PC gaming is dying (albeit slowly) because PCs are to complicated for, well, many people. I find it a bit sad that the majority of casual gamers can't comprehend much more than placing a diskette into a PlayStation 3, sitting on the couch, and begin playing.

And kids think: computers? don't you have to buy them?  

labtops should never be used for a replacement of gaming desktop. In the land of desktops hardware is dirt cheap. High quality video cards like the 9600GT cost only 150bucks. Prices in all sectors have dropped to ridicolously low prices.

Only the entertainment industry could ever consider needing to make a 500% profit margin for something to be a good idea... You guys do realize that most people make cents on the dollar for their investments, and not dollars on the cents? 10% is good, 15% is great. The returns from games like Halo 3 are better than the oil companies are getting from crude oil sales right now. If the anti-capitalist assholes were paying any attention at all, they'd be going into convulsions.

I'm tired of people saying that pc gaming is dying. It is not in danger of dying soon for many reasons. One of these reasons is that pc games can be modified and edited to the point where a game is much better or completely different. For example, Oblivion is fun on both PC and Xbox 360 without mods. But when you introduce mods into the game, so many more options open up and the game is even more fun. Another good example of how PC is great is the modification of Half-Life 2 called Garrys Mod and any fan of that mod can attest to the unique ability of pc's for fans to modify games to make them even better. People that say that hardware requirements are killing the pc game market are sometimes people that don't want to devote enough time to reap the benefits of an awesome pc. Buying a prebuilt gaming rig is a mistake, and if you have enough time and patience, you can build a rig yourself for much cheaper. I have no formal experience in computers, yet I upgrade my pc all the time. Note, I don't have a laptop and in my humble opinion, if at all possible you should steer away from laptops unless space or portability is being considered. As many others have stated gaming laptops are much more expensive compared to desk tops. Also, the graphics quality of a game does not always determine how fun it is, so you don't have to invest a ton of money to enjoy fun games on the pc. All in all, the amount of time you spend, can determine what kind of gaming experience you have.

The 8800 gt is only $139, the 9600 gt is definately cheaper than $150.



That's how low all my friends are, they are all console junkies. The only PC game they love is WoW (Well that's like half of my good friends playing it). Yes, while WoW is a major addiction its turned around a couple of my friends to respect PC gaming. One has upgraded his computer with a better GPU. He doesn't even touch his PS3 anymore because he know PC gaming is better in every way. Another has bought better computer but WoW is the only pc game he plays, other than that his a console nub.

Yes kids, (and teens, well I'm still a little kid at heart even though I'm 16) need a computer. This is what my parent have thought, why buy both a mediocre computer and a mediocre console when you can invest that money into an amazing computer and play Crysis decently on high and go slug it out on 10 player, 150 planet Sins maps.

I know the person that started getting people into WoW, it may be annoying when he bother's me to join WoW when I don't want to pay for monthly subscriptions but I have to praise him for being the biggest person at school to get people to play games on a PC. While it may only be one game it could not have been a better game as its the most addicting game around and this will hoepfully lead them to play more games on a PC.

I've been a PC gamer since a was 6 or 7, playing Ages of Empire on a Windows 95. PC gaming is the best way to play and it will survive the fight against greedy corporate CEO's that seek to destroy the ensence of true gaming.

Long Live Stardock, Long Live PC gaming, Viva la PC game developers.

Pc gaming is far from dying.

interesting article.



more here

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/878/878144p2.html

article from the pc gaming alliance.

http://www.developmag.com/news/29331/The-PC-market-is-not-dying-says-newly-formed-PC-Gaming-Alliance

Really, Gabe?

Some actual figures:

Half-Life 2 (PC): 4M
Halo 3 (360): 8M
Grand Theft Auto San Andreas (PS2/Xbox): 20M
Call Of Duty 4 (PS3/360): 10M
Super Mario Bros (NES): 40M
Gran Turismo 3 (PS2): 15M

Source: VGChartz.com

another interesting quote



The pc gaming alliance seems really interesting especially the firms backing it Activision, Epic and Microsoft, AMD, Nvidia, Intel, OEM firms Dell, Acer, Alienware and Gateway.

They said they want to provide a voice to the PC gaming market



anyway guess that shows pc gaming isn't dying and still at the forefront for hard core gaming. Either way I own a 360 and quad core PC beast. I hope each sector continues to advance and compete with each other can only mean good things for us gamers.

cant wait till futuremarks start making games http://www.futuremark.com/games/ especially if its like the other stuff they have done...

http://pics.computerbase.de/2/0/3/9/1/3.jpg"]pic 1
http://pics.computerbase.de/2/0/3/9/1/2.jpg"]pic 2
http://pics.computerbase.de/2/0/3/9/1/4.jpg"]pic 3

PC games aren't dying at all. There's a paradigm shift in PC games, however. More than ever, PC games are being purchased as digital content. Retail sales figures generally don't account for this. Not only that, but subscription based revenue also makes up a huge chunk of the pie (consider WOW and other MMOs).

"Hardcore games" aside, another extremely profitable venture are the more casual oriented games. They're incredibly accessible, run on most specs (due to the casual games generally being programmed on a high level language), and don't involve massive installations. Some of the more prominent examples of sites focusing on these kind of games include Kongregate, Pogo, Nonoba, and Newgrounds). Their business plans range from user buying 'tokens' to selling ad space.

Finally, between hardcore and casual, are games like Maplestory and gunbound. Games that are free to play, but if you want premium content in the game, which is generally avatar dressing stuff, you have to pay. Both these games have raked in millions. Maplestory alone made millions in North America before they began aggressively marketing here and before they even had any english customer service!

In short, the PC games business is moving away from a upfront retail-centric business models to ones that incorporate digital downloads, micropayments (ie. buying tokens or in-game goods for real money), subscriptions, and advertising. Our current metrics for measuring game profitability does not properly account for these factors.

Exactly. This is the way forward. If the PC segment manages to do the exact opposite of what Big Media has done with music and movie downloads. Rather than trying to fight it in vain, you make it your business model. Altough mid-session games (the game is free but you pay for gear) has been extremely big in Asia for quite some time, we have not seen too much of it here. But it'll come.

Best part is we'll probably see a lot of interesting new game ideas in the process. Hopefully more studios will shy away from making games that are almost like console titles, but bound to be shadowing them, and do the stuff you can only really do on a PC.

Interestingly, the major selling franchise on the PC, The Sims, could hardly ever have been a console game. Not so much because of tech reasons, but rather demographics. With exponentially growing development budgets it's imperative for the PC scene to solve it's profitability issues-whether real or imagined. Otherwise the guys in suits won't hand out the good stuff from their coffers.

The Sims, 50 million sold, 70 with the expansion packs. The revenue from WOW dwarfs your entire list annually.

Super Mario Bros only sold anywhere near that high because it came with the NES itself. The Sims still beat it by a wide margin. Cherry picking data out of context never gets you accurate results, just useful ones for a particular point.

You're basically making the point that I have tried to put across. Which is that PC games can be very successful when they are specific to the platform (e.g. WOW or The Sims). When they try to mimic console games they can not match the bigger audience that consoles have.

As for cherry picking data, all I tried to point out was that Gabe Newell is talking silly talk when he tries to claim that it's a myth that console sales are way bigger than PC sales. With the exception of the giant sales of The Sims, which is not a good example as it caters to a whole different demographic, and WoW, being subscription based, very few PC titles ever come close to the sales figures that a good console title can generate.

This discussion started with the idea that the PC is dying as a gaming platform. I don't really believe that. I think it has some major problems that needs to be resolved, and those are in many ways being addressed--primarily through the pursuit of alternative revenue streams and distribution methods. Valve is on the forefront of that and I applaud it. But apples are still apples.

I don't subscribe to that particular dichotomy of "PC or console". I enjoy both and they have their different strengths and weaknesses, but it is important to remember that consoles do have a very large audience, and to many studios it makes more financial sense to produce console titles rather than PC games as it stands today.

Just to be clear on this, PCs aren't mimicing anybody. Outside of platformers and JRPGs, most of the best games out in recent history were originally slated for, or had a prequel on the PC, even Halo was originally supposed to be PC. Yes, it makes sense to release your game on the system that provides the best profit margin, but that doesn't make other systems mimics.

Semantics. What I meant is when they are sufficiently different in design as to not be viable on a console. Why are so many PC gamers so stingy about this subject?

Because others are stingy about giving credit where it credit is due.

You list a handful of titles, with the highest seller going back a couple decades, and use Half-life 2 as your example for the PC. A game that sold half as well as it's predecessor, is rumored to be improperly tracked, and isn't anywhere near the top of the chart.

Either you're attempting to mislead people on purpose, or you don't double check your sources and are mislead yourself.

Reality is the exact opposite of the claim, the console industry is dwarfed by the PC industry. The NPD only measures retail sales, and doesn't even track the other models at all. The PC is a rapidly expanding market with oodles of cash to be made, and versatility far beyond the narrow niche of retail box sales that the industry is tracking and pointing to as their doom.

Valve does not release sales figure for Steam, so what Newell says is just that, whatever he says. Estimates, based on info from Valve (http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article2271.asp), from 2005 had it at 25% of their total sales. This might, and probably, have increased since then but Half-Life 2 was released in 2004. The reason these sales models are not properly tracked is because they have been more or less inconsequential until pretty recently. This will change.



Yeah, all the big publishers just stay away from those oodles of cash because they really don't want to make money. And what exactly are you backing your points with? At least I present some figures, you just make claims.

There is no gloom and doom or hidden console conspiracy at work. A few years back publishers just noticed they were not really making significant profits from the PC market. Simple as that. It might take some time for some of them to return if this changes, but if the cash is there they will come.

It's of course obvious that platforms like Steam and Ironclad will be excellent ways to avoid the clumsiness of the boxed retail system. But this also goes for Xbox Live, Playstation Network and the Wii Channels. The PC platform is neither more or less versatile in this respect.



I'm neither mislead or trying to mislead anyone. This discussion stated that the PC market was dying. I questioned that, but stated that it does have some problems and is trailing behind the console industry in terms of sales. I showed figures to illustrate that, because it seems a lot of people don't know how many units console titles really move, and I felt those absurd quotes from Gabe Newell needed to be balanced with some real facts.

I have been an avid PC gamer since the very first days of that platforms existence, but I also happen to know it's not just all roses. Although I hope the PC market will return to it's former excellence through some of the means that have been discussed in this thread. I just don't make it black or white and it's neither PC or console. They have co-existed for years and will continue to do so.

One thing we should all consider is that a console is just a PC with a dumbed down interface (read Gamepad rather than keyboard), and that the capabilities of each new generation of console make them more and more PC-like, thus blurring the lines between PCs and Consoles.

PC gaming IS dying. Also, the earth is transforming into a giant kangaroo!!!


 :NOTSURE: 



...



 :CONGRAT: 

Aren't making any money and aren't making any money developing six million dollar graphics engines for doom rehashes aren't the same thing. Look at the returns. When a game costs a million bucks to produce and sells a million copies, they've made an obscene amount of money off it. They've made enough money that if they were an oil company, people would be rioting in the street and calling for their heads. EA sold 50 million copies of The Sims. Do you have any idea how big the margins on that project were?

Capcom spent 40 million bucks making and marketing Lost Planet:Extreme Condition. It's a 40 million dollar paper weight that looks nice. The game is a piece of shit by pretty much all accounts. It looks nice, and plays like a dog. Stupidity is what loses them money, not the PC platform.

Good points.

Unfortunately, consumer expectations help drive the production of games like Lost Planet. Too many are way too obsessed with looks and great tech and then they're all surprised when they get games that look great, but as you put it, plays like dogs.

The Sims is interesting. It caters mainly to women who don't giving a flying **** about polygons. They just want nice stuff to play with--and they can has it. Other areas of the market gets the same old Doom rehashes over and over again, whether they're called "Crysis 6: More palmtrees - now without gameplay", "Doom 15: Still pitch black" or "Half-Life 6: The story is great (we promise)".

In some sense, consumers get the games they deserve.

Man, I'm a tired, old fart. I must play some Sins now.

World of Warcraft (PC): 10M subscribers
The Sims (PC): 100M copies sold by April 2008
Solitare, Minesweeper, or FreeCell: I don't know, but it's gotta be huge . . .



-Look at how different strategy games play on the console vs the PC. In order to make them playable on the console, they have to invent a whole new system of control in order to make the concept work at all without a mouse.

-A flight simulator style game also would be difficult to port to the console due to the extremely complex controls. Granted, that style of game is largely dying even on the PC, but it's one of the few styles of games that it is doubtful will ever be seen on a console other than in a very arcade style.

-MMORPGs are still largely PC territory.

-Basically, consoles are best suited for games with simple controls. For more complex games, the PC will be the best choice for years to some. Anything with a complex control system will need to be simplified to play on the console. Keep in mind the average keyboard has well over 100 buttons - and some games use them.

-The PC is constantly evolving, while consoles are static. You can already build a PC that will outperform the Xbox 360 no matter what way you measure it. In fact, you can build one that outperforms it and is quieter as well if you pay careful attention to your cooling system. So if you're the kind of person who counts triangles, takes a close look at the resolution of textures, and counts the number of shaders being used, then you'll want a PC.

-If you want to mod a game, PC is the only choice. Consoles are generally harshly locked down, preventing games from being modded.

Of course that does lead to some shallow games built just to show off the graphics (Crysis). However, there are still some good innovators in the market. Take a look at Portal or the upcoming Spore. There are also a lot of great games made by smaller companies such as Audiosurf and Sins of a Solar Empire. With procedural generation getting a lot of attention, I expect to see a lot more large games created by small developers in the near future.

And if you want to talk about rehashes of old games - the console is every bit as guilty as the PC. Mario? Halo? Metroid? Sonic? Soul Caliber? Final Fantasy! Every console is pretty much guaranteed many of its games, especially its "core" games, are going to get a new release when a new console comes out.

Rehashing games is part of the business, frankly. Doesn't matter if its console or PC, there's a big demand for keeping old franchises. I'd say all platforms are guilty as charged.

Yes, there has been attempts at strategy games on the console, and they where all more or less festivals of fail. I 'm not sure it only comes down to the control. I think it has to do also with the kind of situation in which you play. Strategy games require concentration and effort, and seems better suited for sitting down by your desk, the same way as Super Monkey Ball is best played in the couch with friends and beers. Titles on both platforms are at their very best when they play to their platforms strengths.



Hm. I'm not on some kind of crusade for consoles against PCs. I just wanted to point to the fact that the console market generates a whole lot of more cash. And that is why I think PC developers needs to create games that play to the platforms strengths, as opposed to games that could as well be played on consoles. The really big PC success stories are just those types of games--such as The Sims and WoW.

I'm not opposed to sequels as such, it was rather just the FPS market on PC I was thinking of. Sequels in general is good in computer games. Opposite to movies, game franchises get better over time. At least until they hit a certain point and start losing their cool, like the Tomb Raider franchise did (altough it's somewhat managed to get back again).

Procedural generation and modding are interesting fields, and ways the PC market could further distinguish itself, as well as cut down on production costs. In many ways content for games are already being produced outside of the development studio through various outsourcing solutions, and there is really no reason why this could not be extended to involve some kind of prosumer model earlier in the process. Flying Labs did something like this with Pirates of the Burning Sea, where most of the ships in the game was built by the community while in development. But that's all in the beautiful future.

This is always the way things go.

Casualties:
Westwood
Black Isle
Sierra (Exists in name only)
Bullfrog
CaveDog
Accolade
Team Ninja (just to show consoles are not immune)
many many more...

The benefit?
These developers get to join companies with huge budgets and get to make one lack luster game clone after another. They learn the ins and outs of creating the impressive game engines and then they break off to form new development groups as t they tire of all the oversight.

The new companies make or break all based on one title and its awesome. They lose all rights to there previous creations forcing them to go out into new directions. This is never new and will never end.

The difference now is that most peoples computers can't even run the latest OS, much less the latest games. So Consoles will beat out PC's in the long run as a dedicated gaming platform. The only thing that has kept this from happening is Microsoft and Sony. They are so worried about losing the proprietary rights that they snuff many games being developed or allowing them the freedom that PC's enjoy. Forcing crappy UI's to support controllers that haven't changed in over a decade.

The first company that opens their console up to the same freedom as a PC will probably end the PC as a gaming platform. Thankfully the monopolistic tenancies of large corps will keep this from becoming a problem any time soon. If IBM could go back and do to the PC what MS and Sony have done with the consoles we would never have made as much progress as we have. Capitalism will always dominate Socialism and Monopolies are by definition socialist.