I noticed you linked to OnLive. I hope I'm not the only one consistantly choosing not to support it. Quite frankly, I think the notion of cloud computing is ruining the PC industry altogether. The day that Microsoft releases a cloud-based OS is the day they won't get my money. I want the right and the priviledge it is to be able to store games and applications on my harddrive, so I can make modifications for them. OnLive, if truly successful, will ruin indie mod development.[/quote]
I with you on that. OnLive came last on my list because I had almost forgotten it. However, there are two or three emerging cloud-based gaming services starting up, so I figured I'd mention them anyway.
My money goes first to Steam, then to Good Old Games (and also the Humble Indie Bundles). I prefer DRM free games, but I am willing to get non-DRM free games as well. I dislike cloud computing but will tolerate it in some cases (email or bookmarks).
[color="#1C2837"][size="4"]eg the biggest game title currently is call of duty X, [color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1C2837"]call of duty is a horrible example. It is designed to be a console shooter, and is outclassed by a lot of PC games. A much better example would be battlefield, but even then there are tons of PC fps's that sell amazingly on PCs, but suck on consoles.
[/quote]
I just thought I'd chime in and say I agree, I started playing Battlefield: Bad Company 2 a while ago, and imo it blows medal of honor and the CoD series out of the water.
Also, Steam is running a special right now on EA games, and all the Battlefield 2 games are super cheap (the whole set is $5), and Bad Company 2 is $7.
It killed itself. Because of heavy online DRM, most people I know have switched to consoles, because the worst thing they can do is disable online play, they can't lock you out of singleplayer games. Also, making 4 hour games doesn't help, I guess PC game industry would be better if they lowered the graphics requirements but made more lengthy and richer games instead...
[quote name='zedz' timestamp='1304925056' post='4808414']
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
According to Chart-Track, BC2 is the "best ever launch for any game released this early in the year." Interestingly, 53 percent of BC2 sales went to the Xbox 360 version, followed by 31 percent and 16 percent of sales for the PS3 and PC
but again you come back to which is better, having 100% of sales when sales are 10% of what they could be, or 16% of sales when sales are 100% of what they could be?
[/quote]
Aye, sorry I read that twice and I still dont understand what you mean
perhaps youre implying that even though the console sales dwarf the PC sales having those PC sales is better than not having them
OK on the face of it this sounds reasonable but also perhaps not, cause I can see the case being made if it was console only (where piracy is a lot less rampant, eg on the ps3 it didnt exist until a few months ago!) if ppl really wanted to play the game they would have to buy it for the console instead of pirating it on the PC.
[quote name='MatsK' timestamp='1304939380' post='4808482']
[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1304865568' post='4808095'] What happened to the pc game industry?
I noticed you linked to OnLive. I hope I'm not the only one consistantly choosing not to support it. Quite frankly, I think the notion of cloud computing is ruining the PC industry altogether. The day that Microsoft releases a cloud-based OS is the day they won't get my money. I want the right and the priviledge it is to be able to store games and applications on my harddrive, so I can make modifications for them. OnLive, if truly successful, will ruin indie mod development.[/quote]
I with you on that. OnLive came last on my list because I had almost forgotten it. However, there are two or three emerging cloud-based gaming services starting up, so I figured I'd mention them anyway.
My money goes first to Steam, then to Good Old Games (and also the Humble Indie Bundles). I prefer DRM free games, but I am willing to get non-DRM free games as well. I dislike cloud computing but will tolerate it in some cases (email or bookmarks).
[/quote]
When you have a gbps line cloud computing will start to look tempting. Slowly software as a service will seem normal and the kids will be like "Get in the times old man. It's no different than digital download 10 years ago!" and you'll be like "No! You don't see what they're doing? I used to have a physical copy, but I was fine with my digital copy, but when they said they'd store my digital copy for me on their server I drew the line. Who will stand with me!" and everyone will be like . Moral of the story.
I have virtually no incentive to buy new games, unless they come from a trusted developer, like Valve or Paradox or the Total War folks. It's getting to the point where replayability is very low with new games. Moreover, very many of them are just reboots of older games; why would I pony up another $20-$60 for a shinier, slightly refined game I've already played the last three iterations of?
Looking at the games I keep coming back to (original Colonization, Darklands, Civil War Generals 2, Rome & Medieval 2, Mount & Blade, the Paradox strategy games (Europa Universalis, Victoria, Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron)), the common thread is that they have massive replayability. I've played some of these games for ten years, and I still find them entertaining. With an FPS or most rpgs, even *Craft/Command & Conquer RTS, once you've played it through, you're pretty much done, unless you want to wade into the cesspool of online play.
Some of these games are real shoddy on the graphics end, by modern standards (find some screenshots of the battle mode of Darklands!), but they crushed the gameplay. I suppose there is no real incentive to make games of that kind of enduring quality, when annual shovelware will make money.
P.S.: I know I complained about reboots, but, in nearly twenty years, how is it possible that no one has ever done an update of Darklands? I had hopes when Firaxis did Pirates and Colonization that Darklands might be next, but so far, no luck.
[color=#1C2837][size=2] I used to have a physical copy, but I was fine with my digital copy, but when they said they'd store my digital copy for me on their server I drew the line. Who will stand with me!" and everyone will be like[/quote]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]I still prefer to buy physical games, but I do digital downloads from time to time. I don't get your argument about how cloud computing will start to seem tempting. It will never be tempting for me. The only reason it is being pushed as an alternative is so greedy corporate entities can finally have complete control over how end-users use their software.
When you have a gbps line cloud computing will start to look tempting. Slowly software as a service will seem normal and the kids will be like "Get in the times old man. It's no different than digital download 10 years ago!" and you'll be like "No! You don't see what they're doing? I used to have a physical copy, but I was fine with my digital copy, but when they said they'd store my digital copy for me on their server I drew the line. Who will stand with me!" and everyone will be like . Moral of the story.
I'm with you! It's the beginning of the end!
[size="1"]First they came for the trade-ins,
and I didn't speak out because I had my physical disks.
Then they came for the digital the physical disks,
and I didn't speak out because I had my digital copies.
Then they came for the digital copies,
and I didn't speak out because I had my cloud service.
Then they came for my cloud
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
In theory I think digital distribution is a good idea. I'm pleased it's keeping the PC market alive. But I feel like the current incarnation exists through greed and developer convenience rather than actually offering something new and beneficial for me. I know I appear to be in the minority, but so far I've found the experience of buying, downloading and playing digital content to be a slow, cumbersome and frustrating experience and in the end I haven't found any benefit.
Like I say I have limited time to play games. I want to be blowing stuff up. I don't want to spend that time messing with steam or other clients which are too heavy and arrogant for their own good. They're slow, they hog resources and network traffic without my permission.. and they just get in my face. Was steam developed by norton?.. it behaves like it.
Bearing in mind I'm from the UK.. quality broadband can't be taken for granted. There are parts still on dialup.
Like others I also have issues with control. I feel at some point consumers have collectively bent over and allowed the developers to do as they please, as long as they get their next fix. I don't wear a tin foil hat, but wait.. you are asking roughly the same price even though I get less. You want me to spend hours downloading the product (assuming I have the bandwidth to start with). You want me to wait for it to validate. You want me to allow you to then download a gigabyte of updates. You want to validate those. THEN.. I get to play the game, with the slight proviso that this right can be denied at any point. What do *I* get here?
Maybe when our broadband network matures and everyone is on fast and unmetred connections this process will be less painful. At the moment I still want to just throw a disc into my machine and start playing.
I also hope the clients mature into something better. Give me a really lightweight client that starts instantly, keeps quiet, and gives me full control over what it does. Give me the option of getting it on disc if I want to. Believe me, in some cases the postal system will be faster than a download.
. 
