PC games on the margins

Games
41

Hello all, I’m new to this forum, but was so impressed by the posts that I figured I had to join.

I’ll try to measure up. :wink:

I’ve been a serious computer gamer since the late 80’s. Since then, I’ve dabbled with consoles - primarily as a party-game - made for some great dorm-room fun in my college days… moreso than a computer - even on a LAN - ever could.

For serious gaming, though - consoles have never been able to measure up. Though I understand they are getting closer. I don’t own a modern gaming console, but have seen some impressive developments in that area… like Bungie’s Halo, for example… very well done, if you like shooters.

I suspect console gaming systems will do to computer gaming what computer gaming did to tabletop gaming.

I might get myself in trouble here with any serious tabletop gamers here, but here goes. It seems like there used to be a greater market for low-tech games - you know, the dice, the counters, the face-to-face interaction, the rulebooks… than there is now. I think that’s because computer games have successfully replaced many of those gaming forms: the rpg, the strategy game, etc.

Tabletop gaming still exists, but in a very marginalized form.

As a longtime computer gaming enthusiast, I know I won’t be spending $3000 to replace my current rig when the time comes. I’ve grown up. I have other priorities and responsibilities.

I can, however, see dropping $200-$400 on a new cutting-edge gaming console that can offer most of what I’m looking for when I play games.

I’m sure I’m not alone on this. This, more than anything, will be the demise of computer gaming.

Perhaps the whole point is moot, though.

As consoles become more computer-like, will it be such a bad thing if computer gaming goes the way of the dinosours?

If we can continue to enjoy our hobby at less expense and greater ease, isn’t that a good thing?

Perhaps the debate should center around whether or not a console will ever truly be able to offer the in-depth gaming experience computer gamers demand? I will certainly mourn the death of computer games if it means my only electronic gaming option is reduced to Yoshi’s Fun-Fun Cart Race Battle. :?

42

I think you guys are also forgetting something. Do you really expect the companies that made millions on the PC to just abruptly leave and go console. Companies such as ID, Ensemble, Verant, Epic, Blizzard and Maxis have made made there fortunes on the PC. I just can’t see them abandoning the PC anytime soon. Why would they risk going into an market that is severly overcrowded?

And look at the 20 top ten console titles for January:

  1. The Sims (PS2)
  2. The Getaway (PS2)
  3. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (PS2)
  4. Devil May Cry 2 (PS2)
  5. SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals (PS2)
  6. Dragonball Z: Budokai (PS2)
  7. Madden NFL 2003 (PS2)
  8. ATV Off Road Fury 2 (PS)
  9. Yu-Gi-Oh! Eternal (GBA)
  10. Dead Or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball (XBX)
  11. Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (PS2)
  12. Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell (XBX)
  13. Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon (PS2)
  14. Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon (XBX)
  15. Zelda: Link To The Past (GBA)
  16. Max Payne (PS2)
  17. Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers (PS2)
  18. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec (PS2)
  19. Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers (XBX)
  20. Kingdom Hearts (PS2)

Where are the FPS, RPG’s and Strategy games? I don’t see them! Do you really think that Age of Mythology would have been in that top 20 list if they would have went console? Doubt it. Or how about Never Winter Nights? The game sold over 400,000 copies on the PC. Would it have sold that many on a console? I seriously doubt it. So your basically telling them that they need to go console or else they will go out of business? But yet… the top 10 console games of Janurary are mostly Sports, Action and Racing titles!!! Doesn’t sound like a great business plan if you ask me.

And yea… I do realize that the Sims for the PS2 is number 1, but that title is so embeded in American culture it would have done well regardless. Christ it’s been on the Drew Carey show, and everyone has seen the commericals. Also the game was reworked for the PS2. It looks nothing like the PC version.

Let’s look at the sales of UC (Xbox) and UT2K3 (PC). Both are pretty much very similar. The Xbox version sold only a little over 100,000. The PC version has sold over a million copies. Why did the PC version out sell the console version? So they should just give up and go console? But yet… THE CONSOLE VERSION SOLD SQUAT!!

Now look at Blizzard’s latest title War Craft 3. The game sold over 4 million copies. 4 fuckin million!! Help me here… They should give this up?? I do know that Blizzard got started making console games, but they made there fortunes on the PC. Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft are PC mainstays. You just don’t walk away from something thats been so good to you.

And the same can be said for Id. Caramack has stated time and time again that he only works with cutting edge technology. Consoles stay fixed for a number of years. They aren’t ever changing, unlike the PC. Cutting edge technology first goes thru the PC… Whether it’s 3D or online gaming the PC was the first to implement these features. Way before consoles. And all of Id’s games have sold in the millions on the PC. Why would they take a chance and give this up?

And yes… I know that Doom 3 will be on the Xbox, that Blizzard and Ensemble are all working on console titles. But so what? What nobody has been saying is that Doom 3 will be better optimized for the PC. That Blizzard is working on WarCraft (online) and that Ensemble will probably be putting out future PC titles. Nope… Dave likes to point out that since Raven is putting out an X-mens game that the PC industry is doomed. But he doesn’t even mention that they are also working on Quake 4, which is primarily a PC game!! And who the hell wants to play an X-mens game on the PC anyway?? I dont!!!

And… I remember playing Quake 2 on the N64 but nobody made a big deal about it. And that goes the same for Starcraft as well. So what’s the big deal? Ports have been going on in the 90’s. It’s no big deal.

Finally, why is it that when a PC game company goes under you guys bitch and moan that the PC gaming industry is dying. But yet when a console company closes it’s doors (and there have been a few this year), no one says nothing. Or when that shitty BMX game from Aclaim wasn’t well recieved and sold poorly, no one was declairng that the console market is dying. Why is that…

43

As a longtime computer gaming enthusiast, I know I won’t be spending $3000 to replace my current rig when the time comes. I’ve grown up. I have other priorities and responsibilities.

Hmm… $3,000? Sorry buddy but this isn’t 1997 anymore. I can buy a nice system for $800 and that includes monitor and speakers. Hell… I can put together a system w/ a AMD XP 2000 and a G4 4200 for under $600.

eh… whats your argument?

:D

44

Curiously enough, all of these started as PC games. (Not 100% certain on the first Madden.)

45

Curiously enough, all of these started as PC games. (Not 100% certain on the first Madden.)[/quote]

Those games did pretty well on the PC as well. PLus thats only 6 titles out of 20. Most of the games that made up the top 20 aren’t the type of games that you would find on the PC.

46

Oh, I definitely agree, it’s just curious that the “dead” PC still delivers a fair number of franchises to consoles, though curiously enough, it doesn’t go the other way.

47

Doesn’t that assume that every single consumer buys games for all four platforms? I mean, if I have a PC and an Xbox, I don’t have to spread my gaming dollars to Gamecube, PS2, or GBA.

48

"I can, however, see dropping $200-$400 on a new cutting-edge gaming console that can offer most of what I’m looking for when I play games.

“I’m sure I’m not alone on this. This, more than anything, will be the demise of computer gaming.”

Like it was mentioned in this thread, you don’t need to drop $3k on a PC anymore. It’s still a bit more expensive than console gaming, but they’re not that far apart now. I think the biggest price advantage console has for gamers is the ability to rent the games. It’s harder to find PC rentals, though Gamefly apparently does so.

PC gaming is not going to disappear as long as people use PCs. The biggest threat I see is that the big publishers will marginalize it, and then we’ll see fewer AAA titles on the PC, which would be disappointing. I know gameplay’s important, but I also enjoy all the chrome the big publishers can afford to stick on a big title.

49

AIM Said:
Whether it’s 3D or online gaming the PC was the first to implement these features. Way before consoles. And all of Id’s games have sold in the millions on the PC. Why would they take a chance and give this up?

I don’t think it’s a question of “giving it up”. The PC market isn’t going to suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke.

But there is a slow evolution towards the console…

50

I’m of the opinion that the PC will mostly vanish to be replaced by a myriad of networked embedded devices: your seamlessly linked home network of devices will be your virtual computer. As for why PC game sales suck, well, the PC gaming experience sucks, period. Which is not to say there aren’t great PC games, but, no one wants to download patches and struggle with drivers.

Until consoles had hard drives and RJ-45 ports, the PC enjoyed a distinct advantage over them. Times are changing and converging. And consoles force developers to make games that either work out of the box, or patch themselves automagically. All of this saves valuable time. And time remains the one true killer app for the consumer. On the PC, even if the game is great OOTB, it can still be sabotaged by a host of driver issues. That sucks.

All IMO of course. And this will take a good 5-10 years to play out because consumers are such donkeys and developers are such lazy mofos. But I think a tech startup that made this happen a year or two sooner would absolutely clean up.

51

I’m of the opinion that the PC will mostly vanish to be replaced by a myriad of networked embedded devices: your seamlessly linked home network of devices will be your virtual computer.

What would this seamlessly linked home network look like, or do? At the bare minimum I need a device that I can use to word process and browse the internet. How would a “seamlessly linked home network” accomplish this better than a white box sitting under my desk? And how does one get one – are they going to be installed in people’s homes by burly contractors, which is something I personally would rather not deal with? Or are they just devices you buy and then stick on your desk – in which case I’m not sure how they differ from PC’s…?

Just wondering… (I always lacked the Vision Thing.)

52

I could see at some point your home entertainment center also being your computer. You just buy an extra 27" HDTV and stick it on your desk and it’s your wireless terminal. Add a wireless keyboard and mouse and you’re good to go.

The problem is cost, of course. What would such a home entertainment center/mainframe cost, and why would a consumer want it? All-in-one is nice, but price usually wins and consumers seem to like to cobble together their home entertainment system piece by piece.

Also, the trend seems to be towards small and portable in consumer electronics.

Finally, there’s the compatibility issue among electronics manufacturers. Who’s going to own the standard? Will everyone play along?

53

I just like how PCs are getting smaller.

54

I just like how PCs are getting smaller.[/quote]

Well, design-wise, I think the ILamp is pretty neat, although it doesn’t have certain things I’d want (looking at that tiny case I’d imagine a certain lack of expandability. Though I guess you can just daisy chain a bunch of firewire peripherals onto it).

I like a big honking hulking ATX case personally speaking, so I can root around in it to my heart’s content, but I appreciate this is not what the average PC user would want.

55

Perhaps those who are fortunate enough to be very technically proficient can build their own machines for the prices you list. I would argue that the vast majority of computer gamers, however, purchase their rigs in a box from Dell or Gateway or Best Buy. Unless you are a very savvy shopper, you can still easily spend $3000 on a new computer. Regardless of your technical proficiency and/or shopping prowess, you can get into a console system for far, far less (assuming you already own some sort of home entertainment system).

My argument is that there may be no need for an argument. I think most can agree that the XBox has more in common with a PC than the Sega Genesis did. As a result its games are able to be more PC-like. If I’ve read this thread correctly, it’s concerning the direction of the gaming industry. So while the gaming industry today may still have a clear distinction between console gaming and PC gaming, the gaming industry tomorrow may be a very different place.

My argument is that, if the console evolution continues, there may a less expensive, more comfortable, and therefore more appealing way for current PC gamers to get their geek fix. I, for one, am in favor of that.

It’s funny. Much of the anti-console-gaming rhetoric has a luddite feel to it. Perhaps we can benefit by thinking outside the box. If you can get the same - or better - gaming experience in your barcalounger in front of your big-screen t.v. with surround sound… why not?

Clarification to avoid potential flames: I am not trying to say that console games today are the same as PC games today.

56

DANG! Newbie Error. :oops:

I’m used to a diffeerent PHP site where it keeps me logged in…

The previous “guest” post was my response.

57

Maybe someone could spend $3000 on a PC but you certainly don’t need to. You can buy a perfectly decent gaming rig for $1000, even if you aren’t a do-it-yourself-er. Granted that is more expensive than a console.

58

So it seems my overly casual use of $3000 created an inadvertent red herring.

I’ll concede that a decent gaming computer can be easily had for $1000.

That’s still… what… three times the cost of a console?

I’m sad that the real intent of my post has thus far been completely missed.

Agree or disagree… consoles are becoming more like personal computers. If this trend continues, the PC will become irrelevent as a gaming device.

59

This is another red herring to me. I don’t genuinely care what hardware I use to play games. If the types of games I prefer (FPS, turn-based strategy, flight & other sims) remain available, with my preferred or a similar control scheme (mouse & keyboard), then I don’t care what someone wants to call the electronic computational device I’m using to play them. I hear all the time in the console choice wars, “It’s all about the games,” but it is also about the control devices. Bring me games I like with suitable controllers & I’ll buy the hardware I need to play them.

60

Yeah, even if you go Dell or Gateway you’re going to have to really work to spend $3000. Don’t forget that Best Buy and others every week advertise PCs under $1000. You don’t have to be that savvy to get a decent PC.

Besides, if you are a computer gamer you almost have to know a little something about hardware, etc.