Why do game developers develop games for the PC anymore? It seems like the hardcore crowd are the only ones keeping PC gaming alive. You want proof, go take a look at the top ten list. It's seems like a new release will make the top ten (ex. Alien vs. Predator, Empire Earth, Red Faction) only to get bounced off the top ten next week. It seems like the hardcore PC gamers are initally buying the games and that's it. We aren't getting any new gamers. There all playing there Xbox's, PS2's and gamecubes. It seems like all the newcomers are enchanted with the consoles, while the PC is being hung out to dry. If I was a PC game developer I would get out as soon as possible and head to where the grass is much greener. Thoughts?

Well, apparently the non-hardcore PC gamers are still scooping up games like Railroad Tycoon, Who Wants to Be A Millionaire, and the Sims, and even more "hardcore" games like Diablo II and Age of Empires II.

Would you argue that the developers of such games would make more money if they put their effort into making console games instead?

What I'm wondering is doesn't this always happen? I havn't been into pc gaming to long only a couple of years but I'd imagine pc games drop in popularity everytime we get alot of new consoles Any insight into this from people who have been following the industry since back in the sega, super nintendo days?

I don't exactly follow the industry, but I've been buying games since back in the Atari 2600 days... there was computer gaming back then (20 years ago) and there is computer gaming now. I think if you see a true convergence in capabilities between the two types of machines, only then will PC gaming perhaps die. I.e., in 1981 you couldn't play Ultima on an Atari 2600; in 1990 you couldn't play Wing Commander on a Genesis; and today you can't play... er... actually are there any PC games you can't play on a console these days? There are still some important technical differences (apart from Xbox, no other consoles have hard drives; no consoles ship with mice and keyboards, though that can be remedied cheaply enough) but they are perhaps less than they once were...

There are other factors too of course... consumer loyalty -- PC gamers like their PCs, dammit... sheer force of habit... location of the gaming unit in a room (private desktop versus couch in front of TV)... TV resolution vs. monitor resolution... and the different subcultures that have sprung up between the two camps.

I think through sheer inertia, PC gaming as distinct from console gaming will stay around for at least another 5 years or so, but perhaps we are not far from a paradigm shift in gaming generally. Dunno.

Console games are multiplayer in the same room; PC games are distance multiplayer. Console games are more "actiony," less suitable to user extension and modification, etc., etc.

The markets have some parts in common, but they're different enough that they'll both exist for quite a while.

"It seems like the hardcore crowd are the only ones keeping PC gaming alive."

Never herd of the Sims, or any Tycoon game I guess.

". There all playing there Xbox's, PS2's and gamecubes. It seems like all the newcomers are enchanted with the consoles, while the PC is being hung out to dry."

You must not have been around in 95-96 whne the N64 and PSX came out. The same things were said then. PC Gaming is still around adnd will be.

Yeah, people keep saying "This console's gonna KILL gaming on the PC!!"

Morons. It's never happened, and it never will. There are so many features about the PC that make it the superior gaming platform -- forever -- that it will never die.

Yeah, this happens ever generation. People declare PC gaming dead because of the poor returns for development when compared to consoles, and the "technical inferiority" of PC technology (including the complaint of hardware diversity/upgrade cycle). And I suppose there is a short term slowdown, but PC gaming hasn't died yet. As long as people have PCs, there'll be PC games. Even if all the convergence stuff happens we'll just end up with consoles on our desktops which lead to PC style (high rez, mouse/keyboard controlled, moddable) games for them.

Bottom line, there are always going to be people who want to play, and want to create, PC games.

Brad Grenz

Bottom line -- because of sheer versatility, people are ALWAYS gonna have PCs. Period. And as long as there are PCs, there WILL be games for them.

Heck, it seems to me that PC gaming is becoming more accepted and -- dare I say it here -- mainstream. Sure, we've still got plenty of ground to make up, but I think more people are playing PC games than were five years ago.

I agree with the versatility argument. My PC provides me with all sorts of utility. I can take care of email, track my finances, watch movies, and of course play games. Suffice to say, I get a lot more out of my PC then I could out of a console.

Looking at just the gaming aspect, I also get internet connectivity and better input devices needed for many of the more complicated genres like RTS and turn-based strategy. Can you imagine playing Civ III on a console?

To summarize, I'm going to want to have a PC around for utility purposes, and there are certain classes of games which just run better on a PC. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way, so PC gaming probably isn't going away anytime soon.

On the other hand, modern console are powerful enough to make the living room computer a reality. It won't really start to replace the PC until HDTV's are more prevalent. Plus, who wants to run spreadsheets and word processors on the TV while sitting on the living room couch?

- Alan

"until HDTV's are more prevalent."

Which will be... never. HDTV is a failed technology.

Honestly, I don't think consoles will EVER replace PCs, even in the functionality department. (Not 'cause they couldn't, but because I don't think people want to occupy their TV with spreadsheets, ever, even for one minute.)

I don't think anyone would argue that people are going to stop buying PC's. But the fact is, if all you want to do is word-process, surf the 'net, etc., there is less cause to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade. If console games took over PC games (I'm not saying they will), it doesn't mean people would stop having PC's -- it just means they would stop upgrading every 2 years to get the most cutting-edge system. Yes I know, if you are very smart about it you can upgrade your PC for the same amount it would cost to buy a console... but most people are not savvy enough to be able to build their boxes from scratch or swap in a new video card and an extra DIMM every year or so.

Anyway, part of the reason games like Roller Coaster Tycoon and the Sims sell so well is their modest system requirements... casual PC owners, who don't want to either upgrade their video card OR shell out for an Xbox, can still pick the game up off the shelf and have some fun with it.

"Which will be... never. HDTV is a failed technology."

Is it? Just out of curiosity, why do you think so?

I don't think HDTV technology is dead yet. The main problems are low market penetration and disputes over the display standard. Most new technologies suffer from these problems, although it's also true that some technologies simply fade into obscurity. Laserdisc and Betamax come to mind.

- Alan

"The main problems are low market penetration"

Having a average price of around $1500 probably has something to do with it. Not sure what needs to be done to try and get the prices down but untill they do HDTV is nothing more than a niche product.

It seems like there are two main barriers to HDTV adoption by the end user. Stations adapting to broadcast in HDTV and the lack of a single standard. Laserdisc/Beta history makes manufacturers reluctant to put a lot of effort into developing cheap HDTVs because they may end up backing the wrong horse.

The problem is that it's chicken/egg in it's nature. We'd get more stations broadcasting in HDTV if there were more HDTVs out there. There'd be more HDTVs out there if more stations broadcast in HDTV.

It's hardly dead, though. I bought a new (plain) TV last weekend, and in looking around (on-line and in physical stores) at Best Buy, Circuit City, Sears, and ABC Warehouse, there are a decent to large number of HDTV models on display along side projection, flatscreen, and tube TVs.

There was a thread a month or so back about the role of game journalists, and I think I said (or agreed with) another editor who mentioned that part of our job is to do a bit of cheerleading for the platform we hold most dear. Well, �Ra-ra-shish-boom-ba!� is all I�ve got to say about that! ;)

Correct me if I�m wrong here, but historically speaking, each new wave of next-gen consoles lasts a little over a year, right? In that time, all the different companies release their new, next-gen consoles, and then we�re left with five years of console gaming �bliss.� During that year-and-a-half or so, overall interest in PC games always wanes a bit. Then, suddenly, games with graphics far superior to anything possible on any of the next-gen consoles start to come out for the PC, and the equilibrium slowly starts to shift back.

What differentiates this cycle is that the release of new console systems has been staggered over several years (including pre-hype), and as a result, the PC hasn't really had time to distance itself graphically. That�s a cut that�s hurt us very deep.

Now that all of the systems are out, though, my guess is that, in about a year or so, the PC game market will start to look healthier, with games like the new DOOM leading the way.

I think it�s time we admit that as much as we might hate to say so, we�re all whores for graphics. Why else would we play Tekken and Ridge Racer over and over and over again? Show us the system with the best graphics (and good games), and we�ll all be there like white on rice. Continuing along that line of logic, the simple fact of the matter is that, on an open system like the PC, games will *always* look better (in the long run), despite the hassles of upgrading -- and specifically *because* of upgrading.

Now is the time for everyone to begin yelling at me.

-Vederman

> You want proof, go take a look at the top ten list. It's seems like a new release will make the top ten (ex. Alien vs. Predator, Empire Earth, Red Faction) only to get bounced off the top ten next week.

I'm confused. How does falling off the top 10 after just a week or two constitute "saving PC gaming?" If the games are popping off the list after one week, then they're definitely NOT keeping PC gaming alive. Keeping it alive would mean that the "hardcore" games show up week after week and give the industry continuing sales.

No, mass-market games are keeping PC gaming alive, because they're the ones sticking in the top 10 over time. Sims, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Millionare, etc.

Greg - nah, cheerleading for the PC as a gaming platform doesn't do anything but encourage developers to make mediocre titles that we'll settle for, which in the end doesn't help the PC at all. If anything, we need to offer more *constructive criticism*, and focus more on the games that are really enjoyable by a wider audience and focus LESS on the hardcore games that PC game mags tend to focus on.

"Cheerleading" is, in the long term, pretty dangerous to the health of PC gaming. At least, that's what I believe. We should definitely be positive where it's warranted, but too much optimism and enthusiasm for products that we have no idea what the actual QUALITY is going to be like is really dangerous. And it's really far too common in what passes for game-industry journalism. Especially on the web (though maybe it just seems that way because of the proliferation of web sites).

I shudder to think of how many casual gamers read all the "cheerleading" for Black & White, picked it up, and thought "well if this is the best the PC has to offer, and cleary it IS, then I'm going to just buy PS2 games."

There's cheerleading, and then there's hype. A comment in one of the threads noted readers would rather see a screenshot than read an editorial. Kind of sad, really.

---

Quote:

If anything, we need to offer more *constructive criticism*, and focus more on the games that are really enjoyable by a wider audience and focus LESS on the hardcore games that PC game mags tend to focus on.

---

"I shudder to think of how many casual gamers read all the "cheerleading" for Black & White, picked it up, and thought 'well if this is the best the PC has to offer, and cleary it IS, then I'm going to just buy PS2 games.'"

Cue Jesse Jackson, because the question.. is moot. Casual gamers don't read or care about gaming sites/magazines.

"I think it�s time we admit that as much as we might hate to say so, we�re all whores for graphics. Why else would we play Tekken and Ridge Racer over and over and over again? Show us the system with the best graphics (and good games), and we�ll all be there like white on rice. Continuing along that line of logic, the simple fact of the matter is that, on an open system like the PC, games will *always* look better (in the long run), despite the hassles of upgrading -- and specifically *because* of upgrading."

http://www.gamesdomain.com/xbox/previews/Project_Ego.html

Best screen shots I've seen in a while. Don't believe me? Look for yourself. This kind of stuff DOES sell systems, and the ass-like graphics of the PS2 really don't help it in this department. Every time I fire up a PS2 game, it's like being bitch-slapped by Ken Kutaragi. Virtually speaking.

"Greg - nah, cheerleading for the PC as a gaming platform doesn't do anything but encourage developers to make mediocre titles that we'll settle for, which in the end doesn't help the PC at all. If anything, we need to offer more *constructive criticism*, and focus more on the games that are really enjoyable by a wider audience and focus LESS on the hardcore games that PC game mags tend to focus on."

I don't really disagree with you, Jason. In this case, however, there's no "constructive criticism" to be given. Someone asked if hard-core gamers are the only group keeping the PC alive, and so I gave my honest opinion about why I think we've been experiencing this slump, and why I think it won't last forever. In this instance, the word "cheerleading" is probably best replaced with "championing," because that's all I was attempting to do. I love this here PC thing-a-majig, and I honestly think it'll be in a much healthier position within the next one to two years once Xbox games don't look so hot anymore relative to what�s out there for the PC.

Agree? Disagree?

-Vederman

"I love this here PC thing-a-majig, and I honestly think it'll be in a much healthier position within the next one to two years once Xbox games don't look so hot anymore relative to what�s out there for the PC."

Just buy PC games then. Lots of them.

The only kind of "constructive criticism" that ultimately matters is the kind that's in your wallet. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.

Well, I'm not exactly a graphics whore. I did get the PS2 for GTA3 which is pretty much every other GTA but in 3D - and in that sense I can admit graphics matter. There is a potential to bring things to life in stunning ways the more power a machine has. On the other hand, I promptly went out looking for more games to feed the beast and ended up with three PSOne games (Front Mission III, Final Fantasy Tactics and Romance of The Three Kingdoms VI) I was more excited about than anything graphically suped up. Maybe I will get Red Faction or Grand Turismo III down the road. I tried Kessen but it seemed pretty weak compared to PC and old PSOne strategy games.

Gameplay is what it's about for me. Good graphics are better than bad graphics but if they cut into the ideas that flesh out a game or the depth of a game then I'm not exactly going to flip out over them.

Am I a significant sample size? Nah. I do have an anecdote though as unscientific as that is. My idea about getting nongamers to play PC games was to give them something easily digestable that would lure them in to get games. Then one day I just happened to discover a friend was a military history buff but computer phobic. I turned him on to Panzer Elite, a hardcore tank sim, and he jumped through hoops to find a copy and even learned to use the net and handle .zip files with a bit of help. Next, other friends of his are asking me about this game. Not a one of them had an idea there'd been a PC game outside of Doom or The Sims ever and didn't care much about them. Not until they were presented with a title that dealt with something they loved and in a mature and detailed way.

If we continually pander to folks who do eat up eye and mind candy then should we be surprised if they end up making up the bulk of consumers? Should we be surprised if the bulk of consumers dictate the quality of commercial releases?

I think a more interesting way to go is to push what we can do with the medium and seek out folks who ignore it as immature or childish with products they can actually respect. Ultimately the solution won't be a revolution in commercial game design but simply evolution in the technical abilities and personal proclivities of consumers. Folks who don't give a whit about 'computer gaming' but are fascinated by a particular subject will figure out how to bring it to life in this new medium. And they'll do it because they want to not to please someone else's shareholders.

"Gameplay is what it's about for me. Good graphics are better than bad graphics but if they cut into the ideas that flesh out a game or the depth of a game then I'm not exactly going to flip out over them."

I hear what you're saying, Brian, and two of my favorite games of all time are the original Diablo (mostly for nostalgia's sake these days) and Age of Wonders (a turn-based RTS that not *nearly* enough people played here in the US). Neither game is going to win an award for "Best Graphics."

Still, we're all human. Why do we (and when I say "we" I mean people in general) like Ferraris? Attractive women? Because they're the best cars? Because they're the smartest, nicest women? Nah. We like them because of the way they look (mostly).

I don't know who else here went out and bought an Xbox, but I did. Did I get it because I thought DOA3 ushered in a new era of fighting game mechanics? Because I thought Halo pushed the boundaries of electronic storytelling? Because the Xbox has a hard drive? Dear God no! I bought it because those games look damn good, and they play pretty well, too.

I'm not trying to argue that substance doesn't matter -- it matters a lot, and really, I wish it mattered most to everyone. But too often, I think we're guilty (or, at the very least *I'm* guilty) of falling in love with external beauty first, and then we *hope* for the substance to follow a bit later down the road after we've already fallen head over heals.

Why else would we (again, "we" referring to people in general) constantly swing from consoles, and then back over to the PC, and then back over to consoles? Because Ridge Racer 8 is *that* much better than Ridge Racer 7 was on the *last* system? Because the next great FPS on the PC will play so much differently than Unreal Tournament or Counter Strike? I don't think so... But maybe that's the problem. Maybe we keep going back and forth in the hopes that we'll find innovation, and in the absence of that, we settle for beauty.

Bah! Now I made myself all sad. Anyone else ever written a long rant, and then, after re-reading it, thought you might actually disagree with yourself? =)

-Vederman

"Still, we're all human. Why do we (and when I say "we" I mean people in general) like Ferraris? Attractive women? Because they're the best cars? Because they're the smartest, nicest women? Nah. We like them because of the way they look (mostly)."

I think you are on to something here. I have a corollary to your hypothesis.

I know many casual gamers, and I don't think ANY of them ever actually complete a game. And be honest, folks: what was the last game you actually played to COMPLETION? I've played hundreds, thousands of games. But the ones I've actually finished? A mere fraction of that list.

Casual gamers will dick around with the game for a few hours-- anywhere from two to eight hours would probably cover 95% of the audience-- then shelf the game permanently. Eye candy plus average gameplay is perfectly satisfactory for this level of engagement. Only the teeny-tiny minority of obsessive compulsives like us have any real hope of actually beating the game, then spending hours talking about it, and then dozens of hours playing it online on top of all that.

I'd also argue that the console market is even more top-heavy with casual gamers than the PC market. PCs are great, but they're far from ideal for casual ANYTHING.

I've completed 28 of the 30 games I currently own (never got around to playing much of Descent: Freespace, and Strife is there just as a joke). Adding in the games that I've sold off, the percentage drops to 80% or so, at the worst. This includes everything for me back to the NES days.

You've completed 80% of the games you've played since the 1980s? Astounding! I doubt I could say I've completed 5%.

In fact here are all the games I have ever completed, more or less, not that anyone cares:

Ultima I-III
Questron
Pirates!
Avernum II
Rune
Shadow of the Beast
Half-Life/Opposing Force
ST Voyager: Elite Force
Return to Wolfenstein
Quake II
Baldur's Gate I/II/ToB
Icewind Dale
Bruce Lee
Ghosts & Goblins (C64 version)
Heart of Africa
H.E.R.O. (well, I got the score to 1 million, at which point it wraps around and turns into exclamation points)
Pitfall II (not quite with a perfect score, but darn close)
Defender of the Crown
S.D.I.

Good lord, that's all I can think of at the moment. I'm sure there were more. But many of my all-time favorite games -- Ultima IV, Ultima V, Elite, Magic Candle, Thief, etc. -- I never even finished. Not to mention Dan Dare on the C64, which I came within minutes of winning, but I died because of the fucked-up joystick-wiggling combat system. >:(

"Not to mention Dan Dare on the C64, which I came within minutes of winning, but I died because of the fucked-up joystick-wiggling combat system. >:("

A lot of games are like that for me. I get 90% of the way through and it just gets too annoying or frustrating to continue.. and I call it a day. There are too many other great games to play, and I have a finite amount of time before I kick the bucket. Tomb Raider I, which I loved, got really stupid at the Atlantis levels. So I ditched it at that point. But man, the fun I had getting there.

Another common scenario is starting games that I just don't like. For example, I got about 5% of the way through Wizardry 8 and realized that waiting for 16 fire ants to reposition themselves in combat was the computer game equivalent of chinese water torture.

By the way-- you completed Shadow of the Beast? I think you've just been outed as a closet masochist.

Oh yeah, ditto on the "got 90% of the way through" for Thief and Thief II. I got farther in T2 since it had less of those idiotic combat levels that marred the first game.. but that last mission was ridiculously tough. Loved the games though.

Wow, how topical we are. Mark added this to the front page:

http://gamepen.ugo.com/gamepen/features.asp?itemid=125

Fallout, Mission Critical, Shadow Watch, Parasite Eve, Odium, Diablo, Final Fantasy Tactics... I can count the games I�ve finished (work aside) on a pair of hands.

Well, I dunno. I tend to go for the mousy girl with the wickedly sarcastic sense of humor over the supermodel. Of course if she's too pixellated, well, I do have some superficial standards. :)

I haven't really been interested in digital media long enough to have swung back and forth between computers and consoles yet so I probably lack perspective on that. I distained consoles completely based on what I saw of them in favor of computer games which seemed, and still seem, to have more substance and even tasteful design. (I'm trying to get past the horrible dialogue and cutsie animae characters in Final Fantasy Tactics right now and it's soooo not easy...but I've been promised that the gameplay is worth it).

I broke down and got a Dreamcast because someone sold me on the innovative brilliance of "Shenmue". In retrospect it wasn't exactly all that but I did get my hands on Soul Calibur and a few other titles that had me rethinking my assumptions about console style gaming. GTA3 is in many ways the sort of game I've been looking for for a long time and it made me switch plans from the X-Box or a PC upgrade. I bought my last PC for European Air War because I was that excited about the gameplay.

Graphics don't drive me but, sure, they do influence how I'll feel about a game. There are plenty of classic titles I can only bear to play long enough to get a feel for them before the pixel grains leave painful gouges in my corneas. However, I've never bought a game just for the graphics alone and probably never will.

"By the way-- you completed Shadow of the Beast? I think you've just been outed as a closet masochist."

Heh, that was one of my tougher conquests. I'd never have the patience to do it now, not after I've been spoiled by in-game saves and whatnot. It's easier than a lot of action games, though, because everything happens exactly the same every time -- you just have to memorize the patterns.

I can still remember how that game's graphics blew my mind... 13 whole layers of parallax!!! Back before games were 3D and the parallax started taking care of itself...

My "finished games" list is fairly long; I estimate that I've finished about 70% of the games in my collection. Rather unfortunately that percentage is down from a few years ago, since I simply have less gaming time these days. Ironically, a larger gaming budget also contributes to the problem, as I'm more likely to buy a new game if an old one starts to get a bit long in the tooth.

I would instead be interested to know which games people have finished more than once. That list is much shorter and consists mostly of games by Microprose, Lucasarts, and Black Isle.

- Alan

Er, for perspective, I have over a hundred games in my collection. That meager 70% turns out to be a significant number.

Back on topic for a second, I think that the hardcore gamers *are* keeping the industry alive at a basic level, since that's where most of the game developers come from. However, it's the main-stream games that are paying their salaries. I guess it ultimately depends on your definition of 'alive.'

- Alan

Da Vede:
"Why do we (and when I say "we" I mean people in general) like Ferraris? Attractive women? Because they're the best cars? Because they're the smartest, nicest women? Nah. We like them because of the way they look (mostly)."

You slap a flat-12 in a Pinto that can pull a G on the skidpad, and I don't care how it looks. I like Ferraris because they're fast. And smart, nice women beat out brainless, pretty women every time--at that point, you might as well go out with a mannequin.

Basically, graphics in games are like trophy wives--they're great to show off to your friends, but that's about all the use they are.

Vederman again:
"But too often, I think we're guilty (or, at the very least *I'm* guilty) of falling in love with external beauty first, and then we *hope* for the substance to follow a bit later down the road after we've already fallen head over heals."

You've crystallized why AO has been as "successful" as it has with this statement, I think. And agreed: you don't judge a book by its cover, but unless the cover makes you look, you'll never know.

As for the "hardcore driving the market"... sigh. How do you define "hardcore"? And how big a market are they? Their entire "market driving" power depends on three factors:

1. How many of 'em are there?
2. How much do they buy?
3. And how often do they buy it?

I'm of the mind that the mainstream drives the market more than the hardcore ever will because of those three factors.

PC gaming ain't dying, and console gaming ain't gonna kill it. Hasn't yet, and it won't this time around, either. They're two entirely different dynamics, and they can and do peacefully co-exist.

And they will this time, as well.

You know, I don't expect my games to have the best graphics in the world, but I generally do expect them to be contemporary. One interesting thing that I've dicovered about myself is how much I appreciate the artistry involved in what developers can do on aging hardware platforms. I still thought there were beatiful games being made for the PSX long after PC hardware got far better. But it is cool to see how the programmers and artists get around the limitations they're under. I was most impressed by the motion blur they hacked into Metal Gear Solid (1), and the summons in Final Fantasy Tactics were simply static 2D images that moved around the screen, but with the lighting effects, etc, they were extremely effective.

On the PC things are a little different. There lots of time you see games hat are in development for a really long released with comparatively aged graphics. Diablo 2, for example, by the time it hit the streets being locked at 640x480 was kinda ludicrous. And you could tell which sections of the game had been finished longest because the newer areas just looked better. Arcanum was similar. I don't let such things distract from my enjoyment of the game, but I certainly appreciate it when a good job has been done. But I regularly go back and play games from my collection that are several years old which I never finished to play them again. I didn't beat Baldur's Gate 1 until like 9 months after I bought #2. Did my eyes bleed looking at the older graphics? No. A few months back I started Fallout 1 which I hadn't played before and I'm enjoying myself, even though it's obviously an old game. But that's not to say I want game graphics to come to a stand still. It's always nice to have new things to look at even if the games play the same.

As for finishing games, I actually finish more console games than I do PC games. My usual cycle involes me playing a game for a while when I first buy it. I get distraced or bored and move on to other stuff. I'll go back after 6 months, a year or sometimes 2 and get back into it. I usually finish it that time.

Brad Grenz

As far as I'm concerned, there just isn't any reason that a game SHOULDN'T have passable graphics, at least. Not everything's gonna look state-of-the-art. Fine. I can deal with that. But games shouldn't be ugly. I certainly don't wanna have to sacrifice gameplay to get a good-looking game, but, games shouldn't be unpleasant to look at. You spend too much time looking at them...

Haven't we had this discussion before?

PC gaming will never die out completely because it is the philosophical proving ground that eventually leaks its way over to consoles. Risks are taken, and daring concepts are experimented with, in PC games. The console games of tomorrow will borrow from the PC games of today, because the PC guys can (sometimes) afford to take the risk. Look at Combat Mission, 2 guys made that game. I've never heard of 2 guys making a console game by themselves in their garage. The financial stakes are just too high with console games, the game MUST sell X units, otherwise accounting hell breaks loose.

Oh yeah, the PC is traditionally 1 or 2 steps ahead of the consoles as far as hardware is concerned as well. 3Dfx was a PC thing to start, the bugs got worked out, and then hardware acceleration moved to the consoles. I heard about an 'AI card' somewhere, a generic card that will handle AI calculations in games. If this comes to pass you will see it first on the PC. Voil�.

DeanCo--

There is also the aspect of modding and customizing software that's unique to the PC. In theory you could do it on the X-Box but I'm given to understand that game files don't actually load onto it.

Yeah, I may be very partial to the couch and entertainment center but I can't see PC gaming becoming extinct. I can see it as a place where fewer folks go but those are the gamers would are interested in what's next and helping that come into being themselves.

..would be interested, rather. Need coffee...

"I'm confused. How does falling off the top 10 after just a week or two constitute "saving PC gaming?" If the games are popping off the list after one week, then they're definitely NOT keeping PC gaming alive. Keeping it alive would mean that the "hardcore" games show up week after week and give the industry continuing sales."

I'm sorry for the confusion. What I should have said was that the mainstream consumers are the ones keeping PC gaming alive as evidenced by the Sims, Roller Coaster Tycoon and Diablo 2. With the exception of diablo 2, black and white, Max Payne and AOE it seems to me anyway that when a game such as Alien vs. Predator 2, Giants, Hitman, or No One lives Forever gets released it might hit the top ten for a week or two and then these titles get bumped off rather quickly. In my opinion, these titles have a rather limited following: A hardcore following. Most PC titles never seem to go mainstream, such as console titles do. I did see that sequals are in the works for Hitman and NOLF so they must have been somewhat profitable. To me anyway, it seems that when you make a PC game you take on many more risks than you would if you programmed for the consoles. But then again, the console market is getting rather competitive so maybe it's not as safe as it used to be.

Good points Benjamin but there are examples of hardcore PC games becoming wildly successful. For example Operation Flashpoint surpassed 300,000 units sold in it's first four weeks - and that was before it hit the US market.

Obviously Flashpoint does not show up in the latest US charts but it has been and still is a very successful title.

I'd also hazard a guess that IL2 Sturmovik will probably be the most successful hardcore flight sim in the history of the business but I am sure it won't remain in the charts forever.

As long as the developers recoup their development costs and make extra money we will still see hardcore PC titles.

"Good points Benjamin but there are examples of hardcore PC games becoming wildly successful. For example Operation Flashpoint surpassed 300,000 units sold in it's first four weeks - and that was before it hit the US market"

Ye, That's very good for a PC game. I just read that NOLF sold 350,000 copies and is still selling half decent. In a way, we need games like the Sims. By being so sucessful, Gaming companies can take more risks because there maonstream titles are so sucessful?

Question:

1) How many copies did Sacrifice sell? Such a great game, would have hated for it to do poorly.

2) How about the Sims? This title has been in the top ten for allmost 2 years now. It must be the highest grossing title (PC or Console)in gaming history.

>1) How many copies did Sacrifice sell? Such a great game, would have hated for it to do poorly.

It did terribly. Sold about 40,000 units, AFAIK.

>PC gamers like their PCs, dammit... sheer force of habit...

That's not the reason I prefer PC games. I don't like sports or driving games or most arcade-style "action on rails" games. That makes up 90% of console games, as far as I can tell. I like non-linear, open-ended RPGs, complex simulations (flight and space), strategy games and first person shooter. All of those games are either only available on the PC (although the X-box should have some decent shooters and RPGs) or are better played on a PC. PC games are the reason I don't play console games.

>what was the last game you actually played to COMPLETION? I've played hundreds, thousands of games. But the ones I've actually finished? A mere fraction of that list.

I finish almost every game I play. The only games I haven't finished are games I didn't review and which I just didn't have time to get back to. I can't even think of any off-hand that I haven't finished. Oh, Thief and Ground Control (and I'd like to get back to both someday). Those are probably the only games I haven't finished in the last 6-7 years.

Stefan

"It did terribly. Sold about 40,000 units, AFAIK."


Are you sure Sacrifice only sold 40,000 units? Man, that sucks!! =(

>Desslock: I like non-linear, open-ended RPGs, complex simulations (flight and space), strategy games and first person shooter. All of those games are either only available on the PC (although the X-box should have some decent shooters and RPGs) or are better played on a PC.

Why is that exactly, though? I mean obviously those games aren't there yet, but why couldn't they be? Is it the resolution? The location on a desk as opposed to a living room? The mouse and keyboard? The hard drive? The scenario editors? The patchable/moddable content?

I would argue that it is a combination of all these things, equal to more than the sum of their parts, which gives PC games their unique "PC-ness." In terms of brute power/graphics/etc., latest-generation consoles can certainly hold their own against all but the most cutting-edge PC's. (Heck, I still think Shenmue is in some ways a more impressive-looking game than anything I've played on the PC, and that's on a prehistoric Dreamcast.) But all the little interface/bells&whistles/upgradeability doodads add up to something that consoles cannot yet achieve. And I do think resolution is a factor. I was just playing the Evil Islands demo. A cool little game, and really fun to look at in 1024x768 resolution. On a TV screen it would be a blurry mess. Empire Earth would be the same way.

>" I heard about an 'AI card' somewhere, a generic card that will handle AI calculations in games. If this comes to pass you will see it first on the PC."

Heh, that was probably me. It's an idea I like to through around on various internet forums.

Brad Grenz

It's perfectly doable, as there's a standard set of algorithms; the concept isn't really any more complicated than modern 3d accelators.

PC games are, to some extent, different from console games because they're always been different. You get a self-reinforcing aspect in the developers that make the games and the gamers that play them. Look at the stylistic differences between early PC gaming and the Atari 2600, or the 286 and the SNES.

Right, but the difference is that at least 3D accelerators can agree on at least one thing: triangles.

Most games nowadays use state machines (of varying complexity) for their AI, but I think it would be a bad idea to "standardize" on anything with regards to AI, because you never know what the next interesting breakthrough will involve. Just buy a faster CPU and more memory. :)

>and I honestly think it'll be in a much healthier position within the next one to two years once Xbox games don't look so hot anymore relative to what�s out there for the PC.

I agree, but that's not a particularly bold statement, is it? It's history repeating itself - the non-upgradeable and inexpensive consoles grow long in the tooth while the PC remains evergreen. In 2003 and 2004, the PC will be amazing. Then in '05 there will be new consoles yet again that put it to shame, and the cycle continues.

I think the PC's real ace in the hole is only now starting to be truly realized - it's capacity for user content creation. The tool to make the game is the same one used to play it. We've had mods and user levels for years, sure. But only in the last year or so have they become so widespread that they're no longer something for the PC gaming elite. Developers are starting to put some real effort into making content creation far easier (The Sims, Neverwinter Nights), and if that trend continues only a little bit, and broadband net access gets a little more widespread, we're looking at a revolution.

The next logical step is to mirror what happened with online play. It was something for the PC hardcore - typing in IP addresses, manually pinging servers, third-party utilities, etc. Then it all got integrated into the game, with online play just a couple clicks away, and everyone starting playing online, a LOT. When the same thing happens for finding, and installing user-made content, the entire PC game experience will be redefined. The coming of the "in-game mod browser," if you will, might be inevitable, and might be the best thing ever to happen to PC gaming.

We're not yet at the point where a popular game integrates both the CREATION of new content and the CONSUMPTION of it - you've still got to go search the web for that last part - but I hope we're close. Maybe Valve will do something like that in their upcoming products. Sounds like something they'd do.

Consoles are starting to offer some of this (custom parks in Tony Hawk, that sort of thing), but it's very limited. And it might expand with hard drives and broadband in consoles, but only in very tight, controlled, relatively minor ways.

>How about the Sims? This title has been in the top ten for allmost 2 years now. It must be the highest grossing title (PC or Console)in gaming history.

Last I heard, it's up around 4.5 million copies sold, worldwide. Plus expansion packs.

I think Myst sold around 13 million copies. No expansions. A large number of those were things like bundle deals, the economics of which I'm unsure of - The Sims is still selling stand-alone in retail, with stand-alone expansions. They haven't even bundled all those yet.

I think you'd probably have a really good case for saying that The Sims is probably the most lucrative franchise in PC game history.

As far as getting AAA product out in time for Christmas, this year seems to be pretty bad for PC devs. I remember the last few years where a sudden rush of demos and games met the beginning of the holiday season. The consoles seem to have met their schedules with the ability to even space out a few of their top tier releases in order to give each their own share of the spotlight. It does seem like early next year should have some great PC titles, just when people start getting the bills from holiday shopping.

Good point, Jason. And I agree, for what it's worth.

Is Neverwinter Nights not gonna have anything like that to find content? I was under the impression that it was going to...Hmmm...

Guess I was wrong. Sounds like something they'd do, too.

>>Desslock: I like non-linear, open-ended RPGs, complex simulations (flight and space), strategy games and first person shooter. All of those games are either only available on the PC (although the X-box should have some decent shooters and RPGs) or are better played on a PC.
>[anon]Why is that exactly, though? I mean obviously those games aren't there yet, but why couldn't they be? Is it the resolution? The location on a desk as opposed to a living room? The mouse and keyboard?

The controls might be a factor (at least for sims), but I think it has more to do with "console culture" -- sports/arcade-style action games and fighting games have always dominated, maybe because those games are fun to play for a couple+ players in front a the same screen in a living room. Console games have always largely replicated arcade games (some of the action/adventure games have gone beyond doing so) -- now that consoles are so impressive, they've also pretty much killed arcade games.

Stefan

---

Quote:

As far as getting AAA product out in time for Christmas, this year seems to be pretty bad for PC devs.

---

---

Quote:

now that consoles are so impressive, they've also pretty much killed arcade games.

---

What killed arcades for me was the rise and domination of Quarter Eaters. That is what we called games that used a timer, or had some other limit built into them, that made it impossible for skilled players to play for long periods of time. They generate more revenue for the arcade, but combined with the high play price for most games now, they make me feel more ripped off than entertained. Powerful consoles made it worse - why spend money on the arcade game when the home port will be just as good and only cost me $40 for unlimited play?

Quarter Eaters don't have much variety either - shooting, fighting, driving, that's about it. Boring.

Well, I've already said that the future of gaming will be coming from the gamers not commercial developers or publishers and mentioned that as a reason PC gaming will continue. And, like Desslock, I do prefer open-ended and nonlinear games including sims, strategy/wargames and the one or two CRPGs that actually qualify. In fact I prefer them so much I tend to annoy the heck out of people with my opinions on the subject.

These games haven't been much on consoles though I'm no expert on that subject. In the current retrospective on Square over at Gamespot they mention a couple 'nonlinear' titles that Square did which were blasted by story-oriented fans of the company. Actually got me curious about checking them out but another foible of console CRPG games put me off - what's the deal with superdeformed animae characters? Shouldn't localization include graphics? That stuff's irritating.

On the other hand, while the content is more my speed on the PC I really do like sofa crashing in front of the TV for gaming. With my sound system and big screen I get pulled right into a very nifty alpha state and comfort zone. For me graphics aren't a huge deal and I really don't mind somewhat softer images and it's possible to have some pretty hefty numbers&text dependant games as we've seen from Romance of The Three Kingdoms VI (PS1) alone on a console.

If the X-Box does eventually deliver on the hype it will be close to my ideal of PC quality games on my home entertainment system. Morrowind should be about open-ended as anything any console has seen. The PS2, though, has beat them to the punch for now with GTA3 which is non-linear to the Nth degree.

"I think the PC's real ace in the hole is only now starting to be truly realized - it's capacity for user content creation. The tool to make the game is the same one used to play it. We've had mods and user levels for years, sure. But only in the last year or so have they become so widespread that they're no longer something for the PC gaming elite. Developers are starting to put some real effort into making content creation far easier (The Sims, Neverwinter Nights), and if that trend continues only a little bit, and broadband net access gets a little more widespread, we're looking at a revolution."


Maybe the mod community is killing the action genre? Look at it this way. You have half life. There are so many good user made mods out on the internet that it's staggering. Why buy another game? If you love playing Counterstrike, why buy any new titles? This one game can fulfill your gaming habit for a long time. Then we have Day of defeat. Another great user made mod. And so many others. And how about UT and Quake 3? Why buy another game? I could play Tactical Ops for a long time before I grew tired of it. And what does this do? It kills other action games, because gamers are playing CS, Tac Ops or Urban Terror for Quake 3. There not purchasing any of the new action games!!!

As a gamer I don't have a problem with that but I can see where it might cut down on the demand for reviews and paid reviewers. ;)

Just kidding. I'll slink away into the shadows now.

"I think the PC's real ace in the hole is only now starting to be truly realized - it's capacity for user content creation."

Yeah, I made this content creation vs. content consumption argument, WRT consoles, a few weeks ago here on the boards.

I'm not sure your "singleplayer -> multiplayer" and "player -> creator" analogy works.

I don't see this instant golden age of gaming just because companies integrate content creation tools in the game. 90% of everything is crap, and there is one very important corollary to that rule: 99.9% of everything USERS create is crap. Look at all the talented, well paid development houses who can't manage to put together a compelling game. You think average users will do better? No. They'll do much worse. And they do. The amount of crappy, lame half-baked user mods already on the market is frankly staggering. But.. the odds of that one in a million Counter-Strike phenomenon definitely increase. I'll give you that. A million monkeys typing will eventually produce at least one game worth playing.

That doesn't equate to a golden age of gaming. More choice, perhaps, but the value of that choice is debatable when the average quality is so painfully low.

There's a reason this whole consumer-creator paradigm is pyramid shaped: there are VERY few people talented enough to create the content. The level of skill required to create is nowhere near the skills required to appreciate the work.

Except for Proust. Just ask Bruce Geryk.

We're talking about Proust here now? In the same thread as Half Life?

I have no idea, I just made that up. You people are actually reading this?

It's the All-England Summarize Proust Competition!

I was skimming your messages as always (sorry, you asked for it) and PROUST popped out. I freaked.

Jason Cross:
"I think you'd probably have a really good case for saying that The Sims is probably the most lucrative franchise in PC game history."

Maybe. I'd peg Lara and Duke as being more lucrative as franchises, though, if you're talking market valuation. The Sims is popular, but only (currently) appears on one platform, and I'd find it very difficult to believe The Sims could make a cross-media leap because of its nature.

It's really good at what it does and where it appears, but where it appears and what it does are somewhat limited.

>"what's the deal with superdeformed [anime] characters? Shouldn't localization include graphics?"

Only if the publisher wants their corporate offices razed by a horde of angry nerds dressed in Dragon Ball Z costumes, and armed with home-brew rail guns.

Brad Grenz