Print
Games are fraught with their shares of formidable foes, but few actively seek to harm your experience more than mandatory auto-save. Countless keyboards have been shattered into second-rate Scrabble tiles over checkpoints that are worse than Gandalf about letting you pass. It's sort of an odd trend, too, seeing as “save wherever you want” features have been around for ages and only take one or two clicks/button presses to access. We suppose it's all in pursuit of the holy grail that is effortless, thought-free immersion, but that's generally the furthest thing from our minds when we're un-embedding our mouse from a potentially related mouse-shaped hole in the wall. On that note, while not progress-related, quick-time events make a similarly cringe-worthy bellyflop when attempting to leap from consoles to PC. Controllers: a few possible buttons. Keyboards: six trillion keys. Developers: do the math.
Ah yes, the standard-bearer for the “well clearly, if console gamers like it, PC gamers will love having it forced upon them too” movement. Calling Games for Windows a trainwreck wouldn't be doing it justice, because trainwrecks eventually end. We prefer to think of GFW as a trainwreck that collided with a car wreck that collided with a plane wreck that collided with the Large Hadron Collider. At every turn, it's tried to give PC gaming an Xbox Live makeover, and PC gamers have been unsurprisingly outraged. After all, if we wanted an Xbox, we would have bought a friggin' Xbox. Please, though, Microsoft, none of that silly Avatar busine-- oh. Oh no.
If it hasn't already become glaringly apparent, game developers are only human. They can't be everything for everyone. We wish, however, that they'd stop feeling so pressured to lie about it. Unfortunately, the trend these days seems to go something like this: Formerly PC-Centric Developer X begins to focus on consoles. Longtime PC fans feel slighted and start complaining. Formerly PC-Centric Developer X replies that it'll always be a PC developer first and a console developer second. Then the PC version of its game doesn't get a demo, gets delayed for more than a year, and ends up being an outsourced port. We understand, developers and publishers: you're running a business. But we're not stupid. Give us the truth – even if it hurts.
Kinect's only the most recent example in a long line of devices that have been seriously held back by consoles' proprietary nature. Even so, it's incredibly indicative of the overall trend. Brilliant Kinect hackers, after all, have used the unassuming little device for everything from 3D radar to Minecraft photography. Meanwhile, the Xbox has given us – drumroll – a game about baby tigers and something called “Adrenalin Misfits.” Thankfully, Microsoft's official PC SDK is finally on the horizon, but this is hardly the first time console technology has been chained down by its own proprietary roots. The Wii-mote, for instance, had its own share of interesting hacks, and don't even get us started on the whole PS3 jailbreaking/homebrew fiasco.
Oh no, now we don't get to spend $15 on a glorified map pack. Boo-hoo. Actually, though, this can be a make-or-break prospect depending on the game – especially if its developer leaves it high-and-dry altogether. For instance, Modern Warfare 2's online servers were quickly overrun by game-breaking cheaters, and Infinity Ward's been incredibly slow to respond ever since. Beyond that, of course, you have games like Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit and Dead Space 2, both of which have very substantial DLC packs on the way – but not for PC. Please, publishers, don't make us beg. Oh, wait.
Ever since Modern Warfare 2 dropped the ball by pulling the plug on dedicated server support, every PC game developer's had to face brutal interrogation on the topic. “OK, yes, we're sure Greatest Game of All Time will be OK or whatever, but does it have dedicated servers?” Answers, however, have been mixed. Id Software's upcoming RAGE, for instance, will “probably” abandon that crucial feature in a post-apocalyptic junk pile. BioShock 2, similarly, showed its console roots by steering clear of dedicated server support as well. There is, however, a bright side here. Fan outcry over these games has caused many developers to better understand the importance of dedicated servers, leading to stronger PC multiplayer feature sets from games like Brink, Homefront, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, and Medal of Honor. Fingers crossed that this trend doesn't disappear any time soon.
Comments are closed on this article
ferariman
May 30, 2011 at 10:13am
you40-year-old rich jerks just dont understand some currcumstances. like the fact that im not old enough to have a job. If i were, i would love to go and get started at staples, as the small computer fixing buisiness i run is still based out of my room. the only reason i have an xbox is because of family and friends. i wanted a new mobo that supported the core line of intel processers, i wanted an i5 proccessor, and a 5770.but no, they run off and grab me an xbox. they instead of allowing me to add on to my current rig, they buy me this piece of garbage. dont yell at me for not being old enough to get a job to buy good parts for a rig and to get my business ALL of the way off the ground.
OH YAH, GUY BELOW ME UR SPAM!!!
below20hz
April 28, 2011 at 9:48am
I am so tired of people blaming piracy for low sales. The general concensus among media companies is "Piracy exists, so it must be costing me money". That is an oversimplification of the situation, and it is dead wrong.
Several things need to be factored in when considering the effect of piracy on sales:
1) Many many many of the people pirating would not make any purchases regardless if the means to pirate was available or not. In other words, assuming people who pirate movies and games would purchase those items if they couldn't pirate them is way off. You aren't "losing money" from someone who would never buy your product under any circumstance.
2) The people who pirate and who DO have the means to purchase and would purchase the game if piracy wasn't available to them - we usually do. Myself for example, I own several games and movies that I would've never bought if I hadn't pirated them first. I've even bought several copies of Windows 7 OS because I pirated it first to test it out and loved it. I'd still be stuck in Windows XP if it wasn't for a pirated copy Windows 7.
3) Regarding PC games, there is a much smaller user base compared to consoles. If you're going to compare the ratio of console games sold to PC games sold for the same title, you'd also need to know the ratio of console owners to PC gamers in order to accurately guage if the porportions are actually different from each other. Even if it is disproportionate, there are other factors that affect sales besides piracy. Singling out piracy as if it could be the only possible answer is very narrow-minded, and that mentality in and of itself can hurt sales. Until the actual cause(s) of slow PC sales for a particular title can be concretely determined with facts and evidence, assuming its piracy means the real culprit lives on to strike again on the next PC title.
4) Assuming because PC games are pirated more often, that the solution is to move to consoles is, once again, not understanding exactly who is pirating. If PC games dissappear and all games go to consoles, then the number console games pirated will increase cuz the same people who pirate PC games will now pirate console games. Why? Because they have no intention of buying games, period. You can't lose a sale to someone who is not ever going to buy from you.
What I'd like to see is a total seperation of console gaming from PC gaming. I agree with this article that consoles are holding us PC gamers back. Console owners are content with sloppy graphics and childish dumbed-down gameplay, whereas consumers like myself who are smart enough to build their own rigs can't stand that mentality. We need to feel like the hundreds invested in hardware was well-spent when we see graphics, sound and gameplay that is leaps and bounds ahead of those poor naive console owners. And we hate having to wait 4-6 months between the release of a game that actually takes full advantage of what PCs are capable of.
For now, I won't buy Crysis 2. It looks like crap compared to the first one. And it plays like a dumbed-down console game. When the directx 11 patch comes out and mods become available, then i'll buy. And I am absolutely drooling over the cryengine 3 sandbox. Can't wait to play. THAT is another aspect of PC gaming that makes PC ownership lightyears ahead of console ownership. Customization and the ability to create our own unique experiences. (Think Trackmania).
So Developers, stop blaming piracy for what seems like poor sales, and stop comparing your sales numbers to console's. That's like Ferrari saying "Hey we didn't sell as many cars as Ford, maybe we should starting making a Focus". Just think about what YOU'd want from a PC game, not about the almighty dollar. After all, you guys are PC gamers too.
Sediket
April 28, 2011 at 6:47pm
lol I'm guessing your replying to my post but didn't fully read my post or read the articles I cited, because of contradictions, but oh well internet is full of ignorance.
1 & 2. lol I love this one, "Many many many of the people pirating would not make any purchases", so if I go to my local computer store and tell them I don't want to buy their software they should give me copies for free, right? And then if I like it I can come back and give them money for it. Lol because that just makes sense.
3. hmmm it was documented that 250 million units were sold on consoles and 23 million sold on PC, umm this statistic is still relevant regardless of how many gamers use PC or console. The amount of units sold is the whole point, showing consoles are more profitable and that even though consoles sold soooooo much more, PC games were still pirated 5 times more, hurting PC game market reliability and overall sales.
4. "Assuming because PC games are pirated more often" not assuming, its a fact I even cited many sources. Yes it can be assumed that more players on a certain system would yield more piracy, but that’s the whole point there are A LOT more console gamers, its a fact and I cited it, and pc games are still pirated a lot more, so with those statistics if we all moved over to consoles game developers would still be more profitable because overall sales are so so so very very much higher, and that’s the point that piracy is major factor, hurting the remaining PC game market; that was cited also.
lol, recap - people who don't want to buy software should get free copies and actually pay for it only after they have tried it out and feel like buying is nonsense lacking common sense, seriously. If 250 million units sold on console and 23 sold on pc there are A LOT more console gamers. out of those weaker sales more computer games are pirated, adding insult to injury, in a logical world is it that hard to figure out why developers are focusing more on consoles? Again all facts, all cited. If you care about PC games stop pirating, is it really that hard to understand?
The Nameless One
May 07, 2011 at 1:32pm
Your idiocy is astounding "lol I love this one, "Many many many of the people pirating would not make any purchases", so if I go to my local computer store and tell them I don't want to buy their software they should give me copies for free, right? And then if I like it I can come back and give them money for it. Lol because that just makes sense."
it's clear from this that you misinterpreted what he was saying completely. He wasn't saying that it was alright that they got it for free he was saying that given the choice of buying or no more games these are the kind of people that would choose not to play anymore so that they are not a factor in sales....
"hmmm it was documented that 250 million units were sold on consoles and 23 million sold on PC, umm this statistic is still relevant regardless of how many gamers use PC or console. The amount of units sold is the whole point, showing consoles are more profitable and that even though consoles sold soooooo much more, PC games were still pirated 5 times more, hurting PC game market reliability and overall sales."
you realize that only PC retail sales are published and that the PC gaming market had higher revenue than any other single platform...http://www.pcgamingalliance.org/imwp/download.asp?ContentID=19906
Sediket
April 20, 2011 at 11:34pm
My opionon on the devide between computer and consoles is that I'm disappointed game developers now-a-days focus on console a lot more than computer and computer games are dumbed down because of the usually delayed port from the older inferior technology to computer.
And honeslty if there was full fledged mouse support for consoles then computer games would pretty much be obsolite at that point. Because the biggest reason I've seen why computer gamers won't switch is because of that god awful gamepad in FPSs and RTSs. However the gamepad is good for other generes just NOT FPS or RTS!!!!!!! and then all the console players would go ape-shit because they are getting their asses handed to them by mouse players... it would just be fun *sigh* -Microsoft killed PC XBOX cross platform play because console players got destroyed every time
Sediket
April 20, 2011 at 10:13pm
The reason consoles sell more is because piracy on console games is SUBSTANTUALY lower. putting everyone’s bias aside, as a developer, would you rather develop a game for a system it will be sold on, and sold a lot more, or a system it will be distributed for free and only sold to individuals with a conscience.
"Looking at torrent data for the same games on PC vs. XBox 360 vs. PS3, we saw that the number of downloads of the PC version is often five or ten times higher than the console versions." -TweakGuides, PC Game Piracy Examind -http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_6.html
"PC games are by far the most downloaded titles, with on average more than three times the number of downloads compared to Xbox 360 and Wii releases" -http://torrentfreak.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-most-pirated-game-of-2010-101228/
Console games units in 2009: 250 million units sold
Computer games sold in 2009: 23 million units sold
-http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_Essential_Facts_2010.PDF"In fact, the majority of commercial games do not produce profit. Developers, such as BioWare, Blizzard Entertainment, Valve Corporation and id Software are famous for releasing quality games on completion, rather than being constrained by financial limitations. However, most developers cannot afford changing development schedule and require estimating their capabilities with available resources before production." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_development (citations included for these quotes on wikipedia)
Computer games sell 9% of what console games sell and yet those same games are pirated five to ten times more on PC. Game developers concerned about actully turning a profit and hoping to make a successful release are obviously moving to consoles because of piracy: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/epic_president_%E2%80%9C_money%E2%80%99s_console_thanks_piracy_0
So stop downloading.
mdjasek
April 08, 2011 at 6:59pm
great article that summarizes well causes of decline in PC gaming; some PC gamers are to blame for it. Piracy is the number one culprit that thwarts PC Gaming and the best games are now coming from Eastern Europe.
evzero
April 05, 2011 at 10:10pm
A lot of this can be summed up by "Blame yourselves". Let's take..say..Crytek for example.
Push the limit! See how far things can go! Look at the hardware our games take to run! Wait, what do you mean our game was pirated so many times? Look at the hardware people have to buy to run our game! Surely, they won't mind spending $50 after blowing hundreds on video cards and upgrades.
Uh huh, I'm sure the console gamers were to blame for that.
Did you even bother playing Dragon Age: Origins? You compared it to Baldur's Gate when it's clearly more inspired by Diablo 2 or World of Warcraft than any of the D&D titles. It bears far more resemblance to an MMO - you know, the games dumbed down enough to be accessable to the masses - than it does BG. Just tell me it isn't. A tiny number of core classes, a linear progression skill tree, emphasis on agression/tanking/AoE tactics..
Basically, PC gamers tend to want more more more, when they wind up selling less. Is it any wonder developers have turned toward the consoles as primary income? I could get into the fact of the cost issues involved and the hundreds of dollars necessary to keep a PC current, but I won't.
gruvsf
April 04, 2011 at 4:01pm
I think that the comments that point out piracy (not mentioned in the article) really does hurt PC game sales, especially for games that do no rely on basic DRM such as Steam. It may be harder to pirate games for consoles (as they can easily update firmware to deal with mods and other hacks on consoles), but the nature of PC gaming is for it to work on different hardware configurations (the opposite end of console gaming).
Console gaming is easy; anyone can buy a 360 and a game at $60 new and in 10 minutes have it working at home. PC Gaming? definitely requires a bit more know how, but at least the prices are usually 15-20% cheaper than their console counterparts.
Developers these days need to maximize their profits, so it makes sense for them to release a game on at least 2 console platforms and a PC if they feel like they can make money by doing so. If you pirate games and complain about games and developers and console makers, then you should really take a look in the mirror if you want to know why games suck. Developers are not running a charity.
Another point on the 360; how many owners are now on their 3rd or 4th XBox? I guess that should have run you about $900+ in cost out of pocket that you had to spend on it just to play your $60 games (unless one of the XBoxes died within a year of you buying it, which is very possible) My original PS3 60GB was bought after the PS3 was just release and it is still running smoothly to this date, with no hardware upgrades or mods at all, not to mention that it pulls double duty as my Hulu Plus rig and Blu-Ray/DVD player. If I had a computer that is almost 5 years old that I can do all that, I would be happy, but I have to spend at least $800+ for a new rig every 28-36 months to keep up on the hardware on the PC as it moves that quickly. I am glad that the big three (Nintendo, Sony, and MS) have finally decided on increasing the life spans of their consoles by improving on features to extend their lives (and not force people to buy a new console every 3 years). Computer lifecycles last about 4-5 years at the longest these days before they are replaced with something newer.
I think in the long run, both consoles and PC gaming will survive, as long as there is a market for their prespective ecosystem. There will always be pros and cons for either, but it's really up to you as to what you can put up with to play your games. If a developer or console maker (or Valve) decides to make it that much more difficult for you as a player to play your games, they lose revenue, which helps no one in the long term.
cuthbert
April 04, 2011 at 3:42am
I can't figure out if this article is an early april fools joke or not. Some of the stuff is just so outlandish...
Dedicated servers? Give me a break. Worthless tripe. But so is most online gaming. If you want to play anything online, MUD.
You said something positive about Kinect??! Are you a full retard or just legally considered one? The streak continues: 672 days since the announcement of Natal/Kinect and not a single real use for this "product" has been found. Official or not.
You talked about how much more advanced that PC's are than consoles and you don't see the flaw in this? The reason that PC's are more advanced is because they aren't owned by poor little 13 year old kids who can't afford to upgrade. The only way you can afford to be ahead of the tech curve is to be a 29 year old virgin in your moms basement. And to relate it to something else you said, at times PC games are delayed and buggy because tehre are so many different options to test for, as they have countless configurations to test out.
Related to that, you really think that PC users don't whine about how their setup is better than someone elses? It is even worse than console users, becuase they only have 3 real options to choose from. PC users whine about who has the best CPU's, GPU's, Memory, sound cards, type of hard drive, display (well, those who are still too stupid to not have their PC hooked up to an HDTV) and 1000 other parts in a computer.
There is no basis to complain about controls. After a couple decades of using a mouse and keyboard, I can finally accept that it's a flawed, wasted input method. Grow up and just buy a USB gamepad. The whole industry has already passed you by, with literally EVERY game released anymore better when you aren't burdened to a mouse/keyboard combo.
Modding? No. No. No. They're one of the cancers of the industry (along with online chat). The sooner this garbage is excluded from all games, the better. No one makes an even decent (let alone good) mod.
You made a few good points, though. The port issue is a legimate issue and it can get really frustrating. For a delayed title, it is pretty sad to see it happen on one platform and not another, but for glichy titles, there is little excuse. Especially since they can choose to let it fall into the "delayed" category instead of shipping a buggy title.
Arrgh! Now you have me all upset!
streetking
April 05, 2011 at 12:52pm
is your comment an april fool's joke?? i guess not, seeing as the last paragraph seems serious... but damn. the rest of it is so, so full of fail it's not even funny
sweetjeebus
April 11, 2011 at 10:20pm
His post can't be serious. A PC gamer who ditches their keyboard and mouse for a usb gamepad! Kind of defeats the purpose of gaming on a PC if you ask me. I call shenanigans on his post.
bling581
April 13, 2011 at 9:57am
Depends on the game. I don't ever use a gamepad for anything except when I played Tony Hawk a few years ago. I could see someone prefering one for racing or flight sim games.
Skibo1219
April 03, 2011 at 12:17pm
I understand there are issues relating to UIs and porting from PC to console, what I wanna know is why didnt the braindead console makers ever make a keybaord for them?
Game Co's can make having a keyboards mandatory to play a game since that would make porting from PC to console less of a hassle because all the key bindings can still be there, unchanged. Simple, but since the industry has to "go with the flow" it hasnt happened yet and the debate and war is still on for profits from games.
RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS
April 02, 2011 at 5:55am
Most of the blame goes to Microsoft and Bill Gates. Years ago, when Sony announced their consoles would be at the hub of family entertainment, Gates decided Microsoft just had to dominate that market, too--as they were trying to dominate everything electronic. They sold the XBox at a massive loss to get thier big feet in the door, which in turn created a competition that drove the tech ahead of the PC in terms of the cost/performance ratio.
Years later, they were crying over lost sales of their OS. Well, no shit, guys: You torpedoed the PC gaming industry, which drove a large percentage of your OS sales, which also happened to be where you made most of your money! Sure can't make it selling boxes at a loss.
Had Microsoft not made the XBox, console tech would never have advanced as far or fast as it did.
You can blame piracy if you want. It doesn't matter. It's still shit.
mustangman801
April 01, 2011 at 6:04pm
I love to see all the fanboy-isms on this article. You guys can argue what's better, console or pc, until you're blue in the face. The fact remains that money and the economy are what control a given industry and unfortuately because so many pc gamers feel it's their right to steal a game, developers have stopped making games specific to the pc. Crytek's Crysis is a perfect example of this.
PC Gamers literally have no one to blame but themselves for the downfall of their platform. Who in their rightmind would spend millions of dollars to develop and release a game only to have it ripped, hacked and placed on a torrent within mintues of it's release.
Now I'm not blind to the fact that it also occurs with console games, but certainly not to the same extent. You want to break the cycle of crummy ports and buggy games? Then stop stealing and start voting with your wallets. The more people buy pc games, the more the developers will start investing in the platform.
Thoric
April 02, 2011 at 5:51am
If you believe that in the current state of the industry, developers and publishers are barely making enough profit to keep their companies in business, you deserve all the DLC and shitty sequels coming your way.
mustangman801
April 02, 2011 at 9:53am
Sure the current state of the industry is strong, but if you expect developers to syphon money towards the pc development only to have the game hacked and loaded on to a torrent for millions of people to steal, then wake up man. This section of wikipedia's page on Crysis says it all.
According to The simExchange, the NPD Group reported that Crysis moved 86,633 retail units in the first two weeks of its release in North America[32], but while it beat their expectations, the sales were considered overall disappointing.[33] Two months later, on Electronic Arts earnings conference of the quarter, it was reported that Crysis has reached the 1 million units mark, and that it has exceeded their expectations.[34] On the other hand Cevat Yerli on an interview with PC Play in April 2008 stated that he was disappointed to see the game leading the charts in piracy and because of that his studio would not produce any more PC exclusives, as he believed a game such as Crysis would sell four to five times more copies if it was released on consoles
bling581
April 04, 2011 at 10:18am
People pirate XBox and Playstation games too. Maybe it's harder to track downloads of console games? I don't know, but I do know their whole blaming piracy philosophy is a load of crap.
DarkStarr
April 01, 2011 at 6:54pm
And what would you like us to buy? The crap ports that are $60 and have no DLC or get it months after the console versions? They need to cut prices because just because apple can make a 21% margin doesnt mean you need to make massive proffits on crappy games. If games were say $30 and still not the best more people would buy, if the games were actually good I am sure people wouldn't mind spending $60 a game. Till they fix the bs pricing, its not even worth it. I mean seriously, even crappy xbox or ps3 games are $60 new. It needs to be tiered, with good games at say $60 and mediocre ones at $30.
z01
April 03, 2011 at 1:39pm
The thing is that developers dont really have a good reason to sell pc games at the price they do right off. With consoles games they have to pay a certain amount of sells to the console maker but that doesn't exist with pc games which developers either are ignoring or just seeing as a way to make extra profit per unit. I'm not saying that a good game doesn't deserve to make money but if you are making a higher profit margin from pc games you can't complain all that much.
If developers would take half a minute and look at some basic economics they might realize that with a few easy perks and a lower price point say $40 to start a game at they could revitalized pc sales and reduce a lot of the piracy problem. A lot of people who pirate games may not be induced to stop but then again a lot would stop if games weren't so high when a pc game, especially a badly concieved port, shouldn't be that high.
iceman08
April 03, 2011 at 5:46am
But how would a good game be decided? By the gamers? What if a game you find good i find mediocre or horrible? the best way to shop is wait at least a year till prices of a game come down OR if Steam releases the game with discounts as they are apt to do. A "good" game is hard to judge (Minecraft V WoW, which is better?)
mustangman801
April 02, 2011 at 11:19am
This comment coming from the guy who in one post below stated "Seriously $1000 isn’t that much". Plus there have been many people stating that for one PC games generally debut at a lower price and two they are typically reduced to your magic 20-30 dollar price point sometime shortly after launch. The bottom line is until piracy slows nothing will change. We'll continue to have second rate ports and incredibly invasive DRM.
Neufeldt2002
April 02, 2011 at 2:18pm
What I find funny is that history is repeating itself in that consoles are now introducing DRM to circumvent the modders and piracy on consoles. It is a no win situation for any gamer, the more DRM they impose the more people are going to try and crack it to run on their favorite platform.
DarkStarr
April 01, 2011 at 5:24pm
I wont even lie. Honestly the reason consoles sell better is because it only takes an iq of over 50 to setup, maybe not even that. How many people do you know that are SMART enough to not buy the 360s crap 250gb drive and hack a better one to work? How about how many people do you know that can fix or build computers? Most people don't know how. It may be that they are not smart enough or that they are too busy or are older, whatever. My think is I know very few people that know how to do much more than basic computer stuff. Part of it is your a nerd or whatever people decide to call you if you know a lot about computers. Some of the responses on here prove me right, for $500-$600 you could build a pc that will blow any console away for YEARS and play almost any game maxed out at 1080p. I have both a 360 and multiple PCs, I love playing Halo or Gears of War on 360 but Mirrors Edge is great on PC. NFS games not so much since the controls are hard to use (With keyboard & mouse). Part of the problem is people still see computers as being wildly expensive which for a basic computer they are not and they can still be good. You dont need a quad core i7 with 16gb of ram and trisli 580s to run a game. Also when the hell is $1000 a lot but people can go buying iPads in droves? Seriously $1000 isnt that much, at minimum wage thats maybe 2 months of working part time.
mikeart03a
April 01, 2011 at 1:27pm
I'll bite as I play on both PC and Xbox 360. My first and foremost preference when it comes to gaming has always been PC. While I do play a number of games on the Xbox from time to time(mostly racing and assasin's creed), you can't unglue me from my PC. I'm a Garry's Mod addict and I'm damn proud to admit it. My xbox has more or less become a media player and netflix box.
I have a decent laptop (not a gaming one), but it has more than enough chops to run games at a decent clip and still last 4 hours on it's extended battery pack. It's probably why I prefer PC games as I can play them on the go or at work (after hours/night tech leaves me with a ton of time).
That being said, this is a good article, even if it is a little contradictory to what I've seen from MaxPC in the past.
jonnyohio
April 01, 2011 at 1:17pm
I dont have to upgrade my pc so much since most new games are toned down for consoles. I also can buy and download most games from Steam and I can buy them on sale not long after release unlike there console counterparts. I think the reason for that is some companies are trying to get their games into the hands of pc gamers but since console games dominate the shelves at Walmart they are coming up with better ways of getting those games to us. In some ways the console competition is helping drive inovation but i agree with your article...its gotten so bad im scared to buy any game that is also on xbox or ps3.
flo21
April 01, 2011 at 12:30pm
There's another behemoth that also threatens PC gaming, maybe even more than consoles...
Social networks and the casual gaming apps!
Look at zynga stealing employees from actual developers, look at ensemble studios making a dumbed down age of empires. They say Zynga is already worth $10 billion dollars, while Valve is probably only worth 2 or 3 billion, despite it being around longer and having far more influence on the pc gaming industry, not to mention the itunes of gaming stores.
This my friends, is even more worrying than consoles.
D00dlavy
April 05, 2011 at 12:34pm
Social networking games are another animal. Not the same demographics. Prone to fads and here-today, gone-tomorrow hits.
It may touch shit like The Sims and Second Life, but it won't threaten stuff like Battlefield, Call of Duty, Starcraft, any Telltale Games title, World of Warcraft, etc.
Biceps
April 01, 2011 at 12:11pm
I won't be purchasing any FPS games in the future without dedicated servers. I was looking forward to Rage, but won't be if they don't have dedicated servers. I gambled and lost on MW2, and won't make the same mistake twice. Over it.
FYI, console-monkey who commented right below me... PCs are where it is at. Consoles blow. My PC has the power of about 15 of your silly little Xboxes put together (really). I agree completely with the author his main points in this article. Go home and play your Wii and leave the big boys alone with their PCs.
mastertmg3
April 01, 2011 at 11:19am
it's hilariously ironic that you complain about console fanboy-ism in an article about how consoles suck.
look at your own failings before reprimanding others.
Keatah
April 01, 2011 at 11:17am
I also prefer the classic games on the PC as well, like Doom and Duke-3D and Raptor. But don't get me wrong either, I find very few, if any, pc games or console games as engrossing and challenging as Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator. Lightyears ahead of anything the commercial publishers (and they are now publishers, not developers) put out.
And then there is the hardware requirements, for modern day gaming you need cards like the gtx590 which runs at over 100*C .. And consumes like 350 watts of power. Forget it. Leave it to the fanbois and ohverclockerz.
Hot heavy unstable hardware is not elegant, nor is it attractive and fun to use.
Keatah
April 01, 2011 at 11:04am
I gave up on modern PC gaming AND consoles. Too much fluff and little substance. I prefer the older videogame classics, like Atari and Intellivision and stuff like that. Modern gaming is too much about fancy graphics that still stutter and flicker unless you have a $3000 rig.
thinsoldier
April 01, 2011 at 12:20pm
My pc cost me under $1000 3 years ago. Since that time much homework has been researched, many papers have been written, dozens of websites have been tested in IE7, many relatives have been skyped, thousands of photos have been edited and a million million zombies have been put out of their misery.
If you spend over $500 on a desktop pc in 2011 that can's play (good) console ports from 3 years ago YOU GOT ROBBED!
LatiosXT
April 01, 2011 at 8:20am
I worry about something... Is there even a dedicated PC game developer, or at least one that if they develop for PCs and consoles, they give the PC its just treatment? Like for instance, Valve. I'm starting to feel Valve is less of a developer and more of a publisher. The first hit was when they promised a Left 4 Dead SDK. That didn't happen until after Left 4 Dead 2 was released (and I don't think there's an SDK for Left 4 Dead 2 specifically, but I could be wrong), effectively making it moot. Oh, and where's Half Life 2: Episode 3, or Half-Life 3?
Valve is becoming dead to my eyes as a developer.
D00dlavy
April 01, 2011 at 8:29am
Valve is dead to you? They are in charge of the most lucrative digital gaming platform ever known to man. Get Steam.
There are some dedicated PC game devlepoers, but they're indy. Most games are going to be cross-platform now, and that's the cold hard truth. Sales on PC are about 1/9 what they are on consoles. Look at the numbers for Bulletstorm... so far it has sold about 50,000-70,000 copies on PC, but 400,000+ on X-Box 360.
We may be elite, but there are fewer of us, and money speaks.
Skibo1219
April 03, 2011 at 12:10pm
Steam sucks too, aside from cheap games you cant play any of their games unless you are connected to the internet, its their way of spying on you.
isamuelson
April 04, 2011 at 4:58am
Maybe doing some more research so you don't come off as a fool would do some good.
You can play offline in steam as long as the game itself doesn't require it. Then, you are at the mercy of the game itself, not Steam. One shining example is most of Ubisoft's latest games which require constant internet connection. That has nothing to do with Steam because it's true whether you buy the game via Steam, Direct2Drive or from the store.
For the first time you play a game on Steam, you have to be online but that is part of the validation of the game. Once you have played the game in online mode, you can go back into steam and turn off the online requirement, hence allowing you to play the game while not connect to the internet. Also, if you have any pending updates, you have to apply those first before you can turn off online mode.
Steam itself is actually one of the good examples of how DRM should be used. The game is NOT tied to your machine but to your account. Hence, you can install Steam and your games on multiple machines. But, you can only play the games on one machine at a time. Once you've logged into your Steam account, it logs off any other machines that are also logged in at that time. But, once that machine is logged in, you can turn off the online mode and play as long as you want that way until you need to either download another game or get the latest patches.
Next time, research before you spout off talking points that you read all the time from the ill-informed.
D00dlavy
April 01, 2011 at 8:31am
"...As a developer."
Too early in the morning for me. Didn't see that part.
riopato
April 01, 2011 at 5:08am
anyone having issue typing and editing inside the comment box? Why is maximum's pc comment section so buggy?
warptek2010
March 31, 2011 at 11:39pm
Maximum PC, correct me if I am wrong, but haven't you in your technology coverage propped up console gaming? By covering it, reviews, benchmarks, whatever... you help it thrive, no? How many articles have we read about Xbox 360, PS3, Nintendo DS? Hell, how many articles have you covered about the latest smart phones, Ipad etc...? In years to come when these devices are capable of playing hi def games like the consoles and PC's do now you'll be lamenting that handhelds are killing PC games. I think you need to change the name of your publication from MaximumPC to MaximumTech or something along those lines.
P.S. Sorry for being so critical but one is sometimes most most critical of what you love.
I Jedi
April 01, 2011 at 5:08am
It's also interesting to point out that very few Mac articles ever get produced on here, even though console systems are generally talked about on here. Of course, the arguement could be that Sony and Microsoft are both tech. companies and the PS3/Xbox are just extensions of their products and services. I generally agree, though, that if we're going to talk about inferior equipment, that the site and publication should entirely be renamed to MaximumTech to encompass consoles as well.
D00dlavy
March 31, 2011 at 8:38pm
That was a good read, Maximum PC. Don't totally agree, though!
I have the rather polarizing view that PC is the apex of gaming... the filet mignon to other peoples' 5-dollar steak. PC gamers are the bourgeoisie, and we fret over our class and property. The others: proletariat, Joe-Schmoe, the lowest common denominator, have risen in interest to our hobby and are now shaping the gaming industry with their collective, mass-spending power. The rabblerousers have broken down the doors on our fancy cocktail party and tracked their muddy boots and bare feet throughout the house, guzzled our precious aged spirits and have now opened their six-packs of beer.
It's not that I hate console gamers... I just want them the f!ck out of my party. The gaming industry was better off without their money... for us and for art, creativity, originality and quality.
All that said, and despite what I said, I hope to say this as unbiased as I humanly can...
Every pro-console argument on this thread has reinforced the stereotype that console gamers have sh!t-for-brains. The only argument that's even worth responding to is this: PC gaming has a higher entry cost. That's it. However, even this concept is oven mired in hyperbole... when really, some kid could just work an extra month at his dead-end job and plunk down the money for a gaming PC. Unless you're looking at a Wii, gaming PCs can be as little as $350 more than a console. Wow, a whole f!cking $350 for a superior experience and something that really isn't even a toy... it's a tool. You can do your taxes and sh!t.
compguytracy
March 31, 2011 at 6:36pm
Crysis 2, On my pc, 3.1ghz dual core intel, 4gb ram, 1gb radeon5770, money shot after coming out of the tunnel in first mission, skyline of NYC, jawdropping, breathtaking, can actually hear my gpu fan crank up to handle it, no glitch, no bs, unfortunately, using a control pad from xbox, but control pad works for me, PS3, not even close, good enough for sports champions, but seeing black ops on my rig, and on PS3, hands down, pc wins, suck it console fan boys, underpowered, laggy, unresponsive, toys.
bingojubes
March 31, 2011 at 6:26pm
i don't see how the console is better as much as some console gamers think - they forget that computers actually were used to make their games, so they really should be thanking PCs and possibly MACs for creating their favorite and popular games. when console games are created by console units, i think then there would be a valid argument. while Halo Forge might be a great tool, it makes maps, not games. Forge was created using computers.
so computers in general should continue to outshine consoles, and it does suck that consoles are the new wave
