"Hardcore PC gaming is dying"

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

http://www.civfanatics.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 PC gaming is just expensive, and your hardware is easily outdated in weeks, or months, while consoles last for a couple years in a generation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casual games were cited as a huge part of PC gaming's future.

Very true. Casual games are a very big market already although I believe it is currently mainly filled by games aimed at women, such as those match-3-games.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane

Are the days of the pure PC limited?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New games are orders of magnitude more complex than old ones. Even console games get patches now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure what the thread title is trying to say.

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

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

Originally Posted by Navaros

Not sure what the thread title is trying to say.

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

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

Ummm... I am not instantly disagreeing here, but could you add a little more context to that??

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

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

Originally Posted by doc_bean

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

Sore thumbs?

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by drone

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

Indeed. Maybe if they'd stop driving development/hardware costs up by pushing the graphics envelope they could save money and invest in gameplay, storylines, ect... you know, all that stuff that's secondary to graphics.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by drone

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

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

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