Consoles have outpaced PC, says Epic man News

Consoles have left PC games behind? In sales, yes. In gameplay and innovation, not so much.

Oh do shut up Epic! Yes UT3 bombed, might have more to do with the game not being that great rather than PC gaming dying.

LOL, geuse Mark Rein has to step in again to correct him on the official company line.
Epics credibility is quickly crumbling.

Money makes the world go round...

Solve the piracy thing in PC gaming and more than half of its problems are solved, imo.

I also think that UT3 on th 360 is going to do better that PS3+PC combined.

Maybe someone could ask him why the PC version of Gears is so bleeding slow.

"Solve the piracy thing in PC gaming and more than half of its problems are solved, imo. "

I think they have been trying that for about 20 years now

I know it's not easy, but it is a huge problem that's killing PC gaming.

@ Xiphos

Way to totally misunderstand the point he was making - that yes, PCs as a whole genre of machine have access to far superior technology than consoles, but that the percentages of PC owners who want to play and enjoy games who have that kind of hardware are relatively small.

The unrivalled scope and range of potential PC setups is a two-edged sword - on the one hand, you get excellent components that really push the boundaries of technology; on the other, you create a far larger 'underclass' of typical PC-owners, who are left behind as games companies direct the majority of their focus on the hardcore gamer who is both willing and able to spend whatever it takes to reach a certain level of power.

Consoles, by being largely closed systems, mean that games (with particular emphasis on graphics) can squeeze far more power out of the little white/grey/black boxes than could ever be achieved from a PC with a similar hardware specification. This is one of the reasons I think why consoles are seen as a more attractive prospect for many folks out there.

I agree with some of his points.

Sounds to me like he is saying that there is a disparity between capabilities of the personal computer hardware owned by the general public and the personal computer hardware owned by the gaming fan.

Which is actually quite accurate. Most people with personal computers who run windows and would be be in a position to buy a windows game would find that their hardware is not up to the spec required to play the game. Only the gaming fan, who is interested enough and can afford to constantly update perfectly good computing hardware in order to get that little bit extra ommph when playing their games.

I used to love the constant chase to keep my PC up to date with more, faster memory, bigger and better graphics cards and tweaked drivers. But after so long doing this, I got very, very tired of it. Cynicism set in and I decided that console games were the way forward. At least developers had a single hardware target to code to instead of the wildly varying PCs out there.

So in that respect, yes, console have left PCs in the dust. They can provide something that a windows PC cannot, a definitive hardware spec.

UT3 on the PC is not selling because it's just another UT with fancy graphics, PC users who played UT, UT2003, UT2004 have enough of that. Not so on the console side where such simple FPS games are a rather fresh thing. Sure, there were FPS games on the first box and PS2 but it is not until this generation of consoles that their quality reached PC standard.
Epic simply can't swallow the fact that most PC gamers moved on and are not interested in UT any more.
As long as the system is an open architecture (PC) the "piracy thing" will never be solved, deal with it...just like the movie and music industry does.

I'm pretty sure PCs used to be more expensive, if anything. They haven't changed.

It's just that shooters, in particular, are becoming console bread and butter, having previously been more or less pc-exclusive. Shooters = extremely popular genre, more consoles sell bla bla bla. I loved UT3 personally, but for the average pc gamer it certainly isn't very refreshing at any rate, whereas for console gamers it still is relatively WOW. Especially stuff like mods and other dlc, which have been on the pc for decades.

The PC market is expanding all the time, which all these articles neglect to mention, it's just that the console market (in the UK and US anyway) is expanding as well, and certainly now a lot more popular in the mainstream. Doesn't mean the PC is doing at all badly..

Sins of a Solar Empire, a game with bugger all copy protection and hardly any advertising space, has sold over 200,000 copies in its first month. Then again, it doesn't need a super computer to run. Hmm. What's more, most of the sales figures which the doom and gloom parade use don't include subscriptions or steam. Steam is now phenomonally popular. Anyway, i think that's evidence alone that nothing is "killing" pc gaming. I wish people would stop popularising that stupid misconception.

someone explain howcome crysis did over a million, and bioshock sold more on the PC

The only thing killing PC gaming is lack of decent 'new' PC games.
I'm looking forward to Starcraft 2 though...

Just re-read article.
F##K me someone mentioned maple story!
I thought it was just me that couldn't believe it raked in so much money and had so many players yet everyone seems to pretend it didn't exist. I made a thread about it being bigger than WOW and no one seems to acknowledge its existence.

Maybe if EPIC's UT engine was nicely optimized for low-end rigs, people with PC's could play.

Oh shut up you PC tards...

Face it, no one wants to fucking go around and hassling themselves in installing a game for just... better graphics or smoother framerate. I rather use a PC for MSN, forum, watching videos rather than installing a game and make my computer go fucking slow.

" hassling themselves in installing a game "

If you find installing things hassling then I move to suggest that you are under the age of 5? Also, I presume you have nothing else on your pc.

"No-one wants to..."

apart from the countless millions who do.

"I never knew that very very intelligent individuals could somehow convince the normal public that consoles such as the PS3 and Xbox360 will compare to a PC in in the last quarter of this year.

The only way this is wrong, is if nVidia and AMD/ATI refuse to develop chips for the PC - at least, more advanced and expensive designs.

Even if that did happen, I think Intel and AMD/ATI would keep it together."

Yeah... except he's not just talking about the specs here. I don't think anyone could honestly argue that consoles have outpaced PCs in a technical sense.

EDIT: Oh. Someone already responded. Yes.

@ Katsumoto

16...

Also, I presume you have nothing else on your pc.

MSN, Corel Draw, other shite that i can't be bothered deleting...

The only thing I see PC useful for are RTS and strategy games =P Nothing else

"Mark Rein says Tim Sweeney's an idiot!"

if PC gaming dies thats it i am gonna quit gaming.thank god it ain't :)

Face it, no one wants to fucking go around and hassling themselves in installing a game

MSN, Corel Draw, other shite that i can't be bothered deleting..

A game is too much hassle to install, CorelDraw is too much hassle to uninstall... Yes, I think you the type of person who's better off with a console :P

I think the point Tim Sweeny of Epic can be reduced down to this.


The base line power or average power of the consoles has exceeded that of the PC. Laptops are more popular than ever, but the percentage of them that can compete with the PS3 or 360 as a gaming platform using UE3 is very small. There must be about 30 PC's that I have the unofficial task of servicing (thanks family) and I think there is only my PC that could have a stab at running UE3 better than the PS3 or 360.

His sentiments only echo those of PC stalwarts Valve and i.d. - neither of which have shown any great affection for pushing beyond DX9 and both who are pushing the consoles.

In fact the consoles could be looked at (especially in the case of the 360) as the PC Holy Grail - a fixed system everyone has with a graphics subsystem it is finally going to be worth your while getting to know very well to achieve great results. Hurrah for everyone - there is no way the PC will ever die - but it may not survive as the thing we know and love today.

EDIT - started to write this before lunch so did not have the benefit of reading JohnnyWash&Go's post - we seem to be saying almost exactly the same thing so we must be right! ;-)

"Anyway, i think that's evidence alone that nothing is "killing" pc gaming. I wish people would stop popularising that stupid misconception."

No, PC gaming isn't dying, it is just changing. More towards low spec games and less and less towards games that are state of the art from a technical perspective.

lol skilly +1
Since when did anyone *ever* cater for the entire range of PC hardware in existence?!
(excepting ooh probably a year around the birth of the PC, for all you pedants ;))

Consoles have left PC games behind? In sales, yes. In gameplay and innovation, not so much.
This somehow implies that there is a significant number of games (innovative ones, even) released on PC.

No, europe is pretty much the last market where PC rules supreme (and south korea, for some reason). RTS is its last native genre and the number of its fans - I say this despite being an RTS fan since the days of the original C&C - are stagnating at best, walking the dinosaur at realistic.
Additionally, anti-piracy measures tend to punish honest buyers more than pirates (who get the games without copy-protection) - indeed sometimes copy protection is making me consider to pirate, because I want to play Bioshock on a PC with no online connection, for example. There are two ways to get a working copy of such a game - get it on console or pirate it. And getting it on console is at least legal.

the PC Holy Grail - a fixed system everyone has with a graphics subsystem

That may be a developer's Holy Grail (in fact I'm not even so sure about that), but that's certainly not a PC gamer's Holy Grail - otherwise we all would have thrown out our graphics cards and bought a console years ago.

Yes, PC systems are all over the place in terms of performance, specialisation, control systems etc., but that's how I like it. It means there is room for hundreds of different games, from The Sims to Crysis to Eve to Peggle, and it means that the PC retains an independent spirit that is entirely absent from the console gaming scene.

No it is not the best system for publishers or anyone looking at the console scene and trying to replicate it on PC. But I am not a publisher, I am a gamer, and I couldn't care less how much money publishers make. I want an open system, not a closed one, and I want esciting new developments that can come along and surprise me at any time, not just at the beginning on a new 5 year hardware cycle.

This somehow implies that there is a significant number of games (innovative ones, even) are released on PC.

There is certainly no lack of games being released for the PC. You may not of heard of all of them, and you won't have seen a single one advertised during a break on Corrie on ITV, but plenty of them are more innovative and/or more fun than another Army of Two or new PGR.

Oh come on, that the majority of games ic uninnovative crap is true for both systems.

BTW, I don't count the free- and shareware scene or even the garage developers, mainly because they're not affected by an eventual end of the large-scale PC gaming market at all. They produce for a niche now and they probably won't mind if the rest of PC gaming becomes a niche the same way.

I know what it's like to defend a dead platform for years. My last-generation console of choice was a GameCube ;-) .

BTW, I don't count the free- and shareware scene or even the garage developers, mainly because they're not affected by an eventual end of the large-scale PC gaming market at all

You can't complain about lack of innovation and then dismiss the most experimental group of developers. Without Narbacular Drop there would have been no Portal which was IMO the best game of last year, "mainstream" or otherwise.

And with digital distribution getting bigger and bigger, these "indie" developers will do better than ever as the need for publishers, retailers, marketers and other middlemen is diminished.

edit: as regards your last point, my last console was an N64 - I loved it, and because I didn't read magazines or follow industry news I was never even aware that it was seen as an unsuccessful console.

@skillian I understand what you are saying and I respect your opinion, but I would like to agree to disagree with you on this topic.

Let me try to elucidate my argument with an analogy:

For years home computer users have suffered at the hands of Microsoft and its Operating System from hell, Windows. One the biggest problems with Windows is that it occasionally blue screens, usually when you least want it to. One of the reasons for this is that with so many different pieces of hardware that are available to by attached to a computer running Windows, there is a requirement for as many drivers for those pieces of hardware.

Not all drivers are written equally. In fact a lot of drivers for cheap commodity hardware are written cheaply, often without due care and attention which turn results in them causing problems for the host OS.

Open source software has to also deal with the vast majority of hardware out there and should have the same issues. The difference is that with the source code available to be fixed by interested third parties, any problems are quickly ironed out. Saying that, my OS of choice, Linux, is still all over the place with regard to hardware support :(

The solution to all of this can be found at Apples doorstep. If you restrict the hardware that runs your software, you find that suddenly all your problems vanish. You only suport a subset of the vast amount of hardware out there and so can spend time properly writing drivers for them without rushing or compromising the integrity of the code.

Take what I have just written and apply it to the video games industry. With just one or two hardware configurations, you suddenly don't have to worry about how well you graphics driver works with a new game because you have a console with a fixed graphics card and therefore a very mature and well understood driver. This, in my opinion, is a far better situation than having a multitude of difference system configurations and I imagine (I am not a games developer so do not speak for them) that it makes developing games much easier.

I am not advocating a single games platform as that would stifle creativity and hardware progress. I do, however, think that a handful of solid console hardware configurations makes things easier for everyone.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to PC's over the years with more and more starting to come with competant integrated graphics solutions (see ATI's 780g). If ATI and NVIDIA get that right then it could mean that developers actually will have a more consistant platform to work off.

Obviously this still falls in line with Sweeny's talk, as it will depend on if the developers start to look at the more common denominator.

Dawn of War: SoulStorm pops in at number 8 in the all formats chart. Impressive for a 4 yr old title on a 'dying' format. Bollocks to you Epic!

*ahem*.
Half the XBox 360's library seems to be on PC.
What's he on about?

No, PC gaming isn't dying, it is just changing. More towards low spec games and less and less towards games that are state of the art from a technical perspective.


Same as console gaming, then, in other words.

You can't complain about lack of innovation and then dismiss the most experimental group of developers. Without Narbacular Drop there would have been no Portal which was IMO the best game of last year, "mainstream" or otherwise.

Fair point. However, I do not dimiss indies, I was just never talking about them. It is clear imho that the fall of a certain plaform does not significantly affect its independent scene because it is the one sub-segment of platform users that won't care about a platforms dead to much. In fact, on a moribund system indies might see larger success than on a lively one, as the mass market is usually the first to abandon a system, leaving space for indies to shine.

Funny enough, same is true for handheld console homebrew, despite the fact that this is a scene far smaller than PC indies.

Also funny:
And with digital distribution getting bigger and bigger, these "indie" developers will do better than ever as the need for publishers, retailers, marketers and other middlemen is diminished.
the same goes for consoles. Microsoft's XNA development environment already supports programming for both, PC and Xbox 360 with the option to sell a titel as a download to Xbox and Nintendo has quite some indie support on Wiis upcoming download service as well.
However, I do agree that these options will have quite a positive impact on indie game development.

There is certainly something to be said for identifying standards and improving reliability, but your analogy fails when you realise that Macs sell in ridiculously small numbers compared to PCs. If that were the answer surely Mac should be doing better?

I've used Macs lots at work, but what you see as an advantage, I see as a weakness. I dislike Macs for the same reason I dislike consoles (in comparison to a PC). They are closed systems that give the user very little in terms of choice, customisation or specialisation. They may "just work", but they only work in one single pre-approved way, and if you try and approach something from another angle they do not work at all.

I see where you're coming from and I see why the closed system appeals to many (a majority of) people, but for me it's a system that should be avoided, not emulated.

I wasnt aware that most of the big names ever catered for "low end" pcs, with a few indie outfits as an exception.

I agree, Epic has been mouthing off about all sorts lately.

Last year I spent £550 on a new computer. Dual core CPU, 8800GT graphics card, 4GB DDR2 RAM. Never use it for gaming other than Flight Simulator X.

Why? Because console gaming is such a nicer experience. Even if PC gaming survives I would never spend more than the absolute minimum on a new PC and in three years time when I upgrade again I imagine that I will become one of the many who gives up desktop computers completely and switches to one of those little EEE PC that are all the rage.

To those who claim PC gaming is dying, I fully agree

Heavy Metal music is dying, because I never listen to it and prefer indie folk.

What's a bit more worrying is how people seem to want that it dies. Because having entirely industry-controlled, closed platforms and is so much better for all of us...

"To those who claim PC gaming is dying, I fully agree "

So because you personally don't enjoy it, it's dying? I'm guessing the 200,000 people who bought Sins in the last 4 weeks alone don't agree.

The "problem" holding back low-end PCs as gaming machines is the god-awful onboard graphics capability. AMD, nVidia and, surprisingly, Intel, are all working on low-cost, low-power but high-performance onboard graphics chipsets that will transform low-end PCs into capable games machines for today's AAA titles, and that's going to change PC gaming for the better. All of a sudden, your £500 home PC will be able to play Crysis at a reasonable level.

Yeah, Nvidia and Intel (and Ati) certainly are part of the problem, marketing even low-end cards for office applications as multimedia wonders and games cards just because they are, more theoretically, DX 10 capable. The confusing nomenclature doesn't help. An 8500 card shouldn't be named like it belongs to the same family as an 8800 card.

skillian
11-Mar-08 11:53:57 Consoles have left PC games behind? In sales, yes. In gameplay and innovation, not so much.


Katamari, Killer7, ICO, Nintendo Wii, freeware games like N+ going to live & PSN, DS touchscreen, brain training & co, PSO's back in the days of dreamcast...casual gaming, camera enables games like eye of judgement

I think you'll find PC is the home of innovation, notsomuch....there is Spore, nowt else, and to be honest that there Wii (2 gamecubes strapped together) has on it's own brought more new gameplay and innovation to the table than PC has in the last couple of decades

Tis good for FPS games tho...i like Crysis

I am a natural console-gamer, but I still reckon the PC can and still does offer more to hardcore gamers than what consoles can. The only reason I'm not a converted full PC gamer is because I suck at using mouse and keyboard, I require split-screen multiplayer support, and I can't stand having to piss about with settings and hardware to make things work.

That aside, visuals and technical performance in PC games pisses all over "Next-Gen" consoles, and games such as GTR prove how far behind the 360/PS3 are when it can offer over 30+ fully detailed cars on screen at once (or so my friend tells me). Consoles can barely hold together 8 cars at once, let alone 30 odd. So that's next-gen.

Also, PC games offer something console games are never likely to have: mods. Mods are free and done by the community, not all are superb, mind, but it still beats any premium download content bullsh*t we have on consoles.

I think you'll find PC is the home of innovation, notsomuch....there is Spore, nowt else, and to be honest that there Wii (2 gamecubes strapped together) has on it's own brought more new gameplay and innovation to the table than PC has in the last couple of decades

I don't think waving a wand around to some brain training titles equates to the birth of RTS games, FPSs, Point and Click adventures, MMORPGs.
Plus I believe the PC was first to the table when it comes to casual games, so your "last couple of decades" comment is somewhat wrong.

Katamari, Killer7, ICO, Nintendo Wii, freeware games like N+ going to live & PSN, DS touchscreen, brain training & co, PSO's back in the days of dreamcast...casual gaming, camera enables games like eye of judgement

I think you'll find PC is the home of innovation, notsomuch....there is Spore, nowt else

I find it strange that you list N+, Phantasy Star Online, casual gaming and camera-enabled games as console innovations... and then say that Spore is the only innovative piece of software for the PC.

Crofto *kiss* from a natural PC gamer. Unassuming, honest, tranquil and all. Makes me want to play console games.
Epic *slap*

I know what it's like to defend a dead platform for years. My last-generation console of choice was a GameCube ;-)

Difference being the PC is an evolving platform and will change to suit the needs of it's users. Just look at the Wii, it's about as close as an example of an evolving platform the console market has seen in years and look how successful that is. If you backed the Gamecube, you were on to a winner since all your old titles and peripherals work flawlessly, plus you get a couple of shinny new effects and a set of new interesting peripherals all for a small upgrade fee. Looks like the Gamecube is doing fine to me ;)

Home computer gaming has been "dying" since the NES. I myself spouted such shit when I was a lad and yet here we are, approx 23 years later, a console nerd now finds himself playing on his PC far more than his consoles. The huge success of the PlayStation brand and the death of Sega as a hardware/game developer was a huge turning point for me. Adding the 360 into the mix, which is basically the new PlayStation, and the slow death of Japanese development and I just can't see myself getting excited about console gaming like I used to.

For me, the PC has the most variety from cheap indie titles to the big power hungry, technical master pieces. Where things like Live! and WiiWare, online gaming communities, HD gaming and, the latest console hype, the mod scene are old news. To me it is now the most exciting place for a gamer to be.

I'm still a console gamer, they still have their place and there are still some genuine classics coming out. I just currently find myself gravitating more towards my PC these days. It helps that most of the big 360 titles are on PC :)