Why do you guys bother with PC gaming?

[jordanecmusic]

Hide yo PS3's Hide yo 360's cuz PC rapin' e'rebody up in here!

 

[RussianSensation]

Who the hell plays COD on PC? The game was designed for optimal performance within the boundaries of current consoles.

Exactly. The point I was trying to make is that some games don't sell well on the PC. So to say that PC is the best platform for everyone makes no sense. If those developers never made COD, they would have lost 74 million in copies sold (to consoles). I game on the PC and obviously prefer it for certain genres, but there is no way I'd ever argue that PC is more important for most developers, because it isn't. Consoles is where most of the $ is unless you happen to be a leading MMO or strategy house.

Which is one game. You keep ignore games that do really well on PC.
From titans like WOW and SC to indie games. The PC is a flourishing platform. Does the occasional crappy console port sell more on consoles then a PC? Yes... so what?

No, the opposite. I pointed out in many of my posts that for genres where PC is superior (MMOs and strategy), game houses like Blizzard love to develop for the PC and do well. However, not everyone plays those genres. If you noticed, those 2 genres account for > 50% of PC game sales.

I love playing strategy games, so I'll spend $800+ on a PC just to play that 1 genre. Even if PC didn't have any other game genre on it, but only strategy games, I'd still build an $800 PC for that. But that's the point I am trying to make, other genres on the PC don't sell particularly well, not at all compared to what those genres can sell on consoles. We might think COD: MW2/3, BO are crappy games, but developers don't care. They make $$ selling those crappy games in the millions. Why do you think we see Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, BF series, Batman, Dirt series, Metro, and even SKYRIM going to consoles? Pretty much all the major franchisees which are suitable for the console are going cross-platform. Outside of strategy and MMOs, there are almost no games left that are exclusive to the PC platform. Of course, I'd rather play Metro 2033 and Crysis 2 and Mass Effect series on the PC, but that's not the point. In the past, PC was actually the premium platform since it not only offered the best graphics and controls, but it also had a laundry list of exclusive titles, but that's no longer the case. Time and time again, the only exclusives we see on the PC are one off PC racing simulation game (that's not even popular), strategy, MMO or an indie title. Even Alan Wake was shifted to the console.

If I didn't enjoy strategy games and FPSs, I'd have no reason to own a PC for gaming. Any time I meet a console gamer, I ask them why don't they game on the PC since the graphics are better, the controls are often superior and the games are cheaper? Here is their response:

1) I enjoy gaming in the living room on a large screen TV, sitting 7-9 feet away as opposed to staring 1 foot away into a tiny monitor;
2) I enjoy gaming with friends in a social setting;
3) I enjoy just picking up a game and playing it without having to tweak anything, or mess around with driver issues;
4) I enjoy the convenience of not having to upgrade any parts for 5-6 years of owning the device;
5) I don't have a desktop (I have a smartphone, a tablet and a laptop). So to get into PC gaming, I'd need to drop $800+ (including the monitor) vs. $200 for a console.
6) I don't care for strategy or MMO games. The consoles just have more of the types of games I like to play.
7) No one I know plays PC games. My friends and colleagues game on consoles, so if I built a PC, I'd be gaming alone online.

I am a PC gamer and I can see the points they are making. I wish for MS to turn the PC gaming platform into the premium offering that it should be, but for that it needs to woo developers to make 4-5 A+ titles exclusive to the PC a year. Even MS admitted that it didn't focus on PC gaming as much as it should have done.

 

[taltamir]

not everyone plays those genres.

Not everyone plays the generes and games you use as shining examples of console superiority, either.

1) I enjoy gaming in the living room on a large screen TV, sitting 7-9 feet away as opposed to staring 1 foot away into a tiny monitor;
2) I enjoy gaming with friends in a social setting;
3) I enjoy just picking up a game and playing it without having to tweak anything, or mess around with driver issues;
4) I enjoy the convenience of not having to upgrade any parts for 5-6 years of owning the device;
5) I don't have a desktop (I have a smartphone, a tablet and a laptop). So to get into PC gaming, I'd need to drop $800+ (including the monitor) vs. $200 for a console.
6) I don't care for strategy or MMO games. The consoles just have more of the types of games I like to play.

1. PC can plug to a TV, I have done it. Console can plug into a monitor, I have done it.
2. LAN parties.
3. For most games you don't have to tweak anythings on the PC, but the option exists if you want to.
4. You don't have to upgrade the PC either, its an option many chose to exert. 8800GTX came out for less money at the same time as the PS3 and is still superior to it today. You would have to lower some settings but its still a superior experience.
5. You don't need a monitor, you can plug it to your TV, and it doesn't cost 800+$... nor does a console cost 200$ (you need to get a HDD and a second controller and and HD cable so on). However, the cost for someone without a desktop at all is indeed slightly more expensive, slightly, to buy a premade PC.
6. Good for you. Has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[RussianSensation]

Not everyone plays the generes and games you use as shining examples of console superiority, either.

This is the problem with your entire viewpoint against consoles - you fail to realize that for genres where PC isn't the best (FPS, strategy, MMOs, puzzles), consoles are arguably better. This is why consoles are actually complementary to PC gaming. Each excels at specific genres. It just happens to be that 300 million people on the planet don't care for strategy and MMOs and choose to buy consoles for other types of games. If PC was superior in every way, there would be 0 reason for consoles to exist.

You still didn't answer the question I asked if there are any games on consoles that are 9 or above on your scale? You conveniently evaded this question since obviously answering "Yes" to it would imply that you are willing to miss out on those games.

1. PC can plug to a TV, I have done it. Console can plug into a monitor, I have done it.

No offense, but having a full tower in a nicely decorated living room looks stupid. I am not going to bring my desktop from 2nd floor of my house to the living room just to play some game on a 50 inch plasma. It's cumbersome and inconvenient. Most people don't want a full tower case in the living room for everyone to see.

2. LAN parties.

None of my friends/colleagues play PC games. I can't do LAN parties with people I know. SC2 doesn't support LAN. Ever heard of the concept when your friends casually drop by to your place and then later you decide to play games with 2-3 of them? To do a LAN party, you'd need to plan it. To play socially on a console, 20 seconds to turn the console on. Also, how am I going to do a LAN party? I'd need 3-4 monitors and 3-4 tables to sit everyone down. That might work if you are a multi-millionaire and have a huge house or situate everyone in the basement, which implies a finished basement in your house.

Again, you are not looking at the mainstream case and completely ignoring the fact that in the next 20+ years, the majority of the world's population will live in Urban city centres (which includes condominiums and apartments). How are people in Europe, Japan and cities like New York or Boston or Chicago or Toronto going to have a LAN party in their 600-700 sq. ft condo exactly?

3. For most games you don't have to tweak anythings on the PC, but the option exists if you want to.

Sure you do. Lots of games have problems with gamepad not working properly, poor mouse support (say Dead Space 1), blue screen of death/driver issues, poor DX11 performance (Batman AC). For example, I had to find an inverse button layout workaround for my Logitech pad to play Batman AA on the PC. It wasn't working properly out of the box. That's not convenient.

4. You don't have to upgrade the PC either, its an option many chose to exert. 8800GTX came out for less money at the same time as the PS3 and is still superior to it today. You would have to lower some settings but its still a superior experience.

With PS3, you can also watch Blu-Ray movies; so it doubles up as a video player too. Most of us wouldn't bother playing games on the PC unless we also got superior graphics. So the argument of buying a $600 8800GTX and keeping it for 5 years is just theoretical in nature for us PC gamers. In terms of upfront hardware costs, buying a gaming desktop PC is 5x more expensive than buying a console today. I use my PC for other things, so I don't care. But for others, it's a prohibitive cost. It's especially so for people who can't / don't know how to build their own PC and have to pay $1500 to buy a pre-assembled system that's going to be too slow in just 2.5 years for PC games in the future. Someone who doesn't know PC hardware like we do might drop $2,000 on an Alienware or a Dell desktop to play PC games only to find the GPU inadequate soon enough and having to go out and drop another $350 to upgrade it. We follow hardware as a hobby which allows us to time sale of older parts, find amazing deals on newer parts, etc. Most people don't spend their lives browsing hardware sites and be up to date on GPU hardware release dates or pricing trends.

For example, an $850 CDN desktop at futureshop comes with a crappy HD6750 videocard. That person then proceeds to upgrade the GPU to a $436 CDN HD6970, only to find that GPU to be way too slow by 2014 and having to drop yet another $400+ on a new one. <<< This is the reality for most people choosing between consoles and desktop gaming >>>

Not everyone is a PC enthusiast who knows how to overclock. So for those people building a budget Phenom system and overclocking it is also out of the question. For most people, the upfront hardware costs between a decent gaming desktop PC+Monitor and a console is 4-6x the investment. Obviously, PC games are far cheaper, but most people don't even get that far since they are stunned by how much more expensive a desktop gaming PC is. And this just happens to be most people on the planet that wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 6800 Ultra and a GTX590 because the 6800 number looks bigger than 590. They would walk in and get ripped off buying an HD6850 for $200+.

The reality is most people aren't knowledge enough about PC parts to buy a budget gaming rig without being ripped off and spending thousands.

5. You don't need a monitor, you can plug it to your TV, and it doesn't cost 800+$...

No I can't. I need to do work on my PC too. I am not going to carry my tower to the office when I am doing work and take it down when I am gaming. Most people already have a TV. How are you going to share a TV in the evening when your spouse and kids are watching it? You need a TV and a PC Monitor or a separate TV for the PC then. That means no matter what, unless you live with your mom, or are seriously constrained by your finances, you'll have at least a TV and a monitor for your desktop in your house.

But what you fail to realize is that most people nowdays don't even want a desktop. Even if PC graphics were 5x better than consoles, most people simply have no interest in buying a desktop of any kind, not even for $400 with a GTX590 in it. I could try to sell my desktop to any of my friends/co-workers for $300 and no one will want it. They want laptops, smartphones and tablets. So the idea of building a PC to play games is a no-go from the start for most people.

nor does a console cost 200$ (you need to get a HDD and a second controller and and HD cable so on). However, the cost for someone without a desktop at all is indeed slightly more expensive, slightly, to buy a premade PC.

PS3 160gb and 360 with 250GB hard drive were going for $199 this pre-holiday season. You could even buy those for $250 for 2+ years.

If I was going to build a good gaming PC now from scratch, it would cost me at least $700.

I just think you aren't realizing market trends today. Until you realize that most people don't want desktops, period, it doesn't matter how amazing PC gaming would be in theory. They don't want desktops in their house, period, no matter what they cost. They just want to come home, turn on their console, and that's it.

6. Good for you. Has nothing to do with the discussion.

Reading comprehension? I said what "other people tell me as to why they choose consoles". I already said I like strategy games. Thanks for showing you aren't even reading what I am saying. And the fact that console gamers might not be interested in playing strategy and MMO games is important to the discussion. Since > 50% of PC game sales are attributable to these 2 genres, that means for a lot of PC gamers, without those 2 genres, the value of PC as a gaming platform would be eroded significantly. But yet, you keep trying to claim that PC is superior to consoles in every way - completely untrue.

 

[jordanecmusic]

XBCD fixed all of my xbox 360 controller on pc problems. With a little bit of google, you would have found the answer to your problem too smart one.

Why doesn't anyone read my posts? This thread should have ended 10 pages ago.

Mods lock the thread or ima start posting ponies up in here!

ps. i got my geforce 240gt 512mb ddr5 off of tiger direct for 40$. no clue where you pulled that 500$ for a graphics card argument from...

My brother got an Asus gaming laptop for 900$ during cyber monday. 1080p screen, gtx560m 2gb, 8 gigs of ram, i7 @ 2ghz, has blue ray, 640gb. Plays nice with me .

Sony's 1080p 3d display with 160gb ps3 bundle=600$. ps3 doesnt play all of its games in 1080p. mostly just 720p and sub 720. No deal...plus its not portable like my brothers new gaming laptop. PC>Consoles and its ignorant to argue otherwise.

 

[taltamir]

you fail to realize that for genres where PC isn't the best (FPS, strategy, MMOs, puzzles), consoles are arguably better.

I don't fail to realize it, it is simply false. The PC is still better.
It might need to be plugged into a TV for that, maybe even have a controller. But those are things that the PC can do.

For most people, the upfront hardware costs between a decent gaming desktop PC+Monitor and a console is 4-6x the investment.

Yelling a lie doesn't make it any less of a lie

 

[skipsneeky2]

Hide yo PS3's Hide yo 360's cuz PC rapin' e'rebody up in here!

LOL!

If you had a few consoles and were serious about pc gaming you wouldn't hide them,you would sell them or not buy them in the first place.

Had a ps3 the best games ended up being fighter games and racing but since fps games are my primary and i hate the controller the ps3 had to go

 

[mattdallastx]

lol I keep a xbox 360 wireless controller installed because my friends wont play battlefield 3 w/ mouse and keyboard.

 

[SirPauly]

I think there is plenty of room for both and each platform has their strengths. Personally like the PC platform and its strengths but understand why some enjoy playing on consoles as well. As long as consumers are having fun and entertained, well, it moves the gaming industry forward.

 

[Remobz]

I think there is plenty of room for both and each platform has their strengths. Personally like the PC platform and its strengths but understand why some enjoy playing on consoles as well. As long as consumers are having fun and entertained, well, it moves the gaming industry forward.

Good point. Although, I see NO need to buy a console and have NEVER owned one so far.

I only play Simulation games, RTS and FPS games. Cannot justify any reason why I should buy a console considering this fact.

 

[djnsmith7]

Personally, there's no game on a console that does for me what BF2 does on the PC. I own a PS3 & there's no comparison. If you compare an FPS game, the consoles don't offer 64 player maps, so the whole experience is different. Today's consoles can't even pretend to be able to support that, performance wise.

I primarily bought the PS3 for GT5, football games & Blu Ray, knowing darn well there would be no way I'd settle for a 12 person experience in BF3 on the console.

The console's graphics capabilities can't even be compared to today's VGA cards.

I will go as far to say I see your financial argument / point. Yes, it's much cheaper to buy a console than to build or upgrade a PC to play today's most graphics-intensive-demanding games. No argument there, but you have to look at what you get for dollars-out, performance-in.

Continuing with the BF3 example, I personally don't know anyone who played BF2 on the PC that has said they're leaving the PC for a console so they can go from being accustomed to playing on 64 or 32 player maps to a 12 player map on a console. I'm included in the group of people who wouldn't even consider doing that, even if someone gave me BF3 for the PS3 for free.

 

[djnsmith7]

RussianSensation, I didn't read your entire post, but I will disagree with your comments regarding having a full sized tower in the living room. I do & it matches very nicely with my black glass component tv stand & black tower speakers. It's connected to a 58" plasma & I game on it frequently. It wasn't inconvenient at all & since it is a full tower (CM Stacker 832), I've received a ton of compliments on it & how well it meshes with the entire setup, including the black leather furniture.

So, what works for you, or doesn't work for you, may or may not work for everyone else. So, for me, quite the contrary to your comments about it looking "stupid".

 

[Smoblikat]

I can build a nice 300 - 400$ computer that does more than an xbox but still has higher graphic settings.

 

[jordanecmusic]

I can build a nice 300 - 400$ computer that does more than an xbox but still has higher graphic settings.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...Id_31_B69-0483

triple core pc for 200$. just add any graphics card you like and your set. "(in whiney consolite voice) but nooo the grapahics card is gonna cost 320975823y5 dollerzzzorrzzzzzzz". I will remind you that I got my gt240 for 40$ on tigerdirect. if you can get your hands on a 9800gt for 50$ then youll be good.


http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...5&amp;Sku=B69-0477

6 core pc for 300$. yeha you wasted your money on a console consolites

 

[SickBeast]

Wow this thread is still going strong.

OP came in here and started a party.

Asking why people play games on a computer is like asking why people sleep in a bed. It's natural.

I will tell you this, though, I give the OP my praise and respect for creating such a prolific thread, of which kind I have rarely seen in my day.

 

[Despoiler]

it's pretty insane what PC gamers spend just on video cards. a video card can cost the same or more than an entire PS3/360. all these $1,000+ rigs, all the questions and research on cooling, power consumption, SSD, and so on, when you can just buy a PS3 for $250 and turn it on and be done with it.

not to mention the dearth of games for PCs in the last decade. when i did most of my gaming on a PC back in the 80s/90s, there were new titles left and right.

I could use a sling and rocks to go hunting, but I prefer a gun.

 

[Pacman4]

Who cares if PC'a cost more, YOU GET MORE.
I'd have to be paid to play on inferior consoles.

 

[BrightCandle]

True story.

I had a work colleague who bought his son an Alienware laptop for Christmas along with a controller. Said son had never played a game on a PC all his life. Days after Christmas this colleague brought the laptop in and asked if I could fix the controller in COD-BO. I took it home, found a mess of various specialist programs for mapping controls on controllers to PC keys and one had gone wrong and now windows didn't even see the controller. I couldn't work out how to fix it.

So reinstalled, checked the controller appeared in devices, started the game and went into options and selected the controller and I was playing within seconds. I tried a few others games, all the same procedure. You have to select the controller in the options and then it worked perfectly.

I returned the machine said it was all fixed and working. He came back the next day and said they could not get the controller working in any games. I asked if they had selected it in the options, he went home told his son this and no more problems. The problem all along was just they didn't know they had to select the controller in the menu options for the game, they didn't even think to look in there before installing some really interesting driver software.

Not sure if the moral of the story is that having an options menu item in a game is too much for the xbox generation or whether we think that PC gaming is more complicated than it actually is. They could both be true.

 

[blastingcap]

Amazing how this thread keeps going.

Strike one against PC gaming: Increased fixed costs for PC gaming is overwhelming the cheaper variable cost of PC gaming.

A decade or two ago, people got desktop PCs for other reasons (word processing, Excel, internet access, etc.) and since they were going to buy the desktop and monitor anyway, they essentially got PC gaming hardware at no additional cost. So desktops were sunk costs.

At the same time, PC games were cheaper than console games, especially for PC game pirates.

Zero fixed cost + low variable cost mean PC gaming had an edge against consoles, which had significant fixed costs and higher variable costs.

Fast forward to today.

An increasing proportion of the gamer population lacks desktops. You could in theory game only on a smartphone or PSP or Nintendo DS. Moreover, cheap laptops and tablets are powerful enough to do routine computing/websurfing tasks, and a basic desktop + monitor may cost MORE than a basic laptop and not have the portability benefit.

With the exception of casual games that can run even on cheap hardware (Angry Birds, Plants vs Zombies, etc.), and except for people who spent a small fortune on gaming-grade laptops, that mobile population can no longer write off the cost of PC gaming hardware as a sunk cost. For them, the decision is between:

a) console (which can be partially written off as a Blu-Ray player, in the case of the PS3) + expensive console games + TV (but for many people the TV is a sunk cost)

b) desktop + monitor + keyboard + mouse + cheaper PC games

For desktopless gamers, unless you spend a lot of money on games each year, option a) is cheaper.

Strike two against PC gaming: Little exclusivity, no major advantage from playing on PC

Increasingly games are developed for consoles first (or ONLY in the case of exclusive titles) and PC second, thus not taking full advantage of PC gaming rigs abilities, which means less of an incentive for people to buy PC gaming rigs. It is irrelevant WHY developers do this--whether because they got bribed to go exclusive, fear piracy, or whatever; the point is that they DO do this and the trend doesn't seem to be changing. There are some PC-exclusives like WoW, some RTSes like StarCraft, etc. I've read articles talking about how consoles are also more profitable and constitute a larger market than PC gaming. PC gaming is roughly equal to the size of any of the big three consoles, at this point, yet cost more than any of the consoles to develop for, due to the huge array of graphics cards and other hardware that needs to be accounted for. With consoles, you design with known hardware from the beginning.

Strike three: Consoles are easier to install and use.

Imagine how stupid the median person is, and then realize that half of all the people in the world are EVEN STUPIDER. Do not underestimate the importance of ease-of-use. Deserved or not, Apple's resurgence in computing has a lot to do with its reputation as being easier to use, with less viruses, bugs, etc. Consoles enjoy similar reps compared to PCs.

Pop fly (could go either way):

Some games just lend themselves better to one platform or another. Examples: WoW, StarCraft, RTS games, etc. for PC, versus MarioKart, games that use Wii/Kinect-style controls, and casual social games like Rock Band.

Summary: Like it or not, fewer and fewer people are buying desktops with decent CPUs, so the cost of PC gaming is going up, in the aggregate. For desktopless people, it may be cheaper to plug in a console, and certainly it involves fewer headaches/bugs/driver fixes/etc. Given the above, it's not surprising that the audience for PC gaming is stagnant at best, and development interest is stagnant at best, too.

That said, I dislike consoles for everything except social games like MarioKart. I paid plenty for my desktop so that's a sunk cost, and I don't have a TV, either, plus I pick up games for cheap a few years after they come out, so the economics of PC gaming work better for me than console gaming would. But that's just me.

 

[ErickMaga]

it's pretty insane what PC gamers spend just on video cards. a video card can cost the same or more than an entire PS3/360. all these $1,000+ rigs, all the questions and research on cooling, power consumption, SSD, and so on, when you can just buy a PS3 for $250 and turn it on and be done with it.

not to mention the dearth of games for PCs in the last decade. when i did most of my gaming on a PC back in the 80s/90s, there were new titles left and right.

Clearly you are out of your mind.

Consoles display at very low resolutions...., if you were to build a pc that plays at the same resolution a console does ( 702p i believe) you would spend very little cash and yet being able to suft the web, use office etc.

Ex: Get a APU socket FM1, and BAM there you have your console + web surfing + office, all for the price of one measly APU + cheap mobo+ cheap ram.

 

[SirPauly]

Amazing how this thread keeps going.

Strike one against PC gaming: Increased fixed costs for PC gaming is overwhelming the cheaper variable cost of PC gaming.

A decade or two ago, people got desktop PCs for other reasons (word processing, Excel, internet access, etc.) and since they were going to buy the desktop and monitor anyway, they essentially got PC gaming hardware at no additional cost. So desktops were sunk costs.

At the same time, PC games were cheaper than console games, especially for PC game pirates.

Zero fixed cost + low variable cost mean PC gaming had an edge against consoles, which had significant fixed costs and higher variable costs.

Fast forward to today.

An increasing proportion of the gamer population lacks desktops. Cheap laptops and tablets are powerful enough to do routine computing/websurfing tasks, and a basic desktop + monitor may cost MORE than a basic laptop.

With the exception of casual games that can run even on cheap hardware (Angry Birds, Plants vs Zombies, etc.), and except for people who spent a small fortune on gaming-grade laptops, that mobile population can no longer write off the cost of PC gaming hardware as a sunk cost. For them, the decision is between:

a) console (which can be partially written off as a Blu-Ray player, in the case of the PS3) + expensive console games + TV (but for many people the TV is a sunk cost)

b) desktop + monitor + keyboard + mouse + cheaper PC games

Unless you spend a lot of money on games each year, option a) is cheaper.

Strike two against PC gaming: no exclusivity and often no major advantage from playing on PC

Increasingly games are developed for consoles first (or ONLY in the case of exclusive titles) and PC second, thus not taking full advantage of PC gaming rigs abilities, which means less of an incentive for people to buy PC gaming rigs. It is irrelevant WHY developers do this--whether because they got bribed to go exclusive, fear piracy, or whatever; the point is that they DO do this and the trend doesn't seem to be changing.

Strike three: Consoles are easier to install and use.

Imagine how stupid the median person is, and then realize that half of all the people in the world are EVEN STUPIDER. Do not underestimate the importance of ease-of-use. Deserved or not, Apple's resurgence in computing has a lot to do with its reputation as being easier to use, with less viruses, bugs, etc. Consoles enjoy similar reps compared to PCs.

Pop fly (could go either way):

Some games just lend themselves better to one platform or another. Examples: WoW, StarCraft, RTS games, etc. for PC, versus MarioKart, games that use Wii/Kinect-style controls, and casual social games like Rock Band.

Summary: Like it or not, fewer and fewer people are buying desktops with decent CPUs, so the cost of PC gaming is going up, in the aggregate. For desktopless people, it may be cheaper to plug in a console, and certainly it involves fewer headaches/bugs/driver fixes/etc. Given the above, it's not surprising that the audience for PC gaming is stagnant at best, and development interest is stagnant at best, too.

That said, I dislike consoles for everything except social games like MarioKart. I paid plenty for my desktop so that's a sunk cost, and I don't have a TV, either, plus I pick up games for cheap a few years after they come out, so the economics of PC gaming work better for me than console gaming would. But that's just me.

You're talking like PC gaming has struck out but may lead in revenue potential in the future.

 

[supastar1568]

I have a PC, 360, and PS3 cause I work hard and can afford it.

Guess I want my cookie now [shrug]

 

[SickBeast]

*cookie*

I will feed the OP a cookie as well. *cookie*

 

[SickBeast]

You know, on Judge Judy, a guy fed a guy a cookie with marajuana in it.

It was serious as well; she said "This is an assault!".

Don't worry though; my cookies are fine. I don't believe in those silly plants.

 

[blastingcap]

You're talking like PC gaming has struck out but may lead in revenue potential in the future.

Ok I edited to talk more about revenues and profits. The marketshare of PC games isn't much bigger than any individual console, though that depends greatly on how you count games (is Angry Birds a PC game? How about Plants vs. Zombies?). Doesn't change my overall conclusion that PC gaming is either stagnant or on the decline, for various reasons. There are other reasons too, but I think those are the big ones. There will always be a hardcore group of diehard PC gamers and PC-only games, though. It's hard to imagine playing WoW or StarCraft on a console, but who knows, maybe future consoles will have better controls out of the box. Then again, there are those predicting the demise of the console as well all migrate to HTPCs or something like that, and use our TVs as monitors, with wireless mice and keyboard and joypads.