Stagnant Market? WOW To Blame?

[ArtistofWarfare]

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Also is World in Conflict both multi and singleplayer?

[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.

[Viking]

WoW might be evil, consoles are teh eviler.

Stay away from my awesome PC games O ugly console.

[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!







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...