|
Guest
|
On Jan 14, 12:11 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 11:04 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >>> I didn't forget. It simply has no bearing on the current state of the
> >>> PC gaming industry. While Valve is admirably still trying to support
> >>> their PC-centric fans, almost every other major company out there is
> >>> much more focused on the console gamers.
> >>> While there are still PC versions of games that have better graphics,
> >>> better multiplayer options, etc. any one of those companies would drop
> >>> PC support if they had to choose that or dropping consoles.
> >> I'm not disputing that the console market is more lucrative, or that
> >> console gaming is more popular. I'm simply saying that's it's completely
> >> and total incorrect to say that PC gaming is dead because it clearly isn't.
>
> > For all intents and purposes, we're talking about the "traditional" PC
> > gaming *market.* I think anyone, myself included, who says it's
> > completely dead is just hyperbolizing to make a point, but it's clear
> > that the market is dead. It doesn't matter if there are still millions
> > of people playing Counter-strike or some RTS online... if they're not
> > buying the latest and greatest games right now at full or close to
> > full price, either because they don't want to or the developers don't
> > feel the need to produce them for the PC, that means the market is a
> > pathetic shell of what it used to be.
>
> But it's untrue to say that PC gamers aren't buying the latest games.
> If it were true then companies simply wouldn't release them because they
> wouldn't make any money on them.
Obviously *someone's* buying games... enough that it's just worth the
company's while to spend the little extra effort it takes to make a
game for the PC (Hell, they're all developing *on* PCs).
You should know by now that I hyperbolize to make a point, as most
people do - generally, when someone says "nobody's buying x" that
doesn't mean there isn't a single person on the planet buying "x."
Also, consider that publishing a PC game is more profitable than
publishing a console game where you have to pay licensing fees to
Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony.
> > 'Dems da facts.
>
> I tent to disagree, strongly disagree.
With what exactly?
The PC games market in general is thriving mainly due to casual games
like PopCap's stuff, the Sims, etc. and subscription-based MMO games
like World of Warcraft. I think all of us can agree with that... even
King of Gaming.
The landscape of today's market, however, is quite different than what
it was even in the late 90s when there was virtually no crossover
between "the consoles" and "the PCs." FPS and Western RPG games were
the hot games on the PC side - the bulk of sales were for hits like
Half-Life, the Quake series, Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate,
Unreal, etc. Even as late as the first half of this decade, Half-Life
2 and Doom 3 were PC exclusives at launch, only to be ported into
downgraded console versions.
However, the lines blurred big time with the launch of the Xbox 360
and suddenly the PC no longer had a stranglehold on FPS and Western
RPG games, suddenly a console was capable of delivering a very nice
level of graphics that was more than traditional console gamers
"needed" and cost efficient for PC gamers who were tired of constantly
having to upgrade their boxes to handle the latest games.
Is the market for the traditionally "PC" games like FPS and RPGs still
around? Of course. Like you said, if *nobody* was buying the games,
the companies would stop making the PC versions. However, even a
drastically reduced number of sales is acceptable because the added
cost of developing a PC version of a game that's on the 360 is
relatively small and the profit margin is higher on PC games than on
console games.
Consider Valve, one of the biggest PC games companies and probably the
biggest where FPS games are concerned. The lifetime sales of their
games is dropping considerably with each release. Half-Life sold 9.3
million units. Half-Life 2 went down to 6.5. Orange Box sold 3
million. Left 4 Dead is a little bit better with slightly more than 3
million. And these numbers *include* console versions, which make up
the lion's share of sales.
Sure, there's digital distribution through Steam, but Valve themselves
have said that these sales have not outpaced retail sales.
> > I don't think that's the case at all. Most consumers aren't going to
> > spend tons of money to buy a new PC or upgrade an existing one just to
> > have better graphics for the same games they can play on their
> > consoles. If what you're saying is accurate, they'd have already
> > forsaken consoles for PCs because "bloody hell the graphics on that
> > look nice" has always applied to the PC versions of games.
>
> Well this is opinion on both sides, only time will tell.
>
> >>> When you remove all of the casual and MMO games from the PC games
> >>> market, the remainder of the games - RTS, RPG, FPS, etc. - combine to
> >>> make up a rather small portion of the total games market.
> >> But you can't just decide to ignore a large chunk of a platform because
> >> it suits you. It make no less sense to day "If you discount all, third
> >> person action games and sports games then the console market isn't doing
> >> much better than the PC one."
>
> > I absolutely can within the context of the discussion.
>
> No you realy can't, MMOs have been around for years, I think MUDs
> started in the 80 and Ultima On-line came out about 13 years ago.
Yes, really, I can. The advent of MMORPGs falls within the time frame
I'm talking about. Ultima Online, which came out 12 years ago
(September 1997), wasn't the first MMO game but it was the first that
really grabbed widespread attention with its peak at about 250,000
subscribers.
However, the one that really kickstarted the era was EverQuest, which
came out in March 1999 and eventually grew to a high point of about 2
million subscribers.
The PC games industry was successful well before this, though. Back
when I was still a very avid PC gamer, you had games like Doom selling
5 million, Myst selling 6 million, SimCity 3000 selling 5 million,
etc. You don't get those kinds of sales numbers from non-casual, non-
subscription PC games anymore.
> Then
> you're left with casual games. At this point to have to define what one
> is, if you mean things like the Simms then you have to compare it to Sim
> City, Theme Park and te likes. Both Simple Sim games and MMOs have been
> core to PC gaming for a long, long time.
The Sims, which was introduced in 2000, is a casual game. Sim City, on
the other hand, is not. You can't lump the two into the same genre
just because they have the same word in the name. That's like saying
that Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Paint are in the same genre.
Sim City and its ilk were *far* from casual games. They involved a lot
of planning and strategy among other things. With the first Sims game,
you just plopped a dude or dudette into a house and basically let the
cards fall as they may with some nudging here and there.
> > I already
>
> > established a couple posts ago that I was referring to the PC games
> > market "as we knew it." The one that exists today is an extremely
> > different one - genres that didn't really exist about a decade ago are
> > the only ones that are thriving while the types of games that were
> > predominantly "PC only" have been snatched away by the consoles. It
> > wasn't *that* long ago that you *had* to own a PC if you wanted even a
> > half-decent first-person shooter experience.
>
> For my money that's still true.
Then you have a very strange perspective of things considering that
games like Modern Warfare, Left 4 Dead, Gears of War, their sequels,
Halo 3 (depending on who you ask), etc. are all on consoles.
> >> I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with you on though. Like I
> >> said, I'm not suggesting that the current state of the PC market is
> >> comparable to that of consoles. Just that it's not dead.
>
> > My core disagreement in this thread centers around the notion that
> > hardcore PC gaming is poised to make any sort of noticeable comeback.
> > The core reason behind most PC-to-console switches was cost and it
> > will be a long time before the economy has recovered enough for anyone
> > to even consider the luxury of switching in the other direction.
>
> That's fairn enough, however I do feel that you don't really have a full
> understanding of the current or past PC games market.
You're welcome to that perspective although my stance is built on
facts and data that are easily verifiable whereas yours seems more
focused on your own personal anecdotal evidence. If, perhaps, you
could dig up some data that supported your theory of how the PC games
industry was and how it is now, we could have a more fulfilling
discussion since at this point it seems we've both exhausted our
current stances.
|
