Consoles helping niche PC titles Related content
-
Europa Universalis: Rome - Trailer
- Review PC Roundup [22]
- News Huge multiplayer for EU: Rome [6]
Advertisement
Consoles helping niche PC titles News
PC Xbox 360 PlayStation 3 News by Robert Purchese
Paradox Interactive producer Johan Andersson believes consoles are actually helping niche PC titles prosper.
Speaking exclusively to Eurogamer, he said the new machines not only drive more people to games, but also segment the market - making it much easier for titles like his Europa Universalis series to find their target audience.
"Generally we feel it is good for the industry as a whole that more and more people are finding their way to gaming," said Andersson.
"People have been saying for years that the PC market is declining; yet we've seen massive growth and success in our niched PC segment instead.
"I don't want to predict where PC gaming in general is going, but for us, the increase in consoles has made the market more segmented, and consequently made it easier for us to reach our target audience and vice versa," he added.
Europa Universalis is a deep strategy series that takes place on a Risk-like map, where the idea is to conquer the rest of it with your starting faction.
It enjoys a solid and enthusiastic following on PC, with a forum made up of around 83,000 members; and while Paradox will always lean towards its home platform, Andersson believes he could work with something like the DS.
"We are always open to new opportunities and there are certain platforms that lend themselves well to the type of strategy we do, handheld variants like the Nintendo DS for instance. But our main focus will always be on what we do best and to cater to our target audience and our niche," concluded Andersson.
It is a refreshing perspective from an often overlooked area, but while niche games may prosper, bigger-budget titles like Crysis appear to be a dying breed - arguably destined to join the likes of The Orange Box, World in Conflict and Command & Conquer on consoles further down the line.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Europa Universalis: Rome on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Europa Universalis: Rome
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-29 of 29 in total
Poster
|
PearOfAnguish
17/10/07 @ 14:51
0
PC GAMING IS DEA...oh.
Always nice to see the underdogs get more attention. The attitude that PC gaming is dying has always mystified me, most big console titles are multi-platform releases plus the PC has the largest variety of obscure low-budget and indie titles, not to mention an enormous back catalogue and the ability to emulate all but the newest systems. |
|
0
and while Paradox will always lean towards its home platform, Andersson believes he could work with something like the DS.
Well, he believed that two years ago, when EU2 was announced for the DS, only to be secretly canned! /shakes fist Anyway, good for them, even if I can't quite follow the logic why its easier for them now to reach their target audience these days. |
|
0
"Europa Universalis is a deep strategy series that takes place on a Risk-like map, where the idea is to conquer the rest of it with your starting faction."
Conquering the rest of it in EU is actually quite impossible :p But the logic is simple- more gamers, so basicallt the userbase grows. Some more are bound to find that trying to take over the world are their cup of tea. |
|
Clive Dunn
17/10/07 @ 15:03
0
Probably because they sell direct to the customer these days UL with their steam-alike delivery system.
Although he doesn't actually say that of course. Perhaps I'll do PR for them and give interviews along the lines of "HOI roxs, bye it ftw". |
|
FlamingCarrot
17/10/07 @ 15:08
0
Reports of the PCs death have been greatly exaggerated.
You can't help but see a decline in simulators (RIP Microprose) but Maddox, SimBin and even Codemasters still keep the fires burning. I love PC gaming but the big beast of profit and loss dominate the market. Consoles sell large amounts Can't imagine playing the Total War series on a console, but what with WIC & C+C3 porting.... Playing RTS' with a pad just feels wrong. Without the PC you would not have Lionhead, "2KGames", Gabe Newell, Warren Spector etc.. so its far from finished. Just a shame that alot of original and innovative games now fall by the wayside. |
|
0
I don't see PC games dying, but it's surely true that the constant upgrade cycle is hampering sales. Crysis should be a bankable chart topper, but the high system demands placed on PC gamers will significantly reduce the available customer base to market it to. Well, that's the only reason I won't be buying it, anyway. The number of gamers who are prepared to invest time and again in the latest hardware (and OS software) to play the latest games must be diminishing, slowly but surely.
I know I'll probably go for one more upgrade to Vista and a capable DX10.1 graphics card, but beyond that, I'm seriously wondering if the return on investment (in terms of top games to play) is really worth it... |
|
0
The number of gamers who are prepared to invest time and again in the latest hardware (and OS software) to play the latest games must be diminishing, slowly but surely.
You never need to buy the latest hardware, and if you do I can see why you're frustrated with PC gaming :P PC gaming isn't expensive if you (or a close friend) know what you're doing and what to buy, but most people don't want to put the effort in to learn. That's understandable of course, after all gaming is supposed to be fun, but it shows why people who do know what they're doing aren't the ones who are claiming PC gaming is on it's last legs. This has actually been a pretty good year for PC gaming, and 08 is looking just as exciting. |
|
0
The 'big budget titles' declining on PC is more to do with mmos than anything else. Look at the vast numbers playing WoW/Guildwars/Starcraft/CS:Source etc etc
Just cause folk aren't buying boxes via normal retail channels doesn't mean PC gaming is declining. It's still at the forefront of online gaming imo. |
|
0
I think Gaol's comment is on the money I have been a long time PC gamer then got hooked into WoW and barely bought or played anything else in just under two years (thankfully I quit Wow earlier this year). PC gaming is changing, but not dying as Paradox comments.
Skillian's comments are also true provided you are prepared to accept a small screen experience (
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 17/10/07 @ 19:30
|
|
0
"The 'big budget titles' declining on PC is more to do with mmos than anything else. Look at the vast numbers playing WoW/Guildwars/Starcraft/CS:Source etc etc"
Pwn to the MMO that is CS:Source Pedantry aside, I would say I know exactly what I'm doing with gaming hardware, and anyone who says it isn't expensive clearly has too much money. I have a graphics card bought in January that at £175 was expensive at the time, even though it was merely midrange, and I get absolutely shocking performance in the UT3 demo. Now I have to upgrade again. If I want it to look top notch, I have to spend many more hundreds of pounds. Is it really worth it? I wish they would slow down a little. The average price for PC games are dropping like crazy so maybe the hardware to play them on is not too far behind. |
|
0
Johan has a tendency to overstate things, but genre segmentation between consoles and PC has likely boosted creativity and healthy competition and benefited the market as a whole (the games seem to evolve around the input method more than the graphics througput) so there isn't much of an argument to make that segmentation is bad (other than breeding fanboyism).
|
|
0
Pedantry aside, I would say I know exactly what I'm doing with gaming hardware, and anyone who says it isn't expensive clearly has too much money
Of course it's an expensive hobby - but it's not more expensive than console gaming. That's the relation here. Consoles are expensive, too (if you want new consoles, anyway), not to mention the games. I have a graphics card bought in January that at £175 was expensive at the time, even though it was merely midrange, and I get absolutely shocking performance in the UT3 demo. I am sorry, but that does not exactly sound as if you knew what you were doing. ;) Either you paid way too much for a non-gaming card, or something is wrong somewhere with your PC. People are playing the UT3 demo just fine on PCs that are several years old - it's, by all accounts, not a very demanding game. May I ask what card you bought?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 17/10/07 @ 19:56
|
|
TagemandBagem
17/10/07 @ 21:41
0
When it comes to gaming isn't Vista a downgrade? Unless DX10 only works with Vista?
|
|
0
FlamingCarrot: I could see a console version of Total War working a lot better than a rts like Command & Conquer or Halo Wars.
I assume you see the combat engine being the problem and not the turn based strategic map. Imagine that you have the same view of the battlefield and you control the camera with the analogue sticks. And then quite simply every time you select a unit the game pauses until you have issued the order. Also the game would need a quick selection of the units using the dpad. The reason why something simple as that would work for a Total War game and not a standard RTS is because you are not controlling individual units but rather large formations of soldiers and it's all about placing them. The game pausing as you are issuing orders also makes it easier for console gamers to be able to issue the correct order. Semi-RTS then, controls sort of inspired by XCOM Apocalypse, Baldurs Gate or standard turn based games. |
|
0
PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming. The only saving you make is on the games, so possibly, if you buy a bucketload of games each year the total cost of ownership over say 3 years may be equivalent.
Depends how you define "bucketload". PC games are, on average, approximately 20,- EUR cheaper here in Germany than PS3 or 360 games. Buy one game a month, and that already amounts to 250,- EUR per year. Enough for an upgrade. You still have higher initial costs then, admittedly, but buy more than one console, or a few accessories (Wifi, hdd) or a a few more games, and it's all shifting towards the PC. Now of course there are other arguments pro and contra PCs and consoles, but just comparing the initial costs of the hardware easily let's you fall for the window-derssing of the razorblade business model of consoles. |
|
0
250 Euro saved on games won't go very far on upgrades here in the UK. If you want a decent gaming experience on the PC you are always going to pay significantly more than gaming on consoles, that's kinda of the point. I know that, I have been building and upgrading my own PC's for the last 10 years.
|
|
0
250 Euro saved on games won't go very far on upgrades here in the UK.
It'll buy you an 8800 graphics card with money left over, or a dual-core CPU plus 2GB of RAM. Those are the sort of upgrades that'll last you plenty more than a year too. Skillian's comments are also true provided you are prepared to accept a small screen experience ( I'm not sure why this would be true. I play (sometimes) on a 37" LCD. It's only 720p (768p actually), but that's not bad at a distance, and has the advantage that even older graphics cards can cope easily at that resolution.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 18/10/07 @ 09:33
|
|
0
Noone needs to spend more than 250,- a year to keep his PC reasonably up to date. Unless you insist on always buying the very latest CPUs and GPUs, which have a terrible price/performance ratio. And I've been buying and building PCs since 1991, so there. ;)
Anyway, my point is, doing what many people do and only comparing the initial hardware costs and coming to the conclusion that PC gaming is necessarily a lot more exppensive is way too simple. I for one would very much prefer it if consoles were more expensive, and games were cheaper. As it is now, people who buy more games for a console pay more for their initially subsidised hardware than people who buy less games for that console. But people like to be fooled, so whatcha gonna do. |
|
0
Of course you need to spend more than 250 euro per year to keep a PC up to date. Otherwise you are compromising the experience, it's not just the occasional GPU upgrade every 18 months you have to budget for.
Large PC monitors (most people don't drive a TV from their PC) of 24"+ are demanding on your PC at their native res, a cheap 8800GTS doesn't have the guts to drive one. The current generation of PC GPU's are great value for 1650x1080 or below, but we'll have to wait for the next refresh before we see any that have future headroom for high res gaming for which 400 euro is a typical card price. |
|
0
You're talking about 1080p 24" monitors and very top-of-the-range graphics cards.
This is premium equipment that is at the top of the pile in terms of performance, but the bottom of the pile in terms of bang-for-buck. They are very expensive, but PC gaming doesn't require this kind of equipment - that's the point UncleLou and I have been making.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 18/10/07 @ 13:10
|
|
0
The reason for the decline in PC is that I don't think people are upgrading them as often as they did in the past.
For business my PC does its job, upgrading to play the latest game would be a hell of a waste of money. Therefore many of us just buy a console for games, leave the PC for work. If PC games want to sell in volume they have to make them for the PC I bought 4 years ago. Upgrading a PC is also a lot more hassle and if you rely on your PC for work, pulling out graphic/sound cards and messing around with setting to get a game to work is just asking for trouble you don't need. (I know I used to do it, built 4 of my last PCs and spent almost 50% of my time downloading patches for games and fixing crashes. one day I said "B****r this" and bought a console)
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 19/10/07 @ 12:07
|
Comments: 1-29 of 29 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
