Topic: Chris Taylor and Peter Molyneux join the death of PC gaming chant

[Cobra951]

Gears looks like trash on 360 after playing it on my new rig.  I thought the graphics were amazing before, but playing it on this thing is like playing a different game.  It almost feels that way -- I never realized how choppy/blurry the 360 version is.

Blurry?  What do you use for a display?

[gpw11]

I have it for 360 and PC as well, though I have trouble with it on the PC.  It gets jumpy.  Not like a low framerate... just I don't know... jumpy.  A lot of other users were reporting the same problem.  I haven't played in awhile though.  Maybe they patched it.

I believe they did, although I can't say if it helped or not.  The game has quite a few problems.

[scottws]

Well I Googled it and not only has the stuttering problem not been fixed by any patch, but it hasn't even been acknowledged by Epic Games or People Can Fly, even though the issue is extremely common.  Supposedly it has something to do with it acting more like a console game than a PC game with how it streams data.

There are various config tweaks people have suggested, but there does not seem to be any sort of end all, be all fix that works for everyone and in some cases no amount of tweaking will improve the issue.

[Pugnate]

Epic have sadly gone the way of consoles. This is reflected in their new Unreal engine, that has numerous PC related limitations that are obviously there because of a console focus.

[Pugnate]

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/853/853261p2.html

Well one of the key things that is really affecting the economics and the success of gaming in general is piracy on the PC. So one of the reasons we'll see RTSs on the console is because people can't pirate it. That's why we're going to see a lot more of everything on the console. When you look at the sales of really hardcore games like Crysis and you think, "Wow, those games should have sold a lot more," you realize that's probably due in large part to piracy. And you realize that a game like Crysis would have done its true numbers if it had launched on console first.

Crysis was the best shooter since Half-life 2, that probably lost a lot of sales to piracy, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t sell well. In Europe the game is still in the top 3.

But piracy isn’t the only issue with the game. How many people were able to run Crysis at the visuals that were showed off at the preceding E3? I personally feel Crysis’s release date should have been pushed by a year, till the hardware caught up. 

IGN: There are a lot of people that want to just plug a keyboard and mouse into their consoles. What side of the fence do you fall in on that idea?

Chris Taylor: Once upon a time, maybe ten years ago, I might have said keyboard and mouse, too. That doesn't even come up in the darkest corners of my mind anymore. I could see a little touch screen like an iPhone on the middle of your joypad, but definitely not a keyboard and mouse. It's all about the beauty of having the traditional console type experience with a slight augmentation of an advanced control. It's gotta be robust. It's gotta be able to be kicked around on the floor. You can't have a tricky, complex gadget in the living room. It's gotta be able to take abuse. It's gotta be cheap, otherwise it won't catch on. We don't want to bring all of the baggage of the PC to the console.

That doesn’t sound like Chris the developer talking, rather Chris the businessman.

Well, yeah, because if there's success on the console, people are going to stop making them on the PC because of my earlier point, what's happened on the PC with piracy The economics are ugly right now on the PC. You're not going to see these gigantic, epic investments of dollars on the PC when it just doesn't work. The economics have to work. You're going to see those investments made on the console side and it's going to become a more console-centric investment. And then you're going to see them ported back over to the PC and that creates a different experience on the PC.

That sounds unfortunate, but is a realistic possibility. In fact it has already happened with many games. Right now, us PC gamers are lucky to even be getting ports.

But I have to say, Taylor wouldn’t be throwing a fit if his game had sold well. Honestly, when was the last time he really made a truly great game? Total Annihilation was his best, but since then he seems like the sort of developer who is better at developing engines than actual games. Take into account games like Dungeon Siege and Supreme Commander, which were good, but are relics in terms of narrative.

And the reason I am not surprised is that this guy has been looking at the bottom line for a long while. In a column for PC GAMER, he wrote about wanting to simplify games so that they appeal to the non-gamers. It seemed like he wanted to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I think he is more interested in being part of the next "Wii" than something that appeals to the more demanding gamers.

While SupCom had good RTS mechanics, it wasn’t a complete game by today’s standards. Its storyline, production values, and even unit interaction felt like cheap after thoughts.  You can’t just make a 3D engine, polish the game mechanics, and then think the job is done expecting to sell a gazillion copies. Outside of a genre’s niche, buyers expect production values, a well woven storyline, and transition content. SupCom didn’t do that effectively. The days of selling skeletons of gameplay are over, unless you are happy with sales figures that compete with indie titles like Galactic Civilization or Sins of a Solar Empire.

Yes piracy is a problem, but there is a reason why StarCraft II is going to sell 15 million copies while Supreme Commander struggles to sell even a million.

I very much doubt that SupCom would have sold better had it debuted on the 360 first, like Taylor implies. It seems as if Taylor isn’t looking at his game objectively. Company of Heroes has set high standards on what a game needs to do, to compete. Indie titles like Galactic Civ, and Sins of a Solar Empire do see success, but they are happier with a million units sold. If Taylor wants his games to sell like StarCraft, then he’s got to make them complete experiences like StarCraft.

Also, there are reasons aside from piracy why Unreal Tournament III tanked in sales. The singleplayer was an absolute joke! It was basically offline multiplayer missions, with stupid cut scenes in between put together as an afterthought, and it was a totally stupid attempt at applying gameplay logic to the story. They would have been better off putting together a proper campaign ala Gears of War, and boasting the more traditional multiplayer on the side. And while the multiplayer was fun, it still felt like UT2004 in a new coat.

Again, this isn’t the year 2000; rehashes and simplistic attempts do not sell anymore.

You know what I am going to do? I am going to make a flash based game which lasts five minutes, and involves gamers hitting Chris Taylor and Cliffy B with a stick. Then I’ll charge consumers $50 for it, and blame piracy if it doesn’t sell well. Then, I’ll release the same game next year with slightly better animation and a new game mode that allows users to wield two sticks, except I’ll continue to charge $50 and again blame piracy when it doesn’t sell.

Look, piracy is obviously a big issue. But it isn’t the only issue. This is like the Al-Qaeda syndrome, where everything is blamed on the popular target. It isn’t that the popular target isn’t at fault, but it is too automatic a reaction.

Here is one final tidbit, regarding USA RTS sales:

http://www.thesimexchange.com/search.php?string=command+and+conquer

Not counting online sales, command & Conquer 3 sold 1.17 million on the PC, while the 360 version is expected to cap at 470,00. That says something.


http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33298

GDC: Molyneux despairs at "tragic" state of PC gaming

Warcraft, The Sims "sucking the air out of PC market," says Lionhead boss

Lionhead boss Peter Molyneux has said that the PC gaming market is in a tragic state, with two blockbusters hogging sales and stagnation in the casual market.

Speaking in an interview to our sister site Eurogamer.net, to be published later this week, Molyneux was sharing his views on the current PC market following comments made by Epic's Cliff Bleszinski that it is in “disarray”.

"I think it's a huge tragedy. I mean, you might as well say PC gaming is World of Warcraft and The Sims... The weird thing is everyone's got a PC, they're just not buying software for it," commented Molyneux.

And while many developers are chasing the casual PC gaming market as the next big thing, Molyneux believes it's already suffering from repetition and a lack of imagination.

"There's an enormous amount of gaming happening with PopCap, Big Fish and Reflective.

"The fascinating thing is when they first started, all these games came out like Peggle and Mystery Files and Alice Greensleeves and Diner Dash, and it felt quite exciting. There was a lot of innovation going on. Okay, there weren't great graphics, but there was innovation.

"In my view, that has completely stopped. They're doing the same game over and over again with a different wrapper. It's like a mini-universe in itself which is emulating what's happening in our industry," he added.

"The second thing is, you've got The Sims and World of Warcraft sucking all the air out of the PC market. It's just incredible," he said.

The full interview with Peter Molyneux will be published on Eurogamer.net later this week.

wtf... this stuff is depressing.

[idolminds]

Oh no, WoW and The Sims sells MILLIONS of copies each! PC gaming is doomed! Lets not step back and see WHY these games are selling so well, so that we can create a game that would sell to those gamers. No, that would make too much sense.

And I think the fact that Crysis, the most demanding PC game in terms of hardware requirements, sold a million copies already is telling me that PC gaming isn't as bad off as I thought. The Witcher also sold very well especially considering the brand was unknown in the US, it had little marketing, and is a hardcore RPG that you would think has little appeal outside the hardcore.

Devs just need to leverage the market and stop giving us fucking console ports.

[Pugnate]

And I think the fact that Crysis, the most demanding PC game in terms of hardware requirements, sold a million copies already is telling me that PC gaming isn't as bad off as I thought.

Those games didn't sell well in the US dude. We will still see AAA titles, but probably more out of Europe. The point is that it is one thing for fans to be chanting the death mantra, and another for developers. These guys aren't seeing the same success they used to. Again it is a variety of factors, but sad that it is happening.

The Witcher also sold very well especially considering the brand was unknown in the US, it had little marketing, and is a hardcore RPG that you would think has little appeal outside the hardcore.

What are you basing this on? What is "well" for you? The Witcher sold less than 100,000 copies in the US. Crysis sold less than 200,000. Compare that to RPGs of the past that sold 2.5 million, shooters like Doom III that sold 5 million and Half-Life that sold 8 million.

Oh no, WoW and The Sims sells MILLIONS of copies each! PC gaming is doomed! Lets not step back and see WHY these games are selling so well, so that we can create a game that would sell to those gamers. No, that would make too much sense.

Yes, but the why is the scary freakin' thing. WoW is sold by its simplistic leveling up system, and its social interaction, and The Sims... well how many people do you know who played the latest great PC titles, and play The Sims games?

I hope to god developers actually don't take that step.

Anyway I am integrating this with the other thread.

[idolminds]

Doom 3 and Half Life sell well because they are known franchises. Crysis and Witcher are not. Though I didnt look at the breakdown of how the games sold by region. Does that really matter, though? It still sold. Maybe Americans just suck. The PC doesn't have region restrictions so even if all PC dev went European, everyone still benefits.

I don't think the reasons WoW and Sims do well is scary at all.

They are titles with low system requirements.

They both are highly customizable games. Sims you can dress up and build houses or...whatever the hell you do in that game. WoW you can dress up with the various armors and weapons, plus the huge custom UI community.

They are both have a social aspect, WoW with real people and Sims is simulated. People are catching on to this. Battlefield Heroes and Quake Live are going to have community stuff. Steam already has it and people seem to love it.

They aren't strictly combative. This is obvious with Sims, but I have to explain WoW a little. WoW has a lot of combat, but theres much more to do than that. You've got the auction house, the various professions to create things (and sell), you've got different in-game events and holidays, etc. Then the combat itself. You can group with people and its co-op and not just some "boom boom deathmatch" like UT3. You have a goal other than "kill everything" when you take on a dungeon. Of course with Arena, you still have your DM, TDM, and CTF for those that want it.

Thats just what I feel like typing out. I don't want people making Sims and WoW clones. They already do that, and they fail. But there are more fundamental things those games do that makes them appealing that can be translated into more unique games.

[Pugnate]

Doom 3 and Half Life sell well because they are known franchises. Crysis and Witcher are not.

Yea Half-Life came out of no where, and wasn't a known franchise. It sold 8 million before STEAM was invented. Though admittedly it had low system requirements.

Does that really matter, though?

No, I was just pointing it out to you since you commented on the games doing well in the US. It kinda matters in that European developers won't be affected, but the US developers will just go console.

Again I disagree with Chris Taylor's comments though.

They both are highly customizable games. Sims you can dress up and build houses or...whatever the hell you do in that game. WoW you can dress up with the various armors and weapons, plus the huge custom UI community.

They are both have a social aspect, WoW with real people and Sims is simulated. People are catching on to this. Battlefield Heroes and Quake Live are going to have community stuff. Steam already has it and people seem to love it.

They aren't strictly combative. This is obvious with Sims, but I have to explain WoW a little. WoW has a lot of combat, but theres much more to do than that. You've got the auction house, the various professions to create things (and sell), you've got different in-game events and holidays, etc. Then the combat itself. You can group with people and its co-op and not just some "boom boom deathmatch" like UT3. You have a goal other than "kill everything" when you take on a dungeon. Of course with Arena, you still have your DM, TDM, and CTF for those that want it.

So basically the future has a lot of Second Life.

[idolminds]

True, HL1 sales were high. Though it didn't sell 8 million right off the bat. It was slow sales over time. It also helped that HL1 was doing a lot of NEW things in the realm of FPS, and was a solid game. I don't think it would have sold quite as well on its own, though. Counter-Strike probably sold more copies of HL than HL by itself.

So basically the future has a lot of Second Life.

Why so negative? I see all those as positive aspects of gaming. People seem hung up on the "social" part of the thing. Well...oddly, look at Counter-Strike. One of the reasons it became popular was its social aspect. When you are killed, you are turned into a spectator. So you can sit and chat with the other dead players, watch the game, laugh at whats happening, etc. Its very enjoyable even being dead in that game.

[Ghandi]

Dwight Schrute: Second Life is not a game. It is a multi-user, virtual environment. It doesn't have points, or scores, it doesn't have winners or losers.

Jim Halpert: Oh it has losers.


...sorry. Couldn't help myself. Continue on.

[Pugnate]

I am negative because this works for only a specific type of games.

[idolminds]

This'll be fun. Name a type of game that those things *wouldn't* work for, and I'll try think up reasons that it can.

[Pugnate]

I dunno... any serious singleplayer game that doesn't have any social aspects? Any game that pushes the envelope graphically?

Spore is going to use this to its advantage though. Trouble is, I don't want to play Spore all my life.

[Ghandi]

This'll be fun. Name a type of game that those things *wouldn't* work for, and I'll try think up reasons that it can.

How about World of Anti-Social Narcissists?

[idolminds]

I dunno... any serious singleplayer game that doesn't have any social aspects? Any game that pushes the envelope graphically?

Spore is going to use this to its advantage though. Trouble is, I don't want to play Spore all my life.

Ok, so a serious game that doesnt have social aspects. Fine. Make use of the OTHER things. Player customization, for example. Same with the graphically intensive games. You don't have to use every idea in every game, but individually the ideas can be used where they make sense.

[scottws]

I don't think Crysis selling poorly is indicitive of anything other than don't make a game that even a beast PC can barely run properly!  And if you have a crappy-looking Medium setting, it should actually run very well on a modern PC, not just slightly better than the vastly superior-looking High setting!  Good game, but come on the engine is horribly optimized.  No one can play it right.

What did CoD4 do on the PC so far?

Yea Half-Life came out of no where, and wasn't a known franchise. It sold 8 million before STEAM was invented. Though admittedly it had low system requirements.

The original HL was very highly anticipated and had been talked about for years prior to its release.  It also used a very unconventional continuous progression, unlike pretty much every other FPS which was very much level-based at the time.

HL made people and designers alike rethink what a FPS could be.

Crysis is FarCry+.  The only similarity between Crysis and Half-Life is that they were new IPs.  They cannot be compared.

[idolminds]

Well, CoD4 was the #4 top selling PC game of 2007, according to NPD with 383,000 copies sold (not taking into account Steam version sales).

The #10 spot sold 236,000 copies, so Crysis is just outside that figure. And I believe Crysis will be a "long tail" game that sells slowly over a long period of time as people upgrade and want a game to show it off.

[scottws]

Here's a question: do you think high-profile games developers will still be saying PC gaming is dead when Starcraft 2 comes out and its sales figures are released?

[Pugnate]

Thats just what I feel like typing out. I don't want people making Sims and WoW clones. They already do that, and they fail. But there are more fundamental things those games do that makes them appealing that can be translated into more unique games.

The people who buy The Sims games aren't the people who play games like Counter Strike, or Team Fortress 2 or whatever. Social aspects, and showing off what you have done is fine, but the no1 reason people play The Sims is basically to play doll house. That's what sells the game, because it appeals to children, women and guys without testicles.

You could apply the same concept of customization to other games, but then is that the same audience? I see what you are saying though. If you had the next big MMO, that basically allowed you to personalize every aspect of your online life, then that would sell. I can imagine people just playing that MMO without getting involved in the combat at all.

On a side note, remember when The Sims was a hardcore RTS? I used to love that game.

They aren't strictly combative. This is obvious with Sims, but I have to explain WoW a little. WoW has a lot of combat, but theres much more to do than that. You've got the auction house, the various professions to create things (and sell), you've got different in-game events and holidays, etc. Then the combat itself. You can group with people and its co-op and not just some "boom boom deathmatch" like UT3. You have a goal other than "kill everything" when you take on a dungeon. Of course with Arena, you still have your DM, TDM, and CTF for those that want it.

I do feel it is secondary to the one more grinding hour aspect.... Because just about every other MMO that has failed has had the extras you speak of.

People are catching on to this. Battlefield Heroes and Quake Live are going to have community stuff.

Let's see how well those experiments do. But those aren't the sort of games I'd be interested in.

Well...oddly, look at Counter-Strike. One of the reasons it became popular was its social aspect. When you are killed, you are turned into a spectator. So you can sit and chat with the other dead players, watch the game, laugh at whats happening, etc. Its very enjoyable even being dead in that game.

Kinda.... Counter-Strike was popular mostly because it was simple, free, and light on the system. I was hooked on CS for a few years and yes there was socializing in the spectator mode...though a lot of it involved rude things said about each other's mothers.

Ok, so a serious game that doesnt have social aspects. Fine. Make use of the OTHER things. Player customization, for example. Same with the graphically intensive games. You don't have to use every idea in every game, but individually the ideas can be used where they make sense.

You are right, that could help something Unreal Tournament 3. It would have been cool if the tools in the game allowed customization to the degree of Oblivion. If I was able to create whatever look I wanted, I would have had more motivation to play online.

Anyway, how does this help Peter Molyneux and Chris Taylor?

Here's a question: do you think high-profile games developers will still be saying PC gaming is dead when Starcraft 2 comes out and its sales figures are released?

Yes, I have a lot of similar thoughts in the "Chris Taylor... the Xbox fans can have him" post. Read them and let me know what you think.

And I believe Crysis will be a "long tail" game that sells slowly over a long period of time as people upgrade and want a game to show it off.

Exactly. That's what I believed as well. Trouble is that it has gone off the charts this past month.

Well, CoD4 was the #4 top selling PC game of 2007, according to NPD with 383,000 copies sold (not taking into account Steam version sales).

Yes it is expected to sell a million in the US alone.

Crysis is FarCry+.  The only similarity between Crysis and Half-Life is that they were new IPs.  They cannot be compared.

What? I am not comparing them. I was responding to what Idol said about Half-life being a known franchise.

[idolminds]

Crysis falling off the charts doesnt mean its not still selling. Its a slow seller, like I said. It'll drop off the charts because its not selling enough per month to be on them. But over time it adds up.

Its like the opposite of Halo 3. When that launched it sold like 2 million on the first day, then another million in the first month (or whatever, Im exaggerating a bit). But what do Halo 3s sales look like now? I don't see it in the January NPD top 10 (I cant find a 360 specific top 10). It released to explosive sales, and then thats it. It sold to everyone that wanted to buy it. I imagine Halo 3 won't have much of a long tail, especially considering people that haven't yet bought it can probably pick it up used fairly easily (which doesnt help game devs any anyway).

Crysis will always be the system check game. Whenever someone buys a new rig or upgrade, they will run Crysis. Maybe not today, maybe not next month, and maybe not this year. But eventually you will buy a copy if you're into PC gaming.

[scottws]

What? I am not comparing them. I was responding to what Idol said about Half-life being a known franchise.

Right.  You used it as a retort to idol saying the fact that Crysis and The Witcher's disappointing sales can be attributed at least partially to them being new IPs.  Hence you compared them in that sense.

I was merely pointing out that the impact of Crysis on PC gaming and the impact of Half-Life on PC gaming are two very different things; for that reason the fact that they are both new IPs and their resulting sales proves nothing.  There is no correlation.

[Pugnate]

Crysis falling off the charts doesnt mean its not still selling. Its a slow seller, like I said. It'll drop off the charts because its not selling enough per month to be on them. But over time it adds up.

That's been my theory as well, that it will sell steadily. Unfortunately the NPD doesn't provide numbers, so all these theories can't be proven.

Maybe not today, maybe not next month, and maybe not this year

I love it when you talk Casablanca. The only issue is if retailers run out of patience, because gamers love for an excuse to pirate. I haven't been to a North American games store in years, but from I understand, PC games have lost a lot of shelf presence. Do you still see year old games on?

I'll tell you one thing though. In an interview with the GFW podcast, Cevat Yerli talked about the game's sales model being similar to that of the PS3. That made me think that the game will stay at full price.

But eventually you will buy a copy if you're into PC gaming.

I agree. That's one of the things I say on "Crysis is teh suck" threads across the web.

http://www.yougamers.com/news/17331_us_pc_game_sales_charts_-_january_19th/

Anyway the last US data I could find was from the 19th of Jan. How did COD4 go from no1 to out of the list in a week? (edit: Sorry it was a month, not a week)

1    1    The Sims 2 Bon Voyage Expansion Pack    Electronic Arts
2    2    World Of Warcraft    Vivendi
New    3    Medal Of Honor: Airborne    Electronic Arts
3    4    Bioshock    2K Games ( Take 2
5    5    World Of Warcraft: Burning Crusade Expansion Pac    Vivendi
4    6    Medieval II: Total War Kingdoms Expansion Pack    Sega of America
8    7    The Sims 2 Deluxe    Electronic Arts
9    8    Civilization IV: Beyond The Sword Expansion Pack    2K Games ( Take 2
New    9    Battlefield 2    Electronic Arts
New    10    MS Age Of Empires III    Microsoft

edit:

The original HL was very highly anticipated and had been talked about for years prior to its release.  It also used a very unconventional continuous progression, unlike pretty much every other FPS which was very much level-based at the time.

I didn't know if it was anticipated as it had come out of nowhere for me, partially because I hadn't been following it. But I agree that it was a big step in PC gaming, that at the same time could be experienced by everyone.

I was merely pointing out that the impact of Crysis on PC gaming and the impact of Half-Life on PC gaming are two very different things; for that reason the fact that they are both new IPs and their resulting sales proves nothing.  There is no correlation.

Both are PC games, and both are shooters. Yes Crysis doesn't have the same impact as Half-Life, but in my mind it does point to a downward trend. Other titles like Quake Wars, and UT3 tanked desperately as well despite being older IPs.

The problem is that we don't have all the information. We can always find some sort of an excuse for these things, by blaming it on the information we don't have. For example we can say that Crysis is still selling steadily (which I hope it is), but then I look at the list and see Battlefield 2 at no9, and wonder how steadily is it selling if it is below even Battlefield 2. That's troubling. This list actually makes no sense to me.

We could blame Quake Wars and UT3 sales on the competition, that is TF2, but again we don't know how well that sold. Though it has to be said, this holiday season the online shooter market was way over crowded. Aside from TF2, UT3 and QW, you had COD4 -- which a lot of gamers bought for the mutliplayer aspect.

In the end, any game not selling well, is selling on STEAM, and if it isn't on STEAM then it is just some other non decline related issue. PC Gaming is still healthy. Everything is fine!

[poomcgoo]

Blurry?  What do you use for a display?

32" LCD for both.  I wouldn't call the 360 version blurry -- in fact, it's quite sharp -- but the PC version is just so fucking crisp it makes the 360's "sharp" look like a joke.  The difference is shocking when you have both hooked up and running at the same time and switch between inputs. 

So, not blurry, but comparatively blurry.

[idolminds]

I haven't been to a North American games store in years, but from I understand, PC games have lost a lot of shelf presence. Do you still see year old games on?

Depends on the game. I can easily find copies of Guild Wars, Diablo, Starcraft, Age of Empires...plenty of "older" titles.

Heres a fun exercise to try (well, maybe not you...not sure what game stores are like where you are). Walk into a Gamestop and find the small area where the PC games are held. It looks tiny compared to how much room the consoles take up, right? Ok, now the fun part: ignore the racks of accessories like controllers, and ignore every used game in the store. Concentrate on only the new copies of the console games they sell. Now, compare each platform independently against the PC. Suddenly, it doesn't look so large compared to PC. Add in the fact that the console game cases are displayed with the cover facing out, and PC games are shelved like books makes the PC space only look smaller.

[scottws]

The problem is that we don't have all the information. We can always find some sort of an excuse for these things, by blaming it on the information we don't have. For example we can say that Crysis is still selling steadily (which I hope it is), but then I look at the list and see Battlefield 2 at no9, and wonder how steadily is it selling if it is below even Battlefield 2. That's troubling. This list actually makes no sense to me.

We could blame Quake Wars and UT3 sales on the competition, that is TF2, but again we don't know how well that sold. Though it has to be said, this holiday season the online shooter market was way over crowded. Aside from TF2, UT3 and QW, you had COD4 -- which a lot of gamers bought for the mutliplayer aspect.

You're right about assuming.  We are all making guesses here.  But that's all we have to go on.

I think UT3's poor sales can be directly attributed to the fact that it is nearly identical to UT2004, which itself wasn't that much different from UT2003 except for the addition of vehicles.  Plus the UT style is an ancient gameplay type and I think the market has long since shifted.  UT2003 rode on the nostalgia of UT.  UT2004 was UT2003+ and I think still rode the nostalgia wave created by UT2003.  But I think the success of other gametypes in more recent time, (like that in the Battlefield series, for instance) is telling.

ET:QW is harder to explain, but I think it was in a weird place marketing wise.  If there was a triangle and at each point there was Battlefield and its fans, Wolfenstein and its fans, and Quake and its fans, ET:QW is in the middle of all of that.  And if you think about the different points, I mean those fan bases really don't overlap a whole lot, at least in my experience.  My fellow Wolf fans for the most part disliked UT/Quake-style dm twitch gameplay and not many of us were that interested in Battlefield.  I imagine the schism between Quake and Battlefield fans was even wider.

I mean yeah, I guess you could say that's a pretty broad market to try to appeal to, but clearly it wasn't that successful.  As a former-Wolf fan, I'm not totally sold on the addition of vehicles.  I imagine Battlefield fans might be turned of by the sci-fi setting.  Quake fans are probably fans of the gameplay, not necessarily the universe (which quite frankly sucks).

[Cobra951]

After getting dizzy reading that new tome of information since the title edit, we're back to the same key points.  If PC gaming is in decline, the main culprits are piracy and the bitch that it is to have and maintain a system that can handle new technorgasm games.  Everything else seems like a blur of speculation.  Tell me if I missed something, because I miss shit all the time.

[scottws]

I don't think maintaining a PC gaming system is any more difficult today than it was since video cards were required.

Though I suppose it's possible people got lost in the switch from AGP to PCIe and were simply unable to upgrade so many components at one time.

[Cobra951]

That's not what I meant.  You brought the point out yourself with Crysis.

[scottws]

I think Crysis is an isolated incident though... one game.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there hasn't been a spate of games recently that have done to systems what Crysis does.

[MysterD]

1    1    The Sims 2 Bon Voyage Expansion Pack    Electronic Arts
2    2    World Of Warcraft    Vivendi
New    3    Medal Of Honor: Airborne    Electronic Arts
3    4    Bioshock    2K Games ( Take 2
5    5    World Of Warcraft: Burning Crusade Expansion Pac    Vivendi
4    6    Medieval II: Total War Kingdoms Expansion Pack    Sega of America
8    7    The Sims 2 Deluxe    Electronic Arts
9    8    Civilization IV: Beyond The Sword Expansion Pack    2K Games ( Take 2
New    9    Battlefield 2    Electronic Arts
New    10    MS Age Of Empires III    Microsoft

...

For example we can say that Crysis is still selling steadily (which I hope it is), but then I look at the list and see Battlefield 2 at no9, and wonder how steadily is it selling if it is below even Battlefield 2. That's troubling. This list actually makes no sense to me.

Keep in mind, BF2 didn't sell so hot upon release. It sold okay, but not like it could've -- b/c like Crysis was upon its release, requirements were VERY STIFF.

Take a look now; you can pick up BF 2 (w/out the expansions) for like $10 these days -- at places like Amazon and Best Buy. Of course it'll sell well, once it hits that WICKED CHEAP price range -- especially since it was a high-profile game with a big franchise name. It just took a while, for it to really catch on w/ the rest of the world b/c of its stiff-upon-release requirements (which is what Crysis seems to be going through).

BF 2142's requirements weren't that stiff for its time, upon release; it definitely isn't a Crysis. So, there's the people bought that BF 2142 instead of BF2 -- b/c upon release, wasn't much price difference b/t the two, if I recall; might as well opt for BF2142, since it's newer. Now, these BF2142 gamers that have the PC's that can run BF2142, they will obviously be able to run BF2, so they'll pick up BF2 b/c it's so damn cheap -- and to complete the BF collection.

Plus, look at the BF2: Complete Collection that goes for $40 -- that has every BF2 game and expansion in there; that'll sell well just b/c there's so much content in that box to those who missed BF2 completely for whatever reason.

Also, look at the list of games there, Puggy. What game has stiffest minimum vid card requirement there? And what is it? It's probably the GF 6600 minimum vid card requirement from Bioshock, I'd guess. So, what's that tell you? Gamers are going after the game's w/ not-so-stiff minimum requirements, basically.

About Crysis, that's gonna be the next Doom 3 -- meaning it'll sell crazy, once everybody has a PC that can run the damn thing. I know if the game required for a GF 6600 minimum, I've already would've bought it by now.

[Pugnate]

Idol,

Yea we have import stores here. PC games sell really well and better than console games in this part of the world.

Again, I haven't seen the state of things first hand, but from what I understand the boxes are often placed near your feet. Hope this is exaggerated. Glad to see they are still selling those, but keep in mind it is as much about placement as quantity.

Scottws,

Your analysis of UT makes sense to be honest. I also wonder if gamers are thinking that we will get another version of UT3 next year, like UT2004 followed UT2003.

As for Battlefield, it did have great success. I don't understand why 2142 failed. People got fed up?

ET:QW is harder to explain, but I think it was in a weird place marketing wise.  If there was a triangle and at each point there was Battlefield and its fans, Wolfenstein and its fans, and Quake and its fans, ET:QW is in the middle of all of that.  And if you think about the different points, I mean those fan bases really don't overlap a whole lot, at least in my experience.  My fellow Wolf fans for the most part disliked UT/Quake-style dm twitch gameplay and not many of us were that interested in Battlefield.  I imagine the schism between Quake and Battlefield fans was even wider.

Even though I haven't played it, I understand what you mean. Kinda of a jack of all trades then.

I remember you were really excited for it.

Wasn't W:ET a free to download thing? Could that have had something to do with its success?

After getting dizzy reading that new tome of information since the title edit, we're back to the same key points.  If PC gaming is in decline, the main culprits are piracy and the bitch that it is to have and maintain a system that can handle new technorgasm games.  Everything else seems like a blur of speculation.  Tell me if I missed something, because I miss shit all the time.

Pretty much.

I can now see what Que was saying earlier about not having enough data to form a proper conclusion.

I didn't mean to raise this from the dead. I just thought that what Molyneux and Taylor said was newsworthy.

I don't think maintaining a PC gaming system is any more difficult today than it was since video cards were required.

I think when people see how the very best video cards cost $600, and compare that to the Voodoo 2 costing $200, they can understandably draw the wrong conclusions... that PC gaming is very high maintenance. It is all about timing I guess. During the initial life of the 8800,  there was a massive gap between the best and mid range. But now everything is very reasonable.

Personally, I think you upgraded with great timing Scott. Your mobo eventually allowed you to even nail a well priced quad core.

I think Crysis is an isolated incident though... one game.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there hasn't been a spate of games recently that have done to systems what Crysis does.

I think that's perhaps because the market is different now. In the past, we had several system raping titles. Games like Unreal Tournament, Quake III and the Aliens vs Predator games -- especially Q3 and AVP -- all were ahead of their time hardware wise.

Then we had Doom III, the next Unreal Tournament, and Half-Life 2, that again required some system power.

These days most of those developers have gone to consoles, and trends are being set on the 360. Personally, I don't think Unreal Tournament 3 looks much better than GoW. Even the engine feels very consolized. The customization options are at a minimum, and the anti aliasing doesn't work well.

About Crysis, that's gonna be the next Doom 3 -- meaning it'll sell crazy, once everybody has a PC that can run the damn thing. I know if the game required for a GF 6600 minimum, I've already would've bought it by now.

Yea I agree with that. I've said before that I have seen a lot of similarities between Crysis and Quake III. When Q3 first came, I can't begin to recall the hatred the fanboys had for that engine. It was just extremely demanding... and now we think of it as one of the most used engines ever. A pity the game didn't sell as well as it should have.

Also if Crysis doesn't sell another copy, it has already made Crytek a lot of money. Look it up on wikipedia. The game's engine has been licensed to quite a few private organizations.

BF 2142's requirements weren't that stiff for its time, upon release; it definitely isn't a Crysis. So, there's the people bought that BF 2142 instead of BF2 -- b/c upon release, wasn't much price difference b/t the two, if I recall; might as well opt for BF2142, since it's newer. Now, these BF2142 gamers that have the PC's that can run BF2142, they will obviously be able to run BF2, so they'll pick up BF2 b/c it's so damn cheap. And to complete the BF collection.

Right, if BF2142 is newer than BF2, then why the sudden surge in sales? Did the price drop? Did they release some mod?

[MysterD]

As for Battlefield, it did have great success. I don't understand why 2142 failed. People got fed up?

I think this is part of it -- a lot of people didn't like the whole ad-generation in-game thing.

BF 2142's requirements weren't that stiff for its time, upon release; it definitely isn't a Crysis. So, there's the people bought that BF 2142 instead of BF2 -- b/c upon release, wasn't much price difference b/t the two, if I recall; might as well opt for BF2142, since it's newer. Now, these BF2142 gamers that have the PC's that can run BF2142, they will obviously be able to run BF2, so they'll pick up BF2 b/c it's so damn cheap. And to complete the BF collection.

Right, if BF2142 is newer than BF2, then why the sudden surge in sales? Did the price drop? Did they release some mod?

Yeah, price drop, from $20 to now $10. It's now $10 at most retail outlets here in the USA -- that just about begs the words "buy me!" Especially w/ BF being a well known IP for MP Shooters. So, even if you don't like the series, for $10, would you take a chance on it? Yeah, $10 ain't likely going to break your bank, if you're a gamer.

Especially if you don't feel like throwing down the $40 for the entire BF2 Collection, $10 sounds nicer. Plus, you can always buy the extra junk later or collection box later, when it's cheaper -- if you like the game.

Okay, now let's also throw into the mix that EA's done w/ BF2. So, like most EA products that they're done with that are good sellers, they will sell a Complete Collection Box -- hence why they always do these for their big name titles (Sims, Battlefield Games, Yearly EA Sports Collection Box, etc etc). And these collection boxes for EA, ALWAYS seem to sell very well. Now that there's the entire BF2 Collection on the market (w/ BF2, the two BF2 booster packs and the BF2 expansion) that goes for around $40 retail. People will look that there's FOUR pieces in the box for $40 and think -- "Hmmm...comes w/ BF2 game, both BF2 booster packs, and BF2 expansion -- that's a lot of content in a $40 box -- I'm SOLD!" I dunno if there's a new BF2 mod or whatnot, but I think just my reason above of getting a good amount of content in one entire collection box is probably enough to make gamers buy the entire collection (like the BF2 Collection), as opposed to buying one whole new game for the same exact price w/ not nearly as much content right in the box (like say Kane & Lynch).

[Pugnate]

Well I just read that NPD charts aren't in order of units sold, but money made. (not counting online of course)

[MysterD]

About Chris Taylor and Peter Molyneux, of course they'd call PC gaming dead. They looked at their PC gaming sales history for one game and then looked at their console game's sales for one game (which I'm sure were much huger on the console) -- and then decided "console games make me more money much more quickly, therefore PC gaming is dead!"

I mean, c'mon -- how much big competition did the XBox have for RPG's for Fable?? KOTOR series? Jade Empire? Morrowind? Anyone, can you add any others??? (There has to be...like, a few I missed...)

How much competition does the X360 have for RPG's up against Fable 2? The Mass Effect series??? Oblivion??? Can anyone add some others???

Look at the PC's library for RPG's, you'll be looking through a VERY LONG list to go through....
Same goes for RTS's, as well.

For RTS's, what would a X360 console version of SupCom (or any other RTS Chris is planning to bring to the X360) have against it? Maybe C+C 3?

[scottws]

As for Battlefield, it did have great success. I don't understand why 2142 failed. People got fed up?

I think of Battlefield fans like this:

casual male console gamer : Madden :: casual male PC gamer : Battlefield

I realize this is a big generalization, and is based only on anecdotal evidence, but that's what I've seen.  These types of people just aren't into sci-fi.  They just aren't.  Plus, it had the huge in-game advertising billboards and some spyware that told EA what other stuff you had installed on your system.  I'm sure that didn't help sales at all.

Even though I haven't played it, I understand what you mean. Kinda of a jack of all trades then.

Sort of, yeah.  It's got the classic gameplay features of Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, but it adds vehicle features a la the Battlefield series.  And then it's set in the Quake universe with the human GDF and alien Strogg.

I remember you were really excited for it.

I was, but now I feel like the vehicles really detract from what made the Wolf games so great.  I mean that style is still there somewhere, but the vehicles are very heavily used and overshadow that gameplay a lot.  And I just liked the Allies vs. Axis thing from Wolf better than the Quake stuff.  The two sides in the other Wolf games were very similar but in ET:QW there are a lot of differences.

Plus I feel like the game is a little unbalanced towards defense.

Wasn't W:ET a free to download thing? Could that have had something to do with its success?

Oh sure.  But it was originally supposed to be an expansion of RtCW, which was a pretty popular game in its own right.

[Pugnate]

http://download.gamevideos.com/Podcasts/CGW/022008.mp3

Just listen.

I'll integrate this with the the larger thread at some point. I just want you guys to listen to this guy.

[PyroMenace]

Well I can't really add anything... because well, its hard to because it was really damn fascinating. I think Im going to listen to it again.

[Cobra951]

[13:50 - 16:15]  Whether piracy is really the cause or not, these guys conclude that it is, and are taking evasive action as a result.  So it may as well be completely true.  Perception becomes reality.

[16:34 - 16:53]  "Even our system requirements are insane.  Really, forcing people to spend $1000 to $3000 for the privilege of playing your game the way it's meant to be played--we're limiting our potential markets . . ."

He said it.  I didn't.  So don't jump on me this time.   

[18:49] "We're creating this problem, but we're prisoners of it."

[Pugnate]

These guys are going console... things don't look good.

When a great game like Company of Heroes doesn't set sales ablaze, and patches are downloaded 5x more than the game was sold, then they've got a problem.

As for the $1000 to $3000 comment, people at the GFW boards got really upset. Check out some responses here:

http://boards.1up.com/zd/board/message?board.id=games&thread.id=607955

Pretty funny stuff.

Here is what Jeff Green, the EIC of GFW mag., and the guy conducting the interview said on the forums after the interview:

Yeah, today's was weird.  If you had been in the room with us,  it was even weirder in person.  Taylor's a totally nice guy and all--but we couldn't quite figure out what was going on in his head, and we could just never get it all to quite gel as much as we wanted to....

Yeah.  We've had better guests.

I've never heard Jeff Green say anything negative about a developer, so I was quite surprised.

Anyway I can see why Taylor is upset with piracy and all, but I am just dumbfounded at his want to create simplistic games. He's written some crap in the PC GAMER  mag about wanting to have zero complexity...games that are easier to play than Peggle. I honestly think he feels he is about to hit a goldmine on the 360. Let's see.

And who are these people who find RTS games too complex? I am not that smart a person, and I didn't find Company of Heroes all that difficult.

I think Taylor came off as a bit of a jerk. Do read some of the responses on the forums, please:

http://boards.1up.com/zd/board/message?board.id=games&thread.id=607955

edit:

Just wanted to add, that everyone was hoping that STEAM was rivaling total retail sales, when it seems to be closer to representing the same figures as a Best Buy outlet.