Why is PC gaming "dead"?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Don't bother. He's been twisting my words throughout the entire arguement. I say one thing he says I said it in another way. Sadly this is the second thread this week he's tried and failed to argue with me on.Chibz said:
Oh Jesus Christ give it up. The console market attracts more gamers than the PC market. That's all I'm trying to say. It's not rocket science. You're not even engaging in a disagreement anymore, you're just turning this into a pissing contest.RhombusHatesYou said:
The sheer amount of factual mistakes in that post is pretty staggering.AzrealMaximillion said:
1) Genre selection : The PC is the platform on which you find the most diverse set of genres. Every genre of gaming exist on the PC. Perhaps you don't know that because you only go to Gamestop, but in stores where you can find PC Games, the offer (which doesn't even include EVERYTHING that comes out on the PC) is far more diverse than on the consoles.
2) Reknowned companies : What reknowned means ? Often mentionned by big console-centric gaming media. It doesn't qualify.
3) Not having many titles that bring anything new to PC Gaming ? You may want to do some basic research before saying that.
4) Most RPGs on the PC are trying to be singleplayer MMOs ? I can't find even one exemple of that case. Besides, most RPGs on the PC are the same as on the consoles.
5) RTS with not much variety ? Paradox Interactive, Matrix Games, Blizzard Entertainment, Gas Powered Games, Massive Entertainment, Stardock and Relic beg to differ.
6) The closure of Ensemble Studios has been widely critised, including by former members of the studio who reminded that it was immensely profitable and delivered hit after hit. (Just take a look at the sales of Ensemble Games)
7) Being a happy owner of a PC version of Fallout : New Vegas and having talked with the owner of a 360 version, I can testify that mine it's not the worst. By far.
8) If you are actually thinking, after having played Crysis, that it is a mediocre shooter, you obviously don't know anything about shooters and about the expectations and tastes of PC gamers.
Indeed, since the barrier of entry is lower.AzrealMaximillion said:
Well it's easy to keep that barrier of entry low when your gaming platforms are loss leaders.Artheval_Pe said:
Compared to consoles, PC gaming is at a low point, but has better prospects for the future:
The main deterrent of gamers who wish to play PC games is the cost of even a decent gaming computer. But the cost of PC components is dropping faster than the requirements/recommendations on PC games are increasing. I bought a computer pre-built three years ago for around $700, and earlier this year bought another computer from the same company for about the same amount(give or take $20) and it is twice as powerful in almost every aspect as the previous one. In two years I got twice the power for the same cost, if that kind of thing continues what can be considered a "decent" gaming rig could cost just as much as any of the consoles. Then the utility of a PC and the variety in its games will draw in gamers, and as the number of gamers with effective PCs increases developers will begin to make more games for the PC.
Consoles, on the otherhand, have nowhere to go but PC. Because as the PC/internet alliance continues to swallow all forms of media whole, from news to mail(ok that may not be media but whatever) to television(hulu is just the beginning) more and more people will be compelled to own a PC, and if a gamer is shopping for one why not take the few hundred dollars s/he was going to spend on a console as well and get a good gaming machine. Consoles could continue to do what they are doing now: adding more and more features and uses to themselves like the ability to play DvDs and whatever else(something about netflicks or something?). In the end though they have a choice between becoming obsolete or doing everything the PCs already do, in which case Sony and Microsoft would become like Apple, barely distinct from the PC.
The main deterrent of gamers who wish to play PC games is the cost of even a decent gaming computer. But the cost of PC components is dropping faster than the requirements/recommendations on PC games are increasing. I bought a computer pre-built three years ago for around $700, and earlier this year bought another computer from the same company for about the same amount(give or take $20) and it is twice as powerful in almost every aspect as the previous one. In two years I got twice the power for the same cost, if that kind of thing continues what can be considered a "decent" gaming rig could cost just as much as any of the consoles. Then the utility of a PC and the variety in its games will draw in gamers, and as the number of gamers with effective PCs increases developers will begin to make more games for the PC.
Consoles, on the otherhand, have nowhere to go but PC. Because as the PC/internet alliance continues to swallow all forms of media whole, from news to mail(ok that may not be media but whatever) to television(hulu is just the beginning) more and more people will be compelled to own a PC, and if a gamer is shopping for one why not take the few hundred dollars s/he was going to spend on a console as well and get a good gaming machine. Consoles could continue to do what they are doing now: adding more and more features and uses to themselves like the ability to play DvDs and whatever else(something about netflicks or something?). In the end though they have a choice between becoming obsolete or doing everything the PCs already do, in which case Sony and Microsoft would become like Apple, barely distinct from the PC.
It doesn't happen more often in the PC market. Nice to see my examples got ignored.AzrealMaximillion said:
And trying to excuse your mistake in creating a list of "PC exclusive reknown companies" by saying "they made very little console games" smacks to me as someone who's just trying to provoke and doesn't give a damn about facts.
Also, Blizzard made quite a few console games.
That's still not quite what I meant. I meant that if Microsoft wants to compete, they need to let you use your Xbox Live account in a similar way to Steam. This means you get your friends list, access to Xbox Live Marketplace, achievements, and if a game has both a PC and 360 version, you should be able to play it on whatever platform you want. This means a separate download for the PC version. Optimally your saves would be transferred across platforms by the live service.Danceofmasks said:
Obviously exclusives would remain exclusives - I'm not suggesting they go back and re-code everything or allow the Xbox disc to run in the PC. I'm just saying that the license and the Xbox Live functionality should transfer across. Hell, those with an Xbox Live version could even get the exclusive DLC normally reserved for the 360, competing even more closely with Steam.
What's most annoying to myself is that consoles are actually a pretty flawed concept for gaming.
FPS games need auto-aim due to the anologue sticks not being accurate enough, they can't be upgraded so they hinder progress in what can be played and the limited buttons avaliable on a controller means it feels very clumsy and slow whenever there's some menu's or micromanagement needing to be done, especially a problem in RTS games, MMO's and games like TF2. Then the lack of modification of games, and the very proud feeling of building your own computer.
Lots of reasons why PC gaming SHOULD be more popular. But I guess most people would prefer a cheapo standardised platform that requires no real thought in setting up, maintaining etc, and is garunteed to run games they buy for it. (Not great, but it does run it, MW2 on 360 has no AA to speak of)
FPS games need auto-aim due to the anologue sticks not being accurate enough, they can't be upgraded so they hinder progress in what can be played and the limited buttons avaliable on a controller means it feels very clumsy and slow whenever there's some menu's or micromanagement needing to be done, especially a problem in RTS games, MMO's and games like TF2. Then the lack of modification of games, and the very proud feeling of building your own computer.
Lots of reasons why PC gaming SHOULD be more popular. But I guess most people would prefer a cheapo standardised platform that requires no real thought in setting up, maintaining etc, and is garunteed to run games they buy for it. (Not great, but it does run it, MW2 on 360 has no AA to speak of)
This whole 'PC Piracy' thing that people keep spouting as though it was a fact is a complete furphey. You do realise that piracy is just as rife on every other platform? (maybe moreso given their well documented popularity). As far as I can tell, the only one that isn't plagued by piracy is the PS3, and that's not through want of trying.
