First Person Shooters while also acting as a double-whammy to defend against people that mod their Xboxes to function like computers.

The idea being that it isn't the platform that is the problem.

A "Complete Game" has certain connotations for a lot of people, but in this case I'm referring specifically to the issues that are involved in a game launch. It used to be, before you could patch games, that releases needed to be bug-free in order to sell well. It didn't matter what speed internet connection you had, it didn't even matter if you did have the internet, it wasn't an issue. That was one of the benefits to console gaming that can no longer be particularly touted.

Nintendo becomes the exception, since even though they're starting to receive a lot of 3rd party support, they're still requiring all games to have a seal of approval. This is a kind of quality assurance that doesn't exist anywhere anymore.

Yet they do require High Definition televisions to enable a lot of their features, as well as provide imagery that competes with the current level of PC graphical capabilities. In short, I hope you enjoy paying money for features you can't use.

Which fails to take into account Nintendo's quality assurance. If anything, the Wii being connected to the internet will mean more downloadable content as opposed to required patches. Granted, this does leave the gate open for them, but doing so means that Nintendo has given up on part of the business practice that has made them such a successful niche group.

I don't intend to. On the other hand, you can use the PC for more than just gaming. If we get down to la nitty gritty, I COULD build a PC with the same horsepower as a 360 if it meant that I wouldn't have necessary components for, like, having a PC. What people predominantly associate with gaming in terms of PCs, the video cards, are only half the cost of the current consoles if you're buying last-generation or last-iteration video cards, which would last you about 3 to 4 years as it was.

See, this is the flaming retard realm of Digital Distribution, and fails to take into account anything that makes it beneficial to both the developer, and the consumer. I mean, honestly, when you can have your own copy for half the price, why even bother in the first place?

Double Post:
devil already covered a few things, so I'm going to pick up his slack.

Nigger please. As if your anime-fighter battle menus, platformers, and beat-em-ups are anything to shake a stick at.

This is horseshit. Who has even had to upgrade their hardware in a year unless they've bought aging cards to begin with? Upgrading PC hardware is all about making large jumps as opposed to keeping up with the pace of what's "hip" and "happenin."

OH GOOOOD I CAN'T ENABLED HDR LIGHTING WHAT WILL BECOME OF MY GAMING EXPERIENCE!!!!!? =(((((((

Just the ones with 64-bit processors and decent video cards. If I made the leap to 64-bit I could run Crysis with the rest of my hardware. Closer inspection of Crysis, however, reveals a graphical and gaming leap that's extraordinarily incremental.

Here's footage of chinks in a jungle! Trees fall down! EXCITING!

I'm not even going to touch repetition again. You're failing to take into account, though, the kind of point-and-click interface that makes the PCRPG. I'd like to see drag-and-drop menu systems and radial combat menus on the console. Oh wait, you can't have those, I forgot. :)

http://www.armchairempire.com/images...xenosaga_3.jpg

=/

To be played with an inferior control scheme, and more often than not, inferior graphics. Oh wait, I forgot, you can pay 20 more dollars for the same game on the 360. Silly me. :)

Well I'd like to see how RE4 and DMC3 turn out on PC... Onimusha 3's port wasn't great, but it was fairly decent. I love to see console only games get ported to PC, they will definitely improve the variety we are limited to right now.

I think Bradylama got most of it already, but nevertheless....

Um....I think he means that there is simply no reason to buy such an accessory since those who own XBOXes are not going to play a game in a Keyboard/Mouse fashion, or else, they'd just buy the PC game instead. Regardless, any game that is a console exclusive is probably mapped out for a controller and not a keyboard, making the keyboard ultimately unnecessary.

Um....I was under the impression that the use of patches was always a crutch that PC gamers faced in order to get a product out on time. THey would usually code the program game quickly to meet deadlines and then iron out the bugs later. So, patches aren't a good thing. Alternatively, they could just push the damn deadline back and ensure a quality product in order to negate the need for patches, because, let's face it, it's a pain in the ass to go out and get the patches. Hopefully, we get back on topic of PC Gaming not a PC vs Console war.

Ditto on the first part.

So....why are we talking about consoles again? BTW, I think the argument against the PS3/360 is that if you paid that much for a console, you expect it to deliver what it promises. Since both companies have been boasting about HDTV for so long, I, as a consumer, want to be guaranteed that this console will do what they've been saying. Now that you come out with a console and tell me that it can only do it on a more expensive version, I'm going to be pissed. It's a requirement in that they've been boasting that and not delivering it universally.

Bradylama already responded to this. So whatever.

For the most part, you should already have a PC that is up to date with modern games, or at least decently up to date. In that case, All you need to do is to pop a $150 on a decent video card and up your RAM if you need to. 1GB RAM is about $80, so yeah, that's less than $300. Now, if you don't have a computer, I suspect you probably don't have an HDTV either.

Something I agree on. Not that they suck, but they're beginning to suck. Emulators for me!:biggrin:

Now this dumbass.....

1. There's quite a bit of variety in PC games. I can't say I'm a fan of all of them, but I know they exsist.

2. I agree that patches are somewhat crutches to an extent for PC Gaming

3. Only if you're a graphics whore who notices the minute differences between a 7800GTX and a 7900GTX.

4. My current Resolution: 1280x1024.

5. Touche. But I know my friend can. (Athlon 64 X2 3800+, 1GB RAM, GeForce 7600GT)

EDIT: Hell, even I can....

Quote:

CPU: Athlon 64 3200+/Intel 5xx series Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0) RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista HDD: 6GB Internet: 256k+ Optical Drive : DVD Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP

That move to a 64-bit system....

Intel Pentium 4 506 Prescott 533MHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - Retail - $91.99

6. Bullshit. There have been plenty of new ideas that come to PCs oustide of RTS and FPS. Considering how you forgot MMOs. I guess you haven't read through the previous posts.

7. See Above.

8. Yeah, but significantly inferior quality.

OK, I'm done now, can we get back to PC Gaming?

I tried Oblivion again, and now that I've explored a bit more of the game, I'd have to agree, it's a bit more fun than what I frst said it was. (Now I don't have to spend 3 days finding out where I'm going. I finally found the Fast Travel method. :doh:

Never tried clicking on something on your map, huh?

Skexis brought up Spore in my chocojournal, and that seems to be a game that'll blow people's minds. Biosphere is also set to offer a great horror roleplaying experience. Sure it'll be on the Xbox360, but do you really want to play it on an Xbox? =/

PC Gaming may not be dying yet.

Ok first lets do rundown

Best of PC

WoW=MMORPG

Crysis
Farcry
HL2
Fear
Fear 2(inevitable)
Prey
CallofDuty 1,2 and 3
Unreal series
Quake series
Doom3
Sin
You can name any other technically sound and hit pc game ,it would be definatley FPS.

All are FPS with refurbished gameplay,but same run,hide and shoot affair.Superficial gameplay changes like physics.

But still, mother of all FPS came to Xbox and it was HALO,HALO 2 sold 125$ on first day,created entertainment history.End of argument,biggest evidence.

PC 'thinks' about FPS only but one console FPS fucks all its FPS games skyhigh,pity.

When i said VARIETY i meant more GENRE'S.More than 3 i.e RTS,MMORPG and FPS.

What Consoles gave us

Zelda series (wait for twilight princess).
Metroid prime(Hybrid genre)
MGS series(stealth action)
Fighting games like DOA,Tekken,SoulCaliber,you cant even begin to imagine playing fighting games on PC...lol
GT series(racing)
PGR series

Mario,i don't like it but ppl dig it.(platformer)
Jak and Daxter,Ratchet series

HALO series.(Fps)

FinalFantasy series.(RPG)

I dont have to mention games like ICO,Shadow of the colossus and god of war because it already too much and list of consoles variety never ends.

And now every developer is considering 360 first and ideal platform.
Id software and Valve for example.
Even Oblivion developers made the controls more friendly on 360 version,
How?(check the gamespot review for details).

Bradylama:From creativity i meant games like ICO,Shadow of the Colossus,Katamari to name a few.
I didn't mean new FPS with advanced shader model and physics.
Name the games on PC which you think is creative then i iwll counter you ,dont throw one pic from console huge library,to satisfy yourself.

And BTW, Console library(of good games) is way bigger than PC's.

PC lacks japanese support.

Wii and its remote is another SLAP on PC.That what i call gaming.
Gaming is not about Shaders and HDR, its way beyond that.

Reggie nicely said,Games are not about souping up existng formula like you customize your car thats one vehicle
Its about giving you entirely new dimesnion of interactivity and concepts.An entirely new vehicle.

'PC is dead because No gameplay innovations'.

You're using games that haven't been previewed, much less released as evidence. They can't possibly be the "best of PC" if they aren't available. I could list some games like Warhammer 40,000, Black & White 2, or classics like Bad Mojo, Fallout, Baldur's Gate, and so on, but in my eyes it's hard to make a claim for the decline of PC gaming in the first place, considering most if not all console games eventually find their way into user's windows-operated machines.

Example: KOTOR is one of my favorite games...for the PC.
Prince of Persia was fantastic...played on my PC.
Fahrenheit is a new classic for me. I have it...for PC.

Getting back to playing older games on PC, though: the accessibility of PC systems is what often makes me prefer a game on PC rather than on console. Knowing that I can install or uninstall it pretty much at leisure (rather than requiring a backwards-compatibility module on my console) is reassuring. How do I know how long they'll let me play the PSX version of Street Fighter Alpha 3? Will I have to drag my dusty old PS2 out of the closet some time in the future to play a round or two, disc read errors and all?

Now, console exclusives exist, sure. PC exclusives exist as well. Trying to compare the two is apples and oranges, because the developers just want to make a buck. If they can do that by offering console exclusivity, they'll do it. If they see that there is a market for certain kinds of games on a certain kind of console (the way many people said RPGs was a Sony-owned market for the longest time) then you can damn well bet they'll put their game where ti will have the best effect, for the least cost.
Saying that developers are abandoning the PC because the exclusives you've seen are all the same kind of game doesn't hold up. What you're really saying is that all of the games with the most publicity (i.e. the most money riding on their success, i.e. the most parent company clout) show up the most in stores and magazine ads. And that's true. I don't think innovation necessarily means abandoning an audience at its most rapt, however. I may have played Blade Runner before, but that doesn't necessarily mean I won't enjoy Syberia or Dreamfall.

This is all still bullshit politics. Saying "computer < consoles lol" doesn't earn you any street cred, okay?