PC gaming is dead

EvilGargamel

Say it aint so

Rikimaru_X

I'm a console gamer who plays PC games just for the little things like MMO's, but why this topic gonna start some flaming.

Wolfenpride

I don't think so, some of my faviorate PC games that have come out recently I recall were ranked pretty good.

Mass effect, The witcher, dead space, fallout 3, and plenty of other mmo's, PC gameing is far from dead, however I will say that as far as mmo's go, dev's are loosing a little creativity :P

Finwe

PC Gaming will never die, because computers will never die. Consoles have one up for one reason, price.

Jackcolt

What makes you think PC Gaming is dead?

Gameloading

Originally posted by Jackcolt


What makes you think PC Gaming is dead?

 

Considering that some of the most die hard PC game developers are now slamming the platform, one can't be blamed for thinking it's not doing that well. I'd say it's currently on mmorpg life support.

Xasapis

I think they are making more money overall today than in any other gaming era. The PC gaming just moved to the internet and the multiplayer interaction, both small and massive.

talismen351

Personally I can't see PC gaming dieing any time soon. PCs have much more functionality than the console. Here I have the PS2 n Wii system, as well as a laptop, and old pc (for the kids) and my gaming PC. By far the most used is the two PCs. Sure consoles are cheaper, but not by a long shot. Buy the PS3 for what $400+ or a decent PC for 700+.

Consoles are going up in price with each new version, PCs have steadily gone down in price over the years. How long before a console or a decent PC are about the same price? Only with the PC still being able to do much more than playing games. And PCs having the advantage of ppl being able to easily fix, n replace parts themselves.

Precusor

Originally posted by talismen351


Consoles are going up in price with each new version, PCs have steadily gone down in price over the years. How long before a console or a decent PC are about the same price? Only with the PC still being able to do much more than playing games. And PCs having the advantage of ppl being able to easily fix, n replace parts themselves.

 

Static closed platform (console) VS an open platform (PC)

 

who wins?

Bigdavo

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Jackcolt


What makes you think PC Gaming is dead?

 

Considering that some of the most die hard PC game developers are now slamming the platform, one can't be blamed for thinking it's not doing that well. I'd say it's currently on mmorpg life support.

 

Lol. MMORPG life support you have got to be kidding, MMO's are a small slice of the PC gaming market, PC gaming is no where near dead and it is far too early to say if its dieing.

Enigma

Originally posted by EvilGargamel


Say it aint so

 

it's not so

baff

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Jackcolt


What makes you think PC Gaming is dead?

 

Considering that some of the most die hard PC game developers are now slamming the platform, one can't be blamed for thinking it's not doing that well. I'd say it's currently on mmorpg life support.

LMAO.

 

 

MMORPG is hardly "life support".

Warcraft alone has netted more money than the entire portfolio of PS3 games.

 

If that's what life support is, no wonder consoles are so desperate to get themselves on to it.

 

The only developers I hear slamming the PC are the console developers who know PC gamers won't by their suckworthy titles.

Precusor

Originally posted by baff



 
The only developers I hear slamming the PC are the console developers who know PC gamers won't by their suckworthy titles.

Lol @ Epic games

www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/gears-of-war-2-leaked-on-torrent-sites

Techleo

    More or less I get the feeling PC games are mainstream at this point. With hundreds of millions of dollars in sales and millions in development there very much so mainstream like movies. Profits generally are up but the rate at which there going up is slowing down in a cooling economy of course. Also the fact PC games are often cookie cutter shows there fairly mainstream. The mold has basically been perfected as to how games need to be to make money

Gameloading

Originally posted by talismen351


Personally I can't see PC gaming dieing any time soon. PCs have much more functionality than the console. Here I have the PS2 n Wii system, as well as a laptop, and old pc (for the kids) and my gaming PC. By far the most used is the two PCs. Sure consoles are cheaper, but not by a long shot. Buy the PS3 for what $400+ or a decent PC for 700+.
Consoles are going up in price with each new version, PCs have steadily gone down in price over the years. How long before a console or a decent PC are about the same price? Only with the PC still being able to do much more than playing games. And PCs having the advantage of ppl being able to easily fix, n replace parts themselves.

Consoles are going up in price? Don't make me laugh. The Wii launched with 250$ which is the cheapest a console has launched for in years. The Xbox360's entry point is already at 150$, I don't think any console since the PS1/era has ever dropped to that price point so quickly. Buy the PS3 for 400$ and a PC for 700$? What do you think the average costumer is going to pick if they are looking into gaming? The Playstation 3 ofcourse. You act like 300$ is small change, but it isn't. You can do most things the average family needs a PC for on a PC you can pick up from the junkyard, no 700$ PC required here.

Sure you can argue "blabla better graphics" but the industry has proven again and again that graphics mean absolutely nothing. It's always been about two things: Price and Gameplay.

Gameloading

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Jackcolt


What makes you think PC Gaming is dead?

 

Considering that some of the most die hard PC game developers are now slamming the platform, one can't be blamed for thinking it's not doing that well. I'd say it's currently on mmorpg life support.

LMAO.

 

 

MMORPG is hardly "life support".

Warcraft alone has netted more money than the entire portfolio of PS3 games.

 

If that's what life support is, no wonder consoles are so desperate to get themselves on to it.

 

The only developers I hear slamming the PC are the console developers who know PC gamers won't by their suckworthy titles.

Warcraft isn't the entire industry. MMO's are really the only genre that is growing.

 

"Console developers who make suckworthy titles? You haven't really paid attention the state of PC gaming have you? Epic has a long history with PC gaming.So does Peter molyneux (Known for Populous, Black & white), John carmack (Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake) and Chris Taylor (Total Annihilation, Dungeon Siege, Supreme Commander)

All of these have slammed the PC gaming industry, and these are all "suckworthy console developers"? Please.

 @BigDavo

Excuse me, this is the year 2008, not 1997. MMORPG's have bloomed since the release of WoW, and especialy in asia the mmorpg market has exploded.

Waterlily

Originally posted by Gameloading


 Epic has a long history with PC gaming.

 

Had, no one cares Epic left after UT3.

UT3 was a disgrace to PC gaming.

baff

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Jackcolt


What makes you think PC Gaming is dead?

 

Considering that some of the most die hard PC game developers are now slamming the platform, one can't be blamed for thinking it's not doing that well. I'd say it's currently on mmorpg life support.

LMAO.

 

 

MMORPG is hardly "life support".

Warcraft alone has netted more money than the entire portfolio of PS3 games.

 

If that's what life support is, no wonder consoles are so desperate to get themselves on to it.

 

The only developers I hear slamming the PC are the console developers who know PC gamers won't by their suckworthy titles.

Warcraft isn't the entire industry. MMO's are really the only genre that is growing.

 

"Console developers who make suckworthy titles? You haven't really paid attention the state of PC gaming have you? Epic has a long history with PC gaming.So does Peter molyneux (Known for Populous, Black & white), John carmack (Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake) and Chris Taylor (Total Annihilation, Dungeon Siege, Supreme Commander)

All of these have slammed the PC gaming industry, and these are all "suckworthy console developers"? Please.

 @BigDavo

Excuse me, this is the year 2008, not 1997. MMORPG's have bloomed since the release of WoW, and especialy in asia the mmorpg market has exploded.

Peter Molyneux has long history of making crapgames for the PC. He is a miserable person. At parties he is the miserable one in the corner who wants to tell you all his problems. Honestly you would have to be suicidal or a Smiths fan to listen to that bloke. He's an industry legend alright, but not for his games.

 

Black and White was an over hyped flop on PC just like all his other titles were. Nothing he has every made for PC has been worth my money. Populous 2 wasn't as good as Populous and Populous one was an Amiga game. Did you really think one good game that wasn't even available for the PC makes him a guru of PC gaming? 

PC gaming isn't just dead for him, it was never alive.

 

Epic has a long history of both PC and console gaming. Unfortunately their history of making landmark PC games ended on their first title. Unreal.

All the sequels were dull. Each one doing successesively worse than the next. The company makes it's money on the game engine.

What do they make that is of any note currently anyway? it's been 10  years. You won't see PC gamers shedding any tears if they don't bring us Gears of War or UT4.

The Unreal game engine is very successful on the PC and you can expect new titles to launch using it.

 

 

I own the latest Quake title. It's only available on PC. It's excellent.  I'm not aware of ID softwares intention to stop making games for the PC.  As far as I am aware they are currently developing a new version of Wolfenstein and it will be available for the PC. Will it also be available on console? I have no idea, but I don't see why not.

 

Chris Taylors passable but ultimately nondescript efforts are also welcome to migrate to the console market that expects much lower standards of both quality, imagination and innovation too.

However if you are a Supreme Commander fan, playing it on a console with a maximum unit count of 500 must seem like boredom incarnate considering the games only unique selling point is that you can ten's of thousands of them. Once you take that away what have you got left?

 

 

And you are right, Warcraft isn't the enitre industry. Warcraft alone > PS3 and the market for PC is far greater than this one title. Really? if an entire console repetoire is not doing as well as just one PC game title....this is hardly a bad sign for the future of PC gaming. It is however a pretty miserable portent for PS3.

Face it mate you spent £360 quid on a 360 and you've been clutching at straws to defend this purchase to yourself ever since. It's over mate. The big push for making launch titles for the next gen consoles is over. It's peaked.

We saw exactly the same effect in PC gaming when PS2 and Xbox launched. For a while all the development studios rush to fill the gap in the market, and once it is saturated they diverge out again. For a little while longer all the titles are cross platform, and then come the next gen of consoles all the PC games that consoles couldn't do will transfer over to next gen again becaus it is a new market for already established successful franchises.

Console gaming is doing fine you don't have to worry about it.  No need to be so defensive. PC games aren't a threat to console gaming. Quite the opposite, they are one of it's driving forces.

Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Waterlily 
Had, no one cares Epic left after UT3.
UT3 was a disgrace to PC gaming.

 

How so?

I've been into FPS games since Wolfenstein 3D. I was heavy into Quake 2, Quake 3, UT, and UT 200X. I liked UT3. In fact, aside from the graphics, UT 3 was every inch the olde skool shooter that I expected.

Or are you pissed that it wasn't another WWII shooter?

frodus

As if you know wtf your talking about.

baff

But what did it bring to the genre. What did UT3 do that Unreal Tournament hadn't already done?

Oh yes, Vehicles, on no, wait a minute they had Vehicles in UT 2004 also. It's just a console port of UT2004 mate.  A cheap as money spinner with some new FX to show off their game engine, the lisencing of which is the mainstay of their business model.

 

Honestly how much thought went into making UT3? It's a PC port, nothing more. 

Why would you spend more money on that if you have UT2004? UT2004 already has more maps available than you will ever get to try.

And why would you play UT2004 when Planetside and the Battlefields and Joint Operations and Quake Wars are already on the market? 

What does it bring?

Even the console owners have Halo already. They can do all of this and play an engrossing single player too.

 

What it does well is the samething Quake Arena did well. Classic Deathmatch. It's not 1992 anymore. It's about as predictable and as groundbreaking as a Rambo movie. Very fun, but ultimately missable.

Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by baff


But what did it bring to the genre. What did UT3 do that Unreal Tournament hadn't already done?
I wasn't aware that it needed to bring anything to the table other than new maps and a graphics upgrade. The Madden franchise does this shit every year and no one cares, so what makes UT so special?
Oh yes, Vehicles, on no, wait a minute they had Vehicles in UT 2004 also. It's just a console port of UT2004 mate.  A cheap as money spinner with some new FX to show off their game engine, the lisencing of which is the mainstay of their business model.
At this point I'm confused. I played the PC version of UT3. There was never a console version of UT 2004. There was Unreal Championship, I guess. There was also Unreal Championship 2 which was different enough to be a solid game on its own. But there was never an actual console version of UT 2004.
Yeah, I realize the UT3 was on the 360 and PS3, but the PC version was it's own thing. Are you implying that it was still a console game DESPITE being on the PC?
 
Honestly how much thought went into making UT3? It's a PC port, nothing more. 
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. How much thought do you need to put into something that already works?
Why would you spend more money on that if you have UT2004? UT2004 already has more maps available than you will ever get to try.
I don't know.... It's better looking.... hackers haven't had as much time to rape the shit out of it... The maps are new and professionally designed... I can't find a UT 200X server that isn't running fucking mod... etc...
And why would you play UT2004 when Planetside and the Battlefields and Joint Operations and Quake Wars are already on the market? 
Because Planetside, BF, Joint Operations and Quake Wars are selling a completely different experience. All of those are big team games. If all you want to do is deathmatch or play some CTF, then you're pretty much out of luck with those games. If you just want to play with people you already know, you're pretty much done with those games. Seriously, have you ever tried to play a four player game of Battlefield 2 or Quake Wars? Small games might work with Team Fortress 2 but not so much with the overly large maps of Battlefield 2 or Joint Operations.
What does it bring?
Olde skool deathmatch, CTF and last man standing. Small maps for smaller faster games. Some prettier graphics. So on and so forth...
Even the console owners have Halo already. They can do all of this and play an engrossing single player too.
I can't believe that you actually expect to be taken seriously when you present Halo as being even remotely comparable to any old school shooter. You see, in most mulitplayer shooters I expect to... you know... shoot something. In Halo, the most effective way to get a frag is by melee attacks. WTF?!!
What it does well is the samething Quake Arena did well. Classic Deathmatch. It's not 1992 anymore. It's about as predictable and as groundbreaking as a Rambo movie. Very fun, but ultimately missable.
Translation: it isn't new so it must be crap. But how many of these kinds of shooters get released nowadays? twenty? Thirty? How about one or two every five or six years? You can't really bitch about UT 3 being unoriginal when most of  the games you listed (Battlefield, Quake Wars, Joint Operations, Planetside) are basically clones of each other. It's been long enough since we've seen a well executed deathmatch game that UT3 is fits a legitimate market niche.
But hey, to each their own.

 

baff

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by baff


But what did it bring to the genre. What did UT3 do that Unreal Tournament hadn't already done?
I wasn't aware that it needed to bring anything to the table other than new maps and a graphics upgrade. The Madden franchise does this shit every year and no one cares, so what makes UT so special?
I don't consider either UT or Madden special in anyway. I would not consider buying either of them. They have no Unique Selling Points.
I'm not even very aware of a Madden since I'm English, but I suspect it sell doesn't sell all that well on PC either.
Oh yes, Vehicles, on no, wait a minute they had Vehicles in UT 2004 also. It's just a console port of UT2004 mate.  A cheap as money spinner with some new FX to show off their game engine, the lisencing of which is the mainstay of their business model.
At this point I'm confused. I played the PC version of UT3. There was never a console version of UT 2004. There was Unreal Championship, I guess. There was also Unreal Championship 2 which was different enough to be a solid game on its own. But there was never an actual console version of UT 2004.
Yeah, I realize the UT3 was on the 360 and PS3, but the PC version was it's own thing. Are you implying that it was still a console game DESPITE being on the PC?
In my opinon UT3 is nothing more that UT2004 on the latest version of the Unreal engine.  They didn't have a version of UT2004 available to buy on console, and now they do. Just another cheap one year production zapped out for some quick cash. They ported UT2004 over to next gen console and labelled it "UT3".
I don't recognise any significant difference between versions from platform to platform. It's the same game in my eyes. Maybe a higher pop cap and some bigger maps (which you don't like).
 
Honestly how much thought went into making UT3? It's a PC port, nothing more. 
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. How much thought do you need to put into something that already works?
How much thought do i need to put into my decision to buy a game not significantly different from one I already have and have already played to death?
If it ain't different, don't pay for it twice.
Why would you spend more money on that if you have UT2004? UT2004 already has more maps available than you will ever get to try.
I don't know.... It's better looking.... hackers haven't had as much time to rape the shit out of it... The maps are new and professionally designed... I can't find a UT 200X server that isn't running fucking mod... etc...
It's on the Unreal engine, so hackers will still be there. The old hacks will still work on the new game. I can get new maps for free and with endless supply on the internet already for UT2004. (Although most won't be as well made as you point out).
On the console however there aren't the same level of mods and the players need new releases to keep the game alive while on the PC the version I already own is  is still going good from it's release years ago.
And why would you play UT2004 when Planetside and the Battlefields and Joint Operations and Quake Wars are already on the market? 
Because Planetside, BF, Joint Operations and Quake Wars are selling a completely different experience. All of those are big team games. If all you want to do is deathmatch or play some CTF, then you're pretty much out of luck with those games. If you just want to play with people you already know, you're pretty much done with those games. Seriously, have you ever tried to play a four player game of Battlefield 2 or Quake Wars? Small games might work with Team Fortress 2 but not so much with the overly large maps of Battlefield 2 or Joint Operations.
It is of note that UT is also a clone game and is also competeing in a saturated market. It doesn't even atempt to vary it's theme unlike the other games mentioned above. It is simply a graphical update of exctly the same game you bought last year. Even down to it's name.
It is also of note that in it's hayday, Unreal did bring considerably bigger maps to the world of FPS gaming and larger player numbers also. This used to be one of it's USP's. And now it has lost that claim.
The reason those games all sold better is because they understood that this is what the larger part of their audience was looking for.
That the audience had become more educated. More sophiosticated. That they were able to embrace a more complex structure of gameplay and wanted to.
 
 
What does it bring?
Olde skool deathmatch, CTF and last man standing. Small maps for smaller faster games. Some prettier graphics. So on and so forth...
I concur.  The exact same thing we all have already and have all played and seen a million times before. It isn't stretching the technology envelope of Personal Computing as it used to be, but is now targeted at a retro audience.
Even the console owners have Halo already. They can do all of this and play an engrossing single player too.
I can't believe that you actually expect to be taken seriously when you present Halo as being even remotely comparable to any old school shooter. You see, in most mulitplayer shooters I expect to... you know... shoot something. In Halo, the most effective way to get a frag is by melee attacks. WTF?!!
Halo is THE olde Skool shooter for Xbox owners. It has a sci fi theme and also vehicles and small maps. Like it or not. That's how it is.
What it does well is the samething Quake Arena did well. Classic Deathmatch. It's not 1992 anymore. It's about as predictable and as groundbreaking as a Rambo movie. Very fun, but ultimately missable.
Translation: it isn't new so it must be crap. But how many of these kinds of shooters get released nowadays? twenty? Thirty? How about one or two every five or six years? You can't really bitch about UT 3 being unoriginal when most of  the games you listed (Battlefield, Quake Wars, Joint Operations, Planetside) are basically clones of each other. It's been long enough since we've seen a well executed deathmatch game that UT3 is fits a legitimate market niche.
And this is Epic's problem with it. It's not that it isn't a fun and well polished classic game, it's that it is a niche market game in a saturated market and they are used to having massive sellers. They targeted a smaller audience and consequently got smaller sales.
Their rivals however, all got significantly larger sales. So their argument that PC gaming is dying is a rather lame excuse for their own failings in my opinion.
But hey, to each their own.
I'm not knocking the game, it's great fun. But you don't look at that game and think "that will be a best seller."
And if it doesn't sell as well on PC as the last installment did or the other games competing with it in the same market, it's not exaclty reason to be shocked or to think that PC gaming has died.
It just means that the boys at Epic have been riding a successful formula into the grave with sequel closely followed by sequel instead of creating something equally as groundbreaking and refreshing as the original all those years ago.
The only people who ever expected it to do well were the ones whose paychecks depended on convincing people of that.
So when it didn't do s fantastically as they predicted, they have ll been casting around blaming anyone and anything rather than accept the responsability that comes along with their paycheck.
Goodbye. Welcome to unemployment. they thought they were the dogs nuts of the gaming industry and they weren't. they allowed themselves to get left behind making niche retro games.

 

 

Waterlily

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Waterlily 
Had, no one cares Epic left after UT3.
UT3 was a disgrace to PC gaming.

 

How so?

I've been into FPS games since Wolfenstein 3D. I was heavy into Quake 2, Quake 3, UT, and UT 200X. I liked UT3. In fact, aside from the graphics, UT 3 was every inch the olde skool shooter that I expected.

Or are you pissed that it wasn't another WWII shooter?

UT3 was a port, it was developed for multiple consoles and then ported. They even used a console as their development platform. PS3 or 360? I forgot.

The point is that it showed. UT3 was nothing like UT2k4, I loved playing 2k4, UT3 handles and plays like a slow console port.

I really could care less about Epic, UT and PC gaming made Epic, to turn their back to PC gaming like that for easy money by porting the same game 4 times to 4 different platforms....don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Gameloading

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Jackcolt


What makes you think PC Gaming is dead?

 

Considering that some of the most die hard PC game developers are now slamming the platform, one can't be blamed for thinking it's not doing that well. I'd say it's currently on mmorpg life support.

LMAO.

 

 

MMORPG is hardly "life support".

Warcraft alone has netted more money than the entire portfolio of PS3 games.

 

If that's what life support is, no wonder consoles are so desperate to get themselves on to it.

 

The only developers I hear slamming the PC are the console developers who know PC gamers won't by their suckworthy titles.

Warcraft isn't the entire industry. MMO's are really the only genre that is growing.

 

"Console developers who make suckworthy titles? You haven't really paid attention the state of PC gaming have you? Epic has a long history with PC gaming.So does Peter molyneux (Known for Populous, Black & white), John carmack (Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake) and Chris Taylor (Total Annihilation, Dungeon Siege, Supreme Commander)

All of these have slammed the PC gaming industry, and these are all "suckworthy console developers"? Please.

 @BigDavo

Excuse me, this is the year 2008, not 1997. MMORPG's have bloomed since the release of WoW, and especialy in asia the mmorpg market has exploded.

Peter Molyneux has long history of making crapgames for the PC. He is a miserable person. At parties he is the miserable one in the corner who wants to tell you all his problems. Honestly you would have to be suicidal or a Smiths fan to listen to that bloke. He's an industry legend alright, but not for his games.

 

Black and White was an over hyped flop on PC just like all his other titles were. Nothing he has every made for PC has been worth my money. Populous 2 wasn't as good as Populous and Populous one was an Amiga game. Did you really think one good game that wasn't even available for the PC makes him a guru of PC gaming? 

PC gaming isn't just dead for him, it was never alive.

 

Epic has a long history of both PC and console gaming. Unfortunately their history of making landmark PC games ended on their first title. Unreal.

All the sequels were dull. Each one doing successesively worse than the next. The company makes it's money on the game engine.

What do they make that is of any note currently anyway? it's been 10  years. You won't see PC gamers shedding any tears if they don't bring us Gears of War or UT4.

The Unreal game engine is very successful on the PC and you can expect new titles to launch using it.

 

 

I own the latest Quake title. It's only available on PC. It's excellent.  I'm not aware of ID softwares intention to stop making games for the PC.  As far as I am aware they are currently developing a new version of Wolfenstein and it will be available for the PC. Will it also be available on console? I have no idea, but I don't see why not.

 

Chris Taylors passable but ultimately nondescript efforts are also welcome to migrate to the console market that expects much lower standards of both quality, imagination and innovation too.

However if you are a Supreme Commander fan, playing it on a console with a maximum unit count of 500 must seem like boredom incarnate considering the games only unique selling point is that you can ten's of thousands of them. Once you take that away what have you got left?

 

 

And you are right, Warcraft isn't the enitre industry. Warcraft alone > PS3 and the market for PC is far greater than this one title. Really? if an entire console repetoire is not doing as well as just one PC game title....this is hardly a bad sign for the future of PC gaming. It is however a pretty miserable portent for PS3.

Face it mate you spent £360 quid on a 360 and you've been clutching at straws to defend this purchase to yourself ever since. It's over mate. The big push for making launch titles for the next gen consoles is over. It's peaked.

We saw exactly the same effect in PC gaming when PS2 and Xbox launched. For a while all the development studios rush to fill the gap in the market, and once it is saturated they diverge out again. For a little while longer all the titles are cross platform, and then come the next gen of consoles all the PC games that consoles couldn't do will transfer over to next gen again becaus it is a new market for already established successful franchises.

Console gaming is doing fine you don't have to worry about it.  No need to be so defensive. PC games aren't a threat to console gaming. Quite the opposite, they are one of it's driving forces.

 

Ah Baff, how I love reading posts like this. Such huge amount of denial and ignorance. Honnestly, you look like a kid who's best friend won't allow him to play with his new toy, "Oh yeah!? Well I never liked your stupid toy anyway!"

All of the developers I have mentioned are legendary among PC gaming and some of them, such as peter molyneux and john carmack, are pioneers of PC gaming regardless of your opinion. We can all check the review scores, we can all check the facts. Unreal Tournament 2004 is currently at an average score of 92%, Black & White at 89% and I don't think I need to inform you about John Carmack's and Chris Taylors contributions to gaming.

Seriously Baff, you pull this card everytime. Whenever Infinity Ward complained about Piracy you were the first to yell: "PC gamers don't care about CoD4, CoD4 sucks! Its a console title blablabla" completely ignoring the fact CoD4 was on the top of PC salecharts for a very, very long time. I mean, the idea alone that PC gaming, which probably wouldn't even EXIST today if it wasn't for FPS, has no interest in a military shooter is downright laughable and nothing but ignorance.

Console market has lower standards? I seriously hope you're refering to just RTS games because in general it's the other way around. There is not a single PC exclusive game in the top 40 on gamerankings.com, not a single one. Or check the latest ign top 100 games list, the list is overwhelmed with console titles, and if that won't convince you just wait untill this year GOTY awards, which I assure you will be overwhelmed by multiplatform and console exclusives. I mean, what does the PC have to offer this year? Crysis Warhead? SPORE? hehe.

Now to correct you a few times:

Quake Wars (I believe this is the latest quake) is avaible on the PC, PS3 and Xbox360, World of Warcraft is doing great, good for Blizzard, but Blizzards success isn't going to do a whole lot for Crytek (Announces no more PC exclusives due to piracy after Crysis Warhead)

blog.wired.com/games/2008/04/pirates-force-c.html

or Id software:

www.joystiq.com/2007/03/09/id-software-ceo-piracy-pushed-us-multiplatform/

Just because one company is doing well doesn't mean that the whole industry is doing well.

I don't need to be defensive about console gaming, console gaming is doing fine. Software attachment rate has gone through the roof and people are buying more consoles and console games than ever.

The PC industry isn't. It's at an all time low and only MMORPG's are keeping the numbers high.

Waterlily

Originally posted by Gameloading

There is not a single PC exclusive game in the top 40 on gamerankings.com, not a single one.

The WoW expansion was the number 7 most sold game of 2007.

I don't see sales data on the site you mentioned.

http://www.shacknews.com/ is the most recent list.

And most data comes from NPD, and they don't show digital distribution:

"The NPD Group has chimed in, attributing the low percentage of PC software sales to the growing shift towards digital distribution, which the firm does not track."