What can we do to save PC gaming?

[Gwynster]

Luckily it is easy to upgrade a Vista machine to XP.

Heh, indeed it is. There isn't even a real benefit from using DX10 anyway unless you're, well, a bit spesh.

[Dimahoo]

Funny how if the PC market was that bad that Futuremark are starting a new gaming company.

I don't really see any issues. Everyone knows that whilst Sony and 360 try to establish that multimedia centres at home that PCs are were, are and will keep doing so all the while people need them for other things.

[marlonharewood]

One of the reasons people don't buy many PC games in a year is that due to the hardcore nature of the gamers they tend to stick to one or two games in a year. These games tend to be online games so they play in order to try and get better than their friends and other people online. That is why despite millions being spent on upgrading of PCs every year this is not reflected in the sales of software.

I've always predominately been a PC gamer. Mainly due to the fact that I prefer the control scheme, the customisability, mods, online infrastructure, depth.

I can never see PC gaming totally dying. There will always be a market for hardcore, well designed games, just look at how well Command and Conquer 3 sold last year.

[Dimahoo]

IMO theres so many people into or with PC's that gamewise you'll get continual peaks and drops from casual users who will want to upgrade for other reasons AND play games (so they'll keep a PC for 4-5 years, then upgrade), plus the hardcore fraturnity - a bit of homebrew, plus everyone needs the internet.

Consoles don't offer that functionality.

So all the while you have that open model in place, they'll be games.

[MK-1601]

I think that a lot of this hand-wringing about PC games being in trouble is coming from developers who have become complacent. Epic are the textbook example of this, assuming that they can get by on customer loyalty. They should have been re-thinking what modern gamers will actually value about their games enough to not ignore or pirate them. You don't see Valve complaining.

Hardware prices continually drop, and the flow of games (console ports which now suffer less from the transition than ever before, and original games that simply can't be practically done on any other platform) will keep ticking over. It's cyclical. It's just, in the previous console gen, PC developers didn't have a PC-like console that they could consistently make big bucks out of.

Yeah good point, buying & playing commerical games on the PC is dead in the water; but theres plenty of life in homebrew/emus/ports etc. but I don't even consider that side of things as "PC gaming" really

I love the idea of "PC homebrew".

And a decrease in innovation? Hardly - we'd get less beardy RTS's and resource heavy FPS's. oh noes.

Yeah, because all the technical innovations seen in console games in the last decade just appeared out of thin air. Good grief.

Yeah the problem is as mentioned in one of the links up there, that most games nowadays are designed with only the top PCs being able to run well.

This has never, in literally 15 years, been less the case than it is today. The greedy-for-it's-own-sake Crysis is by modern standards a freak (and deserved to sell badly, it looks no better than most other recent FPS games and runs many times worse) - I remember when every new Origin, Id or Epic game demanded an upgrade.

[redbloodcell]

This has never, in literally 15 years, been less the case than it is today. The greedy-for-it's-own-sake Crysis is by modern standards a freak (and deserved to sell badly, it looks no better than most other recent FPS games and runs many times worse) - I remember when every new Origin, Id or Epic game demanded an upgrade.

Definitely, I've just started playing CoD4, and even with my (2 generations behind now the 9600s are out) 7600GTX it still looks fantastic and runs smooth at 1680x1050.

[Reidles]

I feel that the PC's greatest strengths have weakened over the past 5+ years. Time was when PC gaming offered the best type of videogame experiences that its demographic and functionality could provide.

It's PC/mouse control system was, and maybe still is, the best suited for RTS and FPS and the pinnacle of these genres did appear on the PC in years gone by. The original Half Life and Half Life 2 (which I still find remarkable that a game which no one played, not even the media, till release was hyped up so much and actually managed to live up to the expectaion - please correct me if I'm wrong on that one) and a plethora of quality RTS put the console comparisons in the shade.

Technically, its embrace of the internet, with such effciency from its stone age 'dial up days' to the broadband revolution the world is adopting at speed, gave the platform an avenue which it's console 'cousins' couldn't compete with. The Dreamcast may have had the right idea with a built in modem, but the service and community was still years behind the PC's. The sheer augmentation that PC's are deisgned for was showcased in its mod and homebrew communities and was, again, unique.

Today its a different story, however, and console have learned from the PC's specialities. Traditional PC genre specialities can be done just as well on the home consoles, MS Live is a well oiled service which can provide an online gaming community and multiplayer possibilties which early PC adoters were raving about in the late 90's. I'm willing to be proved wrong but the PC matket just doesn't offer anything which can't be done to equal effect at least on the home console market. Couple that with a useabilty which is not consumer friendly and the akwardness of integrating it into the living room - the idea home entertainment environment - and its easy to see that the PC just isn't adapting to consumer trends and innovating like it used to. And I have no idea at how it will in the near future.

[redbloodcell]

I'm willing to be proved wrong but the PC matket just doesn't offer anything which can't be done to equal effect at least on the home console market.

RTSs still feel horrible on consoles IMO. Even C&C3 (what little I got to play of it) on the 360, which I heard had a good control system, felt clunky and really slow.

[Asura]

RTSs still feel horrible on consoles IMO. Even C&C3 (what little I got to play of it) on the 360, which I heard had a good control system, felt clunky and really slow.

I feel as though it's necessary there to make a distinction. Most would agree with what you've said, but it's a slightly skewed interpretation seeing as though every (though I'd welcome being corrected) RTS game, ever, pretty much, was developed for the PC - then subsequently converted.

(I can only think of two others, Dragon Force and Hundred Swords, for the Saturn and Dreamcast respectively)

I think if you were to design an RTS game with console gaming in mind, you could potentially make a very good game - just it would have to made to a substantially different blueprint to what we have on PC.

I only say all this because pre-Goldeneye, the arguments about FPS on PC vs consoles were a lot more one-sided - then along comes an FPS game specifically made for a console and it threw a spanner in the works. Potentially the same could happen with RTSs if a developer has the vision.

[Marzipan Travolta]

I'm willing to be proved wrong but the PC matket just doesn't offer anything which can't be done to equal effect at least on the home console market. Couple that with a useabilty which is not consumer friendly and the akwardness of integrating it into the living room - the idea home entertainment environment - and its easy to see that the PC just isn't adapting to consumer trends and innovating like it used to. And I have no idea at how it will in the near future.

The thought of trying to play a game like Supreme Commander or Medieval Total War 2 on a console makes me come out in hives. Hives I tell you! They're barely even playable on a PC with a single monitor!

[hoot]

Most MMOs and RTS games are still best played on the PC, as our twitch based FPS games though that's pretty much a dead genre now :/ Supreme Commander is coming out on the 360, it will be interesting to see how it works, particularly making it work on an SD set.

[Marzipan Travolta]

Yeah, I heard about SC on 360. I imagine it will be a very different experience. Not saying they can't make a good console game out of it at all, but the game they make won't be the same. Just can't be.

[hoot]

Supreme Commander 360, if you're interested

[Isaac]

I'm willing to be proved wrong but the PC matket just doesn't offer anything which can't be done to equal effect at least on the home console market.

P2P online gaming still feels absolutely shit when you play the latest PC games on fast, 100MB/s dedicated servers, that support up to 64 players for a lot of games.

Also far, far easier to build a community for a specific game on the PC with it's easier chat options, and dedicated servers giving you all a much, much easier place to "meet" for some gaming.

Additionally, consoles have still completely failed to grasp the basic notion of clans and clanmatches. Clan support is still pretty shit.

Live is the right approach, but still doesn't really come close to the functionality of Steam, either. Although it has matchmaking, so whatever floats your boat.

Matchmaking is still terrible compared to dedicated servers though. Utter shit.

[Asura]

The thought of trying to play a game like Supreme Commander or Medieval Total War 2 on a console makes me come out in hives. Hives I tell you! They're barely even playable on a PC with a single monitor!

Just to direct you to my prior post though, I think it's presuming a lot to just say "I couldn't imagine playing PC RTS games on a console, therefore RTS games can't possibly be good on consoles".

[Isaac]

Just to direct you to my prior post though, I think it's presuming a lot to just say "I couldn't imagine playing PC RTS games on a console, therefore RTS games can't possibly be good on consoles".

There'd have to be some massive simplification going on for a so called "console RTS" though.

The interface just isn't great with a controller, and I can't see how it could ever be as responsive and fast as a keyboard and mouse, so you'd have to make it easier (perhaps the equivilent of the auto-aim that's in most console FPS games).

[Asura]

There'd have to be some massive simplification going on for a so called "console RTS" though.

The interface just isn't great with a controller, and I can't see how it could ever be as responsive and fast as a keyboard and mouse, so you'd have to make it easier (perhaps the equivilent of the auto-aim that's in most console FPS games).

I just think you're all stuck inside the box, applying PC gaming conventions and saying "they wouldn't work with a pad". Words like "simplification" seem to confirm that. Yes, it's true - directing around small units with a pointer like on the PC would be hard with the pad - what if we did something different altogether?

I'm sure there is unexplored depth in the RTS genre that could make it really work well using a console interface. I can't think right now what that would be, but I do think it's a shame that it hasn't been worked on.

Remember, just because we change the control system doesn't mean we have to water down the strategy - the game could be just as deep.

[Isaac]

Remember, just because we change the control system doesn't mean we have to water down the strategy - the game could be just as deep.

Obviously, the easiest way to keep the strategy in a game without having to worry about the control system is just making it turn-based (see Advance Wars).

Still can't see how you'd do a Real Time Strategy though.

[choddo]

Not really, it's pretty difficult to buy a new PC without Vista on it.

I've got Vista Ultimate sitting on my shelf mate, it's not getting the OS that's the problem.

[Isaac]

I've got Vista Ultimate sitting on my shelf mate, it's not getting the OS that's the problem.

Vista runs perfectly fine on my rig (4GB ram, 3ghz dual core, 8800GTS), at least, Vista 64bit runs fine.

DX10 can be turned off in pretty much every game that supports it too, for a huge fps gain with little visual loss.

Really don't understand all the Vista hate.

[Super Craig]

Obviously, the easiest way to keep the strategy in a game without having to worry about the control system is just making it turn-based (see Advance Wars).

Still can't see how you'd do a Real Time Strategy though.

Pikmin.

[Beertiger]

Yeah, because all the technical innovations seen in console games in the last decade just appeared out of thin air. Good grief.

That's right, if PC games stopped no one would bother to advance the technical side of consoles. We'll be stuck with Wii graphics 4EVA! Good grief.

[Super Craig]

Vista runs perfectly fine on my rig (4GB ram, 3ghz dual core, 8800GTS), at least, Vista 64bit runs fine.

DX10 can be turned off in pretty much every game that supports it too, for a huge fps gain with little visual loss.

Really don't understand all the Vista hate.

You would expect Vista to run well on that rig. There are plenty of machines that run XP perfectly well that wouldn't cope with Vista and I've yet to see anybody give me a decent reason as to why that is.

[Isaac]

That's right, if PC games stopped no one would bother to advance the technical side of consoles. We'll be stuck with Wii graphics 4EVA! Good grief.

The PC is where a lot of the innovation on the visual side of things is though. Take Crysis. Absolutely amazing, especially on a decent rig.

[Beertiger]

The PC is where a lot of the innovation on the visual side of things is though. Take Crysis. Absolutely amazing, especially on a decent rig.

It wouldn't stop technical innovation on the console side if it were to die though would it? Arcades used to be at the fore front of tech, not so much any more but we're still getting amazing tech in our consoles.

[Dimahoo]

Its effectively the same people though. Hardware makers or programmers. They both push tech and if one or other died they would switch anyway. Its a mute point. When the arcades died out, everyone published for consoles or PC's. I mean, its a natural transition.

But I think thats an attraction with the PC in that you don't really have to wait so many years after a console has peaked to see a marked improvement. If a consoles graphical power peaks after 4 or 5 years - you still have to wait for new tech to arrive. That doesn't occur on the PC.

You can buy a new rig and play the game again.

Of course, some machines don't peak graphically for ages - but then its not usually a great deal of games that push that power anyway. So its always a waiting game at this stage.

On the PC, you buy a new rig and its your entire collection.

[daveodeth]

Pikmin.

Amen, that game was the finest example of someone thinking about how to do it. Not just doing a port and trying to force the controls over.

[Marzipan Travolta]

Just to direct you to my prior post though, I think it's presuming a lot to just say "I couldn't imagine playing PC RTS games on a console, therefore RTS games can't possibly be good on consoles".

Not suggesting for a second that you can't have good RTS games on a console. I'm just pointing out two very good games that would not work as they are on consoles. They could change them, of course. But I really like them just the way they are. Playing Supreme Commander is as exhausting as any shmup and plenty of rhythm action games and that's using a mouse, two screens and about 20 odd shortcuts to make things easier.

[MK-1601]

That's right, if PC games stopped no one would bother to advance the technical side of consoles. We'll be stuck with Wii graphics 4EVA! Good grief.

Well, where do you think developers were able to figure out 3D graphics and network multiplayer? If there wasn't the commercial incentive to use the PC as a lab for new tech, then you could expect even longer lead times before developers were able to effectively utilise new console generations.

[footle]

Well, where do you think developers were able to figure out 3D graphics and network multiplayer? If there wasn't the commercial incentive to use the PC as a lab for new tech, then you could expect even longer lead times before developers were able to effectively utilise new console generations.

You're joking, right? The words you deliberately missed out for fear of derision are inserted in bold below:

"If there wasn't the commercial incentive of selling PC games to use the PC as a lab for new tech, then you could expect even longer lead times before developers were able to effectively utilise new console generations."

I can't think of any other meaning for your sentence; and LBP, the Wii, the community features in the likes of Halo 3 (party based server transfer) and so on all quite clearly show that the commercial incentive of selling lots and lots of console games will lead to innovation on the console platform.

Incidentally, any arguments about "but so and so indie / freeware game did that first" are rendered null-and-void by the use of commerical in your sentence; so you needn't bother.