Can you cite a source for your numbers, please?

I do not agree with you at all. I just read a collumn in PC Gamer which said the very opposite, that console gaming was dying. The article said that Sandy Duncan, the Microsoft VP who released the Xbox in Europe told VideoGame Blog that "Consoles will die out in the next five to ten years. The business model is very risky and the cost associated with creating new hardware are incredibly high."
Also, Alex St. John, CEO of WildTangent said, "I think we're looking at the last generation of consoles, because Sony and Microsoft are never going to make back the money they sank on PS3 and Xbox 360, and I doubt they'll have the willat the end of this generation's consoles to do it to themselves again. And the market would have changed so much that I'm not sure that there will really be a market reason that can justify doing it again. They just can't afford to burn another eight million bucks." And a study by Parks Associates concluded that the average gamer spent 18.5 hours per month playing PC games, compared to 13.5 hour playing console games!
And lastly, many people have been saying this for years and PC gaming does not show any signs of slowing down. So think what you want to think, but be prepared to be wrong.

That's just my 2 cents.

To add my two cents:

PC gaming isn't dying, we're just going through a phase. These things happen. I remember back 4 years ago when I was buying my current PC how everyone was talking about whether it was the end of console gaming. At that time, PC games looked and played better and had more variety than their console cousins. Now, things are the other way around. Well, not quite. The PC technology has caught up to the consoles, though at this point it's a bit expensive. Give it another year or two and PC technology will be overtaking the consoles again, and we'll be talking about console gaming dying again.

Now, this isn't to say that PC gaming doesn't have it's issues. Piracy is certainly a problem, however, I don't think it's as significant a problem as the other issues affecting PC gaming. Namely, the hardware issue.

Right now, I have a Dell 8400 that I bought back in September '04 that cost me $3000 + $500 for the X800XL vid card I bought for it in March '05. In August of '05, my friend bought a custom build computer that only cost him $2000 + $200 for the surround headphones he later bought with it (my system already has surround sound blaster and speakers). He paid roughly $1300 less than me and his PC pretty much outclasses mine.

(And before anyone says "prices drop", yes they do, but he didn't buy the same parts I did, he bought SUPERIOR parts. Had he bought the exact same parts I did, he probably would have paid half of what he did for his system).

But this isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that not only did he pay less for a superior product he is able to upgrade his PC very easily, something that isn't feasible with my Dell since Dell does not manufacture either the PSUs or their motherboards to retail specifications, making inexpensive periodic upgrades unfeasible. Obviously, the plan here is to lock the customer into a system whereby the only way to upgrade is to buy a whole new computer, which in my case is completely unnecessary. My 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB of RAM, while starting to look old, isn't so old that it needs replacement - it's more than capable of meeting the minimum system requirements of most games out there today. My X800XL video card, however, is near obsolete given it's lack of Shader Model 3.0 support. To make a long story short, I'm a student on a tight budget and while I COULD make the upgrade to a new vid card had I a custom built PC, it's economically and practically unfeasible to do so with the Dell; the cost to upgrade the Dell with a simple vid card would require additional costs that would nearly cost as much as getting a whole new custom built base system.

The point is: how many PC users out there own a brand-name manufactured PC that is near impossible to upgrade? A lot, I would imagine. So is it any wonder that sales of many PC games aren't so good? I mean, I cannot play BioShock or Mass Effect on my PC. And while not everyone is in the same economic boat I am in, I'm sure most brand-name PC owners resent the idea of spending large amounts of money buying a WHOLE new brand-name PC every 2-3 years, especially when MOST of the parts from the old PC don't need upgrading.

This segues into my other point: PC gaming is inherently for hobbyists / enthusiasts and not for the average user. If you're anal like me and enjoy having a lot of control and customizability over your computer, than PCs are great for you. But if you're like the vast, vast, vast majority of people out there who either a) don't understand computers, and / or hate managing their computer and would rather just push the "on" button and have it work perfectly all the time, PCs really are not for you; you'd likely be happier with a Mac and a 360 / PS3 / Wii. The thing about consoles is that all you really need to do is plug them in, insert the game disc, and press play and you're done. No worrying about drivers or hardware or anything of the sort. So obviously, when given the choice, MOST people out there would choose a simple computer and a console over a complex, complicated PC.

Which leads to my final point: back in the day, video games were perceived by many people to be for children. Today, however, those children have grown up and represent a very, very large portion of the population. Is it any wonder that the age of the average gamer is in the late 20s? The point is, video games are no longer the pervue of fat, pimple-faced, socially maladapted teenagers; video games are practically mainstream now. However, as I pointed out earlier, most people, despite growing up with PCs, are still computer illiterate and would rather just plug it in and press "on" than have to worry about all the little things that can go wrong with PCs.

And so what you've got is a recipe for a system where console games will always outsell PC games (some RARE exceptions apply, of course).


Mad Cat

What I feel part of the problem is aside from needing new hardware or driver updates ect. to play a new game is that too many game developers are taking what I would call "the Microsoft approach" with newer games.

It's a disturbing trend I have seen far to often lately. Like we've seen since Windows 95 Instead of spending the extra time and resources to thoroughly beta test by the company it is left to us the consumers to help test so they can put out updates and address issues as they occur. Too many game companies are doing this now and we end up buying a new game that is often still buggy and incomplete.

SOSE is an awesome game, I really love it, but I think they rushed things a bit and released it too soon. It took several patches and we only recently have a stable game. The minidump issue was a pain, sure it could be worked around and at least for me I could often go many hours without a crash but it still happened a lot. Add to that the lack of a single player campaign and a fully developed story line that could have been added (and we will hopefully get in the expansion) I'd say this game was released too soon.

SOSE isn't the only game I have had issues with. I can think of at least 3 other games off the top of my head I bought in the past couple of years that were really hyped and supposed to be great but had a lot of issues when I bought them. Most of them could be worked around with frequent saves and PC tweaks and such but often I'd give up on a game and it would sit on the shelf because it just didn't run like it should. Not all game companies give the great support we have had from Ironclad and Stardock either and many of the problems never got fixed. With a console game you at least know it's going to be finished and work properly with no hassles.

I think PC gaming isn't dying because of one thing, and this is an area where console games will probably never be able to compete: mods. I love how many new games are designed from the start to be user modified. This allows players to make a game into whatever they want to play and often extends to life span of a game years beyond what it would have had in it's released form. Console games can't really be modified and I don't see that changing any time soon. With all the tools and support many game developers are giving modders these days it can really drive the sales of their games and it's good for everyone.

With the ability to take a basic game engine and a little know how and turn it into whatever you want to play, I don't see PC gaming dying off any time soon even if they stopped making games for PCs completely.

A bug that happens in sporadic incidences != "doesn't work".

I agree. I just wrote a articel about how graphics are getting to good for most peoples computers. But I would not worry to much. Hopefully the PC Games industry will relise what is happing and stop making graphics so damm good that I need the newest computer that cost 5,000 dollars. Sorry if my post sounds like it is just taking what you said and changing it a little.

nequa how many games in the last year have had "high" graphics settings that put a toll on a reasonable or budget gaming computer (let's say, E6400 or higher processor, 9600GT)

the trick is, don't say "Crysis"

go

Sporadic? The hard restart when loading the main menu of civ4 is sporadic. They were not infrequent or random.

Regardless, while KOTOR was a buggy piece of shit for the xbox as well, the sequel is the worse of the two. Peragus mining station anyone?

Actually, my point is that you DON'T need a $5,000 to to play the latest games. In fact, you can do it for as little as $1,000, and even that is excessive in many cases, but you need to know what you are doing. If all you do is take the easy way out and buy from Dell / Alienware / Gateway / et al, then yeah, you're going to pay through to nose for a big white elephant that becomes obsolete fairly quickly.


Mad Cat

Except that Psychoak made it sound like anyone would get the bug. Rather than, say, people who tried to use cloaking (which wasn't most people).

Not to say that a halt-progression bug is ever a good thing. But there are degrees of things.



Wishful thinking.

The X-Box and PlayStation lines may die out. But last time I checked, the Nintendo DS sold over 70 million world-wide in 3 years, and the Nintendo Wii, after selling 25 million world-wide in 1.5 years, is still supply constrained. That is, Nintendo could have sold more Wii's in 1.5 years if they'd made more of them.

Nintendo changed the game. Wii, hardware-wise, is a souped-up GameCube. It cost Nintendo maybe 5 bucks to "design" it. They invested more in research on the controller than the main hardware. Meanwhile, Microsoft sunk billions into ATi and IBM to develop the high-end CPU and GPU that drives the 360. And Sony actually spent a vast amount of time developing a massively parallel processor for their PS3 (granted, at least they and IBM are using it for more than just the PS3). If they had taken Nintendo's rout rather than continuing to push graphics and such, maybe they would have consoles that are actually profitable.

The console market isn't going anywhere. It's simply changing, focusing less on expensive hardware (and therefore punishing those who did) and more on different interfaces and more accessibility.



To a degree, it is impossible for PC developers to do thorough tests because the combinatorial explosions of drivers, hardware, and so forth is simply too great. That's why they always tell you to have the latest drivers; because those are the ones the developers test on.

Further, even if there is a crash caused by hardware/drivers, that doesn't mean that the developers can actually fix it. If its the driver causing the problem, there may not be a fix at all; they may have to wait for ATi or Creative to get off their butts and fix it. Which won't happen at all if the game isn't a big, important release.



While I agree that perhaps Sins could have used more testing, I firmly disagree with the need for a campaign. I stand by a developer's right to release the game they choose to release, and if that vision doesn't include some single-player campaign, then it doesn't include it. Personally, I'd have preferred that StarDock not spend time and effort on the single-player campaign for GC2 and its expansions, and instead, spend that time cleaning up the UI. Civilization has never had a set campaign, and they did OK.



Peragus wasn't buggy; it was boring. And KotOR II was unfinished (ie, forced to release significantly before it was ready), so there is an explanation (namely, that LucasArts sucks).

a reasonable gaming computer will have to be replaced at least every 2 years (probably sooner) if you want to barely keep up with the newer games is the issue and most people find it to be a waste of money. I bought my computer in 2005 and i am not planning to replace it until 2010 so unfortunately i wont be able to play any of the newest games since I cant run anything (its a laptop otherwise i would have upgraded few parts).

Laptops are not in any way, shape or form "gaming" machines. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. Yes, I know laptops can play some games, but it's NOT what they are designed for and they are severely gimped when it comes to games. They're also more expensive in terms of price per performance than desktops. If you want to buy a PC to play games on, get a desktop.

And the ONLY thing that needs replacing every two to three years in a gaming PC is the video card. There is absolutely NO reason to buy a whole new mobo, CPU, HD, DVD drive, case, PSU, keyboard, mouse, monitor, and speakers every two years.


Mad Cat

Your ignorance of upgrade cycles or your inability to buy a proper computer is not the issue here, especially because four-year-old engines like Source and its numerous upgrades including one in 2007 still run fine on even the lowest of specced computers. The question is this recurrent, incessant, stupid meme being trotted out that just because Crysis is a unoptimized, overhyped CPU grinder that all new PC games are the game. Which is a complete fabrication.

I don't own a console, I may never own another one. I love strategy games, and sandbox-type building games, for the most part. On my system, I have installed GC2, Medieval 2, Sim City 4, Civ 4, Homeworld 2 and Bioshock.

Except for Bioshock, none of these games could even be ported to the console: you really need a mouse or some similar interface to play them. I don't think PC gaming is dying. FPS on the PC are dying. Maybe high-end graphics on the PC are dying, too.

For me, I'd much rather see creative and high quality art direction than technically beautiful graphics. Anyone here play Aquaria, for a perfect example? I still play some of my old favorites: Metroid Prime, LoZ: A Link to the Past, Star Control 2. As much today fun as they ever were.

In the end, I play games because I like to have fun. I think high-end graphics are less about fun, and more about our need to always have "The Best". We feel hard done by, deprived, or just plain lame using Last Years Model. Most of us don't want to be stuck with something "less" than our neighbors have, even if we were perfectly happy with it the day before.

Games like Crysis offer two joys: one is the joy playing a really fun game. Crysis is a lot of fun to play, and it is pretty to look at. I had a ton of fun sneaking around, blowing stuff up and tossing Koreans off cliffs. The other joy is the satisfaction of owning or playing something that is "Da Shit". Look at the release of the PS3: people getting trampled outside Walmart, camping out in a tent, and totally freaking out over pre-orders. Why? It isn't because their PS2 stopped being fun to play, its because they can't stand not being one of the first to have "The Best".

Actually, I only had one crash all the way through both games.

If only everyone thought that way. I enjoyed, for instance, Beyond Good and Evil, despite its dated graphics, due to its wonderful art style (it's simple, but it's just so beautiful).