InsideTech

Hi Everyone,

                       We're going to commence our first discussion by getting everyone's feedback on what really happened, who's played their part in  the downfall, when did this happen and is there a way to get back online.

I don't think that we need console hardware in a PC.

The consoles themselves contain PC hardware, just on a budget constaint.

I saw Modern Warfare 2 at the E3 2009 Microsoft Press Conference, Yesterday. My friend called me after and said the game played brilliant but the graphics sucked bad,

The truth is, sadly they do. The reason being the PC is moving in the dx 11 graphics generation and the consoles can't go beyond the DX9 generation, ATI and NVIDIA hardware limits them.

So I don't really believe the consoles are the real reason for the downfall.

Just a few day agi, a 2nd report was released that said that PC gaming has been on the rise in the last 5 years. The very same 5 years were after the years Doom 3, DOW, Half Life 2, QUAKE 4 and FEAR were released. So you have to wonder what the future holds.

I can see a revival coming.

I still believe that the PC is still the strongest on the RTS side of things as well as some RPG and FPS games. Various titles have proven that there is still a lot of gaming to be done on the PC and it doesn't neccessarily have to be in the MMO Genre. Quake Live & Steam are playing their part and developers are happy.

Cross platform play failed miserably when Microsoft tried to launch it with LIVE ANYWHERE. The basic problems is that the skill level of  PC gamers are way better than the console folks, they had to block them from servers.

Shadow Run and Halo 2 were complete disasters on the PC in that respect.

What the PC platform needs the most is a new OS which is not by Microsoft.

Not in a couple of years. I did see a new Leisure Suit Larry maybe three years ago. The premise behind that one was for the troops. They play a lot of video games, if they can. I remember we sold a lot of PSP's to the guys going to Iraq.

One thing to keep in mind is that when games are sold used the developers not only don't get any part of the residuals, but the game is thought to be a bomb because those sales are not tracked. I think if those games, such as Leisure Suit Larry and Duke Nukem were tracked, via their used versions, the numbers would be over the top. I know a lot of people wait until the game is available used so that they can get it at a discounted price. This is where a lot of the problem with video games comes from.

Video game stores don't sell used computer games because most of them have a one time code. As a consequence, stores like Game Stop are trying to get out of the computer game business. What this means is that there are fewer and fewer games made for computers. The second problem is that a lot of these new computer games mean a new, hyper tech computer for the gamer. This is another problem as so many people do not have the funds for that type of a system. Sure you can build one, a piece at a time. But by the time you have all the parts it would be time to upgrade yet again. It sucks, plain and simple.

Yes it should, but it it is a different world when we are talking about specific gaming consoles. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo know that they would have lost a large following if they left their classic gamers behind. Microsoft solved this by making most of their games (still working on the entire list) backwards compatable or available through xBox Live. Sony solved this by not discontinuing the PS2 which allowed game developers to make new games for the system as well as still sell the classics. Nintendo solved this by making all of their old titles available through their marketplace.

Gaming consoles, as a whole, are a lot cheaper than a new computer that will run these high end video games. This makes them more appealing to the general gamer, which is what these companies are after. The general gamer is going to give them more revenue than the hard core gamer who like a specific style of game play. Nobody openly works on gaming consoles, something I was actually looking into and was told by all three companies that they do not and will not be doing that. They want to keep their hold on the market. Anybody can build their own computer, whether it will work as they want it to or not is another story.

Yes there will be future improvements to the gaming systems. How much more improvement is needed depends on how far developers will push the envelope. They are the ones that determine where the systems go. They are the ones that learn new ways of doing things to make a game look more realistic. What is forgotten over the hype is that there are a lot of gamers out there that still like the old school way of playing, the crappy graphics, the lame dialog, because they just want to play the game.

soryy but further clarification/explanation of my previous comment is needed i feel.

Halo 2 was the same on both platforms where ShadowRun was slightly different on the 2 platforms. The cause for why Halo 2  PC players were able to be so much better was that they did not put any "balancing" features in place. PC game controls are more percise and faster than console games that are limited to what the controller can do. Halo 2 did nothing to balance this out. Shadowrun, however, put a couple features in place to "balance" this difference in controls.

"Because of the lack of 'pixel-accuracy' with the Xbox 360 analog thumbstick, the designers have included an aim-assisting technology, which basically interpolates the player's movement and causes the reticle to stay over an enemy player like a weak magnet. In addition, FASA has implemented a feature which causes the crosshair to expand during quick movements, thus lowering the player's accuracy, making it impossible to quickly turn and maintain accuracy, reducing the potential advantage of playing with a mouse. PC players, who have a more sensitive control scheme, are able to turn significantly faster than their controller-using counterparts and would have gained an unfair advantage."

• Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun_(2007_video_game). This paticular piece of info is from the shadowrun site itself. See reference 6 and 7 at the bottom of the wiki page for the source sites of the info.

I think World of Warcraft and other are responsible for thee current state of gaming.  WOW showed it possible too make vast amounnts of money on suubscripttion based games.  If you can get Ozzy to do your commercials you must be doing alright.  To some degree I think we are just at  the edge again before the next big thing.  Frankly I can't say I have much to complain  about.  Newer consoles are kind of on the expensive side but has always been the way.

Hi everyone, 1st time post here!

Some general thoughts about PC gaming in no particular order: As someone stated earlier, yes consoles are way cheaper when it comes to gaming. For example someone I know who isn't an IT person bought a PC (they are in their 20's) and it had a lot going for it as far as they knew (actually a veery good processor, memory, etc). It DID NOT however come with a graphics card that can handle the more popular high end games for the PC. Now he is spending 150-200 dollars for a "decent" graphics card. 1-2 more hundred can get you one of the newer/great consoles (PS3/Xbox360). PC may have lower priced games, but that doesnt matter when the player gets exactly (or close to it) what they want..

The consoles on the other hand are slowly adding more and more features that resembles a PC but console format. Everything from now streaming NetFlix, shopping, social networking, etc. The PC is more open a broad and is not matching the console features equally the way the consoles are matching PC features. This is new technology and who is going to be on that...you guessed it, the current gaming gen. And by this I mean your standard teenager/20 yr old. Its like my job...my boss who also does mostly desktop support isn't too fond of SCCM and things of this nature. He claims...oh it was so much easier then. I however being somewhat younger don't agree...I go for the new stuff. Translation: they are going for the newer tech (the new consoles). I believe to a SMALL degree its semi trendy.

I think consoles, hands down wins when it comes to most games except MMO's and a VERY few 1st person shooters. Most games require a minimul amt of buttons and functionality which has given most consoles a heavy advantage. Joystick games never seem to really work out correctly on the PC the way they do on console type games specifically made for that. Also yes something like WoW is a CRAZY success...but they went through a lot to get there and Blizzard wasn't/isn't a out of nowhere new company (a lot of games I've noticed, especially MMOs are coming out from smaller companies. The average MMO player/PC player wants to have a huge assortment of functionailty via keyboard and mouse. Blizzard is always working on security and once they opened GUI code to the public...I think thats ONE of those moments when they really took off (just my opinion, I didn't get to verify this or anything). Most games of this nature are struggling to keep up with original "kick @$$" ideas  and the security issues in general (hacked accts, etc). BUT...I never see anyone allowing to release code to upgrade (according to the users) different GUI functionailty. The mods for WoW are amazing, more efficient, and give more detail and better use than the original product. They are allowing the users to partake in a hands on approach as to "whats missing in this game." This also leaves more open space for any possible updates, etc Bliz may have.