There's no need for a new Xbox, says Microsoft

On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
> >> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
>
> > LOL
>
> > The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
> > are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
> > last.
>
> But these games are still available on the PC, the fact that they are
> also available for consoles is immaterial.

People were able to buy audio cassettes and VHS cassettes for many
years after CDs and DVDs took over. That doesn't mean that those
things *weren't* on the way out.

Can you still buy these games on the PC? Sure. Are many people doing
that? Not at all. The fact that they post the "PC" link on the
homepage is attributable to the simple fact that it costs them nothing
to do that. Ten seconds tops to put that link up there. Now, if they
had to devote a sizable chunk of space just to the PC version of a
game, they would absolutely not do it because there's no incentive for
them - the money's in consoles.

Doug's statement was an implication that PC games are somehow still
important enough to "feature" on the homepage when in fact they're
just there because it costs them absolutely nothing to put them there.
You're not going to see a PC exclusive up there unless it has "World"
and "Warcraft" in the title or there's some mega drought of brand new
console games.

> > Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
> > which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
> > consumer.
>
> The PCs graphical superiority goes far beyond  screen resolution.

Of course they are but higher resolutions are the most prominent and
noticeable change. If you say "PCs" in general, then it's tough to
include all aspects of better graphics because you need to account for
the cheaper PCs that aren't able to handle much more than one
improvement. You're not going to be able to run Crysis with higher
resolutions *and* better lighting *and* improved textures *and* better
mapping *and*... etc. and so forth on anything but a higher end gaming
rig.

Higher resolution, though? That's pretty much a given with any level
of computer these days, even the bargain ones.

On Jan 13, 5:42 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:fda5adaf-e28b-4524-82d7-5caeb2367fe0@t6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 4:04 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> >> The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > PC games are not only dead, they've been dead for five years.  No
> >> > important games come out for PC that anyone can name off the top of
> >> > their head.  If the situation is right, a high profile 360/PS3 game
> >> > will get a port with (hopefully) higher resolution textures.  That's
> >> > hardly what I'd call life.  Go to EBGames.com (Electronics Boutique
> >> > used to sell ONLY PC games)... do you see ANY PC games advertised on
> >> > the front page?  Dead.
>
> >> You're kidding, right?  What about WoW?  GalCiv2?  Civ IV?  Peggle?!?
>
> >> I'll grant you that retail versions of PC games have been dying off left
> >> and right, and have been for the past 15 years or so, but they're not
> >> entirely extinct.  At least, not yet.
>
> >> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
> >> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
>
> > LOL
>
> > The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
> > are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
> > last.
>
> >> Digital download is the area that PC games have started to re-emerge
> >> from.  Steam, Impulse, Direct2Drive, to name a few, are offering both new
> >> and older titles at discount prices.
>
> > So you're saying it's good that these consumers are only buying games
> > once they're so old they can only be sold for discounted prices? I
> > know *you* like to shop like that but that can't be good for the
> > industry.
>
> >> This is also opening the market to
> >> smaller, independent developers who would never have a chance of getting
> >> the attention of a retail publisher, like EA.
>
> > Smaller, independent developers who tend to make *casual* games. We're
> > not seeing full blown games that could ever be interesting enough to
> > be sold at retail for $40-50 alongside games like Crysis, Modern
> > Warfare, Left4Dead, Mass Effect, etc.
>
> >> If anything, we're seeing PC gaming return to the time of the early 90s
> >> when shareware was all the rage until a certain shareware title called
> >> DOOM showed up and literally reshaped the whole industry.
>
> > Which is *bad.* Back then, it was okay because there wasn't as big a
> > differential between the two sides of the gaming industry. There were
> > many types of games that you *had* to have a PC to play since the
> > consoles weren't capable of those kinds of games.
>
> > Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
> > which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
> > consumer.
>
> That's not the only real advantage. Controls layouts are typically better,
> more developed with easier (and sometimes with more) command usage; Mass
> Effect, Oblivion and especially Dragon Age are good examples of a few
> mentionable games (compare Dragon Age or Mass Effect commands to that of the
> 360, and it is night and day).

That really depends on the gamer themselves. Most gamers have never
played anything more than a Solitaire or Bejeweled on the PC. They
didn't play all those classic FPS games, they didn't play Baldur's
Gate or Neverwinter Nights, they didn't spend hours online duking it
out in Warcraft or Starcraft.

Mouse and keyboard *is* a more accurate, more precise control scheme
but you can't ignore years of experience only with gaming controllers
that most gamers have. Most console gamers would never want to use a
keyboard and a mouse regardless of whether it is the truly better
control scheme.

On the other hand, higher resolutions can benefit everyone (although
some may not notice or care).

> You also are much less likely to experience
> long load times and frame-rate problems on the PC as well.

True.

> Count in the
> modding community that can enhance graphics and character development in
> many RPGs.

Good for the relatively small niche of players who play western RPGs.

> Though I loved the RPGs on the Xbox (KOTOR, Fable, etc) and the
> 360 (Oblivion, ME, Fallout 3, etc), I always felt left behind, but that
> genre group is pretty small. Most consolers like platform games, shooters,
> fighting/racing games and that's where most of the money is.

And really only the graphics are going to be of any true benefit to
most console gamers.

> My hope is, that next gen the hardware and storage capabilities will be good
> enough to provide the abilties PC games offer. I would even hope that in the
> future, modding would be allowed on console games.

It is available on one of them but it's equally up to the developers
to allow for it. Even if Microsoft acquiesced to this demand, most
companies wouldn't bother with it mainly because modding has
traditionally only been aligned with a few genres.

On Jan 12, 5:13 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1c82f85a-86bc-429e-bf77-0e87979dd8e1@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 2:37 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >> >> MS do seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Natal basket don' they.
> >> >> I
> >> >> can see it being a nifty little gadget and have some fun games but
> >> >> it's
> >> >> not gonna be a successful core to maintain the consol's life span.  I
> >> >> do
> >> >> wonder what MS would say id Sony announced a PS4 tomorrow.   Don't get
> >> >> me wrong, the 360 is a nice bit of kit, it's just getting very longin
> >> >> the tooth now.  I'm glad I've already got money set aside for a new PC
> >> >> when the time is right.
>
> >> > Good to know there's *SOMEONE* else here with some good sense.
>
> >> I don't see why some people seem so reluctant to acknowledge even the
> >> possibility that this generation is getting well past it's prime.  Hell,
> >> assuming Moore's Law still hold true then it's a scientific fact.
>
> > Some people just don't want to spend another $400 on a console... :-)
>
> I feel the same sentiments really. But, for a nexgen console, it would have
> to have more powerful hardware to produce better graphics, not only in
> visuals, but physics, mappings, etc, otherwise what's the point. It will
> also need (at least IMO) 2gigs RAM if there's any hope to have noticeable
> higher res textures.. At this stage in the game when looking at some of the
> really good looking games already seen on the 360 and the PS3, to make a
> noticeable dent in the looks and performance, I don't know if it would be
> cost effective. I am not saying this because they couldn't do a console like
> this and launch it, more than probably MS (and even Sony) are not really
> into going to go into a next gen losing money on the scale they did rightat
> launch this gen.
>
> The economy is a factor as well when concerning the risk taking concerning
> making quicker profits, not going to happen as long as unemployment is the
> way it should be for at least another year or two when sales could possibly
> start off lukewarm at best. They will probably wait until powerful enough
> hardware is economically feasible enough to launch with a better chance at
> creating profits from the hardware, while offering a (hopefully) cheaper
> launch price point than this gen.
>
> MS would do itself a favor if it would drop Nadal as well, because, I think
> they're losing focus on console gaming development dropping money into
> something I don't think is going to be any major component in gaming or
> profits.

Agreed across pretty much all of your points. Unfortunately... :-(

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.

> 'Dems da facts.

I tent to disagree, strongly disagree.

> 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. 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>>> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
>>>> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
>>> LOL
>>> The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
>>> are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
>>> last.
>> But these games are still available on the PC, the fact that they are
>> also available for consoles is immaterial.
>
> People were able to buy audio cassettes and VHS cassettes for many
> years after CDs and DVDs took over. That doesn't mean that those
> things *weren't* on the way out.

This isn't a very good analogy at all though. Writing a VHS or audio
tape incurs negligible extra cost. Tailoring a game to run on a PC
requires a lot more time and resources in design coding, testing and
will require substantial investment.

>>> Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
>>> which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
>>> consumer.
>> The PCs graphical superiority goes far beyond screen resolution.
>
> Of course they are but higher resolutions are the most prominent and
> noticeable change.

Not true at all, and a very strange comment from the person who climed
that most people can't tell the difference in resolution between DVD and
Blu-Ray.

>If you say "PCs" in general, then it's tough to
> include all aspects of better graphics because you need to account for
> the cheaper PCs that aren't able to handle much more than one
> improvement.

Cheaper PCs still have a lot more horsepower than a 360 or PS3, and a
new PC game on medium settign will look better than a new console game.

>You're not going to be able to run Crysis with higher
> resolutions *and* better lighting *and* improved textures *and* better
> mapping *and*... etc. and so forth on anything but a higher end gaming
> rig.

That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a
mid range PC of the day.

"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:99de0d8c-2997-48e8-8e9a-25793e2a8aa4@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 13, 5:42 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:fda5adaf-e28b-4524-82d7-5caeb2367fe0@t6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 12, 4:04 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>> >> The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > PC games are not only dead, they've been dead for five years. No
>> >> > important games come out for PC that anyone can name off the top of
>> >> > their head. If the situation is right, a high profile 360/PS3 game
>> >> > will get a port with (hopefully) higher resolution textures. That's
>> >> > hardly what I'd call life. Go to EBGames.com (Electronics Boutique
>> >> > used to sell ONLY PC games)... do you see ANY PC games advertised on
>> >> > the front page? Dead.
>>
>> >> You're kidding, right? What about WoW? GalCiv2? Civ IV? Peggle?!?
>>
>> >> I'll grant you that retail versions of PC games have been dying off
>> >> left
>> >> and right, and have been for the past 15 years or so, but they're not
>> >> entirely extinct. At least, not yet.
>>
>> >> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both
>> >> as
>> >> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
>>
>> > LOL
>>
>> > The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
>> > are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
>> > last.
>>
>> >> Digital download is the area that PC games have started to re-emerge
>> >> from. Steam, Impulse, Direct2Drive, to name a few, are offering both
>> >> new
>> >> and older titles at discount prices.
>>
>> > So you're saying it's good that these consumers are only buying games
>> > once they're so old they can only be sold for discounted prices? I
>> > know *you* like to shop like that but that can't be good for the
>> > industry.
>>
>> >> This is also opening the market to
>> >> smaller, independent developers who would never have a chance of
>> >> getting
>> >> the attention of a retail publisher, like EA.
>>
>> > Smaller, independent developers who tend to make *casual* games. We're
>> > not seeing full blown games that could ever be interesting enough to
>> > be sold at retail for $40-50 alongside games like Crysis, Modern
>> > Warfare, Left4Dead, Mass Effect, etc.
>>
>> >> If anything, we're seeing PC gaming return to the time of the early
>> >> 90s
>> >> when shareware was all the rage until a certain shareware title called
>> >> DOOM showed up and literally reshaped the whole industry.
>>
>> > Which is *bad.* Back then, it was okay because there wasn't as big a
>> > differential between the two sides of the gaming industry. There were
>> > many types of games that you *had* to have a PC to play since the
>> > consoles weren't capable of those kinds of games.
>>
>> > Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
>> > which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
>> > consumer.
>>
>> That's not the only real advantage. Controls layouts are typically
>> better,
>> more developed with easier (and sometimes with more) command usage; Mass
>> Effect, Oblivion and especially Dragon Age are good examples of a few
>> mentionable games (compare Dragon Age or Mass Effect commands to that of
>> the
>> 360, and it is night and day).
>
> That really depends on the gamer themselves. Most gamers have never
> played anything more than a Solitaire or Bejeweled on the PC. They
> didn't play all those classic FPS games, they didn't play Baldur's
> Gate or Neverwinter Nights, they didn't spend hours online duking it
> out in Warcraft or Starcraft.
>
> Mouse and keyboard *is* a more accurate, more precise control scheme
> but you can't ignore years of experience only with gaming controllers
> that most gamers have. Most console gamers would never want to use a
> keyboard and a mouse regardless of whether it is the truly better
> control scheme.
>
> On the other hand, higher resolutions can benefit everyone (although
> some may not notice or care).
>
>> You also are much less likely to experience
>> long load times and frame-rate problems on the PC as well.
>
> True.
>
>> Count in the
>> modding community that can enhance graphics and character development in
>> many RPGs.
>
> Good for the relatively small niche of players who play western RPGs.
>
>> Though I loved the RPGs on the Xbox (KOTOR, Fable, etc) and the
>> 360 (Oblivion, ME, Fallout 3, etc), I always felt left behind, but that
>> genre group is pretty small. Most consolers like platform games,
>> shooters,
>> fighting/racing games and that's where most of the money is.
>
> And really only the graphics are going to be of any true benefit to
> most console gamers.

This simply is not true. As I have stated here and in a few other threads
before, I specifically relate to RPGs, RTS type games. I have always stated
that FPS, racers, fighting games, etc work better on the console, they feel
more realistic, despite the fact that click and pointing is faster on the PC
for FPS games; FPS' don't feel right on PC to me. Also, (though you keep
pointing to this) I am not just talking graphics, when talking about the
above game types, controls are going to be important on the console as well,
and they work much better on the PC for those genres. The commands on
console releases for RPGs are normally laid out where you have to use a
sub-menu or call up a command wheel and make selection on what to use, and
time consuming. RPGs typically involve using multiple characters which is
cumbersome on a console controller. The advantages for this genre on PC
smokes consoles. RPGs typically involve a free roaming world where graphic
slow-downs and framerate issue are norms that a console usually suffers and
take away from the thinking stages of what you do in the game. It also
enhances the wide open world of an RPG to have better graphics, which
typically suffers on the console, they simply don't handle large load times
with the hardware used..

>
>> My hope is, that next gen the hardware and storage capabilities will be
>> good
>> enough to provide the abilties PC games offer. I would even hope that in
>> the
>> future, modding would be allowed on console games.
>
> It is available on one of them but it's equally up to the developers
> to allow for it. Even if Microsoft acquiesced to this demand, most
> companies wouldn't bother with it mainly because modding has
> traditionally only been aligned with a few genres.

"Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
newsoI3n.17252$I67.16040@newsfe16.ams2...
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>>>> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both
>>>>> as
>>>>> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
>>>> LOL
>>>> The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
>>>> are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
>>>> last.
>>> But these games are still available on the PC, the fact that they are
>>> also available for consoles is immaterial.
>>
>> People were able to buy audio cassettes and VHS cassettes for many
>> years after CDs and DVDs took over. That doesn't mean that those
>> things *weren't* on the way out.
>
> This isn't a very good analogy at all though. Writing a VHS or audio tape
> incurs negligible extra cost. Tailoring a game to run on a PC requires a
> lot more time and resources in design coding, testing and will require
> substantial investment.
>
>>>> Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
>>>> which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
>>>> consumer.
>>> The PCs graphical superiority goes far beyond screen resolution.
>>
>> Of course they are but higher resolutions are the most prominent and
>> noticeable change.
>
> Not true at all, and a very strange comment from the person who climed
> that most people can't tell the difference in resolution between DVD and
> Blu-Ray.
>
>>If you say "PCs" in general, then it's tough to
>> include all aspects of better graphics because you need to account for
>> the cheaper PCs that aren't able to handle much more than one
>> improvement.
>
> Cheaper PCs still have a lot more horsepower than a 360 or PS3, and a new
> PC game on medium settign will look better than a new console game.
>
> >You're not going to be able to run Crysis with higher
>> resolutions *and* better lighting *and* improved textures *and* better
>> mapping *and*... etc. and so forth on anything but a higher end gaming
>> rig.
>
> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a mid
> range PC of the day.
>

I have to mostly agree with Almighty on his comments really. I mean, I am an
avid PC gamer but only for a niche set of games, and I just built a really
expensive rig ($4K) and most people are not going to go that route because
most (typical) gamers feel just fine with the console games, they are happy
with what they offer (look at Wii sales!!). I am, for the most part, one of
them, except I am an RPG freak, they are better on PC, but I somehow think
that won't last much longer going into the next gen. The PC market is
certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete shell of its former self and
game sales and especially hardware sales even reflect that.

Hell, even over the past year or so, the console gaming industry has
suffered a bit from sales, so I don't think that PC sales for gamers are
going to somehow leap consoles, and I think consoles are the future. They
are definitely getting better and better with quality graphics, controls and
performance. I am a niche person to be honest. I do agree with you that one
doesn't need a rig like I have to enjoy good game on a PC, if you do the
right math, you actually can save money on PC gaming. I remember reading an
article not long ago where a gaming site ran down the cost effectiveness and
then value.

- You can buy a decent rig these days with a decent monitor for about $800
and it would be good enough for 3-4 years and it would be more powerful.
Add these in:

-You can customize most games on PC and PC games usually cost $10 less,
sometimes even less than that, than console games. Add this up for some who
buy 15-20 game a year, that money adds up over a few years.

- Mouse and keyboards usually last longer than controllers (I've gone though
4 controllers on my 360 to date, that's $200 right there) My previous gaming
rig lasted nearly 6 years with the same mouse and keyboard.

-You can mod and always have far superior controls schemes

- Nearly better graphics all of the time and better performance.

- Much more more storage space for saves and content as most PCs today, even
for my example cost will have two HDDs. You only have one for the 360 (or
PS3) and the 360 rapes consumers by forcing them to use MS approved and made
hardware add-ons.

- You are not forced to except updates that can (though rarely) have an
adverse effect on your console or for the games. Don't except an update on
the 360, you can't play online.

- Being able to multitask while gaming, if needed.

Having listed these, it is a fact that most will still see consoles as "good
enough" and not fret over aspects of what I want/prefer, or what you
want/prefer. PC gaming certainly isn't dead, and it will be around for years
to come, but it is dwindling and the numbers reflect that..

Tom wrote:

>> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a
>> mid range PC of the day.
>>
>
> I have to mostly agree with Almighty on his comments really. I mean, I
> am an avid PC gamer but only for a niche set of games, and I just built
> a really expensive rig ($4K) and most people are not going to go that
> route because most (typical) gamers feel just fine with the console
> games, they are happy with what they offer

At the minute yes, but I'm talking about now, I'm talking
hypothetically, if a new console doesn't come out for over two more years

> (look at Wii sales!!).

You can't really count the Wii, it's not a gamers console.

> I am,
> for the most part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they are
> better on PC, but I somehow think that won't last much longer going into
> the next gen.

>The PC market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly
> complete shell of its former self and game sales and especially hardware
> sales even reflect that.

That's my point and the point that a couple of people seem to ignore.
I'm not saying that the PC will make some massive comeback I'm simply
saying that it will probably have a slight but noticeable improvement if
the next generation of consoles doesn't come out PDQ, and that it's not
dead, as die-hard console fanatics seem to think. They seem to read
this as "the PC will come to conquer us all."

> Hell, even over the past year or so, the console gaming industry has
> suffered a bit from sales, so I don't think that PC sales for gamers are
> going to somehow leap consoles,

I've been very clear and said that I don't think this will happen either.

"Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:a5ednS0V29MTONLWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@insightbb.co m...
>
>
> "Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> newsoI3n.17252$I67.16040@newsfe16.ams2...
>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>>>>> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
>>>>> LOL
>>>>> The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
>>>>> are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
>>>>> last.
>>>> But these games are still available on the PC, the fact that they are
>>>> also available for consoles is immaterial.
>>>
>>> People were able to buy audio cassettes and VHS cassettes for many
>>> years after CDs and DVDs took over. That doesn't mean that those
>>> things *weren't* on the way out.
>>
>> This isn't a very good analogy at all though. Writing a VHS or audio tape
>> incurs negligible extra cost. Tailoring a game to run on a PC requires a
>> lot more time and resources in design coding, testing and will require
>> substantial investment.
>>
>>>>> Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
>>>>> which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
>>>>> consumer.
>>>> The PCs graphical superiority goes far beyond screen resolution.
>>>
>>> Of course they are but higher resolutions are the most prominent and
>>> noticeable change.
>>
>> Not true at all, and a very strange comment from the person who climed
>> that most people can't tell the difference in resolution between DVD and
>> Blu-Ray.
>>
>>>If you say "PCs" in general, then it's tough to
>>> include all aspects of better graphics because you need to account for
>>> the cheaper PCs that aren't able to handle much more than one
>>> improvement.
>>
>> Cheaper PCs still have a lot more horsepower than a 360 or PS3, and a new
>> PC game on medium settign will look better than a new console game.
>>
>> >You're not going to be able to run Crysis with higher
>>> resolutions *and* better lighting *and* improved textures *and* better
>>> mapping *and*... etc. and so forth on anything but a higher end gaming
>>> rig.
>>
>> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a
>> mid range PC of the day.
>>
>
> I have to mostly agree with Almighty on his comments really. I mean, I am
> an avid PC gamer but only for a niche set of games, and I just built a
> really expensive rig ($4K) and most people are not going to go that route
> because most (typical) gamers feel just fine with the console games, they
> are happy with what they offer (look at Wii sales!!). I am, for the most
> part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they are better on PC, but I
> somehow think that won't last much longer going into the next gen. The PC
> market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete shell of its
> former self and game sales and especially hardware sales even reflect
> that.
>
> Hell, even over the past year or so, the console gaming industry has
> suffered a bit from sales, so I don't think that PC sales for gamers are
> going to somehow leap consoles, and I think consoles are the future. They
> are definitely getting better and better with quality graphics, controls
> and performance. I am a niche person to be honest. I do agree with you
> that one doesn't need a rig like I have to enjoy good game on a PC, if you
> do the right math, you actually can save money on PC gaming. I remember
> reading an article not long ago where a gaming site ran down the cost
> effectiveness and then value.
>
> - You can buy a decent rig these days with a decent monitor for about $800
> and it would be good enough for 3-4 years and it would be more powerful.
> Add these in:
>
> -You can customize most games on PC and PC games usually cost $10 less,
> sometimes even less than that, than console games. Add this up for some
> who buy 15-20 game a year, that money adds up over a few years.
>
> - Mouse and keyboards usually last longer than controllers (I've gone
> though 4 controllers on my 360 to date, that's $200 right there) My
> previous gaming rig lasted nearly 6 years with the same mouse and
> keyboard.
>
> -You can mod and always have far superior controls schemes
>
> - Nearly better graphics all of the time and better performance.
>
> - Much more more storage space for saves and content as most PCs today,
> even for my example cost will have two HDDs. You only have one for the 360
> (or PS3) and the 360 rapes consumers by forcing them to use MS approved
> and made hardware add-ons.
>
> - You are not forced to except updates that can (though rarely) have an
> adverse effect on your console or for the games. Don't except an update on
> the 360, you can't play online.
>
> - Being able to multitask while gaming, if needed.
>
> Having listed these, it is a fact that most will still see consoles as
> "good enough" and not fret over aspects of what I want/prefer, or what you
> want/prefer. PC gaming certainly isn't dead, and it will be around for
> years to come, but it is dwindling and the numbers reflect that..

I also forgot to add that with a console, comes the price of buying even a
halfway decent HDTV (if you want HD that is) will cost at least $500.

"Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eZN3n.8295$jE1.6623@newsfe27.ams2...
> Tom wrote:
>
>>> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a
>>> mid range PC of the day.
>>>
>>
>> I have to mostly agree with Almighty on his comments really. I mean, I am
>> an avid PC gamer but only for a niche set of games, and I just built a
>> really expensive rig ($4K) and most people are not going to go that route
>> because most (typical) gamers feel just fine with the console games, they
>> are happy with what they offer
>
> At the minute yes, but I'm talking about now, I'm talking hypothetically,
> if a new console doesn't come out for over two more years

Well, I have yet to read where those on the 360 have gotten tired of it and
bought a new PC for gaming (except for me), and the 360 is into its fifth
year. They are still happy and it is still selling consoles and game sales
are still decent. Even game sales have been bland the past year or so for
consoles, but they are still smoking PC game sales. Look at it this way, and
360 game usually sells 5 times more game than on a PC, yet we all know there
are far more PCs in the world than consoles. It's just that the majority of
those PCs are not used for gaming as you and I would use them.

>
>> (look at Wii sales!!).
>
> You can't really count the Wii, it's not a gamers console.

It is a gaming console no matter how you look at it and it remains a gaming
console whether you think those games it offers are not gaming to your
standards. I don't own one and I probably never will as it doesn't appeal to
me, but I recognize that it is a gaming/entertainment console still. It's
sheer sales numbers states that the majority of people are not PC gamers and
that spending preference is going to keep propping up that section of the
market. It is just as easy to say by the console and game sales (game sales
of which have been lackluster the past few years) of the Wii, 360 and PS3,
that the majority of people who like to games are just fine with those
consoles. This fact made more so by how much PC gaming is becoming more and
more niche form of gaming for a/to a certain group of people, like me.

It would be interesting to see how many former avid PC gamers have just quit
it and made the switch to consoles and not looked back. I was there for a
few years.

>
>> I am, for the most part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they are
>> better on PC, but I somehow think that won't last much longer going into
>> the next gen.
>
>>The PC market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete shell of
>>its former self and game sales and especially hardware sales even reflect
>>that.
>
> That's my point and the point that a couple of people seem to ignore. I'm
> not saying that the PC will make some massive comeback I'm simply saying
> that it will probably have a slight but noticeable improvement if the next
> generation of consoles doesn't come out PDQ, and that it's not dead, as
> die-hard console fanatics seem to think. They seem to read this as "the
> PC will come to conquer us all."

I didn't really notice anyone ignoring your words, but you do seem to be
very dismissive of the sales points and the well known gaming preferences
today, consoles have been and still are the gaming grade of choice for
"most" gamers, not PCs. I actually do not see it making an improvement in
sales or even growing as a base. I couldn't even say that PC sales will make
even a small improvement since the decline has been very long, since the mid
to late 90s this has been happening. Did you see PC rigs sales ramping up
while the PS1 and PS2 were selling over 100m each, as an example? Another
fact about PC gaming is that some games require really high end systems to
be able to run them. Most don't buy PC gaming rigs to be run on low or even
medium setting, they know why they bought the rigs and consoles have gotten
much better graphically and even on performance to negate a reason to spend
that kind of money for the majority. Crysis, when released sold well under
100K its first month after release as an example because the cost
requirements to run it were off the charts. Even by today's standard, it
still takes a rather pricey rig to run it smoothly on any setting more than
medium.

I have been a PC gamer going back two decades, but with the arrival of the
og Xbox, what it did online and what it offered graphically, my gaming
preference swung totally 180º. Only because of my liking for a certain
genre, have I just bought into PC gaming again. But the 360 is still my
choice for gaming and consoles will be for the times to come. For example, I
cannot see playing Bayonetta on a PC with a mouse and keyboard, it doesn't
work as console game controllers have evolved hugely compared to PC, making
them very functional (thanks Halo for giving us this better console
controller system). I bought my previous gaming rig in early 2004 ($2500),
and it was a powerhouse, but I was still playing mainly on my Xbox, I felt
stupid sometimes when I bought the Xbox version of games that were also on
PC. I even bought Oblivion for the 360, though I knew my rig could more than
handle it, but I had a nice couch, nice HDTV and a wireless controller, see
what I mean? It has been only recently that I am back to PC gaming because
the 360 isn't giving enough offerings in the quality and performance of
today's RPGs. Dragon Age simply rips the heart of the 360 version on the PC.
I got Oblivion GOTY edition for $15, while XBL still wants (even now, go
look) 2400 MS points ($30) for the Shivering isles DLC that I wouldn't
consider paying for. Mass Effect, though I loved it on the 360, just because
of its storyline, was sorely lacking graphically and by way of using
commands and changing items/weapons, that I made the swing to a new rig
knowing ME2 is about to arrive. I will definitely getting B:BC2 on the 360,
though I bet the PC version smokes it. But I am into B:BC for it MP mode and
all of my MP gaming is solely on XBL.

If FXIII were on PC, that's where I would go, but as you can tell, I am a
very niche PC gamer and more than 95% of the market is not going to operate
in favor of PC gaming by my standards, but they will surely hit the
consoles..

>
>> Hell, even over the past year or so, the console gaming industry has
>> suffered a bit from sales, so I don't think that PC sales for gamers are
>> going to somehow leap consoles,
>
> I've been very clear and said that I don't think this will happen either.

And it has been like this since the late 80 with NES setting the stage for
large scale console gaming sales. I know the Arari 2600, Coleco Vision all
had consoles, but nothing on the scale of sales of NES and all other brands
that came after.. PC gaming started its decline about then

Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on. You would think
the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
when it actually kicked the bucket.

As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
is completely dead. You can still play some great games (as long as
the publisher feels like porting them) and even some exclusives (in
niche genres), and regardless of what other platforms they appear on
any setup where you can play Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Mass Effect
2, and others is not bad at all.

But if you make a list of the gaming franchises that don't appear on
the PC in any shape or form, it's staggering. This wasn't always the
case. PC gamers used to sit pretty with their Deus Ex, their Half
Life, their Fallout 1 & 2, while still getting the most important
console games (just ran across my PC version of Final Fantasy VII the
other day). Now they get no original games and minimal effort ports
(no leaning in MW2, wtf?).

Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.

Finally, I'll simply say this. Two of the most (if not the most) over-
saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC. EA pulled the plug
on PC sports games last year, and after GH III flopped it never
returned to the PC. So two games I can get on my *phone*, published
by two huge, greedy companies who would make games for calculator
watches if they thought they could turn a buck... yet they don't
appear on the PC. Now that is what I call dead. I'll even make a
slogan out of it: "If you can't play the current Madden on it, it's
dead."

"The King of Gaming" <king.of.gaming@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac7171ff-f590-47a5-841e-44a301937bff@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on. You would think
> the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
> when it actually kicked the bucket.
>
> As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
> is completely dead. You can still play some great games (as long as
> the publisher feels like porting them) and even some exclusives (in
> niche genres), and regardless of what other platforms they appear on
> any setup where you can play Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Mass Effect
> 2, and others is not bad at all.
>
> But if you make a list of the gaming franchises that don't appear on
> the PC in any shape or form, it's staggering. This wasn't always the
> case. PC gamers used to sit pretty with their Deus Ex, their Half
> Life, their Fallout 1 & 2, while still getting the most important
> console games (just ran across my PC version of Final Fantasy VII the
> other day). Now they get no original games and minimal effort ports
> (no leaning in MW2, wtf?).
>
> Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
> WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
> grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>
> Finally, I'll simply say this. Two of the most (if not the most) over-
> saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
> and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC. EA pulled the plug
> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III flopped it never
> returned to the PC. So two games I can get on my *phone*, published
> by two huge, greedy companies who would make games for calculator
> watches if they thought they could turn a buck... yet they don't
> appear on the PC. Now that is what I call dead. I'll even make a
> slogan out of it: "If you can't play the current Madden on it, it's
> dead."

But the point is, that it isn't dead, just that ports go both ways now. PC
gaming started going down long before Half-Life, and the earlier Fallouts as
PCs back then at the high end were way more costly than the high ends now.
PC gaming started a serious slide when NES hit and the mass of games on NES.
Hell I remember Doom in 93 on a decent rig that would cost well over 4K
then. I remember the first HDD cost $1K for just a 20meg drive back in the
late 80s when they came out. As I stated before, the games I listed sold
well on the PC and are clearly superior, those are the type that are doing
the business anymore, shooters lost their way when the PS2 and og Xbox came
along, especailly the Xbox introducing XBL really waa a game changer for
online multiplayer..

Almighty's point, and a valid one, is that most don't care about PC gaming
because the console versions are good enough now and the cost is cheaper for
the hardware. Throw in HDTVs getting cheaper with nice resolutions, and you
have the recipe. There's still well enough of a market out there for these
PC game and ports, otherwise we'd see Nvidia and ATI calling it quits, yet
their stocks are still doing well. As long as I have this PC, there will be
no RPGs for the 360 for me. Dragon Age simply shits on the console version
by miles. Oblivion, the same way. I didn't get ME for it, but it is far
superior And ME2 is a definite PC purchase with this rig I bought. Maybe ten
years from now, PC gaming will either have to get into line price wise while
challenging the graphics of consoles or certainly die. I do think in a sense
that ultimately, PC gaming will go down the tube within the next decade or
two.

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.

Tom wrote:

>>> (look at Wii sales!!).
>>
>> You can't really count the Wii, it's not a gamers console.
>
> It is a gaming console no matter how you look at it

True, I was probably being over glib about that, sorry. I just don't
considers the Wii to have the same target audience asthe PS3/360/PC.

> It would be interesting to see how many former avid PC gamers have just
> quit it and made the switch to consoles and not looked back. I was there
> for a few years.

I was there for a few months.

>>> I am, for the most part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they
>>> are better on PC, but I somehow think that won't last much longer
>>> going into the next gen.
>>
>>> The PC market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete
>>> shell of its former self and game sales and especially hardware sales
>>> even reflect that.
>>
>> That's my point and the point that a couple of people seem to ignore.
>> I'm not saying that the PC will make some massive comeback I'm simply
>> saying that it will probably have a slight but noticeable improvement
>> if the next generation of consoles doesn't come out PDQ, and that it's
>> not dead, as die-hard console fanatics seem to think. They seem to
>> read this as "the PC will come to conquer us all."
>
> I didn't really notice anyone ignoring your words, but you do seem to be
> very dismissive of the sales points and the well known gaming
> preferences today,

No dismissive at all, I been very happy to admit that a lot more games
are sold on consoles and that it's a far more lucrative section of the
market. What I'm not happy to concede is that PC gaming is dead or that
joint developed multi format games are the sole domain of the consoles.
Basic common sense, if developers are investing the time and money in
a PC version then there's a substantial amount of money to be made from
PC gaming still. I'm not saying that


> consoles have been and still are the gaming grade of
> choice for "most" gamers, not PCs. I actually do not see it making an
> improvement in sales or even growing as a base. I couldn't even say that
> PC sales will make even a small improvement since the decline has been
> very long, since the mid to late 90s this has been happening. Did you
> see PC rigs sales ramping up while the PS1 and PS2 were selling over
> 100m each, as an example? Another fact about PC gaming is that some
> games require really high end systems to be able to run them.

In real terms this is actually vary few though these days. Crysis need
a stupidly high spec, and the Witcher wasn't that much better (I'm
chalking that one up to bad programming because it wasn't that much to
look at)

Bioshock (as I mentioned earlier) and Fallout 3 for example both ran
nicely on mid range rigs.
>
> I have been a PC gamer going back two decades, but with the arrival of
> the og Xbox, what it did online and what it offered graphically, my
> gaming preference swung totally 180º.

I expanded rather than switched around the same time Assassin's Creed
came out. At the time it was a very bad patch for the PC releases
since then however I've been gradually going back. Most cross platform
games I get are for the PC (my PC was highish spec about 2.5 years ago),
I have a friend who is in prety much the same situation. For me the
630/PS3 are for games that arn't out on the PC or I think would be more
suited to a control pad.

> consider paying for. Mass Effect, though I loved it on the 360, just
> because of its storyline, was sorely lacking graphically and by way of
> using commands and changing items/weapons, that I made the swing to a
> new rig knowing ME2 is about to arrive.

I've opted for that on the 360 just because I've alread y got ME1 on the
that format and I want to import my save game. It's a couple of game
that I'm seriously considering getting on both formats though.

The King of Gaming wrote:
> Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on. You would think
> the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
> when it actually kicked the bucket.

Seriously? Would you care to back that statement up because I can give
you a very long list of excellent PC titles that have come out over the
past 10 years, plenty of them being PC only

> As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
> is completely dead. You can still play some great games (as long as
> the publisher feels like porting them)

Also joint development. Not the same as porting.

> Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
> WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
> grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>
> Finally, I'll simply say this. Two of the most (if not the most) over-
> saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
> and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC. EA pulled the plug
> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III

In two and a half decades of multi-platform gaming I've never bought a
single sports game. If I want to play a sport, I'll go outside and do it.

You seemto put a lot of emphasis on franchises and big names games. A
lot of the "big name" games are not big name becaue they are overly
good, they just have a good marketing team behind them. Halo for
example, fun game. Nothing special, Halo 1 was miles behind PC FPSs when
it was released. The only major thing it did was the inclusion of
vehicles. Metal gear solid, again, rubbish stealth game compared to
something like Thief, in face that's very good example of why I disagree
with your definition of important. Metal Gear Solid was probably better
known than Thief, and certainly sold better. However it was Thief that
has been the influence for slealth in modern games.

"Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iH14n.17586$Q63.5088@newsfe23.ams2...
> Tom wrote:
>
>>>> (look at Wii sales!!).
>>>
>>> You can't really count the Wii, it's not a gamers console.
>>
>> It is a gaming console no matter how you look at it
>
> True, I was probably being over glib about that, sorry. I just don't
> considers the Wii to have the same target audience asthe PS3/360/PC.
>
>> It would be interesting to see how many former avid PC gamers have just
>> quit it and made the switch to consoles and not looked back. I was there
>> for a few years.
>
> I was there for a few months.
>
>>>> I am, for the most part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they
>>>> are better on PC, but I somehow think that won't last much longer going
>>>> into the next gen.
>>>
>>>> The PC market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete shell
>>>> of its former self and game sales and especially hardware sales even
>>>> reflect that.
>>>
>>> That's my point and the point that a couple of people seem to ignore.
>>> I'm not saying that the PC will make some massive comeback I'm simply
>>> saying that it will probably have a slight but noticeable improvement if
>>> the next generation of consoles doesn't come out PDQ, and that it's not
>>> dead, as die-hard console fanatics seem to think. They seem to read
>>> this as "the PC will come to conquer us all."
>>
>> I didn't really notice anyone ignoring your words, but you do seem to be
>> very dismissive of the sales points and the well known gaming preferences
>> today,
>
> No dismissive at all, I been very happy to admit that a lot more games are
> sold on consoles and that it's a far more lucrative section of the market.
> What I'm not happy to concede is that PC gaming is dead or that joint
> developed multi format games are the sole domain of the consoles. Basic
> common sense, if developers are investing the time and money in a PC
> version then there's a substantial amount of money to be made from PC
> gaming still. I'm not saying that

Actually, it's more lucrative to make games for PCs, since licensing fees,
etc are not part of the cost of getting them on the hardware, as like with
the 360, or the PS3. I don't think being happy about this particualr
situation or not really should be an emotional one as you do come acrossed
sensitive to the current PC market situation . to me, thing are going to be
what they're going to be no matter how I want it. I just good looking
quality games that play smoothly and offer great immersion. Consoles have
been hitting that well in this gne, so I am happy that there are more than
just one venue that can cover that for me. I don't think anyone here really
mean that the PC world of gaming is dead,as like I said in another post,
Nvidia and ATI would be all but dead. Games for PC are not going away
anytime soon, but I don't see it expanding as much as shrinking.

>
>
> > consoles have been and still are the gaming grade of
>> choice for "most" gamers, not PCs. I actually do not see it making an
>> improvement in sales or even growing as a base. I couldn't even say that
>> PC sales will make even a small improvement since the decline has been
>> very long, since the mid to late 90s this has been happening. Did you see
>> PC rigs sales ramping up while the PS1 and PS2 were selling over 100m
>> each, as an example? Another fact about PC gaming is that some games
>> require really high end systems to be able to run them.
>
> In real terms this is actually vary few though these days. Crysis need a
> stupidly high spec, and the Witcher wasn't that much better (I'm chalking
> that one up to bad programming because it wasn't that much to look at)
>
> Bioshock (as I mentioned earlier) and Fallout 3 for example both ran
> nicely on mid range rigs.

And this is the point about consoles now. Yes, Crysis was stupidly high and
you had to buy a rig like mine to run it at it fullest (it does look
incredible though). But Fallout 3 really looks good on my 52" Sammy as much
as it does on the PC and it plays smooth. So, when considering this, why
would anyone need a PC when the looks are good enough for the majority,
sitting on their comfy spot 8" away from their nice HDTV with a wireless
controller playing a relaxing RPG?, that's what is killing the PC market,
but that isn't a bad thing since the graphical quality on a bigger screens
looks pretty damn good. Right now, PCs offer better commands of game
(console commands) and the modding community is still pretty strong offering
some great changes. Plus you'll always have better performance. But as I
stated, for the majority, they won't care about what I just mentioned,
because consoles are now good enough for them.

>>
>> I have been a PC gamer going back two decades, but with the arrival of
>> the og Xbox, what it did online and what it offered graphically, my
>> gaming preference swung totally 180º.
>
> I expanded rather than switched around the same time Assassin's Creed came
> out. At the time it was a very bad patch for the PC releases since then
> however I've been gradually going back. Most cross platform games I get
> are for the PC (my PC was highish spec about 2.5 years ago), I have a
> friend who is in prety much the same situation. For me the 630/PS3 are
> for games that arn't out on the PC or I think would be more suited to a
> control pad.

I'm holding off on AC2, but when I get it, it will be on PC. Another genre
(stealth) that works better on mouse and keyboard (along with RPGs and RTS')

>
> > consider paying for. Mass Effect, though I loved it on the 360, just
>> because of its storyline, was sorely lacking graphically and by way of
>> using commands and changing items/weapons, that I made the swing to a new
>> rig knowing ME2 is about to arrive.
>
> I've opted for that on the 360 just because I've alread y got ME1 on the
> that format and I want to import my save game. It's a couple of game that
> I'm seriously considering getting on both formats though.
>

No way, the graphical experience was enough for me to just order the PC
version, though I cannot use my saves, I don't care. I don't think there's a
hope in hell, though the Bioware dudes say the game will run smoother, have
little texture pop-ins while having better textures on the same hardware
that couldn't be achieved it on ME, is not happening.

Here's my rig I built almost two months ago:


OS - Windows 7 64bit
CPU - i7 950
Motherboard - Asus Rampage II Extreme
Memory - 12gb G-Skill DDR3 1333mhz
Graphics Cards - Sapphire Radeon 5870 x 2
Sound Card - Soundblaster X-fi 24bit
Monitor - Samsung ToC T240HD 24" (1900x1200)

"Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YR14n.17587$Q63.17358@newsfe23.ams2...
> The King of Gaming wrote:
>> Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on. You would think
>> the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
>> when it actually kicked the bucket.
>
> Seriously? Would you care to back that statement up because I can give you
> a very long list of excellent PC titles that have come out over the past
> 10 years, plenty of them being PC only
>
>> As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
>> is completely dead. You can still play some great games (as long as
>> the publisher feels like porting them)
>
> Also joint development. Not the same as porting.
>
>> Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
>> WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
>> grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>>
>> Finally, I'll simply say this. Two of the most (if not the most) over-
>> saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
>> and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC. EA pulled the plug
>> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III
>
> In two and a half decades of multi-platform gaming I've never bought a
> single sports game. If I want to play a sport, I'll go outside and do it.
>
> You seemto put a lot of emphasis on franchises and big names games. A lot
> of the "big name" games are not big name becaue they are overly good, they
> just have a good marketing team behind them. Halo for example, fun game.
> Nothing special, Halo 1 was miles behind PC FPSs when it was released.
> The only major thing it did was the inclusion of vehicles. Metal gear
> solid, again, rubbish stealth game compared to something like Thief, in
> face that's very good example of why I disagree with your definition of
> important. Metal Gear Solid was probably better known than Thief, and
> certainly sold better. However it was Thief that has been the influence
> for slealth in modern games.

I have to completely disagree with you on what you say Halo 1 did as a major
thing. Halo changed the way console controllers works on FPS games, that
revolutionized console gaming and really kick started FPS taking over PCs as
the source for FPS gaming. Not only that, Halo 2 also spurred the online
console FPS multiplayer gaming community. Look at it now and see how many
people are playing FPS' on consoles online compared to PC. (Modern Warfare 1
and 2, Gears, Halo 3). Now, I honestly can say that the way controllers
work now and how the FPS attributes are mapped to the controller buttons and
triggers, that it is more realistic and better than on PC, where you just
point, click and shoot. There's way more immersion in controllers than
keyboard and mouse for FPS games.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:09:18 -0500, "Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:YR14n.17587$Q63.17358@newsfe23.ams2...
>> The King of Gaming wrote:
>>> Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on. You would think
>>> the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
>>> when it actually kicked the bucket.
>>
>> Seriously? Would you care to back that statement up because I can give you
>> a very long list of excellent PC titles that have come out over the past
>> 10 years, plenty of them being PC only
>>
>>> As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
>>> is completely dead. You can still play some great games (as long as
>>> the publisher feels like porting them)
>>
>> Also joint development. Not the same as porting.
>>
>>> Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
>>> WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
>>> grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>>>
>>> Finally, I'll simply say this. Two of the most (if not the most) over-
>>> saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
>>> and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC. EA pulled the plug
>>> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III
>>
>> In two and a half decades of multi-platform gaming I've never bought a
>> single sports game. If I want to play a sport, I'll go outside and do it.
>>
>> You seemto put a lot of emphasis on franchises and big names games. A lot
>> of the "big name" games are not big name becaue they are overly good, they
>> just have a good marketing team behind them. Halo for example, fun game.
>> Nothing special, Halo 1 was miles behind PC FPSs when it was released.
>> The only major thing it did was the inclusion of vehicles. Metal gear
>> solid, again, rubbish stealth game compared to something like Thief, in
>> face that's very good example of why I disagree with your definition of
>> important. Metal Gear Solid was probably better known than Thief, and
>> certainly sold better. However it was Thief that has been the influence
>> for slealth in modern games.
>
>I have to completely disagree with you on what you say Halo 1 did as a major
>thing. Halo changed the way console controllers works on FPS games, that
>revolutionized console gaming and really kick started FPS taking over PCs as
>the source for FPS gaming. Not only that, Halo 2 also spurred the online
>console FPS multiplayer gaming community. Look at it now and see how many
>people are playing FPS' on consoles online compared to PC. (Modern Warfare 1
>and 2, Gears, Halo 3). Now, I honestly can say that the way controllers
>work now and how the FPS attributes are mapped to the controller buttons and
>triggers, that it is more realistic and better than on PC, where you just
>point, click and shoot. There's way more immersion in controllers than
>keyboard and mouse for FPS games.

I spend enough time in front of PCs as it is...whenever I play
anything more than a simple flash game on a PC (ie it involves the KB)
it feels like I'm at work.

On Jan 15, 11:44 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The King of Gaming wrote:
>
> > Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on.  You would think
> > the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
> > when it actually kicked the bucket.
>
> Seriously? Would you care to back that statement up because I can give
> you a very long list of excellent PC titles that have come out over the
> past 10 years, plenty of them being PC only
>

If it's a list of games anyone cared about, it wouldn't be very long.
And it would be about 1/100th of the console game list.

> > As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
> > is completely dead.  You can still play some great games (as long as
> > the publisher feels like porting them)
>
> Also joint development. Not the same as porting.

If there's joint development, then where the hell is my lean?

>
> > Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
> > WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
> > grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>
> > Finally, I'll simply say this.  Two of the most (if not the most) over-
> > saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
> > and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC.  EA pulled the plug
> > on PC sports games last year, and after GH III
>
> In two and a half decades of multi-platform gaming I've never bought a
> single sports game.  If I want to play a sport, I'll go outside and do it.
>
> You seemto put a lot of emphasis on franchises and big names games. A
> lot of the "big name" games are not big name becaue they are overly
> good, they just have a good marketing team behind them.   Halo for
> example, fun game. Nothing special, Halo 1 was miles behind PC FPSs when
> it was released.  The only major thing it did was the inclusion of
> vehicles.  Metal gear solid, again, rubbish stealth game compared to
> something like Thief, in face that's very good example of why I disagree
> with your definition of important.  Metal Gear Solid was probably better
> known than Thief, and certainly sold better.  However it was Thief that
> has been the influence for slealth in modern games.

And you seem to put a lot of emphasis on what you personally prefer
over to what sells, which is ultimately what drives the industry and
what killed off PC gaming long ago. Of course Halo was nothing
special as an FPS when it came out, but ultimately it's the reason why
you can't "lean".

I think it's clear (and obvious) that some of you are console gamers
AND PC gamers, which allows you to pick and choose a PC port when it's
convenient but also take advantage of the fact that the overwhelming
majority of games are console release only. If you were rolling only
with the PC, you would be idly sitting on your hands while staring at
the EBGames home page and wondering why there are no PC games in
sight.

Sorry, but until I can play Madden on the PC (like you can on a 4 year
old Java phone) then I pronounce PC games dead, Jim. RIP.

On Jan 14, 12:20 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >>>> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
> >>>> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
> >>> LOL
> >>> The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
> >>> are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
> >>> last.
> >> But these games are still available on the PC, the fact that they are
> >> also available for consoles is immaterial.
>
> > People were able to buy audio cassettes and VHS cassettes for many
> > years after CDs and DVDs took over. That doesn't mean that those
> > things *weren't* on the way out.
>
> This isn't a very good analogy at all though. Writing a VHS or audio
> tape incurs negligible extra cost. Tailoring a game to run on a PC
> requires a lot more time and resources in design coding, testing and
> will require substantial investment.

It's a solid analogy from the perspective of demand. My argument isn't
that "hardcore" PC games are going to go away forever. I don't think
the market will even decrease much more than it already has. My
argument is that demand is way down from even just a half decade ago
and that the fact that you can still find them in stores or on
websites doesn't mean that they still have the same standing that they
did back in the day.

Like with audio and video cassettes, the game companies will still
sell to PC gamers so long as there are enough of them to make it worth
their while.

A video game related analogy... they were still releasing Game Boy
Advance games in 2007 and still selling them in retailers during the
2008 holiday season, long after the DS's 2004 debut and even though
the DS was already a mega powerhouse in the handheld market.

> >>> Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
> >>> which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
> >>> consumer.
> >> The PCs graphical superiority goes far beyond screen resolution.
>
> > Of course they are but higher resolutions are the most prominent and
> > noticeable change.
>
> Not true at all, and a very strange comment from the person who climed
> that most people can't tell the difference in resolution between DVD and
> Blu-Ray.

The two statements are not incompatible in the slightest - the point
being that the other graphical improvements would be even less
noticeable to the typical consumer - although I do concede on second
thought that perhaps something like improved lighting would be more
noticeable.

Framerate? Well, that's arguable as far as whether it should be
considered a problem with the graphics themselves. I don't think that
most people would conclude when seeing a game running in 30fps and
60fps with all else equal that the difference is in "the graphics"
considering a lot of people will look at a game like Wind Waker with
good graphics technology but still say "the graphics" suck.

> >If you say "PCs" in general, then it's tough to
> > include all aspects of better graphics because you need to account for
> > the cheaper PCs that aren't able to handle much more than one
> > improvement.
>
> Cheaper PCs still have a lot more horsepower than a 360 or PS3, and a
> new PC game on medium settign will look better than a new console game.

I can't even buy a $200 desktop from Dell. Here's one starting at
$289:
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt..._new_anav_01~~.

The computer only has 2GB RAM, at least 1GB of which will be eaten by
Windows. The integrated graphics card that comes with it is not
favorably reviewed, considered a card that would be "overkill for
Diablo" but "probably won't even load a menu" in Crysis. It wouldn't
be able to handle games like Modern Warfare 2, Gears, Unreal
Tournament 3, etc. even at the lowest settings.

http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt...-mini_anav_1~~

The above one's $399 but its graphics card can't even handle Halo 2 on
the PC.

http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt...n-580_anav_1~~

$449 but the graphics are integrated into the CPU? Somehow, I doubt
you'll be playing Modern Warfare 2 on even medium settings with a set-
up like that but maybe I'm wrong there.

> >You're not going to be able to run Crysis with higher
>
> > resolutions *and* better lighting *and* improved textures *and* better
> > mapping *and*... etc. and so forth on anything but a higher end gaming
> > rig.
>
> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a
> mid range PC of the day.

What do you consider a mid range PC? According to benchmark tests of
the time, BioShock only ran smoothly at max settings with the 8800GT
(which still goes for over $300 in most places) or the ATI HD2900XT
(which still goes for over $400 in most places) except that this was
at less than 1080p (1024 x 768) and no anti-aliasing so I'm guessing
we're talking about high $800s or maybe even in the low $1,000s to get
lower resolution than the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 but possibly with
some better effects and textures.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ut,1701-3.html

On Jan 14, 6:15 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "Morgan" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> newsoI3n.17252$I67.16040@newsfe16.ams2...
>
>
>
> > The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >> On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >>>>> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both
> >>>>> as
> >>>>> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
> >>>> LOL
> >>>> The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
> >>>> are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
> >>>> last.
> >>> But these games are still available on the PC, the fact that they are
> >>> also available for consoles is immaterial.
>
> >> People were able to buy audio cassettes and VHS cassettes for many
> >> years after CDs and DVDs took over. That doesn't mean that those
> >> things *weren't* on the way out.
>
> > This isn't a very good analogy at all though. Writing a VHS or audio tape
> > incurs negligible extra cost. Tailoring a game to run on a PC requires a
> > lot more time and resources in design coding, testing and will require
> > substantial investment.
>
> >>>> Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
> >>>> which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
> >>>> consumer.
> >>> The PCs graphical superiority goes far beyond screen resolution.
>
> >> Of course they are but higher resolutions are the most prominent and
> >> noticeable change.
>
> > Not true at all, and a very strange comment from the person who climed
> > that most people can't tell the difference in resolution between DVD and
> > Blu-Ray.
>
> >>If you say "PCs" in general, then it's tough to
> >> include all aspects of better graphics because you need to account for
> >> the cheaper PCs that aren't able to handle much more than one
> >> improvement.
>
> > Cheaper PCs still have a lot more horsepower than a 360 or PS3, and a new
> > PC game on medium settign will look better than a new console game.
>
> > >You're not going to be able to run Crysis with higher
> >> resolutions *and* better lighting *and* improved textures *and* better
> >> mapping *and*... etc. and so forth on anything but a higher end gaming
> >> rig.
>
> > That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a mid
> > range PC of the day.
>
> I have to mostly agree with Almighty on his comments really. I mean, I am an
> avid PC gamer but only for a niche set of games, and I just built a really
> expensive rig ($4K) and most people are not going to go that route because
> most (typical) gamers feel just fine with the console games, they are happy
> with what they offer (look at Wii sales!!). I am, for the most part, one of
> them, except I am an RPG freak, they are better on PC, but I somehow think
> that won't last much longer going into the next gen. The PC market is
> certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete shell of its former self and
> game sales and especially hardware sales even reflect that.

I agree except that, as I've emphasized quite emphatically every time
I brought the subject up in this newsgroup, it's only true when you
look at just what most of us "hardcore" gamers knew as the gaming
industry back in the day. Casual games and subscription-based MMOs, as
well as Flash games and Facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars,
are thriving and revenue from those surpass what you see on the
consoles.

> Hell, even over the past year or so, the console gaming industry has
> suffered a bit from sales, so I don't think that PC sales for gamers are
> going to somehow leap consoles, and I think consoles are the future.

PC sales for games certainly won't come back swinging. Consider that
the majority of console gamers are not the hardcore used-to-be-PC-
gamer types like most of us here. Most of the people playing these
days have no clue about the rich history of the PC gaming industry -
never heard of games like Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate,
Planescape, the D&D gold box games, Quake, the original Unreal games,
Hexen, Duke Nukem, etc. Most of these people aren't gaming geeks like
the lot of us.

They're not going to know that you can run these high-powered games on
PCs that don't cost you thousands of dollars... they're going to go to
Dell and see "Gaming PCs" and assume that's what you have to have to
play the good games.

Custom-building a PC? Ha!

I'd have to say that honestly even if price weren't an issue I *still*
wouldn't go back to PC gaming for the following reasons:

a) The social aspect. If you're the typical console gamer, chances are
you don't know anybody who plays COD, L4D, etc. on the PC. All your
friends are either busy *still* playing Halo 3 or duking it out in
Gears, COD or L4D on *Xbox Live.* Sure, you could play with strangers
but playing with people you've already established some sort of
relationship with is a compelling feature for most people (also one of
the reasons why it'll be a while before PSN gets as popular as Live).

b) The overall experience. If you're the typical desktop PC owner,
your PC is, well, on a desktop somewhere in your home. Your PC is not
likely going to be sitting in the living room, family room or den next
to your nice, big HDTV. Most people would prefer to be sitting on
their nice, comfortable couch in front of their big screen HDTV rather
than in an office chair at a desk in some small office or library with
their face 2' away from a 20" computer monitor. Keyboard/mouse kills
controllers but the environment in which they're typically used don't.

> They
> are definitely getting better and better with quality graphics, controls and
> performance. I am a niche person to be honest. I do agree with you that one
> doesn't need a rig like I have to enjoy good game on a PC, if you do the
> right math, you actually can save money on PC gaming. I remember reading an
> article not long ago where a gaming site ran down the cost effectiveness and
> then value.
>
> - You can buy a decent rig these days with a decent monitor for about $800
> and it would be good enough for 3-4 years and it would be more powerful.

I don't know about that. Any Dell in that price range is going to have
integrated graphics (and not a very good chipset).

Here's one for $900 - no monitor and a graphics card that AnandTech
says is good for Blu-ray and boosting an integrated chip (which this
model doesn't include) but isn't good for running performance games.

http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt...-9000_anav_1~~

I suppose if you're custom building it yourself you could get in
around $800 in parts... but you know that most people wouldn't give
that route a second thought.

> Add these in:
>
> -You can customize most games on PC and PC games usually cost $10 less,
> sometimes even less than that, than console games. Add this up for some who
> buy 15-20 game a year, that money adds up over a few years.

That's an interesting point. On the flipside, the prices of console
games tend to drop faster. On the other hand, a lot of publishers tend
to give a sizeable discount to games on Steam and other digital
distribution services for the first week or so (which is actually
*bad* for the industry since the most sales will come during a time
when they're making the least profit).

> - Mouse and keyboards usually last longer than controllers (I've gone though
> 4 controllers on my 360 to date, that's $200 right there) My previous gaming
> rig lasted nearly 6 years with the same mouse and keyboard.

What the hell are you doing to your controllers? LOL

The only time I've purchased more than the "standard max" number of
controllers for a console was when those controllers were specialized.
And until a few years ago, I was the type of gamer who hurled his
controllers into the wall and slammed them into the floor when a game
"cheated." ;-)

> -You can mod and always have far superior controls schemes

Definitely a plus for PC gaming...

> - Nearly better graphics all of the time and better performance.

*IF* you're going with a machine that costs far more than a console.

> - Much more more storage space for saves and content as most PCs today, even
> for my example cost will have two HDDs. You only have one for the 360 (or
> PS3) and the 360 rapes consumers by forcing them to use MS approved and made
> hardware add-ons.

Well, I don't think saves are an issue one way or another, but I
obviously see your point.

> - You are not forced to except updates that can (though rarely) have an
> adverse effect on your console or for the games. Don't except an update on
> the 360, you can't play online.

That's both good and bad. One good thing about this is that if the
update involves fixing exploits and openings for cheating, hacking,
etc. in multiplayer you have to go through with it, anyway.

The bad thing, of course, is that rarely the updates can really mess
with the game or system. That's pretty uncommon, though.

> - Being able to multitask while gaming, if needed.

How many people, really, are going to be gaming while working,
browsing, watching a video, etc.? That's a pretty small demographic
that would need the ability to multitask. At best, you've got people
who want to look up a cheat or hint on GameFAQs (which Blig and his
fellows will say is such a huge advantage of the PS3's web browser).

> Having listed these, it is a fact that most will still see consoles as "good
> enough" and not fret over aspects of what I want/prefer, or what you
> want/prefer. PC gaming certainly isn't dead, and it will be around for years
> to come, but it is dwindling and the numbers reflect that..

Bingo.

On Jan 14, 6:41 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> >> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a
> >> mid range PC of the day.
>
> > I have to mostly agree with Almighty on his comments really. I mean, I
> > am an avid PC gamer but only for a niche set of games, and I just built
> > a really expensive rig ($4K) and most people are not going to go that
> > route because most (typical) gamers feel just fine with the console
> > games, they are happy with what they offer
>
> At the minute yes, but I'm talking about now, I'm talking
> hypothetically, if a new console doesn't come out for over two more years

Weren't you and I like the only ones in the newsgroup who were saying
that Microsoft *should* come out with another Xbox 360 in the near
future?

Unfortunately, we're in the vast minority. Most people don't even want
to pay another $400 for a new console. Why would they want to pay
$800+ for a half-decent gaming PC?

> > (look at Wii sales!!).
>
> You can't really count the Wii, it's not a gamers console.

According to your comments about what you need for a half-decent FPS
(the biggest genre in consoles) gaming experience, neither are the 360
or PS3.

And you have to count the Wii unless you want to only refer to the
shrinking subset of the total gaming market that is made up of "core"
gamers. Even most 360 and PS3 owners aren't gamers to the degree that
we here are. Most have never played "core" PC games.

> > I am,
> > for the most part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they are
> > better on PC, but I somehow think that won't last much longer going into
> > the next gen.
> >The PC market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly
> > complete shell of its former self and game sales and especially hardware
> > sales even reflect that.
>
> That's my point and the point that a couple of people seem to ignore.
> I'm not saying that the PC will make some massive comeback I'm simply
> saying that it will probably have a slight but noticeable improvement if

Marginal improvement, maybe.

> the next generation of consoles doesn't come out PDQ, and that it's not
> dead, as die-hard console fanatics seem to think. They seem to read
> this as "the PC will come to conquer us all."
>
> > Hell, even over the past year or so, the console gaming industry has
> > suffered a bit from sales, so I don't think that PC sales for gamers are
> > going to somehow leap consoles,
>
> I've been very clear and said that I don't think this will happen either.

On Jan 14, 8:01 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "Morgan" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:eZN3n.8295$jE1.6623@newsfe27.ams2...
>
> > Tom wrote:
>
> >>> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a
> >>> mid range PC of the day.
>
> >> I have to mostly agree with Almighty on his comments really. I mean, Iam
> >> an avid PC gamer but only for a niche set of games, and I just built a
> >> really expensive rig ($4K) and most people are not going to go that route
> >> because most (typical) gamers feel just fine with the console games, they
> >> are happy with what they offer
>
> > At the minute yes, but I'm talking about now, I'm talking hypothetically,
> > if a new console doesn't come out for over two more years
>
> Well, I have yet to read where those on the 360 have gotten tired of it and
> bought a new PC for gaming (except for me), and the 360 is into its fifth
> year.

That's because you and people like you are about as commonplace as
unicorns. :-)

> They are still happy and it is still selling consoles and game sales
> are still decent. Even game sales have been bland the past year or so for
> consoles, but they are still smoking PC game sales. Look at it this way, and
> 360 game usually sells 5 times more game than on a PC, yet we all know there
> are far more PCs in the world than consoles. It's just that the majority of
> those PCs are not used for gaming as you and I would use them.

Further, the majority of PCs that are actually used for gaming of some
sort are used for playing The Sims, World of Warcraft, Bejeweled,
Diner Dash, Plants vs. Zombies, and social games. A relatively small
slice are being used to play Modern Warfare, Oblivion, etc.

> >> (look at Wii sales!!).
>
> > You can't really count the Wii, it's not a gamers console.
>
> It is a gaming console no matter how you look at it and it remains a gaming
> console whether you think those games it offers are not gaming to your
> standards. I don't own one and I probably never will as it doesn't appealto
> me, but I recognize that it is a gaming/entertainment console still. It's
> sheer sales numbers states that the majority of people are not PC gamers and
> that spending preference is going to keep propping up that section of the
> market. It is just as easy to say by the console and game sales (game sales
> of which have been lackluster the past few years) of the Wii, 360 and PS3,
> that the majority of people who like to games are just fine with those
> consoles. This fact made more so by how much PC gaming is becoming more and
> more niche form of gaming for a/to a certain group of people, like me.
>
> It would be interesting to see how many former avid PC gamers have just quit
> it and made the switch to consoles and not looked back. I was there for a
> few years.

Of all the console gamers I personally know or know only through Live,
the only one that still plays "core" games on the PC is one of my best
friends who only does it because he's a cheap bastard who pirates
everything. He plays on the PC because he can play for free.

> >> I am, for the most part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they are
> >> better on PC, but I somehow think that won't last much longer going into
> >> the next gen.
>
> >>The PC market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete shell of
> >>its former self and game sales and especially hardware sales even reflect
> >>that.
>
> > That's my point and the point that a couple of people seem to ignore. I'm
> > not saying that the PC will make some massive comeback I'm simply saying
> > that it will probably have a slight but noticeable improvement if the next
> > generation of consoles doesn't come out PDQ, and that it's not dead, as
> > die-hard console fanatics seem to think. They seem to read this as "the
> > PC will come to conquer us all."
>
> I didn't really notice anyone ignoring your words, but you do seem to be
> very dismissive of the sales points and the well known gaming preferences
> today, consoles have been and still are the gaming grade of choice for
> "most" gamers, not PCs. I actually do not see it making an improvement in
> sales or even growing as a base. I couldn't even say that PC sales will make
> even a small improvement since the decline has been very long, since the mid
> to late 90s this has been happening. Did you see PC rigs sales ramping up
> while the PS1 and PS2 were selling over 100m each, as an example? Another
> fact about PC gaming is that some games require really high end systems to
> be able to run them. Most don't buy PC gaming rigs to be run on low or even
> medium setting, they know why they bought the rigs and consoles have gotten
> much better graphically and even on performance to negate a reason to spend
> that kind of money for the majority. Crysis, when released sold well under
> 100K its first month after release as an example because the cost
> requirements to run it were off the charts. Even by today's standard, it
> still takes a rather pricey rig to run it smoothly on any setting more than
> medium.
>
> I have been a PC gamer going back two decades,

Amateur. ;-)

I can't really remember a time when I didn't play games. I used to
play Archon, King's Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, and Thexder at my best
friend's house since he had the "IBM" (back when that label supposedly
meant something). When my father brought home the first Macintosh, I
was enthralled because the graphics, while black and white, looked so
much better than the PC's. Dark Castle, Cap'n Magneto, Scarab of Ra,
Dungeon of Doom, etc. were games I played to death.

> but with the arrival of the
> og Xbox, what it did online and what it offered graphically, my gaming
> preference swung totally 180º. Only because of my liking for a certain
> genre, have I just bought into PC gaming again. But the 360 is still my
> choice for gaming and consoles will be for the times to come. For example, I
> cannot see playing Bayonetta on a PC with a mouse and keyboard, it doesn't
> work as console game controllers have evolved hugely compared to PC, making
> them very functional (thanks Halo for giving us this better console
> controller system). I bought my previous gaming rig in early 2004 ($2500),
> and it was a powerhouse, but I was still playing mainly on my Xbox, I felt
> stupid sometimes when I bought the Xbox version of games that were also on
> PC. I even bought Oblivion for the 360, though I knew my rig could more than
> handle it, but I had a nice couch, nice HDTV and a wireless controller, see
> what I mean? It has been only recently that I am back to PC gaming because
> the 360 isn't giving enough offerings in the quality and performance of
> today's RPGs. Dragon Age simply rips the heart of the 360 version on the PC.
> I got Oblivion GOTY edition for $15, while XBL still wants (even now, go
> look) 2400 MS points ($30) for the Shivering isles DLC that I wouldn't
> consider paying for. Mass Effect, though I loved it on the 360, just because
> of its storyline, was sorely lacking graphically and by way of using
> commands and changing items/weapons, that I made the swing to a new rig
> knowing ME2 is about to arrive. I will definitely getting B:BC2 on the 360,
> though I bet the PC version smokes it. But I am into B:BC for it MP mode and
> all of my MP gaming is solely on XBL.
>
> If FXIII were on PC, that's where I would go, but as you can tell, I am a
> very niche PC gamer and more than 95% of the market is not going to operate
> in favor of PC gaming by my standards, but they will surely hit the
> consoles..
>
>
>
> >> Hell, even over the past year or so, the console gaming industry has
> >> suffered a bit from sales, so I don't think that PC sales for gamers are
> >> going to somehow leap consoles,
>
> > I've been very clear and said that I don't think this will happen either.
>
> And it has been like this since the late 80 with NES setting the stage for
> large scale console gaming sales. I know the Arari 2600, Coleco Vision all
> had consoles, but nothing on the scale of sales of NES and all other brands
> that came after.. PC gaming started its decline about then

I don't know if I would take it back that far. PC gaming actually
expanded quite a bit after that. It *never* beat out console gaming
until recently with the advent of MMORPGs and the "casual" genre.

Morgan <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Agreed, but I think we can agree that the market for PC games from large
publishers has largely decreased. The amount of space retailers dedicate
to PC software is much smaller than that of the PS3 or 360, for instance.
Even then, much of the PC software is for more casual games, like the
latest iteration of "find the object" or whatnot, as opposed to more
serious PC games. At the same time, the market for PC games is moving
from the brick & mortar store shelf to digital download services.

> Depends, give it another year and magazines like Games TM are still
> multi platform, *some* people are gonna think "bloody hell the graphics
> on that look nice. I'm not saying that PC game sales will sky rocket.
> I'm just saying that there will be a period of measurable growth.

Console gaming has always been more accessible to people than PC gaming.
If a title is available for the PC and a console, the console version is
going to sell more.

I really can't think of any upcoming PC release in the next 24 months that
would drive PC sales in the way a big console title can drive console
sales. Even things like the latest update to WoW will still run
reasonably well on today's entry level laptops and PCs. You aren't going
to see folks rushing to buy higher-end PCs or even update their graphics
cards (or buying a Sound Blaster) as you did in the past. Now if some new
game comes along and demands a new technology, say, 3d, then you might see
something like this again.

But for the most part, anything beyond casual games or WoW on the PC still
has the reputation for requiring more technical savvy, and more expensive
equipment as barriers for entry. PC games can look better than the same
title on a console - no one is going to argue that. But whether the
tradeoffs are worth it compared to a console.

>> 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."

Outside of WoW, The Sims, and games like Bejeweled and maybe Peggle,
there isn't that much to the PC gaming market anymore.

> 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.

I'm reminded of the bit from Monty Python's Holy Grail in which a guy
keeps trying to put his mother in law on the cart of corpses, and the lady
keeps chirping "I'm not dead yet!"

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

On Jan 15, 9:50 am, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on.

I've found Morgan's position interesting, as wrong as it is. ;-)

> You would think
> the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
> when it actually kicked the bucket.

I don't the crux of the downfall occurred until a bit later than that,
as we got closer to this generation of consoles. In the earlier part
of this decade, we still had a lot of rock solid PC games: Baldur's
Gate II, the Neverwinter Nights series, the No One Lives Forever
series, Aliens versus Predator 2, Tron 2.0, Half-Life 2, Unreal
Tournament (technically a 1999 release but it came out in November so
I'll count it :-), Diablo II, etc.

> As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
> is completely dead. You can still play some great games (as long as
> the publisher feels like porting them) and even some exclusives (in
> niche genres), and regardless of what other platforms they appear on
> any setup where you can play Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Mass Effect
> 2, and others is not bad at all.
>
> But if you make a list of the gaming franchises that don't appear on
> the PC in any shape or form, it's staggering. This wasn't always the
> case. PC gamers used to sit pretty with their Deus Ex, their Half
> Life, their Fallout 1 & 2, while still getting the most important
> console games (just ran across my PC version of Final Fantasy VII the
> other day).

Console releases on PCs were few and far between. I remember as a kid
lamenting over why the Macs and PCs didn't get games like Mario,
Zelda, Sonic (not personally but just in general), etc. since my
parents wouldn't let me buy video game consoles (they acquiesced and
got me an NES after the SNES came out).

The first console-to-PC port of importance I saw was Resident Evil. If
it weren't for that, I would never have even played the game and
experienced how great it was which would have meant I would never have
even owned a PlayStation.

> Now they get no original games and minimal effort ports
> (no leaning in MW2, wtf?).

I still see games that you can't get on the consoles although none are
ever big sellers.

> Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
> WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
> grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.

Company of Heroes was a very popular PC game. And you can't discount
Telltale's games or those made by PopCap. Or wait... are we talking
just about the types of games that dominated PCs in the 90s like FPS
and RPGs?

> Finally, I'll simply say this. Two of the most (if not the most) over-
> saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
> and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC. EA pulled the plug
> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III flopped it never
> returned to the PC. So two games I can get on my *phone*, published
> by two huge, greedy companies who would make games for calculator
> watches if they thought they could turn a buck... yet they don't
> appear on the PC. Now that is what I call dead. I'll even make a
> slogan out of it: "If you can't play the current Madden on it, it's
> dead."

That's an interesting observation...

On Jan 15, 10:40 am, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "The King of Gaming" <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ac7171ff-f590-47a5-841e-44a301937bff@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on. You would think
> > the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
> > when it actually kicked the bucket.
>
> > As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
> > is completely dead. You can still play some great games (as long as
> > the publisher feels like porting them) and even some exclusives (in
> > niche genres), and regardless of what other platforms they appear on
> > any setup where you can play Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Mass Effect
> > 2, and others is not bad at all.
>
> > But if you make a list of the gaming franchises that don't appear on
> > the PC in any shape or form, it's staggering. This wasn't always the
> > case. PC gamers used to sit pretty with their Deus Ex, their Half
> > Life, their Fallout 1 & 2, while still getting the most important
> > console games (just ran across my PC version of Final Fantasy VII the
> > other day). Now they get no original games and minimal effort ports
> > (no leaning in MW2, wtf?).
>
> > Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
> > WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
> > grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>
> > Finally, I'll simply say this. Two of the most (if not the most) over-
> > saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
> > and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC. EA pulled the plug
> > on PC sports games last year, and after GH III flopped it never
> > returned to the PC. So two games I can get on my *phone*, published
> > by two huge, greedy companies who would make games for calculator
> > watches if they thought they could turn a buck... yet they don't
> > appear on the PC. Now that is what I call dead. I'll even make a
> > slogan out of it: "If you can't play the current Madden on it, it's
> > dead."
>
> But the point is, that it isn't dead, just that ports go both ways now. PC
> gaming started going down long before Half-Life, and the earlier Fallouts as
> PCs back then at the high end were way more costly than the high ends now.
> PC gaming started a serious slide when NES hit and the mass of games on NES.

The height of PC gaming prior to the MMORPG/casual era was in the mid
to late 90s with games like Half-Life, Quake II and Quake III Arena,
Baldur's Gate, Diablo, Warcrafts I and II, Command & Conquer,
Starcraft, SimCity, etc.

The highest selling games are Sims and Sims 2. After that, it's
Starcraft at 11 million and Half-Life at 9.3 million.

> Hell I remember Doom in 93 on a decent rig that would cost well over 4K
> then.

I don't remember Doom requiring very much. My family never had a
decent PC. I bought a relatively cheap piece of crap just so I could
do Java programming in college and was able to run Doom just fine on
that. I think I spent about $800 on it, which sounds like a lot until
you consider that you really couldn't buy much cheaper than that at
the time without putting it together yourself. We didn't have $400
bargain bin computers readily available in retail stores back then...

> I remember the first HDD cost $1K for just a 20meg drive back in the
> late 80s when they came out. As I stated before, the games I listed sold
> well on the PC and are clearly superior, those are the type that are doing
> the business anymore, shooters lost their way when the PS2 and og Xbox came
> along, especailly the Xbox introducing XBL really waa a game changer for
> online multiplayer..
>
> Almighty's point, and a valid one, is that most don't care about PC gaming
> because the console versions are good enough now and the cost is cheaper for
> the hardware. Throw in HDTVs getting cheaper with nice resolutions, and you
> have the recipe. There's still well enough of a market out there for these
> PC game and ports, otherwise we'd see Nvidia and ATI calling it quits, yet
> their stocks are still doing well. As long as I have this PC, there will be
> no RPGs for the 360 for me. Dragon Age simply shits on the console version
> by miles. Oblivion, the same way. I didn't get ME for it, but it is far
> superior And ME2 is a definite PC purchase with this rig I bought. Maybe ten
> years from now, PC gaming will either have to get into line price wise while
> challenging the graphics of consoles or certainly die. I do think in a sense
> that ultimately, PC gaming will go down the tube within the next decade or
> two.

I don't know... as long as there's that small niche of people willing
to spend the price of two consoles just on a graphics card, I think
it'll keep on living. You don't need *that* many people willing to
early adopt the latest and greatest graphics cards in order to do well
in that market from a hardware perspective.

"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ec2df8c6-f80b-42f2-afc9-49d3da40b7a3@o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 14, 8:01 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "Morgan" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eZN3n.8295$jE1.6623@newsfe27.ams2...
>>
>> > Tom wrote:
>>
>> >>> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on
>> >>> a
>> >>> mid range PC of the day.
>>
>> >> I have to mostly agree with Almighty on his comments really. I mean, I
>> >> am
>> >> an avid PC gamer but only for a niche set of games, and I just built a
>> >> really expensive rig ($4K) and most people are not going to go that
>> >> route
>> >> because most (typical) gamers feel just fine with the console games,
>> >> they
>> >> are happy with what they offer
>>
>> > At the minute yes, but I'm talking about now, I'm talking
>> > hypothetically,
>> > if a new console doesn't come out for over two more years
>>
>> Well, I have yet to read where those on the 360 have gotten tired of it
>> and
>> bought a new PC for gaming (except for me), and the 360 is into its fifth
>> year.
>
> That's because you and people like you are about as commonplace as
> unicorns. :-)
>
>> They are still happy and it is still selling consoles and game sales
>> are still decent. Even game sales have been bland the past year or so for
>> consoles, but they are still smoking PC game sales. Look at it this way,
>> and
>> 360 game usually sells 5 times more game than on a PC, yet we all know
>> there
>> are far more PCs in the world than consoles. It's just that the majority
>> of
>> those PCs are not used for gaming as you and I would use them.
>
> Further, the majority of PCs that are actually used for gaming of some
> sort are used for playing The Sims, World of Warcraft, Bejeweled,
> Diner Dash, Plants vs. Zombies, and social games. A relatively small
> slice are being used to play Modern Warfare, Oblivion, etc.
>
>> >> (look at Wii sales!!).
>>
>> > You can't really count the Wii, it's not a gamers console.
>>
>> It is a gaming console no matter how you look at it and it remains a
>> gaming
>> console whether you think those games it offers are not gaming to your
>> standards. I don't own one and I probably never will as it doesn't appeal
>> to
>> me, but I recognize that it is a gaming/entertainment console still. It's
>> sheer sales numbers states that the majority of people are not PC gamers
>> and
>> that spending preference is going to keep propping up that section of the
>> market. It is just as easy to say by the console and game sales (game
>> sales
>> of which have been lackluster the past few years) of the Wii, 360 and
>> PS3,
>> that the majority of people who like to games are just fine with those
>> consoles. This fact made more so by how much PC gaming is becoming more
>> and
>> more niche form of gaming for a/to a certain group of people, like me.
>>
>> It would be interesting to see how many former avid PC gamers have just
>> quit
>> it and made the switch to consoles and not looked back. I was there for a
>> few years.
>
> Of all the console gamers I personally know or know only through Live,
> the only one that still plays "core" games on the PC is one of my best
> friends who only does it because he's a cheap bastard who pirates
> everything. He plays on the PC because he can play for free.
>
>> >> I am, for the most part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they
>> >> are
>> >> better on PC, but I somehow think that won't last much longer going
>> >> into
>> >> the next gen.
>>
>> >>The PC market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete shell
>> >>of
>> >>its former self and game sales and especially hardware sales even
>> >>reflect
>> >>that.
>>
>> > That's my point and the point that a couple of people seem to ignore.
>> > I'm
>> > not saying that the PC will make some massive comeback I'm simply
>> > saying
>> > that it will probably have a slight but noticeable improvement if the
>> > next
>> > generation of consoles doesn't come out PDQ, and that it's not dead, as
>> > die-hard console fanatics seem to think. They seem to read this as
>> > "the
>> > PC will come to conquer us all."
>>
>> I didn't really notice anyone ignoring your words, but you do seem to be
>> very dismissive of the sales points and the well known gaming preferences
>> today, consoles have been and still are the gaming grade of choice for
>> "most" gamers, not PCs. I actually do not see it making an improvement in
>> sales or even growing as a base. I couldn't even say that PC sales will
>> make
>> even a small improvement since the decline has been very long, since the
>> mid
>> to late 90s this has been happening. Did you see PC rigs sales ramping up
>> while the PS1 and PS2 were selling over 100m each, as an example? Another
>> fact about PC gaming is that some games require really high end systems
>> to
>> be able to run them. Most don't buy PC gaming rigs to be run on low or
>> even
>> medium setting, they know why they bought the rigs and consoles have
>> gotten
>> much better graphically and even on performance to negate a reason to
>> spend
>> that kind of money for the majority. Crysis, when released sold well
>> under
>> 100K its first month after release as an example because the cost
>> requirements to run it were off the charts. Even by today's standard, it
>> still takes a rather pricey rig to run it smoothly on any setting more
>> than
>> medium.
>>
>> I have been a PC gamer going back two decades,
>
> Amateur. ;-)
>
> I can't really remember a time when I didn't play games. I used to
> play Archon, King's Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, and Thexder at my best
> friend's house since he had the "IBM" (back when that label supposedly
> meant something). When my father brought home the first Macintosh, I
> was enthralled because the graphics, while black and white, looked so
> much better than the PC's. Dark Castle, Cap'n Magneto, Scarab of Ra,
> Dungeon of Doom, etc. were games I played to death.
>
>> but with the arrival of the
>> og Xbox, what it did online and what it offered graphically, my gaming
>> preference swung totally 180º. Only because of my liking for a certain
>> genre, have I just bought into PC gaming again. But the 360 is still my
>> choice for gaming and consoles will be for the times to come. For
>> example, I
>> cannot see playing Bayonetta on a PC with a mouse and keyboard, it
>> doesn't
>> work as console game controllers have evolved hugely compared to PC,
>> making
>> them very functional (thanks Halo for giving us this better console
>> controller system). I bought my previous gaming rig in early 2004
>> ($2500),
>> and it was a powerhouse, but I was still playing mainly on my Xbox, I
>> felt
>> stupid sometimes when I bought the Xbox version of games that were also
>> on
>> PC. I even bought Oblivion for the 360, though I knew my rig could more
>> than
>> handle it, but I had a nice couch, nice HDTV and a wireless controller,
>> see
>> what I mean? It has been only recently that I am back to PC gaming
>> because
>> the 360 isn't giving enough offerings in the quality and performance of
>> today's RPGs. Dragon Age simply rips the heart of the 360 version on the
>> PC.
>> I got Oblivion GOTY edition for $15, while XBL still wants (even now, go
>> look) 2400 MS points ($30) for the Shivering isles DLC that I wouldn't
>> consider paying for. Mass Effect, though I loved it on the 360, just
>> because
>> of its storyline, was sorely lacking graphically and by way of using
>> commands and changing items/weapons, that I made the swing to a new rig
>> knowing ME2 is about to arrive. I will definitely getting B:BC2 on the
>> 360,
>> though I bet the PC version smokes it. But I am into B:BC for it MP mode
>> and
>> all of my MP gaming is solely on XBL.
>>
>> If FXIII were on PC, that's where I would go, but as you can tell, I am a
>> very niche PC gamer and more than 95% of the market is not going to
>> operate
>> in favor of PC gaming by my standards, but they will surely hit the
>> consoles..
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Hell, even over the past year or so, the console gaming industry has
>> >> suffered a bit from sales, so I don't think that PC sales for gamers
>> >> are
>> >> going to somehow leap consoles,
>>
>> > I've been very clear and said that I don't think this will happen
>> > either.
>>
>> And it has been like this since the late 80 with NES setting the stage
>> for
>> large scale console gaming sales. I know the Arari 2600, Coleco Vision
>> all
>> had consoles, but nothing on the scale of sales of NES and all other
>> brands
>> that came after.. PC gaming started its decline about then
>
> I don't know if I would take it back that far. PC gaming actually
> expanded quite a bit after that. It *never* beat out console gaming
> until recently with the advent of MMORPGs and the "casual" genre.

I don't know about that. I know PC sales went up for gaming during the early
nineties, but console gaming was smoking it hugely even then. PCs then were
substantially more expensive then they are now, relatively speaking. When
you put "casual" in the frame you do here, well just about everyone in the
world that plays online with free online interfaced games blows all consoles
combined in history away. I am going to be specific and say people who buy
PCs for gaming do not fall in that group and I really don't count them
because they bought those PC for more than a specific reason; gaming. I
could just as well say that. I want to keep it in context to casual console
gamers to PC gamer who actually buy (or even pirate) games for playing on
PC, not someone going to a web site and loading up Bejeweled.

"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f579485-bc3e-4f3f-9ba6-6d4746812a87@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 15, 1:09 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "Morgan" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:YR14n.17587$Q63.17358@newsfe23.ams2...
>>
>>
>>
>> > The King of Gaming wrote:
>> >> Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on. You would think
>> >> the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decade ago
>> >> when it actually kicked the bucket.
>>
>> > Seriously? Would you care to back that statement up because I can give
>> > you
>> > a very long list of excellent PC titles that have come out over the
>> > past
>> > 10 years, plenty of them being PC only
>>
>> >> As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
>> >> is completely dead. You can still play some great games (as long as
>> >> the publisher feels like porting them)
>>
>> > Also joint development. Not the same as porting.
>>
>> >> Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
>> >> WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
>> >> grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>>
>> >> Finally, I'll simply say this. Two of the most (if not the most)
>> >> over-
>> >> saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
>> >> and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC. EA pulled the plug
>> >> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III
>>
>> > In two and a half decades of multi-platform gaming I've never bought a
>> > single sports game. If I want to play a sport, I'll go outside and do
>> > it.
>>
>> > You seemto put a lot of emphasis on franchises and big names games. A
>> > lot
>> > of the "big name" games are not big name becaue they are overly good,
>> > they
>> > just have a good marketing team behind them. Halo for example, fun
>> > game.
>> > Nothing special, Halo 1 was miles behind PC FPSs when it was released.
>> > The only major thing it did was the inclusion of vehicles. Metal gear
>> > solid, again, rubbish stealth game compared to something like Thief, in
>> > face that's very good example of why I disagree with your definition of
>> > important. Metal Gear Solid was probably better known than Thief, and
>> > certainly sold better. However it was Thief that has been the
>> > influence
>> > for slealth in modern games.
>>
>> I have to completely disagree with you on what you say Halo 1 did as a
>> major
>> thing. Halo changed the way console controllers works on FPS games, that
>> revolutionized console gaming and really kick started FPS taking over PCs
>> as
>> the source for FPS gaming. Not only that, Halo 2 also spurred the online
>> console FPS multiplayer gaming community. Look at it now and see how many
>> people are playing FPS' on consoles online compared to PC. (Modern
>> Warfare 1
>> and 2, Gears, Halo 3). Now, I honestly can say that the way controllers
>> work now and how the FPS attributes are mapped to the controller buttons
>> and
>> triggers, that it is more realistic and better than on PC, where you just
>> point, click and shoot. There's way more immersion in controllers than
>> keyboard and mouse for FPS games.
>
> I agreed with you up to where you said that game controllers are more
> immersive. Neither mouse/keyboard nor game controllers are *immersive*
> as far as FPS gaming is concerned. Steering wheels, light guns and the
> Wiimote are immersive.
>
> You could make a shaky argument that the "triggers" on console
> controllers are kind of like a gun trigger but in reality the ones on
> modern controllers are just an evolution of the shoulder buttons from
> the SNES and PlayStation.
>
> The only controller that was at all immersive for FPS games was the
> Nintendo 64 controller where you were actually holding it like a gun.
> Even then, you're still using an arbitrary mapping as far as the
> analog stick, control pad and buttons are concerned.

I think you take "immersive" concerning gaming and make it too direct for
its meaning, it has morre uasge in gaming than just that. Using a
controller, pulling the trigger, using the analog stick to move and aim,
etc, is more immersive (feeling) than pointing and clicking by far, that's
what I mean. When I played Ghost Recon on PC and then on the Xbox, I was
sold on FPS' with controllers for the feeling it gave. Halo really set the
stage for use of controllers in FPS games.

"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fd160d4-d4a4-4c5c-bd67-699f3ad6cd93@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 15, 12:33 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> >>> (look at Wii sales!!).
>>
>> >> You can't really count the Wii, it's not a gamers console.
>>
>> > It is a gaming console no matter how you look at it
>>
>> True, I was probably being over glib about that, sorry. I just don't
>> considers the Wii to have the same target audience asthe PS3/360/PC.
>
> Okay, let's be fair about it. You can take away the Wii, which none of
> us were really counting anyway within this context, since I've taken
> away casual and MMO games on the PC side (neither share the same
> "target" as PS3 and 360 which is basically the point I was making
> before).
>
>> > It would be interesting to see how many former avid PC gamers have just
>> > quit it and made the switch to consoles and not looked back. I was
>> > there
>> > for a few years.
>>
>> I was there for a few months.
>
> I've been there since 2004. The last core PC games I bought were Half-
> Life 2 and Doom 3. After that, I never saw a need to use my PC for
> core gaming anymore since the consoles were more than good enough
> technically and an overall better experience.
>
>> >>> I am, for the most part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they
>> >>> are better on PC, but I somehow think that won't last much longer
>> >>> going into the next gen.
>>
>> >>> The PC market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete
>> >>> shell of its former self and game sales and especially hardware sales
>> >>> even reflect that.
>>
>> >> That's my point and the point that a couple of people seem to ignore.
>> >> I'm not saying that the PC will make some massive comeback I'm simply
>> >> saying that it will probably have a slight but noticeable improvement
>> >> if the next generation of consoles doesn't come out PDQ, and that it's
>> >> not dead, as die-hard console fanatics seem to think. They seem to
>> >> read this as "the PC will come to conquer us all."
>>
>> > I didn't really notice anyone ignoring your words, but you do seem to
>> > be
>> > very dismissive of the sales points and the well known gaming
>> > preferences today,
>>
>> No dismissive at all, I been very happy to admit that a lot more games
>> are sold on consoles and that it's a far more lucrative section of the
>> market. What I'm not happy to concede is that PC gaming is dead or that
>> joint developed multi format games are the sole domain of the consoles.
>> Basic common sense, if developers are investing the time and money in
>> a PC version then there's a substantial amount of money to be made from
>> PC gaming still.
>
> When you bring joint development into the discussion, it only
> highlights that the only reason developers are spending resources on
> PC versions is because it costs them very little extra to do it.
> Developing for the PC is not that different from developing for the
> 360 - and all the actual design and coding takes place on a PC,
> anyway.
>
> The second developers have to go to the same lengths for a PC version
> as they do for a PS3 version, there won't be a PC version of that
> game. It just isn't worth it in the end.
>
>> I'm not saying that
>>
>> > consoles have been and still are the gaming grade of
>>
>> > choice for "most" gamers, not PCs. I actually do not see it making an
>> > improvement in sales or even growing as a base. I couldn't even say
>> > that
>> > PC sales will make even a small improvement since the decline has been
>> > very long, since the mid to late 90s this has been happening. Did you
>> > see PC rigs sales ramping up while the PS1 and PS2 were selling over
>> > 100m each, as an example? Another fact about PC gaming is that some
>> > games require really high end systems to be able to run them.
>>
>> In real terms this is actually vary few though these days. Crysis need
>> a stupidly high spec, and the Witcher wasn't that much better (I'm
>> chalking that one up to bad programming because it wasn't that much to
>> look at)
>>
>> Bioshock (as I mentioned earlier) and Fallout 3 for example both ran
>> nicely on mid range rigs.
>
> Only if you're talking about mid level PCs that cost at the end of
> 2008 twice as much as the Xbox 360 did at the end of 2005 in which
> case you're paying double to sit at your computer desk and watch a
> lower resolution version of the same game with possibly better
> lighting,textures and framerate but no anti-aliasing.
>
> At least according to benchmarks done by sites like Tom's Hardware and
> AnandTech which showed that even that relatively timid performance
> from the PC perspective required graphics cards that today still cost
> upwards of $300-400.

Not true, when you consider that to get good graphics for the console, you
also have to spend (minimum) $500 on a decent HDTV and console games cost
mostly $10 more all of the time to PC games. Your graphics card price is
totally off. You can get a Radeon 5850, which can run the games mentioned on
very high for $289, and they were just released last September. And the
previous releases (like the 4890) that are still more powerful than that,
are even cheaper, like below $200 in a few cases. Over a two year period,
with an avid gamer buying games, you could easily see console gaming being
more expensive. But as I said before, most gamers don't care as console
gaming is good enough and being in front of a TV is more relaxing and
preferable anyway, even for me :-).

>
>> > I have been a PC gamer going back two decades, but with the arrival of
>> > the og Xbox, what it did online and what it offered graphically, my
>> > gaming preference swung totally 180º.
>>
>> I expanded rather than switched around the same time Assassin's Creed
>> came out. At the time it was a very bad patch for the PC releases
>> since then however I've been gradually going back. Most cross platform
>> games I get are for the PC (my PC was highish spec about 2.5 years ago),
>> I have a friend who is in prety much the same situation. For me the
>> 630/PS3 are for games that arn't out on the PC or I think would be more
>> suited to a control pad.
>
> In which case you're in the same minority that Tom belongs to.
>
> I didn't even bother with the PC version of Serious Sam HD, which I
> could have been playing on my computer months ago. Serious Sam was one
> of my favorite games of the first half of this past decade and I was
> very excited about it.
>
> I do know a few people who opted to just go for the PC version,
> though, to play it earlier. Most of my friends who are interested in
> it, though, are getting it now so we can all play together on Live.
>
>> > consider paying for. Mass Effect, though I loved it on the 360, just
>>
>> > because of its storyline, was sorely lacking graphically and by way of
>> > using commands and changing items/weapons, that I made the swing to a
>> > new rig knowing ME2 is about to arrive.
>>
>> I've opted for that on the 360 just because I've alread y got ME1 on the
>> that format and I want to import my save game. It's a couple of game
>> that I'm seriously considering getting on both formats though.

"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:65cb4094-a9e0-4d0d-8db9-f136bab1c530@k22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 15, 1:01 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "Morgan" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:iH14n.17586$Q63.5088@newsfe23.ams2...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Tom wrote:
>>
>> >>>> (look at Wii sales!!).
>>
>> >>> You can't really count the Wii, it's not a gamers console.
>>
>> >> It is a gaming console no matter how you look at it
>>
>> > True, I was probably being over glib about that, sorry. I just don't
>> > considers the Wii to have the same target audience asthe PS3/360/PC.
>>
>> >> It would be interesting to see how many former avid PC gamers have
>> >> just
>> >> quit it and made the switch to consoles and not looked back. I was
>> >> there
>> >> for a few years.
>>
>> > I was there for a few months.
>>
>> >>>> I am, for the most part, one of them, except I am an RPG freak, they
>> >>>> are better on PC, but I somehow think that won't last much longer
>> >>>> going
>> >>>> into the next gen.
>>
>> >>>> The PC market is certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete
>> >>>> shell
>> >>>> of its former self and game sales and especially hardware sales even
>> >>>> reflect that.
>>
>> >>> That's my point and the point that a couple of people seem to ignore.
>> >>> I'm not saying that the PC will make some massive comeback I'm simply
>> >>> saying that it will probably have a slight but noticeable improvement
>> >>> if
>> >>> the next generation of consoles doesn't come out PDQ, and that it's
>> >>> not
>> >>> dead, as die-hard console fanatics seem to think. They seem to read
>> >>> this as "the PC will come to conquer us all."
>>
>> >> I didn't really notice anyone ignoring your words, but you do seem to
>> >> be
>> >> very dismissive of the sales points and the well known gaming
>> >> preferences
>> >> today,
>>
>> > No dismissive at all, I been very happy to admit that a lot more games
>> > are
>> > sold on consoles and that it's a far more lucrative section of the
>> > market.
>> > What I'm not happy to concede is that PC gaming is dead or that joint
>> > developed multi format games are the sole domain of the consoles. Basic
>> > common sense, if developers are investing the time and money in a PC
>> > version then there's a substantial amount of money to be made from PC
>> > gaming still. I'm not saying that
>>
>> Actually, it's more lucrative to make games for PCs, since licensing
>> fees,
>> etc are not part of the cost of getting them on the hardware, as like
>> with
>> the 360, or the PS3. I don't think being happy about this particualr
>> situation or not really should be an emotional one as you do come
>> acrossed
>> sensitive to the current PC market situation . to me, thing are going to
>> be
>> what they're going to be no matter how I want it. I just good looking
>> quality games that play smoothly and offer great immersion. Consoles have
>> been hitting that well in this gne, so I am happy that there are more
>> than
>> just one venue that can cover that for me. I don't think anyone here
>> really
>> mean that the PC world of gaming is dead,as like I said in another post,
>> Nvidia and ATI would be all but dead. Games for PC are not going away
>> anytime soon, but I don't see it expanding as much as shrinking.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > consoles have been and still are the gaming grade of
>> >> choice for "most" gamers, not PCs. I actually do not see it making an
>> >> improvement in sales or even growing as a base. I couldn't even say
>> >> that
>> >> PC sales will make even a small improvement since the decline has been
>> >> very long, since the mid to late 90s this has been happening. Did you
>> >> see
>> >> PC rigs sales ramping up while the PS1 and PS2 were selling over 100m
>> >> each, as an example? Another fact about PC gaming is that some games
>> >> require really high end systems to be able to run them.
>>
>> > In real terms this is actually vary few though these days. Crysis need
>> > a
>> > stupidly high spec, and the Witcher wasn't that much better (I'm
>> > chalking
>> > that one up to bad programming because it wasn't that much to look at)
>>
>> > Bioshock (as I mentioned earlier) and Fallout 3 for example both ran
>> > nicely on mid range rigs.
>>
>> And this is the point about consoles now. Yes, Crysis was stupidly high
>> and
>> you had to buy a rig like mine to run it at it fullest (it does look
>> incredible though). But Fallout 3 really looks good on my 52" Sammy as
>> much
>> as it does on the PC and it plays smooth. So, when considering this, why
>> would anyone need a PC when the looks are good enough for the majority,
>> sitting on their comfy spot 8" away from their nice HDTV with a wireless
>> controller playing a relaxing RPG?,
>
> Jeez... you're going to screw up your eyes, dude. ;-)

I was an amoeba in my past life, LMAO
God that is close!!

>
>> that's what is killing the PC market,
>> but that isn't a bad thing since the graphical quality on a bigger
>> screens
>> looks pretty damn good. Right now, PCs offer better commands of game
>> (console commands) and the modding community is still pretty strong
>> offering
>> some great changes. Plus you'll always have better performance. But as I
>> stated, for the majority, they won't care about what I just mentioned,
>> because consoles are now good enough for them.
>
> And will be good enough even if Microsoft and Sony don't release new
> consoles for a few years as much as I hate to say it.

I am a little bummed, but maybe with this PC purchase, I will not feel held
back for those years :-).

>
>> >> I have been a PC gamer going back two decades, but with the arrival of
>> >> the og Xbox, what it did online and what it offered graphically, my
>> >> gaming preference swung totally 180º.
>>
>> > I expanded rather than switched around the same time Assassin's Creed
>> > came
>> > out. At the time it was a very bad patch for the PC releases since
>> > then
>> > however I've been gradually going back. Most cross platform games I
>> > get
>> > are for the PC (my PC was highish spec about 2.5 years ago), I have a
>> > friend who is in prety much the same situation. For me the 630/PS3 are
>> > for games that arn't out on the PC or I think would be more suited to a
>> > control pad.
>>
>> I'm holding off on AC2, but when I get it, it will be on PC. Another
>> genre
>> (stealth) that works better on mouse and keyboard (along with RPGs and
>> RTS')
>
> The term "stealth" can only be used loosely with Assassin's Creed...

Yep, but I prefer this game on a PC anyway.

>
>> > > consider paying for. Mass Effect, though I loved it on the 360, just
>> >> because of its storyline, was sorely lacking graphically and by way of
>> >> using commands and changing items/weapons, that I made the swing to a
>> >> new
>> >> rig knowing ME2 is about to arrive.
>>
>> > I've opted for that on the 360 just because I've alread y got ME1 on
>> > the
>> > that format and I want to import my save game. It's a couple of game
>> > that
>> > I'm seriously considering getting on both formats though.
>>
>> No way, the graphical experience was enough for me to just order the PC
>> version, though I cannot use my saves, I don't care. I don't think
>> there's a
>> hope in hell, though the Bioware dudes say the game will run smoother,
>> have
>> little texture pop-ins while having better textures on the same hardware
>> that couldn't be achieved it on ME, is not happening.
>>
>> Here's my rig I built almost two months ago:
>>
>> OS - Windows 7 64bit
>> CPU - i7 950
>> Motherboard - Asus Rampage II Extreme
>> Memory - 12gb G-Skill DDR3 1333mhz
>
> Holy mother of God. 4GB is already more memory than most computer
> users will ever need or want. Console gamers aren't going to be
> looking at a rig like this... ever.

Not really, 4gigs isn't enough. Dragon Age will eat up nearly 3gigs when
going full bore and Windows 7 starts of with 1 gig. I also so a lot of
music/video editing, so it comes in handy. Believe it or not, the ram only
cost me a little over $250. Plus, I use the toolsets for some of these
games, so to open files and mod characters and items, takes a lot of RAM.
You should see Leliana (one of the main characters in DA). She was OK
looking originally, but now she smokes.
>
>> Graphics Cards - Sapphire Radeon 5870 x 2
>> Sound Card - Soundblaster X-fi 24bit
>> Monitor - Samsung ToC T240HD 24" (1900x1200)
>
> There's another category I fall into that's common amongst many
> gamers... the "my wife won't let me spend even a grand on freakin'
> video games" category. Years ago my wife had no problem with me
> spending a thousand bucks on a computer but nowadays she's too smart
> to think that such a computer would be used for anything *BUT* gaming.

Yes, but your points over the years here regarding console gaming now
compared to PC is valid, it is good enough. Heck, you even said that back in
2004, you were all but done with PC gaming because of the consoles. I think
I will be there next gen.