bit-tech.net

The sky is falling

Comments 1 to 25 of 63

Reply
Woodstock 2nd February 2008, 09:54 Quote
that was very well written article, that "might" hold bit more weight then the forum discussion
Veles 2nd February 2008, 09:54 Quote
Good article (although I wouldn't really count the Xbox in there as it's lost it's support from MS and I can't think of any new games being released on it).

I think this applies to more than just gaming markets as you hinted at though. You mentioned the IGN umbrella. The movie and TV industry also, often spewing out crappy remakes or sequels in favour of something original.

Small time developers are the shining light though, there are several companies that produce games that will work on lower end systems and are very original.
Woodstock 2nd February 2008, 09:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Good article (although I wouldn't really count the Xbox in there as it's lost it's support from MS and I can't think of any new games being released on it).

doesnt mean that people dont still have and use them thou, i still have my original xbox and pretty much for that reason you just stated dont see me owning another console any time soon
Tim S 2nd February 2008, 10:05 Quote
The old Xbox games are still sold here in the shops :)
Sebbo 2nd February 2008, 11:12 Quote
wow brett, just wow. amazing article. no wonder i always look forward to your next column/article
Nictron 2nd February 2008, 12:36 Quote
Good article and one that should be appreciated by more than just this sites audience .

I believe PC gaming is still strong and as you said they are not accounting for all sales and the comparisons are not fair.
Lepermessiah 2nd February 2008, 12:59 Quote
Bookmarked. A great article, it amazes me how one-sided and poor a lot of media reports are now, someone should send this to IGN, Gamespot, and gamepro, and Mark Rein (Who is an idiot BTW). Terrible inaccurate reporting, why does it seem these sites seem to delight in twisting PC sales as being worse then they are.
Tim S 2nd February 2008, 13:10 Quote
SimoomiZ 2nd February 2008, 13:31 Quote
To be honest, the people who should be picking up the phone to Mark Rein & co are the leading PC HW manufacturers. If I was Nvidia's CEO, I 'd see his(MR's) misinformation as threatening, dangerous even, because as stated in the piece , due to the complexity in developing modern AAA PC games, power is becoming more and more concentrated in fewer, bigger studios. One of these even insinuating that it is actively considering ceasing retail pc game development could cause a domino effect ,especially when it is a major engine licensor company like Epic .
airchie 2nd February 2008, 13:32 Quote
Great article. :)

So true about the conglomorates getting bigger and bigger in every market in the world.
Small companies and start-ups these days will never get the chance to grow into giants as they'll be cut off at the knees if they ever threaten to make a dent in the current giant's profits. :(
completemadness 2nd February 2008, 14:24 Quote
If the Xbox is included, why not the gamecube?

Anyway, very good article :)
Veles 2nd February 2008, 14:27 Quote
Nvidia and co. isn't bothered that much I imagine, low/mid end card sales make up the bulk of their revenue. High end sales are very low in comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
The old Xbox games are still sold here in the shops :)

So are N64 and SNES games though. The amount of brand new games sold for the Xbox/GC is minuet. PS2 however is still one of the biggest selling consoles and often trumps it's successor's sales figures for both hardware and games.
specofdust 2nd February 2008, 14:30 Quote
Supurb article, it doesn't paint the rosey-future we'd all like PC gaming to have, I think it paints it as it actually is :(
Lepermessiah 2nd February 2008, 14:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Nvidia and co. isn't bothered that much I imagine, low/mid end card sales make up the bulk of their revenue. High end sales are very low in comparison.



So are N64 and SNES games though. The amount of brand new games sold for the Xbox/GC is minuet. PS2 however is still one of the biggest selling consoles and often trumps it's successor's sales figures for both hardware and games.

They make millions off of the high end segemnt, ther eis a LOT OF MONEY that is generated at the high end PC market, MS, Nvidia, Intel, AMD all benefit. Mark Rein as an ass.
sagittary 2nd February 2008, 15:35 Quote
I agree, partially. While I don't think it's completely evil executives and higher ups being... well, evil (and not all of them are too), manipulative, and merge happy, I do agree that much it may very well be the industry's own fault with very little that of the consumer (though the consumer does play a role too, both good ant bad - an article over at Gamasutra made the argument that early piracy may have been both a blessing and a boon to such platforms as the Apple II).

As mentioned, there's been quite a bit of merging going on - however, I don't think this has necessarily stifled the indie developer and the small developer outside of big companies attempting to force them to then confirm to one way or another of design which may not always be the case or the game being altered due to market conditions. In part, I think this is merely a response to something else which is rising development costs. Use many smaller titles with smaller development costs and more assured return on investment to help pay off the big titles which may or may not be a flop... but get you the media and attention required to stay active and in the spotlight.

Of course, the rising development costs aren't just vague costs as also mentioned in the column - they're eaten up all over the place by the emergance of multiple platforms and middlemen. Silicon Knights and Epic are in a legal battle over the Unreal 3 engine - of note for the discussion is that Epic isn't willing to release any details on what they charge. Much like the example with Steam and such, these numbers are kept close to the chest and probably for good reason - it may not be standardize so they may be milking any given developer for what they're worth, probably charging close to a million plus multiple royalties and guarentees of additional games using the engine. Other pre-packaged and middleware solutions are probably the same way. The BigWorld MMO engine (which hasn't seen a commerical release) costs half a million for -just- the front end engine; back end support and such are more.

This combined with having to develop for multiple platforms makes costs rise for development. And there are multiple platforms because too many people are trying to do too many things - having two generations out on the market doesn't help development nor does haven't too many choices. If a handful of people have all 3 consoles, some have 2, and most have 1, the need for multiple platform releases or very niche products for a particular platform is absolutely essential in order to make up development costs. It's a vicious cycle that companies have gotten into I think.

This kind of vicious cycle I think also appears elsewhere in the industry (though probably less apparent to the consumer) in many ways and means and has become so ingrained that it's become accepted as a necessary evil. These cycles in turn have also promoted (along with perhaps simply from where the industry grew from) a culture of antagonism and one-up manship; a culture where everything is carefully guarded so that you can grab a precious whatever before the other guy even if it means eating your own young. The obvious example is the use of crunch time and/or really funky hours (a 6 PM to 3 AM shift for the QA team because the developers and project manager absolutely need to get a title out ASAP); this kind of culture means that those that end up staying are either cynical, jaded, or bloodthirsty cutthroat and having forgotten why they got into the industry. And all that means a very protective, very conservative, very non-gaming culture where those in charge aren't actually on the same wavelength as the actual production team.

Getting back on track... all that said, PCs aren't dying and I agree with the column that a lot of the continual 'death tolls' of PC gaming is, and always has been, obfuscation. But I do think that there is a point to be made in that while PC gaming isn't dead, the sort of games being made for the PC have mutated (though so has consoles to be fair). Light gaming (PopCap, etc) has taken the place of many types of gaming on the PC - when's the last time you played such a non-light PC game that wasn't an FPS (or similar) or RTS/TBS (or similar)? And of the light games, don't most seem like a variant of Match-3 or Click-A-Lot-Of-Stuff? You find more variety as far as mainstream titles on consoles and I think this is part of the problem with PCs; that PCs, ultimately, haven't evolved as consoles have. They've gotten new capabilities and kept pace with consoles (and then some)... but unlike consoles, there really hasn't been anything to help users access this. PC remains a domain of technophiles who devote themselves to it; they're stuff you work with and work on. Consoles have made sure that they aren't just masters of the recreation room but the living room and regular life - they're stuff you play with in a lot of ways and in a lot of very easy ways you don't need to have a decent knowledge to know how to do. Consoles have stuff like Live and Home and quick plug and play ability.

Granted, Bit-Tech being the website it is, we're probably a little biased to that. But really, the average consumer isn't going to even be aware of much what their computer can do - it doesn't tell them. Is the average consumer really going to know that you can install and run Linus on their PS3 much less have an inclination to do so (relatively easy, comparatively speaking)? A study some time back (and we'll take the numbers with a grain of salt) on both current owners and potential buyers of game systems showed that many didn't even realize what most of use probably take for granted. Around 50 percent of respondents, for instance, weren't aware that the DS had two screens or a touch screen. Imagine the sort of answers for such a survey on PC capabilities.

So er... short answer, PCs just need to be more friendly and communicate better. They need to take a look at what consoles are doing to draw people in, what games like WoW are doing to draw in new faces, and break out of old habits, vicious cycles, and self-congratulatory pats on the back.
sagittary 2nd February 2008, 15:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Nvidia and co. isn't bothered that much I imagine, low/mid end card sales make up the bulk of their revenue. High end sales are very low in comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
The old Xbox games are still sold here in the shops :)

So are N64 and SNES games though. The amount of brand new games sold for the Xbox/GC is minuet. PS2 however is still one of the biggest selling consoles and often trumps it's successor's sales figures for both hardware and games.

Indeed though this may be, in part, a side effect - the heavy duty gamer grabs titles ASAP while others are more than happy to wait until prices drop or they have finished games. And I wonder if such numbers count things GameFly (rentals rather than digital sales). That said though, games are being made for the old consoles because they sell, true - probably if nothing else to cover the costs elsewhere.

On that note, random factoid, In October 07 1 copy of Mortal Kombat 3 was sold in the US, according to NPD for the PS1. Yes, a game made in 1996 was sold for a console that isn't being made. >_>
steveo_mcg 2nd February 2008, 16:55 Quote
I hate reading your columns, there so depressingly true...
noobarino 2nd February 2008, 17:23 Quote
I myself am a computer man but i can understand why people(usually with a IQ under 50) go for consoles.

consoles are easy, wack in the disc and away you go. no need to install the game or a buy a new computer that can handle the game for double the price of a console.
mdavids 2nd February 2008, 18:21 Quote
Even though I love my pc gaming I'm starting to wonder if its worth upgrading for the limited amount of games I want to play. Approx. every 2 years I do a major upgrade with the most recent being E6750 and 8800gt on which I've played COD 4 (great) , crysis (2/3 great) and gears of war (a bit rubbish IMO). Now what?? That £180 gfx card just isnt getting used at the moment cos theres nothing I want to play and only a couple of games on the horizon that I'm really looking forward to. My system as a whole is very fast but under most circumstances its not a massive leap over the Athlon64 4000 I upgraded from. I may get to play and enjoy 5-10 games over the next couple of years for the £400 I've spent and then I'll be back to stuttering frame rates and messing on with settings to try and play the latest titles. Its not that I cant afford the cash - just that I need to feel I'm getting value for money. At least when you buy the latest console you know you'll get 4-5 years out of it with at least half a dozen AAA titles every year.
Lurks 2nd February 2008, 18:38 Quote
I've regged to post a comment. Well, more of an open letter really. I thank you in advance for taking the time to get through it.
I've worked in the games industry for a very long time and you're commenting on an area that’s basically my job. Let me first start by saying that it's of relatively little use talking about how flawed a particular study is. In fact the study in question isn't really flawed at all - NPD state exactly what they're counting and how. You, and your readers, go to spectacular lengths to say how it’s all wrong... but it isn’t. It doesn’t claim to be anything other than what it is.
No amount of wishing that PC gaming is a bigger market than it is by any of the readers of this site will actually change that. Yes we all tend to wish our hobby is really big and great and thriving so there's a natural inclination to want to attack anyone that says it's not doing so well but I find this article and subsequent forum posts remarkably devoid of clear thinking on the issue.
You talk about why people like Valve don't release details of digital distribution. There's a simple reason for that, the numbers aren't that impressive. If you're trying to entice developers and publishers to your platform it doesn't pay to point out that you're a little over 4% of the PC games sale by volume. They will tell you, and you can find out exactly what EA’s DD revenue if you simply looked. But they don’t crow it from the rooftops until it impressive. That’s called marketing.
You also drift around the point by saying that non-retail, non-core games are in fact PC games. And that these are bought via the Internet. So that's part of the PC games scene too. Er well sure, right, but now you're just shifting your definition of PC gaming and NPD never claimed to cover that stuff. And you know what, we don't care anyway. That's because the ramifications, and this is a key issue which you don't seem to be keen to address, of the decline of the PC gaming platform in core games is that the sales don’t necessarily justify the big budgets to develop on that platform.
Perhaps the greatest flaw in this article is the claim that the industry has no data for digital distribution but has loads of data regarding levels of piracy, with the bizarre conclusion that the industry cares more about what's pirated than what's sold. Your glaring critical error is that there’s an impetus to talk about how much piracy there is. There is no impetus to talk about the numbers on digital distribution for reasons that I've pointed out.
You confuse there not being a big unit-sales chart for digital distribution with the fact the industry doesn't know. It does know. I've seen countless projections of the exactly this kind of data. Because they didn't tell YOU, then they clearly don't know? Come on now. Most publishers are looking very heavily at DD. Some are already doing it including EA. If a game was selling via their own download service and they were making a ton of money they’d go great and keep making PC games no?
In fact digital distribution is pretty bad right now. EA has its own abysmal thing. You have some half supported DD only republishers such as Direct2Drive in the US and Metaboli (on a strange rental basis) and really it’s only Valve doing it in a way that is of high quality. But it’s still vanishingly small and it’s fractured. Where as you look at Xbox Live Arcade and there’s a common, superb platform which is looking very attractive to those same guys that used to make little games on the PC and tried to flog them via digital distribution.
The industry does NOT want PC gaming to fail. The industry wants to make money from PC games. In many regards the PC is a pleasant platform to deal with because one can handle your own route to market, QA and not have to hand over big wedges to the platform holder. The industry is a business. It makes games on the PC because they sell. When they don't sell, the industry goes elsewhere. It does not inherently want PC gaming to fail. For Christ's sake the combined might of Intel, Microsoft and the entire body of advertisers on this web site - do you think they want PC gaming to fail? Or are they not part of the industry?
Finally we have some completely incoherent rant about how 'giant conglomerates' have stomped the indy devs into the ground, eaten your babies and created some 'wasteland' which of course is resulting in no good PC games. Err yeah except 2007 was the best PC year for PC gaming ever. And the consolidation, which is what you're actually talking about, has nothing to do with evil conglomerates out to **** over users, and everything to do with the massively increasingly cost and complexity of game development. Development costs vast sums of money now. Porting games across multiple platforms using hideously expensive in-house developed technology etc is just plain more efficient. There are still Indys but they find it quite hard to get to fund a game and to get to market.
Maybe if PC gamers bought more games they could afford to hang around and not sell their family business out to a publically listed publisher. But they don’t.
You even use Call of Duty '76' as some insult to the current status quo. Right, you mean Call of Duty 4 then - an absolutely amazing game developed by a shining light of PC Game Developers, Infinity Ward. The company having being originally formed by a splinter group of developers from an evil conglomerate who wanted to make a really great WW2 game. Later on they were acquired by Activision which set up the developers nicely financially and meant they didn't have to worry about paying the bills, while they continued to make great games. And this is typical of the consolidation, splinter, reaquire nature of the games industry. It happens a LOT in the UK, take a look around Leamington Spa for starters.
If that's your big example of evil conglomerates then I have to call FAIL on all levels. Great game. Great developer. Also arrived on multiple platforms with each being bloody great and catering for a wide range of game players. Looks like a success story to me.
The real consequence of the failure of the PC as a gaming platform means that PC-specific features are less likely to get in games. Like the hideous console-like menu on UT4 for example. But it's still pretty easy to do a PC game given they tend to be developed side by side with the 360 version. Certain genres of game will be deemed to not even be worth doing on the PC since they'll sell near zero. Otherwise just expect more console features and controls and fewer PC specific multiplayer features and all that.
That’s happening because while you write articles about how the industry has it all wrong, how the industry will ‘chuckle’, get bigger and generally be Evil, the reality is that the problem with the PC gaming platform is that PC gamers don't BUY games. Amazingly they think nothing of lashing out stupid sums of money on outrageous PC hardware but actually buying the handful of amazing games that came out in 2007? Nah!
Be honest. How many did you buy? I know what this is like because I’ve been part of the problem. My friends, myself, virtually everyone I know into hard-core PC gaming. All pirating games. All spending stupid sums on high-end graphics cards. It’s at the very centre of the culture of PC gaming and as with any close-knit community of people no matter what evils they engage in they always find a way to lend a sympathetic ear to one another and justify what they’re doing with vague arguments and evil big corporate out to **** you over.
Dude, you’re in your mid 30s right? It’s time to let go of the self delusion and apply some genuine critical thinking here. You'd be doing everyone a much bigger favour if you examined this culture and thought about what you could do to actually help hard working PC game developers than writing ranting incoherent, inaccurate and counter-productive articles about how it's somehow everyone else's fault.
antiHero 2nd February 2008, 21:17 Quote
As usual a great article Brett!

As almost all is sad by other people i want to pick up something that interrestlly (sp?) nobody else has picked up.

So "only" 14% of game sales are PC games? Sounds good to me as the PC is "only" 12.5% of the market anyway. The big player are XBOX, XBOX360, PS2, PS3, WII, DS, PSP and PC, which would mean that the PC stands for 12.5% of all gaming platforms on the market. 12.5% standing for 14% seems pretty good to me!
I know that my calculation is not the most accurate but it does the job.

So where is the problem?
DXR_13KE 2nd February 2008, 22:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
I hate reading your columns, there so depressingly true...

ctrl+c, ctrl+v.
Veles 2nd February 2008, 23:03 Quote
I think that's kind of the point, there isn't really one, it's just FPS developers are spouting doom and gloom because they're killing their own genre by requiring obscene hardware requirements and producing cookie cutter crap the majority of the time.
Lepermessiah 2nd February 2008, 23:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurks
I've regged to post a comment. Well, more of an open letter really. I thank you in advance for taking the time to get through it.
I've worked in the games industry for a very long time and you're commenting on an area that’s basically my job. Let me first start by saying that it's of relatively little use talking about how flawed a particular study is. In fact the study in question isn't really flawed at all - NPD state exactly what they're counting and how. You, and your readers, go to spectacular lengths to say how it’s all wrong... but it isn’t. It doesn’t claim to be anything other than what it is.
No amount of wishing that PC gaming is a bigger market than it is by any of the readers of this site will actually change that. Yes we all tend to wish our hobby is really big and great and thriving so there's a natural inclination to want to attack anyone that says it's not doing so well but I find this article and subsequent forum posts remarkably devoid of clear thinking on the issue.
You talk about why people like Valve don't release details of digital distribution. There's a simple reason for that, the numbers aren't that impressive. If you're trying to entice developers and publishers to your platform it doesn't pay to point out that you're a little over 4% of the PC games sale by volume. They will tell you, and you can find out exactly what EA’s DD revenue if you simply looked. But they don’t crow it from the rooftops until it impressive. That’s called marketing.
You also drift around the point by saying that non-retail, non-core games are in fact PC games. And that these are bought via the Internet. So that's part of the PC games scene too. Er well sure, right, but now you're just shifting your definition of PC gaming and NPD never claimed to cover that stuff. And you know what, we don't care anyway. That's because the ramifications, and this is a key issue which you don't seem to be keen to address, of the decline of the PC gaming platform in core games is that the sales don’t necessarily justify the big budgets to develop on that platform.
Perhaps the greatest flaw in this article is the claim that the industry has no data for digital distribution but has loads of data regarding levels of piracy, with the bizarre conclusion that the industry cares more about what's pirated than what's sold. Your glaring critical error is that there’s an impetus to talk about how much piracy there is. There is no impetus to talk about the numbers on digital distribution for reasons that I've pointed out.
You confuse there not being a big unit-sales chart for digital distribution with the fact the industry doesn't know. It does know. I've seen countless projections of the exactly this kind of data. Because they didn't tell YOU, then they clearly don't know? Come on now. Most publishers are looking very heavily at DD. Some are already doing it including EA. If a game was selling via their own download service and they were making a ton of money they’d go great and keep making PC games no?
In fact digital distribution is pretty bad right now. EA has its own abysmal thing. You have some half supported DD only republishers such as Direct2Drive in the US and Metaboli (on a strange rental basis) and really it’s only Valve doing it in a way that is of high quality. But it’s still vanishingly small and it’s fractured. Where as you look at Xbox Live Arcade and there’s a common, superb platform which is looking very attractive to those same guys that used to make little games on the PC and tried to flog them via digital distribution.
The industry does NOT want PC gaming to fail. The industry wants to make money from PC games. In many regards the PC is a pleasant platform to deal with because one can handle your own route to market, QA and not have to hand over big wedges to the platform holder. The industry is a business. It makes games on the PC because they sell. When they don't sell, the industry goes elsewhere. It does not inherently want PC gaming to fail. For Christ's sake the combined might of Intel, Microsoft and the entire body of advertisers on this web site - do you think they want PC gaming to fail? Or are they not part of the industry?
Finally we have some completely incoherent rant about how 'giant conglomerates' have stomped the indy devs into the ground, eaten your babies and created some 'wasteland' which of course is resulting in no good PC games. Err yeah except 2007 was the best PC year for PC gaming ever. And the consolidation, which is what you're actually talking about, has nothing to do with evil conglomerates out to **** over users, and everything to do with the massively increasingly cost and complexity of game development. Development costs vast sums of money now. Porting games across multiple platforms using hideously expensive in-house developed technology etc is just plain more efficient. There are still Indys but they find it quite hard to get to fund a game and to get to market.
Maybe if PC gamers bought more games they could afford to hang around and not sell their family business out to a publically listed publisher. But they don’t.
You even use Call of Duty '76' as some insult to the current status quo. Right, you mean Call of Duty 4 then - an absolutely amazing game developed by a shining light of PC Game Developers, Infinity Ward. The company having being originally formed by a splinter group of developers from an evil conglomerate who wanted to make a really great WW2 game. Later on they were acquired by Activision which set up the developers nicely financially and meant they didn't have to worry about paying the bills, while they continued to make great games. And this is typical of the consolidation, splinter, reaquire nature of the games industry. It happens a LOT in the UK, take a look around Leamington Spa for starters.
If that's your big example of evil conglomerates then I have to call FAIL on all levels. Great game. Great developer. Also arrived on multiple platforms with each being bloody great and catering for a wide range of game players. Looks like a success story to me.
The real consequence of the failure of the PC as a gaming platform means that PC-specific features are less likely to get in games. Like the hideous console-like menu on UT4 for example. But it's still pretty easy to do a PC game given they tend to be developed side by side with the 360 version. Certain genres of game will be deemed to not even be worth doing on the PC since they'll sell near zero. Otherwise just expect more console features and controls and fewer PC specific multiplayer features and all that.
That’s happening because while you write articles about how the industry has it all wrong, how the industry will ‘chuckle’, get bigger and generally be Evil, the reality is that the problem with the PC gaming platform is that PC gamers don't BUY games. Amazingly they think nothing of lashing out stupid sums of money on outrageous PC hardware but actually buying the handful of amazing games that came out in 2007? Nah!
Be honest. How many did you buy? I know what this is like because I’ve been part of the problem. My friends, myself, virtually everyone I know into hard-core PC gaming. All pirating games. All spending stupid sums on high-end graphics cards. It’s at the very centre of the culture of PC gaming and as with any close-knit community of people no matter what evils they engage in they always find a way to lend a sympathetic ear to one another and justify what they’re doing with vague arguments and evil big corporate out to **** you over.
Dude, you’re in your mid 30s right? It’s time to let go of the self delusion and apply some genuine critical thinking here. You'd be doing everyone a much bigger favour if you examined this culture and thought about what you could do to actually help hard working PC game developers than writing ranting incoherent, inaccurate and counter-productive articles about how it's somehow everyone else's fault.

Are you actually saying NDP sales figures, and reports of PC gaming dying are ture, despite obvious evidence against it? Your post is so long, I don't think I have read a longer pile of crap in my life. No one is saying it is someone elses fault, it is no ones fault, there is no problem, PC gaming is doing fine.
DXR_13KE 2nd February 2008, 23:41 Quote
If prices in making games are so high then how do indie devs make such amazing games as "infinity" in their free time? game cost is overrated IMHO, if indie game makers can do it for cheap and have such amazing titles then why cant the "giants" do the same?

slow selling of a game in the first months is also overrated, a game, if it is good enough, will sell for a long time, the community will make mods for it and it will sell, look at Crysis and UT3, some say they sold like crap, other say they sold very well, i have to say that they will sell a lot more in the next year or so, there are mod teams taking the games to new levels, transforming FPS into RTS/FPS/RPG hybrids...... the biggest problem i see is the blatant difference in price around the world in games, Games in the US cost almost half what they cost here, their prices lower sooner, they get the games sooner and they get bundles sooner... no wonder piracy is so "rampant" around these parts......

Lurks says that "Amazingly they think nothing of lashing out stupid sums of money on outrageous PC hardware but actually buying the handful of amazing games that came out in 2007? Nah!"..... so lets see, i will not lash "out stupid sums of money on outrageous PC hardware", get a middle range computer in the US (or for the same price a low range computer around here) and try to play the "handful of amazing games that came out in 2007" with the money i saved..... that logic is amazing, lets play Crysis on a bottom of the range cpu, asrock board, geforce 7300 and 1 gig ram, all in the crappiest computer case and power supply and the cheapest screen and keyboard/mouse combo i can get, the gaming experience is amazing.[/sarcasm].

Instead of publishers crying that "game sales are low, piracy is killing us" why don't they lower the prices of the games and uniformize the price and launch date around the world, and when the game hits a certain level of profit put the game as "special edition", or something, and sell it at half the price.... or less, they should also take control of new and very open internet data transmission technologies (like bit-torrent)...... what would you rather have, sell 100 at 50$ or sell 300 at 25$?

on a final note
Quote:
Dude, you’re in your mid 30s right? It’s time to let go of the self delusion and apply some genuine critical thinking here. You'd be doing everyone a much bigger favour if you examined this culture and thought about what you could do to actually help hard working PC game developers than writing ranting incoherent, inaccurate and counter-productive articles about how it's somehow everyone else's fault.
:| it seams that you don't "lurk" the forums enough....

edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Are you actually saying NDP sales figures, and reports of PC gaming dying are ture, despite obvious evidence against it? Your post is so long, I don't think I have read a longer pile of crap in my life. No one is saying it is someone elses fault, it is no ones fault, there is no problem, PC gaming is doing fine.

please don't be rude and maintain a good environment in the forums ;). although you are right on some parts...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums