Print 122 comment(s) - last by Blight AC.. on Feb 11 at 12:55 PM

PC gamers moving to consoles for their online shooters

Although the PC represents gaming’s latest technologies, gamers are flocking to consoles for their entertainment. No other company is more aware of this fact than Epic Games, maker of Unreal Tournament and Gears of War.

Once a hardcore PC games developer, Epic now finds itself split between computer and console development. Gears of War on the Xbox 360 was an instant success in 2006, but Unreal Tournament III failed to make the same mark on the PC in 2007.

In an interview with Guardian Unlimited, Mark Rein related one of his experiences regarding the shift of first-person shooters from PC to console. “When Call of Duty 4 came out, I heard some of our guys sitting around talking about the great game they'd had last night and I'm like, 'Hey guys, what server are you playing on? I'd love to come and join you,' and they said, 'Just send us a friends request,'” he said.

“It was at that point I realized they were all playing it on console. Plus, the sales of the console versions are something like ten times the sales of the PC versions,” Rein said, affirming an earlier statement. “I'm a real fan of the PC, but yes, consoles are definitely stealing a lot of hardcore gamers from the PC.”

One thing easing Epic’s development on consoles is the emergence of multiplayer-centric gaming. Thanks to the current generation’s connectivity options, Epic is able to translate nearly all of the PC gameplay and options to the console. For example, the PlayStation 3 version of Unreal Tournament III supports most of the modifications available on the PC, partially due to Sony’s open approach to online services.

“I think Sony are real pioneers in this - I think they deserve a lot of credit for letting us do this,” said Rein. “They're really doing something different, and it hints at what they want to do with the PlayStation Network in the future. They're definitely on the right track!”

According to NPD data, PC gaming made up 14 percent of retail games sales in 2007. Besides the growing popularity of the new gaming consoles, the low percentage attributed to PC gaming can also be explained by the lower price of PC games, plus the emergence of digital distribution.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Mouse and Keyboard
By ksherman on 2/7/2008 4:20:37 PM , Rating: 5
I cannot play FPS games very effectively with the controllers. To be fair, I haven't spent all that much trying to get better at it, but I find a mouse and keyboard far more conducive to an FPS game.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By TheDiceman on 2/7/2008 4:32:43 PM , Rating: 5
That is why I just don't but FPS games on consoles. Anythign else is fine, but I will never feel at home with two sticks instead of a mouse an keyboard when I am shooting. Even when I did play Halo 2 a lot with friends I and got used to teh controls I found the accuracy lacking compared to a decent mouse. And even if ths option to practically add a mouse and keyboard option to a console it still woudl not interest me since there is a lack of comfort (for me) to be using those two things on say a living room TV compared to a comfroatble desk and chair combo. I feel a similar way about RTS games, but that is a field that even developers only occassionally touch on with console gamers.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By enlil242 on 2/7/2008 4:34:50 PM , Rating: 5
I'm with you on that, plus as I posted above, custom maps and mods keep me stuck to PC versions.

If there was a Keyboard / Mouse peripheral, that may help, but that would still be hard for me to make the switch.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By kyp275 on 2/7/2008 4:47:39 PM , Rating: 5
correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the PS3 supports usb mouse and keyboard? or is that just for web browsing etc. and not for actual gaming?

but yea, I still prefer the PC for FPS games, at least for the time being.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By mmntech on 2/7/2008 5:23:40 PM , Rating: 3
Both the PS3 and 360 support them natively. The problem is that the games don't. However, I think it was either UT3 or COD4 that allows you to use keyboard and mouse. That's for the PS3 versions anyway. I don't see why you couldn't do the same for the Xbox. There's a lot of demand for it now. They say it gives people the edge online. I wouldn't know since I don't really play FPS games anymore, and never played them online.

There is some third party PS3 add-on dongle that allows keyboard and mouse in all games but they want a fortune for it.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By TheDoc9 on 2/7/2008 5:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
you can use a keyboard and mouse on UT3 for the PS3. Once you get it perfected it just like playing UT on the PC. You just need a mouse and keyboard with usb connections. I was really surprised at how fun it is and similar to the PC experience, it has allowed me to delay spending thousands to upgrade my computer to play. If Crisis ever comes out for PS3 they would be wise to allow the keyboard/mouse combo.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By ChronoReverse on 2/7/2008 7:08:48 PM , Rating: 4
Gaming computers haven't costs thousand s for quite a while =P

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By rudy on 2/8/2008 12:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
This is the fallacy that causes so many to go for consoles. You can get a perfectly reasonable PC for gaming and everything else a PC can do for 600$ easy. That just about the same price as a console with a couple accessories. Then the games are cheaper and you have no limits on what you can do with that PC.

The thing that bugs me is they keep making these games more noob for consoles. Of course PS3 UT3 outsold PC, all the PC players were fed up with the lameness of the new version so it would work with a controller.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By StevoLincolnite on 2/8/2008 1:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
Depends where you live and price of hardware, it's easy to spend 2 grand on a PC in Australia with a Core 2 duo, 2gb of ram and a Geforce 8800GT.
One thing annoyed me though was Unreal Tournament 3, It would keep reverting to the 800x600 resolution and all textures were in 8bit colour - And I have been looking for a fix to no avail, tried doing the whole driver update, tweaking the drivers, editing the unreal 3 config file, nothing works, also had the same issue with Bioshock - And I'm not alone on this, a quick jump to the official Unreal 3 forums will reveal the crap load of issues this game has on the PC.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By SlyNine on 2/8/2008 2:40:06 AM , Rating: 1
Try running
However who said you need a core 2 duo and a 8800GT. Their are cheaper setups.

The 2gigs isn't required either, but Highly recommended anymore.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Adonlude on 2/8/2008 8:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
One thing you must take into account when comparing gaming computer prices to console prices is that most people have a computer anyway. Therfore you must take the price difference between the computer you would buy anyway and the gaming computer and compare that to the console. What it really comes down to in most cases is an extra $200-$500 video card which is about the same as a console. Most computers already have 2GB ram these days which is all you really need for gaming for the time being.

I am a PC gamer. I kinda went overboard with my 400W 5.1 dolby digital surround, 8800GTX, Fatality Gamer Pro soundcard, and 24" widescreen monitor, but this is excess.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Blight AC on 2/11/2008 12:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, nice widescreen monitor, and then developers like EA are like, "lol widescreen! no support for you". It's the only reason I haven't purchased a recent Battlefield game, even though I am quite interested in BF 2142 because of the unique gameplay aspects.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By redog on 2/8/2008 9:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
Even though they can be used, the way i have my house setup the consoles are attached to my big screen tv.

This means i'd have to try and use the mouse and keyboard on the couch and i just can't get used to that. i like to lounge around when i play consoles, not have to sit up.

For me, it's a matter of comfort and i'm just more comfortable at my desk when trying to use a keyboard and mouse.


RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Future145 on 2/7/2008 6:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
only the PS3 supports a mouse but both support keyboard

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By P4blo on 2/8/2008 12:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
There will always be a divide between PC's and consoles and it comes down to where most people play. Because of this both will be around for a long time I think.

Traditionally the console is a sociable, easily accessible multiplayer (in one place) device that works great in the lounge, running through the main TV. The trouble is have you ever tried to use a mouse and a keyboard in that environment? It's near impossible. No matter how hard you try the mouse will feel uncomfortable, your wrist will begin to ache very quickly and your accuracy will suck. If you setup the mouse + keyboard on a coffee table or whatever you end up with an aching back. Even though the consoles can and do support mice + keyboard I think most people would rather just play the PC version, if they have a PC. I have a 360 but I only buy games that I know are great on gamepads such as Forza2 and Footie games / beatemups etc... Arcade stuff. I've played COD4 on XBOX and it sucks big time compared to the PC for a decent mouse user.

So long and short is that PCs and consoles have their own time, place and games. It often depends on whether I have friends round as to which I will use. There are some games I would never touch on a console, but all the games are playable on my PC :) Oh and they're cheaper :) Even if the hardware definitely isn't.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Brandon Hill on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Garreye on 2/7/2008 4:48:05 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure you'd be saying the same thing if you were playing against other people who we're using M+K when you're using joysticks...

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By VahnTitrio on 2/7/2008 5:01:07 PM , Rating: 4
I agree. Most people fail to understand that there is a fair amount of autoaim and also a slow cursor over target to assist you with the console controls so it is entirely possible to be better with this. Ever get frustrated on Halo and try to shoot a teammate, not nearly as easy as an opponent. So yes it is entirely possible with a well designed game to shoot perfectly on a console. And for those who will say "but I can't spin around fast enough", it just becomes part of the game to not get flanked.

Now if I plug the 360 controller in and try to play Quake Wars can I do it? Not a chance, it isn't built that way. I would say though that an RTS is the only gametype that cannot be effectively controlled with a console controller.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By SlipDizzy on 2/7/2008 5:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that is one of the main reasons that they will not let people in TF2 for 360 play against people online. Other then the server issues and what not.

I'm not saying M&K is superior to a controller, I just think that the game is built so that it will perform best for the hardware it was meant for. I've adjusted to being able to play with either platform, but you really just have to understand that the experience will change

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By ChronoReverse on 2/7/2008 7:10:47 PM , Rating: 5
Wait, so you're saying that since you need stuff like AUTOAIM with joysticks, that it's a SUPERIOR control scheme?

Autoaim exists for M/K too you know. We call them aimbots and cheating.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By SlyNine on 2/7/2008 8:10:42 PM , Rating: 5
So the only way for you too be as good as a K&M setup is to have auto aim... We PC guys call that cheating.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By SlyNine on 2/7/2008 8:11:56 PM , Rating: 4
Oh and let me add. the auto aim crap in the first Halo bugged the hell out of me. I hated when it tried to decide I wanted to kill one E over another.

No thanks give me PC or give me Death.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By imaheadcase on 2/7/2008 8:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
Auto-aim also exists on lots of PC FPS, it was called "assisted mouse" or something along those lines, it targeted mouse over people for you. I know original UT had it..never played any other UT games cause boring.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By SlyNine on 2/7/2008 9:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yea , I dissabled it. No game I play has it either. As well as it doesnt take the cursor and drag it across the screen.

You ever play Halo and the guy behind the wall is effecting your screen, that is BS.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By VahnTitrio on 2/8/2008 11:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
It's not autoaim in the same sense and you know that. It is there to help the average player track targets, it does not automatically snap the crosshairs to a targets head. Going back to Halo the unscoped sniper rifle has absolutely no assists. Force the average player to shoot it unscoped and they can't hit the broad side of a barn. Good players are still more than capable of hitting their target consistently. It is there to make the game playable to the average player, good players actually prefer to have the assists reduced. It isn't so bad in the 360's FPS games, but Halo 2 was terrible when it game to a pair of targets crossing one another and the assist wanting you to track the wrong target.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By ChronoReverse on 2/8/2008 3:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
That is beside the point and I HOPE you know that.

The fact of the matter is that with a M/K you can track just fine with your OWN motor skills while with a joystick configuration the COMPUTER is doing some work for you.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By epsilonparadox on 2/7/2008 5:17:44 PM , Rating: 3
I have to agree with the previous poster. The only cross platform game I played was Shadowrun on both the PC and 360. I was able to move and shoot quicker on the PC than the 360.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Spyvie on 2/7/2008 6:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm old school... (or just plain old @45) I spent way too many hours playing QW with a M+K to switch now. I even have to invert the mouse in order to make any sense of the newer PC FPS, not inverting mouse look is like trying to ride a bicycle backwards. I'm unable to check out the QW ET demo (a game I would almost certainly purchase) because I can't find any way to invert the mouse.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By chrnochime on 2/7/2008 9:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of the time when Quake first got 3D acceleration courtesy of 3dfx, and I saw a friend of mine who was doing "non-inverted" mouse aiming. I was so shocked why anyone would do that. Even to this day I stick with inverted mouse, and with any console FPS I still try to use inverted aiming whenever it's available. Perhaps I'm amongst the minority these days :|

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Bull Dog on 2/8/2008 4:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
Minority maybe. I learned how to aim on an inverted mouse. No going back for me.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By overzealot on 2/10/2008 9:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
It takes a week or so to fully convert, probably a month to perfect your aim again. I used to run all games inverted, it's what happens when you play too much x-wing :D
No particular method is superior, so feel free to keep going with the invert. One of my best mates is a 'verter.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By overzealot on 2/10/2008 9:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
It takes a week or so to fully convert, probably a month to perfect your aim again. I used to run all games inverted, it's what happens when you play too much x-wing :D
No particular method is superior, so feel free to keep going with the invert. One of my best mates is a 'verter.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By P4blo on 2/8/2008 12:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeh, sorry Brandon but you'd be cannon fodder my friend =)

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By aos007 on 2/7/2008 4:49:54 PM , Rating: 1
I finish 20-30 games a year on almost every platform imaginable. I wouldn't call myself a very skilled gamer, yet I don't have ANY trouble playing a FPS on a console. None whatsoever. I am quite certain a mouse and keyboard combo is more responsive and precise (I'm using Razer mouse myself) but then the console version of the game is optimized for the controller. I don't play online multiplayer however. If you only play single player campaigns, using controller is almost never an issue.

What I DON'T like is when a game is released on PC without making the controls appropriate, or even worse, designed for the console from the ground up and put on PC as an afterthought. Such games are often not worth playing on PC at all. But such are the times, there are no more of those space sims for example where not only you would use a joystick - now almost extincts - but also pretty much all of the keys on the keyboard, often with modifiers (alt, shift) as well. High learning curve but very rewarding. Nowadays any game that uses more than the basic minimal standard control scheme is facing an uphill battle.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By mooncancook on 2/7/2008 5:10:13 PM , Rating: 3
there's not going to be any FPS or RTS in my console in the near future either for the same reason.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Lastfreethinker on 2/7/2008 6:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
RTS as well as FPS play horribly on a console

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By DingieM on 2/8/2008 3:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
I played some RTS's on my Xbox360, and I was suprised how well and smooth it played. No slowdowns whatsoever.
I wished the screen was bigger than 720 on my 82" LCD TV.
Native resolution of 1080p on a full-HD LCD TV would give more overview of the battlescene though.

I played Lord of the Rings and C&C and I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of Halo Wars (I saw the video, the shadows in the graphics were really convincing!)

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Polynikes on 2/7/2008 9:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I seriously doubt avid FPS players are flocking to consoles.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By daftrok on 2/7/2008 9:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
On the PS3 you can use mouse and keyboard for playing FPS. I heard they made some adapter for the 360 as well because Microsoft hates the fact that you can use other accessories besides their own for gaming.

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By Aikouka on 2/8/2008 8:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
Only Unreal Tournament 3 supports a M/KB input on the PS3. Also, the XFPS, a device I was looking into purchasing for my 360, is supposedly just not really worthwhile. The reviews I read said that it doesn't really provide a fluid mouse-like movement and that it's best use is using a PS2 controller on the 360 (note that it has a plug for a PS2 controller as well as PS2 ports and USB ports).

RE: Mouse and Keyboard
By wordsworm on 2/8/2008 12:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
I cannot play FPS games very effectively with the controllers. To be fair, I haven't spent all that much trying to get better at it, but I find a mouse and keyboard far more conducive to an FPS game.
Which begs the question: why haven't they made a mouse for a console?

14% Figure is not reliable
By JarredWalton on 2/7/2008 4:24:13 PM , Rating: 3
It should be pointed out that many PC games are purchased digitally. Direct2Drive, Steam, EA Downloader, and other services likely count for a relatively large number of sales, but these statistics are not available. I think Steam for example sells tons of titles, but they don't publish data because it would really upset their brick-and-mortar partners.

For that matter, I don't think these sales figures even count online purchases - Amazon, GoGamer, etc. I almost never buy games at B&M anymore, so I guess by statistics I account for zero purchases per year... even though I bought something like 24 games last year.

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By lopri on 2/7/2008 4:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if Steam doesn't reveal the sales figures, where do you get the idea of massive sales via their system? I mean, I do understand that you can't get the exact numbers from them but at least you should have 'something' to base your argument on?

Other than "I bought tons of games via Steam", which can be countered by someone else's "I never bought games via Steam", of course.

Not being sarcastic at all, just curious. I never got the impression that so many people are buying their games via Steam.

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By JarredWalton on 2/7/2008 4:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
I hate dealing with CDs/DVDs, so I buy the majority of games digitally, and others do as well. The people who keep track of sales only go by retail outlets like Best Buy, EB, etc. I don't know how many people buy games digitally, and how many buy online, but there are certainly a reasonable number that do so.

I'm not sure why Valve refuses to disclose figures, other than they worry about their publishers being unhappy. I've talked with Valve about it, and they pretty much said that "we sell a large number of games via Steam, and for our titles each sale is basically giving us [nearly all] of the money". So if you buy a Steam game via Steam, you support Valve - the creators of the game. Buy the Orange Box at a store and Valve probably only sees $10. Obviously, Valve (and others) like that higher profits of Steam, but they still don't want to ditch the retail stores completely.

If you could include digital and online sales, I'd guess the PC market would go up at least several percent. It would almost certainly still be lower than console figures, but when you have PC, Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 (plus Xbox and PS2 and other older consoles), 14% of total games sold isn't all that bad. Especially when there are many types of games that simply aren't available (at least in quantity) on other platforms... RTS games for example.

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By Alpha4 on 2/7/2008 6:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
I understand that retailers don't get a very large cut of games sold. A futureshop manager quoted a range of $5-8 for a $59.95 title. With that in mind I imagine Valve collects more than $10 for every copy of Orange Box sold, even after packaging and shipping costs are taken into account.

On the other hand I wonder why valve hasn't opted to slightly reduce prices for content sold via steam to entice customers.

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By smitty3268 on 2/8/2008 12:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's the publishers that get most of the money, I believe. In Valve's case, that is Vivendi Universal Games.

By killerroach on 2/7/2008 4:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. After all, the singular form of "data" is not "anecdote".

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By CottonRabbit on 2/7/2008 5:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
While I don't have exact numbers, the impact of online sales is definitely significant. Crysis reported a disappointing 86,000 retail sales in its first month . Just 2 months later, EA announced the game had hit platinum, meaning over 1 million sales. The platinum mark most likely includes online sales through the EA online store. If online sales just partially explain such a massive boost over 2 months, then much more popular services such as Steam probably play a major role in sales.

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By Spotacus on 2/7/2008 9:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
That sales figure was for the US alone and was actually above their predictions for the US. It is just that the US is a much smaller section of the PC game market than it is the console market.

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By Discord on 2/8/2008 7:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
Valve mentioned sales figures at around a billion dollars for the original Half Life title including all offshoots/expansions using the engine.
I have not seen any sales figures for the HF2 based engines but would guess that they were probably around the same ball park if not more. You would think that it would be significantly higher but my personal feelings are that HF2 wasn't as good as the original title and that the Steam process might have lost some sales.
Either way I think it's safe to assume that they are doing around a billion a year mostly due to a much more diverse product offering. Maybe a little higher or lower depending on what was released during the year.
Stack that up with Billion + sales over at Blizzard and you see that the PC platform is massively growing and just how inaccurate the PC sales figures in this article are.
PC gaming is evolving to a whole new level and outdated (dare I say “console based”?) industry metrics are just not able to quantify it.

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By gaakf on 2/7/2008 6:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
For the matter, I don't think these sales figures even count online purchases

Your absolutely right, they don't.

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By JarredWalton on 2/7/2008 8:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent! It's like he took my thoughts and turned it into a complete article. Not that I haven't read this sort of thing elsewhere, but it's amazing how many sheep seem to want to believe what the large corporations are pushing. I'd rather not have gaming end up controlled by a few mega corporations, thank you kindly.

RE: 14% Figure is not reliable
By just4U on 2/8/2008 4:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
I was just thinking of that .... I mean I understand why a big gaming company would like us pc gamers to switch over to the console (for pirating and such and to give the ocnsole shooters a bigger pool of players to draw upon) but it seems to me they are just putting a spin on and hoping maybe we will all bite.

( in reference to your sheep part)

By Domicinator on 2/7/2008 8:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. The NPD's numbers on their last report included online sales of physical copies. The only thing they didn't include was downloads. And downloads are not going to make that big of a difference in the overall market share of PC games.

UTIII and why it failed
By jlanders646 on 2/7/2008 4:41:05 PM , Rating: 3
The Unreal series has always been a linux heavy game. From the Server side to the client side. I was first drawn to gaming because of the original UT and I've been a FPS gamer ever since. Now with the release of UT3 I was so excited it hurt waiting for the game. Not only was the DS server not available to run when the game came out, but its still so buggy that if you dedicate a server to one cpu it IDLES at 75% usage. Epic rushed this game to compete with something it shouldn't have even compared its self to, Crysis. Thats why UT3 didn't catch on, it wasn't ready and still isn't as of this post, its buggy on both client and server side. I was and still am very disappointed in this game. (Though when it does work right its freaking beautiful).

RE: UTIII and why it failed
By boogle on 2/7/2008 5:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
UT3 is the biggest disappointment in PC gaming I've ever had, UT was and is one of my favourite games by a massive margin. I still played it over LAN until somewhat recently. UT2003/2004 were OK, but could have done better.

I remember starting up UT3 for the first time and hearing the original UT theme remix and thinking 'wow, they're going back to the roots, this is going to be awesome'. Instead its the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced with PC games. The music doesn't play all the time in the background, the gameplay itself is hit/miss and the whole balance seems to be off re. vehicles. I played a vehicle CTF match online and all the two teams did was camp at their flag with vehicles. What happened to the manic CTF play of olde?

With major PC devs switching to consoles (thinking Bioware most of all here, Mass Effect is ludicrously good) the PC's days are numbered as a major platform. PC gaming will never disappear, but I can certainly see most major AAA titles ending up on console instead of PC now.

RE: UTIII and why it failed
By inighthawki on 2/7/2008 7:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
As much as i respect your opinion, it is indeed an opinion. UT3 imo was far better than ut2004, which in turn, imo, is better than ut99. Sure you probably disagree bu i like it better. As for camping the flag with vehicles, you are aware they specifically separated CTF and vCTF so that people like yourself don't have to play with vehicles? As for the music, i haven't really noticed, since it's not what i pay attention to, but i assume if you want classic music with classic levels, you can use the built in level editor and do it yourself or request the idea on the epic forums. There are quite a few people willing to do these things.

Also, take a look at this link, oldskool mappack for ut3, maybe you will like these, idk. I haven't played them myself, but it's worth a look i guess.

RE: UTIII and why it failed
By SlyNine on 2/7/2008 8:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
And my opinion is if you liked UT04 better then UT99, Go play Q3.. UT04 was just a way of trying to grab the Q3 gamers attention.

UT99 is still one of my favorits. otho I like UT3 better then UT04.

I play Americas army now. But they seem to want to jack somthing up with every patch.

RE: UTIII and why it failed
By Alpha4 on 2/7/2008 5:11:45 PM , Rating: 3
I attribute UT3's less than stellar success to the overwhelming success of its predecessor, UT2004. I saw the same thing happen with Quake IV. It didn't bring enough to the table compared to Quake 3. (And in some ways took away from it). IMO All it served to do was divide the online user-base to the point where neither of the titles were as appealing.

With this generation I suspect some gamers are finally seeing past the spit & polish of new games and enjoying the fundamentals of what makes an FPS. Sort of like reading the code instead of visually playing the game, if you will. They're enjoying the game like a soccer player enjoys a centuries-old sport, and classics like Tribes, UT99, Quake III & Counter-strike already provide what PC gamers want from a First Person Shooter, or perhaps any game.

A good example of this would be Starcraft. It was boiled down to its basic elements long ago, but it still has a massive user base. Its replay value is almost synonymous with Chess.

RE: UTIII and why it failed
By MistaP on 2/7/2008 5:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
This guy doesn't know what he is talking about at all. I bet he has never run a server of any kind in his live. Useless rabble. ... ... ... <3

RE: UTIII and why it failed
By jlanders646 on 2/7/2008 5:16:38 PM , Rating: 3
P I love you when r u going to come home to meh honey, I need to be sp00ned.

RE: UTIII and why it failed
By MistaP on 2/7/2008 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 3
HOPEFULLY Friday night.

RE: UTIII and why it failed
By Schmide on 2/8/2008 6:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
Because it was dumbed down for the console port. No dodge jump combos. It became a jack of all trades master of none...

and the fact that it still doesn't work on many systems very capable of running it.

Well DUH!
By thornburg on 2/7/2008 4:20:36 PM , Rating: 3
Hardcore PC gamers may not like it, but consoles have been chewing into the PC gaming market ever since the original Playstation (or maybe longer). I think it really began to accelerate when the XBox came out, and if what you really wanted to do was play games, XBox left you with more money for games than building a super-duper gaming rig--and it meant you you could opt out of the "my new $600 dual video card setup blows your rig out of the water" crap.

AFAI can tell, this article is a non-news item to most of the world.

RE: Well DUH!
By Domicinator on 2/7/2008 5:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly why I bought a 360. I'm sick of constantly upgrading my PC to play the same exact games that run fine on the consoles. Yeah, there was Crysis this year, but the settings require too much babysitting as you're trying to get through the game. The Witcher was about the only other PC game I bought last year that didn't get a cross platform release.

Also, to the guy below, to say that the PC is doing good considering it's competing with all those other machines is not logical. Most consoles get the same games with exclusives sprinkled in here and there. The PC gets hardly any exclusives at all anymore except for the ones that are pure crap. The rest of it is console ports that don't run well and require constant upgrades.

I hope PC gaming never dies, but the writing is more on the wall now than it has ever been, and so far in 2008, the Xbox 360 has sucked down a lot more of my free time than my gaming PC.

RE: Well DUH!
By kilkennycat on 2/7/2008 10:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
The PC gets hardly any exclusives at all anymore except for the ones that are pure crap.

Umm... Then maybe World of Warcraft with the 10+million **PC** players does not count? The most successful MMO in history (so far), bringing Vivendi/Blizzard $1billion per year profit. And what about the upcoming Starcraft 3... a PC title, possibly also ported to other targets FROM the PC. And the 'crap' PC-exclusive Crysis has now sold over 1 million copies with EA/Crytek is looking at porting a more graphics-modest version to the consoles...

RE: Well DUH!
By SlyNine on 2/8/2008 12:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
Then don't constantly upgrade your PC. I know people with 9800 pros that are enjoying games today, Hell you can even run crysis on one if you want.

Besides that I've seen GoW run on a P4 3.2ghz Northwood C with a 800XT . It runs great very comparable to the 360. Actually better.

You throw in TRUE backwards compatibility for years of great PC games that run on cheap computers. The truth is the word just isn't out. Their are so many great older games that people have not played.

Crysis can be played on med to high settings on a sub 1000$ computer. Plus we all know what benefits of having a PC for all the other purposes.

Lets talk about consoles for a bit, both PS3 and Xbox 360 lose money on every one sold, while the Wii is considered the best deal. So how long before all these hardware manufactures figure out they can make cheap ass hardware for the consumer leaving PC's wide open for a comeback.

RE: Well DUH!
By Imaginer on 2/8/2008 12:42:28 AM , Rating: 1
Isn't that what DirectX is supposed to do for the PCs like every few years consoles see a next generation version from their respective manufacturers?

But nooooooooo. We arent happy enough with Pixel Shader 2.1234 or Anti Aliasing x1620! We have to keep making cards to incrementally support the next 2.1235 or x1643 and add another set of features just to justify expenditures every 6 or so months for the hardcore.

And noooo. ATI(Now ATI/AMD) and NVidia are just as guilty of making the PC market smaller and smaller due to their increased contributions to the stigma.

One standard, one speed, one developmental platform to take everyone through the next 5 or so years.

RE: Well DUH!
By SlyNine on 2/8/2008 2:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is this idea you HAVE to upgrade every 6months, you dont. If you have a X800XT you are fine to play any game thats out there. That came out before the 360. In fact you could play any game out there with a 9700pro. witch is a very old card.

You just have to ask yourself if you want the best graphics all the time.

RE: Well DUH!
By just4U on 2/8/2008 4:22:15 AM , Rating: 2

IF your buying new hardware every six months I'd say look at the underlying reasons as to why you do that. Is it really because you want to get a few extra fps out of a particular game? Or rather, is it just you like to have the latest hardware your pocketbook can afford. If it is the latter, then you fall under a enthusiast catagory which is slightly different then your "average" gamer who's perfectly happy gaming on hardware that many of us probably sold off a few years back.

RE: Well DUH!
By SlyNine on 2/8/2008 2:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, Having 2 8800GT's puts me in the enthusiast catagory, Mean while having them on a old 939 A64 4200+ x2 OCed to 3ghz leaves me inbetween.

RE: Well DUH!
By ET on 2/9/2008 2:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
Most consoles get the same games with exclusives sprinkled in here and there. The PC gets hardly any exclusives at all anymore except for the ones that are pure crap.

I think in a sense it's Microsoft shooting itself in the foot. They pay companies to not release their game on the PC at the same time, which boosts Xbox sales, but as games move away from Windows, there would be one less reason to use it.

Heeeeres your sign...
By TimberJon on 2/7/2008 5:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
My first games ever were Command & Conquer and Quake II. I excel at both gametypes. But I found it extremely difficult to try C&C on the playstation.

I do very well at M+K on FPS's BUT, I feel I would do much better with a controller in my hand. Why? The M+K was designed for typing documents... Annnd the Game Controller is (usually) ergonomically engineered at the highest levels for comfortability, ease of control, multiple commands/sec, and average hand-size. I use the Logitech Wave and G7 M+K.

The Nostromo was an awesome device and was awesome for Tribes, UT and MechWarrior games for the PC, Etc..

The Solution? Allow a MS Windows Shell to run within the Xbox360 or Whatever they're going to call the next one, or make it a downloadable add-on. I see licensing problems with Nintendo and Sony, but MS could definately put it on their Xbox and allow PC games to be installed there. A little tweaking to the control programming for use with the Xbox controller and you're set. MS could even make MORE money by making this type of feature downloadable, and selling PC games on Xbox live. Perhaps the service would even limit the number of PC games you could have on the HDD at any given time. And you would have to purchase an upgrade to hold more. Tier Pricing.

I like the idea. Im an Xbox fan, but I havn't played anything on the PS3 yet so I can't judge it. I just see this as possible for the Xbox for obvious reasons.


Ka-Bonng! Shutup! It definately won't. Everyone has a PC or lappytop and might only install their game on their console because its hooked up to the "big screen" and the "sound system". Most users PC's don't boast the same quality system and your Monitor can only get so big..

PC developers will find they will sell MORE games, especially if the titles are PC exclusive BUT are installable on consoles, which might be owned by an individual who's pc is dead, or who doesnt have one.

SO! My solution stands. Make it possible to install and play PC games on the console. Best of both markets. If the developers could capture 50% of the 10-times difference between PC and Console gaming, they would happily take it and shut up.

Then maybe someone will step up to the plate and make MechWarrior 5 for the PC. Instead of taking my best MW5 ideas for the PC game and using it for MechAssault 2 for the Xbox. Bastards. I have much better, fresh and unique ideas for the BT universe's MW5 game now.

RE: Heeeeres your sign...
By MistaP on 2/7/2008 5:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
I could see validity in some of what you saw about controller type setups. I can't agree on its effectiveness in FPS though. Controller type setup for movement and actions but controllers will NEVER touch the speed and accuracy (from skill) that mouse aiming can attain. Aim assitance that is available in most fps on console attests to this as a cheap, easymode way of trying to make the control more enjoyable.

Console FPS will always do alright because of the kiddies. When it comes to pure mind bending rection speed and accuracy they will never compete with a PC ... until a mouse or mouselike form of control is available for console.

RE: Heeeeres your sign...
By TimberJon on 2/7/2008 6:48:58 PM , Rating: 1
Speed and accuracy? That all depends on the software and the game engine. It's probably so similar that you wouldn't really notice. Most console games have options for X and Y sensitivity. Halo for example, does a good job, I could probably whup upon the best K+B gamer with my controller. There is alot of potential compensation on a mouse, even for experienced users.

I'd really rather not cramp up my wrist from uber-accurate precision, but use a thumbstick where the TRUE skill is not the DPI you set your mouse to, but that you can track and shoot an opponent between the eyes with a so-called inferior method of control. Thats skill. Mouse settings/features can just be a crutch.

RE: Heeeeres your sign...
By ChronoReverse on 2/7/2008 7:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
The reason why the DPI settings can make a difference with a M/K is because it's the _limiting_ factor. That's right, our motions and reflexes are high enough that the input devices can sometimes be the bottleneck. But at least the threshold is very high with M/K.

With joysticks, the limiting factor is _always_ the limiting factor. That is, it should be since the rate of motion is so low.

RE: Heeeeres your sign...
By SlyNine on 2/8/2008 2:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
Its fine motor control, I have to move my mouse an inch to make a quarter turn, but it always will turn that same amount ( unless you have crappy Mouse Acceleration on).

The thumb joystick is moving a CM for a quarter turn, with out AIM assists you will never touch a Key Board and mouse.

IGN did a test and the control pad actually won. But then I thought about it. Halo for the PC had horrible mouse acceleration and they were already used to it for the Xbox. Otho the PC version with the controller didn't have aim assists ( that I'm aware of) the mouse acceleration on PC almost ruined that game for many experienced/pro FPS gamers.

RE: Heeeeres your sign...
By Alpha4 on 2/7/2008 5:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Install a PC title on 360? Thats not likely to happen given how much development time and effort goes into leveraging the Xbox360's resources. Not to mention translating the code so that it properly executes on the 360's non-X86 based CPU.

Just look at how much trouble they're having with Backwards compatibility, and that was based on a simplified intel celeron 733. As for the 3rd gen Xbox I doubt MS is entirely eager to return to using a general purpose CPU after the fiasco with Intel.

Quality Assurance
By dagamer34 on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Quality Assurance
By 5c8wc4 on 2/7/2008 5:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
1) console games are watered down version of the same thing.
2) console games isnt rushed sometimes?
3) RTS?, RPG? you dont have to buy a goty game anyway, all games are equal fun.
4) It dosent require at all. But it something you can do on your own initiative which often pays off and takes like 5min tops to do.
5) And consoles are free of charge? what about the 60$ games and the live subscriptions you pay each month for.

RE: Quality Assurance
By 5c8wc4 on 2/7/2008 5:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
100$ games to be correct

RE: Quality Assurance
By boogle on 2/7/2008 5:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
I beg to differ.

1) Crysis is a great game
2) Console games are too. There's a slow movement towards the PC 'patch patch patch' going on too. At least it's better than the traditional rushed console release where the game is just plain rubbish.
3) FPS, RTS, RPG, MMORPG, Sim. All of those are major PC genres, and most aren't that big on consoles.
4) True, although you can always set everything to 'low'. It's a side-effect of the huge variety of PCs. It also allows for a pleasant side effect that you can revisit old games and get superior graphics, even if its just due to new funky features on the GPU like AA.

5) I call fowl on this. I have no idea where you got this from. You're implying the major manufacturers give out MASSES of cash to developers just to produce games with high system requirements. If that were true, there would be no need to develop for other platforms. If it were true, game sales would be irrelevant. If it were true, games would work perfectly on specific sets of hardware.

You mention Crysis as one of these games. We know they had assistance from the big manufacturers, but there's no evidence they were actively 'bribed' - Crytek have a history of making really graphically intense apps since their first demo 'X-Isle', and their first game 'Far Cry'. One game - out of hundreds, if not thousands of games released on PC. You're seeing conspiracies where there are none.

RE: Quality Assurance
By FITCamaro on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Quality Assurance
By rykerabel on 2/7/2008 6:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
Commodore VIC 20 + Ultima + Zork etc. predates all console RPGs.

RE: Quality Assurance
By SlyNine on 2/8/2008 2:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
My favorit old RPG was Loom, I was young and it was a 386 and the first CD rom game I ever played.

Kings Quest was pretty cool too.

Its because...
By Soldier38 on 2/7/2008 5:59:18 PM , Rating: 3
Consoles are cheaper so more people have them naturally. I like the exclusiveness of PC gaming. Too many jaggies in consoles for me to enjoy the games. Plus nothing beats the mouse and keyboard set up in games. I play everything at 1920 x 1200 all high settings no jaggies, effects the consoles just cant come close to rendering.

RE: Its because...
By BZDTemp on 2/8/2008 12:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
1920x1080 comes pretty close. It's done with some tricks of course but games like GT5HD look pretty decent.

I do my gaming on a 24" BenQ monitor so the PC, the Mac, the 360 and the PS3 all use the same screen making it easy to compare. Still graphics great are just nice to have while great gameplay is a must have. Deus Ex is still my preferred thinking FPS with NOLF/NOLF2 coming second and Halo is way down the list.

RE: Its because...
By SlyNine on 2/8/2008 2:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
I love my BenQ FP241W. Did you ever get the update so you can run at a 1to1 ratio?

By lopri on 2/7/2008 4:24:52 PM , Rating: 4
I wish someday we can play the same game on a cross-platform network. PC, XBox, Playstation players all can play with/against one another. Also allow a seamless integration of mouse/keyboard on console games, and vice-versa (controller on PC)

Current implement, if possible, is half-baked at best. This will make things more fun and exciting.

By EglsFly on 2/7/2008 5:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
Three of us at work have COD4.

I play it on the PC, one has a PS3 and the other an XBox360.
Neither of us can play together since its all on different platforms, which kinda stinks. I really wish some company would come up with some way to make this work, that would be really cool.

We where comparing info today about COD4 across these platforms and one thing I learned is that on the console versions the servers are limited in the number of players compared to its PC counterpart.
I was telling them how I was on a server the other night and it had 50 players! Big difference compared to the consoles player count limitation.
With Battlefield 2 on the PC, I can get on 64 player servers.

Another note that was interesting was my buddy with the XBOX360 didn't realize that on the PC and the PS3, online play is FREE.

By Hakuryu on 2/7/2008 4:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
I buy almost every new AAA game that comes out, and many others on top of that for the PC. I have every Unreal since the first, both tournaments and single player games.

When UT3 came out, it just didn't get my attention. Sure it's prettier than previous versions, but it's basically the same game. I just don't feel like I need a 10th Unreal game when there are such good games out there like Crysis and Enemy Territory Quake Wars.

UT3 didn't sell well because it's a rehashed sequel to hardcore gamers (their target audience), not because consoles are dominating. If Epic put out a fresh new shooter with new idea's and gameplay, I bet it will outsell their Unreal brand at this point.

By Soodey on 2/7/2008 5:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
GoW came out, a year earlier than UT3. At the time it was one of the first, if not the first, examples of the power of the UT3 engine. Sure the gameplay was rather good and it was a different change of pace from the standard FPS, but it rode to the bank on the graphics hype train. UT3 didn't have that luxury.

By PWNettle on 2/7/2008 6:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree. I haven't bought the latest UT game because it doesn't really bring much to the table compared to previous game.

I also think overall lackluster titles and same old same old is hurting the PC game scene (if it's really hurting, I don't think it really is, there are just way more consoles).

I got interested in PC gaming because of the types of games and depth of games. These days most of the titles coming out are RTS or FPS, which are overdone to death, and neither of which existed in the early days of PC gaming.

Designers are also mutilating (and IMO ruining) sequels and followups, like the recent SimCity massacre, or like how Fallout 3 is being created as an Oblivion spinoff instead of isometric like the originals. Why companies have to force every game into FPS mold is beyond me.

To me PC games need to be fun and interesting. Wicked graphics are nice but not necessary. The neverending quest to do the latest and greatest graphics seems to often hurt the quality of the game and lead to unfinished games or poorly tested games that need patched on release day. The emphasis of graphics over quality hurts PC gaming, IMO.

Need to Track digital distribution.
By VooDooAddict on 2/7/2008 7:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
In the last 2 years, more then 80% of the games I have bought have been via Steam / Direct2Drive / or other direct purchase from the developer. --- Including Unreal Tournament 3

Without tracking digital game purchases they loose site of the size of the market.

What about all the little sub $20 games like bejeweled. They sell a good number of those things too.

RE: Need to Track digital distribution.
By bangmal on 2/7/2008 10:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
That is funny of you folks. You are speaking as if you know more about the sales number of the product than the producers.

By just4U on 2/8/2008 4:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
Not really.. I think what their hinting at is these producers are misleading .. for obvious reasons.

not sure about this one
By cciesquare on 2/7/2008 7:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
my xbox360, and Wii are collecting dust as we speak. I am on my computer almost every waking hour, which makes it more convenient for me to launch a game on my PC. I only play my console if there is a new game, even then I usually beat it really quick and then back on to my PC it is. Even with xbox live, i still average more hours on my PC, by a huge margin.

RE: not sure about this one
By DingieM on 2/8/2008 3:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
Your post says absolutely nothing.
So what you do on the PC then that it makes you go back to the PC?
Maybe you don't have Xbox Live service, there are a LOT of arcade games to enjoy...

RE: not sure about this one
By SlyNine on 2/8/2008 4:14:41 AM , Rating: 2
LOL yea, and then if somthing happens to that drive, all the money you spent is out the window.

Thier is plenty to do on the PC to make you come back. My friend is a Gears of War freak and he just moved back to the PC becuase of it. Its much better on PC and as I said he uses a X800XT with a P4 3.2ghz 2gigs of ram.

Not surprising, and also not that bad
By archcommus on 2/7/2008 8:41:16 PM , Rating: 1
I've been a PC only gamer my whole life, in fact I've never owned any console, no Nintendo, Xbox, PlayStation, anything. Why? Back in the day I mostly only played shooters, and obviously the PC was the best platform for it. Never cared much for the games I saw on consoles. Today, I barely game. The main game I do play is HL, which of course is best on PC. If I were to play other games, it'd still probably be on PC because I'm probably going to upgrade it whether I'm gaming or not, so might as well use that hardware instead of also buying console hardware.

However, this switch to consoles for the masses shouldn't be surprising to anyone. A lot of the blame can be put on the major PC OEMs. For years they've been selling PCs with great CPUs and memory but shitty video options. If Joe Schmo can't go to Best Buy and pick up a PC for $800 and have it play new games well, he's obviously not going to be very satisfied. Suddenly that $400 Xbox that can play everything perfectly sounds very appealing. When you notice this, it's obvious that this switch was always going to happen and that PC gaming will always be an enthusiast/hobbyist market.

It should also be noted, though, that this switch isn't necessarily bad for PC gamers. True, we're losing a lot of the great selection we once had, but I think developers put a lot more time and money into console games because of how many more people they'll sell them to. Chances are if it's successful enough it'll eventually be ported to PC, which isn't as good as something developed specifically for PC, but if the port's done well, it's still a way for PC gamers to get very premium titles.

RE: Not surprising, and also not that bad
By rudy on 2/8/2008 12:11:03 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree about it being a good thing. More and more we get games late on the PC and as with UT3 more and more games are getting really lame. 5 years ago I expected to see some amazing FPS games today when you took into account the complexity of play provided by games like HLDM, Tribes and so on. Instead things have been getting more backwards, everything gets simpler so more noobs can play it and when they push a game onto the console they skip features so the noobs can use it with a controller with only a hand full of buttons. The only thing that is advancing is the graphics. Console players are too noob to push developers to do good things and they are too limited by there interface with the console.

By archcommus on 2/8/2008 1:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
You make good points, the console games will not push much innovative development, just more of the same to help sell the new hardware.

When you think about it, though, that's pretty much what it's always going to come down to. Every once in awhile you'll get an innovative and forward thinking developer in terms other than graphics (like Valve), but for the most part developers will always only be making what sells. You will have to count on hardware developers like Nintendo to create new ways of interacting with the console to help push game development in those sorts of directions.

I doubt consoles hurt the PC market that much....
By RagnarIV on 2/7/2008 4:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I don't know about the next guy, but the average moron walking down the street has a console. PC gaming is somewhat of an enthusiast hobby due to the time and money you have to put into it. Also I think a lot of gamers are smart enough to know how to use bitorrent etc. to get their games. I mean why pay for it when you can get it for free? (I buy my games). Also all my friends own the entire HL2 anthology as do I.

By RagnarIV on 2/7/2008 4:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Point of that last sentence is that Steam does sell a metroc buttload of games.

By inighthawki on 2/7/2008 7:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
I can tell you exactly why, nobody can run the games at a decent framerate. These developers keep thinking that uber sweet gfx are what sell the games, but when my x2 4400, x1900xt and 2GB of ram can barely run crysis and ut3 on medium settings, it says a lot, mainly that there are a lot of people who dont even have what i do and can't run them at all. UT2004 was a hit because it ran so well on all types of hardware...heck my old radeon 7500 could prolly run it. Consoles, on the other hand, the games are synced to their hardware and will never have a problem to run them...

i guess u can put this as a message to those making games ou there


RE: Why?
By wempa on 2/8/2008 12:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
You bring up some valid points. The consoles use standardized hardware and a game has to pass certain basic tests before it can be released. On the PC, there are so many different variables that affect the performance. Also, consoles are able to sell at a loss because the companies know that you will buy games and accessories for it. When the Xbox 360 first came out, they were saying that buying a PC with equivalent CPU and graphics power as the 360 would be way more expensive. Sure, you could buy one of those $400 PCs from Dell, but your graphics are going to suck big time. Computer hardware isn't sold at a loss unless it requires some silly contract with another company for their services. There are definitely advantages to both types of gaming, but it's not hard to see why the average person would be more likely to go with a console.

Totally messed up numbers
By tmouse on 2/8/2008 8:25:58 AM , Rating: 2
The article DT quoted is totally off base (another example of poor journalism, getting quoted) the 14% number from shacknews is based on $910.7 million in PC sales from $18.85 billion the video game industry generated at North American retailers. The problem is if one bothers to go to NPD's own site you would see the $18.85 billion includes portable and console hardware, software and accessories. The SALES of SOFTWARE generated $5.12 billion in the console market with total industry software sales reaching $9.5 billion, so the PC contribution = 4.38 billion which is a healthy 46.1%. I do not know where the quoted $910.7 million in sales figure came from unless that is the retail sales figures and the 4.38 billion is from the software producers which would suggest that either digital distribution is much larger or more than likely they are not including major e-tailers. Also keep in mind PC game costs are lower than their console counterparts so this would suggest higher unit sales. There are ALOT more personal PCs than consoles, and FAR more if you consider just the current generation, and I have rarely if ever seen any without at least 1 game on them (heck I constantly find games on work machines where they certainly do not belong) so these numbers simply do not support the hypothesis that there is a large exodus from the PC to consoles. There is a strong interest in the developer community to switch to make console games, they already are developing more or first for consoles but this does not necessarily reflect a market shift but rather a manipulation of the market to protect their products and give misleading reasons. I’m not judging whether this is right or wrong just supplying some much needed clarity in the discussion.

RE: Totally messed up numbers
By tmouse on 2/8/2008 8:31:21 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and before anyone chimes in that US numbers are not world numbers, I agree however it is moot since all of these numbers are North American figures and without ANY data no one can really say how world sales effect these percentages. Just as my own feelings I rather doubt the percentages would shift dramatically, certainly not from 46% to 14%, but I admit I have no information one way or the other.

PC games are here to stay
By lakingsgeek on 2/7/2008 6:31:26 PM , Rating: 1
It's true that the PC is no longer nor will it ever be again the mainstream gaming platform it once was. However, this does not mean it's going to die. The PC definitely has it's place as a platform for a specific type of gamer.

Like someone pointed out, the PC is an enthusiasts platform. It caters to the graphics whore and tech geek in many of us. It's also a superb platform for the genres that don't quite have that pick up and play mass appeal.

Hardcore sim games just don't work on a console. The controller can't replicate a airplane cockpit like a keyboard can. You can't add hundreds of new cars and tracks to a console racing sim like the mod community can for a PC.

Try pulling off MS Flight Simulator on a console. You can't do it. That game has a huge following with a massive mod community. Or how about Text based sports sims, one of my personal favorites. It's just not as intuitive on a console.

For the record, I now own all three current gen consoles and built a PC over the summer that can run Crysis on the highest settings at a very playable frame rate.

RE: PC games are here to stay
By DingieM on 2/8/2008 9:41:35 AM , Rating: 2
You are certainly an uber-geek.

Do you have a life?
Do you come out of the house sometimes?

Do you know we live on planet earth and this planet is on an orbit to our star, the sun?

Epic is a joke
By yanquii on 2/7/2008 7:01:34 PM , Rating: 3
Epic abandoned the PC platform when they created the Unreal engine 3. It is an engine made for consoles. No AA and the overuse of HDR to make things look pretty.

I dont see Blizzard complaining. Nor do I see Crytek complaining now. There are a lot of developers who make great PC games and sell a lot of copies. You tried to port a well-known and idolized PC game from the console to the PC. What do you expect? A crappy port, with an even crappier UI and major gameplay losses = major fail.

Stop crying. its your own damn fault.

By Golgatha on 2/7/2008 5:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
14% of the market of all retail sales doesn't sound too bad considering your competition is Wii, PS3, XBox360, PS2, PSP, and Nintendo DS currently. If you add all those together you get 1(PC)/7(PC+everyone else) or 14.3%. Sounds like the PC market is getting their equal share of the pie.

PC's are Fighting Back
By RonLugge on 2/7/2008 7:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, not all gamers are moving over to consoles -- Sins of a Solar Empire's rather wonderful sales say PC gamers are definitely interested in decent games still, especially those with decent depth.

By BZDTemp on 2/8/2008 6:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
I bought it and boy do I regret it.

The GUI interface is lacking all sorts of features present in the previous version and even a simple thing as FPH has been removed. Gameplay has also been made more dumb action and less smart action than before.

The fact is simply that UT3 is a console game made to run on a PC and not the other way round so no wonder UT3 is not selling and a similar thing can be said for a lot of other games.

My conclusion is that the so called 3rd generation game consoles (360 and PS3) being able to perform similar to a main stream PC has really hurt the PC as a game platform. Sequals of many great PC games are now made as console games with the minimum thought for taking advantage of the PC's strenghts :-(

Mark Rein you should be ashamed of yourself!

Sheep - Bah, Bah
By on 2/8/2008 1:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
Our society are becoming like sheep, Bah, Bah. Becoming brainwashed and not able to formulate a thought on their own, believeing everything the media reportsm no matter if it is rumour, sbiased speculation (Like this crap), or rumour. Bah, Bah Away.

By RedStar on 2/9/2008 12:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
"the low percentage attributed to PC gaming can also be explained by the lower price of PC games"

how do lower priced PC games (vs consoles) equal lower game sales??

PC foreva! :)

For me, i only just bought UT3 now ...because i had so MANY great games to buy already this christmas season (and UT3 was 10$ higher than any of them). I read the reviews but bought UT3 anyways to support PC gaming.

There is indeed nothing new in UT3 and so far, i'm not even impressed with the graphics vs UT2004. Thank goodness the rifle is back though =D

I do Love CoD 4!!

I have gamed since 1988 on the PC, and this is the first time that i am worried about the future of the gaming PC ('cept for mmorpg)
nvidia 8800 GTS 320 mb @ 1650 *1080 res
2.4ghz 6600 intel cpu
2 gig RAM

mark rein is an idiot.
By on 2/8/2008 12:16:38 PM , Rating: 1

Read this article, mark rein is an idiot, he wants PC gaming to fail the UT3 engine is the max the consoles can do, so his engine will sell on that platform for the next 4 years, on Pc Ut3 has already been surpased. UT3 solded poorly because PC gamers got a rehashed game with a graphics upgrade. Console gamers don't know any better.

Anyone who says PC has no good exclusives is a crack whore:

NWn2 and Mask of the betrayer
The Witcher (Best RPG of the last 2-3 years, better then mass Effect)

The 360 has what, masss Effect and what? 2007, the PC had the best exclusive lineup of ANY system.

Clear Sky coming soon
Company Of Heroes and a slew on great Strategy games

Keyboard and mouse is mroe precise, responsive, and allows for much more customization plus Pc gets mods which add loads of value to games,

This is terrible journalism, and the same propaganda we hear from the PRO console press.

And they really wonder?????
By HighWing on 2/8/2008 2:51:33 PM , Rating: 1
Gears of War on the Xbox 360 was an instant success in 2006, but Unreal Tournament III failed to make the same mark on the PC in 2007.

After reading this I really had to laugh. It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. First lets see when was the last Unreal game released? oh yes 2004.... and this one was released at the end of 2007, practically 2008. So what that is almost 4 years since the last game, when the previous difference was only a year ( ut2003 -> ut2004) Now lets look at the differences. Between UT2003 and UT2004, We've got better Graphics, more multi player scenarios, and vehicle's... And the difference tween UT2004 and UT3 is what... some better graphics.

So lets recap, we have a game sequel that took almost 4 years to come out when compared to a previous time frame of 1 year. Plus this new game adds NOTHING new, (graphics don't really count cause thats pretty much implied) yet previous versions added significant new features. And finally what else has happened in that 4 year time frame in this game genera... does the name Halo mean anything? 4 years ago Halo was only just gaining ground. 4 years later and no other really good FPS games coming out, Halo is now the leader. Oh yeah and we can't forget that Halo WAS released on a console with very little change tween console and PC, whereas most other FPS games at that time that had a console port were pretty much a diff game then the PC version.

So considering ALL this, Epic is "surprised" that their new game did not do well!!!!
I used to think better of you guys.....

No offense Mark
By FITCamaro on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: No offense Mark
By MrSmurf on 2/7/2008 4:28:32 PM , Rating: 3
Yet you clicked, read and commented on it. Go figure!

Anyway, I speak for myself but I hate playing Call of Duty 4 on a controller but that's where the majority of my friends play it. Besides, it's just easier and cheaper to buy the console version.

RE: No offense Mark
By enlil242 on 2/7/2008 4:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
But you will not be able to take advantage of new maps and mods that are released now that the SDK and mapping tools are out for the PC...

I guess that goes with the territory. I'd still be playing United Offensive if there were enough servers and players out there.

RE: No offense Mark
By FITCamaro on 2/7/2008 5:22:29 PM , Rating: 1
Yes but I was hoping for a little more.

And the 360 and PS3 versions are $60 while the PC version is $50. How does that make the console version cheaper? Unless you're talking total cost to be able to play it.

I just got CoD4 for the 360(birthday present from my girlfriend). Still haven't opened it because I'm debating whether to exchange it for the PC version or not.

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki