Why PC gaming is losing it's popularity???

[ATi RaDEoN]

Well, most of you will agree by the topic and some of you won't. Actually, the reason why I am posting this is to get to know why console games are getting increased day by day as compared to pc?? They have way more exclusives, and pc don't. Almost all the games which are in PC today are also being seen in ps3 and 360's platform but vice-versa, almost looks naked in comparison.

What goes on someone who is way more capable than others but is unable to prove it's caliber, same thing is happening with PC gaming today.

I don't know why everyone love consoles, because of low price, more exclusives and of course popularity, then this is totally unfair. Pc has better graphics, better controllers, can be used for each and every task from gaming to multimedia to heavy calculations. Why???Why??? companies don't spend their precious time to make games like killzone 1,2,3 or forza 3 for PC. Isn't it that simple to understand???? games for PC (if any) use to release years after that in consoles eg: red dead redemption.

Gaming was born on pc and will also die on it, consoles are just piece of heavy box and are nothing more than burning leaves, we can't play FPS or TPS on it. Just hate this world and consoles community.

comment it and hands up for my post.

 

[dalta centauri]

The funny thing to me is that some of the most popular games are FPS titles for next-gen consoles (CoD MW2, Gears of War, Halo, etc.), and I don't know how ppl function with dual analog controls for pinpoint control. The mouse / keyboard combo is much more complimentary to weapon swap w/ the click wheel and alt fire with a right click.

I don't know if it's also the accessibility of gaming via consoles. You have a next-gen system, the game itself, and perhaps a headset that'll run you ~$400, where a suitable gaming rig will cost more (considering how big you're going) and require a bit more technical skill to put together. I know most ppl ready this post have or are considering putting their own cpu together, but for the common consumer, the next-gen console is a great choice, and that may be a reason why the popularity of the gaming rig has declined in the mass market.

That's what I think at least, feel free to comment.

Their own cpu together?

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

I heard that microsoft engineers didn't even tried to optimize gow2 and 3 for pc or it was the order of Bill Gates.

Really? I'm extremely curious where you heard this from. I doubt Bill Gates took such decisions (rather his microsoft minions would have). It's a business decision. Microsoft simply signed a contract to the publishers so GOW would only be made available on XBOX360.

Just hate the situations without any solution and lack of effort!

It's all marketing decisions and not porting issues. As mentioned, titles that don't make it to the PC simply wasn't worth the cost of porting these titles over..perhaps it was considered too risky for investors or a contract for exclusive content (if not the entire game or series) had been made between Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft and the publisher. Also, I read someone talking about publisher writting their own DRM. The costs of writting complexe DRM usually exceeds the investment threashold, not to mention that "pirates" or people who crack these games are usually pretty good at it. The best example I have in mind is Assassins Creed 2. I read an article about how "difficult" it was to crack AC2 and what it meant was that the game had been cracked 4 months after the release (as oppose to the first month/week of the release). Ubisoft is working particularly hard at finding the right DRM (more than other companies I find) but they still haven't found the right remedy as most all of their big titles got cracked at some point.

 

[greyghost12]

I honestly think PC gaming isn't "dying", It merely reached its peak...it was bound to happen. PC gaming, by its very nature, isn't as user friendly as a console. We PC gamers have to just admit to this fact. Some people, in fact a lot of people, just want something to plainly work and be as comfortable doing it as possible. This is why even in the PC gaming community you see people buying pre-build gaming PCs for hundreds more than it would have cost to make it themselves, and using gamepads instead of KB/M, HDTVs instead of monitors and couches instead of office chairs. Why? For easy and/or comfort.

I don't think price is really an issue, it's just a luxury. If something is popular enough, people will spend the money to get it, regard less (example; iPod, iPad, smartphones).

It really is just ease of use, consoles honestly cater to the lowest common denominator.

To point out what I said, this isn't the 'death' of PC gaming, it is merely just the top of the tower, an eventuality that will hit console gaming as well. Just like there are only so many 'worm larvae collectors' out there and 20 something year old pokeman 'fanatics', there will only ever be so many PC gaming enthusiasts.

 

[ceekay]

remember that with every pc that is released u might hv to upgrade either ur graphics card or ur processor , wht is the life span of the 2 >? just a few games u will run smooth the moment u buyin another it has high requirements

 

[purplerat]

remember that with every pc that is released u might hv to upgrade either ur graphics card or ur processor , wht is the life span of the 2 >? just a few games u will run smooth the moment u buyin another it has high requirements

What do you think the average number of 360s the average XBox user has gone through since 2005? I honestly don't know anybody who owns an XBox who was lucky enough to get by with just 1. At least when you upgrade/replace a PC you get something new to play new games. As opposed to having to buy 5 year old technology or scrap all of your old games if you get something new/different. PC gaming is by far the most cost efficient for the majority of people who play games. Ease of use and accessibility are the only real barriers for PC gaming but that is changing as well.

 

[dalta centauri]

What do you think the average number of 360s the average XBox user has gone through since 2005? I honestly don't know anybody who owns an XBox who was lucky enough to get by with just 1. At least when you upgrade/replace a PC you get something new to play new games. As opposed to having to buy 5 year old technology or scrap all of your old games if you get something new/different. PC gaming is by far the most cost efficient for the majority of people who play games. Ease of use and accessibility are the only real barriers for PC gaming but that is changing as well.

New 200-250$ gpu every 2-3 years to play games at high with a better resolution, or pay 300$ for a new console repair/buy every 2-3 years and play games with the settings it's set at and a cropped 1280x720 image.
I can honestly say that a new console with updated hardware would cost about 499$ or more, so when that happens what will console gamers think? Obviously, "Well this is cheaper then that ALIENWARE or MAC I saw for 1400$, I just can't afford that."
I would like to see if Microsoft or Sony update with a totally new console release, maybe we could see if they use the cards features like eyefinity/Physx.
Oh, and can someone tell me if consoles got 3D games or are coming out with them? I actually don't know :/

 

[greyghost12]

What do you think the average number of 360s the average XBox user has gone through since 2005? I honestly don't know anybody who owns an XBox who was lucky enough to get by with just 1. At least when you upgrade/replace a PC you get something new to play new games. As opposed to having to buy 5 year old technology or scrap all of your old games if you get something new/different. PC gaming is by far the most cost efficient for the majority of people who play games. Ease of use and accessibility are the only real barriers for PC gaming but that is changing as well.

Can we not dilute the truth here? Xbox 360 failure rate was at the highest 3 years ago at 33%. Now, I will agree that was, and still is unacceptable, the number seems to have dropped dramatically and obviously even at 33% it meant that far more people have had not a single problem with their 360 than people who did. And this is avoiding the PS3 and wii, who both have almost negligible rates of failure.

I have had my brother's 360 (he owns a PS3 and plays it much more so he gave me this) for going on 2 or so years now and know multiple people who have had 360s for years, even one that had the launch 360 with no failure. I also have a cousin who has had one 360 suffer a Rrod...

PC gaming is not, and probably cannot be directly cost efficient for the common consumer. Simply, as I stated, ease of use FAR out trumps any long term savings you might be able to muster to defend such a statement. And this is completely overlooking the fact that when the 360 (because everyone points to that system nowadays) launched in 2005, it was essentially a triple-core gaming rig for more then half the cost of actually buying one back then.

I'm still essentially a PC gamer, I play the vast majority of my games whenever I have time on the PC and have only played one console game this year on 'my' 360, Red Dead Redemption.

Hyperbole is not necessary, however. Kinda like how console gamers are always saying how PC gaming sux because of; "all the updates you have to always do, you know, drivers and such. ALso getting a new graphics card every six months."

 

[purplerat]

Can we not dilute the truth here? Xbox 360 failure rate was at the highest 3 years ago at 33%. Now, I will agree that was, and still is unacceptable, the number seems to have dropped dramatically and obviously even at 33% it meant that far more people have had not a single problem with their 360 than people who did. And this is avoiding the PS3 and wii, who both have almost negligible rates of failure.
...

It's not just about the failure rate due to a specific design flaw. With the life cycle of each generation of console growing longer you just can't expect a piece of hardware such as these to last 5-10 years. These types of electronic components just aren't meant to last that long. When console generations were 3-5 years it was not big deal because by the time most had a failure they could buy something better. Now when you have to buy a replacement it's the same thing (more or less).
And if you look at the marketing of all 3 consoles it's pretty obvious they are marketing to repeat buyers. The elite, slim and black models are in part targeted at making people buying a replacement console feel like they are getting something additional to just a straight replacement.

PC gaming is not, and probably cannot be directly cost efficient for the common consumer. Simply, as I stated, ease of use FAR out trumps any long term savings you might be able to muster to defend such a statement. And this is completely overlooking the fact that when the 360 (because everyone points to that system nowadays) launched in 2005, it was essentially a triple-core gaming rig for more then half the cost of actually buying one back then.

To the common consumer certainly. You have to factor in all of the people who are just looking to play casual or light games and can easily do so on a PC which is not specific for gaming and they would own anyways. With cloud gaming on the horizon even higher end games can be played on systems that general PCs. So effectively for those people the platform cost is $0. And the games are cheaper across the board. I'm not just taking about the $10 savings with a top tier title on PC versus the console but the overall availability of games at significantly lower cost or even free (legally so) which drastically favors the PC.

Ease of use is another issue. If you want to say that it currently outweighs cost then fine but it doesn't negate the cost effectiveness of PC gaming.

And you really can't compare console hardware to PC. It's apples to oranges. The 360 was a far cry from a "triple core gaming rig" at any point in it's history. At it's initial price it could barely out perform a contemporary PC that cost just a couple hundred dollars more - essentially the additional price for a high end GPU. That's another area where PC gaming dominates in terms of cost effectiveness - you can spend where it matters. Much of the 360s and PS3s technology went underutilized for several years meaning that if you bought one brand new you probably didn't even use what you paid for until well after the price had dropped. Buying a multi-core PC for gaming in 2005 would have been stupid because you simply would not have used it just like the 360 wasn't fully utilizing all of it's hardware at the time. With the PC you can add on later rather than being forced to pay the premium.

 

[waydiddy]

Their own cpu together?

I meant PC, not cpu

But I think you knew that, just noting my need to spellcheck replies ;P

 

[greyghost12]

It's not just about the failure rate due to a specific design flaw. With the life cycle of each generation of console growing longer you just can't expect a piece of hardware such as these to last 5-10 years. These types of electronic components just aren't meant to last that long. When console generations were 3-5 years it was not big deal because by the time most had a failure they could buy something better. Now when you have to buy a replacement it's the same thing (more or less).
And if you look at the marketing of all 3 consoles it's pretty obvious they are marketing to repeat buyers. The elite, slim and black models are in part targeted at making people buying a replacement console feel like they are getting something additional to just a straight replacement.

You can't know what the projected failure rate for 10 year old PS3s are because there aren't any out there. Obviously as with any technology, the older it gets, the more prone to random failures it becomes, but this is true of ANYTHING so stating that they weren't meant to last long is an unfounded claim. This is all proposition as you nor I have any idea what the heads of Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony were thinking when they designed their systems. It is entirely possible and not at all conjecture that an Xbox 360 or PS3 can last several years, which would only increase its cost effectiveness.

Your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to boil down to "I can selectively increase effectiveness of my gaming device while they cannot." I cannot see this as a monetary advantage if we are simply comparing dollars spent (which is what I'm personally doing) on estimates that can be considered predictable. Your statement about the different model 360s almost imply that people go out and re-buy them in the millions as if they are robots, when in fact there is simply no reliable way of telling how many Elites, etc. were bought from people who already had a 360 and how many were new buyers entirely. Again, let us stick to what can be considered well within reason.

To the common consumer certainly. You have to factor in all of the people who are just looking to play casual or light games and can easily do so on a PC which is not specific for gaming and they would own anyways. With cloud gaming on the horizon even higher end games can be played on systems that general PCs. So effectively for those people the platform cost is $0. And the games are cheaper across the board. I'm not just taking about the $10 savings with a top tier title on PC versus the console but the overall availability of games at significantly lower cost or even free (legally so) which drastically favors the PC.

Ease of use is another issue. If you want to say that it currently outweighs cost then fine but it doesn't negate the cost effectiveness of PC gaming.

And you really can't compare console hardware to PC. It's apples to oranges. The 360 was a far cry from a "triple core gaming rig" at any point in it's history. At it's initial price it could barely out perform a contemporary PC that cost just a couple hundred dollars more - essentially the additional price for a high end GPU. That's another area where PC gaming dominates in terms of cost effectiveness - you can spend where it matters. Much of the 360s and PS3s technology went underutilized for several years meaning that if you bought one brand new you probably didn't even use what you paid for until well after the price had dropped. Buying a multi-core PC for gaming in 2005 would have been stupid because you simply would not have used it just like the 360 wasn't fully utilizing all of it's hardware at the time. With the PC you can add on later rather than being forced to pay the premium.

I will not count casual players. I'm sorry, they are just too chaotic a group to be taken seriously, as in some of them would buy a Wii simply because of popularity (as I alluded in an earlier post) or a (wait for it...) high end gaming PC simply for World of Warcraft or heck, Sims 3....well Ok maybe not the last one so much but you get my point. Funnily, they probably play those games because of popular accord more so than any self interest in their part but I can't back this.

Lets stick with "core" players, the "everyday" gamer who, statistically, spend anywhere from 5-9 hours a week playing games that can be considered "games", I won't describe or imply what this consideration is as we seem to be knowledgeable enough to figure it out.

Considering that I completely disagree with your assessment on the long-term mechanical lifespan of current gen consoles, I don't have much else to add to that argument. However, can you really consider cloud gaming a viable alternative now? Not when wideband internet becomes popular in the US, but now? Maybe in a couple years, ya I could definitely see myself trying to talk people into just using cloud services and skip trying to make beast machines or buying consoles, but not in this immediate future.

While I do agree you can't directly compare any console to a PC, that was not an argument. I was simply pointing out (with no real placement of argument, more of a statement) that when these last two generation consoles were first introduced, they were cheaper then buying a PC at the time with what would be considered comparable components. I doubt ANYONE thought to themselves "hmm, well I COULD upgrade my gaming rig, but this new Xbox 360 is mighty powerful, and comparatively cheap! I'll get that instead!" Instead, you see people seeing a price tag of $400 dollars, next to one of $700 dollars.

However:
Xbox 360 slim: $299.99
PC that can run Metro 2033 on low settings: some $400-500

So tbh, at this point in the game, it really doesn't matter all that much and it comes down to what you prefer.

 

[purplerat]

You can't know what the projected failure rate for 10 year old PS3s are because there aren't any out there. Obviously as with any technology, the older it gets, the more prone to random failures it becomes, but this is true of ANYTHING so stating that they weren't meant to last long is an unfounded claim. This is all proposition as you nor I have any idea what the heads of Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony were thinking when they designed their systems. It is entirely possible and not at all conjecture that an Xbox 360 or PS3 can last several years, which would only increase its cost effectiveness.

It's not like consoles are built using alien technology. They consist of the same parts that you would any other type of computing device. So it's not that difficult to project failure rates. And since it's not like you can replace individual parts on these machines it's fair to go with the lowest common denominator as the expected life span of the whole unit. i.e. once the optical drives start to bite the dust the machine as a whole is pretty much garbage. So we don't have to have a 10 year old PS3 to predict how long it will last. All we need to do is look at individual parts for which we already know such things and make projections based on that. Ultimately I wouldn't expect console life expectancies to be much better than that of a laptop, and how many 10 year old laptops do you see being used?

Your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to boil down to "I can selectively increase effectiveness of my gaming device while they cannot." I cannot see this as a monetary advantage if we are simply comparing dollars spent (which is what I'm personally doing) on estimates that can be considered predictable. Your statement about the different model 360s almost imply that people go out and re-buy them in the millions as if they are robots, when in fact there is simply no reliable way of telling how many Elites, etc. were bought from people who already had a 360 and how many were new buyers entirely. Again, let us stick to what can be considered well within reason.

First of all it absolutely is an economic advantage to be able to upgrade rather than replace, especially when the cost are almost identical. Why wouldn't it be?
Secondly do you not think that a company like Microsoft or their resellers wouldn't be interested in knowing who is buying for the first time versus who is a return buyer and why they are buying again. Companies like Microsoft and Best Buy spend billions of dollars to figure exactly that. And it's not even all that hard to track. It's quite naive to think in this do and age that there is no way to know such things.

I will not count casual players. I'm sorry, they are just too chaotic a group to be taken seriously, as in some of them would buy a Wii simply because of popularity (as I alluded in an earlier post) or a (wait for it...) high end gaming PC simply for World of Warcraft or heck, Sims 3....well Ok maybe not the last one so much but you get my point. Funnily, they probably play those games because of popular accord more so than any self interest in their part but I can't back this.

Lets stick with "core" players, the "everyday" gamer who, statistically, spend anywhere from 5-9 hours a week playing games that can be considered "games", I won't describe or imply what this consideration is as we seem to be knowledgeable enough to figure it out.

Clearly your not much of a big picture guy. And that's fine if you don't care much about this segment of the gaming market or can't see the things to come. But that doesn't change reality simply because you don't count casual players, because the powers that be in the gaming industry certainly do. And your ignoring these trends or not thinking that things like the life span of a device can be determined or that companies don't vigorously track sales trends will probably never have any impact on you as a gamer. That's OK, not gonna argue with you on that. But if your interested in the reality of the matter there are these very real things to consider. It's just a matter of whether you're actually interested or just want to have an opinion.

 

[greyghost12]

Its late, I'll make it quick.

1. No, the most you could ever do is make an educated guess, nothing else. My counter-argument is simply that for every person who's disc drive stops working, there is just as randomly someone else who has had an original launch version PS2 working for 10 years. It is simply impossible to state with clear certainty the mechanical lifespan of ANY system. In any certainty that would make you want to add it to monetary spending.

Like how there are people who are still using old Pentium IIs out there, Commodore 64s, Snes in perfect condition and a PSone in working order.

2. It is MUCH easier to look at projected upgrade requirements for a gaming PC rig in 10 year's lifespan on simple questions like would you want to be able to play ANY game that comes out in any single year? On what graphics settings? Simply from those two questions one can more or less with some degree of error do to inflation and economic competition come to an estimate.

3. While it is hard to say that you are a "big picture guy" without sounding overly smug, I do clearly see the impact that casual gaming has had on the scene. My quip is that if we DO count them, then PC gaming isn't dying, losing popularity or even stagnating at all and is instead GROWING if you count facebook games like Farmville or any of the multitude of what can only be considered 'casual MMO' games that are free and growing in popularity. But it is ONLY because of the sheer number of people who are being drawn into gaming, if "casually". I will concede, however, that for THOSE people, PC gaming is defiantly the smarter fiscal choice. If you already have a PC, then you already possess all you need to play Farmville or Zuma and you would most likely never upgrade based solely on your games hoppy and instead will only do so based on moore's law eventually catching up on you. Should we really include this segment of the demographic?

 

[djsprinkle]

Almost all the games which are in PC today are also being seen in ps3 and 360's platform but vice-versa, almost looks naked in comparison.

That doesn't really make any sense. If a game is on PC and consoles then the same applies vice-versa.

In response to your overall post though, I think the main reason is that consoles are easier to optimize games for. With so many different PC configurations, it can be hard to make a game run great on all of them, but everyone has the same console so developers prefer it. More developers means more games on consoles and more games snowballs into more console players and so on. Also- piracy is much less common on consoles, so there's more profit in that regard as well.

 

[ATi RaDEoN]

I honestly think PC gaming isn't "dying", It merely reached its peak...it was bound to happen. PC gaming, by its very nature, isn't as user friendly as a console. We PC gamers have to just admit to this fact. Some people, in fact a lot of people, just want something to plainly work and be as comfortable doing it as possible. This is why even in the PC gaming community you see people buying pre-build gaming PCs for hundreds more than it would have cost to make it themselves, and using gamepads instead of KB/M, HDTVs instead of monitors and couches instead of office chairs. Why? For easy and/or comfort.

I don't think price is really an issue, it's just a luxury. If something is popular enough, people will spend the money to get it, regard less (example; iPod, iPad, smartphones).

It really is just ease of use, consoles honestly cater to the lowest common denominator.

To point out what I said, this isn't the 'death' of PC gaming, it is merely just the top of the tower, an eventuality that will hit console gaming as well. Just like there are only so many 'worm larvae collectors' out there and 20 something year old pokeman 'fanatics', there will only ever be so many PC gaming enthusiasts.

A good assembled pc costs around thrice more than a ps3. Price should not be an issue even though it is. An enthusiast gamer is not at all satisfied by console gaming and graphics, only thing which will help him to get satisfied is a high end pc. But, for that he has to spend money and obviously he will do. Actually for the people who think console has better graphics and are at attractive price opt for it but for the people who know what gaming is they buy pc.

 

[dalta centauri]

A good assembled pc costs around thrice more than a ps3. Price should not be an issue even though it is. An enthusiast gamer is not at all satisfied by console gaming and graphics, only thing which will help him to get satisfied is a high end pc. But, for that he has to spend money and obviously he will do. Actually for the people who think console has better graphics and are at attractive price opt for it but for the people who know what gaming is they buy pc.

You sort of just backed up console gamer's defensive argument of, "My console cost 300$, and can play any game. While over there you need to spend 1000$ to play any new games!"
I don't fully understand why some people choose to spend their money on every console available and have a high end PC though.

On another note, I would like to see what the next generation of consoles have in terms of hardware. I hope that Nintendo decides to change the graphics card this time though, maybe something along a 4850 which would be 10x the performance of what the Wii has.

 

[marquis]

You sort of just backed up console gamer's defensive argument of, "My console cost 300$, and can play any game. While over there you need to spend 1000$ to play any new games!"
I don't fully understand why some people choose to spend their money on every console available and have a high end PC though.

On another note, I would like to see what the next generation of consoles have in terms of hardware. I hope that Nintendo decides to change the graphics card this time though, maybe something along a 4850 which would be 10x the performance of what the Wii has.

with the economy getting worse by the day , it could be YEARS before we see new systems

 

[greyghost12]

You sort of just backed up console gamer's defensive argument of, "My console cost 300$, and can play any game. While over there you need to spend 1000$ to play any new games!"
I don't fully understand why some people choose to spend their money on every console available and have a high end PC though.

On another note, I would like to see what the next generation of consoles have in terms of hardware. I hope that Nintendo decides to change the graphics card this time though, maybe something along a 4850 which would be 10x the performance of what the Wii has.

I think he meant that it really isn't THAT much of a difference. A $1000 gaming PC these days should last quite awhile and still boast better graphical game play then a PS3. Although, I'm no mind reader.

And while I was lucky enough to have my 360 given to me by my brother, I can defiantly see the advantage if one has the time to play so many games simply for console exclusives. If I had the time, I'd buy myself a PS3 just to play some of the awesome games that have come out for it recently that just will never appear on PC.

 

[ATi RaDEoN]

You sort of just backed up console gamer's defensive argument of, "My console cost 300$, and can play any game. While over there you need to spend 1000$ to play any new games!"
I don't fully understand why some people choose to spend their money on every console available and have a high end PC though.

On another note, I would like to see what the next generation of consoles have in terms of hardware. I hope that Nintendo decides to change the graphics card this time though, maybe something along a 4850 which would be 10x the performance of what the Wii has.

For the price console offers a big bang, but in terms of performance, it shows it's colour. If you have a big 42" television and want to run ps3 on it, you will see blurry or grainy graphics coz it is meant to played beyond some limits, but in case of a pc, it doesn't happen. If it is a quad paired with gtx 480, then even in 54" it will perform as ps3 performs in 1280 X 1024 resolution.

Playing a game and maxing it out are two different things. eg:- crysis, even a p3 with integrated graphics can run this game but as soon as we push the graphics slider to very high, even a high end system comes to it's knees. This is the reason why crysis is not released for consoles :lol: .

I think so people spend money on consoles though they have a descent pc because to play exclusives i say.

 

[purplerat]

Its late, I'll make it quick.

1. No, the most you could ever do is make an educated guess, nothing else. My counter-argument is simply that for every person who's disc drive stops working, there is just as randomly someone else who has had an original launch version PS2 working for 10 years. It is simply impossible to state with clear certainty the mechanical lifespan of ANY system. In any certainty that would make you want to add it to monetary spending.

Well of course it's an educated guess. But when talking on the scale of millions of units sold an educated guess averages out to something that can be quite accurate in terms of projecting such things. I'm not saying that if 1 person buys X device it's going to fail in Y years M months and D days. What I'm saying is that it's quite easy to predict that on a scale of millions X% of units will fail with Y years.
And sorry but your argument that half of all 1st generation PS2s are still functional is completely fallacious and not at all based on reality.

One interesting note on failure rates for all three consoles is that when you look up information on it (and there is plenty out there) it almost entirely focuses on 2 year failure rates, which tells you quite a bit about the life expectancy of these devices that they only look at failures within the first two years.

Like how there are people who are still using old Pentium IIs out there, Commodore 64s, Snes in perfect condition and a PSone in working order.

So what's you point? That as long as there is a functioning in existence that we should consider it a viable platform?

2. It is MUCH easier to look at projected upgrade requirements for a gaming PC rig in 10 year's lifespan on simple questions like would you want to be able to play ANY game that comes out in any single year? On what graphics settings? Simply from those two questions one can more or less with some degree of error do to inflation and economic competition come to an estimate.

Sure. But it's not just failure rates that depreciate the value of a console. Early in a console generation system failure will be a bigger issue but later on when prices are lower and models more stable it's actually new consoles that will most significantly depreciate the value of a console. That's one huge issue with the value of consoles, once a new generation hits the old is pretty much worthless. PCs don't have that drastic drop off because of continuously overlapping technology. Not only in hardware, but especially in games this greatly benefits the PC. Case in point: I owned an XBox but when it failed the 360 was already out. So I could either buy another XBox and play all my old games but none of the new ones or buy a 360 and buy new games but not be able to play my old ones *(yes I know there is some backwards comparability in consoles but it's very shaky and only every 1 generation back). That is never an issue with PC gaming. When you need to buy a new machine you can buy one that has all the benefits of playing new games while still retaining near 100% backwards capability.

3. While it is hard to say that you are a "big picture guy" without sounding overly smug, I do clearly see the impact that casual gaming has had on the scene. My quip is that if we DO count them, then PC gaming isn't dying, losing popularity or even stagnating at all and is instead GROWING if you count facebook games like Farmville or any of the multitude of what can only be considered 'casual MMO' games that are free and growing in popularity. But it is ONLY because of the sheer number of people who are being drawn into gaming, if "casually". I will concede, however, that for THOSE people, PC gaming is defiantly the smarter fiscal choice. If you already have a PC, then you already possess all you need to play Farmville or Zuma and you would most likely never upgrade based solely on your games hoppy and instead will only do so based on moore's law eventually catching up on you. Should we really include this segment of the demographic?

There's a difference between acknowledging the existence of casual gaming and seeing the long term implications. The more gaming goes mainstream, even if it's Farmvill and Zuma, the better for all gamers. Yes it's very true that today these types of games can be played on even entry level machines but that wasn't true even 5 years ago. These games may only be minimal in terms of gaming requirements but on the scale that they are played even just a minimal increase in what you find in a base PC has a large impact across the board. That's why today what you find in even a very entry level PC is really just a video card away from being a decent gaming machine.
These types of games and the revenue they attract also create a lot of opportunity for innovation and development in the gaming market as a whole. Not that Farmville is going to become the next big thing in gaming, but the activity it drives in the market can and does trickle up to the more "serious" types of games that me and you enjoy.
Then there is the opportunity to grow more core gaming off of the casual gaming market. By PC gaming having so much exposure, even from these types of games, it's absolutely a good thing as there will undoubtedly be some people who will graduate from Farmville to more sophisticated games (maybe just small steps at a time) when they otherwise wouldn't not have.
Bottom line is that casual gaming and it's growth is good for gaming in general and good for the core gamer as well. It's something that PC gamers definitely should not be ignoring even if they are games that you have no interest in playing.

 

[gamerk316]

For the most part, its because on the mass market side, most people don't upgrade their PC's like we do. As such, its easier to justify buying a new $300 console every 5-6 years then doing a $1500 upgrade to a new PC (Remember, these are the people who buy from Dell/HP). As such, a higher pecentage of people who would normally buy games own consoles.

Secondly, its a pain to develop for the PC, as every possible configuration above the minimum specs needs to be supported. Nevermind the fact there are currently THREE OS's with decent market penetration (very few devs are willing to ignore XP's 50% market share).

 

[dalta centauri]

For the most part, its because on the mass market side, most people don't upgrade their PC's like we do. As such, its easier to justify buying a new $300 console every 5-6 years then doing a $1500 upgrade to a new PC (Remember, these are the people who buy from Dell/HP). As such, a higher pecentage of people who would normally buy games own consoles.

Secondly, its a pain to develop for the PC, as every possible configuration above the minimum specs needs to be supported. Nevermind the fact there are currently THREE OS's with decent market penetration (very few devs are willing to ignore XP's 50% market share).

Hard to develop for the PC, what?
Windows XP: DX7/8/9--Windows Vista/7: Dx 7/8/9/10/11
There's more availability then the consoles dx9c need.
Minimum Reccomended: 7900gt+Dual core@2.1GHz> How is it hard to support higher end graphic cards and cpu's?

 

[4Ryan6]

Well, most of you will agree by the topic and some of you won't.

Nice thread so far!

As one that started with the consoles and moved to PC gaming, my first attractions to the console was sheer convenience and though during that day true 360 degree First Person Shooters weren't that common, at least to the caliber of almost being addictive, and loved playing it over and over.

Back then graphics were lame and we were thoroughly pleased and thankful at any improvements at all, then ATARI released the Jaguar system and I got enveloped in the SEGA Aliens vs Predator release for that system, lost count of the invested hours playing that game.

Aliens vs Predator was released for the PC quite some time later, I saw it being played and got bitten by the bug at the time didn't even own a computer, but soon got a used one from a friend but it wasn't capable of playing the game.

This not only started my obsession with PC gaming but started my obsession with computers, I upgraded that computer with additional system memory, a Creative live soundcard, and a VooDoo 3000 graphics card, and play AvsP I did, and enjoyed every minute of it.

Since then, many different games, many upgrades and completely new machine builds, I've never the first time wanted to go back to a console, even when Microsoft released the original Xbox claiming it would be the end of PC gaming, I knew that wasn't true, and so far has not proved true.

The only console draw to me at all, is the curiosity of the games released for consoles not also being released for the PC, it's understandable as far as keeping the console users trapped, but sad in that it cost them money not to release those games to PC users, because more games would have been sold period if they were released across the board for all systems.

As far as piracy, it happens on both sides of the fence console and PC so that's really a moot point.

The great thing about PC gaming, is that's not all you can do with a PC, I get a good chuckle when visiting Best Buy and places like that with the consoles on display and people playing the latest and greatest, I think dude if you think what you're experiencing is the best it can be, do yourself a favor and never come play on my machine!

Really good PC game releases, especially first person Shooters are few and far between, but they're worth the wait, IMO! Ryan

 

[marquis]

Nice thread so far!

As one that started with the consoles and moved to PC gaming, my first attractions to the console was sheer convenience and though during that day true 360 degree First Person Shooters weren't that common, at least to the caliber of almost being addictive, and loved playing it over and over.


As far as piracy, it happens on both sides of the fence console and PC so that's really a moot point.

how is piracy a moot point ?

i've pirated a TON of computer games , anyone else here care to be honest and fess up ? piracy is whats killing the PC market , and while there is console piracy , it's not nearly as bad as PC piracy .

 

[Jonathern]

You know if you think about it really, With PC Hardware its purpose is to deliver unparallel realism, Games don't develop as fast as hardware wherest console games get built with accordance to there system hardware, PC games are dragging as developers seem to be struggling with the constant advancement in hardware and are unable to utilize PC Platforms hence why we complain with the decline in games, its just easier to make console games due to the limitation of hardware demand, I think developers just find it more fesible.

Now i don't play console nor do i have one but by just looking at how they punch out games for PS3 and Xbox 360 its not hard to acknowledge that they only have to develop a game within the demand of a console, " A real waste to creativity" Best bang for your buck.

 

[kashifme21]

I dont think PC gaming is losing popularity. Infact with services like Steam i notice more and more people playing on PC. I have had quite afew friends on previously gamed on console now only gaming on PC.

If consoles have some exclusives, PC has many of its own too. You can combine the library of all the consoles and count it against one PC.

As long as cost of gaming is concerned PC is the most cost effective system to game on, provided you know how to make a gaming PC. Here is some math for gaming on a console vs PC over a period of 7years(one console gen):

Comparison of PC vs Xbox 360

I will assume 20 games are bought every year for 5 years. PC version of games will be priced at 49usd. Xbox 360 games will be priced at 59usd. PC will get a GPU upgrade 3 years into its life.

800usd cost of PC
200usd GPU bought after 3 years
4900usd cost of games 100games bought in 5 years

Total cost to play on PC 5900usd

Now for the Xbox 360: (i will assume the XBox 360 will fail atleast once in 5 years and will need a replacement)

300usd price for XBox
300usd price for replacement Xbox
250usd Cost of Xbox live
5900usd cost of 100 games bought in 5 years

Total cost to play on Xbox 360 in 5 years 6750Usd

Pros for PC:
Game prices are cheaper
PC does a lot more then only play games
Games bought today will most likely be playable a decade later with console there is no gaurantee you will get backward compatibility
Mods
Keyboard mouse support in FPS, RTS games
Superior graphics and frame rates

Cons for PC:
You need to do research and learn how stuff works, once you get over this phase it can be easy sailing from there.


Xbox360:

Pros
Its easier to initially get into it, you dont need to invest your time research and learning.

Xbox 360 games can be sold to get some of the money back(though this can be countered with the discounts PC users get via steam and the fact PC game prices fall very quickly and due to the modding community PC games tend to live longer).

Cons
More costly over time.
Graphics inferior to PC
no mods
lacking keyboard support
Pay to go online

Overall in the long run its cheaper to be gaming on PC, more so people need PC at home. The real cost of converting that PC to a gaming PC is the GPU(assuming the PC is recent like3-4 years old).