PC Gaming Doom & Gloom Thread

[CZroe]

Developers should embrace the fact that the PC platform is the only one they can publish AO games on and they should release "Unrated" versions of Manhunt 2, Indigo Prophecy, Condemned: Criminal Origins 2, etc. In fact, I'd love it if they actually bothered to support the Wii remote properly on the PC, as this would give them incentive to do something like this for Manhunt 2. I wish they would have done it for Rayman Raving Rabbids because it has been $15 on PC after coupon since day one ($50 on the Wii).

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: CKent
Price? I just built a blazing new PC for $475.

Was that an entirely new PC including everything, or did you just buy a new motherboard, CPU and videocard? And if you did a whole new PC from scratch, what resolution is it capable of playing in with high details on modern games?

CPU, MB, RAM & video. Just as most console owners already own a TV, I already owned a case & psu, sound card, optical drives, etc. I haven't played a game I can't run with max eye candy yet in 1680x1050 wide (1950xt).

Originally posted by: Frackal
I agree with you on everything until the end about TVs and Monitors. Big difference is a TV will be used a ton more outside of gaming with TV/Movies. While a Monitor is used only for the computer.

But the rest is easily correct, I built a computer for my brother with similar specs that can run any game I have tried at full settings(resolution is at 1280x1024 because of a 19" LCD Monitor)

I watch TV on my PC with a $40 tuner card, and can record if I want. I can hook my PC's output up to a TV if I want. Get with the times.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Call of Duty 4 will be out for PC. Tad more research maybe?

As well, Civilization V will be coming in the near future.

After a little expansion pack milking.

 

[Sniper82]

PC gaming will never die. At most it will get mostly ports which IMO ain't always bad. Besides Nvidia and ATI would go out of business without PC gaming. Then woes gonna make MS,Sony and Nintendo's GPU's?

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Since modern consoles are simply configuration locked PC's with a slimmed down O/S I would argue that the legacy "console" concept is dying off as their modern counterparts become more PC like in configuration and function. I think the $60 a pop model for software will die off in time as the concept of a recurring monthly fee model that was pioneered on the PC shows it's merits both for software developers and end-users. I consider this a good thing as both platforms adopt features or ideas from the other the lines blur until you have the ultimate convergence device that gives all the features, flexibility and upgrade capabilities of a PC with the 10-foot interface, ease of use and cost advantages that consoles bring to the party. The synergy of entertainment technologies is also being helped along by the flood of cheap fixed pixel displays, broadband and ever shrinking solid state electronics.

All things considered I'd say it's pretty much a golden age for electronic entertainment and we're only just beginning to see the lines blur between PC & console technology in a way that's good for everyone on both sides of the argument.

How is the XBOX360 more "PC like" than the original XBOX? It went from X86 architecture Windows kernel to a proprietary one and doesn't even require a hard drive. I guess you could say that the PS3 is more PC like than a PS2, but it really just standardized all those PC-like features that were optionally available on the PS2 (networking, HDD, etc).

 

[Genx87]

I always thought devs like consoles more than PCs, because they have a set of hardware they can design a game around and know how it will perform out of the box. On a PC you can have hundreds if not thousands of combination of hardware and you have to design around the lowest common denominator.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Wow, bad thread.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
If PC gaming is dying, why is revenue increasing?

NYTimes (use BugMetNot.com)

Anita Frazier, an industry analyst for the NPD Group, a market research firm, noted that in the first two months of 2007, domestic retail sales of PC games reached $203 million, a 48 percent increase over the $136.8 million in the period a year earlier.

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

She noted that these figures do not include revenue generated by PC game sales online, or online subscriptions to play PC games.

I wonder how much it would be if one factored in sales from EA Link, D2D, Steam, and the various MMORPG subscriber revenue?

well 9 mllion or so people play WoW at 15$ a month, which is something like 1.6 billion a year

 

[Edge1]

Originally posted by: Karsten
things are coming together at the moment that seem to spell the potential death nail for PC gaming as we know it and enjoyed it for the last 10 years.

I think you meant death KNELL

You make good points, however its still big money and hardware and software vendors have a massive stake in the ongoing success of PC gaming. I'm a big fan of PC gaming although I definitely see the upside of having a console (I don't own one though). I'm guessing the PC gaming market may look a little different but I just don't see it dying. I for one will continue to happily throw $$ at it.

 

[Schadenfroh]

The three "PC gaming is doomed" threads are now one.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Karsten

Originally posted by: apoppin
if you only play 20 games a year [20 x5 years x $10] ... you will spend at least $1,000 more for console games then PC games over its five year life. ... probably closer to $1500 more or $2,000 for your console and games [never mind the accessories or Big TV]. And a console only looks as good as the PC for the first 1/5th to 2/5ths of it's life ... it's all downhill for the console after day one

un-upgradeable and overpriced games that have no mods ... yep, that IS the PC wannabe ... and quite a few PC gamers also output their games to a 42" Big Screen if they like it.

Price... does you no good if you end up with things like this:

A great game not in disguise, unfortunately Transformers is a simultaneous multiplatform release, as evidenced by the lack of mouse support in menus and omission of an in-game brightness slider. However, for a console-to-PC port, the control customization options are better than average. The mailed-in porting of the graphics engine to PC graphics APIs means that the advanced hardware capabilities of the PC aren't put to use. A promised destructible world doesn't deliver any excitement or add any significant gameplay advantage. These issues aren't necessarily game-killers, though, but bugs which prevent successful completion of missions are. A number of times, I would destroy a building which I needed to climb to complete an objective. Activision's site lists this and a number of other potential scenarios in which ancillary actions prevent completion of a mission. Sure, it's realistic, but a player shouldn't be able to tamper with crucial gameplay elements. And the Hi-Res / Shadows conflict? Please... that's just poor coding on the part of the developers, who were no doubt pressured to get the PC release on store shelves immediately following the film release.

As a childhood fan of everything Transformers, I've been waiting for an entertaining game which captures the Transformers universe. Unfortunately, Transformers: The Game doesn't satiate my inner child, and fans are left waiting for a respectable Transformers title. There's no lack of source material, and the license begs for more than this game delivers. It's telling that the PC release is priced at a value $19.99 U.S. price point; on top of the basic and at times frustrating gameplay, the visuals are sub-par and its controls are barely passable. More than meets the eye? Not here. Transformers: The Game barely lives up to the notion of what defines a video game.

The influence of the console on game development is one source of much crap that we will see from here on out. Or already have seen. Cheap, quick and dirty ports. Great, now I only have to play 20 bucks for crap.

I am with you guys. I have seen these posts before myself and didn't give them much credance. That is why I tried to point out that ALL of the things I pointed out are working together to make for a bad combination for PC gaming.

Price does you no good ... are you kidding?

IF you are a parent and you are forced to buy Spiderman3 or Transformers for your little monsters, it makes sense to pay $20 rather than $60 for it

the rest of us have the sense to wait for the good games and read reviews and check here for how to best spend their hard-earned dollars ... and some ports are decent.

IF it is a *bad* game, it doesn't matter if it is a PC or a console game ... a bad game is bad for the industry - and bad for us period. But PC gaming is not going anywhere

 

[ielmox]

I can remember "the PC game end is nigh" threads and articles going as far back as 2001 and every time they're wrong. The PC is still the number one platform for gaming. It remains the most diffuse gaming platform. It is the platform with the highest number of titles available year after year. And if you include casual gaming, there are more available PC titles and more PC players than for all the console data put together. This market won't go away without a serious and lengthy struggle

The damper for PC gaming is that piracy seems to be having a drag effect on the industry, however this doesn't really seem to hurt the big companies like EA.

 

[Smilin]

Why does everyone bring up the issue with PC hardware requiring upgrades, being expensive etc but never bring up the converse??

I can still play Ultima III or Quake I on the same PC I use to play WoW or Quake IV.

You can't play F-Zero on the Nintendo Wii.


With PC Upgrades:
1. The cost is shared amongst the other tasks you use the PC for.
2. Old games get new life. When I put a new video card in it means about $1000 worth of games suddenly get an update. Some games today like Oblivion are more capable than existing hardware. When new hardware is released they become even more beautiful.

With Console upgrades:
1. All the money goes to one task - the games.
2. Old games not only don't get new life, they won't run. You have to keep a stack of old systems around to play them.



Regardless. It's a silly and stale topic. PC gaming is alive and well. Like I said earlier. There are more people playing one PC game right now (WoW) than there are PS3s or XBox360s even manufactured.

 

[VERTIGGO]

I like how this is supposed to be a "doom and gloom" thread, but 90% percent of us are posting how much better PCs are than consoles... pretty much sums it up.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: VERTIGGO
I like how this is supposed to be a "doom and gloom" thread, but 90% percent of us are posting how much better PCs are than consoles... pretty much sums it up.

that is because this is posted in PC gaming

-try it in Console gaming and see what polar opposite opinions you get

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Why does everyone bring up the issue with PC hardware requiring upgrades, being expensive etc but never bring up the converse??

I can still play Ultima III or Quake I on the same PC I use to play WoW or Quake IV.

You can't play F-Zero on the Nintendo Wii.


With PC Upgrades:
1. The cost is shared amongst the other tasks you use the PC for.
2. Old games get new life. When I put a new video card in it means about $1000 worth of games suddenly get an update. Some games today like Oblivion are more capable than existing hardware. When new hardware is released they become even more beautiful.

With Console upgrades:
1. All the money goes to one task - the games.
2. Old games not only don't get new life, they won't run. You have to keep a stack of old systems around to play them.



Regardless. It's a silly and stale topic. PC gaming is alive and well. Like I said earlier. There are more people playing one PC game right now (WoW) than there are PS3s or XBox360s even manufactured.

Actually, I have both F-Zero and F-Zero X on my Wii's internal storage and it plays my F-Zero GX flawlessly because it is basically Gamecube hardware. BAD example. Hell, they'll probably offer F-Zero 2 (Japanese Satellaview BSX), F-Zero Maximum Velocity, F-Zero GP Legend, and the Japanese exclusive GBA F-Zero for play on the DS if they ever add handheld games to the Virtual Console using the Nintendo DS intercompatibility. They could take a page out of Sony's book and make it playable on the DS and Wii just like PSone games purchased on the PSN Playsation Store work on the PSP or PS3.

 

[VERTIGGO]

I know. My point was really that the subject attracts far more PC defenders than disgruntled PCers.

 

[TehMac]

I think the whole thing is a cycle, and how people keep nay saying the PC, because TV ads tell em too. The PC is still going strong, what we need is some sort of optimization program that can be licensed that lets games take more advantage of multi cores without the devs having to put so much time into it.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: TehMac
I think the whole thing is a cycle, and how people keep nay saying the PC, because TV ads tell em too. The PC is still going strong, what we need is some sort of optimization program that can be licensed that lets games take more advantage of multi cores without the devs having to put so much time into it.

Valve's source2 engine (currently what they are calling it though it will probably change) will have multi-core support. Probably ID's next engine will as well. Not sure if the U3 engine does or not.

PC game programmers were caught with their pants down. Developers have known what the Xbox 360 and PS3 were going to be like for years, but the PC has taken a large U-turn in philosophy that developers didn't expect. Intel was telling them that they would have 10 GHz chips by now and instead they have dual core 3 GHz chips to work with. With the development cycle as long as it is you have to anticipate hardware changes. Unfortunately this was not something that anyone saw coming until intel/amd announced it.

If you remember Valve and several other companies were explaining how much harder this was going to be to code, I think it was less about how "hard" it is and more about how they had little advanced notice to prepare for it. It will probably be at least another year before we see many (well done) dual core implementations.

I can't say any of that is the reason why there are less PC games being produced as companies don't tend to explain why they stop. However, it does make sense that it would take some time to adapt to a change that was unexpected by the industry.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I pretty much agree with Bateluer, although I would like to state a few things... like that we will probably start to see more PC games require console like controllers to play as they will probably not bother to do a proper PC UI and controls port.

Eventually we will have no RPGs, only "Action RPGs" that will essentially be third person shooters with stats.

I also predict a video game crash in about 5 years, despite current sales. The trend seems to be to make games shorter (and thus cut cost), release unfinished products (patch it later! This will become more common since it is getting easier to patch console games), reduction of immersion (games seem to be getting shallower), adware placed in games, increase in price of video games, etc. I do not know how much longer people will put up with it.

I agree about the crash but I think it's coming much sooner than that, and it will actually be a good thing. I think the big titles will continue to do well - I don't think Crytek has anything to worry about. But the vast flood of crap that has saturated the market needs to be thinned badly. It'd be nice to see some of the more infamous publishers bite the dust, but unfortunately they're the ones that usually end up surviving.

One advantage of PC gaming are mods/unofficial patches. Where would I be without mods... giving the users a chance to improve the quality of a game or add new content has become critical. Consoles don't have that option (yet), and if/when they do get it, they'll basically be PCs at that point and will probably cost just as much.

 

[PingSpike]

I dunno, there really wasn't anything for me to buy the last couple of years. But there's been some good stuff rolling out lately. Oblivion was released which got me excited again. Dark Messiah I really enjoy, I don't care what any of the reviewers say...this is a good game. It needs co-op badly though. With STALKER and Shivering Isles out I'm actually struggling to decide what to buy next. Left 4 Dead needs to hurry up and come out already, it looks promising and its exactly the kind of multiplayer I'm looking for these days. And then Bioshock is coming out later this year.

If things go according to plan, I should be all gamed up for the rest of the year at least.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
I also hate the correlation with games and upgrades.

People shat bricks for the Geforce 8800 because it is dx 10 compatible which is what Crysis has and guess what? Crysis is not coming out until the end of the year.

This happened with Unread Tournament years ago I believe?

the 8800GTX is for DX9 games
i think many people who upgraded to an 8800 also have a big LCD ... if i did, i would *need* one ... as it is at 14x9, i can get by very nicely with my current rig and any new PC game

as to people who like the moldy old classics
[btw PlanetScape: Torment looks like *crap* on anything but a 15" CRT ... nevermind a WS LCD]

then why play on a pc at all ... i think i still have Pong ... you can hook it up to an old B&W tv


it is a real classic ... so is MS PacMan on Atari 2600

the world moves on

the fact you may like classic silent movies from the 1920s does not negate the *fact* that there are great [as well as great looking] movies - and games released every year

 

[gorcorps]

Not yet, but I'm getting there. If I wasn't such a die-hard shooter fan I wouldn't have such a death grip on PC gaming. Consoles are better for most stuff but not shooters, which is what I care about most. And of course no strategy games on consoles, but I'm not big on those anyway.

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: 40sTheme

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Ramma2
However nothing seems to beat being able to pick up a wireless controller, sit on the best piece of furniture in the house and play games on a 42" plasma with 5.1 surround sound.

You can do this on a PC quite easily. Seems like consoles thrive on FUD more than anything else.

sure, keep telling yourself that. I need to get that xbox 360 elite already so i can play some dead rising, gears of war, rainbow six and that guitar hero 2

Sure, keep telling yourself that. I'll keep my PC so I can play some Spore, Crysis, and Alan Wake.
If you are so inclined to believe that consoles don't survive on FUD a good portion of the time, you are wrong. They say consoles are "next-generation" when they bring up things PCs have done for years. Also, on the other side, the "next-gen" consoles don't do things that PCs have done for years (image quality enhancements being one of them. If the 360 has this supposed eDRAM built solely for AA and AF, show me something that uses AA and AF). I know that consoles are a good gaming platform for a lot of people, but until they offer PC gamers something better than what they've already experienced, they have to survive on people who believe a lot of the stuff they say. It just really makes me angry when console developers shower all this "awesome graphics" and "super multicore performance" on people. If your console is soooooo powerful, how come my Pentium D 820/2GB DDR2 800/7950GT runs better than the Oblivion on your console AND looks twice as good? Consoles thrive on people who will believe anything is awesome if you make it seem awesome. Kinda reminds me of video card manufacturers being like "ZOMG 512MB VRAM!!! BUY THIS!!!" but too bad we have it on a 128-bit bus so the bandwidth is limited! Thanks for your money!
EDIT:Edited because it wasn't Dethfrumbelo that said that.

Are you stupid or something? why do you keep saying "Your"? I dont have a xbox 360. I have a PC for my gaming needs at the moment. Refer Thraxen's post.

I wasn't saying your as in your console I was talking about MS and Sony. Sorry for the vague speech.
And Ramma, that's exactly my point; consoles aren't actually offering up anything new.
I just want an excellent, fully functional KB/M adapter. Then I will buy a console for console exclusive games.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: Bateluer
The only genres that are better on consoles are fighting games, such as Dead or Alive or Tekken, and racing games. Every other genre is far superior on the PC, for varying reasons. Better control, better customization, superior hardware, more hardware options, etc.

Though, the line between console and PC is blurring. The next console generation, several years from now, will see that line blur even more. Someone on these boards said that the only difference will be in the OS you choose to run.

I can't agree with you at all, there are many many games that suck ass on PC but work great for consoles. Platformers, both 3d and 2d, hack and slash games and such are all much better with a controller. I would never want to try playing ICO or Shadow of the Colossus with a keyboard it wouldn't work at all. Same thing for games like mega man and such.

Back onto the main topic, why do people feel the need to choose one side or the other in this? A lot of people are die hard into consoles or PC, I enjoy both a ton and hope neither of them ever die. Like a lot of people on here I can't really stand shooters on consoles, but a lot of games I love for consoles would never work out on a PC without a gamepad. There are a lot of elitists on both sides, console gamers saying PC gaming is dead and likewise PC gamers saying consoles are pathetic and only for kids and such. I think if anyone would consider themself a real gamer they would try to do both, even if hard strapped for cash.

I agree that one day consoles and PC's will be basically the same platform someday, and I can't say I like it. In the past PC and consoles were very different in terms of games, and if the platforms converge theres a good chance a lot of those past genres will disappear.

Have to agree with you on that. Ever since i sold my xbox 360 its been leaving me gap in gaming that i need to fill. Sad that i wont be able to afford it as im going to be buying a westy 37inch in a few weeks.

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Your loss. Try and find advanced and involving games like Medieval, Flight Simulator, Silent Hunter, 1702 AD, Civilization on a console.

Guess what, you can't. Consoles must dumb things down to a level on which any fuckwit can play the game. Maybe you're one of those fuckwits, I for one choose the only game system out there that pushes the limits, the PC.

See this is what happens when you post on a PC forum, the PC elitists will come out and bash consoles for no good reason. While I like most of the games you mentioned, there are some very challenging games for consoles that aren't dumbed down from anything. Basically you're just making that BS up for whatever stupid reason you have. A lot of the tactics games for consoles have a lot of depth to them, but people like you prolly wouldn't care to even try one. I tried Langrisser for SNES a few years back when I was kinda randomly trying games on an emulator. I was surprised at how good a strategy game it was for a console game, and SNES at that. Sure its a totally different turn based startegy from say the HOMM series, but that's why I like being able to play both right now.

I wouldnt waste your time. your gonna have loads of asshats like that on these forums.