Export thread

http://www.pcgamingisnotdead.com/



I'm a little intrigued as to what this is all about. I really dig their products, the Black Widow Mechanical Keyboard is my absolute favorite keyboard I've ever used and their mice are generally perfectly functional and affordable and I've had no real complaints.

It's for a kind of tablet/laptop hybrid made strictly for gaming, with PC games as the focus.

Oh, well poo. That makes me sad. That will probably just fail.

Dave said:

It's for a kind of tablet/laptop hybrid made strictly for gaming, with PC games as the focus.

Click to expand...

Basically small unit (like iPad type) that can play PC games like WoW or BioShock.

That is not a PC.

It certainly looks like a Portable Computer to me.

--Patrick

What PC gaming needs is a neural interface helmet.

Reading up, they've been talking about the Switchblade for a while, this whole countdown, mystery thing can't be about it. If it is, well, fuck you Razer.

DarkAudit said:

That is not a PC.

Click to expand...

How is it not a PC? It's a netbook, running Win7, crossed with an optimus keyboard.

figmentPez said:

How is it not a PC? It's a netbook, running Win7, crossed with an optimus keyboard.

Click to expand...

Right there. Netbook? For gaming? Really? Really?

Unless it's a $2500 netbook that rates a 7.7 across the board on the WEI.

DarkAudit said:

Right there. Netbook? For gaming? Really? Really?

Unless it's a $2500 netbook that rates a 7.7 across the board on the WEI.

Click to expand...

Even though I meant "netbook" as a reference to it's size, not power, I'm still going to laugh in your face for even referencing the WEI.

Second, if it cost $2,500, it wouldn't be a netbook anymore. Part of the definition of a netbook is price.

Third, there's more to gaming than just what can be done on the latest high-end system. If this little thing were to have an AMD Fusion chip powering it, then it would be able to run lower requirement games at a playable frame rate. It might not run Crysis 2 or Deus Ex: Human Revolution, but it could run Team Fortress 2, World of Warcraft, Torchlight and a lot of "casual" and F2P games.

I can't really comment on this because I'd NEVER use it. Why would you? Do you really "game" that much on the "road" (2-3hr drives) or spend weeks at a time at hotels? (If you do either of these, then I can see the appeal) but if you're not in that niche, why would you choose this over sitting at a massively more powerful machine? I'm just not sold.

Well, I know one thing. I'm not going to buy it just to drag it onto an airplane to play Diablo III.

--Patrick

I actually do the majority of my PC gaming on my laptop, which can run WoW, Torchlight, Half-Life 2, etc perfectly. And to my surprise, I do most of that gaming at home. The convenience of having it on the laptop means I can game while on the couch, or at a friend's house, or even on the porch (though not now, fuck summer) without being tied to my desk. Really, the only games I play currently on my stationary PC is Dragon Age and Rift.

You say perfectly, I say at a % of the capacity of my desktop.

i do all of my PC gaming on my Alienware laptop because the uncertainty of where I might be a year from now or when/if I ever pack up and head back to the states keeps me from buying a desktop which would be a pain in the ass to lug around. So personally I tend to buy high end laptops and assuming I have the money, replace them every 2 years.
Added at: 14:06
Though, as an afterthought, Shego isn't wrong. If I had $2500 to dump on a Desktop or $2500 to dump on a laptop, I'd take the desktop.

Again, this was just a personal response. I've hated every gaming experience I've had on any sort of portable system with the exception of a hacked PSP that I only used to play RPGs on. An Alienware/Top of the line laptop is probably the only thing I'd even consider giving a chance, but even then, the lack of a full keyboard and mouse? I'm just not feeling it, never have. (If you add on a keyboard and mouse, it's not a portable system anymore, it's a lightweight desktop.)

Well, I add the mouse at least. I couldn't imagine using the touchpad for anything other than point and click or turn based strategy games.

Also it doesn't help that Alienware touchpads suck.

I plug in a mouse. And my laptop has a full keyboard. Even has a numpad!

If I have to dumb all the settings down to get a game to be playable, plus limit myself to a small subset of games, then I don't consider that to be a system fit for gaming.

My laptop is far more powerful than the desktop I bought in 2006, but is totally unfit for gaming. The 5 year old video card in the desktop can still kick the onboard video in the nuts and take it's wallet.

To me, PC Gaming is defined by speed and outstanding graphics. Few laptops can get close. Tablets and netbooks? Forget it.

Yeah, I'm an avid desktopper myself. I always get flack because I'd rather play a game in my (rather comfortable) desk chair on a monitor than in the living room on my tv. I get WAY more immersed in games when I play on a desktop, being so close to it draws me in way more than if I was 8 feet away from my tv. With a nice set of headphones on, it's gaming bliss. This is why I'm a PC gamer.

Preach it Brother Frankie!

Shegokigo said:

Preach it Brother Frankie!

Click to expand...

Considering his avatar...

--Patrick

Honestly speaking, I don't make too much of a distinction between a laptop and a desktop. PC gaming falls under both for me. I rarely, if ever, use my laptop to play outside of home so maybe that's way.

That said, I give props to consoles for more or less one reason---when I pop in a game, I don't have to worry about system requirements and tweaking with settings. Now that my laptop is over a year old, I gotta start looking a little closer to system requirements. My alienware is by no means slow, but it will probably hit a point--by next year most likely where the games outpace the system and it's time to invest in a new one. I love PC gaming to death but there has been instances where I went with the Xbox360 version of a game over the PC version so I wouldn't worry about framerates or weird Direct X issues (I'm looking at you, DA2).

I'm a laptop gamer these days.
Graphic quality is nearly a non factor in my immersion of a game anyway so a desktop just takes up unnecessary space. I might pick up the next generation of consoles even, to get rid of even the laptop. Though with some games just being immensely better playable with keyboard/mouse I might not be able to ditch it completely.

I'm both. I like gaming at my desktop PC, but I've got a friend who I visit every couple weeks that also likes to game, and I like taking my laptop over there for some multiplayer. We tore the hell out of Saints Row 2, it was a blast. But I was definitely grateful I did not have to lug my extremely heavy and large home system over there. Same went for borderlands, and so on.

Also, he isn't a desktop gamer anymore, he's 100% laptop, because that way he can be on the couch with his wife when she wants to watch her "stories" and thus she doesn't feel ignored cause he isn't sequestered off in another room. Even though they're doing 2 separate things, they're doing it sitting side by side and that's enough to keep her happy.

There are a handful of games I will play on my laptop, and the only reason I play it on that is because I am nowhere near my desktop. If I was on my desktop I would play better games.

And the announcement:
Razer unveils $2800 'Blade' laptop (Joystiq)
The Razer Blade is Gaming's Deadliest New Laptop (Kotaku)

17" screen
7 lbs.
2.8Ghz Core i7
Nvidia GeForce GT 555M with 2GB of video memory
10 LCD keys and a small LCD touchscreen.

Meh, much too expensive for me to even dream about. Interesting concept, but I think the functionality of that little screen is going to be too limited to be more than a novelty.

And it could be outperformed in almost every way by a 1.5k destop.

They plan to show the viability of PC gaming with a $2800 laptop? To compete with $250 consoles? This is not how you do that.

/facepalm

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

Razer must have bribed someone at Kotaku:

http://kotaku.com/5834795/i-cant-be...uture-of-pc-gamingit-may-be-the-future-of-pcs

After seeing this morning's reveal of their new creation, the Razer "Blade" gaming laptop, I think I'm ready to go one better: I think Razer may not just save PC gaming—I think they may save Windows laptops entirely.
But Razer's got a big scrap ahead of them. The Blade doesn't go up against other gaming PCs—it's going toe to toe with the world's best hardware manufacturer. They're going to fight Apple.

Click to expand...

...OK, PC gaming dying is SOMEWHAT plausible, but the death of the WINDOWS LAPTOP? We're off to a good start.

You can build a perfectly decent gaming PC for less than a grand. The new Razer Blade costs $2,800. (I'll get to the price in a bit. It's a big deal—and something Razer is going to have to bring down.)

Click to expand...

Way to undermine your own point on your FOURTH PARAGRAPH.

But here's something that PC gamers don't want to hear (and I say this as an owner of a shit-hot gaming tower of my own): PC gaming hardware is approaching a dead end.
PCs aren't going to die, but they are fast on their way to a niche industry. And it's not smartphones and iPads that are killing them—it's the lack of systemic innovation in the PC hardware space itself.
Look, it's not the ‘90s anymore. There aren't dozens of companies making PC hardware anymore, especially the sort that gamers need with real graphics horsepower. There are three: Intel, Nvidia, and AMD.
And really, if you want to get right down to it, there's just Intel. They're the only company with the capital, resources, and engineering prowess to move forward in the industry. (Nvidia may get there if their mobile Tegra platform finds customers in smartphones and tablets; they could use the revenue.)
But for years, Intel has been operating as a company fearful of accusations of monopoly, even though they largely have had no real threatening competition. But oops, here comes Apple using lovely mobile hardware that is fast approaching Good Enough status for even "real" computing in their mobile hardware.
Guess what? In another generation or two, those iPhone chips are going to be fast enough to power a decent laptop. It won't be long before the MacBook Air and the iPad meet in the middle, not just in interface, but in hardware.

Click to expand...

...so we would get a a laptop with similar power to today's laptops? And THIS would destroy PC gaming?

So where does that leave the PC hardware world? HP just bailed on PC hardware. Dell's a rounding error for mid-sized corporate bulk computers. Apple's moving through the consumer space like crazy, becoming the laptop of choice for not just students and creatives, but everyone but PC gamers.

Click to expand...

Oh really? What about the umpteen MILLION applications that only run on Windows that serve as the backbone of several industries? What planet does this guy live in?

What PC gaming needs are platforms. I know many of you gamers out there don't want to see it—the varied choice and the ability to customize your hardware is part of why you love PC gaming. (And Android phones, I'm sure.) But it's holding back one of the things that made PC gaming so wonderful for years: raw power.

Click to expand...

...so having unreplaceable components in EVERY computer will somehow make computers more powerful? What moon logic is this?

Why do Xbox games running on six-year-old hardware look nearly as good as a modern PC games? Don't quibble with me about resolution, texture quality, etc. You'd be missing the forest for the trees. Console games look close enough to PC games, despite PC gaming hardware being ten times as computationally powerful.

Click to expand...

..."look nearly as good"...WHAT DRUGS ARE YOU ON?

It's time to buck and realize that the Apple model of hardware isn't just one way to do it—it's the way hardware has to go to move forward. There will still be competition, but the competition is between platforms, not within the platforms itself.

Click to expand...

So the PC will turn into uncustomizable black boxes. I admit there is the frightening possibility of Apple causing this via market pressure but this isn't supposed to be a GOOD THING.

The Razer Blade is the first credible competitor to Apple from the PC hardware world in five years. Don't get me wrong—I'm not sure that Razer even knows what they have on their hands or if they're committed enough to the product line to see it through. But I'm sure Intel knows; the dedicated an entire engineering team to the project with Razer, after all.
Here's what the Razer Blade is doing right:
It has a real brand.

Click to expand...

Define "real". And it's meant to compete with APPLE? I'm starting to think this guy is trolling us.

It's a compromise machine in the best way.

It's a fast machine, with powerful hardware. But not too powerful. (There's a reason its screen is only 1080p, a relatively low resolution for PC gaming these days—mobile hardware can push that just fine.) At five pounds, it's light for such a big screen.
It's really not compromised at all—it's purpose built. It's built for gaming. That's wonderful.

Click to expand...

...you do know that gaming laptops have existed for YEARS, right?

It actually has an innovative hardware solution.

That fancy multi-touch trackpad screen off to the right of the keyboard? That's the sort of stuff that makes consumers perk up and take notice. It's the kind of thing that people who have never heard of Razer before will notice in a coffee shop and ask, "What is that? Who makes that? How much does that cost?"
That a multi-touch screen is right in Apple's wheelhouse is just icing on the cake. Take that, MacBooks!

Click to expand...

...or it can be just a stupid gimmick.

It has the potential to turn into its own platform.

The Razer Blade will always be a Windows + Intel project. There aren't going to be games or other software that runs only on Razer Blades, at least not for the foreseeable future.
But by consolidating into a single product line, Razer opens up the opportunity for game makers to create custom builds that more readily access the power of the hardware inside, just as the unified, standardized hardware of consoles allow programmers to continue to squeeze performance out of chips that would be laughed at if they were inside of modern gaming PCs.

Click to expand...

...OK, I'll give it that. Guess a broken clock can be right twice a day.

Support and updates will be easier.

One set of hardware, one set of drivers, one less thing to have to wonder about when you're trying to run games. I love PC hardware's power and potential—I don't love screwing around with drivers and such to get things running. If you do, more power to you (and yes, it's better than it used to be), but that's not what normal, mass market folks want. It's just not. If Razer's support for the Blade is as good as it should be, they should be able to operate a platform that has the It Just Works nature that Apple's Macs tend to have. (Most of the time!)

Click to expand...

...or it could start mimicking your average laptop makers approach to drivers which is "Update once in a blue moon"

The price is painful.

As of today, there are two laptops worth getting excited over, that set themselves apart from the pack via design and performance: the MacBook Air and the Razer Blade.
The MacBook Air is a low-powered, beautiful designed and perfectly built subnotebook; the Razer Blade is a monster gaming rig with a touchscreen interface unlike anything else out there.
I can walk into a store today and buy that MacBook Air for a grand. To get a Razer Blade, I have to spend almost three times that much.
Ouch.
They appeal to very different markets, granted. A fully kitted out MacBook Pro 17 will get you up to or over three grand, as well. But the Razer Blade has the mass market potential that most PC laptops don't have.

$2,800 is fine for now. But let's hope that next year's model gets down closer to $2,000—and $1,500 would be even better.

Click to expand...

NO IT ISN'T "FINE". It's hideously expensive and no one in their right mind would pay for one in the middle of a friggin ECONOMIC CRISIS!

It's tough, even with Intel in the mix. Nobody has a supply chain like Apple. Nobody can get the cutting-edge hardware as inexpensively as Apple.
Except, perhaps, for Intel. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel buy Razer outright in a couple of years if this really takes off. There's no need to worry about monopoly any longer. There's no reason to worry about pissing off vendors like HP and Dell. (Where else are they going to go? Apple? AMD?)
The death of PC hardware might be the rebirth of PC gaming. Don't get me wrong—PC gaming is doing alright. I'm not a doomsayer. But I'm tired of the enthusiast market holding back the innovation in the space. It's just like what happened to cars over the last 15 years. They became more difficult to work for the shade tree mechanic, sure, but they also became faster, more fuel efficient, and cheaper.
I want that for PC gaming. And if they play their cards right, Razer might actually be the company to do it. I'm just as shocked as you are.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm SHOCKED all right, but at something else...

This might turn out to be a fine product and if I had money to burn (I'm talking lottery levels) I could see myself getting one but acting as if this is the savior of PC gaming is just insane.

/rant

Nobody can get the cutting-edge hardware as inexpensively as Apple.

Click to expand...

Wait, what?

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.

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).

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.

Covar said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Frankie Williamson said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

figmentPez said:

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.

Click to expand...

Google Reader. F%#@ yeah.

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.

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

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.

Is that some kind of browser game?

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

Shegokigo said:

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

Click to expand...

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.)

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.

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.

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.......

Necronic said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Necronic said:

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

Click to expand...

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

--Patrick

SpecialKO said:

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)

Click to expand...

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...

@Li3n said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

@Li3n said:

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

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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

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.

SpecialKO said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...

SpecialKO said:

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

Click to expand...

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

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

@Li3n said:

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...

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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)

@Li3n said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

...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

Chibibar said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

SpecialKO said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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"...

SpecialKO said:

...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

Click to expand...

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

@Li3n said:

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...

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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...

@Li3n said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Necronic said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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)

Chibibar said:

but some games are still PC exclusives due to coding (directX mainly I believe. this is an observation)

Click to expand...

Just not Deux Ex!

Seriously, though, I think it's more current market size, plus the existence of bootcamp, more than anything else. When only 10% of the market has Macs, and the gamers of that crowd mostly have a bootcamped windows partition already, a studio has to already be a mac dev studio to actually make it worth it in time/resources to develop for the Mac.

SpecialKO said:

only 10% of the market has Macs

Click to expand...

Oh, I believe it's up to almost 13% now (6% worldwide).

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Oh, I believe it's up to almost 13% now (6% worldwide).

Click to expand...

It will be...ours.

I wonder what that is in laptops, though. You can't go anywhere without seeing someone with a Mac laptop. Sure seems like more than 10%.

On the other hand, 10% isn't bad for a single computer manufacturer. Puts them in the #3 spot in the us.

fade said:

I wonder what that is in laptops, though. You can't go anywhere without seeing someone with a Mac laptop. Sure seems like more than 10%.

Click to expand...

Looks like 27%.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

So is my old mobile phone (which wasn't a smart phone), but i doubt that it affect what games get made for PC...

@Li3n said:

So is my old mobile phone (which wasn't a smart phone), but i doubt that it affect what games get made for PC...

Click to expand...

Actually, mobile phones not so much with the standardized. Hundreds of different Hardware SKUs and iterative software technologies. Nothing standardized about it as a development platform until RIM (and they weren't really developer-friendly for games, as I recall), and for non-smartphones, Android (software only).

@Li3n said:

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.

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...

Click to expand...

And the landscape has changed again. PC gaming now makes more money than console, and is projected to continue to make more past 2012:

Thumbnail because this thing is huge, even resized:


So, most of this infographic is just propoganda, but some of these figures are actually significant. Especially the number of hours played.

That info graphic doesn't pass the smell test.

The NPD sales group numbers they're "quoting" actually say some very different things. Estimated total sales by the NPD for the game industry in 2010 was $16 Bn, 9.4 of which was console games and hardware, with an additional 5 Bn including platform-agnostic virtual goods, DLC, themes, avatars, FB credits, etc. Similarly, total unit sales was 257 million, with 230-ish being console.

You can't look at 2 games released in a single month and make any kind of wider claim. All you've compared is those 2 games released at that time. You could just as easily decide to pick the two top games of 2010 and compare their sales figures. Say, SC2, which sold 3 million copies worldwide in the first month, versus Call of Duty Black Ops (the top console game of 2010), which sold 8 million in console units alone (+around 300K PC). Comparing just two games is problematic not only for this reason, but also because it doesn't reflect how well either of those platforms are doing outside of their best-seller.

Now, the hours played? That seems credible to me. Of course, it also doesn't break down by type of game, platform, online vs download vs CD, AAA vs casual, etc. Without that info, the whole "more powerful PC" thing that they're promoting in that section falls pretty flat. You don't need a gaming PC to play CityVille every day.

NPD still doesn't count Steam.

Frankie Williamson said:

NPD still doesn't count Steam.

Click to expand...

Neither does that infographic.

SpecialKO said:

Neither does that infographic.

Click to expand...

Really? How do you know? It certainly doesn't say that. In fact, it explicitly says that it incorporates numbers, like MMOs and social networks, that NPD does not include.

EDIT: The revenue numbers are based on a survey done by Newzoo, not on NPD data.

figmentPez said:

Really? How do you know? It certainly doesn't say that. In fact, it explicitly says that it incorporates numbers, like MMOs and social networks, that NPD does not include.

Click to expand...

Because Steam isn't in their list of sources at the bottom. Steam is notorious for not sharing data, so if they had shared it, they would have been mentioned by name. And you have no info to suggest that they did, anyways.
Added at: 15:06
I'm also going to point out that the expansion of social networks into gaming, like Facebook, isn't going to "save" the AAA PC market. If anything, it's incentive to spend more budget on FB/in-browser games.

SpecialKO said:

Because Steam isn't in their list of sources at the bottom. Steam is notorious for not sharing data, so if they had shared it, they would have been mentioned by name. And you have no info to suggest that they did, anyways.

Click to expand...

Actually, I do. The numbers come from Newzoo, they gather their information from multiple sources. Although the infographic didn't get any information directly from Steam, that doesn't mean that they didn't get any numbers from Steam sales. There are other ways to find out how much people are spending than to directly ask Valve.

figmentPez said:

EDIT: The revenue numbers are based on a survey done by Newzoo, not on NPD data.

Click to expand...

Still doesn't sound right. The NPD reports digital/other games sales besides console at $5 Bn in the US. Newzoo reports the same thing at $10 Bn in the US. Unless Valve is doing several billion in revenue (doubtful), the gap is just too high unless Newzoo is including cellphone/smartphones, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

Social networks will overcome console sales, probably quite soon, but it's not going to "save" the AAA PC market, which is clearly what the infographic is about.
Added at: 15:17

figmentPez said:

Actually, I do. The numbers come from Newzoo, they gather their information from multiple sources. Although the infographic didn't get any information directly from Steam, that doesn't mean that they didn't get any numbers from Steam sales. There are other ways to find out how much people are spending than to directly ask Valve.

Click to expand...

So you're assuming they have Steam sales until they say they don't? Right....

Honestly, it looks like the just screen-scraped the newzoo infographics.

The US one has a lot more info than the one Ignite made, and makes a lot more sense.

SpecialKO said:

Still doesn't sound right. The NPD reports digital/other games sales besides console at $5 Bn in the US. Newzoo reports the same thing at $10 Bn in the US. Unless Valve is doing several billion in revenue (doubtful), the gap is just too high unless Newzoo is including cellphone/smartphones, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

Click to expand...

Considering they include MMOs and casual games in their digital/other games category, it doesn't have to be just Valve making billions. I don't consider NPD to be reliable, since they no longer give sales numbers to the public and because they don't include many sources that they ought to. I don't even know what NPD includes and what it doesn't.

So you're assuming they have Steam sales until they say they don't? Right....

Click to expand...

I'm assuming that a survey of the entire industry is actually a survey of the entire industry, unless they specifically state otherwise. I don't think it's so illogical to conclude that when they say they covered digital distribution that they at least estimated Steam sales figures based on publisher numbers, customer surveys, or some other form of indirect data.
Added at: 15:15
Also, Steam's revenue in 2010 was estimated at $1 Billion. I'm going to assume that Valve isn't the only online company that doesn't tell it's numbers to NPD. Wal-Mart didn't share their sales data with NPD until this year. That's not digital/other, but it's still a pretty major chunk of information. If the biggest online distributor and, possibly, the largest physical distributor of games aren't included in 2010 NPD data, why the hell should I trust them?

I'm hardly the only one to criticize NPD numbers for this:

"Using NPD data for video game sales is like measuring music sales and ignoring something called iTunes," EA corporate communications exec Tiffany Steckler told CNN Money. "We see NPD's data as a misrepresentation of the entire industry."

Click to expand...

NPD numbers are widely criticized by the press, both gaming and investment outlets, and are not considered reliable for comparison to reality.

I used to be a PC gamer, but not anymore. The financial and time investments in PC gaming got too high. Plus, PC loses (for me) on one very, very important point. The "lying back on the couch in the living room" factor.

The NPD definitely uses retail boxed sales, numbers reported by public companies, and information that has been made public in general. The only major distribution system they don't have much clarity into is Steam.

Newzoo does large-scale surveys, and then derives larger data from the data that they find. In the US, that survey pool is 145,000. This gives them pretty decent legs to stand on as that's a nice huge data pool, but it also means that their numbers aren't actually based on sales data.

Spoiler'd for length:


The reason I don't buy Ignite's presentation of any of it is because they're misrepresenting the growth of the casual social market to say that premium PC gaming is making a comeback. It's why they combined "time-played" (which is far more about casual games) with the "processor power" graphic, and compared the sales of 2010's top PC game with the sales of a console game which didn't crack top 20.

Looks like their survey pool is actually about 20,000, worldwide.

drifter said:

Looks like their survey pool is actually about 20,000, worldwide.

Click to expand...

My mistake, I'm tired and read it wrong. Still a good sample size assuming they don't break it down too far.

fade said:

I used to be a PC gamer, but not anymore. The financial and time investments in PC gaming got too high. Plus, PC loses (for me) on one very, very important point. The "lying back on the couch in the living room" factor.

Click to expand...

Some of this is because many PC gamers think of the PC in a traditional sense: Desk/monitor/keyboard/mouse.

With the way that modern technology has become so heavily streamlined for home use there is little reason why people can't go through the extra steps for more elaborate setups, like having their computer hooked up to their TV/projector and using wireless input device hubs.

The one thing holding that back are the controllers. A console has a very simple, very compact controller, whereas computers have more complex controllers with more comfort issues. (lying back with a keyboard mouse vs lying back with an xbox controller. ) Its a double edged sword though, because one of the major complaints many PC gamers have against consoles are the limitations of the controllers themselves.

However, you're starting to see a shift in this over time. Originally there was just the plain old keyboard/mouse. Then people started making more advanced mice for gamers. Then you've started to see more advanced keyboards. Now, finally, you are starting to see purpose built peripherals for PC gamers, like the G13 game pad (which is amazing by the way.)

Joysticks are a real history lesson in the history of peripheral advances, as they were the first (thank god for those flight sim nuts.) You started with relatively basic stuff, but very quickly you started to see *very* advanced peripheral hardware coming out. Force feedback joysticks started showing up in what, the mid 90s? I bought my dad one right around then I think..... And when you think about the tech in those they were *very* advanced for their time.

It very well could be the case that, as time goes on, more streamlined peripherals come out that are more suited towards the "laying back" gaming attitude

And the only reason this is true, which is also the prime difference between consoles and PCs, is the freedom of the development market. Understanding it as a darwinian system consoles are somewhat inbred. They innovate in a vaccuum without much, if any, competition (when it comes to peripherals). PCs are like the pile of muck behind my fridge though, its a breeding ground for innovation due to the freedoms they have, and for that reason are quite likely to move farther, faster than the console peripherals (which really they have done 2o times over.)

Long story short, PCs have the oppurtunity to do exactly what consoles do, while the reverse isn't true.

btw check this out for "laying back" gaming:

http://theairmouse.com/

Necronic said:

Some of this is because many PC gamers think of the PC in a traditional sense: Desk/monitor/keyboard/mouse.

With the way that modern technology has become so heavily streamlined for home use there is little reason why people can't go through the extra steps for more elaborate setups, like having their computer hooked up to their TV/projector and using wireless input device hubs.

The one thing holding that back are the controllers. A console has a very simple, very compact controller, whereas computers have more complex controllers with more comfort issues. (lying back with a keyboard mouse vs lying back with an xbox controller. ) Its a double edged sword though, because one of the major complaints many PC gamers have against consoles are the limitations of the controllers themselves.

However, you're starting to see a shift in this over time. Originally there was just the plain old keyboard/mouse. Then people started making more advanced mice for gamers. Then you've started to see more advanced keyboards. Now, finally, you are starting to see purpose built peripherals for PC gamers, like the G13 game pad (which is amazing by the way.)

Joysticks are a real history lesson in the history of peripheral advances, as they were the first (thank god for those flight sim nuts.) You started with relatively basic stuff, but very quickly you started to see *very* advanced peripheral hardware coming out. Force feedback joysticks started showing up in what, the mid 90s? I bought my dad one right around then I think..... And when you think about the tech in those they were *very* advanced for their time.

It very well could be the case that, as time goes on, more streamlined peripherals come out that are more suited towards the "laying back" gaming attitude

And the only reason this is true, which is also the prime difference between consoles and PCs, is the freedom of the development market. Understanding it as a darwinian system consoles are somewhat inbred. They innovate in a vaccuum without much, if any, competition (when it comes to peripherals). PCs are like the pile of muck behind my fridge though, its a breeding ground for innovation due to the freedoms they have, and for that reason are quite likely to move farther, faster than the console peripherals (which really they have done 2o times over.)

Long story short, PCs have the oppurtunity to do exactly what consoles do, while the reverse isn't true.

btw check this out for "laying back" gaming:

http://theairmouse.com/

Click to expand...

I agree. I think with newer games where VOIP is essential. With a G13 type on left hand and advance mouse on the right hand, you don't need anything else really (in most games)

Nvidia: PC Game Sales Will Surpass Console Sales by 2014 - http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/119/1196429p1.html

So the PC games market is still behind (although it outdoes any individual console), but, as i always assumed, it's been growing just fine, the consoles just had a big boom that didn't happen for the PC:

Good news for small developers, if true.

That said, my question, as before, is are they including Facebook/social networking games, and are they including games whose distribution method is PC downloadable, but whose technical requirements are already below that of current consoles (like Amnesia, League of Legends, Braid, etc.)?

Because neither one of those is based on the GPU power argument, which Nvidia is trying to push, that's a cost-of-sales/delivery argument that assumes that console makers aren't going to want to get in on it (which at least in the case of Microsoft seems unlikely). I would argue that these trends are more indicative of the likelihood of Nintendo's soon-to-be demise, since they are by far the most resistant of the video game hardware giants to supporting digital delivery and social networking.

While DFC Intel is very reputable, and I would trust their figures, Nvidia didn't show any of the breakdowns, just like the last guy's infographic in this thread that ended up revealing the growth in projected PC sales revenue was due to facebook and mobile platforms, not the power of premium PC gaming technology.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15536488

heh. I can see from a casual perspective that PC might seem to be "dying" but PC is the only system really that can handle the "imperfect MMO" that is the major cash cows.

"imperfect MMO" - I use that term loosely meaning that the game need constant patch and updates. Even with the iPad, Wii, Xbox or PS3 can't keep up. We already see that some games like DCUO take a hit in quality vs PC.

I would like to see the actual Gartner report on that one. I have very little confidence in BBC as a reliable tech reporting vehicle.

SpecialKO said:

and are they including games whose distribution method is PC downloadable, but whose technical requirements are already below that of current consoles (like Amnesia, League of Legends, Braid, etc.)?

Click to expand...

Why would that matter when it comes to just video games, and not hardware sales?

I can't even imagine playing LoL with a controller, and those are the type of games i want on PC, not something that's shinier then the last thing.

...........

Anyway, the whole industry is doomed it seems: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-02-games-industry-votes-apple-as-biggest-influence

@Li3n said:

Why would that matter when it comes to just video games, and not hardware sales?

Click to expand...

Because this whole thread and that stuff from nVidia is about console platforms restricting developers due to aging technology (which is likely true to some point or another), but that doesn't affect titles like LoL. Which is why including titles like LoL (or Machina or Braid or something) in PC sales as evidence in an infographic that PCs are making a comeback due to superior graphics/tech performance is highly misleading.
Added at: 08:33

@Li3n said:

Anyway, the whole industry is doomed it seems: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-02-games-industry-votes-apple-as-biggest-influence

Click to expand...

Eurogamer is pushing that one a bit far methinks. Slight pluralities do not a revolution in game design make.

SpecialKO said:

Because this whole thread and that stuff from nVidia is about console platforms restricting developers due to aging technology (which is likely true to some point or another), but that doesn't affect titles like LoL. Which is why including titles like LoL (or Machina or Braid or something) in PC sales as evidence in an infographic that PCs are making a comeback due to superior graphics/tech performance is highly misleading.

Click to expand...

Well if the argue it's a comeback it's wrong anyway because the graphs clearly shows that it's always been growing, so there's nothing to come back from...

That's why that's not the argument i'm making, and i'm just using their data...

Also, LoL needs 1GB of RAM... don't confuse graphics with overall requirements.

It needs 1GB of RAM on a PC that's also running lots of other processes. Not even remotely the same thing.
Added at: 09:50

@Li3n said:

Well if the argue it's a comeback it's wrong anyway because the graphs clearly shows that it's always been growing, so there's nothing to come back from...

Click to expand...

Nvidia's graph. The previous one linked by you guys shows that they were (EDIT: were shrinking until recently, I mean).

SpecialKO said:

It needs 1GB of RAM on a PC that's also running lots of other processes. Not even remotely the same thing.

Click to expand...

There's a reason why i posted the min reqs you know... from a technical standpoint even the most graphically intensive game could run on a console as long as you lower the possible settings and limit what shows up on screen enough (see Crysis 1). EDIT: and use 30fps.

SpecialKO said:

Nvidia's graph. The previous one linked by you guys shows that they were (EDIT: were shrinking until recently, I mean).

Click to expand...

Which one? Coz i must have missed it.

@Li3n said:

There's a reason why i posted the min reqs you know... from a technical standpoint even the most graphically intensive game could run on a console as long as you lower the possible settings and limit what shows up on screen enough (see Crysis 1). EDIT: and use 30fps.

Click to expand...

PC RAM requirements and console RAM requirements are not automatically analogous. Just because LoL requires 1GB of RAM on a PC does not automatically mean that a console would need 1GB of RAM to perform at the same level. The throughput of a system is based on a lot more than RAM.

I'm honestly stunned to that you think LoL could not run, as is, on a current-gen console because of its RAM limitations. Microsoft being asses about connectivity through Live, certainly, (which is a real advantage that PCs have) but not RAM limitations.

Which one? Coz i must have missed it.

Click to expand...

The ignite one that was based on the Newzoo data (which did not say what ignite said it did).

Look, the thing that I find truly bizarre about this entire thread is how so many of the folks here think that PC game development is some kind of giant monolith. Where one goes, so shall we all, and all that. It's completely not. If the rising low-cost indie game market is growing, it's not indicative of the PC game market as a whole growing, it's indicative of the low-cost indie game market growing. That's it. It's just as probable that the success of games like LoL could contribute to less money being put into Triple-A PC development as being put into the console market.
Added at: 13:09
As a peace offering to the folks who probably think I hate PC gaming:

Zelda + Total War (conversion mod)!

I love pretty graphics, BUT I rather have a decent gameplay vs "awesome graphic" and sucky gameplay. Twilight Princess on the Wii looked pretty good and I really enjoy that game. The Wii graphical capability is the lowest compare to Xbox and PS3 and can still look decent.

PS3 can look phenomenal since it has a Blu-Ray player.

Now when it comes to control, I guess I'm old school. I do love using KB/M combo when it comes to MMORPG. I know it can be done via controller (FF 11 did it) but PC can do so much more. Can you imagine playing WoW on Xbox or PS3 without a keyboard and just a controller?

I think games specifically design for it can work (like Final Fantasy) I don't see games like WoW to port over to console version anytime soon.

Chibibar said:

Now when it comes to control, I guess I'm old school. I do love using KB/M combo when it comes to MMORPG. I know it can be done via controller (FF 11 did it) but PC can do so much more. Can you imagine playing WoW on Xbox or PS3 without a keyboard and just a controller?

Click to expand...

I could imagine WoW on the PS3 hardware really easily, seeing as how the PS3 supports KB/M if the developers bother to build it in. The stumbling block there would be:

1) Blizz and Sony making nice on PSN talking to Battle.net for matching, server handshakes, updates, etc.
2) Mods. No way would Sony allow mods to run on the PS3. It's a bit of a shame, but that's the truth of it. They may be more open than the 360, but the PS3 is still a closed system.
3) HDD size. Not everyone has the slim models with 120GB+ HDDs.

I suspect Blizzard would be less interested than Sony would be. There's no benefit to them at this point to re-build WoW to run on PS3 architecture. Time and effort for folks who likely own WoW already on a PC if they have any interest in the game at all.

On the 360...well, that's never happening. They're stricter than Sony about other folk's services running through their network, and they've specifically blocked KB/M capabilities for anything beyond texting in the chat interface. Silly as heck.

Maybe, but you're forgetting that both FFXI and FFIV are on consoles.

You are right about the modding issue though.

Shegokigo said:

Maybe, but you're forgetting that both FFXI and FFIV are on consoles.

Click to expand...

Good point. Clearly they can get around the network issue if they try, though I don't know how analogous the FFXI/IV setup is to Battle.net.

And Dust 514 is clearly a step in the right direction regardless, and one that I would definitely like to work. All they have to do is let me orbital laser strike player-controlled infantry battalions, and I would turn my EvE sub back on right now.

Shegokigo said:

Maybe, but you're forgetting that both FFXI and FFIV are on consoles.

You are right about the modding issue though.

Click to expand...

those are the only example I have for MMORPG to exist on console. All other games that I have played are more of local network/system (like L4D series)

It is possible but mods would be an issue.

SpecialKO said:

PC RAM requirements and console RAM requirements are not automatically analogous. Just because LoL requires 1GB of RAM on a PC does not automatically mean that a console would need 1GB of RAM to perform at the same level. The throughput of a system is based on a lot more than RAM.

I'm honestly stunned to that you think LoL could not run, as is, on a current-gen console because of its RAM limitations. Microsoft being asses about connectivity through Live, certainly, (which is a real advantage that PCs have) but not RAM limitations.

Click to expand...

I don't, that LoL thing was an aside, and in my last post i was trying to say that either way it doesn't matter, as being able to run it on a console or not is not what makes a PC game a PC game...

And i don't think the nVidia people are referring to games that can't be made to run on consoles either, it probably more about games looking better on PC at Max settings etc.


But RAM is important too, and one of the main reasons this happens (also, loading in Skyrim):

SpecialKO said:

Look, the thing that I find truly bizarre about this entire thread is how so many of the folks here think that PC game development is some kind of giant monolith. Where one goes, so shall we all, and all that. It's completely not. If the rising low-cost indie game market is growing, it's not indicative of the PC game market as a whole growing, it's indicative of the low-cost indie game market growing. That's it. It's just as probable that the success of games like LoL could contribute to less money being put into Triple-A PC development as being put into the console market.

Click to expand...

Frankly Triple A is such a stupid terminology...

I mean there are plenty of 4x games that came out in the last few years that weren't labelled Triple A, and they where more of a PC game then any CoD like shooters...

I believe that gaming like anything else is being cater to the lowest denominator

I am not saying that new gamers are "stupid" but I believe they want more instant gratification. Hence the linear path with cutscene. Now games like Oblivion and Fallout DO have "linear" path, you do have option to go on side quest or totally out of the way and do your own thing. This is kind of fun, but many "new" players won't like it and probably quit after getting "lost" for hours.

Which is sad so company want to cater to the lowest denominator and made it linear

If you want a game to tell a story, then there does at some point have to be linearity. But even if you don't necessarily have a story to tell, it still gets extremely complicated to juggle how the events of one action or story arc interfere with/change events and stories elsewhere. Full on open world with unlimited choice isn't actually always a good thing, sometimes it can hurt the gaming experience.

For instance, Gabe said on Penny Arcade last week:

In the end it comes down to the same problem I have with all these sorts of open world games. I find them sort of paralyzing. When I meet a group of people in Skyrim and they want me to join their cult or whatever I just freeze up. If I do join it, will I miss out on some cool thing later? If I don’t join it, are they going to have some rad adventure without me? No matter what I choose I feel like I missed out on something awesome. I’m not picking a direction to go, I’m deciding not to go a hundred other directions. Obviously I’m a crazy person but that’s just how these games make me feel. I need a much more directed game experience to have a good time.

Click to expand...

That right there struck SUCH a chord with me. It's EXACTLY how I felt in Dragon Age, especially when it came to interacting with my party. If I am too friendly with X, does that mean I can't experience all the content with Y? I am of an age where I no longer have the time to do multiple playthroughs of a 40+ hour single player experience just to see the roads not traveled the first time. Maybe if I win the lottery and can quit my job.

Don't get me wrong, I like sandbox/open world games, but I don't like having a game decide NOT to serve me content based on past decisions. Right now, I can't decide whether or not to join the Thief Guild in Riften because of that one chick who's there to "clean up the town." If I join the thief guild, does that mean I don't get to clean up the town with her? Or if I clean up the town with her, does that mean I'll not be able to fence stolen property ever? (Answer, yes, unless I get 90 speech and invest 500g in a vendor, in which case to make my money back I would have to become a career criminal, IN WHICH CASE I MIGHT AS WELL HAVE JOINED THE THIEF GUILD)...

See, that's the kinda stuff that sounds good for marketing, and that developers jizz themselves to death over implementing because it's "so cool that we can do that..." but me, it just makes me feel like no matter what decision I make, I don't get to experience the whole game.

GasBandit said:

If you want a game to tell a story, then there does at some point have to be linearity. But even if you don't necessarily have a story to tell, it still gets extremely complicated to juggle how the events of one action or story arc interfere with/change events and stories elsewhere. Full on open world with unlimited choice isn't actually always a good thing, sometimes it can hurt the gaming experience.

For instance, Gabe said on Penny Arcade last week:



That right there struck SUCH a chord with me. It's EXACTLY how I felt in Dragon Age, especially when it came to interacting with my party. If I am too friendly with X, does that mean I can't experience all the content with Y? I am of an age where I no longer have the time to do multiple playthroughs of a 40+ hour single player experience just to see the roads not traveled the first time. Maybe if I win the lottery and can quit my job.

Don't get me wrong, I like sandbox/open world games, but I don't like having a game decide NOT to serve me content based on past decisions.

Click to expand...

but isn't that part of re-playability? I do like things like that cause people can make different choice to have different outcome, but what I don't like is even these kinds of choice, the outcome is the "same" just different slice of ending.

Such a game doesn't exist yet, but if I made certain choices, the ending is totally different than the other choices. I do like that. It allows replayability.

Chibibar said:

but isn't that part of re-playability?

Click to expand...

Did you see the part where I said that as I'm not 19 any more, I don't have time to play, replay, and re-replay a game that can typically go over 40 hours?

I might get a couple hours a night to play. Maybe more on weekends, maybe not. A game gets ONE playthrough. One.

Replayability is fine for a game like LoL where an entire round takes at most, 40 minutes. Not 40 hours.

You're also not the target demographic GasB.

GasBandit said:

Did you see the part where I said that as I'm not 19 any more, I don't have time to play, replay, and re-replay a game that can typically go over 40 hours?

I might get a couple hours a night to play. Maybe more on weekends, maybe not. A game gets ONE playthrough. One.

Replayability is fine for a game like LoL where an entire round takes at most, 40 minutes. Not 40 hours.

Click to expand...

I understand that so many company need to make game cheaper and linear for old folks like us

then I take it back, maybe it is not the newer generation that have a hard time playing old school open world, maybe it is our generation that can't play it multiple time and just want to play it once and done.

Shegokigo said:

You're also not the target demographic GasB.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're probably right. It's disheartening to know that games are being aimed mostly at the unproductive with tons of disposable income, but I suppose it's only common (business) sense to operate in such a manner. It would also explain why GOOD games are so few and far between, and why there is so many BattleCall: Gears of Halo sequels.

Have I mentioned I think the quasi-realism of having to cover 50% of your screen area with blurry back-end-of-gun is a game mechanic that is more than played out, recently?

Funny thing is, when we were the demographic, in "our day" we replayed the SHIT out of massively linear games. Final Fantasy 1-7, Mario, Sonic, etc.

Shegokigo said:

Funny thing is, when we were the demographic, in "our day" we replayed the SHIT out of massively linear games. Final Fantasy 1-7, Mario, Sonic, etc.

Click to expand...

At that age, I was mostly playing games like Ultima Underworld, Doom, Duke3d, Carmageddon and Warcraft. I got out of consoles mostly after the NES, and didn't get back into them until I bought a dreamcast for my first apartment.

So other than Warcraft, like I said, massively linear games.

@Li3n said:

And i don't think the nVidia people are referring to games that can't be made to run on consoles either, it probably more about games looking better on PC at Max settings etc.

Click to expand...

Which has very little to do with improving industry sales on the PC, but they were trying to link anyway. Easily accessible digital distro has far, far, more to do with it.

But RAM is important too, and one of the main reasons this happens (also, loading in Skyrim)

Click to expand...

Not...quite. RAM is important, but we have far more RAM on everything today than we did when Doom came out. The rise of corridor shooters has more to do with game designers discovering that they could use graphical effects and art to make simple level design look dynamic rather than bother designing more art and effects to flesh out a level that 90% of the player-base won't visit. CoD isn't a corridor shooter because of the lack of RAM on consoles, it's a corridor shooter because Infinity Ward & Activision decided that a gaming experience designed around situational immersion would be more broadly appealing than complex level design. And they were right (sadly, depending your view of it).

I mean there are plenty of 4x games that came out in the last few years that weren't labelled Triple A, and they where more of a PC game then any CoD like shooters...

Click to expand...

A matter entirely of your own opinion. But I agree it's a stupid term. Unfortunately, a lot of the alternatives are dumber. "Hardcore games", "Core Games", "Tent-pole Games". "Premium games" is probably the best, because it admits it's all about money and media presence. But the industry doesn't like that term for that same reason.

Shegokigo said:

So other than Warcraft, like I said, massively linear games.

Click to expand...

Heh, not exactly. Doom threw you in a level you had to hunt down keys for, which is far less linear than the current crop of "a hallway with cutscenes" FPSes. Ultima Underworld, for it's time, was just as open as Skyrim - provided you found the stairs, you could go anywhere in the Stygian Abyss from moment one (one could even make the argument that the entire Elder Scrolls line is spiritual successor to the underworld games). Carmageddon was the very definition of open... you could completely ignore checkpoints and range over every entire vast level squashing pedestrians, doing stunts and totalling opponents to gain time/win.

And of course there was Civ, glorious Civ.

idkfa

idspispopd.

The world is now my ghostly playground.

It is hard for developers to really put in a linear system (main story) but have side quest that is not related into the game AND have replayability.

I remember that some game (like Japanese games) try to have different ending or depending on what you do you have certain ending. Of course such games usually have "best" ending and some "worst" ending, but some would have extra story telling about the characters/action you have chosen.

Heck, to this day, I usually break out U:UW2 every other month or so. Although now I think I can probably get that fix with Skyrim.

It's linear, but the game that always seems to have replay value to me is Jedi Knight 2.

fade said:

It's linear, but the game that always seems to have replay value to me is Jedi Knight 2.

Click to expand...

I loved that one too, with the dismemberment cheat code it's endless fun. Light saber throw changes from a weed eater to a blender.

I was also a fan of using force grip to hold people over bottomless pits... and then letting go.

Yeah, me too. I like when developers think of little things, like special ragdoll animations and grunting when you use force grip to repeatedly slam someone into a wall.

you know what I keep playing over and over? Resident Evil 4 (I love it and yes, it is Linear) I have every version of it cause I love it so much. I just bought the PS3 HD version (looks cool)

Really? Even the PC version, which was spawned in the deepest depths of Hell and then immediately spat out, because not even Hell itself could stomach such vileness?

I have so many "go back to" games that I love finishing over and over, I haven't finished anything new since 2002

Shegokigo said:

I have so many "go back to" games that I love finishing over and over, I haven't finished anything new since 2002

Click to expand...

Hey, the original Battlefield 1942 is still the best, especially if you have the Desert Combat mod.

SpecialKO said:

Not...quite. RAM is important, but we have far more RAM on everything today than we did when Doom came out. The rise of corridor shooters has more to do with game designers discovering that they could use graphical effects and art to make simple level design look dynamic rather than bother designing more art and effects to flesh out a level that 90% of the player-base won't visit. CoD isn't a corridor shooter because of the lack of RAM on consoles, it's a corridor shooter because Infinity Ward & Activision decided that a gaming experience designed around situational immersion would be more broadly appealing than complex level design. And they were right (sadly, depending your view of it).

Click to expand...

If that's true why does Portal 2 load every 5 minutes...i mean it only took 2 sec for it to do it on my 3 year old PC... so obviously it could have handled larger parts of the levels loaded to memory...

And Portal 1 didn't have that, only loaded between lifts...


Also, considering the lack of length of the SP in CoD games i'm pretty sure that's not what's more broadly appealing... just ask CS, which was way too popular for gaming's good way before CoD.

Likely because Valve included higher-resolution textures? Don't forget, that's always been the case with newer games, console and PC. You will always need *more* RAM as games get more technically capable. Corridor-shooting, however, is a much more a design choice for narrative and dealing with dev costs in general than a function of console RAM restrictions.

@Li3n said:

Also, considering the lack of length of the SP in CoD games i'm pretty sure that's not what's more broadly appealing... just ask CS, which was way too popular for gaming's good way before CoD.

Click to expand...

Length is only a small part of creating a gaming experience. If it was the primary draw, every current FPS, PC or console, would have a long campaign.

I think you misunderstood my statement, let me re-phrase:

Publishers don't make corridor-shooters because of RAM restrictions (though I imagine that could be additional incentive), they make corridor-shooters because it costs less money (primarily in time paid to programmers and QA) overall to design a level in a straight line and they discovered that if you make it "dynamic-feeling" enough, players (as a population) don't see it negatively enough to change their buying habits (possibly the opposite, in fact).

SpecialKO said:

Publishers don't make corridor-shooters because of RAM restrictions (though I imagine that could be additional incentive), they make corridor-shooters because it costs less money (primarily in time paid to programmers and QA) overall to design a level in a straight line and they discovered that if you make it "dynamic-feeling" enough, players (as a population) don't see it negatively enough to change their buying habits (possibly the opposite, in fact).

Click to expand...

Frankly i'm more inclined to think that the reason they make the corridor shooters that last less the 5 hours is because they know that 99% of people are buying it for MP, so they can get away with it...

But the corridor aspect was just the 1st thing that came to mind, there are plenty of other limitations based on
not enough RAM... so moar RAM pls.

SpecialKO said:

Likely because Valve included higher-resolution textures?

Click to expand...

That was kinda my point, to make it look better on the same amount of RAM they had to include more loading

Shegokigo said:

I have so many "go back to" games that I love finishing over and over, I haven't finished anything new since 2002

Click to expand...

So it's not just WoW's fault...

Me, i have to do a Storm of Zehir playthrough with the new char i started a few years back on the old PC, and i've had the game instaled for at least 3 years on my current PC... only finished it with my imported lvl 18 char.

When I have time, I still go back and play through my old adventure games. Thank god for SCUMM VM as even with a legit copy, you can't play the old LucasArts games without it.

I've played Full Throttle so many times, I can't even count.

@Li3n said:

Frankly i'm more inclined to think that the reason they make the corridor shooters that last less the 5 hours is because they know that 99% of people are buying it for MP, so they can get away with it...

Click to expand...

I honestly don't think that's actually the case at all. I can't remember where I read it, some article somewhere that talked about how only about 30% of CoD players actually regularly played online. That's a HUGE amount of people buying a game for it's single player campaign.

Frankie Williamson said:

only about 30% of CoD players actually regularly played online.

Click to expand...

Regularly being the main word...

Somehow i dont think that 4-6 hours in SP make up the majority of time spent playing the game for more then 30% of people.

Playing another game and taking break from it to play some CoD MP from time to time sounds more like what's happening...

Regularly meaning more than just slight dabbling in it.

HUGE amounts of people don't really play CoD multiplayer.

I sure don't. And the short single player has put me off MW2 and MW3 so far. Gonna wait until they're on sale for, like, a dollar.

I would actually be really surprised if more than 20% of people who bought CoD played more than a few hours of MP. BF3, sure, but not CoD. Not only do most people not play online MP, but CoD MP is designed to be consumed in 10 min spurts (just like Nick's prom night).

BF3 MP > COD MP but COD SP is so far superior to BF3 SP as to think that there was no purpose to even make a BF3 SP.

bhamv3 said:

And the short single player has put me off MW2 and MW3 so far.

Click to expand...

See, now that's actual logical behaviour...

SpecialKO said:

I would actually be really surprised if more than 20% of people who bought CoD played more than a few hours of MP. BF3, sure, but not CoD. Not only do most people not play online MP, but CoD MP is designed to be consumed in 10 min spurts (just like Nick's prom night).

Click to expand...

So 20 million people pay 60$/€ for it and then never use it again after 5 hours... that's even worse...

@Li3n said:

So 20 million people pay 60$/€ for it and then never use it again after 5 hours... that's even worse...

Click to expand...

I once moderated a research group on an NDA'd game project where the demo involved a female character. She wasn't the only character, just the only one available for coding into the demo.

This was an actual exchange from that group:

Me: "So how did you feel about the demo?"

Dude: "I didn't like it that much because the character was a woman" *Nods around the table*

Me: "You guys agree with that?" *More nods*

Me: "Okay, can we get into why that is? Is it the setting? Is it hard to believe a female character could do that? Does it somehow seem inappropriate? Is it hard to imagine playing as a woman?"

Dude: "No, no, it's just because she's a woman and that sucks." *Nods around the table*

Seriously, the average game consumer sucks.

Poor Lara Croft then... no comeback in her future.

More steroided space marines i guess...

Video game crash pls.

SpecialKO said:

I once moderated a research group on an NDA'd game project where the demo involved a female character. She wasn't the only character, just the only one available for coding into the demo.

This was an actual exchange from that group:

Me: "So how did you feel about the demo?"

Dude: "I didn't like it that much because the character was a woman" *Nods around the table*

Me: "You guys agree with that?" *More nods*

Me: "Okay, can we get into why that is? Is it the setting? Is it hard to believe a female character could do that? Does it somehow seem inappropriate? Is it hard to imagine playing as a woman?"

Dude: "No, no, it's just because she's a woman and that sucks." *Nods around the table*

Seriously, the average game consumer sucks.

Click to expand...

*que PVP's Francis*
"Gaaaaaaay!"

@Li3n said:

Poor Lara Croft then... no comeback in her future.

More steroided space marines i guess...

Video game crash pls.

Click to expand...

Lara is probably okay...as long as she doesn't cover up.

...I wish I was kidding. Never worked on Tomb Raider myself, but there's a ridiculous level of pushback on playable female characters that aren't naked in the "dudebro" section of gamers.

And then there's Mass Effect, a game that doesn't even have a male protagonist. I don't even know who that guy they keep putting on the cover is.

SpecialKO said:

Never worked on Tomb Raider myself, but there's a ridiculous level of pushback on playable female characters that aren't naked in the "dudebro" section of gamers.

Click to expand...

Another thing you can blame on The Sucking. They make games that appeal to horrible braindead stereotype people because the vast majority of people are horrible braindead stereotypes. Since excellence is by definition rare, there's more money to be made pandering to the lowest common denominator than to strive to please the fickle palate of the right edge of the bell curve.

Man, even Samus had to sell out with the zero suit to stay in the business.

Provactive question: Would there have ever been a Metroid sequel without the Justin Bailey code showing us that Samus was a female?

I don't know if I can accurately answer that, as I didn't even know about that code until well after.

Does it make me sexist if I really like Bayonetta?

Shegokigo said:

Provactive question: Would there have ever been a Metroid sequel without the Justin Bailey code showing us that Samus was a female?

Click to expand...

Probably, it's Nintendo. They don't know how to create new things.

Nintendo kills alot of it's own creations, so I'm not 100% sure about that.

Look at Kid Icarus. It was practically Metroid with a boy with wings.

And even he's making a return.

But Kid Icarus on NES was a FAR cry from Metroid. I think that one is one people look back on with some real rosy glasses.

I still wonder.

Personally, I hated Kid Icarus...

As for Samus being a woman driving a sequel, I don't really think so. The game was super popular and I don't think that appeal really had anything to do with the reveal, seeing as it was pre-internet, a large group of players never even knew that she was a girl. Also the direct sequel was a GameBoy game, and they were pushing all of their popular titles onto that console.

Metroid was fun because of its gameplay. I only played kid icarus after "Captain N the Game Master" finally pushed the game's hype beyond the event horizon and convinced me it was one of nintendo's signature titles that I was required to play. I was... very disappointed in it, to be honest. Did not live up to the hype. It was like a bad, clunky, vertically scrolling zelda clone. It did not deserve a spot alongside such greats as megaman, castlevania, metroid or punch out... much less Mario Bros or Zelda.

http://storify.com/mike_acton/warning-do-not-read-so-apparently-there-s-an-entir

And apparently not fake.

"Female gamers will grow up and hate that their boyfriend won't stop playing videogames and marry her."

Click to expand...

"If we were being honest, D&D females should have the following modifiers: STATS -4 STR -2 CON -1 INT -6 WIS +8 CHA"

Click to expand...

And apparently no mobility whatsoever, seeing how they lack DEX as a stat...

Back to Razer... They are working on a tablet aimed at playing PC games. They're also trying to get the price below $1,000.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...oject-fiona-the-sub-1000-gaming-pc-tablet.ars

It looks like someone duct-taped two Move controls to a Xoom. But hey, if it works...

If they make the controls removable, it might not be that bad. It'll supposedly be running windows 8, so it wont be limited to only gaming. I don't game that much though, so I'd never go for it.

Shakey said:

Back to Razer... They are working on a tablet aimed at playing PC games. They're also trying to get the price below $1,000.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...oject-fiona-the-sub-1000-gaming-pc-tablet.ars

Click to expand...

I don't see the point, i'd prefer just hooking up a regular controller to the tablet... especially since i can't imagine keeping your hands like that on each side of the tablet to be very confortable for long periods...

What's the battery life on that going to be like? Gaming-quality components eat up a lot of power, not to mention the cooling fans. I've had a couple of gaming laptops, and their battery life is measured in minutes, not hours.

@Li3n said:

I don't see the point, i'd prefer just hooking up a regular controller to the tablet... especially since i can't imagine keeping your hands like that on each side of the tablet to be very confortable for long periods...

Click to expand...

It has an accelerometer, so I'm guessing part of the controls will be tilting and what not. Hard to do if the controls aren't attached to it.
I think the battery life is supposed to be a couple hours of continuous use. This won't be a big seller, but it'll be interesting to see how well it works.