Support NeoGAF

[stuminus3]

Mock if old... I was reading this Rock Paper Shotgun post recently, I haven't seen anyone here mention it but I think it brings up points that are worth highlighting...

RPS article - "Thanks For Screwing The PC Over, Genuinely"

To crudely paraphrase: the big publishers pissing off to console because they thought the PC wasn’t as lucrative as platform as they’d like actually turned out to be a good thing.

With all the sound and fury of big, PC-specific, graphically intensive games gone, there was space for something new – something better, I’d argue – to come through. Leading on from that, I’d like to thank the graphics card companies for making such a right royal mess of the PC. I’m not being sarcastic. They did us a favour.

Essentially, the topic at hand is the realisation that the so-called "death" of PC gaming has actually been it's savior in recent years. I've discussed this with people in other PC gaming threads but the discussion is usually buried under pages and pages of the usual "look at my screenshots!" and "lol comfy couch" arguments that I don't think are particularly relevant to the cause either way in this day and age. Our illustrious leader's "high end PC gaming" thread recently was great for what it was intending to show, but I feel there's something more to PC gaming, something bigger.

The article explains it better than I could, but I completely agree with the post. I've been through it all as far as "desktop" gaming goes, being from the UK I was always more familiar with home computers than consoles in the 80s, the Vic-20, the Speccy, the Atari ST. Those were some pretty damn exciting times. Then came the 90s, which went from us seeing some great examples of what could be done on the old IBM-compatible, I mean, Id and Epic are mentioned in the post, these guys were nothing but bedroom coders at the time. Then came Nvidia and ATI, and while I love a pretty picture as much as the next guy, it all somehow went to shit. Let's just say, I probably spend more on GPU upgrades between 2000 and 2006 than I've spend on every other piece of gaming hardware I've bought in my life combined.

That all changed in recent years, thanks largely to the fact that a) the 360 and PS3 offer "HD" (lol) visuals, b) this console generation isn't going away, so the bar has been lowered, and c) digital distribution has come full force at a time when it's most needed. "Hardcore" PC gaming no longer means you own the best video card out there, thankfully. Mid-range hardware can offer a console-smashing victory at a low cost, it's getting less relevant. It now means you can go from Call of Duty Black Ops at 1080p then go straight into frickin' Minecraft, without missing a beat. It means you can pick up Recettear, a completely unknown Japanese game that would never in a million years have seen Western release in any other environment, and use your leftover change to buy the best looking rally game you'll ever see with your leftover change. It's a far cry (pun very much intended) from spending 50 bucks on a game back in the early-mid 2000s and spending more time worrying that your GPU can't handle it properly than actually playing the game. Now I'm reminded of earlier days, when things were more exciting for reasons a screenshot will never show. PC gaming has been saved by the things that were killing it!

Anyway I know it's good form to quote more of the linked article but I think this post is big enough with my own ramblings, so I'll just leave this unrelated post here:

steam* is the true blue ocean strategy. with the fiscal barrier to entry at ankle height, and all the weird and wonderful gaming delicacies of the globe brought right to your dinner plate, there's an entire generation of gamers whose tastes have had a nuclear bomb of eclecticism dropped on them.

when you see a collection of dirty no-name upstarts flying high above 3-month old aaa blockbusters in the steam charts, you can almost feel the heat from the perspiring brow of those who wish to condense the industry into a boy's-own-club of publishing juggernauts.

this sort of eclectic growth is a one way street, broadening and heightening your expectations, honing the critical faculties. there's nothing inherently masterful about dropping a grand on an i7 powered dragster, filling it with cheap steam games and photobombing threads with upscaled console ports. but to step out of your immediate comfort zone and embrace the daunting diversity, diving head first into games you have no prior facilities to master or even maneuver your way through, to become -- in essence -- a well traveled gamer, the plane tickets have never been cheaper or easier to come by. and if you come across a little elitist while debating the finer points of this world with people who refuse to drive their pickup past the borders of their deerfuck nowhere town, so be it.

*using steam as shorthand for the broader digitial-downloadscape.

 

[scitek]

Yeah, I've almost completely stopped playing my 360 since building a decent PC at the beginning of this year. Lots of games go on sale within weeks of being released, have some kind of pre-order bonus making them worthwhile (Bioshock 1 included with 2 for $45 total, for example), or are just $10 less from the outset while looking and performing better (Criterion's Hot Pursuit). Part of me is sad that PC gaming isn't being pushed to the limits anymore because of the console ports, but part of me is also excited that I may not have to blow cash upgrading my hardware every 2 years to stay in the game. Kind of a double-edged sword, really.

 

[Gully State]

Yeah, I've almost completely stopped playing my 360 since building a decent PC at the beginning of this year. Lots of games go on sale within weeks of being released, have some kind of pre-order bonus making them worthwhile (Bioshock 1 included with 2 for $45 total, for example), or are just $10 less from the outset while looking and performing better (Criterion's Hot Pursuit). Part of me is sad that PC gaming isn't being pushed to the limits anymore because of the console ports, but part of me is also excited that I may not have to blow cash upgrading my hardware every 2 years to stay in the game. Kind of a double-edged sword, really.

While that's an example of a benefit of PC gaming....I don't think that's what the article meant. Thanks to digital distribution and exodus of past PC developing giants, games like minecraft are getting the attention they deserve. Instead of pushing pixels, we're seeing developers push new ideas into the forefront of this platform.

 

[ZZMitch]

I love the crazy indie offerings just as much as I love the aaa big budget titles. It is really awesome we get both in relatively large supply.

 

[TheKingsCrown]

Yeah!

PC gaming is how I completely avoid having to buy more than 1 home console. WiiPCDS all the way!

 

[BobsRevenge]

Fuck that. If Crysis is a crystal ball into what PC gaming could be with AAA support, I fucking want that.

Come back to us Id! Crytek! Remedy! Epic! All can be forgiven.

Indie games are nice and all, but a PC centric game with the scope and budget of GTA4 or RDR would blow fucking minds.

 

[John]

saw that, the writer of the article comes off as a prick sometimes tho

 

[dionysus]

I completely agree. The shift away from AAA graphical powerhouses has been excellent for someone like me. THough I still enjoy the occasional Crysis. I can understand how it would leave some PC gamers wanting for more, but for me its great.

Strategy, sim, 4x, puzzler, just straight up quirky, DotA, eastern european, etc etc. These games perfectly match my tastes. Not to mention it is getting downright cheap. The DD services are becoming more akin to Apple's App Store in prices and less like the shelves of Best Buy every day. Except the difference is most PC DD games are meaty affairs with engaging mechanics and days of entertainment for less than $15 if you are patient.

Long live the dead PC gaming. I hope it never revives.

Spoiler

If revival means resembling the AAA megabudget or die marketplace we see on the HD twins.

I have been saying for a long time that DD has led to a renaissance on the PC. When you don't need to sell 100,000 copies to overcome the fixed costs of manufacturing, transportation, etc. a lot more games become economically viable.

 

[Dennis]

Fuck that. If Crysis is a crystal ball into what PC gaming could be with AAA support, I fucking want that.

Come back to us Id! Crytek! Remedy! Epic! All can be forgiven.

Indie games are nice and all, but a PC centric game with the scope and budget of GTA4 or RDR would blow fucking minds.

Co-signed

DennisK4

 

[Sir Garbageman]

I completely agree. The shift away from AAA graphical powerhouses has been excellent for someone like me. THough I still enjoy the occasional Crysis. I can understand how it would leave some PC gamers wanting for more, but for me its great.

Strategy, sim, 4x, puzzler, just straight up quirky, DotA, eastern european, etc etc. These games perfectly match my tastes. Not to mention it is getting downright cheap. The DD services are becoming more akin to Apple's App Store in prices and less like the shelves of Best Buy every day. Except the difference is most PC DD games are meaty affairs with engaging mechanics and days of entertainment for less than $15 if you are patient.

Long live the dead PC gaming. I hope it never revives.

Spoiler

If revival means resembling the AAA megabudget or die marketplace we see on the HD twins.

I have been saying for a long time that DD has led to a renaissance on the PC. When you don't need to sell 100,000 copies to overcome the fixed costs of manufacturing, transportation, etc. a lot more games become economically viable.

This.

 

[Zachack]

While that's an example of a benefit of PC gaming....I don't think that's what the article meant. Thanks to digital distribution and exodus of past PC developing giants, games like minecraft are getting the attention they deserve. Instead of pushing pixels, we're seeing developers push new ideas into the forefront of this platform.

The author explicitly states that he doesn't intend to buy a new video card in the near future because he no longer has to. There are multiple factors at work but the three console platforms being at ~2005/2006 (or 2000) technology has clearly helped the PC scene, not hurt it, by limiting the extent to which devs will set the baseline for playability/visuals, which in turn restricts the need to push hardware in order to gain sales.

 

[stuminus3]

While that's an example of a benefit of PC gaming....I don't think that's what the article meant. Thanks to digital distribution and exodus of past PC developing giants, games like minecraft are getting the attention they deserve. Instead of pushing pixels, we're seeing developers push new ideas into the forefront of this platform.

Yes... though I do think there's still value in pushing pixels, it's just great to see that it's no longer necessarily all there is to it. There's a graphics whore in all of us. I mean, I paid full price for Black Ops recently, and I picked the PC version in all it's high-res antialiased glory over the junk that passes for the console version these days. But using the same hardware and the same delivery service, we've still got a chance to experience the crazy shit that comes from the mind of Jeff Minter. The Indie pack I got that game from beat the mighty Black Ops on the top sellers list on Steam the day it was on sale. That's fantastic.

I think some of this actually applies to gaming in general; it's the reason I place more value on what the Wii has done over what your average "hardcore" gamer seems to think of the system. The PC platform is completely open though, which provides luxuries that can't be provided to any side of the fence (developer or consumer) on the closed console platforms.

 

[Lime]

While I agree with the article that the PC requirements have been lowered thanks to many former PC developers shooting for console specs, I also think that the indie scene on the PC can be attributed to well-implemented digital distribution platforms and the existence of XBLA and PSN. Furthermore, I don't like it when high-budget games have down-graded assets (Mass Effect textures) or functions (menu in Borderlands), due to the lowered console specs. So that's a downside of former PC developers leaving the PC.

But yeah, I love PC gaming. Like Eatchildren (I think) posted in that other thread: PC is like a time-capsule. It keeps every game alive (Scummvm, Dosbox, private servers for old MP games, etc.) and you can always keep upgrading the platform in order to play new releases. The problem for me with investing in consoles by purchasing games for them, is the fact that the console won't last forever and I might one day not be able to play a classic game.

 

[dionysus]

Co-signed

DennisK4

If we could have the megabudget and megahit business model of the consoles exist along side what PC gaming has become in the last 5 years, I would be all for it.

But that is a hypothetical, I really like what PC gaming has become. It could be better, and it would be nice if we got more Crysis like games that aim for the best of what pc hardware can do it terms of graphics and gameplay, but I ain't shedding no tears either. The current environment is fostering creativity, and it seems like the lack of big names taking a chunk of marketshare is allowing smaller and new players come into the business and innovate.

 

[DeadTrees]

graphics tech companies seeing a dramatic decline in card sales

Source?

 

[Tain]

Fuck that. If Crysis is a crystal ball into what PC gaming could be with AAA support, I fucking want that.

Come back to us Id! Crytek! Remedy! Epic! All can be forgiven.

Indie games are nice and all, but a PC centric game with the scope and budget of GTA4 or RDR would blow fucking minds.

hell yeah, mostly minus the "indie games are nice" part.

High-tech "dependent" games, please.

 

[BobsRevenge]

If we could have the megabudget and megahit business model of the consoles exist along side what PC gaming has become in the last 5 years, I would be all for it.

But that is a hypothetical, I really like what PC gaming has become. It could be better, and it would be nice if we got more Crysis like games that aim for the best of what pc hardware can do it terms of graphics and gameplay, but I ain't shedding no tears either. The current environment is fostering creativity, and it seems like the lack of big names taking a chunk of marketshare is allowing smaller and new players come into the business and innovate.

It isn't fostering more creativity than there would have been, at least I don't think that's the case. I don't feel like room opened up for them. I feel like they are just easier to see, and it would've happened either way.

Shit, there would probably be even more of them if the market was larger due to AAA games drawing in a larger marketable audience.

edit: I'm probably just being pessimistic.

 

[out0v0rder]

bullocks, or whatever you weird people say.

 

[stuminus3]

If we could have the megabudget and megahit business model of the consoles exist along side what PC gaming has become in the last 5 years, I would be all for it.

But we kind of still do. The megabudgeted megahit GTAIV is on PC, after all (and much, much better than on 360 or PS3, even on my 5770). Black Ops just came out, and it creams the console versions.

Mid to high end PC games are still doing things that you're never going to see on current consoles, even if it is just higher resolutions, framerates, and antialiasing/texture filtering. Sometimes it's much more than that (DX11 effects in Metro 2033 or AvP2010 for example). The advancing technology is getting time to settle though, it's being kept in check, unlike 5 years ago when things changed every 5 minutes for no apparent reason. The move from SM2.0 to SM3.0 I'm sure is something I'm sure there's more than a few people are to this day still really pissed about. The great thing is that the tech is now getting within reach to everyone, not just the guy with the biggest budget. Great looking games without the restrictions that come from requiring certain bullet points for a megahit.

Exclusive high end PC games like Crysis? Yeah, I can concede to that one.

 

[Fugu]

I don't know about this.

I do not consider the current state of PC gaming to be better than it was from the early nineties to the early 00's. The notion that PC gaming has not always been the technological arms race that it was as recently as four years ago is categorically false; it is merely the case that the arms race could no longer be conducted by basement coders and that at some point, something had to give.

I consider the current state of PC game to be a compromise based on the realization that it is impossible given the continuing advancement of technology for PC gaming to ever be as versatile and bleeding edge-oriented as it was in the nineties. The innevitable rise in development budgets (a rise that was accompanied by rising consumer standards) means that the bleeding edge is now entirely unpractical for inexpensive development. I don't see how this could possibly perceived as a good thing; inevitable as it is, this element has contributed to the lack of variety in titles that explicitly aim to push the available hardware. PC gaming has always been known for its relative variety due to the diversity of development budgets and accessibility of the platform; RTS games were (and mostly still are) unheard of on consoles. TBS games, HnS games, roguelikes, war simulation games, flight simulators, train conducting games: These are genres that live on the PC and have lived there for awhile. The presence of a second-tier development crew (second-tier referring to popularity, not quality) is not new to the PC; what is new to the PC (and by new, I mean from about 2003 onward) is the presence of a gap between what is technically within reach of a second-tier team and a first-tier team.

I also do not hold NVidia and ATI particularly responsible for this either because there has, for as long as I have been involved in PC gaming, always been an actor pushing the definition of high-end and these actors have subsequently driven the graphics fidelity of the games that developers produced. In fact, both NVidia and ATI contributed greatly to reducing the price of the high-end; a high end PC now costs a fifth of what it did in 1998.

I would argue that we are better than we were five years ago but worse than we were ten years ago. During the PS2/XBox/GCN era, I felt that PC gaming suffered an identity crisis where it couldn't handle the fact that development costs had gotten too high for every game out there to meet a certain level of (graphical/performance) quality and that as a result the development of these interesting and unique games halted because they became too expensive to develop (with the requirement that they remain bleeding edge). In recent years we (PC gamers) have conceded that these second-tier developers cannot and will not ever be able to push the limits of the available technology but that that is okay, and we have come to the concession largely because these developers are producing fantastic and interesting games that would never appear anywhere else which, by and large, is the element that has largely been responsible for the loyal following that PC gaming commands. It is still a concession though, and I have a hard time seeing it as anything else.

This post repeats itself a lot (I'm very tired) so I thank you if you've made it all the way through it and better yet if you understand what I'm trying to say.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I wonder why more developers aren't putting DX11 stuff into their games. If you look at sales on the recent steam sales, it seems like DX11 games get a boost just because they push the graphics.

Didn't BC2 sell a bunch? AvP sold more than it should've when it released, and Metro has probably sold half its PC copies on graphics alone. Dirt 2 seems to have been selling really well. I hope more devs try to get that stuff into their games, because it seems to improve lighting a lot and PC gamers seem to be hungry for it.

We do get big budget games, but the console focus has some pretty obvious effects on what is delivered tot he platform. How many FPS games allow you to lean these days? Or go prone? Or allow you to carry more than 3 weapons?

 

[AceBandage]

Indie gaming is absolutely wonderful, and Steam pushing it so hard fills me with joy.
I would have never even given Eufloria or Recettear a second glance, yet I've already put dozens of hours into them thanks to Steam.

 

[JoeBoy101]

I consider the current state of PC game to be a compromise based on the realization that it is impossible given the continuing advancement of technology for PC gaming to ever be as versatile and bleeding edge-oriented as it was in the nineties. The innevitable rise in development budgets (a rise that was accompanied by rising consumer standards) means that the bleeding edge is now entirely unpractical for inexpensive development. I don't see how this could possibly perceived as a good thing; inevitable as it is, this element has contributed to the lack of variety in titles that explicitly aim to push the available hardware. PC gaming has always been known for its relative variety due to the diversity of development budgets and accessibility of the platform; RTS games were (and mostly still are) unheard of on consoles. TBS games, HnS games, roguelikes, war simulation games, flight simulators, train conducting games: These are genres that live on the PC and have lived there for awhile. The presence of a second-tier development crew (second-tier referring to popularity, not quality) is not new to the PC; what is new to the PC (and by new, I mean from about 2003 onward) is the presence of a gap between what is technically within reach of a second-tier team and a first-tier team.

Brilliant.

 

[dionysus]

It isn't fostering more creativity than there would have been, at least I don't think that's the case. I don't feel like room opened up for them. I feel like they are just easier to see, and it would've happened either way.

Shit, there would probably be even more of them if the market was larger due to AAA games drawing in a larger marketable audience.

The optimistic view!

I do think some of the market forces that drove the big names to multiplatform are fading. I feel like the decision by the big boys to diversify happened in 2002 - 2005. Developers were facing a shrinking PC retail presence, ever more expensive barriers to entry on the hardware side, some really shitty QA/QC problems in the PC space, and rampant piracy in the digital space but no digital delivery system mature enough to offset it. All those things have changed now.

But I don't see any of the legacy PC developers returning to focus on the PC. What I see happening is new big boys releasing great games and becoming powerhouses, like how Id and Epic did in the late 90s. TaleWorlds, Cd Projekt (if they can stop making bad decisions), 1C, etc. could vault themselves into the stratosphere with 1 massive hit.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

I am CrunchyFrog and I approve of this message.

 

[Lime]

Fugu nailed it.

 

[ZealousD]

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

 

[out0v0rder]

is there any way to explain this article with an analogy involving cars?

 

[Wallach]

I don't know about this.

I do not consider the current state of PC gaming to be better than it was from the early nineties to the early 00's. The notion that PC gaming has not always been the technological arms race that it was as recently as four years ago is categorically false; it is merely the case that the arms race could no longer be conducted by basement coders and that at some point, something had to give.

I consider the current state of PC game to be a compromise based on the realization that it is impossible given the continuing advancement of technology for PC gaming to ever be as versatile and bleeding edge-oriented as it was in the nineties. The innevitable rise in development budgets (a rise that was accompanied by rising consumer standards) means that the bleeding edge is now entirely unpractical for inexpensive development. I don't see how this could possibly perceived as a good thing; inevitable as it is, this element has contributed to the lack of variety in titles that explicitly aim to push the available hardware. PC gaming has always been known for its relative variety due to the diversity of development budgets and accessibility of the platform; RTS games were (and mostly still are) unheard of on consoles. TBS games, HnS games, roguelikes, war simulation games, flight simulators, train conducting games: These are genres that live on the PC and have lived there for awhile. The presence of a second-tier development crew (second-tier referring to popularity, not quality) is not new to the PC; what is new to the PC (and by new, I mean from about 2003 onward) is the presence of a gap between what is technically within reach of a second-tier team and a first-tier team.

I also do not hold NVidia and ATI particularly responsible for this either because there has, for as long as I have been involved in PC gaming, always been an actor pushing the definition of high-end and these actors have subsequently driven the graphics fidelity of the games that developers produced. In fact, both NVidia and ATI contributed greatly to reducing the price of the high-end; a high end PC now costs a fifth of what it did in 1998.

I would argue that we are better than we were five years ago but worse than we were ten years ago. During the PS2/XBox/GCN era, I felt that PC gaming suffered an identity crisis where it couldn't handle the fact that development costs had gotten too high for every game out there to meet a certain level of (graphical/performance) quality and that as a result the development of these interesting and unique games halted because they became too expensive to develop (with the requirement that they remain bleeding edge). In recent years we (PC gamers) have conceded that these second-tier developers cannot and will not ever be able to push the limits of the available technology but that that is okay, and we have come to the concession largely because these developers are producing fantastic and interesting games that would never appear anywhere else which, by and large, is the element that has largely been responsible for the loyal following that PC gaming commands. It is still a concession though, and I have a hard time seeing it as anything else.

This post repeats itself a lot (I'm very tired) so I thank you if you've made it all the way through it and better yet if you understand what I'm trying to say.

This is a pretty good post. I would argue though that the concession you're talking about sort of applies to this industry as a whole. Console gaming feels headed in a similar, if expectedly delayed, direction.

 

[ZealousD]

is there any way to explain this article with an analogy involving cars?

When life gives you lemons, scrap it for parts?

 

[dionysus]

A good post.

Great post Fugu, but I would counter that you are claiming the genre diversity has always been there and I don't think so. We had diversity in mods but not games. The great innovations came out of mods to Warcraft, or Half-Life, or Unreal. And buy and large these were non-commercial enthusiast developers, god bless them. The amount of enthusiast developers necessarily goes up when you allow them to profit of their work easily.

Say you wanted to publish a game in 2000 in the US. Not only would you have to fund the development costs of the game, you would have to fund the manufacturing fixed and variable costs, transportation, retailer relations, etc. This meant you would have to go to a publisher who is going to do the math and say is this game going to sell 100k copies or whatever the number is. Immediately you weed out a bunch of games. Yes, you had freeware and other projects but I don't think those could ever reach the audience something like Reccetear reaches today.

We had big great games and then we had mods to those great games in the days of yore. Now we have small great games being marketed directly to the consumer through DD. And I think diversity and creativity has gone up because of it.

 

[stuminus3]

This post repeats itself a lot (I'm very tired) so I thank you if you've made it all the way through it and better yet if you understand what I'm trying to say.

Thank you, this was exactly the kind of discussion/counter-point I was looking for. I think I understand and even agree with much of what you wrote, though I don't personally think "concession" is such a bad thing considering what we've gained from it.

Look at a company like Telltale. These guys are some of the cream of the indie crop to me. If I was to say in 2005 that Sam & Max had a chance, I'd be laughed off the planet (03/03/04 never forget!). Then we "conceded", and eventually accepted the rather cheap looking and not quite so legendary Sam & Max 101: Culture Shock, all the while pining for the glory days of old.

Telltale build on that rather cheap foundation, because the dramatically changing PC platform gave them a chance to. Now they've just recently finished up the fantastic Devil's Playhouse series, and it's like night and day compared to how Culture Shock was, noticeably so in the "tech" department. The really great thing? You can play it on the same hardware that was overkill for Culture Shock in 2006, and it still looks and runs fantastic. I'm not sure how giving them a GTAIV budget or having them push CryEngine 3 would result in Devil's Playhouse being any different. In fact, if everyone was still chasing the high-end budget, it probably wouldn't ever have been made at all

There's still been "concessions" along the way (given that Telltale are now very much multi-platform), most obviously around the subject of input - they don't make straight point and click any more. But dare I say it... the change has been good? I watched legendary adventure game developers fuck up again and again in trying to work this stuff out, to the point where they couldn't do it anymore, and nobody was buying it anyway, we all wanted our Far Crys and our Doom 3s (or at least, games that looked like them). I'd rather concede than give up completely, which is what was happening.

EDIT: Or... um...

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

My post is actually just saying this. :lol

 

[Fugu]

Great post Fugu, but I would counter that you are claiming the genre diversity has always been there and I don't think so. We had diversity in mods but not games. Say you wanted to publish a game in 2000 in the US. Not only would you have to fund the development costs of the game, you would have to fund the manufacturing fixed and variable costs, transportation, retailer relations, etc. This meant you would have to go to a publisher who is going to do the math and say is this game going to sell 100k copies or whatever the number is. Immediately you weed out a bunch of games. Yes, you had freeware and other projects but I don't think those could ever reach the audience something like Reccetear reaches today.

We had big great games and then we had mods to those great games in the days of yore. Now we have small great games being marketed directly to the consumer through DD. And I think diversity and creativity has gone up because of it.

But what that era (2000) lacked in true, ground-up development (which would have likely been relegated to freeware or a mod, you're right) it had in spades the diversity of the high-budget games that existed. The distinction between "indie" and "AAA" was not based largely on genre or uniqueness like it is now because PC games of virtually every genre were being published by significant studios. As plain an idea as it seems now, the publishing of an FPS with a story and little multiplayer (Half-Life) in the midst of the multiplayer FPS explosion by a major publisher (Sierra) is entirely ludicrous by today's standards. Infinity engine games didn't just sell, they sold well, and they sold at a full price point despite looking absolutely nothing like any RPG that came before them. The explosion of creativity we see now in the indie scene was at one time happening in the blockbuster scene and it was entirely unnecessary to draw a line in the sand between those doing things differently and those doing things the same.

I'd rather concede than give up completely, which is what was happening.

I agree, but it's important to note that we have conceded. I don't think PC gaming is the force it once was, and I think the nature in which that article defines the current (and past) state of PC gaming is incorrect.

 

[KJTB]

I'm building a gaming PC for the first time in a month or two, I can't wait

 

[stuminus3]

I agree, but it's important to note that we have conceded. I don't think PC gaming is the force it once was, and I think the nature in which that article defines the current (and past) state of PC gaming is incorrect.

Yeah, I get it. You could go back way further, actually... if I could mention Jeff Minter again, remember his meltdown a couple of years ago over Space Giraffe? There was a time when bedroom coders were king, they were the industry. The reason I know the guy's name is from him being at trade shows back in the 80's, showing off his flashy light synthesisers, the guy was a household name to the average home computer geek. A big fish, but nobody knew at the time how small the pond was. His meltdown a couple of years ago IMO was nothing to do with Space Giraffe. He had just ceased to become relevant in the age of "HD" consoles and Unreal engines. Had things not been the way they are now in PC-space, you have to wonder if he'd have been able to (or even want to) stick around long enough to make a new Gridrunner. Nobody cares, of course, but at least the few of us who still do are still within reach - he hasn't had to fold to some big publisher that isn't interested in what he wants to do in the name of throwing cash at a megahit. No EA or Activison or Ubisoft has been able to take that choice away from me completely, no matter how many studios they've absorbed and killed.

(Ironically, millions of people own a Jeff Minter product and don't even know it - his Neon light synthesiser is built into every Xbox 360. But that's another topic.)

 

[Emitan]

I'm building a gaming PC for the first time in a month or two, I can't wait

I built my first one a few months ago. Most of it is my friend's old PC I bought so I could get parts cheap and he could pay for newer parts. It's not great, but it's mine. You will never love a console as much as you love your PC.

 

[zoukka]

edit: I'm probably just being pessimistic.

Just stupid. In the industry, everyone thought that 3D action games would completely overrun the biz. Nobody saw this renaissance of indie games and more simple games in general coming. Thank god we avoided that dark future...

 

[More Fun To Compute]

We don't need no steenking AAA. The sooner that Crytek take their cry baby whining, graphics whore asses over to console exclusive land the better.

But seriously, what I like most about PC is the anarchic nature of it where things can come from companies from Sega to Minecraft's Notch without anybodies permission. If people want to play Crytek games in their private fantasy worlds on theoretical graphics hardware that will not exist for five years then that's up to them.

 

[dionysus]

Yes, we conceded that not every game we bought would push our hardware, but I guess I feel that our concession turned out to be the right answer for both consumers and producers.

Also, asking the consumer to keep up with the producer is the wrong business model, and that was what was happening in the software requirements. Of course, I feel we have swung too far in the other direction. Now our developers are blatantly refusing to catch up to where the consumer's hardware is. Directx 9 only games need to die if you are more than an indie developer.

 

[Atomski]

Arent indie games doing just as well on like 360 with xbox live arcade/indie?

Lower budget/smaller dev team games are becoming popular on every gaming system not just PC.

 

[Stallion Free]

I like both ends of the spectrum and my playtime is pretty much split 50/50 between AAA titles and indie games on PC.

 

[Dennis]

We don't need no steenking AAA. The sooner that Crytek take their cry baby whining, graphics whore asses over to console exclusive land the better.

But seriously, what I like most about PC is the anarchic nature of it where things can come from companies from Sega to Minecraft's Notch without anybodies permission. If people want to play Crytek games in their private fantasy worlds on theoretical graphics hardware that will not exist for five years then that's up to them.

ugh

You best be joking. The day games that push the hardware stop coming out is the day I quit PC gaming. Sure, the small indie game are a fun diversion and addition but they can't ever be the main thing for PC gaming.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Now our developers are blatantly refusing to catch up to where the consumer's hardware is. Directx 9 only games need to die if you are more than an indie developer.

I disagree. More indie devs should switch to SDL/Java and OpenGL to make things more inclusive in terms of Linux and Mac.

ugh

You best be joking. The day games that push the hardware stop coming out is the day I quit PC gaming. Sure, the small indie game are a fun diversion and addition but they can't ever be the main thing for PC gaming.

I'm saying that the best thing about PC is that even if I was in charge of windows for gaming then I couldn't take that away from you if someone wanted to make that sort of game and hardware. If I wanted to.

 

[fresquito]

PC gaming is awesome as it is now. And the reason why it is like this is because big houses have left the building. They set trends and they all followed their own trends, with big media outlets following their news. It was like consoles are today. And consoles suck today. If you like kind of game A or B, then it's fine, because that's all you've got. But if you like different things, there's simply no room for you, you're no longer in the agenda.

A game like Minecraft could never happen on consoles today, and could have never happened 10 years ago on PC. The thing is, I don't expect any good PC dev becoming a big house on PC alone. The reason is simply because PC gaming is out of the media agenda, except for the big houses that still reside there (Valve and Blizzard, basically).

And I'm fine with all this, because as much as I like fancy graphics, I don't give a crap about them when all the games look and play the same, except for very few details.

 

[Kabouter]

Honestly, neither is sufficient for me. I want the unique indie games made by a guy in a shed (to borrow a term from Top Gear ), and every now and then, I want a high budget production like Assassin's Creed 2. But most of the time, I just want what's in between. The stuff made by small, but not tiny teams. The stuff that sells well, but doesn't break sales records. I want the games that for me have always defined the PC.

Spoiler

Oh, and I want Europa Universalis III: Divine Wind. 14th can't get here fast enough.

 

[stuminus3]

Arent indie games doing just as well on like 360 with xbox live arcade/indie?

I somewhat touched on that earlier with my Wii comments, and I think Wallach indirectly touched on it, but many of the same points made in discussion about the PC-space are relevant to the industry as a whole; home consoles are very different now compared to what they were in the last generation (some would say they're actually more like PCs now), and they have also given the little guy a chance to shine in the face of an increasingly turbulent and insular big-budget industry. Hell, even look at the rising popularity of the iPhone as a gaming platform.

The difference is that these are closed platforms, and closed platforms are ugly.

 

[dionysus]

I disagree. More indie devs should switch to SDL/Java and OpenGL to make things more inclusive in terms of Linux and Mac.

I worded it confusingly. I don't care what small teams do who have limited funds. I am just happy they are making a game. I was raging against publisher funded teams who still are only supporting directx9.

 

[Lostconfused]

A game like Minecraft could never happen on consoles

Period. Full Stop. The problems and trends you cite exist because consoles are a closed system. PC was and will always be what people make of it.

 

[Dennis]

Honestly, neither is sufficient for me. I want the unique indie games made by a guy in a shed (to borrow a term from Top Gear ), and every now and then, I want a high budget production like Assassin's Creed 2. But most of the time, I just want what's in between. The stuff made by small, but not tiny teams. The stuff that sells well, but doesn't break sales records. I want the games that for me have always defined the PC.

Spoiler

Oh, and I want Europa Universalis III: Divine Wind. 14th can't get here fast enough.

I am going to be honest here and admit that what excites me most abut Divine Wind is the graphical upgrade. EUIII was always hideously ugly.

 

[Atomski]

A game like Minecraft could never happen on consoles today

Uh.. why not? Someone could have totally made a game similar to minecraft and put it out on xbox live indie games. Matter a fact its a shocker no one has made a clone yet :lol

I know someones already working on a clone for the iphone.

Also I wont be surprised if somewhere down the line we see a console version of minecraft. Notch seems to talk about console gaming all the time. Hes not a elitist that plays pc only.