Are developers trying to gear us away from PC gaming?

[JohnnyDelRay]

Ok, after reading a spate of news recently about games that are being released in the near-future, and spreading my wrath on forums with regards to certain announcements, I suddenly came to realize, that despite people's claims that PC gaming is alive and kicking and will continue to be so, I wonder if developers are having different thoughts.

First I'll summarize some news ranging from recent to kinda old, in "AAA titled" games

Battlefield 3 (EA)
-Requires Origin
-No built-in server browser, have to exit and launch your own, then restart game

Rage (id)
-Not sure if implementing always-online
-Second hand content cut (not sure if this only affects PC?)

Starcraft II (Blizzard)
- Battlenet 2.0 discourages LAN play, not even geared properly for competitions of large scales, as per Warcraft III

Diablo 3 (Blizzard)
- Always-on connection required, for single-player campaign

Now these are a few, but probably the most significant moves by juggernaut companies, whose games will sell like hotcakes and top anything else, despite claims of "boycotts" and other such protests. I have heard a lot of "boycott the PC version!" protests as well.

But I am wondering that maybe that's what developers want? I mean, why else would you exclude people with poorly-performing internet connections? And make people rely on your server, who knows how long that's going to run for? Or all the other hardware required to keep your connection going. They make all their money on release date anyways, so discouraging longevity in a game, and even cutting content from second hand sales, just sounds...stupid?

Not to mention sticking it to the modding community, which gives more to a game's cult status than people give credit for. I mean, just looking at Oblivion and GTA series, how rapidly and extensively every aspect of the game gets tweaked, despite any number of bugs, is just amazing. Show some love for the gamers who love the game, s'what I say.

The other thing that has been removed from most major games is LAN functionality. It's crazy that an online connection is required for LAN games, when someone is sitting RIGHT NEXT TO YOU. I know we send emails to people 5 meters away, and that goes through remote servers, but this is a real-time connection we're talking about. The LAN culture is disappearing, and something so easy to implement is a shame that it's gone. I'm not even going to try bringing DRM into the discussion, because treating gamers like criminals has never been a good idea in my book, s'why I have supported CDProjekt from the start.

Anyone else care to agree/disprove my theory? I'll be very happy to hear from anyone's side!

TL;DR = With big-name developers implementing things such as 'always-on' connection for single player games, and removing things like LAN functionality, are they trying to kill the PC gaming community? Or am I looking into things too deep?

 

[F4LL3N]

Most of these barbaric implementations are to stop piracy. When dedicated servers were removed from Modern Warfare 2, it was to make you buy the mappacks. I gather it's a longer process to pirate a console game; however, I doubt most PC gamers will switch when it becomes impossible to play games on PC. So it seems kind of useless.

I don't necessarily think they are trying to turn people off PC gaming. But it's probably going to happen anyway.

I think it's all rather pathetic to be honest.

 

[Kimarous]

Yes! Let us destroy a viable and profitable market by way of digital rights management that, while inconvenient for some, is still perfectly playable and enjoyable!

...wait, that makes no sense. Neither does this theory.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Yes! Let us destroy a viable and profitable market by way of digital rights management that, while inconvenient for some, is still perfectly playable and enjoyable!

...wait, that makes no sense. Neither does this theory.

I'll try to elaborate then...

It's a fine like between inconvenient and playable, like you said, "for some". But that's what it comes down to, the "some" isn't enough to affect anything, and that's just the way it's going, as these giants can move the industry anyway they please. I'm more concerned with the end result, do you think it will steer people away from PC gaming or not?

I should probably state it's more of a hypothesis than a theory maybe.

 

[mornal]

Battlefield 3 is being primarily designed for the PC and you can probably find a quote from the developers along those lines. DICE knows it's core fanbase is in PC gaming.

Starcraft II and Diablo 3 are both PC exclusives. Hard to try and get people to leave the PC platform when you only make games for it.

Rage's cut content is going to apply to all platforms (if it doesn't, you may be on to something).

If developers wanted to make us stop buying PC games they would stop making them. Very few business plans involve making their products difficult to use so consumers will stop buying them. If these features end up with lost customers that is unfortunate side effect of their main purpose. All the things you mentioned are intended to fight piracy, not kill off a group of consumers, a.k.a. people with money.

 

[Kimarous]

Yes! Let us destroy a viable and profitable market by way of digital rights management that, while inconvenient for some, is still perfectly playable and enjoyable!

...wait, that makes no sense. Neither does this theory.

I'll try to elaborate then...

It's a fine like between inconvenient and playable, like you said, "for some". But that's what it comes down to, the "some" isn't enough to affect anything, and that's just the way it's going, as these giants can move the industry anyway they please. I'm more concerned with the end result, do you think it will steer people away from PC gaming or not?

I should probably state it's more of a hypothesis than a theory maybe.

To put it bluntly, no. I do not think people will steer away from PC gaming, and the few that might actually follow through with such a mindset clearly don't have much love for PC gaming in the first place. A lot of these so-called inconveniences are, at least to me, but dust to be brushes off with nary a fret. These DRM precautions are hardly draconian. All I have to say to those bothered by them is "stop being a crybaby, suck it up, and roll with the punches."

 

[Farther than stars]

Yes! Let us destroy a viable and profitable market by way of digital rights management that, while inconvenient for some, is still perfectly playable and enjoyable!

...wait, that makes no sense. Neither does this theory.

Ah, you've caught on, have you?

It are indeed not the companies which are gearing us away from PC gaming, but players themselves. It's just the simple matter that for the layman PC gaming seems more complicated and expensive compared to just buying a console and sticking the disk in. And with a market full of casuals, supply and demand will adhere to what the market (the players) ask for, not what what it (the companies) supply. That's just how capitalism works and it's actually one of its morally justifiable traits.

 

[Vault101]

Polish developers would say otherwise....

 

[80Maxwell08]

Battlefield 3 is being primarily designed for the PC and you can probably find a quote from the developers along those lines. DICE knows it's core fanbase is in PC gaming.

Starcraft II and Diablo 3 are both PC exclusives. Hard to try and get people to leave the PC platform when you only make games for it.

Rage's cut content is going to apply to all platforms (if it doesn't, you may be on to something).

If developers wanted to make us stop buying PC games they would stop making them. Very few business plans involve making their products difficult to use so consumers will stop buying them. If these features end up with lost customers that is unfortunate side effect of their main purpose. All the things you mentioned are intended to fight piracy, not kill off a group of consumers, a.k.a. people with money.

All right I agree with you on everything you said but I do have something to say about the Battlefield 3 point. Considering that Crytek said the exact same about Crysis 2 only for that to come with only DX9 at the start and obviously consolized controls plus the linearity was obviously so the environments could be less expansive and take up less space. I'm not really arguing with you but I just wanted to point out a identical case by another primary PC developer.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I am sorry to give you a very short response:

No, developers are trying to develop stuff and the PC still has a lot of earning power.

 

[Valagetti]

It does feel like it, but thats my irrational mind speaking.
There aren't that many PC exclusive games, excluding RTS's and MMO's, hell even the Witcher 2 is coming to the 360. Yeah you can call me out on some PC games, but then I'll call you out on the console exclusive games.
In the end PC will still always be around, if not, WE WON'T GO QUIETLY!

 

[Cazza]

I was really excited about BF3. But with Origin & no built-in server browser, I'm just going to skip it. I hate consoles. Unless they change it or someone mods an built-in server browser. I'm not buying BF3. Simple.

 

[legendp]

I don't like the internet DRM stuff and no offline lan, I live in australia (really slow internet) so I cannot play online half the time but at least I can play a lan game with my friends...WRONG? I can not because either the internet is too slow or none of us are connected to the internet because we are using laptops, and 90% of the time when your using a laptop out of the house you have no internet connection (my internet drops out every 15min for a split second, wich makes single player game's with DRM close every 15 minutes

 

[Smooth Operator]

No they just want to save money while making more money, so they cut corners and fuck the fanbase... it's just business.
Mind you there is no shortage of people defending these "fuck you" moves, so no matter what they do someone will eat it up.

 

[Saelune]

They are just trying to protect profits. However they are orstracizing their consumers in the process.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Battlefield 3 is being primarily designed for the PC and you can probably find a quote from the developers along those lines. DICE knows it's core fanbase is in PC gaming.

Starcraft II and Diablo 3 are both PC exclusives. Hard to try and get people to leave the PC platform when you only make games for it.

Rage's cut content is going to apply to all platforms (if it doesn't, you may be on to something).

If developers wanted to make us stop buying PC games they would stop making them. Very few business plans involve making their products difficult to use so consumers will stop buying them. If these features end up with lost customers that is unfortunate side effect of their main purpose. All the things you mentioned are intended to fight piracy, not kill off a group of consumers, a.k.a. people with money.

All right I agree with you on everything you said but I do have something to say about the Battlefield 3 point. Considering that Crytek said the exact same about Crysis 2 only for that to come with only DX9 at the start and obviously consolized controls plus the linearity was obviously so the environments could be less expansive and take up less space. I'm not really arguing with you but I just wanted to point out a identical case by another primary PC developer.

Yeah this came to mind too actually. I also wondered why Blizzard, with PC exclusive titles, would do this to PC gaming in general, making it more of a hassle for "some". If they wanted to make PC gaming more accessible, why make people jump through more hoops - make it simpler like consoles where you can put the game in, install, and play, like we used to. Forced automatic updates for n00bs is a poor excuse, just don't release beta software. What people loved about older battlefield games was the huge epic maps and large conquest battles.

Crysis 2 was quite a surprise to me, seeing as Crysis was such a benchmark for PC computing power. Crysis 2 didn't even make my computer break a sweat, compared to the specs required to run games like Witcher 2 and BF3. And I'll bet that Far Cry 3 will only be using DX9 as well. Bit of a shame for an otherwise truly impressive engine. I won't complain too much on that front though, despite some claims, I think Crysis 2 looked great.

 

[Rawne1980]

Rage (id)
-Not sure if implementing always-online
-Second hand content cut (not sure if this only affects PC?)

It doesn't hardly affect PC at all.

It's very rare you get second hand PC games so it's mainly going to affect consoles.

If you buy it second hand on console you don't get the code to open up an area and have to pay for the code.

 

[viranimus]

Not sure if its that complex... it all boils down to one thing. Money. Im also a little surprised that anyone IS surprised that any of these companies have no qualms with feeling they have a right to not only your money, but MORE of your money, and have no qualms with any way of which they can extricate it from you.

Im sorry,Activison, EA, Blizzard, they arent your friend. They do not care if you like them, so long as you purchase their products, licenses, and subscriptions. They are not pouring their manpower because they like games, and like making them because they hope the world will enjoy what they created. They are making them because they want you to feel like you NEED it so much that your willing to part with your money to get it.

Do we really have any illusions that the this ISNT the arrangement? So I dont think they are trying to push anyone away from PC gaming. Its just what they are doing is putting their corporate interests first and balanced just enough to keep public perception on their side as to not actually offend a sizable portion of their key demographic like walking a nerd vs profit tightrope.