Slashdot Mirror
PC Games Giant Rouses From Slumber
An anonymous reader writes "The Rocky Mountain news has a piece up looking at the revival of PC gaming." From the article: "'PC gaming used to take up the entire store,' said Ken Levine, president and creative director for Irrational Games. 'Now PC gaming get's a tiny little shelf. Literally you have a fraction of the shelf space.' So which is it for the future of PC gaming? Is it a dinosaur marching toward the tar pits or a sleeping giant ready to wake and reclaim its past glory? The industry's top advocates say there are plenty of problems keeping PC gaming down - but just as much potential that portend its inevitable rebirth."
The day that PC games do not literally have a fraction of the shelf space in a store is the day the universe faces some serious, serious issues.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
"Shelf space" is obsolete - the last few computer games I bought were 100% pure electrons. (I paid online too, of course, before downloading.) The "shelf space" battle will always tilt toward the console-playing, Best-Buy-shopping, mouth-breathing masses. Show me "units sold" or "revenue per unit" and I'll pay more attention.
Well, off the top of my head I would say that shelf space is directly proportional to profit. Used console games generate a TON of profit so they are going to be displayed prominantly. With (comparitively) little profit coming from PC games and the non-exsistance of used PC games at stores, it just wouldn't make sense from their perspective to devote alot of valuble eye level shelf space to them. Also, you can walk into EB games and GameStop and buy a console game and the hardware you need to play it on at the same time. You walk in see the display model of the Xbox 360 say "WOW cool graphics" and buy the system and game right there. For a PC game you have to rely on the screenshots the size of your thumb on the back of the box. The companies know this and they allocate shelf space accordingly.
When you have great games like FEAR or Civ IV or HL2 or Battlefield 2 still being produced, you can hardly say that PC games are on the way out. I don't buy the argument that if you're providing less and less shelf space for a product that the product itself is getting marginalized. If customers know it's there they'll seek it out and grab at it. I think the shrinking shelf space is a symptom of pressure to push crappy console games from EA or the fact that the used console games market is where games stores are really making their money and reselling PC games is sort of an area that most retailers would rather tread lightly in if at all.
Take a look at Walmart. Walmart deals in small margins anyway so they don't care what you buy as long as you're buying. They give just as much shelf space to PC games as they do the each of the major consoles.
Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
The article states that the fact that you can upgrade the PC every six months or so is a reason why PC gaming will revive. That's the exact reason why I *stopped* doing PC gaming. I love the fact that the console games are going to work on my hardware. Period. No system specs, no surprises, the game works. I spend $200-500 (depends on the console) and it's good for 5 years.
Prior to that: Oooo, look at the shiny new game I want to play...crap, need to upgrade, can I afford it? The 50$ game suddenly becomes a $400-$600 game because of upgrades, and this is every 6 months to a year. Screw that noise.
I think part of the problem is that whenever I go into Fry's Electronics (i used to work there), there are 100's of games on the shelf. It's hard to weed out the ones that might be interesting to you.
Also, most of the video games come in fairly large packaging with just a CD. Even the manuals are now in PDF format on the CD. Give me a break. I wanna hold it in my hand and read it.
Third. Most games only make like 50 cents to a couple bucks profit per game, when stuff like stuffed animals (fry's electronics sells them in the same area) make probably 800%-1000% profit. Not much incentive to give shelf space to a product that doesn't make you that much money in the first place.
then every videogame has reduced shelf space
When will people get it? There is obviusly a cyclic development. When new game consoles come out, PC gaming suffers. When the consoles are a bit outdated, PC gaming will rise again. And so on and so on.
Best Buy gives PC games an isle or two which is more than what they offer other indiviual systems. Even Target and Walmart give PC games an isle, compared to a glass case. Usually PC Games get half of the space at Electronics Boutique stores. I don't think there is any merit to the claim.
I suppose all of that would change if the PC Games would distribute in consistently smaller packages.
Marques Johansson
I would think that high costs are a big problem with PC games, both high development costs (having to develop for a huge variety of hardware combinations) and high costs to play -- PCs that play the latest games at respectable levels are expensive compared to consoles.
Note: I own no consoles and many PC games.
It's also a good way to get people to not play your game. It's always the "big bad pirates" who are stealing money from the game manufacturers. The industry doesn't want to admit that they're churning out a lof of junk lately, so let's jump on the bandwagon of "It's those damn pirate kids" to save face.
I haven't bought a new PC game in about a year (I've purchased a couple "older" games now that they're in the <$20 market)- and I haven't pirated any, either. I've bought console games, though. When the PC market comes out with something that's worth playing, I'll probably be first in line. Where are the X-Coms, or the RTSes that actually break new ground? Where are the adventure games with their beautiful story arcs? Hell, Deus Ex was a phenonmenal game, and I could see a variation on that (new story, but a similar engine) selling well- something that actually draws the player in. What about stuff like Dungeon Keeper? That game was a blast, it spawned a sequel- and then dropped off the face of the earth. What about Worm- before the 3D crap that made it so much more irritating to play? What about the Baldur's Gate-style RPGs? Hell, Icewind Dale was somewhere between Diablo and BG, and that game was loads of fun. It had it's own feel to it, even though the interface was almost an exact copy of BG.
It's sad that the days of off-the-wall games that sucked a gamer in seem to be gone in the PC World. Instead we get direct sequels that don't offer much more than a smoother engine or prettier graphics. We don't get the stuff that either offers an incredible story or that brings about something "new". And as the gaming market ages, that's going to keep being a problem- to keep the "veteran" gamers around, they're going to have to draw them in with something that they haven't seen before.
PC gaming may not be dead, but when the idiots at Irrational put Starforce on their game, they're helping to kill it.
Most games can be played pretty easily on a console ,including an FPS as Halo has proved. I know, half slashdot if not more probably doesn't agree with me, but I don't feel like arguing which is better, since Halo just proved it can be done, and I have no clue if it is better. One genre I don't see playing well with consoles any time soon (unless maybe the Revolution's input changes this) is RTS. Although it can be done (C&C was released for the n64 as I recall), it's worse then playing with a track pad, and there's a reason why RTS games are rarely ported over to consoles.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
The last EB I went to, they only had about 1/6th of the store dedicated to PC gaming.
I thought they changed PC games to a standard (and imho, far too small) game boxes because they were taking up to much space.
Make up your mind!
Demented But Determined.
"'PC gaming used to take up the entire store,' said Ken Levine, president and creative director for Irrational Games. 'Now PC gaming get's a tiny little shelf. Literally you have a fraction of the shelf space."
Meh, I buy/download every game I can via direct2drive. Hopefully, in the future, there won't even be a tiny little shelf for PC games. And as more consoles go online, in the future game stores themselves might go extinct. And, maybe they'll even drop the prices due to lower cost to distribute... yeah, well, maybe not.
"What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
Vista 4 teh Win!!!1! Vista will rise from the ashes of XP as the savior of PC gaming!
huzzah huzzah
Sarcasmomatic5000 OFF!
No matter where I go*, the PC always has the most shelf space. Probably because of the sheer number of games (roughly 50% of the games released each year are for the PC, according to the USK which ALL games released here have to go through) and the fact that old PC games can be sold for much longer than console games (because there's no generation change).
Maybe it's different in the US but here in Europe (or at least Germany) the PC is still going strong.
*= EB Games tends to allocate very little space to the PC but EB Games has very little presence here and is generally not worth entering anyway. Overpriced, cramped, half the shelf space allocated to used games or preorders, plain awful.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I can only speak for my reasons for returning to PC games, but it largely has to do with consoles losing their unique advantages.
:)
When I bought my PS1 it was WAY better than playing games on a PC, because:
1) It plugged into your TV,
2) It hardly took up any space,
3) It had no fans, ran cool, and hardly made any noise.
With the Xbox and PS2, they both have loud fans and are much bigger. I remember being very disappointed to hear that fan when I turned on my PS2 for the first time.
With the increasing popularity of Media PCs, more and more people have their PCs plugged into their TVs, or have LCD monitors that are the size of many TVs (21" for example). And since the consoles are all huge noisy machines (with the exception of Nintendo), they don't give you much over the PCs.
I know I'm probably not the average person, but my PC is connected via component and optical cables to my home theater (60" HDTV, etc.) and I have a secondary keyboard and mouse on the couch. Any game I play on the PC is automatically an HDTV game. I don't have to check the back of the box to see what resolution it is, etc. Basically it comes down to the fact that PC games actually take advantage of my system. I realize that an Xbox 360 would too, but why bother? For what it's worth, playing FEAR or Battlefield 2 on a 60" HDTV with 5.1 surround cranked sitting on the couch is an very nice experience indeed!
There has been a recent surge in the cool factor of console gaming. However PC gaming will always be on the top. Heres why.
The cpu power per dollar is highest on wintel platforms due to the huge market. Thats part of the reason why Apple went to get Intel chips. You buy one machine and it does many other things, PVR, game machine, computer, dvd player... a given nonx86 console would be hard pressed to match what a PC can do... for the price. PCs also have the largest install base. Since no one company dominates the platform, its future is also guaranteed (I know MSFT dominates the OS market, but doesnt OWN the PC). So building games for the PC makes sense. Its really building a game for one console, and not for the PC that makes little sense. So far PCs also have the best array of available controls, from wheels and joysticks to the ubiquitous keyboard and mouse for FPS games. Make a good game for a PC... it'll sell. PCs are also more cutting edge. The best graphic cards and CPUs are available for it.
I guess the only console that can beat the PC is something thats really specialized for its game genres or one that is based on a PC (the older xbox comes to mind). Even that would be more expensive than walmart/dell/beige box PCs.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
No one is talking about the BUGS! :(
From the article:
And when the newest PC hardware hits, game developers can start taking advantage of it immediately.
That's usually too fast. When I buy a console game it works. It's been tested.
Buy a PC game and fear the BUG. In the back of your mind you are going to be wondering how far you can go before the BUG bites you on your @$$. And then you wait for the patch.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
They've released another game since I bought WoW?
In my area, there's two EB games and two Gamestops in close proximity to me. In one gamestop, PC games get one 4'x5' shelf in the entire store. The other Gamestop has ZERO PC games (the sales guy said they had some promo copies of Quake 4, but literally could not sell me a computer game). Of the EB games, one has about 1/4 shelf space devoted to PC games (this is where I generally buy them), and the other has 'virtually' no PC games. No new titles, just an aging rack of left overs on clearance. Major retailers like best buy, compusa, circuit city, target seem to have a small fraction of PC to console games available. Much less than 1/2.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
Im sorry given the choice between a quality PS2 game and a quality PC game that gameplay wise is exactly the same as the PS2 game but requires me to buy a 300 dollar graphics card only to replace it 1-2 years later with possibly the whole system, Im going to buy the PS2 game.
Going through a quick look of my PC games (rather mac games) every one of them minus 2 do not require my entire system yet are entertaining, the way it should be. But far too often even the games that seem like they would require lower system requirements end up when comming out requireing me to take out a second morgage to update my system to even play with a decent framerate. The reason many of my games dont have such high system requirements is 90% of them are 2-3 years olf or more.
The problem PC gamemakers create while system gamemakers have no problems with, is that system gamemakers have little wiggle room to expand the system as it is, forcing them to make the best with lower system requirements. On the OTHER hand, PC game makers assume that everyone has the absoulte best system ending up with games that require the most out of your system with complete dissregard that aside from the hard core gameplayers, 80-90% of the people with PCs DONT have Alienware x9000l337ass systems. Why do you think some of the best selling games out there are those puzzle games that take more of a cue from tetris than Unreal. If PC game makers would take a cue from the system makers and make a great looking game within the confines of apretty basic Dell PC without the thrills, it would go a long way to getting PC gamers back who do feel they need the best of the best to get the game looking good and playing well.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
It's not all piracy people. That is such a cop out.
When many of the industry's most popular games are available on Xbox and Playstation, why on earth would I spend $600 for a top of the line video card and at least another $1500 on a gaming system, when I can play the same game on an Xbox that costs less than $200?
There are some major probems (for gamers and game-makers) that plague the whole concept of PC gaming:
1. It's easier for PC games to be pirated, so it's less lucrative an enterprise.
2. Unlike a console, where every unit is identical hardware, PCs have infinitely many hardware combinations. It's impossible to test for them all. It's also impossible for non-technical / non-computer people to clearly find the answer to the question, "can my computer run this game well?"
3. Unlike a console, where you just put in the game and turn on the power, on your PC you first have to troubleshoot hardware lockups and software crashes, download and install drivers, install the game, configure your game controller, configure the game's performance settings, etc...
4. Sometimes, despite your best technically-competent troubleshooting efforts (eating up valuable hours of your life), a particular game will just refuse to run on a given PC without locking up or crashing or performing way slower than it should on that hardware. No one can figure out why, and none of the involved companies seem to care about fixing it, even when the problem is being experienced by boatloads of people camped out in online support forums.
5. Consoles are much cheaper than PCs.
6. PC game controllers are notorious for sucking compared to console game controllers. In my experience the only way to get a good game controller on a PC is to go buy a console controller and a USB converter box from Lik-Sang.
7. You can't easily play games on a PC on your big-screen TV while sitting on your couch in the den. Yes, I know it's possible to get a PC to display on a TV, but you have to be pretty technically-competent to do that. And then, it's not a comfortable way to use your PC for other common tasks you'd want to use it for, such as web browsing or typing up Word docs. And who wants to have to lug their PC back and forth all the time between a computer desk and the den?
8. PC hardware tends to have a higher failure rate, in my experience, due to the variety of non-integrated components from a variety of different sources, never tested together. Consoles are completely integrated designs, engineered to be a lot more durable.
9. PCs still have delicate little connectors with lots of pins that have to be carefully inserted the right way. Consoles always have tough connectors that can only fit one way, such that constant abuse by rowdy teens or children doesnt' destroy them.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
XBox 360: ATI card with no equivilent on today's market and 3 3.2 ghz processors - $299.99.
Computer with best available ATI card and only a single 3.2 ghz processor - $1000+.
Computer manufacturers are not receiving a cut of every piece of software used on the system (unlike MS and the Xbox or Sony and the PS).
PC Gaming was great a decade ago when everyone had a 486 or Pentium and graphic capabilities were rather standard across the board. You could make a fun game for relatively little investment and not too many headaches on the compatibility side. They were also generally aimed at a different market than console games of the time. No-brained action games were on consoles, lengthy strategic games were on the PC. Nowadays the PC has to directly compete with late consoles, except it costs a crapload of money to have a decent gaming PC. Blowing $900 on the latest NVidia card isn't enough, now you need two to get the full experience, don't forget a $500 processor and a couple gigs of ram to go with it. I've built pure gaming rigs that totaled $6k without the monitor.. it's absurd!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
1) First of all, portability is a MAJOR problem. I have a number of little cousins, and they move their PS2 wherever they please. The same goes for my friend and his XBox. In order to overcome the the lack of mobility, you need some kind of anchor that keeps people buying PC games. That anchor used to be exclusive titles, but now damn near all of the top PC Games have been ported to console. Although that has always been the case, the difference is that now PS2/XBox have enough power to run them without looking like crap (remember Doom 2 on Super Nintendo?)
2) Secondly, and most importantly, PC Games suck. You mention all the good games, but do you mention how poorly some of them run? A perfect example of this would be FarCry. The original version ran like utter crap. The graphics were just ok, and the maps had a ton of bugs in them. The game wasn't even decent until you patched it. And don't even get me started on the bug riddled landfill that is Battlefield 2.
PC Game makers churn out games as quickly as possible, because they know you'll just sit and wait for the patches to be released. Since you can't just patch a console game, they actually take the time to get it right the first time. It may sound like nothing to you, but you'd be amazed how many people just play games at face value and judge it as such. There is a whole 'nother community of people who play games and DON'T hang out in game forums - they simply play the game, and if it's buggy, they say it sucks (no patching needed).
I've always been under the belief that what ever is happening in computer games will happen on the consoles in the future. Given the current state of the gaming market in general, perhaps consoles will stop sucking again.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Have you noticed how many patches and releases NWN has? eew.
Worse, with their stupid "copy protection" i have to insert the FREAKING CD to play!
Then, I got stuck because now I don't know what to do, and there's nowhere (in the game, I mean) I can get hints from. I just have this "to do list" so generic it drives me mad. "Collect all the words of power". WTF? I know that, but where's the NEXT one dammit!
And why don't the companies release 2D games for the PC? And I mean those that keep selling in portables (that will become obsolete 2 years from now). The hardware can CERTAINLY handle a platformer and a mouse.
What happened with the Indiana Jones Graphic adventures? With cool platformers as Flashback? Why isn't there a PC version of "Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow"? What about Lemmings?
So, wanna know why we don't buy PC games anymore? Because they STOPPED MAKING THEM, doh!
From TFA
"He points to piracy as a chief culprit in the sales drop. He says developers need to first find ways to make people pay.
"What developers and publishers need to do is come up with distribution plans and new copy protection plans," he said. "When you see a game that requires you to be online to play, people can't steal that game." "
How about lowering the price tag? I buy as many PC games a year as I can afford; and DL the rest that I want to play anyway. If the games were only $30 each I could support more game developers.
He points to piracy as a chief culprit in the sales drop. He says developers need to first find ways to make people pay.
Look, I'm an adult who plays my share of games. I pay actual, real money for them. I'm what you call an honest customer. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let a Starforce-esque DRM scheme take over my computer just to play a game. And I'll be damned if I have to log in every time I want to play a single-player game on a computer that I might not even want to have connected to the Intarweb - twice damned if the company running the login server screws the world over by going out of business.
Game companies target the stereotypical gamer, the teenager or early twentysomething male. Just looking at the selection of games available makes this painfully obvious. But if you want to get more people to buy your games, why not target an audience that actually has money to blow? If you're going to make a FPS, make a Thief or a System Shock 2 - a thinking person's FPS - rather than another mindless Quake clone. Make a game with an interesting storyline like the Elder Scrolls series rather than focusing on smackin' up yo' bitches in GTA7: The Search for More Crack. The MMOG market, with its median age several years higher than the general gaming market, already shows that adults with money are willing to dump tons of that money into game entertainment.
Yet for every Civilization or SimCity, there are hundreds of loads of crap out there trying to turn adrenaline and testosterone into money.
Now, the game developers are welcome to make any sort of game they want. But when nearly all of their offerings target the people who don't have independently-earned incomes, they shouldn't complain that piracy is killing the industry. In fact, their insistence upon going where the money isn't tells me that piracy isn't nearly the problem they want us to believe it to be. Do people play the games without paying for them? Sure. Do they not sell as many copies because of it? Certainly. But if the industry were really on the verge of collapse, they would have started selling games to people with money rather than letting themselves all go under.
Did they take into consideration that PC Games are no longer packaged in huge boxes? Remember the good ol' days (5 years ago) where PC Games came in these enourmous packaging with many colorful pictures and wordings, but only contained a CD with perhaps a small manual?
The PC Game packages have since moved to smaller boxes and guess what...they take up less space.
Let's see the latest Nvidia card that capable of playing Doom 3 is probably closer to $80 on New Egg and an Extra 512 stick of ram isn't that much either. Explain to me why I would want to spend the money on a console again? ? I could move that Nvidia and that stick of ram possibly the other older stick, plus my harddrive, cd/dvd drives or anything else to a new pc. I would spend about $200 for a new processor and motherboard and get what I want.
Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo tell me what I want in a system and make me buy games for their platforms specifically. Oh and if I mod that console I could get sued by the company? Come on seriously console gaming hasn't had a "killer app" in the past few years, much less something I want to take the time to play anymore. And PCs are so main stream and come with better and better video cards anymore that you can play games like fear or battlefield 2 on a dell box for a decent price. And if you feel the need you can upgrade that machine.
Customization makes PC gaming come back to life and with console gaming getting ready to take a downturn you can bet that PC games will come back to life. That and customization and the internet are going to be the main anywhere you go.
One genre I don't see playing well with consoles any time soon (unless maybe the Revolution's input changes this) is RTS.
Try Advance Wars: Dual Strike for Nintendo DS to see what is possible. True, it isn't real-time, but the control scheme would be the same.
I think it's supposed to refer to people so stupid they can't even remember to close their mouths and effectively breathing through their mouth. Yes, it's pretty insulting for those of us who can't get enough air when breathing only through the nose.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
but it largely has to do with consoles losing their unique advantages.
Unfortunately, affordable multiplayer in the same room is still a console advantage.
With the increasing popularity of Media PCs, more and more people have their PCs plugged into their TVs
So where are the four-player shared-screen PC-native titles? Why don't more PC games have a split-screen or overhead- or side-view mode that takes input from four USB gamepads? Where are the equivalents of Bomberman, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., etc. for PC? I don't want to have to pay $4,000 for four gaming PCs and four monitors just to let the two kids and their play dates play a four-player game. So why don't PC game publishers let me split my 1280x720 pixel HDTV into four 640x360 windows for four players, all controlled by the same PC?
So far PCs also have the best array of available controls, from wheels and joysticks to the ubiquitous keyboard and mouse for FPS games.
It's too bad that most PC games can't use more than one controller at once. With a console, I can connect four gamepads, and one will control each player's character. If I wanted to connect my PC to a TV and then connect four gamepads to the PC, almost all available titles would most likely read only the first gamepad, put only one player-controlled character on the screen, and ignore the rest.
It has got to be related to the cost of upgrading your system. I remember when stores were dedicated solely to stocking computer software. When purchasing a game, the only thing I had to verify was whether it contained a 5.25 or 3.5 inch floppy. I didn't even need to upgrade my 8088 for five years. Now, I don't even bother looking through the PC game section; I already know without looking that my system isn't fast enough to play any of the games I really want to play.
Really, ask yourself: Wouldn't you get sick of having to read the cases of each and every Playstation 2 / XBOX game just to make sure you had all of the most updated hardware necessary to play the game?
I miss Sierra On-line and Infocom...ugh...
Dysson
Especially after I installed all those emulators, such as MAME!
Hopefully, in the future, there won't even be a tiny little shelf for PC games.
Then how will those 10 percent of people who cannot get broadband in their area buy PC games without having to pay $100,000 for urban real estate? And because it would eliminate the used market, what if I want to buy a game, but the publisher has stopped selling it so that it doesn't cannibalize sales of the publisher's new title?
And why don't the companies release 2D games for the PC?
Does your ISP block PopCap Games or something?
Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket... Most of the PC games that come out now are either first person shooters (assuming everyone likes the excessive violence) or MMORPG's (assuming people want to pay for the subscription or even have the connection for it). Heck last I heard, broadband usage was at 25% at most. To this very day, one of my favorite games of all time is Sim City (although I'm in love with Neverball on Linux).
Contrary to popular belief, the PC gaming industry is still alive and strong. Consoles are better suited to certain genres and many of those genres are a dime a dozen. PC gaming, however, has RTS, FPS and MMORPGs to its credit. And while consoles have penetrated all three of those genres, they are the bread and butter of the PC gaming industry and they offer a far superior experience.
Not with the slew of MMORPG's coming out. Play that on your console! I Dare ya!
The Poetry of Google Voice is very strange.
gv-poetry.com
Gaming consoles already [have single-screen multiplayer], and do that well, for a lot cheaper. And while Media Center PC's are getting a lot more popular, they are not THAT popular yet...
Media Center PCs aren't popular yet because there isn't a killer app for them yet, and publishers don't want to develop and market a killer app for Media Center PCs because there aren't enough of them. Are independent shareware games the only way out?
Perhaps it's important to note that PCs aren't really good gaming machines. (ack, the flames, they burn!) PCs as platforms have inconsistant hardware, inconsistant controls, they are expensive for consumers, difficult to support, and generally located in less comfortable spaces than TVs. I say let it go. To my eternal shame, I had to upgrade my computer to play Civ 4. I would much rather have had it on my PS2.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Go to your local Wal-Mart electronics area... or hell, Best Buy. Video games get a small section for each console. Computer games? An entire area. Best Buy has several aisles of computer games. Wal-Mart has a half aisle, the same amount they give to the combined total of each console. Don't talk about and theorize about this stuff when you can just as easily go down to the store and see for yourself.
How can so many people perfer to play games on a PS2? My PS2 displayed in 640x480 on a TV several yards away from my couch. My PC displays in 1600x1200, two feet away, and has a nice office chair in front of it. I own a half dozen PS2 games that I've never finished, but would if I could play them on my PC. (don't say TV card. 480i looks like shit scaled up on a monitor.)
Or those poor starving people in China who don't even have feet!
You don't need to have feet to be a farmer. All you need is access to a machine running MMORPG software.
If publishers get a larger cut of the sale price for electronic software delivery ... doesn't it make sense to drop the 10% without broadband?
Not if you can still get a large percentage of gross by selling discs online to customers on dial-up.
After reading the article, I just dont see wheres the sleeping giant rousing, whatever. All the article says is PC gaming is in all time LOW (actually if it werent for MMORPGS like WOW it would be even worst) so is time for an upswing! (rolls eyes)
So.. using the same logic, if the cubs havent won the series in 20 years, is pretty sure they will do now!
Heres a clue to get more shelf space, stop pricing the 3d cards at $500 expecting everyone to buy them, stop forcing PC users to buy those cards by pushing developers into using them and asking them as requirements, start thinking more on medium-low end pcs to create interesting games, start making games that can be played rigth from the dvd, Buy a DAMN controller! you cant play all kind of games using a keyboard, just like you cant play RTS with a controller, is just not the same. Try independent games they are better and cheaper than you think.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
The PC platform is too complex, so the customers don't know whether the game will work with their computer or not. Do you have enough harddrive? Do you have a supported graphics card? Do you have sufficient processing power? Do you have enough RAM?
When you buy a console, you keep it for four-five years and buy games for it that are clearly labeled.
This simplicity is why the console wins.
Joe Sixpack don't wanna know about ATI Radeon Atomic SuperXXL 991213000. Or whatever they call 'em nowadays.
Stop the brainwash
Okay, I admit, I'm a console gamer, former disgruntled PC gamer, I tend to like the style of games that come out on consoles, so I'm a bit biased. But from about 1999-2003, I had a PC (I'm back to Mac for good now), and tried to get into the PC gaming genre. This was probably the most frusterating experience of my life. Every year, I found I was outclassed and couldn't run the latest games. To keep up, I would have had to throw $150 at a video card every year and a half, and $300 on a new motherboard/processor every 3 years. And as we know, upgrading only goes so far, eventually you gotta replace it with a whole new box, which, for a decent gaming PC that won't fall behind in 6 months, is a good $1500.
Last year I bought a GameCube for $100, before that, I bought a used PS2 for $150. For hardware, that's all I've had to spend. The average generation for a console is about 5-6 years (PS2 was released in 2000, GameCube in 2001, if I remember correctly), so if I keep up with even 2 consoles, and buy them at launch cost ($300-$400), I'm spending about half of what it would be to replace a computer every 6 years (and I've never had a computer for 6 years), not including all the upgrades it requires to keep it up to date.
The fact is, PC gaming is EXPENSIVE, very expensive. If the target audience is around 13-18—many of these kids don't have jobs, if they do, they're working at McDonald's for $7/h. It comes down to this: kid finds a game he likes, looks at the box and realizes that his computer can't handle it (this happened to me about 90% of the time growing up). Now, if he's game, he can throw $150 on a new video card, or $150 at a PS2, during mid-generation, and that's that. After years and years of having to make the choice between "throw money at upgrading dohickey" or "buy console and be done with it", as I did, most people finally get smart.
But the other reason PC gaming is "dying" or at least in a slump, is the XBox, which has taken over the genres of games formerly occupied by PCs. The PS2 also moved in to fill some of the gap. FPSs, MMORPGs, these are PC genres, hell, even GTA migrated over... fairly successfully, to put it lightly.
Third, the advent of party gaming. It came into the spotlight with the N64, but with the XBox and GameCube, have grown into a hugely successfull market. Sports games, fighing games—hell, smash bros melee practically stands as a market all on its own—outside of heavilly prepared LAN parties, these are almost impossible to market or play on PC.
But I would say the #1 reason goes back the frusteration of getting a computer to play games, of which I experienced hundreds of hours with growing up. I'm a techy, but I have no interest in adding even MORE hours of troubleshooting to my life than I already do, so I've switched, have you?
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
there is zero customer demand.
You mean the publishers think there is zero customer demand.
Notice that you only pointed out Nintendo titles for your examples [of shared-screen multiplayer games].
Bomberman is published by Hudson, not Nintendo. In some regions, it was more popular on NEC's PC Engine (also called TurboGrafx-16) than on any Nintendo system. And you can replace "Mario Kart" with any publisher's four-player console racing game, even on Dreamcast or Xbox, and the point will still be valid.
1. Online gaming paid by the month.
2. Make a decent game and people will buy it.
They are not necessary to play new games, unless your substitute for happiness in life is related to 16X Anti-aliasing and running at 1600X1200 ALL THE TIME. A game developer that expected everyone to play on the lastest and greatest hardware would be out of business if they did not offer lower resolutions to play at. And as for hardware configuration/troubleshooting READ A BLOODY REVIEW FIRST, whether for software of hardware it beats the socks off of buying blind and dealing with what you get. CONSOLES NEVER CHANGE WHILE PCS CAN BE UPGRADED; whether you upgrade to something better/cost effective is a choice not an obligation. IF a game comes out that you really want to play at HIGH RESOLUTION/SETTINGS then it is a CHOICE not an OBLIGATION. No one makes you play the newest games, it is like the powergaming whiners who blow through 60 levels of WOW at top speed and then whine for lack of content. I paid $150 for a NVIDIA 6600GT and it has been more than FINE for anything that has come out; I will bet 99% of people whining about high priced video cards never even bought one to begin with.
PC Gaming is dying on its arse because too many companies are releasing the same old FPS or MMORPG junk that no-one cares about. That simple.