Valve and the PC

[Evo]

I happened across a very interesting article on Eurogamer earlier which can be viewed as a followup to the mini-conference Valve had with a select group of journalists last month.[br]While there is a lack of any news regarding upcoming games from Valve, this is a very interesting article which looks at the role Steam is playing in keeping the PC as a leading games platform as well as the expansion of PC gaming in non-English speaking countries. It is well worth a read right here.

 

[highlander]

That was a very good read!

 

[PvtRyan]

The main argument against the PC, the price, is an entirely false one. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be surprised if PCs are cheaper buck for buck than a console, and certainly offer more features per buck. Videocards these days (the main cash drain and the only part that's used almost exclusively by games, unlike RAM or CPU) are quite cheap and there's some very good performance/money deals out there. Sure, there's the 600 eurobuck SLI beast, but it's wrong to look at those when there are excellent cards for 150.

First of all, it's wrong to think of a gaming PC as a 800-1000 buck investment vs the 200-400 buck investment of a console. It's only fair to look at the added price that a standard PC needs to turn it into a gaming rig. So: extra RAM, better CPU and videocard. That's at most a 400 buck investment.

But even if we look at the price of a PC from the ground up vs the price of a console, the difference quickly becomes negligible. I paid 270 euro for my 360 (2.5 years after release, mind you), I paid 60 for a year of Live (and lets assume I'll actively use this console for another year after this one, beyond that it will be so outdated it isn't funny any more) and another 60 for the next year, so we're already at 400. Games for consoles are ridiculously expensive, costing (at best) 15 bucks more than a PC game. Assuming I buy 10 games in those 2 years (not a lot really) you can add another 150 to the price of a console. Add another 75 bucks worth of accessories (controllers, cables, whatever) then you could almost buy a decent gaming PC for that price that would also last 1.5 - 2 years. After that, add a new videocard for 150 and you're set for another year. Either the prices of PCs are hugely overestimated or the costs of a console underestimated.

At this point, consoles are inheriting the downsides of PC gaming; to get the best graphics, you need an expensive tv (how's that any different from needing a good videocard for the best graphics?), there's confusing choices (hard drives), bug ridden games that require patching, install times. Consoles are becoming PCs but without the boons.

Online multiplayer is also a vastly superior experience on the PC, console online gaming is still very much immature and quite frankly: a steaming pile of shit.

I was probably in the "PC gaming is dying" camp before I bought my 360, but it's the opposite now. Don't get me wrong, I like my 360 and I'll still buy games for it, but it's not superior to the PC.

 

[saratos]

I think that for FPS's and RTS's, yes, the PC is obviously superior. On the other hand, you get analog sticks and whatnot for the consoles. The Wii actually is the best console to have if you have a decent PC: it has the best platformers, and the most unique control system, one you just CAN'T get yet on the PC.

 

[Planetary]

A nice article, I had no idea about the scale of WoW sucess until they compared it to the movie industry.

I think the main reason people say PC gaming is death is developers are too modest, people barely know about the scale of it, every time someone asks "how much money you making" they just reply "can't tell you".

But on consoles they post sales figures all the time, no surprise what the popular thinking is then.

 

[Operational]

That article fills me with hope.

 

[FoxFire]

The Wii actually is the best console to have if you have a decent PC: it has the best platformers, and the most unique control system, one you just CAN'T get yet on the PC.

I'll just assume you live under a rock.
If you go to the store and pick up a Wii mote and the IR strip, there are countless homebrews to play with. Some which are even more fun then these Wii games. That means for $40, you can have your very own Wii experience and none of empty-wallet-effect depression that sets in 2 weeks later when the Wii's novelty wears off. (Don't bite my head off, I'm not saying the Wii is only a novelty system. But, everyone I know that owns one quickly lost interest weeks after their purchase.)

 

[Jintor]

That article fills me with hope.

Quote for True.

 

[Crispy]

You want figures? There are 260 million online PC gamers [define PC gamers - do you have to purchase a game to be a gamer? No.], a market that dwarfs the install base of any console platform, online or offline. Each year, 255 million new PCs are made [how many will be used to play free games or not to play games at all, used for work, in schools. This is a 'potential playerbase'.]

Do we want figures? Yes. How much revenue did Steam sales generate for Valve? You really want to shut the idiots up? Give them sales figures. Every year sales reports for the industry's territories come out and every year digital sales figures are omitted, creating a completely distorted view of the health of the PC market. Release your figures, put your mouth where your money is.

Increased 'playerbase' is meaningless since that's just a list of 'potential customers'. This figure includes the people who saw a free games weekend, downloaded Steam and never bought anything off it; the people with multiple accounts - the people trying to hack Steam and/or repeat-offender griefers/cheaters. The overall Steam userbase figure also includes the people who made an account 5 years ago and then stopped playing games because they don't have the time for it anymore. Personally speaking, our mod's forums have 8000 members, but I know for a fact a lot of them are inactive accounts and spam/bot accounts, we don't have anywhere near 8000 active members. It's a meaningless statistic without any details, just like most of the ones given at that press conference.

The main argument against the PC, the price, is an entirely false one. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be surprised if PCs are cheaper buck for buck than a console, and certainly offer more features per buck. Videocards these days (the main cash drain and the only part that's used almost exclusively by games, unlike RAM or CPU) are quite cheap and there's some very good performance/money deals out there. Sure, there's the 600 eurobuck SLI beast, but it's wrong to look at those when there are excellent cards for 150.

First of all, it's wrong to think of a gaming PC as a 800-1000 buck investment vs the 200-400 buck investment of a console. It's only fair to look at the added price that a standard PC needs to turn it into a gaming rig. So: extra RAM, better CPU and videocard. That's at most a 400 buck investment.

But even if we look at the price of a PC from the ground up vs the price of a console, the difference quickly becomes negligible. I paid 270 euro for my 360 (2.5 years after release, mind you), I paid 60 for a year of Live (and lets assume I'll actively use this console for another year after this one, beyond that it will be so outdated it isn't funny any more) and another 60 for the next year, so we're already at 400. Games for consoles are ridiculously expensive, costing (at best) 15 bucks more than a PC game. Assuming I buy 10 games in those 2 years (not a lot really) you can add another 150 to the price of a console. Add another 75 bucks worth of accessories (controllers, cables, whatever) then you could almost buy a decent gaming PC for that price that would also last 1.5 - 2 years. After that, add a new videocard for 150 and you're set for another year. Either the prices of PCs are hugely overestimated or the costs of a console underestimated.

At this point, consoles are inheriting the downsides of PC gaming; to get the best graphics, you need an expensive tv (how's that any different from needing a good videocard for the best graphics?), there's confusing choices (hard drives), bug ridden games that require patching, install times. Consoles are becoming PCs but without the boons.

Online multiplayer is also a vastly superior experience on the PC, console online gaming is still very much immature and quite frankly: a steaming pile of shit.

I was probably in the "PC gaming is dying" camp before I bought my 360, but it's the opposite now. Don't get me wrong, I like my 360 and I'll still buy games for it, but it's not superior to the PC.

One of the best posts I've read in a long time. This guy speaks for PC gaming. Valve should get him to make their pro-gaming announcement next time instead of skirting around the relevant facts and figures.

 

[ríomhaire]

If Valve really wanted to show that the PC isn't dying maybe they should release some sales figures.

 

[Crispy]

Incidentally I came across this article today.

Microsoft Games Studios Europe has said that while it continues to support the PC and Xbox 360 equally, consumers shouldn't expect to see hit titles released simultaneously on each format as the PC version would take away a significant portion of console sales.

 

[Avoidist]

Wait, isn't the PC supposed to be the underdog here? That may be the most contradictory statement I've ever heard.

 

[Kyorisu]

It's no surprise MS want more console game sales. More console sales means they can continue to rape peoples wallets via the Live system. I mean hi. Oh and throw in the piracy excuse that works well these days. No piracy on consoles after all, right?

 

[That Cat]

Hmmm.....that article may just prove my point in an argument i am having with my friend! thanks man.

Very interesting too with many good points.