PC Gaming - Seriously, what happened?

Taken from thread of the same name on the PC Games forum:

So, some people say that PC gaming is dead. I don't think that's true. What I do think is true, however, is that the company that made the platform that most PC games are played on nowadays - aka Microsoft - has abandoned its own platform. Why?

And here's a look at Microsoft abandoning PC (almost) with some of its most beloved series:

Halo - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 2 - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 3 - Xbox 360

Gears of War - PC, Xbox 360

Gears of War 2 - Xbox 360

GTA IV - PC, Xbox 360

GTA IV EoLC - Xbox 360

Alan Wake - Xbox 360, PC version CANCELLED (which upsets me)

Notice how as the later games in those series goes on, the PC is thrown off the bandwagon. Now, publishers like EA actually still support the PC with games like Dragon Age (BioWare), The Sims 3, Crysis, Burnout Paradise, and more. So if people like EA still supports the PC, why does Microsoft no longer support PC gaming much anymore?

Also, I was really looking forward to the PC version of Alan Wake, too....

PC sales are not extensive enough to warrent cross platform sometimes. However, I do think developers are making a mistake. PC games do sell better than developers/publishers give them credit, but not as well as hermits claim. Its in the middle.

I think PC needs more diverstiy.

PC gaming hasn't gone anywhere, but console gaming has caught up. Back in the 90s PC gaming was king with online MP and graphics light years ahead of the consoles at the time. But now it is different, now online gaming is pretty much mandatory on everything and telling a console game apart from a PC game is becoming very, very hard. What I'm saying is, the line between console and PC has become so blurred that the PC as a gaming platform is nearly at the same level as its console counterparts.clubsammich91

A very smart point. Hermits will attack this, but its true. Really, beyond slightly better graphics and modding(which is always hit and miss), whats the difference? Its really becoming nominal.

Taken from thread of the same name on the PC Games forum:

So, some people say that PC gaming is dead. I don't think that's true. What I do think is true, however, is that the company that made the platform that most PC games are played on nowadays - aka Microsoft - has abandoned its own platform. Why?

And here's a look at Microsoft abandoning PC (almost) with some of its most beloved series:

Halo - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 2 - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 3 - Xbox 360

Gears of War - PC, Xbox 360

Gears of War 2 - Xbox 360

GTA IV - PC, Xbox 360

GTA IV EoLC - Xbox 360

Alan Wake - Xbox 360, PC version CANCELLED (which upsets me)

Notice how as the later games in those series goes on, the PC is thrown off the bandwagon. Now, publishers like EA actually still support the PC with games like Dragon Age (BioWare), The Sims 3, Crysis, Burnout Paradise, and more. So if people like EA still supports the PC, why does Microsoft no longer support PC gaming much anymore?

Also, I was really looking forward to the PC version of Alan Wake, too....

tjoeb123

PC sales are not extensive enough to warrent cross platform sometimes. However, I do think developers are making a mistake. PC games do sell better than developers/publishers give them credit, but not as well as hermits claim. Its in the middle.

I think PC needs more diverstiy.

heysharpshooter

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"]

Taken from thread of the same name on the PC Games forum:

So, some people say that PC gaming is dead. I don't think that's true. What I do think is true, however, is that the company that made the platform that most PC games are played on nowadays - aka Microsoft - has abandoned its own platform. Why?

And here's a look at Microsoft abandoning PC (almost) with some of its most beloved series:

Halo - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 2 - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 3 - Xbox 360

Gears of War - PC, Xbox 360

Gears of War 2 - Xbox 360

GTA IV - PC, Xbox 360

GTA IV EoLC - Xbox 360

Alan Wake - Xbox 360, PC version CANCELLED (which upsets me)

Notice how as the later games in those series goes on, the PC is thrown off the bandwagon. Now, publishers like EA actually still support the PC with games like Dragon Age (BioWare), The Sims 3, Crysis, Burnout Paradise, and more. So if people like EA still supports the PC, why does Microsoft no longer support PC gaming much anymore?

Also, I was really looking forward to the PC version of Alan Wake, too....

Revan_911

Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 are coming to consoles and Witcher 1 was coming until they decided to scrap it and focus on W2 for console. RTS games are slowly working their way onto consoles. Point and click adventure games have worked in the past on consoles.

if Microsoft were to share all the games you listed with the Pc, then there'd be no reason to buy an xbox 360. they're trying to keep some games exclusives and that barely justifies why you'd wanna buy their console.

[QUOTE="Revan_911"][QUOTE="tjoeb123"]

Taken from thread of the same name on the PC Games forum:

So, some people say that PC gaming is dead. I don't think that's true. What I do think is true, however, is that the company that made the platform that most PC games are played on nowadays - aka Microsoft - has abandoned its own platform. Why?

And here's a look at Microsoft abandoning PC (almost) with some of its most beloved series:

Halo - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 2 - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 3 - Xbox 360

Gears of War - PC, Xbox 360

Gears of War 2 - Xbox 360

GTA IV - PC, Xbox 360

GTA IV EoLC - Xbox 360

Alan Wake - Xbox 360, PC version CANCELLED (which upsets me)

Notice how as the later games in those series goes on, the PC is thrown off the bandwagon. Now, publishers like EA actually still support the PC with games like Dragon Age (BioWare), The Sims 3, Crysis, Burnout Paradise, and more. So if people like EA still supports the PC, why does Microsoft no longer support PC gaming much anymore?

Also, I was really looking forward to the PC version of Alan Wake, too....

heysharpshooter

Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 are coming to consoles and Witcher 1 was coming until they decided to scrap it and focus on W2 for console. RTS games are slowly working their way onto consoles. Point and click adventure games have worked in the past on consoles.

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

PC sales are not extensive enough to warrent cross platform sometimes. However, I do think developers are making a mistake. PC games do sell better than developers/publishers give them credit, but not as well as hermits claim. Its in the middle.

I think PC needs more diverstiy.

tjoeb123

Of course, but it can be the other wway around. AC1 and Sacred 2 were better on consoles than on PC.

I think it comes down to the idea developers and publishers have that PC games don't sell well because of pirating. However, the sales numbers are good enough for PC games to warrent making them, even if pubs are going to lose out to pirating somewhat. And its not like creating PC versions is that difficult: video games are made on freaking computers.

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

[QUOTE="Revan_911"] Episodes from liberty city is coming to PC - confirmed. Alan Wake is just delayed and it is coming to PC but a bit later than the 360 version. And your logic is flawed. If i say that The Witcher or Crysis or Stalker Series or Silent Hunter series or any good RTS or point and click adventure games don't come to the consoles does that mean that console gaming is dead?Revan_911

Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 are coming to consoles and Witcher 1 was coming until they decided to scrap it and focus on W2 for console. RTS games are slowly working their way onto consoles. Point and click adventure games have worked in the past on consoles.

"Thw Witcher 2 is being prepped for both PC and consoles..."

Its in the GameSpot story about the scrapping of the Withcer port for consoles.

Microsoft likes to control everything, they cant do that on pc.ferret-gamer

Alan Wake hasnt been canceled

but theyve abandoned it to support the 360. putting games on the pc splits the sales. every pc sale isnt a 360 sale. especially in europe if its available o nthe pc its going to sell on the pc.

thats why the seemingly abandoned it

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]Microsoft likes to control everything, they cant do that on pc.tjoeb123

actually they really control neither

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]Microsoft likes to control everything, they cant do that on pc.tjoeb123

Windows is a completely open platform. Therefore anything can be released for any game etc without going through Microsoft. They have little to no control over what is released on the PC.

They much prefer the 360 as it's so closed. Plus they make royalties on every 360 game sold, unlike the $0 they earn in royalties on PC.

You can't say H3 won't be on the PC until maybe 2-3 months after Reach, if it doesn't come by then, then you have that game on your list.

They allowed Mass Effect on PC, did they not, Gears, the other Halos?

PC still has the most exclusives, most AAAe, most free games, many of which have graphics on par with console (Crysis mods) (Unreal3 Mods) and 10 bucks less per game and all the money STEAM saves you?

it's good to be a PC gamer, and that's why I have plans to go back to it myself.

Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 are coming to consoles and Witcher 1 was coming until they decided to scrap it and focus on W2 for console. RTS games are slowly working their way onto consoles. Point and click adventure games have worked in the past on consoles.

heysharpshooter

Now RPGs and FPSes...that's a different tale, they're too expensive to make nowadays so they become multiplat whenver possible.

Still...current situation has led to ressurgence of typicaly PCish genres like adventure, simulation, 4X or city buidlers, all which mostly stay PC only. So I'm not complaining....I get niche PC exclusive stuff and big budgeted multiplats

why does Microsoft no longer support PC gaming much anymore?

tjoeb123

To Microsoft every PC gamer is a lost 360 gamer

With Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, TOR, etc. coming out, how can any sane person claim PC gaming is going downhill? It has the best game library virtually every year. Diablo 3 alone will trump anything else released in that same year.

Taken from thread of the same name on the PC Games forum:

So, some people say that PC gaming is dead. I don't think that's true. What I do think is true, however, is that the company that made the platform that most PC games are played on nowadays - aka Microsoft - has abandoned its own platform. Why?

And here's a look at Microsoft abandoning PC (almost) with some of its most beloved series:

tjoeb123

Because Microsoft doesn't get licensing fees with every PC game sold, that's pretty much it.

With Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, TOR, etc. coming out, how can any sane person claim PC gaming is going downhill? It has the best game library virtually every year. Diablo 3 alone will trump anything else released in that same year.

KristoffBrujah

I think it's because it's only games like Diablo 3, MMO's and Starcraft 2 that can make it as PC exclusives in the PC market today.

We are seeing less and less big budget PC exclusives being released and that's starting to worrying me. I want PC gaming to be more than just a channel for niche genres and high quality console ports.

I think it's because it's only games like Diablo 3, MMO's and Starcraft 2 that can make it as PC exclusives in the PC market today.

We are seeing less and less big budget PC exclusives being released and that's starting to worrying me. I want PC gaming to be more than just a channel for niche genres and high quality console ports.

JLF1

I've said it before and I'll say it again, big budget exclusives are dead, those sort of games are meant to be cross platform orientated.

This applies to all platforms by the way, the only big budget exclusives I see on consoles are 1st and 2nd party titles, the market as a whole just aren't interested in making them. There are a few exceptions; but I imagine they will come around eventually like the others.

The problem is people look at the lack of big budget exclusives on PC, then the 1st party supplemented exclusives on consoles, then assume consoles are doing better. Never mind those games woudn't have existed on consoles if Sony or Microsoft didn't whip out their check book.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

I think it's because it's only games like Diablo 3, MMO's and Starcraft 2 that can make it as PC exclusives in the PC market today.

We are seeing less and less big budget PC exclusives being released and that's starting to worrying me. I want PC gaming to be more than just a channel for niche genres and high quality console ports.

AnnoyedDragon

I've said it before and I'll say it again, big budget exclusives are dead, those sort of games are meant to be cross platform orientated.

This applies to all platforms by the way, the only big budget exclusives I see on consoles are 1st and 2nd party titles, the market as a whole just aren't interested in making them. There are a few exceptions; but I imagine they will come around eventually like the others.

The problem is people look at the lack of big budget exclusives on PC, then the 1st party supplemented exclusives on consoles, then assume consoles are doing better. Never mind those games woudn't have existed on consoles if Sony or Microsoft didn't whip out their check book.

That's the thing. Unless some company like Intel whips out its checkbook (there, I named a company with a vested PC gaming interest--no current-gen console uses Intel CPUs), who's going to make the headliner games that scream out, "PC Gaming is Great"? And before you start on viral marketing and Steam, neither are going to mean much to market newcomers who aren't "in the loop," so to speak.

HuusAsking

The mentality that a game needs a massive budget to be good is what got this industry in trouble in the first place, but I admit it's not like we can change that mentality over night. Sony's Playstation division is billions in the red as a result of over spending, but let's not let that spoil our Killzone and Uncharted 2s.

It's of course not in the interests of our stake holders for system requirements not to progress, so they invest here and there to justify the better hardware. The console market should also be glad for their support, no upgrade justifications means no R&D funding; and no R&D funding means the next RSX and Xenos won't have has much bang as it could have had.

[QUOTE="Revan_911"][QUOTE="tjoeb123"]

Taken from thread of the same name on the PC Games forum:

So, some people say that PC gaming is dead. I don't think that's true. What I do think is true, however, is that the company that made the platform that most PC games are played on nowadays - aka Microsoft - has abandoned its own platform. Why?

And here's a look at Microsoft abandoning PC (almost) with some of its most beloved series:

Halo - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 2 - PC, Xbox (360)

Halo 3 - Xbox 360

Gears of War - PC, Xbox 360

Gears of War 2 - Xbox 360

GTA IV - PC, Xbox 360

GTA IV EoLC - Xbox 360

Alan Wake - Xbox 360, PC version CANCELLED (which upsets me)

Notice how as the later games in those series goes on, the PC is thrown off the bandwagon. Now, publishers like EA actually still support the PC with games like Dragon Age (BioWare), The Sims 3, Crysis, Burnout Paradise, and more. So if people like EA still supports the PC, why does Microsoft no longer support PC gaming much anymore?

Also, I was really looking forward to the PC version of Alan Wake, too....

heysharpshooter

Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 are coming to consoles and Witcher 1 was coming until they decided to scrap it and focus on W2 for console. RTS games are slowly working their way onto consoles. Point and click adventure games have worked in the past on consoles.

I find this comment really funny. More than twice as many AA RTS' were released on the PC last year than the total number of AA RTS' on the 360. Hell there were more AA RTS' last year on PC than A+ RTS' on the 360. When you also take into account that EA, one of the biggest proponents for console RTS, has given up making RTS games on consoles and is making the next iteration of its biggest RTS IP PC exclusive then it is fair to say that RTS on consoles are almost dead in the water. Not to mention RTS games that were cancelled on the 360 like WIC.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, big budget exclusives are dead, those sort of games are meant to be cross platform orientated.

This applies to all platforms by the way, the only big budget exclusives I see on consoles are 1st and 2nd party titles, the market as a whole just aren't interested in making them. There are a few exceptions; but I imagine they will come around eventually like the others.

The problem is people look at the lack of big budget exclusives on PC, then the 1st party supplemented exclusives on consoles, then assume consoles are doing better. Never mind those games woudn't have existed on consoles if Sony or Microsoft didn't whip out their check book.

AnnoyedDragon

I'm not talking about the consoles so I don't know why you brought them into the debate. Well, seeing as you did I can at least replay to you.

This is not a console Vs PC debate though.

It's true that third party exclusives are almost dead on all systems, hell the Wii still shares a lot of them with the PS2. The thing is thought that neither PS3 or 360 games are hurt by this (except for the rare bad port e.g. Bayonetta). They are basically the same system with differen brands on them. PC games can be so much more though. PC games are held back because publishers want to develop a console version of the game at the same time. This wasn't the case 10 years ago.

PC gaming was generations ahead of consoles for the most part, now having a PC is almost like having a pimped out console.

The mentality that a game needs a massive budget to be good is what got this industry in trouble in the first place, but I admit it's not like we can change that mentality over night. Sony's Playstation division is billions in the red as a result of over spending, but let's not let that spoil our Killzone and Uncharted 2s.

It's of course not in the interests of our stake holders for system requirements not to progress, so they invest here and there to justify the better hardware. The console market should also be glad for their support, no upgrade justifications means no R&D funding; and no R&D funding means the next RSX and Xenos won't have has much bang as it could have had.

AnnoyedDragon

A very smart point. Hermits will attack this, but its true. Really, beyond slightly better graphics and modding(which is always hit and miss), whats the difference? Its really becoming nominal.

heysharpshooter

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

A very smart point. Hermits will attack this, but its true. Really, beyond slightly better graphics and modding(which is always hit and miss), whats the difference? Its really becoming nominal.

_Pedro_

PC are going the way of consoles and consoles are going the way of PC's.

In the end they might not please no one.

I'm not talking about the consoles so I don't know why you brought them into the debate. Well, seeing as you did I can at least replay to you.

This is not a console Vs PC debate though.

JLF1

If I had only said big budget exclusives were dead; the ones on consoles would have inevitably been brought up. I wasn't atempting to turn this into a PC Vs console debate, just cover the areas that would have been brought up eventually if I didn't covered them.

It's true that third party exclusives are almost dead on all systems, hell the Wii still shares a lot of them with the PS2. The thing is thought that neither PS3 or 360 games are hurt by this (except for the rare bad port e.g. Bayonetta). They are basically the same system with differen brands on them. PC games can be so much more though. PC games are held back because publishers want to develop a console version of the game at the same time. This wasn't the case 10 years ago.

PC gaming was generations ahead of consoles for the most part, now having a PC is almost like having a pimped out console.

JLF1

I'd argue it does affect consoles because their individual performance merits are ignored in favour for a one size fits all experience. However I do recognise PC is impacted the most by this, I won't deny that.

The problem I have is people tend to leave the blame on PC gaming, as if something has gone wrong with PC gaming. PC gaming isn't at fault, this is an industry wide problem that has affected everyone. The industry as a whole is to blame because it allowed itself to drive up development costs to the point were exclusivity is impractical on any modern gaming platform, whether it be the PC or 360/PS3.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, big budget exclusives are dead, those sort of games are meant to be cross platform orientated.

This applies to all platforms by the way, the only big budget exclusives I see on consoles are 1st and 2nd party titles, the market as a whole just aren't interested in making them. There are a few exceptions; but I imagine they will come around eventually like the others.

The problem is people look at the lack of big budget exclusives on PC, then the 1st party supplemented exclusives on consoles, then assume consoles are doing better. Never mind those games woudn't have existed on consoles if Sony or Microsoft didn't whip out their check book.

JLF1

I'm not talking about the consoles so I don't know why you brought them into the debate. Well, seeing as you did I can at least replay to you.

This is not a console Vs PC debate though.

It's true that third party exclusives are almost dead on all systems, hell the Wii still shares a lot of them with the PS2. The thing is thought that neither PS3 or 360 games are hurt by this (except for the rare bad port e.g. Bayonetta). They are basically the same system with differen brands on them. PC games can be so much more though. PC games are held back because publishers want to develop a console version of the game at the same time. This wasn't the case 10 years ago.

PC gaming was generations ahead of consoles for the most part, now having a PC is almost like having a pimped out console.

When the consoles struggle to maintain 30 FPS at 720p (Sometimes 600), and MY PC is chugging it out at 60 FPS in 1080p the "pimped out console" is well worth it to me. Of course I wish that software would catch up, or developers focus more on the PC, but at least I'm still getting good games. Plus the exclusive PC games.

The notion however that my PC will still be able to virtually max any game in the next 2-3 years without an upgrade is not a bad thing. It gives developers time to take advantage of the hardware at a slower clip, holding back the rising costs of bleeding edge graphics. Plus it saves me some loot.

Just because people claim the consoles have "caught up" to PC doesn't make it true at all. Big Budget games are usually mulitplat, with the PC version looking and running much better if you have the hardware. It may not be as pronounced as it was before but everything is multiplat now because graphic tech and the work involved has gotten way to expensive.

Also to whoever claimed AC1 is better on consoles. What a crock. Maybe if you tried to run it on a Apple 2E.

I'd argue it does affect consoles because their individual performance merits are ignored in favour for a one size fits all experience. However I do recognise PC is impacted the most by this, I won't deny that.

The problem I have is people tend to leave the blame on PC gaming, as if something has gone wrong with PC gaming. PC gaming isn't at fault, this is an industry wide problem that has affected everyone. The industry as a whole is to blame because it allowed itself to drive up development costs to the point were exclusivity is impractical on any modern gaming platform, whether it be the PC or 360/PS3.

AnnoyedDragon

When the consoles struggle to maintain 30 FPS at 720p (Sometimes 600), and MY PC is chugging it out at 60 FPS in 1080p the "pimped out console" is well worth it to me. Of course I wish that software would catch up, or developers focus more on the PC, but at least I'm still getting good games. Plus the exclusive PC games.

The notion however that my PC will still be able to virtually max any game in the next 2-3 years without an upgrade is not a bad thing. It gives developers time to take advantage of the hardware at a slower clip, holding back the rising costs of bleeding edge graphics. Plus it saves me some loot.

Just because people claim the consoles have "caught up" to PC doesn't make it true at all. Big Budget games are usually mulitplat, with the PC version looking and running much better if you have the hardware. It may not be as pronounced as it was before but everything is multiplat now because graphic tech and the work involved has gotten way to expensive.

Also to whoever claimed AC1 is better on consoles. What a crock. Maybe if you tried to run it on a Apple 2E.

Metalscarz

[QUOTE="_Pedro_"][QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

A very smart point. Hermits will attack this, but its true. Really, beyond slightly better graphics and modding(which is always hit and miss), whats the difference? Its really becoming nominal.

JLF1

PC are going the way of consoles and consoles are going the way of PC's.

In the end they might not please no one.

It's just that the PC as a system can deliver more than the consoles can but few developers are willing to take advantage of it. The hardware is there but no one is releasing software to match it.JLF1

Someone with a PS3 sig saying that?

You will have to excuse me, but I'm normally used to Cows only recognising "untapped potential" when it comes to their own system. Believe it or not but there are those in SW who think 2005 hardware always has more untapped performance; but the idea of 2010 hardware performing better is 'debatable'.

[QUOTE="Metalscarz"]

When the consoles struggle to maintain 30 FPS at 720p (Sometimes 600), and MY PC is chugging it out at 60 FPS in 1080p the "pimped out console" is well worth it to me. Of course I wish that software would catch up, or developers focus more on the PC, but at least I'm still getting good games. Plus the exclusive PC games.

The notion however that my PC will still be able to virtually max any game in the next 2-3 years without an upgrade is not a bad thing. It gives developers time to take advantage of the hardware at a slower clip, holding back the rising costs of bleeding edge graphics. Plus it saves me some loot.

Just because people claim the consoles have "caught up" to PC doesn't make it true at all. Big Budget games are usually mulitplat, with the PC version looking and running much better if you have the hardware. It may not be as pronounced as it was before but everything is multiplat now because graphic tech and the work involved has gotten way to expensive.

Also to whoever claimed AC1 is better on consoles. What a crock. Maybe if you tried to run it on a Apple 2E.

JLF1

Exactly my point though. Look at the costs of these games on 360 level hardware. Now imagine focusing only on the PC's equipped with quad SLI GTX 285. Imagine the costs nows, and how few people could/would take advantage of that. Cross platform development is now the norm.

IMO what needs to happen is the devs need to keep close to where they are at. Improve more in things like efficency rather then raw power. The costs associated with this "current" tech will eventually drop to more manageable levels.

The next consoles in 2012 or whatever should only be marginally more powerful, and full backwards compat with this gen. Eventually the development costs can be brought back into check, and things can start to innovate again more slowly on the graphics power side.

There will always be that one or two PC games that will push the envelope though. We haven't seen it since Crysis, but it will come at some point. Rage maybe? Doom 4? Crysis 2? New IP? I just wouldn't expect or demand it in droves anymore. Most devs can't even push my GTX 280 without going over budget. They need to catch up. Hardware got to good, to fast.

if Microsoft were to share all the games you listed with the Pc, then there'd be no reason to buy an xbox 360. they're trying to keep some games exclusives and that barely justifies why you'd wanna buy their console.

Metroid_Other_M

hmm an insightful poster in the making! TC this is the answer you are looking for, if you choose to ignore it well whatever but it's the correct answer here.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/01/mgs-europe-simultaneous-360-pc-releases-like-shooting-ourselves/

Here's microsoft admitting this.... also about your OP.. MS did not create the PC gaming platform, just the OS unless that's what you are referring to, what they did do is support PC gaming.. unlike now.

Someone with a PS3 sig saying that?

You will have to excuse me, but I'm normally used to Cows only recognising "untapped potential" when it comes to their own system. Believe it or not but there are those in SW who think 2005 hardware always has more untapped performance; but the idea of 2010 hardware performing better is 'debatable'.

AnnoyedDragon

I do think we could see the end of Desktop PC being at every home being replaced by a laptop. I have not seen one Desktop Pc advert on tv in nearly a year now.. its always been about the Dell laptops and everyone is buying them (general mass audience).

Its funny how hardcore PC people are the ones defending the PC is not dying. People dont say this to annoy others its just how it looks. There is no media attention to the PC. The PC having "better graphics" does not mean a single thing *points to the wii*. PC gaming as we know it will only become more of a slightly better looking console platform.

I do think we could see the end of Desktop PC being at every home being replaced by a laptop. I have not seen one Desktop Pc advert on tv in nearly a year now.. its always been about the Dell laptops and everyone is buying them (general mass audience).

Its funny how hardcore PC people are the ones defending the PC is not dying. People dont say this to annoy others its just how it looks. There is no media attention to the PC. The PC having "better graphics" does not mean a single thing *points to the wii*. PC gaming as we know it will only become more of a slightly better looking console platform.

o0squishy0o

There never was..... have you ever seen an ad for a gaming PC?

Exactly my point though. Look at the costs of these games on 360 level hardware. Now imagine focusing only on the PC's equipped with quad SLI GTX 285.

Metalscarz

Quad SLI :lol:

A bit over the top don't you think? I'd be happy if they just catered to PC. Catering to PC doesn't have to mean utilizing high end hardware, it is just making a game for the PC environment.

For instance every PC, gaming or not, is going to have 2GB ram. That enables you to create bigger environments and pre-load more information. 512mb vram graphics cards being common would mean less compressed textures and normal mapping. PC games are designed to be viewed up close, so there would be more emphasis on minor details instead of art assets that only look decent when viewed across the room. Everything would also be smaller and more compact, no need for a gun model to take up a 6th of the screen.

These are all stuff that would be applied in a PC native game regardless of whether it is high end or not.

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"]

I do think we could see the end of Desktop PC being at every home being replaced by a laptop. I have not seen one Desktop Pc advert on tv in nearly a year now.. its always been about the Dell laptops and everyone is buying them (general mass audience).

Its funny how hardcore PC people are the ones defending the PC is not dying. People dont say this to annoy others its just how it looks. There is no media attention to the PC. The PC having "better graphics" does not mean a single thing *points to the wii*. PC gaming as we know it will only become more of a slightly better looking console platform.

Espada12

There never was..... have you ever seen an ad for a gaming PC?

I do think we could see the end of Desktop PC being at every home being replaced by a laptop. I have not seen one Desktop Pc advert on tv in nearly a year now.. its always been about the Dell laptops and everyone is buying them (general mass audience).

Its funny how hardcore PC people are the ones defending the PC is not dying. People dont say this to annoy others its just how it looks. There is no media attention to the PC. The PC having "better graphics" does not mean a single thing *points to the wii*. PC gaming as we know it will only become more of a slightly better looking console platform.

o0squishy0o

This is just what I was talking about earlier... people who completely ignore the industry wide impact of these changes and spins it as being a PC only problem.

[QUOTE="Metalscarz"]

Exactly my point though. Look at the costs of these games on 360 level hardware. Now imagine focusing only on the PC's equipped with quad SLI GTX 285.

AnnoyedDragon

Quad SLI :lol:

A bit over the top don't you think? I'd be happy if they just catered to PC. Catering to PC doesn't have to mean utilizing high end hardware, it is just making a game for the PC environment.

For instance every PC, gaming or not, is going to have 2GB ram. That enables you to create bigger environments and pre-load more information. 512mb vram graphics cards being common would mean less compressed textures and normal mapping. PC games are designed to be viewed up close, so there would be more emphasis on minor details instead of art assets that only look decent when viewed across the room. Everything would also be smaller and more compact, no need for a gun model to take up a 6th of the screen.

These are all stuff that would be applied in a PC native game regardless of whether it is high end or not.

The quad sli point was hyperbole of course. lol.

I know exactly what your talking about, and agree it would be nice.

There are still plenty of PC exclusives ever year that do as your describing. It's the multiplats that have changed focus.

But you said it yourself, cross platform dev is where it's at due to cost constraints. It's not cost effective to make a pc version, and a console version like they used to. Now it's 1 version ported 3 ways. As you know, that's the problem.

I just think in time things will level out. Costs will go down. A company we never expected or heard of will put out something like your describing. A big budget, mass market multiplat game, made from the ground up and catering to the PC, then down ported to console, a la Xbox Half Life 2. The costs right now are still to high to justify that to most developers right now.

In the mean time

The quad sli point was hyperbole of course. lol.

I know exactly what your talking about, and agree it would be nice.

There are still plenty of PC exclusives ever year that do as your describing. It's the multiplats that have changed focus.

But you said it yourself, cross platform dev is where it's at due to cost constraints. It's not cost effective to make a pc version, and a console version like they used to. Now it's 1 version ported 3 ways. As you know, that's the problem.

I just think in time things will level out. Costs will go down. A company we never expected or heard of will put out something like your describing. A big budget, mass market multiplat game, made from the ground up and catering to the PC, then down ported to console, a la Xbox Half Life 2. The costs right now are still to high to justify that to most developers right now.

In the mean time

Metalscarz

PC is still the lead platform in exclusive games, but SOME people think they don't count because they are not $20 million budget blockbusters. Gamer mentality is as much part of the problem as the industries decisions, the industry ramped up development costs because they think that's what gamers want.

Granted it is what gamers want, but people cannot always have what they want. The more money spent; the more copies need to be sold to break even. As everyone should know by now we are at a point were the risk of making these games is far too high, despite what they think every game isn't a multi million seller, so the developers spread themselves out across multiple platforms.

Big budget games go cross platform; and mid/low budget games stay exclusive, it makes sense. This wouldn't have been a problem if consumer mentality didn't make these sort of games a platform justification however, they are determining the value of a platform by the number of Killzone 2s and Halo 3s on it.

So that's where this comes in, platform justifications created by the platform owner. This of course creating the illusion consoles are doing better than PC under these conditions, it isn't that they can attract more big budget exclusives; but they are funding them themselves. Of course they are under the exact same conditions that the 3rd party are under, so they are taking a cross platform budget and limiting it to one audience, not financially sound.

I'm afraid I don't believe costs will come down, you can make different methods cheaper; but if you could restrict cost increases entirely expenses wouldn't be going up each generation. I think if people keep expecting more then games will keep getting more expensive, the end result an industry wide overhaul being needed to cope with this.