Second Take: The PC Gaming Slump

[JeanLuc]

Sorry you feel that way, JeanLuc (and Free2Game). We did mispeak when we said the PC version Call of Duty 4 sold 100,00 copies all of last year -- we should have said in its first month. We apologize for the error, and it will be corrected after I tar and feather Ben.

However, that slipup aside, check out these numbers.

http://www.techspot.com/news/28750-pc-retail-games-sales-dip-in-2007.html
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17110
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/pc-game-sales-bring-us-industry-to-1885-billion-in-07/19186/?biz=1

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare sold less than 400,000 PC copies via U.S. retail in 2007. That was number 4 on NPD's list. Meanwhile World of WarCraft -- the original -- sold nearly a million while Burning Crusade sold 2.25 million.

So let's do the math -- WoW contributed to more than 3 million PC game sales for 2007. Yet sales actually FELL from $970 million in 2006 to $910 million this year. If it hadn't been for Blizzard, 2007 would have been even worse for domestic PC game sales here in the U.S. The fact is we said in the video that PC games sales were down, and they are. Yes, the decrease can be partially attributed to digital downloading from Steam, GameTap, etc. But a lot of major titles like UT3 and Crysis did not sell as well as many people expected. In fact, many people were predicting a record year for PC games sales, one that would beat the billion plus earned in 2004. That didn't happen. In fact, we appear to be getting further away from that benchmark and that's not a good thing.

Worldwide could be a different story, but since Toms Games US is based in the....(drum roll)....US, I only look at the North American/US data. BTW, I can't wait to play the Witcher, and I'm glad it's sold over a million overseas (didn't care for Stalker myself, but Clear Sky looks promising).

As a PC gamer, I have no desire to se PC gaming decline. But the recent data has me worried. I don't think that's scaremongering BS, but hey, I appreciate your concerns and taking the time to express them.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post, sorry for using such strong and forceful tone I just feel you have got this all wrong.

Firstly I think your under estimating the impact of digital distribution, channels such as Steam have been operating in the industry now for over 3 years and are now firmly established in the market place (i.e. there well known to gamers and users) as a credible means of delivering content straight to your computer. To see the impact its having on the industry as whole you only have read to your front page,

Stalker: Clear Sky To Be Released Exclusively On Steam
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/01/24/stalker_clear_sky_to_be_released_exclusively_on_steam/

Perhaps they fill this a way of combating pricy but for a games developer to relay exclusively on digital downloads says a lot for impact of digital distribution. It will be interesting to see if any other developers follow suit. Personally I was expecting to see a larger drop in the retail market numbers from NPD this year, giving the rise of the popularity of digital distribution.

The one point you made in video that I did agree is the impact of MMORPG’s namely World of Warcraft which currently has over 10 million subscribers.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=32339

And as a whole the MMORPG’s has around a 15 million user subscriber base.

Source: http://www.mmogchart.com/

Now I’m glad you like maths because I’m a big fan of mathematics as well. 15 million MMORPG’s subscribers who pay on average $9 a month works out at about $135 million a month in revenue, over a course of 12 months that’s worth over $1.6 billion in subscription money alone. Also bear in mind the above data is 6 months out of date so the numbers are probably even higher. This doesn’t include offline revenue made on selling virtual properties and characters either, MMORPG’s have spawn there own economic industry but that’s beside the point. Now whilst I can’t stand MMORPG’s having 15 million potential customers tired up playing subscription based games makes it a lot harder to sell games like UT3 and Crysis.

$1.6 billion from subscriptions
$0.9 billion from retail
$2.5 billion total

On top of this you can add in revenue from other sources such as digital distribution, sponsorships and tournaments, I would say conservative number would be $200 million that comes to a combined total of $2.7 billion.

Now according to those NPD numbers the consoles combined grossed $6.6 billion which means the PC market is worth just under a third of that of the console market. I don’t see a slump, all I see is an evolving model of how games are brought and sold and what types of games people like to play. I see the PC as still the gaming platform of choice for many people with the consoles helping to bring gaming to the masses.

Alternatively I could just have my head in the sand.

 

[infornography42]

I hate to admit it, I mean really REALLY hate to admit it, but piracy almost assuredly hurts the PC side of the industry. But instead of stopping there you must look at the causes of increased piracy.

Games cost a significant amount. They are priced outside of what could be considered a frivolous purchase and are quickly approaching the realm of prices you need to budget for in advance. This is why Photoshop has been pirated as heavily as it has since practically the beginning of the WWW. As prices go up, so will piracy. It is a simple matter of economics.

Reason 2 is the more and more limiting and debilitating DRM. DRM has prevented me from legitimately playing a good number of titles. I buy the game, install it, and it won't play. I troubleshoot for hours, and then finally download a crack for it and it works immediately. This is frustrating beyond measure and I have actually found myself increasingly reluctant to purchase PC games. Usually I will pick them up for the 360 just to avoid the DRM. We were ready to go out and get 3 copies of Bioshock for the PC between me and my friends, when the whole DRM fiasco with it came out. As a result we bought 1 copy for the 360. It just wasn't worth the hassle.

Reason 3 is that previews and demos can be very deceptive. I bought 2 games in recent memory based upon the demos and was sorely disappointed when design decisions later in the game ruined the gameplay and left the whole thing lacking severely. Piracy is the only way to get an honest feel for the game before you purchase in most cases. Some games will have good demos, but most just don't.

Finally, you can't pirate video cards. In order to have competent gaming on a PC you need to spend a lot of money every 2 to 4 years. Generally over $1000 at a minimum. This cuts into people's budgets and exacerbates my first point about cost. Games with lower requirements and pricetags (ie SIMS) tend to do better.

I would point out the success of games like Galciv 2. No antipiracy measures at all and it was one of the best sellers when it came out. Why? Well for one thing it worked, reliably, without a crack. For another you didn't need to hassle with your CDs to make it work. Lastly, there was a very good online distribution method available to obtain it. I was left with a very good impression of the product and the company and as such am more likely to purchase games from them in the future.

Also as has been mentioned, game sales are diminished in large part by increasingly addictive MMOs. When I was stuck on WoW I spent almost nothing on other games because I never went looking for them. MMOs are bad for the PC gaming industry as a whole.

Lastly, the game sales slump is largely due to the small difference in graphics quality between PCs and consoles. In 3 years when the divide is much larger, we will likely see PC sales come back up, though probably not overtake console sales.

 

[robwright]

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post, sorry for using such strong and forceful tone I just feel you have got this all wrong.

No worries, JeanLuc. I appreciate your counter-argument.

On top of this you can add in revenue from other sources such as digital distribution, sponsorships and tournaments, I would say conservative number would be $200 million that comes to a combined total of $2.7 billion.

Now according to those NPD numbers the consoles combined grossed $6.6 billion which means the PC market is worth just under a third of that of the console market. I don’t see a slump, all I see is an evolving model of how games are brought and sold and what types of games people like to play. I see the PC as still the gaming platform of choice for many people with the consoles helping to bring gaming to the masses.

Alternatively I could just have my head in the sand.

True, the PC gaming model is evolving. I personally invested much more dollars via digital distribution in 2007 than the previous year, as I'm sure many PC gamers did. Steam is most certainly growing, and I'm sure that for games like BioShock and CoD4, not to mention the Orange Box, are much higher than what NPD is reporting.

But the thing that shocks me is this -- back on page 3 of this thread, RTA submitted a NY Times article that cited NPD data showing that PC games sales for January/February of '07 increased 48 percent from the same period in 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/technology/23gaming.html). This was largely due to WoW and Burning Crusade. So 2007 got off to a fantastic start, and by all accounts should have continued through the rest of the year with title like Quake Wars, Crysis, UT3 and more.

It didn't. In fact, sales fell woefully short of what they were projected to hit earlier in the year. No doubt, digital distribution sales took a big slice of the pie from the retail numbers. How big? That's hard to tell. But games like Crysis, UT3, Quake Wars weren't on Steam or other big download services, and the numbers were disappointing. So something happened between March and December of 2007 that kept PC game sales in the U.S. from breaking the $1 billion mark or even matching what the market earned in 2006.

I'm sure digital distribution affected the trend. But I'm also sure that piracy affected the trend as well. What had the bigger affect? That's a huge question, and I'd only be guessing. Perhaps the percentages of legal downloads and illgeal downloads are about the same, in which case they would offset one another. Perhaps not. But I'll bring up this point and then leave it to the forum to discuss. Currently, we have Steam, GameTap, GamersGate and a few other popular digital distribution sites. But do those legit sites have as big a presence as the boatloads of torrent sites out there? Hmmmmm....

 

[Herra]

The 48 percent increase, as you said, was largely due WoW and Burning Crusade. Clearly it's also the reason why the rest of year didn't go as well.


Also, obviously the torrent sites have larger presence than legitimate download services. But I guess I should mention it again, that a large portion of the pirates would not go and buy the game if they couldn't pirate it. They would just skip the game alltogether. So in reality it's impossible to estimate what kind of hit the sales take because of piracy. It's a hit for sure, but pirated numbers don't translate to lost sales.

 

[free2game]

Jesus, you're like a broken record. Again, you're not looking at this from an international standpoint. For a game like WoW, 5.5 million of it's subscribers are in Asia, 80-90% of them likely bought that expansion like in the US. PC gaming has always been small in the US. Look at Germany for example, if I remember correctly, wasn't Crysis the best selling game during the holiday season with the collector's edition at about 5? Call of Duty for is another example. It sold over 7 million worldwide according to Activision, only 3 of those being on the 360. Conservatively, it's safe to assume it sold 2 million on the PC and another 2 on the PS3. These gaps that you are talking about as pretty small worldwide. Not to mention new great development teams are coming to fruitition in the wake of many formerly PC centric companies making more dumbed down console centric games (bioshock comes to mind). Look at companies like GSC Game World, who had a large success with Stalker (1.4 million wasn't exactly the 10 million copies that the cossacks series has done, but it's still a large success).

 

[free2game]

Also, Clear Sky isn't exclusive to steam, it's just being released on steam and in retail at the same time.

 

[robwright]

Jesus, you're like a broken record. Again, you're not looking at this from an international standpoint. For a game like WoW, 5.5 million of it's subscribers are in Asia, 80-90% of them likely bought that expansion like in the US. PC gaming has always been small in the US. Look at Germany for example, if I remember correctly, wasn't Crysis the best selling game during the holiday season with the collector's edition at about 5? Call of Duty for is another example. It sold over 7 million worldwide according to Activision, only 3 of those being on the 360. Conservatively, it's safe to assume it sold 2 million on the PC and another 2 on the PS3. These gaps that you are talking about as pretty small worldwide. Not to mention new great development teams are coming to fruitition in the wake of many formerly PC centric companies making more dumbed down console centric games (bioshock comes to mind). Look at companies like GSC Game World, who had a large success with Stalker (1.4 million wasn't exactly the 10 million copies that the cossacks series has done, but it's still a large success).

Free2Game, I'm sorry I sound like a broken record to you, but I'm not making safe assumptions here. I'm giving you numbers from NPD. You say that CoD4 only sold 3 million Xbox 360 copies out of its total sales of 7 million copies. Well, that's not exactly true -- it sold 3 million 360 copies in North America alone, while PC sales for the game only hit 383,000 (again, retail sales don't include downloads). I'm not sure what the 360 worldwide sales are, and apparently, neither are you.

Like I said, I'm glad games like The Witcher and Stalker are doing well. I don't want PC gaming to decline or dwindle. However, it's pretty hard to ignore the numbers here in the U.S., and that's a sizeable chunk of the gaming market.

 

[impar]

Greetings!

You say that CoD4 only sold 3 million Xbox 360 copies out of its total sales of 7 million copies. Well, that's not exactly true -- it sold 3 million 360 copies in North America alone, while PC sales for the game only hit 383,000 (again, retail sales don't include downloads).

383.000 - PC CoD4 retail sales in USA 2007, from the ShackNews link provided above.
914.655 - PS3 CoD4 retail sales in USA till 29/12/2007, from VG Chartz.
2.769.552 - X360 CoD4 retail sales in USA till 29/12/2007, from VG Chartz.

And PC was supposed to be FPS heaven...

Now check torrents sites and see how many CoD4s have been P2Ped.

And, regarding CoD4 and legitimate digital distribution, through Steam the game would have cost me $69,95 (47,31€) instead of ($73,88) 49,99€ in retail with a box.

 

[stemnin]

Have not read most of the long winded posts, so no offense to developpers but 2007 was a disappointing year mostly for me, I bought about 8 games last year, only 2 that I found worth it, c&c3 and crysis, but i'm not even playing either right now.

UT3, Quake Wars are flops, ut3 being a rehashed UT2k4/Ut99 with better graphics, I just feel they took too much from the original games because they listened to those 20 hardcore ppl in their forums too much. Quake Wars just gets too repetitive, the maps are awesome, but there's just no oppenness like BF2 or Crysis' power struggle mode that I like more.

This year though I believe will have some great games, SC2, Fallout 3, those are some blockbusters that are gonna hit it big on the PC I believe. I made a post a few weeks ago showing a list of PC exclusive games (which I think was from gamespot..) and it was a huge list of games that looked pretty good, just no one's heard about em yet.. before SC2, i'm getting Sins of a Solar Empire, which is being developped by ex-cavedog guys (HW:Cataclysm) the game looks pretty good, in beta now, suppost to be out next week.

 

[free2game]

Free2Game, I'm sorry I sound like a broken record to you, but I'm not making safe assumptions here. I'm giving you numbers from NPD. You say that CoD4 only sold 3 million Xbox 360 copies out of its total sales of 7 million copies. Well, that's not exactly true -- it sold 3 million 360 copies in North America alone, while PC sales for the game only hit 383,000 (again, retail sales don't include downloads). I'm not sure what the 360 worldwide sales are, and apparently, neither are you.

Like I said, I'm glad games like The Witcher and Stalker are doing well. I don't want PC gaming to decline or dwindle. However, it's pretty hard to ignore the numbers here in the U.S., and that's a sizeable chunk of the gaming market.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6185154.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;5
That clearly refers to global sales. Let alone, the 360 doesn't have much of a market outside of the US. Also, like I've said, the US gaming market has been very casual. It's historically always been like that. Again, you're not looking at a large picture, you're looking at US NPD numbers. I've heard COD4 reached 2.5 million on the PC worldwide. That estimate by Activision themselves seem to back that up. Given if you look at most european charts, the PC version of it stayed on the top of the sales charts till Crysis came out when the PS3 and 360 versions in most non-english speaking countries dropped out of the top 10.

 

[impar]

Greetings!

http://www.gamespot.com/news/61851 [...] op;title;5
....
I've heard COD4 reached 2.5 million on the PC worldwide.

That is impossible, Free2game.
Worldwide sales of CoD4, till 29/12/2007, were 3.893.700 for X360 and 1.792.009 for PS3 (source: VG Chartz).
According to the link you provided, Activision claimed CoD4 sold 7 million copies in 2007, which leaves about ~1.300.000 units for the worldwide PC market.

 

[surrealdeal]

It's because people have been publishing anti-american, anti-family, and anti-police video games.

 

[impar]

Greetings!

According to VG Chartz, PS3 users were 8.842.596, at the end of 2007, almost 1 in 5 of those users managed to acquire legitimately CoD4 (1:4,93).
According to VG Chartz, X360 users were 16.148.759, at the end of 2007, 1 in 4,15 of those users managed to acquire legitimately CoD4.

Applying a generous ratio of 1:6, PC supporters dont even reach the 8 million mark. There are a lot of freeloaders though...

 

[free2game]

Greetings!That is impossible, Free2game.
Worldwide sales of CoD4, till 29/12/2007, were 3.893.700 for X360 and 1.792.009 for PS3 (source: VG Chartz).
According to the link you provided, Activision claimed CoD4 sold 7 million copies in 2007, which leaves about ~1.300.000 units for the worldwide PC market.

Oh now come on, VG Charts makes up their numbers, that's common knowledge, this is straight from the horses mouth so to say. Even if those are real numbers those are likely SHIPPED numbers.

 

[free2game]

It seems the article didn't hotlink correctly
" When the industry stat-trackers at NPD Group released their December sales figures last week, Microsoft's Xbox 360 exclusive Halo 3 was proclaimed the software sales king for 2007 in the US with 4.82 million units sold. That tally edged out Wii-exclusive Wii Play's 4.12 million units and the Xbox 360 version of Activision's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which sold 3.04 million copies.

However, while Halo 3 may have won the fight in the US, it did not win the war for 2007. Activision today claims Call of Duty 4 has ended its 2007 tour of duty with 7 million confirmed units sold worldwide, making it the top-selling title across all platforms for the year. Activision said it had pulled its data from NPD Group, Chart Track, and GfK Group.

Developed by Infinity Ward, Call of Duty 4 was released November 5 for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC, and Nintendo DS.

[UPDATE] As impressive as Call of Duty 4's 7 million units sold figure is, it is still short of the 8.1 million units of Halo 3 Microsoft announced had been sold in 2007. While the discrepancy wasn't explained in Activision's announcement today, it is likely the publisher's figure pertains to units that have actually made it into gamers' hands, whereas Microsoft's tally amounts to total units sold to retailers. Activision had not responded to requests for clarification as of press time. "

 

[impar]

Greetings!

Even if those are real numbers those are likely SHIPPED numbers.

That only makes CoD4 sales lower.

It seems the article didn't hotlink correctly

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6185154.html

 

[ilor]

2) AS MUCH AS I HATE THIS, FORCE PC GAMES TO BE VERIFIED ONLINE BEFORE EVEN A SINGLE PLAYER EXPERIENCE CAN BE PLAYED. PEOPLE WONT STOP PIRATING OR CHEATING SO TO SURVIVE, WE NEED BLOATWARE. ISP GOES DOWN, SORRY CAN'T GAME. THAT IS LIFE AND THE PRICE WE MUST PAY. BRING ON STEAM FOR OUR OWN GOOD.

If you really think this is what pc gaming needs, please die. If the ISP goes down and I have no internet access, my computer is pretty much good for two things, entertainment-wise. Watching movies and playing games. I will never buy a game that forces me to be online just to let me play single. Go ahead, "activate" all you want at the beginning, but don't assume that everyone always has internet access everywhere. It's not true. One great thing about pc games is that I can load one on my laptop, preferrably with a nocd crack, and take it with me when I'm facing a long train journey or the like. Without any reasonable internet connectivity.

Also, such "protection" will make zero difference to pirates. If you run it, it can be hacked. Only this time, the pirated game will not only be slightly more convenient in some areas (as it happens now with nocd cracks) -- it will be clearly the better product.

 

[surrealdeal]

games must be run on eproms that explode when you use an oscilloscope / mri / x-ray on them. In a hermeticly sealed lead box. With sars in it. After signing a non-disclosure agreement.

 

[kutark]

If you really think this is what pc gaming needs, please die. If the ISP goes down and I have no internet access, my computer is pretty much good for two things, entertainment-wise. Watching movies and playing games. I will never buy a game that forces me to be online just to let me play single. Go ahead, "activate" all you want at the beginning, but don't assume that everyone always has internet access everywhere. It's not true. One great thing about pc games is that I can load one on my laptop, preferrably with a nocd crack, and take it with me when I'm facing a long train journey or the like. Without any reasonable internet connectivity.

Also, such "protection" will make zero difference to pirates. If you run it, it can be hacked. Only this time, the pirated game will not only be slightly more convenient in some areas (as it happens now with nocd cracks) -- it will be clearly the better product.

Honestly man, i still believe that a system similar to steam is going to be the only viable way to kill pirating in PC gaming. I was on the bandwagon with everyone else hating the **** out of steam when it first came out. But you know what, i like it now. I realize that it works and works well. Persistent internet connections are far FAR too commonplace now for people to complain about having to utilize the internet to verify a game copy before each gaming session. You cite an example of playing a game during a long train ride. Lets be honest, how often does this happen on the grand scale of gaming. Obviously i can't quote statistics, but this is likely a small % of gamers. PC Gaming is generally one of those things you either do while LANing or sitting in your room/office. All places that are going to have internet connections.

Moving along, many people have complained about subscription based games somehow being the ruin of PC gaming. I call BS. I say subscription based games are going to be what keeps PC gaming alive in the future. I mean seriously, who are you to say that the inherent "progress quest" 'ness of MMOs is bad. Enjoyment is enjoyment. Personally i would much rather pay $15 a month for a game that i can get 100+ hours of solid entertainment out of in a month than pay $50 for a game that i might get 20 hours of gameplay out of. Then have to buy yet another game at $50 a pop. I'll cite Crysis and COD4 as examples. Both are excellent games, both are games that i played in between Vanguard:SOH gametime, and i enjoyed them. But guess what i am back to playing. Also, you are all forgetting the single biggest part of what makes MMOs popular. They are very SOCIAL games. People play games like CS:S online all the time, and its fun, a lot of fun, but you generally don't have discussions with the people you play with. Maybe after a few weeks of consistently gaming on the same server you might notice that certain people tend to log in more often than others, and you may shoot a "hey, hows it going SlayerX19", etc etc. But it rarely gets further than that. I love the fact that i can get on a game like WOW or VG and have a good time crackin jokes, talkin about life, etc etc, while i'm slaying monsters in a dungeon.

On a complete side note, just because i like hating on console gamers. I am at work reading a Dec 2k7 copy of EGM a coworker left on my desk, and i go read a review on Orange Box. You'll love this text:

"The PC control's don't always translate well either, as the shooting feels strangely insubstantial, and changing weapons is awkward at best."

Awkward at best? I guess rolling a mouse scroll wheel is pretty damn difficult... Seriously, i gripe about console controllers because they are, by design, worse than a mouse and keyboard. Now i will agree that the learning curve for a controller is VASTLY easier than a mouse/keyboard, anyone who argues that a controller is better has lost their damn minds. Actually i will say on racing games, a controller is better, thats about it.

 

[free2game]

Again, you cite those numbers as being impossible yet you cite VG charts as a source, I cited a press release from the manufacturer themselves from a reliable website, this just proves that VG charts isn't a reliable source when their numbers don't even match up with estimates by Activision themselves.

 

[impar]

Greetings!

Again, you cite those numbers as being impossible yet you cite VG charts as a source, I cited a press release from the manufacturer themselves from a reliable website, this just proves that VG charts isn't a reliable source when their numbers don't even match up with estimates by Activision themselves.

The article you linked to refers only to north-american figures.
Lets see how the numbers compare:

Game -> Plataform -> Press Release -> VG Chartz
Halo 3 -> X360 -> 4.820K -> 4.989K
Wii Play -> Wii -> 4.120K -> 4.309K
CoD4 -> X360 -> 3.040K -> 2.770K

Do they match perfectly? No.
Do you have other source of information regarding game sales?

 

[JeanLuc]

H

Awkward at best? I guess rolling a mouse scroll wheel is pretty damn difficult... Seriously, i gripe about console controllers because they are, by design, worse than a mouse and keyboard. Now i will agree that the learning curve for a controller is VASTLY easier than a mouse/keyboard, anyone who argues that a controller is better has lost their damn minds. Actually i will say on racing games, a controller is better, thats about it.

Consoles get around this by having games with larger crosshairs, less recoil, and the player has to less precise. PC to console ports like Half Life 2 must be nightmare if you own it on a console which is probably why console players bash it Half Life 2 so much because it's to difficult.

On the flip side of that coin I found Bioshock (which Rob Wright seemed to love) to be an awkward shooter, the controls just didn't feel right. It’s only now when I reflect on it that I realise the game was compromised for the console controllers, in fact I have a 360 controller on my desk right now (brought it for Need for Speed Most Wanted), I might give my self the full console experience! Playing Bioshock with a control pad on 1024 x 600 HD! Who needs a PC? Oh wait that’s not really HD is it……………

 

[nachowarrior]

this goes back a little bit, but i was just looking at the "crysis system requirements" bit on the toms video section. which isn't out of date yet. There is a high requirement for the game, but i was looking at it overall, and hearing people gripe on the tg forums, and realized... "woah, this is mostly a load of crap" after waiting for a bit, and looking at all the gripes... this is why:

1: remember quake 2? remember how many people could max it out at release? ALMOST NOBODY! at least without a SERIOUS upgrade.
2: so you bought the video card to trump all video cards... wait a week or a month or whatever short period of time it is... something will do better. THIS ISN'T THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY!!!! you can't buy a 1970's model and be proud of it for 40 years... okay? you buy a card... wait a bit, something beats the hell out of it in a month... buy a toyota supra, you're good for at least 10 years. 😛 so SELL your video card for a slight loss, and buy the new one... stop whining... there ARE avid gamers that CAN'T afford to play games you know. it's how things work.

3: no game is perfect off the line... especially not one that is pushed right at the end due to what most corps look at as "wasted revenue time" (ea loves to do this) so give it a bit of time for some patches... i remember that diablo 2 sucked off the line.. it was good... but not great.... but after a few months and a few patches, it was the best (but then they patched the hell out of it and it sucked unless you were the sorceress <----gay)


4: and the biggest issue... Look at the graphics cards... really... how much business has crysis pushed? a hell of a lot if you ask me or any industry professional on the hardware side. I'm pushing 60 bucks past what i'd normally spend on a graphics card for a) crysis and b)nwn2 and c) future games that i want to play. so it's good for the economy overall.... I know those of us who are blowing 200+ bones on a video card don't have dates... so don't complain about buying a new one every 3-6 months. most people in "our age group" 10-30 mostly) would be blowing money on women... not games... so be happy to support your lifestyle because very few of us can afford both. 😛 (awkward)

basically what it breaks down to is this...

I have a pc, i want to play an awesome looking game and a bunch of other games... i could either a) dump money into a console and then do it again in a year (consoles have a 4-6 year cycle) and have a totally USELESS piece of hardware (like my atari, nes, dreamcast, n64, etc etc.) i've done that from atari till xbox, i'm done... or i could pop for a new video card, and sell it in a year and buy a new one (consoles are MUCH harder to sell when they are 'obsolete' because they're mainstream. not to mention xfx, and a few others offer transferable warranties!) to prove my point. just look at the console release date markup on e-bay compared to video card markup on e-bay compared to "obsolete" date prices. video cards hold their value more and more, and console prices die more and more... 😛 P.I.C., I couldn't sell an xbox or a ps2 for anything to save my life right now, but i could sell an nvidia 7 series card, or an ati 1x series card for a respectable price. if you really want to go 'back in time' nvidia 6 series cards are still selling for around 100 bucks retail, i dunno about e-baying something that old though.

point being at the end of the day, we are pc gamers because pc gamers are always the A list customer for hardware and cutting/bleeding edge tech... and you can be part of it for much less money and see improvements much sooner than any other gaming format.

k, i'm done... if i said something that is not completely true, don't pm me or reply griping about it for I will just post another OVERLY LONG and DRUNKEN message. haha. Have a nice day, and if you hate my post, go play an fps game and pretend you're shooting me... if you REALLY want to shoot me in a game. pm me with game title/version and i will post back to you if/when i get that game and then you can pwn me in said game because i havn't been in the top 10 on any leader boards since 2 weeks to 3 months after quake 3 released...

 

[SpinachEater]

The PC gaming slump is due to the work of Fox News. They educated me about how sex and violence in video games is morally wrong and desensitizing our culture. I don't want to be part of that. I cannot support this sordid, filthy industry of sex and violence.

Every time that you steer the gaping jaws of Pac-Man into an innocent ghost, ripping them limb from limb, or when you pacify your blood thirsty rage by violently gunning down alien ships in a game of Space Invaders you are supporting the downfall of our culture. I won’t even get into the horror of puppeteering Mario to carry out your sick and evil twisted plots to throw banana peals into the path of speeding cars. It is sick and wrong. I can’t support the game industry any longer. I cannot defile the rights of ghosts and mushrooms any more. I have put down my mouse and controller. Thank you Fox News.

 

[razor512]

First, crysis takes more processing because of physics,and ur arguement is conflicting with it self. First u say graphics don't matter, then u r complaining about graphics compared to far cry. What do u want every developer to make all there games look like they are 6 years old? Ur argument makes no sense. If u want to play with ur current graphics card, just stick too ur older games like far cry and half life 2. No one is twisting ur arm to buy a new graphics card or games when they come out. Obviously the pc is the only platform that can push that kind gaming technology, so thats why they are making these games, cuz there are people who actually want to play better games then the ps3, or xbox360 can handle.Besides, lots of pc games are still being made that don't require top notch hardware too play. And, u don't have to spend 800 bucks on a video card. wait 6 months and the price will come down. Or, play games with the settings turned down, to console quality. Yes, u turn down the settings on these games, turn AA down to 2x or off, and turn the res down, and turn some settings too med or low, and u have console quality game then. Then, u only need like a $150-300 dollar card too play them. See, problem solved. Just takes a lil education.

you didnt understand what i was saying

i am not saying make games look crappy i am saying make them more efficient. crysis doesnt even use full cpu usage and on the lowest setting it will look worst than far cry and it will also run slower than far cry

i am not saying use the same game engine, i am saying that many developers don't work hard on optimizing their code because they feel that new hardware will make up for the inefficiency

on many programming challenges you will see users develop a program that does 1 thing, some users will do it in 100 lines of code and other users will do it in 500 lines and some users will get more performance out of their program as compared to others


what many game developers are going for now is making their games to run on hardware that doesnt yet exist