Slashdot Mirror
Brad Wardell's Plan To Save PC Gaming
A few weeks ago, we discussed Stardock CEO Brad Wardell's "Gamer's Bill of Rights," a proposal for removing some of the PC gaming industry's more obnoxious characteristics, such as annoying DRM and no-return policies. Shacknews sat down with Wardell for a lengthy interview in which he discussed his reasons for starting the project, how it's being received by game companies, and how he wants the gaming community to help. Quoting:
"I've already gotten calls from Microsoft, from Take 2, and other publishers who are interested in moving forward on this. Obviously the first step is we have to really define these items. And I've had other developers and publishers who have come back and said, 'No, because it's not flexible enough.' For example, what happens if someone wants to do a policy where there's CD copy protection, but after the first month [consumers] can download a patch that gets rid of it. So obviously that's a perfectly good solution too, but our thing eliminates the ability to do that."
I wasn't aware that PC gaming needed saving.
At least, not any more than console gaming needed saving...
That CD copy protection doesn't even work. The game gets pirated before it's released!
These companies are just fucking stupid. SOMEONE IN YOUR SUPPLY CHAIN IS STEALING FROM YOU! Why punish us?
Where do games go after they get mastered? Keep a closer eye on that.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Ideally? Get rid of DRM. It NEVER benefits the consumer, and the pirate copies have it removed anyway.
If you HAVE to use DRM because the old farts who run these companies insist on it, have the game hosted on something like Steam or GameTap.
If you do decide to go the Steam route, don't incorporate further DRM on top of the Steam version of the game (I'm looking at you, BioShock).
Get the annoying f@cktards we call 'publishers' out of the way
Read radical news here
A gamer's bill of rights? These publishers just suck. PC gaming will do just fine if they all die.
1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.
Try taking the box store to court for not providing basic fitness. Guess what? The business is willing to "deal with you".
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
Definition of finished? Perhaps they want mathematically proven code? I'd rather have a continual ladder of bugfixes and more content.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
Conflicts with #2.
4. Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
How about: Dont include updates that remove features.
5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.
If people had the balls to sue, they could do so under truth in advertising clauses.
6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.
Companies that do so should be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
9. Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
10. Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.
All fixed by using the ThePirateBay images backed up with the appropriate cracks and servers. The crackers crack the software so you have no hassle. Why pay fo it when you are treated ike a criminal anyway. Might as well live up to the ideal.
Develop
A) Cross-platform games
B) Get rid of the insane DRM, if you want a CD serial key thats fine as they are easily cracked later in its lifetime, but don't activate it online (with the exception of say, a MMORPG)
C) Develop for a generation before, don't develop a game for quad-core CPUs and dual video cards, develop for a generation before the current generation. Optimize for multiple CPUs and video cards all you want, but I won't upgrade my graphics card/RAM just to play a game.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It's about time business's (and customers) re-established good will over mindless abuse of one another.
"Get the annoying f@cktards we call 'publishers' out of the way"
You mean the people who pay the bills? How's that suppose to work?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
If anyone wander's on over to Stardock's website, you will find they have a return policy, but it's got all kinds of ugly exceptions.
I think they should really consider having the same policies as he is demanding of the gaming industry.
Pot.. Kettle.. Black..
Honestly, I really do not like to say it, but I am thinking if any anti-DRM movement sprung up effective enough to get traction, companies would likely consider console-only release, rather than face the "risk" associated with releasing for a PC-- no matter the real costs vs unreasonable fear.. Regardless of who says they are "interested" in front of the press.
I think that policy is a fine policy, assuming that the copy protection was at least risk-free -- that is, assuming that if you bought the game legitimately, if it didn't work, you could just upgrade with a patch in a month, and the protection is gone.
Well, it's not risk-free.
Some of these CD schemes, in particular, have actually installed drivers which screw up things like DVD burning. Some have installed rootkits. There's really no way for a gamer to know that it's completely gone -- and if there was a bug in it, there's no way to know that we could completely remove it.
Parent has a point, though:
The reason you should remove CD copy protection from your game is that it doesn't work -- at all, ever, the game's cracked before release, and people can make perfect copies.
The second reason is that CD copy protection can be so intrusive as to drive legitimate customers to piracy -- which means that it has to have a significant benefit to justify that risk. It doesn't.
So, if CD copy protection is such a clear net loss, what's the point? Why would you want to only shoot yourself in the foot for a month, instead of, say, not shooting yourself in the fucking foot?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
While I applaud every item on the list, I don't really think those things will "save" PC gaming simply because they're not the reason PC gaming was weakened so much.
The problem with PC gaming is that a lot of the smaller companies were driven out of business, while the bigger companies obsessively followed each other. How many WW2 FPSes have we had to endure over the past decade? How many futuristic and ancient world RTSes? At first that works. If someone loved starcraft, then there's a good chance they'll buy the next two clones, but after a while it just gets tedious.
I mean, look at CRPGs; the neverending AD&D gold box RPGs killed the CRPG market until Baldur's Gate. Doom was a great game, but we had to spend the next several years getting forcefed Doom clones (half of them produced by Id themselves). Starcraft cloned countless futuristic FPSes, and Starcraft itself originally copied off of Dune (via Warcraft maybe). I lost track of all the Age of Empire (itself not an especially original game) clones.
Consoles have tons of DRM yet that segment of the games market is so healthy and growing that even hardcore PC developers are switching to it as their main focus.
Microsoft use to be one of the driving forces behind PC gaming. Now they are letting it rot and die while they are off wasting billions on the Xbox fiasco. Just think if Microsoft had pumped the 7 billion dollars they wasted on their two failures in the console market on PC gaming.
The PC gaming section at the local giant electronics and games store keeps getting smaller and smaller and moved farther and farther off into an area that no one goes to. I can't remember the last time I actually saw someone browsing in the PC games section in the last year.
Microsoft needs to wake the fuck up and drop this Xbox shit. The piece of shit Xbox 360 hardware is selling just as poorly worldwide as the first Xbox marketplace flop. The Xbox 360 did nothing to stop BluRay. Knife the baby Microsoft, you know you want to do it.
Put those billions in wasted Xbox money into marketing for PC games, buying better shelf space and endcaps in stores, and better support for PC developers.
What's the difference in gaming between consoles and PCs for multi-player games?
For the PC, one person per computer. Want to play with another person, they need another computer. The Wii has 1/2 the power of the typical home computer yet you can have multiplayer games with the people in the same room. PC gaming is individuals sitting at individual computers, looking at tiny monitors (not your 60" TV) Multiplayer on the PC shouldn't be two people sharing the same keyboard.
Consoles while inflexible serve a great purpose, to play games. Why can't the game companies, say "Here, buy this PCI card so you can hook up standard controllers and use the power of the home computer to act more like a console." Why not have two keyboards/mice? Surely it can't be that much more (if any) power than two game controllers so you can play splitscreen while the PC is connected up to the TV..
My computer can do more than the console, I should be able to configure it to act as an appliance (ala a console), and when I'm done go back to doing computer only functions (word processing, email, etc..).
No pussy for YOU!
more importantly, publishers are forcing game developers to rehash old, proven game titles for making assured bucks. this prevents innovation, but more importantly, fun, in gaming. the spiral downward started in 1995, with the introduction of cd, and gaming going big with this distributable medium - publishers stepped in big time. if you do a follow up, youll find that game titles started repeating and looking like manufactured out of a mold, after that date.
publishers are the enemy.
Read radical news here
"I've already gotten calls from Microsoft, from Take 2 [...]"
YES! Thank the flying spaghetti monster for those two.
Although in all honesty Microsoft only has the continuing existence of Windows in its mind since a large reason for people not to move to Linux is the fact that games either go through a compatibility layer (Wine/Cedega) or don't work at all because support for them hasn't been implemented in said compatibility layer.
If games eventually abandoned the PC (not frigging likely but yeah), there wouldn't be that much reason to run Windows as a gamer (then again, not much reason to own a PC but yea).
TLDR: Microsoft prefers if both PCs and Consoles succeed because this way 1) They sell Windows copies, 2) They sell XBox'es 3) They make a ton of cash from supplying "RUNS ON WINDAZ" or "GAMES FOR WINDOS" certifications
... then start by making games that can run on the vast majority of hardware that's sold... boxes off the shelf from a Wal Mart or Target that have a Celeron or Sempron, and low-end onboard video.
That means sacrificing graphics, but so what? Games like Wolfenstien: Enemy Territory, will play fine with newer off the shelf boxes. And that standard of graphics is good enough for a lot of people. Many people would take an ET-caliber graphics game with superior gameplay and story over a Gee-Wiz supergraphical art wonder that sucks to play.
With the economics of making and selling PC's, you're just not going to get a lot of boxes out there off the shelf with a 512 mb Nvidia card in it. Either compromise for the PC platform, or look forward to most of your sales being on console platforms.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The policy in question:
Please note that most Stardock programs have demo versions available for preview prior to buying... full refunds will not be issued for functional software that doesnâ(TM)t live up to your expectations.
Makes sense, doesn't it? And it fits that bill of rights -- that's specifically about games that don't work with your computer.
We do not give refunds on beta software.
Kind of a "duh" moment there.
We do not give full or partial refunds for any subscription renewals.
Might help if they allowed it for a single renewal, but consider the asshat who subscribes for a year, then it stops working, or he wants to stop playing -- so he tries to get his entire year's subscription payments back.
If you are not willing to work with technical support on any problems you are having, or request a refund even if you are not having problems using the software, we will issue a partial refund only.
Also makes sense, given that the refund is for actual problems, not just because you didn't like it. You'll find similar conditions with just about any warranty.
And consider that there really aren't any other publishers offering any kind of return policy. You'd think Steam could afford that -- just disable the game on that account, then you know they're actually no longer playing it.
Note also that there's no limit on it. I've bought laptops with no more than a few months to a year warranty -- that's on a multi-thousand-dollar purchase. So if I can swallow a purchase of thousands of dollars that I might not be able to return, I think I can manage the same for a purchase of, oh, $50 that I might not be able to return.
But in either case, it helps to know that if it's completely DOA, I can return it.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Back in the '80s when things were fresh and new, I remember the eagerness with which I went to Egghead/Babbage's to look at the computer games.
There was so much variety in the games. People were trying all sorts of different things. These games were not hundred-megabyte heavyweight games, they were much lighter--but they were more interesting.
Now everything is so similar. The gaming mags freak out over frame rate and animation quality. I could care less. I value freshness and cleverness much more.
My wife plays, and loves, the popcap kind of games on the internet. They are nothing special at all, but she likes them because they are novel and fun.
I think I had more fun playing the original ASCII empire game and CIV II than I get playing later, overwrought, Sid Meier games (and he designs among the best).
The massive multiplayer games could be tons of fun, but there's no way I'm putting down a subscription to play.
All the damn game publishers are trying to hit home runs all the time, like the movie industry. That sucks. I'd rather see a lot more variety out there, like in the '80s.
Anyway--that's my gripe.
The Steam Terms of Service say no such thing. You buy a one off payment subscription to games on Steam, you don't own them. I'd link but I'm late for work so just google for the Steam ToS.
If Valve went into receivership them I doubt the bankruptcy courts would look favourably on their directors nuking their most important asset!
Nick
The availability of the new games in "other countries" (i.e. 3rd world countries) is very limited. When a game CD/DVD is available for purchase at a location, it's price is double of that online; online retailers don't ship to third world countries (and when they do the shipping fees are high > $30). Downloading the game legaly from steam/other will cost more since bandwidth is sold at ~ $10/GB (you pay for the game and then pay more for the download); even when someone downloads a pirated game some are actually paying the ISP the same price. The illegal coupies are sold $10 - $20. I still do not understand why can't they have vending machines where a central office at that country (who may handle the business of many vendors) will burn and ship you the game locally. This would eliminate the international shipping costs, local merchant cost (man in the middle) and credit card issues since many countries have yet to develop one. A client can send a local check or walk in the office with cash. A single or two machines per country/state seems like a good way to tackle the problem of availability and limit piracy.
"... if someone wants to do a policy where there's CD copy protection, but after the first month [consumers] can download a patch that gets rid of it [...] that's a perfectly good solution too."
No, it's not. You're selling me a crippled game on the promise that you'll fix it in the future. A month may as well turn into a century for all a promise is worth.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
I don't think anyone is trying to kill the PC market as long as:
A) they're still publishing games for it, and
B) the one biggest money-printing license is PC-only. Seriously, WoW rakes in yearly income equal to some small countries GDP. And I don't mean that as just a figure of speech. _Literally_.
C) some of EA's own most lucrative franchises are on the PC. It's the likes of The Sims and EA Sports that end up subsidizing some of their games (which fail to break even), not the other way around.
Now if you're about to point out that their sports games are all ported to consoles too, and they've been trying hard to make The Sims themed games for the consoles too, you'd be correct. The days of PC _exclusive_ games, and for that matter of catering to small groups of insecure willy-wavers who need to feel tougher than the casual gamers, are gradually coming to an end. But that hardly equals killing PC gaming.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
$60 for a new game is too much and then there are of course the sucktastic titles not even worth buying.
Now when a game is considered to be avoiding one of the main genres, it is clearly a fusion of other genres.
Back then the genres weren't so established and if you wanted to add a quirk to a game, the novelty didn't take 5,000 pages of text, voice actors, and a herd of graphic artists.
Games are a victim of the success of the genres. Each genre is clear and obvious now, and offers value to a gamer and cohesion to the developers and audience. We know what we're getting and it's fun and it's easy to write since it fits a standard templates. I think that developers have to go back to those games you are talking about for research if they want to step outside of genres (instead of the transparent fusion splices as I mentioned.)
At least until the "upgrades in the texture mapping of the bruises on the whores" in the latest video game hits the perceptual wall, and the natural focus swings back to the game ideas instead of the upgrade hamster wheel.
You donwload cracks and you get virused to death. This no way a solution. Maybe for crooks it is.
I know an fair few PC gamers - a dozen or so. All but 1 wouldn't even know what DRM is. They don't hang out on slashdot, gamer sites etc or get involved in the Internet Zeitgeist of people wrining their hands about how terrible the DRM in game x is. They but their PC 'What PC Game' magazine, go to their fav. bricks and morter shops and buy the game - sometimes they'll use Amazon.
Maybe I know a very skewed demographic but I'd suggest that the % of gamers who care about such things as DRM is actually quite small.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
What's the point of "For example, what happens if someone wants to do a policy where there's CD copy protection, but after the first month [consumers] can download a patch that gets rid of it."?
I don't understand what the company would imagine they would get out of that. The logic would be "If you can disable the copy protection, then as soon as the first consumer can do so, what's to stop that person from sharing the patch, or the patched copy." The only way that would work would be if they're not actually "removing the DRM", they're just changing what it's locked to. Why would he see that as "legitimate"?
Still plenty of inovation in GPL land: http://wz2100.net/ a stratagey game where you design your own units. low system requirments; opengl 1.5, mac, linux, windows.
Stop coding exclusively for Windows.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Wait a second... I've argued this MANY MANY times. If you buy a Stardock game, you NEED Stardock to run it. They keep telling people that that's not DRM, but it won't run without it. You can ask for a CD copy of the game without this restriction, but I was told you had to pay more for it. In my case it was Galactic Civ 4. I don't remember the exact details, but I remember if you didn't have a specific license file generated from the hardware of your machine, it had to contact Stardock to create a new key from your hardware in order to run.
How can Stardock still have the balls to berate DRM when they use it themselves?
Stardock IS DRM.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
But I think it is heading in a dangerous direction. No big deal yet, but if it continues it could be headed down a bad path.
Basically there are three somewhat related problems right now:
1) Console first releases. Many games are coming out for consoles first, and then only later being ported to PC. Now while there are PC gamers who only own a PC (I'm one of them) there are people who own consoles and PCs. This leads to artificially lower PC sales on a given title. Someone may prefer playing a given kind of game on their PC, but if they have to wait, they may elect not to and get the console version instead. They are then unlikely to buy the PC version as well. For example I have a friend who owns a 360, a PS3 and a gaming PC (yes he has too much money). When Mass Effect came out, he wanted it right away and got the 360 version. He'd rather have the PC version, PC controls are nicer for a game like that not to mention the ability to hack around with it for more replayability, however he isn't going to buy it twice. Thus the PC version sees lower sales than it might otherwise.
2) Poor PC ports. Consoles and PCs work real different in terms of controls, as anyone who's messed with both can tell you. So if you want to do a game for both, and do it right, you have to spend time making two versions. You need to customize it to work well on it's various platforms. Same deal with multiple consoles, actually. However, there are an increasing number of games developed for the console, and then kinda half-ass ported to the PC. They don't play well, they don't feel like a PC game, and they often don't work very well. Leads to a situation where you are getting an inferior experience playing on the PC. This again leads to lower PC game sales. If a game comes out for PC and 360 and you've got both, you'll get the 360 version if the PC version sucks, even if you much prefer PC gaming.
3) DRM/copyprotection problems. The DRM on PC games is getting more and more problematic. Time was, you really had next to zero problems with it. All that it was is some areas of the disc not normally used (like subchannels and stuff) messed with and a little wrapper around the executable. Worked on essentially every system since everything was within the CD standards, and there wasn't any system level trickery. Now this was, of course, easy for pros to defeat. Well the DRM companies can't seem to understand that his is a fight you can't win, you can't give someone an encrypted file, the decryption key, and expect that they can't use that to their own ends, so they keep upping the ante to counter new tools. Thus now we have extremely complicated DRM that causes lots of problems on lots of systems. It is quite possible to buy a retail game and have it say your disc isn't valid (happened to be with Civ 4 BTS). Hell in some cases the DRM can even fuck up your system. Well this also leads to lower sales.
So what is happening is that various publishers are seeing lower PC sales, especially as compared to the console market. So they then get this "Well fuck the PC, let's do console only," idea, especially since they incorrectly seem to believe consoles are immune from game copying (someone should point them to the Games > XBOX360 category on TPB). Now that could spell a problem for PC gaming, since it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. They do stupid things that reduce PC sales, so they see lower sales, so they don't want to work at making PC games, which leads to lower PC sales, etc.
So no, PC gaming isn't in dire straits or anything, and hell it'll be alive and well in some form so long as casual games and MMOs continue to find their stronghold on the PC market. However, the direction it is heading isn't a good one. Better to notice this and deal with it while things are still healthy, than to wait until it's a crisis (see the current mortgage problems).
Don't forget about Microsoft! Games for Windows is a cruel joke. It seems to be primarily about them padding profits by giving the PC sloppy seconds on games that get shoveled out for the 360. They tend to look like ass and play even worse because nobody bothers to make the games actually play like PC games and take advantage of the strengths of the platform. Seems like Microsoft is more determined than anyone to kill PC gaming.
First off - playing with a gamepad can be a lot easier and more relaxing than playing with mouse / keyboard combo. For C&C3, you should be using mouse / keyboard. For GoW, Bioshock, Assasin's Creed, you're better off with the gamepad.
Secondly - have you played a lot of the 360 ports? The 3 above are pretty good games. Viva Pinata, Grid, DMC4... these games are all better on the PC assuming you've got the hardware to support them. Higher (selectable) resolutions / more detailed textures / smoother gameplay / etc.
Not only that, but many are different than the typical FPS / RTS / TBS / MMO / etc that are on PCs. They're not $3 casual games, but they're not as hardcore as typical PC titles tend to be. Wider audience and all that. Outrun 2 is a fantastic example - looks way better than arcade or console ports, and finishes very fast, but it's a fun relaxing ride which most PC games are not (also conrols with 360 gamepad).
Don't get me wrong - I'm just as sick of waiting 6-12 months for the *possibility* of PC ports of 360 games, having to wait several months for patches to make them playable sucks even more, and I refuse to double dip if I picked up the 360 version - but the porting of games to PC is a good thing overall.
OK, that makes more sense. Thanks.
What "DRM" in games means is what we used to call "copy protection". And players do care about it, when they get a scratched CD, or steam screws up, or anything else that results from them not being able to make a backup of their games whacks them upside the head.
They're just used to it. It's "that sucks, but what can you do about it".
And for game companies, the attitude is generally "it sucks, but what can you do about it" too.
I've been whacked upside the head by copy protection from both sides. As a player, the first pirated game I ever got was a cracked copy of Wizardry that I had the local pirate write over the original Wizardry gold-foil-labelled CD because their copy protection was so broken the game became unplayable (except on one particular computer) after a couple of months. And as an author, the copy protection (required by the publisher) we put on Tracers led to us missing the Christmas release because the first run of disks had to be recalled because the publisher had screwed up the production.
That CD copy protection doesn't even work. The game gets pirated before it's released!
That's exactly why stardock doesn't use this approach;)
Stardock's games don't require the CD in the drive, have a one-time serial number to enter, and, like steam, if you want to log into your account, you can download any game you've ever bought -- but unlike steam, you don't have to be online to play or even have the online component installed if you don't want. And you can just copy any CD they've ever released with the most generic CD copier. There's none of this secureROM BS where there's a bad sector on the CD.
More than any other company I can that exists, I think Brad's company embodies the ethics reforms we hear here on slashdot all the time. But unlike these arm-chair philosophers, they're out there creating multi-million dollar selling games.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
...SanityInAnarchy's theory about how 3D games are really 2D and realized that PC gaming was in dire need of help. ;)
I do about 80% of my gaming on the PC. Despite having a PS2, Wii, etc... I still seem to spend the majority of my gaming hours on the PC.
In fact, I even delayed playing GTA4 in depth until I could play it on the PC, because the PC version is always better.
I bought GalCiv II on the release day. I also bought Oblivion on release when I heard it had no copy protection.
I want Spore enough that, if it had no copy protection, I would be willing to buy an upgraded computer to play it. I'm not willing to buy SecuROM.
A couple patches into NWN2, suddenly many AMD64 users couldn't play the game. Atari researched it and confirmed that it was a SecuROM bug -- and other games using SecuROM had the same problem that week. Atari couldn't do anything to make the game playable again, because they had no control over the code.
I've had SecuROM "fail to authenticate" games many times, I've had drives fail mysteriously... It's over.
Brad Wardell is the guy who has a viable plan for making me willing to buy PC games again. If he loses, I will just stick with the Wii. I would rather play fewer games than be treated like crap by companies I'm supposedly paying.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
For whatever reason, the numbers are not as good as they were in the late 90's. Some attribute it to the boom of the console, some to the lack of good games.
It's still billions of $$ a year. I still play them. Would like to see all this stuff go through though.
Perhaps the best form of DRM would be to offer digital downloads, then mail people a paper manual when they buy the game. You get something tangible, and the developer is offering something you can't copy with a single command.
MMORPG's?
The way to "Protect" your games whilst allowing people to get a copy of the medium is to get them to pay per month for a great game...
Oh, right.. they actually have to MAKE a great game rather than the half baked rubbish they usully push into our faces whilst saying "this is the new future of gaming"......
- Well its not if I dont play the damn thing, it isn't!
Otherwise freegames and OS's will simply win.
Example: Linux and Freeciv, Open arena, nexiuz, Sauerbraten - I keep playing these games because they are fun, addictive and keep me coming back wanting more - somthing newer games these days simply dont do. I really couldnt care about some of the games they've released recently.
I have however "found" Eve-Online and am addicted to that too - at least for the moment. This is my example for a good game. Wow players will use that as their example...
I've gotta agree that the 80s and early 90s saw some fantastic innovation and variation in the desktop gaming scene...
I think a lot of that has evaporated because the success of Windows and the Internet has put a buttload more PCs into the hands of the public and the audience for PC gaming has changed greatly. You don't have to be a nerd or a techie to own a PC at home these days, and the publishers want to sell the maximum amount of games to the average joes.
Back when development was carried out with more creative independence, the game designers designed games that they wanted to play... games for people similar to themselves. Now the publishers have them designing games for the everyman/woman/person. They're in the industry for money, not passion, and they want to sell the least expensive game to the most people with the least risk, hence all the numbers tacked on the end of game titles these days. They tend to stick to the formula. The success of consumer level 3D hardware also contributed to this somewhat, as it added another dimension to the consumer upgrade treadmill and made it more tempting to publish essentially the same gameplay over and over, utilizing the increased visual detail provided by the new hardware as the main attraction.
So, why do fools keep going on about PC gaming dying? Here's why... What we are seeing in the latest few generations is consoles approaching PCs in terms of visual quality and adding other PC-like features such as networking and HDD access. At the same time, game budgets are swelling to epic proportions, and the publisher's willingness to take risks with their money decreases proportionately. The hardware-requirements dick-swinging contest continues, and developers continue to churn out titles that only run comfortably on the top 5% of PCs. Then they're mystified that they don't sell as well as they'd hoped. This just makes it more tempting for big publishers to produce multi-platform games.. designed for the consoles and ported to the PC, rather than games designed to play to a PCs strengths. Add the piracy dimension into this (publishers erroneously believe that consoles are significantly safer from piracy than PCs), and it seems the large publishers, with the marketing dollars and the big titles shy away from the PC and favour the consoles. Everyone who got into PC gaming when the PC > consoles suddenly sees that they're playing the same game that's on the consoles and often having an inferior experience due to technical issues and portability compromises. People playing the PC exclusives are often frustrated by poor performance and repetitive gameplay.
Of course, there's always Microsoft in there, who seem to be deliberately shitting things up with DirectX 9/10 and Vista and Games For Windows.. trying to make PC game development harder and more expensive, while making it easier to port your efforts to their darling 360. Can't blame 'em for having conflicted interests... can we?
PC gaming will never die.. as long as there are PCs, people will want something to do on them when they're not working, and companies will develop it and sell it to them. The only thing dying is the feasibility of publishing multi-bazillion dollar multimedia graphics extravaganzas that can only be experienced as intended on a tiny fraction of the installed hardware, directed at an audience who with limited income on a platform that makes playing the game without paying relatively easy. I reckon that possibly the best thing that could happen to PC gaming is for the AAA publishers to sod off to the consoles and leave the big fat juicy PC market to dedicated PC developers.
tl;dr: 80s/90s rocked, publishers ruined everything with greed and can go to hell. PC gaming will live on.