PC Games On the Rebound

Via The Escapist, an article on the New York Times website discussing the rebirth of the PC games industry. The piece talks about the bright-looking future for titles on the PC, citing the platform's ease and speed of development and Microsoft's 'Games for Windows' initiative as points in its favour. Mass-market PC maker adoption of the hardcore gaming market is also discussed, with financials being the main thrust of the article. That focus is a double edged sword, given the obvious comparison to console games: "The upsurge comes after some recent reversals. Over all, retail sales of PC-based games in the United States exceeded $970 million in 2006, an increase of about 1 percent of sales the previous year of $953 million, which represented about a 14 percent drop from $1.1 billion in 2004. By contrast, according to the NPD Group, retail sales for console games in 2006 were $4.8 billion; another $1.7 billion was spent on games for hand-held devices like Sony's PlayStation Portable."

Comments

WoW

[Reason58]

Over all, retail sales of PC-based games in the United States exceeded $970 million in 2006, an increase of about 1 percent of sales the previous year of $953 million, which represented about a 14 percent drop from $1.1 billion in 2004. World of Warcraft was released in 2004. The first expansion was released in 2007. What do you want to bet that the there will be another spike in sales for the 2007 figures?

I dare to disagree

[Opportunist]

Actually, I predict procrastination and/or a desaster.

With DX10 for Vista only, and Vista not being the hot cake MS wanted it to be, studios are sitting between chairs now. Develop for Vista and DX10, and risk not selling much 'cause people refuse to upgrade (erh, downgrade) just for a game? Or develop for XP and DX9 and suffer bad reviews for using "old tech"?

Honestly, I could not make a qualified decision now if I was in the exec's chair of a game studio.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Joe U]

Or develop for both DX9 and DX10, like Flight Simulator.

Re:I dare to disagree

[SighKoPath]

Why not just develop for OpenGL?

Re:I dare to disagree

[brkello]

There are only 2 options that make sense from a business perspective. Make the game run in both DX9 and DX10. Or go with DX9 because that is the lagest install base. Going with DX10 only would be a huge mistake and it would cost you a lot of money. For example, World of Warcraft isn't the most graphically amazing MMO out there by a long shot. But because it can run on older hardware, they have many more subscribers. If they made World of Starcraft DX10 only, it would die a horrible death. There will always be ids and other game companies that push the graphical edge...but right now it doesn't make sense from a business perspective. Most gamers know that XP runs games better. Until Vista can beat XP, no one in there right mind is going to touch it.

Re:I dare to disagree

[TheRaven64]

It does, but the graphics bit is the hardest. Here are some of the other things DirectX handles:

• Sound. Pretty important. You can go OpenAL here if you want (and it's the only way of getting accelerated sound on Vista, since it doesn't accelerate DirectX audio), or you can stick with DirectX 9 and still have it work on XP and Vista.
• Networking. DirectPlay has come a long way, but I'm not sure how many games actually use it. If you want, Apple have released a(n open, cross-platform) replacement, but I think most big game houses roll their own networking code.
• Media. You could use QuickTime, but it's a huge pain to develop with compared to DirectShow (or whatever it's called these days). On the other hand, you can once again stick with the older API and not have any problems.
• Input. DirectX does well here, but this is a very small part of the codebase of your average game. Most companies will use some custom middleware that will handle it on their supported platforms, using DirectX or whatever else is available on the back end.

The biggest improvements DirectX 10 brings to the table are in graphics. You could probably write most of a game using DirectX 6, and just use the latest APIs for graphics, and few people would notice. Sticking with DirectX 9 for everything except the graphics isn't really a hardship for most people, especially since they've just spent the last few years developing tools to work with DirectX 9.

Re:I dare to disagree

[Lazerf4rt]

I doubt you'll be able to access the advanced features in OpenGL that rely on DX10, though.

Yeah, you can. OpenGL extensions are already available.

Re:I dare to disagree

[DCastagna]

Why not OpenGL?

Re:I dare to disagree

[Opportunist]

Generally, yes, though I disagree with DirectPlay. It has one HUGE disadvantage: You can't create a server for Linux without rewriting the code comletely, while it's fairly easy if you rely on standard BSD sockets, since they work on any NT kernel and linux almost without any changes.

"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Murrdox]

I'm very upset over the MS "Games for Windows" initiative.

"Games for Windows" is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

What it pretends to be is Microsoft trying to improve the PC gaming scene. Make game system requirements more legible to the non-geek, increase compatibility, better market PC games, etc.

However, what it REALLY is, is Microsoft using their complete dominance of the PC game market to extend that dominance to the console. They're using their PC Monopoly to leverage the X-Box, and X-Box Live. The end result will be to get PC Gamers to pay extra for content they get for free now, just like console players are doing on X-Box Live.

A requirement for a game to be branded a "Game for Windows" is that it is compatible with an X-Box 360 Controller. Need I say more? They're pushing for all PC games to also be X-Box 360 Games. If the PC Game is also an X-Box game, then it can use X-Box Live. If it can use X-Box Live, they can figure out a way to release content for it in micro-payments, and nickel and dime us to death on games that we used to get updated content for free on.

Considering the fact that Sony and Nintendo are incapable of competing with Microsoft on this initiative... I'm really surprised no one at the Justice Department has taken notice. It's blatant leveraging of a monopoly if you ask me. I don't see how it's legal.

And I don't see PC games as dying. They're not going anywhere. There might be a little less of them than there used to be... but 50% of the console games that come out nowadays are complete crap. I'd say only about 20% of the PC games that come out nowadays are crap. Those numbers come right out of my butt, of course. I'm willing to deal with better quality and less quantity on the PC.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[KDR_11k]

A requirement for a game to be branded a "Game for Windows" is that it is compatible with an X-Box 360 Controller.

Really? How do I play Company of Heroes with that gamepad, then?

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Vexor]

I'll admit the idea of using a xbox controller for a few games on the PC slightly appeals to me (flying games/racing). Nothing is ever going to replace a keyboard/mouse combo for a shooter game though....

Making a game controller compatible to get the "games for windows" tag is completely crap though. Windows == PC == Keyboard/Mouse. No way should a controller be a requirement.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Manchot]

Considering the fact that Sony and Nintendo are incapable of competing with Microsoft on this initiative... I'm really surprised no one at the Justice Department has taken notice. It's blatant leveraging of a monopoly if you ask me. I don't see how it's legal.

The current administration isn't interested in prosecuting monopolies who abuse their power. That's why Microsoft got off their guilty verdict so easy when Bush came into office. Hopefully our next president believes in a fair, competitive market.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[Murrdox]

You'll have to describe to me how my premise that MS has dominance over the PC game market is false.

Walk into a game store, and find for me the PC games that are made for other operating systems besides Windows. If you go into an Apple store, you'll find a few Mac versions of some games, but not much. Besides some educational titles, you won't find many Mac titles that aren't also on Windows.

It is not COMPLETE. You can find scattered games that are made for Mac. You can find scattered games for Linux. However, I'd say well over 95% of the PC games that are made (I'm talking about retail games here, not browser games) are for Windows. Some of these games are made with a second version for a Mac. Some make a Linux version.

If that's not dominating the market, you'll have to explain to me what is. You seem confident in your assertion that I'm wrong... but you don't really explain why. I'm interested to know.

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[MBGMorden]

Had one way back when (even remember the little screw in joystick you could put into the pad :)), but that couldn't really work out long term, and for one, very, very important reason: calibration. Just to put this into perspective for the youngins: back then when you started a pc game, you had to first move the joystick/gamepad to the upper left, and press the action button. Then to the lower right, and press it. Then center it, and press it. Then you could play the game. Sorta.

For a kid who also had an NES system, it sucked. Instead of a nice responsive system, you got characters who would move a little bit at a time even at neutral position. Or who would get stuck going on one direction. The calibration would eventually get out of whack, and you'd have to exit, restart the game, and recalibrate to play for another hour at most.

Back then I even went so far as to purchase a seperate ISA Gravis gamecard, complete with external speed adjustment dongle and everything, because they were supposed to hold calibration much better. Credit where credit is due, it was better than just a sound card gameport, but it still was not perfect.

Now, EVENTUALLY, they came out with digital gamepads (Gravis made one of these too). Far, far better, but the digital nature had trouble with many gameports. The USB gamepad was nothing short of amazing to anyone who remembered the aweful old analog gamepads, though it seems by the time they came along there was nothing left worth using a gamepad to play :(. All the 2d scrollers that could have been appropriate for it (Commander Keen, Crystal Caves, Megaman PC, etc) were all just memories by then.

Still, back then I did get decent and used to just using the keyboard to play instead. Computer games at the time generally were far cheaper than console games (certain clearanced ones, classics like Elite for example, I got for under $5), and so I don't look at that time completely negatively :).

Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push

[secolactico]

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/780/780989p1.html

Just because it's true doesn't mean it's not funny. :-)

Mouse/keyboard FTW!

Re:Not Surprising

[jimstapleton]

Not surprising when you consider that a PS3 more than a a midrange gaming PC.

Normally I hate the "fixed" style replies, but...

fixed.

Thinking of upgrading BUT

[RichPowers]

Vista and DX10 pose a problem for me. Should I upgrade to Vista and buy an expensive DX10 graphics card even though gaming studios won't enthusiastically support DX10 for a while? Or should I buy a solid DX9 graphics card (saving me money), keep XP, and hope studios still support DX9 over the life of my new system? Or do I continue using my aging system while waiting for the PC gaming landscape to pan out? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I imagine many people face the same conundrum.

What serious PC gamer cares about Games for Windows? Same goes for MS's upcoming "Xbox Live Only for Windows" online gaming service. We already have Steam and free online games sans MS's bullshit and complications. Publicly, MS is trying to make PC's more "gaming-friendly," but I think we all know what they're really up to: making PCs into an extension of their Xbox franchise. But I don't think the devoted PC gamers will buy into it...at least I hope not.

PC gaming's biggest issue will remain piracy. I used to pirate games left and right until I stepped back and realized what I was doing to the industry. Now I buy all of my games. While I'm certainly not a pirate witchhunter, I fear that continued piracy will force developers to release PC games crossplatform. And that basically means dumbing-down PC games so they work with the consoles.

PS: "Rebirth" suggests PC gaming died. Contrary to the flood of half-assed alarmist articles we see, this was never the case.

Nice work there

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I hate to tell you this, but...

Flight Simulator X Service Pack 1

[Cryptnotic]

The current FS X is DX9 only. DX10 rendering is part of the first service pack, which is not due out until fall 2007.

Re:I disagree

[AntiNazi]

You are honestly going to blame PC games for you buying a low end integrated graphics solution and then trying to do something it wasn't made to do?

Would you also be upset if your Honda Civic couldn't pull an industrial sized trailor back and forth across the continental US every day?

Re:I disagree

[sholden]

The website says:

Video: GeForce4, ATI Radeon 8500 or greater (ATI Radeon 9200 and 9250 PCI, NVIDIA Geforce 4 MX cards not supported.). Windows Vista - NVIDIA GeForce 6100 or ATI Radeon 9500 or greater. Labtop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported.

Which seems straight forward enough; your graphics card needs to have Radeon written on it with a number 8500+ except for 9200 and 9250. Or GeForce written on it with a number 4+ except for ones with "4 MX" on them.

Of course if you don't know what the damn models and numbers are it'll be confusing, but on my two machines one says in the Display Control Panel:

GeForce 7600 GT
Intel 82852/82855 GM/GME

I'd take a punt that the first will work (7 is greater than 4) and the second won't - since it doesn't say Radeon or GeForce. The last sentence (with the typo fixed) would imply to me it's unlikely to work on a laptop built today let alone a year ago.

Also if you think you need a new video card every 6 months, why would you think a year old laptop would have enough video grunt for a new game?

Never ceases to amaze me...

[immcintosh]

It happens every five years or so. It's almost like clockwork. A new generation of console systems will come out, and suddenly everybody will be predicting the demise of the PC. And sure, PC game sales and development will lag for a bit, then it'll bounce back. Now I know for a fact this has been going on since the 80's when the original Nintendo generation was supposedly going to spell the demise of the PC for gaming, and of course it never did. Why do people keep acting surprised?

Re:"Games for Windows" = no monopoly push.

[toleraen]

However, since there are no Nintendo or Sony games on the PC

My level 75 Rogue would like to have a chat with you. Preferably in a dark alley.

can we please stop acknowledging these articles?

[darga]

i really wish slashdot was above forwarding on the constant stream of "the game industry is dying!" "consoles will put pc out of business!" "pcs will put consoles out of business!" "the game industry is thriving!" bullshit articles. nothing reeks more of a slow news day. it's all spin and idle speculation. i swear these guys write these articles based on what they had their stock broker do the day before. =|