| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| PC Gaming is Dying @ Gamers Hell |
|
Gamers Hell has kicked up one of those <a href="http://www.gamershell.com/articles/884.html" target="_blank">PC Gaming is Dying</a> editorials, looking at several specific instances to support the author's case:<blockquote><em>Case Study 1 – Pulling an Ion Storm: Ruining your own reputation with dumbed down console ports.
<br>
<br>In 2000 Ion Storm, in conjunction with Eidos, released Deus Ex, an unparalleled classic of role playing, action, and story telling. It won 35 game of the year awards and sold nearly a million copies, a poor showing for such a critical success, but still solid for a PC game, and enough to warrant a sequel. In 2003 they released that sequel, Deus Ex: Invisible War (made possible by those solid PC sales of the first game), as an XBOX game with a shoddy PC port tacked on as an afterthought. Very few cared when Ion Storm was finally put out of their misery two weeks ago when Eidos closed the studio down, but unfortunately they managed to tarnish both the Deus Ex and Thief series with craptastic console ports of games that owed their original existence to the PC. Why did this happen?</em></blockquote> |
Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
He is right
Not that i want him to be but all those reasons he gave are very valid and those rpg games that keep getting changed release dates( they know who they are) had better put them out because if they wait til xmas the small pc gaming sections in places like Gamestop and Eb games may no longer exist.
The pc gaming market may become a niche market for online delivery or mail order only. I saw the writing on the wall when they moved the pc titles to the back of the store in a small, small corner. Without widespread retail distribution for the masses( lets face it pc games for the big numbers were impulse purchases) the pc distributors will probably never see the massive numbers again. For the small developers that can distribute their own games online, that may be good for a while because they can keep more of their dollars but without large scale advertising that those big stores and publishers can do for you just by having your product boxes where people can see them, I don't see the big numbers again. But, hey, maybe time for a new paradigm! |
|
Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:02 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
YAWN.
Have heard this all before, going back to when the original Nintendo system was released in the U.S. back in the mid 80s. Back then, PC gaming was dead too. Because of the Nintendo Entertainment System.
Have heard this claim again and again throughout the 90s. PC gaming is dead! Here's why... /yawn
The article's so-called 'case studies' are nothing of the sort. A single paragraph isn't a 'case study.' It's more of s superficial pondering if anything at all.
For each case study, he draws conclusions as if they're fact, when really, only the companies involved know for certain why they do what they do.
Sure, money is always going to be the driving force behind what companies will do. But I could use that argument to make my own 'case study' that that is the reason why PC gaming isn't going to die... at least, not according to the timetable of the reporter.
And the disclaimer at the very beginning that the reporter is a PC-only guy and hates consoles is a very cheesy attempt to get pc-gamers on 'his side' from the get go. The good ole, 'take it from me' fallacy...
/yawn
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:48 am |
|
|
Roqua1
Guest
|
I disagree and agree with the article. A lot of factors are ignored. Piracy and rentals are huge factors. And as I predicted a while ago (in case anyone is going to forget or try to take credit for my brilliant insight of the future) consoles will be the ones that end-up dying in the long term.
Soon, computers will be intergrated with a household, you won't put a dvd into the dvd player that is conected to the TV, you will put it into the computer in one room and watch it in the living room or your bedroom in another room. Your computer will serve as a console. I believe hollywood piracy protection and things like steam will make this possible, as well as new technology that allows games not to be installed to be played.
I think PC sales will continue to decline, and consoles will continue to rise. But in twenty years there won't be a console, since no one will spend money on something that something else they own can already do.
I also think economics will weigh in. If you can make a more profitible game with a one year dev time, why make an rpg with a 3 year dev time that sells for the same price? Nich markets will sell for a higher sticker price. Or alternativly, like in the movie idustry they just won't get the budget so they will have to do more for less and rpgs will just not be fancy smancy like the "lowest common denominator" games.
My 100 year prediction is that with people actually wanting to give up rights and freedoms to the government, a hate of corporations as strong as the way people used to hate government, and with 3rd worlds bearing the production burden and an exodus of capital from the "industrialized" nations, a greater gap will grow between the "haves" and "have-nots" (unless trade is totally liberalized, which it won't be) leading to world revolt and a socialist regime coupe. That in turn will lead to tyranny and a dictatorship (which just increases the have-have-not ratio more than a capitalist system ever could), the end of open religion, and the end of all video game production.
I say good. Video games just rot the brain and cause people to be murders and rapists. Or maybe I'm just bitter since no one likes good games (the ones I like). If I can't have the rpgs I like, I want everyone to suffer. And I am a socialist at heart. I want to be a coat check boy and have the same standard of living as a doctor. I'm kind of sick and tired of not having one news media spoon feeding government dictated proganda down my throat. Because once everything is a lie, there will be no truth. And then I can wait in line for toilet-paper and finally be content. |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:00 am |
|
|
Roguecop
Guest
|
The whole article is wrong minded and based on half truths. first comparing the PC market to the whole of the console market is foolish. As a platform vs. other indivdual platforms(XBox, PSX2) it holds its own quite well. Considering it's complexity to the average consumer and costs involved in maintaining a non obsolete machine it's market performace is outstanding at 1.2 billion. His 'rationization' of average computer game players is more like 'generalization' and is absurd. one only needs to look at the player base of the Sims and WoW to see that the consumer baseof the computer games market has shifted dramatically away from that old cliche. The writer mentions there are no monetary incentives for companies to program for the PC. New releases like WoW and Half Life II aren't shattering sales records??? And games like EqII and Doom III aren't pushing hardware upgrades???
Reality: The PC market will encounter its natural cyclical dip when the Playstation 3 and XBox 2 hit the market. Might even be a big dip. Games for those consoles will be impressive and should even finally be implimenting real 4X + FSAA and AF, lack of which has always been huge negative for me. But in the second year of those consoles lives the PC market will stabilize and start to grow sharply again as exciting technical inovations in processer, graphic, and dispay hardware meet killer app software. This has been the case for years.
The PC market, as it is, will die when 1) There is no more innovation to be had or 2) It merges into the Home Consumer Market(Living room). If you think two will happen soon, consider how long it has taken HDTV to replace analog. Display technology in the computer market will always be growing from two steps ahead in visual quality, durabilty, and performance...
The PC game market has survived a half dozen console generations, I don't think it's going anywere.... |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:52 am |
|
|
doctor_kaz
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 108
Location: West Virginia, USA |
I think that the article fails to neglect a couple of important factors:
1. PC gaming appears to be a lot more expensive because Microsoft is willing to subsidize the console market by sustaining astronomical losses on the X-Box. If ATI or Nvidia gave away video cards for free and lost billions of dollars on it, then PC gaming would look pretty cheap too. This isn't going to last though. The pigeons are eventually going to come home to roost. The next generation of consoles is either going to have more expensive games, or the consoles are going to cost $500. Either that, or the companies are going to lose money. Console gaming is in the same position that dot-coms were in about 1999: companies are losing money and the product appears falsely cheap.
2. PC gaming is getting destroyed by the lack of attention to single player games. Especially RPG's. I can't overemphasize this enough. Online gaming is still in its infancy on the consoles, and that's partially why single player games tend to actually give you your money's worth. If they don't, then you can just rent the game. The typical single-player campaign for the PC used to last over 20 hours, and now they are about 10. This is because most of them are tokens thrown in along with a multiplayer mode, which the develor erroneously assumes everybody wants to play. The PC is awash in MMORPG's, which is arguably the most damaging fad to ever hit the platform. The PC is also drowning in ordinary FPS's with a 10-12 hour single player campaign that you play once and put on the shelf, and don't get your money's worth unless you play the game on-line. That's a crappy business model from the customer's perspective, and it alienates a huge portion of the user base. Tribes: Vengeance is a perfect example. The single-player campaign was very good, but it was too short to provide lots of lasting value, and the multiplayer mode felt too watered down for the hardcore fans. Thus, the game flopped from a sales perspective. |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:47 pm |
|
|
tolgerias
High Emperor
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 770
Location: The Netherlands |
quote:
Originally posted by doctor_kaz
2. PC gaming is getting destroyed by the lack of attention to single player games. Especially RPG's. I can't overemphasize this enough. Online gaming is still in its infancy on the consoles, and that's partially why single player games tend to actually give you your money's worth. If they don't, then you can just rent the game. The typical single-player campaign for the PC used to last over 20 hours, and now they are about 10. This is because most of them are tokens thrown in along with a multiplayer mode, which the develor erroneously assumes everybody wants to play. The PC is awash in MMORPG's, which is arguably the most damaging fad to ever hit the platform. The PC is also drowning in ordinary FPS's with a 10-12 hour single player campaign that you play once and put on the shelf, and don't get your money's worth unless you play the game on-line. That's a crappy business model from the customer's perspective, and it alienates a huge portion of the user base. Tribes: Vengeance is a perfect example. The single-player campaign was very good, but it was too short to provide lots of lasting value, and the multiplayer mode felt too watered down for the hardcore fans. Thus, the game flopped from a sales perspective.
I still remember when Max Payne (1) hit the shelves, the mags where enraged that the game only lasted 9 hours, now it is standard stuff for the singleplayer part of a game to be that short, only single player rpg's are worth their money and still these are often too short. Personally I liked Morrowind and Gothic2 most of al the games i played in years, just because of the good and long singleplayer experience. NWN is great too because of all the custom fan-made modules.
Fact is go online only, but only if you are good enough (WoW EQ2 UT) or go singleplayer only with really much playing time. some devs even dared to say that gamers don't like long campaigns because they get bored, I have never met such a gamer. this is just an absurd way to justify their poor planning and use of resources 
_________________
If you can't debate without namecalling then don't bother visiting us. -Myrthos |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:13 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
Whatever Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo loose on the sales of the hardware they make good for with the sales of games. A percentage of all sold console games is for the hardware suppliers. This is something that does not exist in the PC market and is what allows console makers to sell their hardware with a loss, while still making a profit.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:14 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
Whatever Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo loose on the sales of the hardware they make good for with the sales of games.
That's not true. Microsoft has lost billions of dollars on the X-Box, even after you figure in the money that they make off of games. They have only made an operating profit one time since the console started. That was Q4 of last year, when they had all of those Halo 2 sales. They'll probably be back to losing tons of money this year. |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:38 pm |
|
|
doctor_kaz
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 108
Location: West Virginia, USA |
That was me in that last post, by the way.
 |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:56 pm |
|
|
Duran
Village Dweller
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Location: Holland |
Icompletely disagree with the author of the article.
Why ?
A number of reasons.
First :
You can't compare the whole consolemarket against the PC.
You have to compare the different consoles to the PC.
When you domthat I think the list would look like this :
1. Most games sold : PS2 (some people just don't have taste)
2. Secondmost games sold : Game Boy Advance
3. Thirdmost games sold : PC (YEAH !!!)
4. Fourth most games sold : X-Box
5. Fifth most games sold : Gamecube
Second :
There are genres that are more suitable for the PC & there are
genres which are more suitable for the console.
In my opinion : if you like to play Shooters / RPG's or RTS you have to play them on a PC.
The consoles are more suiten for the platformgames / action-adventures and
racinggames.
Third :
Online will always be best on the PC.
When you play a shooter you have to use the mouse / keyboard system.
It simply is the best way.
Fourth :
I think that consoles are ment for kids & not so adolescent people.
And believe me this is good news for us.
Because when they are mature, they still like to play games, but like to
play more mature games. Well, the more mature / complex games are on the PC.
For instance : look at Deus Ex : The original was a
PC game which blew away everyone. Deus Ex II was made for console & PC.
Because the "smart" people at Ion Storm thought that consolegamers wouldn't want to play a complex game ---> they simplified it. BIG mistake.
Fourth :
There have always been people saying : the PC market is over.
They haven never been right.
There is space enough for all systems to florish.
And : look at the sales of : Doom III, Far Cry, The Sims II and Half Life II
----> The PC is coming back (as if it was ever away) with a Vengeance !! |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:32 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
i may not have played the thief series or deus ex 'til 3 years ago, but i greatly enjoyed them. And prior to that i played Anachronox, which NO ONE mentions when they mention Ion Storm, which is my favourite game ever with Gothic a slight 2nd. As far as DE2 and Thief 3 I thought they were well done, especially the story, and the console based control/interface a minor issue...even though i don't own or play any console games. long live the pc, especially RPG |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:35 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
While I very much doubt that PC gaming is dead, I am certain that the PC gaming industry, as it exists today, is on the way out. From reading the article, I can see that is true.
But I don't see this as a bad thing. Personally, I am sick and tired of gaming taking a back seat to TREMENDOUS GRAPHICS 3.0. I'll take the innovative games coming out of the smaller markets any day. And if the US pc game market shrinks, it will return to the small market creativity that we have seen (outside of the diablo clones) |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:27 pm |
|
|
Duran
Village Dweller
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Location: Holland |
Have to agree with Guest about Anachronox.
It was very underestimated.
I a, hoping since Tom Hall (designer of anachronox) has joined Midway and Midway plans to be a player on the PC that a sequel is a possibility.
Keep my fingers crossed |
|
Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:41 pm |
|
|
yeesh
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Unofficially representing Queens |
Wow. I'm not a master thinker, but my understanding is that if observations lead to a conclusion you find unpalatable, it's better to accept the unfortunate truth than to try and rationalize it away. You don't think PC gaming is on the way out? Have you been to a Software, etc / Gamestop? Have you been to an Electronics Boutique? Why don't you go take a look now, I'll wait.
...
What did you see? Oh yeah, a tiny little computer game section in the back. Now you can /yawn all you'd like, but if you're going to tell me that this is nothing new, then I'm gonna scratch my long, white gamin' beard and sort of completely disregard your divorced from reality selves.
Like the author, at heart I too am "a die-hard PC gamer who wouldn't even touch a console if Buddha himself issued a Halo 2 deathmatch challenge", except for that last part. I do enjoy some console gaming now and again, but forever I will be in love with gamin on my PC. I know it's the best, I know the mouse is better, I know remappable keys are better, I know that playing in windowed mode and checking your email or gamefaqs (heh heh) simultaneously is better. No need to convince me.
But just look around you. Consoles look as good as PCs, with this next generation. And in case you haven't been paying attention, Intel has formally given up on making it's chips faster. Dual core and multi core will do NOTHING for games for an awfully time, just like dual processors have done NOTHING for games forever. If devs want to take the time to learn how to rethink their coding so that multiprocessing can lead to performance increases, then of course they'll succeed eventually. But what a lot of time and effort to spend on a SHRINKING market. Which is just to say that PCs will not be pulling ahead of the game in performance terms quite so quickly with this next generation of consoles.
Here's the problem: PC games used to be a niche market, and we were all sorta happy. Then they got mainstream, and that wasn't so bad. But the way games are made has changed, and now it costs a ton of money, more than individuals can muster. Companies can afford to develop PC games, but why should they spend the same amount of money for a market where the maximum return is far smaller? It's just a bad risk/reward ratio, relative to the consoles. And as the PC market shrinks and the console market grows, the ratio gets worse and worse.
I mean, duh.
So how do PC games go back to being the loveable niche market they were? They can't. Richard Garriot can't just spend 2 years in his garage and make a game anymore. He could, but it's going to be extremely hard to make people want to play it, because the graphics and sound will be not quite as good as a PS1 game. I'd like to believe that there's a huge lobby of "gameplay is all that matters" people (you're reading the words of a guy who just bought Demise a few weeks ago, so believe you me), but I don't think the numbers are nearly as vast as we all hope. I can't claim to have the research or anything, but I feel we should try to be realistic. No optimistic, not pessimistic, but realistic. Look at Shrapnal Games, look at Spiderweb software, sites like those with games that cost $99, that's the niche gaming future for PCs. It might not be so bad, but it's certainly not going to be like the past decade in PC gamin.
All of which sucks huge time, IMHO, but all the wishin in the world isn't going to change it. I'm honestly surprised to see so many intelligent people here trying to rationalize it away. Go back to that Gamestop and take another look. You don't need an article or way-too-long post to tell you what to think. |
|
Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:12 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
