Overwritten.net
Games => General Gaming => Topic started by: PyroMenace on Thursday, February 11, 2010, 07:28:07 PM
-
Buy a console plz. kthx
-Pyro
-
Elaborate why.
EDIT:
Or better yet, just buy me a PS3 or X360 console, thanx.
Or hell - buy me both.
-
I'm just curious as you why you haven't bought one yet. You post news on all the games that aren't coming to PC and console games that have been ported badly to PC. Plus both consoles have been discounted with more hard drive space with the PS3 Slim and the Xbox 360 Elite. Not to mention your completely missing out on the XBLA and PSN games.
-
Buy the FFXIII Xbox bundle and trade me the 250GB drive for my 60GB. DOOO EEET!
-
No.
-
Does anyone else find the pictures of D with game boxes weird?
-
I think amazing is the better word.
-
I have a friend who's like this dude as well. He's totally against console gaming, but when asked why, he cannot provide a good reason.
Given this generation of gaming in particular, it's become quite clear that console games are superior to PC games through and through. There are exceptions, but they are becoming far and few between. It's sad to see it happen since I was an avid PC gamer myself back in the day, but if you would call yourself a 'gamer' per se, you should probably follow the trend and move towards console gaming.
-
I have a friend who's like this dude as well. He's totally against console gaming, but when asked why, he cannot provide a good reason.
It isn't that I'm against console gaming. I can't be, since I grew-up on arcades and of course the consoles. Atari 7800. Genesis. PlayStation. Yup, I got 'em. Still have 'em. Loved 'em then - and still do. Got plenty of fond memories w/ those thing - from Galaga on the Atari 7800 to Silent Hill 1 on the Playstation. Great stuff.
Quake, Duke Nukem 3D, and MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries really got me into PC gaming. That was the start of it all for me. Quake 2 was the game to get me into the MP-side of PC gaming. It's funny when I heard console gamers talk about, "It's so cool that I can play w/ someone from across the world" like it's something new - when we've be doing stuff like this on the PC since the 90's.
About this generation of console gaming - someone just tell Microsoft to fix their X360 console and lose that ridiculous failure rate. Many I've known from these message boards and other boards to people I work with have been through the RROD, over the years.
The PC has all the tools - and it should be the superior platform. But, as long as some companies don't really wanna take full advantage of it and don't see us as a place where they can make tons of sales, it's gonna be a "here and there" case - like it's been for a number of years (which is basically since the X-Box arrived). The PC - this is where the newest tech bleeds. This is where all the experimentation really can be done at, if needed. This is where all the tweaking can be done by the gamer. But, many of the triple-A gaming companies and publishers - they just don't give the PC version the treatment it used to get like back in the 1990's to early 2000's. The sales on the PC just don't jump like they do on the consoles - and as long as that's going on, they are going to support us less and less. It's going to be companies like *gasp* Valve and *cheers* Stardock (b/c they have their own platform here as a publisher, which is how they make their money) that are probably going to lead the way here - as retail is seeming to carry more and more console games and less and less PC games. Digital distribution is taking over here on the PC, as piracy is also unfortunately through the roof here. I'm just waiting for piracy to get worse and worse on the consoles - as games like Far Cry 2, Gears 2, Halo 3, and Borderlands for the 360 have been pirated heavily.
PC gaming is meant for those (like myself) who like to tweak things - who want to play w/ the game settings so that if a game is not running to our liking or it just doesn't look good enuff, we can tweak it so it will be better. This is the platform where the modding takes place. Games that were broken - i.e. Vampire: Bloodlines; Arcanum; TOEE; etc etc - they've been fixed-up like crazy and modded-up by their community. If it wasn't for the modders, we'd be stuck w/ whatever the company's last version of the game was. It keeps the lifespan of a game going even longer, once a company has either fallen or likely abandoned the game (and moved on). I doubt we'll see much of that go kind of modding go on w/ the consoles - since companies like Microsoft don't want to open the HD-up to that kind of stuff. Some of the older PC games, they've been put on modern engines or made source ports (Doomsday Engine for Doom games, anyone?) so they can look better and actually run on modern PC. Hell, some modder brought HGL over to the Torque Engine. The PC is meant to be a free-for-all like this - and that's what I love about it. There's mods out there to run Fallout 1 and 2 at higher-res's. There's been high-res textures made by some modder for System Shock 2. I can go on and on, you know...
Given this generation of gaming in particular, it's become quite clear that console games are superior to PC games through and through. There are exceptions, but they are becoming far and few between. It's sad to see it happen since I was an avid PC gamer myself back in the day, but if you would call yourself a 'gamer' per se, you should probably follow the trend and move towards console gaming.
Keep in mind, console games should always turn out well - since they only being made for that particular set of hardware. Consoles ain't upgradable. What you see is what you get and also what you're stuck with - which can be for better or for worse; that depends. There's no real modding there - so, don't expect Divinity 2 or Sacred 2 to get patched-up by modders on the console, if worst comes to worst. You'll really have to rely on the company to fix it and patch it up - and likely, you're going to have to join XBL (which has a yearly subscription) or PSN (which right now is good that it has no subscription plan, but might eventually have some sort of subscription plan; who knows). And well, Sacred 2 isn't getting the expansion on the consoles, anyways - due to poor console sales.
When it comes to FPS games, yes - I prefer KB/mouse over control pad. I'm sure I could play something like say Borderlands or Bioshock 2 w/ a controller and all - but I'd rather play it w/ a KB/mouse. It would be nice if for console FPS's or RTS's, there'd be some KB/mouse support there. I just can't picture playing something like say Baldur's Gate 2 or Sins of a Solar Empire w/ a X360 gamepad controller, myself.
-
it's become quite clear that console games are superior to PC games through and through.
I don't know about that.... but D should get a console.
-
it's become quite clear that console games are superior to PC games through and through.
I don't know about that.... but D should get a console.
I'm still waiting to see a MMO strike it big on the consoles...
EDIT:
Given this generation of gaming in particular, it's become quite clear that console games are superior to PC games through and through. There are exceptions, but they are becoming far and few between. It's sad to see it happen since I was an avid PC gamer myself back in the day, but if you would call yourself a 'gamer' per se, you should probably follow the trend and move towards console gaming.
I've played Left 4 Dead 1 on the 360 console - I prefer the KB/mouse controls. Compared to the PC version (given you have a modern PC and all), Left 4 Dead 1 X360 looks nowhere as good as the PC version graphically.
I think it's been reported in numerous reviews that Dragon Age PC (if you have the PC to boot) looks better than the console versions, as well. I can't really attest to that - I ain't seen DAO 360 or PS3. Plus, PC version supports the extra top-down isometric viewpoint found in games like Baldur's Gate.
Also, KOTOR and Mass Effect 1 turned out great on the PC. Usually, if a game is made for both the PC and consoles, the PC version winds up normally the better looking version - as long as you have the PC to handle it so you can turn up the resolution and graphical bells and whistles, of course. You just have to worry if the PC port wasn't lazily and quickly slapped together, that's all...
-
But you don't play MMOs either.
Though I guess FFXI was fairly popular even on consoles. And PSO, if you want to consider that MMO.
-
But you don't play MMOs either.
I own WoW Battle Chest and Age of Conan b/c I got them damn cheap, but I just ain't gotten around to dedicating myself to a whole month of playing.
I do enjoy Guild Wars, though.
I did try Tabula Rasa, for a short time period.
Though I guess FFXI was fairly popular even on consoles. And PSO, if you want to consider that MMO.
No console MMO's were as insanely popular as Everquest and World of Warcraft - that's my point.
-
The only valid argument you make is that modding takes place on the PC platform. Keep in mind that there are games out there that do allow people to create their own levels and to do their own thing with the game as well on consoles. Level creators such as those in LittleBigPlanet have created a thriving community. Also, most mods that I've seen on the PC platform take way too long to get any ground or to make any impact on the community at all. Seriously, I remember waiting for a Max Payne mod to come out and it never did. It's individual people who want to take the time to do something for fun.
We're not arguing which platform is superior here though.
And the lack of mods isn't a reason to not own a console. It seems to me that you are still blindly ignoring the question -- why do you not have a console?
-
And the lack of mods isn't a reason to not own a console. It seems to me that you are still blindly ignoring the question -- why do you not have a console?
The majority of PC games that I actually have a major interest in, they're multi-platformed on the PC and consoles - Dragon Age, Mass Effect, FEAR series, Left 4 Dead series, Tomb Raider series, Borderlands, Divinity 2, GTA series, etc etc.
That makes my decision very easy to just stick w/ the PC.
Sure, there's a handful of console exclusives I've missed out on or are probably going to miss out - Ninja Gaiden; Heavy Rain; Fable 2; Gears of War 2; and God of War series; Uncharted series.
-
If the guy doesn't want a console, I don't really see why anyone would care. Because he makes posts about news items focusing on games not going to PC? I find it informative and helpful.
-
You just listed 14 franchises alone there in which 6 of them are console exclusives. It seems to me that you're missing out on nearly 50% of games that you might be interested in, but refuse to spend $300 on a console and play them.
I wouldn't really say it's only a 'handful' when you can list that many franchises that you seem to be somewhat interested in.
That's still not a really good justification, especially since you appear to blind buy games and never get around to playing them. That money could have gone towards a console and purchases of games that you are interested in and will play.
If the guy doesn't want a console, I don't really see why anyone would care. Because he makes posts about news items focusing on games not going to PC? I find it informative and helpful.
I agree, I could honestly care less what this guy does. It just appears he's not a very smart consumer. It's like a blind devotion without even considering the other options that are available on the market.
-
PC is only superior as a platform for games. Once you look at the games themselves, that's when you see the difference. The PC platform is seen as secondary by a lot of devs these days.
By the way, I think L4D and DAO are the two biggest examples of games that actually DO cater to the PC platform well. If I had to list devs that have yet to abandon the PC, the first 2 off my tongue would be Blizzard and Valve. The "console first" mentality has been showing up more and more. Apparently Borderlands had some weird UI issues, MW2 was just sort of gimped compared to other PC games. Bioshock 2 apparently had gamepad controls removed so they could add kb/mouse functionality. So they based the PC version off the Xbox version? Alan Wake may not even come out on PC, Gears of War 2 never did, endless DLC comes to Xbox/PS3 long before PC sees it.
I'd be curious to know what the failure rate is for Xbox consoles bought in the last year or so. I wouldn't be surprised if the systems that are still failing are ones that are at least a few years old. It may just be luck on my part, but my 15 month old system is still doing perfectly fine, and I can't help but wonder if it's because I didn't buy one until the failure rate was remedied. I'm not saying you should rush out and buy one, but I do wonder if a lot of the Xbox hate around here is based on MS fucking people early in the system's life, and not necessarily how the current systems preform. (ie: how it would affect you if you got one)
-
I know a lot of people with newer 360s and they're still failing. I don't know what the average is on the whole, but I do know that new models aren't exempt.
-
Consoles ain't upgradable. What you see is what you get and also what you're stuck with - which can be for better or for worse; that depends.
What are you talking about? There are video cards which cost close to the amount of a console.
I mean sure PC are the bleeding edge of gaming tech, but what happened to the last game that really took advantage of that? And why has the PC hardware market stagnated? Because this console generation is lasting longer.
-
Meh. I like consoles as much as anything else, but the PC as a platform is still vastly superior. Still, it's no reason to abstain if you're really into games. There are tons of great console games that never see PC releases and wouldn't have even in past eras. It's a whole different ballgame in some ways.
-
You just listed 14 franchises alone there in which 6 of them are console exclusives. It seems to me that you're missing out on nearly 50% of games that you might be interested in, but refuse to spend $300 on a console and play them.
Devils Advocate:
The six franchises which are console exclusives are split over two consoles. Well, three if you include the PS2 because Sony decided to go back and take features out of the PS3. Sure there probably are other games he'd play, but it is kind of a hefty investment even before actually buying the games.
What are you talking about? There are video cards which cost close to the amount of a console.
I mean sure PC are the bleeding edge of gaming tech, but what happened to the last game that really took advantage of that? And why has the PC hardware market stagnated? Because this console generation is lasting longer.
There's also videocards which can play every modern game out there for $100~$150 if you catch a sale. As for this console generation lasting longer, I wouldn't really bet on it all that much. They may say that they plan on it, but in a heavily competitive industry it doesn't make any sense to do so unless you have a high level of collusion. It's game theory. None of them can really afford to strategize on rolling the same hardware for ten years because if the other two release the next best thing the market shares refresh and they are fucked. Collusion wouldn't be uncalled for because all three benefit if the console life lasts longer, but that takes a lot of trust in your competitors.
But really, I don't see what the deal is. It's not like D is really against consoles...he just doesn't want one.
-
I am about to turn 30 this year, so I think I am too old to get into another PC vs console debate, so I am not going to even start that.
But D, like yourself, I had been avoiding consoles like the plague. I didn't like either the original Xbox or the PS2... they felt childish to me, but the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are very very PC like, aside from the modding.
I skimmed through your list of why you love PC gaming, but what does that have to do with the question? You are like a walking Bioware style codex machine or something haha..
My point is that if you don't own an Xbox 360 or a PS3, you are missing out on a ton of games that never get ported to PC. It has nothing to do with your reasoning. Buy and keep a console on the side, if you can afford it.
Like I said, I was in the same boat as you. I got a PS2 and an Xbox for my siblings and thought they were too consoly and I didn't like them. But this generation it feels much more PC like. It feels like an open experience.
In the end, GPW is right, what should we care what you do... it doesn't matter, but there are so many exclusive console titles you are missing out on.
-
Ultimately, D doesn't even play half the games he buys, so he really doesn't need to spend more money on more games that he won't play.
-
Good point... but that's good advice for so many of us.
Granted, I only started playing games again half a year ago, but I have four either barely touched, or shrink wrapped PS3 titles sitting in the wings. I also have yet to begin Fallout 3, Borderlands and two other triple A PC titles.
There's also videocards which can play every modern game out there for $100~$150 if you catch a sale.
Yea I just bought my sister a 9600GT recently and it is smoking every game out there. It cost about a hundred buckaroos so it was totally worth it.
-
Yeah, I bought a 9600GT about a year ago for roughly the same price. I haven't had any problem at all running much of anything (have not tried Crysis though).
-
Yea, I didn't install it on her system but had that game been a priority, I wouldn't have gotten her that card. She is more about RPGs like the Dragon Ages, the Mass Effects, the Oblivions, and strategy games like Company of Heroes and Civilization IV. All of those are running really well on her 1600x900 monitor.
It is great value for that card. I would have gotten the 4770 which is better, but she already had the Nvidia drivers on her freshly formatted system, and for some reason the 4770 is overpriced by $30 here.
-
We should start a fund to get D a console because this obviously holds some weight here. Who's in?
-
Fuck that, buy me a Wii.
-
I'd be curious to know what the failure rate is for Xbox consoles bought in the last year or so. I wouldn't be surprised if the systems that are still failing are ones that are at least a few years old. It may just be luck on my part, but my 15 month old system is still doing perfectly fine, and I can't help but wonder if it's because I didn't buy one until the failure rate was remedied. I'm not saying you should rush out and buy one, but I do wonder if a lot of the Xbox hate around here is based on MS fucking people early in the system's life, and not necessarily how the current systems preform. (ie: how it would affect you if you got one)
My first 360 and its warranty replacement both failed. Not exactly confidence building for someone who has never seen a console fail before (in the last 20 years). But this new Jasper unit gives me hope they finally fixed this. My UPS has a wattage readout. The difference in reported wattage after turning something on tells me what it's using. The old 360s read about 180 watts of power consumption. The new one reads just shy of 100. Both those numbers are in-game, not the UI. The form factor and cooling design are the same, so it's relatively a lot more effective.
I don't know about 15-month-old machines. Falcons should be somewhat better than the original Phoenix (defective) design. But the real issue appears to be the GPU, which wasn't shrunk until the Jasper. We'll see.
This thread is a lot more awesome than I expected from its title.
-
I should clarify that while I like my PS3 and 360, and they do feel more PC like, there is still no way in hell I'd pick a console version over the PC version. Just games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 look and play vastly superior on the PC. In my mind it isn't even a contest.
I just think that they are worth owning for games that are better on the consoles (like fighting or sports games), or exclusives (like Demon's Souls or Gran Turimo), or games that get ported to the PC poorly.... In the past, this wasn't the case. No exclusives in the world were worth operating a PS2 for me. It just felt -- for the lack of a better word -- mind numbing to play a PS2 game. The system just felt so ancient and prehistoric as compared to playing a game on the PC.
With the PS3, I can go online, there are frequent store and dashboard updates... I can download a lot of stuff in the background... the games are updated... there is DLC... you can upgrade the hard drive... the device allows me to watch TV shows off of my USB flashdrive... I mean it is a more PC like experience.
But as far as console gaming has come, properly developed PC multiplatform titles are always the obvious choice. People can disagree, but I know of very few people who have game capable systems who'd rather play a game like Mass Effect or Dragon Age or Fallout on their 360 rather than their PC.
Yea a lot of people would disagree, but these are the same people who haven't gamed on their PC for the past 5 years, and don't have a gaming system and a decent LCD monitor.
The only trouble is that properly developed PC ports are becoming rare. I will never buy a Ubisoft game on PC for example. I'd actually rather play Assassin's Creed 2 on my PS3/360, simply because of all the frustration that company has put me through.
Also, I'd avoid any PC title that forced G4WL on me like the genohpage.
-
But as far as console gaming has come, properly developed PC multiplatform titles are always the obvious choice. People can disagree, but I know of very few people who have game capable systems who'd rather play a game like Mass Effect or Dragon Age or Fallout on their 360 rather than their PC.
Yea a lot of people would disagree, but these are the same people who haven't gamed on their PC for the past 5 years, and don't have a gaming system and a decent LCD monitor.
For example, me. Oh, I don't disagree. I would rather play Fallout 3 on a kick-ass PC, with proper mouselook. Thanks for rubbing my face in it. :P First it was a cost/poverty issue, and now we can add to that what iPPi and W7RE said. PC is the superior platform; the PC games themselves by and large no longer are. There's not enough of them (especially not enough unencumbered by deal-breaking DRM) to justify the expense for most gamers--although I assure you, if money weren't an issue, I'd still end up with one. I'm weak that way.
-
Component prices have never been lower, and you can build a very good rig for about $600 or so.
Then again, you can get a 360 arcade for $199, or a PS3 for $299.
And yes, half decent ports are becoming more of a rarity. There is too much of a background check involved with buying PC games nowadays. For example, I will never buy a PC game released by Ubisoft or one that forces you to use G4WL. That still leaves a good chunk of games, but there are so many (like Assassin's Creed) that I would rather play on the console than PC, which is a shame.
-
But still, there are tons of PC exclusives that are great, not to mention tons of indie titles. It isn't as though it's hard to find good games to play on PC, even with the somewhat irritating current state of affairs. For that reason it's nice to have the option of both a PC and a console, but I still don't think anyone *needs* more than a PC if that's what they've got, especially now that services like GoG are making older games available that one may have missed. There's *tons* of stuff to play. But it does seem strange to me that a hardcore gamer would actively limit himself to one realm.
-
A main factor for me is that I'd much rather sit on my couch and play a video game than sit in my computer chair at the desk. Those days are over for me. I sit at a desk all day, it's the last thing I want when I get home.
-
!#$& &!#$ (#@$ !@&$# !#%*#$!
-
But still, there are tons of PC exclusives that are great, not to mention tons of indie titles.
Mount & Blade; Dawn of War series; upcoming ARPG from Crate (I think it was called Grim Dawn); Total War series; Egosoft's X series; STALKER series - all current PC-exclusive.
If the guy doesn't want a console, I don't really see why anyone would care. Because he makes posts about news items focusing on games not going to PC? I find it informative and helpful.
Thanks, GPW. :) I appreciate that.
Just b/c I don't own a console, it doesn't mean I shouldn't post stuff about console games that I find interesting - especially when probably 95% of you guys around here do have consoles.
Yes, I would love to see Alan Wake and Heavy Rain come to the PC - but, eh, I don't think that'll be happening. If it does, ain't gonna be anytime soon, either.
EDIT:
What are you talking about? There are video cards which cost close to the amount of a console.
I mean sure PC are the bleeding edge of gaming tech, but what happened to the last game that really took advantage of that? And why has the PC hardware market stagnated? Because this console generation is lasting longer.
I dunno - how well did DIRT 2 PC sell, which has DX11 support?
Do the console versions of DIRT 2 don't have any sort of DX11 support and features?
-
I have a three year old PC, a 360, and a Wii. The latter two are dust-collectors. I'm not anti console. I just don't like console games. Third party action, JRPG, and racing games just aren't my thing. I much prefer FPS games, which are 1000x better on PC.
-
A main factor for me is that I'd much rather sit on my couch and play a video game than sit in my computer chair at the desk. Those days are over for me. I sit at a desk all day, it's the last thing I want when I get home.
Unless it is a shooter, RPG or an RTS, I'd have to agree. I am not sure why it drives Que mad though haha. :P
What is wrong with gaming on a couch Que?
-
I play FPS on my Xbox.
I pretty much just play WoW on my PC.
-
What is wrong with gaming on a couch Que?
Nothing wrong with it at all. Read the Alan Wake thread for details.
-
Read it and I agree. It is kind of a stupid argument.
-
I hadn't thought about it, but reading that Alan Wake thread does make it seem like Microsoft is purposely sabotaging PC gaming. The theory thrown around in there was that Microsoft wants more games only on 360 so people buy those. What isn't being considered though is that if PC gaming dies, what really binds people to Windows in their homes?
For years people have been saying they'd like to give Linux or Mac OS X a shot but there are no games so they are forced to stay with Windows. If the games go out the window (pun intended), I think there could be a hemorrhage of people ditching Windows in the home. In fact, I really think it's begun. At airports, I see more people with Mac laptops than PC laptops and it's not even close like 1.1:1. I see like 5:1 Mac to PC. I don't know if this is related to PC gaming at all, since laptops generally don't make great game machines but five years ago you didn't see 5:1 MacBook to PC laptop in the airport, that's for damn sure. It was more like 10:1 PC to Mac.
Does Microsoft stand to make more money if people use 360's as their console but end up getting an iMac or MacBook for their computing needs?
-
Maybe it just seems that way? I remember reading that Mac market share dropped a percent back to 9 percent while Windows was at 90%.
edit:
OK it is apparently even a bigger gap than that:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10445776-56.html
In September, ahead of Windows 7's release, Windows had 92.77 percent of the market, compared to 5.12 percent for the Mac.
-
Oh yeah Windows still has the lion's share, but Apple's been making gains. Not in business (which I can attest they could care less about), but in homes.
Anyway, regardless of the perceived versus actual market, my question remains. If the barrier to entry for Linux and Mac collapses with the withering or utter death of the PC games market, those platforms could start seeing big gains in installed base at the expense of Microsoft. If Microsoft gains some Xbox 360 customers at the expense of OS and potentially office suite customers, is it a win for them?
-
I wouldn't mind seeing a switch over to Linux (Macs are too expensive for what they are). The hard part is getting companies to make a Linux version, instead of just abandoning PC entirely and focusing on consoles. You'd need something big like Rage or Civilization 5 to be Linux only with no Windows version. Which doesn't seem like to ever happen. And until Valve releases a Linux Steam client, none of those people will ever switch.
I think PC gaming is in store for a real rough patch in the next couple years. Its going to change drastically, we'll see far fewer big name games but I hope we see a rise in indie games. Companies that play to the strengths of the PC platform instead of making a dirty console port as an afterthought. PC gamers are getting tired of being treated like shit.
-
Nothing wrong with it at all. Read the Alan Wake thread for details.
Just checked that out. Stupid reasoning for not bringing a game to a platform. Course that's probably not the real reason at all.
-
Indeed. I just really get sick of hearing it.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing a switch over to Linux (Macs are too expensive for what they are). The hard part is getting companies to make a Linux version, instead of just abandoning PC entirely and focusing on consoles. You'd need something big like Rage or Civilization 5 to be Linux only with no Windows version. Which doesn't seem like to ever happen. And until Valve releases a Linux Steam client, none of those people will ever switch.
I think PC gaming is in store for a real rough patch in the next couple years. Its going to change drastically, we'll see far fewer big name games but I hope we see a rise in indie games. Companies that play to the strengths of the PC platform instead of making a dirty console port as an afterthought. PC gamers are getting tired of being treated like shit.
I'm not talking about PC gaming becoming Mac or Linux gaming. I'm talking about PC gaming going away and existing only on consoles. Then what advantage does Windows have over Linux or Mac other than the fact it's usually what people use at work?
That's what I mean when I allude to the fact that Microsoft sabotaging PC gaming could bite them in the ass. Sure, they might get more people to buy 360s but they also might lose Windows customers at the same time. Maybe Office customers too.
-
Scott, you're severely underestimating the population that will continue to use Windows because it's bundled with their new PC or because they're used to it. The vast populace doesn't want to seek out another OS. They just want their computer to work so they can view e-mail and porn.
-
...and you can do any of those things on any OS. Look, I am not saying that there would be a drastic shift in the market but rather that the potential for a shift would be there. One of the biggest draws of Windows has always been that that's where the games were. If there aren't any games, then the only thing that Microsoft has is recognition as you allude to.
Either way, it's a gamble. Sure Microsoft might keep people buying Windows and Office at home and add a Xbox, but the incentive to keep Windows around won't be as strong and I could see a lot of people switching to a Mac. A majority? Probably not, but enough that it might not be a good idea for them to sabotage PC gaming at the expense of lost sales of Windows. Then again, I am sure they have guys working the numbers on all this stuff and maybe it'll drastically increase their profits even if they lose 20% of the home OS market. I'm just not so sure.
-
I'm with K-man. Regardless of the logic, they just aren't going to lose 20% of the market, or at least I can't see that as being likely. The possibility could always be there, but that doesn't make it likely. More likely is that more people move to their console and nobody switches their OS and they come out on top because people are fucking suckers.
-
I am (or was) a techie. And even I feel a sense of insecurity when I try to do things on a computer through unfamiliar tools. Scott, Linux is probably old hat to you by now, but for me it would be a significant climb to get anywhere near as comfortable with it as I am with Windows. I know exactly what to do in just about any situation. I know intimately what goes right and what goes wrong. Pull that rug out, and it will take me a while to find my feet again. I can't imagine any significant number of even less adept consumers choosing to go through with that, even if they're pissed at Microsoft, which most of them won't be in any case.
-
This can be split off into its own thread, but it got me thinking. What if Microsoft had poured this much money, time, and resources into PC gaming instead of starting the Xbox line? I mean, they were the total underdogs in the console space and they decided to dump money into it to fight against Sony and Nintendo. The Xbox never made money for them, and the 360 has had its issues that cost them a lot. They still arent on top, with the PS2 winning last gen and the Wii taking this one. Though I guess they are currently "on top" as far as HD consoles go.
But what if all that was for the PC instead. They basically have no competition in that space. They could have "consolized" PC gaming, but in a different way. Xbox branded video cards that were guaranteed to run games? Imagine getting nvidia and ATI on that, where as long as it has an "Xbox" sticker you know that that card will run those games (like with my idea of "minimum system requirements" should dictate a certain level of performance at a certain resolution). The card makers could of course make faster cards and they could advertise as such, just as long as they hit that minimum spec.
The Marketplace, Live Arcade, even Live matchmaking would have been easier to set up and would have beaten Steam to the punch. Of course they probably wouldn't have been able to charge people for it...guess that was their reasoning. No idea how much money that actually brings in for them though.
But its interesting to think of how different things would be if MS pushed PC gaming to be the superior gaming platform we know it is. And yes, we'd still have DLC and such but that seems like an inevitability. Only now MS is actively killing PC gaming and Valve/Steam has stepped in to take over (which is fucking WORSE in my opinion).
Oh well, I think I'll go cry now.
-
I would cry for the opposite reason. Microsoft getting into the console game may have been detrimental to pc gaming but it did wonders for console gaming. Xbox live, DLC, marketplace, media center, the awesome controller, hard drives in consoles. Without the xbox there's no way we would've gotten all of that for $299. Right now I have a $300 computer that does everything I want and a $300 console which can do far more than play games and I'll never have to worry about system requirements or copy protection again. I'd take that over a PC gaming renaissance any day.
-
We can no longer be friends.
-
...and you can do any of those things on any OS. Look, I am not saying that there would be a drastic shift in the market but rather that the potential for a shift would be there. One of the biggest draws of Windows has always been that that's where the games were. If there aren't any games, then the only thing that Microsoft has is recognition as you allude to.
Either way, it's a gamble. Sure Microsoft might keep people buying Windows and Office at home and add a Xbox, but the incentive to keep Windows around won't be as strong and I could see a lot of people switching to a Mac. A majority? Probably not, but enough that it might not be a good idea for them to sabotage PC gaming at the expense of lost sales of Windows. Then again, I am sure they have guys working the numbers on all this stuff and maybe it'll drastically increase their profits even if they lose 20% of the home OS market. I'm just not so sure.
I think the problem is that MS knows that for a shift like that to happen, they'd have to make some drastic changes which really tick PC gamers off.
The reason why such a shift wouldn't occur is the same reason Cobra didn't buy a PS3 when his 360 died.
The problem is that we are too heavily invested in PC gaming....
From what I understand, developing DX games for another other OS is impossible/illegal, because MS owns DX, and while there was a time when DX and OpenGL were competitive, DX has blown much further ahead.
Then, it isn't like a console where you can just own two. Here you have to dual boot, and while guys like us wouldn't mind, the average gamer would find it too daunting.
The other issue is that to develop for another OS, a developer would have to take a massive risk, and I can't see anyone trying that aside from some big name publishers.
The final thing is WHY. Why would we want to shift. I mean, yes, MS is massively indifferent to gaming on the PC, but it is indifference, not sabotage.
Windows is still an open platform, so would it be worth the effort to go to another one?
By the way, I like a lot of ideas in this thread. It would have been interesting if MS had instead focused on making PC gaming.
Ren makes a few excellent points as well.
There is also no doubt that the launch of the Xbox 360 helped PC gaming to some degree. At least for the first two years of the 360's cycle there was a definite phase where where PC gaming got a boost because there was a sudden jump in technology which wouldn't have happened otherwise. Then you had a lot of development for the 360 of console style games which ended up being ported to the PC.
edit:
I'd also like to point something else out. Just look at how long it takes when there is a new OS (like Vista) for video card manufacturers and game developers to get their act together. In many ways Windows 7 is like Vista SP4. The point is that it takes the developers of the OS, the video card manufacturers and game developers many years just to get games performing at an acceptable level on a new OS. For the first few years XP was easily outperforming Vista in gaming... it is just a huge undertaking.
I think MS realizes all of this. They know that not one, but a few software giants would have to get together and put in a massive undertaking to make another platform a reasonable competitor to gaming on Windows.
And while there has been indifference, MS knows it shouldn't kill PC gaming all together. That's why they continue to release substantial updates to direct X.
Besides, all console development happens on Windows anyway.
-
I read an interesting theory about how making DX10 Vista exclusive and then Vista failing to capture the market really killed MS's interest in PC gaming. But that was their own damn fault, really. Now with Windows 7 actually catching on maybe they will try? At this point I sort of doubt it.
-
All console development happens on Windows, and all 360 development is a hop, skip & jump away from working directly on Windows. What this tells me is that the problem is with developers and their attitudes, of which Microsoft is only one. If piracy is the root cause of their flight to the safety of consoles, well, what can be done? We don't want draconian DRM or loss of control over what we buy. They want money. If there is no middle ground, game over.
-
Remember how MS used to push how easy it was to release games on both 360 and PC? What happened there? Why didn't they follow through and push that more?
-
All console development happens on Windows, and all 360 development is a hop, skip & jump away from working directly on Windows. What this tells me is that the problem is with developers and their attitudes, of which Microsoft is only one. If piracy is the root cause of their flight to the safety of consoles, well, what can be done? We don't want draconian DRM or loss of control over what we buy. They want money. If there is no middle ground, game over.
But still, MS is the biggest problem. While they truly seem to be indifferent, the least they could do is follow through on some of their projects. It has been years but G4WL is still a buggy piece of crap, and makes Steam look like a bank next to it.
A few days ago Bioshock 2 came out, and required saving be done online and through G4WL.
Well all hell broke loose. Remember my thread about being unable to access the online features of Arkham Asylum because G4WL kept crashing? Well, at least I could play online.
The forums of Bioshock 2 are full of LIVID people who apparently can't access their game because G4WL can't seem to work for them. I actually learned of this through the PCG podcast forums, where someone mentioned he couldn't load his game, until he deleted the save folder, but now he can't save his game or something.
Remember those rumors about MS buying EA. Well, while that would have been impossible (EA makes a great deal of money selling games on the PS2 and PS3, to be worth the cost they'd have to continue to sell on those platforms), I am still glad it didn't somehow happen.
MS as a publisher is not at all interested in bringing its games to Windows.
Remember how MS used to push how easy it was to release games on both 360 and PC? What happened there? Why didn't they follow through and push that more?
What happened was that Vista was out, and the PC gamers who were going to be sucked into buying it, bought it.
I think it was all a marketing ploy.
The whole G4W thing and DX10 thing ran out of steam the moment Vista was launched.
It could also be that Vista had the lowest Windows adoption rate of all time. Meanwhile, Win 7 is setting all sorts of records. It could be that MS didn't want to invest further in a sinking ship.
edit:
I was reading the other day that MS is planning to make Windows 8 a huge departure from anything they've done before. Apparently it is going to be like the leap to Win 95, and they were still talking about making direct x a big part of it, so it seems that at least some minimum level of interest from MS will continue.
-
The Steam Jan. 2010 Survey is very interesting - as it shows that even w/ Win 7 out and Vista been around forever, approx. 42% of their users (that actually participated in the survey) are STILL running Win XP 32-bit; which is the most popular OS Steam users have. (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey)
About G4WL - w/ all its DRM stupidities (see 15 install limit on Bioshock 2 PC) and the damn saving profile issues bullcrap people have had with it (see Bioshock 2 PC, Gears PC, and Arkham Asylum PC) - it freaking sucks, for the most part.
I must say, though - the interface is much better than how it was when it first launched (it was too console-like then). Best thing about G4WL - I can talk/e-mail my nephew through there and all - since XBL and G4WL are tied together - he has XBL; I have G4WL. And it's cool that if you have both, you can use one account for both XBL and G4WL. That's about all I really like about G4WL.
EDIT:
I was reading the other day that MS is planning to make Windows 8 a huge departure from anything they've done before. Apparently it is going to be like the leap to Win 95, and they were still talking about making direct x a big part of it, so it seems that at least some minimum level of interest from MS will continue.
M$ would be crazy NOT to keep DirectX a big part of Windows, since their API is the most readily used here on the PC, these days and age - especially commercially. There's just way too many Indie and big-name game studios out there that are still releasing games on the Windows platform and are using DX Only.
As interesting as a re-emergence of OpenGL might actually sound, I don't think Microsoft would be willing to let that happen. That might REALLY hurt their OS sales - as maybe more dev's and gamers would think of just supporting OpenGL and its multiple PC platforms (PC, Mac, Linux). I think if M$ stopped DX and suddenly OpenGL re-emerged as a big-time player on the scene, we might see more games being made supporting multiple PC platforms in one box like Blizzard often does - with their games often out the box supporting Windows and Mac. Though, you might see say Linux also tossed on gameboxes, too. If M$ stopped supporting DX, I think Windows itself as a platform would be in for a major hurting...
-
But still, MS is the biggest problem. While they truly seem to be indifferent, the least they could do is follow through on some of their projects. It has been years but G4WL is still a buggy piece of crap, and makes Steam look like a bank next to it.
A few days ago Bioshock 2 came out, and required saving be done online and through G4WL.
Well all hell broke loose. Remember my thread about being unable to access the online features of Arkham Asylum because G4WL kept crashing? Well, at least I could play online.
The forums of Bioshock 2 are full of LIVID people who apparently can't access their game because G4WL can't seem to work for them. I actually learned of this through the PCG podcast forums, where someone mentioned he couldn't load his game, until he deleted the save folder, but now he can't save his game or something.
OK, hold it there. That illustrates my point, both of them actually. Bioshock 2 doesn't have to use G4WL. That was somebody's choice. Bioshock 2 doesn't have to wrest control and ownership away from its buyers. That was somebody's choice. (See my scathing comments about that one in the game's thread.) Steam, which you mentioned, is another choice, not tied to Microsoft. As much as I personally hate it, it's enjoying massive success, and it's a rational (oooh . . .) choice for 2K Marin. And there are other choices too, of course, none of which are Microsoft's, as far as I know. Therefore, Microsoft can't be blamed with sabotaging the game on PC. Microsoft's indifference is irrelevant as well.
-
I am (or was) a techie. And even I feel a sense of insecurity when I try to do things on a computer through unfamiliar tools. Scott, Linux is probably old hat to you by now, but for me it would be a significant climb to get anywhere near as comfortable with it as I am with Windows. I know exactly what to do in just about any situation. I know intimately what goes right and what goes wrong. Pull that rug out, and it will take me a while to find my feet again. I can't imagine any significant number of even less adept consumers choosing to go through with that, even if they're pissed at Microsoft, which most of them won't be in any case.
I mentioned Linux only as an option. If you read my posts more closely you will realize I think that most people would choose a Mac over Linux even if I didn't state it overtly.
And yes techies know Windows in and out. But the average person is just a user with no knowledge to fix even simple issues on Windows and can easily use a different OS. Jennie uses my Linux laptop all the time to check the Internet and e-mail and I've never had to tell her how to use it. Overall interface design isn't really all that different amongst computer OS' for most of the functions.
I think the problem is that MS knows that for a shift like that to happen, they'd have to make some drastic changes which really tick PC gamers off.
The reason why such a shift wouldn't occur is the same reason Cobra didn't buy a PS3 when his 360 died.
The problem is that we are too heavily invested in PC gaming....
From what I understand, developing DX games for another other OS is impossible/illegal, because MS owns DX, and while there was a time when DX and OpenGL were competitive, DX has blown much further ahead.
Then, it isn't like a console where you can just own two. Here you have to dual boot, and while guys like us wouldn't mind, the average gamer would find it too daunting.
The other issue is that to develop for another OS, a developer would have to take a massive risk, and I can't see anyone trying that aside from some big name publishers.
The final thing is WHY. Why would we want to shift. I mean, yes, MS is massively indifferent to gaming on the PC, but it is indifference, not sabotage.
Windows is still an open platform, so would it be worth the effort to go to another one?
By the way, I like a lot of ideas in this thread. It would have been interesting if MS had instead focused on making PC gaming.
Ren makes a few excellent points as well.
There is also no doubt that the launch of the Xbox 360 helped PC gaming to some degree. At least for the first two years of the 360's cycle there was a definite phase where where PC gaming got a boost because there was a sudden jump in technology which wouldn't have happened otherwise. Then you had a lot of development for the 360 of console style games which ended up being ported to the PC.
edit:
I'd also like to point something else out. Just look at how long it takes when there is a new OS (like Vista) for video card manufacturers and game developers to get their act together. In many ways Windows 7 is like Vista SP4. The point is that it takes the developers of the OS, the video card manufacturers and game developers many years just to get games performing at an acceptable level on a new OS. For the first few years XP was easily outperforming Vista in gaming... it is just a huge undertaking.
I think MS realizes all of this. They know that not one, but a few software giants would have to get together and put in a massive undertaking to make another platform a reasonable competitor to gaming on Windows.
And while there has been indifference, MS knows it shouldn't kill PC gaming all together. That's why they continue to release substantial updates to direct X.
Besides, all console development happens on Windows anyway.
Do people even read what I write? I thought it was pretty clear that I was talking about a scenario in which computer gaming is dead and only console gaming exists.
-
Well, replace "Linux" with "Mac", and what I said dilutes only somewhat. :) People used to Windows PCs are unlikely to switch over, and the Mac has never been a strong gaming platform anyway.
Edit: Yeah, man, we read what you posted. I did anyway. But if this unlikely scenario where games disappear entirely from personal computers comes to pass, then people will have no incentive to switch anything. They'll stick with what they know for email, browsing, media, and productivity tools. Not much room for an interesting conversation there.
-
Well, replace "Linux" with "Mac", and what I said dilutes only somewhat. :) People used to Windows PCs are unlikely to switch over, and the Mac has never been a strong gaming platform anyway.
Why do I bother speaking? For the love of God I am talking about a situation where gaming only exists on consoles!!! I like to think that what I said previously was crystal clear.
The theory thrown around in there was that Microsoft wants more games only on 360 so people buy those. What isn't being considered though is that if PC gaming dies, what really binds people to Windows in their homes?
For years people have been saying they'd like to give Linux or Mac OS X a shot but there are no games so they are forced to stay with Windows. If the games go out the window (pun intended), I think there could be a hemorrhage of people ditching Windows in the home.
Anyway, regardless of the perceived versus actual market, my question remains. If the barrier to entry for Linux and Mac collapses with the withering or utter death of the PC games market, those platforms could start seeing big gains in installed base at the expense of Microsoft.
I'm not talking about PC gaming becoming Mac or Linux gaming. I'm talking about PC gaming going away and existing only on consoles. Then what advantage does Windows have over Linux or Mac other than the fact it's usually what people use at work?
Do people even read what I write? I thought it was pretty clear that I was talking about a scenario in which computer gaming is dead and only console gaming exists.
-
OK, I will reply directly to those quotes, which I think I comprehend completely. First, see my edit to my previous post. More succinctly, the barriers to switching from one OS or computer philosophy to another are massive for most people, and they will not do it over gaming (which disappeared from all computers, right?).
-
I don't really see a situation ever developing where gaming only exists on consoles. As long as computers can play games, people will make games for them.
-
Sorry Scott, obviously when you say PC gaming, you mean Linux and Macs. That's how it should be of course... but with the whole Mac vs PC stuff, I always think of PC as Windows when it obviously isn't *just* windows.
I thought you were talking a shift from Windows gaming to Linux or Macs.
-
If games didn't exist on Windows, I don't think that too much would change. Among my group of friends, the breakdown is probably about 90% Windows, 10% Mac. Of that 90%, not a single person plays games on their pc. For them, a computer isn't a consideration as a gaming platform. The main reason for that is that none of them own a desktop. We're all on laptops and gaming laptops suck and are far more expensive than the alternatives. And we're all on Windows instead of linux because it does what we need and we know how to use it. Actually, most of them barely know how to use windows, I can't imagine anyone wanting to learn anything new to switch to Linux or even Macs.
I realize that it's pretty irrelevant to your point because it ignores the people who currently do play games on their computers. But it does make me wonder. Laptops are a much bigger portion of the computer market than they were 5 or 10 years ago. That has to contribute in some way to the decrease in pc gaming's popularity.
-
Laptops are a much bigger portion of the computer market than they were 5 or 10 years ago. That has to contribute in some way to the decrease in pc gaming's popularity.
I'm sure that doesn't help PC gaming, either - since many game companies only support desktop-powered video cards.
EDIT:
I don't really see a situation ever developing where gaming only exists on consoles. As long as computers can play games, people will make games for them.
I'm sure for every PC developers we lose on the PC to go strictly console or PC dev that goes multi-platform (PC and console) - there'll be another dev' company popping up supporting the PC. And it's probably a cycle that wouldn't break, either. It's just the way it goes...
-
Gaming is my main reason for keeping my computer up to date, as well as my OS. If I find there's nothing on PC I want to play (currently there's MMOs and the odd FPS that's PC only) I'll stop upgrading my PC and OS. I could use Win XP 32-bit for another 10 years as long as it still lets me do web/email and watch streaming video (like Youtube). I wouldn't want to switch because of my familiarity with Windows, and the fact that yes, all those older games I own can still run on it (well, most of them).
So in short, PC gaming dying off completely won't get me to switch OS, but it will get me to stop upgrading my OS and my hardware.
-
So in short, PC gaming dying off completely won't get me to switch OS, but it will get me to stop upgrading my OS and my hardware.
Exactly. Ultimately what the majority of the population wants is something familiar to them. If it isn't broken, they have no interest in fixing it. Oh, and most of these people's PC gaming consists of Bejeweled, Peggle, and Mafia Wars.
-
Most people upgrade because their computers get slow over time since they don't know how to maintain them. And with laptops, they physically break and need to be upgraded. Except for the high-end, computer sales wouldn't go down without pc gaming.
And there is a need for faster computers among the mainstream. Computers that are a few year old stutter when playing high definition video. People will need bigger hard drives and will buy a new computer instead of trying to upgrade themselves. USB 3.0 will be coming out soon and as soon as devices start to take advantage of that, people will buy new computers.