PDA

View Full Version : Video games and computers, the decline



jordan_a
7th Mar 2008, 23:33
I wanted to share this. It's on the website of Bohemia Interactive, developers of the fabulous Operation Flashpoint. There's talking about their anticipated game, ARMA2, a war simulation (and I stress the word simulation).

----------------------------------------------

Console Release

There are various possible ways to look at a console release of ARMA 2: some hard core PC gamers don't like it much and are worried it may dumb down the game somehow. Others are happy to be able to look forward playing such a complex combat simulation on consoles.

Anyway, for Bohemia Interactive it is the only logical step. PC gaming is declining overall, especially (but not only) in North America. The PC platform suffers because of many severe compatibility and stability problems and the transition to Windows Vista does not help the platform in this regard over the short term. The good thing is that we are already experienced with consoles after our long struggle with Operation Flashpoint Elite for Xbox . We already know what we like and dislike regarding the development (and playing) of a combat simulation game on console, and with this hard earned knowledge we feel in the case of ARMA 2 this multiplatform approach is not only a commercially viable move but it also helps the game to be better on both platforms. All we want is to make it a more accessible and streamlined game than the current ARMA is. For that we do not need and do not want to remove anything that made Operation Flashpoint and ARMA so immersive and our focus on realism in the sense of open simulated game world will remain unchanged.

v.dog
8th Mar 2008, 09:00
Doug Lombardi begs to differ (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17744).

Also, the mod scene (http://www.moddb.com/) isn't counted in any stats as it's hard to track and doesn't make any money.

I just wish Lucas Arts would see this. That The Force Unleashed coming to every platform (even the N-Gage!) but the PC is is a cruel, cruel blow. :(

Necros
8th Mar 2008, 11:00
I just wish Lucas Arts would see this. That The Force Unleashed coming to every platform (even the N-Gage!) but the PC is is a cruel, cruel blow. :(
Yeah, it sucks, big time. :( Though I think it's gonna be like with many other games (KOTOR, Mass Effect, Gears of War, etc.) and it will be on the PC, only a few months, a year later. At least I hope so... :rolleyes:
And I agree with Doug Lombardi, saying that the PC gaming is declining is just stupid. :)

Kneo24
8th Mar 2008, 13:08
The reason a lot of developers feel PC gaming is dying is due to multiple reasons, all of which they are either going the wrong way about, or aren't doing anything about it.

Let's take "piracy" as an example. A lot of developers claim the numbers are surprisingly huge, yet they never release numbers. Why? I'm not going into details of why one person might pirate something. However, it seems a lot of games that use very restrictive measures seem to sell less, not more, and games who use less restrictive measures do the exact opposite. This isn't always true, but the ******* anti-piracy middleware that some studios are forced to use just hurt the legitimate purchasers more than the pirates.

Or how about how the different amounts of hardware they have to deal with to get their game working? They all piss and moan about it, but do they do anything about it? Why should Intel, Nvidia, AMD, and a slew of other manufacturers listen if the industry as a whole can't tell them what exactly they want more of, and what they want less of? They're not mind readers and can't tackle the problems when they aren't sure of what the problems are. Use your voices as a collective and say something.

You don't like that there are fifty different versions for one series of a GPU? Say it! Tell them. Explain to them the problems you have. I like choices too, but I agree, it is rather ridiculous when you see the amount of choices you have. It even makes building your own PC somewhat of a headache with the amount of research you need to do.

Just do something other than piss and moan about how the PC industry is dying because you'd rather not be proactive about it.

minus0ne
8th Mar 2008, 18:41
Sounds like a novel excuse to get out of PC gaming. Whether they like it or not, the PC will be the only serious gaming platform in the coming years. Sony say they're not going to do another PlayStation which leaves us with Nintendo (kids&casual games mostly) and Microsoft (who are trying hard to make a console with PC functionality... which you'd have to buy from them).

I have to agree with them on Vista though, but overall, they're dead wrong. I wish them luck on finding a hardcore military simulation audience among console gamers.

IcarusIsLookingForYou
8th Mar 2008, 19:11
Sony say they're not going to do another PlayStation

That's what Nintendo said after the Game Cube failed, but look at them now. They have the #1 selling console in the world. If the PS3 starts doing better in sales, which it has, then I don't see why a company with deep pockets, like Sony, wouldn't try again with a different strategy. I predict they'll be back.

Just for the record, I neither own a PS3 nor have any love for Sony. Just making a prediction. But I must agree, regardless of how perilous the situation may seem, serious PC gaming isn't going anywhere. Just because it's in decline doesn't mean the trend can't change.

jordan_a
8th Mar 2008, 19:31
Doug Lombardi begs to differ (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17744).:thumbsup:

v.dog
8th Mar 2008, 20:16
Yeah, it sucks, big time. :( Though I think it's gonna be like with many other games (KOTOR, Mass Effect, Gears of War, etc.) and it will be on the PC, only a few months, a year later. At least I hope so... :rolleyes:But the bad news is that the PC sales figures will be lower- the marketing is no longer there and those that have the option of PC or console will have bought it already- Lucas Arts will use this to justify further lack of participation in the PC market. :(

@Kneo24: it's interesting that you mention piracy. Despite that claims of the MPAA that pirates are wrecking the industry, they made record profits. I wonder how the gaming world compares.

Also, you're right draconian DRM (starforce, anyone?) only hurts legitimate users- there's nothing yet that the pirates haven't cracked. Rather than the stick, they should offer us carrots- you can't download pewter figurines from <subject website here>.

SageSavage
8th Mar 2008, 20:19
Yeah, that's what irritates me too: I've also heared that there won't be a PS4 and the XBox'es are plagued by a ****load of serious problems. Wii is very successfull but it's such an exotic platform that they are not a business competition at all. So how the hell did concoles become the threat they're said to be?

I understand the issues devs may have with the PC but after all they have to get along with them and not trying to flee from them instead?!

From my POV it would make the most sense if in the very near future there were mainly PCs on one side and mainly portable consoles (eg PSP) on the other side. Seeing how modern consoles are basically just restricted PCs I just don't see the point in them - I already have an expensive PC in my living room. Most people have a PC and those who haven't rarely buy consoles.

minus0ne
8th Mar 2008, 22:27
That's what Nintendo said after the Game Cube failed, but look at them now. They have the #1 selling console in the world. If the PS3 starts doing better in sales, which it has, then I don't see why a company with deep pockets, like Sony, wouldn't try again with a different strategy. I predict they'll be back.
They wouldn't because there's not a Sony CEO out there willing to risk it all (again) for another PlayStation. SCE has been brought to the brink of bankruptcy with the PS3 (Sony would've literally sold SCE in parts if it would've done even slightly worse, and they still might). They're playing it down for financial reasons (and perhaps some sense of loyalty to the fans), but the PS3 was their last adventure in console gaming, not even the victory of Blu-ray can change that.

Just for the record, I neither own a PS3 nor have any love for Sony. Just making a prediction. But I must agree, regardless of how perilous the situation may seem, serious PC gaming isn't going anywhere. Just because it's in decline doesn't mean the trend can't change.
I haven't seen any proof that PC gaming is on a decline (yet it seems everyone's talking about it). It's still got some of the highest growth of ANY sector, entertainment or otherwise, and most figures forecast way bigger growth for PC gaming than the console market could ever dream of. I'll agree that PC gaming isn't going anywhere though ;)

Doug Lombardi begs to differ (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17744).
Thanks for that, I was searching for that link for my previous post, not realising you'd already posted it :nut:

Kneo24
8th Mar 2008, 22:37
@Kneo24: it's interesting that you mention piracy. Despite that claims of the MPAA that pirates are wrecking the industry, they made record profits. I wonder how the gaming world compares.


It's going to be impossible to tell at the moment. Any company who offers you the option to download the game after purchase aren't releasing their numbers. Those guys seem to report everything is on the up and up.

Maybe Eidos will be nice and allow Valve to sell DX3 to us over STEAM. While going through a system like STEAM is another type of middleman, it's probably far far cheaper.

I personally am the type of person to download my games than go to the store and buy them. I know the developers and publishers get more money that way, and it's much more convenient for me. Sure, I can probably play the game an hour or so sooner by going to the store, but I'm not impatient.

DX3 could potentially reach a wider audience that way.

v.dog
8th Mar 2008, 23:42
Eidos is on Steam (http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?publisher=eidos) already, so it's all but certain that DX3 will be released via it as well.

Blockbuster PC games may be starting to thin, but as long as there is user generated content for existing games, indie programmers willing to try something new (most innovation comes from here now), staff wanting to kill time on their lunch breaks, free methods to get hundred of users online together (indeed, an internet at all), there will be PC games in one form or an other. This (http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=all&genre=23) is (http://www.moddb.com/) why (http://www.experimentalgameplay.com/) PC (http://www.flash-game.net/) gaming (http://www.mmorpg.com/index.cfm?bhcp=1) will (http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery) never (http://www.filefront.com/) die (http://jayisgames.com/). :)

Unstoppable
9th Mar 2008, 00:09
There are countless of "PC Gaming is DYING" threads on the internet. All of them are epic failure including this one.

Another thing. PC gaming is clearly not dying. The NPD numbers do not cover revenue from MMO's, digital downloads, and other services which are very profitable.

PC gaming is going through an evolution and will eventually cycle out of retail. Digital download is the way of the future. Some people still prefer the retail experience however so it's not going away anytime soon.

In conclusion PC gaming is not dying. It is clearly being hurt by piracy but there are still good people like myself who do not pirate games. :cool:

Dave W
9th Mar 2008, 02:03
Anyway, for Bohemia Interactive it is the only logical step. PC gaming is declining overall, especially (but not only) in North America. The PC platform suffers because of many severe compatibility and stability problems and the transition to Windows Vista does not help the platform in this regard over the short term.

It has nothing to do with stability, XP is perfectly stable as is Vista. The problem is that a good gaming PC is far more expensive than a console and with a console you don't have to worry whether your PC is good enough to play it, making it far more attractive to casual gamers or people who don't want to piss about upgrading their computer all the time. The transitition to Vista is good anyway, it means PC's are now easily better than consoles in terms of power (DirectX 10).

jd10013
9th Mar 2008, 03:21
your exactly right dave. a lot of people don't like shelling out $400 every year for a new video card, more money for memory, and eventually a new computer.

anyhow, I can't see PC games going anywhere anytime soon. It's still a billion dollar industry. Because consoles are much bigger doesn't mean PC games are dying.

v.dog
9th Mar 2008, 04:20
Who says people spend $400 dollars a year? I don't. I've bought one graphics card and one RAM upgrade in the six years I've had my machine. Sure it's not bleeding edge, but it ran most games fine (until STALKER last year), that's on top of a $NZ1000 base machine. Even including a bigger HDD and new DVD burner, that's still cheap compared to the the price of an Xbox, 360, and a PC that can run Photoshop.

To overhaul it now will cost me about $NZ1600. Again, it's still not bleeding edge, but it'll be more powerful than a 360 by a good margin. That's not bad for another five years.

If you're wise with your money, and can handle loosing the bleeding edge effects after a couple of years, PCs needn't be that expensive.

SageSavage
9th Mar 2008, 10:32
Yes, my last PC was also nearly 6 years old and only got one RAM and one graphics card upgrade during that time. I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer and I was able to run every single game I wanted to play with it. Of course it lacked the power for the highest settings during it's last months but I never played anything with most set to low either. I love being able to upgrade my machine, hardware- and softwarewise and I use my PC for countless other things than just gaming. The trade off for gaming is that the system is more vulnerable to bugs, malware and incompatibilities which makes it more difficult to handle for all sides.

I consider PCs to be basic equipment for every household (at least in the industrialized word) whereas consoles are additional luxury. I can't understand the argument that consoles are cheaper than PCs, they are additional costs.

And about the "transition to Vista is good"... yeah... whatever...

Kneo24
9th Mar 2008, 12:51
It has nothing to do with stability, XP is perfectly stable as is Vista. The problem is that a good gaming PC is far more expensive than a console and with a console you don't have to worry whether your PC is good enough to play it, making it far more attractive to casual gamers or people who don't want to piss about upgrading their computer all the time. The transitition to Vista is good anyway, it means PC's are now easily better than consoles in terms of power (DirectX 10).

It's funny that you mention that. You can't expect to run an PS3 game on a PS2 can you? You can't expect to run an Xbox 360 game on an Xbox can you?

You don't have to do much of any upgrading over a long term if you initially do a good build in the first place. Those crappy $500 dells you buy in stores are not gaming machines, so you shouldn't expect to be able to do any gaming on them in any sort of long term future. Of course, that's what a lot of people try to do anyway. Build a machine yourself, and it can last far longer than a console, and your games tend to be more backwards compatible extending to a far far longer catalog of games that you don't have to purchase again to play.

IcarusIsLookingForYou
9th Mar 2008, 20:01
Build a machine yourself, and it can last far longer than a console, and your games tend to be more backwards compatible extending to a far far longer catalog of games that you don't have to purchase again to play.

Unfortunately not all of us have the technical expertise to build a computer ourselves. Even more unfortunate are the exorbitant prices that retailers, on and offline, charge to do it for you. I got lucky two years ago and discovered a friend of a friend who built a PC for me, but like I said, it was luck.

Although he built me a great machine, I still have stability and technical issues that I'm simply not tech savvy enough to fix (my life is way too busy to take the time to learn everything there is to know). This often forces me to default to my 360 because I don't have to worry about those types of issues, and I simply don't have as much time to game as I used to.

This example doesn't necessarily mean PC gaming is on a decline, but it does illustrate a possible reason as to why the console market has grown so much in recent years.

jd10013
9th Mar 2008, 21:39
I was able to run every single game I wanted to play with it. ...

thats the operative phrase there. don't try to tell me you could run bioshock, HL2, cyrsis, doom 3, or even IW on a 6 yr old graphics card, nor a 6 year old computer. Not unless your dropped about 5 grand on one back then. the computer I bought about 2 years ago was fairly high end for the day. it had a 3ghz P4 HT, nvidia x300 PCI-E, 1 gig of ram, and a soundblaser card. and that barely ran the games I mentioned above, with the exception of Bioshock. because the X700 card I upgraded too didn't support pixel shader 3.0 It wouldn't even run BS. And thats only a 2yr old system that ran about $1000. The computer I bough in 2002 for about a grand had an athlon xp 2600, 500mb of ram, and an agp8X nvidia geforce card, which was pretty top of the line in 2002. that computer might play some current games, but at such low settings, and low frame rates it wouldn't be worth playing.

as the above poster mentioned, for people who can build their own, and know where to look for parts, It can be done pretty cheap. but for the 90% or so of computer buyers who don't or can't do that, keeping your hardware up to date with the latest and greatest in software is far more expensive than buying a $300 console every 4 years.

Kneo24
9th Mar 2008, 21:50
I'd just like to mention that the P4's were not that great of a processor. Back in those days, your best bet was an AMD. They performed far far better. That PC that you described was not very high end at all.

First and foremost, as I just said, Intels chips a couple years ago were not that good. I'll even go as far to say that they were ****. Then you used an X300, which was an ATI card. Before ATI had support from AMD, their driver support was crap, which made their cards run crappier than they should have. The x300 is only 128. Two years ago you could easily find a card with 256 or 512. Furthermore, 1 gig of RAM? Please. Most motherboards supported up to 4. I hope you didn't spend a lot of money on that. I'd call that PC a basic desktop build for the casual gamer.

SageSavage
9th Mar 2008, 22:16
don't try to tell me you could run bioshock, HL2, cyrsis, doom 3, or even IW on a 6 yr old graphics card, nor a 6 year old computer. Ok, not that I care too much about you believing what I say but I don't want to be called a liar either... I bought this system in the beginning of 2002 and it was an

P4 2,4Ghz (mildly overclocked to 3,1)
2 GB DDR333
GF 4400 TI (later upgraded to a GF6600)
XP SP2

Maybe above the average of that time but hardly an uber-computer.

I replaced it in the end of July 2007 with my current rig. Bioshock was actually the first game I've bought for it, followed by CoD4 and Crysis. Doom 3 ran acceptable with medium settings but the game sucked badly and HL2 ran perfectly fine - just like IW did (including the John P stuff and the still present loading times of course).

Even if you'd still don't believe that an system can be used with actual games for about 5 or 6 years (which may change as an result of some decisions the devs can make) would it still be true that a modern computer is somewhat of an basic part of most households while consoles are additional luxury.

jd10013
10th Mar 2008, 01:23
No, not an uber computer by any stretch, but still a good $1500 rig, unless you can and do build yourself. and considering a console can be bought for about $300, it makes the PC 5x as expensive.

I'm not defending consoles, I don't even own one. but having bought plenty of computers (about 6 now) and upgrades on all but one, I can definitely see the advantages of the console, and understand the allure.

And I know most any game can be run on most any PC. It's just a matter of playing around with it enough, and how much your willing to compromise with the settings. like I said, I was able to get IW to run on my athlon xp 2600 (2 ghz i think) with 500 mb of ram and an nvidia GF4 card. but it was slow, AA had to be turned off, details and other video setting turned down to either low or med, and the ini files tweaked. now if I run IW on this pc, which has a core 2 at 2.33ghz, 2 gigs of ram, and a GF 8600 it runs much smoother, much higher frame rates, with settings to high and AA on. in other words, it runs as well as the console version after 2 years and having spent another thousand on a better computer. you don't have any of that with a console. just pop the game in and it runs exactly like its supposed to.

jd10013
10th Mar 2008, 01:27
First and foremost, as I just said, Intels chips a couple years ago were not that good. I'll even go as far to say that they were ****. Then you used an X300, which was an ATI card. Before ATI had support from AMD, their driver support was crap, which made their cards run crappier than they should have. The x300 is only 128. Two years ago you could easily find a card with 256 or 512. Furthermore, 1 gig of RAM? Please. Most motherboards supported up to 4. I hope you didn't spend a lot of money on that. I'd call that PC a basic desktop build for the casual gamer.

the HT P4's were pretty top end 2-3 years ago. when I bought that PC the dual cores (not core 2, but the Pentium M's) were coming out. and no, the x300 wasn't top end. but it was a PCI-E card, and those were fairly new at the time. the best card I can remember from back then was the x800, and x850. but they were expensive, about $400-500. thats why I opted for the x700. was a big step up in performance over the x300, but much cheaper (about $150) than the x800's.

Kneo24
10th Mar 2008, 01:33
No, not an uber computer by any stretch, but still a good $1500 rig, unless you can and do build yourself. and considering a console can be bought for about $300, it makes the PC 5x as expensive.

I built a far better PC a year before you bought yours for less than what you paid. So no, it's not a good rig. What I built wasn't an "uber" computer by any stretch.

What you bought was a low end machine, plain and simple. You paid too much for it. I suggest you build your own from now on. You'll get more bang for the buck.

Kneo24
10th Mar 2008, 01:36
the HT P4's were pretty top end 2-3 years ago. when I bought that PC the dual cores (not core 2, but the Pentium M's) were coming out. and no, the x300 wasn't top end. but it was a PCI-E card, and those were fairly new at the time. the best card I can remember from back then was the x800, and x850. but they were expensive, about $400-500. thats why I opted for the x700. was a big step up in performance over the x300, but much cheaper (about $150) than the x800's.

Thes X2's far surpassed what the HT P4's could pull off. You could also have bought a 6800GT back then for about 200ish and had far far better performance than the x300.

jd10013
10th Mar 2008, 01:42
Thes X2's far surpassed what the HT P4's could pull off. You could also have bought a 6800GT back then for about 200ish and had far far better performance than the x300.

yea, I know. I just decided to go with the x700 because I got a good price for one on ebay.:D when I bought the PC (through dell) I knew the x300 wouldn't cut it, but upgrading through dell was a huge ripoff, so I went the included x300 and replaced soon after it arrived.

matches81
10th Mar 2008, 01:47
thats the operative phrase there. don't try to tell me you could run bioshock, HL2, cyrsis, doom 3, or even IW on a 6 yr old graphics card, nor a 6 year old computer. Not unless your dropped about 5 grand on one back then. the computer I bought about 2 years ago was fairly high end for the day. [...] and that barely ran the games I mentioned above, with the exception of Bioshock
I'm really sorry to say that, but I would be really embarassed if I were you:
a) You bought a computer 2 years ago that couldn't run Doom 3 properly? Doom 3 was released in August 2004, and even at its release I could play it just fine without any upgrades, except for the Ultra settings, which are meant for graphics cards with 512MB of memory, if my memory serves me right. Could be 256, too, I'm currently not sure how much memory decent graphics cards had in 2004, but it was definitely a step above that and targeted the really top-notch machines of the time.
b) IW was released in 2003 and wasn't a huge hardware hog at release anyway. Every desktop PC bought in 2006 should be able to run it without any performance issues.
c) HL2 is a pretty scalable game. If you need to run it at the highest settings you're gonna need an at least decent gaming rig. But if your computer would have been high-end in 2005, it should have been able to run a game released in 2004 pretty well at least.

Of course it's impossible to play some of the games you mentioned with a 6-year-old graphics card, but fox did mention a graphics card update and a RAM update, so I don't see a problem with the statement that he was able to run all the games until Bioshock with its unnecessarily strict shader model 3 requirement.


On-topic:
I think noone with a bit of sense would deny that a PC that is at least capable of playing games at a level that is fun, too, will be more expensive than a console, even without upgrading the PC. If you want to play games as they're supposed to be played, i.e. with high to highest settings, you're gonna spend a lot of money on your PC. If you can live with playing games that look essentially the same for a few years, you'll still spend more money on your initial rig than you will spend on a console.
But on top of the console you will have a piece of hardware that you can work with and that can work as a very comfortable media center ("comfortable" being the focus here). I'm looking at my PC as primarily a work-place, with added multimedia features that no current console can begin to match, unparalleled comfort in that matter, too, and the ability to play the best-looking games currently on the market. All that for about 1000€ spent a year ago and no necessary upgrades until the end of this year probably. Not a bad deal if you ask me, for 400€ less I could still have a proper work-place with great multimedia capabilities and the ability to play many games, but not necessarily all of them.

So, yes, a PC is more expensive than a console. But that's okay, since a PC is not a console, but much more than that. Some people don't need more than that, fine. PC gaming has been proclaimed dead dozens of times, a year later PC gamers were smiling at the sight of console games. Same thing every time and it will be the same this time again.
Everybody with a serious interest in gaming will have a PC, now and in the future, because this is the platform where technical novelties appear first. Also, it offers possibilities to express your creativity, be it using an SDK for a game, or something different, that consoles will struggle to reach for years. It's the cradle for independent game developers that can't afford a 10k$ PS3 dev-kit and the likes.... the list goes on. Heh... I guess it's more likely for hardware manufacturers to finally come up with a proper standard and adhere to it, thereby banishing "compatibility and stablility problems" to the past and kill console gaming alltogether, than for PC gaming to die.


Talking about the "many severe compatibility and stability problems" of the PC while looking to switch to the 360 somehow makes me laugh, sorry :)

Kneo24
10th Mar 2008, 01:49
I seriously recommend building your own. It's a money saver as far as dollars vs performance is concerned.

jd10013
10th Mar 2008, 01:49
I built a far better PC a year before you bought yours for less than what you paid. So no, it's not a good rig. What I built wasn't an "uber" computer by any stretch.

What you bought was a low end machine, plain and simple. You paid too much for it. I suggest you build your own from now on. You'll get more bang for the buck.

I've said from the beginning, for those who build their own none of this applies. but the majority of people don't build their own.

It wasn't a low end PC by any means. It had a P4 at 3.0 ghz. at the time, the best you could get without spending insane amounts of money was a Pentium D dual core. it had a gig of ram, and 2 gigs was also about as high as you could go without a significant $$ expenditure. Did windows XP even recognize more than 2 gigs? same with the vid card. x850 was top money card, the x300 wasn't too bad, as it was pci-e. The computer benchmarked great, and stood up well against all but the top end machines like alienware.

I know, if you build your own its cheaper and better. but those who do that are the exception, not the rule.

jd10013
10th Mar 2008, 01:56
On-topic:
I think noone with a bit of sense would deny that a PC that is at least capable of playing games at a level that is fun, too, will be more expensive than a console, even without upgrading the PC.

Thats the only point I've been trying to make. As I've said, I don't like consoles, and I don't own one. the only console I've ever owned was my atari 2600

Oh, and I guess I shouldn't have included doom3, I don't think I had any problems with It. I think I primarily played that on an older computer that had a athlon xp 2600 2 ghz, 512mb ram, and a GF4 ti4400. I've owned 5 or 6 pc's and get them mixed up sometimes. my bad.

Kneo24
10th Mar 2008, 01:58
I've said from the beginning, for those who build their own none of this applies. but the majority of people don't build their own.

It wasn't a low end PC by any means. It had a P4 at 3.0 ghz. at the time, the best you could get without spending insane amounts of money was a Pentium D dual core. it had a gig of ram, and 2 gigs was also about as high as you could go without a significant $$ expenditure. Did windows XP even recognize more than 2 gigs? same with the vid card. x850 was top money card, the x300 wasn't too bad, as it was pci-e. The computer benchmarked great, and stood up well against all but the top end machines like alienware.

I know, if you build your own its cheaper and better. but those who do that are the exception, not the rule.

That's the thing, it is low end. It couldn't even play older games very well. A computer that's new that's used for gaming should be able to play older games at a comfortable rate.

32bit operating systems recognize up to 3.5 GB of RAM. I'm not sure what the limit on 64bit operating systems is, but it far surpasses 32bit OSes. I'm sure a little googling or wiki-ing will answer that quickly if you want to know the exact number.

You have enough time to sit here on these forums arguing with us that your POS Dell was great (even though it wasn't), so I'm sure you have time, little by little, to do some research on building your own PC.

@Matches: All you needed was a 256MB card for Doom 3 to run at the highest settings (which was the only way to make an otherwise uninteresting game fun).

jd10013
10th Mar 2008, 02:09
You have enough time to sit here on these forums arguing with us that your POS Dell was great (even though it wasn't), so I'm sure you have time, little by little, to do some research on building your own PC.



2-3 years ago, it was a pretty good machine. Of course its not anymore, that why I replaced it. but 2-3 years ago a P4 at 3 ghz, a gig of ram, and an x700 pci-e card was a pretty good computer. No, it wasn't top end, wasn't great. but it also on cost about $1000. And no, either I got confused or you mis-read what I posted. it plays all the games I own very well on med settings. all except bioshock, because the x700 doesn't support pixel shader 3.0.

Kneo24
10th Mar 2008, 02:13
No, it was not a good machine. You consider it "good" because it worked for you. Looking at it from an objective standpoint with knowledge about hardware back then, I can tell you with 100% confidence that your machine was low end. Even the upgrade to the video card doesn't budge it much.

You can argue all you want, but until you actually gain some knowledge about PC hardware, you will look ignorant.

jd10013
10th Mar 2008, 02:17
whatever. I know what was available when I bought it. Not to mention It benchmarked just fine. for the uber computer guy it was pretty much junk. but benchmarked against most of what was out there it did just fine.

at any rate, we'll never agree. so I'll drop it now.

SageSavage
10th Mar 2008, 05:19
Yeah, I think all that tech talk is pretty pointless and we should move on. I think it's obvious that PCs aren't that bad of a platform like the media is dooming them atm. Because of their open architecture and workspace character they are pretty hard to maintain and because of the vast market its difficult to choose a good one.
So, yes, consoles have their advantages too but are of limited use and are not particularly cheap either. Same as it ever was.

v.dog
10th Mar 2008, 08:36
That's pretty much the long and short of it, yeah.

Also, the type of games you want to play is a deciding factor too. Like FPS, RTS, MMOs, flight sims, mods and/or indie games? Get a PC. Prefer platformers, driving games, beat-em-ups, and/or party games? Then a console is for you. :)

Red
10th Mar 2008, 10:01
2 years ago?

I had A64 3200+, 2GB DC DDR1, GF 6600GT 128 DDR3 3 years ago. And that was somewhat mid-somewhathigh end at that point of time for gaming...

As for now, I've been tugging AMD X2 4400+, 2GB DDR2-800, 8800GTS for about half a year and it plays great.

Some of you would say "AMD? WTF? core2duo man!", and to that I would reply: No... I never seek for topnotch. It's allways about price/peroformance compromise.

My rig runs everything smoothly at the time being, including Crysis on medium detail.

minus0ne
11th Mar 2008, 00:17
Yeah, I think all that tech talk is pretty pointless and we should move on. I think it's obvious that PCs aren't that bad of a platform like the media is dooming them atm. Because of their open architecture and workspace character they are pretty hard to maintain and because of the vast market its difficult to choose a good one.
So, yes, consoles have their advantages too but are of limited use and are not particularly cheap either. Same as it ever was.
Exactly. I think it's sad so many fall for Dell/Alienware/whatever marketing schemes, because if they did build it themselves and chose the right components one really can build a PC that will last 3-4 years at least, even for a gamer who likes to play bleeding edge stuff (factoring in one upgrade like CPU or videocard).

At any rate, this topic is veering way off-course atm, I don't see how "mine clocks higher than yours" or "my pc building skills pwn yuu" has anything to do with the topic of the "PC gaming decline" (whether real or fictional).

Kneo24
11th Mar 2008, 23:25
It's really not that far off topic at all. Part of the problem with PC gaming is uneducated consumers, and it seems we have a few in this thread.

matches81
12th Mar 2008, 10:58
It's really not that far off topic at all. Part of the problem with PC gaming is uneducated consumers, and it seems we have a few in this thread.
I wouldn't say the problem are uneducated consumers, the problem is more that you need some education to begin with for PC gaming. Gaming is meant to be an entertainment. If you need to educate yourself about hardware, driver and 3rd party software issues, before you can truely enjoy PC gaming, that is a problem. The gaming industry wants to target the masses, and the masses will never be educated in underlying issues for PCs, just as the masses aren't educated about issues when it comes to the inner workings of a car or anything else.

SageSavage
12th Mar 2008, 11:24
Yes, I think that's the way it is. The average computer skill level was / is rising because kids grow up with it and everybody seems to use computers in their everyday lifes but on the other hand the complexity level is also rising and development of new architectures is getting faster and faster. I think it evens out in some strange way. Personally I think with alliances like the PCGA (see link below) it shouldn't be a big deal to temorarily tweak a PC into a system that emulates the ease of use of a console. Maybe by using emulations of standardized hardware and consolero-friendly UIs or something like that. I think modern and upcoming hardware should be able to that. I'm no expert but I am pretty sure that there are ways to overcome most of the platform issues game devs may have atm.

- http://www.pcgamingalliance.org/en/index.asp

SageSavage
12th Mar 2008, 15:39
... but then again... if you have friends like...

Unreal creator Tim Sweeney: "PCs are good for anything, just not games”
- http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36390/118/

Statements like that must cost epic sums, I suppose.

Kneo24
12th Mar 2008, 19:58
Matches, you bring up an excellent point. I also agree that doing the PC thing can be a little overwhelming, even if you're used to building your own. It would be nice to see a few less choices. "Oh, it has this chipset, let's do some research to see what this offers over this guy over here."


A lot of Sweeney's talk just revolves around the fact that Unreal sold far less than Gears. (Unreal games are stagnating anyway. Please revolution the series.) He also seems to forget that the Unreal series kept epic afloat for a long long while.

matches81
13th Mar 2008, 00:19
... but then again... if you have friends like...

Unreal creator Tim Sweeney: "PCs are good for anything, just not games”
- http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36390/118/

Statements like that must cost epic sums, I suppose.
well, yeah... if you take the statement out of context, it is even more harsh than it really is.
I basically agree with Sweeney in the key point he seems to make through the whole interview:
If a non-techie buys a PC, he is likely to get a PC that is simply completely uncapable of running current games thanks to crappy integrated graphics chips, or perhaps might run the game, but totally cripple it. The range a PC game would need to cover to reach both casual and hardcore gamers is simply huge, they'd literally have to cover both graphics technologies from probably 5 or more years ago and current top-notch triple-SLI what-not killer rigs. That definitely is a problem that is hurting PC gaming: As Sweeney says, "mainstream" PCs are unsuitable for gaming, ranging from "uncapable to run the game at all" to "runs it, but it's unplayable".


@kneo:
Although Sweeney doesn't talk about Gears or Unreal in that specific interview, I agree with you: It's pretty convenient that Epic released two games for the PC that didn't do incredibly well and just now they're starting to "bash" the PC as an incapable platform. Perhaps they should consider that their games have something to do with their less-than-stellar success. Gears of War on the PC basically is crippled thanks to Games for Windows Live, and Unreal Tournament 3 is simply a shiny rehash of the dozens of UTs already released on the PC with nearly nothing new in there. No wonder those games don't do that well?
Still, Sweeney has some valid points.

mr_cyberpunk
13th Mar 2008, 01:24
It has nothing to do with stability, XP is perfectly stable as is Vista. The problem is that a good gaming PC is far more expensive than a console and with a console you don't have to worry whether your PC is good enough to play it, making it far more attractive to casual gamers or people who don't want to piss about upgrading their computer all the time. The transitition to Vista is good anyway, it means PC's are now easily better than consoles in terms of power (DirectX 10).

DX10 is heavily unoptimized. I think that Microsoft were trying to use it against the industry to force them to conform to the Games for Windows thing. Vista I've found offers no advantage over XP apart from GUI looking better vs Control over the operating system because I've noticed Vista has a few unnecessary steps for getting the firewall to PISS OFF. I'm running Vista at the moment and Snipa is correct that it runs fun with DX9 - DX10 however I'd avoid unless you've got a heavy GPU.

Console wise I think that consumer confidence has dropped significantly, EVERY console has a significant flaw that I've either had happen or know of people that have had it happen. Its cheap Chinese crap, if they can get away with it I'd hope that they stay with the current gen as there is no point in moving on.

Ideally PC was always intended to be a GAME DEVELOPMENT platform, and perhaps now we no longer need them for playing games, rather just testing them. PC gaming won't ever die, but I can definitely see the advantages of using consoles as primary platforms.. Of course they threw that out once they began releasing 40GB 60GB 80GB ELITE systems and now I just think "what a ******* mess!"

I don't see it dying anytime soon, I do however see a lot of developer houses being killed by EA.. Thats the decline in PC gaming right THERE.

Smoke Screen
13th Mar 2008, 21:05
.... I do however see a lot of developer houses being killed by EA.. Thats the decline in PC gaming right THERE.

Well,yes,that the point. Since big buiz realised that videogames can make a
big buck the whole thing is qualitywise gradually downspiraling.
Quantitiy is more important than quality. Technological advancement is more
important than content. Artwork is more important than art. Its all about
money. And i dont point my finger to the devs but to the publishers. I mean
look what THQ has done to GSC`s Stalker. Instead of hiring a bunch coders
to support the project they sent "the knife" to cut it down and make asap
a sellable product by any means necessary. :mad2:
I mean making a good game is a new form of art and can not be
handled like a industrial product without heavily damaging effects on quality.
I can live with far fewer but better and more expensive games,but im tired
of this assembly line crap that keeps you a little entertained for a couple
hours.