http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_news.phtml?id=032008_8

Reminds me of then Cliffy B (Epic Games guy) said he prefers consoles to develop for.  If you look at sales, Crysis didn't do too hot and Call of Duty 4 is selling magnitudes better on the consoles (although I bought it for PC).

I think 2007 was a tremendous year for PC gaming.  Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Orange Box, The Witcher.  But 3 of these came out on the consoles too.  And honestly, I can't think of any future PC games I am interested in.  Bioshock 2 and HL2: Episode 3 are probably the only ones.  Alan Wake looks boring gameplay wise.  I have a 360 and it gets use sometimes, though admittingly not as much as it should considering the cost.  I also play my friend's Wii.

PC is always my platform of choice for FPSs and RTSs.  The mouse is much more precise for shooters and is needed for RTSs outright.  It won't die ever completely and I'll always buy certain FPSs for it, but anyone think it isn't the best platform of choice for gamers?

Crisis Causer:

PC is always my platform of choice for FPSs and RTSs.  The mouse is much more precise for shooters and is needed for RTSs outright.  It won't die ever completely and I'll always buy certain FPSs for

I completely agree... to me, a PC is the only true system to play games like CoD4, HL, and other FPS and RTS games... you can't have the same satisfaction playing Starcraft on an xbox as you can on PC!

I don't think PC will die, but unfortunately, companies like what can make more money... which happens to be consoles... I've never gotten any satisfaction from consoles (except Rayman on the Wii... I love beaten up those rabbits).... so LONG LIVE PC GAMING!

 If you want a complicated game, go with a PC, shoot-em ups are usually done on consoles.

 

I feel that the primary issue in PC gaming is the idiocy of anti-piracy software.

 

If a company makes a good game, I will buy it, they earned my money, if they load a game with securom crap and sacrifice game play for it, then they don't diserve my time or money.

pc games are the only real games to me

look back 4-5 years ago!How many good games were released each year?I tell you...a lot.Now we see a lot of 450mb-1GB games,good to go to the trash-can and the rest of the games are the same like the games that were launched in the past,only with better graphics and the people that bought and played those,get bored very quick by these or they don't even buy them

PC gaming will never die, only dwindle.  All of us enthusiasts will continue to build better and better computers, and buy PC games (probably mostly games that come out on consoles and PC). I don't care if Xbox owners have the same game I do, I will always know that mine looks better, and has more options control wise.

 and when microsoft fully intergrates online play between xbox 360 and pc we will take pride in pwning them all the time

any idea why we haven't seen any battle game like mortal kombat 4 develop for so many years?

 We've seen many great fighting games since MK, only thing is you can't really do that muh ground breaking stuff with them, and they have faded away quite a bit.

 probably the controls

Fighting games on a PC would require a gamepad or arcade stick.  I've tried fighting games with the keyboard, and it doesn't work so hot.  I'm sure that's not stopping any development, but the lack of an audience is.  Everyone who really likes fighting games plays them on consoles.

Playstation 2 is only $130 new, much less used.  It still has the newest iterations of Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, King of Fighters, Tekken, Soul Calibur, Mortal Kombat, plus the second latest Virtua Fighter.  Many newer versions of those titles are coming out soon though, and will require a PS3.

 basicaly fps and strategy will be the main points of pc gaming

trueg50:

 If you want a complicated game, go with a PC, shoot-em ups are usually done on consoles.
I feel that the primary issue in PC gaming is the idiocy of anti-piracy software
If a company makes a good game, I will buy it, they earned my money, if they load a game with securom crap and sacrifice game play for it, then they don't diserve my time or money.

I completely disagree, shooters are done best on PCs with a few exceptions. The PC has established itself as a games platform with a strong reputation for shooters and RPGs particularly MMO ones, not to mention that it almost has exclusive dominance on strategy games.

Anit-Piracy measures aren't killing the PC games industry. Serious cases of abusive anti-piracy are far and few between. Piracy is though hurting the industry somewhat. Don't get me wrong though, I believe that the producers and developers are looking for too much money, so I simply don't buy. Plus the top end new games often need powerful machines, when most PC have onboard graphics cards. For most people consoles are simpler. Simplicity sells.


-Dev

its been dying awhile pc gaming is an expensive hobby

 

cost of a "medium" gaming rig is over 1k.

cost of a xbox 360. 349....

 

many people opt for the 360. pc gamers are a hardcore group who love the games they play. i love counter-strike source and i need my mouse and keyboard.  

  PC gaming will always be popular among enthusiasts who want cutting edge performance. I think game developers prefer to design games for consoles because it's easier. They have a standard hardware profile to design for that they know will remain the same. New graphics cards come out constantly and computers become significantly more powerful every year. This fast pace makes it more difficult to decide how high to set the performance bar, so as not to alienate too many people with older systems. With the relatively low cost of a console compared to a decent gaming rig, the market for console games is far greater.

Crisis Causer:

http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_news.phtml?id=032008_8

Reminds me of then Cliffy B (Epic Games guy) said he prefers consoles to develop for.  If you look at sales, Crysis didn't do too hot and Call of Duty 4 is selling magnitudes better on the consoles (although I bought it for PC).

I think 2007 was a tremendous year for PC gaming.  Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Orange Box, The Witcher.  But 3 of these came out on the consoles too.  And honestly, I can't think of any future PC games I am interested in.  Bioshock 2 and HL2: Episode 3 are probably the only ones.  Alan Wake looks boring gameplay wise.  I have a 360 and it gets use sometimes, though admittingly not as much as it should considering the cost.  I also play my friend's Wii.

PC is always my platform of choice for FPSs and RTSs.  The mouse is much more precise for shooters and is needed for RTSs outright.  It won't die ever completely and I'll always buy certain FPSs for it, but anyone think it isn't the best platform of choice for gamers?

People have been hollering about PC gaming dying for ages now and frankly I ignore those people.

I read Cliffy B's complaint a while back and it seemed like he was complaining that he prefered to make high-end games with top-end graphics and then complains that the PC makes it too expensive for users to play his games with everything maxed at, as he intended it. Anyone else think that is rediculous? If he wants a larger audience on the PC, maybe he should stop focusing on making tech-demo-games. It is rediculous to serve a niche and then expect mainstream sales figures. A game doesn't need to be cutting edge to be rediculously fun or sell well. Portal is outstripping tons of big-name developers in sales and it's a simple, short, little game that is practically a HL2 mod.

Call of Duty 4 may be selling better on console, but seriously... does anyone who has tried both actually think the console experience is better than the PC version? Also, does it even make sense to compare the sales figures of ALL CONSOLES to the PC? If you look at the PC as a console, and compare it to each of the other consoles, the figures don't look that bad. My friend has COD4 on his PS3 and I think it's pretty sub-par compared to the PC experience. And I'm not talking about his console vs my rediculously tricked out gaming system with a 24" monitor and surround sound. I mean, I prefer my $1200 15.4" notebook with a 8600M GT plus a $100 pair of Sennheisers to his $2000 42" LCD + $400 PS3 + $600 sound system. A tricked out gaming rig that is more comparable, price-wise would be even better. Plus, at the end of the day I can write up a report on my notebook, or mess with photoshop or a number of other things he can't do on his console. You might say that he can watch TV on his setup at the end of the day, but I can rectify that situation with a $40 external tuner, and my setup would still cost a heck of a lot less than his.

Why do you think no one lets PC gamers play with console gamers? It's definitely not because the technology isn't available. If you let the console guys play with PC guys in any sort of 1st person shooter, the console guys would be at a monumental dissadvantage unless you gave them some aggressive auto-aim.

I also think people who look at gaming PCs as too expensive are doing the math wrong. You can't compare a $3000 gaming rig to a $400 PS3 (forgetting about expenses like the TV in the process) since the gaming rig can do a whole lot more than just play games. On the flip side, you can't exactly play a console without the TV can you? So you need to include the cost of the TV in your comparison to the cost of the PC. And a cheap-o 15" CRT TV is no where near the same experience as a big-screen HDTV. All things considered, it comes out roughly even. Just about everyone wants a computer, just like just about everyone wants a TV, so if you want to subsidize the cost of the TV in that way, you also need to shave off an appropriate amount off the cost of the gaming rig in order to have a fair comparison. In the end, what you're really looking at is the cost of a video card vs the cost of the console (without the TV and extra controllers). For the cost of a current-gen console, you can get a pretty sweet video card, so I think it works out pretty darn well. You can take your existing $500 office machine, chuck $200 worth of video card and and a $200 CPU upgrade and end up with an experience easily comparable to a $400 PS3 + your existing $400-$800 26"/32" LCD TV. Any office machine built in the last couple years should have socket AM2 or LGA775, which means it will be drop-in upgradable so you only really need to pay for a new CPU and for $200, you can get a pretty decent chip. You could argue that the average user doesn't know how to upgrade their comp, so you can factor in $100 for the Geek Squad to fiddle with your rig, and the costs still work out to be about even.

The only real advantage consoles have over PC is in-person multiplayer. The cost and experience of over-internet multiplayer on PC and console are pretty comparable, IMO. But in-person multiplayer obviously works way better on console. However, that isn't really because of some limitation of the PC. It would be entirely possible to have in-person multiplayer on a PC, except developers don't make PC games that support split-screen and multiple gamepads. Not to mention it would also be possible to enable more than one set of keyboard+mice to act independently on a PC. It's just that no one has bothered to do it. You might complain that you'd then be forced to purchase an extra set of input devices, but no console comes with more than 1 gamepad so I'd say it's pretty comparable. You can pick up a Logitech Cordless Rumblepad 2 from Newegg for $30, and it's just as good as the current crop of console controllers (not including Wii). We all know how dirt cheap a keyboard and mouse can be, not to mention a lot of people will have an old set lying around they could use.

You could also argue that the PC gaming experience isn't as sleek and unified as a console. Admittedly something like XBOX Live is a lot slicker than messing around with games, voice chat and friends list programs in the start menu. But if you care that much about a unified interface, you can just use a service like Steam. Right now, Steam has something like 500 games on it, including most of the current must-have titles, not to mention it is often cheaper than buying the retail box or the console version.

Ultimately I think it is silly that people complain about games on the PC when they only cite cost and hardware as the main problems. Both of those are non-issues these days. I also think a lot of the issues stem from a lack of innovation from developers. People point at the Wii as being so innovative, but anything you can do on a console can be done with a PC. So instead of sitting on their asses and complaining that Intel/AMD/NVIDIA/Dell/HP/etc isn't doing the innovation for them, why not get off their ass and do it themselves. Harmonix didn't complain that Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft didn't offer a guitar controller so they can make their game. They went out and designed their own.

[/rant]

 I got a PS3 at the start of the year along with an HD TV as all my mates at work had done the same (theres twelve of us). Id always backed the argument that FPS on the PC will always own the console version however I have CoD4 on both (I blame peer pressure) and I have to admit I actually enjoy the PS3 version that little bit more (Ive played them through on both). Its probably simply due to the fact that none of my mates are PC gamers and this way I get to have a frag fest with them all, however there really isnt much difference between graphics (Im running an 8800GT at the mo) on either system, and I find that the slightly slower pace of the PS3 version (that is the control pad handicap) more enjoyable.

 

 Still love my PC though, and as mentioned its easy to forget what else you can do with a PC. PC gaming isnt dying it just has a diiferent focus from the mass of console users. It always has and always will.

 Wow lovelycrap, I was going to write about some other points about how much better PC gaming is, but... well you beat me to it, and much better than I could have put it.

 

Give it a few years, the PS3 will be even more out dated, I forgot what site it was was talking about the 8800GTX's when they came out, and were saying that in SLI they were far superior to the (then) not released PS3.

 

The Wii however really hit the mark, it is what consoles will be. Consoles cannot compete with PC's power wise, just look at the PS 3. They can however be fun, easy, and some what pretty, best of all though, cheap and easy enough for everyone.

So many developers moved from PC to consoles,it got me thinking if we are ever going to have cool games developed exclusivery for PC 

coolzonestefan:

So many developers moved from PC to consoles,it got me thinking if we are ever going to have cool games developed exclusivery for PC 

one word crysis