Topic: "Hardly anyone plays first-person shooters on the PC anymore"

[idolminds]

Good thing they told me, I would have been confused otherwise.

First-person shooters. Your PC days are numbered. Microsoft’s Kudo Tsunoda reckons it.

The Kinect chief told Game Informer that “hardly anyone” plays FPS on PC now, with Halo redefining how shooters are seen on consoles.

“Halo did an awesome job of building a first-person shooter exclusively for the console, and now hardly anyone plays first-person shooters on the PC anymore,” he claimed.

Microsoft shitting on PC gamers. Funny, I don't find it surprising anymore.

He explained: “If you think about the way that first-person shooters evolved, they started on the PC.

“People for the longest time tried to port shooters from the PC onto the console.

“And people said the same things that they are saying now about Kinect – ‘It’s never going to be responsive enough to do this,’ or ‘You’re never going to get a fun first person shooter on the console’ – it’s only made for a keyboard and mouse and that is the way it is supposed to be played.’

“And as long as everyone was just porting the existing shooters over to console, they weren’t as fun as the PC ones. Of course, they were built for the PC.”

Ok, I get what hes saying. People are downplaying Kinect now before even giving it a chance, just like people used to downplay FPS games on consoles. Now thats changed and FPS is the norm on console. So why can't the same happen to Kinect?

Plus, you won't be able to shoehorn these things together. Taking a game designed for a controller and trying to directly translate that to Kinect will probably fail. But designing for Kinect from the outset will likely produce better results. Just like you couldn't take a PC FPS and drop it onto a console with little change.

But man, worst possible way to put that. Of course you wouldn't hear them say "People laughed at the Wii and DS, and look how that went!" (I still think Kinect is going to suck)

Now, if his "hardly anyone plays" quote is taken at face value...why do you suppose that would be true? Because FPSs are so much better on consoles, or that they are all designed for consoles now and end up being a shitty experience on PC as a result? Curiouser and curiouser.

[Xessive]

I guess my brother, my cousin, and myself are in the scarce minority. We reserve FPSs for the PC since we can enjoy them without control issues.

Anyway, his argument is fundamentally flawed. I think that if Halo was a PC exclusive it would have succeeded to a certain extent (I have this notion that the PC player is hyper-evolved compared to the stereotypical console player ). I don't think many people pick console shooters because they prefer the controls, it's all the other benefits that draw people in like a guarantee that it will run at its intended framerate, there's no need to tweak, tune, or upgrade etc. It certainly doesn't hurt when a game is exclusive to a particular console. It is especially stupid when they compare Halo Xbox sales to Halo PC sales.

[Cobra951]

So, he's saying people are abandoning mouselook in favor of a much-inferior joypad scheme, and next in favor of gestures in the air.  Sounds like perfectly good marketing spin to me.  Never mind that Kinect is completely unproven in the marketplace, costs as much as a whole console, and has dick for games that use it.

[iPPi]

I'm pretty sure why console shooters are preferred on consoles (not necessarily shooters, but for this particular argument) is because of the prevalence of the Xbox Live and the PSN online system and not controls.  Their implementation and the infrastructure backing is quite good and from that, people prefer using it in order to communicate with friends and to set up matches.

I think the problem with PC shooters nowadays is how splintered the community is.  There are attempts to group them together with Steam, and Xfire and other services, but generally speaking, when people play shooters, they want to play them online with friends.  The ease of the XBL and PSN services enables people to get games going a lot easier.  On consoles, you don't have the liberty to choose what service you will use -- you are forced into using one service, and everyone is on it so it's easy to communicate.

I remember when I had XBL Gold, logged on with the intention of playing some other game but some friends online contacted me and then we started to play Gears of War II online.  The ease of the system is what makes it the preferred method of playing now

I may be a little out of date with my info since I haven't done PC gaming in a while now (except for Starcraft 2) and I remember almost always just playing with random people online in shooters because it was hard to coordinate games together with friends.

I have no interest in the big push of Kinect and Move.

[angrykeebler]

man a thread about Microsoft hate on our forums? I AM SO SURPRISED

[idolminds]

Soon I can start up Apple hate threads, which I will put in between Steam hate threads.

[W7RE]

I was gonna post a bunch of sales data showing how console FPS sales dwarf PC FPS sales, but then I realized I didn't know which of the numbers were US only vs worldwide, and I was having trouble coming up with FPS games that can be considered primarily PC. The only ones I came up with that are big big names, were Crysis and Left 4 Dead. Plus the whole Steam thing fucks everything up, because everywhere I looked, it said "Valve hasn't released Steam sales data for X game".

Left 4 Dead, both games, did sell more on PC. I would be surprised if that wasn't the only cross platform game that did so though. I was seeing numbers like 1 million sold in 3 months, when that's probably close to average one month sales for a big Xbox or PS3 release. I mean, Modern Warfare did like 10 million units in NA and Europe combined, but only sold 170,000 on the PC (not including Steam).

I don't know if I'd say "hardly anyone", but yes, the vast majority are NOT playing on PC. Are the console controls as good? No, but people are still playing more on consoles. Developers are developing for consoles. The PC market is pretty damn small compared to the console market. And judging from things like Left 4 Dead selling more on PC, I would not be surprised if a lot of people are picking console versions of games, even when they have a competent PC. Hell, I do. But you know what? I can play CoD4 multiplayer on my Xbox, but it's fucked on my PC thanks to a bug I'm fucking sick of trying to fix. So I rebought it for Xbox.

[K-man]

Well I mean people are going to flock where the action is, period.  I won't question the superiority of a mouse and keyboard, because it is indeed superior.  However, pad controls have gotten so much better that it's almost a non-issue.

It's an unfortunate side effect of a massive market shift.  The technology gap between PCs and consoles just isn't wide enough anymore to warrant the extra expense associated with high end PC gaming.

[W7RE]

Oh, something I forgot to mention in my previous post, probably the most important part: Fuck Move, and fuck Kinect.

[ren]

It's just a marketing statement to get people excited about Kinect being the next big thing. It doesn't work though. The keyboard and mouse/computer transition to controllers/consoles is nothing like going from controllers to motion sensors.

[scottws]

So, other than WoW, what are PC gamers playing?  Stupid.

[beo]

i think "hardly anyone" is a bit of a stretch, but i know i'm not the only one who's allegiance has shifted.

it all comes down to weighing up what is more important to you - for me it's playing with friends on a system i can actually afford. although i prefer keyboard + mouse, the control system is way down the list of priorities.

as for the part trying to explain how this thinking affects kinect, well that's a big pile of horse shit. while novel, this control method is utterly unfeasible for *many* game types that work great with both pad and keyboard-mouse controls.

[gpw11]

Yeah, I think he just phrased it wrong (and exaggerated).  I mean, you can't deny that the market has shifted, although many people are still playing on the PC.  Honestly, the PC I own now will probably be my last gaming PC, but I also don't know if I'll get into a console.

[scottws]

I think I'll always have a gaming PC for the foreseeable future for two reasons:  1)  There is usually at least a game a year that I want on PC for the superior resolution, flexibility, and control and 2) I like building my PC and I'm not going to put crap in there.

[Xessive]

Working with graphics and image rendering I'll always need a relatively powerful PC, which means it'll almost certainly be great for gaming. The way I look at it, if I get a gaming rig I'll be able to so much more with it. In agreement with Scott, there will always be something I want to play on PC.

PC is still my primary gaming platform; when I'm in the mood for some "serious" gaming I always go to my PC since it's the most capable and private. I play some games on the PS3, mainly the ones I feel are more console-oriented and the exclusives, I resort to it for "laid-back" gaming I use my PSP when mainly I'm traveling for gaming on-the-go and general entertainment (movies, music, photo slides). I feel that each platform with its control format has its own style, advantages, and disadvantages. I don't have a Wii but if I did I'm sure it would've been my "party" gaming platform, since much of its content is based around the group/family/party gameplay, which is pretty much what I expect from the Move and Kinect.

I also want to get a little credit for genuinely trying to play 1st-person shooters with a gamepad.. I'm trying out Killzone 2. It is a little agonizing at times, especially with moving targets, and I find myself relying a lot on closing in for melee kills since they don't require much aiming. I'll get used to it eventually but it's just not normal. Ungh. Someday, someday I will have my mouse on console shooters!!

[iPPi]

I haven't done much PC gaming in a while now.  Since I've quit WoW, my gaming PC died (well, it can't game, but can do general tasks, it will blue screen if you run anything intensive on it), I haven't bothered getting a new computer yet.

I was thinking about getting an Alienware Aurora, but I cannot justify the cost at the moment.

Since WoW, the PC game I am playing is Starcraft 2.  Nothing else, and SC2 runs on my 4 year old laptop (albeit everything on low).

I think if I were to get a new machine right now, I'd probably get an Alienware m11x or something like that.

[W7RE]

I also want to get a little credit for genuinely trying to play 1st-person shooters with a gamepad.. I'm trying out Killzone 2. It is a little agonizing at times, especially with moving targets, and I find myself relying a lot on closing in for melee kills since they don't require much aiming. I'll get used to it eventually but it's just not normal. Ungh. Someday, someday I will have my mouse on console shooters!!

I tried the Killzone 2 demo on my brother's PS3. I don't know if the full game is the same, but damn does that game have some serious input lag. I also don't care for how loose the PS3 controller's analog sticks feel compared to the Xbox 360 cotrollers. Resistance and Uncharted I also had similar problems with, but Killzone 2 felt almost unplayable.

[Xessive]

Uncharted and Uncharted 2 were awesome. In terms of aiming both games were manageable, and there was a lot more to both games than pin-point accurate shooting.

You're right about Killzone 2, I do feel a subtle lag in my aiming, it's kinda like when I move the stick I'm moving the character's arms just before the camera view.

I do prefer the PS3's analogue stick sensitivity, since I can be a lot more accurate with my thumb's sensitivity, but I prefer the concave top of the X360 stick.

[W7RE]

Well, I read that there was some seriously bad aiming lag at first and they may have patched it up. I think it's probably worse in the demo than in the full game because of that.

[Xessive]

I'll connect to PSN, update my KZ2, and confirm.

I think I might pull out my old FragFX and see how well it works with the game.

[MysterD]

Well I mean people are going to flock where the action is, period.  I won't question the superiority of a mouse and keyboard, because it is indeed superior.  However, pad controls have gotten so much better that it's almost a non-issue.

It's an unfortunate side effect of a massive market shift.  The technology gap between PCs and consoles just isn't wide enough anymore to warrant the extra expense associated with high end PC gaming.

Oh, it's wide enuff - it's just not every PC game straight-up requires DX 11.0, uses Tesselation, and a VERY high-end video card - since A LOT of people just don't have this kind of hardware. Most games are still in DX 9.0 Mode - a la what's very close to what the X360 runs for a API.

About KB/mouse - well, if consoles actually had these kind of controls for FPS's and especially strategic-games, consoles would have even more popularity, if you ask me. Some company is gonna try this on the PS3 - so, if FPS games support it, it'll be interesting to see KB/mouse gamers slaughtering control-pad gamers. Microsoft already did a study on KB/mouse vs. control-pad. and also Shadowrun X-Play (PC and 360)...and, well...we know the results...

[K-man]

I don't disagree that PC's have the capability of making the gap wide, but there's a lack of justification to spend the money on the high end equipment when they can boot up a console and get an experience that's good enough.

I won't dispute PC hardware's superiority, because it clearly still is.  But whereas PC games and Console games used to be two distinct types of experiences, today's consoles (especially the PS3 and 360) have blurred the line significantly where there is almost no difference.  Sort of like the gap between arcade games and consoles used to be.

I'll give you guys an example of the turnoffs of PC gaming:  Yesterday I was debating the purchase of Halo: Reach or Civilization V.  Both are series I like (and in Civilization's case, flat out man love), but I had doubts as to whether my existing PC had the capabilities to run Civ to my satisfaction.  I didn't want to take the chance on purchasing a game only to find it runs like molasses on my setup, and in turn have to spend even more money to make it right.  So, I bought Reach.  A game I will enjoy for an equal amount of time considering the new multiplayer options.  I'll pick Civ V up down the road when it gets cheap (or when they package all the inevitable expansions so I don't pull what I did with Civ IV and effectively spend well over 100 bucks on the game).  But decisions like these are being made by a lot more people with me, a lot of those people being much less educated about PC requirements than I.

But seriously guys, we all know what this thread is going to devolve to.  We've had this discussion countless times.  The market has shifted, PC gaming has shrunk, but there's still a niche firmly entrenched that won't be going away anytime soon.

[Xessive]

I think much of PC gaming is moving towards casual gaming, which, in turn, is moving towards mobile platforms. The traditional PC gaming market is undeniably dwindling, we just have to change our perspective on it.

There's a ridiculously expensive idea by Origin dubbed "The Big O" which may be moving toward what the future may be. In a nutshell it's a PC/X360 hybrid.. Really, it's a ridonkulous PC with a X360 inside.

It is insanely expensive right now and it would only appeal to the wealthy-geek niche, but perhaps in the future having a console built into a gaming rig could be a feasible idea.

I honestly see the shift to digital and streaming media becoming the more plausible reality, sadly.. You buy the hardware (or hardware upgrade) and it streams to your display of choice from anywhere in the house.

[Cobra951]

What bugs me is that all the current consoles need is mouse support + some sort of controller for the other hand--or keyboard, whatever.  The 360 already supports USB keyboards, and I imagine the PS3 does too.  I mean, seriously--that's it.  We can already install full games to HDD, and we can already get hundreds of GBs of space.  The tech specs are good enough for any kind of game.  Why the fucking stubborn resistance to mouselook on consoles (not to mention mouse interfaces for all the genres that thrive on them)?  Talk about bridging the gap, or the sad refusal to do so.

[K-man]

I think the reasoning is it gives an unfair advantage compared to those using a controller.

[Xessive]

I think it has to do with the social perception that the mouse is the most iconic piece of hardware for PC's, and giving mouse-capability to consoles would ultimately redefine them as Personal Computers of sorts.

One of my arguments has always been the question of peripherals: driving games have steering wheels and pedals; flight games have joysticks and rudders; singing/rockband games have guitars, drums, microphones, etc.; even DJ games have frickin' turntables... It's arguable that those peripherals give "unfair" advantages compared to using a controller. There's a peripheral for practically every other kind of game, why the Heck can't we have a mouse for FPS's???

The PS3 supports USB keyboard as well as mouse.. The mouse can navigate the XMB menu (moving it moves the menu items around) and in the web browser you get a traditional mouse cursor, it functions like it does on PC. It comes back to a question of software; apparently UT3 on the PS3 is the only game that works with a USB mouse. The developers are not adding mouse support to console games for what seem to "obvious" reasons.

Anyway, coming back to the original discussion. One of the big gaps between PC and console nowadays is the control device(s) alongside software (OS). The PS3 and X360 are capable of performing the essential PC tasks, they're just not software equipped. Aside from running high-end games (which are specifically tailored for them) they would have the technical capacity for word processing (and general office applications), e-mail, browsing, multimedia, etc. I don't really what's holding Sony back or frickin' Microsoft for that matter. If they were at least optional features!

[Cobra951]

Some refinement would be welcome on the Xbox.  Crashing games bring down the OS, something solved on Windows since NT became its core.  There is no calibration code at all for joypads.  When the sticks drift (and they will drift) live with it, or buy another pad.  There is no excuse for items coming across the network to take precedence over local functionality at boot-up time.  Etc.  But you're asking for a game console to start looking more like a full-fledged PC?  I don't think that's going to happen.  I don't think that's even particularly desirable.  All resources should be focused on the gaming experience, and ease of use.

I would have welcomed a Wiimote-like peripheral to sort of fill in for a mouse.  That would have offered much improved pointing/aiming, at least.  But we got this fucking Kinect instead.  Oh, great.

[MysterD]

I think it has to do with the social perception that the mouse is the most iconic piece of hardware for PC's, and giving mouse-capability to consoles would ultimately redefine them as Personal Computers of sorts.

One of my arguments has always been the question of peripherals: driving games have steering wheels and pedals; flight games have joysticks and rudders; singing/rockband games have guitars, drums, microphones, etc.; even DJ games have frickin' turntables... It's arguable that those peripherals give "unfair" advantages compared to using a controller. There's a peripheral for practically every other kind of game, why the Heck can't we have a mouse for FPS's???

The PS3 supports USB keyboard as well as mouse.. The mouse can navigate the XMB menu (moving it moves the menu items around) and in the web browser you get a traditional mouse cursor, it functions like it does on PC. It comes back to a question of software; apparently UT3 on the PS3 is the only game that works with a USB mouse. The developers are not adding mouse support to console games for what seem to "obvious" reasons.

Anyway, coming back to the original discussion. One of the big gaps between PC and console nowadays is the control device(s) alongside software (OS). The PS3 and X360 are capable of performing the essential PC tasks, they're just not software equipped. Aside from running high-end games (which are specifically tailored for them) they would have the technical capacity for word processing (and general office applications), e-mail, browsing, multimedia, etc. I don't really what's holding Sony back or frickin' Microsoft for that matter. If they were at least optional features!

I'm really gonna be interested to see how this experiment turns out and if anybody adopts it on the (PS3) consoles...

[K-man]

I think we all can agree though:  Kinect and Move need to go die in a fire.

[scottws]

I'll give you guys an example of the turnoffs of PC gaming:  Yesterday I was debating the purchase of Halo: Reach or Civilization V.  Both are series I like (and in Civilization's case, flat out man love), but I had doubts as to whether my existing PC had the capabilities to run Civ to my satisfaction.  I didn't want to take the chance on purchasing a game only to find it runs like molasses on my setup, and in turn have to spend even more money to make it right.  So, I bought Reach.  A game I will enjoy for an equal amount of time considering the new multiplayer options.  I'll pick Civ V up down the road when it gets cheap (or when they package all the inevitable expansions so I don't pull what I did with Civ IV and effectively spend well over 100 bucks on the game).  But decisions like these are being made by a lot more people with me, a lot of those people being much less educated about PC requirements than I.

Everything you said in this paragraph is not something new to the new generation of consoles.  The same thing was true in the NES days.

The way I see it, there are three main reasons for the market superiority of consoles today:  1)  Gaming has become vastly more mainstream than it used to be.  As such, you're going to have a whole lot of people who aren't tech nerds that don't want to mess with a PC (for reasons including, but not limited to, those you mentioned above).  2)  Consoles are closer to the technological capabilities of PC more than ever before.  3)  High PC costs for a game on PCvs. comparitively lower costs for games on consoles due to piracy and non-standard hardware.  #3 is also related to #1 because of economies of scale.

[idolminds]

I think we all can agree though:  Kinect and Move need to go die in a fire.

Agreed, and I don't really predict them taking off the way Sony/MS want them to. The hardcore won't care (see Wii), and the casuals already have what they want (see Wii).

[MysterD]

Agreed, and I don't really predict them taking off the way Sony/MS want them to. The hardcore won't care (see Wii), and the casuals already have what they want (see Wii).

I don't think console gamers really want add-ons to their existing platform. If they did, they'd be PC gamers - since we love adding anything onto our rigs.

I think the real way for Sony and Microsoft to get hardcore or casual gamers into wanting Move and Kinect is to pump out a brand-new console w/ bad-ass power; your usual game-pad controller; AND the new motion-controller.

Plus, I don't know...but I think it might take quite some time - I'm thinking years and years here - until the dev's really get hardcore-based style of games - RTS, shooters, RPG's - working right on say a Move or Kinect type of device. I mean, hell - long how long it took until a console game company basically figured out how to make console FPS's work around a gamepad - i.e. look at Halo for X-Box systems.

[K-man]

Peripherals historically have not done well.  Good steering wheels have their niche with the racing nuts, but other than that they have almost always sold terribly.  I really think they're barking up the wrong tree with all of it.  What sucks is that both parties are essentially trying to extend the life of the console with this crap.  Ultimately I don't care.  I'm still perfectly happy with the consoles as they are.  But if they start making owning this stuff a requirement to play the big AAA titles we purchase now, then I'm going to be very upset.

Plus if they wanted this to succeed, they should do something like release games people would actually want to play instead of the crap that's out with it now.

[Pugnate]

Everything you said in this paragraph is not something new to the new generation of consoles.  The same thing was true in the NES days.

The way I see it, there are three main reasons for the market superiority of consoles today:  1)  Gaming has become vastly more mainstream than it used to be.  As such, you're going to have a whole lot of people who aren't tech nerds that don't want to mess with a PC (for reasons including, but not limited to, those you mentioned above).  2)  Consoles are closer to the technological capabilities of PC more than ever before.  3)  High PC costs for a game on PCvs. comparitively lower costs for games on consoles due to piracy and non-standard hardware.  #3 is also related to #1 because of economies of scale.

I'd like to add another.

PC Gaming has gotten harder. It used to be much easier in the late 90s, early 2000s to install and play a game, whether it be online, at home alone with your keyboard and mouse, or with your gamepad.

Nowadays you have to worry about DRM, G4WL, Steam, gamepad support, LAN support, bugs that result from poorly ported code etc. 

I remember buying a NFS game in 1999 and hooking up my gamepad and playing easily. I remember buying games like Rainbow Six or the first Unreal Tournament, and playing on LAN with my buddies without issue.

Yes, games had bugs back then, but they were limited to what was going on in the game. Nowadays, the biggest drawback to PC gaming is actually starting a game you purchased. That's why I have bought more PS3 and 360 games than PC games over the past few years.

Just a summary of issues I have had with games I purchased, which are bugs that could have been easily avoided:

1. Couldn't play games like Prince of Persia and Gears of War with my $50 Logitech rumblepad. This would have never happened in 1999. MS starting some weird gamepad monopoly on the PC is ridiculous.

2. Wasted three frustrating hours in trying to get a game of Gears of War going on LAN with my cousins who were over. It would not work, and it was something that wasn't a problem with Epic's games in 1999. We switched to the Xbox 360, and it was a question of minutes.

3. Could not play Arkham Asylum after importing the collector's ed for $80, because a bug in G4WL kept me from logging in. The PC G4WL forums weren't allowing new registrations, and I tried every day for 2 weeks, till it *suddenly* started working with a new update from G4WL.

4. Paid $50 for Splinter Cell Double Agent, yet could not finish the game despite starting many times, because the game would get incredibly bugging upon any customization of controls.

5. Paid $60 for Chaos Theory, yet couldn't install the game because both the codes (one on the manual, and one on the cd) were incorrect because of a printing error. This was after 30 minutes of waiting for starforce to verify my installation DVD.

6. Had to buy a new $20 optical drive, because Bioshock wouldn't recognize the one I had.

So yea, I buy more console games now, even though I find PC gaming more superior. It is just that I am 30 now, and don't need crap from stuff I've paid for.

[K-man]

So yea, I buy more console games now, even though I find PC gaming more superior. It is just that I am 30 now, and don't need crap from stuff I've paid for.

This.

[idolminds]

I can't say I disagree with your point pug, and I'm still a big PC gamer. Its funny that a lot of people don't seem to be able to mentally take a step back and look at things to see their flaws. When you're into it or invested in it, you get used to the flaws and the workarounds that you stop seeing them as such.

A couple examples:

Dwarf Fortress. I actually see people say that the UI is fine and he doesn't have to worry about redoing it anytime soon. But these are hardcore DF players saying this. "Read a tutorial, and after an hour you'll be used to it." That sounds like a terrible UI to me.

Steam requirements, and I noticed this due to people laughing about all the 1 star amazon reviews for Civ 5 because people are complaining about Steam. If you already have a Steam account and buy all your games on it then of course its not going to bother you. But step back and look at it from another perspective. You go buy a game for $50, go to install it, needs to install this Steam thing, you need to make a Steam account (and go through all the steps and verification that requires), then it installs, then this Steam thing needs to be running every single time you want to play. Plus Steams default behavior is to boot at startup and to show you the ads for game sales. Yes you can go into the options and disable them but from a default view of a person not knowing what Steam is I can easily see how you would think its some kind of spyware or something. But don't say that to Steam fanboys, all these people are IDIOTS for not understanding Steam as well as they do.

And the same is true for all the other DRM crap that needs an account someplace. You're right, it WAS easier back in the day. The trouble we've had getting Borderlands multiplayer going is something I never saw before.

I see the appeal of "Buy disc, put disc in console, play." I fear they are going to eventually ruin that, though. Firmware updates, one-time use codes, DLC...they will mess it all up at some point.

[K-man]

Yeah make no mistake, at some point in the future physical media will be a thing of the past.  Not real sure how I feel about that.

[Cobra951]

. . .

I see the appeal of "Buy disc, put disc in console, play." I fear they are going to eventually ruin that, though. Firmware updates, one-time use codes, DLC...they will mess it all up at some point.

The day they do that is the day I look into hacking consoles for the first time ever.  And once I cross that line, I'll be sure to take full advantage of the other side.  This is how it spreads (to originally forthright users).  On PCs, it's a given already that I'll have to do some hacking to get an acceptable situation for gaming (if I ever get back into PC gaming in earnest).

[Pugnate]

I can't say I disagree with your point pug, and I'm still a big PC gamer. Its funny that a lot of people don't seem to be able to mentally take a step back and look at things to see their flaws. When you're into it or invested in it, you get used to the flaws and the workarounds that you stop seeing them as such.

A couple examples:

Dwarf Fortress. I actually see people say that the UI is fine and he doesn't have to worry about redoing it anytime soon. But these are hardcore DF players saying this. "Read a tutorial, and after an hour you'll be used to it." That sounds like a terrible UI to me.

Steam requirements, and I noticed this due to people laughing about all the 1 star amazon reviews for Civ 5 because people are complaining about Steam. If you already have a Steam account and buy all your games on it then of course its not going to bother you. But step back and look at it from another perspective. You go buy a game for $50, go to install it, needs to install this Steam thing, you need to make a Steam account (and go through all the steps and verification that requires), then it installs, then this Steam thing needs to be running every single time you want to play. Plus Steams default behavior is to boot at startup and to show you the ads for game sales. Yes you can go into the options and disable them but from a default view of a person not knowing what Steam is I can easily see how you would think its some kind of spyware or something. But don't say that to Steam fanboys, all these people are IDIOTS for not understanding Steam as well as they do.

And the same is true for all the other DRM crap that needs an account someplace. You're right, it WAS easier back in the day. The trouble we've had getting Borderlands multiplayer going is something I never saw before.

I see the appeal of "Buy disc, put disc in console, play." I fear they are going to eventually ruin that, though. Firmware updates, one-time use codes, DLC...they will mess it all up at some point.

Yea those are pretty good points. Once you get used to all the nonsense, you stop seeing it.

What you say about Borderlands is funny.

The thing is that people say that multiplayer gaming on the consoles is a big advantage over PC gaming. I think the problem is that while console multiplayer gaming *has* gotten better, PC multiplayer gaming has gotten significantly worse. I remember PC Gamer was talking about how they too had some major issues at their live event. It almost ruined the occasion.

Again, I think of all the Rainbow Six games, the Unreal Tournament games, the Ghost Recon games, the Medal of Honor games, the early Call of Duty games, and games like WarCraft, Diablo etc. We NEVER had a problem getting into multiplayer, or sharing a copy on LAN etc. Xessive and I had weekly LAN parties with friends, and the biggest issues we had were related to Windows or IP address issues from the ISP. Those too, were resolved quickly.

Now, when Diablo 3 comes, I will need to buy two copies to play on LAN with my sister. Hell, you know what? I am willing to do that, if for $100, it means I will have a frustration free experien

I still have to say, that games that are fully designed for the PC are the best gaming experiences for me. As much as I have enjoyed playing all the best games on the PS3 and 360, there is nothing like playing Dragon Age or StarCraft II on the PC. The problem is that those games are too few in between half assed ports. So yea, my tastes have changed a bit, and I am probably am less tolerant than when I was at 20, but the bottom line is that PC gaming has become more difficult to get into, than how much my tastes have changed, during the past ten years.

I think what has changed the most is that you need to do more research now before picking up a game, and I am not talking about reviews. Blizzard, Stardock, and Bioware games can be picked up without hesitation, but unfortunately you just can't pick up most full priced games off the store shelf anymore like you do with console titles.

In the past the biggest culprit was EA. Battlefield gave a lot of people a lot of problems. Unfortunately, it seems that every game today is what Battlefield was back then.

And I am an experienced PC gamer. Imagine how a person unfamiliar with PC gaming feels, when they buy a Fifa game today, and discover that it's graphics are vastly inferior to the same game released for the 360. Or how he feels when he has to jump through hoops to run a game using G4WL on LAN or whatever. Or when he buys Mirror's Edge and realizes it won't support that new non-MS gamepad he just paid good money for.

As a person who still loves the good games on PC, I know what to avoid, but for newcomers, it can be a harsh experience that puts them off from PC gaming forever.

[idolminds]

Heh, first it was a pain. Had to meet people and share IPs in IRC. Then we got 3rd party server browsers and I could quickly and easily search for servers in every game. Quake, UT, Tribes, HL,...didn't matter. I could search for all of them at the same time and pick from there. Some games had built-in server browsers, but they were generally less useful compared to the 3rd party ones that had tons of filtering options. And now we have matchmaking and logins all over the place for everything. Blah. Can we go back a step?

If only it could be the year 2000 again, when multiplayer peaked (at least for me).