Thursday, February 14, 2008
PC Gaming Is In Disarray? Or Just Gaming?
Epic's Uber-Designer Cliff Bleszinski commented in an interview on MTV Multiplayer on Epic's priorities for future games:
“I think people would rather make a game that sells 4.5 million copies than a million and 'Gears (of War)' is at 4.5 million right now on the 360. I think the PC is just in disarray… what’s driving the PC right now is ‘Sims’-type games and ‘WoW‘ and a lot of stuff that’s in a web-based interface. You just click on it and play it. That’s the direction PC is evolving into. So for me, the PC is kind of the secondary part of what we’re doing. It’s important for us, but right now making AAA games on consoles is where we’re at.”As a gamer, this disappoints me. The PC game developer in me, watching the competition march a slow retreat from the field, thinks, "Hey guys, don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out!"
Okay. Sure. If someone were to offer me a choice between 1 million and 4.5 million dollars, what would I choose? Duh! But let's examine this for a moment. How, exactly, is the PC in such a "disarray?"
- The consoles have spent millions (billions?) in marketing wooing gamers because they are controlled by stakeholders. Whereas the PC had Microsoft's half-hearted "Games For Windows" initiative which turned out to be little more than a bullet point in the Vista marketing program.
- Whenever the console game market begins to get saturated and look like the PC games market, the console makers hit the reset button to obsolete everything that came before and let everyone start afresh with a "new generation." Even with a bigger install base, games late in a console's dev cycle have a real tough time selling the same kinds of numbers as the ones at the beginning.
- PC games are more vulnerable to piracy.
- PC game sales are in transition from brick-and-mortar (which has largely stopped carrying them) to digital distribution, and that's still pioneering new ground and 90% of the audience isn't yet on board.
- Consoles have standardized hardware, which makes development twice as easy and allows developers to conceal a multitude of bugs and shortcuts without consequences.
- PC gamers tend to be an older crowd, with longer memories, and tend to recognize when you put out the same crap games you released five years ago (and five years before that) dressed up in new pixel-shaders.
- Oh, yeah. More women. Though the Wii is muscling in on that territory these days.
Not that these aren't problems. They are pretty big problems. Problems that need to be solved, and that some guys who may end up owning everybody else in a few years are busy trying to solve. But that's another story.
Yes - you are gonna have a tough time spending a 2008 budget on a PC-exclusive that's still selling numbers that aren't far improved from 1998. But part of me wonders - is that really the PC's problem as a game platform, or is more the games industry's problem for getting into a money war for which there can only be one battlefield?
Ultima Underworld, according to this article, was made for a total budget of around $400,000. It became one of Origin's top-selling titles at half a million sales. Is it completely impossible to do the same today?
I found this old comic via Kloonigames today that speaks volumes... (click for a larger version).
It's not the PC as a games platform that is in disarray.It's the video games business.
Labels: Biz
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 10:22 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Haven't console games always been different from PC games though?
In the 16-bit days consoles had their platformers and arcade games and PC gamers were playing Civilisation and Ultima.
I think that games companies are going to have to realise that there are lots of people who own PCs that are simply not going to upgrade them just play games.
But if that doesn't happen it doesn't matter, because indie-studios will fill that space. Lets face it even 5 year old PCs are pretty powerful.
In the 16-bit days consoles had their platformers and arcade games and PC gamers were playing Civilisation and Ultima.
I think that games companies are going to have to realise that there are lots of people who own PCs that are simply not going to upgrade them just play games.
But if that doesn't happen it doesn't matter, because indie-studios will fill that space. Lets face it even 5 year old PCs are pretty powerful.
Yep. It's sick, sick stuff. 4.5 million copies is the benchmark for success, and everything else is failure?
That's a messed-up industry, and frankly, I figure it's unsustainable over the long run. Or it should damn well be.
That's a messed-up industry, and frankly, I figure it's unsustainable over the long run. Or it should damn well be.
A very good write-up, and I agree with it. I don't think PC gaming is going to 'die' (at least not anytime soon), and I believe there's still tons of potential for the PC as a gaming platform.
But the big thing preventing this - the HUGE thing - is what joshuasmyth mentioned: the upgrade problem. It's out of control. $1500 is not a sum most people can easily pay every two or three years, myself included. The PC I'm typing through right now is a 2002 eMachines rigged with a gig of RAM and a Radeon 9200. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's plenty of power. The best games I've ever played have operated just fine within those parameters.
I think the best thing that could happen to the PC gaming industry (and to gaming in general) would be for graphics technology to reach a sudden and permanent plateau. No new video cards, no new consoles. The entire gaming population would soon be on the same technological page. And big-name publishers and developers would no longer have the outlet of fancy visuals to cloak the same, tired games. They'd have to focus on and fund ideas and content, because with raw graphical power removed as a competitive bonus, they'd have no other recourse. In such a scenario you'd have an explosion of growth in every non-visual element of game design: you'd have new ideas at the forefront, more content, new and better music.
That's a pipedream, of course, but it's the reason I follow and try to support indie development. The graphics in indie games are sometimes ugly; but the content is sometimes great. And that's what gaming is about, and should be about: ideas, immersion, and interaction in the world's most potentially powerful artform.
But the big thing preventing this - the HUGE thing - is what joshuasmyth mentioned: the upgrade problem. It's out of control. $1500 is not a sum most people can easily pay every two or three years, myself included. The PC I'm typing through right now is a 2002 eMachines rigged with a gig of RAM and a Radeon 9200. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's plenty of power. The best games I've ever played have operated just fine within those parameters.
I think the best thing that could happen to the PC gaming industry (and to gaming in general) would be for graphics technology to reach a sudden and permanent plateau. No new video cards, no new consoles. The entire gaming population would soon be on the same technological page. And big-name publishers and developers would no longer have the outlet of fancy visuals to cloak the same, tired games. They'd have to focus on and fund ideas and content, because with raw graphical power removed as a competitive bonus, they'd have no other recourse. In such a scenario you'd have an explosion of growth in every non-visual element of game design: you'd have new ideas at the forefront, more content, new and better music.
That's a pipedream, of course, but it's the reason I follow and try to support indie development. The graphics in indie games are sometimes ugly; but the content is sometimes great. And that's what gaming is about, and should be about: ideas, immersion, and interaction in the world's most potentially powerful artform.
@t-boy: I have heard Microsoft say that they would not consider a game unless it had at least... what was it... a million sales potential? That might have been hyperbole, of course - to dissuade developers from wasting their time on anything sub-standard.
But to me, it still sounds like an arms race of ludicrous proportion.
@joshua - Yes, you are right. And then they wonder why console ports to the PC don't sell well.
@metallimoose - The upgrade problem has been a big issue in the past, no doubt. I considered adding it to the list, but... with the price of PCs coming down over the last five years, and the cost of (non-Wii) consoles hitting their highest point since the ill-fated 3DO, I think that difference is shrinking.
But to me, it still sounds like an arms race of ludicrous proportion.
@joshua - Yes, you are right. And then they wonder why console ports to the PC don't sell well.
@metallimoose - The upgrade problem has been a big issue in the past, no doubt. I considered adding it to the list, but... with the price of PCs coming down over the last five years, and the cost of (non-Wii) consoles hitting their highest point since the ill-fated 3DO, I think that difference is shrinking.
I play games on a computer, an Xbox 360, and a Wii. More often than not, I choose to play the Xbox 360 (or to a lesser extent the Wii) over the computer because there are more multiplayer games for consoles than there are for computers. By multiplayer, I mean players on the same physical device (not including network play). Most computer games only support a single player and have you ever tried to get three or four people to crowd around a computer, it doesn’t work well. In my opinion, the social aspects of console gaming have a huge competitive advantage over PC games.
I agree that the price gap between consoles and computers is very small, especially after you purchase multiple controllers and other proprietary peripherals for consoles.
I agree that the price gap between consoles and computers is very small, especially after you purchase multiple controllers and other proprietary peripherals for consoles.
What happens is highly logical:
PC game companies have it much much easier to dip into the lucrative console games market than ever, since they program less and less platform specific.
Epic is a good example for this. They went from the PC shareware market (indie...) to high profile (Unreal) and engine marketing (additional income as long as they lead the field) to console games.
What is the reason for this? Consoles and PCs are now very similar to each other - at least from a developers standpoint. You use a higher language like C++ (and NOT assembler for the most part - for sometimes exotic CPUs) and you can license 3D and sound libraries.
You only need a few platform specialist but all other resources can stay the same.
The more experience you have, the more hardware dependent you can go, of course, but many PS3 and X360 games are very similar.
In contrast look at the Crysis desaster happening now: The hardware for optimal results is barely on the market and the price for the game just dropped in half (at least in Europe).
You could argue that the PC world is shifting to a new OS (Vista) and to new graphics platform (D3D10) but upgrading the PC is the essential basis for selling there. If id would sell a game that looks perfect on a Pentium 4, Geforce 3 and has no advantages on better hardware they would be laughed at.
You don't have this kind of trouble with consoles as you still have your customers four years after the hardware launch.
And what platform would you develop for if you could triple your profits (controlled market, longer shelf life, better marketing etc.) without increasing your expenses much?
PC game companies have it much much easier to dip into the lucrative console games market than ever, since they program less and less platform specific.
Epic is a good example for this. They went from the PC shareware market (indie...) to high profile (Unreal) and engine marketing (additional income as long as they lead the field) to console games.
What is the reason for this? Consoles and PCs are now very similar to each other - at least from a developers standpoint. You use a higher language like C++ (and NOT assembler for the most part - for sometimes exotic CPUs) and you can license 3D and sound libraries.
You only need a few platform specialist but all other resources can stay the same.
The more experience you have, the more hardware dependent you can go, of course, but many PS3 and X360 games are very similar.
In contrast look at the Crysis desaster happening now: The hardware for optimal results is barely on the market and the price for the game just dropped in half (at least in Europe).
You could argue that the PC world is shifting to a new OS (Vista) and to new graphics platform (D3D10) but upgrading the PC is the essential basis for selling there. If id would sell a game that looks perfect on a Pentium 4, Geforce 3 and has no advantages on better hardware they would be laughed at.
You don't have this kind of trouble with consoles as you still have your customers four years after the hardware launch.
And what platform would you develop for if you could triple your profits (controlled market, longer shelf life, better marketing etc.) without increasing your expenses much?
# posted by 
: February 15, 2008 6:46 PM
: February 15, 2008 6:46 PM
Calibrator -
Your last question is a loaded one. Naturally, as I indicated in the article, all things being equal, I'd have a tough time saying "no" to 4.5 times the money.
However, the equation isn't quite as simple as that. There are different audiences, different types of games that can work on the different platforms, licensing fees to the console manufacturers that cut into the profits, increased duplication costs, etc.
So as a PC gamer, we get shafted with a port that doesn't take advantage of the PC's strengths.
And as an interesting counterpoint, Computer and Video Games just released their own discussion of eight reasons why the PC gaming is king:
8 Reasons PC Gaming Isn't Dead
Your last question is a loaded one. Naturally, as I indicated in the article, all things being equal, I'd have a tough time saying "no" to 4.5 times the money.
However, the equation isn't quite as simple as that. There are different audiences, different types of games that can work on the different platforms, licensing fees to the console manufacturers that cut into the profits, increased duplication costs, etc.
So as a PC gamer, we get shafted with a port that doesn't take advantage of the PC's strengths.
And as an interesting counterpoint, Computer and Video Games just released their own discussion of eight reasons why the PC gaming is king:
8 Reasons PC Gaming Isn't Dead
Of course - the equation isn't simple and may not work for an indie game developer/studio at all.
The devkit alone costs a lot of money and there may also be costs for getting the game certified - meaning that you'll have to spend a five-figure sum before a single unit is being sold.
So the PC is much more indie-friendly - regardless of the game genre. The latter will have consequences on the amount of units sold (try to sell an ego-shooter vs. a graphic adventure or RPG...).
I also never thought that the PC will be killed by consoles - there'll be games as long as there are PCs.
Thanks for the link - though I don't think that the author draws the right conclusions in all places:
Digital distribution: Can be done with consoles. In fact they really catch up now, don't they?
Cutting edge: Getting more and more meaningless. Like hifi-sound we will have "good enough" graphics for most people with the next console generation. Today, the Wii is a big seller in spite of its inferior graphics.
Spore: Jet Set Radio, Rez, Vic Ribbon, Okami, Odama...
As the article says: The lines are becoming increasingly blurred.
The devkit alone costs a lot of money and there may also be costs for getting the game certified - meaning that you'll have to spend a five-figure sum before a single unit is being sold.
So the PC is much more indie-friendly - regardless of the game genre. The latter will have consequences on the amount of units sold (try to sell an ego-shooter vs. a graphic adventure or RPG...).
I also never thought that the PC will be killed by consoles - there'll be games as long as there are PCs.
Thanks for the link - though I don't think that the author draws the right conclusions in all places:
Digital distribution: Can be done with consoles. In fact they really catch up now, don't they?
Cutting edge: Getting more and more meaningless. Like hifi-sound we will have "good enough" graphics for most people with the next console generation. Today, the Wii is a big seller in spite of its inferior graphics.
Spore: Jet Set Radio, Rez, Vic Ribbon, Okami, Odama...
As the article says: The lines are becoming increasingly blurred.
# posted by : February 16, 2008 12:00 PM
: February 16, 2008 12:00 PM
Online distribution for console games isn't there yet. Next-gen consoles, though (or, if not, then certainly the generation after that) WILL be there. Right now, they don't have quite the storage capacity to do Big Games like that. And on the Wii and PS3, it seems like downloads were more of an afterthought.
But we have Steam and BitTorrent and other services doing Big Downloads all the time on the PC.
So PCs are still in the lead, but only just.
But think for a moment. Lets say Valve sold the same ratio of Orange Box games - say 500,000 to 2.25 million on console. That's probably a stretch - I'd expect the numbers to be closer to parity, considering the games, but this is a ferinstance.
And lets assume half of the PC sales were on Steam, directly.
I'm pulling numbers out of the air now, but taking guesses at royalty rates, I'm gonna assume they get around $8 a box for both the 360 and the PC (assuming the greater expenses on the 360 for MS licensing is made up for by the higher price tag of $60). But on Steam, they get to keep most of the $50 all to themselves (we'll say $49... subtracting a dollar for Credit Card fees).
So... PC profits:
$8 x 250,000 = $2,000,000
$49 x 250,000 = 12,250,000
Total: $14,250,000
XBox Profits:
$8 x 2,250,000 = $18,000,000
Still a win for the console version, but nothing close to a 4.5:1 (or even 2:1) margin. And that margin was partly due to a higher cost to the consumer... cut the royalties by the 20% higher price on the 360, and your royalties would drop to only $15 million.
Add to that the greater "long tail" of the downloadable market, the potential to capitalize on user-made mods (would Neverwinter Nights have done NEARLY as well without the mod scene?), and things could become blurrier still.
Granted - in another generation, this advantage will probably go away *in part*, but there are some other advantages on the part of PC game developers that could be exploited.
Like a greater immediacy between the PC game and the developer & community. If I encounter a problem or get confused in a PC game, I can immediately alt-tab out to a web browser and find the solution, for example.
And I think we may be getting to a point where the law of diminishing returns on graphics quality (not to mention the rise in usage of third-party game engines) may nullify the cost advantage of developing for console versus the PC.
And not everybody sells 5 million copies. Epic scored by being one of the first (and best) shooters for the 360. They wouldn't have made that 3 years into the platform's lifecycle. And if you are spending $12 million for 1.5 million in sales (generating you a royalty of - at my above guesstimate -- 8 x 1.5 = $12 million...), you are only breaking even. But if you could instead spend $3 million on four games that sell a half-million copies each... wouldn't you be much better off?
But we have Steam and BitTorrent and other services doing Big Downloads all the time on the PC.
So PCs are still in the lead, but only just.
But think for a moment. Lets say Valve sold the same ratio of Orange Box games - say 500,000 to 2.25 million on console. That's probably a stretch - I'd expect the numbers to be closer to parity, considering the games, but this is a ferinstance.
And lets assume half of the PC sales were on Steam, directly.
I'm pulling numbers out of the air now, but taking guesses at royalty rates, I'm gonna assume they get around $8 a box for both the 360 and the PC (assuming the greater expenses on the 360 for MS licensing is made up for by the higher price tag of $60). But on Steam, they get to keep most of the $50 all to themselves (we'll say $49... subtracting a dollar for Credit Card fees).
So... PC profits:
$8 x 250,000 = $2,000,000
$49 x 250,000 = 12,250,000
Total: $14,250,000
XBox Profits:
$8 x 2,250,000 = $18,000,000
Still a win for the console version, but nothing close to a 4.5:1 (or even 2:1) margin. And that margin was partly due to a higher cost to the consumer... cut the royalties by the 20% higher price on the 360, and your royalties would drop to only $15 million.
Add to that the greater "long tail" of the downloadable market, the potential to capitalize on user-made mods (would Neverwinter Nights have done NEARLY as well without the mod scene?), and things could become blurrier still.
Granted - in another generation, this advantage will probably go away *in part*, but there are some other advantages on the part of PC game developers that could be exploited.
Like a greater immediacy between the PC game and the developer & community. If I encounter a problem or get confused in a PC game, I can immediately alt-tab out to a web browser and find the solution, for example.
And I think we may be getting to a point where the law of diminishing returns on graphics quality (not to mention the rise in usage of third-party game engines) may nullify the cost advantage of developing for console versus the PC.
And not everybody sells 5 million copies. Epic scored by being one of the first (and best) shooters for the 360. They wouldn't have made that 3 years into the platform's lifecycle. And if you are spending $12 million for 1.5 million in sales (generating you a royalty of - at my above guesstimate -- 8 x 1.5 = $12 million...), you are only breaking even. But if you could instead spend $3 million on four games that sell a half-million copies each... wouldn't you be much better off?
They had "good enough" graphics for ME in xcom1. the [b]1995[/b] game of the year. i'd play nethack in the orignal if i didn't have troble figiring out what was what. i have 1 gig of ram, a 7700 ninvidia Geforce, and some pentium proccesser, and i am content
# posted by : February 16, 2008 6:37 PM
: February 16, 2008 6:37 PM
Rampant,
your numbers don't sound implausible and I follow your argumentation.
Yes, Epic hit it big time but they are not an exception. There are console hits all the time and when they hit, they sell millions.
Example 1: Naughty Dog
Small outfit that was published by EA at the time of the Amiga. First they made "Keef the Thief" for the Amiga, ST, Apple IIgs and PC, then console only for the Genesis, 3DO and Playstation. For the latter they made the Crash Bandicoot series.
It was a big success - even in Japan where western games usually fail.
Then they made the Jak&Daxter series and their latest hit is "Uncharted: Drake's Fortune".
None of their console games were ported for PC.
Example 2: Bioware, the company that singlehandedly made RPGs for the PC commercially successfull again.
They went console first with Jade Empire (PC port still in the making), lately we talked about the sinful Mass Effect (PC port in May?) and their next project is called "Sonic the Hedgehog RPG" - doesn't sound like a PC-RPG, doesn't it?
More and more big publishers go console first and it shows.
your numbers don't sound implausible and I follow your argumentation.
Yes, Epic hit it big time but they are not an exception. There are console hits all the time and when they hit, they sell millions.
Example 1: Naughty Dog
Small outfit that was published by EA at the time of the Amiga. First they made "Keef the Thief" for the Amiga, ST, Apple IIgs and PC, then console only for the Genesis, 3DO and Playstation. For the latter they made the Crash Bandicoot series.
It was a big success - even in Japan where western games usually fail.
Then they made the Jak&Daxter series and their latest hit is "Uncharted: Drake's Fortune".
None of their console games were ported for PC.
Example 2: Bioware, the company that singlehandedly made RPGs for the PC commercially successfull again.
They went console first with Jade Empire (PC port still in the making), lately we talked about the sinful Mass Effect (PC port in May?) and their next project is called "Sonic the Hedgehog RPG" - doesn't sound like a PC-RPG, doesn't it?
More and more big publishers go console first and it shows.
# posted by : February 17, 2008 12:13 AM
: February 17, 2008 12:13 AM
Read the article on why PC Gaming isn't Dead, and my first impression is that the article should be called "Why PC Gaming Isn't Dead Yet".
Reason #1 isn't as big as an advantage as you'd think (open platform is great, but then you'd have to consider weird configuration options, and that just adds to the cost...), points #2 to #5 may not necessarily stay true forever (I remember a time when people said that you can't play the FPS on anything but a PC; and then Halo came out), I can't imagine why #6 is much of an advantage (cutting edge == finicky and unstable), point #7 will only be true until at earliest six months after Spore comes out, as developers on both console and PC steal ideas from the game, and I don't understand what point #8 is all about.
But yeah, so maybe the PC platform may not be the best place to develop AAA-title games. So what? AAA-games may push the technical capabilities of the system, but gameplay? Pssh.
Maybe forcing developers of AAA-title games will not only give gamers on the PC platform a chance to breathe and explore what makes PC gaming great without having to upgrade every 18 months or less, but game developers will now have to worry about developing better gameplay on a platform whose hardware specifications stay static for periods of 3 years or more.
And if those same developers (and their publishing companies) cause a Moore's Law-style push on the console market, forcing console gamers to upgrade their machines the way PC gamers used to, then the resulting crash will only be what the developers will deserve.
Reason #1 isn't as big as an advantage as you'd think (open platform is great, but then you'd have to consider weird configuration options, and that just adds to the cost...), points #2 to #5 may not necessarily stay true forever (I remember a time when people said that you can't play the FPS on anything but a PC; and then Halo came out), I can't imagine why #6 is much of an advantage (cutting edge == finicky and unstable), point #7 will only be true until at earliest six months after Spore comes out, as developers on both console and PC steal ideas from the game, and I don't understand what point #8 is all about.
But yeah, so maybe the PC platform may not be the best place to develop AAA-title games. So what? AAA-games may push the technical capabilities of the system, but gameplay? Pssh.
Maybe forcing developers of AAA-title games will not only give gamers on the PC platform a chance to breathe and explore what makes PC gaming great without having to upgrade every 18 months or less, but game developers will now have to worry about developing better gameplay on a platform whose hardware specifications stay static for periods of 3 years or more.
And if those same developers (and their publishing companies) cause a Moore's Law-style push on the console market, forcing console gamers to upgrade their machines the way PC gamers used to, then the resulting crash will only be what the developers will deserve.
You are correct. The consoles HAVE been adopting all of the winning (and some of the losing) points of PC gaming with each successive generation. So there is no real solid competitive advantage the PC will have forever.
Except one: It's still an open platform.
Not that this, by itself, is a major advantage (otherwise all of us would be gaming on Linux machines, like some of the truly hardcore and possibly certifiable people here...)
Except one: It's still an open platform.
Not that this, by itself, is a major advantage (otherwise all of us would be gaming on Linux machines, like some of the truly hardcore and possibly certifiable people here...)
Except one: It's still an open platform.
And, like you said in the next paragraph, platform openness isn't a major advantage.
Maybe the "openness" is not a major advantage. Maybe all a console needs to be is open enough, without being open.
Sound unlikely? Sure. Silly? You bet. And then we start noticing mobile devices running Java-based applications...
And, like you said in the next paragraph, platform openness isn't a major advantage.
Maybe the "openness" is not a major advantage. Maybe all a console needs to be is open enough, without being open.
Sound unlikely? Sure. Silly? You bet. And then we start noticing mobile devices running Java-based applications...
Ok lets get some facts epic games is nothing to compared to pc gaming big players. In fact epic games income is chils play.
No console ever made can make as much as pc game. Games like half life,daiblo,sims,wow,guildwars,linage,civilzation,star craft,dawn of war,nacy drew etc make more than any console game that is fact!
oh pc gaming has alot more tittlesthan consoles too as well.
No console ever made can make as much as pc game. Games like half life,daiblo,sims,wow,guildwars,linage,civilzation,star craft,dawn of war,nacy drew etc make more than any console game that is fact!
oh pc gaming has alot more tittlesthan consoles too as well.
# posted by : May 24, 2009 9:37 PM
: May 24, 2009 9:37 PM
@Anonymous: I have no idea what the hell you just said.
But thank you for reminding me to unsubscribe to this.
Post a Comment
But thank you for reminding me to unsubscribe to this.
Links to this post:
<< Home
