StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So I'm not the least bit interested in Alan Wake, but there was a brief tangent in that thread about PC gaming in general, and whether it's alive or dead. I actually thought that was an interesting topic, but I didn't want to resurrect a thread derailment, so...

What constitutes "alive" for PC gaming, and does the current state of PC gaming meet that criteria? Obviously people still play PC games, the PC still gets new releases and exclusive releases, and there are entire genres that are still essentially PC only. That said, it's a much smaller market than it used to be, and I don't think "as long as one person is still playing PC games, the format is alive" is a reasonable standard. Vinyl records still get new releases, but nobody would claim that the 45 format is still "alive" as anything but a niche for audiophiles, nostalgic hipsters, and luddites. The PC format is in better shape than that, but when blockbuster releases skip the PC entirely, the argument can be made that, at the very least, it's not healthy.

I'd think market-share can be a pretty good indicator. How many sales are PC titles pulling in vs. console, etc. Unfortunately I don't think it can easily be measured given the major platforms like Steam are somewhat stingy about their sales data.

If you figure 'life' is expansion numbers wise or developer/publisher interest inthe audience, it used to be 'alive' as one of the primary markets.

With interest in the market shrinking, developers and publishers turning away, and (I imagine) lower numbers relative to competitors, this is not 'life'.

Right now I think regarding 'normal' games (not casual or MMO) the PC market is seen as less profitable or more risky, even in traditional genres. For a combination of reasons I think PC market is in a decline.

It's a small section of the store, online and off, but it's an existent one with new titles. I think this is just a case of Stark forgetting the difference between hyperbole and reality.

Vinyls are collectors' items, and as collectors' items, that market is still in operation. That's different to the case with PC games. I think trying to nail down a species definition for "niche" and "alive" is just going to be one of those things that varies from person to person. So long as the new PC games feature prominently in game shops, it's "alive" by my definition.

It also might change country by country. Over here, for instance, I'd say the PS2 market is dead, given that our entire stock is of preowned games of low value. Elsewhere though, it still outsells PS3 and other mad shit that flabbers my gast.

On the other hand, more and more indie games are made for the PC because its a more comfortable platform for it. For the sake of argument, I will include netbooks and laptops in the PC market.

Indie developers usually follow digital distribution, sometimes directly from them, which is more comfortable on a PC (at least, PCs are more usually connected to the internet than consoles, but I am unsure of that). That way, developers don't have to jump hoops to get a platform's approval and abide by their restrictions (X-Box Live= game must be good on an X-BOX gamepad plus IIRC, must be ported for the 360). For one thing, few indie games can ever reach HD-level graphics quality, which is not necessarily bad for netbooks or lower-end computers that can't really support it.

Valve and Steam are still kicking around, although I don't have any figures of Steam sales handy.

I would definitely agree that the market is not as large as it used to be.

That's ironicsince the last few Indy games I've spoken about are actually XNA games like Flotilla.

Regardless, as Red says its use by no budget hobbyists doesn't reflect the markets 'health'. Steam makes Indy games more visible but they have always existed.

Zixinus wrote: Valve and Steam are still kicking around, although I don't have any figures of Steam sales handy.

Valve is easily making a tidy profit, but I don't believe they publicly disclose their sales figures.

You also have to keep in mind that testing games to make sure they're compatible with various hardware is a lot more time consuming and expensive for PCs than on a console, where the amount of configurations will be maybe two or three different versions.

When individual PC games no longer boast sales of millions of copies per year, we can talk about PC gaming being dead. PC and Console both have exclusive genres: MMORPGs, Simulators, and RTS for the one, party games and rail shooters for the other. They have dominated genres: PC dominates single player casual gaming and RPGs; Consoles dominate racing and fighting games. The fact of the matter is that both PC and Console gaming is growing - more people play games, and they play more of them for longer. Console gaming is probably growing faster, given the popularity of party games in previously underexploited markets. So what?

At least, both were growing in 2009.
http://www.marketingcharts.com/interact ... ames-9521/

I love how any time we talk about PC Gaming MMO's "don't count.
Why? Because Consoles can't complete with them? Oh boo ho lets toss out 2.3 dollars in revenue each year because consoles can't compete.
You might have an argument about casual games as by their very nature they can be converted to run on anything from cell phones to xbox360's or the PC or PS3 so counting them in the PC "win" column can be argued against. But MMOs?

Why?

*Edit 2009 figures

Simulators and RTS are PC exclusive? No rail shooters on PC? ha!

Since nobody can deny the market is losing prominence and big budget developers, it's hard to defend the idea of the market being 'healthy'. The Market isn't going anywhere due to a huge installed base, but attitudes in the industry are negatively impacting it. It's worth noting from Rye's example that the PC section at the local EB is 80% low-budget casual or older games and 20% new major titles. Even the same titles stay viable longer on consoles.

Stark wrote:That's ironicsince the last few Indy games I've spoken about are actually XNA games like Flotilla.

XNA games play on PCs you know. I just played Flotilla yesterday. Or with more Starkness:

As it turns out Flotilla works just fine on PCs? Who knew, amirìte?

No shit, you stupid prick. I own Flotilla on PC because XNA isn't available in AU. That's the fucking POINT. Like I just said, Ando and I mentioned this game in a steam thread!

Don't you get tired of being wrong?

Stark wrote:Right now I think regarding 'normal' games (not casual or MMO) the PC market is seen as less profitable or more risky, even in traditional genres. For a combination of reasons I think PC market is in a decline.

Are we excluding casual and MMOs from the definition of gaming, though? Obviously they're different from the traditional games market, but it's still the same industry. I agree cheap independent and hobbyist titles don't constitute "alive" (if that's the definition, the Commodore 64 and Atari Jaguar are still "alive"), but WoW is obviously neither.

If the PC is evolving towards being an MMO/simulation/casual platform, that's definitely a decline from its heyday and would probably stun a visitor from 1994, but I don't know if I'd call that "dead" so much as "different".

Whoa DA ate my reply to Bean. I think it's important to remember that the whole 'dead' thing is just a reaction against a decade of PC elitism in a market where that preeminence is gone. Those elitists generally don't like to admit plebian things like Sims and WoW.

RedImperator wrote:

Stark wrote:Right now I think regarding 'normal' games (not casual or MMO) the PC market is seen as less profitable or more risky, even in traditional genres. For a combination of reasons I think PC market is in a decline.

Are we excluding casual and MMOs from the definition of gaming, though? Obviously they're different from the traditional games market, but it's still the same industry. I agree cheap independent and hobbyist titles don't constitute "alive" (if that's the definition, the Commodore 64 and Atari Jaguar are still "alive"), but WoW is obviously neither.

If the PC is evolving towards being an MMO/simulation/casual platform, that's definitely a decline from its heyday and would probably stun a visitor from 1994, but I don't know if I'd call that "dead" so much as "different".

How much competition is there in the MMO marketplace though? You've got WoW, the occasional title that comes along every two or three years claiming to be a WoW killer then disappears after 6 months and. . .what?

Well I can always thank Bethesda for keeping PC elitism alive by making console games unplayable out of the box while the PC version is fixed and improved 1000 fold by the modding community.

General Zod wrote: How much competition is there in the MMO marketplace though? You've got WoW, the occasional title that comes along every two or three years claiming to be a WoW killer then disappears after 6 months and. . .what?

Umm no? The thing is most MMO's go strong but with less profits comes less content. WoW is the 800 pound 11 million subscriber ape in the room. But lets look at the rest of the list

World of Warcraft – 11,000,000
Aion-3,500,000
Runescape – 1,250,000
Lineage – 1,000,000
Lineage II – 1,000,000
Final Fantasy XI – 500,000
Eve Online – 300,000
Lord of the Rings Online – 370,000
Warhammer Online – 310,000
Age of Conan – 100,000

March 10th 2010 numbers

You mean 'making shit games'? There's far less tolerance of post-launch fixes inthe console market. Is that bad?

General Zod wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

Stark wrote:Right now I think regarding 'normal' games (not casual or MMO) the PC market is seen as less profitable or more risky, even in traditional genres. For a combination of reasons I think PC market is in a decline.

Are we excluding casual and MMOs from the definition of gaming, though? Obviously they're different from the traditional games market, but it's still the same industry. I agree cheap independent and hobbyist titles don't constitute "alive" (if that's the definition, the Commodore 64 and Atari Jaguar are still "alive"), but WoW is obviously neither.

If the PC is evolving towards being an MMO/simulation/casual platform, that's definitely a decline from its heyday and would probably stun a visitor from 1994, but I don't know if I'd call that "dead" so much as "different".

How much competition is there in the MMO marketplace though? You've got WoW, the occasional title that comes along every two or three years claiming to be a WoW killer then disappears after 6 months and. . .what?

That's a fair point; WoW is the 900lb gorilla of the genre. That said, there are other MMOs with non-insignificant userbases. City of Heroes/Villains comes to mind, as does EVE Online (notably, neither of those two attempt to compete with WoW on its home medieval fantasy turf). I don't have the figures in front of me, but I would guess that the non WoW MMO numbers are large enough to constitute a significant market (I'd bet my hat they're better than simulation games that don't have "The Sims" in the title).

And at any rate, even if one title dominates a genre, does that mean that genre doesn't count, even if that one title has tens of millions of players? There was a time when Super Mario Brothers was synonymous with "platformer", but I don't think that would constitute a reason to discount platformers as a component of the overall video games market.

Stark wrote:You mean 'making shit games'? There's far less tolerance of post-launch fixes inthe console market. Is that bad?

People seem to have an odd acceptance of crap when it comes to Bethesda. Perhaps because they never fix anything, modders do.
So Bethesda can pretend that their console games are in fact not buggy, unplayable badly designed turds.
Meanwhile the PC versions do actually become excellent games due to modder attention.

WoW gets what, 2/3s of its playerbase from China? It's established and broad in content in a market where critical-mass is all. Even if someone DID make a console MMO nobody would play it, because it's easier to play WoW and it avoids the need for upgrades etc by being low-spec.

Frankly, I think it's the growing change of putting the lie to PC elitism like Feil's that shows the real decline. For years we were told you couldn't have complex games, simulators, strategy games etc on console because they were too 'limited'. As the PC market has struggled with various issues (hardware, piracy/DRM, DD, etc) this pressure has pushed these traditionally PC genres onto console. Its so desirable and safe a market that games like Alan Wake can simply cast off the PC format entirely as not worth their time (although frankly Alan Wake was probably not going to be on PC for quite some time).

Gramzamber wrote:People seem to have an odd acceptance of crap when it comes to Bethesda. Perhaps because they never fix anything, modders do.
So Bethesda can pretend that their console games are in fact not buggy, unplayable badly designed turds.
Meanwhile the PC versions do actually become excellent games due to modder attention.

No, PC gamers have this tolerance, because they've become inured to it. The console market demands games that work, day one, offline - the game paid for must work. Mods and patches have created a PC market that accepts CA-style 'it'll work in a few months' releases which would never fly on console.

And this is a strength?

Stark wrote:

Gramzamber wrote:People seem to have an odd acceptance of crap when it comes to Bethesda. Perhaps because they never fix anything, modders do.
So Bethesda can pretend that their console games are in fact not buggy, unplayable badly designed turds.
Meanwhile the PC versions do actually become excellent games due to modder attention.

No, PC gamers have this tolerance, because they've become inured to it. The console market demands games that work, day one, offline - the game paid for must work. Mods and patches have created a PC market that accepts CA-style 'it'll work in a few months' releases which would never fly on console.

And this is a strength?

Well really the advent of online capable consoles and console hard drives have shifted console games more in this direction too.
I recall Dragon Age for example getting at least 3 patches to fix blatant errors. The difference is on the PC, the modding communities can get to these problems first (the "har har you're naked" bug in Dragon Age Awakening was fixed 1 day after release by modders, I'm unaware if there's yet a fix for the console versions).

Except console manufacturers and developers are aware that only a very small fraction (ie, less htan 40%) of consoles ever go online and actively online consoles are even lower.

Ooops. Turns out even AAA huge-budget PC developers are lazy and have shit QA?

How much of the console's "limitations" come down to the controllers and developers' past unwillingness to come up with elegant control schemes for simulators, RTS, etc. for them? I can't imagine it was ever a hardware problem once we got past, say, the SNES.

Incidentally, I played SimCity classic exclusively on the SNES. I didn't have a PC that could run it until 1996 or so.