Don't Call it a Comeback

If you haven’t been paying close attention you may have missed it. The PC is making a comeback.

When no one was looking the Death of PC dead horse, still swollen with endless beatings, kick-started its own heart — Motley Crue style! — got up and trotted happily away. As a result, one of the blogosphere's favorite go-to topics, up there with NPD numbers, debates over the relative merits of piracy and cats with poor grammatical skills, has, for months now, seemed curiously ignored. There may be good reason.

As a self-identified PC gamer, I’ve often felt like I was stuck in an increasingly unfunny Monty Python skit. Despite constant protests that I’m not dead yet and that I emphatically do not want to go on the cart, the reports of our death were mildly exaggerated. Developers abandoned the platform as a profitless wasteland and consoles took center stage. Now as the new and shiny has become the tepid and static, there are tremors of renewed if unsurprising interest in a platform with a monstrous user base and a lower barrier to development interest.

But as we consider that PC gaming may be back, I wonder if that means quite what I had once thought?

There are some assumptions that seem to be made by those PC-centered relics that have existed these past handful of years in a digital diaspora, and those assumptions describe some of the fundamental differences between the desktop platform and its living room counterpart. The easiest way to encapsulate those assumptions is to talk about what happens to games when they are ported from a console to a PC.

These disparities of interface, complexity and depth are part of a larger conflict that exists in the way that different gamers seem to think about their pastime. The assumptions of the exiled have always been that a return to PC gaming focused development would at least partially mean a rejection of “consolization” tropes. It’s in the difference between Baldur’s Gate and Baldur’s Gate Dark Alliance. It’s in the difference between Civilization IV and Civilization Revolutions.

But, even as I proclaim that PC gaming is on the way back, I have to admit that the era of those AAA, big budget blockbusters on the platform are not. What PC gaming offers is a budget solution for publishers to monetize their properties in a way that consoles don’t facilitate. When Electronic Arts’ CFO Eric Brown says that the PC is the largest gaming platform, he’s not indicating that a new era of Ultima and Wing Commander is on the way.

He’s saying that the platform has demonstrated a reach and ability to connect with non-traditional gamers in a way that still eludes the expensive production model of consoles. He’s saying that EA wants to get itself in on some of that juicy World of WarCraft and Peggle action. It’s not that EA, or any other publisher for that matter, will be champing at the bit to create the next Master of Orion 2 or Planescape: Torment. It’s that EA understands one fundamental truth about the platform: if you build the right game then no other medium allows for more potential profitability.

Their investments in Spore, The Sims 3 and the Knights of the Old Republic MMO might as well be a mission statement for the company. Their partnerships with Valve and their core understanding of how Steam has unlocked revenue streams is perhaps not visionary, but at least getting in on the times. While I’m sure that looking back they would have preferred to be a leader in the online distribution space, at least they are partnering with the right people to make up for lost ground.

Were I to pull down my crystal ball, I would guess that EA will at some point begin to prioritize its own casual gaming division to compete with success stories like PopCap. A Steam released casual game, say some kind of Spore/Flow style timewaster seems like the kind of idea that could define a new EA/PC relationship. I would also guess that they won’t be alone in the initiative. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

It means that a resurgence of the PC may not mean what I had once thought. As I invest more time and more interest in smaller budget and lower profile games from Plants vs. Zombies to Mount and Blade I see that I don’t necessarily need Bioware to come back and commit itself to some grand Baldur’s Gate 3. I also don’t necessarily need the platform to be the industry leader in technology, an expensive proposition that I’m finally willing to concede over to the cool kids in console land.

Having a platform that allows developers to take chances by keeping costs low is going to, in the long run, probably create far more interesting products than the traditional model. I suppose in many ways they were right when they said that PC gaming, at least in the way I once thought of it is dead. Maybe Duke Nukem 4 was the swan song and a disappointing coda to that way of thinking at the same time that it's a warning to future generations, and again, I suggest that's probably a good thing.

The king is dead. Long live the king, baby.

Comments

Great article. I think you're totally on with what you're saying about the changing dynamics of game-play styles for the PC from the 'hardcore' games to the more 'popular' games; however, that being said, I think that the games that are coming out, like World of Goo, PvZ, and the myriad of others that appeal both the simple and 'hardcore' gamer as being a wonderful evolution from earlier titles that required a degree in CE just to install, let alone play.

The games we'll still see heavily on the PC are those that appeal to the 'business' gamer more than the casual gamer.

Nice thoughts.
I've always thought that the 'death' of pc gaming was more of a rebirth.
Sadly this still leaves the pc elitists out in the cold because of the 'dumbing down' of their beloved platform.
There will likely still be independent games along the lines they like, but no more block busters.

I think you should take into mind the role of digital distribution (again a blogosphere favorite). I mean just because your local GameSpot is shrinking the amount of space devoted to PC games doesn't mean everyone there isn't a thriving PC community, but it certainly gives the impression.

You are right to point out that most consoles haven't even begun to tap the casual and MMO markets because just by nature of the userbase, they lend themselves to the PC.

So, to summarize because I'm slow: PC gaming will become casual gaming because that's where the money is. Perhaps. But wasn't the real meaning of "PC gamer" always really "complicated [i.e., "deep"] gamer"? And isn't that always a niche market? After all, once we start making the winner of the platform wars into the one that sells the most the "deep" gamer is going to lose out. But that's just hardcore versus casual translated into platform speak.

Look at it like this: is _Plants vs. Zombies_ a win for PC gamers over casual gamers? Seems like a Catch-22, since the game is a bit of both. So we're quickly falling into a category mistake.

There's still a market for a BG3. And there's a market for yet another Peggle. The two overlap while also catching different demographics. Pure 2-circle Venn diagram. It's good news all around, if you've invested in a good PC...(which is why PC gamers like me are really concerned, after all...a $2k console? And we worried about the $400 PS3...)

There's still a large demand for AAA titles on the PC. Not as great as on the console systems but still significant, with many big titles getting PC ports. For example Capcom recently stated that they want Bionic Commando and Dark Void to be available on Steam on release. I think your article paints a rosy picture of gaming innovation on the PC platform because you want the PC to fill a niche that the creatively starved and stifled consoles can't service. However, in practice it seems like there is little difference between casual games for netbooks and cheap titles filling up XBL and PSN; and the two spheres now overlap with games like Peggle. To be honest, I think your article pigeonholes PC gaming as much as the Dying PC trope ever did. I don't want the PC to be the new Wii. The PC has so many more wonderful attributes to make it the platform of choice for a large variety of games.

Also I have no idea how you can talk about Baldur's Gate 3 in the hypothetical when Dragon Age is going to be released within the year.

Oh! Elysium IS still alive! Huzzah!

I thought this always happened. New consoles come out that are the new hotness and have power to spare compared to the mid-range PCs of the same time period. PC gaming is declared dead. Then consoles slowly age, keeping the same hardware as the mid-range PC slowly drifts higher until PCs are once again as or more powerful than the consoles. PC gaming is resurrected once more. In a couple of years some new consoles will come out and blow away the average PC and it'll start up all over again.

Sorry, but I'm with Elysium. While they may be releasing more games on the PC, they're not what they used to be. That dead horse isn't standing up; a pony in a clown-suit is trying to get by wearing his skin.

When I bought a "gaming pc" over a year ago now, it was with the naive assumption on my part that I needed a joystick because I was going to be stomping around the Successor States again, launching off the Tiger Claw, or flying a kite powered by a lawnmower engine in the lowering skies over Europe. But that's nowhere to be seen. Deep simulation games - the bread and butter of the PC golden age - are fossils. The best I can hope for is some enterpising publishing company scraping thin XBL ports out of the stone layers trapping them.

Heck, deep isn't even required. How many of us would face a dragon to see a new X-Wing or TIE Fighter?

FPS is limping around smarting from some nasty wounds dealt by bad console ports. There's been a bit of resurgence in the serious RTS realms - Sins of a Solar Empire made a splash, and we have a new Starcraft on the way. It remains to be seen how that really impacts anyone outside of South Korea longterm, though.

Where are the real adventure games? Those days with Sierra and LucasArts hauling us off to new realms by turns can only see their ghost fluttering in the flickering light of Telltale's brave and wonderful episodic gamble. I'm talking Monkey Island. King's Quest. Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

I wish I could explain to those who are reading the main article with only the experience of the Playstation era to go by exactly what they're missing. But sadly, I don't think they would agree with me that they're missing anything at all. Right or wrong, things have changed. The target game industry mavins had in their sights as a core gamer in 1994 is a dinosaur nowadays, too.

Eh, I don't think the "deep" games are dead, either. What we're going to see, is many more indie developers throwing out deep games on the PC, because the barrier to entry is lower. (I know, I pimp Spiderweb and Flatspace every time PC gaming is mentioned, but they're really the best examples of what I'm looking at.)

Sure, they're not normal-mapped and blinged out 6 ways to sunday. They'll run on any given PC, and are better games than a lot of AAA titles I've played recently.

But, I will say, there's a trend towards dumbing games down a bit, as much as I hate the term. (Look at System Shock 2 -> Bioshock).

However, I think this is a temporary problem. Demographics are shifting, yet again. Gamers 20+ are a _huge_ chunk of the demo now. And a lot of us are a _ton_ more involved. Companies will realize that to be truly successful, you need to grab the hearts and minds of older gamers not enthralled by "Hey, shoot him. Now him. Isn't blood AWESOME?!". We demand deeper games, better stories, and more interesting mechanics. Companies will come around, sooner rather than later. Or they'll get whooped down by indie devs on Steam, and Valve will print money. (Stardock is a good example too, bad netcode of Demigod notwithstanding.)

I'm not sure Kannon. I agree that deep isn't dead, but older gamers seem to be fond of simple games. Most don't seem to have the time or energy for the games of their youth.
The complex game is going to become more niche as those familiar with it get old and tired, while those win have grown up with the simple games don't know what they're missing.

If Gamestop / EBGames could've killed the pc off, they would have. They were quite shrill in proclaiming its demise.

In the US at least, I think they played a big role in the dip pc software sales took both in perception and at the register. There were less options at the time for acquiring pc software, and if digital / e-options existed maybe the awareness/comfort factor just wasnt there yet for consumers. Brick-n-mortar was still king.

Sure, they said pc software sales are marginal, but they had a vested interest in doing so. Remember witnessing 'the shrinking'? Their pc sections retreated to smaller and smaller, low trafficked areas in the shop, while they put their weight behind the easy money, consoles and particularly used console software sales.

It seems to me that once you begin throttling a major channel to the consumer, you are taking an active role in the determining the outcome. I don't blame them, but I just feel they helped orchestrate a portion of 'the fall' of pc gaming because it suited their business model. Look how easy it is to process a used console game purchase, inventory management and sale. Then remember back to the chaos that was their used pc game sections. Turnover was probably low, the inventory was usually a mess, they probably ate losses constantly between quick downturns in product 'value', operating costs to process and inventory the used pc games, dealing with the return fun that mustve gone hand-in-hand with used 'cd keys' and outright theft. In contrast, look at the efficiency of trading in a used console game. By the time you hand it over the counter, they have a sleeve out, a sticker printed, and the box is ready to go on the shelf before you leave the store.

A lot of my own gaming has transitioned over to consoles, but I'm glad to see the market presence of the pc being recognized again. Did it really shrink overall or was that perception just an business agenda for big players in the industry... I tend to think it's the latter.

Amen, keep the faith. The stallions may be enjoying run of the field, but that horse will always be there. She doesn't ever get older, only wiser. Pick up any casual title or even TF2 and be glad new things can still be good and accessible to those who were clicking their way to a GodLike status a decade ago.
Dead? No. I'm just waxing nostalgic and being prey to my perceptions just because I haven't had Shodan insult me differently for a few years.

bnpederson wrote:

I thought this always happened. New consoles come out that are the new hotness and have power to spare compared to the mid-range PCs of the same time period. PC gaming is declared dead. Then consoles slowly age, keeping the same hardware as the mid-range PC slowly drifts higher until PCs are once again as or more powerful than the consoles. PC gaming is resurrected once more.

The difference is this time around that didn't happen, the opposite did. The PC is getting a resurgence of development for niche titles looking for a low barrier to entry, but top tier PC games no longer have the sales to justify their costs. The PC is already much more powerful than the consoles, but pretty much all developers won't utilize that power since all the sales for that type of game has moved to the consoles.

As it becomes easier and easier to hook a PC up to one's living room television and use wireless peripherals, I think the PC becomes a more direct competitor to consoles. That "PC game" implies less about style of game further supports this. For better or for worse.

kuddles wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

I thought this always happened. New consoles come out that are the new hotness and have power to spare compared to the mid-range PCs of the same time period. PC gaming is declared dead. Then consoles slowly age, keeping the same hardware as the mid-range PC slowly drifts higher until PCs are once again as or more powerful than the consoles. PC gaming is resurrected once more.

The difference is this time around that didn't happen, the opposite did. The PC is getting a resurgence of development for niche titles looking for a low barrier to entry, but top tier PC games no longer have the sales to justify their costs. The PC is already much more powerful than the consoles, but pretty much all developers won't utilize that power since all the sales for that type of game has moved to the consoles.

The Crysis effect?*

*Note: I know Crysis eventually sold well, but the gaming community's impression was that it failed at launch when it didn't break all sales records ever recorded.

I wonder if costs are really lower on the PC.

Sure for consoles you may need a developer kit, and get your game certified etc (though this looks a good bit easier now with xbl community games).

On the other hand, you don't need to support virtually infinite numbers of hardware and software configurations. You don't need to test what happens if the user doesn't install the game to C:\ (quake2 i'm looking at you!). No "if graphics card supports dx8/9/10 then ..." type pseudocode.

It would be interesting to hear developers who have good experience on many platforms speak on this (they probably have, help me google!).

For a while, my PC gaming consisted of WoW. When I quit, I only played games on it when I would get together with friends at our annual LAN party. Recently I have been sucked back in by Steam, and all the greatness it has to offer. Games like Peggle and PvZ and Defense Grid have sucked me back in. Not to mention the fact that Steam really gets me with their sales. Before the weekend sale, I would never be looking forward to Friday to see what game I was going to buy. Whether these games be "deep" or not does not bother me, but I see many casual games hitting the market that I will and have enjoyed, and these profitable gems will keep the PC going as a money making platform. As long as the platform is profitable, we will get developers who will still release a interesting and deep experience.

momgamer wrote:

I'm talking Monkey Island. King's Quest. Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Just a heads-up, but RotTK XI is actually available on PC. I knew nothing about its release either and just stumbled upon it a few months afterwards. It's a bit simpler than some of the more recent ps2 releases (especially 8, I think, in which you could play a common officer working his way up), but looks pretty and plays well.

http://www.koei.com/rtkxipc/

I've never thought PC gaming dead, it has just faded in and out of the spotlight. True, much of what is released has changed to create an easier entry level, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as long as the more "hardcore pc" genres continue to exist. Adventure games are still around; they don't light up the sales charts, but some good ones have been released in the past few years such as the Telltale catalog, Jack Keane, and Scratches. As someone mentioned, RTS is experiencing a resurgence. Turn-based is happily plugging away due to Stardock and Matrix games (among others), and FPS is simply in a lull right now, and in order to minimize the risk, multi-platform development must take place, although Valve, Crytek, Ubisoft, and GSC Gameworld do still put out some impressive work at times. Also don't forget id's next project, and Croteam seems ready to release some major info on Serious Sam 3!

The only genre which seems to be in dire straits right now is the hardcore simulation - its newest releases being Silent Hunter 4, KA50 (?) Black Shark, IL2 1946, and, arguably, ArmA (and Operation Flashpoint 2) - simulations of infantry combat with vehicle elements.

...the good news is that the mod community (and indie scene) have been around to fill in the gaps - a luxury the consoles don't really have.

So it's not really a case of "rebirth" as much as a "rediscovery". Sure the types of games have changed, but if you look at consoles, many of the "older" console game types are rarely found nowadays either, except perhaps on the DS.

Irongut wrote:

Sure, they said pc software sales are marginal, but they had a vested interest in doing so. Remember witnessing 'the shrinking'? Their pc sections retreated to smaller and smaller, low trafficked areas in the shop, while they put their weight behind the easy money, consoles and particularly used console software sales.

EB Games stores in Canada had the same amount for PC that they had for other platforms until like 2 or 3 weeks ago. The sales of PC games never cease to diminish and at some point you gotta make space for what sells in a store. I understand that.

I think MMOs are to blame but that's just me.

A few years ago, almost all of my gaming was on the console. Before that, it was the opposite. These days it's back to being almost all on the PC. The only time I turn on my Xbox 360 now is to play the music band games with friends. This is largely due to digital distribution (mostly Steam) and the awesome weekend sales. So I fully believe that with continued growth of digital distribution, it will be a major factor in the comeback of the PC.

Having said that, I don't expect to see much of a change regarding the types of games that are released on both platforms. I still expect most AAA games to be on the consoles with the PC continuing to be mostly MMOs and low-budget/indie/casual games (for lack of better terms). Hopefully the success of Steam will eventually prove me wrong, allowing PC gamers to play new AAA games at release, instead of waiting several months for a port, if at all.

Kannon wrote:

Eh, I don't think the "deep" games are dead, either. What we're going to see, is many more indie developers throwing out deep games on the PC, because the barrier to entry is lower. (I know, I pimp Spiderweb and Flatspace every time PC gaming is mentioned, but they're really the best examples of what I'm looking at.)

Sure, they're not normal-mapped and blinged out 6 ways to sunday. They'll run on any given PC, and are better games than a lot of AAA titles I've played recently.

Exactly this. Gamers who want really serious titles have plenty of selection from the indie crowd. The only thing those games can't provide is graphics, but meh, who cares?

And besides, I'm wondering how real this lack of AAA PC titles is. Dawn Of War 2, Empire: Total War, and The Sims 3 are a few titles in the last few months I can think of off the top of my head. There is plenty of great stuff out there, far more than I could ever hope to buy.

PC in my mind now has kind of shifted into several categories of games.
Obviously, there is the casual space, which all of our podcasters wax aeternal on.
Then you see evolution within the RTS space. Demigod, defcon, DoW2 and several others have been working on transforming this PC only space. (Yes, there are console RTS's, but no big ones)
FPS's have also seen a clear evolution away from the PC blockbuster (Crysis, Duke, etc) into dedicated single and multiplayer spaces. The singleplayer seems to be leaning more towards the european audience, with harsh experiences like STALKER. Multiplayer in my mind is the spawn of CS. These games focus on either presenting unlockables, a harsh skill curve, or both.
Then you've got MMO's, turn based games which can translate to consoles (Civ Rev) and western RPG's which are still best on PC in many cases.

Not having to pay for a license helps cutting costs down. Really a big deal for indie games.
I don't think pc gaming was ever dead, as there was always more to play then I could
finish. PC gaming will stay more indepth. Nothing against consoles, it's just how it is.

Here is what PC gaming really needs as well:
a break out box, next to the tv, put those MS Controllers on it from the XBOX and
get the same titles of XBOX playing on the PC as well. Best of both worlds.

I agree that the cutting edge in pcgaming graphics is probably done. The reasons being piracy, the platform being too expensive at the cutting edge and the platform being too much trouble at the cutting edge especially. (not necessarily in that order.)

It's probably no coincidence that 2 of the big players that have survived in pcgaming are Blizzard and Valve - both are known for providing high quality products that run on lesser machines that still look good and play good.

And look at StarDock. I think they also have the business model for providing games to the "core" audience while maintaining the ability to make money. Certainly their games aren't big tech powerhouses either. So it's not just going to be Bejeweled and company on the pc.

But I think the key is to make games that don't require a $300 graphics card. Makes games that can run and look great on a 3 yr old computer.

And what helps this today is integrated gpus now can handle nice graphics. Not cutting edge graphics, but they have plenty of power to make eye pleasing graphics. And the low-end of graphics solutions today is getting to be "good enough."

The other key, really the fundamental problem with gaming on the pc, is the hassle of the platform. IF you think about it a really strange dichotomy exists on the platform.

The pc is the home of casual gaming and has been for quite some time maybe forever. My Mom plays Popcap games on the platform. We've all played Minesweeper, Hearts and Solitaire.

IT's not much of a hassle. I click the game. It works.

But take a game like Battlefield 2 and add a non-pcgaming and non-pc-nerd friend that wants to get into it and mention that they have to upgrade their graphics card and maybe get more memory or need a new pc or have to download drivers or get rid of some background processes or turn off anti-virus or ..... and you never hear from that friend again about that game. YOu hear about their new 360 instead.

Strange eh? EAsy enough for Mom and her games, but too complicated and/or too much of a hassle for too many folks that like "core" games.

Going back to the beginning though I can see where pcgaming could make a cutting edge comeback. The Wii can only have made MS and Sony question the strategy of releasing expensive cutting edge graphics consoles. And so the gap between what the pc can do and what consoles can do in the future is likely to widen. That could very well drive the hardcore graphics whores back to the pc. This could be helped if MS and company make the platform easier to use for gaming and it could be helped by digital distribution - The pc being the most likely platform to move entirely to digital distribution first.

So we can't use DNF or the death of the PC as a punchline anymore? What's left?

I think one of the massive pluses (for me) about PC gaming is that it cannot be killed, although it can sometimes be where all the 'awesome games you have to play' are, and sometimes that's somewhere else. Try and squeeze it in one area, and it'll thrive in another

Because by-and-large it is just one platform, windows, and the nature of windows means that anyone can develop on it, and the tools you use to make your game are available from free (well, the cost of operating the internet to find those tools and educate yourself to use them) up to many thousands for the cutting edge professional tools. That handily leads onto another advantage: a PC can be for anyone, from a over-specced powerhouse to a lowly netbook, or even a second hand rig of yesteryear. Any PC can play a game to some extent, from a flash version of tower defence at work to a photo realistic racer with wheel and pedals. Distribution matters less as it's a flexible platform, download and retail both work well when the effort is put in.

Am I preaching?

garion333 wrote:
kuddles wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

I thought this always happened. New consoles come out that are the new hotness and have power to spare compared to the mid-range PCs of the same time period. PC gaming is declared dead. Then consoles slowly age, keeping the same hardware as the mid-range PC slowly drifts higher until PCs are once again as or more powerful than the consoles. PC gaming is resurrected once more.

The difference is this time around that didn't happen, the opposite did. The PC is getting a resurgence of development for niche titles looking for a low barrier to entry, but top tier PC games no longer have the sales to justify their costs. The PC is already much more powerful than the consoles, but pretty much all developers won't utilize that power since all the sales for that type of game has moved to the consoles.

The Crysis effect?*

*Note: I know Crysis eventually sold well, but the gaming community's impression was that it failed at launch when it didn't break all sales records ever recorded.

And even their claim that their graphics engine could be pumped up to scale with hardware advancement isn't all that true. Today Far Cry 2 looks way better than Crysis (in my opinion) and I get steadier frame-rates.

I believe this last grueling and expensive gaming PC upgrade will be my last. The return on investment has been decent but I'm getting way too old, and busy, for this. In the future I don't see myself with much more than a mid-range PC with a decent video card and a netbook.

momgamer wrote:

Deep simulation games - the bread and butter of the PC golden age - are fossils.

Eh? Fossils? I'll admit that sims are nowhere near as prevalent as they used to be in the early 90s, but I think the prospects are good. The IL-2 successor, Storm of War: Battle of Britain, is in development, nearing completion. X3: Terran Conflict was recently released by Egosoft. ArmA2 and Op Flashpoint 2 are coming. DCS Black Shark was released late last year, and future DCS sims featuring the A-10 and AH64 are in development.

Not to mention the mod community is thriving. Over Flanders Field, for example.

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's that grim. You just need to know where to look. Just because it isn't being released as blockbusters by big-name US developers doesn't mean sims are history.

It occurred to me the other day that this console generation is really one of the better segregated ones. Last time the PS2, Gamecube, and X-Box all competed in the same space, with the PC relegated to some bastard child of X-Box ports and forced to compete all to often in the same overcrowded space of three petulant children.

I think this shift is probably better for the PC. It's not about "dumbing down". The power of modern consoles means you don't have to limit the kinds of games you put on them. If they've been "dumbed down" it's for mass market appeal, and that is the case with some of the games coming out for the PC. Videogaming is mainstream now, this is not a bad thing, but it means we'll see a lot of games that hit a wide demographic. There will still be plenty of games for the PC that are "Deep", there always have been.

However, I think the other thing good about this is that, for the most part, the different platforms are finding their own niche. So the PC has managed to make a "comeback" by utilizing it's strengths. Great! The Wii has a unique control structure that will get its own exclusives, the X-Box 360 is more of a "standard" console. If anything, the reason the PS3 is doing so poorly in sales is, aside from cost, it doesn't know what it wants to be. "I'm a standard console! I'm a blu-ray player! Look, I have motion control!" By trying to be all things it pleases almost no one.

I'm still not interested in going back to the PC. It doesn't fit my play style anymore. I don't want to mess with drivers and spend as much time trying to troubleshoot as I do playing games. I've just had too many issues. There is a certain irony here in that the last time we saw the PC really competing with consoles I had no interest in consoles. Now that my time is limited my preferences have changed. However, if games had not evolved on consoles to have the same experiences as the PC I still wouldn't be interested.

I'd still like to see more standardization in the PC space. At a certain point I get tired of the console wars.

trip1eX wrote:

IT's not much of a hassle. I click the game. It works.

But take a game like Battlefield 2 and add a non-pcgaming and non-pc-nerd friend that wants to get into it and mention that they have to upgrade their graphics card and maybe get more memory or need a new pc or have to download drivers or get rid of some background processes or turn off anti-virus or ..... and you never hear from that friend again about that game. YOu hear about their new 360 instead.

This might just be hitting below the belt. I love the Battlefield franchise with a passion, but its' latest games have been buggy messes. I still can't play the 2142 expansion after doing multiple uninstalls. The net code for 2142 is horrible and at this point it's safe to say it will never be repaired. All these problems occur on a wide variety of rigs. BF2 browser was broken for me for about a year. Just to get the game to run I had to jump through hoops.

I think a better model to look at would be Quakelive. It runs great on most machines. Installation is a breeze as it is a browser plugin. Hell, i would have paid twenty bucks to buy it, but they gave it away for free. So cheap, low system requirements and ease of installation will be the way for indie pc publishers to go.