Are developers trying to gear us away from PC gaming?

[Smooth Operator]

And if they ever turn their servers off. They'll just patch it for offline.

Why would they do that when it gives them no additional revenue?
Either the company went bust or they want you to buy their new game, in both cases they get nothing out of providing an offline option.

Users surely will make a patch for that, but companies got no reason for it.

 

[Krantos]

They're following market trends. Simple as that.

Consoles have bigger markets and fewer cases of piracy (which publishers continue to overstate the importance of). They're also easier to test due to the variability of PC's. Thus, it's more profitable for the companies to market for them.

If they really wanted to kill PC gaming, they'd just stop making games for it. It's not cheap to make a game multiplatform, so it doesn't make sense for them to keep making games for it if they wanted to kill it.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Casual gamers that don't know how to plug in a computer are killing PC gaming.

But casual gamers are killing all sorts of today's "core" gaming.

 

[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.

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.

Agreed in both points again. Even in the Crysis 2 area. Especially now that the DX11 patch is out it looks beyond stunning for where it's supposed to be set. Back to Blizzard I wish I knew what was going through their minds doing half of their decisions. Thankfully I don't care for Diablo 3 since I never played any of them so it peaks no interest in me.

 

[Bajinga]

I don't know why you say that Battlefield 3's downdfall is that it requires Origin. Origin is a good service; I will be buying Crysis 2 from there because there just isn't anything wrong with it.

A lot of Counter Strike players pick the servers off of the internet too, so this wont be any different from what they are used to.

 

[Continuity]

That's just how capitalism works and it's actually one of its morally justifiable traits.

Its also one of its most annoying traits, as we are always left with the choice of the lowest common denominator.

I don't know why you say that Battlefield 3's downdfall is that it requires Origin. Origin is a good service; I will be buying Crysis 2 from there because there just isn't anything wrong with it.

There is one thing wrong it Origin: its not steam. I want to buy my games on Steam and EA are just being dicks by pulling their content. Valve has every right to want a slice of DLC sale because there is no other way to handle DLC sales on a digital distribution platform that is sustainable.
Think about it, if valve let companies sell the DLC for their games outside of steam then how long before all the major compaines are making a small cheap "game" and then selling the remaining 90% of the content as day 1 DLC which steam doesn't get a cut of?

Casual gamers that don't know how to plug in a computer are killing PC gaming.

But casual gamers are killing all sorts of today's "core" gaming.

"killing off" is a bit strong, suppressing perhaps, but the core games are still out there, just not as many of them are AAA.

 

[Hexenwolf]

They make all their money on release date anyways...

I just felt the absolute need to point out that that's not true. At all.

 

[Baresark]

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

It's purported that the lack of a server browser actually makes it all easier and faster, though I don't know if I believe this. And they are simply pushing Origin as a digital download source competing with Steam when they do this. It's not competitive at this point though because they only offer their own games.

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

The second hand content being cut doesn't affect PC at all since you cannot buy second hand PC games anywhere. And they like Always on as an anti-piracy measure, but it really only affects paying customers.

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

Battlenet 2.0 is offered just so they can change their games from a consumer bought item to a service, so we can't do anything they don't want us to do without suffering potential legal consequences. For Diablo 3, re-read my previous sentence. ;p

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?

I don't think they are trying to kill it, but they definitely lean towards the consoles because it's a much larger revenue source. The reason they are able to get away with it at this point is because they are so large. But, the more people they anger, the more won't buy their products. They think because they are so large that they can do what they want, but we have seen giants crumble, look at the 16 bit era compared to now. Lots of crumbling. And more for the future.

That being said, not everyone thinks some of the things they add are horrible. It's not like they don't add beneficial features as well as the bad stuff. But, the competition in this industry is huge. I don't need Diablo 3 because Torchlight 2 will scratch that itch. I never bought Star Craft 2. Rage might as well not even exist for me because it doesn't look amazing at all from what I have seen. Origin is fine, I'll use it to play the 3 EA games I care about. You should have added Ubisoft to that list, haha. They released a broken unplayable From Dust and they are the first company with Always on DRM, and I'm never buying another product from them again.

Indie development would be dead in the water if not for the PC. Indie games outperform anything released onto XBLIG. When games get released on both, if the game is good, the sales numbers are ridiculously one sided. If you google Super Meat Boy sales, you will find articles talking about how they regret releasing on XBLIG before the PC, as just a single example.

 

[Ickorus]

PC gaming isn't dying, i'll admit the big devs are trying to move away from us but we still have a massive number of indie developers creating some of the best games in the industry for PC only.

I think that's what it will be in the end, us PC gamers will get the RTS, MMO, and indie games to our name and for me im fairly happy with that.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

They make all their money on release date anyways...

I just felt the absolute need to point out that that's not true. At all.

Sorry, I guess I have my facts wrong. I just recall hearing in many articles that around launch date is where most companies rake in the largest portion of their profits from a game. Also hence why CDProjekt only had DRM on their retail sold copies of The Witcher 2 initially, but then removed it as soon as patch 1.01 came out. But I'm not part of the industry, so I can't really quote this on hard facts.

 

[CleverNickname]

They want it in the sense that it would certainly make their jobs a lot easier and less stressful if they only had to develop for the consoles - or just one of them, even.

Nobody ever had to ask this when PC games were made for the PC and console games for a console - cuz even the consoles of old didn't share everything.

 

[Tanakh]

Talking mainly about Blizz here.

But I am wondering that maybe that's what developers want?

Earn more.

I mean, why else would you exclude people with poorly-performing internet connections?

Strategy? If people that would pirate/buy second hand version of your game if it had LAN and without it will be forced to buy it >> people that would stop buying if it didn't has one; then kill LAN. Simple really.

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?

Well mate, if 15 years of maintaining the servers up doesn't buy em some trust... i honestly don't know what will.

The LAN culture is disappearing, and something so easy to implement is a shame that it's gone.

Yep, it was killed by something called Internet. And when devs realized it just hurts their sales they just removed the corpse.


Now, for me as a gamer Blizz does amazing content? Yeap; but would blizz utterly destroy my backside if it reported em more money? No doubt.

TBH, if i cared about LAN i would probably be with you, but you see? i only play multilayer when i am online at the internet, so really can't care less, and sadly neither does the market in general.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It depends on what developers.
The platform developers definitely want us off the PC for gaming. Look at MS's business model: it seems like everything they did with gfwl was done to frustrate gamers and it's no wonder: of course they would rather have all those PC gamers on the 360 where they have to pay a fee to go online.
I can see why the software developers see their bread as being buttered on the side of consoles as well. Why should they waste their time on a platform that people get free additional content on (mods and such) when they have a market that seems all to willing to pay whatever price for "official" dlc.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Yup. PC Gaming is notoriously hard for Publishers to control; so the goal is to lock-down on PC Gaming via DRM, and to make consoles more convenient and appealing in comparison. See, with Consoles, it's considerably easier (or at least more consistent; it's not foolproof) to monitor and control the market.

Another probable argument I've seen is that the Gaming Industry Suits want PCs to become more like Consoles via these new proprietary DRM systems (Origin, Bnet 2.0). Which would let Publishers both charge more for their game and make more money per title (by bypassing Used Game Arbitrage and retail costs, while maintaining near-retail-like pricing since they know gamers are willing to drop 60 bucks on a game already).

The more control they have, the more directly they can market to you, and the more likely they are to flex those Natural Monopoly powers on you. That translates directly into higher profits for less work.

Historically: Publishers want to kill the game modding business to eliminate any competition to their DLC; which encourages/enables them to eventually charge ridiculous amounts for new game content.
They want to force you into their Online DRM systems for a variety of reasons: None of which are beneficial for the customer (oh, they pretend they're beneficial. It's the job of Marketing to spin everything).

On Consoles, they can accomplish all of those tasks more easily since Consoles are intentionally limited to provide stability and control (for both developers and convenience for the consumer). Yet, on a technical level, they are strictly-inferior to even mid-range PCs.

Ultimately: these are all just measures to please the Suits, and they'll keep doing it as long as people keep buying into it. Since your average gamer is an uninformed consumer, this works heavily in favor of the Publisher no matter how valid or rational the argument; so don't bother raising issues or "boycotting" anything; it won't work because most of the people it applies to aren't listening.

With the recession and the threat of a Global Market Depression still looming over our heads, expect the AAA Publishers to remain highly conservative (meaning few/no original IPs) and paranoid; which translates into campaigns designed to intentionally gimp the PC game market because Consoles are a more secure market right now.

 

[Farther than stars]

That's just how capitalism works and it's actually one of its morally justifiable traits.

Its also one of its most annoying traits, as we are always left with the choice of the lowest common denominator.

True, but then the same can be said about democracy. It really comes down to whether you think it's an acceptable sacrifice and since there are still AAA games out there that I love and indie titles like Super Meat Boy and From Dust which can still earn great acclaim, I'm not too bothered by it.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Thanks guys, for all your insight and feedback. Couple of things here that opened my eyes up.

1) Blizzard wouldn't kill the PC market, because that's what they are primarily developing for. Sure, if they wanted to gear us more towards consoles, they would just stop making PC games. But the point I was getting to, was "gearing", not switching. If they just stopped making PC games, more PC gamers would just be pissed off and not play their games anymore. But by migrating them slowly over, it would be much more viable to make the switch over a more gradual slope. I was almost in complete agreement with this, and thought myself a bit stupid for a bit, until I saw a headline today that Blizzard are, in fact, making a Diablo 3 for consoles. Don't know how official that is though, since they aren't making any official announcement about it.

2) I never thought of DLC as very evil, but have always preferred the old expansion(s) model of doing things - sell extra content a few months later, to expand the life of the game. But to force online connections and updates, would also squeeze out the modding community in place of their DLC. Does this sound fishy to anyone else?

3) I am just hoping more people follow the CDProjekt/GOG.com way of thinking. Pay for and download the game, it's YOURS, registration optional, no DRM, play offline afterwards. You can move it to other computers. I wish Steam were like that, but at least they have an offline mode. Let's hope Origin gets their act together

4) Blizzard have been running servers for over a decade, nothing to worry there, I also hope others follow suit. Offline patches are good, but dedicated servers for multiplayer would be even better.

5) There are still many indie titles out there worthy of your time, don't give up hope! Although it is tough, living in Indonesia I can tell you that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, gets pirated one way or the other =(