Stagnant Market? WOW To Blame?

[ArtistofWarfare]

Hello again all fellow Total War gamers...I hope this thread finds you well :beam:

As I'm sure some of you have seen, I had a lengthy thread going this past week. In this thread I was seeking guidance/advice on hardware due to the fact that I was in the process of customizing/ordering a new gaming PC. This thread reached it's conclusion with me purchasing a new Vigor Hornet NE with high end customization. I couldn't be happier (well, I'll be happier when it arrives heh). I owe a great bit of gratitude to everyone who offered me advice and assistance in that thread. That's why I came to the .org for help...It never goes unanswered around here.

Now that my search and purchase is over and I'm just awaiting the arrival of my system, I've spent the last few days researching software/games that are available now, and ones releasing in the near future. With my new system I can basically max anything on the market including Crysis...so I am looking for the absolute best of the best out there now. This is the first time in my life I've been within 500 miles of falling into the "high end hardware" category as a PC gamer. So, I'm quite excited...naturally.

To get to the meat and potatoes of this thread: When you sit in my position for a moment and can scour the PC gaming software market with no limitations on what you can purchase due to your hardware...you expect to have a gigantic variety of games available to you. I know for certain that just a few years ago, there would be at least 10 amazing games that would all have me drooling over them. The decision over which ones to buy would be extremely difficult. But that was then, we're talking about now. That said- What did I find this week? Not too much. As a matter of fact- Considerably less overall quality and selection that I've ever seen in the gaming world. We're specifically talking about PC games here but do not for a second think that things are any greener on consoles. They're worse. So the automatic assumption that perhaps the console world is beginning to garner all of the "top titles" can be thrown out immediately. This is not the case...the console world has even less variety and innovation with it. Back to the PC.

Let's look at the top titles of this past year...ratings wise:

1) Crysis
2) World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade
3) Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
4) The Orange Box
5) World in Conflict
6) Medieval 2 Total War: Kingdoms

Let's just qive a quick "where things stand" on these titles...I'll list WOW:TBC last, and you'll see why in a moment.

1) Crysis- Considered the new benchmark standard in graphics and special effects. Gamespot gave it a 9.5 overall score. That said, we're talking about a 10 hour or so single player experience in total. Further, the multiplayer experience is considered sub par by many, and is apparently in a total shambles due to hackers and an overall...lack of core online structural interface and organization. It's just not a top online title with longevity. Definitely not the MP experience we're used to seeing out of the top FPS of the year.

2) COD4:MW- This I played extensively on the Xbox360, but have yet to even see on a PC. That said, it's a phenomenal game IMO. My personal shooter of the year. Still...we're talking about a 10-15 hour single player experience tops, very few mods available right now, and an online experience that for both the PC and 360 (won't even delve into the PS3 experience) is just subpar. Hackers, constant disconnects from servers, and an all around "bare bones" feeling (like Crysis) about the entire online interface. It's a FPS with MMO elements and there are NO lobbies, NO clan organization, NO chat rooms, not much of anything other than individual, 5-15 minute round firefights. Further, for the PC edition- There is a horrible lack of organization for friends/players to find eachother. It's a multiple year step back in the community category. And this game, is probably the best online shooting experience in a couple of years. Once again, more a case of where the industry stands right now as opposed to a subpar product. This is about as good as it's going to get for FPS players right now. It's pretty skinny once you've been playing for a week or so.

3) The Orange Box- Not a ton to say here. It's a great value/package. You get to play Half Life 2 and all of it's expansions, including Ep2 in completion. Further you get Portal and of course, Team Fortress 2. That said, I don't think we're talking about anything ground breaking or innovative here, and TF2 is definitely not an online title that is going to garner mass popularity for years. Basically, this is just another FPS on the market. Nothing new here folks.

4) World in Conflict- This is rather innovative. An RTS that incorporates similar teamwork/roles during the battles that you would normally find in other genres. Graphics, sound, special effects, AI- All are considered to be fairly top notch. Once again though, the online community is not anything to write home about (as far as it's size goes) and it's a very straightforward, "run and gun" strategy game. There is no "faction building"- It's just an RTS. There are NO economics involved. It is simply an all combat oriented RTS. The single player experience is relatively the same old same old for fans of the genre and the multiplayer experience is nothing new other than for the mechanics of the game (again, roles on the field of battle for teammates). Overall however, this is not a title to knock. Perhaps this franchise sticks around for a little while.

5) M2TW:K- Obviously I don't need to write much about this one here. We all know what's good about it, we all know what's bad about it.

6) WOW:TBC- Here we go...By far, the best selling title in the last 2 years. Expands upon the already ridiculously popular (12 million subscribers+ as of Feb 2008) MMORPG experience, World of Warcraft. Has the least amount of current, and foreseeable (we're talking the next 40+ months) competition. The MMO industry has began 2008 with admitting that there is basically no reason to even try to release an MMO in the next 5 years because it's going to garner very, very few subscribers. Activision, right before it just merged with Blizzard (Yes, it's Blizzard-Activision now) stated that it would take "$500 million dollars PLUS" (minimum) to develop an MMO that had ANY chance of even catching up to World of Warcraft. To surpass it? Labled as mathematically impossible. This is probably an accurate assessment. In approximately 7-9 months, the 2nd expansion pack for WOW, titled "Wrath of the Lich King", will release. It is estimated that the Beta for this may eclipse 3 million players. Further, many industry "think tanks" predict that within a few months of WotLK's release, the total subscription count for WOW will eclipse 15-16 million. WOW is right. Do the math...subscriptions are roughly $15 a month in the United States. This juggernaut is obviously not going anywhere ANY time soon. We're talking many, many years of WOW ahead of us.

Now what's the point of all of this? The point is that we have an MMO giant out there like we've never seen before. At the same time, if you removed World of Warcraft from gaming entirely right now...we're looking at arguably the driest period of gaming in a very, very long time. Developers themselves are flat out stating that they don't know what to do next, as they know a large part of the market will just NOT buy their product no matter how good it is. Further, even if they do buy it, they're not sticking around. They'll be back to raiding with their guild in a week. Yeah, even the casual guy (especially...and that's part of the whole problem). The real kicker here is that we're not just talking about a borderline monopoly on the MMO market. We're talking about an industry wide borderline monopoly. Every genre is suffering from a lack of sales and development.

So the question I pose you is this...for discussion and opinion: Is World of Warcraft the main contributor to all of this? We obviously can't say that World of Warcraft is "hurting or killing gaming". It's expanding the pc gaming market exponentially. It's simply, bringing people into the fray that would never be here otherwise. However, is it hurting individual genres? Is it taking the ambition of developers and immediately throwing their vision into the "ah, just not worth it/why even bother" department?

The other question is: If this really is a side effect of WOW's success, how will this path the industry is on change in the next 5-10 years? We've already established that WOW is not going to slow down (it's not...that's just a reality). So the "problem" for other devs is not going to simply just roll over and go away given ample time. If anything, it may become more widespread.

So...discussion/opinions welcome.

I'm almost tempted to go scour all the top games on the market again to see if I've missed anything, but I already know I haven't. Once I look past the World of Warcraft (which I purchased the BattleChest for this week) I'm just not going to find any top tier title with an enormous community and guaranteed multi year life span, as well as reliable service.

It makes me happy and sad guys. Happy that we have a phenomenon and game like WOW (I can fall into heavy addiction with it when I allow myself to). But also a bit sad that the entire rest of the market just...keeps...thinning...out. We have Empires: Total War to look forward to and in my gut I believe that with it we're going to revisit the days of 9.5+ total war scores and a frothing, rabid, large community. It will be THE strategy game for the next several years. Other than Empires though, I just don't see what's "next" to look forward to with any level of excitement. I mean, 24 months from now- There's still just almost nothing.

Thanks for taking the time...and I look forward to seeing your opinions and thoughts on this.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

World in Conflict is amazing. Buy it. 'Nuff said.

[ArtistofWarfare]

World in Conflict is amazing. Buy it. 'Nuff said.

See, it's even got Evil Maniac trolling in it's support :yes:

Seriously- You play this? Because as you see in my article, this was my top pick other than WOW.

edit: Let me add to this whole thing...GTA IV is obviously a massive hit...almost guaranteed to see shelves in Q2-4 2008. You have some other franchises...Battlefield, Brothers in Arms. Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 is just around the corner.

Still...the fact is it's another GTA and 3 first person shooters. Battlefield and Brothers both have potential but I don't think you could classify either franchise's past as "stellar" or anything that would lead us to believe that we should expect 9.5 and gold scores out of them. Rainbow 2? I don't know where this is going to stand as a PC shooter <shrug>...GTA IV will assumably crack the 9.5 though. It's 1 title.

In MMO's- Warhammer Online is the only MMO in production that even has any remote off beat possibility of stealing some of WOW's thunder. 500,000 in the beta. The problem is 1) it has no chance of actually doing any damage to WOW...just stealing some thunder. 2) This half a million strong beta isn't going well. Game looks horrid, is still totally in a development stage, and the feedback on this title is, regarding being the next big thing or not, "Nope...we'll still be waiting. This ain't it.". Again...there is no other MMO in production beyond Warhammer that is even trying to rack up millions of subscribers. Most of them are niche market games...some are free. Nothing from any developer with any name. I mean...nothing.

[Kekvit Irae]

All I know is that Blizzard isn't getting any of my money.

[The_Doctor]

All I know is that Blizzard isn't getting any of my money.

They don't want your money, they want your soul:yes:

[Husar]

Well.

Some say it's a disappointment, some say it's only good with certain mods and others, or maybe it's just me, like Stalker the way it is.
Can't promise you'll really like it as you seem to have higher standards than I do, but you might want to have a look at it.
Not too much of an MP experience I think but I like the "campaign" just fine, looking forward to the prequel sheduled later this year.

I also recently played the demo of Hard to be a god, haven't bought the game yet but plan to once the prices have been lowered a bit, quite neat but depends on your taste as well I guess.

Generally I think it all depends a lot on your taste, fragony may pop in here and say it has never been better in gaming than it is now but I think he just has a different taste, some games which don't look fun at first can also be fun once you try them.

Just my two cents. :shrug:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Seriously- You play this? Because as you see in my article, this was my top pick other than WOW.


Yes, all the time in multiplayer. The single player campaign is also excellent.

Battlefield 2 is also something to consider if you play a lot of multiplayer.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Yes, all the time in multiplayer. The single player campaign is also excellent.

Battlefield 2 is also something to consider if you play a lot of multiplayer.

I think I'll give it a shot then...(World in Conflict). Maybe buy it this week or next.

Regarding Battlefield- When's the next battlefield game being released, and when was the last one released? (If you know...don't have to go digging).

Regarding overall discussion- We have a lot of "TBA's" that just keep floating around too. Things that look good but just never seem to surface or progress anywhere.

And...When I was saying that console gaming is in even worse shape, I'm not talking about the number of titles on the shelves. There are TONS. TONS of which look and in theory, sound phenomenal. The fact of the matter is that when you play the game, the actual quality is going to be horrible. Let's face it...you have just as much lag/dc in console games today as you did in 1998. Nothing's progressed. There's NO way a clan game in COD4:MW on a 360 should even have to worry about multiple disconnects and lag being an expected hurdle to deal with. As it is, this is something you have to worry about and prepare for before ANY game. In my mind, with this fact standing- nothing else matters. The entire experience falls into the "not worth it" category, even at the $600-700 investment just for your hardware and accessories along with the game. (To get going with just an xboxlive ready 360, Live and the headset/keyboard/software). What good is the high speed cable of today for console gaming? The 56k dialup was just as reliable once you got "in game". On top of this, it's 2008 and they still don't even offer a way for you to simply use a mouse/keyboard with a console FPS. Why not? It's laughably simple to implement. What's the problem? 7/10 top console games on a 360 are FPS these days (at least lol), almost all of which are simply PC ports, and they cannot offer the same controller scheme as the PC? Now consoles are trying to crack the next egg: The RTS genre. Once again- With a 360 controller. What's next...World of Warcraft...with a 360 controller? Digress in thought and now include the whole "constant disconnect/lag" issue into these genres as well. It's a dead issue at that point. Discussing how the 360's hardware is borderline outdated for the top PC title ports NOW, (forget it in 1-2 years and beyond) would just be kicking the dead horse.

[The_Doctor]

What about Spore, that sounds like it could save Middle Earth from the evil WOW empire.:yes:

[ArtistofWarfare]

What about Spore, that sounds like it could save Middle Earth from the evil WOW empire.:yes:

It's interesting...(Spore)...It really is.

But 1) It's EA/Maxis. 2) Again, this looks interesting. But remember your $500 million investment figure. Just to attempt to catch WOW. We're not looking at any kind of development like that behind Spore. 3) Forget WOW. I don't see the average gamer, up to the hardcore gamer, picking this title up. Some will, most won't. I don't think it's going to be blowing the doors off anything though. I mean just the appearance alone shows the age of it's development cycle. Again, I wouldn't expect this to be any kind of massive arrival in the gaming world.

Just my opinion: The next big thing is a TRUE MMO/FPS. Not like what COD4 is. I mean a true mmorpg, where combat is that of a FPS. Done correctly. Not set in space. Modern or 20th century warfare with true mmo progression etc. $12-15 a month, keep rolling out the expansions. It's over. WOW's 12 million subscribers wouldn't be too impressive a couple of years after that hypothetical MMO/FPS hit the shelves. Easily a 1.5 million+ beta. Easily. The problem (again) is that even if someone with the capabilities to develop said game decided right this moment to begin doing so...spending $2 million on development (!)...we'd see it when? 2011/2012? There's just nothing going on like that now...

[Zenicetus]

Now what's the point of all of this? The point is that we have an MMO giant out there like we've never seen before. At the same time, if you removed World of Warcraft from gaming entirely right now...we're looking at arguably the driest period of gaming in a very, very long time.

I disagree, but I guess it depends on what you enjoy as a gamer. In the last year I've played some very good PC games -- Bioshock, Silent Hunter 4 (once it was modded up to speed), The Witcher, Galactic Civilizations 2 with the latest expansions, and M2:TW. That's been enough to keep me busy with good single-player games. I'm still playing GalCiv2, and looking forward to Spore. The only reason I'm not playing Sins of a Solar Empire is that I just don't have the free time to learn another strategy game at the moment, but I'll probably get it eventually.

As for multiplayer -- I did recently cancel a 2-year old WoW account (two actually, since my S.O. and I played it together). That had more to do with us finding other hobbies that are taking up the time we used to devote to WoW. It does get old after a while, and the upcoming expansion wasn't enough to keep us on the hook.

Even while playing WoW, I still found enough personal time, here and there, to play the standalone games mentioned above. Playing Wow doesn't mean you can't play other games, unless you get into the South Park WoW episode zone ("How can you kill, that which has no life?"). Game companies can still sell product even in a MMORPG-saturated market, because not everyone is THAT deeply into it.

[ArtistofWarfare]

the South Park WoW episode zone ("How can you kill, that which has no life?").

heh...that was a great episode

[Veho Nex]

WoW... is a bad drug... Its a bad drug that I believe is killing gaming from the inside out just because of its addictiveness... When your market is only 25% of what it used to be theres a problem with it. I've seen some really good games out there which are popular for a while clans get started up, then you have members dropping like flies because they got back into wow...

[rajpoot]

Gah! Play World in Conflict, it can give Blizzard and its MMORPG a run for its money, any day any time. Like Evil says, it's really really worth every cent you pay.
And might I add, that it is, like the TW series, a kind of RTT (Real Time Tactical) and not RTS.
And if youre through the new products out there, you might consider going back to some of the golden old ones you might've missed.......how about Elder Scrolls : Oblivion? Very nice game. Infact the best RPG up to date.

[Lehesu]

I actually believe that the past year has been one of the better ones in gaming, at least if you own an xbox 360. You have left a large number of titles off of your list, which I suppose I will chalk up to taste preferences. Bioshock, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed (this last one up for debate) are all high quality games. None of these are really affected by WoW. WoW certainly has an edge on the MMO market, but I am not sure how much impact it has on gaming market at large.

And I want to also be on record by stating that consoles will generally be much more cost-effective in terms of hardware compared to top-of-the-line PC gaming. The up-front costs for a console, which guarantees compatibility on everything in the current generation of gaming, is cheaper than purchasing a bleeding-edge PC and then constantly furnishing upgrades. Add in the fact that ports from console to PC tend to have obnoxiously high specs (Assassin's Creed comes to mind) and the choice between the two becomes more difficult. The gap is closing between the two, and I think the PC market will have to fight increasingly harder against console encroachment on all genres, except, perhaps, strategy and MMO.

[naut]

One Title: Age of Conan. (http://www.ageofconan.com/)

Also is World in Conflict both multi and singleplayer?

[Viking]

WoW might be evil, consoles are teh eviler. :whip:

Stay away from my awesome PC games O ugly console.

[rajpoot]

Also is World in Conflict both multi and singleplayer?

One single player campaign, and single player custom battles (create them yourself with the map editor, or download them).
Apart from that multiplayer (play online with players, or simply with bots).
Even if you don't get sp custom battles, and have finish the campaign, the multiplayer is more than enough to keep you engaged for a long long time.

[lars573]

On top of this, it's 2008 and they still don't even offer a way for you to simply use a mouse/keyboard with a console FPS. Why not? It's laughably simple to implement. What's the problem? 7/10 top console games on a 360 are FPS these days (at least lol), almost all of which are simply PC ports, and they cannot offer the same controller scheme as the PC? Now consoles are trying to crack the next egg: The RTS genre. Once again- With a 360 controller. What's next...World of Warcraft...with a 360 controller? Digress in thought and now include the whole "constant disconnect/lag" issue into these genres as well. It's a dead issue at that point. Discussing how the 360's hardware is borderline outdated for the top PC title ports NOW, (forget it in 1-2 years and beyond) would just be kicking the dead horse.
You've been able to use a keyboard/mouse on a console since 2000. Sony, whom unlike M$ doesn't have a vested interest in the PC and consoles being very seperate, has had keyboard/mouse functionality since the PS2. But developers have had the option of PC style controls on playstation games for 8 years and counting. M$ does offer a mini-keyboard that plugs into the microphone jack of the 360's controller though. And a 3rd party made an adaptor to use keyboard/mouse on the 360 too.

[ArtistofWarfare]

You've been able to use a keyboard/mouse on a console since 2000. Sony, whom unlike M$ doesn't have a vested interest in the PC and consoles being very seperate, has had keyboard/mouse functionality since the PS2. But developers have had the option of PC style controls on playstation games for 8 years and counting. M$ does offer a mini-keyboard that plugs into the microphone jack of the 360's controller though. And a 3rd party made an adaptor to use keyboard/mouse on the 360 too.

This is a valid point and I'm aware of it...however, the reason why I didn't include this information in my original post is because of the fact that even though this combination is/has been offered: The software does not support it.

You need games coming with "mouse/keyboard support" listed among their other "features" on the back of the box. DLC, Leaderboards, etc...in this list.

Further, you make reference to the PS2...and I don't believe that even if someone purchased an online FPS for PS2 and managed to hook up a mouse/keyboard, it would make much of a difference at that point. The entire advantage/point of the mouse/kb combination would be rendered irrelevant once you're on hardware that's that outdated.

But I digress...If you could hook up a mouse/kb with EVERY online FPS for the Xbox360 and PS3, you would still be dealing with all of the aforementioned issues (considerably weaker hardware, very little online reliablity, etc).

It's still just not realistic to buy a console version of a top PC FPS and expect to be getting the same experience a PC user is receiving. This isn't even mentioning that the average NEW top of the line PC game is $39.99 retail and the average cost of a new Xbox360 or PS3 game is $59.99 + retail. (example of a joke: Madden 2008 costs around 40% more than Crysis and all of the other top PC games I listed in my OP? I'll save the lol).

Let's face it: Consoles are still a more affordable alternative to PC gaming at the hardware level, but definitely not a replacement for it.

If you constructed the absolute best PC that you could out there today, or even realistically, a $2500 one (ballpark), you'd be exceeding the console hardware by literally 2+ generations. You know very well that core duo 2 tech, quad core capabilities, the 8xxx line of Nvidia graphics cards etc...is not even hardware you could expect to see in the next rendition of PS/Xbox.

[Lehesu]

I didn't have to spend $2,500 dollars on my Xbox 360. That alone gives it a leg up. The console experience for multi-platform games may be less stellar than on PC, but at a much more cost-efficient price. Even with the higher prices on games (which, by the way, can easily be circumvented via Ebay or similar sites), the console is a better deal.

Sure, if you are a performance gamer willing to drop a bucket load on hardware for maximum performance, than the PC is the way to go. Most people, however, don't have the money or, quite frankly, don't care that much about bleeding edge performance. And until the PC manages to either a) capture marketshare in more genres other than strategy and MMO or b) manage similar performance levels to consoles at similar prices, it will be hard-pressed to compete.

This is why the PC gets less exclusivity love from game designers. Not WoW.

[ArtistofWarfare]

I didn't have to spend $2,500 dollars on my Xbox 360. That alone gives it a leg up.

Well this is certainly not a fact...simply an opinion.

In order for the statement to just be "true", it would require a situation where you're receiving the same thing for the price of your Xbox360 as the PC user who spent $2,500. This is just totally not the case.

The gaming PC you can build for $2,500 is, as I've already stated, 2+ generations ahead of the current 360/PS3 consoles.

So no...the fact that the 360 costs around $400-500 does not automatically give it a leg up on the $2,500 gaming PC. You spend $400-500 and you get $400-500 worth of an experience. You spend $2,500 and you get $2,500 worth of an experience.

The only thing is that you could continue spending money on your PC...tens of thousands if you wanted to, and the performance would continue to improve. With your 360...you have the 360 and that's it. It is what it is and you're not going to see it get any better. The next chance for you to "better" your hardware is to buy the next generation of console, for another $500+ to start, and you'll STILL be just miles behind the PC gamer as far as consoles go. Yeah, the PC gamer who still only spent $2,500 once. In literally 5+ years he/she (pc gamer) could spend not one additional penny and still be 2+ hardware generations ahead of you.

Then throw in the 40% increase in software prices for the 360, as well as Xbox Live costs, plus HDTV and cable internet access...come on. You're already approaching the total expenditure that the PC gamer has made, and you're STILL just sitting on basic Xbox 360 hardware.

This thread was not intended to be a PC gaming vs. Console gaming debate. I don't believe there is any debate. If you have thousands at your disposal, it's a no brainer...you buy a PC. If your budget is under $1,000...you don't have any choice in the matter. You have to stick with a console.

So the reasoning behind someone buying a console is NEVER to "upgrade" to a superior experience than their PC offered...It's simply a "bargain" way of entering into the PC gaming world and attempting to simulate the same experience.

Lastly- MMO, Strategy, and FPS. FPS still remains ideally on a PC...this is just common knowledge. So...MMO, Strategy, FPS...all still ideally on a PC with absolutely no signs of this changing. Might as well go ahead and throw in "RPG" as there is no contest here...play Oblivion on a 360 and then on a gaming PC...that discussion ends. So now we're at MMO, the entire Strategy genre, FPS, and RPG. So what does that leave...action and sports genres?

What's changed? The console is ideal for action and sports titles and the PC remains the ideal choice for every other genre on the market (as in, the most popular/profitable ones). This is no different than it was 10 years ago.

p.s. Again, this isn't even revisiting the fact that most 360 online games, just flat out do not work as intended. You could never compare the online experience of a console to that of a PC. I mean, how much of a discounted price is worth it when the product isn't even going to fully "work"?

Would you buy a nissan pontiac that has a questionable transmission simply because it's $2,800...when Mercedes is ready to sell you a brand new SL 500 for $10,000? (just an example) The Pontiac is no longer a "deal" or a "value"...it's just being sold at what it's worth: Not much.

Just to throw in another point- $500+ also runs you the risk of the Red Rings of Death. When was the last major recall on Nvidia's 8xxx line or Intel's processors? Again- You get what you pay for. To believe that the quality of the hardware in an Xbox360 is "state of the art" and MS is just "being nice" by giving it to you for bare bones prices, just swallowing $1,500 on each console...is living in a complete and utter fantasy world. You're getting the absolute bare bones hardware to meet certain specs that excite you just enough to get you to buy the system. They're not shooting for "high end" or "quality"...they're shooting for sales volume and cost per unit in production. Look at the best games of the year on an Xbox360- There's nothing "next gen" about any of it. Nothing. Other than HDTV, the graphics are minimally impressive...and HDTV has nothing to do with the Xbox360's hardware other than that the console is "capable" of displaying it.

The only time in the future that anyone can begin comparing the value of buying a PC vs. the value of buying a console, is when that $500 console clearly outperforms the mid-end gaming PC's. We're not even remotely close to that point in time. I already did the math- With a game, the 360 hardware, Xbox Live, HDTV- You're already over the cost of a mid-high end PC and you're still getting a garbage experience compared to it. For what? So you can "sit at my screen comfortably?" So can PC users. Some of them use the same HDTV they use for everything else as a monitor for their PC games. There's just no debate here...

When I bought my HDTV, Xbox360 etc...I spent a lot of money. Just as much as I spent on my PC set up give or take a few hundred. What did I get? A 360, a 32" HDTV, Xbox Live, and a couple of games. With my PC I got- the PC obviously, which is again- a good 6+ times the machine the 360 is, a 20" HDTV widescreen LCD monitor, surround sound speakers and subwoofer, gaming keyboard, gaming mouse, etc etc. So...what if I spent $700 more on the PC setup (I didn't...not even close)? It's all of a sudden "not worth it"? Why, simply because I paid more?

No...it IS worth it. Because I paid a few hundred more and got an almost infinite better system. There is no "value" comparison here. It's a flat out no brainer.

I mean I could just keep going: What about how any top FPS that comes out on the PC in 2008 and beyond, is already approaching "too much" for the 360 hardware to handle before the experience becomes noticeably compromised? I mean, you don't really think your 360 is still going to be running the top PC FPS in 2011 do you? It's not possible. You'll be back to the same level of compromise as you were at last generation (when taking say Half Life on an Xbox compared to Half Life on a PC). At that point, the few hundred dollars less you spent on your 360 setup is worth it? Of course not...you're ready to spend more on your gaming set up at that point anyway. Only you can't "turn back" now unless you're ready to now just bite the bullet, and absorb what the original cost of simply getting going with a gaming PC would have been. Now you'll have spent several thousand and you'll have a 360 and PC side by side. That's not helping anything obviously. Take this past year in this hypothetical situation where you own both systems: You're going to buy the Orange Box on the 360 instead of the PC? I don't think so...

Again, keep in mind that this wasn't a PC gaming vs. Console gaming thread. The topic also states "stagnant" market. That doesn't necessarily mean it's "bad"...it means it lacks progression. That's the grain of salt one needs to add to the dish called "this thread" when reading it in it's entirety. Perhaps some of the points will seem more valid when things are looked at from that angle.

[Lehesu]

You need to look at the factor of diminished returns. This, as with anything any of us says here, will depend greatly on personal preferences, as many models in economics do. For me, and for many others, the difference in playing experience between console and PC is not worth the additional money spent to get to that point. If you look at the 360 as just another computer, and invest a large amount of money in it, it will certainly fail when compared to a PC. But, after a point, each dollar spent provides less value.

To use your example, you are comparing a Nissan Sentra to a Nissan Skyline GT. As much as you pimp out the Sentra, it's going to fail. The fact that the Sentra still exists betrays a difference in preferences in the market. I don't need a Skyline. I just need to get to point A from point B, and I am not willing to pay a premium to get there with high style. The problem is that the PC caters to a more hard-core gaming market, a market that is also small compared to the market that the lowly console, with it's behind-the-times hardware, draws.


The PC is playing second-fiddle to consoles because of the smaller market. Increasing number of PC games are ports from the console versions (which are often far from optimized for the PC, removing many performance advantages) and feature, in some cases, requirements that are far greater than the hardware on the lowly console. Also, games often come exclusive (timed or not) to consoles, leaving PC users out in the cold.

The PC market isn't stagnant because of WoW. It's stagnant because it is becoming an increasingly hardcore, perhaps elitist, segment of the market that is dwarfed by the casual market (just look at the success of the Wii). This is the only real point I was trying to make. The PC market is stagnant because of the economic trends involved, not because of some run-away Blizzard blockbuster. I would argue that the console games that have been released in the past year included several very good, high profile games. This is because the console market brings in more money, and thus more attention and care from developers.

[ArtistofWarfare]

You need to look at the factor of diminished returns. This, as with anything any of us says here, will depend greatly on personal preferences, as many models in economics do. For me, and for many others, the difference in playing experience between console and PC is not worth the additional money spent to get to that point. If you look at the 360 as just another computer, and invest a large amount of money in it, it will certainly fail when compared to a PC. But, after a point, each dollar spent provides less value.

To use your example, you are comparing a Nissan Sentra to a Nissan Skyline GT. As much as you pimp out the Sentra, it's going to fail. The fact that the Sentra still exists betrays a difference in preferences in the market. I don't need a Skyline. I just need to get to point A from point B, and I am not willing to pay a premium to get there with high style. The problem is that the PC caters to a more hard-core gaming market, a market that is also small compared to the market that the lowly console, with it's behind-the-times hardware, draws.


The PC is playing second-fiddle to consoles because of the smaller market. Increasing number of PC games are ports from the console versions (which are often far from optimized for the PC, removing many performance advantages) and feature, in some cases, requirements that are far greater than the hardware on the lowly console. Also, games often come exclusive (timed or not) to consoles, leaving PC users out in the cold.

The PC market isn't stagnant because of WoW. It's stagnant because it is becoming an increasingly hardcore, perhaps elitist, segment of the market that is dwarfed by the casual market (just look at the success of the Wii). This is the only real point I was trying to make. The PC market is stagnant because of the economic trends involved, not because of some run-away Blizzard blockbuster. I would argue that the console games that have been released in the past year included several very good, high profile games. This is because the console market brings in more money, and thus more attention and care from developers.

But you're changing the original question posed in your answer. I don't believe that the PC market is stagnant. I was referring to the gaming market in general. I said, it's "worse on the console side of things". And it is.

Further...we're still not addressing the fact that MMO's, RPG's, FPS's and Strategy games of all kinds are still optimally played on a PC...and this is universally acknowledged. You seem to have a skewed perception as to where the market stands. Obviously, in this world...we have far more PC owners than 360 owners. Far more. It's not some reclusive niche market for people who are only demanding the best. Again- 4+ of the top genres on the market are still meant specifically for the PC.

I thought I emphasized this point...

And I'll just add for now because it's late- Everything is preference. Of course. But you seem to be under some impression that consoles are preferred by a majority of gamers. Not casuals whose first console is the Wii. Gamers. I'm not talking about retired people. Gamers. I don't think there's a gamer alive who would pick out the hardware in the Wii or the Xbox 360 over what is offered on the PC gaming market today.

Honestly, I've never seen someone imply that a console is "better" than a high end PC before. This is the first time I've ever seen the notion...honestly. And as said previously, this thread has nothing to do with that anyway.

To finish, full circle: The thread is not PC vs Console because the console does not offer better software. That's why I didn't make a thread regarding that. I'm talking about the market as a whole...If anything, and I believe is pretty obvious to most, the better software is on the PC. Clearly. We've kind of already proved that...in two posts.

And the main reason why it's not a PC vs. Console thread is because it derails the entire point of the thread, and leads to a flame war 200% of the time.

edit: I understand your argument after re-reading it again...but still, it would only really hold water if the console market was actually stealing games away from the PC market. I can't think of one title that is console exclusive right now that any PC gamer is frothing at the mouth to play. Flip the script and on any internet forum you can find 900 console gamers asking daily for games that are PC exclusive, or just flat out don't work on their 360. Sure, the boxart looks the same..but when they try to play online (after paying $15 a month for Live), they'll lag and dc. After they restart the lobby 4 times. It's unfortunate, but true.

I just want to add to this before I log off the web tonight- 12 million WOW subscriptions and climbing. This just dwarfs Xbox Live subscriptions...and Live accounts exist for many reasons. WoW subscriptions only exist to play WOW. We're talking about ONE PC game here. One.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25887690

This is a discussion along very similar lines. You can just assume it exists every time this comes up...because it does. You cannot question the PC's superiority and longevity without getting bombarded by PC users who will simply not budge, and for a reason. They're not all simply crazy...they're just doing the math.

[frogbeastegg]

I'm a multi-platform frog. I've got a high-end gaming PC and more consoles than sense. I started out as a PC gamer, and for years that was my primary platform. Slowly this has changed; I'm now mainly a console gamer. That's not a choice I have made at any point.

Out of your top 6 list I own 2 of those titles, orange box and M2TW. Orange box is on the 360; simply I got it cheaper than the PC version (broken box + supermarket FTW) and I only brought it for Portal. The rest don't interest me one iota, and illustrate why I'm not buying many PC games these days. It's all the same. FPS, MMORPG, RTS. I don't like shooters, I don't play MP and don't want to, and I grew out of RTS when Shogun: TW was released.

I loved the point and click. It's been as good as dead for years.

I loved the city builder; that genre shambles on in zombie form, the rare releases seldom living up to those from Impression's golden age.

I loved the puzzle games like Lemmings; that genre is now living on the two handheld consoles and Xbox Live! arcade.

I loved the LucasArts Star Wars games; they dropped down a quality cliff with the release of Episode 1 and its tie in games. The days of X-Wing and TIE Fighter are gone and won't come again.

I loved the Wing Commander games, and their ilk, and I loved those free roaming space trader games. Dead as a door nail, unless you go for one of the online varients like Eve. No thanks. NB: I tried the original X: beyond the frontier. I didn't like it much. The two sequels don't sound sufficiently different to appeal. Plus they theemselves are quite old games now.

I loved, adored and worshiped those huge RPGS like Planescape: Torment. Again, you don't see many of them nowadays, and quite a few of them appear on consoles first. Mass Effect being the latest example.

I loved System Shock 2, I loved the Thief games, I liked Deus Ex, and I loved Looking Glass. Bioshock is the closest we get nowadays. One game. One. One which was created, marketed, and made because it was possible to sell it as a thinking man's FPS on a console. It worked, and I can't honestly say it would have done better as a PC exclusive. It might have been closer to SS2 in gameplay; it'd definitely have been closer to SS2 in terms of sales. :is allowed to be bitter about the mass of PC gamers not buying these titles because she owns them all and from week of release in most cases!: Bioshock was a good game in its own right, and if I can't have SS3 I'll take Bioshock 2 thanks very much. I'd argue that the 360 version of Bioshock was the better version of the game, purely on the fact it lacked all of the copy protection nonsense.

I love deep strategy and turn based strategy, provided it isn't set in WWII or another setting I find dull. There just aren't as many games of this type as there used to be, and they're increasingly falling into the same handful of settings. Unluckily for me the settings I like are no longer popular.

I love quirky and inventive games. That's just dying full stop. What games there are of this type tend to be console titles, or multiplatform like Portal.

Each year the number of PC games which appeal to me grows smaller. In the last year I've purchased a handful of PC titles. My consoles have stacks of games waiting to be played.

There are games made in duel development. I feel many suffer on the PC, and that's before you look at the delayed releases. Bad interfaces, and game worlds built around limitations which, on the PC, are not there. The original xbox started life by stealing high profile PC games like Halo and KOTOR, made a success of it, and in many ways the 360 is still doing that. Although today it's the 360 version which is the original, and the PC version which comes as a secondary.

Many of the games I'm playing on my PC are older titles I picked up and didn't have the time to play fully, or are favourites like civ4. On the console side I'm having to choose between new games, and there's still a backlog of older titles.

There are no forthcoming brand new stand alone PC games I care about. No, not even Empire: TW. I hate the setting. I don't enjoy playing games with settings I find inherently dull - how could I?! There's the second expansion for GalCiv2 and the downloadable free stuff for The Witcher, that's it for my 'coming soon' PC list. Paradox’s ancient Rome based game may be good … their games are best left for several months after release so they can be patched several times.

I've been with this forum since it was created. One theme I've noticed is the gradual, oh so very slow, increase in threads along the lines of "I like this type of game, is there anything new for me on the PC?" I'm not the only one finding it harder to discover appealing games.

Strategy is the only gaming taste I have where the PC has a significant lead. It's games like GalCiv2 which save PC gaming for me. I can't imagine them on a console, despite the incoming purpose made for consoles Civ.

I do believe that if you have the right tastes PC is second to none. It's a matter of some sadness to me that my tastes no longer fit well. I very definitely hope that the wheel turns and PC games become more appealing to me.

Gaming for me has always been about the games. I don't consider myself loyal to any platform or brand. Where there are sufficient appealing games, there the frog shall go. I don't care if those games run in 16x full screen AA with loads of bells and whistles, or if they are in PAL60 and have fuzzy PS2 textures and blocky models.

To cycle back around to the main question: is WoW responsible for this? In many ways, I'd say yes. It's phenomenally successful. Other companies are trying to make their own WoW success. This is the way the gaming world works. Success = clones and copies. The FPS genre has always done well on the PC, as has the RTS. There are a bucketful of Sims wannabe games out there because of the success of that game. Several years ago you couldn't move without tripping over a management sim game thanks to Rollercoaster Tycoon. It's the same on the consoles; because there are more games overall it's less noticable and there's still plenty of variety.

This is why I still have hope that PC gaming may come full circle and have lots of frog-suitable games in the future. All it will take is one massively successful game of the right sort ...


My PC does get the final laugh though - it gets the most usage out of all of them due to my using it for writing and internet access!

[Lehesu]

The lovely Frogbeastegg enunciated some of my points in a bit more practical matter. I probably mistook your question to pertain to gaming on the PC as stagnant, rather than the entire market. I just don't think that the console market is particularly stagnant. I, much like Frogbeastegg, have a large number of backlogged quality console games waiting to be played versus a rather empty line-up of pedigreed PC games. I go where the games go, and the games have gone to the consoles. I'm just not entirely sold on WoW being the cause of stagnation in the PC market.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Good posts guys...Good points...

I spent all last night emphatically stressing a certain point...let me respond in kind to these new posts:

- Although I stand by everything I've written, I can't deny that what you guys are saying is true regarding the "main bulk" of games becoming primarily, console based. My issue is that the games we're talking about are simply low quality imo. I believe these games found a better home on the console market in part because the console crowd is more accepting of games...they have lower expectations. Indeed, the high end PC crowd does have borderline "elitist" expectations out of their gaming. In the past however, it was this demanding attitude in itself that continually drove the quality of gaming up.

For me, this "shuffling" of games between console and PC has only drawn me more into the PC world. I've PC gamed (without a high end) for about 7 years. I've console gamed for about 19 years. I don't think there was ever a time in my life that I wouldn't have rather been playing on a gaming PC. I liked my consoles, and always bought which one I thought was "best". Still, I knew in my mind that I just wasn't sniffing the best that was out there. Flash back to just even 5 months ago with me owning a 360/HDTV: I feel pretty much the exact same way...only it's worse now. Back in the day with a console, it wasn't perfect but I had HIGH expectations for the future. We're in the future now and what is on consoles, is just not at all what I was looking forward to. That said, what I see on a PC is still the software that I dream about...and the things that really give that "awe" moment when you start playing them. I just haven't had that with a console in many years.

You look at Strategy games and MMO's: These are, in my adult days here, by far my favorite 2 genres. Naturally, this right off the bat gives me a PC bias. I mean, let's face it: You could play nothing but these two genres on PC and never get bored...there's plenty of it out there. Further, both markets are expanding and progressing.

First Person Shooters- I like these less as time goes on. Again, we definitely can't say that FPS are better on a console...they're not. Still, I just think that the overall quality of this genre is becoming slightly stale and the multiplayer aspects of these games are just falling apart. What was once the big dog on the block now has a lot of it's core values being spread out into other genres. Still, you're never getting a better shooter on a console...

Action- I never buy/play "action" games at all. Never.

Sports- Used to play them a lot. The quality of this genre is just by far the worst in the industry at this point. Worst games ever made. Once again, they're all but completely dead on the PC. This suits me just fine...

Naturally, my tastes definitely already point in the PC direction.

Where the last few posts confuse me slightly though are when they mention how the console just suits them better currently. I know you're stating that this is simply a personal preference, and it is...but still, it counts. That said, what confuses me is what you perceive as exciting or "something to look foward to/buy" on the console? I don't see any specific games listed in your post.

With me, it's quite the opposite. Everything that I want to play and look forward to is on a PC. I can't find anything worth attention coming to the console to peak my interest. The biggest console games of the year were either a) PC ports (I don't know why you guys keep mentioning games being ported FROM console TO PC. There is no such thing. Gears of War? It was MADE for PC, released on a 360 exclusively, and then simply released for the PC as it should have been in the end. It was still made for the PC first obviously). b) horrible or c) Just nothing exciting to me.

Halo 3? Assassin's Creed? Super Smash Brothers Brawl? I mean in my mind, we just listed 3 p.o.s. I don't even think they would sell on a PC due to the fact that they would just not be considered "good".

I mean, when I wrote this thread I was definitely talking about the market as a whole...but specifically, what do you see as the "selling point" software on consoles? Because as far as I knew Halo 3 was by FAR the best selling console game this year and let's face it: I don't think there's a PC gamer alive who regretted this not being released on the PC. Again- It would only shine on a console...it's NOTHING to get excited about on a PC.

[shlin28]

Never blame WOW! :inquisitive:







Says the WOW addict...

[ArtistofWarfare]

Look in all reality here...and sort of the point I was trying to make in the OP:

- I think WOW is draining the console market just as much as the PC market. Many industry analysts have been saying for years (increasingly) that MMO's are the most profitable, widespread genre of the future. Further, the industry of MMO's shivers at the thought of making console players a regular part of their realms. You may see the rare MMO here and there that offers a way for console players to log on...but it will continue to be the rarity and it will continue to guarantee a compromised experience in game. In other words- You won't see WOW on a 360 or PS3...but you'll probably see Huxley show up there. The 360 will garner it about 150,000 subscriptions (tops) and it will be another MMO that just makes up a very small piece of the pie called the mmo market of today.

Here's the MMO market share as of February 2008:

http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart7.html

Obviously, both MS and Sony would like to have this franchise (World of Warcraft) on their console. You will not see it happen though. The developers of these games still choose PC's..and this is not changing (they're stating it). If the console market really had any real reign over PC's and were "stealing market share" from them, they would definitely be able to gather up the titles that they really want.

As it is now, you'll still be looking at the top PC titles remaining PC only. Not because console gamers don't want to play them or because MS or Sony don't want them on their consoles, but because a) The developer refuses to marginalize their product to make it accessible to console gamers...and it would have to be marginalized to "work properly" b) as large as the console market is, it could never get 12 million paying subscriptions for one game. The PC can. So despite any perception that's floating around out there, the PC is still the more lucrative rout for many developers.

As you guys said though- It depends on the player and their preferences. However, when taking Strategy, MMO and RPG markets and combining them...we're talking about a market that just cripples the Action/Sports/FPS market at this point in time (and I still say FPS are ideally on a PC, not a console. The console is still just a more affordable attempt to simulate the same experience).

The Asian market comes into play heavily as well...Sure, a lot of people a purchasing a Wii, but that has nothing to do with them believing it's the best platform out there or that it has the best software. It's a fad, it's the lowest priced hardware on the market, and it pulls at the strings of nostalgia by continuing to offer games that were retro classics. That said- 5 million of the 12 million WOW accounts are in Asia. Looking at other MMO's, they all have large percentages of Asian accounts. I'm not going to write a huge thesis here but again, in the Asian market, MMO's are the most lucrative genre of the future. It's also the fastest growing market on that side of the world as well. Once again, the console will never be a major player in this game. Never.

IMO, more affordable and user friendly PC's are the future...not more affordable yet higher tech plug and play devices called "consoles" hooked up to your TV. We're in the computer age...they're quite prolific. If you took that $2,500 gaming PC we're talking about and put it on shelves for $999 as the "standard pc gaming rig"- I don't think we'd be seeing any further console generations. And in reality, this is where things are headed long term anyway. The console isn't picking up speed..it's plateauing. Ironically, the success the console is achieving right now is just further showing how unnecessary it is. The closer the home consoles become to a gaming PC the more popular they become. The more PC's drop their prices, the more popular they become. I think as the next several years unfold, hardware prices will continue to fall and eventually, the entire selling point of a console will be rendered pretty irrelevant.

With games like World of Warcraft and Second Life leading the charge...I don't see how the Xbox Live/Headset/360 combination is going to be anything that shakes up pop culture in another 3+ years. I just think that consoles are experiencing their greatest days right now...and that when the next versions of Xbox and Playstation consoles move into development, many of us are going to be left scratching our heads wondering "why buy this? It's underspec'd and over priced and it doesn't have the most popular franchises offered on it." A lot of people already went through this earlier in this console generation's lifetime as well. See $599 price point for PS3 release. They couldn't even sell 200,000 in the first 2 months here in the states. What happens in 3-4 more years, when the new console generation hits? They're going to keep the technology up to date (and further close the gap from this gen) with current PC's at the time but NOT crack the $600 price tag?

It's not possible...and this is where the console begins to become irrelevant imo...

added w/ edit: I want to just add: WOW by no means falls into the "high end hardware requirement" category for PC games. Crysis is at least what...2.5x resource heavy? At least? Still, as with most mmo's, the requirements will continue to get jacked up over time. Each new expansion and many of the regular patches will improve graphics/textures/visuals and add even more resource heavy activities (like BG's, 40 man raids, world PVP zergs with hundreds of players on screen at once etc). ALREADY, with The Burning Crusade expansion, an Xbox360 or PS3 would probably not be able to run the game properly. With Wrath of the Lich King in 7 or 8 months? Easily, the requirements for the game will be beyond what a 360 or PS3 can handle effectively. Wrath of the Lich King is only expansion # 2. Give it another 2.5 years...we'll be on expansion # 3. At that point in time, we'll be looking at a game that just flat out cannot be run on a console. Again- By no means a resource hog on the PC. So what happens at this point in time with the other genres like strategy and FPS which are even more resource heavy? Obviously, you can't even begin to fathom them being on a console. They just won't be able to handle those games in a couple more years. We're going to be looking at 64-bit Vista games releasing on a PC- How do you think those are going to port over to a 360? heh. Oblivion was too much for the 360 almost 2 years ago...

[drone]

I think your main problem is your point of view. Let me preface this with the fact that I am a PC gamer, I don't like consoles, I've played on "PCs" since the Commodore 64 and TI-99A days. I think PC gaming is superior, better graphics, the genres are more interesting. But....

PC gaming can only be as good as it's content. And that content is disappearing. Programming for consoles is easier, there are limited hardware configurations and testing is easier. Piracy is less of an issue with consoles. Games sold to consoles generally sell more than PC versions of the same game. Add these factors together, and publishers are going to push for more console games. As always, follow the money, which means listen to the publishers. They see both the console gold mine and the potential money pit of PC game development, and make their risk assessments accordingly.

RPGs/MMORPGs/Strategy shine on PCs, they really aren't suitable to the console mindset anyway. RTSs are impossible on consoles. Console FPSs are dumbed-down because the keyboard/mouse combo is a great interface, but I foresee consoles catching up here, probably with a Wiimote-style solution in the near future. This is essentially what PCs are left with (plus niche market stuff like flight sims). What do these have in common? Aside from RTS games, most of these require a huge amount of development on content, story, and/or graphical artwork. That costs a lot of money, and PC game sales just aren't cutting it these days. Follow the money.

WoW's success can be attributed to quite a few reasons. They aren't hit by piracy, since it's an online game. It's Blizzard, so they had a great reputation from the start. Warcraft as a franchise was already wildly popular. And apparently it's as addictive as crack. I won't say it hasn't hurt game sales, but I think it's not as much as you make it out to be.


My PC does get the final laugh though - it gets the most usage out of all of them due to my using it for writing and internet access!
The added advantage of the PC is, of course, the other uses. But you don't need the extra horsepower you have for gaming, unless you do serious photo editing and other intensive stuff. You also don't really need Windows for this, Macs and open source applications cover what most people use their machines for aside from games. It would be ironic if Microsoft's push into consoles with the Xbox actually kills off it's main business. I wonder if this occurred to the folks in Redmond and they started the whole Games for Windows initiative in a panic. If PC gaming really does die, their consumer base will suffer. Who is going to pay for a pricey Vista license just to surf the web and type up resumes? M$ (and hardware vendors) will also suffer without cutting edge PC games "forcing" upgrades on the gaming community. PC games have pushed the technology in CPU and GPU development, the life cycle model of consoles does not contribute nearly as much incentive to the manufacturers.

[ArtistofWarfare]

If PC gaming really does die, their consumer base will suffer. Who is going to pay for a pricey Vista license just to surf the web and type up resumes? M$ (and hardware vendors) will also suffer without cutting edge PC games "forcing" upgrades on the gaming community. PC games have pushed the technology in CPU and GPU development, the life cycle model of consoles does not contribute nearly as much incentive to the manufacturers.

This is why it's not going anywhere...

Consoles are just an extension of the market, not the driving force...nor will they ever be. They're always releasing with outdated hardware. The fact that the average gamer finds it more affordable really won't change this. This is probably the main reason why all of the new innovative "omgz!" games come out on a PC...not a console. There's very little incentive to get original and creative on a console. Further, there's really no room to do so. You are just totally gimped by the hardware limitations.

I have to ask again for someone to point at some specific software that is console exclusive that is cutting edge. I still haven't seen one game mentioned for console that anyone would even want on a PC. Halo 3? There's already 10x better offered on the PC...

We can find ridiculously well selling, even pay to play software on the PC. What's so booming over on the consoles right now? I just don't see it...

Grand Theft Auto 4 is the most drooled over console game of 2008. It comes out on PC and obviously has the mod advantage. Past that point, there's just nothing with a big name headed to a console in 08. Someone please, name something...I'm all ears.

On the flip side you have World of Warcraft: WotLK, Starcraft 2, Empire: Total War, a Crysis expansion, Warhammer: Online, etc etc etc. (Could really list over a dozen)...

I mean, facts are facts. I see tons of new IP and already big name franchises continuing to roll out on the PC (it's just not there "now", hence the word "stagnant"...although I understand we are at the slowest time of the year for gaming releases). Meanwhile, I just don't see even 1 or 2 titles that have any real shine on them planned for the consoles.

Again- What console games are we looking forward to here? GTA 4? Halo Wars? Another PC FPS port that struggles with the console's hardware? I mean come on...the console market is the same as it's always been...just more expensive and less reliable these days.

Just throwing this in also- There are literally, millions of Team Fortress 2 players on the PC. Millions...easily. The 360 side of things is a ghost town and has been since day 1. Why? Because console gamers just don't "get into that sort of thing?". Of course they do- They bought the Orange Box en masse. The reason is because the performance of the console is just flat out sub par with TF2 and the only viable option for someone to play that game is to play it on a gaming PC. Once again- Sure, the devs will throw it out there to the drooling mob console crowd...and sell it like crazy. But the backbone of the entire project is still the PC. Devs are past overlooking the console market but it's by no means anyone's priority. They already know they can spit out less of a product and get away with it on a console. Still- They want to produce their product at least on some level...not some compromised vision of it. This is why most of the big name games will continue to be dominated on a PC level, not a console level. There's just no getting away from it...

[Lehesu]

With all due respect, I think your facts are more due to your particular viewpoint, as drone has pointed out. You just named several PC games that I am just flat-out uninterested in. I could counter with a small list of console games that I am sure you would find droll as well. For the games you are interested in, the PC is certainly a no-brainer. For myself - new PC games aren't offering enough for the high start-up costs on a gaming PC rig. Heck, I bought the 360 just to play new games...I don't even have regular access to a HDTV. For this kind of minset, the console makes more sense, considering my taste in games.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Similarly with all due respect: I still don't see one game for consoles listed anywhere in this thread that is a top tier release for 2008.

I see all of the top games being developed for the PC.

Again- I fully acknowledge that this all comes down to a matter of taste...but facts still play a part here.

Just reiterating my last post- What's out there for consoles in 2008 that touches the list of top games I've posted that are heading to the PC?

I see tens of millions of sales and subscription fees going along with the PC games listed.

I don't even see a console game listed period...

So what is it that we're talking about on a console that is "high quality"? GTA4? Halo Wars? Metal Gear Solid 4? Mario games? I just don't see anything that stands out here...just more traditional console titles that are almost 3 years behind, technically, the top PC games coming out this year.

Further, read the last post- What happens when 64-Bit Vista games become the norm? You think you're going to be seeing your 360 handle that? It can't even handle Oblivion from 2 years ago the way it's supposed to. I just don't see a future here. Apparently something like 8/10 Xbox 360 owners don't even have an HDTV yet. It's just years behind...

I'm not saying the console isn't best for you- Clearly it's precisely the person like you who it's ideal for. I'm saying that the PC is still the superior platform and that any expectations anyone has for the console to become the new benchmark in gaming, is just way way off base. If you don't have $1000+ or HDTV, right go with a console. Not because it has better games (obviously, from this thread's contents- It doesn't) but because it makes more sense for you at a financial and technical level. If I gave you $25,000 in cash for a new gaming setup tomorrow, you know very well that money is not going into anything that has to do with a 360. So this isn't about "the 360 is just better for gaming now" it's "I don't want to spend as much as is necessary for PC gaming".

[drone]

This is why it's not going anywhere...

Consoles are just an extension of the market, not the driving force...nor will they ever be. They're always releasing with outdated hardware. The fact that the average gamer finds it more affordable really won't change this. This is probably the main reason why all of the new innovative "omgz!" games come out on a PC...not a console. There's very little incentive to get original and creative on a console. Further, there's really no room to do so. You are just totally gimped by the hardware limitations.
I don't think you are seeing my point. Yes, console hardware is behind. Yes, the cutting edge graphics are on PCs. But the CPU/GPU manufacturers don't make games. It doesn't matter if a PC game rocks more than it's console equivalents. If the console game makes more money, publishers are going to push for more console games. I believe Crysis sold 1 million copies in the fiscal quarter it was released. Mass Effect did that in under 6 weeks. It doesn't matter that Crysis' graphics are superior, it all comes down to EA's bottom line.

[ArtistofWarfare]

I don't think you are seeing my point. Yes, console hardware is behind. Yes, the cutting edge graphics are on PCs. But the CPU/GPU manufacturers don't make games. It doesn't matter if a PC game rocks more than it's console equivalents. If the console game makes more money, publishers are going to push for more console games. I believe Crysis sold 1 million copies in the fiscal quarter it was released. Mass Effect did that in under 6 weeks. It doesn't matter that Crysis' graphics are superior, it all comes down to EA's bottom line.

Yes, but this doesn't equate to any threat to PC gaming in general...

Read my previous posts to see why. The bulk of the market has repositioned itself on the PC, but it's still not shrinking. Both markets, PC and Console are expanding. The quality of the titles is just stagnant and we aren't seeing much progression or "daring" out of developers. There's far less innovation on a console for sure.

Basically, what you're saying is true and it justifies why the console market is expanding in volume. It does not however, lead to the threat of some blow being dealt to the PC market. PC software has always sold less copies because the hardware to run it is so much more expensive. Nothing has changed...there's nothing new going on here.

The average gamer was always "casual"...it's just finally being catered to. The core hardcore market is rather unaffected by this though. They're not losing the titles they love...they're continuing to see more of them. The market as a whole is getting larger, and the console had the most room for growth...specifically in tapping this very casual market. But it's not stealing sales or gamers away from the PC. As I've stated repeatedly in this thread- If the PC market was shrinking rapidly, perhaps. It's not...both the PC market and Console market are growing in user volume.

So again, that's definitely not what's going on here...

Example: Joe Gamer has always been a console gamer. His budget on hardware never exceeds $700. He's going to buy Halo 3 over Crysis. Why? Not because Halo 3 is now finally catering to his needs/wants out of gaming- Because he doesn't have a choice. The fact is, he NEVER had a choice. He was never a buyer of the PC title and therefore, the console market cannot "steal" him. Now- John Gamer has always been a pc gamer. His budget on hardware is virtually unlimited. He also has a 360. He's definitely NOT buying Halo 3 over Crysis...ironically, he's the only gamer out of this equation who has a choice. He chooses Crysis because it's a flat out better game.

There have always been far fewer John Gamers than Joe Gamers. The John Gamer market isn't shrinking....it's the same as it's been, perhaps a slight bit larger. It's the Joe Gamer crowd that is growing. And it's not growing by turning John Gamers into Joe Gamers. It's growing by taking NON Gamers and making them Joe Gamers. The NON gamer doesn't jump straight up to the high end hardware John Gamer level. He enters the fray on a console. Eventually, he may become a PC gamer...or he won't. Either way, this equation shows why the growth of the console market will not and has not caused a shrinking of the PC market. If anything, it explains why both market's overall user volume continues to climb. The Wii mania we're seeing is all of the NON gamers who are becoming Joe Gamers. John Gamers are not standing in line for 12 hours to play 1998's hardware. They have a choice in the matter. When you're a NON Gamer or a Joe Gamer with no financial choice in the matter...well, you have no choice in the matter. That's not a buying decision being made based on "what's better", that's a buying decision being made based on "it's the best I can do right now" or "I've never gamed before and the wife and I are going to give it a shot".

A Camry will always outsell a Bentley. But obviously you can't even call the Camry a "car" when it's being compared to the Bentley. The Camry isn't selling more because there's ANY advantage to it. It's selling more because there just aren't 10 million people who can drop money on a Bentley. If they could, they would.

That said, you still won't be seeing the Camry listed as the #1 car in the world. It's not. It's nice and economic, but it's never going to be discussed as anything high end or state of the art. It wouldn't matter if everyone on earth was driving one.

edit: I want to also add, because you brought up Crysis and roughly 1 million total sales: You cited this as an example of how PC gaming sales are taking a big hit due to the high sales volume over on the console side of things. I already wrote an explanation as to why I firmly believe the console IS not and CANNOT be "stealing" customers from the core PC market. You back this up by acknowledging that MMO's and all Strategy games still can only viably be played on a PC. There are no "can only be viably played on a console" markets. No such animal. I'm straying off the trail though- Back to Crysis and it's sales. This is again just backing up what I'm saying about World of Warcraft being the culprit of stealing sales volume. Crysis is a PC only game. WOW is a PC only game. After everything else we've established here we can't jump to "a console game is the cause!". It's just not. The two are often not directly competing markets in the first place...The guy on the PC is a PC gamer and the guy on the console doesn't even have the financial option to become a PC gamer. So it's not, for example, Halo 3 that dented Crysis sales. Most Halo 3 players can't play Crysis anyway, nor ever will be able to. I'd think it would be logical to look more in the direction of WOW and The Burning Crusade. You're talking...12 million people paying $15 a month in subscriptions and this figure keeps shooting up. That's far more impressive, and PC competitive vs. Crysis, than anything that has ever occurred over on the console side of the globe.

How many online in Halo 3 right now...250,000? (just guessing, I wouldn't even know anymore). Throw in Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, Guitar Hero, Halo 2, and any 2 others you want. Hell, go ahead and throw in the entirety of users online on Xbox Live right now. You're still definitely not over 2-3 million people. Again too- You have to take into account how many people are just "on" Xbox Live downloading movies or sitting idly 24/7 basically. They're not all "gamers" by any means. Now, you know damn well that there are over 2 million toons running around in Azeroth right now. As I've emphasized in a previous post: That's ONE PC game. Between WOW the core game and TBC the expansion, Halo 3's sales numbers from this past fall aren't even impressive anymore. Initially historically fast, but totally non sustained. I mean, a total drop off in sales once you go into November.

You just HAVE to look in this direction before you start pointing any fingers at "consoles in general". I understand some of you are not into the MMO genre. Although I am, I can totally understand why you're not...believe me. Still, you can't underestimate the fact that the world of MMO's just eats Xbox Live's still enormous community. Sure, Earth is huge...overwhelming, and populated. Only when you're standing on Earth.

This is why I'm referring to your perception being flawed and denying that mine is. When you say "community" or "a lot of people", you really need to understand what you're saying. From the Xbox Live window, things are a little foggy.

One ROOM in ONE CITY of WOW's Azeroth, will almost always have more players (+ npc's, + pets, + everything else with spell effects etc..beside the point though) than you'll be able to fit on your Live friends list after they expand it twice more. Maybe thrice. I think the lowest population server has around 9k...and then a few 10k's...and the bulk coming between about 15-25, a few 30 thousand players on each realm. There are quite a few realms.

http://www.warcraftrealms.com/realmstats.php

That's just the US servers...rolling in with around 4 1/4 MILLION individual toons (reflected on bottom of page). Keep in mind, this does not include EU realms (but you can view them on that site). What this site does not include at all (as far as I believe) is the listing of realms and characters for the 5 MILLION+ Asian accounts that exist. Throw those into your mind...

Just to give you some perspective.

After this, go load up Halo 3 or COD4:MW on Xbox Live. Check out the server list and the size of each game. You'll start to see what I'm saying about console gaming is not having any major effect on software releases, it's the 12 million people playing WOW and then throw in the millions collectively playing other MMO's. All paying monthly, most of which you know are only playing that game. Nothing else.

Do the math...

http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/home/index.php

Beta for Warhammer Online stands @ 610,026 participants so far...(as of my writing this...it grows by the minute). As far as I know, there aren't any Mountain Dew or Pepsi endorsed/sponsored commercials centering around this release which is only a few months away.

I mean...come on. Consoles? You have got to acknowledge this. I believe developers are a little more concerned about THIS juggernaut than the crowd of consumers on the console who won't spend beyond the cost of an Xbox 360 premium and don't have HDTV. Do a quick search. You'll find several instances of today's top devs flat out STATING this ...easily with a quick google search. They're not talking about consoles, they're talking about MMO's in the same breath we are here.

[drone]

Yes, but this doesn't equate to any threat to PC gaming in general...

Read my previous posts to see why. The bulk of the market has repositioned itself on the PC, but it's still not shrinking. Both markets, PC and Console are expanding. The quality of the titles is just stagnant and we aren't seeing much progression or "daring" out of developers. There's far less innovation on a console for sure.
It's a threat to PC gaming if the titles aren't forthcoming. We aren't seeing "daring" out of the developers because of the development costs and risks associated with "daring". A large corporation like EA is going to always go for the boring, but profitable, Madden Whenever over a quirky idea that may or may not flop. How many great PC studios have been assimilated lately? Innovation and inspiration will always succumb to large-scale corporate inertia.

PC game prices have been pretty constant over the years. $40-$50 here in the US. But development costs have skyrocketed. It takes more effort to take advantage of the graphical capabilities PCs can put out. It takes more time to debug the added complexity. It takes foresight to program for expected hardware advances during development. We may be at a point where the game development costs just cannot be recouped without upping the price. And if prices go up, piracy rears it's head. The paying John Gamer market isn't increasing fast enough to cover this.


A Camry will always outsell a Bentley. But obviously you can't even call the Camry a "car" when it's being compared to the Bentley. The Camry isn't selling more because there's ANY advantage to it. It's selling more because there just aren't 10 million people who can drop money on a Bentley. If they could, they would.

That said, you still won't be seeing the Camry listed as the #1 car in the world. It's not. It's nice and economic, but it's never going to be discussed as anything high end or state of the art. It wouldn't matter if everyone on earth was driving one.
Bad analogy. Which car is more profitable to the company that makes it? I bet you it's the Camry. :yes: There's a reason Bentley is owned by VW these days, it can't survive on it's own.

[ArtistofWarfare]

edit: I want to also add, because you brought up Crysis and roughly 1 million total sales: You cited this as an example of how PC gaming sales are taking a big hit due to the high sales volume over on the console side of things. I already wrote an explanation as to why I firmly believe the console IS not and CANNOT be "stealing" customers from the core PC market. You back this up by acknowledging that MMO's and all Strategy games still can only viably be played on a PC. There are no "can only be viably played on a console" markets. No such animal. I'm straying off the trail though- Back to Crysis and it's sales. This is again just backing up what I'm saying about World of Warcraft being the culprit of stealing sales volume. Crysis is a PC only game. WOW is a PC only game. After everything else we've established here we can't jump to "a console game is the cause!". It's just not. The two are often not directly competing markets in the first place...The guy on the PC is a PC gamer and the guy on the console doesn't even have the financial option to become a PC gamer. So it's not, for example, Halo 3 that dented Crysis sales. Most Halo 3 players can't play Crysis anyway, nor ever will be able to. I'd think it would be logical to look more in the direction of WOW and The Burning Crusade. You're talking...12 million people paying $15 a month in subscriptions and this figure keeps shooting up. That's far more impressive, and PC competitive vs. Crysis, than anything that has ever occurred over on the console side of the globe.

How many online in Halo 3 right now...250,000? (just guessing, I wouldn't even know anymore). Throw in Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, Guitar Hero, Halo 2, and any 2 others you want. Hell, go ahead and throw in the entirety of users online on Xbox Live right now. You're still definitely not over 2-3 million people. Again too- You have to take into account how many people are just "on" Xbox Live downloading movies or sitting idly 24/7 basically. They're not all "gamers" by any means. Now, you know damn well that there are over 2 million toons running around in Azeroth right now. As I've emphasized in a previous post: That's ONE PC game. Between WOW the core game and TBC the expansion, Halo 3's sales numbers from this past fall aren't even impressive anymore. Initially historically fast, but totally non sustained. I mean, a total drop off in sales once you go into November.

You just HAVE to look in this direction before you start pointing any fingers at "consoles in general". I understand some of you are not into the MMO genre. Although I am, I can totally understand why you're not...believe me. Still, you can't underestimate the fact that the world of MMO's just eats Xbox Live's still enormous community. Sure, Earth is huge...overwhelming, and populated. Only when you're standing on Earth.

This is why I'm referring to your perception being flawed and denying that mine is. When you say "community" or "a lot of people", you really need to understand what you're saying. From the Xbox Live window, things are a little foggy.

One ROOM in ONE CITY of WOW's Azeroth, will almost always have more players (+ npc's, + pets, + everything else with spell effects etc..beside the point though) than you'll be able to fit on your Live friends list after they expand it twice more. Maybe thrice. I think the lowest population server has around 9k...and then a few 10k's...and the bulk coming between about 15-25, a few 30 thousand players on each realm. There are quite a few realms.

http://www.warcraftrealms.com/realmstats.php

That's just the US servers...rolling in with around 4 1/4 MILLION individual toons (reflected on bottom of page). Keep in mind, this does not include EU realms (but you can view them on that site). What this site does not include at all (as far as I believe) is the listing of realms and characters for the 5 MILLION+ Asian accounts that exist. Throw those into your mind...

Just to give you some perspective.

After this, go load up Halo 3 or COD4:MW on Xbox Live. Check out the server list and the size of each game. You'll start to see what I'm saying about console gaming is not having any major effect on software releases, it's the 12 million people playing WOW and then throw in the millions collectively playing other MMO's. All paying monthly, most of which you know are only playing that game. Nothing else.

Do the math...

http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/home/index.php

Beta for Warhammer Online stands @ 610,026 participants so far...(as of my writing this...it grows by the minute). As far as I know, there aren't any Mountain Dew or Pepsi endorsed/sponsored commercials centering around this release which is only a few months away.

I mean...come on. Consoles? You have got to acknowledge this. I believe developers are a little more concerned about THIS juggernaut than the crowd of consumers on the console who won't spend beyond the cost of an Xbox 360 premium and don't have HDTV. Do a quick search. You'll find several instances of today's top devs flat out STATING this ...easily with a quick google search. They're not talking about consoles, they're talking about MMO's in the same breath we are here.

That probably should have been a post of it's own but I didn't want to double post.

[drone]

I never said that Halo 3 or Mass Effect stole Crysis sales. What I said was the return on investment for the console games is higher. More sales, less development dollars, less risk. This does not hurt games currently being sold, but it does affect the long term planning of software development. This fact pushes publishers to make more console games and fund fewer PC-only games.

Since you brought up Halo 3, it was released Sept 25th, 2007. By January it had sold 8 million copies. PC sales can't touch that, no way, no how. And the accountants notice this.

If we are going to spew numbers (taken from Wikipedia):
Wii - 20.13 million units shipped as of Dec 31st, 2007. Judging from availability, you can assume shipped = sold.
Xbox360 - 18 million shipped as of Feb 22nd, 2008
PS3 - 10.5 million units shipped as of Jan 1st, 2008.
And the old timers:
Xbox - 24 million shipped total
PS2 - 120 million shipped as of Sept 2007.

Not everyone with a console can or will go online for a game, so console games are targeted mainly to offline play. Online numbers are meaningless.

The numbers for WoW are impressive, I never denied that. But WoW is also a special animal, since MMOs are different. Sorry if I offend any WoW players, but WoW is not a hardcore game, it's a second job. ~D Companies have been trying to come up with the WoW killer ever since it came out, and they have all failed (WAR will probably end up the same way, unfortunately). The biggest effect of WoW on PC games is probably the wasted effort by rivals to defeat it. It's also a different audience, sort of like The Sims.

I think you are also underestimating the number of people with both consoles and PCs. I see myself as one soon, since PC gaming hasn't done anything special lately.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Relevant points...and just good all around information here...

It's just that we still haven't listed 1 blockbuster game we're looking for out of consoles in 2008.

I'm not going to rehash the whole point...it's unnecessary. Just saying- Where are these gems we're talking about coming out on consoles?

I listed games that WERE gems coming out for PC. Several...

What's the big hit on a 2008 console? You are specifically planning to buy a console for a variety of games that you say suit you better. Fine. Lots of people fall into this category. Which games though? Specifically...

Either Console exclusive, or something that is being MADE for consoles and ported to PC's (hard pressed to find one of these).

edit: Your numbers on console sales are as I said, good all around information. But it doesn't really reinforce any point you've made. The WOW numbers actually do reinforce my points. Console gaming has always sold more hardware units...always. Nothing has changed. I wrote a very detailed explanation as to why the entire market is expanding, not shrinking. See that.

Maybe what we're proving here is that console gaming's lack of quality across the board, is bad for gamers- good for accountants? Still not directly hurting anyone on the PC though...

I hate to over and over edit but- Also, you stated that console games are not specifically tailored for online gaming. I've been saying that this whole thread. They SELL online gaming, but you just don't get a quality experience. Because of this, many gamers remain offline entirely. Exactly. The ones who simply won't settle to just "not online game", buy a PC. The one who has no financial option...just deals with Xbox Live or the Playstation Network as is. As I said earlier- They have no choice...there's no decision that ends with "Console". The only equation for them is "console or no console".

We all know what the future of gaming is...Online Gaming. Don't tell me this is phased because 3 million people who never gamed before bought a Wii in the past 6 months. The Wii isn't going anywhere with online gaming. However, with online ONLY games such as...MMO's, the numbers just keep shooting through the roof. And these people not only bought mid-high level PC's, they're continually paying $15+ a month and buying expansion packs. Throw in what we've already established about lack of HDTV ownership in the console market (and let's face it: Lack of broadband ownership) and...where is it going with the same hardware it has today, in 5 years? It's not...Sure, it will sell millions. So did the pet rock...and it was one of the most profitable items ever made. But we are still nowhere near proving that console games are just stifling PC production. They're not...As I stated in my first post: Things are even worse over on the console side of things. They're just stagnant on the PC side of things...and that's why I didn't want to include console games in this discussion...it was a PC gaming discussion and I don't even see how it branches into a console one. Proven in the thread (imo). PC Gaming needs more rapid innovation and new IP. Console gaming...I didn't even have any interest in discussing. I just left that venue permanently myself.

[drone]

PC Gaming needs more rapid innovation and new IP. Console gaming...I didn't even have any interest in discussing. I just left that venue permanently myself.

On the flip side you have World of Warcraft: WotLK, Starcraft 2, Empire: Total War, a Crysis expansion, Warhammer: Online, etc etc etc. (Could really list over a dozen)...

I mean, facts are facts. I see tons of new IP and already big name franchises continuing to roll out on the PC (it's just not there "now", hence the word "stagnant"...although I understand we are at the slowest time of the year for gaming releases). Meanwhile, I just don't see even 1 or 2 titles that have any real shine on them planned for the consoles.

Those PC games you listed, except for WAR, are all rehashes or expansions. I wouldn't call them new IP, and as you just said, PC gaming needs new innovation and IP. The only reason I brought up consoles was to illustrate where the development is headed. There is a lack of new IP in PC games for a reason, few are willing to take the risk. There is more money in console games and expansions, even if they are inferior. Large corporate publishers are necessary to fund great PC games, but if they don't see a guaranteed return, it doesn't make fiduciary sense. You keep bringing up the lack of quality in console games. I don't deny this, but it doesn't matter. They sell, they sell well, and corporations need to make money.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Those PC games you listed, except for WAR, are all rehashes or expansions. I wouldn't call them new IP, and as you just said, PC gaming needs new innovation and IP. The only reason I brought up consoles was to illustrate where the development is headed. There is a lack of new IP in PC games for a reason, few are willing to take the risk. There is more money in console games and expansions, even if they are inferior. Large corporate publishers are necessary to fund great PC games, but if they don't see a guaranteed return, it doesn't make fiduciary sense. You keep bringing up the lack of quality in console games. I don't deny this, but it doesn't matter. They sell, they sell well, and corporations need to make money.

It still doesn't tie the knot between PC gaming and Console gaming as far as this discussion goes.

Either way, ...as said, this is not a console gaming thread. I think we've come full circle with it anyway.

PC Gaming specific past this point, because I'm not a console gamer and this is a forum for a PC game...so :balloon2:

Just for the overall thread- http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25632718&page=1

This was posted earlier for the relevancy of the discussion at the time...I just looked back at it however, and we have some additional titles in there that look really good for the PC...Wolfenstein 2 was apparently just announced recently. Several in that thread...interesting read.

[rajpoot]

Nice interesting debate. I learned a lot :yes:
A wrap up is called for yes? ~D
So, we see that it all began with PC games. Then consoles came up, however, in the beginning, they had a small market. Then sometime a Joe Gamer realised, that the kind of games he played, could be played on the consoles, a cheaper option, as well, infact better than on PC. Thus he shifted over. At the same time a few bigshot companies also realised, that churning out console games was easier than doing PC games, so they also, kind of shifted. However, our John Gamer, remained faithful to the PC, for he preferred the games there and did not like the game quality of the console. (Which was perhaps inferior to the PC game quality). And there also remained a companies which too were uninterested in the console and kept on producing PC games for John.
So then, Joe's happy, he's getting games he likes on his console for less than what he would have got them on PC. John's happy, he's getting the games he likes on his PC. And ofcourse, the companies are happy as Joe and John are buying their games. :laugh4:
btw, I was surprised, I never knew high end gaming PCs were costlier than consoles.......here a brand new Xbox with the works is around Rs. 30,000 while a good configuration PC would cost around Rs 25,000.

[drone]

It still doesn't tie the knot between PC gaming and Console gaming as far as this discussion goes.

Games are being made/published by a decreasing number of companies. Most of these companies produce both PC and console games.
These companies have limited budgets for funding game development.
These companies want to have the highest return on investment to their games as possible. This is their duty to the shareholders.
Console games sell more, are easier to develop, and are relatively pirate-free.

When it comes around to allocate funds for the next fiscal year, and all the PC and console game ideas get pitched, these facts are weighed, and it doesn't look good for PC games. They aren't going to be completely ignored, but they will not be the main focus. That hurts PC gaming, this is the link between stagnant PC games and consoles.

Either way, ...as said, this is not a console gaming thread. I think we've come full circle with it anyway.

PC Gaming specific past this point, because I'm not a console gamer and this is a forum for a PC game...so :balloon2:
Actually, the Arena is a forum for all games aside from TW. :tongue2: But you are right, I don't think we are going to change each others minds on this.

Just for the overall thread- http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25632718&page=1

This was posted earlier for the relevancy of the discussion at the time...I just looked back at it however, and we have some additional titles in there that look really good for the PC...Wolfenstein 2 was apparently just announced recently. Several in that thread...interesting read.
We are, of course, forgetting about the large elephant in the room for 2008. Duke Nukem Forever, Q3 2008! :laugh4:

[Mikeus Caesar]

We are, of course, forgetting about the large elephant in the room for 2008. Duke Nukem Forever, Q3 2008! :laugh4:

*scoff scoff* And pigs will fly...

Anyway, awesome thread. Huge walls of text will make for good reading someday.

[Zenicetus]

We all know what the future of gaming is...Online Gaming. Don't tell me this is phased because 3 million people who never gamed before bought a Wii in the past 6 months. The Wii isn't going anywhere with online gaming. However, with online ONLY games such as...MMO's, the numbers just keep shooting through the roof.

Sure, online gaming is popular, but it's never going to grab 100% of the market, for several reasons:

1) Not everyone enjoys it, especially those with a low tolerance for interacting with random idiots online. Not that all online gaming is like that, but anyone who has spent time in a MMORPG knows exactly what I'm talking about. Some people would prefer being challenged by decent computer AI in a game.

2) Time constraints. Online gaming often means a forced schedule, like the guild raids required to reach the upper tiers in WoW. Not everyone can afford to stay glued to a computer at a certain time. That's one of the appeals of strategy games to me.... I can load a saved game when I have an hour to spare, have a little fun on MY schedule, and not worry about someone else's gaming schedule. This is also the reason why you'll find far more kids playing WoW than people with strenuous jobs, or young children of their own. There are a few exceptions in online games like Eve that don't require as much commitment to specific schedules, but that's rare.

3) Online gaming can only cover a limited range of game experience, just due to the nature of group vs. solo play. In a MMORPG, you can never be a true hero who is the center of the story line, like in Bioshock or The Witcher solo RPG's, because everyone else in the online world has to feel like a "hero" too. That's just a big structural problem with online gaming. If you want that lone hero experience, you have to play a singleplayer game. Certain other game types don't fit either, like complex turn-based strategy games where it gets tedious waiting for others to finish their turns.

So there will always be people who have neither the free time, nor the inclination for online gaming. Therefore a certain part of the game market will always be standalone. Whether it's PC or console is another issue.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Sure, online gaming is popular, but it's never going to grab 100% of the market, for several reasons:

1) Not everyone enjoys it, especially those with a low tolerance for interacting with random idiots online. Not that all online gaming is like that, but anyone who has spent time in a MMORPG knows exactly what I'm talking about. Some people would prefer being challenged by decent computer AI in a game.

2) Time constraints. Online gaming often means a forced schedule, like the guild raids required to reach the upper tiers in WoW. Not everyone can afford to stay glued to a computer at a certain time. That's one of the appeals of strategy games to me.... I can load a saved game when I have an hour to spare, have a little fun on MY schedule, and not worry about someone else's gaming schedule. This is also the reason why you'll find far more kids playing WoW than people with strenuous jobs, or young children of their own. There are a few exceptions in online games like Eve that don't require as much commitment to specific schedules, but that's rare.

3) Online gaming can only cover a limited range of game experience, just due to the nature of group vs. solo play. In a MMORPG, you can never be a true hero who is the center of the story line, like in Bioshock or The Witcher solo RPG's, because everyone else in the online world has to feel like a "hero" too. That's just a big structural problem with online gaming. If you want that lone hero experience, you have to play a singleplayer game. Certain other game types don't fit either, like complex turn-based strategy games where it gets tedious waiting for others to finish their turns.

So there will always be people who have neither the free time, nor the inclination for online gaming. Therefore a certain part of the game market will always be standalone. Whether it's PC or console is another issue.

I honestly will never start a thread like this on the .org again...it totally missed it's mark. I'll stick to forums with PC gamers in the future (no offense...I just don't think there's ever been a conversation that included both PC gamers and Console gamers that went anywhere). Most forums I go to for PC games, are 99 percent + PC gamers. I didn't even think there was a console gamer or two floating around the .org. I'm kind of surprised.

Once again- Telling me that MMO's won't capture 100% of the market share (right...only about 75 percent of it) doesn't debunk anything that I've stated. Online gaming is still the future. The few people who want to play Bioshock alone by themselves, are definitely not threatening this. Many gamers (myself included) won't even look at a title like Bioshock that refuses to include online play. Online play is a standard at this point...not a side option. You make a killer FPS you better put online play in the game or nobody will be talking about your title in 3 months. Ala Bioshock today.

It's just, with all due respect, Captain Obvious stuff.

This thread is about as dead as the consoles...

I have a few PM's going relating to this thread: With PC gamers. Listing new games releasing.

It turns out, we are at just a rather dry point after the past 6 month's releases....The market does indeed seem to be reloading to a certain extent though. Our releases are a little thin for the next few months as well, and then they begin to start rolling out again.

Either way, just WOW: WotLK, Starcraft 2, Wolfenstein 2, Empire: TW, Fallout 3, Farcry 2 etc etc etc...we're doing pretty good in 2008.

Still, 2008 looks better than any of the past several years, and kind of reinforces my original points made. What was wrong with 2007 and 2006 that the software release list just didn't look half as good as 2008's?

p.s.- Once again, just to make the point since I certainly didn't bring it up: Clearly, there's no reason to even discuss a console in this thread for the simple fact that there just aren't any games to mention on a console. We've listed a good dozen top of the line releases for 2008 (PC) ...which is good since that's what this thread was designed to do- Find the titles. The list only looks to get more impressive with time. As for the console? Of the PC games we're mentioning here the console's hardware couldn't even run ONE of them. We've also yet to bring up ONE console game that people are looking forward to in 2008. Not one. I asked for a list several times.

The point here is not to kick sand...the point is: This is why I didn't bring up consoles in the first place. There's nothing to discuss.

edit: Add in "The Secret World" (amazing looking MMO set in modern world cities), Operation Flashpoint (MMOFPS with UT3 engine), Sins of a Solar Empire, Guild Wars 2- All PC exclusive.

Not that this ever was a PC vs Console debate- But if it was, at least that one came out rather proving as well. The PC release list in 2008 is ...looking nicer by the day. The console release list for 2008? We can't even name one game anyone cares about. This is why I'm a PC gamer now.

-Add an unnamed ID Software FPS in the works. PC exclusive.
-Half Life 2: Episode 3. PC Exclusive (at least for the first 12 months).
-Dragon Age. PC Exclusive.
-Paranormal from Monolith (The follow-up to F.E.A.R). PC Exclusive.
-Section 8 FPS from makers of Kohan Trilogy. UE3 Engine. PC Exclusive.
-Rise of the Argonauts. PC Exclusive.
-STALKER: Clear Sky. Dx10 support. Obviously, PC exclusive.
-Mafia 2. Most likely PC exclusive.
-Borderlands. 6 month PC head start over consoles.

That's just for now...and this is what we're adding to Starcraft 2, Wrath of the Lich King, Wolfenstein 2, Empire: Total War, Fallout 3, FarCry2 etc etc etc. I don't see anything on a console that will be competing with this list. New map packs for Halo 3?

Looks as if the PC titles are going to just keep rolling out in 2008. The only question is: When do we begin?

[Lehesu]

Artist, I would have to protest that none of us on this forum are console fanboys. Many of us perhaps even deplore the situation that PC gaming is in. I have been on this forum since 2002 and have been a constant PC gamer before then, and for as long as I can remember. I certainly don't view myself as any more partial to one medium over the other...I just follow the mediums (be they PC or console) that allow me to affordably play the games I want to play.

However, your opinion of the quality of games, and especially the nature of online gaming (I would argue that the more of the market is interested in the single player aspect than you suspect) strike me as less than factual statements. Bioshock is not a "dead" game, and the importance of online play is not, in my humble opinion, Captain Obvious stuff. I don't think that you can completely dismiss discussing consoles just because, in your opinion, there are no games worth mentioning. That doesn't seem logical to me. What appears more logical to me is an objective look at the causes for game stagnation, many of which have been mentioned by Drone. You can argue which factors are more prominent; indeed, this thread has been very successful at weighing the importance of various trends in respect to PC gaming. What you perhaps should not do is completely write off the effect of console gaming on the PC market merely because it is an inferior medium for gaming.

As for console games that many people are looking forward to? Super Smash Brothers Brawl, GTA IV, Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (the previous game was lauded as much better on console than on PC), Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Ninja Gaiden II. These are, in my humble opinion, games that have as much entertainment potential as those you mentioned for PC. Almost all of them are console exclusive.

This discussion has been very fruitful, and I would hate for it to end on a sour note. Certainly we can all agree to disagree, at the very least.

[drone]

One more time: I am not comparing console games to PC games. I am not comparing console capabilities to PC capabilities. I am just discussing the economics of game development, and those economics favor (heavily) towards console games.

From that list of games you mentioned, Fallout 3, Rise of the Argonauts, FarCry2, Operation Flashpoint 2, Section 8, Mafia 2 are all going to be released to the console. This is pretty much an economic necessity. For the majority of those, I bet the PC version suffers because of it.

The sad thing about these games mentioned (console and PC). How many of them have a number in them? Rehashes and expansions, no new ideas. This means no one is willing to risk trying something new. :no:

[ArtistofWarfare]

Artist, I would have to protest that none of us on this forum are console fanboys. Many of us perhaps even deplore the situation that PC gaming is in. I have been on this forum since 2002 and have been a constant PC gamer before then, and for as long as I can remember. I certainly don't view myself as any more partial to one medium over the other...I just follow the mediums (be they PC or console) that allow me to affordably play the games I want to play.

However, your opinion of the quality of games, and especially the nature of online gaming (I would argue that the more of the market is interested in the single player aspect than you suspect) strike me as less than factual statements. Bioshock is not a "dead" game, and the importance of online play is not, in my humble opinion, Captain Obvious stuff. I don't think that you can completely dismiss discussing consoles just because, in your opinion, there are no games worth mentioning. That doesn't seem logical to me. What appears more logical to me is an objective look at the causes for game stagnation, many of which have been mentioned by Drone. You can argue which factors are more prominent; indeed, this thread has been very successful at weighing the importance of various trends in respect to PC gaming. What you perhaps should not do is completely write off the effect of console gaming on the PC market merely because it is an inferior medium for gaming.

As for console games that many people are looking forward to? Super Smash Brothers Brawl, GTA IV, Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (the previous game was lauded as much better on console than on PC), Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Ninja Gaiden II. These are, in my humble opinion, games that have as much entertainment potential as those you mentioned for PC. Almost all of them are console exclusive.

This discussion has been very fruitful, and I would hate for it to end on a sour note. Certainly we can all agree to disagree, at the very least.

Look, there's nothing to argue with in this post. It's a great post and every single point you make is valid.

The thread's direction is probably my own fault. I should have emphasized "PC Gaming" in the title. I didn't, and I guess what followed is partially my own fault.

I've certainly made factual points that really do show how console gaming isn't "hurting" PC gaming in any way. Sure, I believe fully that console gaming is just flat out bad for the quality of the industry. If you forced people to buy appropriate hardware or not game at all, they would find a way to buy that hardware and the industry could continue moving forward at a high tech pace. As it is now, sure- Perhaps due to many of the reasons that some of you cited in this thread, the industry is being held back temporarily because of developers spending too much (any time is too much in my book) time worrying about hardware they won't even be able to use in 2 more years. Of course they want to make money...but they're attempting to do so on a venue that just flat out has no room to grow. Period. I'll ask again- When 32 and 64-bit Vista games are the norm in the industry (along with Dx10) you think you'll be playing those games on your Xbox 360? Of course not. Hence the list of games that I've put up in my last post which will never see a console. They can't. They have to stay on the PC. The console, in this generation, just passed the last holiday season it will be considered "viable" in by the core gaming market. Not the core entertainment market...the core gaming market.

Regarding online gaming- The entire industry is massive. So no, I don't underestimate any aspect of it's size. Still- Online gaming is the future. There are millions of gamers who prefer offline single player experiences. Hey, I've had my weeks and months where I just wanted to be left alone in my virtual world too. I understand it. But still, Online gaming is the future heh. These single players will always exist...but increasingly over time, they will become the minority. They already are. The online games are garnering more players than the offline ones. Fact. Further, online gaming is the only way for developers to create "endless" and "truly open" and "social" realms/worlds for players to play in. The limitations of offline gaming have been exposed a long time ago. All of that said- Let's flash forward to 2025: I agree with you. There will still be players who don't want anything to do with an online game. The fact still remains that in 2025 the online gaming market will be the biggest thing on earth. It already is. Online gaming is your future...and mine. Even if we choose not to play in it.

-Smash Brothers, GTA4, Rainbow 6-2, Star Wars, Ninja Gaiden 3...Sure. I see them. These are games. However, I'll just start by addressing you saying that most of them will never see the light of day on a PC.

1) GTA4 will not only see a PC, but it will be ideally on a PC due to the mod value of the game. Remember- GTA's original home is the PC and the PC hardware remains far superior. There's no question that simply adding modding into the mix can't hurt the equation.

2) Rainbow 6-2: This will also be a PC game. I don't know why you thought it wasn't. You'll see it on the PC the same as you'll see it on your 360/PS3. It will just be running on better hardware when run on a PC and of course, has the larger online community and moddability.

3) Smash Brothers Brawl: Stop. Nobody on a PC wants this. And you know it.

4) Ninja Gaiden 3: I certainly won't be missing this one...can't stand action games like this. But who am I? So sure...Based on this franchises history (and yes, it is HISTORY...the average gamer today wasn't even alive when Ninja Gaiden first released...or was still in diapers) I'm sure there are some PC gamers that would like to play this and I'm sure some console gamers will enjoy it as well. That said- This is no barnburning title for 2008.

Take that list (apparently: The most wanted console games of 2008) and compare it to the most wanted games of 2008 for the PC (which is only a partial list...you know how fast it's growing this past month. I just found out for myself in the past couple of days).

PC

1) Wrath of the Lich King
2) Starcraft 2
3) Guild Wars 2
4) Warhammer: Online
5) Empire: Total War
6) Fallout 3
7) FarCry 2
8) Wolfenstein 2
9) Half Life 2: Episode 3
10) Dragon Age
11) Paranormal Project
12) Section 8
13) Rise of the Argonauts
14) Stalker: Clear Sky
15) Mafia 2
16) Borderlands
17) Unnamed ID Software FPS
18) Sins of a Solar Empire
19) Operation Flashpoint
20) The Secret World

Now come on...those are just 20 and with the information I'm finding on releases today- I could probably spend the next 2-3 hours sitting here writing up PC games that are in the works and releasing in 2008/2009. The thread is answered. We're finding the titles.

But to let this address the console gaming vs. PC gaming debate for a moment: Do I need to list more than 20 titles? Isn't this sufficient? You take that list and compare it to the Console releases and let's just be honest: It doesn't matter what your "taste" is in games- The PC gaming list is laughably larger and better.

The PC games I've listed here are almost entirely PC exclusive. Half the console list you gave me is PC games. I would say that out of the 20 PC games I've listed there, at least 10-15 of them will garner a 9.0 or higher score on average, and at LEAST 18 of them will NEVER be released on a console. Not only will they not be released on a console- They can't. The console already cannot handle them. At all.

This is why I get all hot under the collar when someone tries to tell me that PC gaming is basically just sliding under a rock due to the Consoles being so wonderful. The consoles, are a dead end. And this perception that a minority of people seem to have acquired that the console has superior software, is clealry just a perception. A poor one at that. What software on the console? 2 or 3 games that are on the PC as well?

I mean we're comparing hardware and software here head to head. It's not even remotely close guys. Anyone with an option would be making a BAD DECISION if they bought a console. I don't see how this would be changed by them claiming that they're a FPS gamer, or a Stategy gamer, or an MMO gamer...or even an RPG/Action gamer. Regardless of their taste- I think they would make out much better on a PC.

Let's just visit one last bit of now technical information on a few of the "console" titles you mentioned:

1) Smash Brothers- Wii title...so obviously totally technically unimpressive. Minimal online play options and...come on, it's smash brothers. Fun? Sure. Worth mentioning in the same breath as the PC titles I listed? Of course not.

2) GTA4- It's once again, just another GTA title. I won't say "nothing innovative" though because I haven't played the game yet. What I do know is that it's a PC game as well and you have advantages by playing/owning the PC version. This title isn't swinging any momentum toward the console though. None. They needed to steal it from the PC and they didn't. It's a wash.

3) Rainbow 6-2: There's a reason this franchise stopped selling very well on the PC. It just doesn't outperform other PC shooters. Sure, on a console, Vegas is jawdropping. Not to the PC gamer. Further, the last Vegas had horrible online reliability for both the PC and the Console. Basically- This might as well be a console exclusive since that's where it's home has moved to anyway. Not because the console's "stole" the title from the PC. Because the PC gamers as a whole rejected the title. It's just considered subpar. There are TONS of console gamers drooling over this title and waiting as patiently as they physically can. The PC gamers aren't even mentioning it. This kind of ties into our whole discussion here about quality. So- It'll be on a PC and a console. Definitely no advantage to a console gamer here. He gets another PC port that most of the PC gamers don't even want. Do the math. Lastly, no dedicated servers for the Xbox360 version again. So only a loon would expect the online play to be any bit more stable than it was almost 2 years ago when the first Vegas released. TWO YEARS AGO. Nothing changes in the console world.

Out of consideration for your eyes I won't even start listing what's technically quite impressive about each and every one of the PC games I have listed here. I know you already know. These PC games we're talking about will continue moving the industry forward as far as technology and innovation are concerned. The console games are just spinning their tires in the mud. I highlight this sentence, because it basically sums up my entire viewpoint on consoles-

Which is: They're never ahead...they're always behind. They never crack the mold with technology or innovation, they merely try to recreate it...limitedly. They're never rolling out the hot new IP's- They just sell them to a more widespread audience on cheaper hardware after they've already "sold" the game on a PC. Console gamers expect the same results, so they purchase the product. They never get the same results. The console's role in the industry, has not changed in over a decade and a half. Spinning it's tires.

In 10 more years? We'll be having this same discussion...And developers will continue to make games for both the PC and the console. But the state of things will have not changed. If anything, in my opinion (and I've detailed it previously in this thread) the console won't even have a role to perform in this industry at that point. The closer it becomes to just "being" a gaming PC (which is what people want, that's what sells...face it) is the closer it becomes to rendering itself irrelevant. If consoles continue to just be an affordable alternative to enter the gaming market (as opposed to a high end PC) they will eventually just be an overly priced, underspec'd piece of hardware on the shelves. Look at the PS3- Didn't budge until they slashed over $100 off the price tag. Now Sony can't turn a profit...and this is STILL with Blu-Ray winning the format war over HD-DVD. Who would have thought that BR would have taken the crown this early (Q1 2008 and it's over) and that STILL wouldn't make the PS3 a dominant console in the market? It's because the issue is not PS3 vs. 360. The issue is "Is a console worth it at almost $600?". The market resoundingly answered this with "NO!". Well my friends, the only possible way that the next generation of consoles could have hardware that is competitive and useful post 2010, is to charge well over $600. More like $700-800 to start. $1250 would get you a powerhouse gaming PC at that point. See what I'm saying? What's the point of the console when this happens?

Nintendo, MS and Sony all know this is where things are headed. That's why you got the following things:

1) A Nintendo that doesn't even try to compete with technology. They specifically avoid it and make their "push" in a totally different direction. They were brilliant. They identified that the current direction of the console market is running out of room, so they basically changed venues to a more spacious market...one that they're pretty much creating from the ground up (in this ultra casual gamers market).

2) A Sony that basically plays the aggressive Russian role with the dare everyone to stop you, go right through the front door. They just pushed the technology and the price as high as possible. They assumed that this would just "force" the console consumers past this blocking phase it's heading towards by getting them used to buying mid-high end hardware for mid-high end prices. In this effort (gamble) they've failed miserably and further learned that the market, even next gen, is not going to spend more than about $500 on a console...no matter what it has inside of it.

3) A Microsoft that attempts to simply gather up as much loyalty as it possibly can from the pool of consumers out there today (the largest in the industry's history). Locking them into the MS gaming vision with online subscriptions, massive pop culture marketing campaigns, and spreading their "console format" far and wide with Windows Live Messenger and Live for Windows. They're not doing this to create some massive pool of console gamers that will drive console gaming past PC gaming in 2010 and beyond. They're doing this because they identify with the problem that I listed above, as do Sony and Nintendo. MS of all companies knows that console gamers are console gamers and PC gamers are PC gamers for the most part. Instead of trying to integrate these two consumer bases all on the same format...(it's just not possible), they're going to try and integrate these two pools of consumers via the DRIVING FORCE of gaming from this point forward: Online Gaming. Keep the two pool's of consumers as separate as they choose to be but tie them in together once they "log in" to their virtual world with their format of choice. Now that you have them pretty much all together in one big "place", you can begin using things like the Marketplace and Video downloads etc to not just target your Xbox Live consumer base, but also your entire PC gaming computer base...which you have a virtual monopoly on as well. The result is that PC games remain the chieftain of the industry, and console games remain an "affordable" alternative. The other side effect of this is that console gamers begin to PERCEIVE that they're beginning to "catch up" to the PC gamer's experience...and their loyalty and spending increase. Still- The PC remains the machine that produces and develops the software everyone most wants, and the software that drives the industry forward as a whole.

So that's what's going on here in the industry, in a nutshell. Combine that with everything else I've written in this thread and I think I've made a pretty good argument that the average guy out there with a console has a pretty jaded perspective on the industry right now. He's part of a larger scheme marketing plan...but this marketing plan by no means leads to the consoles being the "mainstream" platform of choice. If anything, it goes the other direction...

p.s.- You wanted me to note how many of the titles we're talking about are numerically titled and are rehashes. About 10 of the 20, roughly half, of the PC titles I've listed are non numerical. They're original IP. Now- The console games you listed? They're ALL numerically titled. None of them are new IP. See what I'm saying? Spinning the tires...Same old same old on a console, over and over and over and over. The fact that the accountants at the big gaming companies identify with the fact that the average console gamer WILL just keep buying the same thing over and over and over (and selling it to them over and over and over) by no means leads to them not developing new IP for the PC. Look at 2008- ALL the new IP is on the PC. It just leads to the scenarios I detailed above. Sure, it's killing the console market's innovation and quality. This thread, along with it's links and release lists, pretty much proves that this damage being done on the console side of things is just flat out not carrying over to the PC side of things.

Just as a last thought for now on top of ALL of this: Recall what I said about the current console hardware (which requires a new release of consoles to upgrade...a new "generation") already now passing the point (this past holiday season) where they're viable for gaming. I stand by this. The hardware on the console is now...arguably not even "mid" end. It's approaching low end...rapidly. Forget all of the implications this brings with it...we've covered quite a few of them in this thread. Focus on this fact alone: This console generation, has lost it's ability to be truly innovative and "wow" the consumer base. Anything "big" coming out on a console...will be completely overshadowed by the technology of the PC games at the time. You're bumping your head on the ceiling of limitation with the PS3/360 already. Give it 6-12 months. Like I said...when that big time Dx10 in Windows Vista comes out for the PC (didn't it just happen, with Crysis?). Then the next...and the next. How many years do you think the Xbox 360 can stand toe to toe with the PC at that point? How long before even the average casual guy finally realizes just how screwed he's getting by playing on the console? 2008? 2009? 2010? 2011? You're STILL not even at the next console hardware by then. Think about what the average PC gamer will be using as hardware by then. (for perspective- 2011 spans 34-46 months away.) This is only heading in one direction...

[Lehesu]

Good points, Artist, although I would am skeptical of how "most-wanted" those PC games are. I haven't hear of about 30% of them, and speculation as to what they will score is premature, at best. Funny thing is, I can agree with a lot of your statements, even though I wholeheartedly view things along the line that Drone has outlined. I suppose we are coming to different conclusions, or are trying to use the same information to answer different questiosn.

I am a big fan of the Rainbow Six games since the beginning. Rainbow Six did not die out on PC because it underperformed...it died because Ubisoft sold the game out to appease the console market. The fundamental features of the game were changed to appease the console crowd, which would draw in more money. This, in and of itself, points to the impact of console gaming on PC gaming. An established PC IP was virtually wiped out to earn more money from the console market.

Developers go where the money is, and the money is in the console market (for a variety of reasons already outlined). You can argue the sense in that, whether or not it is good for the industry or not, but that is simply how things are moving. This is why you have industry leaders like CliffyB saying that PC gaming is dieing (he later recanted) and developers collaborating to create alliances of PC developers.

[drone]

1) Wrath of the Lich King - expansion, MMORPG, not suited to console
2) Starcraft 2 - sequel, RTS, not suited to console
3) Guild Wars 2 - sequel MMORPG, not suited to console
4) Warhammer: Online - original, MMORPG, not suited to console
5) Empire: Total War - sequel, TBS/RTT, not suited for console
6) Fallout 3 - sequel, RPG, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
7) FarCry 2 - sequel, FPS, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
8) Wolfenstein 2 - sequel, FPS/RPG, probably going to consoles like it's original
9) Half Life 2: Episode 3 - expansion, FPS/RPG, probably going to XBox360 and PS3 like previous expansions
10) Dragon Age - original, RPG, PC only
11) Paranormal Project - no idea, I assume original, PC only
12) Section 8 - original, FPS, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
13) Rise of the Argonauts - original, RPG, to be released to Windows, Xbox360, PS3
14) Stalker: Clear Sky - expansion, FPS, PC only
15) Mafia 2 - sequel, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
16) Borderlands - original, FPS/RPG, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
17) Unnamed ID Software FPS - unnamed hardware releases
18) Sins of a Solar Empire - original, RTS (arguably) PC only
19) Operation Flashpoint 2- sequel, FPS/RPG, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
20) The Secret World - original, MMORPG, to be released to Windows and XBox360


Now come on...those are just 20 and with the information I'm finding on releases today- I could probably spend the next 2-3 hours sitting here writing up PC games that are in the works and releasing in 2008/2009. The thread is answered. We're finding the titles.

But to let this address the console gaming vs. PC gaming debate for a moment: Do I need to list more than 20 titles? Isn't this sufficient? You take that list and compare it to the Console releases and let's just be honest: It doesn't matter what your "taste" is in games- The PC gaming list is laughably larger and better.

The PC games I've listed here are almost entirely PC exclusive. Half the console list you gave me is PC games. I would say that out of the 20 PC games I've listed there, at least 10-15 of them will garner a 9.0 or higher score on average, and at LEAST 18 of them will NEVER be released on a console. Not only will they not be released on a console- They can't. The console already cannot handle them. At all.
9 out of 19 going to PCs AND consoles. And like I said before, those will suffer because of it. Sure, they will look like crap on the consoles compared to the PC, but they will outsell the PC versions.

[frogbeastegg]

I spent a long time composing a post which replied to many of the points raised since I last logged on. I listed games I’ve played, why I enjoyed them, games I am anticipating, fond memories of my PC heyday … all sorts. I just deleted it.

This has developed into the kind of discussion I don’t much enjoy, and don’t particularly have time for. I fall into the trap of wanting to reply to everything raised, and that takes hours. Then I start to get stressed. Then I end up wretched because there were other, far more worthy things I wanted to do with my time and haven’t managed to. Froggy wisdom advises me to avoid such self-inflicted unhappiness, and it’s wisdom I endeavour heed. Plus, in the end, I know anything I say will make little difference to anyone’s beliefs. Who honestly changes their mind because of something a random person on the internet said? I think the backroom can attest to the answer to that! So I shall sit this one out. I hope that can be taken as my preference rather than a retreat because my gaming life has been proven scientifically unsound or whatever.

One question though, if I may? Artist, do you play older games? Older meaning games which are years old now, at least 5 years but not necessarily from the days of 16 colours and bleepy-bloopy sound effects. Do you sometimes think “This game was highly rated back in its day and still gets a lot of love. I’ll try it!” or “I loved this game when I first played it, I wonder how it holds up today?” Discounting WoW, as that wouldn't help me.

There is one point I’ll save from my original answer, as I believe it should prove of interest for many here. It’s the top 20 best selling titles from 2008, as provided by the Guinness World Records Gamer’s Edition 2008.
Halo 3 (360)
Mario Galaxy (wii) *
Bioshock (360, PC) *
Project Gotham racing (360)
Final Fantasy XII (PS2) *
Pokemon Diamond/pearl (DS) * (:embarrassed:)
The orange box (360, PC, PS3) *
Zelda: phantom hourglass (DS) *
Mass effect (360) *
Crackdown (360) *
Ratchet and Clank: tools of destruction (PS3) *
Mario and Sonic at the Olympic games (Wii)
WoW Burning Crusade (PC)
Colin McRae:dirt (360, 360, PS3)
World in conflict (PC)
Guitar hero 3 (360, ps3, wii, PS2)
Pro evo soccer 08 (everything!)
Peggle (pc)
Virtua fighter 5 (ps3, 360)
The Simpsons game (everything!)
For the heck of it those I own I have marked *.

[ArtistofWarfare]

1) Wrath of the Lich King - expansion, MMORPG, not suited to console
2) Starcraft 2 - sequel, RTS, not suited to console
3) Guild Wars 2 - sequel MMORPG, not suited to console
4) Warhammer: Online - original, MMORPG, not suited to console
5) Empire: Total War - sequel, TBS/RTT, not suited for console
6) Fallout 3 - sequel, RPG, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
7) FarCry 2 - sequel, FPS, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
8) Wolfenstein 2 - sequel, FPS/RPG, probably going to consoles like it's original
9) Half Life 2: Episode 3 - expansion, FPS/RPG, probably going to XBox360 and PS3 like previous expansions
10) Dragon Age - original, RPG, PC only
11) Paranormal Project - no idea, I assume original, PC only
12) Section 8 - original, FPS, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
13) Rise of the Argonauts - original, RPG, to be released to Windows, Xbox360, PS3
14) Stalker: Clear Sky - expansion, FPS, PC only
15) Mafia 2 - sequel, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
16) Borderlands - original, FPS/RPG, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
17) Unnamed ID Software FPS - unnamed hardware releases
18) Sins of a Solar Empire - original, RTS (arguably) PC only
19) Operation Flashpoint 2- sequel, FPS/RPG, to be released to Windows, XBox360, PS3
20) The Secret World - original, MMORPG, to be released to Windows and XBox360


9 out of 19 going to PCs AND consoles. And like I said before, those will suffer because of it. Sure, they will look like crap on the consoles compared to the PC, but they will outsell the PC versions.

I could debate 2 or 3 of those that you said are going to console but I won't because I don't need to in order to once again make the following point (I've made it in a number of glaring ways):

Right out of 20 (not 19...we listed 20) 11 are PC Exclusive and 9 are PC/Console. Out of those 9 (and again, we could debate that you even have 3 on that list headed to console...but we won't for now). Not one game in this list is console exclusive. As I've stated before, roughly half the list is new IP. None of that new IP winds up on the console...ironically?

Further, you simply prove my point by highlighting that 3/4 of the list is a game specifically tailored to the PC. Exactly. Where's the big list of highly anticipated games that are console and console only? It's just not out there...

Once again, limitations.

That last post of mine is quite extensive and detailed. I don't think I have to go farther now.

Frog said he'd rather just leave this alone. This is how I felt for the past 2 days, and attempted to move this in another direction on multiple occassions. Now that we're there ...we'll stop? Ok fine...I'd still prefer that myself. It's not an issue I'm too concerned about as a PC gamer and the original purpose of the thread, has been served. I, and other PC gamers who have read it (some who have posted or contacted me, others who just view these forums) have been clued in as to what's ahead for the next 1-2 years for PC gaming.

If at the same time this is going on, we have 10 million happy gamers on consoles playing at once: Fine. I hold all of the opinions you see in this thread but I'm not actively crusading against console gaming. I honestly, am not concerned about what other people are doing over on consoles. I've been making contacts on the PC list. I'm done with the console.

Lastly...I not only enjoy "older" games, but if you look at my post history, virtually ALL of them are in the MTW:VI forums. I favor MTW:VI over everything about as much as I favor the PC over the console. No- There is no strategy game today that is Shogun or MTW.

Even if this last paragraph could not be stated with truth- I don't see what that has to do with things. Or maybe I do...so I'll ask: Do you play any games that were made post 2002? Do you specifically avoid a game that has 3D graphics or surround sound?

See? It has nothing to do with this conversation.

[Crandaeolon]

I began a lengthy reply as well, then decided it was not worth the bother. See, nothing new is actually happening. Computer gaming has been "dying" since the coexistence of affordable computers and consoles, for maybe two decades now. C64 vs Nintendo, Amiga vs PC and so on... nothing arcane about the concept that different platforms cater to different kind of games and players.

Also, multi-platform gamers do not always include PCs in their setup. Several well-educated friends of mine are quite wealthy and could afford any PC, but instead opt to use a Mac with open source software for non-gaming needs and consoles for gaming. Reasons behind this are similar to what Zenicetus listed, plus the obvious issue of not supporting Microsoft or its closest affiliates.

Gaming is cyclical. There will be better years and worse years. Genres will rise, fall and rise again, and so will platforms. Gaming is also approaching maturity. This means relatively fewer true innovations over time. The next big things will probably be experiments in interactive drama (like Facade) or procedural, user-shared content (Spore, LittleBigPlanet), but truly groundbreaking things will be fewer and further between.

Sure, WoW affects the market. It has a stranglehold on a relatively new genre, and that's bad. Obviously.

[drone]

I could debate 2 or 3 of those that you said are going to console but I won't because I don't need to in order to once again make the following point (I've made it in a number of glaring ways):
Which 3 do you debate? HF3:EP2, Wolf 2? Trust me, those are going to console, just like their predecessors.


Right out of 20 (not 19...we listed 20) 11 are PC Exclusive and 9 are PC/Console. Out of those 9 (and again, we could debate that you even have 3 on that list headed to console...but we won't for now). Not one game in this list is console exclusive. As I've stated before, roughly half the list is new IP. None of that new IP winds up on the console...ironically? 19, because you didn't list the unnamed Id game. How can I do any research if you don't give the game a name? It doesn't count. New IP (Secret World, Borderlands, Rise of the Argonauts, Section 8 on that list) is headed to the console. Are you reading my posts at all?


Further, you simply prove my point by highlighting that 3/4 of the list is a game specifically tailored to the PC. Exactly. Where's the big list of highly anticipated games that are console and console only? It's just not out there...
That was your list of supposedly PC-only games, I merely highlighted that half of them are multi-platform. You don't need a list of console-only. What would normally be a PC-style game is now being made or ported to console, they benefit from the new development dollars. If the focus of the shared development is more geared or artificially limited by the console side, PC gaming suffers. This is the danger.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Which 3 do you debate? HF3:EP2, Wolf 2? Trust me, those are going to console, just like their predecessors.

19, because you didn't list the unnamed Id game. How can I do any research if you don't give the game a name? It doesn't count. New IP (Secret World, Borderlands, Rise of the Argonauts, Section 8 on that list) is headed to the console. Are you reading my posts at all?


That was your list of supposedly PC-only games, I merely highlighted that half of them are multi-platform. You don't need a list of console-only. What would normally be a PC-style game is now being made or ported to console, they benefit from the new development dollars. If the focus of the shared development is more geared or artificially limited by the console side, PC gaming suffers. This is the danger.

We've definitely established what your standpoint is, Drone. I got it...

As said- I don't see how this conversation could accomplish any more than what it has. Others want it to end...I'd like it to end. Let's let it end.

All points have been made, countered and remade by all parties.

The good news is that I take back what I said earlier. I do not regret making this thread. We've probably brought up, and examined, over 25-30 "in development" games for both the PC and console here. Some of which would take a little time to find at this point in said development. That's definitely a productive thread.

So whatever...if someone wants to talk about a console game, I won't mind after all here. If you want to talk about a PC game, you know I'm interested. Let's try to just focus on what's in development and what looks fresh, cutting edge, innovative or polished.

Either way, in my eyes: Things look better than they did when I started this thread. The titles are coming...and it starts in a few months and then slows, and then seems to hammer us over the head around the 10-15 month + range again. Still, with the way the 2008 holiday season is stacking up, it's definitely going to make the software selection from the previous few years look bleak in retrospect. Just judging from some of the games uncovered here...

[frogbeastegg]

She :winkg:

I asked simply because certain of your comments made you appear to be what I call a forward focused gamer. I don't know you from outside this forum, so I wished to see if that was accurate or merely the result of an incomplete picture. Which it was. I try to have some knowledge of the people in my forum, and to make those ideas as accurate as possible. It makes my mod job easier.

In reply to your question, though I expect you don't much want an answer, on occasion, yes. There are some genres where 3D graphics don't work.To give one example, it was the shift to 3D which struck the death blow to my beloved point and clicks.

I don't have surround sound on anything. My PC has desktop stero speakers, my TV uses the inbuilt ones. I don't feel the need for it.




Anywho, you've said you want the topic to finish. If you want it doornail dead and never to return, state you wish it closed and Kek or myself will oblige :bow:

[ArtistofWarfare]

I don't think it's necessary to close the thread...just get off the PC vs. Console discussion. I just don't see anything productive that could be added to it at this point. Everyone's made a good case already...and as you said: It's good all around information for anyone to read.

The thread can continue, and as I said- I don't mind if someone discusses console games. Let's just not bring this back to another 2-3 pages of PC vs. Console. It's run it's course.

I think you see that I'm not just some pro technology elitist gamer who won't even look at a title that isn't screaming at 60+ FPS and shaking my entire neighborhood at 2am. I'm not so far in this direction that I just automatically whitewash the thought of playing any retro games or any games that attempt to impress at the innovation level as opposed to the technical level. Not at all.

I do have firm opinions and stances on the industry today and definitely on the PC vs. Console debate. Absolutely. These have been stated however, and I certainly am not interested in restating my points. Unnecessary. I have also read the counter arguments...in detail. I don't think there's anything anyone can add to make their viewpoint clearer.

Again though, this definitely yielded some production. We do have a very nice list of games in this thread and we can certainly continue the discussion in that direction...

To the console gamers: Enjoy. To the PC gamers: Enjoy :balloon2:

[frogbeastegg]

As you like. I made the offer because I know that occasionally that's the option which allows people to have peace of mind that a discussion is completed. Options are only good if you're aware they exist.


To the console gamers: Enjoy. To the PC gamers: Enjoy :balloon2:
Just so :medievalcheers:

[ArtistofWarfare]

As you like. I made the offer because I know that occasionally that's the option which allows people to have peace of mind that a discussion is completed. Options are only good if you're aware they exist.


Just so :medievalcheers:

Offer noted and appreciated. I don't think there's anything more to worry about here though.

If three or four new games are announced in the next two weeks, I and others will probably wish the thread wasn't closed. So...we'll keep our options open for now.

I do have to underline that I'm really not against anyone who's pro-console. I don't care what they buy or what they play...they're welcome to. I was just stating my opinions since the conversation came up. Still, you'd never see me interject these opinions into a discussion where it's not warranted. As in, just showing up in a thread that discusses console games and saying "consoles are teh sux" or something brilliant along those lines.

That's not where I'm coming from at all here...

[frogbeastegg]

I admit to being a tad nervous anytime a discussion touches on PC versus consoles, and there were a few moments here where I held my breath and prayed no one would take something amiss. If I had £1 for each time I've seen such discussions turn into outright warfare I'd be rich. Never on the org though - people here tend to be more mature, and we do insist that all games and all platforms are treated with respect.

If you turn up any good games please do start a thread. Finding games I might not have tried is one of the better parts of modding the arena ... or the worst, depending how you look at it. There's only so much gaming time in a frog's life.

[drone]

No need to worry about me starting up a flame war here. As I stated earlier, I'm a PC gamer, consoles do nothing for me. Our discussion has just between 2 PC gamers with differences of opinion about the future of the platform. :bow:

[UltraWar]

I prefer Guild Wars to World of Warcraft. :2thumbsup:

[ArtistofWarfare]

No need to worry about me starting up a flame war here. As I stated earlier, I'm a PC gamer, consoles do nothing for me. Our discussion has just between 2 PC gamers with differences of opinion about the future of the platform. :bow:

Yeah see I'm still relatively new enough around here that I just don't know where some of you are coming from. I was, just like Frog, expecting things to turn quite sour...fast. It didn't.

The fact is: Drone's right. All that happened here was a rather productive conversation between two PC gamers. At the end of the day (or week for me in this case) we're on the same page...a PC, regardless of our differences in opinion on this topic.

And to UltraWar- Guild Wars 2 then for you...which looks like it has some pretty amazing graphics and textures going for it.