Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

PC Games Giant Rouses From Slumber

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the why-do-we-even-have-magical-weak-points dept.

164

An anonymous reader writes "The Rocky Mountain news has a piece up looking at the revival of PC gaming." From the article: "'PC gaming used to take up the entire store,' said Ken Levine, president and creative director for Irrational Games. 'Now PC gaming get's a tiny little shelf. Literally you have a fraction of the shelf space.' So which is it for the future of PC gaming? Is it a dinosaur marching toward the tar pits or a sleeping giant ready to wake and reclaim its past glory? The industry's top advocates say there are plenty of problems keeping PC gaming down - but just as much potential that portend its inevitable rebirth."

cancel ×

164 comments

Sqrt(-1) (4, Funny)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743348)

"Now PC gaming get's a tiny little shelf. Literally you have a fraction of the shelf space."

The day that PC games do not literally have a fraction of the shelf space in a store is the day the universe faces some serious, serious issues.

Re:Sqrt(-1) (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743488)

It seems that he's using the second definition of 'literally.' [webster.com] Y'know, the one that means the exact opposite of the first one.

Re:Sqrt(-1) (1)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743634)

That's actually an incorrect usage.

From the OED:

(3)b. Used to indicate that the following word or phrase must be taken in its literal sense.

Now often improperly used to indicate that some conventional metaphorical or hyperbolical phrase is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense. (So, e.g., in quot. 1863.)

1687 DRYDEN Hind & P. III. 107 My daily bread is litt'rally implor'd. 1708 POPE Let. to H. Cromwell 18 Mar., Euery day with me is literally another yesterday for it is exactly the same. 1761-2 HUME Hist. Eng. (1806) V. lxxi. 341 He had the singular fate of dying literally of hunger. 1769 Junius Lett. xxx. 137 What punishment has he suffered? Literally none. 1839 MISS MITFORD in L'Estrange Life (1870) III. vii. 100 At the last I was incapable of correcting the proofs, literally fainting on the ground. 1863 F. A. KEMBLE Resid. in Georgia 105 For the last four years..I literally coined money. 1887 I. R. Lady's Ranche Life Montana 76 The air is literally scented with them all. 1902 Daily Chron. 10 Dec. 7/2 A contemporary states that Kubelik has been 'literally coining money' in England. 1906 Westm. Gaz. 15 Nov. 2/1 Mr. Chamberlain literally bubbled over with gratitude. 1922 R. MACAULAY Mystery at Geneva xiv. 72 The things 'they' say! They even say..that 'literally' bears the same meaning as 'metaphorically' ('she was literally a mother to him,' they will say). 1960 V. NABOKOV Invitation to Beheading iii. 31 And with his eyes he literally scoured the corners of the cell. 1973 Good Food Guide 176 'Crabs and lobsters are literally to be found crawling round the floor waiting for an order,' reports an early nominator.

Re:Sqrt(-1) (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743736)

Oh, I fully agree. I personally consider the OED to be more authoritative. But in the US, many defer to Webster's. I find it humorous that they consider the second usage of the word to be totally acceptable.

Re:Sqrt(-1) (2, Insightful)

timster (32400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743891)

Merriam-Webster shows a better understanding of the fact that authority in linguistics is mythological. If you actually read the definition for "literally", it contains the following:

"usage Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary."

Re:Sqrt(-1) (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744065)

That alternate use of literally is literally stupid.

Re:Sqrt(-1) (2, Funny)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744165)

What, are you literally incapable of letting a joke be a joke?

*grin*

Re:Sqrt(-1) (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744334)

So it means either one thing or the complete opposite and if it means the latter it's either hyperbole or not? So effectively it has no meaning at all?

Re:Sqrt(-1) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14744336)

The funniest part is the picture of President Bush I just got in an ad above the definition in that link. :)

Re:Sqrt(-1) (1)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743904)

The day that PC games do not literally have a fraction of the shelf space in a store is the day the universe faces some serious, serious issues.

You should be ashamed! The fact that you did not complete your joke with a reference to the company's name, Irrational Computing, is unforgivable.

Re:Sqrt(-1) (1)

inter alias (947885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744186)

Hey slashdot, read it [paulgraham.com] and apply it to this article. In fact, apply it to every other article on /.

Thanks.

"Shelf space" is obsolete (5, Interesting)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743402)

"Shelf space" is obsolete - the last few computer games I bought were 100% pure electrons. (I paid online too, of course, before downloading.) The "shelf space" battle will always tilt toward the console-playing, Best-Buy-shopping, mouth-breathing masses. Show me "units sold" or "revenue per unit" and I'll pay more attention.

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (2, Insightful)

Samedi1971 (194079) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743817)

And how much can you get for those electrons on Ebay?

I wouldn't buy electrons unless they're much cheaper than the boxed version. The used boxed version. There are too many overhyped and overpriced games out there. If you waste your money on a bad game wouldn't you rather have a physical copy you can resell?

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743919)

"And how much can you get for those electrons on Ebay?"

If it's less than $25 or so, is it really worth the Ebay hassle?

"I wouldn't buy electrons unless they're much cheaper than the boxed version. The used boxed version. There are too many overhyped and overpriced games out there. If you waste your money on a bad game wouldn't you rather have a physical copy you can resell?"

Every game available I've found in electronic-only format has also had a demo version available; if you don't try-before-you-buy, it's your own damn fault.

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744387)

Not much but on the upside I'm paying for them by the kilowatthour.

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (4, Insightful)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743838)

The "shelf space" battle will always tilt toward the console-playing, Best-Buy-shopping, mouth-breathing masses.

Not to be a dinosaur, but in the last 20 years, I have seen size of PC games shelf space cycle at least twice. The last big swell was when PC were selling like hot cakes a few years ago. I'd go into EB or even Walmart and somewhere like 75% of the shelf space was devoted to PC games. I think the problem now is that people aren't turning thier PC's as fast as they the "industry" thought they would. In addition, alot of modern games require some serious hardware like sound and viddeo cards that aren't always installed on units. So people don't buy the games because their machines won't run them. Christ, I have a pretty ripping laptop, but I can't play Quake on it.

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743974)

"I have a pretty ripping laptop, but I can't play Quake on it."

That statement doesn't seem to mesh, either your definition of ripping is different than mine, or you haven't tried to install quake.. and I assume you mean quake4? You too good for 640x480 gaming? :P

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (1)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743971)

Agreed - I think that Steam and demo systems are the way to go. I actually rather like Steam - I don't have to worry about codes or my disks, it's all there. (Yes, there is the issue of "what if the company dies", which is why I have backups, but for the most part Valve's done pretty good.)

I wanted to play "Silent Storm", and at being unable to find it in stores I've pretty much figured "Eh - later. Maybe." Sure, it's only $20 on Amazon.com, but I'd rather just click, download, go play my DS for a bit, then come back and play.

Downloads will probably be how the PC world beats out the consoles, especially if they do it smart and let you reinstall when necessary (a la "Steam"). I haven't tried out EA's system, but then again, I can't recall the last EA game I played anyway.

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14744289)

Off-topic, but I have a question: what's with the "mouth-breathing" thing as an insult I see around so much? What, you're so much better just because you don't have clogged sinuses?

Damn you nose breathers! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744488)

I think it's supposed to refer to people so stupid they can't even remember to close their mouths and effectively breathing through their mouth. Yes, it's pretty insulting for those of us who can't get enough air when breathing only through the nose.

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744603)

It's the new "slackjawed".

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (1)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744740)

Lol! Thanks for the new sig. :D

Re:"Shelf space" is obsolete (0, Troll)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744538)

The "shelf space" battle will always tilt toward the console-playing, Best-Buy-shopping, mouth-breathing masses.

Yeah, because you'd have to be a "mouth-breathing" idiot to want to have a console or buy games from a store.

Does being a judgemental fuckhole come naturally do you, or are you just putting it on to get modded up?

Why they allocate they way they do (2, Insightful)

kneppercr (947840) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743409)

Well, off the top of my head I would say that shelf space is directly proportional to profit. Used console games generate a TON of profit so they are going to be displayed prominantly. With (comparitively) little profit coming from PC games and the non-exsistance of used PC games at stores, it just wouldn't make sense from their perspective to devote alot of valuble eye level shelf space to them. Also, you can walk into EB games and GameStop and buy a console game and the hardware you need to play it on at the same time. You walk in see the display model of the Xbox 360 say "WOW cool graphics" and buy the system and game right there. For a PC game you have to rely on the screenshots the size of your thumb on the back of the box. The companies know this and they allocate shelf space accordingly.

Re:Why they allocate they way they do (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744168)

No used PC games? Why? I'm seeing tons of them 'round here.

Really? (3, Insightful)

mwheeler01 (625017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743443)

When you have great games like FEAR or Civ IV or HL2 or Battlefield 2 still being produced, you can hardly say that PC games are on the way out. I don't buy the argument that if you're providing less and less shelf space for a product that the product itself is getting marginalized. If customers know it's there they'll seek it out and grab at it. I think the shrinking shelf space is a symptom of pressure to push crappy console games from EA or the fact that the used console games market is where games stores are really making their money and reselling PC games is sort of an area that most retailers would rather tread lightly in if at all.

Take a look at Walmart. Walmart deals in small margins anyway so they don't care what you buy as long as you're buying. They give just as much shelf space to PC games as they do the each of the major consoles.

Re:Really? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743998)

Fear = Badly coded, should play on system specs far below what it does.
Civ IV = Memory leakage, lots of memory leakage
Battlefield 2 = EA likes to change the rules every so often, and makes you pay for expansions you don't want by includeing game changeing items to the regular game though the expansions.
HL2 = I like

Hopefully as the first two get ported to consoles the major bugs will get fixed and the games will run better on PCs. The best thing about PC games is that bugs get fixed and stuff gets added, either though the original maker, or though community groups. EA and others though have shown the evil side of that.

As for less shelf space, AFAIK alot of people who play PC games pay for them online, either to have them downloaded straight to their computer, or they get shipped straight to their home.

The market for PC games isn't in stores, its in PCs.

Re:Really? (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744781)

HL2 = I like

Wait a second here. You can point out the problems with the other three games (btw, I think the Civ IV mem leak was pluged in the latest patch, I haven't had a problem with it lately), but completely leave alone the fact that you need internet connectivity to play HL2? Or the fact that the game seems to load agonizingly slow compared with the other three listed games? I mean, you're talking technical issues that I agree with on the other three accounts, but you have to admit that HL2 has some descently-sized technicle problems too.

Re:Really? (1)

christian.elliott (892060) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744456)

Absolutely true! It isn't that computer games arn't popular or "they're dying". The reason for this trend is that there are a handful of EXTREMELY solid titles out right now, and every gamer is playing those handful of games. WoW, BF2, HL2+Mods are all very popular right now, and they have huge player bases. A half-assed game or a non-multiplayer game isn't going to sell as much anymore. For (most) games to have serious selling potential and longevity, they need a strong multiplayer first! And if not everything else better be jaw-dropping.

Technological Advantage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14743454)

The article states that the fact that you can upgrade the PC every six months or so is a reason why PC gaming will revive. That's the exact reason why I *stopped* doing PC gaming. I love the fact that the console games are going to work on my hardware. Period. No system specs, no surprises, the game works. I spend $200-500 (depends on the console) and it's good for 5 years.

Prior to that: Oooo, look at the shiny new game I want to play...crap, need to upgrade, can I afford it? The 50$ game suddenly becomes a $400-$600 game because of upgrades, and this is every 6 months to a year. Screw that noise.

Re:Technological Advantage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14743641)

This is the exact reason that I, and many friends, have stopped PC gaming and moved to consoles. The constant upgrading is ridiculous and is really not worth it for nothing more than minor graphical improvements.

Re:Technological Advantage? (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743797)

Combined with the fact that more and more games are simply unplayable thanks to "copy protection," yeah, I've switched over to consoles too. Console games just work. I've had enough games crap out on me on the PC over "copy protection" that I've just given up on them.

I can't play WarCraft III any more. It decided it was pirated, and now my Collector's Edition CD just won't run. I've had my CD-ROM drivers get destroyed by some over-zealous "copy protection" scheme. I've just given up on dealing with "copy protection" - in the end, it means that if I want to enjoy the game, I'd have to go out and download the hacked version. The pirated version works better than the version you pay money for.

So, I'll just stick with console games. At least they work out of the box, and don't require you to look through warez sites just to play the thing you spent $50 for.

Re:Technological Advantage? (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743984)

The pirated version works better than the version you pay money for.

Totally. These days, when I decide that I want to play some game that I bought two or three years ago, I usually just BitTorrent it.

It's easier than hunting down all 3-5 discs, which are probably not all in the same place. Besides, at least one of them is probably scratched beyond usability. Plus, then I don't have to keep the damn disc out on my desk for easy access; I can just mount the image with Daemon Tools and go.

The only down side is that patching is often harder. Oh well, most games are fine on version 1.0 anyway, and the patches are just to fix rare CTDs or something.

I do play RPGs on the console, but I love FPS and strategy games, and those are just so much better on the PC. The only two console shooters I've ever played that I actually liked were Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. Turok:Rage Wars was OK for a party game. Halo? The later bond games? DAMN, could they have made those controls any more messed up if they tried?

Re:Technological Advantage? (1)

holt (86624) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744123)

Halo? The later bond games? DAMN, could they have made those controls any more messed up if they tried?

I don't remember for sure, but it was my understanding that Halo, at least, could be made to use the Goldeneye/Perfect Dark controls. You just have to go in to your profile setup and change your controls. I just turned on the inverted look settings, though.

I do know that at least one of the later Bond games didn't have the Goldeneye controls, and I also know that kept most of my friends from playing it.

Part of the Problem (3, Interesting)

MorderVonAllem (931645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743469)

I think part of the problem is that whenever I go into Fry's Electronics (i used to work there), there are 100's of games on the shelf. It's hard to weed out the ones that might be interesting to you.

Also, most of the video games come in fairly large packaging with just a CD. Even the manuals are now in PDF format on the CD. Give me a break. I wanna hold it in my hand and read it.

Third. Most games only make like 50 cents to a couple bucks profit per game, when stuff like stuffed animals (fry's electronics sells them in the same area) make probably 800%-1000% profit. Not much incentive to give shelf space to a product that doesn't make you that much money in the first place.

Re:Part of the Problem (1)

Brian The Dog (879837) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744680)

Maybe I'm missing something, but how can you have more than 100% profit? If it costs me 1 cent to make something and I sell it for a dollar, that's 99% profit, but nowhere near 800-1000%. Wouldn't that be like not offering a product (actually offering debt) and being paid for it?

Re:Part of the Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14744845)

"over the initial wholesale purchase value"

Unless your EB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14743481)

then every videogame has reduced shelf space

PC - Console - PC (2, Insightful)

prionic6 (858109) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743508)

When will people get it? There is obviusly a cyclic development. When new game consoles come out, PC gaming suffers. When the consoles are a bit outdated, PC gaming will rise again. And so on and so on.

Fraction of the shelf in what store? (2, Interesting)

displague (4438) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743524)

Best Buy gives PC games an isle or two which is more than what they offer other indiviual systems. Even Target and Walmart give PC games an isle, compared to a glass case. Usually PC Games get half of the space at Electronics Boutique stores. I don't think there is any merit to the claim.

I suppose all of that would change if the PC Games would distribute in consistently smaller packages.

1/2 of an EB? What? (2, Interesting)

wuie (884711) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743646)

The last EB I went to, they only had about 1/6th of the store dedicated to PC gaming.

Re:1/2 of an EB? What? (1)

Babbster (107076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744304)

The last EB I went to, they only had about 1/6th of the store dedicated to PC gaming.

Wouldn't a fraction like that make sense in any case? EB, right now, is going to stock games for Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2, Gamecube, GBA, DS and PSP - at a minimum. Most also have some space set aside for DVD movies. If PC games are getting a sixth, or even an eighth, of the shelf space - especially considering the vast number of people who own PS2s and GBAs - then they're probably doing all right...

Re:Fraction of the shelf in what store? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14743772)

CompUSA, on the other hand, gives PC games a whole archipelago!

Sometimes none of the store space (1)

Bobartig (61456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743896)

In my area, there's two EB games and two Gamestops in close proximity to me. In one gamestop, PC games get one 4'x5' shelf in the entire store. The other Gamestop has ZERO PC games (the sales guy said they had some promo copies of Quake 4, but literally could not sell me a computer game). Of the EB games, one has about 1/4 shelf space devoted to PC games (this is where I generally buy them), and the other has 'virtually' no PC games. No new titles, just an aging rack of left overs on clearance. Major retailers like best buy, compusa, circuit city, target seem to have a small fraction of PC to console games available. Much less than 1/2.

Re:Fraction of the shelf in what store? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744211)

I suppose all of that would change if the PC Games would distribute in consistently smaller packages.

What, DVD boxes aren't small enough? What do you want, jewel cases?

Re:Fraction of the shelf in what store? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744445)

What, DVD boxes aren't small enough?

True, PC game boxes are smaller than they used to be. They used to be over 8x10 inches (20x25 cm) in size; now they're like double-thick DVD cases, but they're still double-thick, and that extra thickness isn't even taken up by a printed manual.

Re:Fraction of the shelf in what store? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744754)

Double thick? With very few exceptions (four, I think), all the games I bought within the last few years came in plain old DVD cases. The exceptions were Doom 3 (which used both sides to hold the discs as opposed to the stupid spindle setup Ubisoft loves so much), X2 The Threat (dunno why that was thicker), UT2004 Collector's Edition (includes headphones. Of course that doesn't fit inside a DVD box) and Earth 2160 (extra thick manual, soundtrack CD, motion sensor). The rest came in DVD boxes or jewel cases. Big boxes died around five years ago.

For a comparison, I've got three console games within the same timeframe that used larger packaging, two being GC-GBA link games with the cable included and one being Xenosaga Ep 2 because it holds three discs.

Re:Fraction of the shelf in what store? (2, Funny)

Ekarderif (941116) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744653)

Best Buy gives PC games an isle or two which is more than what they offer other indiviual systems.

I didn't know Best Buy owned islands and built stores around them.

Is Piracy really the #1 problem? (1)

ZipR (584654) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743539)

I would think that high costs are a big problem with PC games, both high development costs (having to develop for a huge variety of hardware combinations) and high costs to play -- PCs that play the latest games at respectable levels are expensive compared to consoles.

Note: I own no consoles and many PC games.

Re:Is Piracy really the #1 problem? (3, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743571)

I think the complaints about piracy are actually developers being optimistic that there is actually somebody out there running their buggy pieces of trash.

Re:Is Piracy really the #1 problem? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14743874)

ironically, they may actually be correct about piracy being their largest problem. Although, not in the way they think it is:
Pirated games give people the chance to try-before-they-buy in a way no demo can.

So, if you produce shitty games, piracy means people can't be marketed into buying your product. It actually has to appeal to them on valid merits.

From TFA (4, Insightful)

CoderBob (858156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743540)

He points to piracy as a chief culprit in the sales drop. He says developers need to first find ways to make people pay. "What developers and publishers need to do is come up with distribution plans and new copy protection plans," he said. "When you see a game that requires you to be online to play, people can't steal that game."

It's also a good way to get people to not play your game. It's always the "big bad pirates" who are stealing money from the game manufacturers. The industry doesn't want to admit that they're churning out a lof of junk lately, so let's jump on the bandwagon of "It's those damn pirate kids" to save face.

I haven't bought a new PC game in about a year (I've purchased a couple "older" games now that they're in the <$20 market)- and I haven't pirated any, either. I've bought console games, though. When the PC market comes out with something that's worth playing, I'll probably be first in line. Where are the X-Coms, or the RTSes that actually break new ground? Where are the adventure games with their beautiful story arcs? Hell, Deus Ex was a phenonmenal game, and I could see a variation on that (new story, but a similar engine) selling well- something that actually draws the player in. What about stuff like Dungeon Keeper? That game was a blast, it spawned a sequel- and then dropped off the face of the earth. What about Worm- before the 3D crap that made it so much more irritating to play? What about the Baldur's Gate-style RPGs? Hell, Icewind Dale was somewhere between Diablo and BG, and that game was loads of fun. It had it's own feel to it, even though the interface was almost an exact copy of BG.

It's sad that the days of off-the-wall games that sucked a gamer in seem to be gone in the PC World. Instead we get direct sequels that don't offer much more than a smoother engine or prettier graphics. We don't get the stuff that either offers an incredible story or that brings about something "new". And as the gaming market ages, that's going to keep being a problem- to keep the "veteran" gamers around, they're going to have to draw them in with something that they haven't seen before.

Re:From TFA (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743680)

"When the PC market comes out with something that's worth playing, I'll probably be first in line. Where are the X-Coms, or the RTSes that actually break new ground? Where are the adventure games with their beautiful story arcs?"

They didn't sell very well, so game companies stopped making them.

If you are in possession of some strange new marketing scheme that would allow game companies to dig their way out of debt by making more of these fun but unprofitable games, I'd love to hear it.

Re:From TFA (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744292)

Where are the X-Coms, or the RTSes that actually break new ground?

In the clearance bin because noone bought them. Seriously, you can pick Perimeter and Arena Wars up paying a tenner for both together. The uninspired clones and sequels fall in price much slower.

And is it just me or are PC games getting buggier and buggier? I mean, XBTF was very buggy and prone to crashing but X3 can't even install without patching. Severe mission scripting bugs are common even in high profile games. Bugs take forever to fix now (how many patches did it take BF2 to get rid of the IFF error? How many bugs from the initial release are still in C&C Generals even with ex pack and all patches?). While PC games always had some bugs that had to be patched it really seems to get worse. These days you're lucky if you can even finish the game without patching it.

Re:From TFA (1)

CoderBob (858156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744357)

I would ask how many people didn't buy them because they games were bad compared to how many people didn't buy them because someone had released a "flashier" game. When consoles can match/rival PC games in terms of looks and sound, one of the ways PC games could "shine" would be to make good-looking games that just can't be played on a standard console controller.

Re:From TFA (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744813)

Those were good looking games that couldn't be done on a console. Perimeter was even lauded for its great graphics (it even uses bumpmaps in a way that influences the gameplay, namely to display small damages to the terrain which have a major influence on the gameplay). But of course they get outsold by "realistic" RTSes.

Irrational Games, eh? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14743554)

PC gaming may not be dead, but when the idiots at Irrational put Starforce on their game, they're helping to kill it.

Bah. PC gaming won't die..... (1)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743561)

Most games can be played pretty easily on a console ,including an FPS as Halo has proved. I know, half slashdot if not more probably doesn't agree with me, but I don't feel like arguing which is better, since Halo just proved it can be done, and I have no clue if it is better. One genre I don't see playing well with consoles any time soon (unless maybe the Revolution's input changes this) is RTS. Although it can be done (C&C was released for the n64 as I recall), it's worse then playing with a track pad, and there's a reason why RTS games are rarely ported over to consoles.

Reach out and touch someone (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744470)

One genre I don't see playing well with consoles any time soon (unless maybe the Revolution's input changes this) is RTS.

Try Advance Wars: Dual Strike for Nintendo DS to see what is possible. True, it isn't real-time, but the control scheme would be the same.

Re:Bah. PC gaming won't die..... (1)

Tripledub (951046) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744884)

Not with the slew of MMORPG's coming out. Play that on your console! I Dare ya!

Small Fraction (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743671)

I thought they changed PC games to a standard (and imho, far too small) game boxes because they were taking up to much space.

Make up your mind!

who cares about store shelves? (1)

dsands1 (183088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743695)

"'PC gaming used to take up the entire store,' said Ken Levine, president and creative director for Irrational Games. 'Now PC gaming get's a tiny little shelf. Literally you have a fraction of the shelf space."

Meh, I buy/download every game I can via direct2drive [direct2drive.com] . Hopefully, in the future, there won't even be a tiny little shelf for PC games. And as more consoles go online, in the future game stores themselves might go extinct. And, maybe they'll even drop the prices due to lower cost to distribute... yeah, well, maybe not.

who cares about rural customers? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744608)

Hopefully, in the future, there won't even be a tiny little shelf for PC games.

Then how will those 10 percent of people who cannot get broadband in their area [slashdot.org] buy PC games without having to pay $100,000 for urban real estate? And because it would eliminate the used market, what if I want to buy a game, but the publisher has stopped selling it so that it doesn't cannibalize [wikipedia.org] sales of the publisher's new title?

FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14743696)

Vista 4 teh Win!!!1! Vista will rise from the ashes of XP as the savior of PC gaming!

huzzah huzzah

Sarcasmomatic5000 OFF!

Nonsense (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743748)

No matter where I go*, the PC always has the most shelf space. Probably because of the sheer number of games (roughly 50% of the games released each year are for the PC, according to the USK which ALL games released here have to go through) and the fact that old PC games can be sold for much longer than console games (because there's no generation change).

Maybe it's different in the US but here in Europe (or at least Germany) the PC is still going strong.

*= EB Games tends to allocate very little space to the PC but EB Games has very little presence here and is generally not worth entering anyway. Overpriced, cramped, half the shelf space allocated to used games or preorders, plain awful.

Consoles losing their advantages.... (2)

code addict (312283) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743755)

I can only speak for my reasons for returning to PC games, but it largely has to do with consoles losing their unique advantages.

When I bought my PS1 it was WAY better than playing games on a PC, because:
1) It plugged into your TV,
2) It hardly took up any space,
3) It had no fans, ran cool, and hardly made any noise.

With the Xbox and PS2, they both have loud fans and are much bigger. I remember being very disappointed to hear that fan when I turned on my PS2 for the first time.

With the increasing popularity of Media PCs, more and more people have their PCs plugged into their TVs, or have LCD monitors that are the size of many TVs (21" for example). And since the consoles are all huge noisy machines (with the exception of Nintendo), they don't give you much over the PCs.

I know I'm probably not the average person, but my PC is connected via component and optical cables to my home theater (60" HDTV, etc.) and I have a secondary keyboard and mouse on the couch. Any game I play on the PC is automatically an HDTV game. I don't have to check the back of the box to see what resolution it is, etc. Basically it comes down to the fact that PC games actually take advantage of my system. I realize that an Xbox 360 would too, but why bother? For what it's worth, playing FEAR or Battlefield 2 on a 60" HDTV with 5.1 surround cranked sitting on the couch is an very nice experience indeed! :)

Re:Consoles losing their advantages.... (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744075)

Anyone who's more than mildly in to DDR must eventually hook a PC up to their TV and start using Stepmania or something similar. Hundreds of songs available online (all illegally, I'm sure, but oh well), no more swapping discs in and out of the PS2 to play this song or that one.

What I really want is for someone to come out with a PC FPS that includes a 4-player splitscreen multiplayer mode, and 4 USB keyboards+mice. UT2004, 4 players+bots, one PC, one TV? AWESOME.

Too bad no one's done that yet, AFAIK :(

Re:Consoles losing their advantages.... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744871)

Serious Sam (both Encounters) does splitscreen but I think it doesn't support multiple keyboards and only two mice.

Where are single-screen multiplayer PC games? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744536)

but it largely has to do with consoles losing their unique advantages.

Unfortunately, affordable multiplayer in the same room is still a console advantage.

With the increasing popularity of Media PCs, more and more people have their PCs plugged into their TVs

So where are the four-player shared-screen PC-native titles? Why don't more PC games have a split-screen or overhead- or side-view mode that takes input from four USB gamepads? Where are the equivalents of Bomberman, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., etc. for PC? I don't want to have to pay $4,000 for four gaming PCs and four monitors just to let the two kids and their play dates play a four-player game. So why don't PC game publishers let me split my 1280x720 pixel HDTV into four 640x360 windows for four players, all controlled by the same PC?

Re:Where are single-screen multiplayer PC games? (1)

bn_me (658114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744806)

So why don't PC game publishers let me split my 1280x720 pixel HDTV into four 640x360 windows for four players, all controlled by the same PC? You already posted the answer to that... Gaming consoles already do that, and do that well, for a lot cheaper. And while Media Center PC's are getting a lot more popular, they are not THAT popular yet...

PCs cant lose (2)

mnmn (145599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743759)

There has been a recent surge in the cool factor of console gaming. However PC gaming will always be on the top. Heres why.

The cpu power per dollar is highest on wintel platforms due to the huge market. Thats part of the reason why Apple went to get Intel chips. You buy one machine and it does many other things, PVR, game machine, computer, dvd player... a given nonx86 console would be hard pressed to match what a PC can do... for the price. PCs also have the largest install base. Since no one company dominates the platform, its future is also guaranteed (I know MSFT dominates the OS market, but doesnt OWN the PC). So building games for the PC makes sense. Its really building a game for one console, and not for the PC that makes little sense. So far PCs also have the best array of available controls, from wheels and joysticks to the ubiquitous keyboard and mouse for FPS games. Make a good game for a PC... it'll sell. PCs are also more cutting edge. The best graphic cards and CPUs are available for it.

I guess the only console that can beat the PC is something thats really specialized for its game genres or one that is based on a PC (the older xbox comes to mind). Even that would be more expensive than walmart/dell/beige box PCs.

PC titles can't handle more than one player per PC (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744572)

So far PCs also have the best array of available controls, from wheels and joysticks to the ubiquitous keyboard and mouse for FPS games.

It's too bad that most PC games can't use more than one controller at once. With a console, I can connect four gamepads, and one will control each player's character. If I wanted to connect my PC to a TV and then connect four gamepads to the PC, almost all available titles would most likely read only the first gamepad, put only one player-controlled character on the screen, and ignore the rest.

PC Games have one big problem... (2, Insightful)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743821)

No one is talking about the BUGS!
From the article:
And when the newest PC hardware hits, game developers can start taking advantage of it immediately.
That's usually too fast. When I buy a console game it works. It's been tested.
Buy a PC game and fear the BUG. In the back of your mind you are going to be wondering how far you can go before the BUG bites you on your @$$. And then you wait for the patch. :(

Re:PC Games have one big problem... (1)

kevin.fowler (915964) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744070)

wait for the discount rack! Love the patch!

Re:PC Games have one big problem... (3, Insightful)

The_reformant (777653) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744589)

In the other hand on a console if you hit a bug your completely screwed. I played morrowind on the xbox and a flaw in one of the quests resulted in a death sentence incurred for completeing one of the quests not being lifted on completion. The result meant that i couldn't safely enter about a third of the cities in the game making it pretty much a waste of time.

This was a known bug in the PC version which was patched and could be addressed in a non-patched copy using the command console but unfortunately those with the xbox version were left screwed.

Huh? (5, Funny)

Evangelion (2145) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743881)


They've released another game since I bought WoW?

Re:Huh? (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744277)

Somebody mod this insightful. This is not the first time I've heard MMORPG players say that they haven't bought (never mind played) another game since they got into EQ/WoW or other variations.

In my opinion, there's three reasons why gaming is down, and especially PC gaming:
1) Consoles are actually good alternatives to PC games now, both from a technical and game-type perspective.
2) MMORPGs.
3) Copy protection that's more like play-protection.

None of it is down to piracy.

The number one reason PC gamings dying (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 8 years ago | (#14743938)

Is the game makers themselves.

Im sorry given the choice between a quality PS2 game and a quality PC game that gameplay wise is exactly the same as the PS2 game but requires me to buy a 300 dollar graphics card only to replace it 1-2 years later with possibly the whole system, Im going to buy the PS2 game.

Going through a quick look of my PC games (rather mac games) every one of them minus 2 do not require my entire system yet are entertaining, the way it should be. But far too often even the games that seem like they would require lower system requirements end up when comming out requireing me to take out a second morgage to update my system to even play with a decent framerate. The reason many of my games dont have such high system requirements is 90% of them are 2-3 years olf or more.

The problem PC gamemakers create while system gamemakers have no problems with, is that system gamemakers have little wiggle room to expand the system as it is, forcing them to make the best with lower system requirements. On the OTHER hand, PC game makers assume that everyone has the absoulte best system ending up with games that require the most out of your system with complete dissregard that aside from the hard core gameplayers, 80-90% of the people with PCs DONT have Alienware x9000l337ass systems. Why do you think some of the best selling games out there are those puzzle games that take more of a cue from tetris than Unreal. If PC game makers would take a cue from the system makers and make a great looking game within the confines of apretty basic Dell PC without the thrills, it would go a long way to getting PC gamers back who do feel they need the best of the best to get the game looking good and playing well.

Why PC Gaming has struggled (1)

denverradiosucks (653647) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744027)

It's not all piracy people. That is such a cop out.

When many of the industry's most popular games are available on Xbox and Playstation, why on earth would I spend $600 for a top of the line video card and at least another $1500 on a gaming system, when I can play the same game on an Xbox that costs less than $200?

When will they learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14744225)

From TFA

"He points to piracy as a chief culprit in the sales drop. He says developers need to first find ways to make people pay.

"What developers and publishers need to do is come up with distribution plans and new copy protection plans," he said. "When you see a game that requires you to be online to play, people can't steal that game." "

How about lowering the price tag? I buy as many PC games a year as I can afford; and DL the rest that I want to play anyway. If the games were only $30 each I could support more game developers.

Consoles are better for most people (2, Insightful)

c0d3h4x0r (604141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744043)

There are some major probems (for gamers and game-makers) that plague the whole concept of PC gaming:

1. It's easier for PC games to be pirated, so it's less lucrative an enterprise.

2. Unlike a console, where every unit is identical hardware, PCs have infinitely many hardware combinations. It's impossible to test for them all. It's also impossible for non-technical / non-computer people to clearly find the answer to the question, "can my computer run this game well?"

3. Unlike a console, where you just put in the game and turn on the power, on your PC you first have to troubleshoot hardware lockups and software crashes, download and install drivers, install the game, configure your game controller, configure the game's performance settings, etc...

4. Sometimes, despite your best technically-competent troubleshooting efforts (eating up valuable hours of your life), a particular game will just refuse to run on a given PC without locking up or crashing or performing way slower than it should on that hardware. No one can figure out why, and none of the involved companies seem to care about fixing it, even when the problem is being experienced by boatloads of people camped out in online support forums.

5. Consoles are much cheaper than PCs.

6. PC game controllers are notorious for sucking compared to console game controllers. In my experience the only way to get a good game controller on a PC is to go buy a console controller and a USB converter box from Lik-Sang.

7. You can't easily play games on a PC on your big-screen TV while sitting on your couch in the den. Yes, I know it's possible to get a PC to display on a TV, but you have to be pretty technically-competent to do that. And then, it's not a comfortable way to use your PC for other common tasks you'd want to use it for, such as web browsing or typing up Word docs. And who wants to have to lug their PC back and forth all the time between a computer desk and the den?

8. PC hardware tends to have a higher failure rate, in my experience, due to the variety of non-integrated components from a variety of different sources, never tested together. Consoles are completely integrated designs, engineered to be a lot more durable.

9. PCs still have delicate little connectors with lots of pins that have to be carefully inserted the right way. Consoles always have tough connectors that can only fit one way, such that constant abuse by rowdy teens or children doesnt' destroy them.

Easy question (2, Informative)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744084)

XBox 360: ATI card with no equivilent on today's market and 3 3.2 ghz processors - $299.99.

Computer with best available ATI card and only a single 3.2 ghz processor - $1000+.

Computer manufacturers are not receiving a cut of every piece of software used on the system (unlike MS and the Xbox or Sony and the PS).

Re:Easy question (1)

bn_me (658114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744381)

Lifespan of a console? 3 years? 4 years? Between their release date and the release date of the next-generation console, PC's will get a lot more processing power.

Re:Easy question (1)

Manmademan (952354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744624)

you can't compare the "power" of a PC and a console directly because no matter how fast your killer rig is, you'll never get a game that really takes advantage of it. 90% of that is going to waste. there's also substantial differences in chip architectures, etc etc...

For instance: The PS2 is running absolutely gorgeous games like metal gear solid 3, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, and Gran turismo 4 (in 1080i) on a 300mhz chip with 32 megs of RAM. Good luck getting a PC with those specs to come anywhere CLOSE to that performance.

Re:Easy question (1)

bn_me (658114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744873)

There are several reasons for that, but basically, gaming consoles main role is gaming. Console game developers also have years to squeeze every last drop of performance out of a gaming console, while PC game constantly have new hardware to play with. But seriously... Those games you mentionned running on a PS2 is not the same thing as running HL2 on a top-of-the-line gaming PC @ max resolution on your widescreen LCD, with AA, AF, and HDR enabled. -- Besides, most people seem to be forgetting the fact that to take full advantage of your XBOX360 or PS3, you will need an HDTV... which oh... costs around the same or even more than a top of the line gaming PC + LCD.

Too much money, Too many hassles (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744087)

PC Gaming was great a decade ago when everyone had a 486 or Pentium and graphic capabilities were rather standard across the board. You could make a fun game for relatively little investment and not too many headaches on the compatibility side. They were also generally aimed at a different market than console games of the time. No-brained action games were on consoles, lengthy strategic games were on the PC. Nowadays the PC has to directly compete with late consoles, except it costs a crapload of money to have a decent gaming PC. Blowing $900 on the latest NVidia card isn't enough, now you need two to get the full experience, don't forget a $500 processor and a couple gigs of ram to go with it. I've built pure gaming rigs that totaled $6k without the monitor.. it's absurd!

Re:Too much money, Too many hassles (1)

sandbenders (301132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744251)

I used to play games in the 486 days, and I would say if anything, it's much easier now. I bought a new $1700 PC in early 2003, and since then, I have not upgraded it and not had any problems getting any game to run, and be playable.

In college, I had a 486. I regularly bought games that I could never get to run on my computer. I would say that my failure rate was nearly 50%, on a Dell, which was then still an up-and-coming manufacturer.

I think you make some valid points about PC components being much more expensive, but I have found that PC games these days are both more reliable, and more forgiving of less than cutting edge hardware. Sure, you may have to turn the video settings down a bit, but you can still get reasonable frame rates, and many of them will even manage video settings themselves.

Re:Too much money, Too many hassles (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744378)

I think a good chunk of your problems came from having a Dell. The biggest issue with games of the mid-90's was sound support. If you didn't have a true SoundBlaster or maybe a Gravis Ultrasound, you were SOL. There was no such thing as "updated drivers" back then, so either you bought a big name card, or you slumped along with zero support. I still have my old 486 from those days, and a year ago I fired it up, loaded Dos 6.22 and took a trip down memory lane playing all my old Dos games. Dosbox/VMware ain't got nuthin on this!

Maybe PC Games Suck (1)

c_spencer100 (714310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744112)

1) First of all, portability is a MAJOR problem. I have a number of little cousins, and they move their PS2 wherever they please. The same goes for my friend and his XBox. In order to overcome the the lack of mobility, you need some kind of anchor that keeps people buying PC games. That anchor used to be exclusive titles, but now damn near all of the top PC Games have been ported to console. Although that has always been the case, the difference is that now PS2/XBox have enough power to run them without looking like crap (remember Doom 2 on Super Nintendo?)

2) Secondly, and most importantly, PC Games suck. You mention all the good games, but do you mention how poorly some of them run? A perfect example of this would be FarCry. The original version ran like utter crap. The graphics were just ok, and the maps had a ton of bugs in them. The game wasn't even decent until you patched it. And don't even get me started on the bug riddled landfill that is Battlefield 2.

PC Game makers churn out games as quickly as possible, because they know you'll just sit and wait for the patches to be released. Since you can't just patch a console game, they actually take the time to get it right the first time. It may sound like nothing to you, but you'd be amazed how many people just play games at face value and judge it as such. There is a whole 'nother community of people who play games and DON'T hang out in game forums - they simply play the game, and if it's buggy, they say it sucks (no patching needed).

Neverwinter Nights + what happened to 2D games? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744207)

Have you noticed how many patches and releases NWN has? eew.

Worse, with their stupid "copy protection" i have to insert the FREAKING CD to play!
Then, I got stuck because now I don't know what to do, and there's nowhere (in the game, I mean) I can get hints from. I just have this "to do list" so generic it drives me mad. "Collect all the words of power". WTF? I know that, but where's the NEXT one dammit!

And why don't the companies release 2D games for the PC? And I mean those that keep selling in portables (that will become obsolete 2 years from now). The hardware can CERTAINLY handle a platformer and a mouse.
What happened with the Indiana Jones Graphic adventures? With cool platformers as Flashback? Why isn't there a PC version of "Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow"? What about Lemmings?

So, wanna know why we don't buy PC games anymore? Because they STOPPED MAKING THEM, doh!

2D games to Pop a Cap on yo' @$$ (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744643)

And why don't the companies release 2D games for the PC?

Does your ISP block PopCap Games or something?

Exactly! (1)

c_spencer100 (714310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744676)

Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket... Most of the PC games that come out now are either first person shooters (assuming everyone likes the excessive violence) or MMORPG's (assuming people want to pay for the subscription or even have the connection for it). Heck last I heard, broadband usage was at 25% at most. To this very day, one of my favorite games of all time is Sim City (although I'm in love with Neverball on Linux).

proxy for the console future (1)

lubricated (49106) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744150)

I've always been under the belief that what ever is happening in computer games will happen on the consoles in the future. Given the current state of the gaming market in general, perhaps consoles will stop sucking again.

I'll be damned if (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744280)

He points to piracy as a chief culprit in the sales drop. He says developers need to first find ways to make people pay.

Look, I'm an adult who plays my share of games. I pay actual, real money for them. I'm what you call an honest customer. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let a Starforce-esque DRM scheme take over my computer just to play a game. And I'll be damned if I have to log in every time I want to play a single-player game on a computer that I might not even want to have connected to the Intarweb - twice damned if the company running the login server screws the world over by going out of business.

Game companies target the stereotypical gamer, the teenager or early twentysomething male. Just looking at the selection of games available makes this painfully obvious. But if you want to get more people to buy your games, why not target an audience that actually has money to blow? If you're going to make a FPS, make a Thief or a System Shock 2 - a thinking person's FPS - rather than another mindless Quake clone. Make a game with an interesting storyline like the Elder Scrolls series rather than focusing on smackin' up yo' bitches in GTA7: The Search for More Crack. The MMOG market, with its median age several years higher than the general gaming market, already shows that adults with money are willing to dump tons of that money into game entertainment.

Yet for every Civilization or SimCity, there are hundreds of loads of crap out there trying to turn adrenaline and testosterone into money.

Now, the game developers are welcome to make any sort of game they want. But when nearly all of their offerings target the people who don't have independently-earned incomes, they shouldn't complain that piracy is killing the industry. In fact, their insistence upon going where the money isn't tells me that piracy isn't nearly the problem they want us to believe it to be. Do people play the games without paying for them? Sure. Do they not sell as many copies because of it? Certainly. But if the industry were really on the verge of collapse, they would have started selling games to people with money rather than letting themselves all go under.

Box sizes (1)

killermookie (708026) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744344)

Did they take into consideration that PC Games are no longer packaged in huge boxes? Remember the good ol' days (5 years ago) where PC Games came in these enourmous packaging with many colorful pictures and wordings, but only contained a CD with perhaps a small manual?

The PC Game packages have since moved to smaller boxes and guess what...they take up less space.

PC gaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14744430)

Let's see the latest Nvidia card that capable of playing Doom 3 is probably closer to $80 on New Egg and an Extra 512 stick of ram isn't that much either. Explain to me why I would want to spend the money on a console again? ? I could move that Nvidia and that stick of ram possibly the other older stick, plus my harddrive, cd/dvd drives or anything else to a new pc. I would spend about $200 for a new processor and motherboard and get what I want.

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo tell me what I want in a system and make me buy games for their platforms specifically. Oh and if I mod that console I could get sued by the company? Come on seriously console gaming hasn't had a "killer app" in the past few years, much less something I want to take the time to play anymore. And PCs are so main stream and come with better and better video cards anymore that you can play games like fear or battlefield 2 on a dell box for a decent price. And if you feel the need you can upgrade that machine.

Customization makes PC gaming come back to life and with console gaming getting ready to take a downturn you can bet that PC games will come back to life. That and customization and the internet are going to be the main anywhere you go.

Expensive Equipment (1)

Dysson (457249) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744599)

It has got to be related to the cost of upgrading your system. I remember when stores were dedicated solely to stocking computer software. When purchasing a game, the only thing I had to verify was whether it contained a 5.25 or 3.5 inch floppy. I didn't even need to upgrade my 8088 for five years. Now, I don't even bother looking through the PC game section; I already know without looking that my system isn't fast enough to play any of the games I really want to play.

Really, ask yourself: Wouldn't you get sick of having to read the cases of each and every Playstation 2 / XBOX game just to make sure you had all of the most updated hardware necessary to play the game?

    I miss Sierra On-line and Infocom...ugh...

Dysson

I play a lot more on my PC these days (1)

chris411 (610359) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744604)

Especially after I installed all those emulators, such as MAME!

Like a pheonix rising from the imaginary ashes... (1)

Kaldaien (676190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14744860)

Contrary to popular belief, the PC gaming industry is still alive and strong. Consoles are better suited to certain genres and many of those genres are a dime a dozen. PC gaming, however, has RTS, FPS and MMORPGs to its credit. And while consoles have penetrated all three of those genres, they are the bread and butter of the PC gaming industry and they offer a far superior experience.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...