Dear PC gaming: It's not you, it's me. Okay, so maybe it's both of us

This has been a long time coming, so I'm just going to throw it out there: My interest in PC gaming has waned.

There are a number of contributing factors. I'll list a few.

DRM. I'm not willing to risk invasive DRM like SecuROM or Ubisoft's new anti-piracy measures just to play the latest games, no matter how popular they may be. I won't re-hash the SecuROM topic as I know people have tired of reading my opinions on the matter. I include it on the last only to help explain my perspective.

Shoddy console-to-PC ports. It's no wonder PC gamers feel as though developers and publishers have abandoned them to focus more time, effort, and resources on console releases.

Bobby Kotick and Activision. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Every time I read an article about Bobby Kotick and Activision, it makes me want to never buy another title published Activision game for the remainder of my life. (No offense intended, Blizzard.)

The larger (non-Christian) gaming community. Many gamers are polite, socially well-adjusted, level-headed people. The very vocal minority of rude, hostile, obnoxious, facepalm-inducing trolls, unfortunately, often ruin it for the rest of us. I learned early on as President of Tribe of Judah: DNFTT--Do Not Feed The Trolls. It's why I don't return to a recruiting thread on outside forums after the initial post--I've seen enough inane and venomous replies that staying tuned to the thread isn't going to offer anything new.

This point actually has less impact than you might think, since I spend most of my time playing games with other Christian gamers. (One of my primary reasons in founding Tribe of Judah over a decade ago was to create a haven for Christian gamers where they didn't have to tolerate juvenile behavior.) But, sometimes, when I play Quake Live or read comments on sites like Joystiq or Kotaku, it hurts my brain.

My gaming hardware. I play games on a Dell Studio 1737. It is entirely possible that the audio hardware and software (drivers) built into my system is among the worst currently available. Furthermore, my ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650 is starting to get a bit long in the tooth. I can run Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead 2, and Unreal Tournament 3 at a decent framerate with all three titles looking rather good. Based on what I've read, StarCraft II should run just fine on Medium graphics settings on my PC. Other, more graphically intensive games like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Dawn of War II don't fare so well.

I'm currently unemployed, so building a new gaming rig is out of the question right now and likely will remain out of reach for a while yet.

Not much of interest (to me) on the horizon. Yes, StarCraft II, Natural Selection 2, and World of WarCraft Cataclysm may all be released this year. I'm looking forward to all three. But beyond that, there aren't any upcoming titles that grab my attention.

And that may not be a problem. In a given week, I participate in four different regular events spanning four different games.

Player bases scattered and spread thin. Back in The Day(TM), I could reasonably expect to hop online and put together a StarCraft match with a few players on short notice. Later, I could find Tribe of Judah's Counter-Strike server hoppin' most nights of the week, drop in to play for 30 minutes, get pwned, and drop. There were few enough popular games and enough players actively playing those games to drop in, play, and drop out with minimal effort.

Today, the market is saturated (perhaps oversaturated?) with a slew of high-profile releases, all vying for gamers' money and time. Games like Borderlands are very popular for a very short time, flare up, and fade away. Downloadable content may renew interest for a short while, but it seems that "gaming ADD" is now an epidemic.

This segues neatly into my next point:

My backlog is already packed. I recently read an editorial where the writer asks the games industry to stop making new games for a year. It was a fun read and I definitely sympathize with the author.

There are still so many games that I want to finish. I have enough to play without buying new games (though it seems I still have the strength of will to resist the more appealing Steam sales). I don't need any more games on my checklist.

Consoles just work. No, I'm not trying to derail this into a "console vs. PC" thread. Both platforms have their merit.

But as I'm getting older, I have less and less of an appetite for fixing hardware and software issues to play games. I just want things to work.

When I turn on my DS, my Wii, or my Playstation 2, I can reasonably expect games to load and play at full framerate (with the notable exception of certain sections of Odin Sphere). I can't say the same for PC games.

The most grievous offender in recent memory is Left 4 Dead 2. The client/server code in L4D2 is broken. It shouldn't take at least two tries and 5-10 minutes to launch the game and connect to the server Tribe of Judah members spend $16 a month to rent nearly every time we get together to play a campaign or Versus match.

Lack of new gameplay experiences. Most new games are just a fresh coat of paint on the same ol' thing. The MMO genre is flooded with World of WarCraft wannabes, favoring a conservative business strategy over innovation.

The list could go on, but you get the idea.

But please don't misunderstand: I still enjoy the games I play with Christian gamers. I'm planning to buy StarCraft II at release and plan to play it regularly with Tribe of Judah members.

When I voice my concerns about the PC games industry, it's not to say I'm throwing on the breaks. I'm just shifting into neutral.

I share a lot of these thoughts ... it's interesting thinking about how much things have evolved over my 25 years (egad!) of PC gaming.

I find that I have very low tolerance for unpolished games, and that becomes a barrier to wanting to try anything new. Probably 95% of my PC gaming time over the last decade has either been CivIII or WoW. I've probably bought 20 other games and not been sucked in for longer than 3 hours on any single one.

I find that in the age of MMOs and Online Social networks, I have much less interest in standalone games. Example: the Longest Journey was a great game, a great story. But by the time the sequel came out, no matter how good a story was, unless it tied into some bigger set of accomplishments, I just couldn't see investing in it. If the game exists on a Xbox360, however, then I'll totally play it to get the Gamerpoints. I realize there are some neuroses at work here ... I don't apply the same logic to books, why do I do it with games? I don't know.

Anyhow, I'm a much more casual gamer than many on the forums here ... but this thread certainly struck a chord with me. While I think any "death of the PC for gaming" topic is premature ... you're not making that point and neither than I. But it's definitely a much smaller eye of the needle to thread than it once was, and there's definitely a higher entry point of expected performance. When those demands are well met, there's still a huge potential market (WoW ... Farmville ...) ... but the notion of browing a Gamestop looking for PC games just seems like an anachronism now in a way that doing so for console games isn't.

New hardware -> more PC gaming nowadays. It's refreshing to only lag due to the connection and not your system specs being too weak.

Die you gaming machine just DIE! hehehe Game over but salvation remains or does it? Dying has its bennies in gaming! wOOt! hehehe you cant stink in a game any more than me and if you are tell me n I'll stink worse wOOt promise I'll try!!!!!

Just popped in to say...everything on this thread is true. That is all.

I hear that, Keero. My new machine will be here in a couple of weeks. I can't wait.

And Tek, interesting response - I don't have any of the consoles so I don't know how they compare at all. So, thanks for the assessment.

After writing the OP, I thought of a few more reasons why my interest in PC gaming is on the decline:

Betas. Beta programs started as a way to help test a soon-to-be-released game among a wider audience in hopes of catching bugs before a final release. They have since mutated into marketing fodder for game developers and publishers. For gamers, they are, at best, a sneak peek at the released product without the barrier of spending money. At worst, beta programs are a frothing hysteria.

Having partaken in said "frothing hysteria" while trying to obtain a StarCraft II beta key and having since taken a step back to analyze my reaction in a logical, cool, and calm manner, I can say now that things have gotten out of hand. I watched Twitter searches update in real-time, I participated in a trivia contest, I commented on a complete stranger's YouTube videos, I pestered Christian gamers participating in the beta. Why? Just for that sweet, sweet StarCraft II beta key.

The bitter irony, of course, is that I've been accepted to countless betas, including three other Blizzard betas. I'd been waiting for the StarCraft II beta for 11 years--the entire time I've led Tribe of Judah--so I'm hoping my lapse of sanity can be dismissed as a moment of weakness.

Nevertheless, as a long-time StarCraft fan legitimately interested in playing the SCII beta, I was disturbed and, dare I say?, disgusted with the ways fansites were dangling beta keys in front of gamers like carrots on so many sticks. One used the beta key as payment for a new logo. Another used it to generate artificial (and, truth be told, vapid) conversations in the form of YouTube video comments. Many others, in a ploy not nearly as irritating as the first two examples, used beta keys to spread their site names and links via Twitter spam.

Even more despicable than sites trying to gain free labor by means of a beta key--a code which grants access to a program intended for product testing--are the leeches that attempt to sell their StarCraft II beta keys on eBay. Sellers who may reply, "But there's a market" would do well to remember that the willingness of others to pay for your product or service, regardless of the method by which you obtained it, does not legitimize your sale of said product or service.

Fortunately, eBay was patrolling for StarCraft II beta key auctions the days following the start of the Invite-a-Friend program last week and closing them down nearly as quickly as they sprang up.

In short, betas for popular games--and it could be argued that there is no beta more popular than for StarCraft II--brings out the worst in the gaming community. From rabid fans (a group of which I've been a part) to fansite owners looking to get free labor in exchange for beta keys they freely received to the dregs of humanity selling StarCraft II beta keys for cash, it's a bleak picture.

It's not the entire picture, of course; for every greedy fansite owner, there are any number of excited fans who receive their beta key, happily play the game, and report bugs when encountered. But the public image of beta programs is not unlike two mothers coming to blows over which will buy a Tickle Me Elmo (or whatever toy is newest come the next holiday season) for her child.

I could expound further on the point of game developers and publishers using betas as a marketing tool to rake in the pre-orders and stir up a frenzy among gamers, but I think I covered said frenzy adequately already. The worst practice I've seen thus far has been a company that advertised a beta as "open" but requiring a pre-order to play. Betas that require pre-purchasing the product are, by definition, not open. And using the beta to rack up early sales is a bit shady, no?

Not every beta leads to mass hysteria like the StarCraft II beta. But when game developers and publishers ring the "beta key" bell and the larger gaming community, having been properly conditioned, starts to drool, it's a clear sign that "betas" are no longer "betas" but have instead turned into "sneak peeks."

Eh, don't worry. They're dangling beta keys on consoles now too. Pre-order Game X and get beta key to game Y! This sort of thing happens in all kinds of venues, though. The idea is to be greedy without looking that way. For example...take concert tickets. Companies know that front row seats will likely scalp for $1000+, but they don't sell them that way. Instead, they reserve good seats for scalpers and get a kickback. Or, they give the tickets to radio stations and get far more than $1000 worth of advertising with a contest. So, they still benefit without being the bad guys.

Some companies are a little more transparent.
http://www.gamercenteronline.net/2010/03/22/ea-considering-charging-for-very-long-demos/

As the SEO-friendly URL implies, EA is considering charging for "long" demos. This is sort of silly in my opinion, as it will just make people hate them. The gaming public was staritng to send a little goodwill their way in comparison to Activision. Between shutting down year-old servers and stuff like this (which may or may not happen), it seems EA is determined to make us think otherwise.

PS: I actually wouldn't mind paying for an enhanced demo on a game I wanted if I can keep my game progress when I buy the real thing and I can use the money towards a purchase of the game (like get it as a rebate or something).

Its funny, just a few years ago I'd probably be doing the same thing with the SC II beta. Now however, I'm having a hard time maintaining any interest in the game at all (see, there's this other game, you all know the one... ).

I've never been serious about the beta of a game until I am actually in one. I'd prefer to play the finished product, and I'm usually patient enough to wait for that.

Betas are free publicity... why would any company pass that up?

To turn this into a console vs. PC tread...lol... I have been console gaming for around 20 years, and PC gaming for about 12 years... In the last 8-10 years I have found PC gaming offering more and being overall better than any console... However, in the last few months I have felt a "falling away" from PC gaming, and decided to pick up a Xbox 360... In the last month or two I have had it, I have had more fun with it than I have had on the PC in years...

This is quite relevant to the discussion.
summary:
Developers are going for highly multiplayer/MMO markets on PC because that's what the vast majority of PC Gamers play (guilty as charged), Console games are where all the money's at (I'll take their word for it), Independent Developers are the strength of the PC, due to the low cost -especially using Open Source tools- they can make new games based on old games (see CounterStrike). And niche products like Civilization still sell quite well and developers should aim for stuff like that.

John Abercrombie, lead programmer of Irrational Games (Bioshock), stated: "PC Gaming isn't dead. It's just in a partially vegetative state."

Elader Arkon said:

John Abercrombie, lead programmer of Irrational Games (Bioshock), stated: "PC Gaming isn't dead. It's just in a partially vegetative state."

Click to expand...

That is an excellent quote. It succinctly wraps up most (but perhaps not all) of the current PC games industry.

I think major PC-only releases will still draw players back to their computers, at least for a season.

And I think if it weren't for Blizzard, PC gaming would be much less relevant to the average PC owner.

As gamers grow older and travel more (and that includes some of us here) - it is much easier to take your laptop than to take your xbox/ps/wii - so I think you will still see pc versions of many games.

Other than a big MMO (which is itself just a rehash of what other MMOs offered), I don't see how Blizzard kept PC gaming going. I would attribute that to Valve. Steam has helped indie and casual game companies get there game out (Zeno Clash) and removed a lot of the hassle that comes from game boxes and such and they have been adding a large library of older games too. Plus, people love Valve.

Valve making a larger difference for PC gaming makes more sense to me than Blizz. Valve is great for getting games fast and supplementing down time inbetween games with safe demos.

But... look at what I found over the interwebs:

Keero said:

Other than a big MMO (which is itself just a rehash of what other MMOs offered), I don't see how Blizzard kept PC gaming going.

Click to expand...

I think calling WoW "a big MMO" is understating the impact the game has had on PC gaming. With over 10 million WoW subscribers, numbers alone make Blizzard the company currently most relevant (read: not necessarily best or most loved) to the most people.

Yes, Valve would rank second, thanks to Steam, but, last I checked there were still far more people playing WoW than using Steam (though, admittedly, I could be paraphrasing outdated information). My comment regarding relevancy to the PC gamer was pertaining only to relevancy; nothing else.

There's a negative impact from Blizzard as well. I love Blizzard, and I'm not ashamed to say it.

WoW tops the MMO market. And frankly, other than EVE, which is a totally different world experience, no other game comes close to holding a candle to WoW in the MMORPG sector.

Diablo III is poised to control the casual/hacknslash RPG market. No game has really done casual RPG better than Diablo II so far.

Starcraft II is poised to take over the RTS market again.

No other developer can hope to seriously take over this control in any way other than to provide a stop-gap until the next Starcraft II.whatever release.


This limits the games on PCs that a developer other than Blizzard can make. Let's look at other popular PC genres, and see how they go:

BioWare dominates hardcore RPGs, hands down. See Dragon Age or KOTOR2.

Valve seems to be doing a decent job of the Shooter genre, but I wouldn't say they dominate it. Shooters is one area a new game studio could do some work, if it weren't such a tired genre -- not counting some gems like L4D.

Casual "mindless fun" games are more or less dominated by PopCap, although new puzzle games are being produced -- but often not patented -- on an unprecedented basis.

Sports games are still dominated by EA and pretty much ignored by everyone else, including much of the hardcore PC gaming market. Better on consoles.


So basically, other than maybe racing games, the PC marked of the early 21st century is being dominated. That makes it hard for new and innovative games to come out.

you neglected to add the odd little niche games that do surprisingly (and exceptionally) well:

Civilization.
Sims.

They don't don't have a market to dominate, so they made their own and reaped the rewards.

Elader Arkon said:

you neglected to add the odd little niche games that do surprisingly (and exceptionally) well:

Civilization.
Sims.

They don't don't have a market to dominate, so they made their own and reaped the rewards.

Click to expand...

Aye, although those are almost solely the work of one company. All I'm saying is that the market is fairly owned by a few companies and so the PC gaming world is somewhat desperate for new blood, just like Sid Meier Corp was back in the day.