Valve: Why the PC is the future Comments by Oli Welsh

@ NKSR

"xbox live is a fantastic service. gaming online on a large tv, combined with wireless rumble controllers is much more fun than sitting at a desk on a pc"

I can sit on my comfy sofa playing games on a large screen TV with wireless rumble controllers on my PC. Consoles don't have a monopoly on that.

Oh, and I didn't have to pay £40 or whatever to play my games online...

@feanor: http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/in...

There are certainly Intel graphics cards that support DirectX 9.

However, working out which graphics hardware is in a particular PC, and whether (in theory) that works with a particular game -- that's more effort than I personally am willing to go to.

The reason Crysis didnt sold well is because its a mediocre game with very high requirements.
Everybody knows that, even crytek.

@NKSR

No patches on a console? Umm.. GTA IV is being patched on PS3 and Xbox and I think, not quote me on it, Halo 3 had one as well. So, that bit of the argument has been shot down.

Your Xbox live costs you additional money on top of your Internet connection to get the full features of it. My gaming service is free for everything and anything they want to add to it. Steam is vastly superior to Live in my opinion.

As for sitting at a table, I remember that next time when I'm playing Mass Effect on my 32" TV with my feet up on the couch and wireless K&M. I've been doing that since HDMI connectors were on the back of the videos cards. Consoles might have the advantage of plug n play, thats fair enough I'll give them that, but your other points can easily be done on a PC without any hassle.

As much as i like Valve and steam because of the convenience factor, there are some things that are not really all that nice.
1. Steam implements restrictions based on geographical locations. That may have something to do with local laws about game content, but that's not always the case. Some games simply can't be bought in Canada or America because of whatever reason, but it's still annoying. Especially considering that internet shops don't have this problem.
2. Updates are stated as being convenient and automatic. This is only true for the games that are actually updated. Quite a large number of games on Steam are way behind on updates, where their retail counterparts have been patched a long time ago. The fact that retail patches usually don't work with Steam versions complicates things further.
3. Pricing. For some mystical reason Steam is almost always (way) more expensive than retail releases. I understand that Valve doesn't set the prices but if this is the way developers and publishers treat the paying customer then no thank you. It almost feels as if the publishers consider online sales as sort of extra: make the price high so any sale that does go through is a good one.
Having said all this i'm still a fan of Steam and have many games on it. But i don't think the picture that is painted by Mr. Newell is entirely correct.
I understand that these complaints are addressed mainly at Steam and not the online sales system as a whole. I have no reason to believe that online sales will or will not be the future of game distribution, i'm willing to wait and see before screaming bloody murder, but if Steam is be taken as an example then they still have some wrinkles to iron out.

You want to talk about the future? Valve appear to be aligning themselves to become the combine in hundred years or so :P

@Kalain: "As for sitting at a table, I remember that next time when I'm playing Mass Effect on my 32" TV with my feet up on the couch and wireless K&M. I've been doing that since HDMI connectors were on the back of the videos cards."

Does that work out for you? I mean, ergonomically? I find that a mouse - wireless or not- is only a practical input device when I'm sat at a desk. I've successfully played PC games from the sofa when they work with a pad, but otherwise it's just not comfortable, and PC games that are 100% pad friendly are few and far between -- you frequently need to return to the keyboard or mouse.

They introduce new concepts to console gamers, like online play, and they are amazed.

Then they can download content, which is even more amazing - and soon they have hardware upgrades available for purchase to cope with the new high end downloadable content.

They get headsets to speak to people, then consoles get USB keyboard support and browsers - so incredibly, they can use the internet!

And some really hardcore consolers realise that the drag aim is too annoying compared to a mouse when using their web browser and go buy a USB mouse which has been made compatible with the latest downloaded firmware update - and then they realise that they can aim better with a mouse and start using it in FPS games, and suddenly they find have reached the highest level of console gaming.

Because now they own a f**king PC.

Integrated graphics are not graphics cards.

"I'm not PC-thick, but I've never heard this before. Valve certainly don't say so on their website when I'm downloading Portal, instead stating that it exceeds rec. specs."

The performance of (and support for) Intel's integrated solutions has always been absolutely awful. For the longest time, they were only good for playing Quake 3! If you have a recent Intel chip like the X3000 you should in theory be able to play Portal but the performance will be pretty bad.

Integrated graphics really aren't any good for playing modern games.

"A decent PC(Running you about £600, with everything thrown in) will play games, looking damn nice, for about three or four years."

Three years ago, a complete £600 PC (sans monitor) would have had, I think, a 6600 GT (maybe a vanilla 6800), and a low end Athlon 64, meaning it would struggle to run current games even on medium settings (and Crysis is in a different ballpark entirely).

From my perspective, I spent £1100 2.5 years ago (November 2005), getting a (relatively) cheap dual core processor I could overclock, and going for the fastest GPU available (the X1800 XT, which only just been released). After recently upgrading my graphics card and memory, I'm still in a comfortable position, but even if I can stick it for another 1.5 years (which will be tough) I'm looking at £1400 of expenditure for 4 years, or £350 a year.

Had I bought a 360 on launch it would have set me back at less than that amount, and even though 360 games are more expensive than their PC counterparts, I'd have to buy 14 a year to match my PC expenditure (or 12 a year, including Live).

You use your PC for more than just games though, right?

12 games a year isn't that much though, really. I rack that up easily. One a month - easy! And as Feanor says, the PC is for other stuff too.

Valve stating the obvious things. They should really make their own retail packages more worthwhile though, 'digital distribution future' my ass. We need to go back to the cardboard box era with brilliant manuals and freebies and without any labels or some other bullshit on the cover, it should be all about the game itself, how much you can become obsessed with it and not necessarily about the marketed platform or how easily games should be made available to the public.

PC gaming hasn't changed in terms of success, the sales numbers you hear now (a few exceptions aside, like WoW) are the same as what a major hit would have sold 10 years ago which isn't bad at all, especially not when you see the consoles are getting even more attention now. In the end console gamers are still playing versions of games that could be so much more on an open platform, despite certain perceived disadvantages. I'd say, get along, there are no winners or losers here, every current platform is gonna 'survive' and everyone has his/her preferred platform of choice. Making odd comparisons or making conclusions out of sales numbers is making every arguing side look a bit ridiculous. If PC gaming was dead then I think a lot more devs would have gone bankrupt than just Iron Lore in recent times. If you got a good game, PC exclusive or not, a good publishing deal and some hype built up then it'll sell well, just ask GSC or even Crytek.

"You use your PC for more than just games though, right?"

Yes, but there wasn't anything I wanted to besides gaming, that I wouldn't have been able to do with my previous PC (Athlon XP 2400+, 9800 Pro).

"12 games a year isn't that much though, really."

Well, it depends what sort of games you buy. I tend to focus primarily on FPS, and there most certainly isn't one AAA FPS a month (From last year I can think of Crysis, STALKER, Bioshock, CoD4, Orange Box - what else?).

Edit: Also the point of PC viability here is £650 a year, which not everyone may be able to afford.

Fair enough! I can't think of much I'd add, UT3 and GoW (ok, not really a fps ;)) maybe.

@subtlesnake: What happened to you is exactly the same that could have happened to a console gamer buying a console at the end of a generation. Its like buying, say a Xbox a few days before a price drop. Then a year later the 360 comes out, so it'll cost 300 quid (Can't remember what they released at), plus a HDTV to get the most out of it, now you're getting close to the same thing.

I think thats a bit of a badly explained example, but basically what I'm trying to say is that a year ago I bought an expensive high end system, spent a grand on it, BUT its a year later now and nothing has come close to actually pushing it, bar crysis, which I could play nicely at 30fps throughout. My system before that was kept up to date (I like having all my sliders on max) and I was spending roughly 200 quid a year, if that. Granted thats more than a console, but considering I use my PC as a multimedia system, work station for uni, gaming, server and internet browser, its pretty central to pretty much most things I do.

Look, I absolutely love what Valve does - their games, Steam, their incredible dedication to the PC platform, and more. But it's incredibly ironic how, in the comments section about an article where Gabe Newell says that the PC problem is a perception problem, the same gamers agreeing with him continue to purport the same perception problem that Crysis has.


Let's look at the facts.

Crysis did not sell poorly. It has sold 1.5 million copies now according to PC Gamer, the first million coming in under 2 months of time.

Crysis does not require a beast of a system to run. In December, I put together an entire build from scratch - except for monitor and speakers - for under $900. It can run Crysis with all the details set to high. That includes all of the hardware you need, and the operating system.

Even if you have to run the game on medium settings, it still is very competitive with other games out there. If Crytek had simply labeled their medium settings as "high", high settings as "very high", and left the current very high settings to a future patch when future hardware was available, there would not have been nearly as much backlash.


That's all I have to say on the matter. Valve is awesome, but come on people - don't allow the same perception problem plaguing PC gaming's reputation to trick you into believing the crap going around about Crysis.

PCs are the best, its official all you unwashed console kiddies can go fuck off with your childish games like Kameo you tarts.

lalalalalala

someguy:
"I've said this before, PC gaming is like buying a car that requires mechanic skills just to get it to run as it should. As long as this does not change, Valve can philosophize all they want, the market for PC games is never going catch up."


Rubbish. The only thing the average PC user really needs to do is learn how to install drivers, and if Valves Steam Cloud does what they say it will they won't even have to do that. Ie: You're talking bollocks.

You can get a PC capable of running ANYTHING currently released (at mostly max settings and higher resolutions than consoles!) for £500-£600. That's only £200-300 more than a PS3. Note that these games will look and play better on a decent PC than on consoles as well (a nice bonus).

Also, note that almost everyone has a PC these days, which has a huge effect on the price. How, you ask? Simple, if you're going to buy a £300-£400 priced 'work' PC plus a £200-£300 console you're looking at £500-£700 in total. If you're looking to buy a gaming pc you're looking at £500-600. The same cost, or cheaper in some cases. PC gaming is NOT as expensive as people claim.

Also, for those who say that 'sitting at a desk playing games is boring!' - you can hook up a computer to your TV and play with wireless keyboard / mouse or even an actual console controller, if that's your thing (wiimote and 360 controller can both be made to work with PC games). This is a case of people not having a clue as to what can be done with modern tech.

Basically, the only reason consoles are so far ahead of PC in our culture (note they aren't elsewhere) is due to the massive backing they receive from their creators (subsidized cost, massive advertising campaigns, exclusive game deals) and a general perception problem from people who don't realise what can be done with PCs these days, or how much they actually cost.

Also, Live is good, but Steam and an internet browser is better (and free, by the way).

I like PCs. Nay, I love PCs.

I just like slouching on my couch, in my lounge, in front of my 40" TV even more.

And another nuggett: I've never once had to fuck around with my console to get games working. I've never NOT had to fuck around with my PC to get games working.

I just can't be arsed with PCs, not after a day working on them.

Yeah, so apparently people can't read.

You know what? I've had ZERO problems with PC games for several years.

On the other hand, i have had several problems with my xbox 360 (which unlike with a PC i can't solve myself!)

I own every console and a kickass PC, and i have to say that for me personally the consoles don't compare at all. They're louder (quite significant when you're used to a silent PC), less reliable, there's (almost) no mods, the community is smaller and limited, the input devices are inferior, the visuals are inferior, and you're extremely limited in what you can do with the hardware unless you go down the chip / exploit road.

Valve are aces. And I love them lots as I can run their finest games on my quite old system (7600Gs, 1.8Ghz dual core thing etc).

I remember when steam came out. How it was shit, but now it's the hub of my PC gaming stuff.

@gamefan : um nope. for just over 100 quid you can get a card that will play *anything* available and will probably last a couple of years.

Honestly, this sounds like a bunch of overweight comic collectors telling me how easy a quarter gauge steam engine is to run.

Buy game

Open game

Put game in

Slouch

Grasp pad

Relax

End of

Every time

And hands up if you EVER enjoyed using a mouse on a couch...anyone?

"I remember when steam came out. How it was shit, but now it's the hub of my PC gaming stuff."

And you think they're so benevolent banging on about how great PCs are? To think, MS and Sony are just blinding us with their BS PR...

If consoles become more and more PC like in their range of functions and versatility like people keep saying, won't we end up with a situation where they have just as many crashes, incompatibilities and general confusion as the PCs they are replacing? In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it.

TheNinkyNonk - yeah, I have no trouble using a mouse on my sofa, you just need one with arms with hard-ish flat tops. Hopefully enough geeky people with computers hooked to their TVs buying sofas like this will make it a standard feature...

I love this idea that if you're not "slouching" on a sofa you're somehow not a gamer. Um.

"Even if you have to run the game on medium settings, it still is very competitive with other games out there. If Crytek had simply labeled their medium settings as "high", high settings as "very high", and left the current very high settings to a future patch when future hardware was available, there would not have been nearly as much backlash."

Well said.

I think some of the PC guys in this thread are underplaying how many little issues come up with PC games. Just last night I got a PunkBuster error when I played CoD 4 for the first time in a while. I was able to figure out how to manually update PunkBuster in about 15 minutes, but that type of fiddling isn't for everyone.

Good thing neither consoles or PCs are dying out any time soon, even with the poor state of the economy.

do consoles let me play fps games with a mouse and keyboard? no? then f**k off
do consoles let me play my games on my 60" 1080p tv in true 1080p? no? then f**k off (exception being gt5 prologue)

Tired of hearing this argument, consoles have their niche and pc's has it's.

(disclaimer: I own a ps3 and a wii but not a 360 since I'm not a halo fan which is a pos fps game ever that's massively over-rated. I regret buying the wii, I was over waggle by the end of the first week, and while the ps3 may be decent I'm still waiting on some f**king game dev's to grow balls and use it's ability to let me use a mouse keyboard to play fps games on it, ut3 doesn't count)

Some of you people can keep playing down the ridiculous price (especially if you're buying a ready made PC, but even if you're not), the technical bullshit (especially if you're building your own PC, but even if you're not), the stupidly frequent upgrade cycles, and the fact that no game is ever quite made for the exact hardware you're running, but that doesn't make any of those problems magically go away.

And finally, let's face it, you can keep going on about how PC games are supposedly "deeper omg" (read: fiddly crap that's fun if you enjoy MS Excel), but 9 out of 10 of all the best games each year, not to mention of all the best games ever, are on consoles.

"I love this idea that if you're not "slouching" on a sofa you're somehow not a gamer. Um. "

I'm not saying that. I'm not trying to get into some argument about what a 'gamer' is. I'm just saying that consoles lend themselves to a more relaxed, social atmosphere than PCs do. Yes, there's ways round it, but your average punter is more than happy to plug a little box in next to their TV and chill out without the hassle of upgrades, mice, keyboards etc.

This is why console gaming is becoming the defacto choice of your average gamer - even if it means taking a slight hit in visual fidelity.

"do consoles let me play fps games with a mouse and keyboard? no? then f**k off"

Funny, I was playing UT3 on PS3 last month with a mouse and keyboard and it rocked!
Having to move my kitchen table and a chair in front of my TV to get into a comfortable position to do so, sucked.

Wow, I dropped into this thread expecting to find the console tards slagging off PC gamers, but instead found all those computer-literates willing to defend the PC and its future.

Wunderbar!

Highly amusing thread.

The ignorance of apparently "informed" gamers is unbelievable.

I especially liked the counter argument of one 360 owner. "its not about power of graphical fidelity" I'll remember that in the next PS3 v 360 flame war thread. Funny how selective some people are with their arguments.

I've said it a million times before though. Why a gamer wants to see any platform die off is beyond me. And finally, use whichever formats suits your needs best. But that doesn't make you more right than anyone else or give you the right to talk a lot of bollocks to justify your decisions.

One way where PC gaming trumps console gaming, my Dell xps m1530 can run the likes of Bioshock, Stalker, C&C3 etc all at max, 1440 res ... and the best bit? its portable! If I want to dive into a meeting room at lunch and have a blast on a game, its fantastic, on trains, even more so! Can't carry a TV and a PS3/360 around with me.

Its got an HDMI out so if I did choose to plug it into the TV at home I could, also if the TV is taken by madam, I can bog off with it and play anywhere.

Also I thought PCs were compatible with 360 controllers? Surely that equates to sofa + pad = games.

canIdoyabombsforya

"At the beggining of the 90s when the Mega Drive and SNES ruled for gaming, PCs didnt have custom graphics chips, custom sound chips, never mind stereo sound, or joysticks joypad etc.
Mid 1990s when the PS1 was released, a P100mhz PC was around £1,000, it still used an internal speaker for games, sound cards had just become affordable but 3D card was a luxury. "

Wow, just wow....

Couple of points to begin with. 1993 Doom. Compare the PC version to the SNES version...

As for internal speakers on a mid 90's £1000 PC? Your either really stupid or maybe your only 16 or so and just don't know any better.

While you were playing Tomb Raider at 320x240 or whatever res the PS was early on I was playing it at something like 1024x768 on a £90 quid PowerVR 3d card (ok 3Dfx killed off the powervr, but thats not the point)

@FooAtari: You're absolutely right. I don't think many of the people in this thread want consoles/PCs to stop existing. Why would they? What basically happens is, someone comes on here and through either real ignorance or deliberate trolling, says some stupid crap like "Yeah, that's fine if you wanna spend £3000 a year just to make your PC run the latest game!" and then, a bunch of PC gamers... Or random people who aren't just plain ignorant of the facts come along and try to correct him.

Then a bunch of people who either like arguing or hate PC gaming come along and argue with the guy that just corrected him.

And so on.

Pc for gaming is like racing a truck on a F1 circus or vice-versa.

PC can outperform Wii in every area but it can't never be a wii.

The most powerful processor in this world right now is not in PC, it is the Cellchip inside PS3. I can't see anything on the PC roadmap in the next two years, can outrun Cellchip.

The future of gaming is in the living room with family and friends on a 46 inch LCD tv, not on a tiny computer desk by yourself, limit on a 22inch monitor because if it get any bigger, it will burn your eyes out.

PC gaming is the past. Console is the future. if I were PC game developer looking for tech challenge, not easy programming, i would go consoles because parallel processes on asymmetric cores is high.

Console gamers don't give a toss about pc gaming and pc gamers sure as hell don't give a toss about console gaming so why are you all arguing about it?

PC gamers seem to be the more irate of the two, most just can't understand why people don't want to play games on the PC.

Oh and screw Valve for not supporting their console userbase, TF2 on Xbox is a joke.

"Pc for gaming is like racing a truck on a F1 circus or vice-versa.

PC can outperform Wii in every area but it can't never be a wii.

The most powerful processor in this world right now is not in PC, it is the Cellchip inside PS3. I can't see anything on the PC roadmap in the next two years, can outrun Cellchip.

The future of gaming is in the living room with family and friends on a 46 inch LCD tv, not on a tiny computer desk by yourself, limit on a 22inch monitor because if it get any bigger, it will burn your eyes out.

PC gaming is the past. Console is the future. if I were PC game developer looking for tech challenge, not easy programming, i would go consoles because parallel processes on asymmetric cores is high."

That entire post didn't have a single grain of truth in it. That's got to be some kind of record for just how wrong someone can be.

@ Nikanoru

Some of you people can keep playing down the ridiculous price (especially if you're buying a ready made PC, but even if you're not), the technical bullshit (especially if you're building your own PC, but even if you're not), the stupidly frequent upgrade cycles, and the fact that no game is ever quite made for the exact hardware you're running, but that doesn't make any of those problems magically go away.

And finally, let's face it, you can keep going on about how PC games are supposedly "deeper omg" (read: fiddly crap that's fun if you enjoy MS Excel), but 9 out of 10 of all the best games each year, not to mention of all the best games ever, are on consoles.

We who support PCs as gaming platforms can indeed keep playing down the price, technical bullshit and upgrade cycle problems because they only exist as problems if you let them.

You can pay silly money or sensible money depending on whether you buy readymade or DIY, and if you don't know enough, ask a friend who does to do it and buy them a bottle of something nice for the favour.

Technical matters are generally not big deals, any more than broken consoles are; usually a forum search can solve any problem in minutes, with simple maintainance you can have a smoothly running PC that plays practically everything hassle-free, or you can not pay attention and let adware, bloatware and other meaningless rubbish clog up your processor cycles and RAM (until you remove them, which is also simple usually).

Upgrade cycles do not exist. I run a GPU that's pretty old (GeForce 6800GT, cost me £120 back when the 7000 series was new) and while not superpowered, it's only recently it's stopped always being able to run new things acceptably. Many cards have come and gone and I've felt no need to buy them - no-one is forcing me to buy new anything to play the latest games.

And so what if the games are not made for my exact hardware? They run, in most cases better than on the consoles they are tailored for.

Those problems - they've magically gone away.

What makes a game "best"? It's not like any given game is objectively "better" than any other. If your list of the best games of any given year is made by someone other than you, you're doing something wrong. If I made lists of the best games in a year, they'd be composed entirely of PC games as I only play on PC. Plenty of these deeper games are enjoyed far more than console titles, your supposed "best games", by those that play them. If you like games on consoles more, good for you, but no-one can legitimately start claiming that console games are "better". Basically, PCs are good for some people and not others, just like consoles. You're a console gamer, fine - the PC has advantages you cannot take advantage of, that doesn't mean it's a bad format. I too would appreciate the simplicity of just putting a game in a drive and playing, but I'm not willing to lose the ability to customise and tweak my games, or be forced into using a pad, an input device I hate above all others, to do so - doesn't make consoles bad though.

@speedsix
Good point! U don't see console companies, Sony and Nintendo come out and say something like that. Even Microsoft don't say something like that.

Some game companies like EA go full on multi-platform and they said: we want as many gamers as possible to experience our games. On the other hand, companies like Kojima production, go exclusive and they said: only one platform can deliver our high expectation. Therefore better quality. Valve is neither.

@Lemming81
To understand truth requires some level of intelligence. Be patience.
Edited 1 times. Most recently by smoothn00dle at 01:42 on 29/

I dunno about it being the PC of the future. I think that might be taking things a bit far.
http://www.FireMe.To/udi

That's pretty condescending, smoothn00dle. Got some figures and technical data to back those extraordinary claims of performance up?

...Also, you do realise that the Cell processor is actually just that, the console's processor, while the PS3's graphics chip is actually just a two-generation old Nvidia GPU?

I remember when Steam account: "big brother of gaming" was what some of us old school gamers called it.

Now I wait for a game to hit steam before I buy it. No more keeping track of CD's, no more lost serial codes. I think my Steam directory is like 90 GB now. I just hate upgrading my PC cause it takes like 5 days to get all my stuff back....

but given the alternative, it's simply the pwn.

For those who think the console is IT when it comes to gaming, you are missing it.

For those who are true gamers, we have the PS3, a Wii, and a PC. Unfortunately for the console the PC always wins for a true gamer. And if you think the console isn't a PC, you don't get it either. Just because you have a controller in front of your TV doesn't mean you aren't on a PC. You just interface differently.

Have you looked on the back of your TV and seen the VGA port? Don't you know HDMI is just DVI with a sound port?

It's all circular, and as an avid PS3 and PC gamer, I can say most gamers don't spend alot of time playing games with others, even if it is in front of your tv. You spend 30 hours by yourself for every hour you spend with family and friends. Bashing PC's as sub par is moronic and misinformed, and quite frankly differentiates between true gamers and those who never gamed until they got a nintendo.

To add to the cost debate even more. Microsoft/Sony actually dont turn a proffit off of the 360/PS3. So if you buy a console, you are being subsidized for the hardware, but have to pay a larger toll for the games (this is because Sony/MS turns a proffit on liscensing developers to produce games for the platform, which is why developers ask that extra money to compensate). This is opposite of the PC where just about every piece of hardware makes money for the manufacturer.

For me, I use PC because it is easier for me. I do 3D work semi-professionally, so popping a CnC3 or TF2 on one of my monitors while another item renders is perfect for me. I also have everything synced up via wireless N, so I can through an HD movie (in my TB movie HDD) from my comp to my 47" 1080p LCD (via RDC). So for my needs, the PC was the only option (consoles are getting there with streaming HD downloads, but it will take the next next-gen console to do that on the level that my PC has).

Something not stressed enough: CONSOLE GAMES SUCK - compared to PC games. Example: Halo - one of the most popular console games ever. When it got ported to the PC and I finally played through, I was astounded. What the @#$%& was the fuss about?? Halo isn't good enough to be even a mediocre shooter on the PC. But on the Xbox, it's a work of genius.

Standards are just plain lower on consoles.

Part of the explanation is bandwidth... not of the internet connection, but of the user interface. Console players interact with the software via something like 8 buttons, a 4-way D-pad and two analog twiddle sticks. PC gamers interact using a mouse (usually with at least 5 buttons), plus a keyboard with over 100 buttons... plus, optionally, a joystick or other device. I don't want to get into an argument about whether the mouse+keyboard are superior to the game controller (though they clearly are), but simply to point out that rich, deep, intelligent games are less likely to happen on a console, because the player's interaction with the game is too limiting. (PCs also have many other facilities absent on consoles, but I think the point is clear.)

That's not just theory; you can see it for yourself. Console ports are inevitably the subject of derision on the PC; and PC games co-developed for consoles are immediately recognizable by their inevitable dumbing-down.

Consoles are for couch potatoes. Nothing wrong with that... I own a couch, and have three consoles sitting in front of it. But PCs are for people sitting upright, with their brains fully engaged. THAT's why the PC will always be the superior environment. Price and technology have very little to do with it.

I'm glad someone finally pointed out the inequities being thrown about regarding the true statistics of PC gamer saturation... that is, someone that other people cannot refute. For years we have been deluged with lies about how the PC is "dying" as a game platform, backed up usually with flawed and incomplete data from NPD, who unapologetically lumps all of the consoles together, pits the total against the PC - and says the PC is falling behind. Truth is, if you compare the PC to the INDIVIDUAL game consoles, it beats the pants off of them several times over.

It's also good that they didn't focus their entire argument on online gaming - but rather online distribution. The PC is not only great at online games - it is superior in every way for regular old single player gaming as well. The graphics are better, the options are better, the expansion and replay factor is humongously better than any console.

I'd like to echo the fact that the cost of gaming on a PC is a very small fraction of a PC's price for the function you get. You can do an endless amount of things on a PC. Consoles are just for gaming. And about these people moaning about "upgrading" every time a game comes out - I have P4 3.2mhz, 7600 GS Nvidia Geforce, XP Sp3, 2 gigs of memory. I haven't had a problem YET playing any game. I played Crysis, Halo2, Oblivion, Gears of War, almost every Valve game that has ever been released... basically just about every FPS, adventure, and RPG that has come out within the past 3 years - and I have no complaints. Can i paly them all at Ultra Musto Bravo Supreme graphic settings? No, but I don't have it all cranked down to pixel blocks either. Most of the most demanding games I've played I can play at medium high to high settings. If you can play on a console and be happy, a PC game at medium settings is better looking than the one setting you get on a console.

It's unfortunate that the lie about PC gaming will probably still be told, because what it is doing is stifling innovation. Developers who aren't making games for the PC are doing it because they are deceived as well. I wonder if you strip away the license fees, and other middle-man costs of making a console game - will you make more of a profit getting rid of the fat and just developing for the PC, without someone breathing over your neck?