Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is the Gaming PC Dead?

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the no-way-dude-check-out-my-$8000-alienware dept.

Games 417

An anonymous reader writes "Rahul Sood, HP's CTO of gaming, argues that the days of a market that wants PCs running three $500 GPUs is history; he argues that it's really a tough or impossible sell. '... let's face it, high-end hardware has delivered diminishing returns in terms of value. This is why you don't see ridiculous offerings like Quad SLI and 2-kilowatt power supplies coming from our company.' But don't the ideas of customization and market pricing for components tend to undercut that? Is the gaming PC dead?"

cancel ×

417 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Netcraft (5, Funny)

Plantain (1207762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220729)

Until Netcraft confirms it, I won't believe it.

Re:Netcraft (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220853)

Until Netcraft confirms it, I won't believe it.

What if we can get enough niggers to say it, will that convince you then? It works in TV commercials!

yes. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220733)

no.

Maybe? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220803)

Maybe not.

Dupe, (4, Insightful)

lineman60 (806614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220745)

Every time someone needs to sell an issue of something. they say PC gaming is dead. As long as mmo's or there are Hard core games some one will cater to them.

Re:Dupe, (5, Insightful)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220761)

Not to mention RTS games, simulators like MS Flight Sim, and fisrt-person shooters. All those games are much better on a PC.

Re:Dupe, (3, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221037)

FPSing on a pad has gotten more civilized, games like Ace Combat now ship with USB flight sticks for console, and RTSing is mostly a niche gaming market now, compared to the likes of Guitar Hero and Halo.

Re:Dupe, (3, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221173)

Ace combat isn't a flight sim. Try Lock On without a real joystick and full keyboard on a PC

Re:Dupe, (2, Insightful)

MetaMarty (38276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221541)

Lock On is not a flight sim. Try Black Shark without a full keyboard, a flight stick and a photographic memory.

Re:Dupe, (5, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220795)

Are there MMOs that require multiple $500 GPUs to run properly?

I thought the PC-MMO connection had to do with needing a keyboard to play effectively... nothing to do with the gaming rigs this article is talking about.

But I agree, the topic itself is lame.

Re:Dupe, (5, Insightful)

Nossie (753694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220855)

was there ever a PC game that *required* more than one gfx card? no? didnt think so...

BTW, try playing GTA IV on the PC... for that crippled console port you need a 1.5k cluster farm of PCs

As before not too long ago, once the consoles start to show their age (which is round about this or next year) and neither Sony nor MS plan on revising theirs soon (they practically bankrupt themselves with them previously) ... PC gaming will rise from the ashes.

Re:Dupe, (4, Interesting)

unapersson (38207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220947)

I think the difference this time is that higher resolutions have a much higher production cost associated with them. And there is only so much money you can make by targeting high end PC users, most of the money is in the mid range which are on a par with the consoles.

Given the kind of PCs that are sold on the high street, for most people a console will look like an upgrade in terms of gaming. Of course you'd have to drag them away from WoW first.

Re:Dupe, (5, Insightful)

tonywong (96839) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221123)

I think the problem is not just higher production costs, but that the games themselves cannot take advantage of having 3 or more GPUs. The diminishing returns of having more than 1 GPU fall off harshly after adding the 2nd GPU.

I think that if the GPUs delivered better scalability across multiple units you would see higher end setups. I believe this is a software issue, so if 3 GPUs don't yield much increase in performance people won't bother. It's the old adage of software driving the hardware, and not vice versa.

FWIW, I have dual Dell 3007s with an 8800GTX attached to it. The main reason I got the GPU was for my main game, City of Heroes. It sort of chugs along between 20-40 fps with all eye candy on, and if the GTX280 delivered a lot more performance I would have upgraded to that too. As it stands, City of Heroes does not benefit from a second GPU so adding another 8800GTX does nothing for me. Otherwise I would have done that in a heartbeat if I could double my performance. Unfortunately NCSoft doesn't make City of Heroes very compatible with all the eye candy for ATi cards or I'd have gone 4870x2.

Now that I'm playing Left 4 Dead as well, I might get an improved setup since the game is not very playable at 2560x1600 with the 8800GTX solo. I turn it down to 1920x1200 non anti-aliased to get 40-50 fps. I'll probably holding out for a GTX295 with dual GPUs on a single card since my motherboard only does AMD/ATI crossfire and not nVidia SLI, or maybe the next generation single GPU setup.

This is on a Core2 quad running at 3 GHz and 8GB RAM, which isn't too far off the mark of what HP's CTO is complaining is a 'tough or impossible sell'. If the performance of a triple GPU monster actually gave a decent return on performance over a single or dual GPU setup, I believe a decent set of gamers would buy it.

However, most people who are into the top tier of gaming performance also have their own preferences to any gear, and wouldn't pick a whole system from a single vendor, especially HP. I think that segment of the market likes to tweak and build their own boxes in order to get the biggest bang for the buck.

Re:Dupe, (2, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221167)

was there ever a PC game that *required* more than one gfx card?

Crysis. And then they wonder why the game doesn't sell.

Re:Dupe, (2, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221349)

Do they wonder? I thought they said it's because of "the pirates".

Re:Dupe, (2, Insightful)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221649)

Yes and World of Warcraft is one of them.

With the new expansion and the latest 3.0.3 patch, performance took a very big hit for a lot of WoW players. I was playing the game on a E8400 2,4 Ghz, 4gb ram, 8600GT machine and I was seeing my fps in raids hover around 25-40 and around 15-20 in Dalaran. I upgraded to a new videocard (8800GTS) yesterday and it roughly doubled my framerate (40-50 fps in Dalaran now). Now arguably 8800GTS doesn't cost 500$ now, but it did when it first came out.

Kill this stupid meme (4, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221147)

Can we please kill and bury this tired "PC gaming is dead" meme? It's not, and it won't be as long as the PC itself isn't dead. Games are played on any platform that supports them, and that includes cell phones, iphones, pieces of cardboard and yes, even PCs.

It's not TFA's fault, though. The summary is bad, wrong and desperately sensationalist. TFA doesn't say PC gaming is dead, it just says that it's stupid to have 3 $500 GPUs in your PC is ridiculous, which is kinda obvious in these days where you can get a high end PC for less than $1000.

sure why not (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221183)

"PC gaming is dead" is dead

You've got it back to front. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221213)

They didn't say PC gaming was dead. They said the gaming PC was dead.

The implication is very, very different. One means nobody is gaming on PCs any more - and that's very clearly wrong. The other means that few people are churning vast sums into making dedicated PCs just for gaming - and that quite likely is true.

I still game on my PC, but I'm one of many who have completely stopped customising my PC for the ultimate gaming performance, because it simply isn't worth the expense any more. I do most of my gaming on other platforms, and the games that do get played on my PC aren't really ones that benefit much from a mega powerhouse anyway.

So yes, the dedicated gaming PC is dead - or at least, in its death throes if you ask me. But PC gaming won't be going away any time soon. We'll just be gaming on the same type of machines we're using for work, mucking around with our photos and video editing, etc. etc.

Re:Dupe, (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221569)

It used to be that PC gaming and console gaming were running neck-and-neck for software sales. Now you're lucky if your PC port makes 20% of the console sales.

Similarly, there was a period there where optimizing your pc gaming rig seemed like a mainstream pasttime. Now, with laptops, lower-entry games dominate what is left.

The PC gaming industry as we knew it has completely changed. Is it dead? No, but it has become something completely different.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220769)

Nope.

Re:Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220991)

Jew.

I don't know about dead, but it should be. (2, Interesting)

razathorn (151590) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220775)

Game titles shouldn't drive hardware requirements. Outside of Portal, something I can play on my xbox 360, and I don't have to upgrade every 6 months to continue to play new titles, I haven't seen anything new from game makers other than new requirements for my machine to somehow be better to play the same dumb first person shooter remakes. Oh, need I mention that now days you even need a pretty kick'n system to play what amounts to MUDS? Yes, please die. While you're at it, make mouse and keyboard style FPS navigation a standard and supported option on consoles -- the claw is not acceptable. That would be gaming Utopia: A supported console that worked for a few years and continued to play the latest titles while also offering a control system that leveraged something other than my fine motor control abilities of the digits that spend 8 hours a day inaccurately whopping the damned space bar.

Re:I don't know about dead, but it should be. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220995)

If Game titles shouldn't drive hardware requirements, what should then?
The latest version of Windo... ooh I see what you did there.

Re:I don't know about dead, but it should be. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221159)

New PC games rarely require a system upgrade to play. You can simply turn down the details until it's playable, something you can't do on a console.

Bunny hopping scum. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221163)

"inaccurately whopping the damned space bar"

As opposed to inaccurately whopping the damned x button?

Only place I ever see someone spend 8 hours a day whopping a jump button is halo... and I hate halo for it.

You show me a console with 20+ easily reached hotkeys and something that lets me turn however fast I move my arm and I might pick up a console.

Oh, and a headset for good measure :D

Re:Bunny hopping scum. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221721)

Way to only read the last sentence and read the completely opposite meaning to what the guy intended. He is pro PC. Everyone whomps the space bar all day - when they're typing.

You can connect a mouse, keyboard and headset to the PS3, though not all games make use of them. I just picked up a PS3 back at the start of the year to help wean myself off Windows gaming and it's worked great (meaning I can now use any OS I want on my laptop 100% of the time).

I don't miss the keyboard, but I definitely miss the mouse in FPS style games. I don't even use a headset despite most networked games supporting it.

As for "20+ easily reached hotkeys", you get 16 pressable buttons (not including the PS3 button), two analog sticks and tilt/accelerometer sensors on a PS3 controller. They are all accessible without shifting your hand to a new position like you have to do with a full sized keyboard. If you use one of the buttons as a 'function' key then you have up to 30 functions right there. Use a second button as a function key and you can have 58 functions, etc. Lack of keys isn't really an issue these days - well, apart from on the Wii.

Think about cost! (2, Interesting)

Amnenth (698898) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220777)

Less demand for high-end machines full of superpowered parts miiiight have something to do with people concerned about spending too much now, maybe.

Of course, midrange parts becoming 'good enough' is a good factor for me, too. I don't feel the need to run things at stupidly high framerates on the largest resolution screens available.

In This Thread (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220779)

ITT: Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

Re:In This Thread (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220791)

Go back to /b/ you copy pasta newfag

Re:In This Thread (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220927)

DICK BUTT xD

HP (4, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220781)

What is dead is the days of companies (like HP) being able to deliver a capable gaming PC. This is much different to "gaming PCs are dead". Rahul Sood's argument is correct though. HP "gaming PCs" really would be difficult to sell. This says nothing about gaming PCs in general though. It merely says that gamers are not looking at HP to fulfil their needs. The argument that Sood is putting forth is a well known fallacy (A means B therefore B means A; HP gaming PCs are dead, and therefore the gaming PC is dead... which is of course rubbish).

Re:HP (2, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221529)

Car analogy:
There are companies that can easily sell high end luxury sports cars, and there are companies that can't.

I think it's still possible for a company to sell "their brand" gaming PCs (and make money).

But that company is probably not the current HP.

If you were a billionaire, you won't be wasting your time building your own high end PC unless it was a hobby (e.g. you were a Tony Stark). You'd tell your trusty valet/butler/PA or equivalent - "get me the best PC, and put the best games and stuff on it, make sure it's done by the time I'm back from my new island. Oh wait, get three just in case".

If you were that billionaire, would you want to see three HP computers after your trip? I wouldn't.

Re:HP (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221553)

Yeah, this. Nobody who wants a PC for gaming would ever think about HP. Their machines are crap for the purpose.

Re:HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221573)

Um, if A == B, then B == A. Didn't you take kindergarten math? He's more like saying A == B then C == B. By saying something as stupid A == B B == A is a fallacy, you prove you have no idea what the word fallacy means, and little, to no, math skills.

Re:HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221673)

A cube can be a rectangle; but a rectangle is not necessarily a cube.
A car can be an automobile; but an automobile is not necessarily a car. (Truck, motorcycle, etc...)

What a joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220783)

If there is ever a reason why PC gaming is failing, blame the software companies. Hardware wise, it's simple to build a $500-$700 range computer that can run Crysis fairly well. Granted, this requires assembly and purchase of parts from a source like Newegg, but to say that PC gaming is dead is yet again a hollow phrase.

About a gazillion WoW players say no (4, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220787)

Seriously, again? "Not in first place" does not equate to "dead". Yes, PC gaming has waned from it's heyday, but it's still got a solid player base in MMOs, casual gamers, online shooters, RTS games, and simulations.

Bad summary, incidentally. From the article:

I am not saying PC gaming is doomed, because it's not--far from it--but the PC with four GPUs, a 2-kilowatt power supply, 16 gigabytes of memory, and a stack of hard drives is all but distant memory, at least for the PC gamer.

Uh, what? A distant memory? Who would even think this is required for gaming? I've never had a computer even close to that powerful. And I *never* bought ultra top of the line hardware, even when I was very much into PC gaming (and could have afforded it easily). I bought mid-upper tier equipment, as it has the best price/performance ratio.

Nowadays, I play both console games (having a big-screen TV and a comfey couch makes a pretty big difference), and some older games such as Bauldur's Gate that I never played (picked up I & II for cheap on Amazon), as they play well on my moderately-powered laptop.

No, PC gaming isn't king, but it's nowhere near an also-ran either.

Re:About a gazillion WoW players say no (3, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220837)

He was setting up a strawman argument ;-)

Re:About a gazillion WoW players say no (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220883)

About a gazillion WoW bots say no

There, fixed that for you.

Re:About a gazillion WoW players say no (4, Funny)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220919)

There, fixed that for you.


Bots are people too, you insensitive clod!

- WoWBot (v2.3.0.284) / Slashdot scanner / (c) 2008 Gold4Cash Corp.

Re:About a gazillion WoW players say no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220907)

Did you even read the fucking article? This isn't about the death of PC gaming, this is about the death of gaming PCs. There's a huge fucking difference and you're a complete moron for not realizing it.

(PC gaming IS dying, that's just not the point of this article)

Re:About a gazillion WoW players say no (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220935)

Heya Rahul. Long time no see. You should consider registering a /. nick. Yeah yeah, I know it's a hassle, but both you and I know you might be taken more seriously if your messages are from RahulSoodDudeEatMyPants rather than Anonymous Coward. Peace and goodwill dude. Cowabunga.

Is he retarded? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220793)

Has he looked at what the company he works for [hp.com] has been selling for well over a year now?

Re:Is he retarded? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221579)

"has been selling for well over a year now?"

But has it been selling well?

Maybe it hasn't and hence the silly article.

If I were so filthy rich, that I could offer to buy girls a car as my pickup line, I don't think I'd want an HP as my high end personal computer...

If I were one of those "Quad SLI FTW!" gamers, I wouldn't be buying an HP. I'd be personally building my own custom rig.

Three?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220817)

How the jesus are 3 GFX cards classified as a "gamer" machine!? That's insane. As a once-hardcore FPSer myself, I don't think I've ever met anybody with 3 GFX cards, even those with crazy amounts of disposable income. Heck, a single 4850 will run anything that's out.

Re:Three?? (1)

BollocksToThis (595411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221061)

Hyperbole: the lost art.

Users are branching out - game companies are not. (5, Interesting)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220823)

I walk into a coffee shop with people using WiFi and chugging coffee. More than half of the people at these coffee shops are using Macs.

I hang out with my geek friends, most of them have switched to Ubuntu, but a couple of us are Debian hold outs. Many of us have completely given up Windows.

Everyone seems to be pissed off at Windows and Microsoft issues.

Game developers make everything for Windows. I used to be a gamer, when I switched to Linux I played games on Linux. Now the companies that used to make Linux Games (Hello Unreal 3!) have decided not to do it anymore because they're kissing Microsofts ass.

People aren't moving away from gaming rigs, game companies don't cater to gamers who are on the cutting edge - i.e. ditching Microsoft!

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (5, Insightful)

GFree678 (1363845) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221083)

Ah. Now I'm reminded of why I don't have too many geek friends. They're obsessed with their operating systems more than what they can do with them. :)

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (0, Troll)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221143)

Playing games is a very minor issue when it comes to what OS to run.

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221711)

I think you'll find the same is true for their girlfriends. ;)

---
captcha is fantasy :D

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (2, Interesting)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221091)

Now the companies that used to make Linux Games (Hello Unreal 3!) have decided not to do it anymore because they're kissing Microsofts ass.

Or the economics of investing a lot of money to supply a product to a niche market which is rendered even more niche by rampant piracy (the one damned thing which *is* OS-neutral on the PC) are just far too marginal for it to be worth the money.

Cock-up before conspiracy.

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221523)

Unreal 3 is made and working for Linux, but it's not been released because there was a rumor Microsoft may want to buy Epic. The Linux release was shelved and never released, any mention of "Where's my promised Linux version?" on the message board gets deleted, sometimes so do the accounts of the posters. Because there's no profit in it, or there will be negative consequences if caught playing nice with others?

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221689)

Or they just don't want to hear you whine. It's their message board and they can run it however they like.

Unreal Tournament 3 (not sure how you were so anxiously awaiting the game when you don't even know the correct title) was never "promised" at any specific date for Linux, it was mentioned. Epic didn't even dedicate any development time towards it, they paid a third party to work on it.

Here's another idea, why don't you get together with the massive group of your Linux friends and all pitch in to buy out Epic instead? Then you can personally fund whatever games you want for your platform. Can't do it? Sometimes life isn't fair, especially if you go out of your way to make it unfair.

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221199)

Game developers make everything for Windows. I used to be a gamer, when I switched to Linux I played games on Linux. Now the companies that used to make Linux Games (Hello Unreal 3!) have decided not to do it anymore because they're kissing Microsofts ass.

People aren't moving away from gaming rigs, game companies don't cater to gamers who are on the cutting edge - i.e. ditching Microsoft!

Companies that used to make Linux games don't do it anymore because there's no fucking money in it compared to Windows. Same reason there's (still) a dearth of games for the Mac. Same reason you're not going to find a buggy whip at Walmart or get your horse shoed down at the Texaco station.

Gamers who are on the cutting edge are ditching Microsoft? Good luck with the Tux Racing tournament there buddy. Let me know when the Koreans start doing it competitively. Or did you mean those who are so masochistic they use WINE or Cedega to run Windows games under linux?

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221207)

I have plenty of geek friends.

In fact, I just got back from a LAN party where I met up with 8 other buddies (some of whom I haven't seen in 3 years) from various colleges and we had a LAN party.

NONE of us use Linux OR a Mac. Most of us hate Linux/Mac snobs like you, tbh.

I know ONE person from my high school/college experience who uses only Linux. And he's very snobby about it.

I know 2 or 3 people that use Macs only, none of them are REAL gamers, they aren't hard core at all. They just have a lot of money and buy whatever's "cool."

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (1)

ooh456 (122890) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221331)

Just use Linux to get stuff done and buy an XBox to play games. Problem solved.

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221369)

To get stuff done? What kind of work can you do on a Linux box that you can't do better on a Windows box?

Seriously, any software available to Linux is either available to Windows also or has a superior replacement.

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (1)

Pay The Piper (1438189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221511)

Dave, don't you have PMI's to be doing or something? Seriously, this is a "Is PC gaming dead" discussion. Not a "Linux is superior" discussion. Besides, just because the industry is moving in a direction you don't like, doesn't mean you have to miss out on all the kick ass games that are coming out these days. You can dual boot. Your words smack of someone who switched over to linux for geek points or an e-peen enhancement. Don't get me wrong; I know linux is superior. I just know that right now microsoft calls the shots. And don't give me that "If we all join the cause we can change the industry" speech. Thats the kind of stuff that libertarians say. Microsoft is calling the shots until they get an awful ceo, make some terrible decisions, and completely destroy their multi kagillian dollar company. Developers go with microsoft because thats where the money is. The money will be there because developers go to microsoft. Microsoft wins. And I know I'll take flak from every active slashdot reader for saying it, but microsoft is just fine for gaming. If you don't think its a product thats worth paying for... don't pay for it. Yeah you know what I mean. And yes I have a $4000 multi GPU gaming rig. Get back to work. Sincerely, You know who

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221659)

Been wondering what your username was, gonna go do some PMI's now, but I'll still be gaming on consoles, Linux, and Mac.

The "Mad Man" (I doubt you'll know him by that, but he's the grouchy one on duty) says console games are dead. I have to disagree with him.

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (1)

ritcereal (1399801) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221555)

Trust me, you don't want to play that steaming pile of crap game called Unreal Tournament 3. The original Unreal Tournament was incredibly more enjoyable, more innovative, and most surely held my attention more than 2.3 minutes. Epic is a worthless company, they no longer make good video games, they make Microsoft Games.

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221609)

I loved the original UT, and I still play it on occasion (I've actually had trouble slowing it down enough on newer systems), I played UT2K3, and of course replaced it with UT2K4, I loved them all. I only spent a few minutes on my cousins copy of UT3, I'm a bit annoyed that I bought it and don't get to play it. Even if it is steaming crap, I would like for them to keep to the promise of at least making it functional crap.

Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221643)

No, UT3 is good, you're just jaded.

Not really (1)

GFree678 (1363845) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220841)

You'll always have SOMEONE who wants to put down a wad of cash for a gaming PC.

What's dying is careless programming (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220843)

Does someone seriously think the current requirements on some PC games are unavoidable?

If computer hardware stops growing at the same pace we've grown accustomed, what will die isn't PC gaming but game software careless programming.

Just as games in a single console have better graphics as time passes (on the same hardware), even a full stop in PC hardware would just force a cleaning and perfectioning of base algorithms.

Traditionally, this reasoning ends by pointing at the high quality graphics and ridiculously low requirements on the last Blizzard game, but it's been a while since they released a new one. I'd just wait to see the requirements of D3 or SC2 before talking about the effects of a slow down in affordable computer hardware on games quality and future.

Re:What's dying is careless programming (4, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221227)

Does someone seriously think the current requirements on some PC games are unavoidable?

If computer hardware stops growing at the same pace we've grown accustomed, what will die isn't PC gaming but game software careless programming.

Just as games in a single console have better graphics as time passes (on the same hardware), even a full stop in PC hardware would just force a cleaning and perfectioning of base algorithms.

Traditionally, this reasoning ends by pointing at the high quality graphics and ridiculously low requirements on the last Blizzard game, but it's been a while since they released a new one. I'd just wait to see the requirements of D3 or SC2 before talking about the effects of a slow down in affordable computer hardware on games quality and future.

Dramatic optimization through a consoles lifespan happens for several reasons:

* It's a consistent piece of hardware, so you can get very specific in your optimizations.
* Each new generation means new hardware to learn, so it's an abrupt transition at the beginning of the product cycle. As such, the unoptimized games are easier to spot than on a PC, which is a more consistent upgrade cycle.
* You don't need to waste effort on things like scalability or compatibility / fallback coding.
* Vendor APIs, compilers, and tools tend to significantly improve over the lifecycle of the console.

It's a little different for PCs, which operate on a more continuous upgrade cycle (witness the slow adoption of Vista and DX10). Also, keep in mind that, by nature, PC programming has to have more layers of abstractions and a heavier-weight OS than a console. As such, consoles will *always* be more easy to optimize than a PC over the long term.

For PC games, the basic problem is one of Moore's Law versus diminishing returns. Once you get the biggest issues (optimization-wise) out of the way, it doesn't make sense to try to spend hundreds of valuable programmer-hours trying to squeeze a percentage point or two of runtime performance out of your engine, when statistically speaking, in the time you took to do this (and not programming other features), the average PC spec just compensated for that optimization. So, your game may run 5% better than your competitors, but in the same time, they may have added some gameplay features your engine lacks, and simply reduced their content budget by that percentage.

Or, it's a question of usability versus optimization. Yes, it would be faster to hard-code the game instead of using a scripting engine, but what would happen to the development timeline? Again, the extra time spent developing the game may have actually accounted for the performance difference within the target market in aggregate.

Computer hardware is not going to just magically stop advancing because you wish it so. But the question of what type of system to target - that's entirely up to the developer. I've seen a number of smaller games running great on very low-spec system (Stardock games, for instance). MMOs tend to take up the middle ground, with a reasonable compromise between visuals and system requirements. And, of course, some PC developers prefer the high-end niche.

Re:What's dying is careless programming (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221299)

A very thorough and interesting response. I stand corrected on many points. However at:

> Computer hardware is not going to just magically stop advancing because you wish it so. But the question of what type of system to target - that's entirely up to the developer. I've seen a number of smaller games running great on very low-spec system (Stardock games, for instance). MMOs tend to take up the middle ground, with a reasonable compromise between visuals and system requirements. And, of course, some PC developers prefer the high-end niche.

I was replying the article's premise about the slow deceleration of affordable hardware power. So, my response was about "even if it magically stopped advancing" which I don't believe it will.

In that case, the target systems would slowly consolidate into the last advancement, removing that choice from the developper and helping the optimization process.

However, I still state that the magical stopping isn't going to happen and that a simple slowdown won't affect the current pattern of ever growing requirements.

That's changing.. (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221669)

One of the big problems facing game programmers today is actually the requirement of an extra layer of abstraction. In order to get a simultaneous release on PS3 and 360 companies have to either a.) write parallel code for different platforms, or b.) create an API to deal with development for both consoles at the same time. Both options are a pain in the ass, and the easier option (adding an extra API) leads to less than optimal code. Of course, you can still improve the API over time, and you still only have to deal with 2 target systems, but its still more difficult than just dealing with a single platform.

No. (0, Redundant)

h3i (1196807) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220869)

Non.

gaming pc dead? no. gaming hp pc dead? yes (3, Insightful)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220877)

most gamers would rather build their own gaming rigs, especially those willing to do triple or quad SLi, watercooling, etc.

On a linux desktop? (2, Informative)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220881)

It seems every year is starting to be the "The year of PC gaming death."

And, we all know that every year is the year of linux on the desktop and that the year of Duke Nukem is coming.

Thus, clearly, next year will be the year of playing Duke Nukem on a dead linux desktop*.

*: According to the latest casting of bones, the prophecy can also be interpreted as: "Penguins will nuke ducks dead from the top of their desks". But I don't think that will happen next year.

Re:On a linux desktop? (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220913)

And, we all know that every year is the year of linux on the desktop and that the year of Duke Nukem is coming.

I hate to break it like this, but Duke Nukem 3D [wikipedia.org] was released in 1996.

Re:On a linux desktop? (1)

borizz (1023175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221661)

I hate to break it like this, but Duke Nukem 3D [wikipedia.org] was released in 1996.

He was obviously talking about Duke Nukem Forever.

Hardly. (4, Interesting)

solraith (1203394) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220897)

From TFA:

... I cannot justify buying three $500 video cards just to play a game.

Was this ever a requirement just to play a game? Granted, I haven't been around THAT long, but if my current rig and its pair of $200 video cards in SLI mode can run Age of Conan at 70 FPS on maxed out settings, I fail to see why anyone would be shelling out $1500 on graphics hardware alone.

An often-missed point in this discussion is, even with bleeding edge $500 video cards available, there isn't a game out there that requires more than one of these behemoth cards to run at max settings. None that I've encountered, anyway, and this was true even four years ago when I built my current rig's predecessor.

As for the gaming PC being dead, mine seems to be alive and well despite being a year old now. I generally build a new rig every three years or so, and it seems to cost roughly $1500 for the entire machine each time. I tend to jump on new games fairly quickly, and I have yet to see my computer choke on one. I never really understood the whole "six-month upgrade cycle" thing for hardware, but maybe my luck with hardware is just that good.

Either way, the article sounds like more sensationalist over-stirring of the pot to me. Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Hardly. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221119)

Back in 1998 I knew someone that bought a pair of ~$500 (even more inflation adjusted) Voodoo2 graphics cards to play GLQuake at the crazy resolution of 1024*768 =)

Today I have a 350GFlop GPU that maxes out at 45W of power draw. That's comparable to a top of the line Cray T3D from 1993 which would have had 2048 processors and used hundreds of KW of power =)

Entirely wrong sample (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220903)

PC gaming consists of more than just people willing to pay 2000$ for a PC. That kind of expense is plain stupid, the additional gain is too small to be worth the cost and the system will need replacement only slightly later than a much cheaper (e.g. 500$) gaming system. From what I've seen videogame requirements are tapering off anyway, my 600€ system from a few years ago still runs fairly new games at minimum details, my previous systems that cost as much didn't last more than 2 years before upgrading at least one component to get a playable framerate. People can game with much cheaper computers, linking the sales of extremely expensive over-the-top hardware to PC gaming in its entirety is completely stupid.

Re:Entirely wrong sample (1)

Elrond, Duke of URL (2657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221009)

No kidding. Just because some people have "uber rigs" that are stupidly expensive for playing games doesn't mean that those people ARE the PC gaming market.

My gaming platform of choice is a PC. I've got a single ATI Radeon 4850HD card which cost $170 new and that alone delivers better performance and visuals than either the XBox360 or the PS3 (not substantially better, but better). Anything more than that gives rapidly diminishing returns.

The rest of the machine is moderately priced, especially since my goal was quiet over deafening speed. And yet, having met that goal, I can still drop in most any game new or old and enjoy it. In fact, just today I finished GTA4.

Perhaps HP could sell more "gaming" PCs if they understood what that actually meant. I'm sure he's entirely correct that the market for PCs which consume 1.21 gigawatts of power is small. But you don't need that. HP could sell a machine like mine for perhaps $800-$900, still make a profit, and it would easily satisfy 90% of the PC gamers in terms of ability.

Not a very good article (4, Insightful)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220923)

First, he equates horrid price/performance setups to "THE GAMING PC" as if "THE GAMING PC" had always meant morons with too much money and too little sense.
Second, he assumes that this was commonplace before (it wasn't).
Third, he assumes that the entire software market fails to take advantage of these INSAAAAANE GAMING PCs, after just having attempted to make the point that those PCs only "eke out a few more frames per second".

What exactly is he trying to argue here? If he's attempting to make the claim that the enthusiast market is dead, why hasn't that same enthusiast market died well before now? It's not just lately that dumping more and more money into a setup gives you diminishing returns, it's always been that way.

Re:Not a very good article (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220979)

He's probably new. And possibly trying to defend his job/position. I can't think of any other valid reason for him to put forth these strawman arguments. Well, I can think of a few other reasons...

Re:Not a very good article (1)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221043)

Had he known a bit more about his chosen subject before writing, a great article could have been written about the market's switch to the midrange: ATI, for example, didn't make a giant monolithic design then shrink it down for the midrange, they built it from the bottom up for the midrange and now they are winning in low-mid end price/performance with the 4850. nVidia made their entire lineup obsolete overnight with the 8800GT a few months ago, a small, single slot, efficient card that tied or blew away anything they had offered before for an extraordinary price.

Re:Not a very good article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220997)

What he's really trying to say is...

"BUY MORE OF OUR COMPANYS STUFF!

You're killing pc gaming. (high end hardware sales)"

I always got along fine with high midrange equipment to game. Turn down the graphics to reasonable levels and things run just fine with a more than playable fps.

SLI is no more about computation then gaming now.. (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220929)

... I think the days of SLI as a gaming thing is numbered since Nvidia and others have been attempting to take GPU acceleration of applications more seriously. SLI is more now mostly for those who buy these cards for computation, and only secondly as a gaming card for those with the disposable income IMHO.

I never understood why people would pay so much for SLI, in the voodoo days it was neat but the average person didn't have SLI. I also never fully grasped why people were so obsessed with high resolutions, @ 1280x1024 I was fine and I kept watching the benchmarks go up to higher and higher resolutions and I was thinking we've reached a point of diminishing returns.

Re:SLI is no more about computation then gaming no (2, Informative)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221093)

LCD screens? I have 2 choices. I run my games at 1680*1050 looking great, or any other resolution looking like...total crap.

Now picture 2 of those screens hooked to the same poor machine ;-)

the real reason (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220931)

I just picked up an 8600GTS OC from BFG and I run 2 monitors and can render basically any game I care about at full blast. Oblivion I have to tone down slightly but other than that, UT2004, Halo, and Fable all fine. That's why nobody's buying quad SLI setups and dual quad processors and 8 GB of memory. Why spend an extra $500 on hardware that will give you +20% in speed when you could just turn antialiasing down to 2x and turn on bloom lighting instead of HDR and turn the view distance down ot 80%?

This guy is an idiot (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220985)

First there's the assumption that you have to have some really powerful PC for gaming. Uhhh, no. I know lots of people who game on mid range or lower end hardware. Heck right now one of my friends is in my living room, happily playing WoW on his Lenovo Thinkpad. It's no high end mega machine, just a normal mid range business laptop with a reasonable graphics card (8600M I think).

However the bigger issue is one that these high end rigs DO exist and sell... Just not from HP. There's tow reasons for that:

1) Many people who buy those sort of computers want to build their own. I would fall in that category. While I don't buy latest and greatest all the time, I have a pretty high end system. It is also all built from parts. No OEM was involved. I like customizing my system, and I've the knowledge to do so.

2) A bigger reason in their case is that HP blows at consumer systems. You'll note that companies like Falcon Northwest DO sell high end (often ridiculously so) gaming PCs. HP's problem is they have a reputation for cheap crap, a well deserved reputation in my opinion and I do computer support professionally so I feel it is an informed opinion. They load their PCs full of shit you don't want, use second rate hardware, have poor warranty support, have an amazingly bad download site (anyone who has an HP printer knows) and seem to fail more frequently than our other brands at work. Is it any wonder high end gamers are not interested?

I find this "Gaming PCs are dead," to be a really stupid idea. Oh really? Then who the hell is buying all this stuff targeted at them? Who is buying GTX 280s, Logitech G15s, Razer Mice? Offices? Not likely. Further who is buying all the games? Best Buy has a whole isle devoted to PC games. That's about as much shelf space as they devote to any single console. Now retail space is expensive. You REALLY think they are doing that just to have them sit there and not sell? You think if they really didn't move that they wouldn't just be special order items? Not hardly. Their beancounters know math. They aren't devoting the shelf space to it because it doesn't move.

Sounds to me like he's mad that gamers don't want to buy the crap HP pushes. Well I tell you what, I'll give you the magic formula that'll make gamers buy:

Make a system that has the latest technology from trusted manufacturers, put it in an attractive functional case, don't install a ton of crapware on it, and charge a reasonable price. Done. Gamers will buy that shit. You keep selling crap boxes, well don't expect to get much gamer market.

I have a stack of computer games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221007)

I have a stack of computer games just waiting to be played. I have to wait till I get my computer fixed. You don't seem to have these issues with consoles.

This question is asked on Slashdot too often (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221035)

Ugh

Two kilowat power supplies? (1)

lorithad (1438149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221055)

This guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. You can't have more than 1800 watts in a power supply. Not unless you want to install a new, dedicated 20 amp circuit for your computer. Or move to a 240 volt system. None of which the average consumer would be willing to do.

Re:Two kilowat power supplies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221181)

Or move to a 240 volt system. None of which the average consumer would be willing to do.

Except, you know.. most of rest of the world [wikipedia.org] ;)

Re:Two kilowat power supplies? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221269)

This guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. You can't have more than 1800 watts in a power supply. Not unless you want to install a new, dedicated 20 amp circuit for your computer. Or move to a 240 volt system. None of which the average consumer would be willing to do.

The average consumer doesn't need more than 300 Watt for a PC that's perfectly capable of playing all modern games (as long as the games aren't broken by design).

Integrated graphics (2, Interesting)

faragon (789704) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221069)

Sice one year ago, I almost don't play "hardcore games" in my PC, simply because I replaced my main desktop with a integrated graphics laptop (now I have two laptops, the main one, docked with a bigger screen and normal keyboard and mouse).

The point is that I have no intention at all to return to "desktop PC", nor "dedicated graphics", because the integrated graphics (Intel, but ATI/AMD is also OK, if not better) are just enough -cheap, and with longer battery time-. If the PC game runs OK, good, if not, I have a Playstation 3 for more fun (that also run Linux).

Relativity (1)

airos4 (82561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221169)

Perhaps what is dying is what arstechnica calls "The God Box"... but they've always also run "The Hot Rod" and "The Budget Box". In days gone by you almost needed the God Box to run the newest coolest toys (I remember having my boot disk to run Falcon back in the day because it saved memory to load straight into the game) but now the only game my sub $700 system can't run at pretty much full power is Crysis - and I think that was designed to just show off. I think there's still plenty of market for the Hot Rod and Budget Box, depending on your needs.

How often are we going to hear it? (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221235)

"PC gaming is dead", "PC gaming is dead". Then this or that "expert" claims we won't play on PCs anymore in 5 or so years because everyone's moving over to consoles.

Guess what? That argument dates back to the first Nintendo console that pushed into the US/Euro market? And? Two decades later and we're still playing on PCs. We still didn't dump the machines and turned to consoles all of a sudden. And for good reason.

First, some games just do not make any sense on a console. Ever tried a sensible flight sim on a console? How? Oh, I'm sure you could invent some sort of input device that costs a fortune and guess what? Nobody but a few sim nuts would buy it. But the game is pointless without it because you can't pilot a plane sensibly with standard controllers. So the flight sim will never be made due to a lack of market.

RTS? Ever tried it with a console controller? Until they get a sensible mouse support, I'm not going anywhere near it. Same goes for FPS games. Yes, they made it somehow into the console market, but frankly, before I try to play Halo with a game controller I shoot myself in the foot. Actually, thinking about it, chances are that this is exactly how well I'd be able to aim with the standard controller out there.

Yes, I'm no fan of the console controllers. I love my mouse and I enjoy having a keyboard.

What's the next argument? Oh, the ever increasing update necessity. Here's some news for you: Don't make games that need more horsepower than the average gamer machine can muster and you have a bigger market to sell to. It is actually that easy. If you require a game rig with ten graphics cards to make your latest and greatest game even run mediocre, you failed. Simple as that. And no, gamers do NOT want that. They want a good game. Yes, that may include decent graphics, but we already have that, it can be done with normal, current standard PCs! Now make decent games that are still good after the new car smell is gone and the player looks past the shiny surface of your stunning graphics effects! The only damn reason why console games are not so hardware hungry is simply that the hardware is set in stone. You CANNOT demand more than what the console can offer, so the game maker has to adjust to what the game rig can. He can't simply go and tell you you need a better graphics chip for your X360, it won't fly.

Could we please finally drop this completely ridiculous claim?

Is PC gaming dead? No, at alll levels of play.... (4, Interesting)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221257)

Hardcore gamers still flock to the PC...World of Warcraft, Diablo II (and soon III), Starcraft (Starcraft II!!!!!)...Blizzard is enough PC gaming for a large number of PC gamers and that's just the hardcore crowd. Once you factor in TRUE casual gamers it's the consoles that should be looking up to the PC.

If you openly interpret the definition of PC gaming then PC gaming is clearly the dominant platform. Flash games, web games, online checkers, online chess, online board games (Monopoly is extremely popular), online card games, online gambling games (though I think gambling is a horrid activity), emulation (those SNES games will never die), GGPO, MAME, etc. and then add in AA/AAA titles you have a massive community...

And way more people own PCs or MACs compared to the three main consoles right now (PS3, 360, Wii). In order to casually game on a PC you usually have the hardware already in your house, people buy a PC (or MAC etc.) for word processing, internet use, or personal use outside of gaming but casual gaming becomes a side usage of their PC.

My mother uses her PC for work and personal communication but she has started playing puzzle games for fun and actually spent over $100 on puzzle games in the last year. Is she included as a PC gamer?

Sure she's not killing hookers and cops in GTA or saving the world from mutant-zombies in Fallout 3 but puzzle-gaming is a legitimate genre so should she be counted as a gamer? Would she ever spend any money on gaming console? No. Would she purchase a 'gaming PC' as these manufacturers dupe people into buying? No. But does she game on her old Gateway 1.5GHZ/512RAM...hell yeah she does. She's a gamer....a puzzle gamer. Go mom...

Now for Christmas mom I need an Alienware 9.7gHz 1000lbs of RAM and 9.1 speaker setup and three ice-cooled (TM) graphics cards.

It has never been alife in the first place (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221397)

I recently got a cheap 9600GT are replacement for a faster card that died (shoddy Nvidia solder problem, 2 years warranty left). Turns out this card runs Fallout 3 and WoW without problem in 1280x1024, if a little less pretty. This tells me that high-end hardware is for people with too much money and too little sense.

Same with the ultra-expensive Intel CPUs: Nobody really needs them, except a few that use these as ego-prostetics.

Another blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221407)

Why is this news? Some fucktard with an opinion gets frontpaged. Marked stupid. Next up, a blog entitled, "Is breast milk good for babies? here comes the science".

Meh (1)

ZekoMal (1404259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221447)

People that don't use these gaming PCs always make a fuss whenever they think gaming PCs aren't selling as well. (given that maybe 1 gets sold a week, they just have to stare at the average sales to panic)

The average gamer has a few hours to spend on gaming every day; and considering that all games can be played on bare bones computers (with a few exceptions), there is no incentive for the average gamer to drop a few thousand more on a computer that gets little mileage.

A hardcore gamer that spends 10+ hours a day on a specific game would love a gaming PC, however, as they would go faster.

However, internet connection plays in more than base computer settings for online games. If your connection sucks, you can't do much about it. A better investment for these hardcore mmo players would be to purchase the high speed, $60 a month internet connection.

Non-sequitor (1)

oceanclub (654183) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221567)

I can only add my voice to the others above saying that, as a PC gamer, I'm baffled at this straw-man argument from the HP bloke. I'm currently playing Fallout 3 at maximum settings and resolution and at 85 frames per second on a PC that would cost today 450 (for CPU, memory, motherboard and graphics card) to build. And I recently bought a Dell laptop for 700 on which Crysis is very playable.

Yes, there are guys out there who want multiple GPU watercooled machines. But you don't actually need these. Just in the same way that there are guys who like go-faster decals and spoilers on their cars.

And companies like HP and Dell, by foisting the wretched integrated graphics chip on consumers, have done more damage to PC gaming than anyone else.

P.

It is dying, for other reasons IMO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221583)

Personally I think that the PC market is indeed dying a slow death but this is hardly caused by hardware related issues. As said in other parts of this thread; even low - mid range PC's are perfectly capable of playing games. You don't have to turn on all the details you know. However, I do think there is some truth in this story.. After all; suppose you have a mega machine which can run $game at the highest details and resolution. It won't be long (6 months?) before another game appears which demands even more hardware to run. A lot (most?) people don't really care here; you can tweak the settings. But I am certain that there will be a group who gets fed up with it.

Another issue IMO is the gaming market itself. Hardly anything new comes out, its basically dominated by sequels. Tombraider8, NfS 6, GTA4, etc. And while some games will surely be an improvement over the previous version, its still a sequel to some degree. Ofcourse this is something you see happening over the whole line (not just PC here) but still..

And my personal conclusion? The market is dying, but the market of the gaming consoles is blooming. At first I was quite sceptical myself, I've started gaming on a c64 and ended up on my PC. Surely you wouldn't want to buy a play computer just for games? Well, at least that was my idea untill I dove into this thing called Playstation3. And although I'm limiting my story to this console (its simply what I own) I bet the same applies to others as well. First of all; the games simply work(tm). I buy a game, pop it in and I don't have to wonder about resolution, refresh rates and god knows what more. The only thing I do have to keep in mind is that when I hookup my PS3 to a LCD HD TV I'll get a more crisp picture than when its on my bigscreen CRT TV, pretty obvious to me. And then its basically enjoying!

No more issues with game controllers which are not, partly, driver-partly or fully supported (The Gravis Xtreme comes to my mind); no I just start playing because the dual shock controller (default included) is simply supported period. Ofcourse you'll have to pay attention to the keys to use, but heck. No issues of "you can't use those keys because the controller (or driver) isnt' supported". And finally, I truly get the idea that on this platform there really is room for innovation. Developers don't have to worry about supporting (or not supporting) a zillion different pieces of hardware. They just have to cope with the API's and settings and let their imagination run wild.

I'm fully aware that what I'm rambleing about here has long been discovered by others but heck. This is at least my idea as to why PC games are dying. And now, back to Heavenly Sword for me, another of those (IMO) outstanding games which might even rival Tomb Raider itself (with regards to the female character, not the adventureous or puzzleing parts of the game).

PC games are dead, so the gaming PC will follow (1)

King Carl (317156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221685)

According to some friends in the gaming industry the companies are going to stop developing PC games as they are cracked and distributed faster than you can buy them in the shops.

As an example they found out that 85 % of the Crysis online gamers used pirate copies.

If you consider the huge efforts that are needed to create a AAA-title and the risk of being copied the PC games will diminuish.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?