Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

Bitmob - 10 reasons why PC gaming is in the gutter.
It's heartbreaking to reach an age where you have a decent income and can finally afford that tricked-out PC you've always wanted, only to find that developers have given you the cold shoulder. Let's hear it for shoddy support and ridiculous workarounds!

Here are 10 reasons why PC gaming is an ongoing source of depression and frustration:

View
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

24. Re: Op Ed Feb 28, 2011, 15:36 Jerykk
 
Why do that when I could just buy a console and hook it up to the big flatscreen on the wall in my living room?

1) 60+ FPS is better than 30 FPS.
2) 1920x1080+ is better than 1280x720 (or lower)
3) 8xAA is better than no AA.
4) 16xAF is better than no AF.
5) Mods.
6) Dedicated servers.
7) M/KB provides faster and more precise control scheme for genres that benefit from it. If a genre is better suited to a gamepad, you can just plug in a gamepad.
8) You can hook up your PC to your big flatscreen in your living room.

If you don't care about any of those things and prioritize convenience over quality, performance and flexibility, you might as well stick with consoles.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Op Ed Feb 28, 2011, 10:18 sauron
 
My #1 reason for not buying new PC games is that they won't run on my PC. I have a Dell Studio 15 laptop with a low/moderate video card, which runs all my work programs just fine and most non-intensive games (The Witcher, WoW, etc). But it wouldn't deal with any of the brand new stuff, so I just don't buy it. It's a pretty average system - there are millions of similar products in the US and Europe, far more than the number of hardcore gaming rigs.

I could definitely afford to buy a brand-new tricked-out PC just for games, but to be honest I can't be bothered. Why do that when I could just buy a console and hook it up to the big flatscreen on the wall in my living room?

If PC developers want to make money, they need to make games that a) lots of people want to play, b) most people with average systems can play, and c) give people a reason to play these games on the PC rather than on a console. Otherwise, PC gaming will continue to decline.
 
Avatar 8692
 
Kittens!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 20:39 Nuhauser
 
Ravenger wrote on Feb 27, 2011, 11:54:

'In the time itís taken you to tell me that there is no demand, Steam has sold 45 units'.

http://www.mcvuk.com/features/808/OPINION-Retail-vs-Steam

Awesome sauce.

As for #7 Workaraounds, PC gamers have always had to do a little extra work to get the game running properly. From writing an autoexec to play Wing Commander, to feeling lucky cuz I actually had a Voodoo card to play Ultima 9, to rewriting my player.cfg so I could play BF2 without lag. Sure, sometimes the extra work is ridiculous, but that's the price you pay for using a non standardized platform.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 12:45 Verno
 
Sepharo wrote on Feb 27, 2011, 04:07:
I think it would be ideal if all games used the MMO launcher model. You just buy the game directly from the game's website, a small launcher is downloaded, and then that launcher downloads and installs the full game and keeps it up to date. It wouldn't have to be a whole service or something that is kept running.

That would certainly be nice but unfortunately many companies can't be trusted not to drop services when they want to sell their latest version of their title.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Alien Isolation, 7 Days to Die, Dragon Age Origins
Watching: The Canal, Brazil, The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 11:54 Ravenger
 
Slashman wrote on Feb 27, 2011, 08:11:
Ravenger wrote on Feb 27, 2011, 04:43:
And then of course they complain that Steam is making money out of the games they discarded - like a spoiled child screaming when another child picks up the toy they threw away.

I rather like this particular analogy...

I can't take credit for it - I borrowed it from an article from MCV where the publishing director of 1c games tells how retailers said there was no demand for one of his games and that they would only take 30 copies - one for each of their main stores. He looked up the instant Steam sales figures on his laptop and said 'In the time itís taken you to tell me that there is no demand, Steam has sold 45 units'.

http://www.mcvuk.com/features/808/OPINION-Retail-vs-Steam
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 08:12 ASeven
 
Well, number 1 spot shouldn't be Activision or Ubisoft or EA but all damn publishers. Because if we look at it, we're actually criticizing most of them anyway. Number 1 reason for PC gaming being down is publishers.

Other than that, I sense too much sarcasm from this list to take it seriously.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 08:11 Slashman
 
Ravenger wrote on Feb 27, 2011, 04:43:
And then of course they complain that Steam is making money out of the games they discarded - like a spoiled child screaming when another child picks up the toy they threw away.

I rather like this particular analogy...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 04:43 Ravenger
 
They forgot to mention retailers. You know, the ones who are now glorified pawn shops selling second hand games in preference to new.

It seems more than a coincidence to me that PC games declined at retail when stores started over-exploiting used games. Due to DRM and CD Keys you can't sell PC games second hand, unlike console games where a single copy can be resold over and over making a fat profit each time for the store.

With their skewed business model PC games simply aren't exploitable profitable anough, so they stock less of them, in some cases not stocking them at all.

And then of course they complain that Steam is making money out of the games they discarded - like a spoiled child screaming when another child picks up the toy they threw away.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 04:07 Sepharo
 
Evil Timmy wrote on Feb 27, 2011, 02:14:
You'd also need a DDL client for each publisher, and even with a modern 4-6GB of RAM, I don't want half a dozen tray icons all scanning my HD and checking the 'Net for updates.

I think it would be ideal if all games used the MMO launcher model. You just buy the game directly from the game's website, a small launcher is downloaded, and then that launcher downloads and installs the full game and keeps it up to date. It wouldn't have to be a whole service or something that is kept running.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 02:45 Verno
 
I don't like being tied down to one particular service but it's hard to argue with Steam's features and sales. No competitors have done anything remotely close to it yet. You'd figure EA with their big bucks would stop dumping so much money into marketing and start making the EA Store into a useful service but they don't seem to be interested.  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Alien Isolation, 7 Days to Die, Dragon Age Origins
Watching: The Canal, Brazil, The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 02:14 Evil Timmy
 
Cutter wrote on Feb 26, 2011, 19:19:
Why not just cut out the middlemen like Steam entirely and deliver content themselves? I can imagine that's what'll happen before too long.

Have you tried the rest of the DDL services? There's a reason Steam's so successful. It took them years to actually make it a positive mark rather than something you just put up with, but it's stable, sleek, and unobtrusive enough that it's a non-issue for the majority of gamers.

EA and others, in comparison, make it so painful that they wanted you to pay extra to be able to redownload the game, but even that was only available for a limited time. You'd also need a DDL client for each publisher, and even with a modern 4-6GB of RAM, I don't want half a dozen tray icons all scanning my HD and checking the 'Net for updates. It's also another expense to code, maintain, and support.

In any case, I'm sure publishers gave due consideration before releasing their catalogs on Steam. For the higher-ups, their jobs are at the mercy of the board, who represents the shareholders, so I doubt they lightly gave a competitor a 20-30% cut of their PC sales. However, with a huge bulk of their sales coming from consoles, maybe it's just not important enough to them given the technical and financial hurdles of getting such a system in place.
 
Avatar 19465
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Op Ed Feb 27, 2011, 00:51 Wowbagger_TIP
 
[VG]Reagle wrote on Feb 26, 2011, 23:01:
Onlive = Steam but sucks more
Well that, and it's nothing at all like Steam.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Op Ed Feb 26, 2011, 23:01 [VG]Reagle
 
Onlive = Steam but sucks more  
Avatar 8515
 
I am MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better now.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Op Ed Feb 26, 2011, 21:56 Creston
 
Fang wrote on Feb 26, 2011, 18:42:
My prediction is that once OnLive reaches wide acceptance or even if it doesn't (the publishers don't care if you can't play it, its about the bottom line), the games will just not be released anymore except to cloud services.

If piracy is that big of a deal to the publishers, then there are ways of solving it.

That doesn't make any sense. Publishers are all about sucking the last possible dime out of every single game they release. Releasing your games solely on cloud services, which haven't reached even a remotely miniscule level of penetration in the client base, would guarantee they'd make barely any money whatsoever.

They may whine about piracy like a retarded stepchild of the RIAA, but they're well aware that they still make good money by releasing in retail and on steam. Piracy or not.

If they didn't, they'd just stop making PC games altogether.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Op Ed Feb 26, 2011, 21:35 Bhruic
 
The most egregious offense of the list to my mind, though, is that Activision and Bob Kotick are not on the list at all.

They should have been a shoe-in for the number 1 spot.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Op Ed Feb 26, 2011, 21:17 FloorPie
 
"The whining about GFWL is just that, whining. There are several other digital download sites, each with their own tools and interface to deal with. Crying about one or more of them not being like Steam is pretty sad."

Except that it really does suck, whether its buying games/dlc or you know, actually just playing a game that requires that shit. I resisted steam for a long time for many reasons and its far better.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Op Ed Feb 26, 2011, 19:44 Jerykk
 
This list was surprisingly accurate, except they forgot to put Microsoft on there. Microsoft has done more to cripple PC gaming in the last decade than anything else on the list.

Also, as Prez mentioned, Ubisoft is a worse publisher than EA.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Op Ed Feb 26, 2011, 19:22 TheEmissary
 
onLive is not a solution not yet anyway. The issue is not about bandwidth speeds but with the fact that most ISPs have horrendous bandwidth caps. It is not economical really to stream a game over the cloud considering you will likely transfer the equivalent of several times what the game would install to on a disc.

Lot of TV/ISP/phone providers are already doing everything they can to prioritize the web to favor their own services. Some ISPs throttle Youtube or Netflix and if onLive catches on expect to see that being throttled as well. Don't believe this research it yourself, look up how some ISPs are fighting with backbone providers such as Level 3 to add what would amount to a "data toll".
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Op Ed Feb 26, 2011, 19:19 Cutter
 
Why not just cut out the middlemen like Steam entirely and deliver content themselves? I can imagine that's what'll happen before too long.
 
Avatar 25394
 

"Nobody wants to be nobody in America. Ed is the apotheosis of a prevailing American syndrome. It used to be that someone became famous because they were special. Now people are considered special just for being famous. Fame, itself, is its own virtue.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Op Ed Feb 26, 2011, 18:42 Fang
 
My prediction is that once OnLive reaches wide acceptance or even if it doesn't (the publishers don't care if you can't play it, its about the bottom line), the games will just not be released anymore except to cloud services.

If piracy is that big of a deal to the publishers, then there are ways of solving it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo