Forums > Off Topic > PC Gaming Dying at 25: New Blog Series ...
TheBS (22) on 3/15/2007 6:14 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
After joining a recent discussion entitled Future of PC Gaming Buy your games while you can?.
I felt my points -- which are very contrasting and not so much "what I want/wish" but "what is reality" -- were misunderstood, I decided to start a series of blog entries.
I've completed Part I: Why and how PC gaming is dying?.
I'm sure several people here will see that as a "smack" against PC gaming, of which I am very much a "PC gamer" (far, far more than console) myself.
In Parts II and III (possibly IV as well), I will dive into my history of PC gaming from the original PC and even PCjr through today, and I will do it BY GENRE, as several genres have "died out" from the radars of major, commercial game development companies (e.g., genres such as space sims). Again, much of this is from the aspect of major development game houses, lack of major volume sales, etc... and not so much smaller volumes and community developments.
That latter part will be left to Part IV (or V, depending on how many are in the former). I will finally dive into what we can expect in the very much continuing PC gaming market -- from smaller or more niche developments (e.g., flight sims, others) to the continuation of the few, major genre/themes that haven't taken hold on the console (especially series first-person shooters, select real-time strategy, etc...) that still sell well to the increasing size of community-based developments, including open sourced game engines, mods, etc... as well as emulation of older platforms (e.g., DOSBox, MAME, etc...).
Hopefully this will stir some other insights into games/genres I've never experienced, as well as general debate on this topic. Will PC gaming "die"? No, hardly -- as I and many other people will clearly be PC gaming more than using our consoles for a long, long time. But is it "dead" from a major, commercial game development standpoint? It's certainly seen better days, and no better ones are ahead, I'm sorry, I don't see it -- or rather -- they don't see it. ;)
Maw (832) on 3/15/2007 11:01 PM · Permalink · Report
A bit technical but it was an interesting read and quite well-written. Consoles have always beaten PCs cost-effectively. One thing I feel is a bit inaccurate is where you say that PC gamers are an insignificant minority and developers don't care about them...
[quote]Most major, commercial game companies don't care about us anymore, becauase we're not volume.
snip
Just look at the popularity of Halo. 90+% of console gamers -- which means 90+% of gaming consumers -- don't care because they don't know.[/quote]
...which may be true up to a point but certainly not to the extent you say. There are still lots of PC gamers. Lots and lots. Developers often don't have us in mind when they create a platform-spanning game like Oblivion but it's not as if they don't care about us.
Riamus (8480) on 3/22/2007 11:14 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Maw wrote--]Consoles have always beaten PCs cost-effectively.[/Q --end Maw wrote--]
I always have an issue with that statement. In the end, you need to look at all places where you spend money. Considering the very large number of free PC games that are well done that are not available on consoles, that alone reduces the overall cost per game for anyone who is willing to play those free games. Then, you consider mods and total conversions that basically create a new game as well as user created levels and campaigns and so on and you also reduce the overall cost per game. Then, you look at consoles that seem to be finding more and more use of the nickle and dime charges for extra content in a game that was already paid for and extra charges just to play multiplayer games online (Xbox Live) and you see prices per game going up in the console market. Note that these are obviously based on the types of games you play. Even so, if you look at all games, you start to see the price per game of PC games falling and the console games rising for these reasons. Yes, a PC is more expensive. Yes, upgrading it if you don't know how to do it yourself is expensive. But, when you factor in these and other types of money related issues, it starts to level out the playing field.
Also, if you start talking about the availability of games for a platform, the considerably larger number of PC games makes the PC a more valuable investment. Rather than paying $400 for a system that will, in its lifetime, have the ability to play 1000-5000 games (a guess as I don't want to look up actual numbers), you can pay $1000-2000 for a system that will, in its lifetime [no upgrades], have the ability to play 100s of thousands of games. Looking at the value of the system, the PC is still the most valuable system to buy. And that's not even considering the other uses for the system beyond gaming.
TheBS (22) on 3/25/2007 12:55 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] I always have an issue with that statement. In the end, you need to look at all places where you spend money. Considering the very large number of free PC games that are well done that are not available on consoles, [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] And how many "big game development houses" are producing every complex, very cutting-edge FREE PC Games?
You need to wait for my FINAL segment in this series, because I WILL cover the new genre of PC gaming ... everything from FREE to "open source" and other "community" developments.
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] Then, you look at consoles that seem to be finding more and more use of the nickle and dime charges for extra content in a game that was already paid for and extra charges just to play multiplayer games online (Xbox Live) and you see prices per game going up in the console market. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Exactly! You DO get it!
First off, 90% of (at least) American consumers look at "initial cost" and not the "total cost." That's part of the problem.
Secondly, you've just shown a reason why, again, "big game development houses" are targeting the console! To get that "recurring cost" because it's so much easier to "force" consumers into paying it than on a PC.
Again, I think you will very much like the last segment in my series when I get the time to finally get to it. ;)
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] Also, if you start talking about the availability of games for a platform, the considerably larger number of PC games makes the PC a more valuable investment. Rather than paying $400 for a system that will, in its lifetime, have the ability to play 1000-5000 games (a guess as I don't want to look up actual numbers), you can pay $1000-2000 for a system that will, in its lifetime [no upgrades], have the ability to play 100s of thousands of games. Looking at the value of the system, the PC is still the most valuable system to buy. And that's not even considering the other uses for the system beyond gaming. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] You think that way. I think that way. But we are in the minority today.
But we are significant enough that there are smaller, more niche development houses, select "killer apps" still on the PC, as well as newer "open source" as well as "community" (e.g., mod) developments.
Riamus (8480) on 3/25/2007 7:04 PM · Permalink · Report
My response wasn't really to you as I don't really agree with your blog's assessment. ;)
Anyhow, it doesn't matter who makes the free games or how cutting edget they are. They are still part of the market and have an overall effect on the value of the system for all who play those games. I also don't see how free, open source, or community games are "new" ... or why you keep using caps and *'s everywhere. ;)
My point about the cost is that the nickle and diming of consoles shows that consoles can end up being more expensive to play. Sure, a developer may want to make more money that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean leaving PC behind. And, I doubt I'll read any further blogs, so I won't know if I like the final segment. I know that PC games will continue to be made and that there are many great ones coming out, so I don't really care.
TheBS (22) on 3/26/2007 12:44 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] My response wasn't really to you as I don't really agree with your blog's assessment. ;) [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] I'm starting to question if you even read it. If you did, you wouldn't have not only made some of your prior statements, which I do agree with, as well as these latter ones.
It's clear you want to disagree with the title of my blog, without realizing the detail of what I mean by "dying." Go ahead and be argumentative, it doesn't make you any more "right" or me any more "wrong," if that's what you're trying to say (and I'm not interested in right/wrong).
Several people have "gotten it" and read my blog entry. Apparently you have not or you wouldn't be stating what I've either already said, or am leading into.
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] Anyhow, it doesn't matter who makes the free games or how cutting edget they are. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] For the last time, I said most "big game development houses" are leaving the PC gaming genres more and more, or making their PC versions as an "after-thought."
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] I also don't see how free, open source, or community games are "new" [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] When did I say they were? Dude, I've been running Linux since 1993, and gaming on Linux since before Loki Entertainment came and went. If you would like to stop making assumptions and actually read my article, please feel free. Otherwise, do not bother to respond and make statements as if we disagree when I actually agree!
It's clear that more and more of various PC genres are becoming ones of free games, mods of existing games, spins of new games from existing game engines (some new or made available as open source), etc... This is especially the case where entire PC genres have utterly died from the standpoint of "big game development houses" like "space simulators." Only smaller game houses or community developments are working on those now.
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] or why you keep using caps and *'s everywhere. ;) [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] I didn't know what blog tags did bold or otherwise. Now I've noticed standard HTML works, so I will now use those. Dude, cut me some slack, I'm a noob here -- never worked with the mark-up of the system this forum uses. Now that I've made a few posts and quoted a few others, I've been able to realize that HTML is allowed in-line, many other systems used on many other forums do not. If you want to be yet more argumentative there, then go ahead, it's easy to pick on people who are new to the board and some of the formatting (and yes, I did look for a "sticky post" or something that had details on forum posting format).
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] My point about the cost is that the nickle and diming of consoles shows that consoles can end up being more expensive to play. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Agreed! You said that. I then agreed with that assessment myself. In fact it's one of the reasons I don't game on-line with my XBox 360, but I do on my PC.
So where are we disagreeing? Again, I seriously question you've even read my article. I also questioned you in the other thread where I started to talk about the hardware development costs and standardization factors -- particularly in naming IBM as the #1 foundry -- and you didn't stop to even consider what I was talking about in that context. You thought I was talking about an IBM console, utterly naive of the "real world" of semiconductor development and lifecycle.
Stop to read what I write, not what you think I wrote or mean. You're the #1 reason why I wrote my Part I and it's clear to me that you didn't even stop to read it, or any of my responses here where I 100% agree with you. But don't worry, I won't respond to you again, because it's obvious you are interested in being argumentative, disagreeing with me instead of recognizing that I actually agree.
No offense, but not all gaming consumers think like you and I -- clearly PC gamers -- do. Most don't know about many community developments and free games. Console sales, on-line registrations and other "commercial realities" are what I've been waking up to. Just because you don't want to wake up and look at the "viewpoint" of 90%+ of other consumers doesn't mean I don't agree with you, it just means you aren't taking notice of what I am, among others.
Riamus (8480) on 3/28/2007 1:39 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start TheBS wrote--] [Q2 --start Riamus wrote--] I also don't see how free, open source, or community games are "new" [/Q2 --end Riamus wrote--] When did I say they were? Dude, I've been running Linux since 1993, and gaming on Linux since before Loki Entertainment came and went. If you would like to stop making assumptions and actually read my article, please feel free. Otherwise, do not bother to respond and make statements as if we disagree when I actually agree! [/q]
[q]You need to wait for my FINAL segment in this series, because I WILL cover the [b]new genre[/b] of PC gaming ... everything from FREE to "open source" and other "community" developments.[/q] emphasis, mine You said "new" and then listed open source, free, and community projects. If you meant something else, feel free to clarify.
[q]You thought I was talking about an IBM console[/q] I never thought that and I'm curious to see what I said that made you think I did.
[q]Stop to read what I write, not what you think I wrote or mean. You're the #1 reason why I wrote my Part I and it's clear to me that you didn't even stop to read it, or any of my responses here where I 100% agree with you. But don't worry, I won't respond to you again, because it's obvious you are interested in being argumentative, disagreeing with me instead of recognizing that I actually agree. [/Q --end TheBS wrote--]
I did read your blog and it was rather boring... no offense meant. It is true that I agree on certain things and I understand that you agree on certain things. As I said, I disagreed with your assessment... not every fact your wrote down. I do not believe that PC gaming is dying. That is where you and I disagree.
TheBS (22) on 3/29/2007 3:02 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] As I said, I disagreed with your assessment... not every fact your wrote down. I do not believe that PC gaming is dying. That is where you and I disagree. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Just because the article is entitled "PC gaming is dying" doesn't mean it's really dying. It's more about how it is changing. I was hoping you could see that, especially after I've stated and re-stated that this series is going to explore that, and that we don't actually agree.
Okay? Or are you going to insist we disagree, and continue to make statements that you claim differ with my view, yet exactly match what I've not only said here, but put in my very first artcle?
TheBS (22) on 3/29/2007 3:07 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] I never thought that and I'm curious to see what I said that made you think I did. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] My apologies, that was D Michael ...
Whoa, wait a minute here. You're comparing an IBM platform to the PC? Which IBM non-PC gaming platform are you referring to? Nevermind that. "aren't standardized"? Are you back in 1984 or are you just reciting what you've been told? DirectX, along with Windows (XP) has standardized PC gaming. Autoexec.bat and config.sys alterations are a thing of the past. OpenGL has gone the way of the Dodo, and the .net framework has established a base by which PC gaming is now more standardized than ever.
TheBS (22) on 3/29/2007 3:09 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Zovni wrote--]Just why are you doing this whole blog "series" thing?? [/Q --end Zovni wrote--] Why not? I'm getting back into gaming more, so I might as well log my history, talk about how the market and industry has changed, and where we are headed. Consoles have finally hit the sales mark where they are taking over PCs in sheer volume. People don't understand that or don't want to believe it, and I'm trying to explain why. I'm also going to cover some PC gaming genres that have completely died from the standpoint of big gaming development houses and where community mods and community development have picked up.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 3/29/2007 1:45 PM · Permalink · Report
Not in times of web 2.0!
TheBS (22) on 3/31/2007 2:17 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Zovni wrote--]Whatever you say dude. You do realize blogging is kind of like scribbling your thoughts on the walls of a public restroom right? [/Q --end Zovni wrote--] Yes. So? I write them for my own benefit, and the benefit of others who might be interested. If you don't see any reason to read them, then so be it! I don't need your support to keep doing it.
People read my articles in print and on-line because they reference information in them. I decided to get back into gaming a bit more this year, so I'm trying to put information down in them as well. Including those aspects that most gamers don't realize, like the sheer economies of scale factors in the semiconductor industry.
Read it or don't -- you said you don't care -- opinion noted, so move on then. ;)
TheBS (22) on 4/10/2007 9:27 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Zovni wrote--]In print? Who do you write for? [/Q --end Zovni wrote--] Several technology publications from CMP Media, including the #1 UNIX/Linux magazine in print circulation, Sys Admin, as well as several other, engineering/embedded on-line and print publications, including a few tech books.
But just because I'm published doesn't mean my opinion means any more than anyone else. I like to think my "outside the common viewpoint" box statements shed light on aspects others haven't considered. Especially when it comes to the semiconductor and software industries.
Like the real "economies of scale" of consoles (let alone any, embedded set-top) that are now "leading edge" performance versus their improved support and standardization aspects of the common, varying PC configurations.
General Error (4328) on 4/12/2007 11:19 PM · Permalink · Report
Lol... Great! Zovni, where do you dig up all these pictures? Or do you do them themselves? Makes me smile every time, but that cat's topped everything. Keep 'em coming!
Slug Camargo (583) on 4/13/2007 1:59 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start General Error wrote--]Lol... Great! Zovni, where do you dig up all these pictures? Or do you do them themselves? Makes me smile every time, but that cat's topped everything. Keep 'em coming! [/Q --end General Error wrote--] Man, you're so lazy! If you just check the "properties" for any of the gazilions of pics Zovni's put up so far, you can see they're all hotlinks to http://www.threadbombing.com/
One of the best websites I've ever seen, by the way.
<center>
</center>
Unicorn Lynx (181681) on 4/13/2007 3:35 AM · Permalink · Report
LOL! I loved this one :)
Игги Друге (46653) on 3/30/2007 1:48 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start TheBS wrote--] [Q2 --start Zovni wrote--]Just why are you doing this whole blog "series" thing?? [/Q2 --end Zovni wrote--] Why not? I'm getting back into gaming more, so I might as well log my history, talk about how the market and industry has changed, and where we are headed. Consoles have finally hit the sales mark where they are taking over PCs in sheer volume. People don't understand that or don't want to believe it, and I'm trying to explain why. [/Q --end TheBS wrote--]
So, the PC is not in the majority any more? When, pray tell, was it? In the NES days? In the PSX days? In the Atari 2600 days?
Игги Друге (46653) on 3/30/2007 6:40 PM · Permalink · Report
No, I'm expecting an answer.
Игги Друге (46653) on 4/1/2007 1:37 AM · Permalink · Report
I've been trying to find some hard facts to back that up, do you have some of those at hand?
TheBS (22) on 4/10/2007 9:36 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]I've been trying to find some hard facts to back that up, do you have some of those at hand? [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] You are free to assume, at any time, that I'm pulling everything straight out of my rectum.
But in reality, you should read up on not merely just the common, consumer electronics industry publications on the shipment volumes -- but more importantly, to get better insight on the future -- many publications of the semiconductor industry from EE Times (a CMP Media publication, so I'm biased) to any, formal release from the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA).
E.g., Apple decided to switch to Intel a half-decade before they did. It wasn't merely because Motorola wasn't doing any R&D, as IBM (even if only for a limited time) picked up that aspect of the PowerPC ISA. But the reality that the entire industry has been shifting towards more and more commodity aspects of a single platform, high volume with minimal R&D for maximum return, etc... Especially since it's clear that IBM wanted to become "THE" foundry for all, major console development.
People think Intel is the "leader" in the semiconductor world. It's not only been IBM over the last 12 years since Palmer's "sell-off-a-thon" (of Digital, long story), but IBM has beaten Intel on every, major development, milestone or other "first." This largely has to do with the fact that IBM is much smarter than Intel, and they keep themselves away from the "consumer" aspect.
In fact, being so close to the consumer (even far more than Intel) is turning into Microsoft's major liability -- especially since at their apex, they were still nothing more than a "growth" stock. IBM has been, and continues to be, an "income" stock. What does this have to do with PC Gaming and why consoles finally outsold PCs in units this past year?
Everything. ;)
TheBS (22) on 3/25/2007 12:48 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Maw wrote--] One thing I feel is a bit inaccurate is where you say that PC gamers are an insignificant minority and developers don't care about them... [/Q --end Maw wrote--] My point is that more and more of the "big game development houses" don't care about us.
PC Gaming will continue. PC Gaming will continue to have a following. It won't die. In fact, I'm going to expand on this in the very last segment of the series -- where PC Gaming is going.
TheBS (22) on 3/29/2007 3:00 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start DJP Mom wrote--] The tone of superiority is overwhelming. Makes one feel small and stupid... [/Q --end DJP Mom wrote--] What "superiority" do you speak of? I don't think I did any of that.
If some of you were unaware of the sheer volume aspects of the semiconductor industry, and why the PC market is less lucrative than the console market from that aspect, that has nothing to do with "superiority." The average consumer doesn't care, they just see the initial price difference in what you get for your dollar (at least at the initial release of a console).
Игги Друге (46653) on 3/16/2007 12:38 AM · Permalink · Report
So, the PC is not in the majority any more? When, pray tell, was it? In the NES days? In the PSX days? In the Atari 2600 days?
NatsFan (68) on 3/16/2007 1:13 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]So, the PC is not in the majority any more? When, pray tell, was it? In the NES days? In the PSX days? In the Atari 2600 days? [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Talking about the good old days makes me wish that I was born before the '90s.
I don't mind if PC games aren't the most popular, I just hope that it doesn't die out because of a diminishing fanbase. One of the reasons that games like Myst were so popular was because of their graphics, and PC games are currently anything but the best when it comes to graphic quality.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66801) on 3/17/2007 10:36 PM · Permalink · Report
One of the reasons that games like Myst were so popular was because of their graphics
Welp, it certainly wasn't because of their gameplay 8)
nullnullnull (1463) on 3/19/2007 1:35 PM · Permalink · Report
You could of posted this in the news section if you wanted. Well written thoughtful etc.
TheBS (22) on 3/25/2007 3:26 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start flipkin wrote--] You could of posted this in the news section if you wanted. Well written thoughtful etc. [/Q --end flipkin wrote--] Thank you for recognizing that I took a number of "real" aspects of the industry and put them into why PC Gaming, after 25 years, will largely not be as it was in its first 25.
I will have several, additional blog articles that will cover the history of various genres as well a final blog entry that will talk about where PC Gaming is going in the future.
Responsible Pyromaniac on 3/21/2007 6:17 AM · Permalink · Report
Here's something to consider:
When Nintendo was getting their asses handed to them with the gamecube and people were talking about them being dead. I said they aren't dead and never will. I was right.
Now people are saying PC gaming is dead? are you kidding? there's a lot of people out there that will not buy a game console. you cant kill off a whole market. just as you cant cater to only one. it wont die, it cant. it will stay alive all by itself even if ignored by EA (please god go to hell EA and get off my PC).
Steve Byrum on 3/22/2007 6:25 AM · Permalink · Report
I have been playing pc games since around the time of jesus ok. I have seen and felt this many times.
Back when the PS1 came out that was the death of the PC and what happened then??
Diablo, Command an conquer and many other clasics were born.
This is the decade of the MMORPG right now but who knows what is next for the pc gamer
TheBS (22) on 3/25/2007 1:01 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Steve Byrum wrote--] Back when the PS1 came out that was the death of the PC and what happened then?? [/Q --end Steve Byrum wrote--] PC's had 3 major advantages back then ... 1) Consoles still lagged even just a moderate-level PC in performance from day 1 2) Consoles still had limited graphic output/definition capability compared to any PC 3) Consoles were not connected to the Internet
Today ... 1) Consoles are clearly an "ultra high-end" PC at day 1 2) HDTV is here and supported 3) Consoles offer a "community" of gamers now
Now that's all in addition to the fact that Consoles are "easier to support" for mom'n dad (or any non-technical user) than PC.
Hence why Consoles have taken over PC sales in quantity, unlike back then. ;)
TheBS (22) on 3/25/2007 3:22 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Responsible Pyromaniac wrote--] Now people are saying PC gaming is dead? are you kidding? there's a lot of people out there that will not buy a game console. you cant kill off a whole market. just as you cant cater to only one. it wont die, it cant. it will stay alive all by itself even if ignored by EA (please god go to hell EA and get off my PC). [/Q --end Responsible Pyromaniac wrote--] Did you even read my blog post? Furthermore, did you even note that I have more parts coming in the series?
No, you just read the title, and that's why you didn't get it.
And yes, we will talk about "whole markets" that have been essentially "killed off" by the big game development houses. But yes, we will also cover the smaller development houses as well as community developments that have taken their place.
Again, read and follow the series, I'm not disagreeing with you.
Slug Camargo (583) on 4/13/2007 1:55 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start TheBS wrote--] [Q2 --start Responsible Pyromaniac wrote--] Now people are saying PC gaming is dead? are you kidding? there's a lot of people out there that will not buy a game console. you cant kill off a whole market. just as you cant cater to only one. it wont die, it cant. it will stay alive all by itself even if ignored by EA (please god go to hell EA and get off my PC). [/Q2 --end Responsible Pyromaniac wrote--] Did you even read my blog post? Furthermore, did you even note that I have more parts coming in the series?
No, you just read the title, and that's why you didn't get it.
And yes, we will talk about "whole markets" that have been essentially "killed off" by the big game development houses. But yes, we will also cover the smaller development houses as well as community developments that have taken their place.
Again, read and follow the series, I'm not disagreeing with you. [/Q --end TheBS wrote--] ....and here we go again.
I guess the most important lesson you can get from this experience is this: You've chosen the most unfortunate title for your essay...
Maw (832) on 4/13/2007 8:22 AM · Permalink · Report
"When Nintendo was getting their asses handed to them with the gamecube and people were talking about them being dead. I said they aren't dead and never will. I was right."
You were right when you said they will never be dead? Let's get our tenses right, here. That whole analogy sucks because there is really no grounds of comparison between Nintendo and PC gaming. Even during the dark days of the Gamecube disaster Nintendo's handheld systems were still walking off the shelves.
"Now people are saying PC gaming is dead? are you kidding? there's a lot of people out there that will not buy a game console."
Hey, for all I know there are a lot of solitaire and freecell players out there. We're not talking about a total extinction here, but rather a question of viability. PC gaming has a lot of weaknesses that have only been exacerbated with the release of the next-gen consoles.
Bet (473) on 4/14/2007 7:32 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Maw wrote--]"When Nintendo was getting their asses handed to them with the gamecube and people were talking about them being dead. I said they aren't dead and never will. I was right."
You were right when you said they will never be dead? Let's get our tenses right, here. That whole analogy sucks because there is really no grounds of comparison between Nintendo and PC gaming. Even during the dark days of the Gamecube disaster Nintendo's handheld systems were still walking off the shelves.
"Now people are saying PC gaming is dead? are you kidding? there's a lot of people out there that will not buy a game console."
Hey, for all I know there are a lot of solitaire and freecell players out there. We're not talking about a total extinction here, but rather a question of viability. PC gaming has a lot of weaknesses that have only been exacerbated with the release of the next-gen consoles. [/Q --end Maw wrote--] PC gaming hasn't been viable since the PSX was released, it's that simple. And yet it's still somehow going. The same weaknesses in 1995 are the same weaknesses in 2007. Same strengths too. Not much has changed besides the stakes getting bigger.
The main problem with the GameCube was the same problem as the main problem for the PC - image. People were buying them, but the masses sure didn't like them.
I do know that until a console gets simulations as well as standardized use of a keyboard/mouse combination for RTS and FPS (and a constant 60FPS), I'm not getting one newer than my Dreamcast.
Maw (832) on 4/14/2007 10:27 PM · Permalink · Report
Right now I'm thinking of high-res multiplayer gaming. These days there's hardly anything you can do on a PC and not on a console, and that certainly wasn't true in the PSX era. As for relative hardware performance...well, I would have agreed with you until I saw Xbox versions of Doom 3 and FEAR.
Bet (473) on 4/15/2007 8:42 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Maw wrote--]Right now I'm thinking of high-res multiplayer gaming. These days there's hardly anything you can do on a PC and not on a console, and that certainly wasn't true in the PSX era. As for relative hardware performance...well, I would have agreed with you until I saw Xbox versions of Doom 3 and FEAR. [/Q --end Maw wrote--] 'These days' apparently extends back to 2000, when I was playing Quake 3 on my Dreamcast. Making a terrible showing for myself I might add, since I didn't have the keyboard and mouse accessories and my opponents did. But they did an admirable job porting the game, even if it didn't look near as good as it did on the PC, the framerate was solid and the gameplay was there. Much like Doom 3 and FEAR.
Consoles have been feature-capable of most everything PCs have been for a long time by my experience, but adversarial RTS/FPS multiplayer gaming on consoles will always be lacking until the adoption of the precision control that the keyboard/mouse combo offers. But for a lot of people I talk to about that, the idea is as abhorrent as...well, switching console brands.