PC gaming is officially dead.

Read it and weep.

When the person who is single handedly responsible for the PC being more than just a fancy typewriter, says it's over that's pretty much all she wrote.

I think John Carmack is an arse. Same as Peter Molyneux. If either of them can't think of any new games to make its always "Oh noes! PC games are dead!"

Sick of hearing the pair of 'em, tbh.

Oh no! no more shooters from ID software? like we care.

PC gaming is still the winnar, the console companies just don't want to admit it.

And then Diablo 3 comes out and JC cranks up ye olde PC again..

Strange i didnt read anywhere in the interview that someone stated that PC gaming is dead, even more i found Carmack's statements sounded reasonable.

From their perspective I'm sure they are concerned that the PC is going to make them `less` money but that does not by any means indicate that the platform is dead or dying, ie computer-based games in general, it just means that the functionality of computers is spreading to other devices. What's going to happen when, before long, there are thousands of games available on handheld devices like iphone and other such products? And what about when consoles turn into general entertainment centers, supposedly taking over duties from audio, tv, pc and other equipment. We're seeing that each system is becoming `an extension of the pc`, a general computing device powerful enough to do pretty much anything computers typically would do, but just wrapped into a different package. In that sense general computing is not going to die it, and if anything it is spreading and increasing, it's just that the `form` that it takes - ie what box it is sold in and what that box looks like, is changing. I would also say that desktop computers are increasingly popular in spite of consoles. It's kind of inevitable that a games machine focussing on games will likely gain more of a gaming-focussed following, but what happens when the console becomes a general computing platform? It turns back into a PC, and then no longer is considered purely a games machine, and then the PC competes with it on its own terms.

I don't bother reading them anymore, all I go by is the article title :)

PC Gaming is not dead. I still play The Thing here (it rocks, recommend it to everyone who wants to play a 3rd person action game with lots of atmosphere), and It's from 2005.

I also play a lot of old DOS games, on DosBox (not gonna tell you how I get them).

But no, I don't buy PC games anymore. Anything I want I can take from the Web.

I also play a lot of old DOS games, on DosBox (not gonna tell you how I get them).

If it's that embarrassing then it must be a €2 CD full o' old games of a particular genre, showcased in a fancy display between the socks and the underwear of the local supermarket.

as was the 8/16 bit days its easier to work with a fixed system like a console than a pc that may be too slow to run a game decently (or walk in my gfx case) or pc gamers have to think
buy x games that i can play
buy a new gfx card to play one that i want to play

dont know the ins and outs between the ps3 and the 360 do coders go for the common ground (ps360) cranking one to the limit and the other hardly used at all
or make the most of each system (like they kinda did with the 8bits) so each console has the 'x game is better on my system than yours' office/playground scuffles (i also hate platform exclusives)

i got doom 3 for the xbox and although they may have knobbled it here and there (i dont know) it was guarantied to run
got it for the pc as the system was new (then) and the game old
gfx card said eeh! urh! (family fortunes sound) same with lego starwars without hardware T&L no go ... i dont know what improvements they made to the 350 version as i have the 'classic'

i just want to play games (when im not working all hours every day) not system / game tweak to get it to run (even if i do stump up for a new card it would strop about some other part)

perhaps they should have made a system checklist that banded together various specs as A B C etc
my pc is rated 2008 G this game is rated 2008 A so i cannot play it
but i can play 2008 G onwards games
but by 2009 the 2008 A might be listed as D

TBH EA is killing the PC gaming market with endless clones, attack of the clones should be 'Attack of the EA' lol. Asda here doesnt even stock PC games anymore they only stock console games, hell even the Game here doesnt stock that many.

erm, its not dead, we still ave tuns of fun playing NWN 1.... {;-)

BEST POST OF THE CENTURY.

I think the large companies who are invested in the console put these kind of statements out because they know they are sitting ducks when they tie themselves to console technology. STALKER, The Witcher, and Crysis were all high-end PC games made by non-American companies. Crysis didn't sell well because the game wasn't very good, but the STALKER and The Witcher sold very well. I would argue that Crysis ONLY sold because of the graphics. A lightmapped version of Crysis would have sold much worse.

I think id and Epic see they can make more money on the console, but at the same time they don't want to have to compete with anyone on the PC. Two of the best PC games of last year came from unknown studios in Eastern Europe, and the most graphically advanced game of all time is from Germany.

What game magazine called "Portal" Game of the Year? They didn't want to give that recognition to GSC, a tiny studio in the Ukraine, even though STALKER clearly deserved that title. It's humiliating. When id makes statements like this, what they are really saying is this:



There are problems with PC development, and I attribute these to the graphics driver authors, PC distributors that use sh*t GPUs to save costs, and Microsoft for their DirectX 9/10 debacle. If NVidia were the only GPU manufacturer, every computer came standard with a GE Force 8800, and DirectX 10 ran on Windows XP there would be no problems.

Carmack's position does make sense, for his company, but it also ensures that the real innovation will continue to arrive on the PC, and the market there is open for new studios to come in and succeed, while the big boys are stuck making XBox games with the same tech year after year.

I guess you're not the only one when looking through the thread... :O)

Translates to "Not every body is rolling in cash to to buy a high end PC and it's a head ache trying to make a game work on every piece of PC hardware. Where as consoles cost less and are dedicated game machines : it's all about making money boys & girls and the PC maybe just get scraps"


Translates to "He can't be arsed to look"

Meh John Carmack had his day over a decade ago. As far as making games is concerned ID are highly overrated and haven't really pulled anything out of the bag for even longer.

And you don't need a high end PC to play the latest games even with maxed out graphics. If you can make do without resolutions higher than 1024x768 and Anti Aliasing like I do, almost any game runs well even on a combination of 2-4 year old hardware like mine. And a good gaming PC can be bought for around $600.

Actually i've enjoyed Doom3 a lot. John Carmack more worked on what's really painful and hard to do, a crossplatform gaming technology. What i like about id is that their stuff often just works contrary to other ones engines.

http://kotaku.com/5023185/dont-hate-on-doom-iii-it-made-money

Doom 3, a complete pile of shit, by their own admission, sold over 3 million units, yet PC gaming is dead and id has to move to consoles if they want to sell a million copies of their next game?

That said, I don't see where in the interview you linked that Carmack says PC gaming is dead. All he seems to be saying is that they're not going to develop games that will only run on PC's. And why should they? PC gaming is alive and well, but so are consoles, and if consoles control 2/3rds or more of the market for high-end games, then it only makes sense to port your games to them if you're spending millions of dollars developing them.

But that doesn't mean that nobody's going to make original titles for the PC anymore. That's silly. There's a huge market for casual games which don't work well on consoles. If nothing else, stores will continue to sell games like Mystery Manor: Where's Waldo Edition for the PC.

I agree with sswift. Not only are there a lot of successful developers in casual games. A fair portion see those as the beginning of what they hope will eventually evolve into bigger more ambitious projects.

Also there is so much readily available technology for game devs now, many of which can be ported from the PC to consoles with relative ease that there really is no reason not to support both PC and consoles. Even with console games, the PC versions more often than not are the better versions if your willing to wait a few months for their release.

API's like ogre are largely independent of the renderer being used, so you can compile a plugin for your renderer of choice. Currently GL, DX7, DX9, DX10. There are also unofficial ones for various consoles and handhelds.

I liked Doom 3, played it through (again) last month with great pleasure. I don't think the PC gaming market is dead, I think it's in transition of technology, and that Vista really put the PC gaming into trouble because of the split between DX9 and DX10 (and now the near completed DX11).

Developping on the PC will always be complex and will always give the best gaming results no matter what. It's been proven by some ports from consoles, where the PC version was slightly better in both graphics and gameplay (keyboard + mouse + latest graphics hardware).

PC gaming is fine imho.

And from the other side:

"PC still the most popular gaming platform"
http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=29140

PC games are far from dead, why does this myth keep coming back when the numbers don't support it? This year is expected to be the biggest sales(in revenue) year yet! What I think Carmack is complaining about is competition is hurting his "old idea with new gfx" formula.



what makes you think Crysis didn't sell well? true is did sell poorly in it's opening month but world wide sales have exceeded expectations and passed 1 million copies back in Feb.

well it's up to us to make sure PC games aren't dead ! :)

> PC games are far from dead, why does this myth keep coming back when the numbers don't support it?

It's like the old Monty Python joke about there not being any cannibals in the British army. Sure, PC gaming is not dead, but then again neither is Amiga gaming (I'm sure someone, somewhere is still making games for it).

Consoles were close to overtaking the PC for gaming in 2006 according to the media. That was all consoles v's PC. Which I thought quite interesting. Don't know where things stand now heh. But it's easier than ever to buy games online or download them without ever setting foot in a store.

Just as well since only big stores like Frys Electronics carry huge PC game inventories which are bigger than all console games combined.

The PC market is flooded with newer and more powerful graphics cards. And new games taking advantage of the newer cards are comming in by the week. Of course there are some titles that take a long time to come in, like Alan Wake :(

..I dont believe that PC gaming going to end...however I think that M$ is major obstacle or better say, major reason why PC gaming eventually going to slow down a bit..messing with new OS versions and API's are not something what any serious developer like to see..what Carmack talking about is pretty much business point of view for ID and has nothing to do with Pc gaming death..fact that ID games are not that attractive to me as they are like bunch of walk 'n shot games out there...sure..lack of original ideas making them to spread over more platforms in order to gain more money, until they oversaturate other platforms with same crap year by year and then what?? Consoles will die because we cant sell same games again and again...I guess, its time for people with fresh ideas to take over, thats all...

Naughty Alien, Ahmen.

In fairness, I haven't read what Carmack said as he has yet to make a game I've enjoyed playing. Wolfenstein was his closest, but I was bored in ten minutes and gave up in thirty.

I seem to remember back in the 1980's having a Dragon 32 and I'm not sure how many users there were but Dragon User Magazine had a circulation of about 700 at one point and went up to about 2,500 readers. Companies made games in 32kb and they competed with each other for a games market.

I've read a few of these developers saying the PC is dead, but if that was true then no-one would make games for them. There are 100's of games scheduled for release each year. Why are they even saying the PC is dead? Actions speak louder than words - just don't make any more PC games.

If the big companies do ever give up on the PC, and I seriously doubt they will, then it will be positive because the market will be really open for the smaller developers and their innovation is something the big companies can't compete with. If that happened it might come full circle - boring games on the consoles by EA whilst innovative, cutting edge ideas on the PC. Then console gamers might flock back to get themselves a PC.

An open, easily programmable medium like the PC will always have a larger base of developers than a locked down console. Perhaps one day the consoles will have a keyboard and mouse and allow easy development, but, as someone pointed out, then they just become PC's too. Whilst that's not the case, guys like Mark are empowering the PC developer with tools like Blitz.

The only real danger here is that the reverse happens and these companies flood the PC games market with all their console-style games and it becomes difficult to distinguish the real PC games anymore... or has that already happened?

I bet you said the same thing 15 years ago, except replace "PC" with "Amiga".

You say this, and yet your best argument is that you still play a game relesed 3 years ago. Since you play a lot of games on a emulator, by your argument SNES gaming isn't dead either. Surely you realize that this is a logical fallacy?

While this might have been the case at one point in time, today with games like Spore coming out, I'm thinking EA is the best candidate for revitalizing PC gaming.

Except that's not the way it's going. You don't port the games to the console, you port the games to the PC. And usually poorly. With the exception of Mass Effect, pretty much every console "port" has been crap.

That's exactly what it means, and why is that silly? Look at history. Just 10 years ago there where virtually hundreds of video game genres, and a few that defied genres. Today there are four, only 2 of which are generally released for the PC.

Says who? Which portal would you rather have your game on. Big Fish or XBox Live Arcade? Yeah.

That depends on how you define "successful". The only ones that spring to mind are pop-cap and 3 rings, and neither of them can hope to compete with Activision/EA/Microsoft/Ubisoft.

Name one.

Too bad it's about making money, not friends.

For PC games? Not likely. All the broken sales records (Halo 3 and GTA4) have been console games. The only thing keeping the PC afloat as a viable platform is World of Warcraft.

Because CryTek said so? Although they blamed piracy, not the appalling gameplay.

You mean like GTA4? You mean the most successful PC franchise in history, not even being ported to the PC, isn't a sure fire indication of where things are going?

The PC is neither open (unless you're thinking Linux) or easy to program (again unless you're thinking Linux). It's not a matter of number of developers, it's a matter of revenue. While there might be more developers for the open GP32 than there is for the propriety systems PSP or Nintendo DS, the latter two still rule the world, while the GP32 is generally considered a joke. Much like the PC will soon enough.

Who ever thinks PC gaming is dead or will be dead is stupid, plain simple. It is not dead and it will not be, there are plenty of games that I can play on it. So few developers will focus on console games as well as PC, so what it doesn't mean PC gaming is dead! Who ever started this tread if he belives that he is a real flameduck!!!

HUH!? GTA was never that big on PC, and the Sims is the most sucessful franchise in gaming history, and the only way 99% of people play sims games is PC...

What a compelling argument.

Like?

So few [sic] developers will focus on PlayStation games as well as Amiga, so what [sic] it doesn't mean Amiga gaming is dead.

Sound familiar? Yeah. They said that about DMA Design (now Rockstar Games) and Team 17 (still hanging on by the skin of their teeth). They were wrong. Now John Carmack, the person responsible for the PC being a viable games platform (and who dabbles in rocket science in his spare time), is stupid?

It was bigger than DOOM. Define big?

If you're going to be pedantic, it's actually Mario, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point is that GTA (and many other traditionally PC games) and their traditionally PC based developers are jumping ship. Fast. And plenty of people here don't think that's a problem.

>>Now John Carmack, the person responsible for the PC being a viable games platform (and who dabbles in rocket science in his spare time), is stupid?<<

Hes not stupid and it doesnt mean that he is right..

>>John Carmack, the person responsible for the PC being a viable games platform<<

hes not responsible..he was first one appear there in right time and right place..and it doesnt make his games best ever..actually, HL2 serial is way better from any aspect in genre ID did(FPS), storyline, sound, music, atmosphere..you name it...point is, fact that you first figured out how to bake cakes, doesnt mean that someone else will not be able to make it better..and at the end again, regarding read, everything he said is obviously business related to ID..no wonder, their games are outdated and nothing fresh in there...Carmack will be stupid if he believe that he can sell same games again and again on PC..so no wonder, consoles are way to go...for him and ID for sure..

Could you name a few? Especially those which are more affordable also for indies and which are really reliable without writing your code around the usual problems which show up during a project?


I haven't used the latest versions of Ogre but i would be surprised if you get shaders runnning without any problems on different platforms this easily. Beside of that Ogre is just a renderer and you're missing all the rest of the stuff.

Great.

more market room for the indies.

PC gaming is no longer fun anyway, what with the stupid & inconvenient copyright software/spyware and the fact that win/directX is such a unnecessary necessity.

This is the moment the c65 has been waiting for

Don't give Carmack all the credit. For example his "magnificent" shadow engine isn't his, but licensed from another company. He didn't invent the first 3D games on the PC, he was with Apogee / 3Drealms at the time... Just look at who has the rights on games like Commander Keen for distribution, and some others LIKE WOLFENSTEIN 3D!

No, Carmack is not my God.

carmack is not responsible for the great maps of the Doom games... Nor is he designing the monsters... Enough glorification of this media manipulator! On that respect, John Romero should deserve more thumbs up.

Unfortunately, Commodore is dead, deceased, and is an ex-company.

The way it stands now, consoles aren't able to keep up with PC's which have already surpassed them in what games are capable of. Consoles would have to have a 2 year cycle to catch up. Previously it used to take a lot longer.

There have been quite a few good ports to the PC that surpassed the 360 and Xbox versions. Whether you like those games or not is another matter, but the gameplay is often improved with mouse support for those that preffer it. Better smoother graphics, and if you plug in a 360 controller they often revert to the 360 scheme and UI automaticly and become almost indistinguishable but with higher res textures and occasionaly better shaders.

Consoles have caught up with PC's somewhat, but only because of HDTV allowing higher resolutions making more genres feasible. Unfortunately most console games are dumbed down do small kids of 4 years and up can pick them up within a few minutes and feel like a gaming god. So they tend to be pretty shallow compared to the better PC games that are released.

Casual and indie games tend to be pretty rubbish but pander to new markets. Not sure if that success really amounts to much for a primarily 3PG and occasionaly good RTS and FPS gamer.

PC also has by far the best racing sim games, so long as your willing to ignore the fancy eye candy of the newer console games, you can't beat the PC with a wheel for realistic driving.

I didn't say that. But if it hadn't been for DOOM, the PC would still be considered a fancy typewriter. It's not about having a good game. It's about bringing lots of things together. Technical excellence, competitive graphics, good gameplay and a viable shareware business. Either one of these, on it's own would not have been sufficient to dislodge the console dominance.

Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.

Obviously. Clue time: Making PC games is a business. If the platform is no longer comparatively profitable (blame Microsoft, blame ID, blame whoever, it doesn't really change the facts) companies are going to stop developing for it.

And yet the single most successful PC game is the Sims, and all 7 or 8 expansions. The second most successful PC game is World of Warcraft, and it's expansion. So there is quite a fair bit of empirical evidence to suggest that you can indeed sell the same game again and again on the PC. 8 times for The Sims, and every single month in the case of World of Warcraft.

No actually. Companies like ID and EA operate in different markets than "indies". More likely it'll mean less market room for the indies, as the more "casual" or nichce game markets will shift to the consoles, along with the mainstream market. Primary candidates here are of course the Wii and XBox Live Arcade.

Not mine either. But you still have to acknowledge what he's done for the PC.

In other news the Amiga isn't dead either!
http://www.hyperion-entertainment.biz:8080/news/2008-07-11

Nah, not everyone wants a console, i only use mine as a remote media player & emulator. Some people (like me) hate playing certain games on consoles, especially FPS and RPGs. People will always want games they can play on their PC/Laptop/PDA. The more who emigrate off to consoles, the less saturated the market and better for us casual/indie types.

Biggest problem with console games is that they are way overprices. The same games can be bought $20 cheaper for the PC and are often better. Faster loading times, better graphics, and often larger levels and extra content.

I have a wireless racing wheel for my 360 and GRID is AWESOME on it, as is Forza 2.

What PC racing games are so good that PC has by far better racing games? I am seriously asking this, as I want to try them.

Ever played Elder Scroll: Oblivion with a joystick?

No but i played its prequel morrowind on the Xbox and it was crap using a controller.

Grid is pretty rubbish as far as realism goes. It looks the part with nice hyper realistic graphics but the controls and realism is incredibly bad. I guess if you don't drive a real car you might like it.

Forza is good for a console game, but isn't a touch on any of the good PC games for realism and communicating the feel of driving, which is the most important thing in a sim.

GP Legends
GTR2
WTTC Race
RFactor
LFS

Are all much better sims than any console racer to date. Especially if you have more than just a simple rumble wheel.


Games I'm looking forward to on the PC are:

Empire: Total War (finaly has real tall ship combat :)


FarFry 2: I really liked the beginning of crysis and hope that far cry 2 will go for a more realistic setting. Crysis can't be beat for immersion, physics and having more realistic slower paced stealth and sniping gameplay. Shame the story sucked and the game got boring once you meet the aliens.

So close. I was sorta with you (despite some stray facts) until here, but then you went and made me guffaw with that comment about Romero. On the other hand, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's spent a lot of time with his thumb up.

I think with more and more online retailers like Steam appearing PC gaming is far from dead.

More and more PC games are available for download, Old and new, so it's not suprising that you see less of them in the shops. This is how I think it'll be in a few more years time, everything being released as a buy and download from services such as Steam.

The good thing about the PC also as a medium for gaming is that any old Joe can make a game and sell it. PC Games outnumber console games by the thousands; there's more variety and greater risks can be taken on what to release or make.

The PC doesn't have that "kids" tag on it. PC's are complex machines that need maintenance and require patience. A Console is made to be simple, and it comes with simple games. Exceptions such as the GTA series and some PC to console ports are there, but most of the console games are very simple. Think of the game SIN on PC. It was praised as a blockbuster game for PC like HL2, but ended up with below average ratings and little exposure. Simple games should go on consoles. The more serious and complex games should go on the PC. Hopefully, some day the market will understand that. Gears of War on PC.... bah....

heh I agree _33. Gears of War was a good port with better graphics and if you like mouselook, better controls. But it's a pretty simple game, like a glorified casual game much better suited to a console. Gears of war should have been more like Mass Effect, and had characters that were actually interesting and you wanted to get involved with instead of dumb ass grunt's.

There's probably not much point in arguing over the games too much really. At the end of the day PC gamers will get the PC, whilst console gamers won't. Console games have always been simple pick up and play arcade games, and thats the kind of people they attract. Generally people that grew up with Nintendo and Sega and mostly Japanese games. Most of which I can't stand at the best of times.

I think their fancy electronic toilets sound more entertaining.

Yeah, yeah... Bill gates has not written DOS, Steve Jobs has not created the Mac and John Carmack has not written that fancy Shadow Engine. Who actually gives a shit? Their products and technologies (licensed or self-developed, it doesn't matter) are huge successes that dominate an entire industry.

And maybe the Half-Life fans should not forgot that this game actually used an enhanced Quake engine. Now who was that guy again who wrote the Quake engine? And how many other games are using id technology on how many different platforms?

Carmack and his fellows didn't write Doom on a PC, but on NeXT workstations running NeXTstep, the predecessor of today's OS X. Obviously, Carmack has been using a multi-platform development approach for at least one and a half decades now.

id Software and their enormous success Doom laid the foundation for the mass phenomenon that 3D/FPS games are today. Yes, others can write great 3D games and engines, too (Tim Sweeney anyone?), but nevertheless Doom was the real breakthrough (not Catacomb Abyss, not Wolfenstein 3D).

So I think there's some credit due and id Software (and Carmack) had a huge impact on the gaming industry and deserve their success.

But technologies, industries and markets change rapidly, and now Carmack as one of the leaders in high-end gaming is talking about significant changes in the market for (technologically high-end) PC games and deems it necessary to prepare his company and development efforts for a major change of course. He is making a business decision based upon financial facts instead of believes, hopes or wishful thinking.

People actually want a guaranteed plug & play experience when they play games and as Microsoft's Vista disaster nicely demonstrates, the consumers are no longer willing to upgrade their hardware only to be able to install some a software upgrade. CryTek had to make the same experience with CrySis. The guys who first released Gears of War as an Xbox 360 exclusive title did not have that problem.

In addition to that, the hardware market changed significantly in the last two years: People are now buying much more notebooks than desktop PCs. And as we all know, except for system memory and hard disk space, notebooks usually don't have upgradeable parts.

Now there is a simple financial calculation for most gamers who traditionally bought high-end PCs: It is now possible to buy a relatively cheap notebook for all your home computer needs and spend another 200 dollars on a console that will ALWAYS play ALL games on the highest possible detail settings. The notebook is mobile, does not consume much space and the console will also be able to play next year's games on your HDTV or HD monitor. Guaranteed.

By the way, even the crew behind STALKER are now official Xbox developers. How many PC-only titles do you expect from them in the future? What I as an Xbox 360 customer can expect from them is that whatever sequel or prequel to STALKER they will release for the Xbox, it will run on my box without a problem. PC users most likely will have to upgrade their hardware again.

Really, folks. Just do the math. It's no wonder that notebook-compatible games like WoW are now dominating the PC market and that titles with higher hardware requirements fall through -- or are moving to the console market.

Ony problem is this gen of consoles are already dated. So your not going to get the highest quality graphics settings. It will probably be another 4 years till console games have a real advantage over PC again, unless they start releasing new systems every 3/4 years.

PC's are getting to be pretty cheap today, even ones capable of playing modern games with the settings cranked up. Most console games suffer from slower then 30FPS framerates which don't require a high end cutting edge PC to match. $100 - $200 a year will enable an older PC to keep up for quite a few years.

Yep, the new GTA is coming out for PC, unless I missed a story on that one? They are always 18 months behind on PC but have higher resolutions, mod-able content, etc. As I say, check the release schedules for PC, they are very busy this year with millions invested by various companies who know better than anyone how much they can shift and how much they can make. The console is a different audience with some crossover. The consoles are the ones in danger because they can't add too much functionality without becoming just PCs. People have been saying it's the end of PC gaming since Sony brought out the PS in 1995. It still hasn't happened, amazingly, despite how certain some self-proclaimed analysts were. Maybe you are right, but all indicators are you and JC are (still?) wrong.



In relative terms, the PC is more open than the xbox 360, PS3, Ninty DS, etc. Developer kits for those pieces of hardware are hard to get before release and difficult, but not impossible, unless you are a recognised developer after release. Also, the disk formats are propriety on some of them, so even if you make a game you can't release it without Sony/MS agreeing.

I hope you find your faith in PC gaming again, mate. The future is bright.

The.. what... nooooooo

Looked amazing as an OS goes until they had the screen of Beneath a steel sky in a window, surely a better advert would be an upto date game running in the window.

You are arrogant and blind flamedick, ohh sorry I miss spelled your nick on the forum, I hope you dont mind. Forums are dead!!! Ever since MySpace and Facebook are the future I'm sure there is some interview somewhere with the creator of forums saying that he does not know what to make of PC forum scene anymore since it's all about social networks days days. in the other news also some smart brainiac people think PC gaming is dead!
Come one dont be stupid nobody is using PCs anymore, everyone is moving to consoles so PC is going to die as well as gaming on it. What the F**k, as long as I and 20 of you play any game on PC gameing on it is not dead! ;)

Blind and arrogant flamedicj!

I think Valve and Blizzard are two companies who would argue the complete opposite.

Not really embarassing, I got them from abandonwares. Just didn't want to taint my name...OH NOES!


Lol funnily enough @ this article, Blizzard makes 160 million dollars per month with WoW subscriptions. Not profitable?

>> HL2 serial is way better from any aspect in genre ID did
Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.<<

Again you talking trash...dwarf you pointing on to (Valve particulary), did HL2 roughly same time when Doom3 pop up..so your giant(ID software) was a live, not somewhere in history, they were developing their magnificant title at same time as dwarf..considering giant experience and knowledge and greatness they should make better stuff..im wondering from where dwarf learn to make better gameplay, storyline, sound etc, since giant you pointing on is giant regarding tool providing, not exactly game content itself..pretty much every game from ID was huge texh demo..not much fun in it..

>> Carmack will be stupid if he believe that he can sell same games again and again on PC..
And yet the single most successful PC game is the Sims, and all 7 or 8 expansions. The second most successful PC game is World of Warcraft, and it's expansion. So there is quite a fair bit of empirical evidence to suggest that you can indeed sell the same game again and again on the PC. 8 times for The Sims, and every single month in the case of World of Warcraft.<<

..it is funny to compare FPS and RTS type of games..anyway..main reason why they are successful again and again is obviously..gameplay..they are not technologicaly advanced as your lovely ID...they do have what every game suppose to have...fun factor, not loads of shiny bumpy stuff flying around with no real fun or purpose for it..successful games are about that..you should know that by now...regarding Doom3 and pretty much every game out from ID (respect for Quake2), is pure crap to me, same as horrible movie (Doom3), horrible acting, story even worse and of course...famous Dr.Carmack...egocentric??

But you just said that Gears of War was a simple console game, and should have been more like Mass Effect which is also a console game. So which is it? If Mass Effect is a complex game, and at the same time a console game, then surely your statement about console games = simple games is positively falsified?

There isn't one. Take Two have never said they were going to release a PC version (that's simply an assumption made by rabid fans), and with the XBox 360 version recuperating development costs on the first day of sales in the UK alone, there doesn't seem like much incentive to risk it.

That's not entirely accurate. Bully for instance was never released on the PC, and prior to GTA: Vice City, all GTA games where released on the PC first.

Sure. But openness doesn't guarantee success. Just look at Linux. The cost of game development taken into consideration, the price of an SDK for a console is peanuts, and anyone who can't afford one, probably isn't going to do too well in the long run anyway.

Me too. But with Spore being the only PC game in the foreseeable future, I don't have much hope. Even Sid Meier is starting to make console games. I mean Civilization? On a console? What is the world coming to?

Really? Don't you remember? Didn't you read Winni's post? If it hadn't been for Quake (2), and John Carmack choosing to license his technology to third parties (in this case to Valve) there wouldn't even have been a Half-Life, much less a sequel.

Yes. They're a technology company. Go figure.

First of all, they're not my ID, nor are they particularly lovely. Second of all, saying that The Sims and World of Warcraft aren't technologically advanced games, is simply ignorant.

>>Really? Don't you remember? Didn't you read Winni's post? If it hadn't been for Quake (2), and John Carmack choosing to license his technology to third parties (in this case to Valve) there wouldn't even have been a Half-Life, much less a sequel<<
have you read what i said...I wasnt talking about tech, but games...ID tech cant do a thing for creativity of any kind, art related in game and therefore Valve did good job ID will have to spend some time to catch them on that part..Proove?? take a look all ID games..pretty much same boring things...

>> pretty much every game from ID was huge texh demo.
Yes. They're a technology company. Go figure.<<
You smart, arent ya? Dont cut my words out of context, and my point was that there is no art in stuff they have released or at least not in sense of state of the art FPS such as HL2, what would be expected from your cutie Giant whos over everything..and if someone has to grow up in art gaming sense, ID is one of them for sure..giant..sure..


>>First of all, they're not my ID, nor are they particularly lovely. Second of all, saying that The Sims and World of Warcraft aren't technologically advanced games, is simply ignorant.<<

Go back and read my post again..i said 'not technologicaly advanced as your lovely ID'...it was comparison with ID tech, not statement over Sims and WoW for itself..

??

Surely there will be a few more...

Ummm, Clear Skies is coming this fall and it looks amazing.

When it starts to rain you don't go around screaming that is world is flooding, do you? PC gaming is not dead as long as people still play it.

Just take a peek at steam stats, many millions are still hooked on hl2 and cs (not to mention the newer releases, cod4, assassin's creed, the orange box etc).. Those numbers say A LOT for the industry.

Let's start a thread console gaming is death... 'sigh'

this whole thread just doesn't make no sense at all.
PC's all over the work are still used for gaming as well.

I've got an xbox360 gathering dust, while playing on my computer.

'nuff said! ;)

Well there's Fallout 3, but that's a console game, and GTA4 which is also a console game, which isn't likely to be ported to the PC, so not really.

If there was a long white bearded man who started building a large ship and gathering up two of every species, I might. Particularly if it had already happened before.

So SNES and C64 gaming isn't dead either then? People still play them. And there even recently been a new C64 game released. I stand corrected.

Yeah. Basically that PC gaming peaked with Counter-Strike. The fact that nobody has been able to make a better game, than a 9 year old mod for Half-Life, speaks volumes for the industry. Know any console gamers still playing Metal Gear Solid?

Well you could, but there would be empirical, non-anecdotal evidence to refute that claim. As opposed to argumentum ad hominem. Seriously, if you have any credible evidence that suggests PC gaming is on the rise, please present it.

I don't think PC gaming will ever die per se, I think it will become the 'formula 1' of gaming, ie, the latest greatest technology always pushing the boundries of the hardware and pushing hardware technology forward for the next generation of consoles.

PC gaming not rising is not the same as PC gaming dead.

Looks like your aim was to start a thread full of people's unprovable opinions, Flame, so good job. ;)

I haven't read the full article that you can get to from your link, but it sure looks like what he said was more along the lines of, trying to push the envelope on 3D games and make it work with all the PC variations is a giant pain in the ass, and it is easier and more profitable to just go to console. Which to me says, the halcyon days of huge budget, gorgeous 3D games being common are behind us. Sure.

Saying PC gaming is dead is just incorrect. People play games on the PC constantly - casual, MMO, and (in much smaller numbers) indie games. Developers make money on making those games every day. If your are saying that we won't see lots of games like ID makes, and that people can't run gigantic companies of 100 developers making them - then sure. But if you actually mean that gaming is dead on the PC, that's far from correct. People just aren't developing and buying the games you think they should on the scale you think they should.

One of the biggest issues in metric tracking right now is that there are no good statistics for those types of games I mention above. NPD does all its stuff via big box stores, GameStop, etc. Most MMO's and casual portals are coy with their subscriber base, the games themselves distort the traditional retail picture because you buy one and play it for (maybe) years, and no one is collecting sales from indies.

EDIT: Removed a cheeky comment at the end. :)

im beggining to wonder what the pc gaming world would be like if doom didnt come out in 94ish
sure someone would have made a better wolfenstien engine akin to dooms one but would it have been as good
and if it wasnt
would that mean that the plethora of fps that we have today wouldnt be here at all?

what if ID made the first (well known) match 3 game instead ;)
i cant think of a single post doom game by id that ISNT a fps
then people bought the licence to their engine and made god knows how many games, then the same with the quake engines
some were good others (re most) were been there done that next

i played a demo of blodwych's 3d sequel and as i liked that game (a bit more than dungeon master save for the issues of trying to play 2 player via joysticks), but i never had a pc when it came out it was just on one of the shop pc's and only on when it was quiet or in 'attract mode' but i always wanted to play a more fps-esque dungeon master type game

You mean Castle Wolfenstein 3D, that was the first game which started the 3D games era on the PC.

I think there will be a move to online distribution only with an option to order the CD, what with more and more computers logged on to things like steam and bigfish games. It seems the net distribution models work wonders.

it might be older than doom but its not as well known now
just cos it came first didnt make it the best

doom took the game to better heights but still ended up not having a true 3D environment (what gets annoyingly called 2.5D)
doom sold by the bucketloads and nigh on every pc in the world had the shareware version, im not too sure about wolfenstien pre doom, it might have gotten more exposure after the fact but was it a seller first time round?

the model T ford might have been the first car (least its the oldest i can remember) but its not as popular by far compared to the beetle or mini (both original designs)
both are memorable and used in iconic films but without the model T when (and where) would the car have come about?

model T ford introduced us to the car
the beetle and mini's were affordable to the masses

i could take the ford/wolfesntien analogy for a long drive but i wont ;)

What I got from the article is John Carmack is creatively bankrupt to the point he can no longer get financing to compete in the PC market which is flooded with competition. It is much easier to compete in a closed market like consoles where competition is strictly controlled by the licensing mechanisms of the console manufacturers.

that and hes only ever made fps from what i remember

(kinda reminds me of someone here same game different gfx ;) )

Actually 'Catacomb's abyss' was 3d like Wolfenstien 3d and IIRC that came out first.

id Software --never-- received financing from an outside party, so I don't think financing is an issue.

And yes, Catacomb Abyss (also made by Carmack and Co.) was the first 3D/FPS game and it came out before Wolfenstein 3D.

The game concept of Wolf3D goes back to the Apple ][ and Commodore 64 days; id Software claims they were unable to find the original developer and so decided to 'just' use the concept and background story for their 3D version. I remember how many nights we've wasted back in the early 80s on our Apple ][ Clones playing that game. "Halt! Ausweis!"

PC isn't a dead platform, its not the cashcow anymore it used to be due to the complexity of developing games without having to pay professional programmers that optimize the technology instead of just relying on the hardware (Crysis, SM3+ engines, ...)

To me this is good news that they think its dead. Less EA trash, more room for really good games from independent developers that KNOW what the fuck they do instead of cloning themself bi-yearly.

as long as Valve is still around, PC will live on :D

I think this quote sums it up pretty well:


Nowhere in the article does it mention or hint that PC gaming is dead. It does say, however, that the focus has shifted away from the "Super Next-Gen Realistic Graphics First Person Shooter!!!!" obsession that the PC gaming market seemed to be fixed on for so long, which is a good thing, especially for "indie" developers.

That doesn't mean that you don't need modern graphics though, just that people feel that fancy graphics have come far enough that there is little that will impress like it used too when the next fancy tech engine comes along.

Don't think it helps indies that much though, People already complain if you don't have more than normal and specular maps with stencil shadows and still want all the bells and whistles.

I think Carmack should look at other areas of game tech that's fallen behind in recent years like AI. I won't hold my breath though, because Doom 3 hadn't improved on Doom 1 in the AI department. I like stealthy FPS and found in doom 1 that sneaking around the edge of a door to get a good angle on a near corner would often show a zombie of some kind walking on the spot facing the wall until you stepped inside the room, at which point you could see the trigger take effect and the thing just faces you and walks straight at you. What a rubbish game Doom 3 was, and so delayed that Far Cry came out and stole it's thunder. Same with Chronicles of Riddick if you had an Xbox.

Who does? I doubt most casual gamers would know what a stencil shadow was if it slapped em on the butt.

People want a good looking, well presented game experience thats FUN to play. Take Eschalon for example. The graphics technologies are all early-mid 90s but they are fantastically done, with a gameplay & plot to keep you playing (and buy the next chapter).

A game can have 10000000000 trees & grass objects, exploding barrels & buildings that bounce everywhere, advanced ragdoll physics and all the shaders under the sun. But if its a jerky, unplayable nightmare on almost every machine w/o a state-of-the-art £2000 PC, no decent story and bad gameplay the wow factor soon wears off.

Who here among you has ever felt the cool, ghostly kiss of a chilled aubergine nestling gently 'neath one's jowls at the break of dawn?

Who here has ever dared to rub fondly a lone single chick-pea against the coarse, rough groin area of one's mightiest work-pants whilst putting their case forward to the boss for a rise?

Who here bothers to guess the weight of clouds, or paint pebbles to throw at people?

Has anybody ever even bothered to stop and ask why a dog's arm-pits are bald?

No - I didn't think so. Apart from GFK and the chick-pea incident you should all hang your heads in shame.

PC gaming is as solid and veiny as Flameduck's right forearm, and may it ever be so.

Cherubs - there is no need for panic just yet!

Most of the people that complain are people on these forums. Perhaps they are the same ones posting on different threads.

Never heard of eschalon. Looked it up and it got an average of 72% in gamerankings based on 4 media reviews. I find the latest PC games play just fine on my $600 PC, which is about £300 if I wanted to buy it today.

Well there's two types of "graphics" - there's graphics technology (the specular, the shadows, etc.), and there's artistic style.

People want a fun and nice looking game - they don't really care about what fancy technology may or may not be "under the hood". Of course the more advanced your technology, the more artistic freedom you usually have, but the point is that the end users don't really care.

If someone's complaining that your game doesn't have normal mapping or stencil shadows, it's most likely because something in the game just looks bad and they think they know how to fix it. Throwing in normal maps and stencil shadows may patch up the look a little bit, but it's not solving the root of the problem: bad art direction.

I'm saying that the move away from hyper-realism helps independent developers because it makes it easier to compete in the "mainstream" PC game market.

I'm not saying you should avoid developing advanced technology, but instead the new focus on gameplay and maybe "nice looking" games rather than "super-realistic looking" games is good news for both players and developers.

To illustrate my point, take a look at these two screenshots:



Now, which looks more realistic? Crysis, of course. But which looks better? I don't know about you, but I think even though the first one (Battlefield Heroes) doesn't look as realistic, it looks just about as nice to me, if not better (in a different way of course). Now, if the realistic game requires a $3000 gaming PC to run comfortably, while the cartoon style game will already run on your current computer, which do you think sounds more appealing? This, I think, explains the change of direction in PC gaming. Yeah, computers are getting faster and faster, and cheaper and cheaper, but games requirements are going up faster than affordable hardware can keep up.

Now regarding the indie argument, think about this: Which of the above games would you rather try to develop, as an independent game developer? Which do you think you would be most likely to succeed with?

Yup cant argue with that, how many games that come out today have stupid requirements that only a small percentage can play. Games these days are written for hardware that isnt even out yet so when it does arrive there is such a small market for it that it doesnt sell well. Hence the fear among loads of PC gamers that the platform is dying, yes in its current incantation but PC gaming will continue with games through steam and the indie scene that is finally starting to create games that dont look like Vic20 cast-offs but look as good as the AAA titles out there.

I miss my Puki *sniffage*

Absolutely wrong on that point. My half decent PC can run all Direct X 10 title comfortably, and I don't even have a Core 2 Duo.

The latest crop of graphics cards are reasonably priced. Take for example the 8800GTS 512 mb that I bought in April for 320$ CDN. That same card is now priced in the 250$ CDN range (3 months later), and the newer generation graphics cards are comming up this month, ranging from 300 to 500 $ CDN, and we're talking high end, latest technology. Nvidia revised their price on their latest graphics cards 150$ to 200$ lower, and competition is hard with ATI.

Same with CPUs, since you can get an excellent CPU for roughly 100$. 4 gigs of DDR3 can be had for around 150$. Motherboard prices are steady in price, but have more and more features (RAID is now common place, 8 or 10 USB ports, 4 or 6 SATA devices, 6.1 Audio, onboard Lan controller, WIFI, Firewire, etc etc...)

Reason for this, of course is to keep up with the technology and keep up with the console prices as well and the new game requirements.

But no, you do not need 3000$ to get a GREAT PC.

Another example; I bought two 750 GB hard drives for 115$ CDN each (tax + shipping included)...

Hahahahaha...A DX 10 card costs about $30.

And what video card does your "half decent" PC have? From what I've heard, Crysis doesn't run well on anything but a 8800GTX+, unless of course you set the video quality to Low (in which case it looks horrible, and defeats the entire purpose).

Don't misunderstand me - there's no doubt that hardware is getting faster and cheaper, but keep in mind that Crysis has been out for 8 months, and you still can't play it on max. settings without an expensive gaming PC (although correct me if I'm wrong - I'd like to see a <$800 consumer PC that can run Crysis on High at > 50 FPS).


When a $30 card can run Crysis, let me know.

P.S. DirectX 10 has nothing do with it. It's all about the required "horsepower" of your video card and CPU. Most games simply require too much for most people - sorry, but that's a fact.

Just because some crap card is "DX10 compatible" doesn't mean anything,

My card is DX9 compatible (G.F.) card but it still runs like crap on DX9 games. Dunno about the states but you are looking at £150 (pounds) minimum for a basic high-end card.

John J., concerning Crysis......

My PC is 3 year old AMD based Opteron 165 (overclocked to 2.8Ghz, dual core). I haven't even paid 1000$ for it 3 years ago!!! My motherboard is a DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra-D (which is based on the Nvidia Nforce4 Ultra chipset). My RAM is Dual DDR1 (believe it or not, I use Kingston KVR value ram, but 2GB). My motherboard permits me to obtain 6 gigabytes per second bandwidth. My graphics card is just like the 9800GTX since it is the same GPU (the G92) which I overclock -but don't need to- at 700/1800/2300 (gpu/shader/gddr respectively).

I run crysis on Windows XP SP3 using Direct X 9.0c at 1280x960 16xANISO, 2XAA, everything set on HIGH. I completed the game twice, and can't think of anywhere in the game where I had a slideshow type performance. It just runs at a steady 30fps, which is about the same framerate as movies btw (so who needs 100+ fps???).

If I had a Core2Duo setup, my framerates would be more around the 45 fps average with the same settings applied on Crysis. Simply put, my old tech computer runs this game fine as it is, and if I change (motherboard, cpu, and ram), I'd have to shell out roughly 400$, which I do not intend to do this year.

Movies is a completely different matter. When something's interactive, I prefer it to run at at least 50 FPS, otherwise mouse controls, etc. seem to lag. Also, a 30 FPS movie has full "real" motion blur at all times, which means it has the equivalent amount of motion detail as a 100 FPS non-motion-blurred game I think. Although Crysis does include some sort of motion blur effect, I think it's mainly aesthetic (for fast movements, etc., rather than subtly conveying sub-frame motions).

But a 9800gtx is really good. You say you paid less than $1000 for your computer, but how much did you pay to upgrade to the 9800gtx? I was under the impression that these high end cards still cost ~$300.

Most non-hardcore PC users usually don't want to pay 40% more than what they need just for a gaming card. For serious gamers, it's another matter of course, and that's the whole point of the "PC gaming situation" - there aren't nearly as many "hardcore gamers" as there used to be (or there never were as many as they thought), and therefore there's not enough market for these high-end games to sustain them.

Remember though that this isn't just about graphics - it's about gameplay. The traditional M-rated "hardcore" shoot-em-up game may get all the publicity for it's flashy graphics and technical features, but that doesn't mean the gameplay (and content) appeals to everyone. I would bet the majority of gamers are tired of the endless Doom clones, etc. Otherwise, the Wii would have become a "niche" item, but it's quite the opposite, and I think this fact alone supports my theory very well.

Simply the fact that most games today are categorized into "genres" even before they begin development is a sign that there are hardly any more "revolutions" (rather than "evolutions") of video games these days. But that's another topic.

GTA III was a PS2 exclusive long enough to secure the console's position in the market; The following PC port was infamously sloppy, performing badly on hardware way more expensive than the PS2. You don't need to distort the facts to make the case that mainstream PC gaming is currently troubled.

9800GTX for 199$ at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500039

Buy one and forget about performance issues with the latest games.


That's where the problem lies John, because most games on the 360 and PS3 hardly even reach 30fps to start with.
http://www.n4g.com/ps3/NewsCom-59194.aspx

EDIT: Not to talk about slow loading times from DVDs and BluRay discs.

ahh, its not dead, it's metamorphising into its next incarnation (;-)

Nice :). Still, it took 8 months for Crysis to become playable on an affordable PC, and that's exactly what my point is - PC games have have been increasing in complexity so fast that they've actually surpassed the capabilities of affordable hardware at the time of their release. This "PC gaming is dead" thing is nothing more than the side-effects of this.

Hopefully, video game makers will start making fun, nice looking, polished games again that will run on affordable hardware. I've got nothing against things like 3DMark pushing the limits of future hardware, but a game needs to be able to run on affordable hardware, otherwise it just won't sell because you're essentially increasing the price by ~$500 for most consumers.

Molyneux bloke is being interviewed in the latest edition of XBOX360 mag regarding fable2, dunno if it's destined for PC at all, but if fable2 has anything like the flair of fable on the original xbox it'll be another nail in the coffin of PC gaming.

Crysis runs pretty well on my 7800GS AGP, very playable almost everything maxed out except motion blur turned off. Crawls in cut scenes though. I havent bothered to go past the outdoor environments but I really like crysis for realism. At the end of the day it really depends on what the aims of a game are. If the game is trying to be realistic it needs to look realistic.

I can't say I'm much of a gamer these days, they all seem pretty dumb and not worth the time investment to play them. Probably what comes of having played games for over 25 years. Games need to evolve in other directions and have more convincing AI to match the new fancy graphics, otherwise your just playing a nice looking but thinly disguised retro game in some kind of 3D, thats what about 90% of them add up to today.

I never even played Crysis.. is it really any good?

Crysis is great in delta mode, where its more realistic than most and allows for some pretty good stealth strategy and sniping. If you like Unreal/Quake type run and gun it might not be for you.

What I like is the stealthy sneaking, combined with fun physics, and subtly gameplay features that make it fun for sneaky players. Like being able to tell where enemies are by the direction of their bullets. (They hit bend and snap foilage in their trajectory, not just break chunks off, plus from high ground you can see the foilage being shoved around by the bad guys below even when you can't see them. It's these little details that make the game fun for me. Plus you can do pretty good sniping over great distances,with practice even with pretty lousy guns, and they can't always tell where your shooting from.

To be honest I only really played the game for the kind of gameplay thats avaliable in the demo. So your best bet is to try the demo and see if you enjoy that.

Crysis starts out awesome, but really takes a nose-dive towards the end. They must have ran out of dev. time or something.

Grand Theft Auto IV will be released for PC on 21st November in Europe, Rockstar announced today.

Pleasantly, that's just a few days after the PC version arrives in North America on 18th November.

Rockstar founder Sam Houser says it "looks and plays beautifully on PC and we can't wait for people to play it".

Seems I was right all along. :) Hope this cheers you up, Flameduck!!

Well, much more interesting is the new GeForce 9800 GT that is out now. Almost same performance as the HD4850 but cheaper!

PC gaming is far from dead, current sales figures dont include online sales.

Very true, and a lot of publishers are now preferring online sales to retail sales because it eliminates the affect that "preowned" games have on sales. In fact, I would imagine that console games will be looking to move in this direction too. Don't be surprised if we see one or two "big" games for X360 or PS3 coming out on XBLA or PS3 Store instead of in retail boxes this year.

I'm alive, my PC is alive, I game on my PC thus PC gaming is alive!

Strategy games and RPG are the most popular games on PC
PC shooters can not definitly compete with the console version, not at least in term of sales
This is what John Carmack probably meant

John Carmack was just moaning like a lil baby because he cant sell same crap again and again, and therefre, according to him, PC is 'not good'...better sit and make some cool games for it rather than cursing it... its funny to see how big egoism is stored withing this AAA guys..if anything goes outside of their plans, dust in the Sahara will be guilty for that before they maybe just try to realize that its all their lack of original ideas...

You are so far off-base it's not even funny. Look at the date on that interview -- none of this stuff (diversifying into simpler tech platforms and leading with the consoles) is new from id and none of it seems too unreasonable. A WOW-style subscription model really isn't a particularly good fit for the FPS genre, and they really would have to be idiots to move away from the core kinds of games that they're renowned for. They've got all that valuable, established IP and you want them to forget it and do something original?! Amazing.

I don't see any "moaning like a lil baby" in that video, just a level-headed appraisal of the market. Until I had a company that made more than id I'd be taking notes.

The PC will never die! Besides we like retro games.
does anyone still play robotron? :)

nah but I had MARSPORT going two days ago (on PC) emulators will allow a lot of PC gaming that many believe impossible and consigned to the recycling bays down at the tip

PC will die for sure.. every thing that lives dies !

But not today !

I was going to say that

Consoles are a cyclical business.

Every time the current generation starts to reach it's peak in popularity and profitability, someone comes out to say this type of thing.

Publishers will continue to create PC games. But they will be ports of console games.

Making games that cost millions of dollars still leaves publishers in the precarious position of putting all of their eggs in one basket. Because of this, they will release their products on as many platforms as they can. PC will always be one of those because it is easy to port to (trivial if it's written with the XNA framework for the Xbox360)

PC gaming would gain more popularity if the hardware manufacturers would lower the price of entry for the hobby. There's no reason why a PC that's as capable as an XBox 360/PS3 (hardware wise) couldn't be released within a couple months of release of the console at around or less than the price of the console itself. If they coupled that with an OS designed specifically for games, people would buy it.

In fact, people did buy it. It was called the original "X-box"

Why would anyone bother bumping this?

a pipe dream i posted on another thread
1 DVD for all the major systems
a multi boot loader that selects the right platform code to run
and all the media stored as generic (or custom file formats) files that any and all consoles/os's can read/access

pc/macos/linux/360/ps3 (when not dependant on blu-ray)
all on one dvd

i know its got as much chance happening as mother terasa taking over hell but ...

One DVD isn 't going to cut it soon. The XBox version of RAGE is going to be 2 DVDs, and going to have "rubbish" graphics compared to the PS3 BD version.

So maybe it's have to be one BD for all platforms. But since only the PS3 is guaranteed to have a BD drive...

true so far only ps3 has blu-ray out of the box
its a waiting game for the uptake re pc's (inc mac and linux) for them other than highdef movies

although it kinda makes me wonder if they REALLY need all that space unless they are going to issue 30 minute unskippable cutscenes left right and centre
with the right kinda design and stuff (and procedual content if its viable) i remember when you could get some really great games on less than a CD

I heard that was an over-dramatic assertion. Carmack has clarified that it will look "rubbish" in areas that aren't frequently traffic'ed and where they can get away with a smaller texture (such as caverns, etc)

All of the other parts of the game will look comparable to the PS3/PC

I think they are over-egging it somewhat. It would certainly be nice, and please a lot of Xbox 360 owners if they brought out a blu-ray add-on drive but it's hardly the death of the console.

You can fit 8.5GB on a DVD, with compression and assuming you only compress stuff that's easy to compress you reasnobly expect ~11GB of content on a single disc. That's a lot and it's not as if DVD's are expensive to produce.

Darkheart

>1 DVD for all the major systems

Like the multiformat floppies where you could access it from both a PC and an Amiga.

Ermm, no its not - here is a cause for PC Gaming celebration, and it is made with Blitz 3D!

http://www.tankuniversal.com

Emersive game play worthy of many accolades if I say so myself, bought it yesterday and can't stop playing it (;-)

Yes there is, a huge reason. There wasn't a PC around that was as powerful as the XBox 360 and PS3 when they were released. Even now, most multi-format games look better on the consoles than a top spec PC.

Let's assume, however, that they could throw on some kind of stripped down gaming-only version of Windows, and that it would be comparable to a current gen games console.

The console manufacturers sell well below cost price in order to recoup the money on game sales. Since PC game sales are unlicensed - anyone can do it and you don't pay a cut to the hardware people on every game sold - they would never get their money back. I'm sure gamers would be happy if hardware vendors decided to give away their most powerful stuff at well below cost price, but it would stop being quite so much fun six months later when they were all out of business.

Given most "affordable" monitors aren't capable of 1080p/i resolution, it's probably no surprise that the games look worse on the PC since the video card has to scale it down.

I've personally not seen much difference between my PC and Xbox 360 display when I run them through my HDTV.


I agree with most of that.

However, PC hardware and console hardware is an apples to oranges situation for the most part when it comes to it's development and chip fabrication overhead.

Consoles almost always have a custom chipset requiring a special factory to be built to fabricate them. Consoles also have a couple years (or more) of R&D behind them to add to their break-even cost.

All of this adds up to an enormous amount of money before a single console is glued together and ready for a consumer. We're talking millions of dollars in specialized equipment and research.

Licensing adheres to the standard razor blade model: Lose money on the razor to make more money on the blades. It's essential to offset this pre-baked breakeven point and get it to a place where consumers will even buy it.

PC's are a different story. Almost all PC technology is based on the tried and true. Factories capable of building the chips necessary have been around for a long time, and altering them to produce the next generation of a chipset is minimal. That's why Intel churns out a new chipset almost every quarter.



I didn't say at the time of release. I said afterward, within a few months. However, you might still be right about trying to getting hardware that matches a next gen console punch for punch.

I think the Wii has taught the industry that you don't need to have the best hardware to move it though.

3DO had an interesting model years ago that failed because it was ahead of it's time: Create a specification and operating system, and license it to hardware manufacturers.

If this model were tried today in a reasonable manner (i.e. leverage existing higher-end, but not bleeding edge technology), and this company were to partner with a company like Dell (or Gateway, or any other PC hardware assembling company out there), I'm sure they could find a way to keep the price down for a "console" that sits somewhere between next gen and last gen at a price point everyone would be comfortable with.

This model could technically charge a per-software licensing fee as well, which would bring the price even lower. That would close the platform a bit and not make it as "PC-like.." which might be good or bad, depending on how you look at it.

I think PC's are meant to run a variety of programs, including tools, games, and a variety of other types of software. Gaming Console's are only built for games. Another reason for the slowdown when trying to play realy complex or big games on pc's is that not only do they have to run the game, they also have to run the operating system and they are constantly communicating with the internet. If you could shut down your operating system temporarily to play a game (not recommended) then the game would be much faster, however this is not only not a good idea, but a VERY bad idea as It could crash your computer PERMANENTLY.

..well..regarding graphics quality/performance, ill think twice before I claim that consoles can beat up PC...i have tried yesterday Mass Effect on PS3 as well as PC rigged with 9800GTX..and all i can say is that I pray you joking when you say that consoles are graphically over PC..pure joke..named game has obvious FPS slowdown on PS3, easy noticable..on PC with 9800GTX its smooth like a slik with incredible amount of details..

I agree with RocketGnome that the popularity of consoles vs. PC gaming is cyclical. It's simply a matter of time until a particular console system becomes obsolete, and their games look and feel ancient and dull in comparison to the latest PC games. PC games will then become popular, until consoles get updated with the latest technology, and consoles will become more popular, until they get left behind the fast progression of technology in PCs, then PC games will be popular again, etc., etc., etc.


??? That doesn't make sense.

1. You can't simply shut off the operating system and play a game - just like anything else, games need an operating system to run (technically they could be done without an operating system, but that would be impractical). The difference between a console gaming system and a PC, in terms of OS software, is that the console's operating system is much more minimal and specialized for gaming than a PC's operating system.

2. You can't crash your computer PERMANENTLY unless you damage your hardware or mess up your bios. The only other way to "crash your computer permanently" would be to some how mess up your installation of Windows / Linux / whatever, but that's recoverable. BTW, you "shut down your operating system" every time you turn your computer off.

Yeah. So tell me again, what's the price difference here? I mean the 9800GTX, nearly costs the same as the whole PS3, doesn't it? My computer would cost about twice as much as the PS3, and it doesn't offer nearly the same performance, or graphics quality in Mass Effect as the XBox 360 version (haven't tried Mass Effect on the PS3, so can't compare there).

You don't need to "shut down the OS" you just need to limit which tasks can be pre-empted, like the Forbid() call on the Amiga would do. Apart from "it's wildly open to abuse, and Microsoft don't have the best track record in the world regarding security" there's no reason Windows couldn't have a similar mechanism.

The 9800GTX is about $200, and it's massively superior to the PS3 in power. You can get a video card with PS3-grade performance for about $100.

what was the kinda spec of a gaming rig when the psone came out?
iir 486 with cirrus logic type accelerated vga and dos 5 or 6 and a few boot disks to bring the OS under controll re memory hogging redundant apps

when the psone was looking long in the tooth and the ps2 was out your pc had been upgraded/replaced how many times?

so yes eventually the pc will wipe the floor with the ps3 and 360 without breaking into a sweat (thanks to a wind tunnel esque cooling system ;) )

when your pc starts looking pants you can upgrade
consoles you dont you wholesale replace with the next model (when ever that comes out) but you can upgrade the gfx every quater if you wanted to with something forever better than what you currently have

but again
the people who started with the psone and eventually migrated to the ps3 only had to buy 3 systems
how much dosh gets spent pimping a pc in its lifespan and how long till its just the case keyboard and mouse from the original build?

Wow! I need to start buying my hardware in the US. Over here it's > $450!

Yeah, $450 is crazy. $200 for a 9800GTX 512MB is not at all uncommon. A 9800GT is even cheaper, at about $130 (depending where you look).

games like assasins creed, Racer:Grid, Mass Effect all run fine maxed out graphics at svga res on my pretty ancient puter. The newest part being the 7800GS GPU, oldest part being the 4 year old 3000+ socket 754 CPU.

So what is the conclusion

have we killed it yet?

Yeah, well 800x600 and 720p/1080p aren't quite the same resolution.

Give it time. 5th Septemer will tell. If US sales of Spore (a traditional PC game, wipe the floor with Halo 3 (a traditional PC game, released exclusively for consoles for now) then we'll know won't we?

When I said that running a game while shuting down your operating system could crash you computer permenantly, I meant you could accidentally overwrite part of windows. Once I made a simple program in asm on my TI 84 and it crashed my calculator permenantly (until I reinstalled the OS on it).

P.S. What exactly is a 9800GTX? A graphics card?

>>Yeah. So tell me again, what's the price difference here? I mean the 9800GTX, nearly costs the same as the whole PS3, doesn't it? My computer would cost about twice as much as the PS3, and it doesn't offer nearly the same performance, or graphics quality in Mass Effect as the XBox 360 version (haven't tried Mass Effect on the PS3, so can't compare there).<<

..my dear 9800GTX with 1 gig VRAM here in Asia is about 120$..try to think a bit wider than place you live...world is not just a place you live in..

what happend to this thread.. its sooo loong..

PC gaming is dead. long live PC.


Now its time for Mac Games ! or what ?

I think what your all failing to see, (not read it all) is that PC Gaming is not dead, world of warcraft is the most played game in the world, its got over 15 million subscribers, thats 15 million activly playing the game. and paying for the privilege.

Carmack is a FOOL. and just because he's not willing to expand into the MMO genre which is where I feel that all next gen games will go, does not make him right. nor does it mean that the PC gaming scene is over.

I feel that most new games or next gen games coming will be multi platform, Microsofts dream is to have a Unified development platform where games created with it will run on any console you want, that supports it, wether its available now or not, it makes simple and good business sense to have your machine run as many games as possible. its only a matter of time before we have 1 disc that we can cram into our 360^2 or WII-2 or PC.

AS for Sony. I spoke to a Sony Rep recently and he confirmed that from what hes heared, the next sony machine, which is 8 years away, will not be called a PS4, in fact its going to be an Entertainment system, a box for your living room that will play TV, play Music, and replace your sky+ box, dvd player, high-fi and anything else you have with one neat little box, its in Sony's 10 year plan if you have access to it.

Thats a marked move away from DEDICATED gaming, market speculation hints that Sony with its new machine will focus on casual gaming, rather than high end, and as casual gaming means less tech normally like the wii, they dont need to pump their machines full of costly hardware.

Microsft on the other hand, and again after talking to their rep, seem to WANT, to keep dedicated games machines, this is re-enforced by their machines lack of HD, or Blueray built in, as with the WII and nintendo, also heard along the grape vine Microsoft is currently in talks with Nintendo with a goal of getting them to develop with XNA, getting them one step closer to Microsofts dream of a unified system for games developement. this is all good for the PC.

The PC Market isnt Dead, its just changing..

80's was the realm of adventure, and strategy games.
late 80's became FPS land. with car and racing sims, flight sims land.
90's advanced the strategy and simulation realm further and said goodbye to the adventure genre.

and now, were seeing a move away from shitty FPS land, and a move into a new(or not so new) realm of MMO's. their now the most profitable game type in the world. and thats the furture, because like flame said, its all about the money.

Developers need to realise this and when they do, the unification of platforms into a single mesh of machines all playing the same game will happen. world of warcraft 2, being played by PC , xBox, Wii all on the same servers. thats the future of gaming.

well. thats what I think anyway, and what I have to see here is just the same as everything above, my own opinion, you can either ignore me, think i'm talking shite, try to argue my points or just agree, at the end of the day none of this matters.

I think all in all the whole PC gaming scene is moving towards a more integrated networked approach where everyone in a game can talk with other players etc. Its only now that computer hardware allows for more players in a game and allows players to talk to everyone, yeah there used to be things like Roger Wilco but now with things like WOW and EVE Online we are starting to see games getting as big as communities and they are still growing in size.

IMHO it wont be long before we see a game that can support millions of players at the same time on a single server and allow them to talk to everyone else.

I don't want to play such games...

Singel player Oblivion is nice..

No one comes and make me fell like a Nob like in wow :D

To conclude that PC gaming is dead based soly on the retail salesfigures of North amerika...... yeah sure Retail is dead, long live the Internet!

A PC is a hobby (besides a worktool), a console is a substitute for watching TV. There's a market for both, especialy as long as TV programming sucks and we all download episodes of good series on our PC's.

For me pc gaming is more then just playing the game, it reading about it on forums, looking at fanart, making (and getting) user-made addons. Trying to make a clone of it years later in BlitzMaxMax++. Finding remixes of the soundtrack. Flamewarring with guys about the pro's and con's between patch 1.04 and 1.06c. PC gaming is not just about playing the game, its so much more. Oh and i almost forgot about the most essential asset of the PC: PORN. All console communities are doomed as long as porn is prohibited.

MMO is dead boring. Kind of like facebook with the addition of having to wander around aimlessly in a 3D world setting off triggers everywhere and getting bored out of your skull whilst vast crowds of players collect around key NPC choke points like Jesus feeding the five thousand.

Take out the aimless wandering and pretty graphics and there really isn't much in the way of game there. Plus often the other players are dumber than the game AI making antiques roadshow much more entertaining :).

MS wanted to make the same entertainment system Sony is talking about with Xbox 1, but got attacked for trying to take over everything and replace the PC, console and DVD in your home. One of the main reasons they never released the original Xbox with a keyboard. AS it is, 360 is getting netflix so you can watch 10's of thousands of shows and videos with a $15 monthly netflix subscription. Since I don't have TV it's pretty cool, been watching Heroes season 1 this past month.

i got a usb>xbox (classic) adapter and usb keyboard soley so i could type in the album info into the music player intead of always listening to "track 11" etc it wasnt very responsive ... i felt i had to hammer down the kesy and keep them pressed just to make one of them work
doing the 'typing' with the joy pad was a pain at the best of times

thankfully i bought a pc a year or so later so my music is auto edited via online databases

but i wanted a few key albums ripped due to the play your own soundtrack feature in games ... and none of em i had offered that feature