NVIDIA: Consoles Don't Threaten PC Gaming

[Serpico]

Things like STEAM, something people seem to love to hate, are the best thing for PCs. Joe Blow can buy a game at a store or online, then come home install it, and have it auto-update. What percentage of the average population updates a game except if there is a auto-patch system or there is a multiplayer mode that requires it? Especially with the new services like saving saved games online and such.

Honestly, my last 100$ I've spent on games was through steam. Oh, and I don't get charged tax on the games which is allways nice

Steam is the best thing ever. I can't remember the last PC game I bought that wasn't through their service. I never want to touch an installation DVD again.

 

[oscrogo]

As for hardware manufacturers, their marketing has always sucked. Naming conventions are confusing as hell even to the knowledgeable enthusiast at this point (look at the 8800GTS confusion when the 512MB model came out). Most people shopping at a Best Buy or a Fry's are completely confused. I don't blame them, I blame the hardware manufacturers for not doing their jobs. The job of marketing is to communicate to the customer, and they fail at that. And again, a part of me doesn't feel that it is that a high a priority for these guys. You know where they make their real money? Low end parts with high profit margins.

Right on. It's not a high priority to them. It's almost as if every time Nvidia and AMD/ATI say they are going to make the naming conventions easier to understand, they make them even more confusing for people who don't surf hardware sites all day long... Also, Nvidia and ATI's marketing is pretty much all aimed at the Enthusiast market...You never see them advertising on the mainstream and (at least in Nvidia's case) it's not like they don't have the money to burn on mainstream marketing/education.

Fortunately we have developers like Valve who are still pushing the PC as a gaming platform with Steam and their related services like the hardware survey. They are planning on rolling out features like automatic driver patching and system evaluation, which will tell you just how well your PC will run a game that they sell. Why couldn't Microsoft make a service that functions as well? Either way, I hope Valve remains independent and keeps doing what they're doing.

As much as people bitch, moan and complain about Valve and Blizzard, they are the best things going for PC gaming right now...throw in Maxis, Firaxis <sp?>, Bioware (Mass Effect was designed as a PC game..as was Jade Empire) and Bethesda, and the future of PC still looks in capable hands as far as developers go. Just hope they don't end up like id and Epic, and the crap that they've put out on the PC lately.

Valve will remain independent as long as guys like Gabe, Doug, and Robin are still working for the company..

 

[GoldenTiger]

Bioshock was designed for the PC and ported to consoles.
UT3 was just a big bucket of fail in general but yeah I agree here, it suffered from consolitis.
Halo is just a bad port in general. I have no idea what they were even thinking when they ported that and said ok its done, lets release it.....
Mass Effect and Lost Planet from what I heard are good ports and havnt heard many people complain about bad performance/graphics.

BioShock was definitely not designed for the PC considering it utilizes vertical minus "fake-widescreen" instead of horizontal-plus, and had a completely consolized interface replete with console crosshair acceleration/etc.

Mass Effect and GTA4 run at 720p at 30ish FPS on my xbox 360 (oftentimes less, enough so that I suspect hardocp would put it below 'acceptable' framerates...I know I would, there's a lot of visible chop there).

I suspect a gamer that's willing to accept middling graphics settings (judging by experience on how ports to PC usually go) at 720p resolution with <=30FPS, I don't see how the person needs ANNUAL pc upgrades. You need annual if you get herpes from not running crysis at Very High with 60FPS at 1080p+.

Yep, I got GTA4 for my 360 and was VERY disappointed with how the framerate dropped to 10-15 during anything but riding around in a non-action setting... any time effects or firefights, or chases erupted, the framerate plummeted to gameplay-affecting levels. It severely docks the game's score in my book and should not have been released in that state.

The last line of yours sums things up well. Even a middling PC is far superior to a console spec-wise and graphically, for those who only look at graphics (seemingly many).

I hate it when someone says they won't need to upgrade a console and thats a plus. Thats a negative actually in my view unless you like sticking to old age graphics. Many older games can be upgraded with better graphics on the pc. With the console your games are obsolete after awhile and get boring. Replay value is less to me on a console than it is on the pc. Pc is better all around if your a real gamer. I own a wii for fun and multiplayer with friends but when i want to game with the real deal i use my pc for my graphics and multiplayer online games. Console are still limiting in multiplayer if you ask me. You are limited to what the developer gives you and thats it which sucks since they might charge you for additional content. Even then it won't be enough content to keep the game interesting enough to keep it lasting for awhile. Thats why the pc versions and the pc platform will never die. PC= open source platform, console = proprietary. More pc's are coming with better videocards stock so hopefully more can game on them in the future.

Excellent post... consoles are NOT upgradeable, meaning it is what it is forever. You start with relatively poor graphics, and end up with very dated graphics by the time you're done. With the PC you can apply filtering, AA, scaling, and game options to improve even poor graphics, or download complete texture packs that update popular games to modern-day standards (ie Half-Life 2 or Oblivion). I too own a Wii for fun, and a 360 (which I am not sure why I own since I rarely use it in the face of my PC/Wii). Consoles are very very limited and focused on microtransactions for their online stuff, iondeed. As far as propietary vs. open, that's a good point as well.

As for stock videocards? People gladly shelled out $600 for a PS3 at its launch, yet they buy a $200 eMachines or similar with better specs than the console but for the stock video, and scoff at spending $100 more for a far superior card that would trounce the console graphically... makes no sense whatsoever, but hey, that's sheep-fools for ya .

... coming from the guy with the brand new Raptor X, 9800GX2, etc. Any hardware there that's over 2 years old?

On topic, I used to game exclusively on PC. Now, I own a 360 and PS3. However, I do play a RTS game on the PC 1-2 times per week. However, this may be attributed to coming into a cubicle job and I don't want to sit in front of the computer when I get home.

What does the age of someone's hardware have to do at all with their preference, exactly? All it shows is he found the PC to be superior and thus invested more money into upgrading it. 2-year-old hardware still destroys any console out there, let alone mid-range $130 512MB 8800GT cards nowadays with $70 Corte 2 Duo CPUs that scale to 3.0ghz/more in overclocking, 4GB of DDR2 RAM for $15/gig commonly, etc. etc. Need I go on?

I used to game mainly on consoles... as I grew up over the last couple of decades, I now rarely play my consoles, and am always on the computer. I sometimes play the Wii thanks to its mechanics, but the 360 (and a PS3 would, if I had one) sits largely unused. As far as coming from a cubicle job, how would for instance working at a restaurant make you not want to eat once you come home? That's basically what you're saying... makes no sense whatsoever .

Basically, consoles are better than pc only in that it is more difficult to cheat. Pc is better in every other category such as graphics, sound, mouse and keyboard support, tweakability but not cheating. The sole reason I think that I went to console only is cheating. I cannot play and fps on a console. It literally is painful.

Mix the two. Get the best of all worlds and I am IN.

A little more difficult but not much for anyone that cares to (modchips/modded bios/etc. are very common). I've found very little cheating thanks to tightly administered servers that I've played on for years, and usually any cheater seen is banned within minutes. I accept nothing less from my Favorite-list servers in any given game.

-----

PCs are not going anywhere... more silly gloom and doom from misinformed people .

 

[SamuraiInBlack]

An Xbox 360: $250-$450, pending model and if its refurbished
Xbox Live Gold: $50 for 1 year

Just in that alone, minus any games or additional accessories you're looking at $300-$500. For PS3 you're looking at what? $400 to $500 just for the console, right?

If you're willing to spend that much on a console but not for a half decent PC, the argument becomes a moot point as far as what's cheaper. Yeah it can be argued that the PC is an annual upgrade, but that's -if- you choose to get it. On the console side, you really don't have much of a choice if they stop making games for your generation of the console, now do you?

I mean come on. The Wii is $250, but let's face it - you are missing out on the whole purpose of owning one if you don't get the Wiimote, the nunchuck, and all the other stuff you can get, and that adds up very quickly. The same can be said for a PC upgrade. Sure, you can stick to that PC you bought two years ago, but with just a couple hundred invested here or there you could get an up to date system ready to handle today's games, and, pending on how much you invested on a good graphics card, or lucked out in getting one for dirt, you would be ready for tomorrow's games as well. However, your PC hardware will still play the games you always used to play. I'm running a Core 2 Duo and still play Freelancer, Starcraft, and Diablo 2. But I also play C&C 3 and Kane's Wrath. And once I settle on a video card and processor upgrade, I will be playing Crysis and other titles that came out in the last year that I've been missing out on.

 

[Serpico]

Just hope they don't end up like id and Epic, and the crap that they've put out on the PC lately.

Amen. And you can throw Crytek on that pile.

 

[Serpico]

You start with relatively poor graphics, and end up with very dated graphics by the time you're done.

I agree with everything you said except this one point. The advantage of a fixed platform is that developers continue to squeeze every last drop of power and performance out of it as time goes on. The best looking console games are generally the very last ones that come out for it. Look at the very earliest PS2 games and compare them to one of the last ones, God Of War 2. Its like looking at two different systems. Even though GOW2 wasn't in HD, at the time it came out it rivaled the graphics of some of the games that were on the 360 and PS3. Yes, it pushed the PS2 hardware to its absolute limit, but it looked amazing.

I have no doubt that games on the 360 and PS3 will continue to look better as time goes on. The PC will always have the advantage of pure raw horsepower to make up for being a moving target, but could you imagine how much better even those games would look if developers were able to optimize their games for that hardware as well as they do with a console? Its never going to happen as it takes years of developing for a fixed platform for this to even be possible, but that level of efficiency would still be cool.

 

[GoldenTiger]

I agree with everything you said except this one point. The advantage of a fixed platform is that developers continue to squeeze every last drop of power and performance out of it as time goes on. The best looking console games are generally the very last ones that come out for it.

I should clarify...

My original statement was meant to be that they are mediocre compared to a current PC at the time of release, but compared to a then-current PC at the time the console is near end-of-life, the PC has advanced much further and looks even more dated compared to a current PC at that time.

As far as squeezing more performance out, that has to do with becoming more familiar with the propietary hardware and its programming interfaces, not the amount of power and efficiency somehow becoming better over time. It's really a matter of not being familiar with a new propietary system at first and learning it over time, not that they're making more efficient code than they could with a PC given the same target hardware consistently as they improve algorithms and programming data structures.

One of the PC's greatest advantages is that it uses a near-universal method through drivers and standardized API/etc. systems. However, that also is its greatest disadvantage, as these tend to change over time, and while they maintain backward compatibility (hence why you could run, say, a DX7 game on DX10 just fine still), they usually are less efficient at running the older methods of programming as concepts and uses of it become orphaned/no longer in use/etc., and newer hardware uses different computational structures that run the newer API more efficiently than the old one.

 

[Serpico]

As far as squeezing more performance out, that has to do with becoming more familiar with the propietary hardware and its programming interfaces, not the amount of power and efficiency somehow becoming better over time. It's really a matter of not being familiar with a new propietary system at first and learning it over time, not that they're making more efficient code than they could with a PC given the same target hardware consistently as they improve algorithms and programming data structures.

Yup, that's what I said.

Again, I agree with what you posted, I'm just coming in from another perspective.

To further clarify, a PC bought in 2000, at the same time the PS2 was released, has a shelf life of three years, then it needed to be upgraded unless all you were going to do was play Quake 3 or Counter Strike 1.6 or something like that on it. New games were going to render it very slow (Half Life 2, even before the sudden 12 month delay? Forget it, you needed a 9800 Pro or something like it). Compare this to the same PS2 bought in 2000, which, for all of the reasons you mentioned managed to deliver one of the absolute best looking games of 2007.

Again, that's pretty amazing. Yes, a PC bought in 2007 will obviously blow that same PS2 away, but that PS2 is also going to blow away a PC bought in 2000. This speaks to one of the main advantages of a console from the POV of a consumer, which is that you can keep the same hardware for a very long time and the games will continue to look better, not through replacement or upgrading of hardware, but from developers working on a fixed platform for many years on which they continue to optimize the hell out of.

This isn't a "PC > console" or "console > PC" post, it is only about the relative strengths of the platforms. Again, the PC tackles the issue of being a moving target with sheer brute force in hardware. Consoles tackle the issue of being a fixed platform through optimization and efficiency in software.

Again, its not possible because the PC platform is such a moving target, but wouldn't it be cool to get that same level of optimization in a PC game? It would be pretty mindblowing.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Yup, that's what I said.

Again, its not possible because the PC platform is such a moving target, but wouldn't it be cool to get that same level of optimization in a PC game? It would be pretty mindblowing.

Gotcha . Yes, it sure would be .

 

[Topweasel]

I agree with everything you said except this one point. The advantage of a fixed platform is that developers continue to squeeze every last drop of power and performance out of it as time goes on. The best looking console games are generally the very last ones that come out for it. Look at the very earliest PS2 games and compare them to one of the last ones, God Of War 2. Its like looking at two different systems. Even though GOW2 wasn't in HD, at the time it came out it rivaled the graphics of some of the games that were on the 360 and PS3. Yes, it pushed the PS2 hardware to its absolute limit, but it looked amazing.

I have no doubt that games on the 360 and PS3 will continue to look better as time goes on. The PC will always have the advantage of pure raw horsepower to make up for being a moving target, but could you imagine how much better even those games would look if developers were able to optimize their games for that hardware as well as they do with a console? Its never going to happen as it takes years of developing for a fixed platform for this to even be possible, but that level of efficiency would still be cool.

But the Fact is could anything on the PS2 look as good as lets say Farcry on a 7800GTX. No. People keep talking about how great something looks on Consoles now and for the first couple of years the do look better sometimes for the very same reason you mentioned, but as it happens every generation, as PC games pull away in looks and capabilities people start migrating back. The Big problem that might keep the PC gaming market from rebounding as well as it has in the past is WoW. With over 10 Million current users they basically have horded a lot of the Non-Hardcore PC gamers. Meaning that while it is still at its pinnacle and with development costs at an all time high its going to be hard to have a PC only games in development as they might not be able to get enough people (even though the market is there) to buy their games.

This means even Valve as to conscientious of the console market and because of that companies can't make a game to complex or porting it over to consoles becomes hard. Though as a comment Valve has alway pushed themselves to maximize users by keeping PC requirements down, their lighting that they did for SM2 was awesome.The fact that PC's are so multifunctional means its easier to go from the PS3 or Xbox to the PC as they will be able to handle the bloat of that move with very little effort in fixing it.

This isn't the first and won't be the last PC gaming debate, but between WoW, the high end competition with this Gen, and the fact that the big guns recently shot their loads*, this might be the hardest storm its had to face yet. Though 2010-11 could be good years but only if the Guns get new engines out and if Microsoft is not out early with the Gen3 Xbox. Remember just like the Consoles and cars and everything else Halo (not the MS type) products are needed and these three (and maybe Valve) need to get engines out that rival what can be done on a console.

*Considering the time it takes to design a new engine, Crytek, Id, and Epic all had recent engine releases by their standards (4 yrs Crytek, 3 Years Epic, and 5 years Id).

 

[ssratt]

PC/Console.. well the last console I played with was the Sega Genesis, when Time Warner rolled out that mess a few years back.

With a Console you have to either pick one or buy all three since none of the games can be played on another, and each one has a few excellent games, but not enough to fully invest in each system.

PC, we do lose out on some great games, mainly because of exclusivity to one platform or the other, even though they were developed on a PC. on the flip side we get games that can have more depth, and better controls,you can also decide to change the default controls in most games,to match how you like to play and/or any problems you might have with default controls.

As to "ports" they are getting a lot better, with developers realizing that they can correct the mistakes they made, and the best ones allow the user to change even more settings, correcting thing that the console version had problems with (graphic problems)

 

[Chombo]

Yup, that's what I said.

Again, I agree with what you posted, I'm just coming in from another perspective.

To further clarify, a PC bought in 2000, at the same time the PS2 was released, has a shelf life of three years, then it needed to be upgraded unless all you were going to do was play Quake 3 or Counter Strike 1.6 or something like that on it. New games were going to render it very slow (Half Life 2, even before the sudden 12 month delay? Forget it, you needed a 9800 Pro or something like it). Compare this to the same PS2 bought in 2000, which, for all of the reasons you mentioned managed to deliver one of the absolute best looking games of 2007.

Again, that's pretty amazing. Yes, a PC bought in 2007 will obviously blow that same PS2 away, but that PS2 is also going to blow away a PC bought in 2000. This speaks to one of the main advantages of a console from the POV of a consumer, which is that you can keep the same hardware for a very long time and the games will continue to look better, not through replacement or upgrading of hardware, but from developers working on a fixed platform for many years on which they continue to optimize the hell out of.

This isn't a "PC > console" or "console > PC" post, it is only about the relative strengths of the platforms. Again, the PC tackles the issue of being a moving target with sheer brute force in hardware. Consoles tackle the issue of being a fixed platform through optimization and efficiency in software.

Again, its not possible because the PC platform is such a moving target, but wouldn't it be cool to get that same level of optimization in a PC game? It would be pretty mindblowing.

Maybe its just me but it seems like console games get around the hardware limitations by cutting corners in certain areas. Like masking low quality textures with lots of HDR. Or making the levels small. Or making the less important characters or items or objects have really low poly counts. And also by using low resolutions and no AA or AF. Not that I am saying its bad, I just kind of noticed that while playing Mass Effect.

 

[jstnomega]

to each his/her own, but for this exclusively PC gamer, cross platform development = NO SALE

for all its faults & shortcomings, thank god for Morrowind - there are just so many and varied ways to skin that kitty that it's still fresh, even after all these years - a pity that we'll never see its likes again

 

[Serpico]

<snip>

You sort of missed the point of my posts.

You are also preaching to the choir here with your comments on Valve; read back a few pages and you will see my posts that are praising Valve to the heavens for keeping PC gaming strong with their awesome games and Steam (IMO the best thing on the PC right now), as well as criticizing Microsoft for what I believe is a deliberate attempt to emphasize the 360 as their main gaming platform at the expense of the PC, paying lip-service to it at best.

And regarding Valve's games, your points on them keeping system requirements low while making them look good are a huge reason why they are so successful, ditto Blizzard. Solid art direction and the intelligent use of the right new technologies go a long way to making a game look great. There is more to it than making a game *cough*CRYSIS*cough* that requires a beastly rig to look good and looks like absolute garbage when you scale back resolution and visual effects. One is a smart use by the developer of art assets and resources, another is relying on the brute force of hardware to make their game look halfway presentable (ah, takes me back to the days when Strike Commander could barely even run on any machines when it came out ).

There is a balance there. It is no wonder why Crytek's method failed, and now they have the nerve to blame piracy on why they are abandoning the PC for consoles. What BS.

 

[Serpico]

Maybe its just me but it seems like console games get around the hardware limitations by cutting corners in certain areas. Like masking low quality textures with lots of HDR. Or making the levels small. Or making the less important characters or items or objects have really low poly counts. And also by using low resolutions and no AA or AF. Not that I am saying its bad, I just kind of noticed that while playing Mass Effect.

The "how" is of little concern to me, just so long as the game looks great. Call Of Duty 4 is a perfect example. IMO it is a fantastic looking game and it runs awesome on most PC hardware. Yes, they hacked their way around lots of things to make it run on slower hardware, but the fact of the matter is that it will still look great for lots of people at a really high framerate. Is that any worse than Crysis, a game that uses fewer "hacks" and is a truer physical simulation of the world, while at the same time it runs slower/requires more power as a result?

There is room for both, but there is obviously a balance between power and what hardware people have available. Companies like Valve and Infinity Ward understand this, and using "hacky" methods to deliver a net result that looks great on the hardware available isn't necessarily a bad thing. Mass Effect on a recent PC has a huge advantage over console hardware that is pushing three years, and unfortunately Bioware has to deal with that limitation. That said, they did a pretty good job at it without sacrificing much.

 

[TerranUp16]

i want to see a scalable video game engine. by that i mean u can adjust the # of shaders, polygon counts, and complexities to a degree we haven't seen yet. so that let's say quake3 looks good in 1999, but can still push today's GPUin 2008 and 2016, etc. no1's done that yet. once u have done that, it'll be like a "virtual console" so to speak. games can finally keep scaling with hardware, etc.

... You might want to do some research into how game engines function and what kind of work what you suggest would entail...

 

[FitzRoy]

I'm going to post this from a PS3-centric point of view, so when I reference this generation's console features, don't bother pointing out the ones that the 360 doesn't have yet.

With this generation making several important strides (netplay, automatic patching, HD resolutions, digital connections, mouse/keyboard support, linux support, downloadable content), many of the PC's longstanding advantages have been lost. Regardless of nVidia's damage control, the PC is certainly being threatened and it is only going to get worse.

-Numerous different hardware combinations. Increases likelihood of bugs, makes bugs difficult to trace as OS, program, driver, hardware, or user error. Increases burden on developers and forces them to compromise graphical potential for increased sales (look at Crysis and its poor sales). It's a catch-22. Since most users don't have cutting edge hardware, they didn't buy the game. But unless someone comes out with a game that utilizes a new DirectX, there will be no incentive for gamers to upgrade their hardware. So even though PC gamers go around touting their latest greatest hardware, it takes years for even a few games to take true advantage of it. With consoles, transitions are more painless. Every seven years, a console developer will finalize an up-to-date hardware spec on which developers can focus to make the latest generation of games.

-No gamepad standard. For the same reason that few RTS games ever appear on consoles, many genres like fighting games never appear on the PC. The ideal platform is one that supports and provides both a keyboard/mouse and gamepad peripheral. Sony with the PS3 is beginning to understand this and pushing mouse/keyboard support on genres that would benefit from it, but they've still let it be optional, which is a mistake. Look at Orange Box. Does it have mouse/keyboard support? No. Because Sony gave them the option. It needs to be forced in order to supplant PC gaming and get people to view the PS3 as a true replacement for normally exclusive PC genres.

-Online Cheating. This is a rampant problem in PC games, but a very difficult thing to pull off on consoles. I can't tell you how much more enjoyment I get out of beating people on a console, knowing that no one is wall hacking me, and also having no one accuse me of cheating, or coming back with cheats to grief me into leaving. It's pathetic and no one should have to deal with this stuff.

-Lack of standardized packaging. When the PS2 came out, everything shipped in a slim DVD case with the same slipcover markings. For years, PC games have been in a seemingly endless transition from giant wasteful cardboard boxes, to standardized small cardboard boxes, to durable double-sized plastic DVD cases with cardboard housings. Nobody wants to agree on a logo either. There seems to be a fetish with cardboard and a phobia of saving gamers shelf space. They even opted for the double-sized DVD case over the slim one. Why?

-Dreadfully slow adoption of new media standards. Look at how many games were released on multiple CDs despite DVD being fairly popular and drives being fairly cheap. Of course, the problem is that PC developers want to retain the extra sales of people who still only had CD drives. So they got their extra sales and made all the DVD drive owners sit there for thirty minutes swapping discs to install and search for the right disc every time they wanted to play. The same thing will happen for the DVD to blu-ray transition. Meanwhile, the console model with its single configuration can simply push the latest media format with ease. Since every PS3 has a blu-ray drive, it is immune to these transitional annoyances.

-Pirating. A huge problem on PCs and always has been. Developers lose sales, get paranoid and implement instrusive DRM like Starforce which ends up afflicts general PC usage.

-Online Marketplace. A plus for some, but I've always resisted the digital distribution model of new games. It's anti-climactic as a gift, there is no physical or true ownership of anything, it invites security issues and account phishing, and it eliminates any chance to resell. Of course, most developers view resale in the same light as piracy and see the elimination of resale as a way to increase sales, which I think is wrong.

-A benchmarking social environment. Some people find gratification in overclocking, eking out extra FPS, trying to beat each other's 3dmark scores, but personally I think it's a waste of time.

 

[TerranUp16]

Who gives a damn about what media retail PC games come on when we have Steam?

 

[idividebyzero]

Its a load of bull since consoles have already caused a massive decline in PC games. Or should I say the Xbox has. Back in 2000 PC gaming was very strong, there were a number of great games coming out all the time. PC gaming quality started to decline as the Xbox became more popular. But now its practically dead with the 360 taking all the good games. PC's can barely get one AAA title a year now. Whats ironic is that Microsoft is the one thats most guilty of killing PC gaming, they are paying PC based companies to make xbox exclusive games with no Windows version.

 

[TerranUp16]

Its a load of bull since consoles have already caused a massive decline in PC games. Or should I say the Xbox has. Back in 2000 PC gaming was very strong, there were a number of great games coming out all the time. PC gaming quality started to decline as the Xbox became more popular. But now its practically dead with the 360 taking all the good games. PC's can barely get one AAA title a year now. Whats ironic is that Microsoft is the one thats most guilty of killing PC gaming, they are paying PC based companies to make xbox exclusive games with no Windows version.

...? Pretty much every 360 game I even remotely want to play is either already available on the PC or en route...

 

[Serpico]

Its a load of bull since consoles have already caused a massive decline in PC games. Or should I say the Xbox has. Back in 2000 PC gaming was very strong, there were a number of great games coming out all the time. PC gaming quality started to decline as the Xbox became more popular. But now its practically dead with the 360 taking all the good games. PC's can barely get one AAA title a year now. Whats ironic is that Microsoft is the one thats most guilty of killing PC gaming, they are paying PC based companies to make xbox exclusive games with no Windows version.

While I think that the whole "PC gaming is dying" case is hugely overstated, I do agree that Microsoft does carry some of the blame for the shift that has actually occurred. Incentive to put their muscle behind PC gaming isn't there; they only profit on gamers from occasional OS sales and games that happen to be published by them, maybe an MS keyboard or mouse, but that's it. Compare this to profit on every single physical 360 game sold, a cut of every single download on XBox Live, 360 accessories that carry massive profit margins, and even the 360 consoles themselves on which they are finally making money on. There is no question as to which gaming platform Microsoft will benefit the most financially from, and this conflict of interest sure isn't helping PC gaming.

Microsoft spends massive amounts of cash on marketing, and for gaming nearly all of it is used to promote the 360. From TV to print ads, to their constant press releases promoting the 360's popularity, to the shelf space they buy at game and electronics retailers, its all about the 360.

Microsoft's real PC profit comes from products and subscriptions sold to business and enterprises; gaming gets lip service in comparison.

 

[Serpico]

And again, this is why Valve rocks.

 

[Mabrito]

they are paying PC based companies to make xbox exclusive games with no Windows version.

Source?

 

[gaspah]

That is 100% fucking bullshit... where the hell is my GRAND THEFT AUTO 4... YOU NVIDIA BITCHES!!!

 

[{EB}NuTSymPToM{EB}]

I hate when people argue the cost of consoles vs. pcs.

Everyone owns a PC for standard PC usage. Cheap PC's are ~$500+ and very typically suck. Add on to that a new console ~$300-$500 with peripherals ~$100 and you're already pushing the price for a decent gaming PC. I just this week bought a Wii for my girlfriend and I and the game + extra controller + mario kart + extra wheel cost me a pretty penny.

On top of that, serious gamers will buy at least a decent TV to get 720p resolution which will be another couple hundred dollars.

I personally don't watch that much TV and when I do I don't care if its not in "high def". Comcast has weaksauce HD anyway.

My PC cost ~$1100 in parts and my 22" widescreen monitor I got for only $250. It does everything I need it to do as far as a PC and gaming platform and does it all better than a console.

PC Gaming will have enough exclusives to live on. Hopefully once WoW dies people will start picking up more games again. I played that shit for 3 years and only bought HL2 in that timeframe. I missed out on a ton of great titles that I'm just now picking up in the bargain bin.

 

[gaspah]

oh and people go on about MMO.. omg.. hell no.. i cant stand that fag quest crap... like omg.. give me something to shoot or race ffs... besides.. i don't need to be a level 12 paladin to make friends.. i have ones in the real world...

 

[TerranUp16]

That is 100% fucking bullshit... where the hell is my GRAND THEFT AUTO 4... YOU NVIDIA BITCHES!!!

En route- October or December.

Though imo I'm looking forward to Mafia 2 as opposed to GTA 4 PC.

 

[gaspah]

While I do agree with the statements you've made, I think you missed the MOST important factor: Games and social factor.

All the positives of one system is mute if you can't play any decent games on it! That's not to say that PC gaming is lacking, but people just have preferences that will steer them to one of the many consoles and/or a PC. Like you said, FPS is more suited for a PC. But there are other platforms that are more suited for consoles. Then there is all that exclusivity of games...

As for the social factor, the PC opens up a wider range of audience. However, many people just like to play with their friends in the same room with less hassle. Consoles allow this as it is more accessible and cost effective. Not everyone owns a PC that is equipped for gaming, nor want to do lan partys.

There are more positives to a console than anti-cheating like you are claiming.

So yeah.. my gaming/media rig is in my loungeroom on my big screen.. i mainly use x360 controller (so i can lean back in my couch)... so aside from shitty support and console-exclusive... PC has all the same advantages as console... infact i moved a second pc into the loungeroom the other day and me and a friend have been playing rainbow six vegas 2 as a team... i suppose that people can do that with the latest gen of consoles... but hardly anyone would have a spare PS3 x360 laying about... whereas.. heaps of people have spare pcs...

ok so my friend wasnt so happy he was allocated the 17" dell monitor... but it still worked fine...........

(yes we played the PC port of rainbow six FPS with xbox controllers.. let the torrents of abuse start!!!)

 

[gaspah]

En route- October or December.

Though imo I'm looking forward to Mafia 2 as opposed to GTA 4 PC.

yeah me too!! fo sho... well I am still excited about GTA4... but the original mafia was one of my favorite all time games... so mafia 2 is lookin real exciting.. the graphics look awesome...

 

[gaspah]

but i thought there was nothing official on PC GTA4....

i heard there was some person accepting pre-order... but nothing from Cockstar North..

 

[TerranUp16]

but i thought there was nothing official on PC GTA4....

i heard there was some person accepting pre-order... but nothing from Cockstar North..

There have been a few rumblings from Rockstar themselves and historical precedent indicates October as a likely date, though some of the rumblings from Rockstar indicate December.

 

[gaspah]

rumblings XD hehehhee thats practically official

 

[Serpico]

There have been a few rumblings from Rockstar themselves and historical precedent indicates October as a likely date, though some of the rumblings from Rockstar indicate December.

The lag time with previous console to PC GTA ports has been nine months, so around December sounds right.

 

[GoldenTiger]

The lag time with previous console to PC GTA ports has been nine months, so around December sounds right.

Would be nice... those drops to 5-10 FPS during any heavy combat really do suck .

 

[TerranUp16]

I'll probably end-up getting GTA IV if for no reason other than the inevitable Resident Evil mod.

 

[Topweasel]

You sort of missed the point of my posts.

You are also preaching to the choir here with your comments on Valve; read back a few pages and you will see my posts that are praising Valve to the heavens for keeping PC gaming strong with their awesome games and Steam (IMO the best thing on the PC right now), as well as criticizing Microsoft for what I believe is a deliberate attempt to emphasize the 360 as their main gaming platform at the expense of the PC, paying lip-service to it at best.

And regarding Valve's games, your points on them keeping system requirements low while making them look good are a huge reason why they are so successful, ditto Blizzard. Solid art direction and the intelligent use of the right new technologies go a long way to making a game look great. There is more to it than making a game *cough*CRYSIS*cough* that requires a beastly rig to look good and looks like absolute garbage when you scale back resolution and visual effects. One is a smart use by the developer of art assets and resources, another is relying on the brute force of hardware to make their game look halfway presentable (ah, takes me back to the days when Strike Commander could barely even run on any machines when it came out ).

There is a balance there. It is no wonder why Crytek's method failed, and now they have the nerve to blame piracy on why they are abandoning the PC for consoles. What BS.

I think you missed my point, I was saying that this always happens at the 2-4 year mark of new consoles. My point is that compared to the rest of these cycles this one might be the worse one yet because of a perfect storm. What has always driven people back to PC's the ability to do something a console can't. Maybe I am wrong in thinking it will come from better graphics (this is what has helped out the most in the past), maybe it is games like WoW that instead of killing PC games might actually be keeping PC's viable game machine even if it lowers the success of other titles. Because even with Valve they are just offering the same functionality of Xbox live.

I do think PC gaming will live and eventually thrive again. I just want to point out that its also by far the biggest fight yet.

 

[Topweasel]

Oh and that as far Crytek goes, if it was that much better then UT3 on the PS3 it would be one thing but its only like 5% better looking with 3X system requirements. The big thing is if they could get new engines out before the new consoles (hopefully with good game play) it can breathe a lot more life into Hard Core PC gaming.

 

[erexx]

Bioshock was designed for the PC and ported to consoles.
UT3 was just a big bucket of fail in general but yeah I agree here, it suffered from consolitis.
Halo is just a bad port in general. I have no idea what they were even thinking when they ported that and said ok its done, lets release it.....
Mass Effect and Lost Planet from what I heard are good ports and havnt heard many people complain about bad performance/graphics.

Yep, you are right.
Bioshock was originally released on the PC... made for PC.
Maybe thats why it made such a good port. (doh!)
I really like Bioshock. One of the Best games I have ever played.
Playing it again right now. Sorry I ever said anything bad about it.

I purchased Mass Effect and Lost Planet much to my disappointment.
Mass Effect has graphics problems.
Bad shadows in video and there is ALOT of video.
I asked "the Google" and many have the same issues.
Guess thats my fault for having a 40" 1080p monitor that shows every little flaw in big detail.
Lost Planet has control problems, imho, almost lost another mouse on that game.

DRM and Steam.
I don't mind Steam games except that I cant sell them or trade them when I am done or don't care for them any longer.
I would rather own the disk, becuase I would like to sell Lost Planet...
but it looks like I will own it forever, whether I like it or not.

I still think development of next gen games for consoles first and then port to PC is bad for PC gamers.

 

[Topweasel]

oh and people go on about MMO.. omg.. hell no.. i cant stand that fag quest crap... like omg.. give me something to shoot or race ffs... besides.. i don't need to be a level 12 paladin to make friends.. i have ones in the real world...

Well your not going to make friends at level 12. lol. Its the $800-$1200 (OEM) PC owners that push sales of even the most hardcore games, but if they are all playing a game that doesn't end then it becomes harder to spend the money developing the games aimed at the $2500 (OEM comparable) PC owners (they are few and far between).

 

[TerranUp16]

I think you missed my point, I was saying that this always happens at the 2-4 year mark of new consoles. My point is that compared to the rest of these cycles this one might be the worse one yet because of a perfect storm. What has always driven people back to PC's the ability to do something a console can't. Maybe I am wrong in thinking it will come from better graphics (this is what has helped out the most in the past), maybe it is games like WoW that instead of killing PC games might actually be keeping PC's viable game machine even if it lowers the success of other titles. Because even with Valve they are just offering the same functionality of Xbox live.

I do think PC gaming will live and eventually thrive again. I just want to point out that its also by far the biggest fight yet.

Oh and that as far Crytek goes, if it was that much better then UT3 on the PS3 it would be one thing but its only like 5% better looking with 3X system requirements. The big thing is if they could get new engines out before the new consoles (hopefully with good game play) it can breathe a lot more life into Hard Core PC gaming.

PC gaming has quite a few aces up its sleeve atm, and you can, ironically, actually thank piracy for some of them. The biggest one is shifting methods of distribution. Digital distribution networks like Steam are really convenient and also improve the already massive shelf-life of PC games (I grabbed Prey for $5 off Steam- I'd never have gotten that deal at a store and I'd never have thought to look for such a deal, but I'm sure that numerous others cashed-in on that deal and consequentially Human Head likely got a nice bonus over two years after the game's original release).

But, beyond just Steam and the like, you also have the newer, emerging, distribution models embodied by games like Battlefield: Heroes and Combat Arms. That is, the free-to-play model. And going even further beyond those, you have the potential for distribution models that hybridize some elements of free-to-play games with a more traditional distribution model (for example, perhaps a AAA game will only cost $20 or $30 instead of $50 but will earn the rest of its revenue from advertising- in fact, as BFH proves, this advertising doesn't even need to be in-game and perhaps one of the most promising ways to implement this will be for developers to support the game with post-release content for free, bankrolled by sponsorships and advertising revenue generated by users downloading the content).

And then you also have models such as what GarageGames plans to do with Fallen Empires: Legion, which is to charge only $10 for the game at launch but to include only a "minimal" amount of content (like a beta but without the bugs). The developer continues to support the game with additional content, and in doing so thus increases the value of the game, thereby appreciating its value and price over time. Thus, gamers have the option of either opting in early for a cheap price but only a little bit of content initially (but all of the content that gets added to the game is "free" for anyone who has already bought the game- they paid their $10 and that's all they needed to do) or can wait for a more robust offering of content but more expensive price.

To sum-up the above, unlike the consoles the PC is an open platform and that has always allowed for the PC to drive innovationm and that is what will allow the PC to continue to drive innovation. Already I can certainly say that the long-term price of a gaming PC is much less than that of a console because of the cheaper cost of PC games, mods (thereby adding more value to each game and reducing demand for new games), free post-release content (same effect as mods), and because of its open nature which makes peripherals cheaper than their comparable console counterparts (or if you do end-up spending the same amount on PC peripherals that you would on console peripherals, you will get much higher quality peripherals). Add all of that up and you'll actually find that many of your upgrades have already been "paid for".

As far as Topweasel's Crysis comments go... wtf are you smoking? Crysis looks way better than UT3 even just on DX9 High settings and at lower resolutions... and I'm talking about the PC version of UT3. The disparity is far, FAR greater when comparing Crysis to the PS3 version of UT3 (not to mention that version only runs at 30fps and is decidedly toned-down from its PC counterpart in the gameplay department; on the upside, I haven't heard any rumblings that it runs at 600p or something instead of 720p ala CoD 4, but then again I'm running UT3 at a bare minimum of 1.5x the framerate with higher image quality, 16xAF, and 1600x1200 on my rig...).