I think this whole console vs pc 'debate' represents a false dichotomy. It kind of ignores all the realities of modern game development. If the companies that market, finance and develop games for consoles than this entire ecosystem of manufacturers and first and third party publishers won't carry over to pc if consoles go under simply b/c there are no vested interests to push these games to the consumer. First parties will take on (part of) the marketing of a third party game, investments become feasible only b/c of guaranteed marketshare and moderated platforms like consoles will make sure the games reach the consumer.Fox12 said:Consoles hold an important niche in the industry, and aren't going anywhere.
What is the pc alternative? Steam. An unmoderated trash heap of shovelware and beta acces games. No publisher in their right mind would invest 100+ million dollars to end up in this swamp(as an addition to the console release, sure). If consoles go down it will take the entire AAA games industry with it. PC's might be technically superior with it's 60fps framerate but that is irrelevant when the reality of business follows it's own logic.
I'd say it's changing and change is not always for the better. Good change would be to bump up creativity and adjust outdated profit models. Bad change would be to milk franchises dry to the point of sore tits and only provide variations of the same thing(*cough* Ubi, Activision, EA) and nickel and dime the consumer with shitty DLC and season passes.Gaming as a whole seems to be growing, and that's what matters.
Great games are still being made but I think it's definitely a vulnerable situation compared to low effort/zero cost smartphone crap and zero creativity annual releases.