Game Stash: The Death of PC Gaming

[Jorias]

I have to admit that i didn't read all the posts here, because it started to look like a flaming of steve's Article. I just got done reading it, and i see the point you might be trying to make. The point is flawed somewhat, their is a way to play Console games on a PC. I utilize emulators all the time so i don't have to plug in my old Super Nintendo or Game Boy. Point being that if their is a will their is a way, if people want to play Console games and don't nessarily want to play them on a console, then they will develope or share programs that allow them to play Consoles games on the PC.

Here's another example, my PS2 died last year from overheating. I backed up the bios for just certain travisties. So I asked around and found out that you can play PS2 games on a PC courtesy of PCSX2. Sinc i own a PS2 technically, i can play PS2 games (that i own) on my PC which i do.

 

[Treblaine]

i believe you misread me, but to address your comment on the "all or nothing", if i cannot play a game at it's max settings and experience it at it's full potential what's the point in PC gaming? if i want [/u]mid settings[/u] then the console is the demographic i'm in anyway. Max settings is the only appeal that PC has left for new games without getting into the "controller vs. keyboard/mouse" war. the only other thing going for PC is ease of game mods and cheats, and if your not into that then what's the value of PC gaming!? also, all the tech you quote wasn't released when i left PC gaming or was still too expensive for me to consider it a viable option considering i began loosing interest in '04 and turned my back entirely on it late '07 early '08 the time of which any more upgrades to my box would have required at minimum a new motherboard along with the upgraded chip-sets... it just wasn't worth it anymore.

Ever heard of the phrase:

"Best is the worst enemy of Better"

Or words to that effect.

Just because you can't have the HIGHEST graphics settings DOES NOT mean you can't have HIGHER graphics, frame-rate, Resolution and latency than what consoles offer. Remember console games are almost universally blighted by input latency and low framerate even at modest resolutions like 720p!

If you had specs dating back to pre-2004 well don't be surprised that by 2007 you may need to upgrade as that is a LONG time and technology doesn't stand still. Consoles see wholesale upgrades only a 2007 build I'd have recommended would still be going strong and kicking ass through 2013.

I don't see why you would settle for what is the "Best on console" when that is just an arbitrary boundary.

 

[Treblaine]

Hell mid-level PC hardware from as far back as 2008(!) will spank all but the very best console games have to offer.

Fully aware that this thread exists as a big group hug around PC gaming, but having a stable architecture to develop on sees devs / studios learn how to optimise that experience. So while a PC may spank a console in terms of pure power, the actually on-screen difference is minimal (except for the bleeding edge crowd, who care about such things).

The 'death' of PC gaming is often overstated, but it is facing a lot of challenges, including the dominance of MMOs, the increasing rise of casual games and the huge number of competitors (being an open platform means low barriers to entry, after all) jostling for player attention. And piracy, which is the elephant in the room.

Bold Text = Supposition

The greatest problem with developers is the ART! Not the tech of coding, making games that have good gameplay and introduces new elements in an interesting way. And being stuck on hardware from 2005 gives little flexibility, you are hugely penned in and limited in scope, you can't push limits, just patiently wait for one of the big corporations to suddenly unveil a new system and even then you will be limited by Dev-kits. Yeah, dev-kit, EXPENSIVE AS HELL, strings attached and hard to use not just by their limited access! Every PC is in itself its own dev-kit.

The "Optimisation" on consoles doesn't add up to much, often it is just a zero sum game, take away framerate to get prettier graphics that look great in screenshots (most games today), lower resolution/AA so it looks al-right in low-res internet game-play videos (Halo 3 + ALan Wake), add ridiculous amount of buffering at the cost of control lag (Killzone 2).

It's a sacrifice in areas that they hope people won't notice, but just because they can't put a name on it, it is still missing.

Trust me framerate is NOT a bleeding edge appeal, anyone will notice the difference between playing at 25-30fps (console standard) against the +60fps rock-solid with V-sync. You don't see the difference, you FEEL it! And I'm not talking bullshit like haptic feedback (rumble) I'm talking about how the game moves, how responsive, how natural and intuitive you can interact with the game. And before you start, the 24fps film rate is not relevent, we are not talking about the illusion of motion.

See the biggest advantages PC gaming offers are not cosmetic but are for the main benefit of gameplay:
-Less Lag
-Better controls
-More customisation (field of view, key-layout, etc)
-Higher resolution (See further + aim with more precision)
-Higher Framerate
-Mods
-indie games

Consider how the most loved games on PC like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead are not graphical-monsters.

I also don't see how piracy is suddenly a problem for PC now, it wasn't a problem for Playstation back when every 2nd person had a chipped console, it isn't a problem for Nintendo today with DS (that has massive levels of piracy) and nothing has changed to allow more or less piracy on PC. What has changed is major corporations like Sony and Microsoft are competing with each other (remember when pure gaming companies like Nintendo and Sega were competitors) so MAKING console gaming lucrative and upmarket by emphasising "hardcore games" and building walled gardens.

 

[Treblaine]

it is EASY to find the good games on PC from friends, forums, reviews, magazines and websites like this.

I disagree. As many have and will agree with me the games coming out nowadays are Mediocre and anyone who wants a good game is usually screwed over.

OT: I wouldn't cry if PC gaming died. Most games i play are single player and if they need to have community content then they are not good enough to stand on their own.

You played Left 4 Dead 1 or 2 on PC? Team Fortress 2? You call THEM mediocre? You want a good game, give them a go.

Remember Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crud"

It IS that way, it has always been that way and it always will be that way. Pick any random 100 releases of games (you could do the same with DVDs, books, board games, whatever), chances are the overwhelming majority of them any one person will find to be trash and not worth buying or consuming.

But don't act like 90% = 100%. The 10% of good games are talked about all the time, here is a shortlist:
-Batman: Arkham Asylum
-Street Fighter IV
-Mass Effect 2
-BF: Bad Company 2
-Dragon Age Origins
-Torchlight
-Braid

And that's Just from the past year or so. Yeah, I know you COULD say these are mediocre, but only if you expect every game to be as ground-breaking and influential as Mario Bros 3 or Goldeneye or MGS1.

(I don't even see how PC gaming CAN die, I mean who can pull the plug? It's not like Sega with Dreamcast, it will always be there because people NEED computers with open operating systems to put software on for web browsing, updating their MP3 players and so on. People will always want to release games outside the grip of console licensing)

 

[L-J-F]

Last paragraph sums up my thoughts exactly.

 

[12th_milkshake]

With the epic epic epic level editor of Sc2 that is coming out we will see some of the best user content in years. One level designer at blizzard in his spare time (couple of hors) made a 3rd person Nova - ghost game that actually looked quite good fun. If Wc3 can spawn Dota and it's follow up clones. this will be amazing.

consoles have there place but i always feel there a go to when friends are over. PC is the 'Personal' experience. games on the PC just seem to be more alive.


Meh console will become standarised PCs in time anyway, anyone remember the phantom? It will happen one day. A steam console perhaps

 

[Treblaine]

Nope. Never played em. I tried Left 4 Dead but it didn't turn my cranks the right way. As for TF2 i like it but i will still say its not amazing. Its fun. Something you play for an hour tops before going onto something else.

....

We should be demanding more from game designers. If we stop shelling out 80 dollars for games that we will only play for 5-10 hours they will stop making crappy games.

....

I thought Battlefield 2 was crap. Its main appeal being multiplayer made me hate the game due to the fact that it sucked how no matter how high my teams score or KDR we still lost. I have nothing else to say about the rest of those games because i haven't played em.

....

I can only see it (PC Gaming) dieing if one day all Game designers say its not worth their time to have everything pirated.

Well what WOULD you call an amazing game? Dismissing TF2 and L4D is being pretty picky, what would you consider better. You've made some bold statements calling modern games universally mediocre, I was hoping you could back it up.

Also, $80 per game? In what country and what taxation? I paid £6.50 (equ. US$10) for Left 4 Dead 2 on Steam in one of their many sales, a game that is less than a year old. PC games are usually £20-£30 here against £40-£45 for equivalent console releases and not to mention the dozens of really good games that are released for free on PC.

Hey as to Battlefield: the lesson is that your own Kills and deaths aren't all that matter, if they were then people would just camp in some corner of the map 24/7, it is a CHALLENGE to have objectives and a bit closer to actual military challenges which isn't just about throwing troops against each other to endlessly kill each other in one area but to secure objectives. It's about TEAM WORK and not just how good you are but how good your entire team is doing; stick together, help each other and coordinate.
(You might do well to try more games before calling all games today mediocre. Maybe you are having trouble finding good games but come on, everyone has been raving about those games for ages now and there are free demos for many of them.)

Developers are not THAT worried about Piracy, Publishers are paranoid about it because the likes of Bobby Kotick really don't understand the gaming market. The biggest danger to games is obscurity, people who are willing to pay not noticing the game amongst the 90% of crap. If all the buzz around the game is crushed with limited release (Alan Wake) or overshadowed by worries over DRM then THAT will negatively affect sales.

PC games may be easier to pirate, but they are not THAT easy, not as easy as it is for console games to be endlessly resold in a highly efficient and effective resale network in Gamestop and Gamestation and so on.

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

You realize that you are speaking from the perspective of a veteran right?

(concerning finding good games on PC)

You just don't remember or know how to think like a novice.

I fail to see how that is any different from consoles or iPhones or any other device you play video games from.

And on ANY system it is NOT HARD AT ALL to find the good games. Novices are novices, I know, but they aren't MORONS. They can use the internet, there are SO MANY resources to help them find the best games, you can't go 5 paces on the internet without finding some one's opinion, a top 10 list, some article on great games, Yahtzee has given so much advice on games.

I don't think it is fair to focus on the complete novice archetype, i.e. an independent adult with their own money and their own choices to make who has NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL with any games. Come on, those make up a tiny percentage of the target market. Most start gaming as kids, dependant on parents, older siblings/cousins and friends to introduce them. I, like I think most PC gamers, started on consoles before I wanted more than they could offer and moved onto PC gaming.

Also what's all this jibber-jabber about drivers and patches... have you not heard of Steam?

I too don't agree with the argument that it's harder to find good games on the PC. It's also hard to find them on consoles, and on the other hand it's not very hard at all with the internet around.

But regarding Steam, it patches automatically but it will not solve driver problems or other system configuration problems. Case in point: I bought Batman: Arkham Asylum from Steam and couldn't play it. After looking for information around, I found out I had to manually install the PhysX drivers from nVidia, and only then the game started working.

Batman AA... WITH PhysX? Come on, that is a highly advanced feature that is not activated as standard. Don't be surprised if you have to do something as basic as update your drivers. PhysX isn't supported at all on the console release of Arkham Asylum. That is not "update drivers JUST to play the game" that is updating drivers to unlock GPU-based physics processing which is no trivial thing.

Installing drivers is not hard. just run the .exe and stuff like that is to be expected if you want to use a PC for gaming or non-gaming tasks.

Haha I agree. It's funny, because people who prefer console only gaming claim that the reason why they don't enjoy PC gaming is because you have to upgrade your hardware ever six months or something ridiculous like that. They don't realize that console versions of a game in the PC gaming world are usually LOW SETTINGS with today's computer hardware. Hell, most games on consoles don't even use Anti-Aliasing or Antistropic Filtering yet.

 

[nik3daz]

I can only see it dieing if one day all Game designers say its not worth their time to have everything pirated.

In my blissfully optimistic dreamworld, the best and most dedicated devs will continue to make games after the piracy game-pocalypse because it's their passion. Of course, passions are hard to support without an income.

 

[tharglet]

Even if games have mod tools, I'd still pay money for DLC, as long as it has a decent production quality.
Most mods are either mediocre or uninspired (I used to play a lot of HL1 singleplayer mods, heh) with the odd one or two that were outstanding - only two or three of the many I played really stood out.
I think in a lot of cases, it wouldn't be hard to outdo most of the mod community for most games, or at least produce something on par with the best content, and still worth shelling something out for.
Besides, modders can keep the community entertained whilst "official" content is worked on.