# Is PC gaming "back"?



## A Concerned Citizen (Aug 3, 2010)

Let's be honest with each other folks, PC gaming has been on a bit of a down swing since 2005 (interestingly, the same time WoW came out). Anything offered for computer gaming has usually been a console port of sorts that spans across multiple platforms, often with the only advantage being a modding community that makes wonderful modifications like this.

Now, however, a new wind is in the air. Starcraft II has been selling like hotcakes, so much so that the nation of South Korea took a day off for its release (source: adult swim bump). You also have Civilization V coming out, Shogun 2: Total War, Deus Ex 3...

One can't help but to ask, is PC gaming getting out of the MMORPG gutter (well, the WoW gutter) and back to where it was in the early aughts? Maybe even the late 90s?! Or is this just people revisiting their nostalgia for PC games on the platform that made it famous? Thoughts? Comments?

Either way, a poll is coming up/should already be there.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 3, 2010)

I'd say more of a resurgence.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 3, 2010)

I don't personally think it was waning, I think there are some exceptionally good titles coming out that'll make gamers get their fat asses of the couch and into their swivel chairs. Civ 5 has got me especially pumped (and it comes out right before my birthday, freebie!).

I'll always prefer consoles though. Their sole purpose is (or should be) gaming, so I don't have to deal with excess clutter programs and keys when I'm trying to nerd.

c:


----------



## Fenrari (Aug 3, 2010)

I don't think computer gaming ever "died." It's more like there was just so much more hype on other games that PC gaming got put back a little.


----------



## A10pex (Aug 3, 2010)

More of a resurgence, not that I have anything against PC gaming, It's just that I grew up with consoles.


----------



## Fenrari (Aug 3, 2010)

A10pex said:


> More of a resurgence, not that I have anything against PC gaming, It's just that I grew up with consoles.


 
But you can emulate just about anything on a PC.


----------



## Milo (Aug 3, 2010)

Fenrari said:


> there was just so much more hype on other games


 
....Halo... *shakes fist*



Fenrari said:


> But you can emulate just about anything on a PC.


 
but for my own conscience, I do that as little as possible. the only thing I emulate now is the DS and N64


----------



## Runefox (Aug 3, 2010)

Wasn't ever waning. Just because consoles became more popular doesn't mean that PC's have become less so, and in fact, as PC's become more powerful, ever more people are gaming on them, with games like The Sims and World of Warcraft pretty universally lining coffers at EA and ActiBlizzard on the PC platform alone, not to mention Valve's offerings and the slew of other PC-only games and console ports. I think that it's mainly because there isn't a single coherent PC gaming community that represents the whole that causes people to decree that PC gaming has died again and again, unlike the PS3, 360 or Wii, which are all singular, closed systems.

Sure, some games are easier to play on consoles than to play on a PC, and that's certainly getting people moving, but I don't think that the PC gaming market has slid anywhere but up. Its obituary has been written time and time again, but it remains the constant, and it remains the one major platform for independent developers, flash developers, and developers of simulation-style games, to name only a few.

People calling for PC gaming to die fail to realize that PC gaming by and large fosters most of the hardware innovations console-side. Processors, memory technology, graphics processors and chipsets all come from standard PC technology that maintains its edge through competition spurred on by the PC gaming market. Graphics processors in particular, by either nVidia or ATi or even Intel, all compete with one another on a regular basis to push the performance and quality envelopes and reduce cost, power consumption, and heat. Without competition on the PC front, this market would collapse, and with it, most of the R&D that goes into console hardware. Had PC gaming collapsed in the '90's with the advent of the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive and Super Nintendo, we probably wouldn't be much further beyond Dreamcast-level graphics capabilities today, if even that far. Top-end PC's currently far outpace this console generation in both quality and performance, and the same happened with the last generation, as well. Because of it, the next generation of consoles will have access to better hardware at a lower cost, something which would be nigh impossible and certainly prohibitively expensive if all R&D on these chips were performed in-house. Just look at Sony and its joint venture with the Cell architecture alone, and that was with co-operation with IBM and Toshiba.

On the flipside, what PC gamers fail to realize when saying that consoles are inferior is that a lot of the content that we see on the PC today start out as or are funded by console releases and their successes. We owe them a lot of the blockbuster titles we receive, such as Modern Warfare 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, the Battlefield series (which started on the PC but has branched out and increased in production quality considerably), Bioshock, Mass Effect and so on. Without the console market, we may very well still be stuck several years in the past in terms of software innovation (or "innovation" if you're like me and think that the market beyond the indie crowd is by and large stagnating).

Long story short, PC's longevity provides the hardware; Consoles' longevity provides the software. It's a harmony that few realize exists.


----------



## Taralack (Aug 3, 2010)

*sigh* I don't get all the Halo and WoW haters on these forums...


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 3, 2010)

Milo said:


> but for my own conscience


What like a copy of your mind on your computer?
 You know what is stupid about A.I. development?
They treat the human mind like on/off switches, where every action is dictated by a program, if they just made "self learning" A.I.s we'd be alot further on in development.


Also I wish game developers would focus on gameplay nowadays rather than giving games some ridiculously high definition and making new game engines for every last new game.
Somebody should develop a easy to use open-source game engine with good graphics and pretty much say, "here is you are a start up company and don't have alot of money, use our engine for free".  If a game console's maker did this chances are there'd be a shit ton of more games being developed.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 3, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> *sigh* I don't get all the Halo and WoW haters on these forums...


I think it's mostly because while highly successful and popular, they've spawned a hailstorm of incredibly cheap, flimsy rip-offs and clones that are saturating and diluting the market. Development money is being funneled from innovative software projects and dumped into get-rich-quick ride-the-popularity-wave games. It continues until the genre dies, and then the trend moves onto the next big thing. See also: ActiBlizzard and Call of Duty.

It certainly doesn't help that neither Halo nor WoW were particularly revolutionary products, only well-publicized with a decent production value and thus hotly-anticipated. I personally liked Halo, even if it is a bit bland, and WoW... Well... I never could find that fun. Don't know how people do.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 3, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> *sigh* I don't get all the Halo and WoW haters on these forums...


 Cause WoW is mediocre.
Halo 1, 2 were mediocre, halo 3 was decent.
Halo Odst I'll admit was boss though.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 3, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> What like a copy of your mind on your computer?
> You know what is stupid about A.I. development?
> They treat the human mind like on/off switches, where every action is dictated by a program, if they just made "self learning" A.I.s we'd be alot further on in development.


 
Student at a tech school: they're working on it. It's a bitch to code though.


----------



## Milo (Aug 3, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> What like a copy of your mind on your computer?


 
lol no, I mean I feel bad playing emulators. no way in hell could I afford the stuff I emulate.


----------



## Riley (Aug 3, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Somebody should develop a easy to use open-source game engine with good graphics and pretty much say, "here is you are a start up company and don't have alot of money, use our engine for free".  If a game console's maker did this chances are there'd be a shit ton of more games being developed.


 
http://www.udk.com/  The Unreal Development Kit, offered by Epic as a complete package, for free.


----------



## dogart (Aug 3, 2010)

I didn't buy any consoles and I won't buy them ) Only if Duke Nukem Forever will be rekeased on one of them )


----------



## Taralack (Aug 3, 2010)

Runefox said:


> and WoW... Well... I never could find that fun. Don't know how people do.


 
WoW is only no fun if you have no friends to play it with. If you have a bunch of mates to level with, and if you find a good sociable guild for endgame, it's awesome.

(though I'll admit grinding your face against the Lich King for two months isn't really very fun at all)


----------



## ADF (Aug 3, 2010)

I think console gamers are being rather hypocritical to be quite frank. You hear lots about PC being in trouble and PC dying, but not a word on console gaming.

Umm, hello? Both 360 and PS3 got their line-up distributed this generation. People talk about the increased number of previously console exclusive games now available on PC like it is a bad thing, while 360 and PS3 struggle to fill their exclusive line-up with 1st party funded projects. Those two platforms are 'desperate' for differentiators, their line-up is largely the same these days; so they have to grab at anything they can get to set themselves apart.

People are being hypocritical, you cannot criticise PC and only PC for things that are happening across the board this generation. All platform line-ups are more cross platform orientated this generation, not just PC. If they think consoles are doing so much better, perhaps they should check where most of these console exclusive games are coming from? I guarantee most of them are paid for by the 1st party, 3rd party are mostly interested in cross platform simultaneous development this gen.


----------



## slydude851 (Aug 3, 2010)

I think that PC gaming has kind of died down because of the console revolution.  Everyone has Xbox/Ps3/Wii's now so the PC isn't used much for gaming.  Sure there are WoW and other MMORPG players still out there, but the majority of the news is over console gaming.


----------



## ADF (Aug 3, 2010)

slydude851 said:


> I think that PC gaming has kind of died down because of the console revolution.  Everyone has Xbox/Ps3/Wii's now so the PC isn't used much for gaming.  Sure there are WoW and other MMORPG players still out there, *but the majority of the news is over console gaming.*


 
That's generally what happens when you have a multi billion dollar marketing budget... 

There is no one paying to cram PC gaming down everyone's throat; because PC gaming doesn't have a 1st party, so the mainstream assume it isn't popular.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 3, 2010)

ADF said:


> That's generally what happens when you have a multi billion dollar marketing budget...
> 
> There is no one paying to cram PC gaming down everyone's throat; because PC gaming doesn't have a 1st party, so the mainstream assume it isn't popular.


 
You don't think Microsoft games are 1st party enough?


----------



## Arcum (Aug 3, 2010)

ADF said:


> That's generally what happens when you have a multi billion dollar marketing budget...
> 
> There is no one paying to cram PC gaming down everyone's throat; because PC gaming doesn't have a 1st party, so the mainstream assume it isn't popular.


 This

You honestly wont see ads for PC games unless you go looking for PC games. There is a lot of PC games out there but unless you go searching for them you wont find them. Its very rare to see an add on TV for a PC game (though that may have changed recently. I don't watch the TV anymore).


----------



## Runefox (Aug 3, 2010)

Xenke said:


> You don't think Microsoft games are 1st party enough?



Well, they aren't, for one, and furthermore they're released first on the X-Box 360. Back before then, Microsoft games would get some airtime on TV commercials (like Flight Simulator used to), but they have much more vested interest in the X-Box 360, a platform that they have complete control over, than the Windows PC.


----------



## ADF (Aug 3, 2010)

Xenke said:


> You don't think Microsoft games are 1st party enough?


 
Microsoft are a 3rd party, simply because they made the most popular operating system; doesn't make them the owner of PC.

PC is a independent platform that various companies exploit to offer their products and services. There is no "owner" that can dictate the path of the platform and who can develop for it, the most they can do is direct it via their choices with Windows.

There are pros and cons to this. Since Microsoft cannot control and charge developers to use the platform; 360 gets the bulk of their marketing and attention. But with no licensing fees and restrictions on who can develop for the platform; PC attracts more developer attention.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Aug 3, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> *sigh* I don't get all the Halo and WoW haters on these forums...


 
I believe this webpage can give you a very good explanation:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle6cd1cskka05i


----------



## Runefox (Aug 3, 2010)

Digitalpotato said:


> I believe this webpage can give you a very good explanation:
> 
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle6cd1cskka05i


 
I can absolutely assure you that I don't fall into that particular group. I just plain find the game *boring as all hell* and I recognize the insane amount of money people pay out for the thing ($15/mo + full price for each of the expansions, which are required to access expanded content in addition to the monthly fee). I find almost all MMO's to be in the same category of absurdity and lack of immersion and depth. But just because that's how I feel about them doesn't make that gospel, even if from my point of view it seems an absolute.


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 3, 2010)

What we need is a few of the major publishers (IE Activision, EA, etc) to go belly up and stop hogging all the good developers and fucking them over.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 3, 2010)

You know what would be a good idea, if a couple of start up companies made a couple of very good games that are short time wise in a single package, to get their name out there.
I mean portal 1 you could get through in 50 minutes and they're making a sequel, why?
Because it was a good game and in a bundle deal, they didn't expect it to be such a success.


----------



## Taralack (Aug 3, 2010)

Digitalpotato said:


> I believe this webpage can give you a very good explanation:
> 
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle6cd1cskka05i


 
LOL. How very true.


----------



## Zydala (Aug 3, 2010)

I remember reading an article on kotaku a while back about how consoles aren't really going to be very profitable in the future. They're hitting a bunch of brick walls when it comes to development costs and hardware (PS3 has only begun to be profitable, for example), and having 'exclusive' titles and technology can be hindering in a way because of how the market, developers and consumers have to split their choice over what's available. If there was a universal platform that wasn't necessarily a choice between a few monopolies, there could be a bigger audience one could cater to. Which is why I think PC gaming won't necessarily die anytime soon.

I think a lot of what Runefox said is correct, too... consoles only really have power they do because of how the PC world pushes their technology, and PC gaming has a lot of great titles because of console markets. It's a give and take, and certainly the face of gaming is changing and forever will be, but that's not necessarily bad.




Digitalpotato said:


> I believe this webpage can give you a very good explanation:
> 
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle6cd1cskka05i


 
I can't lie, I definitely have suffered from that :c not about mmos in particular, but still...


----------



## mystery_penguin (Aug 3, 2010)

*hopes that BF3 will have same game mechanics as BF2, none of this Bad Company BS*
*also hopes for a variant of titan mode from BF2142 to appear in BF3*


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 4, 2010)

The problem with pc gaming right now, is very few pc have processors faster than 3ghz and the ones that do are expensive.
Once that happens though.


----------



## SwingandaMiss (Aug 4, 2010)

I just walked into the gamestop at Fashion Square Mall today... I asked if they had any PC games, they replied "Yeah, we have them, but we don't put them out on the floor, they were taking up too much space."

I blame Steam for capitalizing on the field to heavily. Games are way cheaper on there, but I don't have an online account to withdraw from, so I can't buy anything.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 4, 2010)

SwingandaMiss said:


> I blame Steam for capitalizing on the field to heavily. Games are way cheaper on there, but I don't have an online account to withdraw from, so I can't buy anything.


 
You can use Paypal and link it to your bank account, or you can buy prepaid Visa/MasterCard gift cards. 'S'What I do.



> The problem with pc gaming right now, is very few pc have processors faster than 3ghz and the ones that do are expensive.
> Once that happens though.


No? My CPU is a 3.0GHz Athlon X2 6000+. It's a huge bottleneck on my system; MHz doesn't matter unless you're talking apples and apples - The same product lines. A 3.0GHz Pentium 4 will not outperform even a 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo, and not just because it's a dual core processor. At current, CPU frequencies are largely ineffective benchmarks for performance measure.


----------



## Zydala (Aug 4, 2010)

SwingandaMiss said:


> I just walked into the gamestop at Fashion Square Mall today... I asked if they had any PC games, they replied "Yeah, we have them, but we don't put them out on the floor, they were taking up too much space."
> 
> I blame Steam for capitalizing on the field to heavily. Games are way cheaper on there, but I don't have an online account to withdraw from, so I can't buy anything.


 
having worked at a game store I WILL admit that the PC gaming section thing is a problem... they're still adamant about putting them in thick cardboard boxes with little packaging inside (most companies still do this, anyway), and storing them was a pain in the butt! I remember half of the back room walls was just PC games lined up on racks that we had to get on ladders to go through. I kid you not. That being said, we had a smaller-than-average back room and store in the first place.

I don't know about the Steam issue but I definitely have my own problems with PC games distribution :P


----------



## Taralack (Aug 4, 2010)

Personally I prefer buying them in the box. Digital distribution is a good idea, but not for people who have download limits. I'm also a bit of a hoarder, and I like pretty packaging.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 4, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> Personally I prefer buying them in the box. Digital distribution is a good idea, but not for people who have download limits. I'm also a bit of a hoarder, and I like pretty packaging.


 
I agree. I like to physically own something rather than have a digital copy.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 4, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> Personally I prefer buying them in the box. Digital distribution is a good idea, but not for people who have download limits. I'm also a bit of a hoarder, and I like pretty packaging.


 
I like pretty packaging, too. That's why my decision is in no way swayed between a boxed copy of a game and digital distribution - There IS no packaging any more. You're lucky you get a DVD case with a cover slip, and all the documentation is usually in PDF format nowadays, too, so you'll probably just get a serial number card inside with the disc. Pointless. Most games purchased online requiring a serial key via Steam that aren't Valve games give you a valid key that you can view anyway, so even if the distribution method disappears and you can find a CD image or an old copy, you can still use it.

Now, back in the 90's - There's an era that knew how to package software. Jetfighter III Platinum Edition was pretty amazingly great, with a T-shirt, a big thick instruction manual, a small leaflet with information about the changes since the original Jetfighter III... And that's an arcadey flight game. The likes of Falcon came with behemoth, ring-bound instruction manuals.


----------



## Taralack (Aug 4, 2010)

Well in my case I tend to fall for collector's editions.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Aug 4, 2010)

I'm more used to buying the physical copy anyways...I kinda like autoruns.


----------



## Zydala (Aug 4, 2010)

as pretty as packaging is, it's totally difficult to stock these days unfortunately...

and apparently according to a recent article I read, about 80-90% of games purchased are still physical copies, which sounds about right looking at the responses here.


----------



## ADF (Aug 4, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem with pc gaming right now, is very few pc have processors faster than 3ghz and the ones that do are expensive.
> Once that happens though.


 
I don't think the clock speed of the processor is a issue, it's more of a multicore utilization issue; which is also affecting consoles. They can always slap more cores on to get around clock speed limitations, but it's utilizing those cores, I know not much utilizes my quad. 

There are probably some games out there that would see significant performance gains if they were better multicore optimized, but it's actually doing it. For example Crysis was only dual optimized, despite adverts to push buying a quad for it.



Zydala said:


> I remember reading an article on kotaku a while back about how consoles aren't really going to be very profitable in the future. They're hitting a bunch of brick walls when it comes to development costs and hardware (PS3 has only begun to be profitable, for example), and having 'exclusive' titles and technology can be hindering in a way because of how the market, developers and consumers have to split their choice over what's available. If there was a universal platform that wasn't necessarily a choice between a few monopolies, there could be a bigger audience one could cater to. Which is why I think PC gaming won't necessarily die anytime soon.


 
Bingo.

Game development is becoming too expensive, which is why developers are going cross platform in order to expand their audience. But consoles need differentiators in order to set themselves apart from the competition, the 1st parties interests are in conflict with what is good for the 3rd party.

Ubisoft stated that costs are expected to double next generation. How do you attract 3rd party exclusive development with those sort of expenses? Plus even if you fund the development of of your own exclusives as they are doing now, can you sell enough copies as a exclusive to cover those sort of expenses?


----------



## yak (Aug 4, 2010)

Let's see, hmmm.... oh, yes. Why PC gaming is better:

 * Mods
 * Plugins
 * Custom maps
 * DLC
 * Regular updates, patches, tweaks and bugfixes
 * Higher res textures/polygon models, more/better effects, overall greater eye candy
 * More ingame options and views, gameplay less dumbed down to make up for the kludginess of the controller
 * Higher screen sizes, availability of multi-monitor setups


Why console gaming is better:

 * Solid investment - 300$ will play you any game released for that console
 * Low maintenance - no windows, antivirus, firewall, PC hardware, DRM etc. bullshit. Put in a DVD and play.
 * Low skill/experience requirement - no mind boggling key configurations, just the same old controller.
 * Something your mom can pick up easily, and leave you alone.


/me smiles at poor, poor Team Fortress 2 console players and walks away.


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Aug 4, 2010)

I honestly don't think so. Frankly I see very few new PC games, it seems the real come back is in freeware games. It seems everywhere I look I find more and more new games.


----------



## Riley (Aug 4, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I like pretty packaging, too. That's why my decision is in no way swayed between a boxed copy of a game and digital distribution - There IS no packaging any more. You're lucky you get a DVD case with a cover slip, and all the documentation is usually in PDF format nowadays, too, so you'll probably just get a serial number card inside with the disc. Pointless. Most games purchased online requiring a serial key via Steam that aren't Valve games give you a valid key that you can view anyway, so even if the distribution method disappears and you can find a CD image or an old copy, you can still use it.
> 
> Now, back in the 90's - There's an era that knew how to package software. Jetfighter III Platinum Edition was pretty amazingly great, with a T-shirt, a big thick instruction manual, a small leaflet with information about the changes since the original Jetfighter III... And that's an arcadey flight game. The likes of Falcon came with behemoth, ring-bound instruction manuals.


 
Definitely agree.  I'm really disappointed with Starcraft 2's packaging - sure the box itself has a great 4-page spread of a huge battle, but inside...  Grayscale ("bluescale,' sorry) manual and a simple cardboard sleeve for the cd with a sticker that has the key printed on it.


----------



## Tabasco (Aug 4, 2010)

I never thought PC gaming left. I thought shitty MMORPGs just took the spotlight for awhile.


----------



## Mattqat (Aug 5, 2010)

Digitalpotato said:


> I believe this webpage can give you a very good explanation:
> 
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle6cd1cskka05i


I don't know if this was intentional or not, but the page you linked _specifically_ mentions the Halo and WoW haters on these fora:


> This attitude pervades the Fur Affinity forums, as well as the site itself. Mention any popular trend in the Furry Fandom and you'll have at least three responses on why it sucks or is a stupid trend. Mention any popular TV show or anime, and for every response praising the show, you'll see at least three trashing it. Mention artstyles, and, if it's popular, will immediately be decried by the fanbase. The Video Games forum is also pretty much exactly this trope through and through. Mention any game that is popular, and the responses will consist of trashing it, saying they don't get why it's fun, saying it's overrated, and naming an obscure/retro/independent video game that is "vastly superior" in just about every way, complete with Fan Haters keeping all the fans of Elder Scrolls and any game from Japan away from the forums.


It's kind of eerie.

As for being on-topic, I might relate the perceived revival of PC gaming to what one might call "the smartphone effect".  No one wants to buy a device that just does one thing anymore.


----------



## Niveus_Leo (Aug 5, 2010)

As a loyal PC gamer, and hopefully soon to be PC game developer (after I graduate), I believe that in the end the PC offers so much more then consoles do. I think this will show it self in the near future, not that consoles will go away, but with gaming PCs becoming more affordable, and everything for consoles getting more expensive, I think more people will start playing PC games again. Also I must disagree that most games are console ports, there are many company's making great games for the PC primarily or only. They may not be some of the most popular games but in my opinion they are the best.


----------



## Kaine Wuff (Aug 6, 2010)

I don't think the PC industry ever started waning, but it definitely plateaued in the mid 2000's, yeah, while consoles caught up.

I have to say though, that online distribution platforms such as Steam really took off around the same time. God only knows Steam's got me hook line and sinker for all my PC gaming needs now, even to the point where I'm rebuying old titles that I already have, simply for the convenience.

Personally, haven't owned a console since the SNES, but I am really, really tempted by the PS3...


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Aug 6, 2010)

The reason why you see more console games than PC games comes down to one word piracy. I heard some games won't even load if you have a burning program installed.


----------



## Witchiebunny (Aug 6, 2010)

Ah, if only all of the complex economic, and sociological factors surrounding something, for instance, as complex as marketing games to different markets versus player preference and the tendencies thereof could be summed up into a single word by someone with no idea of all the issues involved at hand. 

Oh, wait, no, that's wrong.


----------



## Superscooter143 (Aug 6, 2010)

PC gaming never died, nothing really ever happened.

It's just that the consoles pretty much made it way simpler for kiddies, and it's way cheaper.


----------



## Kayze (Aug 9, 2010)

Superscooter143 said:


> PC gaming never died, nothing really ever happened.
> 
> It's just that the consoles pretty much made it way simpler for kiddies, and it's way cheaper.


 This, essentially.

World of Warcraft even attracts the casual and average people into PC gaming, aside from the real games.

And FPS are only good on PC. Anything else is stupid.


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 9, 2010)

I don't think PC gaming ever really...was. PCs with gaming capabilities are usually expensive, and by gaming capabilities I mean, the game is playable with little to no lagging.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 9, 2010)

Pianowolfy said:


> I don't think PC gaming ever really...was. PCs with gaming capabilities are usually expensive, and by gaming capabilities I mean, the game is playable with little to no lagging.


 
Meh, you could get something decent for around 500-600 dollars. But if your going for less demanding gaming (Such as source games, you don't really need a super computer to run them.) you could get something around 300-400 and your set. 

PC Gaming is actually pretty decent compared to consoles. Worth the money IMO. Less red-ringing, yellow lights and crashing during games like Oblivion and Fallout 3. 

Although right now my laptop's being shit so I'm working on getting a new one atm.


----------



## Taralack (Aug 9, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> PC Gaming is actually pretty decent compared to consoles. Worth the money IMO. Less red-ringing, yellow lights and crashing during games like Oblivion and Fallout 3.


 
Sure, but when things go wrong sometimes it's hardly the fault of you, or your machine. It takes a lot more technical know-how to fix crashes and problems with games on PC.

On the other hand, you could say that the fact that you can deal with the problem yourself, rather than calling tech support as you would have to do with a console, is a lot more preferable... so, two sides of the coin. It depends how you feel.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 9, 2010)

Pianowolfy said:


> I don't think PC gaming ever really...was. PCs with gaming capabilities are usually expensive, and by gaming capabilities I mean, the game is playable with little to no lagging.


 
Certainly was. Along with the PC, there were several other early desktop computers that were prized for their game libraries, such as the Commodore 64, Amiga, and Apple II. From the days of DOS onward to the Windows 9x era, PC gaming was the pinnacle of gaming - It wasn't until the Sony Playstation began to gain ground that console gaming erupted into the more mainstream markets.

Computers with "gaming capabilities" aren't actually prohibitively expensive. If you're going to buy a new computer anyway, you should expect to pay somewhere in the vicinity of $800-$1k for a machine that's going to last you for any longer than a year as anything other than a paperweight. Usually, these machines will come with a quad core processor nowadays, with more than 4GB of RAM, which really leaves the only bottleneck for gaming as being the video card. Since you're already going to buy a computer, that means that the only extra expense for "gaming capabilities" for you would be a video card, which runs (surprise!) about the same price as a game console for one that can handle most of what you throw at it. In addition, you also get a higher level of quality and resolution from something like this than a game console would (compared to their PC counterparts, many console games use "medium" or even "low" settings; My 2-year-old Radeon HD 4850 outperforms my 360, and I only paid something like $250 for it then - It can be had now for half that). The idea that PC gaming is "more expensive" than console gaming is a complete fallacy.



Toraneko said:


> On the other hand, you could say that the fact that you can deal with the problem yourself, rather than calling tech support as you would have to do with a console, is a lot more preferable... so, two sides of the coin. It depends how you feel.


 
Yes... The major reason being that while a PC may be somewhat more difficult to troubleshoot, it's actually possible to troubleshoot. If you're getting red rings or what have you, all you can do is send it back to the manufacturer and hope for the best.


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 9, 2010)

meh, we look at it differently. When I think about gaming and where it's been, pc gaming doesn't really compare to the outbreak caused by gaming consoles. 800-1000 dollars is too much money just for a gaming pc for the average gamer, not to mention technology keeps improving and people aren't keen on the idea that their equipment is going to be obsolete in two weeks. People were outraged at the cost of a ps3 and that was 600 dollars. But neway, when compared with console gaming, I think PC took the back seat.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 9, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> *sigh* I don't get all the Halo and WoW haters on these forums...


 I can't speak for Halo, but my beef with WoW players.. is the addiction factor.



Riley said:


> http://www.udk.com/  The Unreal Development Kit, offered by Epic as a complete package, for free.


 I believe Valve's Source engine is also free to use if you want to develop games, you might have to pay for a commercial license if you want to sell it, but, seeing as Valve owns Steam there's probably deals to be had that keeps both sides happy.

I believe console makers are trying to extort some extra fast cache by charging inflated prices for the developer kits for the respective consoles.
$2000 for the Wii.
Not sure about the 360, although, $99 is what they're charging for XNA Game Studio Express (and I believe I have that for free via Dreamspark anyway).
Sony was charging a staggering $10,250 for the PS3 dev-kit which looks like an old Betamax VCR, they've brought out a new one that looks like a PS3 and costs $2000.
I mean, even if one of us was interested in developing for the PS3 at the time it came out.. how many of us have a spare $10k in our wallets for the developer tools?

Maybe there's a legitimate reason for the hardware cost being so high.. but it reeks of profiteering.

Others have already hit the nail on the head w.r.t the relationship between consoles and PCs


----------



## Runefox (Aug 9, 2010)

Pianowolfy said:


> 800-1000 dollars is too much money just for a gaming pc for the average gamer, not to mention technology keeps improving and people aren't keen on the idea that their equipment is going to be obsolete in two weeks. People were outraged at the cost of a ps3 and that was 600 dollars. But neway, when compared with console gaming, I think PC took the back seat.



But here's the thing: You're using the computer for other things than gaming. You'd be spending the $800-$1k on a *new PC anyway* (unless you wanted a $500 paperweight) - The only thing that really inflates the cost for gaming is a $200 video card. And really, that alone should keep you in the game for at least three years or longer. Much longer if you reduce graphics settings - People are still using their 7000-series graphics cards from 2005-2006 with good results. Again, *there is no real price difference between gaming on a PC and gaming on a console*. If you're buying a PC *solely* to play games with and nothing more, then really, yeah, you'd be better off with even the most expensive console, cost-wise, but who in their right mind would do that? You're using a PC to browse and post on these forums, and you probably use it for a whole lot more than that, too. You can't just ignore that when you say that gaming PC's cost too much compared to consoles, which can do none of those things (at least, in the PS3's case, not efficiently).


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 9, 2010)

I guess. I just don't think that very many people went out and actually bought the graphics card. You can use a pc for other things, yes, but I think that compared to the amount of people who went out and bought the console instead, pc gaming just never really flourished at par with them.


----------



## AkiraSumimura (Aug 9, 2010)

Depends on what you like. Diablo clones have been coming out for years. In fact a new one comes out every year or sometimes even more often than that.

Plus the indie games scene is only really good on the PC. There are a few games that end up on the Xbox 360 or the Wii, but mostly it's all PC.


----------



## ADF (Aug 9, 2010)

I think people will believe what they want; regardless of reality. I'm not just basing that on here; but various other forums I have visited.

There seems to be a group of people who generally *want* to believe that PC gaming is doing badly, regardless of any evidence you may show them on the contrary. I don't know why they are like that; considering consoles stake in the PC gaming market, but they're out there none the less.

Take for instance some people I was talking to on GameTrailers the other day. They pretty much pulled every criticism against PC gaming out of their backside, made up the figures as they went along. When it was proven wrong with sourced evidence; they simply shifted their rational to some other criticism they pulled out of their backside, maintaining it is true until proven wrong.

For example in a thread talking about a article claiming twice as many gaming capable PC's are sold as consoles; the thread was bombarded with people bashing PC out the blue. People saying stuff like "50% of those sales will be pirates" and "PC has no good exclusives" and other nonsense. 

I've had people say PC hasn't got enough AAA games; which makes it less appealing than consoles. To which I responded showing GameSpot gave PC more AAA games than PS3/360, only for them to outright ignore me.

I've been given more than enough reason to think some people don't want to know better, PC is dying; and don't you dare suggest otherwise :roll:


----------



## AkiraSumimura (Aug 9, 2010)

Also http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/79834-Minecraft


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 9, 2010)

It's not really about whether or not pc gaming has better games or capabilities. It very well may, I dunno, I don't play games on a pc. I do know that console game sales have generated 5-6 times more revenue than pc games. I guess it's possible for pc games to have a part in the world and not be on top, but still compared with console gaming, they're beaten.


----------



## ADF (Aug 9, 2010)

Pianowolfy said:


> It's not really about whether or not pc gaming has better games or capabilities.



I'm not concerned about what is better, who are we to say one platform is better than another; when they cater to different audiences? What I'm criticising is the people who say the system is dieing/in trouble, I'm criticising bashing; not making a declaration of superiority. 



Pianowolfy said:


> It very well may, I dunno, I don't play games on a pc. I do know that console game sales have generated 5-6 times more revenue than pc games. I guess it's possible for pc games to have a part in the world and not be on top, but still compared with console gaming, they're beaten.



First off you are comparing the revenue of one platform to every other combined, let's compare all gaming revenue to any single platform; and see how they fair?

Secondly PC gaming is generating a respectable amount of revenue, so your criticisms are unjustified.

All you have done is provide a example of the sort of people I've been criticising.


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 9, 2010)

Well, I'm sticking with my opinion on this based from real life. The amount of pc gamers I see - and I am in college so there are a LOT of gamers - is way lower than the amount of people with consoles.

Here's where I got my information, btw. http://www.neowin.net/news/video-game-industry-predictions-for-2012

" PC games will continue to be the industry laggard with an expectation of decreased sales between now and 2012. They are predicting an annual growth rate of negative 1.2%."

Edit: I also found some of the comments interesting and I agree, people hate dealing with computers. PCs have more problems, more upgrades, etc. and ppl don't wanna deal with it.


----------



## ADF (Aug 9, 2010)

Pianowolfy said:


> Well, I'm sticking with my opinion on this based from real life. The amount of pc gamers I see - and I am in college so there are a LOT of gamers - is way lower than the amount of people with consoles.


 
Translation, you will believe what you want.

Look at what you are essentially saying, I don't see popularity in my particular area; so it couldn't possibly be popular anywhere else...


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 9, 2010)

I gave you a source. 

Neway I'm gonna jump out of this topic cause I enjoy debating, but this will just turn into a dumb argument.


----------



## ADF (Aug 9, 2010)

Pianowolfy said:


> I gave you a source.
> 
> Neway I'm gonna jump out of this topic cause I enjoy debating, *but you're just being condescending now.*



Gave suggests you already gave it to me, correction; you edited in the source after I had already responded to that post.

I'm speaking to you in this manner because you are behaving like the other people I have spoken with; who are more concerned with bashing than reality. Plus now with a source like that; can people blame me?

First off it's old, it contradicts modern information on PC industry revenue back then, plus it's a prediction by a company; not actual real world figures. 

PCGA is composed of companies with actual stakes in the game market, from developers to publishers to hardware manufacturers. The companies are also not biased; in that many of the game developers are cross platform companies who have just as much a stake in the console market.

Plus their reports contain actual figures on revenue from previous years, not speculation on what they may be years in the future.

Honestly...


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 9, 2010)

k ^^


----------



## ADF (Aug 9, 2010)

Pianowolfy said:


> k ^^


 
If you are going to hunt down sources bashing a platform; you will find them. But that doesn't automatically make them true. 

I can just as easily fish something like this out.


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 9, 2010)

ADF said:


> If you are going to hunt down sources bashing a platform; you will find them. But that doesn't automatically make them true.
> 
> I can just as easily fish something like this out.


 
Oh, they don't count. They've only been gaming since 1981.

Edit: I'm just messing with you *nudges*

Look I am admittedly not as well-educated as some people in gaming. But it's been my personal observation that pc gaming is just not that big of a thing. World of Warcraft had its thing, but in the big picture, I wouldn't say pc gaming was really ever a big thing. My definition of big and yours may be different and I think we can just leave it at that.


----------



## ADF (Aug 9, 2010)

Pianowolfy said:


> Oh, they don't count. They've only been gaming since 1981.
> 
> Edit: I'm just messing with you *nudges*
> 
> Look I am admittedly not as well-educated as some people in gaming. But it's been my *personal observation* that pc gaming is just not that big of a thing. World of Warcraft had its thing, but in the big picture, I wouldn't say pc gaming was really ever a big thing. My definition of big and yours may be different and I think we can just leave it at that.


 
So we're back to "personal observations"?

Companies you think you know better than by the way.


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 9, 2010)

PC gaming is BACK! 

*DERRICKKKKKKK*


----------



## Xenke (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm just going to say

The thing that PC gaming currently holds over consoles it the modability of the games. You can do it on consoles, but it's not as easy and it's hard for other people to enjoy it.

But what do I know, I only have, like, everything.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 9, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> Sure, but when things go wrong sometimes it's hardly the fault of you, or your machine. It takes a lot more technical know-how to fix crashes and problems with games on PC.
> 
> On the other hand, you could say that the fact that you can deal with the problem yourself, rather than calling tech support as you would have to do with a console, is a lot more preferable... so, two sides of the coin. It depends how you feel.


 
Actually, in my experience, fixing PC problems have been way easier for me than consoles. Basically because you can fix the problem yourself and not have to send it to maintenance and wait a month for them to fix it. 



Pianowolfy said:


> 800-1000 dollars is too much money just for a gaming pc for the average gamer, not to mention technology keeps improving and people aren't keen on the idea that their equipment is going to be obsolete in two weeks.


 
You don't have to spend that much on a PC. 

Hell, I spent $350 on a laptop and it runs games pretty well. Runs most source games on high on Native resolution, other games run at low settings, or med-high settings on a low resolution. Runs every game on the market pretty well except for Just Cause 2, Arma 2 and Operation Flashpoint. Those three games can't run at all on my laptop, but any other game works pretty well ^^


----------



## Taralack (Aug 9, 2010)

Carenath said:


> I can't speak for Halo, but my beef with WoW players.. is the addiction factor.



So... you hate them for being addicted to WoW?  Blame the game, not the player.



Darkwing said:


> Actually, in my experience, fixing PC problems have been way easier for me than consoles. Basically because you can fix the problem yourself and not have to send it to maintenance and wait a month for them to fix it.


 
Yes, but as I said, sometimes the problem may not even have been on your end at all, which can be extremely frustrating. Take SC2 for example, my bf is unable to play multiplayer due to no fault of his or his excellent PC, it's the fault of Blizzard for releasing it with a bad bug. And there's no way to fix it until Blizz puts out a patch.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 9, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> So... you hate them for being addicted to WoW?  Blame the game, not the player.


 It's more than that though. I know players, who are so heavily invested in that game, devote so much time to "raiding" that it is an addiction. You can criticise the game, but they defend it like rabid fanbois.

I dispise the game and I pity and scorn the players for letting pixels take over their lives.


----------

