PC gaming

repiV

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
So...what the hell happened to PC gaming these last few years?

The last time I was really into games was the HL2/Doom 3/UT2004/Oblivion/Battlefield 2 era. Haven't played games at all for years until I got my new PC about a month ago.

Now, technologically...unbelievable. First time I booted up Crysis 2 I was amazed (less so as time went on as it's actually a pretty mediocre game, but damn, it's pretty). Especially with the quality of monitors compared to what I was used to!

But...almost the entire market seems to have been taken over by bloody consoles. Even just a few years ago there was a distinct PC market and a distinct console market, despite a lot of games being released on both. Even gaming enthusiasts seem to be slinking off to consoles in their droves now, despite the fact that fast PCs have never been more affordable than they are now. I mean, I have a pretty mid-range graphics card compared to what I could get (Geforce 560Ti), and yet this computer destroys anything I throw at it. I definitely can't say that about the much more expensive PCs I've put together in times past, half the time you couldn't run new games properly on a top spec rig.

Even my housemate who is a games programmer for a living is going to buy a PS3 to play Battlefield 3 on rather than upgrade his PC. That's just depressing.

Why would you want to play FPS games on an Xbox anyway? Console controllers are a waste of time for anything that requires that sort of finesse. Where have all the PC games gone? Almost everything that comes out now is a console game ported to PC (usually to the detriment of the quality or scope of the game). Even the new Deus Ex was developed primarily for the PS3! (Granted, it has been very well ported, but still...)

It's like I blinked and then the PC games market collapsed.
 
I havent really noticed it. Yeah, consoles are getting ever more popular, but I don't feel like PC gaming is shrinking at all. Especially with Steam getting more and more popular, I'd say the market is growing actually. The last press release I remember said there was more than 20 million active steam accounts, which is only 1/3 smaller than the size of the active x-box live users. Thats pretty substantial considering there is no multi-billion dollar marketing campaign for people to buy games on their computers.
 
PC GAMING IS NOT DEAD

.com

What Krynn said. I haven't seen any more console games that should be on PC but aren't than usual (which is a very low number)

The games I enjoy most lately are PC only, so go figure.
 
Perhaps the *number* of games isn't less, but something is definitely missing. PC only games are certainly a lot rarer than they used to be (well known ones, anyway). In the past a great deal of games came out only on PC either because console technology couldn't handle them, or because they just weren't well suited to consoles. Now they either seem to scale them back in order that they can work properly on consoles, or develop them primarily for consoles and then port them to PC. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop games for the full potential of the PC, and then scale them down as appropriate for consoles?

We seem to be experiencing a lull in competitive online games aswell. There is no Quake or Unreal Tournament for this generation (apart from Quake Live, which doesn't really count because it's Quake 3 in a browser...and it's free). Call of Duty is garbage. Bad Company 2 is good fun, but it's more of an arsing around game than a true competitive clan game. It was the same for Battlefield 2 and I doubt Battlefield 3 will break that mould. Other than that, there aren't really any current online FPS games of note.

And I can't help but think they wouldn't even bother releasing Battlefield 3 on consoles, if they didn't need the cash. It looks to be such a gimped version of the game there's little point in bothering if the PC market alone could generate the sales figures it needs to. You only need to look in a game shop and notice that they don't sell many PC games if any at all, to see something has shifted these last few years.
 
It seems like more people are flocking to PCs lately with the current generation of consoles showing their age, and developers are starting to take notice of this, but mainstream games are still largely held back by the technical limitations of consoles. There are exceptions, Battlefield 3 being a notable one, but I'm also not really fond of the trend emerging of developers locking down their games, and thereby restricting the ways in which their customers can buy/play/interact with them, in order to secure control over things like DRM or DLC. That's not what PC gaming used to be about, and if this is going to be the death knell of things like modding or LAN or whatever, then I think PCs will have lost some of their edge. Really, if developers/publishers want to promote PC gaming so badly, maybe they should recognise the things that make it so appealing in the first place.

As for online shooters, I'd suggest Red Orchestra 2, but it's not really in fighting shape at the moment and I suspect it's not really your cup of tea anyway.
 
60 bucks for one bucket of shit. I know there's good games out there, but it's mostly casual games designed for the console players. I don't like when a game treats me like a ****ing idiot. I don't mind the DLCs, as long as they don't cut the content from the main game, and sell it. I'm looking at you, Eidos Montreal. That's bullshit. It's supposed to be bonus content for the game.

I was going to comment on how terrible today's consoles, and console games are, but we all know it.
 
Barnz said:
60 bucks for one bucket of shit. I know there's good games out there, but it's mostly casual games designed for the console players. I don't like when a game treats me like a ****ing idiot.
Click to expand...
Armaaa! Arma!!
 
Bad^Hat said:
It seems like more people are flocking to PCs lately with the current generation of consoles showing their age, and developers are starting to take notice of this, but mainstream games are still largely held back by the technical limitations of consoles. There are exceptions, Battlefield 3 being a notable one, but I'm also not really fond of the trend emerging of developers locking down their games, and thereby restricting the ways in which their customers can buy/play/interact with them, in order to secure control over things like DRM or DLC. That's not what PC gaming used to be about, and if this is going to be the death knell of things like modding or LAN or whatever, then I think PCs will have lost some of their edge. Really, if developers/publishers want to promote PC gaming so badly, maybe they should recognise the things that make it so appealing in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I didn't even know what DLC meant a few weeks ago...and it's an awful trend. Maybe some people are different, but I get little to no enjoyment out of playing something a couple of hours long. It's getting drawn into the overall experience that makes it fun. I suppose that's why I dislike console games really (aside from the massive technological inferiority and shite controls), the experience is nowhere near as immersive as playing on a PC. It just feels like...playing a game.

Speaking of DLC and not-DLC, the reason Quake 3 was so successful for so many years is mods. The core gameplay was brilliant but it was a very unfinished package. Nobody played the base game anymore after a few months, it was all mods. Quake Live even incorporates some of them to a considerable extent.

Battlefield 3 looks like a proper PC game, like we used to get, which is what I find exciting about it. Graphically it looks truly incredible, leaps and bounds ahead of anything else out there - but...that's what PC games should be. I'm not sure whether my PC's ability to run every game in existence with pure ease is because technology is cheaper and more stable these days, or whether it's just that games aren't being released which really make use of the hardware anymore. Human Revolution is a classic example of that - genuinely the best game I've played in many years (despite its many faults), perhaps since KOTOR, but it's incredibly dated graphically.

As for online shooters, I'd suggest Red Orchestra 2, but it's not really in fighting shape at the moment and I suspect it's not really your cup of tea anyway.
Click to expand...

I remember playing the original Red Orchestra mod for UT. Not a bad game I'm sure but yeah...not really my bag. id need to get their arse in gear and make Quake 5. CS (and all the other games that spawned) was a massive success because it was something new. Everything else around at the time was Quake or similar to Quake. Now everything is a military game, I think a good arcade FPS would make the same impact today. We won't be getting a new Unreal Tournament though I'm sure, as Epic have basically said up yours to PC gaming. And UT3 was an awful, awful game. Which is a shame because after a few tries at making a great game they finally nailed it with UT2004.

I've applied for the Tribes: Ascend beta. Now that I'm looking forward to.

ktimekiller said:
starcraft2
Click to expand...

I have Starcraft 2. I want to like it, I really do, but playing it feels more like a chore than fun. I absolutely loved playing the original Dawn of War, that game was awesome. Never could get into Blizzard games...though if anyone equally shite at it in Yurop wants to play then I will give it a proper go. :)

Barnz said:
60 bucks for one bucket of shit. I know there's good games out there, but it's mostly casual games designed for the console players. I don't like when a game treats me like a ****ing idiot. I don't mind the DLCs, as long as they don't cut the content from the main game, and sell it. I'm looking at you, Eidos Montreal. That's bullshit. It's supposed to be bonus content for the game.

I was going to comment on how terrible today's consoles, and console games are, but we all know it.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly. There are some exceptions. Dragon Age: Origins is a proper old school PC game, but there's just something about it which makes it incredibly boring. Perhaps it's the endless repetitive battles which are both boring and stupidly difficult, combined with narrative that isn't particularly gripping. The Witcher 2 is great, although it should have been twice as long. I'm hoping Rage will be good.

As for console games...I think I must be living on another planet sometimes. What's so great about Gears of War? It's a decent game, I've played the coop with a mate on the Xbox. The pinnacle of gaming brilliance, it is not. The Modern Warfare games are average at best. Why is this the yardstick by which games are measured now...? I tell you what was a fantastic game - Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. We need more games like that.
 
If you like Strategy games, get Civ 5. Fantastic game.
 
Civ 4 is still about 200x better than Civ 5 though.

I think PC gaming is just fine. It's not the glory days but it could be a lot worse. I do agree about Human Revolution. Despite it being the best singleplayer game (besides Portal 2) that I've played in years, it felt like it could have been made in 2007 or 2008 technology and graphics wise.
 
Krynn72 said:
If you like Strategy games, get Civ 5. Fantastic game.
Click to expand...

I'll look into that, cheers.

Ennui said:
Civ 4 is still about 200x better than Civ 5 though.

I think PC gaming is just fine. It's not the glory days but it could be a lot worse.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course it could, but a lot of the things that were once exclusively the realm of the PC are now primarily the realm of consoles as well as all the things that were console-specific before. The only niche PCs have left are strategy games and flight simulators. Consoles were for racing games, platformers, casual games etc etc, and PCs were for FPS, strategy, and more serious games generally. Now even most FPS games are console-led or console-only releases, including franchises which were once only on PC.

I don't mind if they want to put PC games on consoles, it doesn't affect me - except for the fact that the games seem to suffer because they're usually aimed at the casual gaming market, unlike most PC games. Starcraft 2 is a nasty unforgiving bastard of a game - ironically, one of the reasons I don't enjoy it but I can certainly appreciate what they're trying to do. Quake Live is an unforgiving bastard of a game too, it just so happens that I'm good at Quake and not Starcraft. :)

Can you imagine games which were led by the console market coming out which are like either of those?

On the singleplayer front, look at Dragon Age vs Mass Effect. It's so obvious which one was developed for PC and which was developed for the Xbox, even though they're cross-platform games. Dragon Age is a MUCH harder and deeper game than Mass Effect, which, while I really enjoyed it at the time I was playing it, was such a missed opportunity and ultimately very shallow. I'm not sure how you would even play DA: O on consoles, the interface is so complicated.

The main question here is, where does this leave PC gaming in five years? Or ten?

I do agree about Human Revolution. Despite it being the best singleplayer game (besides Portal 2) that I've played in years, it felt like it could have been made in 2007 or 2008 technology and graphics wise.
Click to expand...

The art saves it. The environments look amazing, but that has nothing to do with the technology at all. Hell, Mass Effect has a better overall graphical quality than Human Revolution does.
 
Dragon Age: Origins received a fairly poor response on Consoles, which resulted in Dragon Age 2.. and there is not much else I need to say about that.

Big publishers are always going to follow the money, and right now they see the safe money in the console market. Things like World of Warcraft have done fantastically on PC, but the surge in MMO investment in the last 5-6 years has resulted in a graveyard of dead fantasy worlds laying empty like abandoned Japanese theme parks.

Historically Triple-A games have been the domain of publishing giants like EA and Activision, but right now the independent scene is exploding, and the rules are starting to change. It has never been easier for a group of unsigned developers to create a decent retail quality game, and (more importantly) sell that game to customers.

Being able to sell games like Red Orchestra 2 and Natural Selection 2, wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago on the PC, but now they exist. Operation Flashpoint's release relied on Codemasters to get the boxes into people's hands, but now Bohemia Interactive do their own publishing, and the ARMA series continues to grow.

Personally I think we are heading for a Renaissance period in terms of the way games are made, and the PC is going to be at the heart of it.
 
Lobster said:
Dragon Age: Origins received a fairly poor response on Consoles, which resulted in Dragon Age 2.. and there is not much else I need to say about that.

Big publishers are always going to follow the money, and right now they see the safe money in the console market. Things like World of Warcraft have done fantastically on PC, but the surge in MMO investment in the last 5-6 years has resulted in a graveyard of dead fantasy worlds laying empty like abandoned Japanese theme parks.
Click to expand...

So...has the PC market been shrinking, or has the console market just exploded in popularity? There were loads of PC only "Triple-A" games a few years ago. Now, they're pretty rare...

Historically Triple-A games have been the domain of publishing giants like EA and Activision, but right now the independent scene is exploding, and the rules are starting to change. It has never been easier for a group of unsigned developers to create a decent retail quality game, and (more importantly) sell that game to customers.

Being able to sell games like Red Orchestra 2 and Natural Selection 2, wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago on the PC, but now they exist. Operation Flashpoint's release relied on Codemasters to get the boxes into people's hands, but now Bohemia Interactive do their own publishing, and the ARMA series continues to grow.

Personally I think we are heading for a Renaissance period in terms of the way games are made, and the PC is going to be at the heart of it.
Click to expand...

Hard Reset is interesting. It's a pretty mediocre game (fun though, for half an hour at a time), and it's obviously been put together on a low budget, but the engine is very impressive. The game looks at least as good as Crysis 2 and runs at twice the framerate. Certainly an eye opener for a developer out of nowhere.
 
One thing I still don't quite understand is how games that are multi-platform on consoles and PC are contributing to the "pc market shrinking." You do realize they're still available on PC right? I mean, if you gauge the strength of the PC market by how many exclusives there are, then yeah, its a shit market. But then you have to be fair and gauge the Xbox market and PS3 market by the same "exclusivity" standard if you want to compare them, and you'll be pleased to know that the PC market kicks the ****ing shit out of either of them.

As far as I'm concerned the only valid complaint to be had about the health of the PC gaming market, is that publishers and developers aren't generally motivated to make high quality ports. The result of that leads to the purchasing of said games on consoles to avoid all the porting issues, causing a circuitous problem of poor pc-based sales leading to less motivation to make proper ports, leading to less pc-based sales, leading to less motivation, etcetera.
 
I do get frustrated when a developer blatantly makes a shit console port for the PC version. Dead Island for one. Dragon Age 2. But that was shit as a whole so who cares. Crysis 2 (shit that shocked me, but then again, Crytek must have been poor and needed a ton of money to survive so they went to consoles).

And like you, I dont mind PC games going to consoles too. Just dont dumb down the PC version to develop the console versions alongside it and have to make it more 'consoley' as a result. Develop the PC version to the side, ala Deus Ex Human Revolution.

PC is certainly not dying and never will. Sales are definitely in the console market these days for very simple reasons. The biggest being; more people own consoles these days. You can get a PS3 now for like 160 (ffs my new keyboard doesnt have the pound sign!? Gah.)

I do find that console owners fight back against PC gamers using money as an excuse. You know, ''why pay 600+ for a PC, what a waste'' blah blah blah. So...you're poorer than me and I suck as a result? Nice.

They just try and justify their older, cheaper hardware and unfortunately literally have the army behind them. They've turned into The Horde, and we are the 300.

--------------------------------------------------------------

TL ; DR

The sad, and I often think overlooked fact, is this; game developers like DICE, Bethesda, Valve etc etc etc are businesses. They provide a product and a service in some cases (Steam etc). Like every business in the world; they are in it to MAKE MONEY. Nothing else.

''Oh we love games'' shut up, you're in it for the kerching. The cheddar. You're fooling most but not me.

So, when new guy Tony goes to the big-wig head of the developer, shaking with nervousness as this guy has two Dobermans either-side of his desk staring at him, powers up Powerpoint with a simple pie chart of game sales on platforms, followed by a PROFIT pie chart for each platform, and the PC sliver is the smallest...well, it's a case of focus on the consoles.

It's hilarious sometimes when you see the price differences in games. Sony and Microsoft take a share of each sale of every game for their console. Which is why console games are atleast 5-10 pounds, sometimes more, more expensive than the PC equivalent, as the developer doesn't need to pay a share of the game sale to the console maker.

My favourite right now for a new release is F1 2011. I've just pre-ordered it for the PS3. Why? Because I know the PC version will have FAR LESS people online and I hate waiting to find players. That and it's a racing game and I prefer pads for that. Yeah I can hook up my PS3 controller to my PC and play, but I prefer the PS3.
However, I paid 36 quid. PC price on Play.com? 17.99. 17.....99....compared to 36.99-39.99 for the console equivelant.

That's sheer profit (almost) doubling RIGHT THERE.

So as a developer who gets a percentage of the total sale price after the retail provider AND console developer have taken their cut, you see higher income coming from consoles, so the focus, unfortunately, is there.

BUT.

They're STILL MAKING NICE PROFIT ON PC SALES.

So no, PC gaming will never die. Steam is great. Origin will get better with success in sales if BF3 pre-orders are anything to go by.
 
Krynn72 said:
One thing I still don't quite understand is how games that are multi-platform on consoles and PC are contributing to the "pc market shrinking." You do realize they're still available on PC right? I mean, if you gauge the strength of the PC market by how many exclusives there are, then yeah, its a shit market. But then you have to be fair and gauge the Xbox market and PS3 market by the same "exclusivity" standard if you want to compare them, and you'll be pleased to know that the PC market kicks the ****ing shit out of either of them.

As far as I'm concerned the only valid complaint to be had about the health of the PC gaming market, is that publishers and developers aren't generally motivated to make high quality ports. The result of that leads to the purchasing of said games on consoles to avoid all the porting issues, causing a circuitous problem of poor pc-based sales leading to less motivation to make proper ports, leading to less pc-based sales, leading to less motivation, etcetera.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they might be available on PC, but that doesn't make them "PC games" by default. Just console games with a PC version. Big difference. That's like calling Quake 3 a console game because they released it on the Dreamcast.

Mass Effect, for example, would undoubtedly have been a very different - and much better - game if it were targeted at the PC market and not the Xbox 360. Mass Effect 2 went even further and fell hook, line and sinker into the "dumbing down" route and turned out to be a piece of shite which for some reason is considered one of the best games of all time (??!). Why, I ask? It has no story to speak of, and the story it does have is both shit and makes no sense. The entire game is a series of completely linear corridors where you engage in the same repetitive cover battles, puncutated by cringeworthily contrived dialogue via characters who all have daddy issues which it's impossible to give a shit about anyway because the game has no real plot. The "freedom" it offers is nothing more than the freedom to choose which order you tackle the linear corridors in.

It's such a shame because they created something amazing with the Mass Effect universe. They ruined it by console-ifying it.
 
I think ME2 is good, the only thing I really missed was the world exploration, but they'd have to do it pretty well the second time around for me to enjoy it. I mean it was the same freakin map on a 'different' planet (Mako exploring).
 
DEATHMASTER said:
I think ME2 is good, the only thing I really missed was the world exploration, but they'd have to do it pretty well the second time around for me to enjoy it. I mean it was the same freakin map on a 'different' planet (Mako exploring).
Click to expand...

Yeah ok, I'll admit - I was glued to it while I played it on my brother's Xbox. I spent a great deal of my week visiting home playing it. But...when I came away from it, I realised how much it sucked. The entire game boils down to "go to X planet, run through Y linear corridors and shoot stuff, recruit Z character, do that again 10 times and then go on 10 different quests to resolve contrived lame personal problems they have, go on the odd mission where the entire plot line is spoonfed via exposition of a character you never meet, in order to eventually shoot at a retarded terminator which makes absolutely NO sense within the universe and does NOTHING AT ALL to advance the plot". It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the overall storyline of the trilogy (whatever that may end up being) if Mass Effect 2 had never existed. It contributes nothing. And in games nowadays, and ESPECIALLY in an RPG, storyline should be pretty damn important. The whole thing feels like it's written for 13 year olds.

Not to mention, the entire thing feels like a game because you're always railroaded down following a COMPLETELY linear path. It's just "follow this corridor to the end of the mission". That's IT.

Sure, Mass Effect had MANY flaws, including the ridiculous side quests in identical rooms on pointless empty planets. But at least it had an epic story which made sense and a fantastic universe to introduce. They could have done so much to build on that with ME2, but instead they just got rid of everything and decided to make a repetitive corridor shooter with no plot.
 
Aye. 3-4 are just plain better Civs.

Even better, Paradox games.
 
Can't you stack units in those Civs? I don't think I'd be able to tolerate such shenanigans. 1 unit per tile or bust!
 
The combat is arguably far far inferior, but the rest of the game is just.. better.
I can't play 5. Something about the simplicity.
It's a shame, because I love the combat in 5.
 
Civ4 has some mechanics completely out-of-whack though; like religion, or espionage. Them plus the stacks of doom are real downers.
 
Good to see repiv is still as happy as ever.
I agree with OP, but I think the PC games industry will never die. It's too damn flexible (and resistant to a variety of antibiotics)
 
Eejit said:
Civ4 has some mechanics completely out-of-whack though; like religion, or espionage. Them plus the stacks of doom are real downers.
Click to expand...

Religion and espionage both worked perfectly well.
The stacks of doom were the only bad part of the game for me.
 
You serious? They both absolutely dominated the game. With religion (depending on sheer luck however) you don't even need an economy for cash.
 
Civ5 more recently has had some pretty notable AI buffs in updates. No more seemingly random wars that are surrendered after you kill 3 or 4 of the AI units giving you half their territory. They'll still do some awkward stuff but it's a lot better than it was at launch.
 
I started playing again this week, and have indeed noticed a much improved AI. I seem to have actually made solid friendships for once where I can even ask for help in a war and get it!
 
NeptuneUK said:
Good to see repiv is still as happy as ever.
Click to expand...

Haha. I'm permanently happy. :)

But why make a thread about being content with things? I could spam the forums with threads about things I love, but it would be kind of lame and redundant. :p

I agree with OP, but I think the PC games industry will never die. It's too damn flexible (and resistant to a variety of antibiotics)
Click to expand...

Of course it won't die...I suppose my complaint is not about consoles per se, it's about games becoming more casual because of the console market at which they are usually aimed. Perhaps that's just an inevitability of something becoming mainstream, but it's still a massive shame.
 
One problem is that bedroom coders are going straight to smartphones. I wish they would go in-browser PC first, then port to phones.
 
Krynn72 said:
I started playing again this week, and have indeed noticed a much improved AI. I seem to have actually made solid friendships for once where I can even ask for help in a war and get it!
Click to expand...

Spoke too soon. Everyone except for Siam denounced me the very next turn, and now I'm at war with all but three of the twelve nations. Guess its not as fixed as I thought.
 
lol funny topic. Consoles have exploded in popularity? Urr what? Consoles have ALWAYS been the most popular form of gaming, I remember back in high school that basically everyone I knew had a PS2 or Gamecube to game rather than using a PC. It would be very nieve to suggest that the console markets are to blame for the drop in quality, especially considering that both PC and console were firing out great titles once upon a time. Five to six years ago, I would be buying around 5-6 games a YEAR and most of them were excellent, now, I'm lucky to buy one a year because most are just either rehashed efforts of former glories or multiplayer games trying to copy Call of Duty. The desire for money has taken over the desire to make great games, and its not just in gaming, its in tv, film and music now.

And I laugh at how people can praise Human Revolution on one hand and say Mass Effect 2 was bad on the other, I mean are you joking? Human Revolution is one of the most boring games I've played in a long time, the blocky graphics and stupid NPC animations in conversation pretty much destroyed the immersion and I think the reason everyone tried to get through the game as stealthily as possible was because the action was utterly pants.

Its now thanks to titles such as Skyrim, Arkham Asylum 2 and Battefield 3 that the gaming industry is starting to revitalize itself but I'm afraid it will never be as good as it was, when we were getting titles like Half-Life 2, Battlefield 2, Dawn of War and Company of Heroes etc. Those days are long gone..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terminator
Long time...
Replies
10
Views
662
Raziaar
Raziaar
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Solaris
What are you up to these days?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Shem
Shem
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
The Many Diversions of THC's Work Lunches
Replies
3
Views
1K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
Back
Top