Having Epic turn away from the PC is hardly a sign of it's doom. The only PC game I've ever heard of from Epic is Unreal Tournament, something I've never bothered to even try. And Cliffy B. citing piracy is crap. Epic teamed up with Valve and released the entire Unreal series on Steam, so they could do the same with Gears 2 if they're are worried about piracy. I think they are more worried that the majority of PC gamers just aren't interested, or maybe they don't want to spend time on a good PC port, because the first one was doen half-assed and sucked because of it.

People need to stop talking about this crap. People proclaim the death of PC and then 1 month later they state that it is triumphantly returning to the forefront of gaming. It always goes in cycles, and it always wears thin. There were a bunch of great PC titles this year and there are several more on the way within the next few months. If you enjoy playing games on PC, then you can continue doing so. If you don't, then don't. It is that simple.

They are following the money like they always have been. More gamers are buying consoles and the games for them than there are people buying gaming PCs and PC games. Developers and publishers spend millions making games. They want to sell as many units of those games as they can so they can make a profit that they can then turn around and reinvest in making the next game they have in mind.

Would you take the time and effort to write music and then insist on recording it on cassette and CD both? Sure you can release music on cassette, but who is going to buy it? There are still people out there who listen to cassettes, but not nearly as many people who listen to cds.

I like to play games on my computer and there are still game genres that seem to work better on computers than on consoles. However, I can't really fault the publishers for focusing on consoles as that is where the market is moving to.

DYin01:

santaandy:

Sewblon:
...since FPSs, Strategy games and MMOGs remain PC centric.

Nope. Not true.

Care to elaborate? Because last time I checked, PC had a LOT more MMO games than every console together. Same goes for strategy games. Yes, it is possible to make a decent strategy game for a console, but the fact remains that it's just a lot easier on PC with the keyboard for hotkeys and mouse for precision. You just can't get the same precision with a stick.

First, FPSs haven't been PC-centric for a while. I daresay in at least some cases FPSs are even better on consoles now (look at the latest Tom Clancy games). There may be more MMOs on PC but not enough to call them PC-centric. And even strategy games have plenty of releases on consoles. Remember, strategy is more than RTS (if that's what you meant), and consoles support K&M now (at least by hardware).

Perhaps, though, this is just a difference in opinion. I think a better statement would be to say that the PC is FPS, MMORPG, and RTS-centric.

fix-the-spade:
Developers themselves are not turning away from PC games, Publishers however are, by extension putting presure on their developers to do the same. the reason is very simple.

STEAM.

Or to put it another way, in Gamestation CoD:WaW is £50 for PC. On Steam its £28, compelling maths.

Come on, that doesn't make sense: Every Steam download is billed in US $, whatever the interface tells you. Taking into account the exchange rate between UK Sterling and USD, you can imagine why your comparison is crooked. In the US, as far as I can tell, Steam games cost about as much as physical copies, in Germany (with the Euro being worth only slightly more than the USD nowadays) it's practically the same.

All I can really say is: Stardock - I have faith in them and what they can achieve.

Piracy is just as common on the console. I'm sure most of you have seemed to forget about buying used games. Except that actually hurts an industry because you did buy the game. Most typically PC pirates would not have bought the game to begin with.

Eggo:

santaandy:
I daresay in at least some cases FPSs are even better on consoles now (look at the latest Tom Clancy games).

I've looked...But I'm not seeing how they are better on console. And do you have any other examples?

santaandy:
There may be more MMOs on PC but not enough to call them PC-centric.

How many people are playing World of Warcraft on the consoles?

santaandy:
And even strategy games have plenty of releases on consoles.

The Wii has plenty of third party games getting released for it, but what's that term everyone uses? Shovelware?

santaandy:
Remember, strategy is more than RTS (if that's what you meant), and consoles support K&M now (at least by hardware).

Only the PS3 supports K&M...Although you will have a tough time finding games that support it natively.

santaandy:
Perhaps, though, this is just a difference in opinion. I think a better statement would be to say that the PC is FPS, MMORPG, and RTS-centric.

I'd agree to that.

1) I was going by general reception and review, specifically for Rainbow Six Vegas 2, but I believe Red Faction was also reviewed as being better on the PS2 than the PC. I think the issue is with original platform development and porting, not necessarily a case of hardware superiority (there are many examples of bad PC ports to console, like Orange Box PS3). There is the fact that there are many FPSs developed outside the PC, and also not released for PC, which makes me think FPSs are not PC-centric.

2) Everquest, Star Wars Galaxies, and Final Fantasy XI (all top-tier names) all had releases outside the PC. X-Quest is one MMORPG in development for consoles and not PC. MMOs are not PC-centric.

3) I agree. My point was more on the lines that strategy is not the same thing as RTS, and strategy in general is not PC-centric. RTSs aren't either. There is one RTS, Goblin Commander, that was not made for PC but consoles only. There is starting to be more ports of big name RTSs too (World in Conflict, Supreme Commander, and C&C, but mostly to Xbox360, think of that what you will). Still not PC-centric.

4) True, but at least it's there. And the Dreamcast supported K&M for some FPSs (not sure about strategy), and keyboard for a typing game, Phantasy Star Online, and maybe more. I believe every console that had PSO had a keyboard controller of some sort. But you're right, in-game support is what makes the difference and is by and large barely there. I think the DC supported keyboard & mouse more than any other console.

http://www.racketboy.com/retro/2007/03/dreamcast-keyboard-mouse-be-prepared.html

5) Thanks! :)

---

Credge:
Piracy is just as common on the console. I'm sure most of you have seemed to forget about buying used games. Except that actually hurts an industry because you did buy the game. Most typically PC pirates would not have bought the game to begin with.

Currently, it's not possible (AFAIK) to pirate Wii or PS3 games, not sure about X360. Even still, good luck pirating those 25gb-50gb PS3 discs. And finding something to burn it on, as the only discs that can hold it are at last check $20 apiece, often more than the game itself.

Buying used games is not piracy and it the act itself does not hurt the industry. Companies not getting their fair share of preowned game sales by places like gamestop *is* pretty crappy, and does hurt the industry.

Richard Groovy Pants:

santaandy:

Currently, it's not possible (AFAIK) to pirate Wii or PS3 games, not sure about X360.

Awww so innocent. Go to your local Chinese super-market and ask for a "fix" for your xbox. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Even still, good luck pirating those 25gb-50gb PS3 discs.

Firstly 50 gigs? What? The only game that even came close to that was MSG4, usually big games are around 10 gigs and average are around 5-6 gigs.
And that takes about 10 minutes with my PC and I'm running a mid-end.

And finding something to burn it on, as the only discs that can hold it are at last check $20 apiece, often more than the game itself.

Huh? I've bought like this big case of virgin dvd's for 10 bucks a month ago,I gave them to a friend though, so I really don't know its capacity.

Buying used games is not piracy and it the act itself does not hurt the industry. Companies not getting their fair share of preowned game sales by places like gamestop *is* pretty crappy, and does hurt the industry.

I concur.

Wow, how the hell are you getting around 1gb per minute downloads?

Richard Groovy Pants:

santaandy:
Wow, how the hell are you getting around 1gb per minute downloads?

Downloads? I was referring to burning a dvd.
And I might have exaggerated a little, more like 20 minutes.
From private trackers I get around 1-2 megabytes per second, a 10 gig game takes a night?
I dunno, I'm not that good at maths :p

Oh, I was wondering!

Why I Hate PC Gaming:

A'ight, lets go over this in a logical way...

I got my PS2 in 2002, it cost me $300 I believe and it provided me with damn fine gaming material until 2007 (I', count God of War 2 official "end" of the PS2) when it finally stopped seeing major releases on a regular basis

I got my PC in 2004, it cost me $1500, I stopped being able to run new games at full spec on it in 2006. What the hell? It was obselete in 2 goddamn years. It cost me 5X as much as my PS2 and it stopped being truly useful as a gaming machine after 2 years.

This is why PC gaming sucks and probably why devs are turning away from PC gaming. Because...

I've spent $1550 on Consoles from PS1 to now (I've got a 360 AND a PS3) that's the price of the one computer I bought and so far all of these consoles have had MUCH more longevity.

But that's the point, the consumer does not NEED To Learn about how to build an optimized console, they can just read the basics and pick which one they want. It's way more accessible to the average consumer. I don't mind learning about consoles, because there are now only 3 on the market, while there are hundreds of PC parts to choose from that I'd need to understand in order to optimize.

More people WILL choose the console because it's easier, geeks and non geeks alike. I'm a GAME nerd, I like GAMES (i.e. software) not Hardware. Developers are not developing for the PC BECAUSE of people like myself, my girlfriend and my best friend. We all love videogames, but really don't care about hardware.

Until PC's can be purchased at a reasonable price with no aformentioned knowledge and run games for 5 years without upgrades, I don't think I'll ever be a dedicated PC gamer.

If you buy a PC solely for gaming you are pretty much retarded. Sure, there are some good games that come out on the PC, but it's very expensive.

But when you look at them as a tool, as in something you can browse the internet on, listen to music, watch movies and with multi monitors, do at the same time if you so wanted there isn't much issue. I mean, i used mine for Blu-ray/DVD/TV/Music/Surfing Web/Designing Websites and playing games. The difference for me between a PC i can do that on, and one that cannot is probably some slight considerations in RAM and Graphics cards which probably equals £150 difference.

I used to upgrade every 3 years, and those machines would be playing the games on full settings most of that. I actually upgraded a bit earlier this time since i've started full time work and now have the money to be a bit more snobby about things.

I mean, its not right without 16xAA now is it! Haha

Even so, the first PC cost £500 and the upgrades 2 years later, including 1 more graphics card, an upgraded cpu, more ram, faster hdd and blu-ray cost £550. And thats a very quick machine now. £250 a year, basically.

PedroSteckecilo:
But that's the point, the consumer does not NEED To Learn about how to build an optimized console, they can just read the basics and pick which one they want. It's way more accessible to the average consumer. I don't mind learning about consoles, because there are now only 3 on the market, while there are hundreds of PC parts to choose from that I'd need to understand in order to optimize.

More people WILL choose the console because it's easier, geeks and non geeks alike. I'm a GAME nerd, I like GAMES not Hardware. Developers are not developing for the PC BECAUSE of people like myself, my girlfriend and my best friend. We all love videogames, but really don't care about hardware.

Considering how many guides there are on the internet that's really not a fair argument. Heck, I think Eggo has a guide on building a PC on this very forum. You don't need to know it, you just need to be able to read.

Alternatively, make friends with a hardware expert. How hard is that? There's plenty around these days. Sure it's simpler to just go up to the cashier and buy a console, but in this day and age you pretty much need a PC anyway (typing these posts for one), so why not take the time to educate yourself and build your own, optimised PC?

... that still doesn't invalidate my argument Amnestic. I did that with my previous PC and look where that got me, my Hardware Nerd friend helped me choose the parts, I read up on some stuff online, I tried to balance costs and it didn't work. Though in the end I'm a bad example, I like Japanese Games, which primarily come out for consoles.

Also companies like Cryware and ID, whom make games with graphics so advanced that they can't be run on any system that currently exists, give PC gaming a bad name. The world needs more WoW style games (colorful and artistic but with technically non taxing graphics) in order to bring PC gaming back into the mainstream.

I, quite frankly, am in no position to buy into PC gaming. I have a good reason for this, to protect me from the vigilant eyes of Eggo.

I am currently typing this on a laptop. I need to have a laptop. The people I live with like using it around the house, so the portability is an important factor. This is especially true when you consider I am going to university in about a year and a half, so a conventional computer really wouldn't be any good.

And people who know what they're talking about have said in previous threads that gaming laptops are a joke. And since I am stuck with a laptop, I really can't become a PC gamer.

What PedroSteckecilo said is true you know. For the lay person rightly or wrongly a console is still easier than a traditional desktop PC for gaming. I know that you can build an excellent machine for less than 1500 USD but the fact of the matter is that people don't know about these sorts of things for whatever reason. At the end of the day it really does not matter if your way is "better" people really don't give a fuck just look at the hell the PS3 has had to go through with shitty ports because game developers didn't practice things that PC app developers are taught in school. I noticed that things started to pick up when Sony through Insomniac reached out to developers more, created resources for developers to share code. (Something I had just assumed they already did with the non-sensitive aspects of their software because I had been taught to never reinvent the wheel when coding as it were.) It didn't matter that Sony's architecture was better than the others; it did matter however that the devkits were not very good, the architecture was largely unfamilliar (Multicore programming is still a new phenomena in the PC world at large.), the graphics libraries being used were also a bit different for anyone used to working primarily with Directx, the list goes on. Why do you think there was a chorus of whining from developers early on about how hard it was to develop for the PS3 when the real issue was that the system was very different from what many were used to?

Sony's major failure was not providing the necessary resources for developers to get a handle on the system. In otherwords they forgot that no one cared that their architecture was better. Though to be fair it's almost expected that their competition would outshine them when it came to dev tools since the main competition is primarily a PC software maker. At any rate people need to step back from "Huh, huh you are stupid for buying a PC." and realize that not everyone knows how to do that for whatever reason. You have to operate based on this fact of life.

It's simple. PC gamers = the minority.

The tyranny of the majority will always triumph because money speaks louder than words.

Geo Da Sponge:
I, quite frankly, am in no position to buy into PC gaming. I have a good reason for this, to protect me from the vigilant eyes of Eggo.

I am currently typing this on a laptop. I need to have a laptop. The people I live with like using it around the house, so the portability is an important factor. This is especially true when you consider I am going to university in about a year and a half, so a conventional computer really wouldn't be any good.

And people who know what they're talking about have said in previous threads that gaming laptops are a joke. And since I am stuck with a laptop, I really can't become a PC gamer.

You can be a PC gamer, just don't expect to be able to play all the latest games on the max. settings. This is why I bring a selection of the games I've collected over the years but not had a chance to finish with me to university. Remember that you are not a true gamer until you have played the classics.

Codgo:
Another new guy starting a flame fest to get his merit badge.

Oh so that's why the topic badges are fireballs.

Major factors that look make it seem that PC developers are turning away from the PC.

1 - Piracy
2 - Development costs VS sales of product
3 - Stability of Development for targeted system

These are the big 3 folks. They aren't in a particular order, so take note of that one.
The first one is obvious. One of the best counters for Piracy is DRM, which causes sales to drop, because people don't like DRM, even something effective, like the STEAM network.

The largest volume is sales is for the widest variety of product. I find it funny that someone like my brother, who has a PC capable of Fallout 3 and a 360 bought his copy of Fallout 3 for the 360, even though the PC copy is 10 dollars cheaper.

It's easier to program a game for a single system like the 360, PS3, or Wii, and then use a program port to copy it to other systems than it is to try to program for a wide variety of Video Cards, Processors, and Operating Systems, even if the only OSes are Vista and XP. There's still at least 2 versions of each, 32 and 64 bit.

If you have a 360 and a PC capable of playing a game that hit at the same time, like Fallout 3, especially if it has live, get the PC version. You'll save money, and you'll get the developer more money. After all a 360 game is 12 bucks in licensing fees to Microsoft. Games for Windows is not only free for PC games, but it also adds in free advertising money and the like.

santaandy:

DYin01:

santaandy:

Sewblon:
...since FPSs, Strategy games and MMOGs remain PC centric.

Nope. Not true.

Care to elaborate? Because last time I checked, PC had a LOT more MMO games than every console together. Same goes for strategy games. Yes, it is possible to make a decent strategy game for a console, but the fact remains that it's just a lot easier on PC with the keyboard for hotkeys and mouse for precision. You just can't get the same precision with a stick.

First, FPSs haven't been PC-centric for a while. I daresay in at least some cases FPSs are even better on consoles now (look at the latest Tom Clancy games). There may be more MMOs on PC but not enough to call them PC-centric. And even strategy games have plenty of releases on consoles. Remember, strategy is more than RTS (if that's what you meant), and consoles support K&M now (at least by hardware).

Perhaps, though, this is just a difference in opinion. I think a better statement would be to say that the PC is FPS, MMORPG, and RTS-centric.

Oh hey, I completely overread FPS. I do agree that FPS isn't PC-centric anymore. On the strategy thing, other than RTS, what do you rate as 'strategy'? And MMORPG.. Well, what MMORPGs are there for consoles? And which one's are there that are also pretty succesful? I know about Ultima Online and Final Fantasy eh.. XI?