Is Accessibility Killing PC Gaming?

The problem for me isn't that accessibility is killing PC gaming, its that now there is essentially no motivation for major developers to do games totally geared toward the "hardcore" set. For example, Rainbow Six was a game for the hardcore set. It was difficult, it required planning, foresight, and often times trial and error, but because of that (and in spite of it) it was a very competent shooter (the core component). It just had layers of complexity that added a huge amount of depth to what would have been just a realistic shooter. However, as this game progressed through its iterations, it lost the depth, the edge, and the difficulty for a broader, almost more "hollywood" appeal. Every became more arcade-y, more flash and less substance, and while that made for a more interesting game, it was definitely not a deeper game. Here's another even simpler example. Take a game like... Diablo 2. Is that a complicated game? No, its point, click, click, click repeat. But the thing is this game had depth, an its depth was in all the items, the classes, the combination of weapons and skills, the teams, and what is a very simple point and click RPG turned into something that required spreadsheets to fully comprehend. This type of depth is probably the best, as this game is reasonably accessible, but still maintains that level of heady, hardcore depth which is what makes the PC game genre stand out.

Originally Posted by eek
Including the cost of the TV and sofa in that comparison doesn't really help to prove your point. Most people will already own these. In fact, I'd argue that if someone doesn't own/watch TV, they are not really going to be the target audience for a console!

you are telling me you spend that much to buy PS3 for what? a door stoper or a HDMI graphics enjoyment?

if people don't have HD TV (most people) then they would need to buy HD TV to enjoy PS3 to fullest. if you don't like to include that, fine, take out the monitor then, as people upgrading computers would mostly have 17inch monitor, and thus lowing graphics card cost --> PC costs only £300. (same as PS3, but with larger hard drive, and a CPU that can do everything)

Originally Posted by eek

I certainly don't go around claiming that the cost of my Wii was £2500 just because it requires a TV and sofa!!

The cost of owning a console is less than a PC, that's pretty much fact. Sure, £400 will net you a PC more than capable of playing any games today, but will it really stand the test of time and play all games released 5-6 years down the line without looking like a slide show? More than likely not (especially given the budget of £400 meant only getting average/budget components at the time of purchase!) meaning an upgrade is almost certainly going to be required.

PC can stand as long as you like, whereas consoles require a refreshment every 4 to 5 years if you don't want to fail behind, and every 4 to 5 years, you'd be required to pay a full console's ever rising price: how much was N64/PS1? how much is a PS3/xbox360? (mark my words, if the power war of consoles keep going, next gen will supress a gaming PC's cost)
look at current graphics market: 9600GT is only £70 now, it'll last 2 to 3 years. then £80 will extend the PC's gaming life time to around 5 to 6 years. another £80 will make sure it overtakes any console's life time.

and don't forget mods for games like Half Life 2. it'd make the £30 you spent well worth it.

im not againest all other gaming devices, iPhone/PSP/DS are great. but if you are going to sit down and play, PC will offer a much mature, and longer lasting experience than any console can provide. oh yeah, and PC will give you something to do your homework with, show me Word on the xbox360.

I personally agree with Joe's article, but from a totally selfish point of view: I simply don't have time any more to indulge in super in-depth, complicated games any more. I want my games to be a) easy to pick up, b) offer a rich and rewarding story line and gratifyingly straight forward game play, and c) not overly challenging or difficult. I don't play games to be challenged, I play them to be entertained. I don't want my games to be complex affairs that whilst true I would get more out of them in the long run than a simple game, the long run isn't an option. I don't want to have to quickload all the time, or have to spend time mastering a single part of the game just to get through it. If I die really at all, I get annoyed, as it's an inconvinence to the story and flow of the game.

It'd be like watching a film where the protagonist dies in the third scene, and you have to press F9 a few times until they manage to survive. It achieves nothing and just breaks up the game play. I don't need the feeling of superiority of 'beating' a game, I know I'm above average on all genres and will totally kick your ass on FPSs, I don't need endless challenges to find out what I already know. I want my games to be fun, straigh forward, offer good game play and a satisfying story all wrapped up in the simpliest of structures. More games like Portal please, less games like (as I tried recently) Dungeon Siege 2, which threw so many concepts and ideas at the player in the first thirty seconds I got totally overwhelmed and haven't played it since.

So yeah, whilst a hardcore gamer who spends hours a day on their PC may lament the loss of your deep and complex games you need to invent hours in but are greatly rewarded, for those (like me), who simply don't have the time for that, give me accessibility and a pretty decent game over inaccessibility and a masterpiece any day.

the only thing to do is write a console virus to kill the console *******s that are stealing our pc game developers. Tell everybody that consoles are bad for your health and you get thumbsick from the damn XO+/\ controllers and get ill from the third person views and got ditched by you girlfriend because you walk always behind her looking over her shoulder. Tell ATI/NVIDIA that we do not buy their fancy new videocards anymore unless they stop making graphics for consoles or pay game developers to make good games for it.

...well.. ok... probably not going to happen, I guess..

All we PC users get is some jump and run on rooftops game :(

But how many people are playing TF2 on the PC versus consoles? How many are playing CoD4? Shouldn't these "more accessible" platforms be outdoing the PC in numbers of users in these games? Had Mass Effect come out simultaneously for PC and the 360, would we have seen comparable sales? (or at least a comparable number of users after piracy)

Accessibility is limiting. Having a controller instead of a keyboard and mouse makes gameplay more frustrating specifically because you can't remap keys and customize your controls. Online play is much more appealing on PCs because of the level of control you are afforded. You can play with a good group, with an admin, reliably. In CoD4 on the PS3, the very first thing I do when I enter a game room is mute everybody. Games end all the time because a "host" doesn't like the map. I don't know whether it is the lack of repercussions or because it's just a different audience, but online play on consoles is significantly less enjoyable for me because of the lack of complexity in the system and all the goddamn toolboxes humping corpses and mouthing off about nothing into their mics.

PC VS Console is like Rock 'n' Roll and POP music. Rock 'n' Roll will live forever and so will PC gaming. :D