PC Gaming is Not Dead (.com)

[Necronic]

That is one of the dumbest tech articles I have ever read. I don't even know where to start

There is nothing new to what these guys are doing. The comments on them being a novel competitor with name recognition is ridiculous (since they are neither novel nor do they have name recognition.) Alienware has been doing it for years (vaguelly gimmick these days though as their quality isn't great), and for high end laptops you can't beat Falcon NW.

The idea that the difference between Apple and Windows laptops is the hardware is quite foolish. It's true that Apple software can be stronger because it limits its hardware, but the advantage is still a software one. Standardizing the hardware on a windows laptop doesn't change the fact that its still a windows laptop.

No one cares about a single "innovative" item on a laptop. Every laptop has their own innovations. The only difference here is that the innovation doesn't do much for the purpose. Who wants a touch screen on a gaming PC? This also just illustrates how idiotic the writer is. Apple laptops are arguably the worst possible laptops out there for gaming precisely because of their slew of innovations. While aesthetically pleasing to normal users, they normally simply get in the way for gamers.

The dumbest comments in that article, however, are the comments about the hardware market. First he talks about the need for a form factor/platform for developers, then he talks about the lack of options: hint hint, the fact that AMD/ATI and NVIDIA/INTEL are the major suppliers makes development massively simpler.

Then there's this gem: "the lack of systemic innovation in the PC hardware space itself". This is 100% wrong. Now that the physical limit for circuit miniaturization has been hit (more or less) manufacturers are going through a rennaisance of innovation thinking outside the box for any and every performance gain. Multi-core processing and the explosion of SSDs are two obvious examples that come to mind.

This whole article strikes me as written by one of those "experts" that develops their ideas in a vacuum.

Also, the real threat to Apple is/was pancreatic cancer (ah-hue-hue-hue).

 

[Chibibar]

It is funny that "experts" keep thinking that PC will die. I highly doubt it. We have not reach a level of technology that can really match the power of a PC at AFFORDABLE price.

Take any laptop (high price one) and you can built a PC or even pre-built (even Alienware) a PC version CHEAPER and more powerful.

I am using Raid 5 on my PC (4 drives) I can't do that on a laptop. Even Alienware uses Raid 1 for laptops (cause 2 HDD is max for now)

The Razor is kinda cool, but I doubt PC gaming will die unless the gaming industry takes a DRASTIC turn.

 

[Frank]

Sadly that is not the dumbest article I've seen at Kotaku. Probably the first in a while that didn't come from "let the commentors write us articles for free""Speak up Kotaku"

Still the entire Gawker network is nothing more than trashy link bait. I think the NY Post and Daily News have more journalistic integrity and ethics.

I can't even use their sites anymore since they "upgraded". I hate the new Gawker layout.

 

[figmentPez]

I can't even use their sites anymore since they "upgraded". I hate the new Gawker layout.

The new layout is the final reason I needed to start using Google Reader. I'm loving it, and I can read through all my blogs much quicker than I used to.

 

[GasBandit]

The new layout is the final reason I needed to start using Google Reader. I'm loving it, and I can read through all my blogs much quicker than I used to.

Google Reader. F%#@ yeah.

 

[Covar]

So Joel wrote another article, this one basically calling anyone who called him out on his razer article immature idiots who don't realize that no one actually plays PC games.

I'm not going to bother linking to the site since that's what they want. You can find it if you want to.

 

[Shegokigo]

The sales figures for World of Warcraft just called, they want to call Joel a completel ignorant dipshit.

 

[Frank]

Portal 2 is another example. I guess that tiny, tiny slice of the bullshit pie he made for his article just has more money.

What a fuckwad.

 

[Covar]

Is that some kind of browser game?

 

[Shegokigo]

I wonder how he feels about Minecraft, Terraria, Crysis and Dead Island's sales figures too....

 

[figmentPez]

The sales figures for World of Warcraft just called, they want to call Joel a completel ignorant dipshit.

The sales for Portal 2, Super Meatboy and Cthulu Saves the World would also like to chime in on that. (All three sold better on PC than on console.)

 

[Covar]

With this article went my last Gawker RSS feed in google reader. The entire network's just trash, and the only reason I was still reading Kotaku was for Owen Good's stick jockey column. It was refreshing to have a sports fan covering sports games.

 

[SpecialKO]

I only read Kotaku because they exist in the same space IGN did a few years ago - they get news first because of preferential treatment from the industry. Their opinion pieces, as this thread shows, are problematic.

 

[Necronic]

God the responses in that article......

Really all you have to say is this: A standardized computer already exists. It's called the Apple. And guess what? No one develops games for it. Why? Because of limited market share. So what's the solution?

Create another standardized computer.......

 

[SpecialKO]

Really all you have to say is this: A standardized computer already exists. It's called the Apple. And guess what? No one develops games for it. Why? Because of limited market share.

I will temporarily take the devil's advocate and point out how those two are not synonymous, or even particularly related. Apple's limited market share has much more to do with their general pricing and software licensing strategies in the "No Jobs" years than anything else. The smartest thing that Steve Jobs did when he came back was try to make lemonade from lemons and not try to catch up with MS/Dell/HP/etc.

The failure of the Kotaku article isn't because a standardized platform for gaming is a bad idea (consoles and the terrifying growth of the iOS market make that abundantly clear); it's the idea that a standardized PC platform would somehow save a market whose entire growth has been based upon elastic cost parameters and customization; a $2800 PC is never going to become the standard for as long as people primarily use PCs for other things besides games. And if gaming is all you want, why would you buy a laptop anyways?

 

[PatrThom]

So what's the solution? Create another standardized computer.......

Uh-huh. That's called a console, duh.

--Patrick

 

[@Li3n]

The failure of the Kotaku article isn't because a standardized platform for gaming is a bad idea (consoles and the terrifying growth of the iOS market make that abundantly clear)

Not a bad idea for what? Flash games and simplified counter-strike clones?

The HC PC games market hasn't been shrinking, it simply hasn't grown as much as the others because all the insane growth was on account of casuals and people that used to play nothing but CS...

 

[SpecialKO]

Not a bad idea for what? Flash games and simplified counter-strike clones?

Yes.

Or for platformers, puzzle-games, RPGs, hybrid-shooters, sandbox games, rhythm games, stealth games, strange experimental movie-imitation games. Then on the iOS side, you have more rhythm games, puzzle games, social networking games, location-based ARG games, classic re-makes of old successful games. You know, almost every genre that's been successful since 2005 aside from MMOs.

Anyone who thinks that standardized platforms are bad for gaming needs a head examination.

But that's not the point the article is trying to make. The point the article is trying to make is that Standardized platforms are good for gaming, you can play games on the PC, therefore standardized PC gaming platforms are good and the Razer Switchblade is Computer-Jesus.

Which makes no sense, precisely because of how the nature of standardized platforms does not currently (and is unlikely to in the near future) meet the needs of the PC market which still prioritizes flexibility, customization, and elastic costs, all of which are strengths, not problems.

 

[@Li3n]

Or for platformers, puzzle-games, RPGs, hybrid-shooters, sandbox games, rhythm games, stealth games, strange experimental movie-imitation games. Then on the iOS side, you have more rhythm games, puzzle games, social networking games, location-based ARG games, classic re-makes of old successful games.

Sorry, forgot about GTA and the dance fad...

As for the other genres... i don't recall them growing too fast for their own good...

Anyone who thinks that standardized platforms are bad for gaming needs a head examination.

And let me guess, auto-tune has been great for music...

 

[SpecialKO]

As for the other genres... i don't recall them growing too fast for their own good...

What, you missed 25 years of Final Fantasy, all of Metal Gear Solid, Pokemon, Prince of Persia, Braid, Angry Birds and every other game that sold more on console than on the PC if there was a PC release at all?

And let me guess, auto-tune has been great for music...

What does auto-tune have to do with standardized development platforms?

 

[GasBandit]

Many a game on pc that has been shitty (or was good but for certain shitty elements) can blame that shit on developers having to develop to console restraints. Consoles/"standard development platforms" will stop being bad for the quality of games when they have the option to support keyboard and mouse input in every game as well as controllers/pads, and have the processing power to give us maps more complex than Call of Hall Monitor Duty.

Of course, then they'll cost as much as a regular PC, soooo... you might as well just get a PC.

 

[@Li3n]

What, you missed 25 years of Final Fantasy, all of Metal Gear Solid, Pokemon, Prince of Persia, Braid, Angry Birds and every other game that sold more on console than on the PC if there was a PC release at all?

What does that have to do with the growth of console gaming being based on certain "streamlined" titles... no one was talking about PC gaming dying and how there should be just one PC last gen and those games where selling more on consoles then too...

And not being released on PC is even more besides the point... they could have sold 2 copies and it would be infinity % more then what it sold on PC...

What does auto-tune have to do with standardized development platforms?

Lower level of entry = lower standards...
Added at: 18:57

Many a game on pc that has been shitty (or was good but for certain shitty elements) can blame that shit on developers having to develop to console restraints.

Batman AA showed me that the problem comes from then using genres that developed on PC and then adapting them to consoles, then porting them back (something that's only started this gen)... actual console genres can get ported to m/kb with no problem...

 

[SpecialKO]

What does that have to do with the growth of console gaming being based on certain "streamlined" titles... no one was talking about PC gaming dying and how there should be just one PC last gen and those games where selling more on consoles then too...

And not being released on PC is even more besides the point... they could have sold 2 copies and it would be infinity % more then what it sold on PC...

The contention of mine you disagreed with was that standardized platforms are good for gaming. The entire history of console gaming makes this very clear, and it's not just limited to flash games and CS-clones.

Lower level of entry = lower standards...

Standardized development platforms don't mean lower levels of entry, they mean less developer time being spent on optimization, and more being spent on actual development.

In fact, the thing that really lowered the cost of entry...was the PC. Flexibility in design and market saturation tends to do that.

Many a game on pc that has been shitty (or was good but for certain shitty elements) can blame that shit on developers having to develop to console restraints. Consoles/"standard development platforms" will stop being bad for the quality of games when they have the option to support keyboard and mouse input in every game as well as controllers/pads, and have the processing power to give us maps more complex than Call of Hall Monitor Duty.

That has nothing to do with standardized development platforms, that has to do with having multiple platforms. It's the same reason why gaming in the late 90s meant parsing through poorly-run user forums/usenet looking for alternative drivers or video card hacks to fix display problems (how little things change).

The reason why that article is wrong is not because fixed platforms don't work for gaming, it's because $$$$ fixed platforms don't work for PCs, and as long as there is a financial advantage to PC customization, that's not going to change.

 

[GasBandit]

That has nothing to do with standardized development platforms, that has to do with having multiple platforms. It's the same reason why gaming in the late 90s meant parsing through poorly-run user forums/usenet looking for alternative drivers or video card hacks to fix display problems (how little things change).

The reason why that article is wrong is not because fixed platforms don't work for gaming, it's because $$$$ fixed platforms don't work for PCs, and as long as there is a financial advantage to PC customization, that's not going to change.

It wouldn't have been such an issue if the "standard" set by consoles wasn't so very low. But you are right, it's an issue with multiple platforms. I long for the days when console games stayed on consoles and PC games were unfettered by the need to shackle themselves to the gaming equivalent of a SmartCar.

 

[@Li3n]

The contention of mine you disagreed with was that standardized platforms are good for gaming. The entire history of console gaming makes this very clear, and it's not just limited to flash games and CS-clones.

No it doesn't because before this gen console and PC game sales where close enough for it not to be an issue... and just because they obviously didn't negatively impact gaming (before this gen) doesn't mean they where good for it.

And console certainly weren't good for (most)Strategy games...

Standardized development platforms don't mean lower levels of entry, they mean less developer time being spent on optimization, and more being spent on actual development.

In fact, the thing that really lowered the cost of entry...was the PC. Flexibility in design and market saturation tends to do that.

I didn't mean for the developer... coding is still coding... optimization just takes more time.

It's a lower point of entry for the consumer...

 

[Chibibar]

The problem with Standardize PC for gaming is well... the standardization.

Look at PS3 and Xbox (standardize PC-like system, which has OS, standard component and memory etc etc) The Ps3 market and Xbox make up their cost in license to make game for it.

Now the PC side is opposite. The hardware are done by 3rd party (hence varying cost) how are you going to standardize that NOW? If you are looking for "standard" I guess the closest thing would be start producing game for a specific brand only (like Mac or something)

In PC gaming, there will always be people who want "cooler graphics" or "better sound" or more processing power, you can't quite simply switch out video card/CPU on a PS3/Xbox (again using these example since they are standardize)

The price point entry would be the lowest common denominator (i.e. min spec)

 

[SpecialKO]

No it doesn't because before this gen console and PC game sales where close enough for it not to be an issue

Actually, they weren't even close (page 9).

... and just because they obviously didn't negatively impact gaming (before this gen) doesn't mean they where good for it.

They increased overall industry sales, expanded the user base, and the money they brought in helped fund new projects. That's pretty much what "good" means.

It's a lower point of entry for the consumer...

...so, your issue is not that platforms hurt the development side of gaming, it's that the wrong people are playing games because of consoles, and so the wrong games are being made for their benefit. Well, if you really feel like that, okay, I guess, but I suspect that if consoles went away, you'd have the same problem, just with a smaller number of people.
Added at: 16:31

The problem with Standardize PC for gaming is well... the standardization.

Exactly. Standardizing PCs for gaming is a bad idea, because they're PCs.

 

[Chibibar]

I also like to note that console is not a bad system, but it gives a good example of standardization. If you have an xbox, you can play any xbox game. If you have PS system, you can play PS game. (same for PS2 and PS3)

but backward compatibility is kinda iffy (note PS3 can't play PS2 games after certain generations cause they want people to buy new hardware PS3)

So. If we are going to "standardize" PC gaming, who will you want to do it? HP? Dell? What about chipset? intel? AMD? Video card? memory? Which OS to use? standardize OS?
It seems that while trying to "standardize PC" you essentially get a console. We already know that PS3 and Xbox360 are Pretty powerful on their own but graphic sometimes is a bit lacking (to some)
currently the "standard" is the minimum spec require to run the game, but with the SUPER fast growth on new technology, people will want the bigger, faster, better machine in a hurry.

Look at the Xbox360/PS3 system, they are already talking about the next gen already.

 

[@Li3n]

Actually, they weren't even close (page 9).

Damn, i really need to remember dates better... fine, you can have last gen too (damn you GTA3)...

But i wonder, how where those numbers if you take into account the numbers of games made, the spread over each platform and other things...

Got anything about sales in the latter half of the 90's?

They increased overall industry sales, expanded the user base, and the money they brought in helped fund new projects. That's pretty much what "good" means.

Define "new" projects... because making Modern Warfare 4 times is not what i'd call new...

And as the Wii showed, more money does not = better games... and that's the only thing i want called "good"...

...so, your issue is not that platforms hurt the development side of gaming, it's that the wrong people are playing games because of consoles, and so the wrong games are being made for their benefit. Well, if you really feel like that, okay, I guess, but I suspect that if consoles went away, you'd have the same problem, just with a smaller number of people.
Added at: 16:31

Yeah, i remember the late 90's fondly... CS-only players be damned.

 

[SpecialKO]

But i wonder, how where those numbers if you take into account the numbers of games made, the spread over each platform and other things...

That's a good question, but I'm guessing that before the 6th-gen (DC, PS2, Xbox, GC), PC games far outnumbered console games. Whether that persisted is the question.

Got anything about sales in the latter half of the 90's?

We have the total sales from the first link, but the ESA changed their site outline and took a lot of stuff away.

This is the best I've found, but take it with a grain of salt since the source links are dead. In 1998, PC games did $1.8B, Console games did $3.7B

Yeah, i remember the late 90's fondly... CS-only players be damned.

The 90s were good times. C&C Red Alert and Marathon.

 

[figmentPez]

The market is ever-changing. Casual games, especially those with micro-transactions have hit big time in the PC realm since the 360/PS3 made their debut. What used to be a huge hunk of hours spent nominally gaming (solitare and other stuff) is being converted to actual monetary sales, with varying success. Just look at the huge number of hidden picture, time management (i.e. Diner Dash) and other casual games that are selling like hotcakes. That's not just in iOS, it's on PC and not so much on the consoles.

PC hardware doesn't have to be standardized if the game requirements leave enough wiggle room. We're getting the point where even full 3D games can be run on even basic level graphics, and with those same graphics accelerating web surfing, Youtube and other stuff besides games, you can bet that more and more computers are going to be capable of some level of gaming, even without having to be purchased specifically to play high-end AAA titles.

The future of gaming, IMO, encompasses a lot more than it's past was forced to focus on. There are going to be more types of games, played on more types of devices, with a wider range of price-points, than ever before. That's going to be a good thing, for the most part. There will be bumps and bruises, and some genres may suffer for a time (like Adventure games did), but in the end people will keep on gaming, and the PC will be a place to do it on.

Recently I saw someone comment that their gaming days were over because they didn't want to buy the most recent console and play all the online-multiplayer focused games that are trendy right now. If I knew the person better I would have called them silly, told them they just built a new quad-core PC and let them know to follow the "Games on Sale" thread. If you've already spent the dough on a video editing rig, you can still do some gaming every now and then when a title you're interested in hits $5 on Steam.

 

[@Li3n]

That's a good question, but I'm guessing that before the 6th-gen (DC, PS2, Xbox, GC), PC games far outnumbered console games. Whether that persisted is the question.

So last gen was what started the trend, it just wasn't as obvious from the PC side... i'll have to remember that next time.

We have the total sales from the first link, but the ESA changed their site outline and took a lot of stuff away.

This is the best I've found, but take it with a grain of salt since the source links are dead. In 1998, PC games did $1.8B, Console games did $3.7B

I see they include handhelds there too... that kinda explains why it's so much larger even back then but didn't start affecting the PC yet...

 

[SpecialKO]

I see they include handhelds there too... that kinda explains why it's so much larger even back then but didn't start affecting the PC yet...

Without a system by system breakdown, we can't tell, unfortunately (though I'm guessing the GB had the lion's share among handhelds). And within the context of this discussion, handhelds are most definitely standardized platforms.

 

[fade]

That is one of the dumbest tech articles I have ever read. I don't even know where to start

There is nothing new to what these guys are doing. The comments on them being a novel competitor with name recognition is ridiculous (since they are neither novel nor do they have name recognition.) Alienware has been doing it for years (vaguelly gimmick these days though as their quality isn't great), and for high end laptops you can't beat Falcon NW.

The idea that the difference between Apple and Windows laptops is the hardware is quite foolish. It's true that Apple software can be stronger because it limits its hardware, but the advantage is still a software one. Standardizing the hardware on a windows laptop doesn't change the fact that its still a windows laptop.

No one cares about a single "innovative" item on a laptop. Every laptop has their own innovations. The only difference here is that the innovation doesn't do much for the purpose. Who wants a touch screen on a gaming PC? This also just illustrates how idiotic the writer is. Apple laptops are arguably the worst possible laptops out there for gaming precisely because of their slew of innovations. While aesthetically pleasing to normal users, they normally simply get in the way for gamers.

The dumbest comments in that article, however, are the comments about the hardware market. First he talks about the need for a form factor/platform for developers, then he talks about the lack of options: hint hint, the fact that AMD/ATI and NVIDIA/INTEL are the major suppliers makes development massively simpler.

Then there's this gem: "the lack of systemic innovation in the PC hardware space itself". This is 100% wrong. Now that the physical limit for circuit miniaturization has been hit (more or less) manufacturers are going through a rennaisance of innovation thinking outside the box for any and every performance gain. Multi-core processing and the explosion of SSDs are two obvious examples that come to mind.

This whole article strikes me as written by one of those "experts" that develops their ideas in a vacuum.

Also, the real threat to Apple is/was pancreatic cancer (ah-hue-hue-hue).

I agree with some of what you say, but I don't understand what I've bolded. How do you mean? I can't think of anything about an Apple laptop that fits this description. They're not particularly different from a PC laptop from a hardware user interface point of view.

I mean, I may not play them at maxed out settings, but I haven't had too much trouble playing the newer games I do play on an Apple Pro laptop. The biggest impediment to play is often that I have to boot into Windows. But that has more to do with development than the computer itself. As a programmer, I'd even make the argument that graphics coding is easier on a Mac, being based on the incredibly intuitive OpenGL instead of DirectX. Not to mention all the stuff you get "for free" when coding a mac app. If this is what you're talking about, then maybe you're right, because while it's easier to code, it's not what the dev houses are used to.

 

[Chibibar]

I agree somewhat on the laptops. I think the issue is NOT the hardware, but the game availability with Mac products. Granted that lately, more and more games DO have PC/Mac options, but some games are still PC exclusives due to coding (directX mainly I believe. this is an observation)