Is PC gaming alive or dead?

[Sarevok]

Why dont they give consoles a mouse+keyboard ? Then everyone would be happy.

[Stark]

Exactly. Porting Tropico or Sacred would NEVER have worked if they'd done a traditional 'map shoot to A button' port. Designing a UI sensitive to controllers means all kinds of genres are possible; and this I think cannot be overstated. If D3 comes out on console (which I frankly hope it does) it'll be awesome. I actually prefer Sacred's console control system to the point I wish they'd patch it into the PC verison.

[Stark]

Why dont they give consoles a mouse+keyboard ? Then everyone would be happy.

Consoles can already use mice and keyboards. The whole point is catering to a million hardware setups is difficult and it's generally not necessary.

[Stofsk]

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.

Perhaps MMOs are a symptom of PC gaming's decline and a kind of response to it. By necessity there needs to be heaps of effort put into an MMO, not just to make it fun and playable but also to make it work. All software comes with bugs and glitches. How often are patches and so on released with MMOs? Compared to a 'normal' single player game? Downloadable content is also becoming more and more ubiquitous, when it used to be after a game's release you'd wait a year and there would be a more filling expansion pack available. Now, you pay $5 or $10 to download a mission or another couple of quests, or something.

If you're a PC gamer, having a game which gets heaps of attention by the developers might be more valuable than a game that gets released... and then nothing. So MMOs might be in dominance because there is always that promise of new content just over the horizon, which makes investing in a monthly subscription a viable route to take. And at least in theory, if there is some bug or glitch then it seems to get relatively quicker attention drawn to it than a single player game gets, for prudent reasons (obviously anything that upsets gameplay in an MMO will cost them more money than in a single player game), and this kind of attention is a drawcard in my opinion. I like Bioware's titles but ever since they got into bed with EA, and having been forced to redirect all tech support questions to EA, I've noticed there is a large amount of apathy and bitterness being generated about it. Because often you can't get an answer out of the people who actually developed the game, you have to go to a disinterested middleman who, let's face it, couldn't give two shits about your problem because as far they're concerned you've already handed over the goods to purchase the game. Whereas I'd like to think that the guys who made it would care a little bit more about whatever problem you're having to work on a patch or workaround or whatever. And in that scenario, you either try and find an answer among the community who may help you (and they do, which is a sad thing, you can get better answers out of posting a question on a forum than you could going with the official route), or you drop the game entirely and never pick up another product from the company.

[Stark]

The patch/update/balance cycle of MMOs is one of their best features; if other games (like Borderlands) did that sort of thing they'd be much better games. MMOs have the luxury of not having to worry about sellign a sequel because they're selling a sequel every month.

[Stofsk]

Yeah. And another thing, I never got into MMOs because the monthly subscription thing rubs me the wrong way (edit: also because some MMOs don't appeal to me, like WOW), but I asked people that do play MMOs about their feelings over those fees. They like it because in their monthly gaming 'budget' or whatever, paying say $20 for a month in an MMO is better than paying what, $100 for a new release? And I actually find that logic to be pretty compelling. Gaming is a luxury, and if you get the same enjoyment or more from an MMO than you would get from some other 'mainstream' or 'normal' game, but the latter is more expensive than the former, it becomes more attractive. You also have more money to spend on other things, like going out or whatever. (obviously that depends on how much money you have as a disposable income)

[Stark]

Yeah; the ongoing cost is really fuck all compared to buying a new game. You just have to find one you can be assed spending the time on (generally the one your mates play, hence WoW's critical mass).

[RedImperator]

That was one of the things that drew me to EVE--in the scheme of things, $15 a month is nothing, especially since my gaming budget is otherwise...well, zero, honestly. I get by on SimCity 4 and games purchased years ago for the PS2.

[Ghost Rider]

The patch/update/balance cycle of MMOs is one of their best features; if other games (like Borderlands) did that sort of thing they'd be much better games. MMOs have the luxury of not having to worry about sellign a sequel because they're selling a sequel every month.

That is the funniest and honest point. MMO's beta is usually a glitch ridden mess that they throw to the consumer, but they can be rather vigorous on patches. Resolution of problems vary in each of them but when you compare some of the current PC games and MMOs? The MMO at least acknowledges and depending on company handles the game breaking. Some of the more noted PC games? Not so much.

Also the thought of where PC gaming is going? Look at sales marks of MW2 and data on Second Life. I can see a lot more PC developers eyeing how large Second Life and social gaming has become versus trying to compete with the console market.

[Stark]

The balancing is excellent too; in an MMO due to pressure from the constantly online playerbase, things are constantly changing, whereas in a 'regular' game problems can sit for ages if they're not 'game breaking'.

[Ghost Rider]

Also of note, MMOs are looking towards microtransactions versus regular subscriptions. You can get a lot more out multiple $1-3-10-20 picks then you can out of a flat only $15-18 monthly.

[Uraniun235]

It'll be interesting to see how the market plays out. Some PC games do appear to have the advantage of being able to support community content and multiplayer action* long after the developer has withdrawn any support for it; this is more of a niche thing and doesn't really interest the aspiring games entrepreneur much, but to me it suggests there will still be plenty of hobbyists who stick with the platform no matter what. The real question is how long it will continue to be a profitable base at which publishers can throw lots of development money.

(*I heard about one or two games being withdrawn from Xbox Live; I don't use the system so I need to ask, is there a way for people to continue to play those games online, or are they SOL?)


I'm inclined to think it's the spiraling development costs which are eating into profits that are leading publishers away from PC. I find it hard to believe that PC gaming is less accessible now in 2010 than it was in 2000 when loads of people were still on Windows 9x, video drivers were even shittier and computer parts cost double or more what they do today. You could argue that console capabilities have improved, but Giants: Citizen Kabuto was released for PS2 as well as PC, and (perhaps incorrectly) I remember that being one of the premier "look at the shiny graphics!" releases for PC ... yet we didn't see the "death of PC gaming" for several years after that.

Alternately, it only took the proliferation of broadband and the realization on the part of console manufacturers that yes, people would want online multiplayer on their platforms, too!

[Stofsk]

Also of note, MMOs are looking towards microtransactions versus regular subscriptions. You can get a lot more out multiple $1-3-10-20 picks then you can out of a flat only $15-18 monthly.

How would that work? Every time you log in costs you a couple dollars? A week costs you five? Or a dollar costs you 24 hours?

I'll admit my hangup over paying a monthly subscription fee is that I might not want to play the game every day of the month, which is perhaps a subconscious reason why I don't want to pay a subscription - I would feel like I'd need to play it every night to get my money's worth.

[Ghost Rider]

Also of note, MMOs are looking towards microtransactions versus regular subscriptions. You can get a lot more out multiple $1-3-10-20 picks then you can out of a flat only $15-18 monthly.

How would that work? Every time you log in costs you a couple dollars? A week costs you five? Or a dollar costs you 24 hours?

Nah. Log in, but you want to play into shiny newest dungeon? $5 dollars. Want to have that pet everyone loves? $15 dollars.

The only problem is the groundwork has to be solid enough that people keep coming back. So far this set only works with most of the half-assed Korean MMOs because the player base just enjoys the grind and social aspects and cares nothing if the game is shit filled, there's another ten around the corner.

I'll admit my hangup over paying a monthly subscription fee is that I might not want to play the game every day of the month, which is perhaps a subconscious reason why I don't want to pay a subscription - I would feel like I'd need to play it every night to get my money's worth.

Which is the hardest hurdle of the MMO, which leads to why grinding is such an issue. If you make it enough that the player feels they are accomplishing something, they will not notice the subscription fee. If they don't notice, then you get the very effect you feel.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Exactly. Porting Tropico or Sacred would NEVER have worked if they'd done a traditional 'map shoot to A button' port. Designing a UI sensitive to controllers means all kinds of genres are possible; and this I think cannot be overstated.

Sure, you can make almost any genre to work passably on the console controller just like you can make almost any genre to work on the mouse & keyboard. That said, as far as many simulations go, as opposed to "simulations", both control setups are shit. For a car or racing simulation you really need a steering wheel and preferably pedals, too. For a flight simulation you need a proper joystick and again preferably pedals as well. My experience is that the console crowd expects to buy their special controllers with the game à la Guitar Hero and still not pay too much, which is not really possible with the more complex controllers. Then again, the serious flight sim genre is nearly dead and the serious racing sim genre is not doing much better, so perhaps we will just see even more "simulations" optimized for the standard controllers....

For strategy games a mouse based interface is still inherently superior, unless we talk about standard RTS games, most of which are pretty poor strategy games to begin with. That does not mean you absolutely need a mouse for strategy games, but it's still better than even an optimized console controller UI scheme.

[Stark]

No, PC based RTS games are better with a mouse. Touch-based RTS games aren't. Most RTS are designed for mouse but this isn't the only way to do it.

Of course a straight port of a mouse control system will suck; that's what I just said. Talking about controller cost in the world of $200 plastic drums is stupid; plastic drums just sell better than plastic pedals. Wheels suck unless you have a table anyway.

[Stofsk]

On the issue of controllers - and needing too many for too different types of games - what do you guys think of project Natal or whatever it's called? Is that the direction everyone is going in, having a system set up where there aren't any controllers at all?

(or is this a threadjack? sorry if it is)

[RedImperator]

I'll admit my hangup over paying a monthly subscription fee is that I might not want to play the game every day of the month, which is perhaps a subconscious reason why I don't want to pay a subscription - I would feel like I'd need to play it every night to get my money's worth.

I can't speak for other MMOs, but EVE mitigates that with its skill training system. Rather than leveling up, you select skills you want to train, and then your character automatically trains them in real time, whether you're online or not. There are plenty of skills that take days, weeks, or even months to train, so if you need to take a few days off from the game, you just load a long skill into the queue.

Industrialists and traders can also make money without logging in. There are a number of industrial processes which will happen automatically as long as there's raw feedstock in the hopper and room for finished product in the outflow silo, and traders can place a bunch of sell orders, go fishing for a week, and come back 10 billion isk richer.

[Stark]

I think natal will be good regardless, but could really help some things/genres if it works. Voice command in endwar was good, gestures are useful, etc. At worst I'll give everyone voice comm without a headset.

And man the saitek joystick at eb is about half the price of a guitar. Ha!

[Oskuro]

Semantics, I know, but as long as Minesweeper and Solitaire are bundled with Windows, PC gaming will be alive.

Now, as for the health of the gaming market, that's something different.

Or in other words, why the fuck is gaming equated to market profitability? I don't care what the platform is, as long as there are games released for said platform (of whatever quality or style) the platform will be viable as a gaming platform, and gaming on said platform will still be alive.

The whole "PC Gaming is DEAD!" jargon sounds a lot like a marketing buzzword used by game publishers to justify (yet again) their marketing choices. And it is also becoming, quite quickly, a moronic catchphrase used by idiots who like to belittle others for making a different choice in gaming system.

Once PC vs Consoles doesn't matter, what'll be next? Wii gaming is dead? PS3 gaming is dead? I can't believe people keep falling so easily for this crap.

[Ghost Rider]

On the issue of controllers - and needing too many for too different types of games - what do you guys think of project Natal or whatever it's called? Is that the direction everyone is going in, having a system set up where there aren't any controllers at all?

(or is this a threadjack? sorry if it is)

Depending on the software, it will be interesting. Which can be said of many things, given that for a little while the whole guitar set up was profitable, but got quickly mired down.

I suspect the biggest problem is how to market it without making it appear as gimmick #10.

[RedImperator]

Semantics, I know, but as long as Minesweeper and Solitaire are bundled with Windows, PC gaming will be alive.

Now, as for the health of the gaming market, that's something different.

Or in other words, why the fuck is gaming equated to market profitability? I don't care what the platform is, as long as there are games released for said platform (of whatever quality or style) the platform will be viable as a gaming platform, and gaming on said platform will still be alive.

By that definition, the Atari 2600 is still "alive". So is the Commodore 64. So are eight-track tapes. Obviously, nobody is arguing that nobody plays PC games anymore or nobody's making money selling PC games, but the question at hand is, "Is the PC still a viable, mainstream gaming format?" I actually think the answer is yes, based on the gargantuan MMO market and the simulation market (incidentally, how many copies of The Sims has EA sold?), but that doesn't mean it hasn't lost its preeminence to consoles. I can still remember when gaming happened on PCs while consoles were essentially glorified toys; that era is long gone. I don't think that constitutes "dead", but there's room for debate.

Incidentally, I snipped the rest of your reply, but butthurt much? Jesus Christ.

[Feil]

I would love to see consoles go that one extra step needed to scoop up the remaining PC gaming market. Make them take a standard mouse and keyboard as a simple toggle option in most games, let them connect to a monitor in stead of a TV, and use the right resolution (can they already do this?), connect them to the internet without making people buy a subscription to Games for XBox Live, and there's no reason you couldn't play any of the 'primarily PC' genres on the market. Standardized hardware would make development more cost effective, the added hurdle for piracy would make for more first-week sales, and the hardware costs less to buy and replace every new console generation than to buy and continuously upgrade a personal computer because of economies of scale. The only ones who would suffer are the occasional PC users who actually need all that processing power for something other than video games.

[Stark]

Except they don't have to do those things? Keyboard support already exists. Keeping the network closed is the business plan.

What you described as 'the next step' is 'make them PCs' which is missing the point.

[Uraniun235]

I can still remember when gaming happened on PCs while consoles were essentially glorified toys; that era is long gone.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration; Commander Keen, after all, was originally conceived as a straight port of Super Mario Bros, but when Nintendo declined the offer, iD Software turned around and adapted what they had into Keen.

That said, computers back then also had the "advantage" of being able to demand much higher-cost components. A hard drive back in the early-mid 90s cost several hundred dollars all on its own. Today it's standard equipment in a console. It was a lot easier for a relatively small team to take full advantage of the hardware available to the average PC gamer. Meanwhile, today we're running into issues of having to pay legions of artists to create textures and wireframes for the increasingly high-fidelity game environments, and it's no longer cost-effective to create a world that has distinctly greater detail and resolution than can be achieved with console hardware.