Fresh off his Razer article comes this beauty.
Faux Futurists Want to Keep PC Gaming in the Past
"Games follow the money!" So, if the money is "moving into free-to-play, mobile, and hosted games, be they on Facebook or on streaming services like OnLive" (OnLive hasn't even proved itself one bit btw), why have a PC at all? Why would OnLive be successful if consoles are going bye bye and all thats left are mobile games? Why would intel, etc continue to standardize PC at all when the money is in mobile?
I don't think Joel Johnson think that hard about what he writes as he just ends up making the opposite point.
Faux Futurists Want to Keep PC Gaming in the Past
There are two types of PC gamers. Firstly, there are people who love PC gaming because of all the fantastic things PC games have that their console or mobile games do not: a complex, precise interface; the ability to easily extend game experiences with modifications both official and otherwise; an incredible wealth of indie and experimental games; and the best graphics and sound experience a normal human being can buy.
Then there are the gamers who like the PC because they mistake tinkering with hardware from a couple of dozen of vendorsall of whom get their silicon from three giant corporationsas some sort of engineering, despite that it's more or less electric LEGO for masochists. These tinkerers are holding back PC gaming hardwareand that includes the very benchmark by which they gauge themselves: graphics performance.
PC gaming isn't going to diebut PC tinkering just might. And it's not heretical to be okay with that. I'm disappointed in the short-sighted, overly defensive members of the PC gaming community. Last week I wrote an effusive post about the Razer Blade gaming laptop, pointing out all of the laudable, intelligent things Razer (and its engineering partner, Intel) were doing with the new product lineas well as the thing they were screwing up. (The price.)
Instead of measured rebuttals, many of those that chose to comment on my piece trotted out arguments that have been in place since the original Nintendo hit the scenearguments which are even less true in the modern gaming and technology landscape than they were two decades ago. (There were some polite, reasoned responses, as well, although they were the minority.)
So PC gamers got very upset upon my suggestion that, you know, maybe it'd be okay to let Intel and Nvidia (and perhaps AMD) standardize the PC platform a little bit so that programmers and operating system engineers could more readily access the kind of computational power that's inside our hot-rod PC hardware. And as I watched it unfold, I felt like I was watching a bunch of polo players quibble about saddle design next to a freeway.
It is absolutely asinine that our smoking-hot, electricity-slurping gaming towers and massive laptops aren't providing experiences so far beyond that available on consoles and mobile phones that even non-gamers could immediately see the difference. Sure, we can tell the difference between Infinity Blade running on an iPad and latest Unreal Engine game running on a $1,500 PC. But you know who can't? Millions upon millions of people who buy games.
And don't forget that the games will follow the money. And right now the money is moving into free-to-play, mobile, and hosted games, be they on Facebook or on streaming services like OnLive. Consoles aren't even the only, or indeed the largest threat to PC gaming! We've probably got one more generation of "hardcore" dedicated consoles like the Xbox before they, too, are obsolesced by streaming or mobile hardware.
Disagree all you want, but I'm not saying anything that PC gaming stalwarts like Valve and id Software aren't saying themselves.
"We're terrified by the future," [Valve's Gabe Newell] said. "You need to be looking at what's happening with Apple, Google Android and thinking that could impact the living room in a big way. You need to be looking at Onlive and how it is integrated with the television."
PC gaming isn't going to die. But it's going to change. And unless PC gamers embrace that change, we're going to find ourselves increasingly marginalized, with fewer games to experience that are unique to PC. I don't hate the tinkerers. But it's time they stopped pretending that they hold any real influence over where the future of gaming is going.
"Games follow the money!" So, if the money is "moving into free-to-play, mobile, and hosted games, be they on Facebook or on streaming services like OnLive" (OnLive hasn't even proved itself one bit btw), why have a PC at all? Why would OnLive be successful if consoles are going bye bye and all thats left are mobile games? Why would intel, etc continue to standardize PC at all when the money is in mobile?
I don't think Joel Johnson think that hard about what he writes as he just ends up making the opposite point.