"Hardcore PC gaming is dying" [Archive]

econ21

03-15-2007, 12:19

I was surprised to read the following on the front page of

http://www.civfanatics.com/

This year's Game Developers Conference (GDC) was held from March 5-9 at San Francisco. Here are a few headlines related to Civilization or Firaxis from the event.

The first one is a panel discussion titled "PC Gaming in an Age of Connected Consoles" in which Firaxis designer Soren Johnson participated in. Other participants were Obsidian's Chris Avellone, Epic president Michael Capps, and Electronic Arts producer Richard Hilleman. The panel agreed that PC gaming as the hard-core know it is dying, partly due to the high cost of entry (ex. expensive graphics cards) and the fact that people who can afford expensive graphics card often pirate the games. Some advantages of PC cited are persistent-world games and online capabilities. The panel noted a major opportunity that has yet to be properly explored: built-in, powerful ways to showcase user-generated content. Casual games were cited as a huge part of PC gaming's future.

It may concern the Org in particular, because we are sometimes viewed as "hardcore players" that CA have moved away from in making RTW.

I confess I haven't noticed signs of this death yet - the games I'm playing are arguably better than those of yesteryear. This was brought home by the thread on "old school" games - by and large, strategy games like Civ4 or Total War are superior to the old SSI game; and RPGs like Kotor or Vampire Bloodlines knock the spots off hack n slash dungeon crawls[1]. Or maybe I am just dumbing down in my old age.

"Showing casing user-generated content" rings a bell though: major mods like RTR and EB have transformed RTW from being a disappointing miss into a veritable hit.

[1]The bankruptcy of Troika, makers of Bloodlines, and the unfinished condition of kotor2 may be signs of a malady though.

Bijo

03-15-2007, 12:32

There might be some truth in there. Especially the piracy thing would most likely turn off developers/publishers to make games for PC. Crysis is one of those games that will set a new standard, but indeed as they say the entry costs can be high. I can understand certain businesses' growing disinterest due to piracy (and maybe programming difficulties like dual- or multi-core optimization, the upcoming DX10, the upcoming Vista, etc.), but I can also understand the pirate-like behaviour of some "consumers". PC gaming is just expensive, and your hardware is easily outdated in weeks, or months, while consoles last for a couple years in a generation.

sapi

03-15-2007, 12:48

It's an interesting analysis and one that I have to agree with on some level.

PC gaming is certainly more expensive than the console equivalent, and people are spending so much on hardware that they simply can't afford to buy games (or that's how they rationalise it), thus piracy spreads.

I can't see hardcore gaming dieing out any time soon though, although the quasi-hardcore titles (as I would class the TW series in its current incarnation) will probably move more towards the mainstream over the next few years.

Husar

03-15-2007, 13:10

Well, I'm having a bit of a problem to define hardcore gaming here.

People who play a game to reach some really high level and kind of professionality in it are considered hardcore gamers, even if the game itself is a bit simple and arcady.
Then there are very complex games, they qualify as hardcore because it's mostly some hard core of fans playing them. I think Paradox games would be an example.
And since there is a reference to hardware, does hardcore PC gaming maybe mean games for people who keep their computers updated and use their PCs mainly for gaming as opposed to people who occassionally play an arcade game with old graphics etc that would easily run on an average business computer?

I personally prefer a computer because it allows me to put all the multimedia stuff into one machine that I can also partially upgrade like I want(as long as it's technically possible). I can write letters, communicate with people, play games, watch movies, watch TV etc. and all in one powerful machine. And let's not forget about a mouse. I think once consoles can do all that as well, they will be no different from PCs and their pricing may reflect that. To some degree it already does because games for consoles are a lot more expensive to cover the losses from selling the consoles.

Duke John

03-15-2007, 13:16

Casual games were cited as a huge part of PC gaming's future.
Very true. Casual games are a very big market already although I believe it is currently mainly filled by games aimed at women, such as those match-3-games.

I hope that someday there will be more casual wargames; games that do not demand the latest hardware or require that you go through tons of info screens, but still offer you challenging gameplay representing historical warfare. Perhaps I might even fill that gap myself for a tiny bit once my Wars of the Roses game gets done... eventually :grin:

econ21

03-15-2007, 13:53

Good point on "casual gaming". One of the things that puts me off some of the "old school" games is the amount of time you'd have to commit. Modern games tend to give more immediate gratification. In that respect, Total War is notably far from casual - I've never calculated how long it takes to finish a campaign, but I suspect it rivals Civ (40+ hours?).

Bob the Insane

03-15-2007, 14:17

What about Microsoft and Vista and Windows Live and the New Dawn of PC Gaming and all that jive??

TinCow

03-15-2007, 14:29

It certainly depends on how you define "hardcore gaming" but there has definitely been a change. I have a lot of friends who work in the games industry, a few from Turbine and Bethesda. The Bethesda people in particular have had to deal with the requirement that their games be console compatible. My friends also have to put up with the constant whining of RPG fans and especially Fallout fanatics who think Bethesda is destroying everything good an holy about their particular passions.

It is true that there are limits being imposed on the games by the publishers, who now insist on advances in all areas. For example, Bethesda has a requirement that all dialog be voiced. So that alone makes the text-heavy games like Morrowind a thing of the past for them. They have tried to compensate somewhat in the Elder Scrolls games by continuing to make more in-game books to displace the lore that has to be removed from the dialogs.

Despite all of this though, I still think games are consistently increasing in quality. People moan and complain about how all releases now are buggy. LOL. All released have ALWAYS been buggy. The only difference was that before Internet use became common (and even for a while afterwards), patching was pretty much non-existent. Since most people don't notice most bugs, the patching process simply emphasizes problems that they didn't see before. It's like Annual American Summer Paranoia, be it shark attacks, child kidnappings, etc. We perceive a rise in incidents because there is a rise in reporting, but it has always been there, we just weren't paying attention before.

Many of us 'old school' gamers equate quality with masses of text, lots of number crunching, and tons of stuff that everyone else finds ridiculously boring and tedious. Why are we right? It all comes down to one thing: the games have to be fun. If they're fun, they've succeeded. Just because I played Ultima III and Zork doesn't mean I can't enjoy Unreal Tournament as well.

R'as al Ghul

03-15-2007, 14:35

The panel agreed that PC gaming as the hard-core know it is dying, partly due to the high cost of entry (ex. expensive graphics cards) and the fact that people who can afford expensive graphics card often pirate the games.

People who can afford expensive graphic cards = game pirates (often).
Interesting analogy. I wonder, has there been a study or is this just a cheap polemic? Of course, people who own consoles would never download illegal copies of console games, would they? :dizzy2:

Bob the Insane

03-15-2007, 14:38

Another thought... Are the days of the pure PC limited? Will we get some modular home computer with home entertainment components, Home Office components, gaming components and such....

If you could pop open a slot on your 360 to insert an updated Gfx card or more memory would it still be a console??? Heck if I could control CoD3 with mouse and keyboard on the 360 what then?

I really think MS missed a beat not releasing some Office software for the 360. I men you can plug a keyboard in it right now but it simply makes typing messages easier...

Bob the Insane

03-15-2007, 14:44

People who can afford expensive graphic cards = game pirates (often).
Interesting analogy. I wonder, has there been a study or is this just a cheap polemic? Of course, people who own consoles would never download illegal copies of console games, would they? :dizzy2:

Thanks for picking up on that bit, I had not noticed... I feel almost annoyed... (cookie for anyone who id's the quote)

I can afford the expensive PC and the bits that go with it... I built it myself...

I don't see the point in pirating games when they cost like $40 (I took a collegue to lunch yesterday and it cost $45) and I can pick them up at Best Buy next to my office or free 2 day delievery from Amazon...

It's not like new (good) ones come out every day...

I would be far more likely to go for the $60-$70 a pop 360 games from an illegitimate source (not that I have)...

TinCow

03-15-2007, 14:47

Are the days of the pure PC limited?

Actually, I think the days of the console are limited. The only ways that PCs have changed is by becoming more user-friendly. That user-friendly aspect is what attracted people to consoles in the first place. Well, that and the much lower price.

Now we have consoles that use standard PC parts, run stripped down PC OSs, have internet access, and most importantly... aren't cheap anymore. You can build a decent gaming PC for $800. The top level PS3 costs $600. Not much of a difference anymore. If you look at the evolution of consoles, they have consistently become more and more like PCs, with an additional user-friendly aspect to them.

I see the future not as the death of the PC, but as the PC becoming the master control for all multimedia sources in the home. The PC isn't devolving, it is simply picking up more responsibilities and other devices are merging into it.

BDC

03-15-2007, 14:49

PC gaming wouldn't be dying if Intel pull the finger out and produce onboard graphics that are half decent. If 2/3 (or whatever) of the computers sold can't even cope with anything beyond 2D, there isn't much hope is there?

I still think 'indie' games such as Mount and Blade or Galactic whatever are going to be around more in future. Compare M&B to most 'professional' games; it looks as good as ones several years old and plays better than most modern ones.

Geoffrey S

03-15-2007, 16:44

One question springs to mind: if hardcore gaming is decreasing and casual gaming increasing, what is then the reasoning behind the steadily increasing amount of patches that are needed to fix essential bugs in new games? Surely such issues should dissuade new buyers?

Hardcore gaming as such may be decreasing, but I believe this would be more due to the type of games released than to any major change in the market. The increase in production values of modern games makes it more attractive for most companies to focus on shorter and more accesible games, aiming at doing a particular thing as well as possible. The current generation of gamers has grown up with this and knows no different; gamers of about my age are probably borderline cases. In other words, I think not hardcore gaming isn't dying but hardcore games are, thus decreasing a future market for similar games.

Older, more established companies such as Bioware and Valve can afford to keep games large while meeting the expected production values, but newer companies must make smaller games or else appeal to a smaller crowd with games traditionally considered hardcore. The resources available are simply inadequate for all but the larger companies.

BDC

03-15-2007, 17:30

Kongamato

03-15-2007, 18:02

This has been happening ever since MS decided to make the Xbox. Gaming PCs are expensive, and the threat of piracy is always there. The games themselves must also handle many different hardware configurations. Bill Gates keeps saying that the future of the computer is hand-held and portable, and that the "box" is going to go extinct.

I think this is just another indication of the game market moving towards the average Joe. The "casual" future of PC games as described by this panel probably refers to Flash games and freeware. I see the PC as becoming more of a "minor league" of gaming developers, where independent studios will work on downloadable games like DEFCON and GalCivII.

drone

03-15-2007, 18:49

If PC gaming dies, so does CPU/GPU hardware tech development. It's not really in the best interest of anybody to see that happen.

Not having to pay a license fee to Sony/MS/Nintendo to create a PC game should be incentive enough to keep some companies making games for PCs. The overall usefulness along with the modding aspects should also keep PCs in business.

Spino

03-15-2007, 19:34

Hardcore PC gaming isn't going anywhere. It is quite difficult bringing a complex RTS, strategy game, flight sim, fps, mmo or rpg from the PC to a console but rather easy the other way around, all that is really needed is some allowance for the PC's basic mouse/keyboard configuration.

Sure you could make consoles more powerful and expandable. But the problem with the console/PC fusion idea is that you wind up making a pseudo-PC with precious little expandability compared to the real deal. Make it highly expandable and well, then you've gone and made a PC with console functionality which is arguably what PCs are already. I can easily purchase an analog feedback gamepad and play a game ported over from consoles however console owners are crap out of luck when it comes to adding in the right peripherals in order to play complex PC games. I honestly don't think this will change anytime soon. Why? Cost. The PS3 and XB360 are about as state of the art as you can get and yet they were incredibly expensive to develop, manufacture and purchase. For the same price as a console and expansion card one could pick up a PC that offers alot more functionality and expandability for the entire family as opposed to youngsters looking to get their game on.

Thanks to their expandability and open architecture PCs will always remain ahead of consoles in the technology curve. By the time a state of the art console achieves serious market penetration new PC technology has already surpassed it.

I feel much more confident saying casual PC gaming is easily killed by the console market.

Spino

03-15-2007, 19:36

Furthermore, MMOs have given hardcore pc gaming a new lease on life. Success of a given mmo game is not measured in terms of sales but in terms of active subscriptions. $10-15/month is a ton of cash, even if the subscription base is only around 100K.

Navaros

03-15-2007, 20:55

Bob the Insane

03-15-2007, 21:21

Rodion Romanovich

03-15-2007, 21:25

I doubt hardcore gaming is dying. On the contrary, the tendency that a larger percentage of gamers are beginners at gaming is just a sign that the gaming market has started to appeal to a larger percentage of the population. Due to this expansion, there's currently a large percentage of buyers who haven't played many games before, and prefer not so difficult games. After a few years of gaming I'm sure this group will get tired off too simplistic and dumbed down games. I personally wasn't at all interested in deeper games the first few years I played games, but now am not very interested in blinking virtual Christmas trees. As long as the games are moddable and there are ambitious modders, I buy even those games, but of course I'll be more likely to buy the games closer to release (thus at a higher price with more income to the developer and producer) if it comes with more serious content from the start. Serious games will probably not die, on the contrary it'll become larger than ever, but that will not happen until in a few years from now.

doc_bean

03-15-2007, 22:10

It's the console age, I've been saying it for a while, who knows what the future will bring though.

drone

03-15-2007, 22:57

It's the console age, I've been saying it for a while, who knows what the future will bring though.
Sore thumbs?

Kongamato

03-15-2007, 23:12

After a few years of gaming I'm sure this group will get tired off too simplistic and dumbed down games. I personally wasn't at all interested in deeper games the first few years I played games, but now am not very interested in blinking virtual Christmas trees.

This is very similar to my experiences, but what I feel is happening is that the producers do not expect the new mainstream gamers to be interested in deeper games. I started playing RTS games after FPS, and then moved on to STW and MTW. I don't see games with their kind of depth being made in the future.

My view is that the producers have identified the core gaming market as 13-18 year old males, and the cost to make a truly serious, deep game for hardcore gamers is not worth the return. New gamers will replace the old, jaded ones. Gaming will be something that you outgrow.

drone

03-16-2007, 00:04

I do software for a living, but I have no experience in the gaming world, so excuse my gaming economics ignorance here.

I assume it takes more manhours to create the models, skins, tiles, animations, etc. for the newer high-eye-candy games than it does for lower quality graphics. Developing the engine for such graphics probably takes much longer to accomplish as well (although engines can be reused). I would imagine that there is a sweet spot somewhere, where increasing the eye-candy will just be a waste of time and money for the program without raising the cost of the game beyond the standard price. Can the artistic modelling tools keeping up with the complexity? Will we reach a point in gaming where the video cards will offer so much power that it is economically unfeasible to use it?

And if that point is reached, can they start putting gameplay back in, please? ~;)

Xiahou

03-16-2007, 00:26

And if that point is reached, can they start putting gameplay back in, please? ~;) Indeed. Maybe if they'd stop driving development/hardware costs up by pushing the graphics envelope they could save money and invest in gameplay, storylines, ect... you know, all that stuff that's secondary to graphics. :idea2:

ShadeHonestus

03-16-2007, 00:52

Even the MMO community is going down the tubes. Its all going the way of WoW, crap graphics, no story line, no pvp...its all about carebear casuals who end up devoting more and more time in little carebear worlds... The great genre of Warhammer is, I fear, going to fall victim to this when its released. Its going to be nothing more than a gradually progressive and dumbed down to wow standards FPS(for pvp) and carebear extreme (for pve).

So much potential....too many blind dollars to chase.

TevashSzat

03-16-2007, 01:55

The thing is that in all studies regarding PC game sales, no monthly subscriptions for MMORPGs were taken into account. If some hardcore gamer got into WoW, they probably won't be buying that many new games and instead focusing on finishing that 1,000,000th time running Molten Core instead. Think of it, Blizzard has sold over a million copy in the US alone, multiple it by 15 bucks each month then twelve and you get a couple hundred more million from just one MMORPG. Most games even high quality games such as Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion or KOTOR won't even come near to making that much money

doc_bean

03-16-2007, 09:25

And if that point is reached, can they start putting gameplay back in, please? ~;)

I feel it's going the way of the movie industry, for a while we'll only see big budget titles with big explosions 'that are just meant to be entertainlment', smaller titles will get virtually no attention, then people will probably get fed up with seeing another damn explosion and might crave a little depth again.

Or maybe it's just me who thinks the average quality of movies has gotten a lot worse the last decade and the analogy doesn't work for all :shrug:

Bijo

03-16-2007, 14:12

You're not the only one, doc, who thinks the quality of movies has gone down. I've stopped watching new(er) movies years ago, 'cause there's serious crap being released. There's always crap movies or products being released throughout time, but it's never been so bad as for a couple years. Simple ****** up entertainment for the simple masses who desire instant easy gratification.

What I read here, and have noticed myself, is that with games it's more or less the same. Pfff, I hardly look at newer games nowadays 'cause I think it's not even worth the look, except for some exceptional titles/series like Half-Life 2 (old), Far Cry (old), TW series (going down the drain), KotOR series (decent, still waiting for new one), Jade Empire (just fresh for PC), Crysis (this year and setting new graphics standard, gameplay decent).... and some really old games, and old-school console ones.

Heck, if you're an old-school gamer who likes quality sometimes you're better off with an old SNES or NES or something :P

Ja'chyra

03-16-2007, 16:16

"Hardcore PC gaming is dying"

Hope not, I just spent £1100 on a new pc.

Even the MMO community is going down the tubes. Its all going the way of WoW, crap graphics, no story line, no pvp...its all about carebear casuals who end up devoting more and more time in little carebear worlds... The great genre of Warhammer is, I fear, going to fall victim to this when its released. Its going to be nothing more than a gradually progressive and dumbed down to wow standards FPS(for pvp) and carebear extreme (for pve).

Whats wrong with being a Carebear, they pay for the priviledge so they can do whatever they like.

Veho Nex

03-16-2007, 17:38

Not sure what the thread title is trying to say.

Does it mean that PC-exclusive (ie: not console ports) games are dying? If so, they aren't dying. They are already dead. They died 2 or 3 years ago.

If they are saying PC games that require hardcore game players to enjoy are dying - no they aren't. They were never alive to begin with. The only hardcore PC game that I know exists is Shadowbane. As far as I can tell, for the most part hardcore PC games do not exist and never have.

I disagree hardcore gaming did exist once before with older games such as AoE2 or Stronghold, and for FPS Doom and Duke Nukem, while Dos has older games like exile that i still know alot of people play.

I mean, I myself still play Duke Nukem and AoE2 and exile on a daily basis but all my friend have transitioned into the more expensive areas of gaming.

Though the older hardcore gaming as most older players knew it is dying off we now have games like Company of Heroes and WoW were people play for graphics or textures or sound and not exactly the story or entertainment. A lot of my friends who used to play company of heroes got bored because even with online play there isn't enough replay value. but thats what I think...

Incongruous

03-18-2007, 02:21

While I accept that the TW series has lost everything that made it unique (it wont be long till alot of rts games come out using the same idea), it's MOD community is huge and dedicated, NTW reinvented MP for m, EB, ATW and RTR gave me a completley new game. So perhaps in the furture, pc communities will become more dependant upon comunity creations, that on new Vanilla products.

Whacker

03-18-2007, 03:05

"Hardcore" PC gaming is definitely worse for the wear, I agree wholeheartedly. There are a number of indicators in my view, for example the lack of real honest to god sim-type games, especially flight sims, real flight sims and not arcade-fest deals like all of those WWII deals lately. Any sim for that matter. The only thing that seems to be reasonably close that I can see lately is that Silent Service 4 game that was just released. I had high hopes for that Battlestations Midway game, until I tried it and found that it wasn't a simulation at all, more like a ... 'naval FPS'.

I guess I just equate "hardcore" with thinking games, complicated strategy, and/or realistic mechanics/portrayals. Dumbing down games and interfaces does NOT improve games, IMO. Making it so I have to "press less buttons" or "memories fewer key commands" does not improve a game. Hiding or obscuring game mechanics, esp. in stuff like D20-based RPGs, so that "i dont hav 2 wory about dum math n numbrs lol" is not an improvement.

In terms of what to blame for this, I think there are a number of things, but a few stand to the forefront in my mind. First, the fact that many games are developed for both PC and one or more consoles. Deus Ex 2, Oblivion, Thief 3, etc... all games that suffered greatly because they were developed with the express intent of working on both PC and console (I won't get into nitpicking why exactly these sucked, there were numerous different reasons for each one, but the point here is dual console/pc ports generally suffer). It's often argued that games have been "dumbed down" over the past years. I submit that this is both true and not true. One only needs to look at examples like from Morrowind to Oblivion to see an example of this, or look to Civ4 to see a counterexample. The other big point is that publisher marketing seems to think that doing whatever they can with their product to aim it at the "casual" gamer will garner more sales. This may be true or it may not be, I've never seen any hard data that supports this.

Last thing guys, MMOs are a blight. MMO does NOT equal "hardcore", period, hardcore applies to any game. Most WoW players are 'casual' players. And please spare me the "well my MMO, (name of mmo here), is hardkore lole". Hardcore was/is the guys who played Baldur's Gate and double-checked the game's D20 rule accuracy against their rulebooks and did their own math. Hardcore is the people who set up their computers to look like plane cockpits and buy $300 joysticks (I have the Cougar HOTAS, but not the flight setup thing). Hardcore is the "you run faster with the knife" people.

Respectfully

:bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

03-18-2007, 03:29

If some hardcore gamer got into WoW, they probably won't be buying that many new games and instead focusing on finishing that 1,000,000th time running Molten Core instead.

Well I got into MTW and then VI and they were all I played or bought for 5 years :oops:

doc_bean

03-18-2007, 09:01

Everybody has his/het own definition of hardcore. Looking at the original thread, the term just seems to refer to people willing to spend a lot of money on PC upgrades, for whatever reason.

Smaller 'hardcore' strategy games like galciv 2 or EUIII seem to finding their own niche market these days, but the amount of big budget titles being released is shrinking and those that get realesed are often derivatuive (another WWII RTS, game X in the series, another FPS,...), new, original games are getting rare (just like the movies).

ShadeHonestus

03-18-2007, 18:46

Last thing guys, MMOs are a blight. MMO does NOT equal "hardcore", period, hardcore applies to any game. Most WoW players are 'casual' players. And please spare me the "well my MMO, (name of mmo here), is hardkore lole". Hardcore was/is the guys who played Baldur's Gate and double-checked the game's D20 rule accuracy against their rulebooks and did their own math. Hardcore is the people who set up their computers to look like plane cockpits and buy $300 joysticks (I have the Cougar HOTAS, but not the flight setup thing). Hardcore is the "you run faster with the knife" people.

:bow:

Obviously you fail to know what you're talking about, daoc from the beginning had been considered and categorized as 'the' difficult mmo, the only one. Do you have any idea the exterior tools made to support the game, template calculators, ra calcs, etc. The actual complex dmg tables, resistances etc... Not to mention its longevity as a realm vs realm vs realm basis for constant, consistent and total pvp which group dynamics, support, dmg's and their mitigating factors that have to considered. Not to mention that most people run at least 2 or three computers to play on anything but classic and even classic takes more than one computer do anything non pvp. WoW which everyone measures by is paper rock scissors in a comic book.

so spare me the tweekers fast twitch fps mindset...

respectfully...

Whacker

03-18-2007, 21:10

Obviously you fail to know what you're talking about, daoc from the beginning had been considered and categorized as 'the' difficult mmo, the only one. Do you have any idea the exterior tools made to support the game, template calculators, ra calcs, etc. The actual complex dmg tables, resistances etc... Not to mention its longevity as a realm vs realm vs realm basis for constant, consistent and total pvp which group dynamics, support, dmg's and their mitigating factors that have to considered. Not to mention that most people run at least 2 or three computers to play on anything but classic and even classic takes more than one computer do anything non pvp. WoW which everyone measures by is paper rock scissors in a comic book.

so spare me the tweekers fast twitch fps mindset...

respectfully...

Thanks for not reading what I posted, your "scathing" rebuttal is noted and appreciated.

MMO does NOT equal "hardcore", period, hardcore applies to any game.

Emphasis underlined. As for your DAOC argument, that's great, there are other MMOs that people have done the exact same thing for. Just because you obviously like it and provided your own weak opinion, doesn't make it "more difficult, the difficult one" out of the list, so please spare me your sanctimonious attitude. MMOs still suck, for the record.

TevashSzat

03-19-2007, 00:18

The thing is, surveys and polls and statisticians are ignoring the MMO player base most of which if the MMO is old enough, is hardcore. Not one very active player on Ultima, Everquest, Dark Ages of Camelot, and other well known old MMOs are 'casual' gamers. Even WoW will become solely for hardcore players eventually. Once it sells its 6th or 7th expansion, a new player to the game will have no idea what to do because everyone is either trying to get to the new level cap or farming for the best items or getting their 15th new character outfitted with the best gear to the level cap.

ShadeHonestus

03-19-2007, 01:29

As for your DAOC argument, that's great, there are other MMOs that people have done the exact same thing for.

wrong...daoc has unique aspects, trust me, I'm rather informed in the marketplace.

Just because you obviously like it and provided your own weak opinion, doesn't make it "more difficult, the difficult one" out of the list, so please spare me your sanctimonious attitude. MMOs still suck, for the record.

Actually it wasn't me stating that, it was and has been noted by many companies including microsoft. What made Daoc different is that it played to the model of difficulty as their product of commerce and did not make commercialization the sole goal and end all sum game of their product. They knew that if the built a genre a certain way, the players for that niche would come and stay, and they have. So assert your weak opinions on somebody else, where you can get away with them. Play tested and Beta'd many a game...so at least my opinion is informed.

Here we are on TW forum where we have to beg for decent MP and daoc is the game that caters to the hardcore MP crowd the most, group, team, army (zerg) combat open ended in objectives and purpose.

Emphasis underlined.

If that was true, than this...

Hardcore is the people who set up their computers to look like plane cockpits and buy $300 joysticks (I have the Cougar HOTAS, but not the flight setup thing). Hardcore is the "you run faster with the knife" people..

or this

mmo's still suck.

Wouldn't have made its way into your argument. You were specifically identified as exclusionary as I was not, I was only stating on mmo's and the same effect felt in that genre, so please, spare me your uninformed bias opinion.

Not one very active player on Ultima, Everquest, Dark Ages of Camelot, and other well known old MMOs are 'casual' gamers.

Yeah, met very few Daoc players that you could call casual. Casuals have their niche in each, but not the majority in Daoc.

Once it sells its 6th or 7th expansion, a new player to the game will have no idea what to do because everyone is either trying to get to the new level cap or farming for the best items or getting their 15th new character outfitted with the best gear to the level cap.

DAOC has for the most part minimized the effect with a few exceptions, that being the end game results in massive RvR combat and not end game pve raiding. It has both, but the end game and consequences are pvp, not carebear.

Whacker

03-19-2007, 01:46

wrong...daoc has unique aspects, trust me, I'm rather informed in the marketplace.

Bull, there's no difference. As for this...

Actually it wasn't me stating that, it was and has been noted by many companies including microsoft. What made Daoc different is that it played to the model of difficulty as their product of commerce and did not make commercialization the sole goal and end all sum game of their product. They knew that if the built a genre a certain way, the players for that niche would come and stay, and they have. So assert your weak opinions on somebody else, where you can get away with them. Play tested and Beta'd many a game...so at least my opinion is informed.

Show me some evidence then, instead of soapboxing. Quoting "planetcamelot" or whatever the main fan sites with "zomgthisisthegreatest" crap doesn't count, show me something from a nonbiased source. Better yet, show me several sources, seeing how you've claimed this is, in short, "the one".

Here we are on TW forum where we have to beg for decent MP and daoc is the game that caters to the hardcore MP crowd the most, group, team, army (zerg) combat open ended in objectives and purpose.

Not going to get any disagreement from me here on the TW and MP part.

Wouldn't have made its way into your argument. You were specifically identified as exclusionary as I was not, I was only stating on mmo's and the same effect felt in that genre, so please, spare me your uninformed bias opinion.

You took and read my post wrong, and connected certain statements that were not meant to be connected as I clearly indicated above. And at least I can admit that I'm biased against MMOs, Mr. Fanboy.

For the record, my post was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek and not malicious at all, so I do apologize it it was taken this way. On the other hand, I found it somewhat amusing seeing that you've signed the CoH and bear the badge, as quite a bit of your responses so far clearly violate that code and it's intent twenty ways from Sunday.

ShadeHonestus

03-19-2007, 01:56

Show me some evidence then, instead of soapboxing. Quoting "planetcamelot" or whatever the main fan sites with "zomgthisisthegreatest" crap doesn't count, show me something from a nonbiased source. Better yet, show me several sources, seeing how you've claimed this is, in short, "the one".

Actually, your google-fu must be weak if you can't find outside of daocrus.com or welovedaocforrealz.com, I'll give you a chance to find some.

You took and read my post wrong, and connected certain statements that were not meant to be connected as I clearly indicated above. And at least I can admit that I'm biased against MMOs, Mr. Fanboy.

Fanboy? and please its Fanboi...and no. I don't even play any mmo's atm besides Beta testing one part time. I did play a pirates one that was free for about 2 weeks, but it was a rather weak model.

On the other hand, I found it somewhat amusing seeing that you've signed the CoH and bear the badge, as quite a bit of your responses so far clearly violate that code and it's intent twenty ways from Sunday.

I was responding to the vile that was not phrased or characterized in any way tongue in cheek. You're the one who jumped on mmo's like a fat lady at the dessert bar 5 mins to close. I won't hide behind my pledge to CoH and retract my statement's tone. I believe, in playing with many of those CoH, way before you became an Orgah, that part of CoH is the display of integrity in action and thought. CoH does not mean stand down to a vile post that attempts to vilify or characterize your statements in an untrue manner....

econ21

03-19-2007, 02:01

Whacker and ShadeHonestus: please take it to PMs. I doubt anyone else wants to read this kind of bad tempered exchange. :no:

Whacker

03-19-2007, 02:04

Actually, your google-fu must be weak if you can't find outside of daocrus.com or welovedaocforrealz.com, I'll give you a chance to find some.

Mainly because I don't really care enough to, the burden of proof is on you mate.

I was responding to the vile that was not phrased or characterized in any way tongue in cheek. You're the one who jumped on mmo's like a fat lady at the dessert bar 5 mins to close. I won't hide behind my pledge to CoH and retract my statement's tone. I believe, in playing with many of those CoH, way before you became an Orgah, that part of CoH is the display of integrity in action and thought. CoH does not mean stand down to a vile post that attempts to vilify or characterize your statements in an untrue manner....

Fine, I offered the olive branch, you declined. You read the post wrong, you jumped on it wrong. If you read the rest of my post, I thought it was pretty obvious what my intent was, so much for the 'vile' crap. Your response was and still is bunk, and that "I've been here longer than you" stuff is just utter bullcrap that people throw out as a last resort. I may not have joined up until recently but I have been reading this site and these forums since STW was out, so don't presume to lecture me on what you think this site is about.

Edit - Econ, I posted this before I saw your response, my apologies. This was the last bit I had to say.

ShadeHonestus

03-19-2007, 02:19

talk about misreading... Will forgo further rebut, it stands on its own and with respect to Econ.

frogbeastegg

03-19-2007, 20:25

Another thread in need of some :hippie: :loveg: and :daisy: (peace, love, and happiness).

As my esteemed colleague says, enough.

LuckyDog Trojan

03-27-2007, 20:26

Go to Matrix Games .com Here's a company that remains steadfast in developing 'hard core' games, albeit mostly war games - some with the grognard in mind. No doubt a smaller company that is trying to 'keep the faith'.

hellenes

03-30-2007, 19:18

The console gaming is a world of suppression and manipulation of the consumer...
If RTW was a console game we wouldnt have NTW2, EB, RTR, LOTRTW and all the other fantastic mods/games...
The day that the PC gaming dies will be truly a sad day for gamers...

drone

03-30-2007, 19:46

Gawain of Orkeny

03-31-2007, 22:47

I think the days of the console are numbered. I dont think it will be long before either computers are built into your tv or your cable or network provider will provide the cpu and stuff for you all you need do is subscibe and have a terminal installed.

lars573

04-01-2007, 07:34

I was just thinking about this again today when I read Slashdot's Why Microsoft should fear Apple (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/07/03/30/1531229.shtml) article. One thing come to mind: the main selling point of Windows PCs is the wide variety of games. People put up with the high OS costs, security problems, and general M$ crap because of this. Take away the good games and the incentive to use Windows goes with it. I would think that it is in Microsoft's best interest to keep PC gaming alive. If not, we will all be moving to Macs or Linux for our desktop/web-browsing needs, and buying whatever console suits us for games. Ballmer needs to start throwing chairs at the gaming company execs now.

How ironic would it be for a successful XBox to be the downfall of Microsoft? :laugh4:
Actually M$ has been trying to revamp PC games for years. But fully half their efforts are to make getting into PC gamming less complex. One thing they seem obcessed with is system requirements and making it easier to read and understand without a technology degree. And their only idea seems to be a colour coding system. Where you hold the games sys-req's up to your PC's sys-req's and if the colours match you can be sure the game will run. Even Microsoft live is an attempt to keep PC gamming alive.

The console gaming is a world of suppression and manipulation of the consumer...
If RTW was a console game we wouldnt have NTW2, EB, RTR, LOTRTW and all the other fantastic mods/games...
The day that the PC gaming dies will be truly a sad day for gamers...
M$ has been developing a home-brew type game SDK for the xbox.

Xiahou

04-01-2007, 08:11

AntiochusIII

04-01-2007, 09:02

Or maybe it's just me who thinks the average quality of movies has gotten a lot worse the last decade and the analogy doesn't work for all :shrug:I disagree. It's not like the movie audiences remain static. Whenever an older jaded person outgrows the whole summer blockbuster movie crapfest then an excitable tweener replaces that position and the toilet humor/big explosions crap continues to be sold uninterrupted. And brainless movies had been with Hollywood since probably the beginning. Don't tell me the old Spaghetti Westerns have brains!

If it's, say, the painting scene it might be different, because that scene has a limited and "knowledgeable" audience that shares the same fluctuating attitudes. The movie scene is way, way too big for that.

The gaming scene, well...

I'm still skeptical about a decent complex strategy game being played on a console. So no, I remain sort of loyal to the PC gaming world.

Mind you, I also remain embittered because nobody make good RPG games these days. Or at least ones that don't crash right on my relatively new computer *coughNWN2cough* or force me to wait until I buy a shiny new one *Oblivioncough*.

Oh, and I raise my Protestant banner in opposition to Pope Gates' attempt to force the flock to adopt Vista!

Bijo

04-01-2007, 11:40

I don't think the main draw for Windows is games, but I do think it's a large part of it. We also need to include offices and such, and its overall ease of use for consumers who aren't always "computer-literate".

The Spartan (Returns)

04-02-2007, 01:12

well today RTS isnt the most popular genre in gaming i believe.
today most people will play more online FPS/ or some sort of action game in a console than a PC. and you cant really have RTS on a console (cept Brothers in Arms) which is the PC's main domain of gaming imo.

Martok

04-03-2007, 01:19

Oh, and I raise my Protestant banner in opposition to Pope Gates' attempt to force the flock to adopt Vista!
I definitely second this. Regardless of what else I feel/believe on the issue of PC gaming, I'm absolutely furious that Microsoft is trying to force players to purchase an OS that's incompatible with older games. Unless and until I reach the point that I'm absolutely sick of games like Shogun and MTW -- or he miraculously relents and makes Vista backwards-compatible (and yes, I realize it's more likely the NFL will play on Neptune before that happens) -- Gates can shove it.

I think making Vista incompatible with older titles is a colossal mistake on the part of Microsoft, and that it will be far too late to rectifiy matters once they realize this. :sad:

Whacker

04-03-2007, 01:48

I definitely second this. Regardless of what else I feel/believe on the issue of PC gaming, I'm absolutely furious that Microsoft is trying to force players to purchase an OS that's incompatible with older games. Unless and until I reach the point that I'm absolutely sick of games like Shogun and MTW -- or he miraculously relents and makes Vista backwards-compatible (and yes, I realize it's more likely the NFL will play on Neptune before that happens) -- Gates can shove it.

I think making Vista incompatible with older titles is a colossal mistake on the part of Microsoft, and that it will be far too late to rectifiy matters once they realize this. :sad:

The best analogy I've heard about Vista and gaming so far is thus:

"Vista is 'targeted' at gamers much the same way that the federal sniper's gun is 'targeted' at the wierd looking guy running across the White House lawn."

Anyone else think it's a riot that apples to apples, Vista is on average 5-20% slower than the exact same game running on XP? Yeah, I'll be sticking with XP for a good while.

:balloon2:

LuckyDog Trojan

04-03-2007, 19:34

Gawain of Orkeny

04-04-2007, 21:17

Seems to me consoles have two main advantages over PCs.

1 You can plug them into you TV

Well with the new Plama and LCD TVs you can do the same with your PC now

2 They have ports for 4 players and games designed for them

This is where PCs really get left behind. I dont know why they dont just put gaming control ports and controls like a PS2 or 3 on PCs nowdays. Though I think it maybe possible using the USB ports.

Warmaster Horus

04-06-2007, 19:29

I think it actually is possible with USB ports.
But, remember that the PS2 and PS3 are first and foremost a games console. Whereas the PC has a multitude of uses. The Internet, work, plenty of other stuff besides gaming. So, for the people who wouldn't use a gamepad, why have a port for that?
Also, think of the added cost (always think of the price!). I've no idea how much it would be, but I won't pay 25-50 € more for something I'll use only rarely.
And, this depends on the player, of course, but I'm so used to PC gaming (keyboard and mouse), that playing with a pad (and 2 sticks - awful!) is nearly impossible. Everytime I go to my friends who've got a PS2, I get slaughtered in a FPS game, because I'm not used to the pad.
In a PC FPS, it's easy to control whoever you do with a mouse and a keyboard, so why want a pad for that?
So there are a few games which need a pad to be played correctly, but they aren't the majority, right? Before they are, I won't want a pad, except if I absolutely need one.

Marius Dynamite

04-07-2007, 03:39

I watched the Gadget show the other day and they were talking about gaming since the PS3 just arrived. They were talking about which was better, Console gaming or PC Gaming. First off they were talking about the obvious things like how much you need to spend on your pc to have it good enough to play the best games and equal the PS3. I think the PS3 kinda won that because if you just want to play quality games then your much cheaper paying the 400 for the ps3 than 1000 for the PC.

Then they talked about online play aswell. They said Xbox 360 has around 2 million users (I think that was it) Whereas World of Warcraft on PC has 8 million. But then again everyone who buys xbox live gets a microphone and its easy to use, so the play can be easier and more fun. Plus it has the message and friend system. Then they done a test and played Rainbow6 Vegas online on both 360 and PC and only 8 people joined the 360 game where the PC had a fullgame in the same time. The PC guy also said that the old mouse and keyboard was better because it works for every kind of game, which is true.

They got one of the worlds top pro gamers in and let him play both on PC and PS3 and measured his heart rate to see his enjoyment. His heartrate was highest playing the PC with mouse and keyboard but he says he loved the PS3, although that was his first time on PS3 so maybe thats why.

So in the end the PC won the little argument, However the PC they were using was truly an awesome PC. Nothing that any normal player would attempt to buy. It had glowing interiors, seethrough and the best processors, etc.

I have a 360 and Xbox live and my own opinion is that its much better for gaming. When you buy a game you dont need to worry if it will lag on higher settings or anything like that. You just buy the game, £40, and its nonstop enjoyment in singleplayer then more fun online with friends that you picked up because they are always on the same time as you. Xbox is even moving into RTS games with C&C 3 TW and LOTR BFME 2 right? If they manage to perfect those then hardcore PC gaming may well die. Imagine you could by M2 and play it on huge battles with no lag as it was meant to be played on your 360 with your ally always having a mic? I wouldn't get it for PC then. The only argument for PC would be mods really, assuming controls were ok for Console.

Rilder

04-14-2007, 11:17

I personally think PC gaming is better then console gaming for alot of reasons,

1.)Stuff to do when you don't feel like playing, get frustrated with that level exit the game and go web-browsing.
2.) lower net compatibility, I have a PS2 (that I've played maybe 20-30 times since I got it for my 15th or 16th birthday {worse mystake in choosing it} and it does not have any plugin for dialup which basicly means if you don't have Broadband your screwed...
3.) MMO's I really don't think MMO's can work on a console, don't know why it just doesn't seem like they'd work.
4.)Easier to control, it may be me, but a Mouse works 900% better for FPS's then a controller.
5.)Bragging rights, on a Console all you can do is brag about having it or a game...a computer you can go up to your friend to go "nananana I have a Radeon x1950."
6.) And finally, MODDING!!!!!! On a Console you can't go, " Man this is overpowered lets just go into the game files and change it down a bit"

hellenes

04-14-2007, 22:33

Gawain of Orkeny

04-14-2007, 22:58

The PC can use any controller (even the Wiimote) and can be connected to any HDTV...

I know but you cant have 4 people playinga game on one pc like you can with consoles. I liked the old Commodore 64. It had a game slot and control ports. Same with the Turbo Grafix - 16. I had an Atari 800 and 600 and they had both as well. Turbor Grafix was the best. The games came on card about the size of a credit card. It was the 1st with surround sound, 1st to use a cd, it had 5 control ports. It was the 1st 16 bit machine. To bad the PS1 killed it.

Kekvit Irae

04-15-2007, 03:48

Anyone who believes hardcore PC gaming is dying and/or dead hasn't played the latest PC games (IE, BF2042, Titan Quest, Oblivion).

hellenes

04-15-2007, 03:52

I know but you cant have 4 people playinga game on one pc like you can with consoles. I liked the old Commodore 64. It had a game slot and control ports. Same with the Turbo Grafix - 16. I had an Atari 800 and 600 and they had both as well. Turbor Grafix was the best. The games came on card about the size of a credit card. It was the 1st with surround sound, 1st to use a cd, it had 5 control ports. It was the 1st 16 bit machine. To bad the PS1 killed it.

Im sorry but the only "console like" game that has to be played on same screen for me is Pro Evolution Soccer 6...
And it plays exactly like the console version with up to 8 people...
Ive been playing this game with my flatmates for 5 months now using original PS2 controllers...on same PC...