Is PC gaming doomed? Apolyton 2008 edition

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Asher
It's a Civ4 mod and they're charging full game price for it?

You're all fools if you buy it.

That depends on how different the game is. If it is a superficial mod then I agree, but the original games were very different to the expert eye.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


That depends on how different the game is. If it is a superficial mod then I agree, but the original games were very different to the expert eye.

Or even the not so expert eye. I saw and noted the differences, in particular the much more detailed economic/labor model of Colonization, reminiscent of Settlers and the Imperialisms. (I was comparing Col to Civ2, but I dont think the original civ was that diff from civ2 on those things)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
It's a Civ4 mod and they're charging full game price for it?

You're all fools if you buy it.

Like the fools who bought new games using the quake engine, or each Unreal engine?

Or how about all of us who bought Victoria and HOI and Crusader Kings which all used the EU engine.

[Nostromo]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080610-nvidia-exec-future-games-born-on-consoles-perfected-on-pcs.html

With Crytek claiming its going to start developing games for consoles, only to then announce a PC exclusive, people have been talking about whether there will be more PC-only games released in the future. While there may technically be more PCs in the homes of consumers, the number of consoles is growing, and your 360 or PS3 is much better at playing games than your average home computer, an argument Roy Taylor, NVIDIA's VP of Content Business Development, can't ignore. He sees a trend in gaming: titles begin life on consoles, and are then improved for the PC.

In the past, PC gaming development meant pandering to the lowest common denominator—which meant some poor integrated graphics," Taylor told Eurogamer. "Today, developing a PC game means starting at a console, and console graphics are way above integrated graphics. That means the baseline is getting better. Now we're going to add to that version additional features, additional content, to make the PC version even better."

The way he explains it, the console version of a game is almost the first draft. He brings up games like Gears of War and Assassin's Creed, saying that they began on consoles, only to be made better when ported to the PC with features like improved graphics and level editors. "That's something that people need to get their heads around... the PC is going to be an improved version." I'm not sure that's the case with Assassin's Creed, which suffered from a host of problems on the PC, but certainly with games like Mass Effect we're seeing this theory being proven out.
The console as proving ground

The problem is that this strategy means that consoles will basically be the proving ground for titles before they come to PC, which means fewer games will be built from the ground up to take advantage of what the PC can do. Taylor is blunt on this point: he simply doesn't see a future for PC exclusives. "I think we have to face the facts—the value of consoles is such that no one is going to make a PC-exclusive game in the future. Why would they? Why would they ignore consoles?" Of course, there is still room for the industry. "That said, PC gaming is changing—and consoles don't threaten PC gaming. They're just different."

Taylor also has some chilling words for people who like to pretend they own their games. "I think that we're going to see more digital authentication, and we're going to see more of an approach that says that PC games aren't products—they're a service. You're going to start out with a basic service, which is the game, and then increase the value of that service through patches, mod packs, expansions, maps and so on." The reason is simple: piracy. Taylor brings out a now often-heard argument, that "the pirates are just killing the developers—and I think it's really unfair what they're doing."

The first few pushes into this type of PC-gaming experience have been mixed. Gamers reacted in outrage when it was announced that Mass Effect and Spore would "phone home" to authenticate every ten days; EA subsequently loosened the DRM restrictions in reaction to the bad press. Team Fortress 2 was released looking like a finished product, but now patches have begun arriving, with more announced, that beef up the character classes with new achievements and weapons. The game is changing, with the patches and new content keeping players interested.
PC gaming isn't dying, it's merely changing, and Taylor has some intriguing ideas about how the industry will react to the sales power of consoles. The problem is that these may not be things that the PC gamers themselves would like to hear.

It may be true for some types of games, but I don't see it happening for MMO's and strategy games.

And I'm not sure Mass Effect is a great example either. On paper, the PC version is better, but nobody mentions the technical problems.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Nostromo
It may be true for some types of games, but I don't see it happening for MMO's and strategy games.

The interviewee is an exec at Nvidia. Im not sure strategy games and Blizzard MMOs that WILL run on IG really are of that much interest to him. He needs games that sell video cards, right? Youre in the Video card business its not just consoles that are a threat (except for the ones incorporating your own HW) its the potential for improved integrated solutions on the PC, right?

[Nostromo]

While you can run WoW with IG, you certainly don't meet the recommended requirements (which means you'll probably have a crappy experience). And you definitely can't run most of the other MMO's (like the Conan game). And some strategy games need more than IG. Games like Company of Heroes and Age of Empires 3 come to mind. And I'm pretty sure you'll need something beefier than IG to play Star Craft 2.

Not to mention that Nvidia are also in the IG market.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Nostromo
While you can run WoW with IG, you certainly don't meet the recommended requirements (which means you'll probably have a crappy experience). And you definitely can't run most of the other MMO's (like the Conan game). And some strategy games need more than IG. Games like Company of Heroes and Age of Empires 3 come to mind. And I'm pretty sure you'll need something beefier than IG to play Star Craft 2.

Not to mention that Nvidia are also in the IG market.

RTS are, IIUC, the one genre (And I guess more demanding MMOs the other) that will keep driving vid card sales.

Isnt Nvidia behind both Intel and ATI in the IG market?

[Nostromo]

Dunno

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



RTS are, IIUC, the one genre (And I guess more demanding MMOs the other) that will keep driving vid card sales.

Basically your argument comes down to "let's ignore everything but the thriving market of turn-based strategy games".

Yes, let's do that...PC gaming isn't dead, it's just only for TBS gamers. A MASSIVE MARKET.

[Wiglaf]

RTS*

I need to find that whiff video on Youtube again.

[Asher]

I think you missed my point. LOTM keeps excluding genres of games when discussing this topic until he gets to TBS games.

He always boils it down to how PC games that don't depend on high-end PCs will always survive so it's wrong to say PC gaming is dying. Or whatever. Just doesn't make sense, nor is it relevant.

[snoopy369]

nVidia doesn't make much in the way of IG except for laptops... why would they want to

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher
It's a Civ4 mod and they're charging full game price for it?

You're all fools if you buy it.

why would we

we want to have fun

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
I think you missed my point. LOTM keeps excluding genres of games when discussing this topic until he gets to TBS games.

He always boils it down to how PC games that don't depend on high-end PCs will always survive so it's wrong to say PC gaming is dying. Or whatever. Just doesn't make sense, nor is it relevant.

actually you mmissed the point of my discussion with nostromo. Nvidia seemed to be saying that PC gaming isnt dying cause of wonderful ports. Nostromo said theres still several other genres that will survive that will be more PC centered. I said that those are genres that wouldnt sell video cards, and nostro corrected me, and we then refined it a bit.

At this point it looks like PC gaming will be dominated by A. Console ports B. Games that are PC centric in console dominated genres (FPS' from valve, RPGs like The Witcher) - at least the FPS will not be PC exclusive, but will be ported to console. C. MMO's whether graphics intensive or no D. RTS (though with some console oriented title) E. TBS and other geeky niche genres F. the large sector of casual games (though of course consoles have those too)

I certainly did NOT say that PC gaming is not dying cause it has TBS.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
I think you missed my point. LOTM keeps excluding genres of games when discussing this topic until he gets to TBS games.

He always boils it down to how PC games that don't depend on high-end PCs will always survive so it's wrong to say PC gaming is dying. Or whatever. Just doesn't make sense, nor is it relevant.

Your argument boils down to "US PC software sales have been stagnant or declining the last few years, ergo PC gaming is dying"

its weaknesses are A. That the data is known to leave out the fastest growth sectors of the PC revenue market B. It avoids markets in Europe and elsewhere where the PC is stronger. C. It jumps from "declining" to "dying"

In any case we all KNOW that argument. The OP asked for NEW information and arguments.