digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Does the games industry wants the PC to fall?

bit-tech.net — This is an interesting perspective on NPD's latest "study". From the article: "It's almost as if the industry secretly wants the PC to fall - and it's not that hard to understand why..." - interesting perspective!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CaffeinePowered, on 02/03/2008, -7/+93PCs will always be around, they've never been the industry giant, but seeing as how games for everything are at least created on PCs, you can't get rid of them.
    • jgtg32a, on 02/03/2008, -8/+10Well I'm going to hijack and give my opinion.

      The part that made me the happiest about Crysis was the fact that it blew away the console. In only what 1.5 years? The release of DX10, is another step forward and pushes the ability of the console back a bit as well. If 2-3 more games that look as good as Crysis does, and if those games were actually good then I'm I know that this gen's life is going to be much shorter.

      The thing about Crisis's system requirements is that they aren't as high as people thought, med settings look phenomenal, and I'm satisfied with it on my 1.5y/o computer.

      I also think that if SLI and Crossfire actually worked, ya know 2x cards = 2x power, not 2x cards = 1.3 cards, then PCs would be doing much better.
      • emjaymj, on 02/03/2008, -3/+29"The part that made me the happiest about Crysis was the fact that it blew away the console."

        Um, the PC has always had games graphically superior to what any console of the same time has been capable of. "High-def" resolutions have been available on the PC for what seems to be at least a decade by now. Unfortunately, graphics were the only good thing about Crysis. The game itself sucked and for the very reason that I love the PC gaming experience I find it a bit insulting to consider that piece of crap as anything special.
        • jgtg32a, on 02/03/2008, -12/+3I said it was special for pushing the envelope.

          Also Crysis puts console to SHAME, not better than, SHAME.
          • dandonia, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1I like anything that expands the relm of current technology but lets face it, by the time most of us have a computer capable of playing crysis with full settings at 60 frames per second, crysis 3 will be out.
        • xceptionaly, on 02/03/2008, -8/+0I think what makes this different is that previously, consoles would be significantly ahead of PCs when they came out, but after a certain lag time, PCs would catch up to and edge out consoles again. This generation, PCs were already on par with consoles, if only very slightly behind, and now they're getting blown out of the water.
          • Zera, on 02/03/2008, -1/+13I can only imagine that you haven't been paying close attention. PC's have always destroyed consoles, in every historical scenario, in pretty much every measurable gaming dimension. Only with the XBox360 and PS3 has it been fair to even make a comparison. Before these two there still wasn't a console even in HD... and starting with the first Xbox was console gaming "online" even possible. Online computer gaming has been huge for almost 15 years already.

            Already by 1998 the popularity of online gaming for just Quake2 resulted in 80+ online user made mods of the game. TheCLQ.com tracked a truely absurd amount of online gaming: http://www.theclq.com/ See that? 83 BILLION minutes tracked just by that website over one four year span, years before any console even came with a network jack.
        • DemonWasp, on 02/03/2008, -2/+9@xceptionaly:

          I disagree. A computer bought at the same time as a console will always be more powerful and capable. More expensive too, but that's a tax paid for them being customisable and far more flexible than a console (play games, watch movies, browse the internets, work, whatever).

          This last generation, we had the 360 launching with Halo3, which looks alright, but isn't anything amazing. At the same time on the PC, we'd had FEAR, Doom3 and a few other amazing-looking games. Graphically, the PCs have been completely superior ever since we got separate graphics cards.

          The reason that consoles have a lot of power for their price is:
          1) They are loss-leaders, and tend to cost far more to build than to buy; the lost money is made up with the games sold and such.
          2) They are optimised for gaming - barely any HDD, practically no flexibility whatsoever (a 360 will never have a better CPU or graphics card, nor more memory).
          3) They are sold as a package deal: either you take the design, or you don't. No customization or anything.
        • BabyWookie, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1LOL. It seems that Crysis is becoming as popular to bash here as Halo 3. A "piece of crap", eh? I thought that it was an incredibly fun and immersive FPS myself. As soon as I was done beating it on Normal, I went back and finished it on the Delta difficulty. My main problem with that game is that it was over way too soon. Overall, I thought that it was the best FPS in years. Different strokes to different folks, I guess. Personally, I just couldn't get into Bioshock. I thought that it was a bunch of boring, over-rated, corridor-crawling crock.
      • Shaflugi, on 02/03/2008, -2/+7People probably think Crysis runs awful because they're running Vista. I've been running Vista for a while and I've been stuck at low spec. I finally decided to switch back to XP to see what the performance increase was.. I was floored, to say the least. On a GeForce 7600 GT, I was able to get med-high settings in XP (with object detail at low). I think I'll stick to XP until nvidia comes out with some decent drivers.
        • Vlatro, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2You shouldn't be running Vista anyway. Your antique graphics card simply wont handle DX10, and that for a gamer is the primary reason for switching. at least get a card in the 8000 series. Also beware of nvidia OEM cards from 3rd party manufacturers. an 8800 from company A is NOT the same as an 8800 card from company B. Get some benchmarks before selecting a brand. Also, for gaming, don't try running Vista 32, keep it all 64 bit and aim for 8Gb+ RAM as a starting point. If you can't do that, XP will be better for you. Vista runs on less, and it has even sped up my old computer with a 30% gain over a clean install of XP, but the gain was not worth the price. Hardware first, then software.
    • Zera, on 02/03/2008, -1/+11PC's are always becoming more powerful, Consoles are each locked in the technological timeframe they were designed in. Therefore PC's will always be the platform of the cutting edge, so the newest of gaming innovations will always happen on the PC.

      With that said, there will always be people willing to pursue that technology, and since PC's have literally limitless uses above and beyond gaming, there will always be PC's and therefore there will always be PC games. PC's also allow for a much more complex interface with a game, the accuracy of a mouse, and the potential of the keyboard, and lets not forget the resolution of a PC monitor.
    • TheMachine1, on 02/03/2008, -6/+0"PCs will always be around"

      Depends on how you define a PC and how you quantify "around". My guess is a general purpose
      computing device in non-geek household will be replaced with specialized dependable devices that do a few things well. And a general purpose computer may be little more than a network terminal with most the processing and storage at some server farm.
      • DemonWasp, on 02/03/2008, -0/+7Latency to server farms might make that a lot harder than it sounds, along with bandwidth issues.
      • Damien79, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Are you planning on laying FTTH across our country TheMachine1? If not, how about shut the ***** up.
        Your guess is ridiculous. Come back in 20 years.
        • TheMachine1, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0A wireless mesh using 802.11n could be implemented in todays technology at low cost and without out special FCC permission as each node would be using much lower power.
    • staticneuron, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3"games for everything are at least created on PCs, you can't get rid of them"

      Not to logical there. Yes games are created on PC but that is not the same as developing "for" the PC. For consoles at least they have fixed hardware. Easier to extract optimal performance from and easier to go through QA. To make games for PC there are extra hurdles you would have to go through to ensure compatibility. The flecible nature of PC's require a lengthier QA period. Looking at the numbers, if the PC version takes up more resources than the estimated return, then why bother. If this writer is to be believed and the PC games are making up only 900 million out of 18.8 billion in sales then it does seem more than evident that devs will see PC evelopment as a waste of time. Sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to out hum the noise isn't going to change anything.

      BTW, I used to purchase many games for my PC. I have not purchase even 1 for my PC in the past 2 years. How about you?
      • StarlessKnight, on 02/03/2008, -2/+6Past 6 months: 5 Computer Games, 3 Xbox, 2 Wii, 1 Playstation. I prefer playing games on my PC, despite the possibility of driver conflicts. I like the controls better, especially for FPS. That's my preference, YMMV.
      • jinexile, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3I've bought 20 games for the PC the last 2 years. I've bought 8 for the Wii. I like gaming.
      • staticneuron, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2So you guys were contributers to that 900 mil. I have Purchased int he past year alone 5 wii, 15 360, and 16 PS3 games. I played shooters on the PC like it was my life blood but way back when goldeneye and turok change my opinion about shooters on consoles and I have tried them out ever since. Then I have gotten used to shooters on consoles, most games are balanced for the speed and accuracy lost when using a controller but with the addition of keyboard and mouse support for UT3 on the PS3. I am only going to take that as a sign of things to come.

        Honestly if all fps and rts's on consoles from now on supported Keyboards and mice why bother with PC games? IMO those two genre's were the PC's only edge and that is why I havent felt the need to upgrade my computer for measly selection's in limited genre when for the same amount of money I planned on upgrading my PC with I purchased all the consoles and a few games.

        I am done with spending money on that time sink of a hobby. As a gamer I get better returns on console games.
      • zeebo, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1It should be noted that games 'for everything' aren't always made on the PC. Generally console games are developed on the specialized devkit for that system, and this generation two of those run systems quite different from the windows pc.

        The real reason that consoles are dominating these days is a fair percentage of the population who would be paying for and playing PC games now use operating systems other than Windows, and since games continue to only be released on that platform that group tends to play console games almost exclusively. I myself bought a xbox360 so I could play games that were otherwise only available under windows because I didn't want to crap up my nice Linux box I use for work with Windows. That isn't to say that i don't play games on that machine, I have the latest entries in the Unreal and Quake series on it, there just isn't much else available, so I don't play much else. If more companies started releasing games for operating systems other than Windows I'd buy more computer games like I used to back in the 90s.
    • jinexile, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3wrong thred
    • killdashnine, on 02/03/2008, -2/+5Fact is: PCs have way more power and contribute to depth in gaming. Until the line between consoles and PCs are blurred completely, PCs will remain the leader in capability.

      Fact is: Consoles, allow for the "dumb factor" where you can just pick up a controller and play.

      It's a hell of a trade-off, but for the competitive gaming industry consoles are gaining steam (look at the fall of the WSVG and CPL and the rise of the MLG. Consoles are just that much more easy to set up tournaments for.

      However, when it comes to really precision, depth, and quality PCs have the absolutely lead (although I am pretty damn impressed with my PS3). "Mod-ability" and other enhancements give gamers the ability to actually fix the games they have issues with.

      Most of all, some of the top games still played today (like Counter-Strike) are almost literally "off the radar" of games makers. People still play "old games" in huge amounts. Unfortunately, the games makers don't want to support that reality (e.g. real competitive gaming).

      Face it .... although there are a lot of cool games on the market, it's very seldom that something timeless appears. In the console world, if you can't patch it, you can't fix problems post-release. PS3 and XBOX 360 are starting to change that, but unless we can hook a keyboard/mouse for real precision and mod our games, it just isn't the same.
      • zeebo, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2I haven't seen a lot of PC games lately with lots of 'depth'. Perhaps because so many these days are simply ports of console games. But, when only a tiny percent of windows users play serious games on their PCs, and even fewer of them pay for those games, thats the kind of situation you're going to get.

        The last really 'deep' PC game I played was Neverwinter Nights, but that game was only really good if you used it as a graphical mud, playing with a group, and since the group I played with is all Mac and Linux users we kept playing the original not caring about the sequel at all, but thats not unexpected. Most of the old gamers of my social circle now all use Linux, or MacOS. When traditional PC games appeal to geeks, you have to understand that those geeks will go to a geeky OS. Especially when their jobs revolve around Linux (like mine does), and when Ubuntu makes using it so incredibly hassle free.
    • DocHoliday22, on 02/03/2008, -2/+5PC gaming will always be superior to consoles. The hardware and software elements give it an unbeatable edge HOWEVER I want the PC to fail. I am just so tired of trying to play catchup that I must have spent over 6k on my PC. Right now I am sitting on a 4GB RAM, SLI-6800GT, with AMD FX-55 and I can't play many of the newer games without it costing an arm and a leg.

      There use to be a time where game developers considered the market and made games with the intent to distribute in a wide market place, even for those with low-end PC, but now they just don't care and are always pushing the boundaries on the Hardware side. Most people will be in my shoes and won't be able to keep up.
      • zeebo, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4Many PC games now are simply used as technology demonstrators to sell engines, and the main consumer of those engines is console developers. Quake, Unreal, and Crysis all fall into this category.
      • Dracusis, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2You wouldn't have to play "catch up" if you didn't drop a stupid amount of money on that FX chip and silly SLI setups.

        Seems to me you're just bitter because you didn't spend wisely in the past. If you'd done your research and aimed for good "$ per framerate" ratios you'd never go SLI nor touch an FX chip. You not being able to afford upgrades is due to your own ignorance and stupidity, nothing more.
    • Dracusis, on 02/05/2008, -0/+214% of sales is just fine considering that this is a seven (7) player market: PC, PS2, DS, 360, PSP, Wii and PS3. And if we're going to get picky about % figures, statistically speaking the PC has an even share of sales and is doing perfectly fine.

      100% / 7 = 14.2857^%, Sky is falling? Nope, that's just the author's math score smashing as it hits the floor.
  • Error601, on 02/03/2008, -58/+28PC game pirates are pretty much dooming the platform.
    • EvilAnimator, on 02/03/2008, -32/+14Very true. Teens don't have morals these days.
    • jpt62089, on 02/03/2008, -30/+7Kinda hard to buy games when you don't have a job and your parents are working dead end jobs ;)

      And prices of games increase (It's only a matter of time before PC games are $60)
      • dafugg, on 02/03/2008, -4/+16Have a ***** whinge. They're $100 here in .au.
      • jeremyjudkins, on 02/03/2008, -9/+18Well since you don't have any money, why don't go go steal a tv.. it makes it right because you don't have a job.
        • neomis, on 02/03/2008, -7/+22Its not stealing its copyright infringement and there is a difference. If I could look at a 52in Samsung TV in best buy, perform some magic on the computer and presto chango I now have a fully working copy of said TV at my house for free yeah I bet more people would be doing that instead of buying the TV.
        • estvir, on 02/03/2008, -19/+9No, it's stealing. You didn't pay for it so it's not yours to have, exactly the same as stealing a TV just it's on a different platform.
          • bagboyrebel, on 02/03/2008, -3/+14I'm not saying it's right, but when you download a game there isn't one less copy, which is what happens when you steal a TV.
        • neomis, on 02/03/2008, -4/+17See: Dowling v. United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_Sta ... If you don't take possession of a physical good it is not stealing.
          • lex0nyc, on 02/03/2008, -0/+11Right, it's infringement. Still a crime.
      • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -11/+7So, because you can't afford a luxury item, it's OK to steal it?
        Well, *****, why am I driving a Civic when it's alright for me to just steal a Lexus?
        • Gerz1219, on 02/03/2008, -4/+29A Lexus is composed of physical materials which cost the car manufacturer money. If you steal a Lexus off the lot, you are stealing a couple tons of steel, plastic, rubber and leather. The car dealership paid for that Lexus, and your theft deprives them of the ability to resell the car to a willing buyer.

          Digital content can be infinitely replicated at a negligible cost that approaches zero. If you can't afford a game, then copying it doesn't deprive the manufacturer of money, because you wouldn't have bought it anyway and you are not preventing anyone from selling the game to someone else. Piracy is also different from stealing the game from a Wal-Mart, because in that scenario the Wal-Mart had to pay for the physical box in the store, as well as the associated shipping and handling costs.
          • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I infringe the hell out of copyright, I've got over 1TB of downloaded stuff, so I'm not saying "don't do it" what I AM saying is "Just because you can't afford something doesn't make it OKAY TO DO." I should not have used the word 'steal' and for that I am sorry.
        • ArkAngel06, on 02/03/2008, -2/+5VERY well said Gerz
      • Juntistik, on 02/03/2008, -4/+7Then get a job you lazy ass. How hard is it to be a register jockey? Or even easier toss pizzas?
    • Rikkochet, on 02/03/2008, -5/+29What the hell? Have you heard of mod chips? Pirates abound on every platform. The minor inconvenience of paying some shady guy 100 bucks to install a mod chip into your console to let you play pirated games doesn't seem to hold back many people I've ever met.
      • bnolsen, on 02/03/2008, -1/+12But to get a modchip installed by some possibly shady individual is effort nontheless.
        Never underestimate the power of inertia!
      • butterz, on 02/03/2008, -0/+8Looks like the pirates are digging you guys down.
        Many of my friends don't want to mod their xbox because of xbox live and don't want to blacklist their console.
        • KaiUno, on 02/03/2008, -4/+4Flashed my xbox dvd drive myself the same day the flash became available (couple of years ago now). Been playing burned games (offline and online) ever since. Not a care in the world. Don't feel bad about it either. I still pay microsoft for the online service and I buy a lot of the xbla games on offer. I know it doesn't make it right, but that's just how I feel. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. Movies, music and games. Won't buy 'em. Way way way too expensive.
      • tdous, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1It's nowhere near on the same scale. Not even remotely close.
    • Domstersch, on 02/03/2008, -2/+13Did you even read the article? It's about how piracy is _not_ killing the PC as a gaming platform, and how, if the PC platform were ever to die, it would be because of lack of innovation in the industry.
  • socalrob, on 02/03/2008, -11/+93Games will always be on the PC. The developers just need to learn a different way of making money on them. If I can get an .iso of a game cd/dvd and play it on my PC without buying then they make no money. But if they go the new way, which a lot of MMO companies are doing, and sell content rather than the game itself, they will make more money in the long run.
    Most game companies though are just in it for the short term "make investors happy" profit game. That explains why you see many PC games on the shelves after 2 months (sometimes less) of being released, dropping in price. They sell a few, make some money, and then drop it quickly.
    Also, some games just work better on PC's. PC gaming wont die, it will just evolve. FPS suck on consoles. MMO's the same. Consoles don't handle expansion packs that well either, but that all could change in the future. Although I doubt anyone wants their 80gb ps3 full of installs of the sims. Thats a waste of space.
    • Ajajadude, on 02/03/2008, -23/+7I quickly got away from PC gaming because it seemed something was always incompatible with something else and the constant need to upgrade hardware for performance was a pain in the ass. I have no problem with PC gaming, I even wish I had the patience to deal with the relatively minor things that ultimately turned me off from it, but I find console gaming significantly less time consuming and ultimately less expensive.

      And I can't play FPS on a PC. I get wrist pains from prolonged mouse use and I find a PS-esque controller to be much more intuitive. But, that's probably because I'm used to controller layouts.
      • MioTheGreat, on 02/03/2008, -2/+23Do we really need to get into an argument about keyboard/mouse versus controller for FPS? Because unless said controller is something like the wiimote in an MP3 control scheme, the keyboard/mouse is probably going to win.
        • Juntistik, on 02/03/2008, -7/+4Does it really matter which is better? If I like a controller more then a mouse why can't I just enjoy it without someone going "lol mouse and keyboard is better, you'd get creamed if you were pitted against PC players"

          Who cares? I like it on a controller. I'm sick of PC enthusiasts always preaching about their control scheme. I can point and shoot just fine (without "Autoaim" mind you)

          Go ahead and bury me already.
      • lordtyros, on 02/03/2008, -0/+6Try playing for fewer than 12 hours a day. The wrist pains will probably go away.
        • FatLoser, on 02/03/2008, -11/+2I don't think th "computer games" are responsible for the sore wrist. (fap fap) I'M SAYING HE BEATS OFF ALL THE TIME.
    • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -7/+2@ socalrob another thing they could do is, make all their games require a CD key and online connection to verrify that they have a legit copy and CD-key.
      Then you are ***** unless you create fake networks. A program use to do that for warcraft 3 it was called himonchi or something.
      • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -0/+11That's been tried and is already broken. There are a few games that use Microsoft's LIVE to verify CD keys, and there are already 'patches' that turn off LIVE for that game, letting you play single player. Gears of War comes to mind as a good example.
        • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3They could also make the games only playable online like bf2142.
      • MonkeyFarts, on 02/03/2008, -0/+7You're thinking of Hamachi. That basically just mimics a LAN network between any two computers with Internet access. Some people make mods for it for specific games like Warcraft or Age of Empires, but its more practical use is for sharing files without having to host them or use IM, etc.
        • DemonWasp, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I frequently use Hamachi to avoid hitting the master server for a couple of games. I'd buy the game if I ever came across it at a reasonable price, but sadly Homeworld 2 isn't available on Steam for whatever reason (too old?). I also refuse to buy any game for more than $40-50; past that point and they're just ripping you off.
    • warriorscot, on 02/03/2008, -2/+11I think placing advertising is probably the easiest way, it is so prevalent in modern society and if you have a game based in the real world or something close putting in the kind of advertisements you would see normally in the normal places can't hurt and would help at least cover a big portion of design costs.

      Also some PC games ain't always worth playing or buying half of them are lazy rubbish and when you see some of the mods out there for free you can see why people don't buy more, but if its good people buy it HL2 sales are good because it has always represented value for money same goes for allot of the better games and franchises, if its good people will buy it especially if you get a good mix of engaging SP and strong MP.
      • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3yeah but sometimes the advertising gets way over the top look at fight night round 3 I spent good money on that game and it was full burger king advertising.

        On your 2nd point I also agree if the game is good and has online play I won't tight and go buy the game. Albeit when the price falls 80% 12months later;)
    • FoxOrian, on 02/03/2008, -1/+5Games on discs may have been the way to do business 10 years ago, but now with high speed connections available to just about everyone in North America, Europe, and Japan, game distribution should go the way of music and video. Steam is on the right track. It can be a bit of a pain to require Steam to play the games you download with it, but games obtained this way is a good defense against piracy. While I still like physically owning a game that I buy, [to display the gamecase in my collection, and it feels like I got something physical in return for my hard-earned cash,] I would gladly take [legally] downloaded games if it meant better quality developed PC titles. It's the content that matters afterall, not the disc and box.
      • Nextrix, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1I agree as well, but only if steam allows you to re-download the content that you purchased over again for life (or as long as the steam platform is in service). This idea only works on MP games and not SP. Personally I think SP games that don't have any MP play should stick to consoles. Most illegal version of games on the PC are SP, as most MP games require a CD key. I would also like seeing STEAM allow the shipment of a CD copy is the customer wishes one to be sent. That way they can get around the whole re-download issues they can on their server costs.
        • HolyChimp, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4You can backup your steam games and burn them to DVD or copy them to another HDD or whatever. Just did it with mine recently after downloading about 9 gigs of games off steam for the 4th or 5th time.
    • Nekiruhs, on 02/03/2008, -0/+15I'm very happy with Steam. I know I'm going to get dugg down for it, but I don't mind the DRM that is there. The very fact that Steam lets me log in on all of my computers to play on whatever machine I want to is great. I LOVE not needing a CD every time I want to play. Not having to go to the store is awesome too. So is the integrated friends group thing. I can even backup my games. My game purchases would go up about 75% if all developers just got on Steam. Its so much more convenient.
    • staticneuron, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2I see the same thing in this thread over an over. PC's are better because they have keyboard/mouse support.... UT3 on the PS3 is sending of any flares in your head yet? Controllers suck for FPS's. Well looking at the sales numbers it is safe to say that alot of people disagree with that.

      I used to love PC games but I realized I was limited to only to genre's FPS's and RTS's. I have been disappointed in the quality of games on the PC for a while now (not visually but funfactor and gameplay wise) So I have dropped the PC and I really do not miss it.

      But this news is nothing new to us now is it? PC games have been slowly growing smaller and smaller in terms of sales. And like a broken record the same comments about graphics, keyboard and mouse, and "games" being made "on" PC come out. I wonder what the reactions are going to be on the numbers next year? Because this year had a pleathora of great games come out on the PC yet most people were playing them on the console.
      • Gizza, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1There is only one reason I would ever play a console, and that is that i can lounge back on my couch and play with a controller. You bring a mouse and keyboard into that equation and I might as well just go back to my PC.
    • MrSteamTank, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3Say goodbye to single player games on PC....forever.
    • Lackey10, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4Don't forget about the Modding Communities!!!
  • gregstrander, on 02/03/2008, -13/+155Buried for terrible grammar.
    • Sagan1337, on 02/03/2008, -2/+9English isn't my main language, and I didn't notice any grammar mistakes. I think this means, that my english isn't as good as I hoped it would be. So can anyone point out the grammar mistakes in the article (or in this comment), so that I can see them and improve my english? I know there are people out there who love to do this stuff.
      • topace3000, on 02/03/2008, -0/+8Title should be: "Does the gaming industry want the PC to fall?"
      • MistressRoninS, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1For help in understanding, perhaps you should practice the following statement:
        All your bases are belong to us..
    • themastersb, on 02/03/2008, -0/+12Does I fails grammers?
    • mrkakka, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3When standards are met, childrens learn
    • Firehed, on 02/03/2008, -4/+2You must be American. Bit-tech is a UK site so they use proper English.
  • zakatov, on 02/03/2008, -5/+32dugg for not having the article across 5 pages... but the layout sux
    • Nextrix, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Ya I know the site design looks like it was made in the late 90s. Get with the times, this site needs to update that layout. Too much green, not enough clean colours, and need more white space.
      • HolyChimp, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2We need bit-tech 2.0, with tags and ajax!
    • frsrblch, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Guess you can't have it all...
  • VinnieDaMac, on 02/03/2008, -7/+15Wouldn't be surprised as PC games are the easiest to pirate. At the same time, FPS and MMOs are much better played with a keyboard and mouse, so it'll always be around.
    • Domstersch, on 02/03/2008, -3/+9Read the freaking article. It gives a convincing argument that it's not piracy that's killing the PC platform, but stagnation due to the consolidation of developer houses into a big few. Think: sequels.
      • greevar, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4FF XXXVI anyone?
      • ricree, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4I don't buy that. The PC is by far the best system when it comes to independent game developers. Sure, the big AAA games are produced by big studios, but that is because these games are expensive and require the sorts of resources that a big company can provide. Once you are willing to look further than these titles, though, you'll find that there are plenty of independent developers out there, and that many of them are actually putting out good games.
        • jgtg32a, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Warsow

          you forgot about mods as well.
        • Domstersch, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Yep. That's true. In fact, that article doesn't really say the PC platform is dying (I certainly don't believe it is), and independent developers are one reason why it's not.

          What I should have said (and did elsewhere) is that _were_ the PC platform to die, it would be because of stagnation and lack of innovation, rather than because of some new-fangled console.
    • ours, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Not to mention RTS. I can't even imagine how console players manage to play RTS with a pad. World in Conflict on the Xbox, I just can't figure it out.
  • Voxxov, on 02/03/2008, -4/+31"Does the game industry want the PC to fall?"
    -fixed
    You had too many plurals in there.
  • ColdShoulder, on 02/03/2008, -5/+20I'm not sure if they wants it to fail, but they might want it to fail, just like your grammar.
  • JEWestbrookJR, on 02/03/2008, -1/+53Headline written by Skwisgaar of Dethklok
    • digindrivefast, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Blonds w/ a massive lisp? Metal...
    • DoubtingThomas, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1This is headlines is dildos, I thinks yous alls knows dis!
  • krystal7, on 02/03/2008, -2/+108I think the real question here is: "Is our children learning?
    • MonkeyFarts, on 02/03/2008, -0/+11Indeed, "for every two child did, I will."
    • mithrasinvictus, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2apparently not
    • muniak, on 02/03/2008, -6/+1"Are our children learning?"
    • EnderTheThird, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3When I saw this title, I knew someone would have already beaten me to that quote. Damn! But well played nonetheless.
  • Naught, on 02/03/2008, -16/+1So, according to this guy, all Internet games are PC games, even though most major consoles can access the Internet and play them? Okay... That's some good logic there, pal!
  • bonds, on 02/03/2008, -16/+5Title sounds like a post from 4chan, /b/ravo
  • SimianSamurai, on 02/03/2008, -0/+23Games are what primarily drives development of new PC architecture. If it weren't for games, graphics cards and math coprocessors wouldn't exist the way they do.
    • Varz, on 02/03/2008, -9/+12Yeah without the PC market next-gen consoles wouldn't see the significant jump in power like they have without prices increasing dramatically. The PC paves the way for more powerful and cheaper hardware.

      If the PC market dies expect the PS4 or Xbox 3 to cost as much as your house. Or for it to be like a Xbox 2.5, PS3.5 Wii style.
      • Varz, on 02/03/2008, -6/+3lol why am i getting dugg down?
        • jgtg32a, on 02/03/2008, -4/+2intelligent comment.
          • Varz, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2Well if you bury a comment at least offer a reason.
          • HolyChimp, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3My guess would be the sly dig at the Wii, they're very sensitive, Nintendo fans.
    • crimsonalucard, on 02/03/2008, -4/+0Wishful thinking and Not true.

      It's moores law. If Intel didn't continuously upgrade their chips, the competition will catch up within one year. Their main competition comes from taiwan which is always one generation behind and growing. Although the only reason to own next gen hardware is games, ironically, if you look at the evidence It is not games that drives hardware development; hardware development is what drives the development of gaming graphics.


      Think about it... what is stopping nvidia and ati from selling gfx cards in the same 5-7 year cycles like consoles? Consoles companies stick to these 5-7 year cycles because it has many advantages. First by waiting 5 years before releasing upgraded hardware they're not making their current hardware obsolete every 6 months by releasing a better version, plus they spend a a lot less on the R&D needed to maintain the release cycles.

      So why do nvidia and ati constantly release new hardware? The answer is this: competition. The only reason why sony, M$ and ninetendo can get away with these 5 year cycles of renewing hardware is because they have system exclusive games. Sony can't release a new system that will play better wii games and niether can ninetendo release hardware that will play better 360 games, nvidia and ati on the other hand... they can do exactly that.
      • Harmatia, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because PC gamers never upgrade to achieve better performance... unless our friends get better performance, and we want to compete with them.

        No, stupid. By releasing better products, they force those of us who already own their other products to upgrade. The consoles WISH they had a business model as good. If the the ATI 9800 were still the best card ever... we'd all have one from when they first came out. Instead, most PC gamers have gone through a couple of cards.
        • crimsonalucard, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Calling me stupid eh, Go ***** yourself and take a course in economics dip *****.

          Open your goddamn naive little eyes. If ATI can release a new card to "force" us to upgrade then why can't say M$ constantly release a better xbox 360 every ***** 6 months to "force" console gamers to upgrade? According to you this is the better business model, so why don't the geniuses at M$ do it? They don't do it because it's a waste of their goddamn money.

          Here's Proof:
          The sony PS2 sold 90 million units in about 7 years. If you take every generation of high end NVIDIA gaming GFX cards from this period of 7 years and tally up the total units sold, it doesn't even come close to the number of 90 million units. This isn't even factoring all that money NVIDIA used for R&D.

          So which business model is smarter? Having a product I can sell for seven years straight or a product that experiences a swift and steep decline in demand every six months because the competion releases something better? Lets kick that pea sized brain of yours into gear here. Reread that paragraph and tell me if it makes sense, if it doesn't make sense read the paragraph below.

          Go ask your mom to explain the finer details if you get confused. If your mom is too dumb to figure it out, go slam your head into the wall because whatever ***** is in your head isn't a ***** brain.
          • SimianSamurai, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Wow, you really took that personal. What's your problem?
      • Gizza, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2If PC gaming dies, then console gaming will die. If ATi and nVidias only market were consoles, which are only released every 7 years or so then graphics technology would slow to a crawl. You would start to see the advancements in graphics that we are seeing every year or so now days come only once every 5 or more years.
  • odecom5, on 02/03/2008, -6/+15does digg wants me to cares?
  • MasterPlayer, on 02/03/2008, -3/+36I think Valve's Steamworks is an innovative idea and may bring new life to the PC gaming industry, also, I don't think NPD numbers tabulate Steam game sales. Granted, they may not be too large, but they are significant.
    • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -11/+4Yeah but who wants to download 8gigs for one game? Then you're paying twice, once for the game and 2nd for the bandwidth.
      • lordtyros, on 02/03/2008, -3/+7I don't know where you're from, but here in the US, we aren't charged by the byte.
        • Azerael, on 02/03/2008, -4/+4That's good to know. I'd hate to think our dear American comrades were inconvenienced.
          • ricree, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Just because an option wouldn't be practical for you, why should others be deprived of it?
        • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -2/+7Are you serious? I have to pay $100/month for a DSL2 connection with 20 gig download+upload limit. I dont think we have any unlimited unristricted internet plans.
        • CatalystGhost, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3I know plenty of people in my town have unrestricted/unlimited download for about $75 or so, and it's a 10mbps connection. Do you guys live in the city or something? I'm guessing that would affect it.
          • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -0/+8I live in sydney Australia. Also I think our internet isn't exactly world class.
          • HolyChimp, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I've got my 1mbps connection, although it is technically a business line so it's unlimited bandwidth. And no, the one isn't a typo. My patience is that great! Damn crappy UK phone lines.
    • lordtyros, on 02/03/2008, -0/+14Digital distribution is definitely the future. I haven't bought a PC game in a box since Oblivion came out. And I've been able to enjoy that, Orange Box, CoD4, STALKER, Bioshock, and other great games without a problem.
      • CatalystGhost, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I actually really enjoy that, even though I do occasionally buy games in boxes just for the privilege to say that I have the box, I guess.
      • Matt2k, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I love digital distribution, but I also like being able to loan a CD to a friend and read a manual. It's a delicate balance and I'm not sure where I sit quite yet.
        • jacenat, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1you can lend your steam account to your friend.
          he signs in, installs and downloads the game he wants to play, and just plays it in offline mode.

          it's not the most elegant solution, but it's also not endorsed by valve for obvious reasons. still it's "accepted" and has been availible since steam was introduced.
          gotta love steam for this possibilities. without this, my ex girlfriend would have never started playing hl2.
          • ricree, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1These digital distribution systems really should have a way to lend, though. It doesn't seem like it should be too tough to implement on steam. If you have a game, you could have an option to lend the game to another account. While it is loaned you would be unable to play the game, while the other person would be able to play in online mode only (to prevent people from trying to get around the end of the loan by not connecting to the server). I really can't see any technical reason that this shouldn't work, and from a publisher's standpoint this should be more secure than someone just loaning a CD, since it would be tougher to pirate if the system was designed correctly.
          • Matt2k, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1That's a good idea -- not perfect -- but I hadn't considered it. Thanks

            I recently picked up puzzle quest off of steam because I didn't feel like waiting for shipping. Then I kind of regretted it because I was sure if my sister in law had a chance to play it off my loaner, she'd want a copy too (Yes, I know there is a demo which works in this case, but you get the idea)

            Selling a copy of old software is also a freedom I enjoy, although I secretly admit that I've never once really done that aside from an old copy of visual studio
    • ricree, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Also, don't forget that Steam is hardly the only internet distribution channel for games. Offhand, I can think of IGN's Direct2Drive and Stardock's Total Gaming service, but I know that there are plenty of other smaller ones, especially in the area of independent games that are only available for sale online.
  • ProfessorLX, on 02/03/2008, -3/+30me fail english? that unpossible
  • blankoboy, on 02/03/2008, -12/+6Can I has consolez?

    /just going by the fabulously constructed headline =).

    *note: so long as console FPSes support WASD (keyboard+mouse) support PC gaming can die for all I care. I'm tired of upgrading ever 6-12 months to play a game.
    • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -0/+14The funny thing about the 'upgrade cycle' that PCs are 'locked into' is that the Consoles have an upgrade cycle, too, which you never hear the Console Zealots bring up. And I'll admit, PC hardware is expensive, you do not need to upgrade your hardware every 6-12 months. The 8800 didn't just come out, and while the 9800 is getting ready to enter production, we're STILL not pushing our 8800s to the limit. Maybe Crysis does, but it really isn't a good game. Trust me. So, the 6-12 month forced upgrades you mention really don't mean jack *****.
      • AgntOrnge, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Yeah but what is the console upgrade cycle? Every 5 years or so? Try having a gaming PC that long.
        • CatalystGhost, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3And yet, a PC does more than just play games, so the point is moot. And in any case, you get much more capability for the prices you pay in upgrades. My upgraded computer, costing about the same as a PS3 (well, in upgrading it, that is), can easily kick its ass in graphics and other power.
        • bagboyrebel, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5I think I had my last PC for that long and I never found a game it couldn't play. Crysis was the closest thing but even it was playable.
        • HolyChimp, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I upgraded when my old Geforce 4 couldn't run Supreme Commander, and that was only because my X800 blew up, so I'd actually downgraded since my last upgrade and was using the card from the upgrade before that. Point is: The 8800 I bought last year will still cream anything I throw at it (Crysis doesn't count)
        • DemonWasp, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3I did it. Plus, I did it and managed to play the *latest* in games, not ***** built for a system that's 5 years out of date. Sure, the image/framerate wasn't fantastic, but compared with the way consoles are/were, it wasn't bad*.

          * Here I refer to how Halo3 can't even afford to run at 720p on the 360, and instead runs at like 640p or somesuch.
      • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3Yeah you are right lyph5 I totally agree with you. I just bought a 8800GTX not too long ago and I can now play every pc game from 2003-2009+
      • digitalarcanum, on 02/03/2008, -3/+3I have a 7600gt sitting in my rig. that's around 125.00 or so. I can happily play most games on my system without a problem. in fact, my whole PC probably cost less than a 360 elite or the original PS3, has more capability, disk space, and applications I can use. PC gaming isn't going anywhere. period.
  • Asberry, on 02/03/2008, -9/+1Is our children learning?
  • sgtcaboose, on 02/03/2008, -1/+16Its simple, most gamers want to play online, if you have proper checks for CD Keys when playing online piracy numbers on multiplayer games will fall.
  • dagamer34, on 02/03/2008, -2/+28Simply put, PC games suffer extremely from the fact that most people aren't going to spend any money on a video card, so graphically enhancing video games get very little widespread appeal. And when you have ***** like Crysis running around ruining even the best of hardware, it's not very encouraging to the noob who spends $600 on a video card to only find out that it's crappy a year later.

    I'm all for advancing tech and all but the PC gaming industry has one purpose and one purpose only: create games that sell high priced hardware from Intel, nVidia, and AMD. Console manufacturers, because they sell their systems at a loss (besides Nintendo), have an extreme incentive to sell millions of copies of games to get back their investment, which means for now, no $1200 consoles with the latest and greatest hardware put in them.
    • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -2/+14The difference between the $600 8800 and the $300 8800 is about a 5-15% FPS increase in Crysis.
      I have a $300 8800GTS 320MB and Crysis looked great and ran great on high-ish settings. The problem with that game is that it's not good. Bad story, bad controls, crappy characters, crappy writing.
      And the kid who drops $600 on a video card isn't a noob, he's a 'serious gamer' who has the money to blow on an overclocked video card and a quad core processor (when most games coming out today don't even address dual cores).
      • TypeEE, on 02/03/2008, -6/+1However, your $300 video card will be so dated after 2 years. You would have options in the games that you simply can't turn on. On a console, you pay the price once and your game is as good as anyone else for 5 years.
        • Gizza, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3Yes, and the games that are released on a console in 2 years will still only look as good as that new game with medium settings and options turned off.
      • Cyberdactyl, on 02/03/2008, -5/+2So why did Crysis basically SWEEP thru all the awards this year?

        Lyph it's YOUR PERSONAL "crappy" opinion about Crysis. Crysis IS the current benchmark for graphics, control and game design folks, don't let anyone tell you different.
        • Izacus, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3Em... because everything else is even bigger crap?
        • Mike668, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1PC gaming needed a flagship exclusive game with Halo 3 coming out so they wouldn't appear behind the curve. Crysis was all they had.
      • Mike668, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1mispost. digg this down.
    • jgtg32a, on 02/03/2008, -0/+10Thats a BS fact about the graphics card I run Crysis on Med across the board with a mid range card from 1.5 y ago.
      • tdous, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Totally correct. It's this lie that probably hurt Crysis' initial sales.
    • ricree, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2While I haven't played Crysis, my four year old Radeon 9800 has been able to handle other games that were released this year such as Supreme Commander (although on fairly low settings) and the Orange Box games. Yes, if you want great performance on the most cutting edge games, you will probably have to pay more, but for the most part you will be able to get by without having to keep up with these ridiculous update cycles.
      • TypeEE, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1However, you can't enable all the good stuffs. You can play the game for sure, but you will miss some of the eye candy
      • DoubtingThomas, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1However, on consoles you don't even have the option to enable the "good stuffs" when you get a new graphics card/processor. Why? Because consoles have no upgrade path, PCs do. PCs can be scaled incrementally over time. With consoles, you throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak and have to buy an entirely new piece of hardware. And guess what, when I upgrade my PC I can still play previous generation games on the same hardware were as the newest generation of consoles offer no or severely limited backward compatibility. Hell, I still play Master of Magic and Might and Magic III - V (before they started sucking) using DOSBox.
    • Exilon, on 02/03/2008, -1/+0PC games suffer more on the fact that it requires a decent amount of buyer awareness to build or configure a system that can be upgraded for several years. Most simply buy OEMs that are dead-ended and expect it to last 3-5 years.
    • Harmatia, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Actually, PC gaming suffers because it requires an informed, active consumer. We need to keep up with driver updates, operating system hotfixes... sometimes even tweak the game ourselves (as with Crysis)... if we want to get the best performance on our hardware. You give a n00b the best system in the world, and in a few months the newest releases won't be playable because they didn't perform a necessary driver update

      In short, we need to become mini-computer techs. Many of us enjoy this; it's a hobby. But that keeps it from having the widespread appeal of console-gaming, and keeps it from selling as many copies of games. Manufacturers need to start pushing PCs as a console, like alienware-- except not with the huge price-tag. With a more "big brother" type OS, that lets you know when to download drivers, etc for you.
      • Mike668, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Not to mention consoles are loss leaders, meaning the parts they are made out of are worth more than what they retail for. Console developers accept this since they can make profit off software sales. Everything in a gaming PC is sold for profit, since the hardware developers don't directly make money off software sales
  • walshan22, on 02/03/2008, -13/+3Free, open source games are the future. Passion will lead the race, and there's no one more passionate than the open source community. I don't think corporate sponsored gaming will keep up.
    • MonkeyFarts, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5Wow, really? I mean, REALLY?
    • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -1/+6I wish I could see what it is about open source that gets you people so frothed up. I see the benefits of it, sure, but it's not nearly as amazing as you people treat it.
    • zeth006, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3Do you know what you're talking about?

      Kid, i think you're a little off on that. A lot of open-source initiatives are sponsored and funded through donations. Don't expect your future high-end games to be funded and created purely through donations. Nothing is free and everything comes with a price.

      In principle, open-source software benefits from having a code that can be altered by many to create significant innovations.

      But the reality is that few people know how to manipulate the softwares' source code. To put this into perspective, all I need to do is ask you whether you would know the first step to creating a toolbar for firefox that can (just as an example) attach itself to the browser and give RSS feeds on the current news/deals. You probably can't. Even though this is done on a constant basis and even though this looks simple, it's harder than it looks.

      So my point? Open-source is no more than an ideal that has sprung into a reality in SOME areas such as fast slim browsers and other Microsoft alternatives. But in the end, I highly doubt games will go the way of open-source initiatives and become "free" for all.

      If you still don't believe me, then you're dreaming.
    • uzusan, on 02/03/2008, -0/+6I love open source software, but games aren't really ideal for open source for two reason. Firstly, programming a good quality game is hard. Very hard. The amount of concepts involved to make a great game take years to learn before you can pull it off, especially anything to do with 3d.
      Second (and more important i think) is the fundamental nature of open source. Open source is generally built upon the principals of "release early / release often" and "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". Games don't have the luxury of being able to be released in a non completed state to be improved, without sacrificing the playability. For example, if you could help make games and got involved in coding or fixing bugs, you would have to play through the game countless times to track them down. Once the game finally approaches a level of quality that is good enough, you would probably not want to play it anymore. The only exceptions i can think of to this would be games that have a high replay value (OpenTTD is a great example of this) or where new content is being produced (MMO's for example). Any game where you play through once or twice wouldn't work. Can you imagine something like a single player rpg being produced this way?

      I'm not saying that it wouldn't work, but open source game have significant hurdles to get over before they can become big.
  • scabbers, on 02/03/2008, -4/+29Big budget games (that often still suck) are what are killing PC gaming. Look at Crysis - we were all getting big dicks about it for a long time, but when it came out it was just a somewhat boring game that wouldn't run on anything that wasn't cooled by liquid nitrogen.
    • AgntOrnge, on 02/03/2008, -3/+15Big budget is killing gaming in general. Games sure are pretty now but with about 1/10th the content they had when I started gaming 20+ years ago.
      • Merq, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1So true. Everything coming out now is all about graphics and not the gameplay itself. Sigh. :|
    • tdous, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Boring game? If you actually played it through, to each their own. If you didn't, bite me. It was awesome. And dude, quit with the EXTREME TECH REQUIRED *****. Cos ***** is what it is. I'd love an up to the minute gaming rig. I don't have one, yet I played it. Congratulations. You can copy and paste cliché opinions! You win!
  • Chucara, on 02/03/2008, -4/+13Shrug.. Seeing as consoles are becoming more and more like PCs, I really don't care anymore. In fact, I think I'd prefer to buy a console every now and then, and then not have to worry about upgrades for the next few years.

    Only thing I need from consoles is a keyboard and mouse, and I wouldn't care what the box that ran the games looked like, or what they called it. Games are much easier to develop if you don't have to worry about compatibility, so if dropping the PC as a gaming platform means cheaper or better games, by all means go ahead. Of course, the exact same thing could be achieved by either virtualization or by everyone using XNA, Java (or similar), where the compatibility issues are moved to a virtual machine, meaning they only have to be done once. Naturally, the problem remains with GPU feature capabilities, but if you can't program your way out of that one, you shouldn't be making games in the first place.

    Anyway, no writer is going to decide this: consumer demand is. As long as there are PC gamers willing to buy games, PC gaming isn't going anywhere.
    • ahuxley, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Why sit back and just take poor lighting, 640p textures and a smaller world size?
  • EdwinJ85, on 02/03/2008, -13/+8Well duh.

    I've wanted pcs to fail as gaming machines for ages - too long have we been denied top end games because we do not want to shell out a grand for them. Multiplatform titles are far better and more people get to play.
    • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -11/+10Do you like Video Games?
      If No, your choices are Wii, PS3, or 360.
      Do you have friends?
      Wii or 360.
      Real life friends? - Wii
      Internet friends? - 360
      Imaginary friends? - PS3

      If you answered YES to the first question: PC
      • TypeEE, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1The problem is the lack of action games in PC. I need God of War, Devil may cry, ninja gaiden type of game.
        • jacenat, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2these type of action games were ALWAYS a domain of console.
          do you hear anyone complaing that they want to play serious real time strategy games on consoles?

          seriously
          • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Dude, I can't wait for Command and Conquer 3's expansion on the 360, so I can... kinda try to move my cursor to select a group of units, and slowly scroll across the map to send them to attack. Isn't that the best part of gaming?
            Button mashers will probably always favor consoles, because PC gamers tend to demand more from a game than "MASH BUTTONS RANDOMLY."
            Twitch-kill games tend to do better on the PC, since our controller is much more advanced.
      • Edrick, on 02/03/2008, -0/+6What the hell? It should be more like this:

        Do you like video games?
        If yes, play the ones YOU want to play on whatever platform of YOUR choosing and have FUN, by your definition.

        PC elitism is such a joke.
    • Tahiri, on 02/03/2008, -8/+3I answered yes to the first question, and thus I bought a PS3
      • calibration, on 02/03/2008, -2/+11It was asking if you liked Video Games, not Blu-Ray movies.
        • Edrick, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Oh come on now, I'm sure Tahiri likes games just as much as anyone.
          He just needs to be playing them on a Sony branded device to enjoy them is all....
  • goettel, on 02/03/2008, -9/+1This is just ad revenue bait - and mosty bunk. PC gaming has always lagged far behind console gaming, and it's still here and thriving.
  • Scopitone, on 02/03/2008, -14/+6Unless they all move to subscription plans or stick to consoles, assholes will just keep pirating them because it's easier and infinitely cheaper. But deluded and entitled gamers will neurotically make themselves feel better by wailing, "***** THE RIAA, DRM, LAUNCH A GAME THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE PATCHED, IF GAMES DIDN'T SUCK WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO STEAL THEM! I WOULDN'T PLAY IT UNLESS IT WAS FREE ANYWAY! I DO WHAT I WANT!"

    Then if in-game ads are put in players will develop a way to remove them.
    • iloveazngurlzs, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3What the ***** are you trying to say? Unless we all pay a subs. fee, you wont buy a game, but if you buy it once but have to always patch it, you will pirate it?

      lern 2 spek
  • kaffein, on 02/03/2008, -2/+28I think most "serious" PC gamers look for games that have incredible replay value and tend not to purchase more than 2-3 games within a year... I played Starsiege: Tribes for 5 years! Best $50 I ever spent.

    Think about MMORPGs as well, you buy them once and keep paying for them with either monthly or micro payments... Piracy is basically eradicated with these games since the fees are tied to an account/master login server. These games are designed to be addictive and have replay value of 2-5 years or more!
    • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -0/+15Exactly I'm extremely picky with my games. But when I find a couple I like ill play them for years.
      • Urusai, on 02/03/2008, -1/+7This is why the gaming industry is moving to popcorn console games.
        • jacenat, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3thats the most intelligent comment so far.
          kudos!
    • Herostratos, on 02/03/2008, -3/+3The problem is that some people doesn't want to play mumorrpegers. Some people want a real game instead.
      • jacenat, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1i play warcraft 3 for more than 5 years with approx. 2-5hrs a week. totalling in at well over 1500 hrs i have spendt with the game. given that i payed 80€ (120 USD) for it, i am somewhere along the lines of 6 €cent (8 UScent) per HOUR played. simillar numbers apply to half-life 1 & 2, quake 4, doom 3, guildwars and starcraft.

        and yes, i did play wow, but after 2x 2months, i was bored.
    • hyperwired, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3I STILL play tribes (shifter mod) every now and then... best game ever created IMO.
    • Ziegispro, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4I just registered to digg just to digg you up. II have you only bought a few PC games:
      Warcraft 3 Battlechest, Starcraft Battlechest, Half life 2(with CSS and 1.6) , Tribes II, and World Of Warcraft (Played for like 6 months).
      I still play every single one of those games. They have so much mods, custom content , and pure Multi player competition to keep me playing for 5 years. I don't own a single console, and I don't see the point of having single player games, thinking they are a waste of my money.
      • Harmatia, on 02/04/2008, -0/+0I think among most PC gamers, this is correct. But also, among PC gamers are the most hard-core; those who go out and get any title that could be potentially good at release.
  • toefer, on 02/03/2008, -0/+12Mario Teaches Typing was a PC game, and that apparently failed.
    • opnickc, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I loved that game! Seriously, that's how I learned to type. I still have the old floppy disks for it somewhere. . .
  • phantom_mullet, on 02/03/2008, -7/+2Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling!
    • zeth006, on 02/03/2008, -1/+6IS appalling you illiterate dumb nut.
      • bagboyrebel, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I'm going to go ahead and assume the original post was a joke.
  • DuffyDirect, on 02/03/2008, -7/+4i dont wants to digg this
  • mattonio, on 02/03/2008, -12/+1The only reason consoles are doing so well is that fact that its a fad, like an ipod and such. Everyone has to get one because they are just so cool. Plus its easier to sell a console system, since its cheaper and less hassle. Being a PC Gamer (having played consoles many times) I find that you can do so much more. I can go on the internet, do my college homework and still have supreme commander running in the back ground on pause (mainly cause its such a large game). Consoles are limited in what they do and find that they are a hassle to move around and set up. While me, and i understand this isnt true for desktops, i play cod4 on my macbook pro using bootcamp. I can play in more places than a console gamer can, and its pretty much a DS just a hell lot better.
    • Enjia, on 02/03/2008, -0/+9it's been a fad since coleco and atari? long friggin fad
  • FinneyFincannon, on 02/03/2008, -2/+6"Does the games industry wants the PC to fall, precious?"
    • digindrivefast, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1No it wants lotions rubbed on its....

      And it wants kick ass games that play well, for long periods of time, w/out a bunch of tweaking, and all kinds of jargon that I have no earthly clue about!!
      Good digg!
  • TheZorch, on 02/03/2008, -3/+33Valve is way ahead of the pack with Steam. Steam is a good platform for selling games, once you buy them and they are logged in your account you don't have to buy them again even if you reformat your hard drive. Most game makers should be selling their titles via Steam or something like it. The PC Gaming world needs an iTunes like environment for distributing and selling games online in a way that is very easy and hassle free for the user. Steam is like this but its still not completely hassle free like iTunes is. Also, not all PC game makers sell via Steam.
    Probably also one if the most important things that game makers need to do is drop DRM. DRM does NOT STOP piracy, but it DOES BURDEN users with unnecessary technical problems. You'd think they would have learned a long time ago when the gamer community launched a very negative backlash against Starforce and a lot of game makers dropped it like a bad habit in response.
    DRM + PC Games = Pissed Off Gamers.
    Pissed Off Gamers + Game Company that Sells DRMed Games = Gamers spend money elsewhere and game company goes bankrupt. Basic economics people.
    • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -0/+9I believe all media should be soley distributed via the internet. It is so much more effiecent. Instead of creating the content, making the cds,printing the cds, shipping the cds, then selling them in a shop with operation cost in the hundreds of thousands each. Then driving to shop and bringing them home. We should just lay more under water cables, and sell everything via the internet.
      • Hobofuzz, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1The problem here is that not everyone has a fast enough connection for this.
      • Herostratos, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1You know there is a certain cost involved in bettering the internet infrastructure, right?
      • 1randomguy08, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Trust me it is possible I already do it. I would imagine it would be much more cheaper this way.
    • KloroFormd, on 02/03/2008, -0/+6Correction:
      Pissed Off Gamers + Game Company that Sells DRMed Games = Torrents with the DRM removed.
    • Subassy, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I agree. The PC version of Oblivion apparently didn't have any of that StarForce crap. So please, don't pirate that game. Buy another when they bundle the game and expansion(s). Show them they make money with a lack of DRM!
      • jacenat, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1i didn't pirate oblivion ... but i didn't play it at all. leaving the drm out of the picture doesn't help if the game is crap.
    • jrwr, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4Ive got over 30 games, in steam, and i can goto ANY computer, friends computer or anything, install steam, and play the games that i own, and if i wish, i can play those games offline, no disk ***** or nothin, this is how all PC games should be
  • smek2, on 02/03/2008, -3/+13Consider most console games are dumbed down for the casual gamer demographic, i start to worry. While BioShock generally recieved much fame, it was in reality a SystemShock clone and a simplified one at that. On the other hand, the "games industry" as a whole is moving in a direction i don't really like and i basically lost interest in gaming no matter the platform. In my opinion, most games these days aren't games anymore but interactive 3D animations. 90% of all new titles revolve around the gamer running around and killing stuff without bringing anything new to the table. The games industry is turning into some sort of Hollywood, with big budget titles which ultimatively disappoint.
    • AussieFox, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2I have to agree with you on this. One of the things that I've hated about the game industry is their habit of dumbing down games.
      Like you said for Bioshock. No inventory, plenty of ammo (compared to System shock), and just all over easier.
    • jacenat, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4you should try half-life 2: episode 2.
      the game has become more like an interactive movie with digital characters that even put some hollywood productios to shame.
  • erkokite, on 02/03/2008, -4/+13Games today seem to be entirely unchallenging. Particularly console games. They are so dumbed down. The console aims for you. You can save anywhere. You have 25x as much health as your opponents. PC's at least make you aim yourself.
    • jgtg32a, on 02/03/2008, -0/+9The console aims for you because the pads aren't that great for precision.
      • DemonWasp, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3Lies - there's no reason at all not to just have people be a little less accurate. As long as your competition has the same penalty you do (not being able to aim very precisely very quickly), then it's not a problem.
        • itwasstinky, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2 have you tried playing TUROK on the console yet?
          there is no aim-aid at all and it ruins the multiplayer because console pads aren't accurate at all
    • MrSteamTank, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2I'm so glad people like you don't make games. I hate exceedingly difficult games. There is a reason games are getting easier and that's because most people want an interactive experience. Not an interactive challenge. Just play on a harder difficulty if you want a harder game.
    • 33PercentGod, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3Because quick save doesnt exist on the PC,right?
    • Zap2, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2saving anywhere should happen...its a pain in the ass to not be able to stop playing because the devs didn't program the ability to save anywhere.

      And PC can do that too
      • hockey, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah. Annoying features due to limitations that no longer exist != hardcore.
        You can save anywhere now because the hardware has evolved to allow that functionality easier. Back in the day when you only 4K of RAM to work with you had to cut corners.
  • Mikhail101, on 02/03/2008, -1/+6i prefer PCs but only thing that pisses me off is that game devs make games that dont really conserve your PC's resources, they keep jacking up the system requirements and really not much comes out of it. Maybe except for games like crysis or U3 engine games upgrading your system each time doesnt really seem worth it. Look at the specs for the 360 yet they get games like the orange box and UT3 running pretty smoothly and they try to tweak the game as much as they can to get it stable, they should do that for the computer and not say "oh well i guess youll be needing 6Ghz of proccessing speed to play this" instead of tweaking things for a few more months.
    • darundal, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Actually, what you are saying does happen, at least when it makes economic sense too. With the consoles, they are, for the most part, not a moving target hardware wise, so it makes sense for the game companies to optimize stuff to run on them. The same thing happens with macs, actually. That is a lot of the reason that "it just works." It isn't as much of a moving target as your standard PC. Game companies need to continue to make advancements, and they can't get into the hardcore optimization that happens with consoles because of the fact that they can depend only in a basic manner on what software/hardware configs one might be trying to run their stuff on. Because they can't optimize like all hell, system requirements for a PC to run a game that run perfectly fine on a console are generally going to be higher.
      • DemonWasp, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4Yes, but this still doesn't excuse the ***** that Microsoft Games regularly pumps out. Halo and Halo2 both required computers more than twice the speed of an xbox to run acceptably, and they still managed to mangle network code that was (supposedly) working just fine on the xbox. There's some real incompetence (or malice) towards games ported from the xbox to the PC.
        • jacenat, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3"or malice"
          you just answered your question.
  • Whackly, on 02/03/2008, -8/+2Hello shoulder. I'm a chip. We should be friends. Are you a virgin too?
  • mbthompson, on 02/03/2008, -3/+12I wants to fix the title.

  • breakaway, on 02/03/2008, -11/+3I think "Yes", because PC = Piracy. It's a lot easier to lock down a console.
  • andymate, on 02/03/2008, -1/+11Maybe if developers started taking responsibility of their bug ridden games people would pay for them. Games that have minimal bugs, competitive and balanced multi-player usually sell pretty well. (Company of heroes, cod 4)

    An example of a game pc users won't rush out to buy is Universe at war. The game was released on the xbox 360 and pc. It has a large number of bugs and feels very rushed (Missing alot of features). Now the catch is to play competitive online games you have to have a gold subscription to LIVE. Ok as an xbox user that is fine, but as a pc user why the hell would you buy a game and then pay for a live gold subscription just to play ranked games. This is just one of the reasons why people wont buy a game like this on PC.

    Fact is if i don't think i will get 50 hours min out of a game i won't buy it.
    • darundal, on 02/03/2008, -3/+1Your rant actually has little to do with the article. Bugginess of a game is not affected by the platform. There are just as many crap buggy games for consoles as there are for PCs. The thing with a Live Gold subscription is a result of a pathetic attempt from Microsoft to take a service that they have that works quiet well on a console, and put it on a PC. Ignoring the fact that those same features are expected to be free by PC users. People not buying that game on PC will not be a result of a deliberate attempt to sabotage the PC game industry; more the result of a bunch of people who shouldn't be allowed to make such decisions.
      • jacenat, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4"... those same features are expected to be free by PC users."
        not expected, already owned.
        look at steam .. it has everything what xbl gold has (online multiplayer, achievements, community pages, friends lists) and is COMPLETLY FREE. in fact, you do NOT have to buy a single valve game to use it. you can download and install it, and add ANY game to it's list and then benefit from many features (mplayer search over steam and achievements only work for "native" games though ...).
  • l0k0, on 02/03/2008, -2/+20I sure as hell don't want PC Gaming to fail. I don't want the standards for shooters, mmos, sims, rts, rpgs, etc. to drop significantly or become extinct. I don't want to settle for hardware that sits still for five to six years at a time. I don't want to lose the ability to customize games and make/share custom content to go away either, nor do I want to pay for custom content. Nor do I want to settle for an inferior control scheme. Most of us you don't care, and thus buy consoles because they are cheap and are idiot proof. Myself and others are hardcore gamers, and as long as that demographic exists, PC gaming will never die.

    By the way, a one billion dollar industry (not including monthly fees) is still a very good industry. It may be far less than console revenues, but by economic standards, if a one billion freakin dollar industry exists, people will make games for it. Until that changes, this is a moot argument.
  • bizland2, on 02/03/2008, -6/+2PC industry will never fall and I can back that up 100%. I broadcast video games, mostly PC only, console is coming into the spotlight a lot with the XBOX360 mostly and its fighting genre and GOW style games, be it few of them. Now, from being a professional gamer and knowing what this key demographic of gamers have wanted for the past 6-7 years I've been around them its that. PC games can always always look better(depending on PC obviously) PERIOD! Sure your high-def greatness TV and 50$ Monster cables from circuit city give the 360 a sweet gfx kick in the ass. But have you ever though what happens when the companys go, hmmmm we can make games look better now and your still working on building a console......Well Nvidia just came out with the 9900 series great, we'll plan to release on PC....ding! Im not saying it isnt possible for consoles to take the edge in the professional gaming world. But PC's will always advance faster and companys want their cards to be shown on the latest games.....PC is just a part of the market and always will be.
    • bizland2, on 02/03/2008, -1/+0I forgot to mention, in the so called "underground of gamers" that people see it as lol, pc gamers and console gamers pretty much wage war on which is better, you can see I am all for the pc obviously. But I do respect the power of gaming on a console and never having to deal with hackers and corrupt files. Load times suck balls, but everyones gotta load...... :D
  • fancyj, on 02/03/2008, -4/+3dos teh editors need not read le headlines?
  • novaj666, on 02/03/2008, -5/+3its want not wants douche
    • mbthompson, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4It's "it's" not its (insert random insult).
      • novaj666, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1haha funny guy you wont be so funny when i rape your mouth.... ya so ***** you. you dont have the right to talk to me. I win
  • floatingpoints, on 02/03/2008, -7/+7Buried as lame.

    Bad grammar makes me not care about stories.
  • mdimmett, on 02/03/2008, -7/+3I's wants better grammars in my's Digg article
    • lime148, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4You were late by about or so 50 comments.
    • digindrivefast, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1berries unberry buries ur ummm
  • Evolutuon, on 02/03/2008, -6/+5If I was a developer, I wouldn't want to make PC games for the sole reason of piracy.
    • lime148, on 02/03/2008, -1/+7Mod chips don't exist. And the 360 isn't extremely easy to pirate for.
      • SpeedyG, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2Everybody knows how to solder and burn ISOs in the proper formats.
      • MrSteamTank, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1The PC is much easier to pirate and there is always that risk of bricking your 360 if you start modding it. A lot of diggers seem to digg down any comment that suggests piracy is reducing the appeal of PC gaming for developers. Ignorance is bliss eh?
  • Aksumka, on 02/03/2008, -0/+10On the issue of piracy: I'm glad to say that I no longer pirate games.
    Everything else however...
    • jeszus, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I stopped too.........."If you want to keep playing PC games you better start buying them" - GFW Shawn
  • ColonelJessup, on 02/03/2008, -5/+3She's my cherry pie! Put a smile on your face, ten miles wide! Tastes so good make a grown man cry! SWEET CHERRY PIE! OH YEAH!
  • Schmapdi, on 02/03/2008, -2/+10I was thinking about a similiar topic the other day - and really I think the best thing for the pc gaming industry would just be for Nvidia and ATI (and to a lesser extent AMD & Intel) to chill out for a year or two and let the software people catch up to the hardware people and let the average consumer catch up to the bell curve a little. It would give for for a much tighter set of hardware specs for the developers to work with and they'd actually be able to make use of a lot of the potential of the hardware.

    Think about it - a game like Crysis has
    • smiley2billion, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Intel took a break there for a while, but are now back to work with the Core2 chips.... AMD is on a break right now.
    • Schmapdi, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Damn Digg - the comment system always cuts off anything if you try to use the symbol for greater than/less than. I had made a good point past that too :(
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.