Valve's take on the dying PC gaming scene - Page 2

haha, that's what my brother says about his wife. Nothing but a big expensive clothes line

PC gaming is not dead, but I agree with the previous post about the next generation of consoles to be the deciding factor. Most, if not all, PC's support 1080p right now. Next gen consoles all should natively support, so then it will be more of an even playing field.
Remember that a console is largely obsolete the day it's put out. How old are XBOX 360's now, 2 years? PS3's 1 year? My PC I can update right now with today's superior technology (yes this costs additional money).
I'd say hand's down the most popular games today are FPS's (Bioshock, CoD4, Crysis, etc) and a console controller just simply is no match for a mouse and keyboard. Take Shadowrun for example, those console guys were getting schooled by the PC guys.
Piracy is everywhere not just PC's. I'd argue piracy happens just as much on consoles, but not as glamorized in the media.
Consoles do have some notable and attractive pros though. Game rentals, ability to buy used games (except fleabay), standard platform (a 360 is a 360 is a 360), idiot proof.
I could go on and on, but to summarize my position, I believe that the PC is vastly more powerful and flexible (by it's very nature), but that the universality of consoles very attractive too. I believe the next generation of consoles will seal the deal for consoles.

I agree with most of what you said, except this. Software hacking involves some hardware hacking (by the original hacker, not those downloading the warez) to uncover the code, and by their proprietary nature console hardware is much tougher to reverse engineer.

Eventually though the PC/console war will fizzle like the conclusion of Animal Farm. Just substitute "man" and "pig" with "PC" and "console".

The day Xbox Live was born began the death of PC gaming. Never before have consoles had huge online communities, downloadable content, and the ability to apply game updates and patches. Not to mention, it can all be played on the sofa through the home theater system with high quality graphics.

No need to flame, I am not a console fanboy. I have been gaming on computers and consoles since the 80's. The PC has always had a huge advantage, but those advantages have dwindled to the point of irrelevance to me after buying the 360 and PS3.

Weren't you able to do all this on a PC long before XBOX Live. To be honest, I think a huge factor in this supposed downfall of PC gaming comes from integrated graphics. If you are a 13 year old and don't know jack about computers other than your family has one down in the den. If you go to BB and buy a "computer game", why wouldn't you think it wouldn't work...after all it's a "computer game". Pop that sucker in the drive and be befuddled as to what the problem is. Consoles allow for that idiot proof no brainer approach (which like I said is very attractive).

quote: "I agree with most of what you said, except this. Software hacking involves some hardware hacking (by the original hacker, not those downloading the warez) to uncover the code, and by their proprietary nature console hardware is much tougher to reverse engineer."
--->
Maybe it's not as rampant, but it's out there. I would think the readily available Gamestops/GameFlys of the world with renting and buying of used games makes pirating console games seem pointless. If I can go buy a used PS2 game for $5, pirating suddenly seems like effort and not that attractive.

I've never pirated a game for PC. I've tried to, but couldn't get it to work. The only reason I tried was because a demo was not available for a particular game and I didn't want to spend $50 on a dud. I like to vote with my wallet and I like to pay for games because I can appreciate the huge amount of work these developers put into it. It's a shame a lot of immature people don't feel the same way. Plus, I like to own a "library" of titles that I play. Same thing with books...if I read a book, I like to have it on my shelf, not on the shelf of the library. Don't know why I'm like that, just am.

That is my point. Prior to XBL, the only game platform to support these options was the PC. Console games were static. Now, console titles are upgradeable, patchable, expandable, etc.... which levels the playing field with the PC in many aspects.

Honestly... yes, but not as smoothly. Xbox Live came out and it was totally integrated, broadband only (no HPB, if you remember that acronym), everyone with mics, universal friend list - none of this was on PC and PC was much more scattershot. Even today it still is but obviously much better.

The "death of PC gaming" talk began because consoles can now do about 80%-90% of what PCs can but at 50% of the cost with 10% of the hassles/potential hassles. If you were around during the time of arcades, arcades collapsed in the 1990s when people could buy a console and a near perfect port of a given arcade game and enjoy it in the comfort of their home. For most people, the deficiencies were not a big deal so they stopped going to arcades and waited for the PS/Saturn ports.

For most people, having to lose a bit of graphical quality and flexibility is worth the hundreds of dollars and convenience they are getting in return.

Very true.

I remember when Best Buy had four or five rows of PC games. Now there is one or two at most. I think people would rather spend the 1k(+) they would spend on a gaming machine and put that money toward a high def TV.

There's definitely a lot of crap "copycat" game development going on.

csnow: that about sums it up

Consoles are toys.
Gaming computers are a hobby.

Many high end home theater guys have a PS3 in the middle of their multi-thousand dollar AV rack. Last I looked the PS3 was still the best overall BR player. I wouldnt call that a toy But I do agree that PC gaming is a hobby or maybe more of an addiction.

If Microsoft wanted to kill PCs, they would make the next Xbox Windows compatible. An all-in-one machine for around $500 with the ease of use of a console would pretty much kill off the PC. As a matter of fact they could injure Sony pretty badly too with that strategy.

and MS would love to "KILL" the pc wouldn't they? oh ****ing wait, who makes the ****ing operating system? use your brain

Oh god....not this elitist crap again.

OnequickBM,

Microsoft doesn't make money on PC hardware sales. They would still be selling Windows operating systems to console users. If anything they could boost sales of the next Windows by making it the minimal requirement for use of the new Xbox as an HTPC. By not making it compatible with PS4's hardware, they would have an "all-in-one" machine exclusive of Sony, similar to the way Sony is now stealing 360 sales with their Blu-ray exclusivity.

If current generation consoles continue to eat into the PC's usage, and Microsoft believes this to be a permanent trend, wouldn't they be foolish not to try this?

Which do you think makes Microsoft more money:

Joe Blow buys a copy of Windows Vista for use on his PC. He can run games from any developer.

Joe Blow buys an Xbox 360.....he runs games made for the microsoft xbox 360 and licensing fees that go to Microsoft for each xbox game sold.

Use your brain.

I had NFS most wanted on my 360.. 42inch LCD/720p. My friend had the same game on his 19inch monitor with everything maxxed out.. The difference was very noticeable. I couldn't believe what I was missing. PC games will always look better then console games, cause the consoles technology is stagnant, & stuck for 5-6 yrs.. While better graphic cards come out every yr or so.. PC/PC games advance at such a great rate.. & the consoles are not all that powerful IMO...H3 wasn't even HD & a lot of games can't support X2-x4 AA without killing the frame rate. MS stated that all 360 games must support at least X2 AA & 720p.. This was before the 360 was released..But the hardware isn't capable.

I prefer consoling gaming over PC for many reasons. I hate using the keyboard, upgrading, making sure your specs match the games requirement, etc.. But PC games will give you the better gaming experience.. The keyboard is superior to a controller..Even though I hate gaming on a keyboard. It offers tons of customization & other options.. Many options on the video side that consoles can't provide.. Consoles will never catch up to PC hardware wise.. In 5 yrs lets compare the same game on a maxxed out PC & 360, using 5 yr old technology..

Unless we are talking about the Wii 2.. I still question if Nintendo will ever support DD 5.1..

I have a better idea, lets look at what you can do with a $600 videocard today with what you can do with a 3 year old $350 console like the 360. Compare Call of Duty 4 on the 360 with Call of Duty 4 on the PC.

Graphically? Almost identical. Then, compare the number of units sold for PC versus 360.

In 5 years you'll be lucky to get PC ports of 1/4 of the games that come out for consoles.

PC gaming in 5 years is going to be what Macintosh gaming has been for the past 15......1 game for every 100 that come out on a console. Take away the devs and you take away the incentive for people to spend huge dollars upgrading their machines. Give the consoles that do HD resolutions and you lose the old incentive that PC's had were "PC games always did things no console could ever do"..today consoles ARE PC's, they are game-dedicated PC's....and thats why the PC is now starting to look more and more like the dinosaur it is.

I prefer PC gaming for the occasional MMO game (not playing one currently). Overall though, I prefer console gaming.

I was a 90's PC gamer also..........got burned out on all the FPS games and moved to consoles for games like Metal Gear and Final Fantasy.

I was originally in favor of PC gaming because it is fun to have something that is personalized and really YOURS. Plus pc's give you so much more flexibility. But the problem is recently I've noticed more and more games get released with tons of bugs to the point that they're unplayable. It then takes months to get a patch out to fix that so the game can even be played. Sometimes even that doesn't fix the problem.

That made me think of going towards consoles. But what am I seeing now? Patches! Once upon a time, a game had to be 100% to ship and sell or else the console game would flop! This worries me - it makes me yearn for the days when I could buy a SNES, N64, PSX, or even PS2 game without worries of random crashes and the need to be connected to broadband internet.

So that brings me back to owning an HTPC. I don't see myself going away from that any time soon.

So how do I as a consumer fix this patch problem? I no longer wait in lines to be the first to have x. I now wait for other people to do it, review it, identify the problems, and then complain about having no patch released. Once I read people have successfully patched their games and they run w/o a problem, then I'll buy them. It's really sad that I have to do this.

I think people are missing the point of the divide entirely. The difference between, for example, an FPS on either system may be minimal. The PC may be able to display (noticeably) better graphics, some people might like the couch/desk or keyboard/control better than the other, but overall, there experience is similar.

The PC will (I really hope) always be a home for a more thoughtful variety of game which, for many reasons, will always be absent on the console. I honestly don't care if every FPS, racing game, sports game and/or action game eventually becomes console only; these games can be played wherever. Games like civilization, starcraft, sins of a solar empire, total war series, black and white... there are hundreds of titles I've played over the years that make the PC great.

RTS and TBS games belong on the PC.


I think this is largely correct, and is not elitist. Console games, by and large, could all be played by a 12 year old (although the material in some may prohibit this). PC games, if not always true, at least have the potential to be more cerebral and engrossing.

Consoles are fun for some things. They have many advantages that have been listed here. However, there are only so many times you can blow someone away in some capacity before it (should) get boring.

Incidentally, I just built a gaming PC for a friend for around $500, including an HD 4050 and 2 gigs of RAM. This PC can run even Crysis at reasonable frames, as well as do all the other things a PC can do. Whoever keeps trying to compare some theoretical $600 vid card to a console has no clue what they are talking about. the $175 4050 is a better vid card than ANY console has. Anyone paying $600 is an enthusiast, and this comparison is invalid.

Please provide some examples of how consoles are toys and PC games provide a more cerebral and engrossing experience.

(This ought to be good....)


Yes...and tank-rushing never gets old. Or perhaps you were going to list Sins of a Solar Empire, or some MMORPG as "for adults" while all other gaming is "for children, since it can be done on a console". :P


Since you dont list resolutions, framerates or detail levels...its hard to argue your crysis point. If its 1400x1600 with medium detail level at 20fps, I dont consider that reasonable. If its 1080p at 50fps at HIGH or ULTRA settings, then you're FOS.

A $500 computer is great.....the question is software and what hardware is required to run a given game at a given resolution at a given framerate, and with PC games in the state they are, what works good in year one, doesn't work so good the next year. If the software comes out at all. Thats the key.

You don't think this is true? I guess I'm coming off as a fanboy here, but all I am saying is I like the type of games that are suited for the PC. I really don't care what hardware they run on: if a console could play civilization in a reasonable way (revolution is NOT civilization) on a console, I'd get one. Console games, because of their nature, are lowest common denominators. Games are designed to appeal to EVERYONE, and EVERYONE is usually fairly dumb. Name me a console game that is intelligent, and I will retract this statement. Console ports, like Assassins Creed, always tend to be completely mindless and brutally boring after the first 5 minutes. I have no idea how console people do it. Meanwhile, Ive been playing Warcraft 3 since 2003, and Civ games since the early 90s. These games are constantly challenging and, as a result, more fun. Maybe the level of difficulty involved with getting a PC to even play a game is what attracts the type of gamers that like these intellectually challenging gaming experiences... I'm not sure.


MMORPG are utter ****. They are just as bad as any other button mashing, brain rotting twitch fest. I seriously doubt a game like Sins of a Solar Empire would appeal to most people. They would find it boring. Especially kids. I, however, do not think many kids would find Gears of War boring... which is ironic, because that was one of the most boring games I've ever played. I don't understand how people can shoot at things for 20+ hours and still think its fun. That'y why I say PC games may be more adult: kids would be bored silly by a lot of em, because console games have reduced their attention spans to 4 seconds.


I just meant on your standard 20" computer monitor at 1680x1050 on meduim settings, it was very playable. And keep in mind this game represents the absolute high end of computer requirements. This $500 machine would likely be able to play everything else on earth maxed with no problem. Not to mention the PC is backwards compatible with tens of thousands of titles that have been released over the years.

Its true if you want to keep playing the newest, greatest games you need to continually pump money into your system. However, I consider this an asset; its something that cannot be done with a console, and is an advantage on the PC. I appreciate that while a console stagnates for 5-6 years, the PC releases an optional graphics upgrade every 6 months or so. By the end of the last console generation, the difference between PC and console graphical quality was immense, and I have no doubt by the end of this generation it will be no less noticeable.

A popular genre in the console space is the SRPG, and they are turn based strategy games with a fixed number of characters, usually a small band, and extensive character customization. I know people who have put hundreds or even thousands of hours into Disgaea and Final Fantasy Tactics, but there are others. The best ones have tons of flexibility and difficulty and are as deep as the ocean.

Not that it matters - there are brainless games for the console space, sure, but its not like every single game on the PC is Civ or Warcraft. Not even close actually.


Is this a joke post? Gears of War is a game firmly rooted in the tradition of PC action games. PC gamers are more adult but they bought millions of copies of Doom 3, the Unreal Tournament series, Quake 3, Crysis, etc? Get over yourself, dude.

Hardware or tradition driven, nothing to do with hardware.

Fact is PC gaming (and standalone desktop PCs) for the home is headed the way of the dodo bird = extinct.

There is nothing at all the prevents a console from playing the games you mention - nothing. There are no hardware limitations, much as you might like to believe that but it's not the case. Both the 360 & the PS3 have more raw processing power than the vast majority of PCs.........especially a $500 PC. The processing power isn't generalized like a PC but we're talking gaming right? The 360 has a mid level graphics card & the PS3's is a bit weaker but the PS3 has more number crunching capability than ANY PC on the market.

Just because they haven't made the type of games you mention doesn't mean they can't.

PC gaming has two remaining bastions - user modifiable environments & "cross platform" (i.e. you can play against anyone regardless of system) play. The former is on the agenda & the latter may be addressed at some point.

The difference between console games and a true hardcore PC server running custom maps is like the difference between splashing around in the shallow end of a public pool and scuba diving in the ocean.

I've played tactics, and I guess you're right, it is very thoughtful. However I maintain that these types of games, especially as a percentage of what is released, are negligible in the console space, and relatively prominent in the PC space.


I agree, but as I mentioned earlier, these are games I have no problem letting consoles take over completely. The experience is the similar, regardless of platform. These games furthermore, to me at least, are the equivalent of watching an OC marathon on FOX... gratuitous entertainment diarrhea. I'm not sure what you think I need to get over, either. I'm honestly fearful for the future of the gaming industry, and I see consoles as the main promoter of normative crap. The PC is the last bastion, with extremely rare console exceptions, where a player wins a game due to their IQ, and not their reflexes.


This is a really good point. There is really nothing stopping a console from running something like Starcraft, assuming you can connect a mouse and keyboard to it. However, it is not in their tradition to do so, and such games would likely be met with poor sales, compared with the latest zombie killing/alien fragging/fast car racing franchise waiting to be crapped out by some monolithic publisher. The PC has a solid tradition and fan base for strategy and puzzle games which I do not think will ever appeal to your average couch potato.

All this being said, I own a Wii (because it is an experience that cannot be bettered or duplicated on a PC, unlike the other 2 consoles), and there are games on it, mindless as they are, which are a lot of fun to play; especially with friends. I'm not faulting something like smash bros, mario kart, or even Halo. They are all a lot of fun in moderation and have their place. The PC can continue to coexist with these types of systems, fulfilling a different niche.