Slashdot Mirror
PC Gaming Isn't Going Anywhere
Grimrod writes "Dave Long, one of the editors of GamerDad, has a unique look at the PC as a game platform and how it gets forgotten among the constant barrage of console gunfire in his latest Long Shot column. From the article, 'It might never be like 1998 again on the computer, the year that PC gaming was probably at its very peak, but it's far better than analysts and even armchair soothsayers would have you believe. I got caught up in the hype myself to a certain extent. I started to believe I didn't need the computer for games. Now that I'm back on the inside with current hardware, I realize again how dumb that idea was.'"
you mean "just about the same as everyone else"?
-THE END-
declining rapidly, outside of certain genres, since the XBox came out. MS cannibalized a large portion of PC developer resources to bolster their library on the console. Ruining a large number of games in the process(like Deus Ex: Invisible War).
The number of games I wanted on the PC used to be on about equal footing to the number of games I wanted on consoles. Not so any longer.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
He's right. The computer isn't dead for gaming, and in my opinion, will never be overshadowed by consoles. I've pretty much stopped enjoying console games, excluding the GTA's, n64's goldeneye and smash brothers, and my old SNES and nintendo games. Nothing else new on console is worth playing.
:]
But on the computer I've had tons of games that were tons of fun. starting back with civilization and progressing up through warcraft II, duke nukem, doom, quake, AOE, and then halflife & cs(!)
what makes most PC games so much better than the console games is the amount of personal interactivity with people. I can talk to the people i'm playing with in counter-strike. I can't do that with a console (excluding some horrid voicecom). And it's so much easier to use the mouse / keyboard combination for gaming than a controller (no matter how i try, i can't aim in halo worth a shit with an xbox controller)
but, as of late, i've gone totally retro and dusted off the NES and the atari for some old school fun times
Game developers make a lot more money on consoles than they do the PC.
A lot of game developers who sell games for Windows and/or Mac OS make zero money on consoles because they can't seem to get noticed by a licensed console game publisher. Unlike PCs, consoles have a digital imprimatur.
PC Gaming is why we have innovation, and why 90% of us buy new computers. I just dropped 1200$ on building a new computer not too long ago, why? So I could play awesome computer games, not so I could more efficiently use Microsoft Word. The fact of the matter is, except for the slim minority of computer users who buy new hardware when their existing is in need of a reformat, gaming is why we buy the latest processor when a P2 will do most jobs just fine.
PC gaming has been declining rapidly, outside of certain genres, since the XBox came out.
"Certain genres" may be more important than some may think. Particularly, startup developers and developers of "casual" games find it a lot harder to get published on a console than to self-publish on Windows.
I got caught up in the hype myself to a certain extent. I started to believe I didn't need the computer for games.
Yeah, me too. I thought that if I stared at the CD and concentrated really hard, that I could play the game purely with the power of my mind.
Damn hype.
Right, because Warhammer 40k was crap from a noname dev house. So is Empire Earth. And Age of Empires. And the Civ series. And, oh, that little game that like 4 people play.. what's it called? Oh yeah.. COUNTER STRIKE.
Battlefield 2, The Sims, Doom 3, Quake 4 (soon), Deus Ex, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Diablo.. the list goes on and on. Crack a cover on PCGamer and there's 15 new quality games a month. You can't swing a dead cat in the gaming industry without knocking down 4 shelves of quality games for the PC.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
What do you base this on outside your own personal experience? What are these "certain genres" that have been spared this "decline" that you are talking about? Why would you say the XBox has had any more impact on the landscape of PC gaming than the Playstation or GameCube? Can you please clarify what you mean by "cannibalized...PC developer resources" and then relate to us how you came to conclude that "a large portion" of said resources were taken. By your reference to Deus Ex 2, are you inferring that FPS's suffer more than other genres? Please help us out here so we can make a group effort out of pulling your foot from your mouth.
...the independent developer community. Folks like Carmack, Romero, Garriot and many others developed games on the various personal computer platforms of their day on a shoestring. These individuals are the ones that, for the most part, made PC gaming great.
In terms of a lot of indie content not being "AAA" grade these days... a lot of the great indie content people seem to be chained by their balls into mod work. If these guys realized their own talent and struck out on their own with a low-cost engine like Torque, or an open source option like CrystalSpace, Nebula, or Rygax, we would see far more successful indie game companies selling their work.
Console manufacturers make money off of these guys through buyouts or licensing once they get really successful. Eventually many companies become "exclusive partners", get locked into multiple-title deals, or otherwise lose their independence from the Big Publisher model of game business. An exception of course is Id, which we all know has a positively unique management situation. Valve also is regaining some cajones in this department.
So there are always indies, and indies are what make PC gaming greatest- past, present, future.
Performing sanity checks on your own beliefs is vital in avoiding poisoned koolaid.
I'd like to preface this by applauding you for posting anonymously: you'll need it.
I'd also like to compliment your ability to totally destroy all potential for constructive discourse by tossing in some ad homenim which groups all PC gamers in the category of "hardcore dudes in their twenties whose entire gaming world revolves around the x86 peecee." Brilliant work, Socrates. Now, on to actually discussing the issue:
Regarding your comment about x86 growth potential: have you ever considered that some people play games because they are fun and not graphically spectacular? With the current and upcoming console platforms, how many developers are there, do you think, who don't sweat bullets over making their game visually stunning like everyone else? How many console games have you come across in the past 2 years that don't do their utmost best to convince you that their graphics are superior, so you therefore want to buy it? It's the exact opposite of what you have described: diehard console developers killing themselves to make the next look better than the previous. If you want proof of this, I give you 2 words: True Crime. It sucked on the XBox, because the developers obviously spent all their time on the graphics, rendering a nice looking game with crappy AI, an unimaginative weapon system, and some of the shoddiest level designs I have ever seen.
And you want to talk about endless streams of 20k titles? Do you know how long they've been making Madden Football games? Since 1989! Then there's the MLB games and the NFL games and NHL games. Goddamn, the list never stops! For the benefit of all /.'ers reading this, please name 4 PC franchises to match this list that mercilessly continue cranking out games year after year.
Finally, the reason why the PC has always had so much gaming potential is precisely because it's not "a mass of diehard Microsoft developers." Without PC gaming we wouldn't have titles from companys like Infogrames, Blizzard, and Sierra, to name a few. Without PC gaming, ID software would not exist, because a Nintendo would fellate you before it would run something like DOOM.
I think it would be really cool if you would qualify any of the statements you've made, but particularly the claim that, "Peecee gaming isn't really going anywhere, it will continue to shrink and become less and less relevant over time."
I'm pretty sure that the reason that PC gaming has been in decline is that it hasn't been going anywhere.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
The new consoles can render PC gaming as impotant as a third wheel does the segway. Ready? BOOM! Wireless keyboard and mouse! This goes double for PS3 becuase it'll have VGA output (triple if you count both outputs). I think people will still use their computers for gaming for the time being, but if the big PC developers (Valve, Blizzard, etc.) don't convert their latest and greatest to the next gens, which will be able to handle their games, they will lose massive profits. And multiplatforiming consoles with PC's on a larger scale than diablo for Playstation (cringe), especially with a keyboard and mouse (if you don't think that's coming, stop kidding yourself) is the begining of the end for PC gaming.
So you play pc games and are indignant?
What the hell does that have to do with the fact that the pc market has been in a steady decline for the past five years and its sales are utterly dwarfed by the console market?
Indignance isn't going to reverse the decline of pc gaming.
Sure... because an SNES version of DOOM never existed... ::snicker::
I guess the Nintendo fellatio representative lost your address...
FPS peaked at 1998-2002 when everyone wanted to be in a classic Rainbow 6, Wolfenstein or team fortress clan. The gaming atmosphere of Counterstrike now is a joke compared to a few years ago. That's sad even considering the high resolution re-release.
RTS peaked at 1996-2000 when everyone was C&C, redalert, warcraft, starcrafting. Empire Earth had potential, but the AI was a disaster.
Pretty much I played everything you mentioned. MMORPG is at the prime now. I seriously wonder if this is the last genre and end of PC gaming myself. Just trying to be honest.
I am loathe to say this, because I love Warren Spector (when he is not pontificating on the "sad state" of the industry) and Harvey Smith- but the only folks who ruined Deus Ex: IW were Ion Storm themselves. They missed the mark, simple as that. There are plenty of games that exist in masterwork form on both the PC and the console. Halo and Grand Theft Auto 3 come to mind.
PC gaming isn't going anywhere for many reasons. A constantly upgradable platform, a user base that is much smarter and more likely to take risks on titles (hence the "next big thing" is way more likely to show up on the PC), a thriving mod community (which usually equals free gaming, very enticing) and far superior input devices.
I still get annoyed at the keyboard/mouse argument. Yes, it's quicker and more accurate. Few except people with godlike joypad skills could deny that. But why is that necessarily good? People look at me strangely when I ask, but after playing a lot of Quake 3 and then just sitting back to spectate for a second at these guys with incredible hit percentages, bouncing about like rabbits, not failing to hit each other as they did, the whole thing just looks like a farce. It wasn't too bad in futuristic settings, but as soon as the whole thing moved into realistic war settings like Enemy Territory and Battlefield I just checked out completely. Anyone who's fired a gun will tell you that that kind of accuracy is completely off the scale, especially when jumping around. This is not a John Woo movie. Now I crave the relative poorness of the joypad control. It's a great leveller, and introduces far more tactics into the game than any amount of extra HUD that a greater definition can offer.
I recently finally got tired of WoW, and thank God I did. I'd have been upset to miss out on Resident Evil 4, God of War, GT4/Forza, never mind how the new handhelds are building up.
The upshot? Anyone want to buy a Radeon 9800 Pro?
I don't get why people complain so much about the cost of the latest graphics cards and use this as a measuring stick for the cost of PC gaming in general. Yes, the latest graphics cards are ridicously expensive, but they press the prices of older cards down really fast. A card from the last generation or the one before that still run the majority of games excellently for very little money.
Sure, it's still more expensive to buy a PC than a console, but except gaming and media, consoles can't do much. A PC can do whatever you make it do, not just what Sony and Microsoft thinks you should do with it.
He's right, as most peoples PC's are being continuously upgraded and replaced, the market for PC games continues to stay steady, whereas with consoles only being replaced every 7-8 years, they gradually loose their selling power in the couple of years before they are replaced
PC gaming might not be as strong as it once was, but it will be stable for a long time to come
Business Voyeur
Lets face it, PC gaming's biggest strenghts have always been that it produced the best visual effects and that you had your choice of input device. One thing I have noticed over the past couple of years is that (because people are upgrading a lot less than they used to, a trend that will probably continue) the Graphical Advantage PC games had is shrinking; there are notible exceptions, but for the most part, games that were released from 2000-2004 were (pretty much) at the same graphical level as a PS2, XBox or Gamecube game.
Now, the other problem is the cost for entry to play PC videogames. A couple of months back I priced out a (reasonable) upgrade on my computer to improve performance in WOW, when it came out to cost $1000 I decided against it. Even if you assume that you only have to upgrade your computer every 5 years, you could purchase all of the consoles for less than you can keep your PC up to date; this wasn't that big of a problem a few years ago (because you had to upgrade your PC anyways) but today, unless you do some significant work (ie. 3D graphics) on your home PC, a $500 PC will last you for 5 years as long as you don't play any games.
Now, I enjoy PC games and think the PC is the best platform for certin genres (like MMO and FPS) but as long as PC games focus on the average available platform (ie. crappy computer) and at the same time it so expensive to upgrade PC games market share will continue to shrink.
Please note that I recognize that the 2 problems I mention are in conflict, but this is the thinking I have seen so many PC gamers use to justify purchasing a console for most of their gaming.
First I've heard of it...I still play a ton of new games and more are coming out etc etc.
Or is this one of those things where the media says it's declining so it MUST be true. I mean I have an Xbox, a PS2 and a Gamecube and I couldn't tell you one game that's coming out for them. The Gamecube get's played more as that's my 11 year old son's favorite. But the Xbox and PS2 are hardly touched. I mean, when they first came out they were played much more...but now they mainly collect dust while I play World of Warcraft and BF2 and Silent Hunter 3 etc etc.
Sure you can play all those on a console...er...wait a minute, you can't! So I guess it all comes down to what you want to play. No way in hell am I playing a FPS with a controller when I've spent the last 12 years playing with a mouse and keyboard.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I agree, the PC Gaming industry isn't going anywhere. Yes, it is in decline, but it will never go away. Pretty soon it'll hit a steady plateau of development, maybe even rise in quality and quantity. There are just some genres (Strategy, for example) that will always be better on the PC.
No, crack open PCGamer and you'll see 15 games, one of which will run on 95% of users' hardware and be quite good, five of which will probably NOT run without an expensive hardware upgrade and even then might be a bit 'meh', and another nine of which that are rereleases (some re-re-rereleases) of games that came out two years ago.
If it wasn't for the hardware upgrades, the scene would pretty much be the same as the old 8-bit home computer scene. Lots of cheap games, majority of them unplayable.
And you just mentioned 13 games (one of which isn't even out yet) and they span the last four or five years - if not more. Hardly "15 new quality games a month", is it?
If you look at games like World of Warcraft, they've now hit the 3.5 million subscribers mark. That's steady income for Blizzard for years to come. True, it's the exception to the rule, but even the GTA's which sold millions aren't going to see that sort of long-term revenue stream.
That's not to say that many console games have more widespread distribution than PC games, only that it's not fair to compare them directly. PC games make their money in different ways - expansion packs, digital downloads (e.g. Neverwinter Nights & HL2), and the holy grail of MMORPGs.
Of course, consoles are about to pounce on the same ideas. It's just that PCs went there first and it's likely that PCs will continue to innovate, being a much more flexible platform than consoles are.
yes, Ion Storm were the developers that ruined DX2, but I think it's the Xbox's limitations that forced them to make the wrong decisions. First off, I don't think DX2 could ever meet the level of uniqueness DX had, since there was already DX, so they were bound for an inferior sequel right off the bat. They did make a pretty interesting story, and the graphics/physics system was ahead of its time.
BUT, Ion Storm was forced to remove the more endearing gameplay mechanics because of the knowledge it was being ported to console. For one, the Xbox's physical memory is quite paltry. There is no way that the Xbox could handle the enormous, wide-open levels of the first game unless they settled for a sub-par graphics presentation. Which of course, no one ever stands for anymore (WoW is about the only other major game than DX1 that put substance and style over power and polygons when it comes to graphics).
The other thing was that the game had to be controller-friendly. So they created a dumbed-down inventory system with none of the depth that made the first game's item manipulation fun. They also dumbed-down the character building. The first DX's character building was so in-depth and varied, and had such a strong influence on how you played the game, that it had really combined the best parts of both FPSes and RPGs. DX2, though, just had some arbitrary skills to improve that did effect the game, but not to the level of the first.
So both the limitations of the hardware, and the limitations of the audience of the consoles put very large restrictions on the development of the second Deus Ex. Yes GTA was done beautifully on all systems, but DX isn't GTA. GTA is nowhere near as complex as the first DX. A great Deus Ex sequel could only have been done for PC.
Age, Civ, The Sims, Starcraft and (I think) warcraft are all games in which you command large groups of people. This doesn't work well with the limited input on a console. In 3rd and 1st person games where you control 1 person it becomes a matter of preference. Personally I can't aim with a mouse, many people are equally bad with a controller. Doom 3 is available on consoles. As for Counterstrike, Quake, Deus Ex, Etc., how many people outside the hardcore gaming community play them, or even know about some of them? They simply don't have the mass appeal of games like Halo and GTA, not because the content is any worse (often it's better) but simply because they are PC games.
Consoles will always be for the casual gamer that really has no idea about games. Competetive gaming, and the chance of gaming becoming a sport, lies in the computer. No other platform can handle competetive gaming.
-- Design. Create. Assemble. --
Or because they're all FPSs. Contrary to popular belief, the first person shooter isn't the ideal game to most people. Not only that, but PC games have a pretty high price of entry to the average gamer, while the price of Halo could be as little as $25 for a controller and the gas money to a friend's house. Not everyone wants to soup up their computer with a nice graphics card, a bunch of RAM and a fast network connection just to play CS:Source. Halo is about a hundred times more accessible to any average person with a few friends.
Comparing what's coming out to what used to. I've been a PC gamer since you could be a PC gamer. That's a long time. Genres I loved have risen and died. I've gotten sick of FPSes. I've rekindled an appreciation of them. I've gotten sick of them again.
Even over the last few years I've seen the decline worsen. Gaming shops that might have a PC section, if you're lucky, which might be almost as big as the gamecube section, if you're lucky, and might stock new/rarer things, if you're lucky.
And a lot of this I pin on MS because MS has a lot of pull due to DirectX and owning the ONLY real PC gaming platform outright. They didn't start it, but I definately noticed a hit in PC land when they launched their console. And I noticed where the priorities for Deus Ex: IW were.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Yes it's dying, it's turning into the modern equivalent of the late Amiga game market. niche games (like the turn based wargames) ports, games from Europe, and games by dev houses that are anti-console snobs.
Oh sure the PC will play home for indie games for dev houses too poor to go console, but if those guys have a hit, say goodbye to them.
The consoles can handle any genre, even ones like the strategy titles. Just because they haven't played host to such games much in the past doesn't mean they can't be done.
And most telling, Microsoft would rather people not play games on PC's, due to the support costs. Same pretty much goes for Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.
This is my first post so please bear with me. I think the Pros and Cons are this: PCs demand Constant upgrades to keep up with the newest games. (I am having hell getting my Computer to run WoW without overheating becase of the video card) Consoles dont need to be upgraded or messed with. PC games need Patches OFFEN. Consoles RARELY. PC games are either hard to find or rare to find. Console games are more common in places like Wal Mart. PC games are ussualy better in the long run but many are starting to suck. Console Games are getting cranked out at high speeds but losing alot of good game stuff because of it. I own a PC, PS2, and a Game Cube. I like to play games. But I will admit that my PC has the most demand of any game stuff I can do. So it starting to get less love from me.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
Actually your responses along with just real world observations and economics pretty much prove his point.
I love my PC games, still the best way to play RTS, FPS, simulations, and funkie titles that will never make it to a console. But, when I just want to "tray-and-play" a game with some friends, it is hard to beat a console.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Another thing I've noticed (more recently) is that consoles are much more 'group' friendly - whether it's from multi-screen play (less so in this regard) or from simple gameplay functionality.
When you want to sit down and slug away for 50 hours on an RPG - PC's can't be beat.
But when you have a couple of buddies over and want to have a game that you can do 'pass the controller' with, console games (at least some of them) are easier to adopt into this type of gameplay.
This isn't entirely from the living room positioning of the games, but also from the simple style of games that are available on the console.
Whether it's doing Halo co-op, driving games, games like 'amped' (or similar) and so on, playing with multiple people is infinitely easier than everyone huddling around a PC...
Even games like GTA lend themselves towards this kind of gaming situation - you can have 'get the most stars' or simply ripping around until you die gaming marathons with numerous people - things that you would never do with your PC gaming buddies is so much easier to do with a console for some reason.
Gekido's Lair
Once again, I'm humbled by ad homenim, anonymous posting, and non-presentation of actual facts to back up claims.
In later news, The sun isn't going anywhere soon either. Yes, it has been confirmed. Stay tuned for the news at 10:00 where will tell you all about breathing and why we won't stop doing it.
Seriouslly, this isn't news at all, don't ever post again.
First, I'm a greybeard. I've been running RPG's fairly seriously for 30 years. I've written fiction, I've written software (including some text based games in the mainframe days)... That's my background.
Okay, so here is my take on this.
Number 1: RPG's are story driven. The player(s) need to accomplish something in the world, and even if the means is largely combat, the point is some meaningful change in the world (trivially, the status or 'level' of the characters, but in most games, either power or saving the world or....). So let's call this the 'Quest.'
Number 2: There needs to be a backdrop for Quests to happen against. This needs to be something approximating a believable world. Hence the fact that, pound for pound, gaming 'world' books outweigh gaming 'rule' books, and most rule books have a huge amount of 'world' content in them as well.
Number 3: (as has been stated in this thread) There is a social process at work - the players know each other, as do the characters - that prevents PKing in most cases. In my experience, people who PK either get PK'd in turn, or get thrown out of a gaming group. This breaks down in a larger social setting - for example, in RPG tournaments there is more of this than in 'friends' games.
So.... How is it that we can conceive of a MMO working? First of all, story is just about absent. Quests are things like 'camping' and 'go kill Joe, get his foo.' Not 'someone is undermining the security of northwest Lafania, and the villagers are looking for a champion, and....'
Second, the worlds themselves are fairly flat/boring/uninteresting, and this is inevitable because they are settings not for one group of adventurers, but for thousands of groups. There is no background for a Quest because there is no background - no solidity to the environment that provides meaningful context for actions...
Third, the social group doesn't help create a good game, but works against it. PK'ing has no real cost. At least, it is hard to have it cost. Sure, you can have reputation systems, but people can create new characters to get away from their bad rep. This just isn't necessary in f2f rpg's
So in every way, an online MMO fails to be a real rpg. This doesn't have to be so. For example, you could:
(1) Create an instance of a world for each group of say 20 players, so that the ratio of players to background characters and world story threads would be much higher. Too expensive?
(2) Have the game simulate warfare, where people had simple roles - that's been done, and it works much better, but it ain't role playing, it is virtual combat with personification...
(3) Develop strong AI capable of making up stories, keeping them coherent, adapting them to events as players interact with the world,... In other words, to be 'Game Masters.' Not holding my breath on strong AI :
We should give up on RPG's being 'on a computer.' Sure, 'assisted by a computer' perhaps, but even that doesn't work well (as experiments with say Neverwinter Nights will demonstrate)...
-- RandomRob --
He makes sense, although i don't agree with everything he sais.