Nah, you can find good PC games that aren't rip-offs. Avoid anything EA makes.

The only problem with expansion packs is that the original game is unfinished, or they don't add very much. Stick with games that have trials, and good reviews, before buying.

Question: How many features does a game need to be deemed "finished?" The number of things you can add to a game is unlimited!



Agreed. They seem to ruin every game they touch. They exert too much control over their developers.

EA makes some good games, but not enough to warrant buying more than one or two.

A game only needs a couple features, the question is: "Is the game the full length?". If it can keep you for 100+ hours, it's finished, regardless if it's pretty much just an interactive movie, with no depth, and you have only one or two commands available, versus a game with 20,000 unique things to do, but will only keep you long enough to try each. 

I only read the first 3 pages or so so sorry if i've missed anything important. First, those saying pc gaming is dying need to do their research, it's alive and well.
Secondly those complaining about hardware requirements, well, if you didn't spent all your time farting about with a slow compuuter you might have time to do a yearly upgrade to save yourself alot of time and hassle. Seriously though, £1000 every couple of years is all it takes to keep your computer up-to-date, instead of running on some caveman machine and bitching that NEW games don't work on your OLD computer?!?
And I read someome saying that people who take a game back if it didn't work because of things like drivers or patchs. This really doesn't need a reply, same goes for people who use drivers on the cd. If you are buying a new game or hardware and want to run the old version thats fine by me, but don't bitch if it doesn't work. It isn't hard to download new drivers/patch and takes seconds, theres even a handy auto-installer so it installs like a normal app, any retard could figure it out, and if you can't, how did you earn the money to buy your computer?

Bakers keep people alive. Artists make life worth living.

So who's ultimately more important



That's patently ludicrous. HL2 has about 20 hours of gameplay in it, and it's about as finished of a game as it gets. Would it have somehow been better if it had been 100 hours worth of levels? No. The gameplay would have gotten stale or they would have had to introduce too many different bits of gameplay into it, to the point were it would have been 3-4 games rather than just one.



Do you have to download drivers/patches when you drop a DVD into a DVD player? Your TiVo may get patched, but it does so automatically and when you're not actually using it. It doesn't stop and prompt you to go to a random site and download something. TVs do not need patches either, nor does your refrigerator, microwave, or stove.

Software that "just works" will always sell better than something that requires substantial effort to play. PC gamers have simply learned to put up with the crap just to play their games. Why should they have to?

The 100+ hours is a criteria that makes them actually proven finished, if it can make you feel as good in a shorter timeframe, then let it.

Yes, it is hard to download drivers, it'll screw up your freakin' computer if you do it wrong (though this is rare), it'll take your time, and it'll make you have to wait to use your PC until it's finished. Patches suck too, because you need to get out of what you're doing.

The PS3 has most of these problems too, though, with patching and driver updates (firmware, technically, but for the user it's the same), and it's annoying from what I've heard. Granted, the multiplayer's free, and it'll run Linux.

@ Alfonse: I had a humorous misread of your post: "Your TiVo may get patched, but it does so automatically and when you're not actually using it. It doesn't stop and prompt you to go to a random stove and download something.". I actually took my glasses off and rubbed my eyes. 

That reminds me - just like PCs do, consoles get updated every couple of years. Nintendo is in its fifth generation (NES, SNES, N64, GameCube, Wii), PlayStation is in its third, and Xbox in its second. It appears that that you're spending money regularly on consoles (and their games) on a regular basis, just like PCs.

FYI, I probably spend less than than in a year on keeping my computer up to date. I'd say about $1000 every two years. Probably more today than a few years ago, since I have a full time job and can afford a bit more.



Every game on SDC, Impulse, and Steam gets updated automatically . PC games are at the point where I can click an icon and the game just works. I don't even have to bother looking for the right CD anymore.

On the other hand - have you seen how many games on the consoles are starting to get patches you can download online? Now that they're getting internet connectivity, they're beginning to see patches as well.



Windows does it automatically through Windows Update on my system. I don't have to touch anything.

I'd say that PCs are quickly getting to the point where they "just work," just like consoles supposedly do, especially now that online markets are flourishing.

Indeed, Consoles seem to have problems of their own - Three Red Rings of Death on the 360, anybody? At least when my PC's hardware breaks, I can fix or replace it easily.

@ Windows Update: Yes, you can use Windows Update, but in a crash, you can damage your system. BSOD'd during .NET update, 8 months of brokenness until I cleaned it up. PCs only "just work" for those willing to sacrifice their freedom.

@ 360 RROD: Mine's been around multiple years and hasn't had a single hardware problem. Not even a slight one. The third party controllers keep breaking, though.

I have to say, that yes i think pc gaming is dwindling, but not by marketing or prodution means, its all those hackers/pirates, there are tons of people who just downlaod an illegal copy of a game and cheat companies out of money. BUY your games don't steal them......

Except that you're spending far less and far less frequently. $250 is all you need for a Wii; $300 for the low-end 360. That will keep you set for gaming for the next 4-6 years (they are still releasing PS2 games a year and a half after PS3 came out and 2.5 years after 360).



Which are likewise downloaded automatically.



Windows Update does not update your graphics drivers.



That's because Microsoft shipped a substandard product. Considering that there have been 15 significant consoles released in the US (likely more, but that's all I can name off the top of my head), and only one of them has any notable hardware failure rate, I'd say that's a pretty good record.

And you will also note that Microsoft is being punished accordingly for its hardware failures.

you must factor into the cost of the computer the fact taht you do more than just game. It is a MUST for today's work.

Also, consoles do have failures, its just a lot of people just accept it and work around it. Also, ps2s are infamous for having problems with reading after a while. My burnout disk is no longer read much to my disappointment.

Well, they run like crap, but most people only need some shitty e-machine to get by. That they could build their own for a little more and have something really nice isn't a factor. People that buy crap are too ignorant to be using a computer to start with, let alone putting one together.

Computers are hard to use, if you're a moron. If you don't research your hardware before buying, or you do dumb things like download warez off porn sites, you're going to have problems even if you do the intelligent things like keeping up to date. When it comes to idiots, consoles have a massive, unmitigated edge over the PC. Fortunately.

"Bakers keep people alive. Artists make life worth living.

So who's ultimately more important"

I beg to differ, I believe procreation is the driving force behind the will to live. Artists give you things to amuse yourself the rest of the time. Also, it took you 20 hours to beat Half-life 2?

That's just the console. They actually make most of their money by selling games.



My point is that, as far as ease of use is concerned, PCs and consoles are actually getting closer to each other. You no longer have to go through lots of hoops to buy, install, and play a game.



nVidia provides an automatic update utility, although I usually do the update manually. I'm not sure why they don't go through Windows Update, but theoretically they could.

A fast computer with a good videocard is not. You can be very functional with a computer built from $400 (without monitor, keyboard, etc). It can run just about anything very well (even Vista if you turn off the shiny bits), even playing DVDs and so forth. Media encoding, compiling large programs, and gaming are out of course, but everything else will be very fast.

Most people own more computing horsepower than they need for their "work".



It doesn't change the fact that you're spending less on the console than a computer.



Unless you need drivers.



And what of the other 45% of the gaming public with ATi cards?

Give Brad some time and he'll have automatic driver card updates hooked in to Impulse.

Seriously.

I'm not kidding.

He's in talks with both nVidia and ATi right now.

Play AoC and ask yourself again if its dying

PC gaming? dying? not yet.

I love my ps3 and all, but I can't imagine trying to play a decent rts to tbs on it. RPGs suck on it, don't believe me? try Oblivion. Good game and all, but better on pc.

I look at it this way, as long as they WRITE the game on a pc, PLAYING the game on pc will always be a little faster, alittle more intuitive. If I want to play madden or any FPS, I go to the ps3. Anything else I play on the computer.

I will say this to devs tho. If you sell me an incomplete game on pc I'll be irritated. I'll spend 50 or 60 bucks on a good game, but not on a beta. Tweaks are one thing, overhauls and rereleases are another. Another thing is that if you're going to make a series, or join a series, don't make the game into something it wasn't in the first one. Take MOO/Starlords. All about researching that cool new gun you can stick on your fighter to go blast some nasties in tactical combat. MOO3-macromanagement at empire level and "formations" of ships that look pretty much the same, all in the name of keeping to the"storyline". Feh. Look at Civ now. You could learn how to play on Civ1, break out a copy of civ4 and pretty much jump in. It's prettier, a little more depth, a little smarter ai, but it's still the same game. If there's a sins 2 I expect a civ like evolution versus a Moo style redo.

(steps off of soapbox)

Quote - PC games are at the point where I can click an icon and the game just works. I don't even have to bother looking for the right CD anymore.

Are you kidding? Although I would never get a console, and spend 2k a year on my comp . . . this is just a insane statement.

List of games that so far has failed me in the last few years (in this respect, they are still fun) - Neverwinter Nights 1, Neverwinter Nights 2, Crysis, Galactic Civ II, and SoSE. Only COD4 worked right out of the box. Most games needed patching (which was a PITA big time, especially Stardock's system . . I pay for my games, yet I still have been unable to patch GCII, with a half dozen messages about different email addys, etc. THat game was abandonded, sorry no Arnon expansion now for me, since I can't patch it), and custom content and features almost never work right, especailly right away. COD4 was the only one, with its auto-DL of features.

Main hurdle to comp games - you gotta know comps well to make them work. IMHO of course.

Yep, PC games require an obscene amount of setup. With only 8 GB free at my best times, I can't buy $60 games in their PC equivalent because they require four GB at least (or so I hope).

Yup you hit the mail on its head. Eventually the "pretty" element will die away as a saleable feature when the Bar becomes permanently raised. At that point there will be a new "norm", and the herds will stop stampeding around for short term glory as "all will do it".

The PC market is far too vast to die off in terms of a platform for games, its an insane concept. As a gap appears in that market space (as it does from time to time), it will not take long for a shrewd business mind to step in and fill that gap. As soon as something becoming commonly obtainable, people move on to find something else to be seen to be "different" about.

The rise and rise of Mobile Phones was a classic case in point. As soon as they became widely available, those who had yelled about how silly they were, suddenly lost their "deep principles" and got one They are now unremarkable parts of the landscape, and not ego enhancing widgets. The ego chasers have moved on to find something else to yell about. Probably Consoles rofl

Dying? Nah, never happen - change/evolve, thats for sure.

Die off? not a chance.

Regards
Zy

I never said it would die off, merely that it is dying, and has a potential to do so in the event of a catastrophe. It's simply likely that the fall (or exodus) of commercial titans will turn it into having 10% of the activity from said titans it used to have. This would leave an open-source and Indie majority.

Fine by me. Devotion to profit as a first motive seems very often connected to long term quality and/or ethical problems.

I don't object to profits per se, but when you combine a profits-first attitude with a large scale formal organization, you end up with things like MoO3 and frakking "copy protection" that hoses player PCs.

I won't even get started about how stupid the folks who own the MoM name are. Turning that over to Stardock for a reasonable cut would have earned them decent bucks *and* a bit of cred with hardcore folks in our weird little game niche. But noooo, branding control is too important, got to have the chain of ADDled marketing "teams" in the loop for every line of code in the project...

Hey, you're forgetting, I'm more open-source/indie than commercial. Quite frankly, the profit devotion puts me off too. Quality suffers too much.

Yep, large-scale and profits-first means that you get a huge group of people coming up with as many ways as possible to make it impossible to play the game.

I don't agree. Trying to maximize your profit long-term means you have to make a good playable game. So a *well done* profits-first strategy benefits everybody.

The problem is that few people in the planning are that much into long term strategy. Usually it's all about getting good numbers this year and that's it.

No, it means you make one good, playable game, and add in ads and a couple new features (cycling them in and out occasionally until they're forgotten), and building crappy game engines that allow you to swap models and gameplay features in and out to utilize franchises cheaply and efficiently while needing upgrades only once every five years when the consoles come out.