On Jan 15, 12:44 pm, 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
>
> > 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.

Now there's an interesting point.

It's thanks to joint development that games like Modern Warfare and
Mass Effect are available on the PC. The market for these kinds of
"core" games on the PC is enough that it's worth the publishers' while
to joint develop these games, but if the developers had to spend the
kind of extra money they would to, say, do a PS3 version of an 360
game (or vice versa) you would quickly see such titles fade away from
PC land.

> > 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.

That you personally are uninterested in sports games has no bearing on
their importance to gaming. By the same token, someone could say that
if they wanted to role-play they could just buy some dice or if they
wanted to drive cars they would just go out and drive their car. True,
you probably can't drive 100mph in a Lamborghini on the city streets
or fight a real orc but you also can't play in an NFL stadium, play
with the entire defensive or offensive line of say the New York Giants
and you're certainly not Tom Brady or Peyton Manning (and won't play
anywhere near their level).

In any case, the numbers don't lie. Madden is the 7th biggest gaming
franchise in history.

What's more, of the 10 biggest gaming franchises, only one is a PC
exclusive franchise (The Sims... I don't count crappy spin-offs that
made their way to consoles) while three are truly console exclusives
and the rest owe the majority of their success to consoles.

> 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.

And...?

Regardless of whether a game is big because it was good or because it
was just marketed well (*cough* Halo 3 *cough*) or both the fact of
the matter is that it's still a big game. In the end, that's all that
really counts as far as the state of the markets.

> 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.

What Halo did was lay the foundation for FPS gaming on consoles.
GoldenEye was a much better FPS game. Perfect Dark was an arguably
better FPS game. However, Halo made the real impact in making FPS
games accessible so people didn't have to have spent countless hours
moving their mouse around and banging keys to be able to play. Halo
was the game most directly responsible for shifting the FPS genre from
the PC to the console as far as popularity.

> 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.

a) Whether Metal Gear Solid is a good stealth game is a matter of
opinion. I happen to agree with you but to most gamers it's heralded
as one of the best stealth games of all time. Who's right?

b) Important probably isn't a good word to use here. I probably would
have gone with "marquee" or "blockbuster" or just plain "big." It's
not a matter of quality.

> 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 90% of today's gamers would never know or even care because Thief
was a part of an era in PC gaming that has long since past.

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 PCsas
> 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.

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.

> > 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.

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 improvementif
> >>> 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 needa
> > 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. ;-)

> 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 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...

> > > 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.

> 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.

Tom wrote:

> 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.

Sorry, I expressed myself badly. I was referring to game game mechanics
rather than it's influence.

The King of Gaming wrote:
> 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.

Well seeing as you commented on several of them yourself and other have
influences that resonate still I'd say that you really have no clue what
you're talking about.

> And you seem to put a lot of emphasis on what you personally prefer
> over to what sells,

No, I put a lot of emphasis on what had influenced or changed the
industry as opposed to what sells well. Or what displays innovation or
deep game play.

> 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".

Immaterial and the industry disagrees with you. ME1 was a console port,
ME2 is joint developed, simple as.

> 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.

There are PC games there. A game that runs on a PC without emulation is
a PC game. It the same game is available on consoles that does not make
it a console exclusive.

Tom wrote:

>> 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

It's a term of phrase.

> 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

IIRC the PC version looked considerably nicer.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> 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?

Yep, and I still stand by that, that's my point. The next generation is
due, consoles have fallen a long way behind the PC in terms of graphics.

> 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.

How so? I'd say that third person is actually a more common game style
on the consoles but either way. regardles of quality thier both aimed
at a similar type of gamer.

>
>>> 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.

slight but noticeable, marginal, not a massive difference in words there.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:

> 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.

But no one is saying that PC sales are what they once were.

> 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.

Mesh complexity and texture resolution would have a very noticeable
effect to state just two.

>>> 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:

*Cheaper* PCs, not not bottom end budget models.

>> >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

Off the top of my head I can't remember. However I do remember reviews
of the time stating performance and graphics quality as very strong plus
points for the game.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> 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 -

Hyperbolising doesn't make a point. Accurate use of language does.

>>> 'Dems da facts.
>> I tent to disagree, strongly disagree.
>
> With what exactly?

Well apparently you didn't mean what you said, you were just
hyperbolising and basically agreeing with me that PC games still sell
but no where near as much as they used to.

Doug Jacobs wrote:
> 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.

Yep, agree 100%

>> 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.

Neither can I. To be honest my three points in this thread are pretty
simple.

1) 2012 is very late in the day for the next console generation
2) I think that a slight but noticeable percentage of people will shift
to PC gaming if we do have to wait until 2012
3) The PC games market is not what it once was, but neither is it dead.

A couple of people (though not you.) Seem to read the second two as:
2) A major percentage of console gamers are going to shift exclusively
to the PC
3) The PC games market is as strong as it ever was.

> 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.

Which is a very fair point.

>>> 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.

There I disagree, It's a shadow of it's former self yes and small fry
compared to consoles but. But there are still a good number of jointly
developed titles along with strategy titles and other's that just don't
work on a console such as the Total war games, Galactic Civilizations or
the X saga.

>> 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 his dad. :-)

On Jan 15, 12:09 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 PCsas
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ha, I've been arguing about the immersion factor of controllers for a
bit. It's true that controllers can be a pain if you're focusing on
precision aiming, as opposed to movement. That being said, however,
the Xbox controllers have reached a pretty decent balance and
compromise, and the Dualshock 3 seems to be somewhat better at FPS
aiming than Sony's prior controllers (although that's damning with
faint praise). A game like the Unreal Tournament games, which focus
on really fast, precise aiming action (especially given that
detonating a shock core that you just shot out requires SUPER
precision), will, without a doubt, play better on the PC, but most FPS
games aren't like that these days. I have UT3 for the PS3, and it's
at least playable, on the other hand.

On Jan 15, 2:05 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 builta
> > >> 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 itand
> > 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 moreand
> > 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 justquit
> > it and made the switch to consoles and not looked back. I was there fora
> > 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, theyare
> > >> 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 thenext
> > > 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 willmake
> > 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 systemsto
> > 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 alsoon
> > PC. I even bought Oblivion for the 360, though I knew my rig could morethan
> > 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 ama
> > 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 gamersare
> > >> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I got both you guys beat. I remember gaming on the VIC-20, of all
platforms. That ended up being replaced by the Commodore 64 rather
quickly. Apple IIe was another blast from the past.......

Nick Soapdish, Jr. wrote:

> I got both you guys beat. I remember gaming on the VIC-20, of all
> platforms. That ended up being replaced by the Commodore 64 rather
> quickly. Apple IIe was another blast from the past.......

I actualy started on a an Atari 800XL back in the mid 80s, however I was
referring to PC gaming which IIRC didn't really come into its own until
around the same time the Amiga and ST started their decline.

Morgan wrote:
> Nick Soapdish, Jr. wrote:
>
>> I got both you guys beat. I remember gaming on the VIC-20, of all
>> platforms. That ended up being replaced by the Commodore 64 rather
>> quickly. Apple IIe was another blast from the past.......
>
> I actualy started on a an Atari 800XL back in the mid 80s, however I was
> referring to PC gaming which IIRC didn't really come into its own until
> around the same time the Amiga and ST started their decline.

LOL, just realised that it was N's reply to Tom and not me. :-)

"Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VAk4n.13867$cU2.13589@newsfe22.ams2...
> Tom wrote:
>
>>> 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
>
> It's a term of phrase.
>
>> 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
>
> IIRC the PC version looked considerably nicer.

Only if you add in the high res textures, yes, but performance wise, the
game runs smooth on the 360 and it looks incredible. Here's a PC/360
comparison video of Fallout 3:

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/excl...mparison-video

Here are image comparisons:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html

Here's a PC/360 comparison of Oblivion, and as you'll see, it really isn't a
gamebreaker when it comes to the looks unless you go really high in
textures. And even then it isn't all that big of a difference.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147028/p-2.html

Tom wrote:
>
>
> "Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VAk4n.13867$cU2.13589@newsfe22.ams2...
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> It's a term of phrase.
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> IIRC the PC version looked considerably nicer.
>
> Only if you add in the high res textures, yes, but performance wise, the
> game runs smooth on the 360 and it looks incredible. Here's a PC/360
> comparison video of Fallout 3:
>
> http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/excl...mparison-video
>
> Here are image comparisons:
>
> http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html

Obviously it difficult to tell from a reduced image but I have to admit
that it does look very nice on the 360.

"Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JwB4n.19748$gm2.18457@newsfe18.ams2...
> Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:VAk4n.13867$cU2.13589@newsfe22.ams2...
>>> Tom wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> It's a term of phrase.
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> IIRC the PC version looked considerably nicer.
>>
>> Only if you add in the high res textures, yes, but performance wise, the
>> game runs smooth on the 360 and it looks incredible. Here's a PC/360
>> comparison video of Fallout 3:
>>
>> http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/excl...mparison-video
>>
>> Here are image comparisons:
>>
>> http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html
>
> Obviously it difficult to tell from a reduced image but I have to admit
> that it does look very nice on the 360.

I should have stated that while Oblivion is noticeably better looking on its
highest settings (especially trees, surface features and distant objects can
be added) on the PC, it runs sluggishly on the 360, even though it has lots
of detail. Load times are the norm even just walking around around the
landscape, which takes away from the game, no such puppy on PC. Also near
zero load times on PC when entering different areas. But the characters and
general environment look about the same between PC and 360 as I have both
versions.

I would have to say you have a point by just looking at pictures or even
video on the net, but Fallout 3 does look incredible on the 360, and it has
near nothing in frame rate issues and slowdown, which is shocking
considering the scope of the game. Load times are what you would expect for
that kind of game on a console. I don't have it on the PC (already played it
to death on the 360) whereas I never had the DLC for Oblivion on the 360,
though I played that a great deal on the console. I bought it for PC when I
saw the GOTY edition for $15.

On Jan 16, 10:21 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > 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 clearlyisn'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 -
>
> Hyperbolising doesn't make a point. Accurate use of  language does.

Hyperbolizing is only ineffective when the person hearing the
statement nitpicks as a matter of argument. One would have to truly be
daft to actually think that when I say that "PC gaming is dead" I
actually mean that there isn't a single person on the entire planet
who buys PC games anymore, regardless of which genres I refer to. You
don't strike me as daft.

"PC gaming is dead" is a hyperbole that emphasizes just how far the
importance of the PC has fallen with regards to the "core" gaming
market.

> >>> 'Dems da facts.
> >> I tent to disagree, strongly disagree.
>
> > With what exactly?
>
> Well apparently you didn't mean what you said, you were just
> hyperbolising and basically agreeing with me that PC games still sell
> but no where near as much as they used to.

It's simply a matter of nitpicking unless you count that there
actually is a difference in our stances with regards to the degree of
strength the PC gaming market in relation to the strength of the
console gaming market.

On Jan 17, 7:30 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 10:34 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Doug Jacobs wrote:
> > > Morgan <nos...@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 clearlyisn'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.
>
> > Yep, agree 100%
>
> > >> 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 versionis
> > > going to sell more.
>
> > > I really can't think of any upcoming PC release in the next 24 monthsthat
> > > would drive PC sales in the way a big console title can drive console
> > > sales.
>
> > Neither can I.  To be honest my three points in this thread are pretty
> > simple.
>
> > 1) 2012 is very late in the day for the next console generation
>
> November 2012 will be the Xbox 360's seven year anniversary which
> would, I believe, tie as the longest generation, although in this case
> the timeline isn't skewed like it was with earlier consoles where the
> Japanese version would launch a year ahead of the rest of the world on
> average (so this can actually be viewed as already being longer per
> region).
>
> However, it's impossible to ignore the economic crisis.
>
> > 2) I think that a slight but noticeable percentage of people will shift
> > to PC gaming if we do have to wait until 2012
>
> How slight is noticeable? It's doubtful that any change in the
> positive direction will be slight as in not really noticeable. A
> noticeable change is more likely to be away from PCs as the economy
> isn't turning around and the consoles are a much more effective option
> for the money.
>
> > 3) The PC games market is not what it once was, but neither is it dead.
>
> No hyperboles: the PC market is still there but it's not nearly what
> it once was. I believe I used the phrase "a pathetic shell of its
> former self" somewhere...
>
> > A couple of people (though not you.) Seem to read the second two as:
> > 2) A major percentage of console gamers are going to shift exclusively
> > to the PC
> > 3) The PC games market is as strong as it ever was.
>
> I read them as "a decent amount of console gamers are going to start
> buying PCs for core gaming," a conclusion to which I see no logical
> path given the actual reality of the industry and the current
> behaviors of consumers, and "the PC games market is still half
> decent," a position that would betray reality.
>
>
>
>
>
> >  > Even things like the latest update to WoW will still run
>
> > > reasonably well on today's entry level laptops and PCs.  You aren'tgoing
> > > 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 thesame
> > > title on a console - no one is going to argue that.  But whether the
> > > tradeoffs are worth it compared to a console.
>
> > Which is a very fair point.
>
> > >>> 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.
>
> > There I disagree, It's a shadow of it's former self yes and small fry
> > compared to consoles but.  But there are still a good number of jointly
> > developed titles along with strategy titles and other's that just don't
> > work on a console such as the Total war games, Galactic Civilizations or
> > the X saga.
>
> RTS games are still definitely around and almost exclusively the
> domain of PCs. I definitely agree with you there. Outside of
> subscription-based MMO, casual and RTS games, the PC gaming market has
> shriveled up quite a bit.
>
>
>
> > >> I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with you on though. LikeI
> > >> 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 thelady
> > > keeps chirping "I'm not dead yet!"
>
> > It's his dad. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Pants on the ground...Pants on the ground ...looking like a fool wit
yo pants on da ground!!!

On Jan 17, 5:42 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>
> > Hyperbolizing is only ineffective when the person hearing the
> > statement nitpicks as a matter of argument. One would have to truly be
> > daft to actually think that when I say that "PC gaming is dead" I
> > actually mean that there isn't a single person on the entire planet
> > who buys PC games anymore, regardless of which genres I refer to. You
> > don't strike me as daft.
>
> > "PC gaming is dead" is a hyperbole that emphasizes just how far the
> > importance of the PC has fallen with regards to the "core" gaming
> > market.
>
> It is still inaccurate hyperbolisation, diminished yes.

Hyperbole by nature isn't meant to paint a perfect picture of reality
but to emphasize a characteristic of the scenario - in this case, the
severity. It's basic common sense that my clear and now blatantly
described hyperbole is not meant as a statement of absolute fact so I
have to question your continued attempts to treat it as such.

> Dead no. Dead
> would indicate no (or next to no) new development, this is simply not
> that case. Remember that the self professed king of gaming who was the
> first person to say this in now claiming that the PC died out a decade
> ago.

In this case, it's a matter of disagreement on what "dead" is
referring to, hyperbole or not. When I exaggerated that PC gaming was
dead, I wasn't referring to whether the providers kept trying to bring
new content to the format but rather the state of the market itself. I
imagine "King of Gaming" was referring to the same thing although he's
perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

> >>>>> 'Dems da facts.
> >>>> I tent to disagree, strongly disagree.
> >>> With what exactly?
> >> Well apparently you didn't mean what you said, you were just
> >> hyperbolising and basically agreeing with me that PC games still sell
> >> but no where near as much as they used to.
>
> > It's simply a matter of nitpicking unless you count that there
> > actually is a difference in our stances with regards to the degree of
> > strength the PC gaming market in relation to the strength of the
> > console gaming market.
>
> What exactly is your experience of the current PC market? Mine is
> pretty good, I'm a a multi format gamer and keep abreast of the
> PC/PS3/360 market.

I don't play core PC games anymore for obvious reasons. I do read the
websites, read the magazines when I'm in Borders, etc. I don't see
what the relevance of gaming and browsing habits is to success in the
marketplace.

> My stance is simple: Games are coming out on the
> PC.

I know.

> New games are being developed for the PC.

I know.

> Multi-format developments
> are taking advantage of the PC superior hardware and interface.

Yes and no. Many complaints from core PC gamers revolve around
developers' growing tendencies to unify interfaces in order to reduce
design and development time. A game like Far Cry 2 is a good example
of this - PC gamers decried its interface and menu system for feeling
"gimped like a console" as I believe one poster I debated with
described it.

The debacle with reduced number of players in Modern Warfare 2 is a
much more recent example of developers limiting PC versions in
accordance with console versions to reduce costs.

> That is basically my point. some people seem to disagree but the above
> are all simple statements of fact.

In this particular instance, it seems it was a misunderstanding of
intent. You seem to have taken a drastically different view of what
"the PC market is dead" is referring to. Note that every other person
involved in this thread took the common view that this statement would
refer to the success of the market and not the efforts of the
developers.

> As I said, The fact is that PC game is still very much alive but no
> where near as lucrative as it used to be. The bottom line is do you
> consider that to be a factual statement. If you do then you agree with
> me, if you don't then you disagree with the facts.

I agree with you within a broader context than I earlier established
and from a perspective that nobody in this thread realized you were
arguing.

On Jan 16, 8:57 am, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews: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 longas
> >> >> 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 yearsis
> >> >> 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 theplug
> >> >> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III
>
> >> > In two and a half decades of multi-platform gaming I've never boughta
> >> > 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 definitionof
> >> > 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.

If you want to go by the looser meaning of the word, then I think
you'll need to explain what you mean a little better. "Using an analog
stick to move and aim... is more immersive (feeling) than pointing and
clicking" doesn't say much other than "my personal opinion is that
using an analog stick feels better." *Why* is it more immersive?

On Jan 16, 11:08 am, "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 12:09 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 anddo it.
>
> > > You seemto put a lot of emphasis on franchises and big names games. Alot
> > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ha, I've been arguing about the immersion factor of controllers for a
> bit.  It's true that controllers can be a pain if you're focusing on
> precision aiming, as opposed to movement.  That being said, however,
> the Xbox controllers have reached a pretty decent balance and
> compromise, and the Dualshock 3 seems to be somewhat better at FPS
> aiming than Sony's prior controllers (although that's damning with
> faint praise).  A game like the Unreal Tournament games, which focus
> on really fast, precise aiming action (especially given that
> detonating a shock core that you just shot out requires SUPER
> precision), will, without a doubt, play better on the PC, but most FPS
> games aren't like that these days.  I have UT3 for the PS3, and it's
> at least playable, on the other hand.

Even if we assume that the focus is on modern console FPS games that
don't require quite as much high speed precise aiming, what makes
using an analog stick to aim any better, more immersive, more
authentic, more realistic, etc. and so forth than using a mouse to do
the same? In both cases, we're talking about an arbitrary interface
device.

I look at things from my specialization in usability and user
interfaces. Most in my industry would concur that a mouse is a far
more intuitive device for aiming, looking, etc. for the simple reason
that the inherent purpose of a mouse is as a pinpoint device to
indicate where the user is focusing their attention and what item in
their view they intend to interact with. On the contrary, an analog
stick is... er... analogous to the joysticks of old and these types of
controls are used far more to indicate direction of movement.

Perhaps an ideal control scheme would be one that combines the best of
both worlds - the analog stick for the appropriate action of movement
and the mouse for the appropriate action of aiming. The Wii is the
closest thing... some games use a scheme by which the gamer holds the
nunchuk attachment in one hand so that the thumb can control the
analog stick for the purposes of movement and the Wiimote in the other
hand so the gamer can aim and shoot with that one. Not quite a mouse,
but close enough within the range of today's console technology design.

On Jan 16, 5:05 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The King of Gaming wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Well seeing as you commented on several of them yourself and other have
> influences that resonate still I'd say that you really have no clue what
> you're talking about.
>
> > And you seem to put a lot of emphasis on what you personally prefer
> > over to what sells,
>
> No, I put a lot of emphasis on what had influenced or changed the
> industry as opposed to what sells well. Or what displays innovation or
> deep game play.

Examples of such games in the past, say, five years...?

>  > 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".
>
> Immaterial and the industry disagrees with you.  ME1 was a console port,
> ME2 is joint developed, simple as.

Mass Effect was most certainly not a console port. The game was
developed by BioWare for the Xbox 360 and then ported to the PC by
another development house.

> > 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.
>
> There are PC games there.  A game that runs on a PC without emulation is
> a PC game.  It the same game is available on consoles that does not make
> it a console exclusive.

I think the more appropriate scenario is that PC-only gamers don't see
very many core exclusives gracing their platform of choice... and of
the few that do call the PC their only home, most are hardly
memorable. Crysis and Spore are two examples of exclusives that were
supposed to be major entries in the PC gaming world and ended up doing
little more than collecting dust on retail shelves.

On Jan 16, 9:15 am, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews: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 asI
> >> 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 :-).

You have a rather cheery outlook on it. If it were me, I don't think
it would help me much. I'd still be playing the same games, only with
better graphics. However, the earlier games I played also had the same
graphics "markup" so the new ones still are kind of stagnant within
the generation.

> >> >> I have been a PC gamer going back two decades, but with the arrivalof
> >> >> 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 wayof
> >> >> using commands and changing items/weapons, that I made the swing toa
> >> >> 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.

I do a lot of photo and design work so 4GB is a bare minimum for me
but most people would never need that much memory. Hell, a netbook is
enough for the majority of computer users in the world. And my point
was really how most console gamers with no experience in the PC gaming
world aren't really going to think about RAM so much. Hell, the Xbox
360 made due with a LOT less than 4GB.

> >> 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 backin
> 2004, you were all but done with PC gaming because of the consoles. I think
> I will be there next gen.

I was talking more from a "what if" situation. Like you pointed out, I
feel no need to own a gaming rig, but if I did I wouldn't be able to
get one, anyway, and most people likely fall into this category or one
like it... that it's just not prudent for them to spend that kind of
money to play games.

On Jan 16, 9:06 am, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews: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 moneyin
> >> 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 mentionedon
> 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 :-).

It's tough to do a one-to-one comparison considering:

a) With a roughly 70% penetration for HDTVs in even the U.S., it's
very likely that any given person trying to get into console gaming
right now would already have a television in their home that would
support it so only the cost of the console really factors in.

b) It's very likely that a person trying to get into PC gaming right
now would already have a PC and thus the entirety of the cost would be
attributed specifically to gaming. And no it's not just graphics card
or memory upgrading costs because most people aren't going to bother
with doing these things themselves.

> >> > 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.

On Jan 16, 11:10 am, "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2:05 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 outon 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 sofor
> > > 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 ofthe
> > > market. It is just as easy to say by the console and game sales (gamesales
> > > of which have been lackluster the past few years) of the Wii, 360 andPS3,
> > > 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 tobe
> > > 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 tospend
> > > 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, Ifelt
> > > 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.- Hidequoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I got both you guys beat.  I remember gaming on the VIC-20, of all
> platforms.

If I can count The Oregon Trail... :-)

> That ended up being replaced by the Commodore 64 rather
> quickly.  Apple IIe was another blast from the past.......

"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e60c5bc-9c51-42e1-9d0d-a31e9a6e4467@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 8:57 am, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews: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.
>
> If you want to go by the looser meaning of the word, then I think
> you'll need to explain what you mean a little better. "Using an analog
> stick to move and aim... is more immersive (feeling) than pointing and
> clicking" doesn't say much other than "my personal opinion is that
> using an analog stick feels better." *Why* is it more immersive?

Being realistically immersive as well, with a m&k, you simply move the
cursor on the target and click. With a controller, you move the stick to aim
and pull the trigger. What you describe with the N64 controller was the
forerunner for the future. It still isn't the only controller that's all
immersive since. You think the 360's controller cannot do more with weapons
in an FPS in a game than the N64's can (think COD4, RSV, etc)?

"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c73dc3a-ced8-4b05-b895-09b3ace3ace2@m4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 9:06 am, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews: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 :-).
>
> It's tough to do a one-to-one comparison considering:
>
> a) With a roughly 70% penetration for HDTVs in even the U.S., it's
> very likely that any given person trying to get into console gaming
> right now would already have a television in their home that would
> support it so only the cost of the console really factors in.

Doesn't matter, the TV was still purchased, and a decent one will still cost
$500+. Most PC bundles come with the monitor and a good monitor (19") you
can get for $149.

>
> b) It's very likely that a person trying to get into PC gaming right
> now would already have a PC and thus the entirety of the cost would be
> attributed specifically to gaming. And no it's not just graphics card
> or memory upgrading costs because most people aren't going to bother
> with doing these things themselves.

We were on the discussion regarding the cost of the hardware, not what
people may or may not do or want. If you're going that route, and since we
are talking about gaming, it would be more than likely that the purchaser
would be going for a gaming rig.

>
>> >> > 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:d779bf32-465f-4680-a3c9-c67838a48098@v7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 9:15 am, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews: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 :-).
>
> You have a rather cheery outlook on it. If it were me, I don't think
> it would help me much. I'd still be playing the same games, only with
> better graphics. However, the earlier games I played also had the same
> graphics "markup" so the new ones still are kind of stagnant within
> the generation.

Yea, you have a point, but I will have this option at least for the genres I
really like. But I still am buying 360 games too (I cannot put down
Bayonetta). But, I am near 100% not going to do a rig like this again, I
really don't see the future in it and the present now doesn't have the
offerings of what was there just even 3 years ago. By the next gen, I cannot
see it even being reasonable to build even a modest rig with the power of
the future consoles in consideration.

>
>> >> >> 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.
>
> I do a lot of photo and design work so 4GB is a bare minimum for me
> but most people would never need that much memory. Hell, a netbook is
> enough for the majority of computer users in the world. And my point
> was really how most console gamers with no experience in the PC gaming
> world aren't really going to think about RAM so much. Hell, the Xbox
> 360 made due with a LOT less than 4GB.
>
>> >> 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.
>
> I was talking more from a "what if" situation. Like you pointed out, I
> feel no need to own a gaming rig, but if I did I wouldn't be able to
> get one, anyway, and most people likely fall into this category or one
> like it... that it's just not prudent for them to spend that kind of
> money to play games.