How long will PC games be supported for?

[ZoNeHeaD®]

How much longer ? The 360 sold 4 million units of Crysis. Pc version so far over 1 million. Sooner or later the Coders are going to go with the dough.. And we'll all be stuck with crappy consoles...

 

[PLightstar]

What are you on about?


Crysis isn't out on the 360 and there are no plans as of yet to bring it to the consoles, though I doubt they could even handle a game engine like crysis. I remember they had to re-create Far Cry for the consoles but with less resolution textures and smaller landscapes, if they were going to bring Crysis to the consoles they would have to do the same thing.

 

[Aesgir]

Crysis ain't necessarily the best way to gauge sales. It's hardware hungry to get best results and everyone knows this. PC game sales surge in US // GamesIndustry.biz an article from last year of a surge in PC game sales. PC Gaming is still going strong, but its not really in the direction of FPS, though some of those still aren't doing badly. I don't think we need to fear for the future of PC games just yet

 

[ZoNeHeaD®]

soz COD4

COD4 sold just under 4 mill on the 360. 5 mill copys of halo on the 360.

 

[Jupitus]

The platforms will just move closer to one another in technology terms... newer consoles are largely boxed pcs as it is, so dev for maintaining pc support will become much easier as time goes by. People will soon be using pc technology in the home for most media anyway, so I don't see an issue.

 

[Jonty]

Hi guys

I agree that PC gaming won't be going anywhere any time soon. Microsoft, Intel, Epic, and a bunch of others recently created the PC Gaming Alliance to try and promote the sagging platform in the same way which consoles are promoted. Vista allows for a few under-used ideas, such as running games from CDs, the Games Explorer, Parental Controls, the PC performance index, and Games for Windows - Live.

Consoles and PCs will continue to have their own pros and cons, and there will continue to be an overlap in their usage (e.g. media centers). PCs will continue to dominate some genres (the so-called 'lean forward' games where detail and control is important), whereas console games will continue to have their niche ('lean back' games). Consoles can continue to be hugely successful without it adversely affecting the PC. So I'm with the others, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Kind regards

 

[DaGaffer]

PC gaming in revenue terms is as strong as its ever been, but for those of us weaned on "traditional" PC games (FPS, RTS, RPG) things don't look as rosy because all the publisher spend is going into MMOs at one end and casual games at the other, and, fair play to them, MS have done a pretty good job with Live! up to a point.

The PC gaming alliance is interesting though, I just hope it means more PC games are built to a level to maximize the audience rather than act as a technical showcase for the latest graphics cards.

 

[ECA]

PC gaming isnt going anywhere, with the advent of middleware that allows programmers to release on all platforms why would they not release on pc and cost themselves money?

 

[Mabs]

ill prob get flamed for this but...

the only people to blame for the PC games market is the players.
as long as they go on buying EASport SameGameAsLastYearWithANewBox 2008 and not supporting the smaller studios doing original work, they mega companies will take over totally, churn out repetative shite series of sub par games, and it will all go to the dogs
that will kill PC gaming faster than anything else

 

[Embattle]

The only problem with your comment is it's no different on consoles.

 

[DaGaffer]

PC gaming isnt going anywhere, with the advent of middleware that allows programmers to release on all platforms why would they not release on pc and cost themselves money?

For loads of reasons. A game isn't just about dev, whether you like it or not its also about marketing, and critically, support. PC games used to make more profit for publishers than console, because although RRPs were generally lower, they weren't giving a cut to the platform owner. Now the price gap is even bigger and critical mass harder to reach on PC and platform licence costs have dropped. Also, MS, Sony and Nintendo give third-party titles a degree of marketing support, something you don't get when go it alone with PC. Finally, patching and support costs on PC are way higher than for console simply because of the nature of PCs themselves v. consoles. In addition there's the simple "fit for purpose" argument. I firmly believe PCs are good for certain types of games, and consoles others (and even within consoles the same applies); what's the point in releasing for PC with all the attendant costs if the PC isn't best suited for it?

There are still loads of things a PC can do better than any of the consoles (and I still include FPS in that), but the risk to developers/publishers is higher than its ever been. I also think Mabs' identification of the players being part of te problem is correct, but for the wrong reasons; its not that they always buy "same as last year" games, its that they continue playing old games for FAR longer than on other platforms, or they play MMOs, and there's only so much time in a day. Its part of the reason why MS set up Gamertags that work across games; a big problem with PC players is they play the same game, sometimes year in, year out, because that's where their mates hang out, Gamertags help with that problem a little.

 

[Kryten]

Random thread....
It won't be going anywhere. Ever.

Well, not perhaps ever. But systems of all kinds with without much doubt meet in the middle at some point. Consoles are already essentially miniature PC's without Office installed.

Two very different markets with a slight crossover. Theres a million and one games on the PC that are not and will not be on Consoles, and everything that has ever been and ever will be on the Console will end up on PC - perhaps not in entirely legal manners.

Besides which, coding for a PC is a damned slight easier than a console. Especially the greystation 3

 

[bob269]

The development from Pc to 360 isnt too different thanks to MS's common platform tools, as for ps3 i can't comment.

As for the original post, how did Crysis sell 4mil 360 games when it's a pc only release?

 

[nath]

As for the original post, how did Crysis sell 4mil 360 games when it's a pc only release?

He meant COD 4, as he said in an earlier post:

COD4 sold just under 4 mill on the 360. 5 mill copys of halo on the 360.

 

[ST^]

If he did indeed mean COD4, and it did indeed sell a million on PC, then why even ask the question? Hey Activision, what would you prefer... sell 4 million or sell 5 million?

 

[Embattle]

Regarding COD4, we should also remember that in this area the PC has much more competition.

 

[Ch3tan]

We should also remember the level of piracy on PC titles.

 

[Kryten]

I just don't really think it's even worth a comparison. Very different things.

I mean how many millions of copies of Halo were sold? (1, 2, 3, whatever) - and not one of them were nearly good games. Gears of War - for some reason loads of people think that's good. Maybe PC gamers have higher expectations - and perhaps rightly so, when the average gaming PC costs as much as it does.

Importantly though, is Peggle on the PS3? I think not.

 

[Ch3tan]

Higher expectations kryt? Gears of War is a qulity game, I love fps games, and it is one of the best I have played. It is the story combined with gameplay that makes it good. Unlike absoulte shite like Crysis which relies soley on pretty graphics. I have very high expectations for games and get bored very easily with them, and I buy more console games than PC games these days.

 

[Kryten]

Well, there you go. I can't stand GoW, so perhaps that's just a taste thing.
I think it's one of those things where the lack of a basic movement that has been standard in ever game since Mario first hurdled a barrel limits it too much for the average player.

But I still think my original comment still stands - not really worth the comparison. Different sets of systems, each has their own strengths, their own weaknesses, and besides which, people slating one or the other for the sake of their own preference just gets on my tits. Importantly, if we enjoy what we've got, there's no real problem.

 

[Raven]

Within a year the consoles will be behind the PC in technical ability anyway, its the nature of the beast, they aren't upgradeable. (ignoring the cost issue ofc)

 

[DaGaffer]

Within a year the consoles will be behind the PC in technical ability anyway, its the nature of the beast, they aren't upgradeable. (ignoring the cost issue ofc)

Yeah, but that's part of the PC's problem. It always has been, but its particularly true at the moment. A few years ago you could make a judgment about buying a "gaming PC" and know you'd have something that would last 2-3 years. The biggest debate would be to go nVidia or ATI. Now, unless you really know your stuff its WAY more confusing. Look at the tech boards on here for example. Any kind of futureproofing is really tricky; before, if you got the graphics card wrong, never mind, do an upgrade, now the hard questions are all at the processor or even motherboard level, with bigger implications if you get it wrong, not to mention the cost of getting it right in the first place. Its not surprising that there are plenty of people, who would probably prefer to play on PC, that have switched to 360 in particular.

 

[Kryten]

Thats why folks like myself and Jonty are around to help in that respect

After stumbling home from the pub with a few mates (if I was to do that sort of thing anyway) I think i'd rather fire up a console and throw the lads a couple of controllers, than boot up Windows, hook up to the TV, spend half an hour fucking around with and then finding a suitable game to play.

Swings, roundabouts, and slippery slides.

 

[Yaka]

We should also remember the level of piracy on PC titles.

didnt the devs do reaserch and found like 80% od online pc players were on warezed copies?

 

[ECA]

I think once homes get a lot more bandwith you're basically going to see the market change completely anyway.

You'll have 2 servers, one desktop one games, and you'll be able to use them all from dumb terminals anywhere in the home.

 

[old.Tohtori]

There's one thing that the PC does better, then any console in the near future won't.

And that's the fact you can play a game while you have a smaller screen with porn on it.

 

[bob269]

There's one thing that the PC does better, then any console in the near future won't.

And that's the fact you can play a game while you have a smaller screen with porn on it.

Isnt that why TV's have Picture in Picture

 

[GReaper]

A few PC gaming companies are coming back with some interesting titles and services.

Take a look at InstantAction, full games powered by your web browser. This is the sort of thing which games developers need, a platform where small indie developers can release their games to try and get their share of the market in a very tough marketplace.

There's also Quake Live (another browser title) and Battlefield Heroes.

I don't think PCs have any chance of beating consoles at multiplayer gaming for many people at one location, however I really don't think consoles are going to beat PCs at Internet gaming so soon.

 

[Panda On Smack]

Consoles are teh gay for FPS so would use a PC anyday

 

[Jonty]

Hi guys

In many ways the PC is the ultimate all-in-one device: it plays games, it's a media centre, it's a work station, it's a server, it's communications device etc. However, like all convergence devices, it suffers somewhat because of its flexibility.

Yes, you can play games on a PC, but the trade off is having to tinker with settings and know a little about hardware. Games consoles, like all devices dedicated to a single task, don't suffer from this: they play games easily and without any hassle because that is their primary purpose.

Just as you wouldn't throw out your DSLR because you have a cameraphone, it's clear that dedicated devices ought to offer a superior experience than multifunction devices. So too a games consoles offer the easiest, most hassle-free gaming experience (and this from someone who happily prefers playing on PCs).

However, that's not to diminish the benefits of multifunction devices. Some people would rather have one power device than half a dozen specialized gadgets. Gaming on the PC will continue because it can evolve; we have free ad-supported games, games that run in browsers, games that allow us to add content and really expand on what the developer offered.

At the end of the day, PC and console gaming are very different beasts, but that doesn't mean that both can't coexist. They both have pros and cons, and we won't see the death of either platform any time soon.

Kind regards

Jonty

P.S. Regarding cross-platform development, I think it still has a long way to go. A lot of the PS3's theoretical power is untapped because it's (apparently) a pain to write code which effectively uses the Cell processor's design. The Xbox 360 also has its own challenges, but perhaps to a lesser extent.

As for console games coming to PCs, it also needs to be done carefully. If developers get lazy, the recommended specifications go through the roof (Assassin's Creed: Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz or Athlon 64 X2 4400+, 3GB RAM, 512MB SM3.0 video card).