[PC] Decline of PC Gaming?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I've never really enjoyed gaming on my PC. I like to sit in my comfy chair, in front of a large TV, and kick back while I play a game. I'm not suggesting that PC games are inferior to console games, because I've enjoyed a vast number of titles on the PC. It's just that given the choice between the same game on console and PC, I would always choose the console verison, unless it's a terrible, lazy port.

For those reasons, the decline and even eventual fall of PC gaming is a non-issue for me. I don't like sitting at a desk to play.

You said it all! Plus most of the games I like are console exclusives or have a console version.

Anyway, PC gaming won't die so easily and half quoting a portuguese PC maganize editor: 'As long as you can use that machine over that corner to play PC game market will continue.'
Plus there are many, many PC hardcore gamers than not only buy games but also buy hardware and I'm not talking about graphic cards only and they really don't like consoles thus keeping the hardware market alive.

Also the PC the only plataform where you can truely do homebrew games and have a chance of amking some bucks with it, and now (or when MS finally releasees every part of it) with XNA you can develop a game on Pc and then port it over XBox 360. Maybe your basement 2D plataform/shooter/whatever will be the 360 next big 2D game!

And let us not forget emulation, that IMHO is the only good PC gaming
I think it's worth wasting 500€ on a PC just to use Kega Fusion and have some good old MegaDrive fun. Plus if we are lucky, someone, someday will create a good low level Dreamcast emulator and we shall once again enjoy Jet Set Radio, Soul Calibur 1 or the masterpiece that Shenmue is.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Kuhazan

the PS3 costs as much as one of those high end PCs now... so yeah...

Originally Posted by Omnislash124

Nah, A decent PC costs about $600 though.

Originally Posted by Forsety

Maybe if you change 600 to somewhere in the 800~900 range it would be more believable.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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."

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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€.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

PC Gaming is on the decline because PC games suck. Don't believe me?

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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€...

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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."

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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?

As I said it depends on the method.

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

Originally Posted by Sexninja

PC lacks variety in games.

True

Originally Posted by Sexninja

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).

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

Originally Posted by Sexninja

PC needs upgrades every year,new tech comes in which then is applied in new games making your card obsolete.

True and these upgrades are expensive.

Originally Posted by Sexninja

PC is HD less.

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.

Originally Posted by Sexninja

PC is best for repetitive online games,RTS and FPS with refurbished ideas.

True... PC games are boring

Originally Posted by Sexninja

PC lacks creativity.

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

Originally Posted by Sexninja

Evry PC hit also comes on consoles.

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

Originally Posted by Sexninja

PC share of market is 8%(actiontrip).

Have no clue

Originally Posted by Sexninja

Yeah PC is DEAD.

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

You have an intresting post here so I'll awnser.

Originally Posted by Kuhazan

Your forgetting the games for PS3 will probably cost $70 per title and about buying extra controllers for the PS3 and any other gimmick they might have for you to get to play it properly.

All XBox 360 games cost 70€ and PS3 will cost that much aswell, but that's because these companies are selling the console below their production cost. And because they like to rip us some bucks
Plus PC games are only this cheap because developers don't have to pay licences to develop for it like on consoles, I guess you have to thank MS for not charging licenses on DirectX usage...

Originally Posted by Kuhazan

This is coming from a console gamer though : Console games, like PC games haven't progressed much of anywhere since about 2003 so it's been the same bullshit over and over... how many times can companies recycle the same story for their RPG with different characters and settings? How many Tekken/Virtua Fighter games must we play before they resemble real fighting and no air-floater techniques?, How many sports titles must one play to realize it is the same game as last years release with updated rosters?

This is why console gaming has come to almost a hault... even those music games that breathed a fresh breath of air in are getting old (DDR anyone?)

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.

Originally Posted by Kuhazan

I'm just saying $600 for a PS3 isn't worth playing games that could've easily been done on an older console with less impressive graphics but the same gameplay.

The jump from 8, 16, 32, and 128 bit all were a leap forward... with each one we experienced games not possible on a console before... now it's just a dead end because everything has been done... so we get sequels... and sequels of sequels... and failed shitty games and maybe 2 games a year worth playing... that is not worth the price of these new consoles... because I can say the same about the current PC... and updates to a PC don't cost as much as a new console... especially since the games for PC don't really take advantage of those video cards that I consider overkill...

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Omnislash124

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

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

Originally Posted by Omnislash124

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.

Yes but they are created at a much lower rate. That the key point as I'll explain further below.

Originally Posted by Omnislash124

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

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?

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.

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.

FELIPE NO