Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why PC gaming is losing it's popularity???

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 31, 2010 12:59:54 PM

Well, most of you will agree by the topic and some of you won't. Actually, the reason why I am posting this is to get to know why console games are getting increased day by day as compared to pc?? They have way more exclusives, and pc don't. Almost all the games which are in PC today are also being seen in ps3 and 360's platform but vice-versa, almost looks naked in comparison.

What goes on someone who is way more capable than others but is unable to prove it's caliber, same thing is happening with PC gaming today.

I don't know why everyone love consoles, because of low price, more exclusives and of course popularity, then this is totally unfair. Pc has better graphics, better controllers, can be used for each and every task from gaming to multimedia to heavy calculations. Why???Why??? companies don't spend their precious time to make games like killzone 1,2,3 or forza 3 for PC. Isn't it that simple to understand???? games for PC (if any) use to release years after that in consoles eg: red dead redemption.

Gaming was born on pc and will also die on it, consoles are just piece of heavy box and are nothing more than burning leaves, we can't play FPS or TPS on it. Just hate this world and consoles community.

comment it and hands up for my post.
October 31, 2010 1:31:52 PM

i think consoles are more popular cause u can put them any where....living room...bed room...and then everyone can play it and also the big Screens.....unlike pc it' just in one place.....and small screens mostly......

i agree with you that they should make games for pc more like consoles
Score
0
October 31, 2010 4:56:10 PM

what's wrong with this forum it's soooooo dead
Score
0
Related resources
October 31, 2010 9:40:11 PM

ATi RaDEoN said:
Well, most of you will agree by the topic and some of you won't. Actually, the reason why I am posting this is to get to know why console games are getting increased day by day as compared to pc?? They have way more exclusives, and pc don't. Almost all the games which are in PC today are also being seen in ps3 and 360's platform but vice-versa, almost looks naked in comparison.

What goes on someone who is way more capable than others but is unable to prove it's caliber, same thing is happening with PC gaming today.

I don't know why everyone love consoles, because of low price, more exclusives and of course popularity, then this is totally unfair. Pc has better graphics, better controllers, can be used for each and every task from gaming to multimedia to heavy calculations. Why???Why??? companies don't spend their precious time to make games like killzone 1,2,3 or forza 3 for PC. Isn't it that simple to understand???? games for PC (if any) use to release years after that in consoles eg: red dead redemption.

Gaming was born on pc and will also die on it, consoles are just piece of heavy box and are nothing more than burning leaves, we can't play FPS or TPS on it. Just hate this world and consoles community.

comment it and hands up for my post.


Agreed -I hate it that EA stopped with Madden football and Tiger Woods golf 2008. Just too bad because they were great sports games.
Dave
Score
0
November 1, 2010 8:28:04 AM

stillerfan15 said:
Agreed -I hate it that EA stopped with Madden football and Tiger Woods golf 2008. Just too bad because they were great sports games.
Dave

yes ofcourse, what about forza 3, gt 5, halo 3 and killzone 2...............whole pc community is dissapointed to hear such kind news........This topic should definitely be taken seriously
Score
0
November 1, 2010 11:42:15 AM

Consoles are cheaper, and games are priced higher with less deals for consoles. Pc's won't die due to the need for hardware, and gaming on the pc won't die as long as we have companies like Valve, Gearbox, EPIC, Popcap, and the great amount of indie gamers that release a game.
If gaming stopped on the pc, or even weakened to a point where we only get ports, then consoles won't need to be upgraded. They'll constantly do little releases with slightly bigger HDD's, a gimmik for some new piece of tech for the console, and then we watch as people get suckered into buying consoles with little to no upgrade.
Score
0
November 1, 2010 12:20:13 PM

piracy of PC titles
Score
0
November 1, 2010 4:41:04 PM

I disagree that PC gaming is dieing. It just seems this way as console gaming became so popular in recent years. With the rise of Steam, Windows Live, and other similar services, PC gaming will be the easiest of the consoles to prevent piracy on.

And exclusives? Some of the BEST exclusives will be or are on PC only. MMORPGs are only really playable on PCs. WoW in its peak was bringing in $165 million PER MONTH in subscriptions alone. No console game will be able to generate that kind of revenue.

Want other exclusives? How about SC2, probaly THE most popular RTS game in the world. Also, look at D3. That game is probably more anticipated than any game consoles have excluvie to them, minus maybe a new halo installment.

The fact remains, true gamers will stick with the PC. Gimmicks like the Move and the Kinect will be fun, but can’t replace the performance and quality gaming experience a good PC can bring. I just wait for a day when they let PC gamers play on same servers as console noobs. The whine will go so good with my cheese.

If anything, I could see the PC slowly moving to the living room. With consumers becoming more knowledgeable about computers, and people seeing that computers will always pack a higher punch than a console, I see more and more computers having HDMI hookups and more people using a PC in their living room. I know half a dozen people that have a PC with a large HDD and an HDMI cable hooked up to their TV to watch movies.

Score
0

Best solution

November 1, 2010 6:22:29 PM

I’ll try to answer this as best I can with as little details possible.

The correct this statement, it’s more like PCs became fairly popular or became as alternative to the original Nintendo that use to dominate the market around two decades ago. So, it never really started on with the PC but rather with Nintendo’s first Nintendo console. That said, when games like Doom and Wolfeinstein 3D, the PC market “boomed” and videogame publishers viewed the PC game market as a potential profitable market…and it was for almost 2 decades. Since these old titles, we’ve seen many great titles make it to the PC exclusively (i.e. Diablo, Fallout, and recently Crysis). However, in the last decade, there are a few factors that made consoles a lot more attractive than PCs.

Consumers:

With rising prices of computer hardware, building your own Gaming PC wasn’t just about the headache anymore but the total cost of keeping up to date with your system. To build a Gaming PC, you also needed to know how to build PCs and which component to buy to meet the recommended system requirement to play each game. As new software technologies advanced (i.e. DirectX, Videocard Drivers, etc.), building the right Gaming PC became very complex. On the other hand, consoles were typically good for at least 5 years and wouldn’t require any upgrades which lasted about twice as longer than building a Gaming PC and be between ¼ to building a PC.



Publishers:

Supporting a game on the PC is a lot more expensive (a lot more fixing and patching to do) than do support on the console(s). But the support costs were pennies compared to the lost of revenues from piracy which seriously impacted profits in the last decade. This now explains why there are so many DRM which tries and protect intellectual property (in this case, copyrights from publishers to have exclusive rights to sell their game). Another big influence is the opportunity to make much bigger profits if you’re either Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony. Their business model is different from one company to the other. For instance, Microsoft is doing a pretty good job at making their XBOX 360 a home entertainment system (as oppose to just a gaming console)…so they do partnerships with Netflix and other companies to be able to charge for just about any transactions you make from you XBOX 360 without you paying for anything. Sony is also getting there with a similar Business Model and Nintendo has a similar business model to the one of Apple…where they specialize in innovation (i.e. Wii). So, for publishers who’s entire investment funds to be able to work on a Triple A title (costing millions of dollars), they are pretty reluctant to make PC exclusives when the market is by now so little and risky (pirated versions providing the same or similar experience for free). I mean, put yourself in their shoes.

Conclusion:

So you wonder why publishers only make exclusive deals with consoles and tend to forget about us PC gamers? Simple, we’re too small of a market to make them enough money. You can thank all these programmers that pirate games and all those gamers who download and play these pirated games. There’s just been a massive marketing efforts from consoles providers to make sure that their console option is the best one available (i.e. Halo series to XBOX, Blue Ray to Sony, Innovative motion controls from Nintendo) while charging you a lot less than building PCs. At this point, these marketing efforts have shifted most gamers to the console markets and left the PC market dry with all the pirates to feed on whatever titles get ported to the PC platform.

There’s a LOT MORE as to the reason WHY consoles get exclusive content and so on but these are the main reasons why you bought a 2000$ Gamer PC and only have few games to play with.

Make sense?

Alex
Share
November 1, 2010 7:36:11 PM

I think a lot of it has to do they way the console and PC gamers play, Console gamers tend to chop and change their games often whereas PC gamers like to get a game and play it for a while,online play on PC has a better community meaning PC Gamers will buy a game, get good then join a clan/guild, they will become freinds with the other members, they also get Voice Comms, website etc etc whereas online console is good but it seems to lack any soul.
Score
0
November 2, 2010 10:54:53 AM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
I’ll try to answer this as best I can with as little details possible.

The correct this statement, it’s more like PCs became fairly popular or became as alternative to the original Nintendo that use to dominate the market around two decades ago. So, it never really started on with the PC but rather with Nintendo’s first Nintendo console. That said, when games like Doom and Wolfeinstein 3D, the PC market “boomed” and videogame publishers viewed the PC game market as a potential profitable market…and it was for almost 2 decades. Since these old titles, we’ve seen many great titles make it to the PC exclusively (i.e. Diablo, Fallout, and recently Crysis). However, in the last decade, there are a few factors that made consoles a lot more attractive than PCs.

Consumers:

With rising prices of computer hardware, building your own Gaming PC wasn’t just about the headache anymore but the total cost of keeping up to date with your system. To build a Gaming PC, you also needed to know how to build PCs and which component to buy to meet the recommended system requirement to play each game. As new software technologies advanced (i.e. DirectX, Videocard Drivers, etc.), building the right Gaming PC became very complex. On the other hand, consoles were typically good for at least 5 years and wouldn’t require any upgrades which lasted about twice as longer than building a Gaming PC and be between ¼ to building a PC.



Publishers:

Supporting a game on the PC is a lot more expensive (a lot more fixing and patching to do) than do support on the console(s). But the support costs were pennies compared to the lost of revenues from piracy which seriously impacted profits in the last decade. This now explains why there are so many DRM which tries and protect intellectual property (in this case, copyrights from publishers to have exclusive rights to sell their game). Another big influence is the opportunity to make much bigger profits if you’re either Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony. Their business model is different from one company to the other. For instance, Microsoft is doing a pretty good job at making their XBOX 360 a home entertainment system (as oppose to just a gaming console)…so they do partnerships with Netflix and other companies to be able to charge for just about any transactions you make from you XBOX 360 without you paying for anything. Sony is also getting there with a similar Business Model and Nintendo has a similar business model to the one of Apple…where they specialize in innovation (i.e. Wii). So, for publishers who’s entire investment funds to be able to work on a Triple A title (costing millions of dollars), they are pretty reluctant to make PC exclusives when the market is by now so little and risky (pirated versions providing the same or similar experience for free). I mean, put yourself in their shoes.

Conclusion:

So you wonder why publishers only make exclusive deals with consoles and tend to forget about us PC gamers? Simple, we’re too small of a market to make them enough money. You can thank all these programmers that pirate games and all those gamers who download and play these pirated games. There’s just been a massive marketing efforts from consoles providers to make sure that their console option is the best one available (i.e. Halo series to XBOX, Blue Ray to Sony, Innovative motion controls from Nintendo) while charging you a lot less than building PCs. At this point, these marketing efforts have shifted most gamers to the console markets and left the PC market dry with all the pirates to feed on whatever titles get ported to the PC platform.

There’s a LOT MORE as to the reason WHY consoles get exclusive content and so on but these are the main reasons why you bought a 2000$ Gamer PC and only have few games to play with.

Make sense?

Alex

Actually, piracy is not only the problem with pc softwares but also with console games which are getting pirated more readily.People just download the games from torrent sites and burn them to blu ray disk or dvd, can too play games without any problem and foolish uploaders are also trying to make the game playable online although it is far somewhere far in future but anyhow will lead to a SP<CP success.

I agree that a descent pc will cost around 1000$ but is that spend any worth??? consoles just cost around 300$ (astonishingly attractive) and the case here is just like 'get more than what you give'. For the reason I built a a pc (1000$ app.) was pure gaming and the time I got it for was era of pc gamers. My PC is powerful enough to run crysis on very high with 2x aa without lags but as soon as I went deep into gaming topics, I found that games like gt5 and forza 3 are exclusively available for consoles... Halo 3, which has crysis outperformed graphics and uncharted 2, just awesome , are only available for consoles... This broke up my heart and now-a-days my mind got stuck if I would have bought a console instead.

nywayz, I hope gamemakers to fix the problem of piracy and will make good games for pc although....BTW, I am very much happy too coz of FSX pc version, you lose consoles...and anygame on pc has better graphics than the same on console, so if manufacturers want to make a graphically advanced game then ofcourse they will make it for pc and it would be massive encouragement for console game makers with some amount of jealousy
Score
0
November 2, 2010 10:56:47 AM

udg said:
I think a lot of it has to do they way the console and PC gamers play, Console gamers tend to chop and change their games often whereas PC gamers like to get a game and play it for a while,online play on PC has a better community meaning PC Gamers will buy a game, get good then join a clan/guild, they will become freinds with the other members, they also get Voice Comms, website etc etc whereas online console is good but it seems to lack any soul.


very true.....what is there, if there is no soul!!! lol
Score
0
November 2, 2010 12:49:00 PM

ATi RaDEoN said:
Actually, piracy is not only the problem with pc softwares but also with console games which are getting pirated more readily.People just download the games from torrent sites and burn them to blu ray disk or dvd, can too play games without any problem and foolish uploaders are also trying to make the game playable online although it is far somewhere far in future but anyhow will lead to a SP<CP success.


You're right, piracy is not the only problem...there's a lot more as to why consoles are more popular - mainly the marketing behing Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft because of the potential of profit over micro-transactions. That said, piracy is a huge problem for the PC platform and although there might be some piracy on consoles, it's not enough of a concern for the moment (simply because installing a mod on your console usually prevents you from doing any future updates and usually comprimizes important features of your console...so it's usually not quite worth it in the long run - it also voids any warranty on the console).


ATi RaDEoN said:
I agree that a descent pc will cost around 1000$ but is that spend any worth??? consoles just cost around 300$ (astonishingly attractive) and the case here is just like 'get more than what you give'. For the reason I built a a pc (1000$ app.) was pure gaming and the time I got it for was era of pc gamers. My PC is powerful enough to run crysis on very high with 2x aa without lags but as soon as I went deep into gaming topics, I found that games like gt5 and forza 3 are exclusively available for consoles... Halo 3, which has crysis outperformed graphics and uncharted 2, just awesome , are only available for consoles... This broke up my heart and now-a-days my mind got stuck if I would have bought a console instead.


If you paid $1000 for a PC that runs Crysis with 2XAA you've either shop till you dropped or bought used parts. lol. Seriously though, any videocard that can run Crysis with 2xAA at 30+ FPS and in HD (720p or 1080p) costs probably more than the console itself (not to mention other components like the CPU that also cost a fair amount). Kuddos to you if you pulled it off! However, the typical gamer might not have the same patience and knowledge on building such a cheap PC...and cheap for you and I but very expensive to mom and dad who have the option to buy a console for less than half the price. Make sense? Mom and dad didn't hear about a great special on newegg...they heard about this new nintendo (a name they are familiar with) and figured the mom could work out using Wii Fit (even though its crap), dad could play sports (Wii sports) and they can get closer as a family playing the new Mario Brothers (something the salesperson at the store will tell them to seal the deal). You starting to see why consoles are getting more popular? Once "kids" got their consoles from their parents at a young age, when they get to their teenage years, they've "belonged" to either the sony community or the microsoft community and won't be willing to trade that off for PC Gaming (at least on a massive level). So perhaps PC Gaming is not dying because you have companies like Blizzard that absolutely dominate the PC market, so from a company standpoint, if they still make profit with the PC Market, then that's where they'll focus. But on the other hand you have companies like valve and Crytek that started on the PC but made their way to consoles (and made more profit from doing the switch). What will affect the PC Gaming community is not the amount of people playing PC Games, it's the selection of games PC Gamer can choose from. I personally will never play WOW, so I'm really hoping people stop playing the cracked/free versions on torrent and start using services like STEAM to buy their games (which are absolutely cheap if you wait for STEAM deals).

ATi RaDEoN said:
Anywayz, I hope gamemakers to fix the problem of piracy and will make good games for pc although....BTW, I am very much happy too coz of FSX pc version, you lose consoles...and anygame on pc has better graphics than the same on console, so if manufacturers want to make a graphically advanced game then ofcourse they will make it for pc and it would be massive encouragement for console game makers with some amount of jealousy


PC Graphics and the Mouse/Keyboard is why I am still a PC Gamer till this day.

That said, publishers who want to make graphically advanced game would be taking a HUGE risk (if for the PC) because once again the PC Market is tiny compared to the console market. Don't forget that publishing a game is not about bragging rights, at the end of the day, it's about profit. Look at the Wii...graphics are IMO extremely doll but Nintendo in house titles (Zelda, Mario, Metroid) have been making at least twice the profit of any other exclusive title for any consoles. Crytek is the only example I have in mind regarding this statement...and look at them and where they're going (console market). It's a unfortunately reality that people like you and I, who love to play our triple A titles on HD graphics and mouse and keyboard, will have to face the fact that eventually, we two will have to make the switch (unless you're content to play WOW for the rest of your life). Don't worry too much for now as there will always be some titles making over to the PC because the PC Market will never die but as time goes buy, be prepared to see less and less titles making their way over to the PC.

FYI: Most games are programmed for the console. If companies predict that the costs of porting the game over to the PC is less than the revenues they will make from their sells, it's usually a go. However, the sells also tend to get lower and lower because of how easy it is to install a pirated game these days. Pray that people like me, who buy their games from places like STEAM don't convert to torrents and that dishonest gamers start paying for their games (or their crimes).

Hope my postings have answered your main question.

Cheers,

Alex
Score
0
November 2, 2010 2:05:50 PM

@Alex
5770 OC'd can play Crysis and Crysis Warhead at above 30fps with a resolution of 1440x900 and 2xAA. The 5770 costs 140$ now, which was the price I paid for it back 8 months ago...wow, I always used to say I just recently built my computer and it's been nearly 8 months.

Build under 1000$
Spoiler
MSI 870-G45 AM3 - 70$ with crossfire capabilites and OC genie
Athlon IIx3 3.0GHz - 70$ with the possible chance to unlock(Which mine was able to do, after a bit of testing and restarting the bios.)
Sapphire Vapor-x 5770 - 140$ Factory OC and non-referenced cooling.
4gb G.Skill DDR3 - 80$ 8-8-8-24
500gb WD Black Caviar - 60$
600w HEC psu with - 50$ Continuous power @40*C
Rosewill Wind Knight - 60$
550$

Compare that to a 300$ console.
The fact is, a PC can be built easily and cheap that outperforms a console while remaining within one's budget.

There are a number of torrenters that would rather get a 'free' demo that never got released then to sit there knowing you spent 40$ on a game that won't work on their computers because of how old it is. The fact is you still need to support the developers. Most games that are torrented end up being games that require you to be online, or are mostly succesful because of the online gameplay. If you look at the amount of torrenters and their comments, it's mainly the consistent, "Hey, how do u play online?! This *** is crap, I cant even play online. Where do I put the thing to make me go online?"
Score
0
November 2, 2010 3:04:58 PM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
You're right, piracy is not the only problem...there's a lot more as to why consoles are more popular - mainly the marketing behing Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft because of the potential of profit over micro-transactions. That said, piracy is a huge problem for the PC platform and although there might be some piracy on consoles, it's not enough of a concern for the moment (simply because installing a mod on your console usually prevents you from doing any future updates and usually comprimizes important features of your console...so it's usually not quite worth it in the long run - it also voids any warranty on the console).




If you paid $1000 for a PC that runs Crysis with 2XAA you've either shop till you dropped or bought used parts. lol. Seriously though, any videocard that can run Crysis with 2xAA at 30+ FPS and in HD (720p or 1080p) costs probably more than the console itself (not to mention other components like the CPU that also cost a fair amount). Kuddos to you if you pulled it off! However, the typical gamer might not have the same patience and knowledge on building such a cheap PC...and cheap for you and I but very expensive to mom and dad who have the option to buy a console for less than half the price. Make sense? Mom and dad didn't hear about a great special on newegg...they heard about this new nintendo (a name they are familiar with) and figured the mom could work out using Wii Fit (even though its crap), dad could play sports (Wii sports) and they can get closer as a family playing the new Mario Brothers (something the salesperson at the store will tell them to seal the deal). You starting to see why consoles are getting more popular? Once "kids" got their consoles from their parents at a young age, when they get to their teenage years, they've "belonged" to either the sony community or the microsoft community and won't be willing to trade that off for PC Gaming (at least on a massive level). So perhaps PC Gaming is not dying because you have companies like Blizzard that absolutely dominate the PC market, so from a company standpoint, if they still make profit with the PC Market, then that's where they'll focus. But on the other hand you have companies like valve and Crytek that started on the PC but made their way to consoles (and made more profit from doing the switch). What will affect the PC Gaming community is not the amount of people playing PC Games, it's the selection of games PC Gamer can choose from. I personally will never play WOW, so I'm really hoping people stop playing the cracked/free versions on torrent and start using services like STEAM to buy their games (which are absolutely cheap if you wait for STEAM deals).



PC Graphics and the Mouse/Keyboard is why I am still a PC Gamer till this day.

That said, publishers who want to make graphically advanced game would be taking a HUGE risk (if for the PC) because once again the PC Market is tiny compared to the console market. Don't forget that publishing a game is not about bragging rights, at the end of the day, it's about profit. Look at the Wii...graphics are IMO extremely doll but Nintendo in house titles (Zelda, Mario, Metroid) have been making at least twice the profit of any other exclusive title for any consoles. Crytek is the only example I have in mind regarding this statement...and look at them and where they're going (console market). It's a unfortunately reality that people like you and I, who love to play our triple A titles on HD graphics and mouse and keyboard, will have to face the fact that eventually, we two will have to make the switch (unless you're content to play WOW for the rest of your life). Don't worry too much for now as there will always be some titles making over to the PC because the PC Market will never die but as time goes buy, be prepared to see less and less titles making their way over to the PC.

FYI: Most games are programmed for the console. If companies predict that the costs of porting the game over to the PC is less than the revenues they will make from their sells, it's usually a go. However, the sells also tend to get lower and lower because of how easy it is to install a pirated game these days. Pray that people like me, who buy their games from places like STEAM don't convert to torrents and that dishonest gamers start paying for their games (or their crimes).

Hope my postings have answered your main question.

Cheers,

Alex

very informative post, I hate people who crack a pc game and upload it to torrents.........what the world is doing!! Because of such people pc market is dying.
Score
0
November 2, 2010 3:08:35 PM

dalta centauri said:
@Alex
5770 OC'd can play Crysis and Crysis Warhead at above 30fps with a resolution of 1440x900 and 2xAA. The 5770 costs 140$ now, which was the price I paid for it back 8 months ago...wow, I always used to say I just recently built my computer and it's been nearly 8 months.

Build under 1000$
Spoiler
MSI 870-G45 AM3 - 70$ with crossfire capabilites and OC genie
Athlon IIx3 3.0GHz - 70$ with the possible chance to unlock(Which mine was able to do, after a bit of testing and restarting the bios.)
Sapphire Vapor-x 5770 - 140$ Factory OC and non-referenced cooling.
4gb G.Skill DDR3 - 80$ 8-8-8-24
500gb WD Black Caviar - 60$
600w HEC psu with - 50$ Continuous power @40*C
Rosewill Wind Knight - 60$
550$

Compare that to a 300$ console.
The fact is, a PC can be built easily and cheap that outperforms a console while remaining within one's budget.

There are a number of torrenters that would rather get a 'free' demo that never got released then to sit there knowing you spent 40$ on a game that won't work on their computers because of how old it is. The fact is you still need to support the developers. Most games that are torrented end up being games that require you to be online, or are mostly succesful because of the online gameplay. If you look at the amount of torrenters and their comments, it's mainly the consistent, "Hey, how do u play online?! This *** is crap, I cant even play online. Where do I put the thing to make me go online?"

wow, you have a nice pc, kill torrents, market is dying because of it
Score
0
November 2, 2010 3:31:07 PM

dalta centauri said:
There are a number of torrenters that would rather get a 'free' demo that never got released then to sit there knowing you spent 40$ on a game that won't work on their computers because of how old it is.


I reject this excuse at 100%. This is why publishers give you minimum and recommended system requirement. Those that still have concerns about performance can further research and easily find benchmarks that most PC Gaming website will post at release. If you're still not satisfied with this process, you can visit websites like this one (Toms). If all fails, I say it's time to upgrade the system or buy and try. That said, the only excuse I believe when it comes to torrents is that "I want to play the game but I don't want to pay for it". They're pirates, what can you expect.

dalta centauri said:
Most games that are torrented end up being games that require you to be online, or are mostly succesful because of the online gameplay. If you look at the amount of torrenters and their comments, it's mainly the consistent, "Hey, how do u play online?! This *** is crap, I cant even play online. Where do I put the thing to make me go online?"


What you say is true (about online play) but on the other hand, what about Mass Effect, Assassins Creed, etc. any single player campaign with no multiplayer component. How many games only consist of MP? I know "pirates" will give (themselves) excuse to justify their actions but honestly, it's all BS. They simply don't want to pay for a game they'll play. Trying a torrent and purchasing the game (let alone those that only have SP campaigns) only happens once in a blue moon, which is to say very rarely.
Score
0
November 2, 2010 4:02:47 PM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
I reject this excuse at 100%. This is why publishers give you minimum and recommended system requirement. Those that are still concerned about performance can further research and easily find benchmarks that most PC Gaming website will post at release. If you're still not satisfied with this process, you can visit websites like this one (Toms). If all fails, I say it's time to upgrade the system or buy and try. That said, the only excuse I believe when it comes to torrents is that "I want to play the game but I don't want to pay for it". They're pirates, what can you expect.

Have you seen system requirements?
Normally it's like this for every game:
Minimum:
GPU: Nvidia 5900 or better(Some just tell you to have a dx8 card or better).
CPU: A Pentium IV at 2.4GHz or better.
HDD: At least 4-8gb free.
RAM: 512mb(now they normally ask for 1gb)

Maximum:
GPU: Nvidia 7900 or better
CPU: A dual core cpu at 2.2GHz or better.
HDD: At least 4-8gb free.
RAM: 2gb

Just recently you see them tell you that you need a quadcore and anything better then a 4850 or an Nvidia 9800gt to play the game well enough.
Score
0
November 2, 2010 4:33:12 PM

dalta centauri said:
Have you seen system requirements?
Normally it's like this for every game:
Minimum:
GPU: Nvidia 5900 or better(Some just tell you to have a dx8 card or better).
CPU: A Pentium IV at 2.4GHz or better.
HDD: At least 4-8gb free.
RAM: 512mb(now they normally ask for 1gb)

Maximum:
GPU: Nvidia 7900 or better
CPU: A dual core cpu at 2.2GHz or better.
HDD: At least 4-8gb free.
RAM: 2gb

Just recently you see them tell you that you need a quadcore and anything better then a 4850 or an Nvidia 9800gt to play the game well enough.



Wecome to PC Gaming. You may want to try a console and not have to deal with this...or continue downloading buggy non-MP games on Torrent and contribute to a huge problem to the PC game market.
Score
0
November 2, 2010 7:07:11 PM

ATi RaDEoN said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/99919-13-microsoft-ki...

take a look at this post guys!

I remember that thread. That was at the real height of the "PC gaming is dying" panic. I would definitely argue the at 2+ years later not only has PC gaming continued to be strong but actually improved, although it might not seem so as much due to the general economic down turn. It's funny looking back at those threads and comparing on some people still try to use the same old worn out arguments that have been repeatedly proven time and time again. PC gaming isn't going anywhere and I would absolutely say it's better now than it has been in 10 years. Consoles are not a threat and if anything they are more of a benefit to PC gaming as we've seen cross platform development improve by leaps and bounds.

PC gaming is hardly losing popularity, especially if you look at the big picture. Particularly within the growing casual-gaming market and with more people looking for cheaper gaming options the PC is actually the #1 platform, and by far. And while most "serious" gamers will bristle at even calling games like Farmville or PopCap titles "PC gaming", the huge audience they bring it makes the PC a very attractive platform to develop for even when it comes to AAA titles.
Score
0
November 2, 2010 7:58:58 PM

purplerat said:
I remember that thread. That was at the real height of the "PC gaming is dying" panic. I would definitely argue the at 2+ years later not only has PC gaming continued to be strong but actually improved, although it might not seem so as much due to the general economic down turn. It's funny looking back at those threads and comparing on some people still try to use the same old worn out arguments that have been repeatedly proven time and time again. PC gaming isn't going anywhere and I would absolutely say it's better now than it has been in 10 years. Consoles are not a threat and if anything they are more of a benefit to PC gaming as we've seen cross platform development improve by leaps and bounds.

PC gaming is hardly losing popularity, especially if you look at the big picture. Particularly within the growing casual-gaming market and with more people looking for cheaper gaming options the PC is actually the #1 platform, and by far. And while most "serious" gamers will bristle at even calling games like Farmville or PopCap titles "PC gaming", the huge audience they bring it makes the PC a very attractive platform to develop for even when it comes to AAA titles.


I completely agree wint the video game industry growing year after year and that in effect, the PC Market is in fact growing. I guess the argument here is the types of triple AAA titles that are slowly becoming console exclusives OR the dumming down of "what us to be PC games" are now ported from consoles to PCs, which not only affects the gaming experience but also gameplay mechanics, etc. Considering the big picture, as mentioned, companies like Activision/Blizzard don't worry at all about the PC Market because to them, their business proposition works...and can invest years into developping triple A titles (i.e. Diablo 3). Ask THQ or EA or Ubisoft, etc to invest years into a triple A title for the PC and see what their response are. Their investors would never agree to this because it's risky business (for them). With this argument, I say many triple A titles will eventually not make it to the PC because of factors like Piracy and so on that scare off investors (which are the people paying for the development of these games).
Score
0
November 3, 2010 1:30:37 AM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
I completely agree wint the video game industry growing year after year and that in effect, the PC Market is in fact growing. I guess the argument here is the types of triple AAA titles that are slowly becoming console exclusives OR the dumming down of "what us to be PC games" are now ported from consoles to PCs, which not only affects the gaming experience but also gameplay mechanics, etc. Considering the big picture, as mentioned, companies like Activision/Blizzard don't worry at all about the PC Market because to them, their business proposition works...and can invest years into developping triple A titles (i.e. Diablo 3). Ask THQ or EA or Ubisoft, etc to invest years into a triple A title for the PC and see what their response are. Their investors would never agree to this because it's risky business (for them). With this argument, I say many triple A titles will eventually not make it to the PC because of factors like Piracy and so on that scare off investors (which are the people paying for the development of these games).

I think AAA titles in gaming becoming very much like Hollywood blockbusters; mostly hype and superfluously over done special effects that add very little to the artistic quality of the actual content and in all reality are not really the "best of the best" as the producers would like to sell them as. I think PC gaming and gaming and general can do just fine with less emphasis on "AAA" titles. It's one thing when a company like Blizzard release such a title every few years, but come on do we really need a new COD or Halo every few months?
Score
0
November 3, 2010 2:08:23 AM

The funny thing to me is that some of the most popular games are FPS titles for next-gen consoles (CoD MW2, Gears of War, Halo, etc.), and I don't know how ppl function with dual analog controls for pinpoint control. The mouse / keyboard combo is much more complimentary to weapon swap w/ the click wheel and alt fire with a right click.

I don't know if it's also the accessibility of gaming via consoles. You have a next-gen system, the game itself, and perhaps a headset that'll run you ~$400, where a suitable gaming rig will cost more (considering how big you're going) and require a bit more technical skill to put together. I know most ppl ready this post have or are considering putting their own cpu together, but for the common consumer, the next-gen console is a great choice, and that may be a reason why the popularity of the gaming rig has declined in the mass market.

That's what I think at least, feel free to comment.
Score
0
November 3, 2010 4:13:26 AM

I agree with all of you, until and unless there remains mouse and keyboard pc gaming (especially fps) won't go anywhere. PC market is continuously improving, not saying that it was malnourished before but even today any dual core cpu paired with a descent gpu like 9800gt will easily outperform a ps3 even when combined. Actually, top pc gamemakers should work hard to achieve success on not to get a game pirated and I think so that this can be done if someone will put his/her effort. Actually, there would be a lot of profit as if a game like crysis 2 will release on pc as exclusive and is somewhere encrypted so that piracy cannot be done. Then only, pc market will rise up, not saying that is down today but is less risen in comparison with that of consoles. or else, what would be the use of the technology which is continuously getting advanced, i7 980x, pII x6 1090t be, ati 6xxx series cards. only multimedia, that is totally unfair, pc is meant for gaming and other works but gaming primarily. Pc game like FSX has gain that much popularity that any console game today would not be able to achieve. only thing I would like to say is that pc gamemakers like microsoft which started their business on pc are now more anxious about 360. the gears of war one was on pc and 360, but gow2 and 3 which came as an exclusive for 360 only, what Bill Gates think is that if pc won't be able to run or if be possible anyhow will end up with uncountable crashes and bugs, see, it is upto software engineers who optimize games to be run on different platforms but if they won't even try to optimize it for pc then ofcourse it is shame.

I heard that microsoft engineers didn't even tried to optimize gow2 and 3 for pc or it was the order of Bill Gates. looks like for them 360 is more precious than windows 7. hardly, less than 20 games today use dx 11, windows 7 's full potential is unused till then.

Now, just take the example of L.A Noire which too is an exclusive for ps3, whole pc community is disappointed and some of the users have urged rockstars to release it for pc, but it looks like they don't have and care for pc gamers. It is also known by me that microsoft is trying to make fsx for consoles with compatible joystick. But, is there any gamemaker around who spent some precious time for optimizing console exclusives for pc.

Just hate the situations without any solution and lack of effort!
Score
0
November 3, 2010 11:17:51 AM

waydiddy said:
The funny thing to me is that some of the most popular games are FPS titles for next-gen consoles (CoD MW2, Gears of War, Halo, etc.), and I don't know how ppl function with dual analog controls for pinpoint control. The mouse / keyboard combo is much more complimentary to weapon swap w/ the click wheel and alt fire with a right click.

I don't know if it's also the accessibility of gaming via consoles. You have a next-gen system, the game itself, and perhaps a headset that'll run you ~$400, where a suitable gaming rig will cost more (considering how big you're going) and require a bit more technical skill to put together. I know most ppl ready this post have or are considering putting their own cpu together, but for the common consumer, the next-gen console is a great choice, and that may be a reason why the popularity of the gaming rig has declined in the mass market.

That's what I think at least, feel free to comment.

Their own cpu together?
Score
0
November 3, 2010 12:15:24 PM

ATi RaDEoN said:
I heard that microsoft engineers didn't even tried to optimize gow2 and 3 for pc or it was the order of Bill Gates.


Really? I'm extremely curious where you heard this from. I doubt Bill Gates took such decisions (rather his microsoft minions would have). It's a business decision. Microsoft simply signed a contract to the publishers so GOW would only be made available on XBOX360.


ATi RaDEoN said:
Just hate the situations without any solution and lack of effort!


It's all marketing decisions and not porting issues. As mentioned, titles that don't make it to the PC simply wasn't worth the cost of porting these titles over..perhaps it was considered too risky for investors or a contract for exclusive content (if not the entire game or series) had been made between Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft and the publisher. Also, I read someone talking about publisher writting their own DRM. The costs of writting complexe DRM usually exceeds the investment threashold, not to mention that "pirates" or people who crack these games are usually pretty good at it. The best example I have in mind is Assassins Creed 2. I read an article about how "difficult" it was to crack AC2 and what it meant was that the game had been cracked 4 months after the release (as oppose to the first month/week of the release). Ubisoft is working particularly hard at finding the right DRM (more than other companies I find) but they still haven't found the right remedy as most all of their big titles got cracked at some point.
Score
0
November 3, 2010 2:46:47 PM

I honestly think PC gaming isn't "dying", It merely reached its peak...it was bound to happen. PC gaming, by its very nature, isn't as user friendly as a console. We PC gamers have to just admit to this fact. Some people, in fact a lot of people, just want something to plainly work and be as comfortable doing it as possible. This is why even in the PC gaming community you see people buying pre-build gaming PCs for hundreds more than it would have cost to make it themselves, and using gamepads instead of KB/M, HDTVs instead of monitors and couches instead of office chairs. Why? For easy and/or comfort.

I don't think price is really an issue, it's just a luxury. If something is popular enough, people will spend the money to get it, regard less (example; iPod, iPad, smartphones).

It really is just ease of use, consoles honestly cater to the lowest common denominator.

To point out what I said, this isn't the 'death' of PC gaming, it is merely just the top of the tower, an eventuality that will hit console gaming as well. Just like there are only so many 'worm larvae collectors' out there and 20 something year old pokeman 'fanatics', there will only ever be so many PC gaming enthusiasts.
Score
0
November 3, 2010 3:38:33 PM

remember that with every pc that is released u might hv to upgrade either ur graphics card or ur processor , wht is the life span of the 2 >? just a few games u will run smooth the moment u buyin another it has high requirements
Score
0
November 3, 2010 5:23:39 PM

ceekay said:
remember that with every pc that is released u might hv to upgrade either ur graphics card or ur processor , wht is the life span of the 2 >? just a few games u will run smooth the moment u buyin another it has high requirements

What do you think the average number of 360s the average XBox user has gone through since 2005? I honestly don't know anybody who owns an XBox who was lucky enough to get by with just 1. At least when you upgrade/replace a PC you get something new to play new games. As opposed to having to buy 5 year old technology or scrap all of your old games if you get something new/different. PC gaming is by far the most cost efficient for the majority of people who play games. Ease of use and accessibility are the only real barriers for PC gaming but that is changing as well.
Score
0
November 3, 2010 7:47:20 PM

purplerat said:
What do you think the average number of 360s the average XBox user has gone through since 2005? I honestly don't know anybody who owns an XBox who was lucky enough to get by with just 1. At least when you upgrade/replace a PC you get something new to play new games. As opposed to having to buy 5 year old technology or scrap all of your old games if you get something new/different. PC gaming is by far the most cost efficient for the majority of people who play games. Ease of use and accessibility are the only real barriers for PC gaming but that is changing as well.

New 200-250$ gpu every 2-3 years to play games at high with a better resolution, or pay 300$ for a new console repair/buy every 2-3 years and play games with the settings it's set at and a cropped 1280x720 image.
I can honestly say that a new console with updated hardware would cost about 499$ or more, so when that happens what will console gamers think? Obviously, "Well this is cheaper then that ALIENWARE or MAC I saw for 1400$, I just can't afford that."
I would like to see if Microsoft or Sony update with a totally new console release, maybe we could see if they use the cards features like eyefinity/Physx.
Oh, and can someone tell me if consoles got 3D games or are coming out with them? I actually don't know :/ 
Score
0
November 3, 2010 8:07:25 PM

purplerat said:
What do you think the average number of 360s the average XBox user has gone through since 2005? I honestly don't know anybody who owns an XBox who was lucky enough to get by with just 1. At least when you upgrade/replace a PC you get something new to play new games. As opposed to having to buy 5 year old technology or scrap all of your old games if you get something new/different. PC gaming is by far the most cost efficient for the majority of people who play games. Ease of use and accessibility are the only real barriers for PC gaming but that is changing as well.


Can we not dilute the truth here? Xbox 360 failure rate was at the highest 3 years ago at 33%. Now, I will agree that was, and still is unacceptable, the number seems to have dropped dramatically and obviously even at 33% it meant that far more people have had not a single problem with their 360 than people who did. And this is avoiding the PS3 and wii, who both have almost negligible rates of failure.

I have had my brother's 360 (he owns a PS3 and plays it much more so he gave me this) for going on 2 or so years now and know multiple people who have had 360s for years, even one that had the launch 360 with no failure. I also have a cousin who has had one 360 suffer a Rrod...

PC gaming is not, and probably cannot be directly cost efficient for the common consumer. Simply, as I stated, ease of use FAR out trumps any long term savings you might be able to muster to defend such a statement. And this is completely overlooking the fact that when the 360 (because everyone points to that system nowadays) launched in 2005, it was essentially a triple-core gaming rig for more then half the cost of actually buying one back then.

I'm still essentially a PC gamer, I play the vast majority of my games whenever I have time on the PC and have only played one console game this year on 'my' 360, Red Dead Redemption.

Hyperbole is not necessary, however. Kinda like how console gamers are always saying how PC gaming sux because of; "all the updates you have to always do, you know, drivers and such. ALso getting a new graphics card every six months."
Score
0
November 3, 2010 8:45:06 PM

greyghost12 said:
Can we not dilute the truth here? Xbox 360 failure rate was at the highest 3 years ago at 33%. Now, I will agree that was, and still is unacceptable, the number seems to have dropped dramatically and obviously even at 33% it meant that far more people have had not a single problem with their 360 than people who did. And this is avoiding the PS3 and wii, who both have almost negligible rates of failure.
...

It's not just about the failure rate due to a specific design flaw. With the life cycle of each generation of console growing longer you just can't expect a piece of hardware such as these to last 5-10 years. These types of electronic components just aren't meant to last that long. When console generations were 3-5 years it was not big deal because by the time most had a failure they could buy something better. Now when you have to buy a replacement it's the same thing (more or less).
And if you look at the marketing of all 3 consoles it's pretty obvious they are marketing to repeat buyers. The elite, slim and black models are in part targeted at making people buying a replacement console feel like they are getting something additional to just a straight replacement.

Quote:

PC gaming is not, and probably cannot be directly cost efficient for the common consumer. Simply, as I stated, ease of use FAR out trumps any long term savings you might be able to muster to defend such a statement. And this is completely overlooking the fact that when the 360 (because everyone points to that system nowadays) launched in 2005, it was essentially a triple-core gaming rig for more then half the cost of actually buying one back then.

To the common consumer certainly. You have to factor in all of the people who are just looking to play casual or light games and can easily do so on a PC which is not specific for gaming and they would own anyways. With cloud gaming on the horizon even higher end games can be played on systems that general PCs. So effectively for those people the platform cost is $0. And the games are cheaper across the board. I'm not just taking about the $10 savings with a top tier title on PC versus the console but the overall availability of games at significantly lower cost or even free (legally so) which drastically favors the PC.

Ease of use is another issue. If you want to say that it currently outweighs cost then fine but it doesn't negate the cost effectiveness of PC gaming.

And you really can't compare console hardware to PC. It's apples to oranges. The 360 was a far cry from a "triple core gaming rig" at any point in it's history. At it's initial price it could barely out perform a contemporary PC that cost just a couple hundred dollars more - essentially the additional price for a high end GPU. That's another area where PC gaming dominates in terms of cost effectiveness - you can spend where it matters. Much of the 360s and PS3s technology went underutilized for several years meaning that if you bought one brand new you probably didn't even use what you paid for until well after the price had dropped. Buying a multi-core PC for gaming in 2005 would have been stupid because you simply would not have used it just like the 360 wasn't fully utilizing all of it's hardware at the time. With the PC you can add on later rather than being forced to pay the premium.
Score
0
November 4, 2010 12:12:06 AM

dalta centauri said:
Their own cpu together?


I meant PC, not cpu

But I think you knew that, just noting my need to spellcheck replies ;P
Score
0
November 4, 2010 12:30:49 AM

Quote:
It's not just about the failure rate due to a specific design flaw. With the life cycle of each generation of console growing longer you just can't expect a piece of hardware such as these to last 5-10 years. These types of electronic components just aren't meant to last that long. When console generations were 3-5 years it was not big deal because by the time most had a failure they could buy something better. Now when you have to buy a replacement it's the same thing (more or less).
And if you look at the marketing of all 3 consoles it's pretty obvious they are marketing to repeat buyers. The elite, slim and black models are in part targeted at making people buying a replacement console feel like they are getting something additional to just a straight replacement.


You can't know what the projected failure rate for 10 year old PS3s are because there aren't any out there. Obviously as with any technology, the older it gets, the more prone to random failures it becomes, but this is true of ANYTHING so stating that they weren't meant to last long is an unfounded claim. This is all proposition as you nor I have any idea what the heads of Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony were thinking when they designed their systems. It is entirely possible and not at all conjecture that an Xbox 360 or PS3 can last several years, which would only increase its cost effectiveness.

Your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to boil down to "I can selectively increase effectiveness of my gaming device while they cannot." I cannot see this as a monetary advantage if we are simply comparing dollars spent (which is what I'm personally doing) on estimates that can be considered predictable. Your statement about the different model 360s almost imply that people go out and re-buy them in the millions as if they are robots, when in fact there is simply no reliable way of telling how many Elites, etc. were bought from people who already had a 360 and how many were new buyers entirely. Again, let us stick to what can be considered well within reason.

Quote:

To the common consumer certainly. You have to factor in all of the people who are just looking to play casual or light games and can easily do so on a PC which is not specific for gaming and they would own anyways. With cloud gaming on the horizon even higher end games can be played on systems that general PCs. So effectively for those people the platform cost is $0. And the games are cheaper across the board. I'm not just taking about the $10 savings with a top tier title on PC versus the console but the overall availability of games at significantly lower cost or even free (legally so) which drastically favors the PC.

Ease of use is another issue. If you want to say that it currently outweighs cost then fine but it doesn't negate the cost effectiveness of PC gaming.

And you really can't compare console hardware to PC. It's apples to oranges. The 360 was a far cry from a "triple core gaming rig" at any point in it's history. At it's initial price it could barely out perform a contemporary PC that cost just a couple hundred dollars more - essentially the additional price for a high end GPU. That's another area where PC gaming dominates in terms of cost effectiveness - you can spend where it matters. Much of the 360s and PS3s technology went underutilized for several years meaning that if you bought one brand new you probably didn't even use what you paid for until well after the price had dropped. Buying a multi-core PC for gaming in 2005 would have been stupid because you simply would not have used it just like the 360 wasn't fully utilizing all of it's hardware at the time. With the PC you can add on later rather than being forced to pay the premium.


I will not count casual players. I'm sorry, they are just too chaotic a group to be taken seriously, as in some of them would buy a Wii simply because of popularity (as I alluded in an earlier post) or a (wait for it...) high end gaming PC simply for World of Warcraft or heck, Sims 3....well Ok maybe not the last one so much but you get my point. Funnily, they probably play those games because of popular accord more so than any self interest in their part but I can't back this.

Lets stick with "core" players, the "everyday" gamer who, statistically, spend anywhere from 5-9 hours a week playing games that can be considered "games", I won't describe or imply what this consideration is as we seem to be knowledgeable enough to figure it out.

Considering that I completely disagree with your assessment on the long-term mechanical lifespan of current gen consoles, I don't have much else to add to that argument. However, can you really consider cloud gaming a viable alternative now? Not when wideband internet becomes popular in the US, but now? Maybe in a couple years, ya I could definitely see myself trying to talk people into just using cloud services and skip trying to make beast machines or buying consoles, but not in this immediate future.

While I do agree you can't directly compare any console to a PC, that was not an argument. I was simply pointing out (with no real placement of argument, more of a statement) that when these last two generation consoles were first introduced, they were cheaper then buying a PC at the time with what would be considered comparable components. I doubt ANYONE thought to themselves "hmm, well I COULD upgrade my gaming rig, but this new Xbox 360 is mighty powerful, and comparatively cheap! I'll get that instead!" Instead, you see people seeing a price tag of $400 dollars, next to one of $700 dollars.

However:
Xbox 360 slim: $299.99
PC that can run Metro 2033 on low settings: some $400-500

So tbh, at this point in the game, it really doesn't matter all that much and it comes down to what you prefer.
Score
0
November 4, 2010 1:04:12 AM

greyghost12 said:

You can't know what the projected failure rate for 10 year old PS3s are because there aren't any out there. Obviously as with any technology, the older it gets, the more prone to random failures it becomes, but this is true of ANYTHING so stating that they weren't meant to last long is an unfounded claim. This is all proposition as you nor I have any idea what the heads of Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony were thinking when they designed their systems. It is entirely possible and not at all conjecture that an Xbox 360 or PS3 can last several years, which would only increase its cost effectiveness.

It's not like consoles are built using alien technology. They consist of the same parts that you would any other type of computing device. So it's not that difficult to project failure rates. And since it's not like you can replace individual parts on these machines it's fair to go with the lowest common denominator as the expected life span of the whole unit. i.e. once the optical drives start to bite the dust the machine as a whole is pretty much garbage. So we don't have to have a 10 year old PS3 to predict how long it will last. All we need to do is look at individual parts for which we already know such things and make projections based on that. Ultimately I wouldn't expect console life expectancies to be much better than that of a laptop, and how many 10 year old laptops do you see being used?

Quote:

Your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to boil down to "I can selectively increase effectiveness of my gaming device while they cannot." I cannot see this as a monetary advantage if we are simply comparing dollars spent (which is what I'm personally doing) on estimates that can be considered predictable. Your statement about the different model 360s almost imply that people go out and re-buy them in the millions as if they are robots, when in fact there is simply no reliable way of telling how many Elites, etc. were bought from people who already had a 360 and how many were new buyers entirely. Again, let us stick to what can be considered well within reason.

First of all it absolutely is an economic advantage to be able to upgrade rather than replace, especially when the cost are almost identical. Why wouldn't it be?
Secondly do you not think that a company like Microsoft or their resellers wouldn't be interested in knowing who is buying for the first time versus who is a return buyer and why they are buying again. Companies like Microsoft and Best Buy spend billions of dollars to figure exactly that. And it's not even all that hard to track. It's quite naive to think in this do and age that there is no way to know such things.

Quote:

I will not count casual players. I'm sorry, they are just too chaotic a group to be taken seriously, as in some of them would buy a Wii simply because of popularity (as I alluded in an earlier post) or a (wait for it...) high end gaming PC simply for World of Warcraft or heck, Sims 3....well Ok maybe not the last one so much but you get my point. Funnily, they probably play those games because of popular accord more so than any self interest in their part but I can't back this.

Lets stick with "core" players, the "everyday" gamer who, statistically, spend anywhere from 5-9 hours a week playing games that can be considered "games", I won't describe or imply what this consideration is as we seem to be knowledgeable enough to figure it out.

Clearly your not much of a big picture guy. And that's fine if you don't care much about this segment of the gaming market or can't see the things to come. But that doesn't change reality simply because you don't count casual players, because the powers that be in the gaming industry certainly do. And your ignoring these trends or not thinking that things like the life span of a device can be determined or that companies don't vigorously track sales trends will probably never have any impact on you as a gamer. That's OK, not gonna argue with you on that. But if your interested in the reality of the matter there are these very real things to consider. It's just a matter of whether you're actually interested or just want to have an opinion.
Score
0
November 4, 2010 6:29:15 AM

Its late, I'll make it quick.

1. No, the most you could ever do is make an educated guess, nothing else. My counter-argument is simply that for every person who's disc drive stops working, there is just as randomly someone else who has had an original launch version PS2 working for 10 years. It is simply impossible to state with clear certainty the mechanical lifespan of ANY system. In any certainty that would make you want to add it to monetary spending.

Like how there are people who are still using old Pentium IIs out there, Commodore 64s, Snes in perfect condition and a PSone in working order.

2. It is MUCH easier to look at projected upgrade requirements for a gaming PC rig in 10 year's lifespan on simple questions like would you want to be able to play ANY game that comes out in any single year? On what graphics settings? Simply from those two questions one can more or less with some degree of error do to inflation and economic competition come to an estimate.

3. While it is hard to say that you are a "big picture guy" without sounding overly smug, I do clearly see the impact that casual gaming has had on the scene. My quip is that if we DO count them, then PC gaming isn't dying, losing popularity or even stagnating at all and is instead GROWING if you count facebook games like Farmville or any of the multitude of what can only be considered 'casual MMO' games that are free and growing in popularity. But it is ONLY because of the sheer number of people who are being drawn into gaming, if "casually". I will concede, however, that for THOSE people, PC gaming is defiantly the smarter fiscal choice. If you already have a PC, then you already possess all you need to play Farmville or Zuma and you would most likely never upgrade based solely on your games hoppy and instead will only do so based on moore's law eventually catching up on you. Should we really include this segment of the demographic?
Score
0
November 4, 2010 8:19:48 AM

ATi RaDEoN said:
Almost all the games which are in PC today are also being seen in ps3 and 360's platform but vice-versa, almost looks naked in comparison.


That doesn't really make any sense. If a game is on PC and consoles then the same applies vice-versa.

In response to your overall post though, I think the main reason is that consoles are easier to optimize games for. With so many different PC configurations, it can be hard to make a game run great on all of them, but everyone has the same console so developers prefer it. More developers means more games on consoles and more games snowballs into more console players and so on. Also- piracy is much less common on consoles, so there's more profit in that regard as well.
Score
0
November 4, 2010 10:27:36 AM

greyghost12 said:
I honestly think PC gaming isn't "dying", It merely reached its peak...it was bound to happen. PC gaming, by its very nature, isn't as user friendly as a console. We PC gamers have to just admit to this fact. Some people, in fact a lot of people, just want something to plainly work and be as comfortable doing it as possible. This is why even in the PC gaming community you see people buying pre-build gaming PCs for hundreds more than it would have cost to make it themselves, and using gamepads instead of KB/M, HDTVs instead of monitors and couches instead of office chairs. Why? For easy and/or comfort.

I don't think price is really an issue, it's just a luxury. If something is popular enough, people will spend the money to get it, regard less (example; iPod, iPad, smartphones).

It really is just ease of use, consoles honestly cater to the lowest common denominator.

To point out what I said, this isn't the 'death' of PC gaming, it is merely just the top of the tower, an eventuality that will hit console gaming as well. Just like there are only so many 'worm larvae collectors' out there and 20 something year old pokeman 'fanatics', there will only ever be so many PC gaming enthusiasts.

A good assembled pc costs around thrice more than a ps3. Price should not be an issue even though it is. An enthusiast gamer is not at all satisfied by console gaming and graphics, only thing which will help him to get satisfied is a high end pc. But, for that he has to spend money and obviously he will do. Actually for the people who think console has better graphics and are at attractive price opt for it but for the people who know what gaming is they buy pc.
Score
0
November 4, 2010 11:23:10 AM

ATi RaDEoN said:
A good assembled pc costs around thrice more than a ps3. Price should not be an issue even though it is. An enthusiast gamer is not at all satisfied by console gaming and graphics, only thing which will help him to get satisfied is a high end pc. But, for that he has to spend money and obviously he will do. Actually for the people who think console has better graphics and are at attractive price opt for it but for the people who know what gaming is they buy pc.

You sort of just backed up console gamer's defensive argument of, "My console cost 300$, and can play any game. While over there you need to spend 1000$ to play any new games!"
I don't fully understand why some people choose to spend their money on every console available and have a high end PC though.

On another note, I would like to see what the next generation of consoles have in terms of hardware. I hope that Nintendo decides to change the graphics card this time though, maybe something along a 4850 which would be 10x the performance of what the Wii has.
Score
0
November 4, 2010 2:30:43 PM

dalta centauri said:
You sort of just backed up console gamer's defensive argument of, "My console cost 300$, and can play any game. While over there you need to spend 1000$ to play any new games!"
I don't fully understand why some people choose to spend their money on every console available and have a high end PC though.

On another note, I would like to see what the next generation of consoles have in terms of hardware. I hope that Nintendo decides to change the graphics card this time though, maybe something along a 4850 which would be 10x the performance of what the Wii has.


with the economy getting worse by the day , it could be YEARS before we see new systems
Score
0
November 4, 2010 2:38:38 PM

dalta centauri said:
You sort of just backed up console gamer's defensive argument of, "My console cost 300$, and can play any game. While over there you need to spend 1000$ to play any new games!"
I don't fully understand why some people choose to spend their money on every console available and have a high end PC though.

On another note, I would like to see what the next generation of consoles have in terms of hardware. I hope that Nintendo decides to change the graphics card this time though, maybe something along a 4850 which would be 10x the performance of what the Wii has.


I think he meant that it really isn't THAT much of a difference. A $1000 gaming PC these days should last quite awhile and still boast better graphical game play then a PS3. Although, I'm no mind reader.

And while I was lucky enough to have my 360 given to me by my brother, I can defiantly see the advantage if one has the time to play so many games simply for console exclusives. If I had the time, I'd buy myself a PS3 just to play some of the awesome games that have come out for it recently that just will never appear on PC.
Score
0
November 5, 2010 8:39:35 AM

dalta centauri said:
You sort of just backed up console gamer's defensive argument of, "My console cost 300$, and can play any game. While over there you need to spend 1000$ to play any new games!"
I don't fully understand why some people choose to spend their money on every console available and have a high end PC though.

On another note, I would like to see what the next generation of consoles have in terms of hardware. I hope that Nintendo decides to change the graphics card this time though, maybe something along a 4850 which would be 10x the performance of what the Wii has.

For the price console offers a big bang, but in terms of performance, it shows it's colour. If you have a big 42" television and want to run ps3 on it, you will see blurry or grainy graphics coz it is meant to played beyond some limits, but in case of a pc, it doesn't happen. If it is a quad paired with gtx 480, then even in 54" it will perform as ps3 performs in 1280 X 1024 resolution.

Playing a game and maxing it out are two different things. eg:- crysis, even a p3 with integrated graphics can run this game but as soon as we push the graphics slider to very high, even a high end system comes to it's knees. This is the reason why crysis is not released for consoles :lol:  .

I think so people spend money on consoles though they have a descent pc because to play exclusives i say.
Score
0
November 5, 2010 6:20:21 PM

greyghost12 said:
Its late, I'll make it quick.

1. No, the most you could ever do is make an educated guess, nothing else. My counter-argument is simply that for every person who's disc drive stops working, there is just as randomly someone else who has had an original launch version PS2 working for 10 years. It is simply impossible to state with clear certainty the mechanical lifespan of ANY system. In any certainty that would make you want to add it to monetary spending.

Well of course it's an educated guess. But when talking on the scale of millions of units sold an educated guess averages out to something that can be quite accurate in terms of projecting such things. I'm not saying that if 1 person buys X device it's going to fail in Y years M months and D days. What I'm saying is that it's quite easy to predict that on a scale of millions X% of units will fail with Y years.
And sorry but your argument that half of all 1st generation PS2s are still functional is completely fallacious and not at all based on reality.

One interesting note on failure rates for all three consoles is that when you look up information on it (and there is plenty out there) it almost entirely focuses on 2 year failure rates, which tells you quite a bit about the life expectancy of these devices that they only look at failures within the first two years.

Quote:

Like how there are people who are still using old Pentium IIs out there, Commodore 64s, Snes in perfect condition and a PSone in working order.

So what's you point? That as long as there is a functioning in existence that we should consider it a viable platform?

Quote:

2. It is MUCH easier to look at projected upgrade requirements for a gaming PC rig in 10 year's lifespan on simple questions like would you want to be able to play ANY game that comes out in any single year? On what graphics settings? Simply from those two questions one can more or less with some degree of error do to inflation and economic competition come to an estimate.

Sure. But it's not just failure rates that depreciate the value of a console. Early in a console generation system failure will be a bigger issue but later on when prices are lower and models more stable it's actually new consoles that will most significantly depreciate the value of a console. That's one huge issue with the value of consoles, once a new generation hits the old is pretty much worthless. PCs don't have that drastic drop off because of continuously overlapping technology. Not only in hardware, but especially in games this greatly benefits the PC. Case in point: I owned an XBox but when it failed the 360 was already out. So I could either buy another XBox and play all my old games but none of the new ones or buy a 360 and buy new games but not be able to play my old ones *(yes I know there is some backwards comparability in consoles but it's very shaky and only every 1 generation back). That is never an issue with PC gaming. When you need to buy a new machine you can buy one that has all the benefits of playing new games while still retaining near 100% backwards capability.

Quote:

3. While it is hard to say that you are a "big picture guy" without sounding overly smug, I do clearly see the impact that casual gaming has had on the scene. My quip is that if we DO count them, then PC gaming isn't dying, losing popularity or even stagnating at all and is instead GROWING if you count facebook games like Farmville or any of the multitude of what can only be considered 'casual MMO' games that are free and growing in popularity. But it is ONLY because of the sheer number of people who are being drawn into gaming, if "casually". I will concede, however, that for THOSE people, PC gaming is defiantly the smarter fiscal choice. If you already have a PC, then you already possess all you need to play Farmville or Zuma and you would most likely never upgrade based solely on your games hoppy and instead will only do so based on moore's law eventually catching up on you. Should we really include this segment of the demographic?

There's a difference between acknowledging the existence of casual gaming and seeing the long term implications. The more gaming goes mainstream, even if it's Farmvill and Zuma, the better for all gamers. Yes it's very true that today these types of games can be played on even entry level machines but that wasn't true even 5 years ago. These games may only be minimal in terms of gaming requirements but on the scale that they are played even just a minimal increase in what you find in a base PC has a large impact across the board. That's why today what you find in even a very entry level PC is really just a video card away from being a decent gaming machine.
These types of games and the revenue they attract also create a lot of opportunity for innovation and development in the gaming market as a whole. Not that Farmville is going to become the next big thing in gaming, but the activity it drives in the market can and does trickle up to the more "serious" types of games that me and you enjoy.
Then there is the opportunity to grow more core gaming off of the casual gaming market. By PC gaming having so much exposure, even from these types of games, it's absolutely a good thing as there will undoubtedly be some people who will graduate from Farmville to more sophisticated games (maybe just small steps at a time) when they otherwise wouldn't not have.
Bottom line is that casual gaming and it's growth is good for gaming in general and good for the core gamer as well. It's something that PC gamers definitely should not be ignoring even if they are games that you have no interest in playing.
Score
0
November 8, 2010 2:30:11 AM

For the most part, its because on the mass market side, most people don't upgrade their PC's like we do. As such, its easier to justify buying a new $300 console every 5-6 years then doing a $1500 upgrade to a new PC (Remember, these are the people who buy from Dell/HP). As such, a higher pecentage of people who would normally buy games own consoles.

Secondly, its a pain to develop for the PC, as every possible configuration above the minimum specs needs to be supported. Nevermind the fact there are currently THREE OS's with decent market penetration (very few devs are willing to ignore XP's 50% market share).
Score
0
November 8, 2010 11:13:59 AM

gamerk316 said:
For the most part, its because on the mass market side, most people don't upgrade their PC's like we do. As such, its easier to justify buying a new $300 console every 5-6 years then doing a $1500 upgrade to a new PC (Remember, these are the people who buy from Dell/HP). As such, a higher pecentage of people who would normally buy games own consoles.

Secondly, its a pain to develop for the PC, as every possible configuration above the minimum specs needs to be supported. Nevermind the fact there are currently THREE OS's with decent market penetration (very few devs are willing to ignore XP's 50% market share).

Hard to develop for the PC, what?
Windows XP: DX7/8/9--Windows Vista/7: Dx 7/8/9/10/11
There's more availability then the consoles dx9c need.
Minimum Reccomended: 7900gt+Dual core@2.1GHz> How is it hard to support higher end graphic cards and cpu's?
Score
0
November 8, 2010 1:06:40 PM

ATi RaDEoN said:
Well, most of you will agree by the topic and some of you won't.


Nice thread so far!

As one that started with the consoles and moved to PC gaming, my first attractions to the console was sheer convenience and though during that day true 360 degree First Person Shooters weren't that common, at least to the caliber of almost being addictive, and loved playing it over and over.

Back then graphics were lame and we were thoroughly pleased and thankful at any improvements at all, then ATARI released the Jaguar system and I got enveloped in the SEGA Aliens vs Predator release for that system, lost count of the invested hours playing that game.

Aliens vs Predator was released for the PC quite some time later, I saw it being played and got bitten by the bug at the time didn't even own a computer, but soon got a used one from a friend but it wasn't capable of playing the game.

This not only started my obsession with PC gaming but started my obsession with computers, I upgraded that computer with additional system memory, a Creative live soundcard, and a VooDoo 3000 graphics card, and play AvsP I did, and enjoyed every minute of it.

Since then, many different games, many upgrades and completely new machine builds, I've never the first time wanted to go back to a console, even when Microsoft released the original Xbox claiming it would be the end of PC gaming, I knew that wasn't true, and so far has not proved true.

The only console draw to me at all, is the curiosity of the games released for consoles not also being released for the PC, it's understandable as far as keeping the console users trapped, but sad in that it cost them money not to release those games to PC users, because more games would have been sold period if they were released across the board for all systems.

As far as piracy, it happens on both sides of the fence console and PC so that's really a moot point.

The great thing about PC gaming, is that's not all you can do with a PC, I get a good chuckle when visiting Best Buy and places like that with the consoles on display and people playing the latest and greatest, I think dude if you think what you're experiencing is the best it can be, do yourself a favor and never come play on my machine!

Really good PC game releases, especially first person Shooters are few and far between, but they're worth the wait, IMO! Ryan
Score
0
November 8, 2010 10:22:43 PM

4Ryan6 said:
Nice thread so far!

As one that started with the consoles and moved to PC gaming, my first attractions to the console was sheer convenience and though during that day true 360 degree First Person Shooters weren't that common, at least to the caliber of almost being addictive, and loved playing it over and over.


As far as piracy, it happens on both sides of the fence console and PC so that's really a moot point.


how is piracy a moot point ?

i've pirated a TON of computer games , anyone else here care to be honest and fess up ? piracy is whats killing the PC market , and while there is console piracy , it's not nearly as bad as PC piracy .
Score
0
November 9, 2010 5:05:07 AM

You know if you think about it really, With PC Hardware its purpose is to deliver unparallel realism, Games don't develop as fast as hardware wherest console games get built with accordance to there system hardware, PC games are dragging as developers seem to be struggling with the constant advancement in hardware and are unable to utilize PC Platforms hence why we complain with the decline in games, its just easier to make console games due to the limitation of hardware demand, I think developers just find it more fesible.

Now i don't play console nor do i have one but by just looking at how they punch out games for PS3 and Xbox 360 its not hard to acknowledge that they only have to develop a game within the demand of a console, " A real waste to creativity" Best bang for your buck.
Score
0
November 9, 2010 9:00:25 AM

I dont think PC gaming is losing popularity. Infact with services like Steam i notice more and more people playing on PC. I have had quite afew friends on previously gamed on console now only gaming on PC.

If consoles have some exclusives, PC has many of its own too. You can combine the library of all the consoles and count it against one PC.

As long as cost of gaming is concerned PC is the most cost effective system to game on, provided you know how to make a gaming PC. Here is some math for gaming on a console vs PC over a period of 7years(one console gen):

Comparison of PC vs Xbox 360

I will assume 20 games are bought every year for 5 years. PC version of games will be priced at 49usd. Xbox 360 games will be priced at 59usd. PC will get a GPU upgrade 3 years into its life.

800usd cost of PC
200usd GPU bought after 3 years
4900usd cost of games 100games bought in 5 years

Total cost to play on PC 5900usd

Now for the Xbox 360: (i will assume the XBox 360 will fail atleast once in 5 years and will need a replacement)

300usd price for XBox
300usd price for replacement Xbox
250usd Cost of Xbox live
5900usd cost of 100 games bought in 5 years

Total cost to play on Xbox 360 in 5 years 6750Usd

Pros for PC:
Game prices are cheaper
PC does a lot more then only play games
Games bought today will most likely be playable a decade later with console there is no gaurantee you will get backward compatibility
Mods
Keyboard mouse support in FPS, RTS games
Superior graphics and frame rates

Cons for PC:
You need to do research and learn how stuff works, once you get over this phase it can be easy sailing from there.


Xbox360:

Pros
Its easier to initially get into it, you dont need to invest your time research and learning.

Xbox 360 games can be sold to get some of the money back(though this can be countered with the discounts PC users get via steam and the fact PC game prices fall very quickly and due to the modding community PC games tend to live longer).

Cons
More costly over time.
Graphics inferior to PC
no mods
lacking keyboard support
Pay to go online

Overall in the long run its cheaper to be gaming on PC, more so people need PC at home. The real cost of converting that PC to a gaming PC is the GPU(assuming the PC is recent like3-4 years old).
Score
0
!