[PC] Decline of PC Gaming?

I don't know if it's just me, but I think the PC games industry has been in a slight decline over the years. Maybe it's just me refusing to play a MMO, which seems to be what is flooding the PC library right now. It just seems that my favorite genres on the PC are somewhat either declining in quality or quantity. RTS games have alwasy been a favorite of mine in the PC world, but I think the last good RTS game that came out (IMO) was Age of Empires 3. I tried Rise of Legends because Rise of Nations was good, and I was severely disappointed. I'm still waiting for a direct sequel to Starcraft, my personal favorite RTS game of all time. And Warcraft 3, for how much it was hyped, sucked ass in my opinion. FPS games fare a bit better in that most of them are still fun. FEAR, Quake4, and hell, even the CS series is still gold. But this seems to have slowed down somewhat as well I haven't seen a good FPS since FEAR, so I dunno. RPGs outside of MMOs have been one of my favorites, but they're just about nonexistent in the PC world. I guess you could make a case for Oblivion, but I felt Oblivion was a little too open ended for my taste. It ended up feeling like a MMORPG without the "MO", leaving a Massive Role Playing Game. I dunno if it's just me, but the lack of any real direction kinda ruined it for me. The last RPG that was decent in my opinion was Fallout. I dunno....have I just not been looking hard enough, or are my tastes just too refined?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Hmm....so my tastes are just really refined then.....What are some good games that you would recommend that are big? For one thing, I was never a fan of sports games or fighting games. To an extent I never got into Sim games either. I like the old school RTS games, FPS games are usually fun, and I guess the traditional RPG type game would be my third in terms of PC genres. Most other ones generally don't fit my preferences for PC games.

Most amazing jew boots

Yeah, I've got Oblivion, but for some reason, it just feels TOO open ended for me. That and it's not exactly a true RPG per se. Rather, it mixes too many genres together....There is indeed the RPG element as well as a somewhat FPS element but with sword fighting, and then a massive MMO world. It's the latter two that I don't like in my RPGs. FPS element is fine, but I don't like the FPS + Swordplay. MMOs, like I've said, is somewhat too open. Maybe, it'll just take some getting used to....I dunno, any other suggestions?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Wow, I haven't checked this thread in a while and it exploded....

But yeah, I see that it's not just me seeing a decline in PC games. I personally prefer PC games to most other Console Games:

1. Completely configurable, Able to strike a balance of performance and quality to fit personal tastes.

2. Much more personalization of games. (i.e. customizable characters like whoa as opposed to "unlockable costumes" of the consoles, which are near pointless)

3. Better Multiplayer online than any console out on the market. (or at least ultimately less headaches getting it to work)

4. No Split Screen Multiplayer (at least for the most part. This pissed me off the most on many console games)

That said.....PC gaming I still feel is on the decline:

1. Harder and harder to keep up with the technology curve (at for graphic whores) with nVidia and ATI releasing a card like every 3 months.

2. PC games right about now are getting relatively few good games with more console-to-PC ports and games that are absolute crap.

3. As I said before, PC library is filling up with MMOs which personally, I'm not a fan of.

I think point 1 will probably correct itself soon with pricetags on the PS3 and XBOX360. With the cheapest of each at $499 and $299, respectively, the same money could get you a very nice graphics card....I'm talkin about cards in the high range with GeForce 7900GT ringing in at about $309.99 or a Radeon X1800XT at $319.00 (prices courtesey of newegg.com). Afterwards though, with the complete control of Performance/Quality comes a complicated process, especially those who aren't that bright technologically. It's a long process for the impatient, compared to the time it takes to pop in a game like Halo 2 to properly configuring F.E.A.R for fun gameplay, the difference is quite a bit. Then again, if you're playing F.E.A.R, you should already know how to configure it quickly, so it won't be that much of a problem, so at any rate, that'll fix itself too.

Now, the only problem is the problem of the games. As said before, the library is filling up with MMOs, Crap, More Crap, and Console-to-PC Ports, which count usually as even more crap. This is not to say there are no good games coming out or already out, because F.E.A.R is a damn good game with an expansion coming out some time soon. Classics will always stay (Starcraft, Counter-strike, Quake/Doom series, etc.), and I'm sure good games will continue to come out. It's just recently been somewhat slowing.

Originally Posted by Djehwty

my theory's always been that there will always be a "decline" as long as things are dynamic. for as long as there is change there is deviation from earlier times. i dunno if it's just nostalgia or our tastes in certain things become set in stone at a certain point in our lives, but a lot of us are resistant to changes... i guess especially in video games.

example: just think about sitting in front of the tv playing round robin style mario kart on the snes..... or is that just me? well insert your own example and you'll find as graphics and technology go "up", we're more likely to be disappointed by a lack in actual fun.

for those who didn't want to read the whole post, my theory (i repeat, theory) is the "fault" is in our expectations and not the games themselves.

I'm somewhat ambivalent with your theory personally as my expectations haven't changed. I've always prefered traditional games over those that are overly revised. I'd take Final Fantasy VI over Final Fantasy XI any day, Similarly, I'd prefer Starcraft over Warcraft III. That is not to say new games all suck, because I'd prefer F.E.A.R over any Resident Evil and Quake 4 over any other Quake. I'm just saying that games that are deviating too far away from the original formula for those games I tend to alienate myself from. A good example is Tony Hawk series, where the first game and the second game were fun games (That is Tony Hawk Pro Skater 1 and 2). The Tony Hawk Underground 2 revision is pretty much crap. Alternatively, there are always some good, new ideas that are worth trying and become genuinely fun. While there aren't many nowadays, there was a time when some of our systems were newly invented and unheared of before, including the ATB system in the Final Fantasy series or the idea of a real time strategy before it exploded. I personally saw the ATB system a unique characteristic of the Final Fantasy Series. Now that they have ditched it in their newest games, I have lost contact with the Final Fantasy series somewhat.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by The Ghost

I personally believe PC gaming is going down hard. Mainly because everyone is trying to bring better graphics with each game and its hard as hell to keep up with technology. I read above someone said oblivion is great? yes it really is it does kick alot of ass, BUT! right now it has a ton of problems crashing of all sorts, im waiting on a patch myself and then ill play it again. PC gaming i think will die from hacing to upg your computer all the time to be able to play when you could just buy a console and them last 5-7 years and no extra hardware needed other than controllers or maybe memory cards.

That was back in the day when consoles did not sell for that much. Nowadays, the price of two decent graphics cards will cost about as much as a console (referring to PS3 and XBOX360). So if you see it this way, You could get midrange cards everytime at about $100-$200 price range. Those will be sufficient to play the games. Like Oblivion....I'm running a Pentium 4 2.8GHz with 896MB PC3200 RAM and a GeForce 6600GT. It runs fine at framerates ranging from 30-50FPS.

Most amazing jew boots

Maybe I need to give Oblivion a second chance, but I've already played through Half Life 2, and there's no compelling reason, for me anyways, to play through it again. Maybe I should check out KOTOR. I've never been a fan of Star Wars, but this might be a turn for the better. I'll give it a try. I've never heard of Condemned: Criminal Origins, but I'll look for that too. Thanks.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by scotty

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)

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Kuhazan

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Stealth

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

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?

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.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

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.

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.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

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."

Ditto on the first part.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

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...

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.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

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).

Bradylama already responded to this. So whatever.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

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€.

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.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

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

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

Now this dumbass.....

Originally Posted by Sexninja

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.

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:

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Sexninja

The last thing you can do(once you are cornered) is to ban.
This shows how cheap you can get, and further makes my arguments more meaningful and potent.They are hurting you.

You call me troll here is some research work..lol.
Go to Gamerankings.com and find out the top three best rated games ever.
I hope this is not trolling.
All top three games are console games.

How much you can neglect/Ignore???

Console rulz.

DeusEx too ruled,but it was back then,yeah i totally agree back then PC was ruling,PC used to cover all genre's but now shame.

I am objective unlike Brady,who is intolerant of anything different from his own likeness.

Did anybody else catch that?

Actually, Console seems to be on the decline too......considering the top games are an N64 game, a DC game, and a PS1 Game...

Additionally, at 1up, here's their best at E3.....

Best Action Game: Lost Planet (XBOX360)
Best Adventure Game: Twilight Princess (GC)
Best Shooting Game: Quake Wars (PC)
Best Racing Game: Excite Truck (Wii)
Best RPG Game: Hellgate: London (PC)
Best Simulation Game: Spore (PC)
Best Strategy Game: Supreme Commander (PC)
Best Fighting Game: Virtua Fighter 5 (PS3)
Best Visuals: Crysis(PC)
Best Game Trailer: MGS4 (PS3)
Most Original: Wii Sports (Wii)
Best Sports: NCAA Football 2007 (Multi-Console)

So yeah, that's quite an impressive showing for the PC. I'm excited.....

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Frat appeal. And a gamepad control scheme that didn't make people ARGH FURIOUS!

Seconded, while I don't hate the game itself (actually, I like the game, though it is somewhat repetetive), I really can't consider it "mother of all FPS". I really don't even see how it got the Frat appeal. Beforehand, it was Goldeneye 007 for the N64, and for that, at least it got some decent controls for being a console FPS. (The first Console FPS too, I believe) So that gets credit for pushing FPS into Consoles. Now that it's already there, Halo really hasn't done anything. If anything, it just proves how much better PC FPS games are.

EDIT: BTW, I'm thinking about checking out the Simulation genre in PC gaming with The Sims 2. Any opinions? thoughts? suggestions?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Of all FPS games, why the hell would everybody follow Halo's lead? Don't get me wrong, I think Halo is a good game, but there are plenty of other better FPS games that people can follow. Half-Life 2 is a good example, as is Quake 4 (some people may disagree with me here).

Also, by the E3 titles above, I'm tempted to venture into Simulation games with The Sims 2. Yay or nay?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Meh....I dunno...I guess I'll give it a try at least.

Speaking of which, there aren't any Fallout type games out anywhere or coming out anytime soon is there? I was a big fan of the game.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

This is a reflexion of mankind itself, not every single person on the planet invents a new device/formula/whatever. Infact only a very small number of persons do it and therefor only a small number of game developers 'invent' new games, absolutely nothing wrong in this behaviour.

Asides this obvious limit there's another not so obvious one, you can't continously improve/inovate/whatever, this is how people except things to be this days but it's obviously impossible, so dispite all your frustration/rage/whatever you'll have to accept that games have stabilized and that there wont be any major breakthrough in the video gaming world like there used to be forever.
I always like to compare it to other games and objects, there wasn't any change in the chess game in 1500 years and yet people still play it and enjoy it. Oter example is backgammon that might be 5000 years old and we still have fun with it today.

I'm going to go outside the PC scope for a second to respond to this....that is not to say it's not there for PC games, but I'm a bit better with examples on consoles...

I'd have to say I somewhat disagree here. While very few people are truly innovative, those who are tend to be stifled by those who are greedy, or those people that are innovative tend to have greed take them over. It's not that they don't want to be innovative, it's that they want money. It's already happened in the music industry. There are some artists who are not allowed to release songs because they're "not what the public wants to here" according to the publishers. They don't give a damn about what the artist wants to display, they only display what gets those greedy bastards money. Same with the video game industry, or so it seems. Most games that come out sell well due to massive hype or attachment to a famous name (Final Fantasy, Madden, DMC, whatever....or at least everything that has a number after it). I mean, seriously, most companies who have a successful game going will tend to make a sequel to it. These can be good or bad, depending on how much liberty they're willing to take. I'll be the first to agree that sometimes, some traditional games are always fun, as I'm a fan of Final Fantasy I - IX. But after a few iterations, it tends to become old. Final Fantasy kept it relatively fresh with new systems (Class Change in V, Esper System in VI, Materia System in VII, GF System in VIII, and Weapon/AP system in IX). This I can respect because it feels relatively new as opposed to Madden 95 through Madden 07. It's probably a bad game to use as an example, but it's the one that most clearly illustrates my point. Halo/Halo 2 play the exact same way, so while the first one is genuinely fun at times, the second one sucks balls in terms of new stuff. Fighting games also suffer from this, referring to reiterations of fighting games from a single series. I don't think the gameplay for Tekken ever changed from the original up to Tekken 5. Granted, I'm not a fan of Tekken and have never played much of the games, and am somewhat Biased, but still. Racing games also somewhat suffer from this to some extent, depending on which game you're talking about. Mario Kart series has kept things relatively fresh with the addition of new weapons, new hazards, new courses, and even new systems to keep things fresh. I'm talking about the jump from Super Mario Kart to Mario Kart 64 (3d upgrade, dropping the usage of coins pickup, dropped the feather pickup, added variations to the original pickups, a drift system, etc.) and from Mario Kart 64 to Mario Kart: Double Dash!! (an upgraded drift/powerslide system, new pickups/upgrades to pickups, system of tag-team racing (for better or for worse), new courses, now modes of multiplayer battle, etc.) and hell, even from Mario Kart: Double Dash!! to Mario Kart DS (again, new weapons, new drifting/snake system, new single player modes, I can't say much else since I haven't played this game yet.) Now you got games like Gran Turismo that start off pretty nice and then kinda decline in quality as you go. I'm not sure about that since I've only played the first one and seen the last one they released. And that last one they released, you didn't even race. Maybe I'm mistaken that Gran Turismo is a Racing Sim, but I previously thought and went into it thinking it was a racing game. And if games have plateaued already, I guess it's time for Nintendo to bail us out again, with their concept of changing how you play the game with it's new system, Wii.

Additionally, I think your chess arguement is moot at this point. Chess is a single game that hasn't changed at all. Of course it's still fun. If you took Super Mario 64 now and played it 1000 years from now, it'd still be just as fun, maybe graphically inferior at that time, but the fun factor is still there. I'm talking about a series of games that have evolved. A more apt example would be new card games that keep coming out. All the variations of poker can suffice as examples of what I mean. Card games in general have evolved over time. New games are constantly being made, so creativity hasn't been stifled just yet.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

This has to do with perception of details no? After a certain point common gamers just won't notice diference from one game to it's new sequel dispite the diferences being there. Think of this like music files, to most of us MP3@160Kbps sound the same as a CD yet it's defenitely not the same sound quality. This is because we just aren't trained to notice the diferences like a audiophile is, and like in music only a very few of us are 'graphicphily', that is able to notice small details on games like better floor textures or more detailed background objects.

I think that's what we're trying to avoid, or else who in their right mind would buy new games if that happened?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

It would be graphically inferior? Are you sure about that? 'Cause I'm not so sure.

Relatively Inferior at least, compared to whatever will come out in 1000 years.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

You may try to avoid it all you want but this isn't a lost battle, it's a battle that never existed. What you are saying is complete nonsense and just adds to convice me that humans have no sense of time at all, maybe that have the notion of days and weeks or even months but that's about it.
You are saying that in the comming, say, 5000 years (should the conditions allow it of course) we will continue to see the current rate (5/6 games per years?) of 'inovative' games just like today. Well even if it could be, then let's just add some 10000 years on it just for kicks, do you think it's possible to keep this rate for 15000 years? Or should I make it 67000 years just for fun?

We are talking innovation here right? Innovation simply cannot be forced. Innovation will continue to come out, or should I say, the potential for innovation, at the same constant rate. It's what people do to stifle that innovation because of money. There's going to be stuff new that comes out all the time, it just depends on what gets published, which is where much of the problems lie. Those in the business get so caught up in the business aspect that they don't allow anything that seems risky to be published, which is a shame since with innovation comes risk. If you're not going to risk anything to try anything new, of course the thing won't go anywhere. I'm saying that it's not a lack of innovation that's going to kill games, it's the bloodthirst for money that's going to kill it. Just like how it killed much of music nowadays, it'll chip away at games, releasing only what gets them money and not what is a breath of fresh air. Why do you think every goddamn new game comes out is the exact same rehash over and over again, with possibly a different story behind it and better graphics? It's because those who publish the games are not going to bet on a loss over something that is guaranteed to win, whether it's because of massive hype or famous title. As long as we keep new possibilties open, then yes, I am saying that the same rate of innovative games will come. Now, if we were to drop any notion of trying anything new and taking any risks, then yes, innovation in this industry would die.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

This is a industry of miserable 30 years, a petty value even for human standards and we are already strugling with this 'need' for 'inovative' games and systems, how can you expect it to go on continously for 5 billion years (until the extinguish of the sun)?
It won't, not even for 200 years, just accept that you'll be playing the same Megadrive games when you are 80 years old and get over it.

The need for innovation will always exist for everything that has ever come. Ever since anything came out, things need to be constantly evolving. Why do you think PCs have to constantly change architecture rather than just pump out faster clock speeds all the time? Innovation and new things will beat out old trends because they may work. Keyword being _may_. We'll take PC Hardware, We have slowly moved through different RAM types no? Remember what happened to RAMBUS RAM? Never got far off the ground. Intel has resorted to DDR standard and on to DDR2. Things will constantly change, whether for better or for worse. Change is a necessary part of everything. You will not be playing the same games 80 years from now because if you are, it means either 1) The industry has crashed, or 2) The industry is about to crash. If change is about, you will be playing lots of different types of games in several different ways.

Originally Posted by devilmaycry

As for buying new games... well you won't. Just like you don't buy a new chess set or a deck of cards even week you won't be buying a new game every week. This means that the gaming industry will colapse/crash or wane just like many other have, it won't disapear but shrink and stabilize into a (much) smaller size.

What did I say about the Chess argument being moot? You don't buy a new chess set for every new chess game you're playing. Once you buy it, you own it forever. Same with the cards, for however many types of card games you play. The gaming industry will not crash, it'll have it's ups and downs, sure, but it will not hit rock bottom. That is, unless innovation completely dies out, which is just not possible, as long as somebody is willing to take the risk.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by speculative

Money talks, everything else walks...

First: If you take a look at pricing, often multi-platform games are released at a lower price than their console counterparts.

I think this is true because PC games are much cheaper to make and publish because of the relatively cheaper "dev kits".

Originally Posted by speculative

Second: These games drop in price much faster than their console counterparts. For example, I picked up Psychonauts for PC for $30 while it was still $50 for PS2. For non multi-platform titles, this still usually holds true, except for the truly grade-A hits like HL2, etc.

Well, they begin lower too, so that might just be a later effect of the first point.

Originally Posted by speculative

Third: The PC game section in the game stores around here has dwindled to next to nothing. It's half what is what when I was an undergrad. Stores will devote more shelf space to their profitable wares, end of story. We all know sales do not necessarily equate to quality... but developers migrate to where the $ is so this does have an effect.

Damn straight. Around here in Virginia, there's only one section marginally smaller than the PC section and that is the Gamecube section (I play PC and Gamecube games....:doh: )

Originally Posted by speculative

There are great titles, but a lack of variety. Just my observations...

I wouldn't say a lack of variety, at least not with respect to genres, but more of a lack of a quality control. Many games have some of the best ideas out but implement them very poorly into a game that could be considered poor back in 1992.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by speculative

Omni - good point on the first two parts, except I'm not sure that Valve spent less money on HL2 than MS did on Halo 2, for example?

And as for variety, I'm just talking amongst my own personal preference, which includes RPG's (besides Oblivion, I'm not sure I can even name a title that came out this year that I'm interested in, and Oblivion is frankly a flaming pile of p00 that won't run on 20% or greater of systems that exceed recommended specs, including mine, apparently), sci-fi/fantasy FPS (there are so many war FPS games it's getting ridiculous, but where are the new Unreals and Half-Lifes?) So, for that part it's just based on my own personal preference - some may find a good deal to like in the PC platform's recent line-up.

Yep, even though the PC has good stuff for it, new stuff is coming out so slowly that the ratio of crap to good games is extremely exaggerated for the worse. I'll be the first to admit, I do like some of the games that have come out somewhat recently, but I can't recall liking any game since Oblivion in March this year.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.