Who killed PC gaming ?

KNiVES · 10 Jul 2009 at 23:21

Console gaming didnt kill PC gaming. Retarded hardware prices killed PC gaming. It's funny how literally everyone ignores the big white elephant in the room. A single component costs hundreds. ATi and Nvidia are the single biggest culprits, with the customer coming third.

MICROSOFT didn't do jack squat! Who the -hell- would spend hundreds and hundreds to get the same experience, and worse in many cases, as consoles? The only reason WoW is popular for PC is simply because it isn't on 360/PS3 - and doesn't require you to spend more than £200 to play properly.

rypt · 10 Jul 2009 at 23:26

KNiVES said:
Who the -hell- would spend hundreds and hundreds to get the same experience, and worse in many cases, as consoles?

Dunno, most people on this board?

Chances are my current setup can push out better graphics than the 360 in a fully optimised game.

KNiVES · 10 Jul 2009 at 23:29

rypt said:
Dunno, most people on this board?

Chances are my current setup can push out better graphics than the 360 in a fully optimised game.

Now take the time out to realize that most people on this board (a PC component shop of all places) still constitute a TINY minority. Does it not say a lot to you that the console forum on Overclockers UK has more members and activity than the PC gaming forum?

As for your graphics thing - it doesn't mean much. There's this thing called 'diminishing returns'. You've spent hundreds and hundreds for a small graphical difference to the 360. A console that costs less than £100 if you know where to look.

It's hardware pricing - PC gaming is a horribly expensive hobby, and fast becoming a 'luxury' that's only offering more and more crap games.

Final8y · 10 Jul 2009 at 23:30

Quixote said:
I think their #3 is really by far the #1.

The 360, not just for itself but for what it represents - the fact that the consoles are now capable many of the things that used to be the exclusive preserve of the PC.
Also incredibly important - the platform holder on PC (Microsoft) would now rather you played on 360 really.
For all that, I'm really getting into the PC, for the thriving indie scene, the price of games, the easy availablity of a back catalogue spanning the last decade, the handful of unique experiences (especially point and click and strategy) the slighly tartier graphics on multi - platform and the fact that I already need a good PC for animation and don't need to buy a console too.
But then I loved Dreamcast and Gamecube too, so maybe I am the kiss of death ....

I would like to see the list of things that the consoles are capable of that were exclusive to the PC besides playing on line there is not much else besides the PS3 that you can browse the web with.
The consoles capabilities are extremely limited.

I have a PS3 160GB & 360 Elite 120GB & im not impressed nore would i choose to play them but for the exclusives on them.

mart981 · 10 Jul 2009 at 23:40

KNiVES said:
Does it not say a lot to you that the console forum on Overclockers UK has more members and activity than the PC gaming forum?

Never underestimate the amount of spam some console owners can post when comparing the PS3 to the 360

spudbynight · 10 Jul 2009 at 23:45

PC had higher sales in 2008 than any console.

Streeteh · 10 Jul 2009 at 23:47

KNiVES said:
Console gaming didnt kill PC gaming. Retarded hardware prices killed PC gaming. It's funny how literally everyone ignores the big white elephant in the room. A single component costs hundreds. ATi and Nvidia are the single biggest culprits, with the customer coming third.

MICROSOFT didn't do jack squat! Who the -hell- would spend hundreds and hundreds to get the same experience, and worse in many cases, as consoles? The only reason WoW is popular for PC is simply because it isn't on 360/PS3 - and doesn't require you to spend more than £200 to play properly.

Interesting idea and tbh i didn't even consider this angle and the more i think about it, the more i think you have a good point.

At the end of the day though (and on a completely different note), the consoles DO have more big 'exclusive' games coming to them, they may not look as pretty and they may need an inferior control method to play, but they exist. Infamous, Uncharted, Lost Odyssey, Valkyria Chronicles, Killzone 2, Rockband, Little Big Planet, Final Fantasy XIII, the list goes on. In order for me to really enjoy gaming i find a console a necessity; there's just more games that interest me (and don't anyone even think of mentioning they must be dumbed down for consoles, they aren't, lost odyssey and valkyria chronicles are proper JRPGs with plenty of depth).

Until PC gaming gets more big exclusive titles back under its belt i wouldn't be able to even consider it as my main gaming platform again. The last big one i can think of was Crysis and that wasn't that great, it was good but it wasn't comparable to Half Life, Baldur's Gate or any of the other titles that made PC gaming legendary. Here's hoping for Diablo 3, Starcraft 2 and Episode 3

spudbynight said:
PC had higher sales in 2008 than any console.

You got a source for that as frankly i wouldn't believe it without proof. Unless you mean more PCs were sold than consoles? In which case a big 'well duh', it's not as if you'll see people doing their latest financial report on a PS3 (even though it is possible)

Alex74 · 10 Jul 2009 at 23:55

spudbynight said:
PC had higher sales in 2008 than any console.

Well...yes...of course they would do :confused:

. I imagine most PCs still never see much more of a gaming life than Solitaire and occasional Chess.. (e.g. in most office environments)

If we compared numbers of PCs bought for gaming then I might be more interested in the figures. (although I imagine that they're not purely for that purpose anyway)

rypt · 11 Jul 2009 at 00:38

KNiVES said:
As for your graphics thing - it doesn't mean much. There's this thing called 'diminishing returns'. You've spent hundreds and hundreds for a small graphical difference to the 360. A console that costs less than £100 if you know where to look.

It's hardware pricing - PC gaming is a horribly expensive hobby, and fast becoming a 'luxury' that's only offering more and more crap games.

PC games have the ability to scale .. meaning that you do not always need the latest and greatest to play

thehitmen · 11 Jul 2009 at 00:57

KNiVES said:
It's hardware pricing - PC gaming is a horribly expensive hobby, and fast becoming a 'luxury' that's only offering more and more crap games.

So true

Allot of my friends look inside my pc and see all the lights fans, and they think its amassing and they would play pc games, but they don't have the technical background knowledge.

When they play COD on the xbox, they put the game in and sign into xbox live.

Just say the word Drivers and its beyond them?

rypt · 11 Jul 2009 at 01:32

thehitmen said:
So true
Just say the word Drivers and its beyond them?

That is Microsoft's fault for not utilising Windows Update better to update drivers

Klo · 11 Jul 2009 at 01:33

AWPC said:
PC games piracy is the only major reason why. For some strange reason many PC gamers expect free high quality games to play with their expensive e-peen hardware config.....

Why on earth would a company want to spend $20M+ to develop a PC game and recoup a fraction of the cost as piracy will mean you sell much fewer games so you end up with a huge loss. That's why most games now are multiplatform designs to spread the risk around as you have the artwork already so why go platform specific and risk a huge financial loss.

That article is not very well researched anyway as Vista is the best OS MS have ever created. Its almost perfect now and much better than XP ever was after 2 years.

If you want to blame the OS best to check your facts and see that in fact lazy development causes the lag & driver issues as developers love to code outside MS DirectX specs.

Best thing all PC gamers can do right now is buy an X360 as a backup gaming device because PC gaming aint coming back anytime soon as a mainstream gaming platform. Too much damage has been done and right now developers/publishers are making huge profits on the 360 so do not hold your breath for PC gaming to make a mainstream comeback before the next gen consoles are out.

If you took away World Of Warcraft sales from PC gaming sales in the past year it would reveal how shocking the figures really are compared to consoles.

I disagree with everything you said...

psychas · 11 Jul 2009 at 01:35

you did

.one. · 11 Jul 2009 at 01:45

When did it die ? news to me.

Streeteh · 11 Jul 2009 at 01:50

.one. said:
When did it die ? news to me.

Read the article and you'll see what it's getting at, also it's right, PC gaming is no longer the mainstream gaming platform that it was. It's more asking 'who killed PC gaming as we knew it?'.

C64 · 11 Jul 2009 at 01:59

microsoft and sony killed pc gaming insisting every damn decent game gets delayed or not released for pc or if released a sub standard version such as fifa.

.one. · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:00

C64 said:
microsoft and sony killed pc gaming insisting every damn decent game gets delayed or not released for pc or if released a sub standard version such as fifa.

This for sure.

Streeteh · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:01

C64 said:
microsoft and sony killed pc gaming insisting every damn decent game gets delayed or not released for pc or if released a sub standard version such as fifa.

I don't see how EA releasing a substandard game (fifa) is MS/Sonys fault tbh, EA (and nearly every other developer) just know there's more money in console gaming so put more effort into those versions. If you blamed Sony for the fact that they never release any of their own games on the PC i would see where you're coming from but then, why should they? They have nothing to gain other than sales, when they make their games PS3 exclusive they gain console sales as well as game sales.

Even the old school PC-only developers are getting heavily involved with console gaming. Valve for example announced the release of Dead Rising 2 at a xbox 360 conference and are openly recruiting staff to create a team for the sole purpose of developing for the PS3.

To blame a company for chasing money just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, the whole point in a company in the entertainment industry is to chase profits.

.one. · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:04

Streeteh said:
I don't see how EA releasing a substandard game (fifa) is MS/Sonys fault tbh, EA just know there's more money in console gaming so put more effort into those versions. If you blamed Sony for the fact that they never release any of their own games on the PC i would see where you're coming from but then, why should they? They have nothing to gain other than sales, when they make their games PS3 exclusive they gain console sales as well as game sales.

Consoles are for sure to blame for the PCs state would you not agree on that point ? before the 360/PS3 people would have to go for a PC no ?

ps not saying cheap consoles for the masses is a bad thing.

C64 · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:05

I still think sony and MS insist that there's no pc version or if there is they must delay it.It's in sony and microsofts interest that the pc version is delayed or not released more so than the profit they'd make on pc sales.

Coupled with releasing a single player based game on pc is like throwing money down the toilet these days.

Look at the recent battlefield 1943, what other possible reason is there that the pc version isn't out til september other than the Sony and MS Big wigs insisting they do delay it.

So they get all the sales in first and another trend is making the pc version not as good online as we have seen with sfIV.