Why PC Gaming is Dying

And How To Save It

Published on April 14, 2008 By erathoniel In PC Gaming

Many people say that PC gaming is dying, and I agree with them entirely. From a commercial sense. The independent gaming community for PC is better than ever. The reason that PC gaming is dying is because of system requirements. You do not need to run a FPS at 90 frames per second with bloom, soft shadows, real-time lighting, next-generation physics, and advanced reflection to make it look good. See Tremulous. 700 MHz, low requirements in graphics, and various other nice stats. It looks nicer than Guitar Hero 3 in my opinion, which requires 2.4 GHz (2400 MHz) and fairly expensive graphics cards. You end up with a cartoony, ugly end-result that can be emulated with the same degree of satisfaction on really low-end obsolete machines (124 kb, and not demo scene ultra-compact, either), with the same gameplay. Audiosurf runs way more stuff than Guitar Hero, and runs on a 1.81 GHz GeForce 6150 Go laptop. Seriously, there is no need for the ultra-high requirements, since the real hardcore gaming community will play anything fun, regardless of graphics. I've played games with 3 poly models, and enjoyed them more than Guitar Hero 3 (Xbox 360). There is no need for your 200,000x 200,000 pixel textures or 80,000 poly models. It really doesn't matter.

Comments (Page 7)

Alfonse

on Apr 25, 2008

I own them because I wanna have access to all the good games. Console vs PC whatever. Being a console gamer does not make anyone a better/worse gamer in anyway shape or form.

Quoted For Truth.

There is nothing inherent about PC games that make them arbitrarily better than console games. Some people like certain kinds of experiences that are commonly found on consoles. Other people like experiences that are commonly found on PCs. Some like both or some of each. Nothing is wrong with any of these.

The main problem with PC gaming is finding the market. Many people who might want to play certain PC games simply can't due to lack of hardware (most PCs use integrated video). If PC game developers want to sell their games, they should make games that work on PCs, not a small subset of PCs.

erathoniel

on Apr 25, 2008

Well, yeah, Stardock has the winning combination.

hydrocarbn

on Apr 25, 2008

$750 USD for "top of the line"? I call BS, but feel free to prove me wrong with specs and current pricing

Motherboard ($90)

Processor ($190)

RAM ($30)

HDD ($90)

Video ($180)

PSU ($100)

Case ($50)

Optical ($30)

Total: $760. So I'm $10 over

However, replacing the 8800GT with a similarly-spec'd 9600GT would put you at a little under $700.

rakenan

on Apr 25, 2008

$750 USD for "top of the line"? I call BS, but feel free to prove me wrong with specs and current pricingMotherboard ($90)Processor ($190)RAM ($30)HDD ($90)Video ($180)PSU ($100)Case ($50)Optical ($30)Total: $760. So I'm $10 over However, replacing the 8800GT with a similarly-spec'd 9600GT would put you at a little under $700.

That is, minimally, short of top of the line in both processor and video card. For that matter, spending $30 on RAM is going to fall substantially short of top of the line.

No question, you can get a solid gaming PC for $750, but you didn't say "solid," you said "top of the line." That is serious exaggeration. I don't think many people would have questioned you if you hadn't said "top of the line," though, because that was the only error in your post - gaming PC's are reasonably affordable if you build your own and shop around a bit.

hydrocarbn

on Apr 25, 2008

spending $30 on RAM is going to fall substantially short of top of the line.

DDR2 800 is DDR2 800. As long as it's not generic crap and has a decent voltage range, there's zero difference.

but you didn't say "solid," you said "top of the line." That is serious exaggeration.

No, it isn't. That setup is as "top as the line" you can get without paying a retarded amount of money for components that give you a 2% performance increase.

Alfonse

on Apr 25, 2008

DDR2 800 is DDR2 800. As long as it's not generic crap and has a decent voltage range, there's zero difference.

Actually, that's not true. Good RAM isn't just a label; the various timings of the RAM (latency, etc) can substantially improve (or limit) performance.

That setup is as "top as the line" you can get without paying a retarded amount of money for components that give you a 2% performance increase.

To be fair, "top of the line" means exactly that: the best there is currently. While the box you describe is certainly "great for 99% of games," it simply isn't "top of the line."

hydrocarbn

on Apr 25, 2008

Good RAM isn't just a label; the various timings of the RAM (latency, etc)

Low-latency RAM hasn't been relevant for a while.

To be fair, "top of the line" means exactly that: the best there is currently

Performing within a statistically insignificant margin of error to a "top of the line" system is well enough. You can always make incrementally better PC parts. Regardless, I'm not getting into a debate over semantics.

AdrianWerner

on Apr 26, 2008

BIS made Lionheart, didn't they? That game was awesome.

Npe, they just put their logo on it, the actual development was handled by Reflexive

urbnd

on Apr 26, 2008

Two words: ITS NOT

Aha, QFTT.

100

erathoniel

on Apr 26, 2008

Top of the line is about the top 95% of things that one would never buy just to have a really, really decent computer. This means a 5.5 grand Win XP rig or a 16.4 grand Mac, for similar ultra-powerful levels.

Yes, Win XP. Vista stinks.

101

redwingdw28

on Apr 26, 2008

No, it isn't. That setup is as "top as the line" you can get without paying a retarded amount of money for components that give you a 2% performance increase.

I agree about spending 5k to go top of the line but the fact is I know someone with a top of the line PC, I however opted for the slightly cheaper option and my system still runs everything well and we both need to upgrade at the same time. Offcourse top notch components are good but the actual performance increase in real terms between a borderline top notch PC and a top line PC if both are built with gaming in mind are pretty insignificant in real terms. (There is a differance though and I agree about memory)

102

erathoniel

on Apr 26, 2008

There's not much of a need for top-of-the-line, it's just a small prestige section. You buy your way in.

103

MrPeebuddy

on Apr 26, 2008

Last two news update from this site just owned your post, lol.

104

Free2game

on Apr 30, 2008

To anyone who said that Crysis sold bad EA said it reached a million copies just in Febuary and it's probably going to sell 2-3 million by the end of the year most likely and continue selling on for years because it's seen at the graphical benchmark that everyone will get when they get a new PC.

105

ColdSteelRain

on Apr 30, 2008

I'll grant that those are decent components, and you save a bit with the rebates, but without a monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and operating system, you're still a bit short of a usable system.

I was thinking of a system spec'd at least to the level of the Ars Technica "Hot Rod" (see their system guide here: http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/guide-200803.ars/3), which is closer to $1,600.

The original point, though, is that consoles are much less expensive than PCs, especially if you consider a 5+ year console life span.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!